Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kiera Vaclavik, Professor of Children’s Literature & Childhood Culture, Queen Mary University of London
This spring, Babe is returning to cinemas to mark the 30th anniversary of its release in 1995. The much-loved family film tells the deceptively simple but emotionally powerful story of a piglet who saves his bacon through intelligence, kindness and hard work.
Babe becomes the trusted ally of both farmer and farmyard animals and, like so many Hollywood heroes before and since, he refuses to stay in his lane.
It’s a film which, on paper, really shouldn’t work and which sounds alarm bells to any self-respecting children’s literature scholar like me. It takes an expertly crafted English children’s book with tasteful black-and-white illustrations – Dick King-Smith’s The Sheep Pig (1983) – and turns it into an all-singing, all-dancing technicolour extravaganza.
Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.
The film inserts new episodes and characters – an evil cat, a plucky duck and (most alarmingly) a brace of brattish kids. And it replaces a perfectly good, does-what-it-says-on-the-tin book title with the cutesy moniker of the piglet star.
It shouldn’t work … but it really, really does. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that it’s one of the most successful film adaptations of a children’s book of all time.
It met with both commercial and critical success, making over US$254 million at the box office and being nominated for no less than seven Academy Awards, one of which it secured for visual effects.
So, what exactly is so special about Babe? It was one of the first films which, thanks to the then-cutting edge combination of animatronics and visual effects, delivered convincing talking animals who, endowed with the gift of speech, could themselves “look like movie stars”. But with all the jaw-dropping technological advances of the last 30 years, how has this film managed to stand the test of time so well?
The answer in part is that its source material is exceptionally strong. The Sheep Pig is written with restraint and economy, but also great warmth and relish. King-Smith has immense fun, wallowing in words like the proverbial pig in muck, and putting it all to the service of a story whose core values are easy to get behind. The Sheep Pig is a soft-power parable which advocates for brains over brawn, for respectful communication and common decency.
But the excellence of a film’s bookish bedrock is no guarantee of success. Indeed, the brilliance of a book can often be something of a liability. Think of Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland, or any of the film and TV adaptations of Noel Streatfeild’s superb Ballet Shoes. With Babe, though, the book is catalyst rather than straitjacket, an enabling prompt which initiates a new work of equal strength and quality.
The pacing is well judged, the look of the film lush, and there are several actual laugh-out-loud moments – including the duck’s panicked realisation that “Christmas means carnage!” Above all, it’s a film with immense emotional intelligence and power.
Recognised for its visual effects, it also succeeds in large part because of the strength of its soundscape and score. There’s one scene in particular which really soars, and which takes on the elephant in the room: the human habit of eating pigs.
Babe is so shocked and upset on learning this fact from the evil cat (who else?) that he loses the will not just to win in the sheepdog trial, but to live at all. The supremely taciturn Father Hoggett must act to make amends and save his pig protégé.
In an astonishingly moving act of love, this man of few words takes the sickly and sick-at-heart pig onto his lap and sings to him. At first a gentle crooning, the farmer’s expression of care and affection soon swells to an out-and-out bellow, accompanied by a wild, caution-to-the-wind dance.
It’s difficult to imagine a more lyrically apt song than the 1977 reggae-inflected hit based on the powerful tune of Camille Saint-Saëns’ Symphony No. 3 in C Minor: “If I had words”, it begins. It’s a moment of huge emotional force and intensity, in which the gaping abyss of age and species difference are bridged through music and dance.
James Cromwell as Farmer Hoggett, here and throughout the film, is tremendous, his reserved performance a key factor in its success. The role – which he almost didn’t take because of the paucity of lines – was career-defining, and prompted personal epiphanies which flow naturally from this scene.
First, Cromwell never ate meat again. Second, he has spoken (with visible emotion) of the delivery of the film’s final pithy-but-powerful line of approbation – “That’ll do pig, that’ll do” – as a moment of communion with his father on catching sight of his own artificially aged reflection in the camera lens. “My life changed, and I owe it to a pig,” the actor concludes.
Babe is a film and an adaptation with many qualities. It’s wholesome without ever being sickly. But above all, it has an emotional force which worked on actors and audiences alike and which, 30 years later, remains undiminished.
Kiera Vaclavik 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.
Defendant and Co-Conspirator Both Sentenced to Prison for Conspiring to Send Controlled Aircraft Components to Russia
Oleg Sergeyevhich Patsulya, a Russian national, was sentenced today to 70 months, or nearly six years, in prison for his role in a conspiracy to export controlled aviation technology to Russia and to launder money in connection with the illegal export scheme. In December 2024, Patsulya’s co-conspirator, Russian national Vasilii Sergeyevich Besedin, was sentenced to two years in prison for his role in the scheme.
In April 2024, Patsulya, 46, of Miami-Dade County, Florida, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to export items from the United States without a license in violation of the Export Control Reform Act and conspiracy to commit international money laundering. At today’s sentencing hearing, U.S. District Court Judge Dominic W. Lanza for the District of Arizona. found that Patsulya was an organizer and leader of the conspiracy and that the money laundering scheme – which employed numerous shell companies, offshore accounts, and multi-layered transactions – was sophisticated in nature, which led to the application of sentencing enhancements.
In handing down Patsulya’s 70-month sentence, Judge Lanza emphasized the seriousness of the offense, Patsulya’s leadership role in planning and carrying it out, and the fact that Patsulya committed these crimes not long after being granted the privilege of a visa to enter the United States. “It’s hard to imagine a bigger betrayal of the United States than what you did,” Judge Lanza said. The proceedings also established that Patsulya currently lacks legal status to be present in the United States.
According to court documents, beginning in or about May 2022, Patsulya and Besedin conspired with each other and several others to obtain orders for various aircraft parts and components from Russian buyers – primarily commercial airline companies – and then fulfill those requests by acquiring the parts from the U.S. suppliers and unlawfully exporting the parts to Russia. The defendants admitted to knowing the items were controlled and required a license from the Department of Commerce to export.
As part of the scheme, the defendants conspired to export multiple shipments of a carbon disc brake system used on Boeing 737 aircraft. When they contacted various U.S. suppliers in efforts to obtain the brake system, Besedin and Patsulya provided false information that the parts were intended for countries other than Russia. The United States was able to detain, prior to export, multiple shipments made by the defendants containing units of the brake assembly technology.
As part of their guilty pleas, Besedin and Patsulya admitted that they attempted to conceal the illegal exports and avoid detection by law enforcement, including by making false representations about the identities of their true customers and using straw buyer-companies located overseas to obscure the origin of revenue. For example, on Sept. 8, 2022, Besedin and Patsulya traveled to Arizona to close a deal with a U.S. company, in which the defendants sought to purchase units of the brake assembly technology. During their discussions with the company, the defendants misrepresented that the aircraft parts were going to be exported to Turkey, when they were in fact destined for Russia. The defendants made false statements to the company both orally and in signed export compliance forms. In connection with this transaction, the defendants received money from a Russian airline company to make the purchase. The funds were transferred to Patsulya’s American bank account from a Turkish bank account that had previously received the money from Russia.
In total, throughout the conspiracy, American bank accounts associated with MIC P&I LLC, Patsulya’s company, received at least $4,582,288.51 sent from Russian airline companies through Turkish bank accounts to purchase aircraft parts and components intended for unlawful export. As part of his plea and sentence, Patsulya is required to forfeit assets, including a luxury car and personal boat, in the amount of $4,582,288.51.
Sue Bai, head of the Justice Department’s National Security Division, U.S. Attorney Timothy Courchaine for the District of Arizona, Assistant Director Roman Rozhavsky of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division, and Special Agent in Charge Richard Fitzpatrick of the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) Phoenix Field Office made the announcement.
The BIS Phoenix Field Office and the FBI Phoenix Field Office investigated the case, with valuable assistance provided by the BIS Boston Field Office, the FBI Miami Field Office, Homeland Security Investigations Phoenix Field Office, Customs and Border Protection-Phoenix Field Office, and the U.S. Marshals Office in Miami.
Trial Attorney Christopher M. Rigali of the National Security Division’s Counterintelligence and Export Control Section and Assistant U.S. Attorney William G. Voit for the District of Arizona prosecuted the case.
This case was coordinated through the Disruptive Technology Strike Force, an interagency law enforcement strike force co-led by the Departments of Justice and Commerce designed to target illicit actors, protect supply chains, and prevent critical technology from being acquired by authoritarian regimes and hostile nation-states. The Strike Force leverages tools and authorities across the U.S. government to enhance the criminal and administrative enforcement of export control laws.
Source: United States Senator for Washington State Patty Murray
ICYMI: Murray Statement on Trump & Elon Plans to Decimate VA, Firing 80,000 Employees and Putting Veterans’ Care in Grave Danger
ICYMI: Senator Murray, VA Researchers, Employees, Contractors in WA State Slam Trump & Elon’s Plans to Decimate VA With Further Mass Layoffs, Harm Services Veterans Rely On
***Report HERE***
Washington, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), a senior member and former Chair of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee, released a new report detailing how President Trump and Elon Musk’s reckless mass firings at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) are already harming veterans’ services and health care in Washington state and across the country.
Senator Murray has been outspoken in standing up for veterans, VA employees, and VA researchers against Trump and Elon Musk’s indiscriminate mass layoffs that will undermine critical services our nation’s veterans rely on every day. Senator Murray, a senior member and former Chair of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee, was among the first to raise the alarm about the layoffs of VA researchers and called on President Trump to immediately reverse the firings. She pressed VA Deputy Secretary nominee Dr. Paul Lawrence on the firings of VA researchers at the hearing on his nomination last week, held a press conference with a VA employee and veteran in Seattle who was abruptly laid off as part of the mass firings with zero justification, and put out a fact sheet on how the indiscriminate mass firings were hurting workers in Washington state, including VA researchers. In January, Murray and others called on President Trump to exempt all VA employees from the hiring freeze issued as part of his Day One Executive Orders.
The full report is available HERE and below:
National View: The Department of Veterans Affairs
The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs serves approximately nine million enrolled veterans every year. Washington state alone has around 232,000 veterans enrolled in the VA health care system. Its mission is to provide comprehensive care, support, and benefits to veterans of the United States military and their families. Core VA benefits and services include: health care including medical, mental health, and rehabilitation care; benefits and compensation including disability compensation, pensions, educational assistance, and housing loans; and burial and memorial services, including access to national cemeteries.
Like the rest of the federal government, VA employs high numbers of veterans and military spouses compared to private sector employers. Veterans make up 30% of the federal workforce, and the federal government is the largest single employer of veterans in the country.
On February 13, 2024, VA Secretary Collins terminated 1,000 VA employees, including a substantial number of veterans and military spouses, without cause.Then on February 24, Secretary Collins carried out another round of illegal terminations of VA employees. This mass firing brought the total number of fired VA employees to 2,400. Of those fired, a large proportion were themselves veterans and military spouses. On March 4, a leaked internal VA memo showed that Secretary Collins planned to terminate an estimated 83,000 employees – likely including an estimated 20,000 veterans – by the end of September of this year. This plan to reduce the VA workforce to September 2019 levels, coupled with the ongoing hiring freeze and illegal terminations of probationary employees, will be catastrophic for the agency, its workforce, and for the veterans, caregivers, and survivors it serves.
These measures will reverse the progress made by the previous Administration, during which VA was able to deliver more care and benefits to more veterans than ever before. It would roll back the progress and massive expansion of care and benefits from the bipartisan PACT Act, the largest expansion of VA health care and benefits in decades. These mass firings also threaten to erode recent progress in lowering the veteran unemployment rate, which has been a longstanding, bipartisan priority.
The Department of Veterans Affairs Provides Necessary Services and Has Ripple Effects Across Washington State
Before these mass firings, the VA was already experiencing staff shortages. The recent additional staffing and funding cuts will exacerbate these shortages and negatively impact the care veterans receive.
Former VA employees describe likely irreversible damage to the VA system, including loss of innovation and increased strain on already scarce staff time and resources.
Future Zhou, a disabled Army veteran who worked as an Inventory Manager at the Puget Sound VA Medical Center in Washington state, was abruptly let go due to recent workforce cuts imposed by the Trump Administration. By eliminating inventory management positions, understaffed nurses will now be burdened with additional responsibilities as they work to provide top-notch care with already limited time. Veteran patients will need to wait longer for medication and equipment they need while they are receiving care.
“Unfortunately, I was not alone. Five other logistics personnel in our probationary phase were dismissed within hours of me, two mail clerks and three supply techs. The unprofessional manner in which these decisions were executed was incredibly disrespectful. I have since visited my office—because I still receive my care at the Seattle VA—and witnessed firsthand the undue stress and devastation that these indiscriminate firings have caused. Our supply team is now more than seven days behind on placing critical supply requests for medication and equipment in our hospital, and our supply techs have had to cut their night shifts, limiting deliveries to our clinics. I saw nurses going down to the warehouse to collect their own supplies in order to continue to provide quality care to our veterans. I am not confident that the hospital can remain open under these conditions.”
Christian Helfrich, who served twenty years with the Puget Sound VA Medical Center as a research investigator, was one of seven research employees laid off because their research terms were not renewed due to the hiring freeze.
“In terms of what the effect will be on veterans… it’s not having innovative care developed in the VA, like pulmonary teams using the Electronic Health Record to identify problems for veterans before they happen, preventing things like pneumonia, and it’s not doing things like having people systematically identifying problems with the new Oracle Electronic Health Record… Research is an investment in the future—and if we don’t invest in research today, we are not investing in the future of the VA. And I’ll just add, what’s going on right now isn’t a two-way door where you can tear down the VA and then see what happens, and if you don’t like it, go back to the way it was. This is a one-way door —if we tear it down now, it is going to take years or decades to build back.”
Raphael Garcia, a 100% disabled Army veteran and combat engineer, was abruptly fired from his role as a management analyst with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs by the current administration.
“I swore an oath to serve our country—first in the U.S. Army and then at the VA—only to be suddenly terminated by the very institution that promised to care for those who have served … Removing key personnel, not only delays claim processing, it erodes the institutional knowledge built over years of service, and sacrifices the care and compassion our veterans deserve.”
All three of these VA employees provided essential services to improve the health and lives of veterans. Without these staff and the other dedicated VA employees who were unduly fired, health care access and disability claim decisions will be delayed, services will be eliminated, and overall care for veterans will be negatively impacted.
One veteran, who is a prominent member and advocate in his local veteran service organization, confirmed that these cuts will further stress these systems that veterans rely on.
Joshua Schrek is an Iraq and Afghanistan veteran who now lives in Renton, Washington and serves as a Judge Advocate General of the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW). He’s been active in the VFW for over 15 years, previously serving at the post, district, and department levels, including previously being the Department of Washington VFW state Chief of Staff. His comments represent his own views and not those of VFW.
“I have received information directly from an employee at the Seattle VA who expressed serious concerns. He shared that his department is responsible for overseeing 46 veteran-facing products and services, including My HealtheVet, Community Care Billing, Enrollment & Eligibility, and the Veterans Crisis Line. Out of 140 authorized positions, only 65 are filled – expected to drop to 59. He also noted that they rely on over 700 contractors, and with contract cancellations happening centrally and without local input, there’s a risk these systems could go offline with no available staff to restore them.”
“The situation has the potential to affect not only veterans but also the families who rely on VA support systems. If services like benefits processing, crisis response, and access to medical care are interrupted, it creates stress and instability for those trying to navigate an already complex system. One particularly alarming note shared with me was that if some systems break, they may ‘stay down indefinitely’ due to a lack of technical staff to fix them.”
The Trump Administration is Damaging Veterans’ Access to Care for Years to Come
Trump and Musk are putting the health care and benefits veterans have earned in grave danger. They are firing tens of thousands of people responsible for administering the services and care that over nine million veterans enrolled in VA health care across the country count on—and it’s a breach of the sacred commitment we make to our veterans to take care of them when they return home. These arbitrary mass layoffs, at the very least, are going to mean longer processing times for disability or education claims veterans are desperately waiting on and longer wait times for veterans to see a healthcare provider—to say nothing of the serious threat to patient safety or the threat of VA medical centers closing. For example, the Puget Sound VA already has 40 mental health position vacancies, 14 of which are psychology positions. Firing additional employees will only further decrease access to mental health care. The consequences will reverberate for generations—more veterans sick and unable to get their benefits, more veterans out of a job, and fewer men and women willing to sign up to serve a nation that shows it will not keep their promises to them.
Source: United States Senator for New Mexico Martin Heinrich
WASHINGTON – During opening remarks in a Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee nomination hearing to consider James Danly for the U.S. Deputy Secretary of the Department of Energy (DOE), and Katharine MacGregor for the U.S. Deputy Secretary of the Department of Interior (DOI), U.S. Senator Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Ranking Member of the Committee, sought commitments from the nominees to follow the law as enacted by Congress.
VIDEO: Heinrich Delivers Opening Remarks in Hearing to Consider James Danley for Deputy Energy Secretary and Katharine MacGregor for Deputy Interior Secretary, April 2, 2025.
Heinrich began his remarks by sounding off on reports that Elon Musk’s “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE) is considering to illegally rescind funding passed into law and cancel or renegotiate existing funding contracts with companies, some of which fund projects already under construction.
Heinrich then stressed to the nominees the costly consequences to American families of terminating investments passed into law by Congress,
“It is estimated that more than 50,000 energy jobs have already been lost under Trump’s watch. The Administration’s actions are also constricting the fastest-growing and most affordable power sources, just as demand from manufacturing and data center growth is surging, meaning that energy costs will soar. Electricity prices are already on track to be the highest they have been since the 1990s.”
Heinrich continued by highlighting the harm Donald Trump and Elon Musk’s DOGE has inflicted on families, cost of living, and our public lands.
Heinrich concluded by urging the nominees to answer how they will return their departments to a path of public service, securing American leadership and competitiveness, and responsible stewardship of our natural resources.
Senator Heinrich’s full remarks as prepared for delivery are below.
Thank you, Chairman Lee. And welcome Ms. MacGregor and Mr. Danly. Before we get to Commitee business, I do want to address the troubling reports that DOE is considering cancelling or renegotiating existing funding contracts with companies, some of which are under construction.
As I wrote to Secretary Wright in a letter, and I will remind Mr. Danly and Ms. MacGregor today, the decision to rescind these awards rests with Congress, not with the President or Elon Musk.
However, even before these so-called “kill lists” were leaked, we already started seeing the economic impact of the Administration’s reckless actions. It is estimated that more than 50,000 energy jobs have already been lost under Trump’s watch.
