After United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents arrested multiple people on alleged immigration violations, protests broke out in Los Angeles.
Authorities have been using “less lethal” weapons against crowds of civilians, but these weapons can still cause serious harm.
Footage of an Australian news reporter being shot by a rubber bullet fired by police – who appeared to deliberately target her – has been beamed around the world. And headlines this morning told of an ABC camera operator hit in the chest with a “less lethal” round.
This has provoked debate about police and military use of force.
As the term suggests, less lethal (also called non lethal or less-than-lethal) weapons are items that are less likely to result in death when compared with alternatives such as firearms.
Less lethal weapons include weapons such as:
pepper spray
tear gas
tasers
batons
water cannons
acoustic weapons
bean-bag rounds
rubber bullets.
They are designed and used to incapacitate people and disperse or control crowds.
They are meant to have temporary and reversible effects that minimise the likelihood of fatalities or permanent injury as well as undesired damage to property, facilities, material and the environment.
In Australia in 2023, for example, 95-year-old aged care resident Clare Nowland was tasered, fell backwards, hit her head and died from her head injury.
In 2012, responding to a mistaken report about an armed robbery, police physically restrained, tasered and pepper sprayed 21-year-old Roberto Curti multiple times. He died but his exact cause of death (and whether the use of less lethal weapons played a causal role) was not clear.
Do these weapons work to quell unrest?
The impetus for police and military use of less lethal force came about, in part, from backlash following the use of lethal force in situations where it was seen as a gross overreaction.
One example was the 1960 Sharpeville massacre in South Africa, when police officers in a black township opened fire on an anti-apartheid protest, killing 69 civilians.
In theory, less lethal force is meant to provide a graduated level of response to events such as riots or protests, where the use of lethal force would be disproportionate and counter-productive.
It is sometimes described as the “next step” to use after de-escalation techniques (like negotiation or verbal commands) have failed.
Less lethal weapons can be used when some degree of force is considered necessary to restore order, neutralise a threat, or avoid full-blown conflict.
How well this works in practice is a different story.
There can be unintended consequences and use of less lethal force can be seen as an act of aggression by a government against its people, heightening existing tensions.
The availability of less lethal weapons may also change perceptions of risk and encourage the use of force in situations where it would otherwise be avoided. This in turn can provoke further escalation, conflict and distrust of authorities.
Samara McPhedran 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.
Earlier this year, I attended a housing conference in Sydney. The event’s opening address centred on the way Australia seems to be becoming like 18th-century England – a country where inheritance largely determines one’s opportunities in life.
There has been a lot of media coverage of economic inequities in Australian society. Our tax system has been partly blamed for this problem. The case for long-term, visionary tax reform has never been stronger. And one area of tax reform could be a wealth tax.
First, let’s be clear about one thing. Unlike the superannuation tax reforms currently being debated for those with more than A$3 million in superannuation, the wealth tax we’re talking about would apply to a very different cohort: billionaires.
A recent article in the Financial Times re-examined a proposal to impose such a tax on the world’s highest-net-worth individuals. It also pointed out these efforts would need to be globally coordinated.
Such taxes could collect significant sums of money for governments. It’s previously been estimated a billionaire tax could raise US$250 billion (more than A$380 billion) globally if just 2% of the net worth of the world’s billionaires was taxed each year.
The case for a wealth tax
Inequality is on the rise and the argument for a wealth tax can’t be ignored – not least here at home. According to the Australia Institute, the wealth of Australia’s richest 200 people has soared as a percentage of our national gross domestic product (GDP) – from 8.4% in 2004 to 23.7% in 2024.
If that sounds dramatic, the picture is far worse in the United States. So, what would a wealth tax look like in Australia (noting that in reality a globally coordinated effort would be needed)?
The starting point for this is understanding of why high-net-worth individuals seemingly pay very low taxes.
High net worth, low tax rate
Income taxes only take into account any amounts that are received in the hands of the taxpayer – whether that is a company, a person or a trust.
Most high-net-worth individuals do not receive much income directly but “store” their wealth in companies and other corporate structures.
In Australia, the maximum applicable tax rate for companies is 30%. Note that the highest tax rate in Australia for individuals is 45% plus the 2% medicare levy, effectively 47%.
Assets such as real estate may also be held by companies or trusts, and the increase in value of these assets is not taxed until they are sold (through capital gains tax).
Even then, those gains may not be paid out directly to the high-net-worth individual who owns these entities.
Unrealised gains
So, how do we tax wealth that is sitting in various businesses (company structures) or other entities, but isn’t taxed at present because the “income” or “gains” from these are not taxable in the hands of the wealthy individuals who own them?
This goes into the murky area of taxation of unrealised gains. Here, we need to tread very carefully. But we also need to recognise that we already do this, albeit rather subtly, and most of us are not billionaires.
In your rates notice from your local council, for example, the increase in value of your residence or investment property is used to calculate your rates.
The real difficulty, to carry on with this example, is that your residence or investment property is typically held in your name and so the tax can be directly levied on you.
A luxury residence in Miami Beach, Florida, owned by Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon. The US is home to the most billionaires of any country in the world. Felix Mizioznikov/Shutterstock
Making tax unavoidable
As we’ve already explained, the bulk of the assets or net worth of wealthy individuals is not directly attributable to them. Does this mean we should give up altogether?
Not quite. UNSW professor Chris Evans has pointed out that while we may not be able to effectively tax all the net worth of the wealthy, there are some things we can tax and they can’t avoid it.
An obvious example is real estate. You can pack your bags and bank accounts and move to a low-tax country, but you can’t move your mansion overlooking Sydney Harbour.
Real estate, both residential and commercial, provides one clear way in which we could implement a partial wealth tax. This method (which also has fewer valuation issues than value stored in a company in the form of retained profits) also counters the argument that the wealthy will simply move to other jurisdictions that won’t tax them.
There is plenty of academic research looking at various wealth tax initiatives in other countries. We should learn from these, including the experience in Switzerland and Sweden.
In Sweden, for instance, research found the behavioural effects of wealth taxation were less pronounced than those of income taxation, but the system had so many loopholes that evasion was an option for some people.
Change faces headwinds
In a very uncertain world that features ongoing wars and an unpredictable US president, any change that seeks to address issues of inequity is going to be met with resistance by those who hold power.
Some billionaires in the US, however, have expressed their support for being taxed more in a letter signed by heirs to the Disney and Rockefeller fortunes. That offers some hope, and suggests the discussion about wealth taxes should not be relegated to the “too hard” basket.
Some steps towards taxing the uber-rich would be better than the status quo.
Venkat Narayanan 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.
Last week, President Donald Trump ordered an investigation into “who ran the United States while President Biden was in office”, alleging top aides masked the “cognitive decline” of his predecessor. The announcement referenced revelations in a new book by journalists Jake Tapper (CNN) and Alex Thompson (Axios).
Original Sin made headlines last month for revealing that Biden’s declining physical and cognitive health had been hidden from the public by his closest aides and his loyal but overly protective wife, Jill Biden.
Whatever merit there is in Trump’s order must be seen alongside his bottomless cynicism. He seizes on the two authors’ investigative journalism to continue tarnishing his predecessor’s reputation, while doing everything in his power to bully news companies such as CBS over almost meritless defamation cases and to cut the funding of public media organisations PBS and NPR.
Review: Original Sin – Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson (Hutchinson Heinemann)
In November 2020, Biden was seen by many as a hero. He won the American election and saved the country from Donald Trump, who scholars judged among the worst presidents in the nation’s history, not least because just over 384,500 people died from COVID-19 that year.
Today, just as many see Biden as a villain. He said he would be a “bridge” president. He knew he would have ended his second term aged 86 if he had won and served it, so said he would hand over to a successor well in time for the 2024 election. But he didn’t. Not until three and a half weeks after his wincingly bad performance in a debate with Trump last June.
By then it was too late for his Democratic Party to go through its usual primaries process. Biden anointed his vice president Kamala Harris as his successor, but with only 107 days to campaign before the election, it is more accurate to say he gave her what football commentators call a “hospital pass”.
Donald Trump regained the presidency. Four months into his second term, all but his most loyal supporters (and this time he has made sure to surround himself only with loyal supporters) think it is already much worse than his first.
Whatever Biden achieved in his presidency is being forgotten amid the horror at watching America’s democratic institutions assaulted by an authoritarian leader determined to undo Biden’s policies, especially on climate change.
What on earth happened? How much responsibility does Biden bear? Did the news media subject Biden to sufficient scrutiny before the debate last June? Was everyone except the MAGA base suffering from a new variant of what conservative commentators long ago dubbed “Trump derangement syndrome”?
In short order, the answers are: Biden declined faster and worse than had been anticipated; a lot; the media possibly didn’t scrutinise him enough, but it’s more complicated than that – and, yes, “Trump derangement syndrome” was a factor, though not quite in the way conservative commentators thought.
Clooney’s alarm
Original Sin’s most spectacular revelation was that at a Democrat fundraising event last year, Biden did not appear to recognise George Clooney – who as well as being an actor, is a longtime Democrat supporter and a friend of the president.
Clooney was shocked by Biden’s frail appearance. “Holy shit,” he thought, according to the authors, as he watched Biden enter the room, taking tiny steps with “an aide guiding him by his arm”. The book describes the excruciating moment in detail:
“You know George,” the assisting aide told the president, gently reminding him who was in front of him.
“Yeah, yeah,” the president said to one of the most recognizable men in the world, the host of this lucrative fundraiser. “Thank you for being here.”
“Hi, Mr. President,” Clooney said.
“How are ya?” the president replied.
“How was your trip?” Clooney asked.
“It was fine,” the president said.
It was obvious to many standing there that the president did not know who George Clooney was. […]
“George Clooney,” the aide clarified for the president.
“Oh, yeah!” Biden said. “Hi, George!”
A Hollywood VIP who witnessed the moment told the authors “it was not okay”, describing it as “uncomfortable”. Clooney felt he had to sound the alarm publicly, which he did in an impassioned opinion piece for The New York Times a few weeks later, on July 10. He wrote about how he loved and respected Biden, but
the one battle he cannot win is the fight against time. None of us can. It’s devastating to say it, but the Joe Biden I was with three weeks ago at the fund-raiser was not the Joe ‘big F-ing deal’ Biden of 2010. He wasn’t even the Joe Biden of 2020. He was the same man we all witnessed at the debate.
Just days after publicity about the book began, news broke that Biden has stage four prostate cancer – and that he had not had a prostate test for more than a decade.
The ‘loyalty police’
Tapper and Thompson’s book derives not only from their day jobs, but from reporting they have done since last November’s election, including interviews with 200 people. Some of them, even now, prefer to speak on background rather than be named.
Through them, they tell a bracing story with three main themes.
First, there is the unblinking loyalty of close aides. Chief strategist Mike Donilon had been with Biden since 1981. Bruce Reed was a speechwriter and longtime political consultant. Steve Ricchetti had been Biden’s chief of staff when he was vice president, and was also a friend who would watch the morning political shows with him. All four of Richetti’s children worked in the Biden administration, the authors write.
Jill Biden’s longtime aides, Annie Tomasini and Anthony Bernal, were fiercely protective of the Bidens as much as the office of the president. “Are you a Biden person?” they would ask, leading other aides to label them the “loyalty police”.
Collectively, the close aides were known as The Politburo. Kamala Harris’ aides called them a “cabal of the unhelpful”. Time and again, they responded to queries about Biden’s health with firm assurances he was doing fine – even though the president needed to be supplied with cue cards when he was meeting his cabinet secretaries.
Biden, like previous presidents, had an annual medical check-up and was given a clean bill of health. But doctors outside the White House noted that his cognitive abilities were not tested. Asked about this, aides – and Biden himself – would say he passed a cognitive test every day of his presidency, which was a superficially plausible but practically meaningless statement.
Some aides genuinely believed in Biden, while others harboured doubts. The latter suppressed those to focus on the task of defeating Trump in 2024. One told Tapper and Thompson: “He just had to win, and then he could disappear for four years – he’d only have to show proof of life every once in a while.” Which sounds pretty much like the plot of the 1989 movie, Weekend at Bernie’s, except the situation was anything but comic.
Biden’s aides admonished journalists, including Alex Thompson, for even raising the issue of the president’s health. Worse, they shielded Biden from what his own pollsters were saying about his dire prospects for re-election.
The oldest presidential candidates
For Biden, work usually began at 9am, included two hours in the afternoon for “POTUS time”, and finished at 4.30pm when he had dinner. Availability for evening events was limited. By 2024, cabinet secretaries in the Biden administration told Tapper and Thompson that Biden could not be relied upon to be available at 2am for the kind of emergency the presidency can require.
After the Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, born the same year as Biden, froze in public a second time, in 2023, his fellow Republican Nikki Haley said, “The Senate is the most privileged nursing home in the country […] You have to know when to leave.”
When the Democrats did unexpectedly well at the 2022 midterm elections, Biden’s aides took that as a sign he should run again, rather than note the level of protest in the midterm vote, which came soon after the Supreme Court overturned the 1973 Roe v Wade decision on abortion.
The opinion polls, though, were telling. An early November 2022 Ipsos poll had the president’s approval rating at a low 39%, Tapper and Thompson report. Two thirds of those surveyed said they thought the country was on the wrong track. When Ipsos ran a poll after the midterm election, 68% said Biden might not be up for the challenge of running in 2024. Worse, almost half of Democrats agreed.
Biden’s aides may have been right to marvel at what their boss could still do, and to resent the media harping on about Biden’s age while turning a blind eye to his cheeseburger-chomping, Coke-slurping political nemesis, only four years younger. The bitter fact for them is that by 2020 Biden looked and sounded frail while Trump looked and sounded commanding.
Trump may have lied repeatedly during the debate last June, but in a real sense that was not news; Trump lies as easily as he breathes. What was news was watching a mumbling, open-mouthed US president freeze on live television.
Grisly anecdotes and Hunter Biden
Original Sin is replete with grisly anecdotes about Biden’s decrepitude. “The guy can’t form a fucking sentence”, thought one aide attending to him onboard Air Force One. This leads to the second main theme: the tragic circumstances that appear to have accelerated the decline.
It is well known that personal tragedy has scarred – and in crucial ways shaped – Biden’s life and career. He lost his first wife, Neilia, and their one-year-old daughter, Naomi, in a car accident in 1972. Their young sons, Beau and Hunter, were in the car. They survived but Hunter suffered a fractured skull, an injury with lifelong effects, according to Tapper and Thompson.
Beau served as an army officer in the Iraq war. On his return, he was elected attorney-general of Delaware in 2006 and 2010. He planned to run for governor in 2016. But a year earlier, the brain cancer for which he was first treated in 2013 recurred; he died in May 2015. In a worrying precursor to later actions, the Bidens kept Beau’s illness a secret. “Beau’s death aged him significantly,” a longtime Biden confidant told Tapper and Thompson. “His shoulders looked smaller. His face looked more gaunt. In his eyes, you could just see it.”