The Administration’s actions are also constricting the fastest-growing and most affordable power sources, just as demand from manufacturing and data center growth is surging, meaning that energy prices will soar. Electricity prices are already on track to be the highest they have been since the 1990s. Terminating projects in the name of ‘energy dominance’ is not only ludicrous, it will lead to higher energy costs for households.
All of this is only the newest phase in this administration’s campaign of chaos at federal agencies and actions that are raising energy costs.
Both the Interior and Energy Departments have been subject to whiplash in just the last two months–
–from illegally firing thousand of employees only to be required to rehire them–to announcements that agency buildings would be closed or sold, or maybe not.
— to freezing grant funds and canceling contracts in contravention of federal law, only to see some unfrozen…while others still remain inexplicably frozen
This has got to be the least efficient way to run a government.
For the Department of the Interior, all of this mismanagement has real on-the-ground impacts for people and communities.
We’ve seen closed visitors centers and overflowing trash cans at parks.
Field offices have shorter hours, and it’s harder for people to reach front line staff when they have questions.
Small businesses are worried about if their permits will be processed.
Scientists are struggling to cover expenses because the federal government has backed out of contracts.
Our public lands are the birthright of every American, but if something doesn’t change, and soon, at the agencies that care for them on our behalf, we will lose that birthright.
I have a number of questions today for these two nominees and their plans for the Energy and Interior Departments.
Both departments were created by statute. They were not created at the whim of any President. They do not exist at the President’s pleasure. The laws they execute, the programs they administer, the funds they spend, were enacted, created, and appropriated by law, by Congress.
I will be looking for assurances from both nominees that they are committed to following the law, as enacted by Congress, rather than doing the bidding of Elon Musk.
I hope to hear how they will get these departments returned back to a path of public service, and back on track to securing American leadership and competitiveness, and responsible stewardship of our natural resources.
Thank you, Alan, and thank you to the Griswold and Julis-Rabinowitz Centers for the opportunity to speak to you today.1 As someone who has worked in both the public sector and academia, I applaud the common purpose of both centers in connecting researchers, policymakers, and the private sector to pursue policy ideas that serve the public good.
To that end, I can think of few individuals who have done more—as a teacher, researcher, government official, and public figure—than Alan Blinder. That includes educating the public about economic policymaking. In the spring of 2022, as many wondered whether Russia’s war on Ukraine would add to the factors then driving up inflation, Professor Blinder wrote in the Wall Street Journal that a more important factor would probably be the public’s expectations of future inflation.2 As I will relate in these remarks, he was, of course, absolutely correct. As in the past, inflation expectations have played a crucial role in the course of inflation since the spring of 2022, and I expect they will be important in the Federal Reserve’s ongoing effort to achieve sustained inflation of 2 percent. For that reason, I would like to focus on inflation expectations today, before discussing my outlook for the U.S. economy and the implications for appropriate monetary policy. First, I will describe inflation expectations within the conceptual framework that many economists use to connect inflation to broader economic activity, known as the Phillips curve. Second, I will discuss the central importance of the stability of these expectations, which we have come to call the “anchoring” of inflation expectations. Third, I will explain how firms and households form their inflation expectations and how these expectations affect their economic decisionmaking. Throughout, I will make some references to historical experiences with inflation but focus on the period since the pandemic. Economists have long recognized the connection between inflation and overall macroeconomic conditions, but it was in trying to explain this empirical relationship and measure it with some precision that the importance of inflation expectations was revealed. The foundation of this work was laid by New Zealand economist A.W. Phillips, a fascinating figure who was, among other things, a mechanical genius who built an early economic model operated by hydraulics rather than electronics. In contemplating the mechanics of the economy, in 1958 Phillips set about to explain why nominal wage growth was slower when unemployment was high and faster when unemployment was low. His and other subsequent research showed that a crucial factor was the utilization of resources, such as labor and capital.3 Generally, when firms use labor and capital very intensively, production costs tend to rise, and firms have more scope to pass those cost increases along in the form of higher prices for their products and services, which, in turn, may push up inflation across the economy. In contrast, when that level of utilization is low, costs tend to rise more slowly (or even fall), and firms have less scope for raising prices, thus pushing down inflation. This tradeoff has been called the Phillips curve. In this simple form, this tradeoff implies that governments can achieve and maintain very low unemployment only if they allow inflation to rise to a certain level. In the latter 1960s, Milton Friedman and Edmund Phelps asserted that this orderly tradeoff was only temporary and would ultimately break down because of the role of expectations and, in particular, inflation expectations.4 To use an example, while current production costs are important to a factory owner setting prices, that owner will also consider future production costs, future levels of demand, and expectations for inflation throughout the economy. Likewise, workers will factor expectations of future economic conditions into their pay demands, and banks will consider future inflation in deciding loan rates. Consumers, whose purchases constitute some two-thirds of economic activity, make decisions about whether to purchase something today with an idea of what it will cost in the future. All these decisions are influenced by expectations, and this is the way in which expectations may shape inflation now. In turn, when we think about the Phillips curve and its tradeoff nowadays, we account for the important role of expectations of different individuals throughout the economy. There are different measures of inflation expectations, some from surveys polling business owners, others asking consumers, and yet others estimating expectations among bond investors based on the differences in yields between nominal and inflation-indexed securities. While most of my points apply broadly to all measures of expectations, my examples come mostly from surveys of consumers and businesses. While there are questions, which I will address, about how well these surveys measure inflation expectations, I closely monitor them because they complement market-based indicators of future inflation that are affected by dynamics intrinsic to financial markets, such as changes in risk premiums. Let me note that, in addition to the way expectations of future inflation influence prices in the near term, there are economic mechanisms that link current inflation with past inflation, such as those that set wages and the terms of rental contracts. In these cases, adjustments in these terms are often benchmarked on past inflation, as, for instance, when workers and landlords aim to recoup losses from increases in general prices. To cite one example, as the economy reopened after the pandemic, workers sought higher wages to compensate for the early wave of inflation in food and core goods, thus further pushing up inflation, especially in the services sector, where labor accounts for the largest share of this sector’s costs.5 And, because rental agreements typically last for 12 months or more, landlords faced a lag in adjusting rents to reflect the escalation of inflation after the pandemic and sought to recoup those losses when renewing leases. By looking at price changes this way, in a rearview mirror, some decisionmakers in the economy end up making inflation more persistent. That is important to me as an economic policymaker who must pay attention to both expectations of future inflation and the persistence of current inflation. When we speak of expectations of future inflation, it is crucial to define the time horizon, and different surveys conducted by the Federal Reserve and others ask about inflation from 1 year to as many as 10 years in the future. Surveys with a shorter horizon, such as the University of Michigan Surveys of Consumers’ question on inflation 1 year ahead, shown in figure 1, are heavily influenced by current inflation. Near-term inflation expectations tend to be more volatile, moving up when, for example, energy prices increase, or down when energy or some other volatile set of prices decreases. These expectations are important because many economic decisions, such as major consumer purchases and hiring and investment for firms, focus on horizons of only a few years ahead. By contrast, inflation expectations over longer horizons, such as the Michigan survey’s question on inflation during the next 5 to 10 years (the red line in figure 1), say less about current conditions than about the trend for inflation for some time in the future. You can think about these longer-term expectations as much less affected by the forces that push inflation up or down in the short term, what economists call “shocks.” Longer-term inflation expectations tend to be less volatile, affected less, for example, by what oil or food prices have done lately than by the stability of inflation over years or decades. I mention these different time horizons because they matter in my job as a central banker. Expectations a year from now reflect short-term shocks to the economy, as well as ongoing efforts from monetary policymakers to bring the economy back to its longer-run state. Thus, while short-term expectations may indicate whether inflation is expected to move toward its target, they are not the best gauge of monetary policy credibility. Longer-term inflation expectations, however, should be much less influenced by short-term shocks to the economy, and a change in those expectations has implications for the Federal Reserve’s prospects for meeting its price-stability goal. When these longer-term expectations are reasonably low and unresponsive to shorter-term developments, we say they are “anchored.” It is not clear who first defined the term, but Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke in 2007 gave a speech on inflation expectations in which he described “anchored” expectations as “relatively insensitive to incoming data.”6 So how should we think about the process of anchoring and de-anchoring of inflation expectations? The dynamics of short- and long-term inflation expectations shed light on this issue. If the public experiences a spell of inflation higher than their shorter-run expectations, they will revise up these shorter-term expectations to ensure that their near-term plans account for the change in the economic environment. That’s what happened after the pandemic, when inflation based on personal consumption expenditures (PCE) rose to a peak of 7.2 percent and one-year expectations rose to more than 5 percent. But longer-term inflation expectations remained anchored, with values within the range seen since 1995. I would contrast this experience with the United States’ previous bout of high inflation from the 1970s to the early 1980s. Among other issues, such as high energy prices and accommodative monetary policy, rising inflation and inflation expectations fed a cycle of escalating inflationary pressures.7 Inflation was high and very volatile over this period, and that is reflected in shorter and longer-term inflation expectations that were high and volatile, too. Another important difference between these two episodes has to do with the performance of the Federal Reserve. As opposed to the late 1960s and most of the 1970s, most recently the Fed acted aggressively to tighten monetary policy, raising the federal funds rate more rapidly than in previous tightenings and lowering inflation more quickly than ever before. This came after 30 years of success in keeping inflation in check, and the credibility earned by the Fed’s inflation discipline surely helped keep longer-term expectations stable. This shows that an important role of the central bank is to convince the public, through actions and communications, about its intention to shape economic conditions and to use its policy tools to bring inflation to its target.8 By committing to keep inflation low in the future, central banks seek to influence expectations of future inflation, which, in turn, influence conditions now and over time. The Fed’s credibility in keeping inflation low and stable, won over decades, kept longer-term inflation expectations stable, and that contributed significantly to the Fed’s success in reducing inflation while keeping the labor market strong. Those are some of the basics about inflation expectations and how they influence the economy and the conduct of monetary policy. Next, I want to note some of the patterns we see in survey measures of inflation expectations, what influences expectations, and how inflation expectations are used by the public in their decisionmaking. Fortunately, there is a rich body of economic research that has shed light on these questions, and I will focus on the evidence for households and firms.9 We can then take some lessons from these empirical patterns for monetary policymaking. One important observation is that both short- and long-term inflation expectations are often notably higher than actual inflation, even after a period of very low inflation. There is evidence that survey respondents often believe the inflation they have experienced is higher than it is. Another pattern is that there is a wide dispersion of views about both shorter and longer-term inflation expectations, reflecting, at least in part, the dispersion of inflation in the consumer baskets of goods and services purchased by different people. Research also finds that some groups, such as women and lower-income households, tend to have systematically higher inflation expectations. In addition to this variation in expectations, there is high uncertainty in forecasts of future inflation. When people are asked to assign probabilities to different forecasts for inflation, surveys report wide distributions in the likelihood of one outcome or another. Finally, short-term inflation expectations tend to be correlated with both recently realized inflation and perceptions about recent inflation.10 These patterns tell policymakers that inflation expectations of households and firms are diffuse and likely harder to influence through monetary policy relative to financial market participants and professional forecasters who follow the news more closely. Still, expectations from business owners and workers ultimately inform firms’ pricing decisions and costs and, thus, may even be more relevant for inflation outcomes; therefore, it is important for policymakers to communicate clearly with the public our intentions to bring inflation back to our target.11 So, because inflation expectations are diffuse and heavily influenced by recent experience, let’s consider the reasons for the dispersion in these expectations. Unsurprisingly, it starts with the considerable variation in the sources that the public uses to collect information about inflation. Households report that their main source of information is their own shopping experiences, making regular purchases such as groceries and gasoline, and the price changes in those goods and services are what affect inflation expectations the most.12 Also, it seems that inflation expectations of homeowners tend to respond to changes in mortgage rates because homeowners have more of an incentive to track changes in rates that might affect, for example, their prospects for loan refinancing.13 Another important source of information is energy bills, with evidence also pointing to households’ inflation expectations being more sensitive to energy prices when inflation is higher.14 More generally, consumers and firms seem to pay more attention to news related to inflation when inflation is high, and this has been found for many countries.15 While the unique experiences of survey respondents matter, this evidence points to inflation expectations being dependent on the state of the economy. Thus, we policymakers should account for different economic conditions when assessing the risks of a de-anchoring of inflation expectations. For instance, with fresh memories of the post-pandemic inflation and with recent surges in prices of some food items regularly purchased, inflation expectations of workers and firms may now be more sensitive to anticipated future price increases relative to the pre-pandemic period. Let me now turn to how households and businesses employ their inflation expectations in their economic decisionmaking, with much of the evidence consistent with what one would expect based on long-standing economic theory. Starting with households, in addition to any influence on wages from past inflation, expectations of future inflation help shape demands for pay raises. Workers care about their inflation-adjusted wages, rather than nominal wages, and (as shown in figure 2) we see a positive correlation between inflation expectations from consumers and wage growth, with a close co-movement during the recent inflationary bout. A complementary decision for the worker is to look for a new job that pays more, especially if the person envisions a low probability of getting a raise in the current job or if the raise will likely not fully cover losses in real incomes from inflation. Indeed, measures of general wage growth are more sluggish relative to those of job switchers. Moreover, researchers also find evidence of higher job-to-job transitions for workers who have higher inflation expectations.16 So inflation expectations of workers are an important influence on nominal wage growth and an important indicator of inflationary pressures for us policymakers. Now let’s consider how these expectations influence firms’ decisions. As I discussed in the context of the Phillips curve, firms with higher inflation expectations would be expected to increase prices more, and, indeed, researchers find causal evidence for this.17 During the recent period of high inflation, the fact that business owners’ short-term expectations about costs or input prices rose only modestly and soon returned to levels close to 2 percent just suggests that firms’ inflation expectations were not a strong source of inflationary pressures (as seen in figure 3). Still, researchers at the Richmond Fed also found that during this period, business leaders incorporated more information about aggregate inflation measures in their own pricing decisions compared with times before the pandemic inflation surge.18 While researchers also find that business leaders paid less attention to inflation as it came down, this evidence points to the inflation expectations of businesses being sensitive to underlying inflationary dynamics, and monetary policymakers should remain attentive to this. Now let me turn to the recent developments in inflation expectations, the current U.S. economic outlook, and the implications for monetary policy. In recent months, we have seen several measures of inflation expectations increase, with both consumers and businesses reporting new and proposed tariffs as an important reason. Among surveys looking one year ahead, there have been notable increases for surveys by the University of Michigan, the Conference Board survey of consumers, the Atlanta Fed’s survey of businesses, the Philadelphia Fed’s Survey of Professional Forecasters, and the New York Fed’s consumer survey. For instance, last Friday’s release of longer-term inflation expectations from the Michigan survey was the highest since February 1993. Additionally, the recent spike in short-term inflation expectations appears to be mostly “anticipatory,” as one can infer from the divergence between falling inflation perceptions—what consumers think price increases have been in the past year—and climbing short-run inflation expectations, both data from the Michigan survey. This anticipatory nature of the recent increase in short-run expectations may allow for price pressures through a second channel: Businesses may feel a greater ability to pass along higher costs to consumers when they come from external factors out of the control of these businesses. Indeed, firms are already reporting not only higher costs, but also expectations of higher costs, according to some surveys, such as the one conducted by the Atlanta Fed, along with other manufacturing surveys. For now, I take some comfort from the much smaller increases in longer-term expectations as measured by the Philadelphia Fed’s Survey of Professional Forecasters, as well as the stability of longer-term measures of what we call inflation compensation, which is based on yields from nominal and inflation-indexed Treasury securities. As in past episodes when inflation expectations increased, uncertainty about future inflation seems to have also gone up, as measured by the disagreement between the 75th and 25th percentiles of the distribution of individual respondents to the Michigan survey. Simultaneously, in recent months, we have also seen measures of economic policy uncertainty increase (seen in figure 4), and there is evidence that policy uncertainty and inflation uncertainty correlate over time.19 One possibility is that policy uncertainty may be contributing to a rise in inflation expectations as well as to uncertainty about future inflation. Still, it is hard to say at this point, and I will keep monitoring these developments. Let me turn from developments on expected inflation to realized inflation. After the substantial decline in inflation from its peak in 2022, recent disinflation has been slower, and the latest data indicate that progress toward the Federal Open Market Committee’s (FOMC) 2 percent goal may have stalled. Core PCE inflation was 2.8 percent in the 12 months ended in February, which puts us back at the same level seen in the last quarter of 2024. The best news for February comes from housing services inflation, which has come down steadily for at least a year to a 12‑month rate of 4.3 percent, even if it is still above the pre-pandemic level of 2.5 percent. For the rest of the inflation categories, the news was less positive. Core goods inflation, which had been negative for a large share of 2024, increased to 0.4 percent relative to a year before. February likely also marked an upward shift in market-based services inflation. While I do not discount price pressures in nonmarket services, which remain elevated, the acceleration in market-based services in February from an estimated 3.1 percent to 3.5 percent is also not welcome, given that this category often provides a better signal of inflationary pressures across all services. On the other side of the FOMC’s dual mandate, employment continues to grow at a moderate pace, and the overall labor market has remained resilient through February. The net 151,000 jobs added last month was not too far from the 177,000 average of the previous six months. The unemployment rate ticked up to 4.1 percent, and labor force participation moved down to 62.4 percent. Other labor market indicators suggest continued moderation in the labor market but not significant weakening. Given the recent lack of progress on inflation, recent increases in inflation expectations, and upside risks associated with announced and prospective policy changes, I strongly supported the FOMC’s decision at our March meeting to maintain the target range for the federal funds rate at 4-1/4 to 4-1/2 percent. I will support maintaining the current policy rate for as long as these upside risks to inflation continue, while economic activity and employment remain stable. Going forward, I will carefully assess incoming data, the evolving outlook, and changes in the balance of risks. Thank you.
1. The views expressed here are my own and are not necessarily those of my colleagues on the Federal Reserve Board or the Federal Open Market Committee. Return to text 2. See Alan S. Blinder (2022), “Wish the Fed Luck as It Seeks a Soft Landing on Inflation,” Wall Street Journal, April 6. Return to text 3. For a literature review on the relationship between inflation and resource utilization, also called the slope of the Phillips curve, see Francesco Furlanetto and Antoine Lepetit (2024), “The Slope of the Phillips Curve (PDF),” Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2024-043 (Washington: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May). Return to text 4. See Milton Friedman (1968), “The Role of Monetary Policy,” American Economic Review, vol. 58 (March), pp. 1–17; and Edmund S. Phelps (1967), “Phillips Curves, Expectations of Inflation and Optimal Unemployment over Time,” Economica, vol. 34 (135), pp. 254–81. Return to text 5. For a discussion about the timing of the inflation waves of different categories, see Adriana D. Kugler (2025), “Navigating Inflation Waves: A Phillips Curve Perspective,” speech delivered at the Whittington Lecture, McCourt School of Public Policy, Georgetown University, Washington, February 20. Return to text 6. See Ben S. Bernanke (2007), “Inflation Expectations and Inflation Forecasting,” speech delivered at the Monetary Economics Workshop of the National Bureau of Economic Research Summer Institute, Cambridge, Mass., July 10, quoted text in paragraph 7. Return to text 7. For evidence on how longer-run inflation expectations may be driven by short-run inflation surprises, see Carlos Carvalho, Stefano Eusepi, Emanuel Moench, and Bruce Preston (2023), “Anchored Inflation Expectations,” American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, vol. 15 (January), pp. 1–47. Return to text 8. For a survey on how central banks communicate with the general public and the effectiveness of such communications, see Alan S. Blinder, Michael Ehrmann, Jakob de Haan, and David-Jan Jansen (2024), “Central Bank Communication with the General Public: Promise or False Hope?” Journal of Economic Literature, vol. 62 (June), pp. 425–57. Return to text 9. For a literature review on this topic, see Michael Weber, Francesco D’Acunto, Yuriy Gorodnichenko, and Olivier Coibion (2022), “The Subjective Inflation Expectations of Households and Firms: Measurement, Determinants, and Implications,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 36 (Summer), pp. 157–84. Return to text 10. See David Lebow and Ekaterina Peneva (2024), “Inflation Perceptions during the Covid Pandemic and Recovery,” FEDS Notes (Washington: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, January 19). Return to text 11. See Ricardo Reis (2023), “Four Mistakes in the Use of Measures of Expected Inflation,” AEA Papers and Proceedings, vol. 113 (May), pp. 47–51. Return to text 12. See Francesco D’Acunto, Ulrike Malmendier, Juan Ospina, and Michael Weber (2021), “Exposure to Grocery Prices and Inflation Expectations,” Journal of Political Economy, vol. 129 (May), pp. 1615–39. Return to text 13. See Hie Joo Ahn, Shihan Xie, and Choongryul Yang (2024). “Effects of Monetary Policy on Household Expectations: The Role of Homeownership,” Journal of Monetary Economics, vol. 147 (October), 103599. Return to text 14. See Francesco D’Acunto and Michael Weber (2024), “Why Survey-Based Subjective Expectations Are Meaningful and Important,” Annual Review of Economics, vol. 16 (August), pp. 329–57. For evidence on the higher sensitivity of inflation expectations when inflation is higher, see Paula Patzelt and Ricardo Reis (2024), “Estimating the Rise in Expected Inflation from Higher Energy Prices,” CEPR Discussion Paper 18907 (Paris: Centre for Economic Policy Research, March). Return to text 15. See, for instance, Anat Bracha and Jenny Tang (2024), “Inflation Levels and (In)Attention,” Review of Economic Studies; and Michael Weber, Bernardo Candia, Hassan Afrouzi, Tiziano Ropele, Rodrigo Lluberas, Serafin Frache, Brent Meyer, Saten Kumar, Yuriy Gorodnichenko, Dimitris Georgarakos, Olivier Coibion, Geoff Kenny, and Jorge Ponce (2025), “Tell Me Something I Don’t Already Know: Learning in Low‐ and High‐Inflation Settings,” Econometrica, vol. 93 (January), pp. 229–64. Return to text 16. See Ina Hajdini, Edward S. Knotek II, John Leer, Mathieu Pedemonte, Robert W. Rich, and Raphael S. Schoenle (2022), “Low Passthrough from Inflation Expectations to Income Growth Expectations: Why People Dislike Inflation,” Working Paper Series 22-21 (Cleveland: Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, June); and Laura Pilossoph and Jane M. Ryngaert (2024), “Job Search, Wages, and Inflation,” NBER Working Paper Series 33042 (Cambridge, Mass.: National Bureau of Economic Research, October). Return to text 17. For the relationship between inflation expectations and pricing decisions, see Olivier Coibion, Yuriy Gorodnichenko, and Tiziano Ropele (2020), “Inflation Expectations and Firm Decisions: New Causal Evidence,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 135 (February), pp. 165–219. Return to text 18. For evidence on the recent inflationary episode, see Felipe F. Schwartzman and Sonya Ravindranath Waddell (2024), “Inflation Expectations and Price Setting among Fifth District Firms,” Economic Brief 24‑03 (Richmond: Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, January). Return to text 19. For evidence on how policy uncertainty and inflation uncertainty correlate over time, see Carola C. Binder (2017), “Measuring Uncertainty Based on Rounding: New Method and Application to Inflation Expectations,” Journal of Monetary Economics, vol. 90 (October), pp. 1–12. The measure of economic policy uncertainty is from Scott R. Baker, Nicholas Bloom, and Steven J. Davis (2016), “Measuring Economic Policy Uncertainty,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 131 (November), pp. 1593–1636. The measure of trade policy uncertainty is from Dario Caldara, Matteo Iacoviello, Patrick Molligo, Andrea Prestipino, and Andrea Raffo (2020), “The Economic Effects of Trade Policy Uncertainty,” Journal of Monetary Economics, vol. 109 (January), pp. 38–59. Return to text
Source: United States Senator MarkWayne Mullin (R-Oklahoma)
ICYMI: Senator Mullin Joins The Will Cain Podcast to Discuss ‘Liberation Day’
Washington, D.C. –Today, U.S. Senator Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) joined Fox News’ Will Cain on The Will Cain Podcast to discuss a wide range of topics including President Trump’s ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs, threats from China, Secretary Hegseth’s standards update for members of the military, and rogue district judges. Highlights below.
Sen. Mullin’s full interview can be found here.
On ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs:
“President Trump did something similar to this his first term in office, and we saw bring home wages raise for the first time in decades, at a higher rate than what we used to past inflation. We saw inflation drop 1.4%. So, we’ve been there, the President’s done that, he’s able to do it. Then we saw everything turn with the four years of Biden administration, we’ve got to reset.”
“We’re not looking at today’s game. President Trump is a business person. He doesn’t look at the next election, he looks 10 years down the road, that’s why he’s extremely successful in business. We’re building a future for the next generation. We’re building an economy that the next generation can actually manufacture stuff.”
“We have lost manufacturing here, which puts us at an extreme disadvantage, God forbid, if we were to go to war. We’re not making metal equipment here anymore. We’re not making machines here anymore for any machine manufacturing out there. We’re not making medical supplies here anymore. Most of our vehicles are assembled here, but the parts are not made here anymore. We couldn’t stand up the industrial war machine like we did in World War II if we went to war, because it would take decades… So that’s the national security risk.”
On reciprocal tariffs:
“Japan, has 0% tariffs on American made vehicles going into Japan, but you cannot go there and buy an American vehicle, because their rules to the access of their economy through their government makes it impossible for a dealership to actually be set up that can sell American made vehicles.”
“So, it’s not just tariffs, it’s access to the economy. If we put American made products against other countries, we will win every single time. The countries that want to do business with us, though, they need us more than we need them because they want access to the world’s strongest and greatest economy, and that’s the United States.”
“We have allowed people to take advantage of us and President Trump is the first president in our lifetime to actually say, “Wait, it’s time to right the wrong.” So will there be some volatility for the first few months, maybe, but long-term gain is going to be great for America.”
On threats from China:
“We have an infrastructure that China can’t compete with. We can move product from point A to point B faster and more efficiently than China can.”
“China decided to start diversifying themselves with the Belt and Road Initiative to try to limit their exposure to the United States economy. We did nothing about it.”
“[President Trump] understands what they’re doing, and he’s trying to fix that now, because there may not be another president in our lifetime that has… the guts to do it.”
On Secretary Hegseth’s update to physical standards for members of the military:
“I’m fortunate to have a very good friend of mine. I won’t say her name here, but she actually went through selection, and she was a world class athlete. She is very strong, very outspoken about this, and she says, if we want to serve alongside males, then there’s 100% we should have to meet the same requirements. And any true female that wants to compete on that playing ground will tell you it’s an embarrassment to actually lower the standard for me to be able to qualify for the same position.”
“And so, I think most females that are that competitive, that are wanting to charge ahead, I think Secretary Hegseth is doing exactly what they want to do. Don’t lower the standard. Don’t insult me by lowering the standard of qualification. I want to meet the exact same qualifications as my counterpart, that’s a male, because I want to be held at that same standard.”
On rogue district judges obstructing President Trump’s agenda:
“First of all, I don’t think a district court judge should have the authority to put an injunction nationwide, against the president United States. I don’t think that’s what a district court was designed. They are designed to look after their own district.”
“And if you break the law, and being a gang member is breaking the law by the way, if you break the law, you can be sent back. That’s part of immigration. If you’re here on a student visa, you can be sent back if you’re openly supporting a terrorist organization. The President of the United States has openly said they are designated as a terrorist organization.”
A Minnesota man was sentenced yesterday to 21 years and 10 months in prison for possession of child sexual abuse material (CSAM) found in his apartment and for using the dark web to advertise and distribute CSAM images and videos.
According to court documents and evidence presented at trial, Craig James Myran, 47, of Bemidji, was an active participant on a website only accessible through the dark web that was dedicated to discussing and trafficking CSAM. For years, he used an account with a unique username to make over a thousand posts in which he shared images of CSAM. In at least one post, Myran requested specific files of known CSAM from other users that he disturbingly referred to as his “holy grail.” In another post, he advertised over 100 images depicting the sadomasochistic sexual abuse of two prepubescent minors. On Dec. 8, 2022, FBI special agents executed a search warrant on Myran’s apartment in Bemidji, where they found a cell phone and numerous hard drives that contained evidence that he used the dark web to advertise, publish, and solicit CSAM. Agents also found thousands of other CSAM images.
According to the government’s sentencing memorandum, Myran’s sexual exploitation of minors was not limited to his activity on just one particular dark-web site. He was simultaneously an active participant on multiple other dark-web sites dedicated to trafficking in CSAM, and he previously made posts on the dark web about producing his own CSAM by screen-recording minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct during online webcam interactions. On Nov. 20, 2024, a federal jury convicted Myran on two counts of advertising child pornography, one count of distributing child pornography, and one count of possessing child pornography.
Matthew R. Galeotti, Head of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division; Acting U.S. Attorney Lisa D. Kirkpatrick for the District of Minnesota; and Special Agent in Charge Alvin M. Winston Sr. of the FBI Minneapolis Field Office made the announcement.
The FBI Minneapolis Field Office investigated the case.
Trial Attorney William G. Clayman of the Criminal Division’s Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS) and Assistant U.S. Attorney David B. Green for the District of Minnesota prosecuted the case.
This case was brought as part of Project Safe Childhood, a nationwide initiative to combat the growing epidemic of child sexual exploitation and abuse launched in May 2006 by the Justice Department. Led by U.S. Attorneys’ Offices and CEOS, Project Safe Childhood marshals federal, state, and local resources to better locate, apprehend, and prosecute individuals who exploit children via the Internet, as well as to identify and rescue victims. For more information about Project Safe Childhood, please visit www.justice.gov/psc.
TORONTO and TAMPA, Fla. , April 02, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Voxtur Analytics Corp. (TSXV: VXTR; OTCQB: VXTRF) (“Voxtur” or the “Company”), a North American technology company creating a more transparent and accessible real estate lending ecosystem, announces that it has adopted an “Advance Notice By-law” to establish the conditions and framework under which registered or beneficial owners of common shares of the Company (the “Shareholders”) may exercise their right to submit director nominations. The Advance Notice By-law fixes a deadline by which such nominations must be submitted by a Shareholder to the Company prior to any annual or special meeting of Shareholders, and sets forth the information that a Shareholder must include in the notice to the Company for the notice to be in proper written form in accordance with the Business Corporations Act (Ontario) (the “Act”).
The Advance Notice By-law ensures that all Shareholders receive sufficient notice and relevant information about director nominees, which allows them to make informed voting decisions. Among other things, it requires Shareholders to notify the Company of director nominations within the following timeframes:
Annual Meetings: Notice must be given at least 30 days before the meeting. If the meeting date is publicly announced less than 50 days in advance, notice must be provided no later than the close of business on the 10th day following the announcement.
Special Meetings (that are not also annual meetings): Notice must be provided no later than the close of business on the 15th day following the public announcement of the meeting date.
To be valid, a Shareholder’s notice must include specified information about the proposed nominee, as outlined in the Advance Notice By-law. The Advance Notice By-law also prescribes the required written form of the notice and allows the Board of Directors, at its sole discretion, to waive any requirements under these provisions.
The Advance Notice By-law is effective immediately and will be presented to Shareholders for approval, confirmation, and ratification at the next Annual and Special Meeting of Shareholders of the Company on June 27, 2025 (the “Meeting”). Pursuant to the provisions of the Act, the Advance Notice By-law will cease to be effective unless it is approved, ratified, and confirmed by a resolution adopted by a majority of the votes cast by the Shareholders of the Company at the Meeting.
A copy of the Advance Notice By-law has been filed under the Company’s profile on SEDAR+.
About Voxtur
Voxtur is a transformational proptech company that is redefining industry standards in a dynamic lending environment. The company offers targeted data analytics to simplify the multifaceted aspects of the lending lifecycle for investors, lenders, government agencies and servicers. Voxtur’s proprietary data hub and workflow platforms more accurately and efficiently value real estate assets, providing critical due diligence that enables market participants to effectively originate, trade, or service defaults on mortgage loans. As an independent and transparent mortgage technology provider, the company offers primary and secondary market solutions in the United States and Canada. For more information, visit www.voxtur.com.
Forward-Looking Information
This news release may contain forward-looking statements and forward-looking information (collectively, “forward-looking information”) within the meaning of applicable Canadian securities legislation. Forward-looking information reflects management’s current expectations regarding future events, the Company’s operations, performance, or financial results, and speaks only as of the date of this news release. Forward-looking information may be identified by words such as “anticipates”, “believes”, “expects”, “intends”, “plans”, “projects”, or similar expressions. While the Company believes that the expectations reflected in forward-looking information are reasonable, such information is subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied. For a description of the risks and uncertainties facing the Company and its business, readers should refer to the Company’s management’s discussion and analysis and other continuous disclosure filings available on SEDAR+. These uncertainties and factors include, among others, the failure of Shareholders to ratify the Advance Notice By-law. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on forward-looking information. The Company does not assume any obligation to update or revise this information to reflect new events or circumstances except as required in accordance with applicable laws.
NEITHER THE TSXV NOR ITS REGULATION SERVICES PROVIDER (AS THAT TERM IS DEFINED IN THE POLICIES OF THE TSXV) ACCEPTS RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ADEQUACY OR ACCURACY OF THIS RELEASE.
Voxtur’s common shares are traded on the TSXV under the symbol VXTR and in the US on the OTCQB under the symbol VXTRF.
Contact: Jordan Ross Chief Operating Officer Tel: (416) 708-9764 jordan@voxtur.com
LIVERMORE, Calif., April 02, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — FormFactor, Inc. (NASDAQ: FORM), a leading provider of test and measurement technologies for the semiconductor industry, is pleased to announce the significant expansion of its Taiwan Service Center. This strategic investment aims to enhance the company’s capabilities and better serve its customers in Taiwan and across Asia. The service center plays a pivotal role in supporting new technologies for chip manufacturers developing advanced packaging technologies driven by advancements in artificial intelligence (AI), high-performance computing (HPC), mobile, and automotive applications.
The newly expanded facility features double the cleanroom space and additional office areas, enabling FormFactor to streamline repair turnaround times and enhance its capabilities to serve the region’s rapid growth. This investment increases capacity to provide testing and repair services for FormFactor products, which are crucial to meeting the accelerating requirements in this important region.
“The expansion of our Taiwan Service Center demonstrates our ongoing commitment to meeting the semiconductor industry’s evolving demands,” said Mike Slessor, CEO of FormFactor. “With this expansion, we’ll be able to respond more quickly to customers’ needs, delivering more efficient, comprehensive, and reliable support that helps our customers maintain a competitive edge in an increasingly dynamic market.”
In addition to larger office and cleanroom spaces, the center offers expanded probe card services. The facility also includes a technology demo center to support customers in co-packaged optics technologies, showcasing state-of-the-art silicon photonics test technologies and their applications in next-generation semiconductor solutions.
About FormFactor
FormFactor, Inc. (NASDAQ: FORM), is a leading provider of essential test and measurement technologies along the full IC life cycle – from characterization, modeling, reliability, and design debug, to qualification and production test. Semiconductor companies rely upon FormFactor’s products and services to accelerate profitability by optimizing device performance and advancing yield knowledge. The Company serves customers through its network of facilities in Asia, Europe, and North America. For more information, visit the Company’s website at www.formfactor.com.
Forward-Looking Statements
This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the “safe harbor” provisions of the federal securities laws. These statements are based on management’s current expectations and beliefs as of the date of this release and are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties, many of which are beyond the Company’s control, that could cause actual results to differ materially from those described in the forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements regarding the expansion of the service center and its impact on the market, the Company’s customers, and the Company’s capabilities and capacity. Forward-looking statements may contain words such as “may,” “might,” “will,” “expect,” “plan,” “anticipate,” “forecast,” and “continue,” the negative or plural of these words and similar expressions and include the assumptions that underlie such statements. The following factors, among others, could cause actual results to differ materially from those described in the forward-looking statements: success of the expansion; changes in demand for the Company’s testing and repair services in the region; market opportunity; supply chain and labor dynamics; other external economic and political factors; and other factors, including those set forth in the Company’s most current annual report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q and other filings by the Company with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. In addition, there are varying barriers to international trade, including restrictive trade and export regulations such as the US-China restrictions, dynamic tariffs, trade disputes between the U.S. and other countries, and national security developments or tensions, that may substantially restrict or condition our sales to or in certain countries, increase the cost of doing business internationally, and disrupt our supply chain. No assurances can be given that any of the events anticipated by the forward-looking statements within this press release will transpire or occur, or if any of them do so, what impact they will have on the results of operations or financial condition of the Company. Unless required by law, the Company is under no obligation (and expressly disclaims any such obligation) to update or revise its forward-looking statements whether as a result of new information, future events, or otherwise.