A year later, Hunter Biden became addicted to crack cocaine. Ashley, Biden’s daughter by his second wife Jill, also struggled with addiction. Both spiralled downwards after Beau’s death, which weighed heavily on their father. As the authors write:
After Beau’s death in 2015, Biden desperately and understandably clung to Hunter. He would privately refer to him as ‘my only living son.’ But Biden aides felt that Hunter manipulated his father’s blind love for his own aims. The president struggled to say no to Hunter. Aides felt that he had tragically become Hunter’s chief enabler.
In 2021 Hunter published a memoir, Beautiful Things, and travelled round the country in an effort to provide hope to others struggling with addiction. The memoir’s candour provided valuable information to David Weiss, a special counsel appointed by Attorney-General Merrick Garland in 2023.
Weiss had been previously appointed by the first Trump administration to investigate the contents of a laptop Hunter Biden left at a repair shop. Biden had not interfered with Garland’s decision, as he did not want to be seen as behaving the way his predecessor had.
Weiss charged Hunter Biden over his possession of a handgun while being addicted to cocaine. A plea deal broke down and Hunter faced trial in 2024. The Biden family attended each day of the trial. Biden felt guilty, believing Hunter would never have been on trial if he wasn’t the president’s son.
There is little doubt the Republicans weaponised Hunter Biden’s actions, but he gave them plenty of ammunition. He had had an extramarital affair with his brother’s widow and had introduced her to cocaine, to which she became addicted. There is more, but you get the (tawdry) picture.
Then, after the election in November, Biden did what he had repeatedly said he wouldn’t, exercising his power as president to pardon his son. It may have been the understandable action of a besieged father, but Biden did not frame it that way, blaming Garland, wrongly, for pursuing the case.
Equally to the point, the authors report that Trump’s lawyers took note, believing the Hunter Biden pardon “gave them a great deal of leeway on whether they could pardon and free from prison the hundreds of convicted January 6 insurrectionists” from the 2021 Capitol riot. Which of course Trump did as soon as he took office in January 2025.
The old adage has it that two wrongs don’t make a right. But for a politician who had won the presidency promising to be everything Trump was not, it was a fatal, final blow to Biden’s credibility.
The media ‘missed a lot’
The third theme of the book asks how much of all this the news media reported during Biden’s presidency. Some, but not all of it – including some by Thompson, who recently won a White House Correspondents’ Association award for his disclosures.
Both he and his co-author acknowledge they and other journalists did not dig hard enough to reveal the extent to which the Biden administration was hampered by the president’s declining health. Said Thompson:
Being truth-tellers also means telling the truth about ourselves. We – myself included – missed a lot of this story, and some people trust us less because of it […] We should have done better.“
It is worth keeping this in perspective. The news media’s failings in the lead up to the Iraq war in 2003 were more significant. Then, too many journalists swallowed the administration’s lines justifying its decision to invade a country, while the work of those who did report sceptically was buried well inside the newspaper. There, it “played as quietly as a lullaby”, as The New York Times’ first public editor, Daniel Okrent, wrote in 2003.
The war’s reporting led to a lot of soul searching in American newsrooms. If there was a coverup in the media about the Biden administration, it wasn’t very effective, wrote media critic Jon Allsop in the New Yorker. “Not least because the majority of the public thought Biden was too old long before the debate.”
The other element infecting both the mainstream media and social media is divisiveness, rancour and hostility. It is hard, for journalists and the public, to see political information other than through a hyper-partisan lens. I felt this acutely when reading the section in Original Sin about Biden getting drawn into the FBI’s investigation of Trump for withholding classified documents – when the FBI found Biden had done essentially the same thing. (Though it should be stressed Biden, unlike Trump, cooperated at all times.)
‘Well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory’
It was through this investigation that special counsel Robert Hur’s recording of a long interview with Biden came to light. Journalists were backgrounded that Hur was a right-wing operative; he was anything but that, write Tapper and Thompson. He treated Biden fairly and respectfully. In the interview, excerpts of which run to seven pages of the book, Biden rambles and needs regular reminding of facts – including the year his son Beau died.
In Hur’s report, released in 2024, he found Biden had inappropriately retained classified documents but he did not recommend pressing charges. To a jury, Hur concluded, Biden would present “as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory”. He was making the kind of decision prosecutors routinely make about the likelihood of a conviction.
Hur was attacked by the White House and much of the media as a partisan warrior who had brought up the death of the president’s son in the interview, when it was Biden who mentioned it himself. If Hur really had been a partisan warrior, the authors write, he would have recommended continuing with the prosecution.
Several months later, after the disastrous Biden-Trump debate, friends and colleagues texted Hur saying he must have felt vindicated. “Hur told them that all he felt was sad. How could anyone look at Joe Biden at that debate and not feel bad?”
It is true that aides, and sometimes the news media, have covered up previous presidents’ health issues, such as Franklin Roosevelt’s paralysis from polio, John Kennedy’s debilitating back pain that required heavy doses of painkillers, and Ronald Reagan’s Alzheimer’s disease.
Tapper and Thompson argue the coverup of Biden’s health problems is the most consequential in presidential history.
Underplays Biden’s achievements
The authors successfully prosecute their case about Biden’s responsibility for his own demise. Perhaps worried they may not be believed by Democrat supporters, they continue amassing evidence well beyond that point, which means the minutiae of aides continuing to deny the reality of Biden’s decline becomes repetitive.
Their relentless focus on Biden’s decline also means they underplay both his achievements as a president and the breadth of his character. At one point, they admiringly refer to Richard Ben Cramer’s book about the 1988 presidential campaign, What it Takes, which includes Biden’s failed attempt to win the Democratic nomination for the presidency.
Cramer’s book is a massive 1,047 pages. He interviewed more than a thousand people and took so long on the book it came out during the next presidential campaign, in which Bill Clinton was elected.
One reviewer, Richard Brownstein, wrote of it: “Presidential elections are the white whale of American journalism – and in Cramer they have found a manic Melville.” But it is written in an intimate, novelistic style, taking the reader deep into the lives and thoughts and feelings of the candidates, George H.W Bush, Bob Dole, Michael Dukakis, Richard Gephardt, Gary Hart and Biden.
Cramer told Robert Boynton in an interview for his 2005 book, The New New Journalism, he was amazed political journalists spend so little time talking to childhood friends, family and early colleagues.
If you want to understand how someone got to the point where he [sic] is a credible candidate for president of a nation of 250 million people, you’d better godamn-well know how he is wonderful. But most journalists don’t care about that.
As such, Cramer provides a deeper, richer portrait of Biden as an idiosyncratic and flawed, but also impressive politician, who was a force of nature in his youth. By comparison, Original Sin reads like an autopsy: which in a way, it is. If you want to remember why Biden became an effective politician in the first place, seek out a copy of What it Takes.
In the end, though, whatever achievements Biden had as president are being overtaken by his disastrous decision to try to hang on for a second term. By the evidence presented in Original Sin, “Honest Joe” was, like many politicians, prey to ego and overvaulting ambition, and prone to secrecy when it suited him.
He and his aides thought – and astonishingly still do think – he was the person best able to repel the return of a person they feared (with good reason) would do enormous damage to the country. Biden said this after the November election, earning Harris’s ire, for which he apologised, and Donilon affirmed it in an interview with the authors early this year.
The savage irony is, by their actions, Biden and his team eased Trump’s path to victory last November. Now, it is not just Americans but the rest of the world who are left to deal with the second Trump administration.
Matthew Ricketson 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.
Speech by Christine Lagarde, President of the ECB, at the People’s Bank of China in Beijing
Beijing, 11 June 2025
It is a pleasure to be back here in Beijing.
Some years ago, I spoke about how a changing world was creating a new global map of economic relations.[1]
Maps have always reflected the society in which they are produced. But in rare instances, they can also capture historical moments when two societies meet at the crossroads.
This was evident in the late 1500s during the Ming Dynasty, when Matteo Ricci, a European Jesuit, travelled to China. There Ricci went on to work with Chinese scholars to create a hybrid map that integrated European geographical knowledge with Chinese cartographic tradition.[2]
The result of this cooperation – called the Kunyu Wanguo Quantu, or “Map of Ten Thousand Countries” – was historically unprecedented. And the encounter came to symbolise China’s openness to the world.
In the modern era, we saw a similar moment when China entered the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001. The country’s accession to the WTO signified its integration into the international economy and its openness to global trade.
China’s entry into the WTO went on to reshape the global map of economic relations at a time of rapid trade growth, bringing significant benefits to countries across the world – particularly here in China.
Since that time, the global economy has changed dramatically. In recent years, trade tensions have emerged and a geopolitically charged landscape is making international cooperation increasingly difficult.
Yet the emergence of tensions in the international economic system is a recurring pattern across modern economic history.
Over the last century, frictions have surfaced under a range of international configurations – from the inter-war gold exchange standard, to the post-war Bretton Woods system, to the subsequent era of floating exchange rates and free capital flows.
While each system was unique, two common lessons cut across this history.
First, one-sided adjustments to resolve global frictions have often fallen short, regardless of whether deficit or surplus countries carry the burden. In fact, they can bring with them either unpredictable or costly consequences.
Such adjustments can be especially problematic when trade policies are used as a substitute for macroeconomic policies in addressing the root causes.
And second, in the event that tensions do emerge, durable strategic and economic alliances have proven critical in preventing tail risks from materialising.
In contrast to eras when ties of cooperation were weak, alliances have ultimately helped to prevent a broader surge in protectionism or a systemic fragmentation of trade.
These two lessons have implications for today. Frictions are increasingly emerging between regions whose geopolitical interests may not be fully aligned. At the same time, however, these regions are more deeply economically integrated than ever before.
The upshot is that while the incentive to cooperate is reduced, the costs of not doing so are now amplified.
So the stakes are high.
If we are to avoid inferior outcomes, we all must work towards sustaining global cooperation in a fragmenting world.
Tensions across history
If we look at the history of the international economic system over the past century, we can broadly divide it into three periods.
In the first period, the inter-war years, major economies were tied together by the gold exchange standard – a regime of fixed exchange rates, with currencies linked to gold either directly or indirectly.
But unlike the pre-war era, when the United Kingdom played a dominant global role[3], there was no global hegemon. Nor were there impactful international organisations to enforce rules or coordinate policies.
The system’s flaws quickly became apparent.[4] Exchange rate misalignments caused persistent tensions between surplus and deficit countries. Yet the burden of adjustment fell overwhelmingly on the deficit side.
Facing outflows of gold, deficit countries were forced into harsh deflation. Meanwhile, surplus countries faced little pressure to reflate. By 1932, two surplus countries accounted for over 60% of the world share of gold reserves.[5]
One-sided adjustments failed to resolve the underlying problems. And without strong alliances to contain tail risks, tensions escalated. Countries turned to trade measures in an attempt to reduce imbalances in the system – but protectionism offered no sustainable solution.
In fact, if current account positions narrowed at all, it was only because of the fall-off in world trade and output. The volume of global trade fell by around one-quarter between 1929 and 1933[6], with one study attributing nearly half of this fall to higher trade barriers.[7] World output declined by almost 30% in this period.[8]
During the Second World War, leaders took the lessons to heart. They laid the groundwork for what became the Bretton Woods system in the early post-war era: a framework of fixed exchange rates and capital controls.
This marked the beginning of the second period.
The new regime was anchored by the US dollar’s convertibility into gold, with the International Monetary Fund acting as a referee. Trade flourished during this era. Between 1950 and 1973[9], world trade expanded at an average rate of over 8% per year.[10]
But again, frictions emerged.
In particular, the United States had shifted from initially running balance of payments surpluses to persistent deficits. At the heart of this shift was the role of the US dollar as the world’s reserve currency and source of liquidity for global trade.
While US deficits provided the world with vital dollar liquidity, those very same deficits strained the dollar’s gold convertibility at USD 35 per ounce, threatening confidence in the system.
By the late 1960s, foreign holdings of US dollars – amounting to almost USD 50 billion – were roughly five times the size of US gold reserves.[11]
Ultimately, these tensions proved unsustainable as the United States was unwilling to sacrifice domestic policy goals – which generated fiscal deficits – for its external commitments.
The Bretton Woods system ended abruptly in 1971, when President Nixon unilaterally suspended the US dollar’s convertibility into gold and imposed a 10% surcharge on imports.
The goal behind the surcharge was to force US trading partners to revalue their currencies against the dollar, which was perceived as being overvalued.[12] As in earlier periods, this was a one-sided adjustment – though now aimed at shifting the burden onto surplus countries.
Crucially, however, the downfall of Bretton Woods unfolded within the context of the Cold War. Countries operating under the system were not just trading partners – they were allies.
And so, everyone had a strong geopolitical incentive to pick up the pieces and forge new cooperative agreements that could facilitate trade relationships, even in moments of pronounced volatility.
We saw this several months after the “Nixon Shock”, when Western countries negotiated the Smithsonian Agreement.
This agreement was a temporary fix to maintain an international system of fixed exchange rates. It devalued the US dollar by over 12% against the currencies of its major trading partners and removed President Nixon’s surcharge.[13]
And we saw a strong geopolitical incentive at work again with the Plaza Accord in the 1980s – an era of floating exchange rates and free capital flows – when deficit and surplus countries in the Group of Five[14] sat down to try and resolve tensions.
Of course, neither agreement ultimately succeeded in addressing the root causes of tensions. But critically, the risk of a broader turn toward protectionism – which was rising at several points[15] – never materialised.
The contrast is telling.
Both the inter-war and post-war eras revealed that one-sided adjustments cannot sustainably resolve economic frictions – whether on the deficit or surplus side.
Yet the post-war system proved far more resilient, because the countries within it had deeper strategic reasons to cooperate.
Frictions threatening global trade today
In recent decades, we have been moving into a third period.
Since the end of the Cold War, we have seen the rapid expansion of truly global trade.
Trade in goods and services has risen roughly fivefold to over USD 30 trillion.[16] Trade as a share of global GDP has increased from around 38% to nearly 60%.[17] And countries have become much more integrated through global supply chains. At the end of the Cold War, these chains accounted for around two-fifths of global trade.[18] Today, they account for over two-thirds.[19]
Yet this globalisation has unfolded in a world where – increasingly – not all nations are bound by the same security guarantees or strategic alliances. In 1985 just 90 countries were party to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Today, its successor – the WTO – counts 166 members, representing 98% of global trade.[20]
There is no doubt that this new era has amplified the benefits of trade.
Some originally lower-income countries have experienced remarkable gains – none more so than China.
Since joining the WTO, China’s GDP per capita has increased roughly twelvefold.[21] The welfare impact has been equally profound: almost 800 million people in China have been lifted out of poverty, accounting for nearly three-quarters of global poverty reduction in recent decades.[22]
Advanced economies, too, have benefited, albeit unevenly. While some industries and jobs have faced pressure from heightened import competition[23], consumers have enjoyed lower prices and greater choice. And for firms able to climb the value chain, the rewards have been substantial – especially in Europe.