CHICAGO, April 02, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — XAI Octagon Floating Rate & Alternative Income Trust (the “Trust”) has declared its preferred dividends for the quarter of $0.40625 per share of the Trust’s 6.50% Series 2026 Term Preferred Shares (NYSE: XFLTPRA).
The following dates apply to each declaration:
Share Class
Ex-Dividend Date
Record Date
Payable Date
Amount
Change from Previous Declaration
XFLTPRA
April 14, 2025
April 14, 2025
April 30, 2025
$0.40625
No Change1
The Trust’s net investment income and capital gain can vary significantly over time; however, the Trust seeks to maintain more stable common share monthly distributions over time. The Trust’s investments in CLOs are subject to complex tax rules and the calculation of taxable income attributed to an investment in CLO subordinated notes can be dramatically different from the calculation of income for financial reporting purposes under accounting principles generally accepted in the United States (“U.S. GAAP”), and, as a result, there may be significant differences between the Trust’s GAAP income and its taxable income. The Trust’s final taxable income for the current fiscal year will not be known until the Trust’s tax returns are filed.
As a registered investment company, the Trust is subject to a 4% excise tax that is imposed if the Trust does not distribute to common shareholders by the end of any calendar year at least the sum of (i) 98% of its ordinary income (not taking into account any capital gain or loss) for the calendar year and (ii) 98.2% of its capital gain in excess of its capital loss (adjusted for certain ordinary losses) for a one-year period generally ending on January 31 of the calendar year (unless an election is made to use the Trust’s fiscal year). In certain circumstances, the Trust may elect to retain income or capital gain to the extent that the Board of Trustees, in consultation with Trust management, determines it to be in the interest of shareholders to do so.
The common share distributions paid by the Trust for any particular period may be more than the amount of net investment income from that period. As a result, all or a portion of a distribution may be a return of capital, which is in effect a partial return of the amount a common shareholder invested in the Trust, up to the amount of the common shareholder’s tax basis in their common shares, which would reduce such tax basis. Although a return of capital may not be taxable, it will generally increase the common shareholder’s potential gain, or reduce the common shareholder’s potential loss, on any subsequent sale or other disposition of common shares.
Preferred shareholders are entitled to receive cumulative cash dividends and distributions on the Trust’s 6.50% Series 2026 Term Preferred Shares, when, as and if declared by, or under authority granted by, the Board of Trustees of the Trust out of funds legally available for distribution and in preference to dividends and distributions on common shares. If the Trust is unable to distribute the full dividend amount due in a dividend period on the Trust’s 6.50% Series 2026 Term Preferred Shares, the dividends will be distributed on a pro rata basis among the preferred shareholders.
Distributions and dividends shall be paid on the Payable Date listed above unless the payment of such distribution or dividend is deferred by the Board of Trustees upon a determination that such deferral is required in order to comply with applicable law, to ensure that the Trust remains solvent and able to pay its debts as they become due and continue as a going concern or, with regard to the Trust’s regular monthly distribution to common shareholders, to comply with the applicable terms or financial covenants of the Trust’s senior securities.
Future common share distributions will be made if and when declared by the Trust’s Board of Trustees, based on a consideration of number of factors, including the Trust’s continued compliance with terms and financial covenants of its senior securities, the Trust’s net investment income, financial performance and available cash. There can be no assurance that the amount or timing of common share distributions in the future will be equal or similar to that described herein or that the Board of Trustees will not decide to suspend or discontinue the payment of common share distributions in the future.
The investment objective of the Trust is to seek attractive total return with an emphasis on income generation across multiple stages of the credit cycle. The Trust seeks to achieve its investment objective by investing in a dynamically managed portfolio of opportunities primarily within the private credit markets. Under normal market conditions, the Trust will invest at least 80% of its Managed Assets in floating rate credit instruments and other structured credit investments. There can be no assurance that the Trust will achieve its investment objective.
The Trust’s common shares are traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol “XFLT,” and the Trust’s 6.50% Series 2026 Term Preferred Shares are traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol “XFLTPRA.”
About XA Investments XA Investments LLC (“XAI”) serves as the Trust’s investment adviser. XAI is a Chicago-based firm founded by XMS Capital Partners in 2016. XAI serves as the investment adviser for two listed closed-end funds and an interval closed-end fund. The listed closed-end funds, the XAI Octagon Floating Rate & Alternative Income Trust (NYSE: XFLT) and XAI Madison Equity Premium Income Fund both trade on the New York Stock Exchange. The interval closed-end fund, Octagon XAI CLO Income Fund (OCTIX), is newly launched and has been made widely available to investors.
In addition to investment advisory services, the firm also provides investment fund structuring and consulting services focused on registered closed-end funds to meet institutional client needs. XAI offers custom product build and consulting services, including development and market research, sales, marketing, fund management.
XAI believes that the investing public can benefit from new vehicles to access a broad range of alternative investment strategies and managers. XAI provides individual investors with access to institutional-caliber alternative managers. For more information, please visit www.xainvestments.com.
About XMS Capital Partners
XMS Capital Partners, LLC, established in 2006, is a global, independent, financial services firm providing M&A, corporate advisory and asset management services to clients. It has offices in Chicago, Boston and London. For more information, please visit www.xmscapital.com.
About Octagon Credit Investors Octagon Credit Investors, LLC (“Octagon”) serves as the Trust’s investment sub-adviser. Octagon is a 25+ year old, $33.2B below-investment grade corporate credit investment adviser focused on leveraged loan, high yield bond and structured credit (CLO debt and equity) investments. Through fundamental credit analysis and active portfolio management, Octagon’s investment team identifies attractive relative value opportunities across below-investment grade asset classes, sectors and issuers. Octagon’s investment philosophy and methodology encourage and rely upon dynamic internal communication to manage portfolio risk. Over its history, the firm has applied a disciplined, repeatable and scalable approach in its effort to generate attractive risk-adjusted returns for its investors. For more information, please visit www.octagoncredit.com.
XAI does not provide tax advice; please consult a professional tax advisor regarding your specific tax situation. Income may be subject to state and local taxes, as well as the federal alternative minimum tax.
Investors should consider the investment objectives and policies, risk considerations, charges and expenses of the Trust carefully before investing. For more information on the Trust, please visit the Trust’s webpage at www.xainvestments.com.
This press release shall not constitute an offer to sell or a solicitation to buy, nor shall there be any sale of these securities in any state or jurisdiction in which such offer or solicitation or sale would be unlawful prior to registration or qualification under the laws of such state or jurisdiction.
The Trust’s 6.50% Series 2026 Term Preferred Shares dividend is calculated based on the preferred shares Liquidation Preference of $25.00 per share and the fixed dividend rate of 6.50%.
Source: United States Senator for Oklahoma James Lankford
WASHINGTON, DC — This week, Senator James Lankford (R-OK) and Congressman Mark Harris (R-NC) led a group of 18 lawmakers in the bicameral introduction of the Free Speech Fairness Act – legislation that would stop the IRS from silencing America’s pastors, churches, and non-profits.
Since 1954, the Johnson Amendment has suppressed the free speech of religious leaders, churches, and nonprofits by threatening the loss of tax-exempt status if they simply speak for or against any political candidate.
“The First Amendment protects Americans’ right to freedom of speech and religious freedom without the threat of interference from Congress, said Senator Lankford. “The Free Speech Fairness Act is needed to ensure these original free speech protections are upheld by removing a restriction on speech that has existed since 1954. Fundamental American values must extend to everyone, including pastors, social workers, or non-profit employees and volunteers. Everyone should have their constitutional rights to assembly, free speech, freedom of religion and free press protected.”
“People of faith should not fear exercising their First Amendment rights at the risk of the IRS coming after them, said Congressman Harris. “For too long, the Johnson Amendment has silenced pastors, churches, and non-profits from engaging on moral and political issues of our day for fear of losing their tax-exempt status. This attempt to muzzle people of faith must end – the Constitution is clear: Americans’ right to free speech shall not be infringed.”
In 2017, President Trump signed an executive order to stop the enforcement of the Johnson Amendment while he was in office. Speaker Mike Johnson and Majority Leader Steve Scalise have previously led the legislation to fix this provision in the tax code.
Cosponsors include Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Representatives Michael Baumgartner (R-WA), Glenn Grothman (R-WI), Michael Guest (R-MS), Abraham Hamadeh (R-AZ), Clay Higgins (R-LA), Doug LaMalfa (R-CA), Mark Messmer (R-IN), Mary Miller (R-IL), Barry Moore (R-AL), Andy Ogles (R-TN), David Rouzer (R-NC), Keith Self (R-TX), Marlin Stutzman (R-IN), Tim Walberg (R-MI), and Randy Weber (R-TX).
Advancing American Freedom, Alliance Defending Freedom, America First Policy Institute, American Values, Americans for Tax Reform, Catholic Vote, Concerned Women for America LAC, Eagle Forum, Family Policy Alliance, Family Research Council, First Liberty Institute, Focus on the Family, Home School Legal Defense Association, James Dobson Family Institute, Liberty Counsel Action, and NC Family support the legislation.
More support for the Free Speech Fairness Act:
Senior Counsel of the Alliance Defending Freedom, Matt Sharp, said, “Freedom of speech is for everyone, including churches and religious non-profits. The government can’t base any tax exemption on a requirement that a church or any other non-profit organization self-censor and surrender its constitutionally protected freedom. ADF commends Representative Harris and Senator Lankford for introducing the Free Speech Fairness Act to ensure that religious entities can apply biblical teachings to all areas of life without fearing an IRS investigation and fines. Anything to the contrary would be a gross violation of the First Amendment.”
“The freedom of speech is a cherished right enshrined in our Constitution in the very same amendment as the freedom of religion – the First Amendment. It was that important to our Founding Fathers because they understood you can’t have one without the other,” said Gary L. Bauer, President of American Values. “Free speech and religious liberty are essential supports for all our freedoms, and the government has no right to limit either. It is long past time for the ill-conceived Johnson Amendment to be repealed. American Values is grateful to Rep. Mark Harris for defending our First Amendment rights. Take the muzzle off of America’s pastors and faith-based non-profit organizations – pass the Free Speech Fairness Act.”
“Religious and nonprofit leaders shouldn’t have to fear that the IRS will come after them if they exercise their right to free speech. The Free Speech Fairness Act will prevent the IRS from targeting Americans for exercising their First Amendment rights,” said Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform.
“For too long, the Johnson Amendment has shackled the free speech rights of America’s religious leaders, churches, and nonprofits, silencing their voices under the threat of losing tax-exempt status,” said Penny Nance, CEO and President of Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee (CWALAC). “We at CWALAC wholeheartedly support the Free Speech Fairness Act and commend Rep. Mark Harris and Senator James Lankford for championing this vital legislation. With President Trump back in the White House, we are eager to see this bill reach his desk, finally ending the destructive grip of the Johnson Amendment once and for all.”
“The First Amendment guarantees every American the right to free speech and free practice of religion. It is the very bedrock of our republic; the federal government has no authority to infringe upon those rights simply because one has entered a house of worship. For decades, however, an unconstitutional provision in the U.S. Tax Code called the Johnson Amendment has silenced religious leaders from speaking openly from the pulpit. As a pastor before coming to Washington, I was personally harassed by the IRS. My church’s tax-exempt status was threatened because I dared to preach openly on political issues important to my congregation. Our Founding Fathers left us unalienable rights to be enjoyed – and defended. I’m proud to again join my colleagues in introducing the Free Speech Fairness Act to repeal the Johnson Amendment and fully restore Americans’ constitutional rights to express their beliefs,” said Jody Hice, President of Family Research Council Action.
“The Free Speech Fairness Act is a commonsense change that will enable nonprofit organizations to exercise the right of free speech more fully,” said Jim Mason, President of the Home School Legal Defense Association.
“The 1954 Johnson Amendment is a punitive measure that unfairly threatens the free speech rights of America’s pastors and Christian ministries. It is un-American and must be repealed. The James Dobson Family Institute thanks Rep. Mark Harris for protecting the free speech rights of America’s religious leaders and organizations, and urges quick, bipartisan passage of the Free Speech Fairness Act,” said Gary Bauer, Senior Vice President of Public Policy, James Dobson Family Institute.
“The Johnson Amendment violates this nation’s historic respect for the independence of its houses of worship by inviting the IRS to investigate and intimidate churches for political advantage. The Free Speech Fairness Act goes a long way to restoring this nation’s commitment to protecting our houses of worship and the religious liberty of its leaders,” said Jeremy Dys, Senior Counsel and Chair of Religious Institutions Practice Group at First Liberty Institute. Read the full text of the legislation here.
Application selection date: 02.04.2025. Unique application selection identifier: 22025086. Deposit currency in rubles. Type of funds: funds from a single treasury account. Maximum amount of funds placed on bank deposits, million monetary units – 248,000. Placement period, in days – 2. Date of depositing funds – 02.04.2025. Date of return of funds – 04.04.2025.
Interest rate for placement of funds (fixed or floating)FIXED. Minimum fixed interest rate for placement of funds, % per annum 20.05. Basic floating interest rate for placement of funds-Minimum spread, % per annum-Terms of conclusion of the bank deposit agreement (fixed-term, replenishable or special)Fixed-term. Minimum amount of funds placed for one application, million monetary units 1,000. Maximum number of applications from one credit institution, pcs. 5. Application selection form (open or closed)Open.
Schedule of application selection (Moscow time). Venue of application selection: Moscow Exchange PJSC. Application acceptance from 09:30 to 09:40. Applications in preliminary mode from 09:30 to 09:35. Applications in competition mode from 09:35 to 09:40. Formation of a consolidated register of applications from 09:40 to 09:50. Setting the cutoff interest rate and (or) recognizing the application selection as unsuccessful from 09:40 to 10:00. Sending an offer to credit institutions to conclude a bank deposit agreement from 10:00 to 10:50. Receiving acceptance of the offer to conclude a bank deposit agreement from credit institutions from 10:00 to 10:50. The time of transfer of the deposit in accordance with the requirements of paragraphs 63 and 64 of the Order of the Federal Treasury dated April 27, 2023 No. 10n.
Please note: This information is raw content directly from the source of the information. It is exactly what the source states and does not reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.
Please Note; This Information is Raw Content Directly from the Information Source. It is access to What the Source Is Stating and Does Not Reflect
Source: Government of the Russian Federation – An important disclaimer is at the bottom of this article.
During his working visit to Kyrgyzstan, the Deputy Prime Minister was received by the President of the Kyrgyz Republic.
The Russian delegation led by Alexey Overchuk visited the Kyrgyz Republic (Bishkek). During the visit, the Deputy Prime Minister of the Russian Federation was received by the President of the Kyrgyz Republic Sadyr Japarov. The main topic of the conversation was the prospects for developing trade and economic cooperation, with special attention paid to issues of strengthening transport connectivity, ensuring energy security, and cooperation in the humanitarian area.
During the meeting, it was emphasized that the Russian Federation and the Kyrgyz Republic are strategic partners and allies, relations between the two countries are traditionally friendly, based on the principles of equality, mutual respect and consideration of each other’s interests. Regular contacts at the highest level create a solid foundation for the development of bilateral cooperation between the countries. Close interaction is also maintained at the government level.
Alexey Overchuk noted that an important component of cooperation between Russia and Kyrgyzstan is the countries’ membership in the Eurasian Economic Union, and added that Kyrgyzstan’s active participation in the activities of the EAEU has given impetus to the growth of its economy and contributed to the development of the union’s potential, which has every opportunity to strengthen its position in the global economic architecture.
The Deputy Prime Minister congratulated the President of the Kyrgyz Republic on the successful resolution of the border issue between Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, noting that a peaceful settlement between the two allies is a significant factor for stability in all of Central Asia for Russia.
Please note: This information is raw content directly from the source of the information. It is exactly what the source states and does not reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.
Source: Government of the Russian Federation – An important disclaimer is at the bottom of this article.
Document
Order dated April 2, 2025 No. 773-r
More than 450 million rubles will be allocated to the Amur Region and Primorsky Krai to partially compensate for the costs of regional investors in creating agricultural enterprises. The order to this effect was signed by Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin.
We are talking about reimbursement of expenses for the creation of greenhouse complexes for the production of vegetables in Primorsky Krai on an area of 11.7 hectares and in Amur Oblast on an area of just over 3 hectares. Primorsky Krai will receive 344.7 million rubles, and Amur Oblast – more than 110 million.
“Such a measure will help to increase the level of food security in the Far East. New jobs will appear, and people will be provided with domestic fresh products,” Mikhail Mishustin noted during Government meetings on April 2.
Mechanism of state support for investment projects for the construction and modernization of greenhouse and breeding and seed-growing complexes in the Far East was developed by the Government in 2020 after Mikhail Mishustin’s working visit to this federal district. With the help of such a solution, investors can return up to 20% of the funds spent on the creation of greenhouse complexes, and up to 50% on the creation of seed centers. This helps to support investment activity in crop production and greenhouse vegetable growing and provide residents of the Far East with fresh products all year round.
Please note: This information is raw content directly from the source of the information. It is exactly what the source states and does not reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.
The “world is failing” people living with disabilities, UN deputy chief Amina Mohammed has told a major summit which aims to galvanize global efforts to ensure they are fully integrated into all parts of society.
Although persons with disabilities represent a sizeable 16 per cent of the world’s population, they still experience a range of health inequities, including premature deaths, poorer health outcomes, and higher disease risk when compared to the general population.
Addressing the Global Disability Summit in Berlin in a video message on Monday, Ms. Mohammed said that providing opportunities to people with disabilities “is a matter of dignity, of humanity, of human rights,” adding that it is a test not only of “our common values,” but also “plain common sense.”
Conflict zones
The Deputy Secretary-General highlighted the vulnerability of people living in conflict areas such as Gaza, Ukraine and Sudan, noting that Gaza now has the highest number of child amputees in modern history.
“Too often, persons with disabilities also face inaccessible evacuation routes, shelters, and services – an assault on their human rights and dignity,” she said.
UN research shows that they are often among the first casualties in conflict.
The UN deputy chief focused on a young Palestinian woman called Mai, working for the United Nations in Gaza, who “did not let her muscular dystrophy or her wheelchair confine her dreams.”
Mai, a top student, became a software developer for the UN, “bringing skill and determination to all she did,” but in November 2023, Ms. Mohammed said, “she was killed along with her family,” adding that her story still weighs heavily on our hearts.”
Internationally protected rights
The rights of people living with disabilities are protected by a treaty adopted in 2006 at the United Nations.
The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is recognized as the first comprehensive human rights treaty of the 21st century which “clarifies and qualifies how all categories of rights apply to persons with disabilities and identifies areas where adaptations have to be made for persons with disabilities to effectively exercise their rights.”
In the wake of the Convention, nearly 90 per cent of developing countries have laws or policies protecting education for persons with disabilities, yet only about one-third of those countries have accessible schools.
Half of all people with disabilities in the same countries face inaccessible transportation.
“Behind these figures are people,” said Ms Mohammed.
The ongoing war in Gaza has displaced more than 1.9 million people, many who seek shelter in makeshift tents.
“Children shut out of classrooms. Adults who cannot get to work. Families denied essential services. This must change. And we must all be part of it.”
The Global Disability Summit 2025 is taking place in Berlin from 2-3 April and is expected to bring some 4,000 people together. It has been organized by the governments of Jordan and Germany in collaboration with the International Disability Alliance.
One significant outcome is expected to be the “Amman-Berlin Declaration on Global Disability Inclusion.”
Certainly that has been the tone of some of the reporting following the emergence of photosand videos depicting massive new Chinese barges designed for land-to-sea military operations. The fact that China launched a two-day military drill in the Taiwan Strait on April 1, 2025, has only intensified such fears.
To me, the curious thing regarding these musings about a potential war involving China, which has one of the world’s most advanced militaries, is that it is supported by reference to technology first used some 80 years ago – specifically, the Mulberry Harbours, floating piers that allowed Allies to deploy land vehicles onto the beaches at Normandy on June 6, 1944.
As an expert on the history and geopolitics of the Mulberry Harbours, I believe using the World War II example obscures far more than it clarifies with regard to the geopolitical situation today. Indeed, while the new Chinese ships may be operationally similar to their historical forebears, the strategic situation in China and Taiwan is far different.
Disquiet on the Pacific front?
The possibility of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, an island the Chinese Communist Party sees as part of its territory, is perhaps the most pressing security issue for countries in the Asia-Pacific region.
Aside from the geopolitics, any China decision to invade Taiwan would mean attempting an extremely challenging military operation that is, historically speaking, a risky proposition. Seaborne invasions have often led to high casualties or even outright failure.
The Gallipoli landings on the coast of Turkey during World War I, for example, led to the withdrawal of mainly Australian and New Zealand forces after high casualties and barely any territorial gains. In World War II, island-hopping by U.S. forces to push back Japan’s advance achieved strategic goals – but at a high human cost.
The difficulty posed by sea-to-land invasion is not just the battles on Day 1, it is the logistical challenge of continuing to funnel troops and materiel to sustain a push out from the beachhead. That’s where the barges come into play.
About those WWII barges …
British Prime Minister Winston Churchill was skeptical of opening a front against Nazi Germany by a landing on the French coast – a position that frustrated the United States. The main concern of Churchill and his generals was the logistical puzzle. They reasoned that Germany would either retain control of French ports or sabotage them, and that tanks, guns, food, soldiers and other necessities were not going to be brought up from reserve via ports.
The Mulberry Harbours fixed that problem by creating a set of floating piers that would rise up and down with the tide by being fixed to sophisticated anchors. Ships could moor to these piers and unload needed material. The piers were protected by an inner ring of concrete caissons, dragged across the channel and sunk into position, and an outer breakwater of scuttled ships. The Mulberry Harbours were a combination of cutting-edge pier technology and improvisation.
Construction of a Mulberry Harbour, and the unloading of supplies for the Allies at Colleville, France, in 1944. Three Lions/Getty Images
The images of Chinese invasion barges today show that the technology has advanced, but the principle of an operational need for logistical support of a beachhead breakout is the same.
Yet the geography of any invasion is very different. In World War II, the Mulberry Harbours were part of an invasion from an island to conquer a continent. But a Chinese invasion of Taiwan would be the inverse – from a continent to an island.
Great power politics, Chinese characteristics
The use of Mulberry Harbours, as innovative as it was, was only a moment in a longer geopolitical process.
The D-Day invasion was the culmination of the transfer of U.S. military might across the Atlantic through Operation Bolero. Simply, the United Kingdom became a giant warehouse – mainly for U.S. soldiers and equipment.
The Mulberry Harbours made the crossing of the English Channel possible for these men and weapons. It was the last step in the projection of U.S. power across the Atlantic Ocean and on to the European continent. I describe this as a process of a seapower moving from its near or coastal waters to far waters in another part of the globe.
The calculation for China is very different. Certainly, barges would help an invasion across the Taiwan Strait. But China sees Taiwan as part of its near waters, and it wants to secure those waters from global competition.
Beijing views the U.S. as having established a military presence just off its coastline from World War II to the present day, making the western Pacific another set of U.S. far waters across the globe accompanying its European presence. From its perspective, China is surrounded by a U.S. military based in Okinawa, Guam and the Philippines. This chain of bases could restrict China’s ambition through blockade, and controlling Taiwan would help China create a gap in this chain.
Chinese invasion barges could be deployed quite early in China’s process of moving from near to far waters. The Mulberry Harbours, conversely, were deployed once the U.S. had already secured its Caribbean, Atlantic and Pacific near waters.
Part of a process
Technical matters and historical comparisons with the Mulberry Harbours are an interesting way to look at the new Chinese invasion barges and consider the operational scale of geopolitics. But as with the World War II case, China-Taiwan tensions are simply a modern example of a local theater – this time, the Taiwanese Strait – being part of a greater global process of power projection. The comparisons to Mulberry Harbours, therefore, are not with the technology itself but its role in a mechanism of historical geopolitical change.
The reemergence of the technology of invasion barges may be a sign that a new conflict is on the horizon. If that were the case, the irony is that China would be using Mulberry Harbour-type technology to secure its position in the western Pacific at the same time the Trump administration is questioning the strategic value of the U.S. presence in Europe – a presence established through World War II and, at least in part, the use of the Mulberry Harbours.
Colin Flint does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
CALGARY, Alberta, April 02, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Cielo Waste Solutions Corp. (TSXV:CMC; OTC PINK:CWSFF) (“Cielo” or the “Company”) today announced that it has received a shareholder meeting requisition notice pursuant to Section 167(1) of the Business Corporations Act (British Columbia) (the “Requisition”) from Expander Energy Inc. (“Expander”), the Company’s largest shareholder, which holds in excess of five percent (5%) of the issued common shares of the Company. This follows Cielo’s announcement of April 1, 2025 of its intention to hold an annual general meeting in June 2025 in accordance with applicable corporate laws.
The annual general and special shareholder meeting is being requisitioned by Expander to consider: (a) the fixing of the board of directors of Cielo at five (5); (b) the removal of all of the directors of the Company; (c) the election of five (5) nominees of Expander, namely Larry B. Haggar, Nick Lenstra, P. Eng., John G. F. McLeod P. Eng., James H. Ross, and G. Steven price, P. Eng. (the “Nominees”); (d) the re-appointment of MNP LLP as the auditor of Cielo; (e) the re-approval of the Company’s incentive plan; and (f) to authorize Expander to become a “Control Person” of Cielo within the meaning of the policies of the TSX Venture Exchange. To the Company’s knowledge, the Nominees are all current or former directors, officers and/or significant shareholders of Expander.
The Company is reviewing the Requisition, with the assistance of its professional advisors, and will respond appropriately in due course. The Company intends to comply with its obligations under applicable corporate and securities laws. In the meantime, there is no need for shareholders to take any action.
Cielo’s CEO, Ryan C. Jackson, commented: “The Company appreciates the ongoing support from our shareholders. It is unfortunate that Expander has chosen to escalate its demands in this manner rather than engage in constructive dialogue with the Company, despite our attempts to do so. As we’d disclosed, we have taken steps to initiate the dispute resolution process with Expander and believe that that is the appropriate forum to address the concerns of both Cielo and Expander.”
In Cielo’s view, Expander mistakenly attributes the decline in Cielo’s share price is due solely to the current Board, while ignoring broader market conditions, industry challenges, and the deliberate transformation efforts underway to reposition the Company for sustainable growth. Cielo’s leadership team has been executing a turnaround strategy, and the Board remains confident in the Company’s long-term potential.
As it has in the past, Cielo’s board and management team welcomes the perspectives of its shareholders and endeavours to make itself available for ongoing dialogue about the Company’s governance, performance, and strategic direction. The board and management team will continue to prioritize good governance, perform their duties in the best interest of Cielo, and remain focused on delivering long-term value.
ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
About Cielo Waste Solutions Corp.
Cielo Waste Solutions Corp. is a publicly traded company focused on transforming waste materials into renewable diesel, kerosene, and naphtha fuels. Through its proprietary technology, Cielo aims to provide environmentally friendly alternatives to traditional fossil fuels, contributing to a circular economy and a sustainable future.
For Investor and Media Inquiries, Please Contact: Investor Relations Cielo Waste Solutions Corp. Phone: (403) 348-2972 Email: investors@cielows.com Website: www.cielows.com
This news release contains certain forward-looking statements and forward-looking information (collectively referred to herein as “forward-looking statements”) within the meaning of applicable Canadian securities laws. All statements other than statements of present or historical fact are forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are often, but not always, identified by the use of words such as “anticipate”, “achieve”, “could”, “believe”, “plan”, “intend”, “objective”, “continuous”, “ongoing”, “estimate”, “outlook”, “expect”, “may”, “will”, “project”, “should” or similar words, including negatives thereof, suggesting future outcomes.
Forward-looking statements are subject to both known and unknown risks, uncertainties, and other factors, many of which are beyond the control of the Company, that may cause the actual results, level of activity, performance, or achievements of the Company to be materially different from those expressed or implied by such forward looking statements. Forward-looking statements and information are based on plans, expectations and estimates of management at the date the information is provided and are subject to certain factors and assumptions. Cielo is making forward-looking statements, including but not limited to with respect to: the Company’s shareholder meeting to be held in June 2025; the Company’s response to the Requisition, to follow, and to comply with applicable corporate and securities laws; the continued priorities of Cielo’s board and management.
Investors should continue to review and consider information disseminated through news releases and filed by the Company on SEDAR+. Although the Company has attempted to identify important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in forward looking statements, there may be other factors that cause results not to be as anticipated, estimated or intended.
Forward-looking statements are not a guarantee of future performance and involve a number of risks and uncertainties, some of which are described herein. Such forward-looking statements necessarily involve known and unknown risks and uncertainties, which may cause the Company’s actual performance and results to differ materially from any projections of future performance or results expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Any forward-looking statements are made as of the date hereof and, except as required by law, the Company assumes no obligation to publicly update or revise such statements to reflect new information, subsequent or otherwise.
Neither the TSX Venture Exchange nor its Regulation Services Provider (as that term is defined in the policies of the TSX Venture Exchange) accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Daniel Johnston, Director of Learning and Teaching at Excelsia University College and Research Affiliate, University of Sydney
As Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young waved a decapitated salmon dripping with blood in parliament last week, you could feel the election coming.
Hanson-Young was protesting the watering down of Australia’s environmental laws aimed at preserving salmon farming in Tasmania.
Using props and orchestrated performances to provoke a response has been common throughout the history Australian politics. In 2017, then treasurer Scott Morrison held out a lump of coal to ridicule the opposition’s renewable energy policies. He mockingly declared:
This is coal. Don’t be afraid, don’t be scared.
Later that same year, One Nation leader Pauline Hanson wore a burqa into the Senate to argue for a ban on full-face coverings – dramatically embodying her anti-Islam rhetoric.
More recently, independent members of parliament Andrew Wilkie and Bob Katter donned inflatable pig costumes to criticise the major supermarkets as pigs with their snouts in the trough, given their excessive profit margins.
It’s clear Australian politicians are drawn to drama. With the election campaign in full swing, it’s worth being wary of such beguiling performances.
Visceral is memorable
The history of theatre is peppered with shocking moments, often enhanced by props. Props help to provoke a visceral emotional response from the audience, while blurring the boundary between reality and fiction.
In Sophocles’ ancient Greek tragedy Oedipus Rex, Oedipus exits the stage with sharp gold brooches to gorge out his eyes after discovering of his wife Jocasta’s suicide. Upon his return, his bleeding eye sockets also allude to his metaphorical blindness, having killed his own father and married his mother.
Similarly, at the end of Shakespeare’s Macbeth, the tyrant king’s severed head is brought onstage – fulfilling a deceptive prophecy foretold by the fiendish witches at the beginning of the play.
In a more contemporary example, Australian playwright Patrick White’s surrealist play Ham Funeral features a ham representing gluttony, death, lust and decay, served at the wake of Mrs Lusty’s husband. We’re also shocked by a fetus from a back-alley trash can.
These are all attention-grabbing examples of how props can be much more than just the thing they represent.
In politics, as on stage, theatrical objects are an easy way to heighten emotions, and convey meaning and context. They can make abstract concepts feel more concrete. And even when they’re highly theatrical, they can communicate authenticity and passion – ready to go viral online.
As politician and activist Harvey Milk (played by James Franco) declares in the 2008 biopic Milk:
Politics is theatre. It doesn’t matter if you win. You make a statement. You say, “I’m here, pay attention to me”.
Evidence suggests political personas can be successfully constructed through careful attention to meaning-making processes, such as facial expressions, hand gestures and emotional rhetoric.
Take Adolf Hitler. In 1932, Hitler carefully crafted his speeches and vocal delivery with Paul Devrient, an operatic tenor and director. He also worked with Heinrich Hoffmann, his official photographer, in theatre-like rehearsals to strike dramatic poses and fine-tune his body language and persuasive gestures.
His performances culminated in the Nuremberg rallies. These events, choreographed like a Wagnerian opera, featured monumental architecture and lighting, banners, torches and music that positioned the Führer as a mythical hero.
Bertolt Brecht famously satirised the fabricated display in his play The Resistable Rise of Artuo Ui, in which a washed-up Shakespearean actor teaches a Chicago gangster how to present himself as a legitimate, commanding leader.
Peek behind the curtain
Performance takes place along a continuum, from mundane everyday life, to highly-staged aesthetic enactments. We’re all taking part in performances all the time, whether it’s ordering a morning coffee, or delivering Hamlet’s soliloquy at the Opera House, holding Yorick’s skull aloft.
In politics, compelling representatives hope to craft an authentic image for themselves through emotional performance – sometimes using props as framing devices to signal certain moments as marked or special.
When Julia Gillard delivered her unexpectedly viral, off-the-cuff misogyny speech, or when John Howard declared, “We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come”, they shifted our attention from the ordinary to the performative. They incited us to feel outrage and fear, to drive a political narrative.
The warning of theatre is that we should look through appearances, to discern the substance of what’s going on.
Daniel Johnston 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.
If you go walking in the wild, you might expect that what you’re seeing is natural. All around you are trees, shrubs and grasses growing in their natural habitat.
But there’s something here that doesn’t add up. Across the world, there are large areas of habitat which would suit native plant species just fine. But very often, they’re simply absent.
Our new research gauges the scale of this problem, known as “dark diversity”. Our international team of 200 scientists examined plant species in thousands of sites worldwide.
What we found was startling. In regions heavily affected by our activities, only about 20% of native plant species able to live there were actually present. But even in areas with very little human interference, ecosystems only contained about 33% of viable plant species.
Why so few species in wilder areas? Our impact. Pollution can spread far from the original source, while conversion of habitat to farms, logging and human-caused fires have ripple effects too.
Conspicuous by their absence
Our activities have become a planet-shaping force, from changing the climate through our emissions to farming 44% of all habitable land. As our footprint has expanded, other species have been pushed to extinction. The rates of species loss are unprecedented in recorded history.
When we think about biodiversity loss, we might think of a once-common animal species losing numbers and range as farms, cities and feral predators expand. But we are also losing species from within protected areas and national parks.
To date, the accelerating loss of species has been largely observed at large scale, such as states or even whole countries. Almost 600 plant species have gone extinct since 1750 – and this is likely a major underestimate. Extinction hotspots include Hawaii (79 species) and South Africa’s unique fynbos scrublands (37 species).
But tracking the fate of our species has been difficult to do at a local scale, such as within a national park or nature reserve.
Similarly, when scientists do traditional biodiversity surveys, we count the species previously recorded in an area and look for changes. But we haven’t tended to consider the species that could grow there – but don’t.
Many plants have been declining so rapidly they are now threatened with extinction.
What did we do?
To get a better gauge of biodiversity losses at smaller scale, we worked alongside scientists from the international research network DarkDivNet to examine almost 5,500 sites across 119 regions worldwide. This huge body of fieldwork took years and required navigating global challenges such as COVID-19 and political and economic instability.
At each 100 square metre site, our team sampled all plant species present against the species found in the surrounding region. We defined regions as areas of approximately 300 square kilometres with similar environmental conditions.
Just because a species can grow somewhere doesn’t mean it would. To make sure we were recording which species were genuinely missing, we looked at how often each absent species was found growing alongside the species growing at our chosen sites at other sampled sites in the region. This helped us detect species well-suited to a habitat but missing from it.
We then cross-matched data on these missing species against how big the local human impact was by using the Human Footprint Index, which measures population density, land use and infrastructure.
Of the eight components of this index, six had a clear influence on how many plant species were missing: human population density, electric infrastructure, railways, roads, built environments and croplands. Another component, navigable waterways, did not have a clear influence.
Interestingly, the final component – pastures kept by graziers – was not linked to fewer plant species. This could be because semi-natural grasslands are used as pasture in areas such as Central Asia, Africa’s Sahel region and Argentina. Here, long-term moderate human influence can actually maintain highly diverse and well-functioning ecosystems through practices such as grazing livestock, cultural burning and hay making.
Semi-natural pastures preserve many different plant species. Pictured: the Hulunbuir grasslands in Inner Mongolia, China. Dashu Xinganling/Shutterstock
Overall, though, the link between greater human presence and fewer plant species was very clear. Seemingly pristine ecosystems hundreds of kilometres from direct disturbance had been affected.
These effects can come from many causes. For instance, poaching and logging often take place far from human settlements. Poaching an animal species might mean a plant species loses a key pollinator or way to disperse its seeds in the animal’s dung. Over time, disruptions to the web of relationships in the natural world can erode ecosystems and result in fewer plant species. Poachers and illegal loggers also cut “ghost roads” into pristine areas.
Other causes include fires started by humans, which can threaten national parks and other safe havens. Pollution can travel and settle hundreds of kilometres from its source, affecting ecosystems.
Our far-reaching influence can also hinder the return of plant species, even in protected areas. As humans expand their activities, they often carve up natural areas into fragments cut off from each other. This can isolate plant populations. Similarly, the loss of seed-spreading animals can stop plants from recolonising former habitat.
What does this mean?