Today, EU exports to the rest of the world generate more than €2.5 trillion in value added – nearly one-fifth of the EU’s total – and support over 31 million jobs.[24]
But the weakening alignment between trade relationships and security alliances has left the global system more exposed – a vulnerability now playing out in real time.
According to the International Monetary Fund, trade restrictions across goods, services and investments have tripled since 2019 alone.[25] And in recent months, we have seen tariff levels imposed that would have been unimaginable just a few years ago.
This fragmentation is being driven by two forces.
The first is geopolitical realignment. As I have outlined in recent years, geopolitical tensions are playing an increasingly decisive role in reshaping the global economy.[26] Countries are reconfiguring trade relationships and supply chains to reflect national security priorities, rather than economic efficiency alone.
The second force is the growing perception of unfair trade – often linked to widening current account positions.
Current account surpluses and deficits are not inherently problematic, particularly when they reflect structural factors such as comparative advantage or demographic trends.
But these imbalances become more contentious when they do not resolve over time and create the perception that they are being sustained by policy choices – whether through the blocking of macroeconomic adjustment mechanisms or a lack of respect for global rules.
Indeed, while in recent decades the persistence of current account positions has remained fairly constant, the dispersion of those positions – that is, how widely surpluses and deficits are spread across countries – has shifted significantly.
In the mid-1990s current account deficits and surpluses were similarly dispersed within their respective groups: both were relatively evenly distributed among several countries.[27]
Today, that balance has changed. Deficits have become far more concentrated, with just a few countries accounting for the bulk of global deficits. In contrast, surpluses have become somewhat more dispersed, spread across a wider range of countries.
These developments have recently led to coercive trade policies and risk fragmenting global supply chains.
Making global trade sustainable
Given national security considerations and the experience during the pandemic, a certain degree of de-risking is here to stay. Few countries are willing to remain dependent on others for strategic industries.
But it does not follow that we must forfeit the broader benefits of trade – so long as we are willing to absorb the lessons of history. Let me draw two conclusions for the current situation.
First, coercive trade policies are not a sustainable solution to today’s trade tensions.
To the extent that protectionism addresses imbalances, it is not by resolving their root causes, but by eroding the foundations of global prosperity.
And with countries now deeply integrated through global supply chains – yet no longer as geopolitically aligned as in the past – this risk is greater than ever. Coercive trade policies are far more likely to provoke retaliation and lead to outcomes that are mutually damaging.
The shared risks we face are underscored by ECB analysis. Our staff find that if global trade were to fragment into competing blocs, world trade would contract significantly, with every major economy worse off.[28]
This leads me to the second conclusion: if we are serious about preserving our prosperity, we must pursue cooperative solutions – even in the face of geopolitical differences. And that means both surplus and deficit countries must take responsibility and play their part.
All countries should examine how their structural and fiscal policies can be adjusted to reduce their own role in fuelling trade tensions.
Indeed, both supply-side and demand-side dynamics have contributed to dispersion of current accounts positions we see today.
On the supply side, we have witnessed a sharp rise in the use of industrial policies aimed at boosting domestic capacity. Since 2014, subsidy-related interventions that distort global trade have more than tripled globally. [29]
Notably, this trend is now being driven as much by emerging markets as by advanced economies. In 2021, domestic subsidies accounted for two-thirds of all trade-related policies in the average G20 emerging market, consistently outpacing the share seen in advanced G20 economies.[30]
On the demand side, global demand generation has become more concentrated, especially in the United States. A decade ago, the United States accounted for less than 30% of demand generated by G20 countries. Today, that share has risen to nearly 35%.
This increasing imbalance in demand reflects not only excess saving in some parts of the world, but also excess dissaving in others, especially by the public sector.
Of course, none of us can determine the actions of others. But we can control our own contribution.
Doing so would not only serve the collective interest – by helping to ease pressure on the global system – but also the domestic interest, by setting our own economies on a more sustainable path.
We can also lead by example by continuing to respect global rules – or even improving on them. This helps build trust and creates the foundation for reciprocal actions.
That means upholding the multilateral framework which has so greatly benefited our economies. And it means working with like-minded partners to forge bilateral and regional agreements rooted in mutual benefit and full WTO compatibility.[31]
Central banks, in line with their respective mandates, can also play a role.
We can stand firm as pillars of international cooperation in an era when such cooperation is hard to come by. And we can continue to deliver stability-oriented policies in a world marked by rising volatility and instability.
Conclusion
Let me conclude.
In a fragmenting world, regions need to work together to sustain global trade – which has delivered prosperity in recent decades.
Of course, given the geopolitical landscape, that will be a harder challenge today than it has been in the past. But as Confucius once observed, “Virtue is not left to stand alone. He who practices it will have neighbours”.
Today, to make history, we must learn from history. We must absorb the lessons of the past – and act on them – to prevent a mutually damaging escalation of tensions.
In doing so, we all can draw a new map for global cooperation.
Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
Borussia Dortmund has confirmed the signing of English midfielder Jobe Bellingham from Premier League side Sunderland, the club confirmed on Tuesday.
The 19-year-old has signed a contract until June 2030 and will join the squad traveling to the United States later this week for the FIFA Club World Cup.
Bellingham, who has played for the England U21 squad, follows in the footsteps of his older brother Jude, who played for Dortmund between 2020 and 2023 before moving to Real Madrid.
Like Jude, Jobe started his career at Birmingham City, before moving to Sunderland in 2023. During his two seasons at the Stadium of Light, he made 90 league appearances and played a key role in the team’s promotion to the Premier League in May.
“Jobe is an exceptionally talented player who combines maturity, technical skill, and ambition at a young age,” said Dortmund managing director Lars Ricken. “He embodies the values we believe in development, discipline and drive. We are confident he will grow into a key figure for our future.”
Sporting director Sebastian Kehl expressed similar sentiments, emphasising Bellingham’s leadership and adaptability. “He made significant progress last season, maturing into a central figure for Sunderland. His presence in midfield offers us greater flexibility, and we’re excited to see how he can elevate our game.”
Bellingham is set to wear the number 77 jersey during the Club World Cup, where he could make his first appearance for the Black and Yellows under head coach Niko Kovac.
“I’m thrilled to be part of Borussia Dortmund,” said Bellingham. “This club has a special place in my heart, and I want to contribute to its success. Playing in front of these incredible fans and competing for titles is something I’ve dreamed of.”
Despite being named in England’s preliminary U21 Euro squad, he will instead join Dortmund in the U.S., highlighting the club’s desire to integrate him into the team quickly.
Company Announcement June 10, 2025, Bornstein Seafoods of Bellingham, Washington is recalling 44,550 Lbs. of Cooked & Peeled Ready-To-Eat Coldwater Shrimp Meat (see table below for multiple lot codes) because it has the potential to be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, listeria infection can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women. Product was distributed directly to distributors and retailers in California, Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia of Canada. Products may have been further distributed and sold at retailers nationwide. Product can be identified under Bornstein Seafoods branded packaging in 1 lb. or 5 lb. plastic bag. The market name is Shrimp. The affected product has the lot code printed at the lower left corner of master case label and at the bottom on the back side of 1 lb. or 5 lb. bag:
Item No.
UPC Code
Master Case Label Description
Lot No.
ZMU41-1003
614133200246
Fzn Shrimp Meat 250/350 Ct 15 X 1 Lb Bag Bsi Msc
A19008
ZMU41-1007
614133200239
Fzn Shrimp Meat 250/350 Ct 4 X 5 Lb Bag Bsi Msc
A19009
ZMU41-1007
614133200239
Fzn Shrimp Meat 250/350 Ct 4 X 5 Lb Bag Bsi Msc
P11710
ZMU41-1015
614133200246
Fzn Shrimp Meat 350/500 Ct 15 X 1 Lb Bag Bsi Msc
A19009
ZMU41-1015
614133200246
Fzn Shrimp Meat 350/500 Ct 15 X 1 Lb Bag Bsi Msc
A19019
ZMU41-1015
614133200246
Fzn Shrimp Meat 350/500 Ct 15 X 1 Lb Bag Bsi Msc
A19026
ZMU41-1015
614133200246
Fzn Shrimp Meat 350/500 Ct 15 X 1 Lb Bag Bsi Msc
A19030
ZMU41-1015
614133200246
Fzn Shrimp Meat 350/500 Ct 15 X 1 Lb Bag Bsi Msc
A19032
ZMU41-1015
614133200246
Fzn Shrimp Meat 350/500 Ct 15 X 1 Lb Bag Bsi Msc
A19037
ZMU41-1015
614133200246
Fzn Shrimp Meat 350/500 Ct 15 X 1 Lb Bag Bsi Msc
A19039
ZMU41-1019
614133200239
Fzn Shrimp Meat 350/500 Ct 4 X 5 Lb Bag Bsi Msc
A18989
ZMU41-1019
614133200239
Fzn Shrimp Meat 350/500 Ct 4 X 5 Lb Bag Bsi Msc
A19006
ZMU41-1019
614133200239
Fzn Shrimp Meat 350/500 Ct 4 X 5 Lb Bag Bsi Msc
A19007
ZMU41-1019
614133200239
Fzn Shrimp Meat 350/500 Ct 4 X 5 Lb Bag Bsi Msc
P11709
ZMU41-1019
614133200239
Fzn Shrimp Meat 350/500 Ct 4 X 5 Lb Bag Bsi Msc
P11710
No illnesses have been reported to date. The recall was the result of the firm’s routine sampling program and Listeria monocytogenes was detected in an in-process shrimp sample in a food production environment. The company has ceased the distribution of the product as the company continues our root cause investigation as to what caused the problem. This recall is being made with the knowledge of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Consumers who have purchased the affected product are urged to return it to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact the company by email at Andrew@bornstein.com.
Source: United States Senator for New Jersey Cory Booker
NEWARK, N.J. – This afternoon, members of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET) voted 398 to 21 to ratify their contract with NJ TRANSIT. In response, Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) commended both parties, saying:
“The labor of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen moves our entire region. This afternoon, BLET members ratified their contract with NJ TRANSIT, affirming a deal that sets workers, their families, hundreds of thousands of commuters, and our state’s economy up for the future. I applaud the efforts of both parties to ensure the operation of our public transportation system and support the well-being of New Jersey families.”
Source: United States Senator for Mississippi Roger Wicker
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senators Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) and Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.) have joined colleagues in demanding the Federal Emergency Management Agency end Risk Rating 2.0, the Biden-era flood insurance policy that has caused premiums to skyrocket and thousands of homeowners to abandon their policies.
Wicker and Hyde-Smith signed a letter, led by U.S. Senator Bill Cassidy, M.D. (R-La.), that calls for halting further Risk Rating 2.0 premium increases and demanding greater transparency from FEMA. The lawmakers have long questioned the pricing methodology used by FEMA in setting Risk Rating 2.0 premiums, which have increased for an estimated 84 percent of Mississippi flood insurance policyholders.
“Since the Biden Administration’s rollout of Risk Rating 2.0, premiums under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) increased in every state. By FEMA’s own estimates, 77 percent of all NFIP policies now pay more than under the old system,” the Senators wrote.
“The lack of transparency surrounding Risk Rating 2.0 is beyond troubling. FEMA has never allowed for meaningful public comment nor has it published the underlying data or assumptions used to justify the steep premium increases and refuses to disclose its actuarial model. Without transparency, communities cannot plan mitigation projects, lenders cannot accurately underwrite mortgages, and citizens cannot appeal punitive rate increases. Worse still, rising costs encourage policy lapses—shifting risk back to taxpayers when disasters strike,” the Senators continued.
“Time is of the essence. Each month that Risk Rating 2.0 continues unchecked, more families are forced to abandon their insurance coverage, neighborhoods face economic strain, and entire communities risk collapse after the next disaster. We respectfully urge you to act now—before further harm is done—to protect vulnerable Americans, preserve homeownership, and ensure the NFIP fulfills its mission as Congress intended,” the Senators concluded.
The letter sent to FEMA Acting Administrator David Richardson was also signed by U.S. Senators John Kennedy (R-La.), Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), Jim Justice (R-W.Va.), Katie Britt (R-Ala.), Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.), and John Cornyn (R-Texas).
Read the full letter here or below.
Dear Acting Administrator Richardson,
We write to draw your urgent attention to the increasingly untenable flood insurance premiums paid by American homeowners as a result of the Biden-era policy, Risk Rating 2.0, administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). We respectfully ask for your leadership to halt further premium increases under Risk Rating 2.0 and implement much needed transparency from FEMA.
On January 20, 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order (EO) 13990, directing every federal agency to target and modify Trump-era regulations under the auspice of combating climate change. A few months later, Biden signed EO 14030, requiring agencies to integrate up-to-date flood risk considerations into federal actions. Collectively, both of these EOs laid the groundwork for FEMA’s implementation of a new rating system known as Risk Rating 2.0, which was enacted on October 1, 2021.
Since the Biden Administration’s rollout of Risk Rating 2.0, premiums under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) increased in every state. By FEMA’s own estimates, 77 percent of all NFIP policies now pay more than under the old system. According to a 2023 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, premiums on primary residences under Risk Rating 2.0 are subject to a maximum 18 percent increase each year until such premiums reflect “the full risk loss of the insured property,” as determined by FEMA.
Families in the following Republican states are especially hard-hit.
Louisiana:
It is estimated that 80% of Louisiana NFIP policyholders experienced monthly premium increases in 2025 as a result of Risk Rating 2.0.
In 2023 alone, the average flood insurance premium in our state jumped by 234%, forcing more than 52,000 Louisianans—many of them seniors on fixed incomes—out of the program.
Coastal parishes, which depend on flood insurance to secure mortgages and rebuild after storms, are now facing premiums that exceed 2% of median household income—a threshold that federal guidance deems “cost prohibitive.”
West Virginia:
It is estimated that 83% of West Virginia NFIP policyholders experienced monthly premium increases in 2025 as a result of Risk Rating 2.0.
As of August 2023 (the latest available FEMA data), Risk Rating 2.0 would increase annual NFIP premiums for homeowners in West Virginia by ~176%
Over the last 12 months, ~600 West Virginians have left the NFIP as a result of premium increases.
Texas:
It is estimated that 86% of Texas NFIP policyholders experienced monthly premium increases in 2025 as a result of Risk Rating 2.0.
As of August 2023 (the latest available FEMA data), Risk Rating 2.0 would increase annual NFIP premiums for homeowners in Texas by ~53%.
Over the last 12 months, ~26,300 Texans have left the NFIP as a result of premium increases.
Alabama:
It is estimated that 79% of Alabama NFIP policyholders experienced monthly premium increases in 2025 as a result of Risk Rating 2.0.
As of August 2023 (the latest available FEMA data), Risk Rating 2.0 would increase annual NFIP premiums for homeowners in Alabama by ~106%.
Over the last 12 months, ~1,200 Alabamians have left the NFIP as a result of premium increases.