Biodiversity loss is not just about species going extinct. It’s about ecosystems quietly losing their richness, resilience and functions.
Protecting land is not enough. The damage we can do can reach deep into conservation areas.
Was there good news? Yes. In regions where at least a third of the landscape had minimal human disturbance, there was less of this hidden biodiversity loss.
As we work to conserve nature, our work points to a need not just to preserve what’s left but to bring back what’s missing. Now we know what species are missing in an area but still present regionally, we can begin that work.
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
The five-week election campaign is now in full swing throughout the nation.
Amid the flurry of photo opportunities and press conferences, candidates campaign in specific areas for a reason: to shore up or win back key seats.
But which seats are key? Here, six experts explain the seats to watch in New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria and Western Australia.
New South Wales
David Clune, honorary associate, government and international relations, University of Sydney
How the 2025 federal election will play out in NSW is difficult to predict for two reasons.
The first is the recent redistribution which, as ABC analyst Antony Green’s pendulum shows, has redefined many electoral boundaries.
The second is the number of crossbench MPs. There are three Teals in formerly safe Liberal seats: Mackellar (Sophie Scamps), Warringah (Zali Steggall) and Wentworth (Allegra Spender). Teal Kylie Tink’s seat of North Sydney has been abolished.
All were lifted into parliament by the rising tide of resentment against former Prime Minister Scott Morrison. Now that tide has gone out, the survival of these MPs depends on how they have performed as local members. The overall impression is that they have done well in connecting with their constituents and will be hard to shift.
There is a chance the formerly safe upper north shore seat of Bradfield could augment their numbers. Teal Nicolette Boele gave Liberal Paul Fletcher a very uncomfortable election night in 2022 when she slashed his majority. After the redistribution, the Liberals hold the seat by a narrow 2.5%. Fletcher is not recontesting. Boele is running a well-financed campaign with a lot of grass roots support.
The redistribution has pushed many former North Sydney voters into Bradfield. Whether they remain Teal or revert to being true-blue Liberals remains to be seen.
Much of the rest of the former North Sydney has gone into the very marginal Labor seat of Bennelong, which is now notionally marginal Liberal.
The Nationals have a problem in Calare, where former Nationals MP, now independent, Andrew Gee, is recontesting. The Nationals are also facing challenges from the left on the upper north coast due to demographic change. They hold Cowper by 2.4%.
Liberal-aligned independent, Dai Le, narrowly won Fowler in Sydney’s western suburbs in 2023. Labor has endorsed Tu Le, also of Vietnamese descent, in what promises to be a tough fight. Parramatta is another marginal seat in the western suburbs, held by Labor’s Andrew Charlton with a two-party preferred margin of 3.7%.
The government is concerned about seats on the central coast and in the Hunter and Illawarra regions, where concerns about wind farms and job losses due to renewable energy are a major issue. Most of the government’s vulnerable seats are in these areas: Gilmore, Robertson, Paterson and Hunter would all be lost with a two-party-preferred swing of 5%.
Queensland
Paul Williams, associate professor in politics and journalism, Griffith University
For decades we said Queensland was a key “battleground” in federal elections where seats north of the Tweed so often held the keys to The Lodge.
The 1975 election saw the Coalition leave Labor with a single seat, and the 1996 poll bequeath Labor just two. Conversely, Labor’s Kevin Rudd rode to victory on his nine-seat haul in in 2007, with Rudd losing seven of those in 2010.
But, for the past 15 years, federal elections have seen little movement in Queensland except, of course, for 2022 when the Greens won three seats. In short, Queensland is no longer the “make-or-break” state. Even the retirements of Keith Pitt (Hinkler), Karen Andrews (McPherson), Warren Entsch (Leichhardt) and Graham Perrett (Moreton) will hardly affect the mood.
The electoral pendulum confirms this. Labor holds just five of Queensland’s 30 seats, with Blair – a mix of outer-suburban and regional proclivities – Labor’s most marginal, but still held by a healthy 5.2% buffer. Given the two-party-preferred (2PP) swing to the Liberal-National Party (LNP) in Queensland will likely be under five percentage points – far lower than the 7.0% two-party-preferred swing the LNP attained at last October’s state election – the Coalition is unlikely to seize any more Labor property.
Conversely, despite the LNP holding seven Queensland seats on margins under 5%, the electoral tide is well and truly out for a Labor Party, whose Queensland brand is damaged at all levels. Inflation and housing shortages have hit Queensland hard, and especially so in the regions. Peter Dutton’s seat of Dickson – the LNP’s most marginal on just 1.7% – is therefore safe.
Climate action and other “community” candidates (some reject the “Teal” moniker) are standing on the Gold Coast (McPherson and Moncrieff), on the Sunshine Coast (Fisher and Fairfax), and in Groom and Dickson. None will win, but some will carve out a respectable primary vote.
All eyes will instead be on the cashed-up inner-urban seats of Ryan (potentially returning to the LNP), Griffith (a possible Labor win) and Brisbane (a genuine three-way race) – all three useful, but not essential, to Labor’s pathway to minority government.
In the Northern Territory, Labor’s Marion Scrymgour holds Lingiari by 1.7%, making that seat one to watch.
South Australia
Rob Manwaring, associate professor of politics and public policy, Flinders University
South Australia is rarely a key battleground in federal elections, and only comprises ten electoral seats.
There are, however, three key seats worth watching as they will tell us a lot about how the election campaign is playing out: Sturt, Boothby and Mayo.
In Sturt, the Liberals hold this key seat in Adelaide’s eastern suburbs with a margin of 0.5%. A fresh challenge for the incumbent James Stevens is that he faces a threat from SA’s first real Teal candidate, Verity Cooper. This potentially pulls this seat into a three-way fight.
Boothby, in Adelaide’s southern suburbs, will be a good litmus test of how well Labor’s campaign is performing. Labor won the seat for the first time ever in 2022, and Louise Miller-Frost has a 3.3% margin. Liberal candidate Nicolle Flint is resurrecting her political ambitions and would be a useful ally for Peter Dutton, if she were to win.
Finally – a question – does Rebekah Sharkie like pizza? Infamously, when state Labor Premier Jay Weatherill needed a critical independent vote to secure office in 2014, he drove to Port Pirie and brokered a deal over pizza with Geoff Brock. Sharkie holds the seat of Mayo in the Adelaide Hills as a member of the Centre Alliance party with a safe 12.3% margin. Sharkie aligns herself with the Teals, and if a Dutton-led victory looks likely, then she may well be ordering her favourite slice to thrash out the terms of any support.
Tasmania
Robert Hortle, deputy director of the Tasmanian Policy Exchange, University of Tasmania
There are two main seats to watch in Tasmania.
The large, rural seat of Lyons is one of the most marginal in the country. Labor’s Brian Mitchell won with a 0.9% margin in 2022, but he’s made way for Rebecca White. Despite an underwhelming record as Tasmanian Labor Leader – three state election defeats – White is very popular in Lyons. However, Liberal candidate Susie Bower was somewhat unlucky to lose in 2022 after winning 37.2% of the primary vote, and has been in campaign mode for the past three years.
On the surface, Franklin – Australia’s only non-contiguous electorate – looks like a safe Labor seat. Julie Collins, the MP since 2007 and a cabinet minister, has a 13.7% margin. But her primary vote fell in 2022, and community backlash against salmon farming in Franklin’s waterways – which Labor and the Coalition both support – could make her vulnerable.
If independent Peter George (former journalist and anti-salmon campaigner) can get ahead of the low-profile Liberal candidate at some point in the count, Liberal preferences may get him across the line.
Two other Tasmanian seats are unlikely to change hands, but feature some interesting dynamics.
Liberal MP Bridget Archer’s 1.4% margin in the northern seat of Bass might look vulnerable. However, she managed a strong primary vote in 2022 despite a big swing against the Liberal Party. She’s very popular in the community for her willingness to stick to her values – even if it means voting against her party 28 times – and should hold her seat despite rumours of internal moves against her.
In Braddon, long-serving Labor Senator Anne Urquhart has quit the upper house to run. Incumbent Liberal MP Gavin Pearce is retiring, and his replacement candidate, Mal Hingston, is a bit of an unknown. It’s unlikely Urquhart will be able to overturn the 8% two-party preferred margin, but prominence in the community might give her a glimmer of hope.
Another point of interest is who will pick up the votes won by the Jaquie Lambie Network (JLN) in 2022. The JLN is not running candidates following a spectacular implosion at state level – and where those voters find a home could be crucial, particularly in Lyons.
Victoria
Zareh Ghazarian, senior lecturer in politics, school of social sciences, Monash University
Victoria is shaping up to be a crucial state for the major parties. Several seats are held by the Labor and coalition parties with a margin of less than 5%.
According to Antony Green, Chisholm is the most marginal seat Labor currently holds. The eastern Melbourne seat has been held by both major parties over the past 30 years.
Next up is Aston, further east of Chisholm, which Labor won at arguably the Liberal Party’s lowest ebb in this electoral cycle at a byelection in 2023.
McEwen, on the other hand, is a provincial electorate to the north of Melbourne. Holding onto these three seats will be a significant feat for Anthony Albanese and may set up Labor to hold a majority government.
For the Coalition, the most marginal seat is Deakin, which is a neighbouring electorate to Aston and Chisholm. The seat is held by a margin of just 0.02%, making it the most marginal in the country.
Monash is also a very interesting seat as it was won by Russell Broadbent, who lost Liberal Party preselection and has decided to run as an independent. His local profile may provide a boost to his primary vote, but may not necessarily be enough to win the seat, which will likely be held by the Liberals.
The Coalition will be in trouble if it fails to retain any of its seats in Victoria. It would need to reclaim Chisholm and Aston if it has any chance of forming majority government.
Other seats to watch include Kooyong, held by Monique Ryan with a margin of 2.2% who defeated Josh Frydenberg in 2022, and Goldstein, held by Zoe Daniel with a margin of 3.3% after defeating Liberal Tim Wilson. These will be a test of whether the Liberal Party is able to reconnect with voters who had traditionally supported them in the past.
Western Australia
Narelle Miragliotta, associate professor in politics, Murdoch University
The five WA seats to watch are Curtin, Bullwinkel, Forrest, Pearce and Tangney.
The affluent inner metropolitan seat of Curtin is held by Teal Kate Chaney on a 1.3% margin. The Liberal’s 2022 defeat was existential and the party are investing heavily in reclaiming it, although Chaney is not likely to be outspent entirely, or outmanoeuvred.
Bullwinkel is a new seat on the eastern fringes of Perth. The majority of its voters are in the metropolitan area, but the seat also takes in regional parts of the state. The seat’s geography and lack of incumbent led to the Nationals fielding Mia Davies, who was leader of the Nationals in the state parliament between 2017 and 2023.
As a result, this notional Labor seat is the site of a fierce three-way contest. YouGov projects a “Coalition” gain, although the outcome will be influenced by whether the Liberals and Nationals can contain simmering hostilities.
Pearce, in the state’s far north, is held by Labor on a comfortable 8.8% margin. However, it’s one of the most indebted electorates in the nation, and the state Labor government experienced large swings against it in outer suburban and regional state electorates earlier this year.
Tangney, in the state’s southern suburbs, was a major win for Labor in 2022. A blue-ribbon inner-city seat held uninterrupted by the Liberals since the early 1980s, Tangney is Labor’s most marginal WA seat (2.6% margin). To Labor’s advantage is the fact that several of the once-safe Liberal inner metro electorates within Tangney’s boundaries have recently voted with Labor at a state level. However, it will be a tight contest.
Paul Williams is a research associate with the T.J. Ryan Foundation.
Rob Manwaring receives funding from the Australian Research Council for a Discovery project on political parties and associated entities.
David Clune, Narelle Miragliotta, Robert Hortle, and Zareh Ghazarian do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley (MA-07)
Pressley Affirms Medicaid Patients’ Right to Choose their Provider for Routine Rare
“Make no mistake, our most vulnerable and marginalized communities will suffer the most if the Supreme Court doesn’t stand with the people.”
WASHINGTON – Today, Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley (MA-07), Co-Chair of the Reproductive Freedom Caucus, rallied with Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), colleagues, and advocates outside the U.S. Supreme Court during oral arguments in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, which could allow states to block Medicaid patients from accessing routine care at Planned Parenthood health centers.
Rep. Pressley rallied to support Medicaid patients – especially Black, brown, indigenous, disabled and queer folks – who are most at risk of losing their access to essential health care services, including cancer screenings, birth control, STI testing and treatment, and more.
Congresswoman Pressley also shared a deeply personal story about her experience receiving health care from Planned Parenthood as a college student, and underscored the critical role of Planned Parenthood in providing essential, routine healthcare.
A full transcript of the Congresswoman’s remarks, as delivered, is available below and the full video is available here.
Transcript: Pressley, Planned Parenthood Rally for Medicaid Patients Outside Supreme Court U.S. Supreme Court April 1, 2025
Well hello there! Wow, you all look beautiful! My movement family.
You know the energy here reminds me of the energy of every movement throughout history, from Seneca Falls to Selma to Stonewall.
You are all here, freedom fighters, recognizing that we are one human family, and our freedom and our destinies are tied.
I’m here because I pride myself on being a justice seeker, and I’m here as a woman of faith. My faith requires me to be here in this moment. So it’s wonderful to be here with this broad and diverse coalition of reproductive justice advocates.
Let me make it plain: the attacks on our health care, our basic freedoms, and our bodily autonomy are tied. No matter who you are, where you live, or who you love, you should be able to get the health care you need, when you need it, in your home community.
But today, Republicans, these men and these complicit women, their anti-abortion allies in the courts want to rip away that fundamental freedom and continue their unprecedented assault on health care.
We are witnessing the most sweeping attempt yet to dismantle Medicaid. Republicans are attacking Medicaid in every branch of government and at every level of government, and they would love for us to stop fighting.
You know, that’s why they’re so anti-woke, because they want people to be asleep. They want people to be ignorant, they want people to be indifferent. They want people to be inactive.
But we will keep fighting, because we refuse to accept their harmful agenda as an inevitability and let them strip health care away from millions of people, especially those that are Black, brown, Indigenous, disabled and queer.
We will not back down. The law is on our side. Let me say that again for the people in the back, to the left and to the right: the law is on our side. The law is on our side. The law is on our side, and so too is the power of the people.
Now, again, as a Congresswoman, let me just do that quick history lesson. Congress codified the right of every patient with Medicaid coverage to have free choice of their health care provider. Your doctor, your choice. Your doctor, your choice. Your doctor, your choice.
This is the same freedom that everyone else has with their private coverage. So if you make less money, or you have a disability, or you receive your care through Medicaid, you shouldn’t be denied the right to choose your health care provider.
What they want is a scenario that would not only further entrench disparities in health care, but flat out deny people the care they need.
Y’all, people will get sicker, people will die, and we won’t stand for it.
Today, with our nation at a critical inflection point, we’re here to stand on the side of freedom.
The freedom to choose when, how and whether, to grow your family.
The freedom to choose whe[re] you get your health care.
The freedom to choose.
As a young college student myself, I exercised that freedom. I was in a city where I had no family, no community, experiencing debilitating pain. I thought I was dying. I went to Planned Parenthood. Mind you, I was afraid and alone, and had to navigate treacherous terrain, even to access the doors, while people screamed at me, threatened me. But because of the dedicated workers at Planned Parenthood, what I found out that day is that I was not dying, but I was diagnosed with a number of uterine fibroids.
To every worker at Planned Parenthood that has met someone where they are as they did with me, in a moment of pain, and fear, and feeling alone, I stand with you. This Congresswoman loves you, sees you, and values your essential labor. When you could have taken your talents anywhere else, you chose to work at Planned Parenthood because you recognize that our greatest wealth as a nation is the health of our people.
I’m for Planned Parenthood because they’re for care, no matter what.
I am so very proud to stand here before you as the Co-Chair of the Reproductive Freedom Caucus, and I’m proud that our caucus stood together with every Senate Democrat and nearly 200 House Democrats to make our collective voices heard in this case, to tell the courts that we’re watching you.
We will be watching if they let Medicaid’s integrity be illegally undermined.
We will be watching if they rob Medicaid patients in South Carolina and across our country of the quality, compassionate care that Planned Parenthood has long provided them.
Make no mistake, our most vulnerable and marginalized communities will suffer the most if the Supreme Court doesn’t stand with the people.
The entire case is an unlawful, unjust, and cruel assault on Black women and people of color. It is an assault on low-income folks, the LGBTQIA community, those in rural and underserved communities — all people who are most likely to get their routine health care through their state and federal Medicaid programs.
Our fundamental right to health care should not be up for debate. Stop playing politics with our lives!
You do not get to pick and choose when it comes to our health care.
Speech by Christine Lagarde, President of the ECB, on the occasion of the conferral of the Sutherland Leadership Award in Dublin, Ireland
Dublin, 2 April 2025
It is an honour to receive the Sutherland Leadership Award.
There are moments in history when things that were once set in stone become fluid. Institutions, norms and alliances that seemed timeless can suddenly be remade.
These moments typically come only once in a generation. Peter Sutherland faced such a juncture when the Cold War ended. The collapse of the Soviet Union could have ushered in a period of global instability and turmoil.
But Peter demonstrated skilful leadership to leverage the defining geopolitical event of his time. As head of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, he successfully led the world’s largest trade negotiation, involving over 120 countries, which ushered in an era of unprecedented global cooperation and prosperity.[1]
Compared with Peter’s era, however, the geopolitical landscape we face today has been turned upside down. We can see this inverted world playing out in different ways.
After the Cold War, the global economy was generally one of openness, integration and certainty. Everyone benefited from a hegemon, the United States, that was committed to a multilateral, rules-based order. This allowed trade and investment to flourish.
But today we must contend with closure, fragmentation and uncertainty.
Geopolitical rivalries are spurring protectionism and upending global supply chains. The international institutions that Peter helped to build are facing increasing challenges. And one index of trade policy uncertainty now stands at more than eight times its average value since 2021.[2]
This landscape poses a serious challenge for Europe on two fronts.
Economically, it risks compounding existing issues like sluggish productivity growth and weak competitiveness. Europe’s reliance on external trade – its trade-to-GDP ratio is about twice that of the United States – makes it vulnerable to trade headwinds. On top of this, pronounced uncertainty may hold back the investment necessary for Europe’s recovery.
Strategically, this new environment could also heighten our security vulnerabilities. We can no longer fully count on the security arrangements that have stood in place since the Second World War. If a security vacuum should arise, it may encourage opportunism by hostile actors on Europe’s doorstep.
Yet despite this challenging landscape, I see a tremendous opportunity for Europe.
Just as in Peter’s time, the structures that once seemed permanent are now becoming fluid again. And just as he did, we can harness the momentum created by geopolitical events to drive positive change.
So how can we – as Europeans – rise to the moment?
We can do so by embracing a simple idea that, at first glance, seems contradictory, but which in an inverted world makes perfect sense: we must cooperate to compete. And in doing so, we must also leverage our competitive advantage.
On the economic front, we need to work together to simplify and scale up our economy so that we can hold our own in a world dominated by economic giants. If we do so, we can attract talent and investment.
That means integrating our capital markets, allowing Europe’s ample savings to fund our much-needed investments. And following the powerful example set by Peter during his time as European Commissioner in the 1980s, it means removing internal barriers that stand in the way of our Single Market, allowing our firms to scale more easily and compete more effectively.[3]
There is clear momentum on this front. The reports by Enrico Letta and Mario Draghi have opened the way. And with its Competitiveness Compass, the European Commission has put forward a concrete roadmap with milestones that should be urgently implemented.
But we cannot stop halfway and we are pressed for time. As we scale up our economy, we need to scale up our decision-making to match it – and thereby stand tall and be heard.
At a time when major economies are adopting cohesive strategic agendas – using tariffs, for example, to extract concessions on other strategic goals – Europe cannot afford to be disunited. If we cannot take decisions in a European way, then others will use that against us.
To stand our ground, we need to be able to act as a single entity across several key areas. And that means we need to structurally change how we make decisions.
We know what stands in our way: a historical tradition whereby a single veto can scupper the collective interest of 26 other countries. But given the geopolitical shift at hand, I am convinced that national and European interests have never been so aligned. In this inverted world, more qualified majority voting would therefore be inherently more democratic.
I have no doubt that we can unleash a “European moment” – if leaders are willing to seize it.
If it sounds like I am confident about Europe’s future, it is because I am. But I am in good company here tonight. A recent survey finds that of all the Member States, the Irish are the most optimistic about the EU’s future, and they are among the strongest supporters of the euro.[4]
This sense of optimism is perhaps rooted in Ireland’s extraordinary transformation in recent decades. And here I am reminded of the words of Oscar Wilde, who once wrote, “Success is a science; if you have the conditions, you get the result.”[5]
Ireland put those conditions in place during the most challenging of times, and has reaped the rewards. It is now incumbent on Europe to do the same.
MEPs want the EU to respond determinedly to Russia’s aggression in Ukraine, conflict in the Middle East, and the return of so-called “great power” politics.
The EU should meaningfully increase and speed up support for Ukraine, to put it in a position of strength and deter any further aggression by Russia following a potential ceasefire agreement ,MEPs say in two reports adopted on Wednesday.
In the report on Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) adopted by 378 votes in favour, 188 against and 105 abstentions, Parliament warns Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine erodes Europe’s security architecture, by destabilising and threatening the Eastern European neighbourhood and the Western Balkans.
Concerned about rising tensions in the Middle East, MEPs are asking EU foreign affairs chief Kaja Kallas to produce a comprehensive EU strategy for the region and to increase Europe’s presence there. Calling for lasting peace and security for both Israelis and Palestinians, MEPs welcome the prospect of a return of the Palestinian Authority to Gaza and express support to the Global Alliance for the Implementation of the two-State Solution.
Cooperation with partners, including the US
In light of intensifying efforts by China, Russia, Iran, and others to destabilise the existing international order and undermine multilateralism, the report says enhanced cooperation and coordination by the EU with like-minded partners is essential. MEPs are worried about the fast pace at which the new US administration is reversing established partnerships and dismayed by its policy of appeasing Russia and targeting traditional allies. Nonetheless, MEPs believe it is more crucial than ever to continue engaging with the US. They encourage member states to pursue bilateral diplomatic channels with their US counterparts as the format of cooperation preferred by the US administration, while at the same time demonstrating unity and commitment to a common EU position.
Robust and credible security guarantees for Ukraine
In the report on Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP), adopted by 399 votes in favour, 198 against and 71 abstentions, MEPs express their deep concern about the apparent shift in the United States’ stance on Russia’s war of aggression. They strongly deplore any attempts at blackmailing Ukraine’s leadership into surrendering to the Russian aggressor for the sole purpose of announcing a ‘peace deal’(AM 15).
The resolution says a possible peace agreement, which respects Ukraine’s independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity, needs to be accompanied by robust and credible security guarantees in order to deter future Russian aggression. MEPs welcome the recent efforts in this regards with like-minded NATO partners as well as the European Council conclusions of 20 March 2025 that underline that the EU and member states are ready to contribute to security guarantees, in particular by supporting Ukraine’s ability to defend itself effectively (AM 23).
Close coordination and cooperation between the EU and NATO
The resolution further stresses that close coordination on deterrence and collaboration between the EU and NATO is needed for the development of coherent, complementary and interoperable defence capabilities and the reinforcement of Europe’s industrial production capacity. MEPs concur with the wider ambition to strengthen the European pillar within NATO, but they reiterate that the development of a European Defence Union should go hand-in-hand with the deepening of EU-NATO cooperation.
Finally, Parliament wants the Commission to raise common debt to provide the EU with the fiscal capacity to borrow in exceptional and crisis situations now and in the future. MEPs say Europe is “now experiencing a pressing need to boost security and defence for protecting EU citizens, restoring deterrence and supporting the EU’s allies, first and foremost Ukraine”. The burden of these actions should, MEPs argue, be shared fairly (AM 101).
Quotes
The rapporteur on the Common Foreign and Security Policy David McAllister (EPP, DE) said: “We underscore the importance of a determined, disciplined and assertive EU foreign policy to address geopolitical challenges such as the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine, the conflicts in the Middle East, and growing geopolitical competition. The EU must be able to fulfil and defend its own strategic objectives on the international stage. Parliament’s contribution can help shape a medium- to long-term strategic vision that guides the High Representative’s priorities throughout this legislature and into the future.”
“This report provides a basis for how the EU should respond to the geopolitical paradigm shift we are witnessing around the world. The European Union has to take its future into its own hands. We will need to work closely in the coming years with the United States on security and defence, but in the longer term, the EU also needs to establish its own credible dissuasive powers. To do this, we need to invest a lot more in our own security and defence, while also demonstrating political unity and determination. We also need to continue to provide strong support to Ukraine as they continue to defend Europe’s territorial integrity, independence and values.”
Question for written answer E-001229/2025 to the Commission Rule 144 Per Clausen (The Left)
Türkiye has seen another assault on democracy, with President Erdoğan arranging for the arrest of the Mayor of Istanbul, Ekrem İmamoğlu – probably Erdoğan’s current main political rival. This is part of Erdoğan’s pattern of behaviour, where he seeks to have anyone who might challenge him arrested.
This raises serious questions about EU-Türkiye relations, including whether Türkiye should still be referred to as a ‘like-minded’ country.
Therefore, in the light of Türkiye’s attack on democratic principles, can the Commission please provide answers to the following questions:
1.Is Türkiye still considered a ‘like-minded’ ally or partner of the EU?
2.Which specific criteria are used to determine another country’s ‘like-mindedness’?
3.Can the Commission provide a complete list of the countries around the world that are currently considered ‘like-minded’?
European Commission Statement Brussels, 02 Apr 2025 The new legislation, including Foreign Agents Registration Act and Law on Broadcasting, adopted by the parliament today, without due public consultations, give additional tools to the Georgian authorities to suppress dissent and tighten the policy of repression.
Disinfectant Wipes/Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act
Trials
United States v. Don M. Rynn
No. 2:24-CR-00653 (District of South Carolina)
AUSA Winston Holliday
AUSA Amy Bower
On March 20, 2025, a jury convicted Don M. Rynn of making false statements to federal agents and falsifying fishing records (18 U.S.C. §§ 1001, 1519).
Rynn managed several commercial fishing vessels in the McClellanville area, including the Maximum Retriever and the Crystal C. The vessels docked at Carolina Seafood, a federally licensed dealer.
On March 21, 2023, the Maximum Retriever embarked on a commercial fishing trip captained by the defendant’s son, who Rynn instructed to catch as many fish as he could (ignoring federally imposed quotas). Rynn told his son he would “take care of things” when he returned.
The Maximum Retriever returned to McClellanville shortly after midnight on March 27, 2023, with almost three times the legal limit of snowy grouper on board, and one and a half times the allowable number of grey tilefish. Rynn was waiting for the boat to arrive. Once the Maximum Retriever was in place, the Crystal C was maneuvered so that the two boats were side-by-side.
Rynn then directed deckhands to move fish from the ice hold of the Maximum Retriever to the Crystal C. They removed additional fish from the Maximum Retriever to Rynn’s truck to take to another seafood dealer in Georgetown.
In the mandatory trip report filed shortly thereafter, Rynn reported his catch only up to the limit, hiding the fact that the Maximum Retriever had vastly overfished. He attributed a substantial portion of the catch to the Crystal C, which had remained moored at the dock.
On March 27, 2023, law enforcement officers received an anonymous tip alerting them to the excessive catch. The Georgetown seafood dealer that had received some of the overage initially lied to cover for Rynn. When he realized the agents were closing in, the dealer threw the fish in the river to get rid of them.
In October 2023, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA) agents interviewed Rynn about the incidents in March. Rynn lied, saying the snowy grouper and tilefish had been contaminated by a fuel spill while at sea, and that he had disposed of them in a dumpster. Rynn further implied that a U.S. Coast Guard report addressing an unlawful discharge into Jeremy Creek was inaccurate and should have been attributed to the Crystal C, which would have bolstered his fuel spill story.
In total, the Maximum Retriever caught approximately 560 pounds of snowy grouper and 450 pounds of tilefish. The legal limit for grouper is 200 pounds and 300 for tilefish.
NOAA, the U. S. Coast Guard, the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources and the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources Saltwater Team conducted the investigation.
Photo from dock surveillance camera showing Rynn on back of boat directing two individuals to carry a tote of federally protected fish to his truck.
On March 14, 2025, a court unsealed a complaint charging the chief executive officer of a Georgia-based heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) company with illegally importing 500 cylinders of potent greenhouse gases known as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) into the United States from Peru.
William Randolph Hires is charged with violating the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act (AIM Act) by unlawfully importing 500 cylinders of HFCs (42 U.S.C. §§ 7675, 7413).
In April 2022, on behalf of his company, Hires purchased 500 cylinders of HFCs in Peru. Over the next several months, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) officials explained to Hires’s employees that, under the AIM Act and its implementing regulations, Hires’s company could not lawfully import the HFCs into the United States because it did not have the required EPA-issued allowances. In a July 22, 2022, email to one of Hires’s employees, an EPA official stated “it is not possible to import bulk HFCs without consumption allowances.”
Hires’s employees conveyed this information from the EPA to Hires on several occasions. On one occasion, an employee forwarded an email to Hires that the employee had received from an EPA official which stated, “[t]he HFC you listed (R-410A) is a regulated substance. So, if you do not have allowances, you cannot import those bulk HFC refrigerants.” In another email exchange between Hires and an employee, the employee informed Hires that, based on a video conference the employee had with EPA officials, shipping without the necessary allowances would violate import laws so “[i]t is out of our hands.”
Hires nevertheless instructed his employees to illegally import the HFCs into the United States. In a July 28, 2022 email, Hires stated to his employees: “[y]eah you have to be careful what agencies you’re reaching out to because the EPA . . . can create a hassle and they can hold our stuff up in customs there[.]” In a subsequent email, Hires instructed his employees to “get [the HFCs] on the ship and get it out to sea . . . don’t care what it takes[.]” Hires later instructed his employees via email: “Do not call the EPA please do not.”
The EPA Criminal Investigation Division, Homeland Security Investigations, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection conducted the investigation.
United States v. Leshon E. Johnson
No. 6:25-CR-00012 (Eastern District of Oklahoma)
ECS Senior Trial Attorney Ethan Eddy
ECS Trial Attorney Sarah Brown
AUSA Jordan Howantiz
ECS Law Clerk Amanda Backer
On March 20, 2025, Leshon E. Johnson was arraigned on an indictment charging him with violating the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. § 2156(b) & 18 U.S.C. § 49). Specifically, Johnson possessed 190 pit bull-type dogs for the purpose of having the dogs participate in an animal fighting venture, and for selling, transporting, and delivering a dog for use in an animal fighting venture. Federal authorities seized the 190 dogs from Johnson in October 2024 as authorized under the Animal Welfare Act. This is believed to be the largest number of dogs ever seized from a single person in a federal dog fighting case.
Johnson ran a dog fighting operation known as “Mal Kant Kennels” in both Broken Arrow and Haskell, Oklahoma. He previously ran “Krazyside Kennels,” also out of Oklahoma, which led to his guilty plea on state animal fighting charges in 2004. Johnson selectively bred “champion” and “grand champion” fighting dogs — dogs that have respectively won three or five fights — to produce offspring with fighting traits and abilities desired by him and others for use in dog fights. Johnson marketed and sold stud rights and offspring from winning fighting dogs to other dog fighters looking to incorporate the Mal Kant Kennels “bloodline” into their own dog fighting operations. His trafficking of fighting dogs to other dog fighters across the country contributed to the growth of the dog fighting industry and allowed Johnson to profit financially. Trial is scheduled to begin on May 5, 2025.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation conducted the investigation.
Guilty Pleas
United States v. Terrell Williams
No. 4:23-CR-00692 (Eastern District of Missouri)
AUSA Jillian Anderson
On March 7, 2025, Terrell Williams pleaded guilty to an Animal Fighting Venture violation for hosting dog fights in his home and training dogs to fight (7 U.S.C. § 2156(a)-(c); 18 U.S.C. § 49(a)). Sentencing is scheduled for June 6, 2025.
Between September 2020 through May 2022, Williams hosted fights in a wooden “box” setup in the basement of his home in Riverview, Missouri. He also owned and bred bull terriers and terrier mixes that were used for fights. On June 22, 2022, FBI agents executed a search warrant at Williams’s home and seized eight bull terrier mixes and three Yorkshire terriers. The dogs bore scars consistent with fighting. Agents also removed equipment used to train and condition dogs, including weighted vests and a canine treadmill.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation conducted the investigation.
Dog rescued from defendant’s home during execution of search warrant. Photo included with detention motion filed with the court.
On March 11, 2025, Nicholas Dryden pleaded guilty to creating and distributing videos depicting the torture of monkeys (known as animal “crush” videos) (18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 48(a)(3)). Co-defendant Giancarlo Morelli entered a similar plea in December 2024.
Dryden commissioned videos from a 17-year-old in Indonesia who was willing to commit specified acts of torture on video in exchange for payment. Dryden utilized Telegram, a cross-platform messaging app that includes encrypted group messaging and private chats, to advertise the animal crush videos and solicit funding for additional videos. Within these private groups, Dryden shared snippets of videos that he commissioned and advertised that the full content was for sale. Co-defendants Morelli and Philip Colt Moss each sent money to Dryden more than a dozen times in exchange for monkey torture videos.
Thereafter, they frequently gave feedback on the videos and Morelli sometimes suggested torturous acts he’d like to see in future videos.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office of Law Enforcement and the Federal Bureau of Investigation conducted the investigation.
United States v. Jose Manuel Valenzuela
No. 3:24-CR-01037 (Southern District of California)
ECS Assistant Chief Stephen DaPonte
AUSA Laura Sambataro
On March 18, 2025, Jose Manuel Valenzuela pleaded guilty to intentionally failing to present refrigerant tanks for inspection (19 U.S.C. §§ 1433, 1436). Sentencing is scheduled for June 10, 2025.
On April 22, 2024, Valenzuela (an HVAC technician) attempted to enter the United States from Mexico without declaring four 24-pound tanks of 404A refrigerant (a hydrofluorocarbon refrigerant) in his vehicle.
Customs and Border Protection, Homeland Security Investigations, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Criminal Investigation Division conducted the investigation.
United States v. Robert C. Schmid
No. 3:25-mj-00011 (Eastern District of Virginia)
AUSA Carla Jordan-Detamore
On March 25, 2025, Robert C. Schmid pleaded guilty to violating the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (7 U.S.C. §§ 136j(a)(1)(A), 1361(b)(1)(B)). Sentencing is scheduled for July 22, 2025.
Schmid owned the Atlantic Manufacturing Group, LLC (AMG), which manufactured and sold cleaning and janitorial products. AMG marketed and sold its products via various means, including a website, as well as through outside sales representatives. In September 2017, AMG entered into an agreement with “Company 1” to purchase a product called “Maquat 64-PD” for which Company 1 had obtained a registration from the EPA. AMG entered into this Agreement because it wanted to distribute and sell its liquid ProAmenities Lemon Detergent Disinfectant, made with Company 1’s Maquat 64-PD.
In October 2017, the EPA approved the label for AMG’s ProAmenities Lemon Detergent Disinfectant. The label made clear that the product was hazardous to humans and animals and was not for use on clothing or on skin.
Beginning in May 2020, and acting on behalf of AMG, Schmid began manufacturing and selling AMG “Hygienic Facility Wipes” that purportedly protected users from COVID-19. Schmid sold these wipes to janitorial services that supported government entities, gyms and health clubs, universities, and janitorial product retailers. AMG manufactured these wipes by applying the ProAmenities Lemon Detergent Disinfectant to dry wipes and packaging the wipes in plastic buckets or plastic packages. These wipes, however, were not registered with the EPA pursuant to FIFRA and did not have EPA approved labels or safety guidance. Investigators also determined that Schmid, his employees, and outside sales reps made unauthorized claims about the efficacy and safety of these wipes to potential customers.
After Company 1 issued Schmid a cease-and-desist email in August of 2020 about the unauthorized use of its product, Schmid switched to “Company 2” to use its liquid, which was not registered with the EPA, in its wipes. Schmid, however, continued to claim that his wipes were an EPA-registered product. AMG also generated product labels claiming the wipes eradicated corona viruses, in addition to other falsified information (to include the ingredient list).
Between March and November 2020, AMG sold approximately 5,000 cases of the wipes, taking in close to $415,000 in sales and making approximately $33,000 in gross profit.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Criminal Investigation Division conducted the investigation.
United States v. Robert J. Bullock, Sr.
No. 1:24-CR-10056 (District of Massachusetts)
AUSA Benjamin Tolkoff
On March 26, 2025, Robert J. Bullock, Sr., pleaded guilty to violating the Safe Drinking Water Act for tampering with public water systems (42 U.S.C. § 300i-1(a)). Sentencing is scheduled for June 25, 2025.