Mississippi:
It is estimated that 84% of Mississippi NFIP policyholders experienced monthly premium increases in 2025 as a result of Risk Rating 2.0.
As of August 2023 (the latest available FEMA data), Risk Rating 2.0 would increase annual NFIP premiums for homeowners in Mississippi by ~103%.
Over the last 12 months, ~2,200 Mississippians have left the NFIP as a result of premium increases.
Rural and low-income homeowners, along with high-risk coastal areas, are being priced out at far higher rates than urban or wealthier communities. In ten states, full risk NFIP premiums today exceed 2 percent of median household income. This undermines home values, depresses property tax revenues, and ultimately inflates federal disaster assistance costs when uninsured homeowners cannot rebuild.
The lack of transparency surrounding Risk Rating 2.0 is beyond troubling. FEMA has never allowed for meaningful public comment nor has it published the underlying data or assumptions used to justify the steep premium increases and refuses to disclose its actuarial model. Without transparency, communities cannot plan mitigation projects, lenders cannot accurately underwrite mortgages, and citizens cannot appeal punitive rate increases. Worse still, rising costs encourage policy lapses—shifting risk back to taxpayers when disasters strike.
The President has long championed policies that reduce federal overreach and protect everyday Americans from burdensome costs. To limit the damage caused by this harmful Biden era policy, we urge you to:
Direct FEMA to terminate the Risk Rating 2.0 pricing methodology.
Require FEMA to publish all actuarial inputs and outputs of future flood insurance premium increases exceeding the 5% statutory minimum so stakeholders can verify fairness and accuracy.
Restore targeted affordability measures for coastal, low income, and historically underinsured communities—ensuring NFIP remains accessible to those who need it most.
Time is of the essence. Each month that Risk Rating 2.0 continues unchecked, more families are forced to abandon their insurance coverage, neighborhoods face economic strain, and entire communities risk collapse after the next disaster. We respectfully urge you to act now—before further harm is done—to protect vulnerable Americans, preserve homeownership, and ensure the NFIP fulfills its mission as Congress intended.
Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter.
Source: United States Senator for Wisconsin Tammy Baldwin
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Ranking Member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education (LHHS), led a hearing on the National Institutes of Health (NIH) budget and questioned NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya about why the Trump administration is ripping away NIH funding that supports lifesaving research into cures for cancer, Alzheimer’s, and other diseases. Baldwin pressed Dr. Bhattacharya on both why he has effectively delayed or cut thousands of NIH grants in the first few months of 2025, and also how his proposal for next year would slash the NIH budget and lifesaving research by 40%. Senator Baldwin also specifically pressed Dr. Bhattacharya on a new policy scheme that the administration is implementing right now that hides even deeper cuts to research.
“If Donald Trump gets his way, billions in funding for lifesaving research will be ripped away to fund tax breaks for the rich, and it’s American families that will pay the price with their health,” said Senator Baldwin. “It’s not just wrong – it’s cruel. I won’t stop fighting on behalf of the millions of families who are holding out hope their loved one battling cancer, ALS, or Alzheimer’s disease has a fighting chance.”
Dr. Bhattacharya testified in front of the Senate LHHS Appropriations Subcommittee today to defend President Trump’s Fiscal Year 2026 budget proposal for the NIH, which would rip away $18 billion – a 40% cut – in NIH funding for lifesaving breakthroughs. The budget request shows that it plans to cut the number of grants NIH awards by 4,000 this year and 15,000 next year, which would be a devastating blow for research institutions, scientists, and patients nationwide. A recent report found that nearly 2,500 NIH grants have been ended or delayed. In addition to terminating $4.9 billion in active research grants, the NIH has awarded 3,288 fewer disease studies and research projects compared to the same time period last year. Senator Baldwin pressed Director Bhattacharya specifically about the disastrous new forward funding policy that would dramatically reduce the number of grants NIH awards next year, and the need for Congress to step in and stop NIH from implementing it.
Senator Baldwin led a forum earlier this year to spotlight how cuts are impacting researchers and Americans in clinical trials. Senator Baldwin also sent a letter, together with Senator Murray and Representative DeLauro, to Director Bhattacharya pressing him for information about the thousands of NIH grants that have been terminated under his watch.
A full recording of Senator Baldwin’s opening remarks is available here.
A full recording of Senator Baldwin’s questions is available here.
Source: United States Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.)
Padilla, Schiff Demand Answers From Trump Administration on Reckless Decision to Deploy Hundreds of Marines to Los Angeles
Senators: “We strongly oppose this deployment and request you clarify the legal authority that purports to grant the President and you the ability to deploy active-duty personnel on American streets under these circumstances.”
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senators Alex Padilla, Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Immigration Subcommittee, and Adam Schiff (both D-Calif.) demanded answers regarding the Trump Administration’s decision to deploy approximately 700 Marines to Los Angeles. In their letter to Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Secretary of the Navy John Phelan, the Senators requested that the Administration clarify and provide the legal authority that purports to grant the President and the Department of Defense the ability to deploy active-duty military personnel on American streets.
“The presence of the Marines was not requested by Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, the Los Angeles Board of Supervisors, or California Governor Gavin Newsom. Moreover, local and state law enforcement officers are carrying out their missions to protect the public amid ongoing immigration raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) personnel. We strongly oppose this deployment and request you clarify the legal authority that purports to grant the President and you the ability to deploy active-duty personnel on American streets under these circumstances,” wrote the Senators.
“A decision to deploy active-duty military personnel within the United States should only be undertaken during the most extreme circumstances, and these are not them. That this deployment was made over the objections of state authorities is all the more unjustifiable. In this instance, this extraordinary action was also irresponsibly rushed and lacked clear communication to government officials or the U.S. public. The notification from NORTHCOM did not provide critical information to understand the legal authority, mission, or rules of engagement for Marines involved in this domestic deployment,” continued the Senators.
Senator Padilla has been outspoken in slamming the Los Angeles ICE raids and Trump’s misguided mobilization of the National Guard and U.S. Marine Corps. Earlier today, Padilla spoke on the Senate floor to blast President Trump for manufacturing a crisis by launching indiscriminate ICE raids across Los Angeles and deploying the National Guard and active-duty servicemembers to the region. Yesterday, Padilla, Schiff, and Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) demanded answers from top Trump Administration officials regarding the arrest and detention of David Huerta, President of Service Employees International Union (SEIU) California and SEIU-United Service Workers West. Padilla has joined national and local TV and radio broadcasts in the past few days to condemn the Trump Administration’s cruel immigration enforcement in Los Angeles and across the country.
Full text of the letter is available here and below:
Dear Secretary Hegseth,
According to a U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM) notification to Congress on June 9, 2025, approximately 700 Marines have been deployed in support of Task Force 51, the unit comprised of National Guard troops called into federal service by President Trump and operating in Los Angeles. You explained subsequently that these “… active-duty U.S. Marines from Camp Pendleton are being deployed to Los Angeles to restore order.”
The presence of the Marines was not requested by Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, the Los Angeles Board of Supervisors, or California Governor Gavin Newsom. Moreover, local and state law enforcement officers are carrying out their missions to protect the public amid ongoing immigration raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) personnel. We strongly oppose this deployment and request you clarify the legal authority that purports to grant the President and you the ability to deploy active-duty personnel on American streets under these circumstances.
A decision to deploy active-duty military personnel within the United States should only be undertaken during the most extreme circumstances, and these are not them. That this deployment was made over the objections of state authorities is all the more unjustifiable. In this instance, this extraordinary action was also irresponsibly rushed and lacked clear communication to government officials or the U.S. public. The notification from NORTHCOM did not provide critical information to understand the legal authority, mission, or rules of engagement for Marines involved in this domestic deployment. As such, we ask that you provide immediate answers to the following questions:
What is the legal authority for the Marine deployment and any activity they will be authorized to undertake? Please provide any Department of Defense analysis on the legal authority for this action. What is the specific mission for the Marine deployment and how has that mission been communicated to the Marines?
Will the Marines engage in, and have legal authority to engage in, law enforcement activities?
Please also clarify any requests made of the Department of Defense by other federal entities, such as the White House and the Department of Homeland Security, regarding the scope of the Marines’ mission and duties.
What are the rules of engagement for the Marines while deployed to Los Angeles? The NORTHCOM notification indicates that “Task Force 51 forces have been trained in de-escalation, crowd control, and standing rules for the use of force.” How much training was provided to the Marines involved and at what time? What crowd control equipment was issued to the Marines prior to or during their deployment, and what training have they received on proper use of that equipment? Given that the Marines, who are trained to be among the most lethal forces in the U.S. military, may have direct contact with U.S. civilians as part of the domestic deployment, please clarify the precise rules of engagement that have been provided to them or under which they are expected to operate.
Given the significant questions about the role of the Marines as part of this operation, we respectfully request answers to these questions within 48 hours or a stand down of their mobilization.
Source: United States Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.)
WATCH: Padilla Slams Trump’s Unprecedented Mobilization of Marines and National Guard in LA, Pushes for Permanent DACA Protections
WATCH: Padilla: “Immigrants are not political pawns for his agenda. Just as servicemembers … are not political pawns for his agenda.”
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Immigration Subcommittee, spoke on the Senate floor to condemn President Trump’s move to federalize the California National Guard and mobilize U.S. Marine Corps elements, sending 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 active-duty Marines to Los Angeles. Padilla delivered remarks ahead of the 13th anniversary of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, pushing for permanent protections for Dreamers rather than indiscriminate Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids.
Padilla called out President Trump for trying to scapegoat immigrants to distract from Republicans’ unpopular billionaire-first budget bill, which would deliver tax breaks for the ultra-wealthy at the expense of working families. As part of this manufactured crisis, Trump has caused a chaotic escalation of the conflict in Los Angeles while ignoring fundamental due process rights.
“Time and time again, we’ve seen one of the most frequently called plays out of the Trump playbook. When everything else is going wrong, shift the narrative, scapegoat immigrants, blame immigrants for whatever your failure is at the moment.”
“Well today, between his failing trade wars that are raising the cost of living on working families across the country, to his losses in federal court and delays in Congress on their efforts to give billionaires even bigger tax breaks, and even the embarrassing breakup recently with his former BBFF, billionaire best friend forever, Elon Musk, it’s safe to say that Donald Trump is grasping for anything he can do to change the narrative, to distract us of the damage that his political agenda is going on.”
“In order to distract the country from his failures and his efforts to ‘flood the zone,’ Donald Trump is expanding his deportation agenda far beyond the focus and targeting of violent and dangerous criminals that he claimed would be the strategy.”
“He’s so desperate to show quick results that he’s even throwing due process rights out the window for so many. The due process rights, by the way, that I know most of you, if not all of you, should agree are paramount, foundational to our democracy.”
Padilla emphasized that the Trump Administration’s cruel immigration enforcement in Los Angeles is deeply personal for him, and that he would keep fighting against Trump’s mass deportation agenda and demonizing of immigrant communities.
“It’s personal for me not just because Los Angeles is home — I was born and raised in Los Angeles — but as a proud son of immigrants, I know the true story of the vast majority of immigrants and immigrant families in Los Angeles, throughout California and throughout the country.”
“But instead of honoring those contributions … Donald Trump is manufacturing a crisis to once again, not just distract us, but divide us. And just as he’s always done, he’s using immigrants to do it.”
“So I can’t help but speak up and remind us, immigrants are not political pawns for his agenda. Just as servicemembers — women and men — are not political pawns for his agenda.”
As the nation approaches the 13th anniversary of the DACA program, Padilla pushed his Republican colleagues to finally pass permanent protections for DACA recipients, including over 160,000 in California alone. He highlighted that most Dreamers have been contributing to our communities and economy for years, and underlined that if DACA ended, it could cost the country nearly $650 billion while potentially cutting over 400,000 workers.
“As we should be celebrating the 13th anniversary of DACA this week, hundreds of thousands of DACA recipients and Dreamers are actually now worried that they are at risk, at further risk. That they could be next as President Trump struggles to find enough violent criminals to detain and deport to meet a campaign promise. Since he can’t get his numbers there, he’ll look elsewhere. So I want to take this moment to make very clear: Dreamers are our neighbors. Dreamers are our loved ones.”
“These are young people who are Americans in every sense of the word, except for one important piece of paperwork. … Yet because of Congressional Republicans’ refusal to act, Dreamers live at a minimum in a constant state of uncertainty, but oftentimes in a constant state of fear. They deserve better. Mr. President, they deserve permanent protections.”
“If through the President or through Republicans’ actions in Congress, you were to take away work authorization for hundreds of thousands of DACA recipients, that’s reducing our workforce at a time when we’re trying to grow the workforce and grow the economy.”
“I’m talking about Dreamers who work as teachers, as caregivers, as nurses and doctors, as construction workers, as food service workers, and so many other key industries for our economy. And they’re hardworking community members who pay taxes just like the rest of us and just want a chance to work hard and raise a family in the country that they love. They deserve peace of mind, the piece of mind to know that they are safe here at home.”
Padilla concluded by pushing his colleagues to pass the DREAM Act to finally provide permanent protections for Dreamers who have long contributed to our economy and communities, yet are forced to live in uncertainty.
“For my Republican colleagues who may be caught up in the heat of the moment and trapped in this anti-immigrant rhetoric in our current political climate on the right, I’ll say this: Dreamers make our communities better. Dreamers make our economy stronger. And Dreamers make our nation stronger.”
“The DREAM Act is a commonsense bill that has enjoyed bipartisan support. So I urge you to join me in supporting the DREAM Act now and giving these young people the certainty and the protections that they deserve, and strengthen our nation in the process.”
Video of Padilla’s full remarks is available here.
Senator Padilla has been outspoken in calling out the Los Angeles ICE raids and Trump’s misguided mobilization of the National Guard and U.S. Marine Corps. Earlier today, Padilla and U.S. Senator Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) demanded answers regarding the Trump Administration’s decision to deploy approximately 700 Marines to Los Angeles. Padilla also spoke on the Senate floor today to blast President Trump for manufacturing a crisis by launching indiscriminate ICE raids across Los Angeles and deploying the National Guard and active-duty servicemembers to the region. Yesterday, Padilla, Schiff, and Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) demanded answers from top Trump Administration officials regarding the arrest and detention of David Huerta, President of Service Employees International Union (SEIU) California and SEIU-United Service Workers West. Padilla has joined national and local TV and radio broadcasts in the past few days to condemn the Trump Administration’s cruel immigration enforcement in Los Angeles and across the country.
Senator Padilla is a leading voice in Congress for immigration reform. To commemorate the 12th anniversary of DACA, Padilla joined immigration advocates, DACA recipients, and other lawmakers to urge Congress to pass a pathway to citizenship for Dreamers and call on former President Biden to protect Dreamers and long-term undocumented communities through executive action. He previously joined his Senate colleagues and directly impacted immigrant youth leaders for a press conference calling on Republicans in Congress to work with Democrats to pass permanent protections for DACA recipients after the 5th Circuit’s 2022 ruling left these recipients in limbo.
Source: United States Senator for Connecticut – Chris Murphy
[embedded content]
WASHINGTON—U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) on Monday spoke on the U.S. Senate floor to call on his Senate colleagues to stand up to President Trump’s brazen corruption of U.S. foreign policy. Murphy will force a vote as early as this week on two joint resolutions of disapproval to block multi-billion-dollar weapons sales to Qatar and the UAE after Trump demanded billions of dollars in luxury gifts and business deals from the two countries, including a $400 million dollar luxury plane that he intends to keep for personal use.
Murphy exposed the historic nature of Trump’s corruption and the danger it poses to national security: “The blatant exchange of U.S. national security secrets, our most sensitive drone technology and our most sensitive chip technology, in exchange for cash into Donald Trump’s pocket, is perhaps the most brazenly corrupt act in the history of the American presidency. And we cannot normalize it just because he is doing it out in the open, in public.
On Trump demanding Qatar gift him a luxury jet for his own personal use, Murphy said: “Now, this kind of gift, a $400 million luxury jet, it has no precedent in American history. No President has ever asked for, never mind been given, a $400 million gift from a foreign nation. Why? Well, because presidents know that that’s crossing a line. That is a massive abuse of their power. The leverage that presidents have over other countries, that they could use to ask for millions of dollars in gifts, it’s supposed to be used to benefit the nation’s security, not to enrich themselves. But also, it’s just illegal. There is a very specific clause in the Constitution that forbids this kind of gift from a foreign government to a president. And this body is supposed to be in charge of helping to enforce the Constitution. Our founders wrote that clause into the Constitution because they worried about this exact situation, where a president is using his authority like a monarch or a king to make himself the richest person in the world.
Murphy stressed that Republicans and Democrats must unite to protect the U.S. Constitution and preserve a foreign policy rooted in furthering American interests: “Donald Trump is using the power of his office not to help or protect us, but to enrich himself and his family. He is doing it publicly, brazenly, out in the open. He is, in effect, daring us – specifically daring the legislative branch, the co-equal branch – to stop him…Republicans can’t ignore this just because the president is their party’s leader. We have that independent obligation to protect the Constitution, which clearly says that these gifts are illegal, whether they’re going to a Democratic president or a Republican president. We have a responsibility to our taxpayers to stop a president from immorally enriching himself, using the power we give him to help himself instead of helping us.
He concluded: “The net result is an American public that is poorer, and weaker, and less secure. And a president who is richer. It’s corrupt. It’s corrupt. We’ve never, ever, in the history of this country, allowed for a president to do this. Never in the 250 years that our republic has been on the Earth has a president ever asked another nation to enrich himself in this way, in exchange for preferential treatment from the U.S. taxpayers. If you are a Republican or a Democratic senator, you have to see this as unprecedented, as terrible for our nation, as corruption. American foreign policy should not be for sale. If we let these arms sales go through, we are greasing the wheels of that corruption. If we vote for these resolutions of disapproval, at least we have a shot to stop it.”
Murphy filed these joint resolutions of disapproval last month.
A full transcript of his remarks can be found below:
MURPHY: “The U.S. Constitution and the American people give the American president vast power: the power to decide how billions of dollars are spent; the power to oversee the entire federal criminal justice system; the power to sell arms around the world; to deploy millions of American soldiers; to negotiate peace treaties. We give him these powers – the Constitution gives the president these powers – so that he uses them on our behalf: to deploy that vast power of the American presidency; to increase our quality of life; to protect the American people. We place immense trust in the president not to abuse these incredible authorities that are given to him. But Donald Trump is abusing that authority in ways that honestly shock the conscience.
“Donald Trump is using the power of his office not to help or protect us, but to enrich himself and his family. He is doing it publicly, brazenly, out in the open. He is, in effect, daring us – specifically daring the legislative branch, the co-equal branch – to stop him.
“Nearly three weeks ago, news broke that the White House had dialed up one of our key allies in the Middle East, the government of Qatar, and it asked that the Qataris give the president a luxury jet that is reportedly worth upwards of $400 million.
“Now, the nicest jet that I have ever been on is Air Force One, and it’s really nice. But the jet that Trump wants to make Air Force One, that he’s asking for from the Qataris, makes Air Force One, the current version, look like a tenement house. The Qatari jet that he is asking for, its interior is designed by a famed French designer, complete with a flowing grand staircase, sculpted ceilings, plush carpeting, leather couches, gold furnishings. The plane has been called the world’s most luxurious private jet. It includes nine bathrooms, five kitchens, swanky lounges, and a master bedroom suite. The arrangement that Trump proposed to the Qataris would briefly pass the jet through U.S. government hands, but only, as reported, for just a year or two before it would end up belonging personally to Donald Trump. The U.S. Government would essentially be a straw purchaser. The real owner of the jet, for all practical purposes, would be Donald Trump.
“Now, this kind of gift, a $400 million luxury jet, it has no precedent in American history. No President has ever asked for, never mind been given, a $400 million gift from a foreign nation. Why? Well, because presidents know that that’s crossing a line. That is a massive abuse of their power. The leverage that presidents have over other countries, that they could use to ask for millions of dollars in gifts, it’s supposed to be used to benefit the nation’s security, not to enrich themselves. But also, it’s just illegal. There is a very specific clause in the Constitution that forbids this kind of gift from a foreign government to a president. And this body is supposed to be in charge of helping to enforce the Constitution. Our founders wrote that clause into the Constitution because they worried about this exact situation, where a president is using his authority like a monarch or a king to make himself the richest person in the world.
“Now, the Qatar government feels like it had little choice but to say yes when asked for this $400 million gift – again, briefly to the U.S. Government – but really, for all practical purposes, to the president. They felt like they had no choice precisely because an American president has so much power. They have so much leverage, especially over a vulnerable country in the Middle East. In this case, Qatar really needs to keep the United States on its side. Middle East politics, they shift really quickly, and during Trump’s first term, when the Qataris were not close to Trump, they paid a price. They found themselves badly and dangerously isolated in the region. Saudi Arabia and the UAE, if you remember, effectively ganged up to blockade Qatar, and Trump gave that move implicit consent. Qatar, frankly, is willing to pay a very high price to avoid that fate again.
“But Qatar also has things that it wants from the United States. No Middle East country has ever been allowed to buy MQ-9 Reaper drones. These are the most lethal armed drone that America makes. We have previously judged that the region is just too volatile to allow any nation to possess the Reaper, and arguably there’s an arms control regime that doesn’t allow us to transfer that technology, but Qatar wanted to break that precedent. Of course they did. They wanted to be the first nation to have the Reaper technology, and Trump seemed willing to go along. So, a $400 million gift to the president, again, that the president was asking for, it’s a relatively small price to pay for that kind of military edge over your rivals in the region.
“But there was one more reason that Qatar had no choice but to give Trump, or at least they felt they had no choice but to give Trump, this wildly illegal gift: because Trump had made it clear to the whole region, to the whole of the Gulf region in the Middle East, that he was for sale and that preferential American treatment was for sale. And if Qatar didn’t pay, another country would. Qatar wasn’t going to be protected, frankly, by a collective refusal of Trump’s extortion in the region. And they had only to look next door to the United Arab Emirates to see how high the price was getting to win Trump’s affection.
“At the exact moment that Trump was leaning on Qatar to give him the luxury plane, he was also leaning on UAE to give him not a $400 million gift, but a $2 billion gift. And he didn’t have to lean hard. Just before the Qataris committed to give Trump the plane, an investment firm, backed by the Emirati government and chaired by Emirati government’s national security advisor, shocked the world and announced that it would use Trump’s brand-new stablecoin, this is a form of cryptocurrency, in a $2 billion investment deal that this investment fund, essentially an arm of the UAE government, was doing. And because of that $2 billion deal, overnight Trump’s stablecoin became one of the five largest stablecoins in the world, massively inflating the president’s wealth due to this one single investment. Now this wasn’t an ordinary investment decision. Out of all the stablecoin companies in the world, the Emiratis chose what at the time was a brand-new, relatively small crypto company, run by two people who had very little background in the industry. Why? To put money directly into the pocket of Donald Trump. On the website of World Liberty Financial – that’s the company that is issuing the Trump coin – they don’t hide the fact that this isn’t the Trump kids that own the business. On the website, it states 60% of this company, World Liberty Financial, is owned by an entity affiliated with Donald J. Trump.
“But it gets even more corrupt because World Liberty Financial’s other cofounder is a guy named Zach Witkoff, who, not coincidentally, is the son of Steve Witkoff, Trump’s top Middle East advisor. The Trumps could have picked anybody in the world to run this stablecoin business with but they chose the son of the Middle East envoy, just so that when they were going around asking for money in the region, it was crystal clear that if you were doing business with World Liberty Financial, you were doing business with the people in the Trump administration who make all the decisions about the Middle East. So, in one fell swoop, the Emiratis can put money into the family that controls the White House and the family that deploys and decides Middle East policy.
“Now, just like the Qataris, the Emiratis want something in return, too. Their ask was for the U.S. to remove restrictions on selling the most advanced American-made computer chips to the UAE. The restrictions have been in place under Republican and Democratic administrations for a really good reason. The UAE has a very close, too close, relationship with China. And the U.S. is always rightly worried that if we gave advanced technology to UAE, it would pretty quickly, potentially, fall into the hands of the Chinese. Now, this would be really bad – especially regarding these microchips, these computer chips – because these chips power the most advanced and proprietary American A.I. systems. Losing these chips to China could cost us the lead to China on the global A.I. race. The UAE also wanted the United States to look the other way while they helped fund a death-spiral civil war in Sudan. The UAE is the main supplier of weapons to the worst of the two parties that are involved in the brutal, catastrophic, deadly, civil war in Sudan. And they want the United States to keep giving them weapons, most recently asking for a resupply of Chinook helicopters, even as they use their military prowess to destroy Sudan.
“Now, the end of this chapter of the story will not shock you. In coordination with the $400 million luxury plane and the $2 billion investment in Trump crypto, Qatar got sign-off on buying the Reaper drones. And Steve Witkoff, father of the co-owner of World Liberty Financial, marched over to UAE, right before the president was showing up himself, and announced that the United States would, in fact, magically lift those restrictions on the microchips. And just as unsurprisingly, Trump announced that he’ll sell the Chinooks to Abu Dhabi, with no requirement that they stop fueling the war in Sudan.
“The blatant exchange of U.S. national security secrets, our most sensitive drone technology and our most sensitive chip technology, in exchange for cash into Donald Trump’s pocket, is perhaps the most brazenly corrupt act in the history of the American presidency. And we cannot normalize it just because he is doing it out in the open, in public.
“The Senate, which is given the responsibility by the Constitution to be a coequal branch with the president, we have independent responsibility to uphold and protect the Constitution, to set American foreign policy. We cannot pretend this is not happening. We cannot look the other way while the entire moral foundation of our foreign policy is being shattered. Republicans can’t ignore this just because the president is their party’s leader. We have that independent obligation to protect the Constitution, which clearly says that these gifts are illegal, whether they’re going to a Democratic president or a Republican president. We have a responsibility to our taxpayers to stop a president from immorally enriching himself, using the power we give him to help himself instead of helping us.
“What makes this moment so dangerous is that both UAE and Qatar, but especially Qatar, are key partners of the United States. They aren’t our adversaries. They are our allies. They’re imperfect allies, but they are our allies. In fact, I’ve been down on this floor in the past arguing on behalf of Qatar and the U.S.-Qatar relationship, when other senators have tried to denigrate the Qataris’ contributions to regional peace. The Qataris have been a critical partner of ours on so many important issues. It’s worth saying that. There’s no way that we would have been able to evacuate 124,000 people from Afghanistan on the eve of the Taliban takeover without Qatar’s help. The Qataris today host thousands of U.S. troops at Al Udeid Air Force Base. That’s the largest base in the region. The Qataris are critical mediators who helped us send back-channel messages to secure the release of American hostages or negotiate peace deals. There’s no question that Qatar is a country that helps stabilize the region and often is indispensable in protecting U.S. interests overseas. So, I want to cultivate and strengthen that important relationship. I honor the work that the United States and UAE does all around the region to try to track down and hold accountable terrorists. These are real partnerships. But our relationship with Qatar and the UAE, it can’t be a corrupt relationship. We can’t sell drones to Qatar, our friend, if our friend is willing to take part in Trump’s corruption. We cannot sell weapons to the UAE, our ally, if our ally is willing to take part in Trump’s corruption.
“We’ll have a chance this week to make this clear: that the United States Senate will not facilitate, will not grease the wheels of Trump’s corruption of our foreign policy. We can do that by voting to block these two arms sales to Qatar and the UAE. Not permanently, but until both countries commit to deny Trump’s requests for personal enrichment as part of the bilateral relationship. That’s why Senators Van Hollen, Kaine, Schatz, and Sanders have joined me in two resolutions of disapproval for those Reaper drone sales and the Chinook sale, and we’ll have a vote on these two resolutions as early as this week.
“President Trump has declared that U.S. foreign policy is for sale. And the opening bids, from two of the richest nations in the world, is a $2 billion investment in Trump’s crypto company, from the UAE, and a $400 million luxury plane, essentially for the president’s permanent personal use. At the exact same moment that Trump is trying to push a bill through this Congress that is going to ruin a lot of people’s lives, cutting off their health care or leaving kids without food at night, he’s making himself even richer by trading American national security policy for gifts. And, to make it worse, trading away U.S. national security secrets in exchange. The net result is an American public that is poorer, and weaker, and less secure. And a president who is richer. It’s corrupt. It’s corrupt. We’ve never, ever, in the history of this country, allowed for a president to do this. Never in the 250 years that our republic has been on the Earth has a president ever asked another nation to enrich himself in this way, in exchange for preferential treatment from the U.S. taxpayers. If you are a Republican or a Democratic senator, you have to see this as unprecedented, as terrible for our nation, as corruption. American foreign policy should not be for sale. If we let these arms sales go through, we are greasing the wheels of that corruption. If we vote for these resolutions of disapproval, at least we have a shot to stop it.
“I yield the floor.”
What you need to know: In an address delivered to nearly 40 million Californians and Americans nationwide tonight, Governor Gavin Newsom condemned President Trump’s unlawful militarization of Los Angeles and warned that the President’s actions mark a dangerous inflection point for the nation.
LOS ANGELES — In an address delivered to nearly 40 million Californians and Americans nationwide tonight, Governor Gavin Newsom condemned President Trump’s unlawful militarization of Los Angeles and warned that the President’s actions mark a dangerous inflection point for the nation.
“What we’re witnessing is not law enforcement — it’s authoritarianism,”Governor Newsom said to Californians. “What Donald Trump wants most is your fealty. Your silence. To be complicit in this moment. Do not give in to him.”
Governor Newsom recounted recent federal raids in Latino neighborhoods, the unlawful commandeering of 4,000 California National Guard members, and the deployment of over 700 active-duty Marines to the streets of an American city — all done without consultation with state or local officials. “Trump is pulling a military dragnet across Los Angeles,”Newsom said. “It’s weakness masquerading as strength.”
Calling this a moment of national reckoning, the Governor urged Americans to take peaceful action. “The most important office in a democracy is not President or Governor — it’s citizen.”
Watch and read the entire speech here:
Governor Newsom’s Address to California: Democracy at a Crossroads
I want to say a few words about the events of the last few days.
This past weekend, federal agents conducted large-scale workplace raids in and around Los Angeles.
Those raids continue as I speak.
California is no stranger to immigration enforcement.
But instead of focusing on undocumented immigrants with serious criminal records and people with final deportation orders – a strategy both parties have long supported – this administration is pushing mass deportations.
Indiscriminately targeting hardworking immigrant families, regardless of their roots or risk.
What’s happening right now is very different than anything we’ve seen before.
On Saturday morning, when federal agents jumped out of an unmarked van near a Home Depot parking lot, they began grabbing people.
A deliberate targeting of a heavily Latino suburb.
A similar scene also played out when a clothing company was raided downtown.
In other actions: a US citizen, 9 months pregnant – arrested. A four-year-old girl – taken.
Families separated. Friends disappearing.
In response, everyday Angelinos came out to exercise their Constitutional right to free speech and assembly
To protest their government’s actions.
In turn, the State of California and the City and County of Los Angeles sent our police officers to help keep the peace, and with some exceptions, they were successful.
Like many states, California is no stranger to this sort of civil unrest. We manage it regularly … and with our own law enforcement.
But this, again, was different.
What then ensued was the use of tear gas. Flash-bang grenades. Rubber bullets.
Federal agents, detaining people and undermining their due process rights.
Donald Trump, without consulting with California’s law enforcement leaders, commandeered 2,000 of our state’s National Guard members to deploy on our streets.
Illegally, and for no reason.
This brazen abuse of power by a sitting President inflamed a combustible situation … putting our people, our officers, and the National Guard at risk.
That’s when the downward spiral began. He doubled down on his dangerous National Guard deployment by fanning the flames even harder.
And the President did it on purpose.
As the news spread throughout LA, anxiety for family and friends ramped up. Protests started again.
By night, several dozen lawbreakers became violent and destructive. They vandalized property. They tried to assault police officers.
Many of you have seen video clips of cars burning on cable news.
If you incite violence or destroy our communities, you are going to be held accountable.
That kind of criminal behavior will not be tolerated. Full stop.
Already, more than 370 people have been arrested. And we’re reviewing tapes to build additional cases, and people will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Again, thanks to our law enforcement officers and the majority of Angelenos who protested peacefully, this situation was winding down and was concentrated in just a few square blocks downtown.
But that’s not what Donald Trump wanted.
He again chose escalation; he chose more force.
He chose theatrics over public safety – he federalized another 2,000 Guard members.
He deployed more than 700 active U.S. Marines.
These are men and women trained in foreign combat, not domestic law enforcement.
We honor their service. We honor their bravery. But we do not want our streets militarized by our own Armed Forces. Not in L.A. Not in California. Not anywhere.
We’re seeing unmarked cars in school parking lots. Kids, afraid to attend their own graduation.
Trump is pulling a military dragnet across LA, well beyond his stated intent to just go after violent and serious criminals.
His agents are arresting dishwashers, gardeners, day laborers and seamstresses – That’s just weakness. Weakness, masquerading as strength.
Donald Trump’s government isn’t protecting our communities – they are traumatizing our communities. And that seems to be the point.
California will keep fighting on behalf of our people – all of our people – including in the courts.
Yesterday, we filed a legal challenge to President Trump’s reckless deployment of American troops to a major American city.
Today, we sought an emergency court order to stop the use of the American military to engage in law enforcement activities across Los Angeles.
If some of us can be snatched off the streets without a warrant, based only on suspicion or skin color, then none of us are safe.
Authoritarian regimes begin by targeting people who are least able to defend themselves. But they do not stop there.
Trump and his loyalists thrive on division because it allows them to take more power and exert even more control.
By the way, Trump – he’s not opposed to lawlessness and violence, as long as it serves HIM.
What more evidence do we need than January 6th?
I ask everyone to take the time to reflect on this perilous moment.
A president who wants to be bound by no law or constitution.
Perpetrating a unified assault on American traditions.
This is a President who, in just over 140 days, has fired government watchdogs that could hold him accountable for corruption and fraud.
He’s declared a war on culture, on history, on science – on knowledge itself. Databases, quite literally vanishing.
He’s delegitimizing news organizations and assaulting the First Amendment.
At the threat of defunding them, he’s dictating what universities can teach.
Targeting law firms and the judicial branch that are the foundation of an orderly, civil society.
Calling for a sitting Governor to be arrested for no other reason than – to use his words – “for getting elected.”
And we all know, this Saturday, he’s ordering our American heroes – the United States military – forcing them to put on a vulgar display to celebrate his birthday, just as other failed dictators have done in the past.
Look, this isn’t just about protests in LA.
When Donald Trump sought blanket authority to commandeer the National Guard, he made that order apply to every state in this nation.
This is about all of us. This is about you.
California may be first – but it clearly won’t end here. Other states are next.
Democracy is next.
Democracy is under assault right before our eyes – the moment we’ve feared has arrived.
He’s taking a wrecking ball to our founding fathers’ historic project.
Three independent, coequal branches of government.
There are no longer any checks and balances. Congress is nowhere to be found. Speaker Johnson has completely abdicated that responsibility.
The rule of law has increasingly given way to the rule of Don.
The founding fathers did not live and die to see this moment.
It’s time for all of us to stand up.
Justice Brandeis said it best: in a democracy, the most important office is not president, it’s certainly not governor. The most important office is office of citizen.
At this moment, we must all stand up and be held to a higher level of accountability.
If you exercise your First Amendment rights, please do so peacefully.
I know many of you are feeling deep anxiety, stress, and fear.
But I want you to know that YOU are the antidote to that fear and anxiety.
What Donald Trump wants most is your fealty. Your silence. To be complicit in this moment.
Do NOT give in to him.
Press releases
Recent news
Jun 10, 2025
News LOS ANGELES – Governor Newsom and Attorney General Bonta are standing up all states by filing a lawsuit and request to block President Trump and the Department of Defense’s illegal militarization of Los Angeles and the takeover of a California National Guard (Cal…
Jun 10, 2025
News “Turning the military against American citizens” What you need to know: Standing up for American citizens and the Nation’s foundational ban on martial law in peacetime, California Governor Newsom and Attorney General Bonta are requesting the court step in to…
Jun 9, 2025
News What you need to know: California is surging mutual aid resources to support law enforcement as they clean up the actions caused by President Trump. LOS ANGELES – Moving quickly to support local response to federal actions that have caused unrest in Los Angeles,…
The Trump Assassination Attempt, Security Failures, The Politics and What Happens Next? – Firstly, in this episode of A View from Afar, political scientist and former Pentagon analyst, Dr Paul Buchanan, provides us a preliminary assessment of the assassination attempt on former United States president Donald Trump.
Today we will examine:
How could an assassin get inside a security parameter, and in to a position with direct line of sight to his target Donald Trump?
And specifically, while the gunman was outside the immediate venue, it would appear the shooter’s location was within the security parameters, a position obvious to him as a prime area, with direct line of sight to his intended target.
So why wouldn’t that fact be obvious to the US security services who were responsible for ensuring the parameters were safe and clear?
And, importantly too, what are the political implications of this assassination attempt?
For example; does this assassination attempt accentuate Trump’s mythology as an invincible born to rule leader? And as such, draw contrast to the incumbent US President Joe Biden’s frailty?
In this regard, Paul and Selwyn assess what is likely to happen next?
INTERACTION WHILE LIVE:
Paul and Selwyn encourage their live audience to interact while they are live with questions and comments. So, we encourage you to Subscribe and Engage.
To interact during the live recording of this podcast, go to Youtube.com/c/EveningReport/
Remember to subscribe to the channel.
For the on-demand audience, you can also keep the conversation going on this debate by clicking on one of the social media channels below:
In this episode of A View from Afar political scientist and former Pentagon Analyst, Paul G. Buchanan and journalist Selwyn Manning discuss, debate, and assess whether deterrence is still a valid concept in international relations.
Paul and Selwyn assess whether deterrence has failed in Syria, Ukraine, the Middle East, and failed to stop an intensification of threat in the South China Sea.
And they consider the questions:
Is nuclear deterrence dead in the water?
Backgrounder: Overnight, the New York Times released details of a secret new nuclear deterrence plan that has been advanced in secret by the Biden Administration.
Biden’s Nuke Plan is designed to ensure the USA stays ahead of an arms race, and a supposed coordination of nuclear weapons technologies being developed by China, North Korea and Russia.
New questions arise.
Does a new-generation arms race, led by the United States, based on advanced nuclear weaponry, made more fearsome due to a rapid advance of artificial intelligence-assisted decision-making and target-selection, mixed with hybrid warfare, cause aggressive nations to rethink the consequences should they preemptively initiate conflict?
And what about the majority of the world, what about small states, small powers, that seek stability and security via multilateralism or a constellation of like-minded nations – how does deterrence impact on their decision-making?
Do alliances, led by global powers, that rely on deterring adversaries through development of superior weaponry and technology, offer small states more risks than benefits?
Specifically, is it preferable for many small states to focus on de-escalation and cooperative security rather than bind themselves to collective security agreements that are focused on deterring adversaries?
And, the big question: How do we as member states in a world where bipolarity and conflict is intensifying, ensure de-escalation occurs without reaching a tipping-point that we cannot return from?
Is cooperative security, and mutually agreed to weapons and technological controls, the way toward restoring an uneasy peace in the world?
Live Audience: Remember, if you are joining us live via the social media platforms, feel free to comment as we can include your comments and questions in this programme.
A View from Afar with Paul G Buchanan and Selwyn Manning.
Building upon recent episodes of A View from Afar, Political Scientist Paul G Buchanan and journalist Selwyn Manning discuss The Politics of Desperation. This episode flows on from discussions about long transitions and the moment of friction.
As the old status quo begins to crumble (under the weight of fraction), political leaders and elites invested in it get increasingly desperate, leading to more dangerous decisions, more acute moments, and, increased chances of mistake, miscalculation and unanticipated backlash.
The Politics of Desperation accentuates an ongoing downward spiral. And, the Politics of Desperation takes form in differing degrees. For some, the risk of losing is merely a dent in the leader’s ego, reputation, and an awakening that voters have moved on from their style of politics.
But for others, a loss will prove to be devastating, for example; should Donald Trump lose his bid to regain the United States presidency, he will face sentencing as a felon and perhaps even face jail time. For Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu, a future loss or a collapse of his right-wing coalition would likely see him facing domestic charges and possibly charges laid by the International Criminal Court for his role in the disproportionate use of military might in Israel’s war on Gaza.
So, Paul and Selwyn discuss the examples of the Politics of Desperation from around the world and assess the risks as the world rests on the cusp of an unknown future.
INTERACTION WHILE LIVE:
Paul and Selwyn encourage their live audience to interact while they are live with questions and comments.
A View from Afar – Dr Paul G. Buchanan and Selwyn Manning deep-dive into the United States November 5, 2024 Elections and consider the ‘what, where, how and why’ questions as they detail the rise and fall and rise of Donald John Trump and Trumpism.
Background Image courtesy of Nick Minto, Copyright 2024 Nick Minto; photographed November 6, 2024, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
In this episode Paul and Selwyn discuss:
Why Democrats Lost: Incumbency, Elitism, Class & Alienation, Identity Politics…
Why Trump Won: Anti-Establishment, Populism, Avatar for the Alienated…
What to Expect Next: Trump Appointments, Isolationism, Geopolitical Impact & Response…
INTERACTION WHILE LIVE: Paul and Selwyn encourage interaction while live, and encourage their audience to lodge comments and questions. Please subscribe to our YouTube channel and click on notification-bell for an alert for future programmes.
Here’s the link: https://www.youtube.com/c/EveningReport/
Background image: courtesy of and Copyright Nick Minto 2024. Image taken November 6 2024, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
RECOGNITION: The MIL Network’s podcast A View from Afar was Nominated as a Top Defence Security Podcast by Threat.Technology – a London-based cyber security news publication. Threat.Technology placed A View from Afar at 9th in its 20 Best Defence Security Podcasts of 2021 category.
A View from Afar – In this episode of A View From Afar political scientist Paul Buchanan and host Selwyn Manning analyse how the state of Israel has gone rogue, attacking United Nations peacekeepers in southern Lebanon.
At this juncture it is clear this is an intentional attack. Over the past week Israel Defense Force troops have repeatedly attacked UN peacekeepers who were authorised and deployed to the region by the United Nations Security Council.
Also last week; the Government of Israel issued a statement notifying the United Nations Secretary General that he was now banned from Israel and was persona non grata.
Within a day of that statement, IDF troops had fired on UN peacekeeping positions in Southern Lebanon. Since then, the IDF has continued operations that threaten the UN’s presence.
And Israel’s prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has now issued a directive to the UN peacekeeping force to withdraw from the area north of its borders in Southern Lebanon.
Also, despite the United States Biden Administration cautioning Israel on its attacks on UN personnel, overnight New Zealand time, the United States has deployed 100 US troops on the ground in Israel to operate missile defence systems.
Paul and Selwyn consider:
* Why Israel has begun to attack United Nations peacekeepers in the region?
* Why has the United States deepened its involvement in Israel’s so-called defence?
* What of Hezbollah, Hamas; are their attacks on Israel a defence or an attacking offensive?
* What of Iran, what is its position and will it engage in a full-scale war with Israel and what are the consequences should it do so?
INTERACTION WHILE LIVE:
Paul and Selwyn encourage their live audience to interact while they are live with questions and comments.
To interact during the live recording of this podcast, go to Youtube.com/c/EveningReport/
Remember to subscribe to the channel.
For the on-demand audience, you can also keep the conversation going on this debate by clicking on one of the social media channels below:
In this episode of A View From Afar political scientist Paul Buchanan and host Selwyn Manning analyse how conflicts are expanding, arguably with warring sides taking an opportunity to take as much territory, while a ‘Lame-Duck Window’ exists in the United States.
For example;
In Syria, opposition-baked forces have taken Aleppo city and other strategic centres in an attempt to remove Syria’s authoritarian leader Assad. Assad’s forces are resisting on the ground while Russian air forces attacked the opposition force’s positions. Israel announced it may strike Syria government munitions sites in a move to ensure opposition forces do not take possession of such weaponry.
Meanwhile, fighting has intensified on the Ukraine-Russia frontlines after:
North Korea deployed a 10,000-strong assistance force to the Kursk region;
Outgoing US President Joe Biden authorised Ukraine to fire ATTACM missiles deep into Russia;
Ukraine indeed fired ATTACMs into the Russian motherland and has increased its drone attacks on military targets in cities once regarded as safe from attack.
Also, and significantly, Russia fired into Dnipro City in Ukraine a hypersonic “experimental” Medium-Range-Ballistic-Missile – and followed up with the biggest barrage of drone and missile strikes on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure since the conflict began.
So-called “red-lines” have been crossed and all sides appear determined to take as much territory as possible before US President-Elect Donald Trump is sworn into office in January.
Paul and Selwyn assess what we can expect to witness in the next two months, how other state actors are being drawn into conflict, and what objectives are driving warring sides at flashpoints around the world.
Live Audience: Remember, we welcome your comments and questions. And also remember to Subscribe. Thank you!
Source: United States Senator for Massachusetts – Elizabeth Warren
June 10, 2025
Warren gains key concessions from Secretary McMahon in a private meeting.
Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) met with Secretary of Education Linda McMahon. Senator Warren also delivered over 1,000 letters to McMahon that the senator had received from people in all 50 states who are worried about the Secretary’s efforts to dismantle the Department of Education (ED).
“My job as a U.S. Senator is to conduct oversight and hold officials’ feet to the fire when they are actively harming the American people. I was able to secure important commitments from Education Secretary McMahon, which will make a real difference for people with student loans,” said Senator Warren. “But at a time when President Trump and Republicans in Congress are trying to make it more expensive for students from working-class families to get ahead, I will not stop fighting to ensure that every student has access to affordable, quality education in America.”
During the meeting, Secretary McMahon revealed four key pieces of information to Senator Warren:
Secretary McMahon conceded that she has no statutory authority to move the responsibilities of the Department of Education to other agencies without Congress passing legislation first. This comes as the Trump administration tries to abolish the Department by shifting its responsibilities to the Small Business Administration and the Department of Health and Human Services, among other agencies that are ill-equipped to take on the Department of Education’s responsibilities. “McMahon didn’t just say she didn’t have the intention to do it—she said that she is legally barred from doing it,” said Senator Warren. “I asked her about the legal authority she would have to transfer any part of the functions of the Department of Education somewhere else, for example, to the SBA, and she said, ‘I can’t do that. That is the job of Congress.’ There was no ambiguity in her answer.”
Secretary McMahon confirmed that she does not intend to restart Social Security offsets for people with defaulted student loans. McMahon told Senator Warren that she personally decided to pause the seizure of Social Security benefits after the Trump administration had announced that it would start forced Social Security collections.“The Education Secretary has assured me that the pause that is currently in place will stay in place and if there is to be any change in that, she would get in touch with me directly before we go there,” said Senator Warren.
Secretary McMahon stated that she intends to soon restore the income-driven repayment (IDR) payment count tracker to studentaid.gov, allowing borrowers to track their progress towards receiving debt relief, after taking down the tracker earlier in the Trump administration.
Secretary McMahon admitted that she recommended cuts to the Pell Grant program because of the program’s budgetary shortfall, but that it was ultimately up to Congress to fund the Pell program. “McMahon purported to be a supporter of Pell and said that she thought these changes were necessary for fiscal responsibility,” said Senator Warren. “The idea that the Republicans want to cut Pell further, I can already say categorically, is a really bad idea and it’s going to mean that we’re going to lose some number of young people who want to get an education and who ultimately benefit this country when they get an education.”
Secretary McMahon also committed to responding in writing to Senator Warren’s June 4, 2025 letter containing 66 questions regarding her policies as Education Secretary. Last month, Senator Warren invited Secretary McMahon to a public forum Warren held on May 14, 2025 on higher education affordability. Secretary McMahon refused the invitation in a May 12 letter and instead agreed to a meeting with Senator Warren.
Senator Warren launched the Save Our Schools campaign in a coordinated effort to fight back against President Trump’s attempts to abolish the Department of Education:
On June 9, 2025, Senator Warren led her colleagues in pushing the Acting Inspector General of ED to open an investigation into new information obtained by her office revealing that DOGE may have gained access to two FSA internal systems, in addition to sensitive borrower data.
On May 20, 2025, Senator Warren and 27 other senators pushed for full funding for the Office of Federal Student Aid.
On May 20, 2025, Senator Warren and 27 other senators pushed for full funding to the Office of Federal Student Aid.
On May 14, 2025, Senator Warren led a Senate forum entitled “Stealing the American Dream: How Trump and Republicans Are Raising Education Costs for Families,” highlighting the consequences of Secretary Linda McMahon’s reckless dismantling of the Department of Education (ED) and President Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” for working- and middle-class students and borrowers.
On May 13, 2025, Senator Warren agreed to meet with Education Secretary Linda McMahon and promised to bring questions and stories from Americans across the country to highlight how the Trump administration’s attacks on education are hurting American families.
On May 6, 2025, Senator Elizabeth Warren highlighted the consequences of President Trump and Secretary Linda McMahon’s reckless dismantling of the Department of Education for American families in a Senate forum.
On April 24, 2025, Senator Warren launched a new investigation into the harms of President Trump’s attacks on the Department of Education, seeking information on the impact of the Trump administration’s actions from the members of twelve leading organizations representing schools, parents, teachers, students, borrowers, and researchers.
On April 10, 2025, following a request led by Senator Warren, the Department of Education’s Acting Inspector General agreed to open an investigation into the Trump administration’s attempts to dismantle the Department of Education.
On April 2, 2025, Senators Elizabeth Warren and Mazie Hirono, along with Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, sent a letter to Secretary of Education Linda McMahon regarding the Department of Government Efficiency’s proposed plan to replace the Department of Education’s federal student aid call centers with generative artificial intelligence chatbots.
On April 2, 2025, Senator Elizabeth Warren launched the Save Our Schools campaign to fight back against the Trump administration’s efforts to dismantle the Department of Education (ED) and highlight the consequences for every student and public school in America.
On March 27, 2025, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) led a letter to Acting Department of Education Inspector General (IG) René Rocque requesting that the IG conduct an investigation of the Trump Administration’s attempts to dismantle the Department of Education.
On March 20, 2025, Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders led a letter to Secretary of Education Linda McMahon regarding the Trump Administration’s decision to slash the capacity of Federal Student Aid to handle student aid complaints.
On February 24, 2025, in a response to Senator Warren, Secretary McMahon gave her first public admission that she “wholeheartedly” agreed with Trump’s plans to abolish the Department of Education.
On February 11, 2025, Senators Elizabeth Warren and Andy Kim sent Linda McMahon, Secretary-Designate for the U.S. Department of Education, a 12-page letter with 65 questions on McMahon’s policy views in advance of her nomination hearing.
The following text contains opinion that is not, or not necessarily, that of MIL-OSI –
WASHINGTON, D.C. –The Republican Governors Association (RGA) released the following statement on the New Jersey gubernatorial primary:
“Congratulations to Jack Ciattarelli on his victory in the New Jersey gubernatorial primary,” said RGA Chair and Georgia Governor Brian Kemp. “Jack knows what ittakes to provide New Jersey families with much needed relief and has proven that he has the plan to fix New Jersey with commonsense solutions. Meanwhile, Democrat Mikie Sherrill must defend her failed record in Washington that has led to skyrocketing costs, failed schools, and left New Jersey families struggling, proving to voters she has no intention to do anything differently to turn New Jersey around. The choice could not be clearer this November for New Jersey voters.”
BROOKFIELD, NEWS, June 10, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Brookfield Wealth Solutions (NYSE, TSX: BNT) today announced the approval of all items of business at the company’s annual general and special meeting of shareholders. The meeting was held earlier today in a virtual meeting format.
All five nominees proposed for election to the board of directors by holders of class A exchangeable limited voting shares (“class A shares”) and all five nominees proposed for election to the board of directors by the holder of class B limited voting shares (“class B shares”) were elected. Detailed results of the vote for the election of directors are set out below.
Management received the following proxies from holders of class A shares in regard to the election of the five directors nominated for election by this shareholder class:
DirectorNominee
VotesFor
%
VotesWithheld
%
Dr. Soonyoung Chang
23,747,124
99.17
199,324
0.83
William Cox
22,970,300
95.92
976,149
4.08
Michele Coleman Mayes
23,696,733
98.96
249,716
1.04
Lars Rodert
23,273,435
97.19
673,014
2.81
Anne Schaumburg
23,678,628
98.88
267,820
1.12
Management received a proxy from the holder of class B shares to vote all 24,000 class B shares for each of the five directors nominated for election by this shareholder class, being Barry Blattman, Gregory Morrison, Lori Pearson, Sachin Shah and Jay Wintrob.
All other matters put forth at the meeting were approved by shareholder vote and a summary of all votes cast by shareholders represented at the company’s annual general and special meeting of shareholders will be available electronically on EDGAR on the United States Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at www.sec.gov or on Brookfield Wealth Solutions’ SEDAR profile at www.sedarplus.ca.
About Brookfield Wealth Solutions Brookfield Wealth Solutions Ltd. (NYSE, TSX: BNT) is focused on securing the financial futures of individuals and institutions through a range of retirement services, wealth protection products and tailored capital solutions. Each class A exchangeable limited voting share of Brookfield Wealth Solutions is exchangeable on a one-for-one basis with a class A limited voting share of Brookfield Corporation (NYSE, TSX: BN).
For more information, please visit our website at bnt.brookfield.com or contact:
BUENOS AIRES, June 10, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Grupo Financiero Galicia S.A. (Nasdaq: GGAL; Bolsas y Mercados Argentinos S.A./A3 Mercados S.A.: GGAL, the “Company”), one of Argentina’s largest financial services groups, announced today the pricing of the previously announced underwritten secondary offering (the “Offering”) by HSBC Bank plc (the “Selling Shareholder”) of 11,721,449 American Depositary Shares (“ADSs”) representing 117,214,490 Class B ordinary shares of the Company, par value Ps.1.00 per share (“Class B ordinary shares”) at a public offering price of $54.25 per ADS. The ADSs are not authorized for public offering in Argentina by the Argentine National Securities Exchange Commision (Comisión Nacional de Valores – “CNV”) and are not being offered or sold publicly under the Argentine Capital Markets Law No. 26,831, as amended and complemented. The documents related to the Offering have not been filed with, reviewed or authorized by the CNV, and therefore the CNV has not made any determination as to the truthfulness or completeness of those documents.
All of the ADSs were offered by the Selling Shareholder. The Selling Shareholder will receive all of the proceeds from the Offering. The Company is not selling any ADSs in the Offering and will not receive any proceeds from the Offering.
Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC and Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC are acting as the representatives of the underwriters of the Offering. The Offering is expected to close on June 12, 2025 subject to customary closing conditions.
The Offering is being made pursuant to an effective shelf registration statement on Form F-3 (including a prospectus) filed by the Company with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). A final prospectus supplement and accompanying prospectus describing the terms of the Offering will be filed with the SEC, copies of which may be obtained, when available, from Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Attention: Prospectus Department, 180 Varick Street, 2nd Floor, New York, New York 10014, and from Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, Attention: Prospectus Department, 200 West Street, New York, New York 10282, by telephone at (866) 471-2526, or by email at prospectus-ny@ny.email.gs.com. These documents may also be obtained free of charge by visiting EDGAR on the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov.
This press release does not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy these securities, nor shall there be any sale of these securities in any state or jurisdiction in which such offer, solicitation or sale would be unlawful prior to registration or qualification under the securities laws of any such state or jurisdiction.
This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), and Section 21E of the Exchange Act. Such forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, those regarding the expected closing of the Offering. Forward-looking statements generally can be identified by the use of such words as “may”, “will”, “expect”, “intend”, “estimate”, “anticipate”, “believe”, “continue” or other similar terminology, although not all forward-looking statements contain these identifying words. Such statements are subject to numerous important factors, risks and uncertainties that may cause actual events or results to differ materially from current expectations and beliefs, including, but not limited to, risks and uncertainties related to: the occurrence of any event, change or other circumstance that could impact the expected timing, completion or other terms of the Offering; the impact of general economic, industry or political conditions in the United States or internationally, as well as the other risk factors set forth under the caption Item 3.D. “Risk Factors” in our most recent annual report on Form 20-F, and from time to time in the Company’s other filings with the SEC. The information contained in this press release is as of the date indicated above. The Company does not undertake any obligation to release publicly any revisions to forward-looking statements to reflect later events or circumstances or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events.
About Grupo Financiero Galicia S.A.:
Grupo Financiero Galicia S.A. (Nasdaq: GGAL; Bolsas y Mercados Argentinos S.A./A3 Mercados S.A.: GGAL) is the main financial services holding company in Argentina, which seeks to create long-term value through its companies, providing savings, credit, investment, insurance, advice and digital solutions opportunities to people, companies and organizations, prioritizing customer experience and sustainable development.
With more than 110 years of experience, Grupo Financiero Galicia S.A. is a group of financial services companies in Argentina, integrated by Banco de Galicia y Buenos Aires S.A.U. (Banco Galicia), GGAL Holdings S.A. (Galicia Más Holdings), Tarjetas Regionales S.A. (Naranja X), Sudamericana Holdings S.A. (Galicia Seguros), Galicia Asset Management S.A.U. (Fondos Fima), IGAM LLC (Inviu), Galicia Securities S.A.U. (Galicia Securities), Agri Tech Investment LLC (Nera), Galicia Ventures LP and Galicia Investments LLC (collectively referred to as Galicia Ventures), and Galicia Warrants S.A. (Warrants).
THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE OFFERING WILL BE NOTIFIED IN ARGENTINA PURSUANT TO AN HECHO RELEVANTE, SOLELY FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES, BUT SUCH NOTICE WILL NOT CONSTITUTE AN OFFER OF SECURITIES FOR SALE IN ARGENTINA.
Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
Police officers try to disperse protesters in front of the Los Angeles Federal Detention Center in Los Angeles, California, the United States, June 8, 2025. [Photo/Xinhua]
Top legal officials in the U.S. state of California moved to halt President Donald Trump’s deployment of military forces in their communities, filing an emergency court motion on Tuesday that challenged the federal government’s authority to use troops for local law enforcement.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Governor Gavin Newsom requested in the 28-page document that the federal court take immediate action to block Trump, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and the U.S. Department of Defense from using military personnel and federalized California National Guard units to patrol communities and conduct law enforcement activities.
The officials argued the military deployment violated federal law, threatened state sovereignty, and escalated rather than reduces civil tensions.
“The President is looking for any pretense to place military forces on American streets to intimidate and quiet those who disagree with him,” Bonta said in a statement released by the California Attorney General’s office. “It’s not just immoral – It’s illegal and dangerous.”
The emergency motion follows a lawsuit filed Monday by the same officials challenging Trump’s order to federalize the California National Guard for 60 days under federal statute 10 U.S.C. § 12406.
Early Sunday morning, the U.S. Department of Defense redirected hundreds of National Guard troops from San Diego to Los Angeles without gubernatorial authorization and against the wishes of local law enforcement, according to the Attorney General’s office.
As of Tuesday, the federal government has order to deploy 4,000 National Guard troops across California, plus an additional 700 Marines, to the second-largest city of the country.
“The federal government is now turning the military against American citizens,” Newsom said, according to the Attorney General’s statement. “Sending trained warfighters onto the streets is unprecedented and threatens the very core of our democracy.”
The Californian officials contended that local law enforcement, not military forces, should handle civilian policing within state borders. They claimed the deployment deprives California of its own National Guard resources and creates “imminent harm” to state operations.
“Local law enforcement, not the military, enforce the law within our borders,” Bonta said. “The President continues to inflame tensions and antagonize communities.”
Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
China and the United States have over the past two days conducted professional, rational, in-depth and candid exchanges, said a senior Chinese official on Tuesday.
Li Chenggang, China international trade representative with the Ministry of Commerce and vice minister of commerce, made the remarks when briefing the press following the first meeting of the China-U.S. economic and trade consultation mechanism held in London.
The two sides have agreed in principle the framework for implementing consensus between the two heads of state during their phone talks on June 5, as well as those reached at Geneva talks, Li said.
It is hoped that progress made at the London meeting will be conducive to strengthening trust between China and the United States, and to further promoting the steady and healthy development of economic and trade ties between the two countries, according to him.
Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
Customers shop at a Walmart store in Los Angeles County, California, the United States, May 20, 2025. [Photo/Xinhua]
The World Bank slashed global economic growth forecasts on Tuesday citing heightened trade tensions and policy uncertainty.
The turmoil resulted in lower growth forecasts in nearly 70 percent of all economies across all regions and income groups, according to the latest bi-annual Global Economic Prospects report issued on Tuesday.
The report cut the 2025 global economic growth forecast to 2.3 percent from 2.7 percent in January, 2025 with the 2026 growth forecast lowered to 2.4 percent from 2.7 percent.
Advanced economies are expected to see an expansion of 1.2 percent in 2025, down from 1.7 percent in earlier forecasts while the growth forecast with emerging market and developing economies was lowered by 0.3 percentage points to 3.8 percent in 2025.
In particular, the United States is expected to grow by 1.4 percent in 2025, 0.9 percentage points less than previous forecast and only half of the 2.8 percent growth in 2024.
Both the Euro Area and Japan are expected to grow 0.7 percent this year, 0.3 percentage points and 0.5 percentage points lower from previous estimates, respectively, while China’s growth forecasts for both 2025 and 2026 remain unchanged.
The world economy is once more running into turbulence while a “soft landing” appeared to be in sight only six months ago, said the report.
“Without a swift course correction, the harm to living standards could be deep,” warned the report.
“Outside of Asia, the developing world is becoming a development-free zone,” said Indermit Gill, the World Bank Group’s Chief Economist and Senior Vice President for Development Economics.
Gill highlighted slower economic and investment growth in developing economies in comparison with recording-making debt levels.
Progress by emerging market and developing economies in closing per capita income gaps with advanced economies and reducing extreme poverty is anticipated to remain insufficient and the outlook largely hinges on the evolution of trade policy globally, said the report.
The global economy is expected to see a tepid recovery in 2026 and 2027 but world output would remain materially below projections made in January, 2025.
However, growth could turn out to be lower if trade restrictions escalate or if policy uncertainty persists, which could also result in a build-up of financial stress, according to the report.
Source: United States Senator for New Mexico Martin Heinrich
WASHINGTON — U.S. Senator Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Ranking Member on the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Secretary Brooke Rollins on the harmful impacts of the “Department of Government Efficiency’s” (DOGE) actions on the United States Forest Service (USFS). The letter stresses the USFS’ operational failures that are occurring due to new layers of red tape required by DOGE, such as accumulating garbage at recreational sites and a lack of firefighting equipment in preparation of wildfires.
“I write to express deep concern regarding the devastating impact of the Department of Government Efficiency’s (DOGE) actions at the United States Forest Service (USFS). New layers of red tape installed by DOGE have created dysfunction, confusion, and uncertainty at the agency,” Heinrich began. “Elon Musk and DOGE promised to make government more efficient and to root out waste. Instead, their actions have made the agency less efficient, and as a result, critical supplies are missing and garbage is piling up across the National Forest System.”
USFS manages more than 30,000 recreation sites around the country. Recreation on the National Forest System draws in 160 million visitors annually, which contributes over $13 billion to the economy and supports more than 160,000 jobs. As a result of President Trump’s Executive Order 14222, DOGE is now required to approve new or extended contracts at the Forest Service, even for routine activities or critical supplies.
Heinrich continued, “Contracts for janitorial services that previously received approval in mere days are now reportedly taking a month or longer to complete. The delay has led to garbage piling up at recreation sites and toilets going uncleaned or unemptied. The threat to public health and safety from contracting delays is not limited to custodial services. The additional levels of review mandated by DOGE have also reportedly slowed down or halted wildfire preparedness efforts, including the acquisition of firefighting equipment and helicopters.”
“Despite your assurances, it is clear that massive staff reductions, coupled with operational delays at USFS, have left the agency ill-prepared to meet the many challenges brought on by the summer months,” Heinrich pressed, citing Rollins’ recent comments at an event with Secretary Burgum, where she expressed that her agency is taking the fire season very seriously, and that federal wildland firefighters are ready to respond.
Heinrich concluded the letter by requesting detailed answers from Rollins on the Forest Service’s current contracting and procurement procedures, including approval timelines, personnel involved, and the status or justification for contract modifications, terminations, or denials related to firefighting and support services.
Read the full letter here and below:
Dear Secretary Rollins:
I write to express deep concern regarding the devastating impact of the Department of Government Efficiency’s (DOGE) actions at the United States Forest Service (USFS). New layers of red tape installed by DOGE have created dysfunction, confusion, and uncertainty at the agency. Elon Musk and DOGE promised to make government more efficient and to root out waste. Instead, their actions have made the agency less efficient, and as a result, critical supplies are missing and garbage is piling up across the National Forest System.
As you know, USFS manages more than 30,000 recreation sites around the country where Americans hike, bike, picnic, camp, fish, and engage in other recreational activities. Nearly 160 million people visit the National Forest System annually. A visit to our public lands not only improves visitors’ physical and mental health, but also provides access to cultural and heritage opportunities that build community and a sense of national pride. The economic benefits associated with the National Forest System are equally as pronounced. Outdoor recreation on the Nation Forest System alone contributes over $13 billion to the economy and supports more than 160,000 jobs. Despite the clear benefits of a fully-functioning USFS, DOGE has undermined the agency at every turn and prevented USFS from carrying out its core responsibilities.
According to a recent report, USFS has suffered significant operational failings since DOGE personnel arrived at the agency. New processes instituted by DOGE have led to lengthy approval times for contracts, significantly diminishing the agency’s ability to meet basic functions and needs. Contracts for janitorial services that previously received approval in mere days are now reportedly taking a month or longer to complete. The delay has led to garbage piling up at recreation sites and toilets going uncleaned or unemptied.
The threat to public health and safety from contracting delays is not limited to custodial services. The additional levels of review mandated by DOGE have also reportedly slowed down or halted wildfire preparedness efforts, including the acquisition of firefighting equipment and helicopters. Firefighting operations are extremely equipment intensive and must often set up in remote locations. Operational flexibility and contracting speed are therefore critical to successful firefighting efforts and public safety.
You appeared with Secretary Burgum at an event last month and said, “[w]e are taking this fire season very seriously, and our federal wildland firefighters are prepared to respond.” Despite your assurances, it is clear that massive staff reductions, coupled with operational delays at USFS, have left the agency ill-prepared to meet the many challenges brought on by the summer months.
In light of these concerns, I request responses to the following questions by June 24, 2025:
1. According to recent reporting, the process for getting new procurements or contracts approved has changed several times. Please describe in detail the process for getting new procurements approved at the agency. In responding to this question, please include the following:
a. The amount of time typically needed to receive approval.
b. How many personnel are required to approve procurements or contracts related to routine equipment replacement or maintenance.
c. Whether the approval chain includes the General Services Administration or other personnel outside the Forest Service.
2. Please describe in detail the process for getting modifications to existing contracts approved.
a. The amount of time typically needed to receive approval.
b. How many personnel are required to approve procurements or contracts related to routine equipment replacement or maintenance.
c. Whether the approval chain includes the General Services Administration or other personnel outside the Forest Service.
3. In February 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order (EO) 14222 establishing requirements for new and existing contracts.9 Please provide the following information:
a. The EO states, “[e]ach Agency Head, in consultation with the agency’s DOGE Team Lead, shall conduct a comprehensive review of each agency’s contracting policies, procedures, and personnel. Each Agency Head shall complete this process within 30 days of the date of this order and shall not issue or approve new contracting officer warrants during the review period, unless the Agency Head determines such approval is necessary.” Have you completed this process? Did you determine any contract approvals were necessary during the review period? b. The EO states, “[f]ollowing the review specified in subsection (c) of this section, and prior to entering into new contracts, each Agency Head shall, in consultation with the agency’s DOGE Team Lead, issue guidance on signing new contracts or modifying existing contracts to promote Government efficiency and the policies of my Administration. The Agency Head may approve new contracts prior to the issuance of such guidance on a case-by-case basis.” Did you approve any new contracts or modifications prior to the issuance of guidance?
4. Please provide a list of all Department contracts for goods and services DOGE has identified for termination or renegotiation. In responding to this question, please provide the following information:
a. A description of each contract DOGE has identified for termination or renegotiation and the current status.
b. DOGE’s justification for terminating or renegotiating the contract.
5. Since January 20, 2025, has the Department terminated or recompeted any contract for goods and services? If so, please provide the following information for each contract terminated or recompeted:
a. A description of the contract terminated or recompeted.
b. The reason the Department terminated or recompeted the contract.
6. Since January 20, 2025, has the Department entered into any new contracts for goods and services? If so, please provide detailed information.
7. Since January 20, 2025, has the agency received any complaints from staff about lengthy times to get janitorial services contracts approved or awarded? If so, please explain.
8. DOGE reportedly denied funding to continue using smoke detection devices called “sniffers.” The agency also reportedly got rid of support for a platform used by firefighters to acquire equipment and track critical supplies.10 Are these reports accurate? If so, please explain your rationale.
9. Is DOGE approval required each time contracted fire aviation assets are mobilized for water or fireretardant drops?
10. Is DOGE approval required for each contract for locally-owned equipment that the Forest Service can mobilize through individual contracts with farmers and ranchers, such as bulldozers and backhoes?
11. Is DOGE approval required for fire camp contractors, such as caterers, medical personnel, or providers of portable toilets and showers?
Thank you for your attention to this important matter. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact my staff at (202) 224-4971.
Sincerely,
Source: United States Senator for New Mexico Martin Heinrich
WASHINGTON — Today, U.S. Senator Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) joined the New Mexico Congressional Delegation and Tina Cordova, Co-Founder of the Tularosa Basin Downwinders Consortium, to mark the one-year anniversary since the Radiation Exposure Compensation (RECA) Reauthorization Act, legislation to compensate Americans exposed to radiation by government nuclear programs, expired after Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives failed to reauthorize RECA in June 2024.
Heinrich has reintroduced legislation to extend and expand RECA since his first Senate term, starting in 2013.
“In the year since the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act expired, thousands of Americans lost compensation for health conditions caused by radiation exposure on behalf of our national security. And thousands of additional victims, victims who were never adequately compensated under the original bill, lost their chance to finally be included,” said Heinrich. “Our federal government has a moral responsibility to support Americans that helped defend our country– and it has a moral responsibility to include all people who were exposed. That begins with reauthorizing RECA and amending it to include those who have been left out for far too long. To the families impacted: keep telling your stories. Keep raising your voices. Together, that’s how we’ll reintroduce RECA, and it’s how we will make it the law of the land.”
In January, Heinrich joined U.S. Senators Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.) and Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), along with U.S. Senators Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.), and Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) to reintroduce their Radiation Exposure Compensation (RECA) Reauthorization Act to compensate Americans exposed to radiation by government nuclear programs.
Despite the Senate passing this bill last Congress, the House of Representatives failed to pass RECA reauthorization before its expiration deadline in June 2024.
Last fall, Heinrich joined Luján and U.S. Representatives Teresa Leger Fernández (D-N.M.), Melanie Stansbury (D-N.M.), and Gabe Vasquez (D-N.M.), and advocates and survivors who traveled all the way across the country from New Mexico for a press conference calling on Speaker Mike Johnson to hold a vote on a Senate-passed bill that would strengthen RECA.
Heinrich also pressed Speaker Mike Johnson to immediately take up the Senate-passed and fully comprehensive RECA extension in a bipartisan, bicameral letter.
In March 2024, Heinrich delivered remarks on the Senate floor urging his colleagues to reauthorize and expand RECA. Later that day, Heinrich secured Senate passage of bipartisan legislation to reauthorize and expand RECA to compensate individuals exposed to radiation while working in uranium mines or living downwind from atomic weapons tests.
Heinrich’s remarks from today, as prepared for delivery, are below:
It’s been one full year since the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act expired.
And not only have thousands of Americans lost compensation for health conditions caused by radiation exposure on behalf of our national security.
But thousands of additional victims, victims who were never adequately compensated under the original bill, also lost their chance to finally be included.
These victims include Tularosa Downwinders who were exposed to the Trinity Test in New Mexico;
All of the uranium workers who were exposed to radiation in service to our nation’s defense, not just the miners;
And all Americans who were directly impacted by our nation’s nuclear testing program, across the country and around the world.
Those Americans include people like my father. When he served in the Navy, my dad witnessed two above-ground nuclear tests in the Marshall Islands.
It was only later in life that we began to understand how much his health challenges were tied to those tests.
Our federal government has a moral responsibility to support Americans that helped defend our country– and it has a moral responsibility to include all people who were exposed.
That begins with reauthorizing RECA and amending it to include those who have been left out for far too long.
To the families impacted: keep telling your stories. Keep raising your voices.
Together, that’s how we’ll reintroduce RECA, and it’s how we will make it the law of the land.
Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –
Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
Xinhua | 11.06. 2025
Key words: China-USA
Source: Xinhua
Lightning: China’s international trade negotiator hopes progress made at London meeting will boost trust between China and the US, better develop economic, trade ties Lightning: China’s international trade negotiator hopes progress made at London meeting will boost trust between China and the US, better develop economic, trade ties
Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –
Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
LONDON, June 11 (Xinhua) — China and the United States have had professional, rational, in-depth and frank exchanges of views over the past two days, a senior Chinese official said Tuesday.
Li Chenggang, China’s international trade negotiator and vice minister of commerce, made the remarks at a press briefing after the first meeting of the China-US Economic and Trade Consultation Mechanism held in London.
The two sides agreed on a fundamental framework for implementing the consensus reached by the two heads of state during their telephone talks on June 5 and during the talks in Geneva, Li Chenggang said.
He said it is hoped that the progress made at the London meeting will help strengthen trust between China and the United States and further promote the sustainable and healthy development of economic and trade ties between the two countries. –0–