On the evening of November 29, 2022, Bullock, a former Stoughton Water Department employee, went into one of the Water Department’s pumping stations and turned off the pump that introduces chlorine into drinking water. As a result, water that had not been properly disinfected was introduced into the drinking water system.
When questioned by investigators, Bullock claimed to not have tampered with the water system. Specifically, Bullock said that he had not knowingly turned off the chlorine pump at Goddard Pumping Station 7 on the night of November 29, 2022, when in fact he had; and that he did not set the alarms for the chlorine level to zero that night, when he did.
The Federal Bureau of Investigations, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Criminal Investigation Division, and the Stoughton Massachusetts Police Department conducted the investigation.
Sentencings
United States v. National Water Main Cleaning Company
No. 3:25-CR-00002 (District of Connecticut)
AUSA Hal Chen
RCEC Man Chak Ng
On March 4, 2025, a court sentenced the National Water Main Cleaning Company (NWMCC) to pay a $500,000 fine, complete a three-year term of probation, and implement an environmental compliance program. The company will also employ an independent outside consultant to perform a compliance audit and identify an environmental compliance manager for its Connecticut facilities. NWMCC will also make a payment of $500,000 to the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CT DEEP) to fund aquatic ecosystem enhancement projects in the South-Central Coastal Watershed.
The company pleaded guilty to violating the Clean Water Act (CWA) for knowingly discharging a pollutant into Cuff Brook while refurbishing a large culvert pipe in Cheshire, Connecticut, in July 2019 (33 U.S.C. §§ 1319 (c)(2)(A); 1311(a)). The unauthorized discharge of uncured geopolymer mortar killed more than 150 fish and contaminated Cuff Brook.
At the time of the incident, NWMCC was operating under a Code of Conduct as part of a 2014 settlement with the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office to resolve civil allegations involving environmental pollution.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Criminal Investigation Division conducted the investigation, with assistance from the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection.
United States v. Fidelity Development Group LLC
No. 3:24-CR-00077(Southern District of Ohio)
ECS Senior Trial Attorney Adam Cullman
On March 4, 2024, a court sentenced Fidelity Development Group LLC (Fidelity) to pay a $100,000 fine and complete a two-year term of probation. Fidelity pleaded guilty to violating the Clean Air Act for failing to inspect for the presence of asbestos (42 U.S.C. § 7413(c)(1)).
In 2015 or 2016, Fidelity purchased a building and planned to renovate it into a mixed-use property. Fidelity failed to perform or acquire an asbestos survey for the building prior to renovations. Around April 2020, a certified asbestos company conducted an asbestos survey in the Fidelity Building and identified more than 12,000 linear feet of 80% chrysolite asbestos pipe wrap insulation in friable condition.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Criminal Investigation Division conducted the investigation.
United States v. Frock Brothers Trucking, Inc.,et al.
Nos. 1:24-CR-00235, 00250 (Middle District of Pennsylvania)
AUSA William Behe
On March 6, 2025, a court sentenced Frock Brothers Trucking, Inc., to pay an $80,000 fine and complete a two-year term of probation. Mechanic Leon Martin will complete a two-year term of probation, to include three months’ home detention, and pay a $500,000 fine.
Both defendants pleaded guilty to conspiracy and to violating the Clean Air Act (CAA) for tampering with the emission control systems for several heavy-duty diesel trucks (18 U.S.C. § 371; 42 U.S.C. § 7413(c)(2)(C)).
Between 2018 and October 2023, Martin provided “tuning” or “reprogramming” services by modifying the engine control modules (ECMs) on diesel trucks. The ECM is a computerized system that manages and controls the engine’s performance. During that time, Martin tampered with the emissions diagnostic systems on the vehicles for many companies to prevent the diagnostic system software from monitoring the emission control system hardware.
Frock, a long-distance trucking company based in New Oxford, Pennsylvania, transports a variety of goods, including snack foods, refrigerated items, and produce. Ed Frock owned the company until his death in August 2022.
Between November 13, 2018, and December 28, 2018, Frock contracted with co-defendant Martin to disable and/or remove emission control components from eight of their diesel trucks. Frock removed the vehicles’ ECMs from their engines and shipped them to Martin for reprogramming. Once the devices were “tuned,” Martin shipped them back to Frock, where they were reinstalled on the trucks. Martin also tampered with the onboard diagnostic equipment (OBD) to delete factory-installed emission controls from Frock’s heavy duty diesel trucks. Martin’s tunes enabled those deleted trucks to operate without emission control devices, which are required by federal law.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Criminal Investigation Division conducted the investigation.
On March 6, 2025, a court sentencedBenjamin Gathercole to complete a one-year term of probation, after he pleaded guilty to violating the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) for illegally transporting hazardous waste without a manifest (42 U.S.C. § 6928(d)(5)).
Gathercole lived in Tappahannock, Virginia, and worked at a local brake manufacturing facility. In 2019, a Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) inspector determined that the brake manufacturing facility failed to make an accurate waste determination for 32 55-gallon drums stored on site. Some of the drums displayed labels noting they contained hazardous waste, but not in accordance with RCRA requirements. The DEQ issued a notice of violation to the facility in May 2019.
In September and October 2019, Gathercole removed 31 of the 55-gallon drums from the facility and transported them to his residence. He dug a hole near his property and buried the drums in the ground. He crushed some of them in the process, causing their contents to spill onto the ground.
In December 2020, a citizen tipped off the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) about the illegal burial. In November 2021, agents executed a search warrant on the defendant’s property. Gathercole admitted to burying the drums at the request of his employer and directed authorities to where he had buried them. Further testing confirmed the waste was ignitable hazardous waste. The EPA finished excavating the site in November 2022.
The EPA Criminal Investigation Division and the EPA National Enforcement Investigation Center conducted the investigation.
United States v. Keidrick D. Usifo, et al.
No. 24-CR-00040 (Eastern District of Arkansas)
AUSA Edward Walker
On March 6, 2025, a court sentenced Keidrick Usifo to pay a $5,000 fine and complete a five-year term of probation. Co-defendant Deon Johnson will pay a $1,000 fine and complete an 18-month term of probation. Usifo and Johnson previously pleaded guilty to violating the Big Cat Public Safety Act (BCPSA)(16 U.S.C. §§ 3372 (e)(1)(A), 3373 (d)).
Lawmakers enacted the BCPSA in December 2022 to protect the public by prohibiting the private ownership of big cats (such as tigers and lions) as pets and by prohibiting exhibitors from allowing public contact with big cats, including tiger cubs. This law places new restrictions on the commerce, breeding, possession, and use of certain big cat species.
In April 2023, a citizen tipped off local game authorities after seeing a tiger cub in a residential neighborhood in Conway, Arkansas. Further investigation confirmed that Usifo purchased a tiger in March 2023 from a broker in Dallas, Texas, and brought it back to his residence in Arkansas.
After receiving a second complaint about the tiger cub, law enforcement conducted a traffic stop on April 21, 2023, arresting Usifo on a felony state warrant. The Conway Police Department then executed a search warrant at Usifo’s residence. The animal was not there, but they found evidence of its presence, including the fact that rooms in the house matched those in photos of the tiger that Usifo posted on Instagram.
While in the Pulaski County Detention Facility (PCDF), Usifo made several calls to Johnson, asking him to take care of the tiger while Usifo was held in detention. Johnson concealed his knowledge of the tiger when questioned by agents.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office of Law Enforcement conducted the investigation, with assistance from the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, the Conway Police Department, and the Little Rock Police Department.
Tiger cub, now named Fred, rescued by the Turpentine Creek Wildlife Refuge. Photo taken by case agent June 2024.
United States v. Frankluis Carela De Jesús, et al.
No. 3:24-CR-00174 (District of Puerto Rico)
ECS Senior Trial Attorney Patrick Duggan
AUSA Seth Erbe
On March 6, 2025, a court sentenced the final two Dominican nationals who attempted to smuggle tropical birds from San Juan, Puerto Rico, to the Dominican Republic. Frankluis Carela De Jesús will serve 12 months and one day of incarceration, followed by three years of supervised release. Domingo Heureau Altagracia will complete eight months of incarceration and three years of supervised release. Waner Balbuena and Juan Graviel Ramírez Cedano were each previously sentenced to serve 12 months and one day of incarceration, followed by three years of supervised release. All the defendants pleaded guilty to Lacey Act trafficking and to smuggling wildlife from the United States (18 U.S.C. § 554; 16 U.S.C. §§ 3372(a)(1), (a)(4), 3373(d)(1)(B)).
On May 3, 2024, the four Dominican nationals traveled in a flagless vessel departing from San Juan, Puerto Rico, to the Dominican Republic. They intended to smuggle various species of tropical birds to the Dominican Republic for financial gain. When the vessel was approximately 30 nautical miles north of Puerto Rico, the United States Coast Guard (USCG) approached the vessel and witnessed the crew tossing objects overboard. Following the boarding of the vessel, USCG authorities recovered several of the jettisoned objects, which were wooden cages containing tropical birds. Approximately 113 birds drowned as a result.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office of Law Enforcement, the U.S. Coast Guard, and Customs and Border Protection conducted the investigation.
On March 10, 2025, a court sentenced Travis Larson to pay a $40,000 fine and complete a five-year term of probation. Larson will also pay $2,400 in restitution, to be divided between the State of Alaska and the Port Graham Authority. Larson will forfeit $150,000 and is prohibited from hunting anywhere in the world or providing any big game commercial services while under supervision. Larsen pleaded guilty to violating the Lacey Act for illegally transporting four black bears and making false records (16 U.S.C. §§ 3372(a)(2)(A), 3373(d)(1)(B); (d)(3)(A)).
Larson worked as a licensed big game transporter since 2010, and provided transport services through his company, Alaska Premier Sportfishing LLC (APS). Larson and APS offered paying clients transportation for multi-day hunting and fishing trips aboard a 65-foot liveaboard vessel, Venturess.
In May 2018, Larson transported eight hunters on a black bear hunt in the Nuka Bay area of the Kenai Peninsula. Each hunter paid $3,500 to participate in the hunt. The group included four Norwegian nationals. Larson knew all four people were not U.S. residents, nor were they accompanied by a licensed hunting guide or assistant guide, as required under state law.
On May 9, 2018, one foreign hunter was transported to a beach adjacent to Surprise Bay to hunt a black bear. The hunter shot and killed a black bear on land belonging to the State of Alaska. On May 10, 2018, Larson transported three foreign hunters to a beach adjacent to Beauty Bay to hunt black bears. Two of the hunters each shot and killed a black bear on land belonging to the Port Graham Corporation, an Alaska Native Corporation, and the other hunter shot and killed a black bear on land belonging to the State of Alaska. On both days, Larson transported the hunters and the illegally harvested black bears back to his vesselvia the smaller motorboat.
On May 11, 2018, Larson transported the four foreign hunters and the four illegally harvested black bears to Homer, Alaska, where he knew the black bears would be transported in interstate and foreign commerce following the hunt. The government dismissed the charges against Larson’s business.
The National Park Service Investigative Services Branch and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office of Law Enforcement conducted the investigation.
On March 10, 2025, a court sentenced Dugan Paul Daniels to six months’ incarceration, followed by three years’ supervised release, for falsifying fishing records in violation of the Lacey Act and illegally taking a sperm whale in violation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C. §§ 3372(d)(2), 3373(d)(3)(A), 1583(a)(1)(C), 1540(b)(1)). Daniels will also pay a $25,000 fine and perform 80 hours of community service, and is banned from commercial fishing for one year.
Daniels is a commercial fisherman with 20 years of experience. Between October and November 2020, he submitted falsified fishing records to make it appear that he lawfully caught sablefish, aka “black cod,” in federal waters on two separate occasions. In fact, Daniels illegally harvested the fish in State of Alaska waters, specifically, in Chatham Strait and Clarence Strait. The total market value of the illegally harvested fish was $127,528.
In March 2020, Daniels and three crew members were fishing for sablefish southwest of Yakobi Island in the Gulf of Alaska when they came upon a sperm whale. During the encounter, Daniels directed a crewman to shoot the whale multiple times and also tried to ram the whale with his fishing vessel. Daniels documented the encounter in writing and through text messages sent from a GPS communication device. Some of the messages stated he wished he “had a cannon to blow” the whale out of the water and that he hoped “to be reeling in a dead sperm whale.” It is a violation of the ESA to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct involving an endangered species.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Office of Law Enforcement conducted the investigation.
No. 2:23-CR-00177 (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
AUSA Christopher Parisi
On March 11, 2025, a court sentenced Bien King and Khalil King to each complete three-year terms of probation, to include six months’ home confinement. Bien King was also sentenced to pay a $1,000 fine. The defendants pleaded guilty to violating the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act for selling a misbranded pesticide and for violating the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act for selling misbranded animal drugs (7 U.S.C. §§ 136j(a)(1)(E); 21 U.S.C. § 331(a)).
Bien King started “Little City Dogs” (LCD) a New York corporation with office space in New York City. Bien King also created a website that sold various products intended to treat diseases or pests in animals. Bien King’s son, Khalil, worked in the New York office. Khalil King was responsible for mixing ingredients and packaging various products for shipment. The defendants obtained the ingredients for these products from various suppliers in China. They knew that these suppliers routinely mislabeled shipments of these products to avoid detection by customs officials.
When LCD received orders from online sales, Khalil King and others shipped the products from the New York office to customers throughout the United States. An undercover agent placed several orders for various products through the LCD website. These purchases included a January 17, 2020, order for fipronil drops and ivermectin. Fipronil is designed to treat external parasites such as fleas and ticks. Ivermectin is designed to control heartworms in dogs and cats.
The defendants shipped the fipronil drops and ivermectin from New York to an address in Springfield, Pennsylvania. The labeling and packaging material accompanying the fipronil drops did not include information required by law. The labeling and packaging material accompanying the ivermectin likewise did not include required information. Furthermore, LCD’s facility in New York City was not registered with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Criminal Investigation Division and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Office of Criminal Investigations conducted the investigation.
United States v. Jose V. Fernandez
No. 1:24-CR-00071 (District of Rhode Island)
AUSA John McAdams
On March 11, 2025, a court sentenced Jose V. Fernandez to complete a two-year term of probation. Fernandez pleaded guilty to making false statements for distributing false asbestos abatement training certifications (18 U.S.C. § 1001 (a)(3)).
Fernandez owned the Rhode Island Safety Environment Training Center. The Rhode Island Department of Health (RIDH) accredited the facility to provide asbestos abatement training. On multiple occasions between 2021 and 2023, Fernandez submitted false documentation to the RIDH attesting that nearly two dozen individuals paid for, attended, and successfully completed an Environmental Protection Agency-approved abatement training program when, in fact, no one attended any classes.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Criminal Investigation Division and the Rhode Island Department of Health conducted the investigation.
On March 11, 2025, a court sentenced Pedro Luis Bones-Torres to 12 months’ incarceration, followed by one year of supervised release. Bones-Torres pleaded guilty to violating the Clean Water Act and the Rivers and Harbors Act for illegally constructing and depositing material into the wetlands and waters of the United States in the Jobos Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve (the “Jobos Estuarine Reserve”) and Las Mareas community of Salinas, Puerto Rico (33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(a), 403).
Starting in January 2020, Bones-Torres engaged in construction and land clearing activities on a property to the South of Camino de Galileo in the Las Mareas area of Salinas, Puerto Rico (the “Property”). Much of the Property supported mangrove trees with an open area that was occasionally partially submerged by the sea tides. This wetland area was within the Jobos Estuarine Reserve.
Between January 2020 and October 2022, Bones-Torres removed mangroves from the Property, depositing fill material onto the wetland area using excavation and earth moving equipment. After he filled the wetlands, he built a concrete pad, a concrete gazebo with an outdoor kitchen, a wooden gazebo, and a dock extending into Mar Negro. Bones-Torres did not seek or receive approval to fill the wetlands and was at no point permitted to fill wetlands on or near the Property.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Criminal Investigation Division, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Division, the Department of Commerce Office of Inspector General, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Office of Law Enforcement, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office of Law Enforcement conducted the investigation.
United States v. Royce Gillham
No. 2:24-CR-14046 (Southern District of Florida)
ECS Senior Trial Attorney Adam Cullman
AUSA Daniel Funk
On March 13, 2025, a court sentenced Royce Gillham to 37 months’ incarceration, followed by three years of supervised release. Gillham, the former General Manager of a biofuel producer based in Fort Pierce, Florida, pleaded guilty to conspiring to commit wire fraud and conspiring to make false claims (18 U.S.C.§ 371).
This biofuel company produced and sold renewable fuel and fuel credits and claimed to turn various feedstocks into biodiesel. When reporting the number of gallons produced to the Internal Revenue Service and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Gillham and his employer vastly overstated their production volume in an effort to generate more credits. When auditors sought more information from the company, Gillham and his co-conspirators gave them false information about their fuel production and customers.
The scheme generated more than $7 million in fraudulent EPA renewable fuels credits and sought over $6 million in fraudulent tax credits connected to the purported production of biodiesel.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Criminal Investigation Division and the Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigations conducted the investigation.
No. 2:24-CR-00161 (Central District of California)
ECS Senior Trial Attorney Ryan Connors
ECS Trial Attorney Lauren Steele
AUSA Dennis Mitchell
ECS Law Clerk Maria Wallace
ECS Law Clerk Tonia Sibblies
On March 14, 2025, a court sentenced Sai Keung Tin, also known as Ricky Tin, to 30 months’ incarceration, followed by one year of supervised release. Tin will also pay a $5,000 fine for his role in smuggling protected turtles from the United States to Hong Kong. Tin pleaded guilty to four counts of exporting merchandise contrary to law (18 U.S.C. § 554).
Between February 2018 and June 2023, Tin, a Chinese citizen, assisted turtle smugglers in the United States. During that time, Tin aided and abetted the trafficking of approximately 2,100 turtles to Hong Kong. The turtles were intended to be sold as part of the illegal Asian pet trade. Based on a conservative, contemporary market valuation of $2,000 per turtle, the smuggled reptiles were valued at $4.2 million.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) agents arrested Tin in February 2024 as he arrived at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York.
USFWS agents obtained a search warrant to seize Tin’s cell phones, and found evidence that Tin came to the United States to smuggle turtles. He planned to travel to New Jersey, Texas, and Washington — familiarizing himself with tourist locations to present a false story if apprehended. His ultimate plan was to pay for turtles in cash, ship them around the country, and eventually illegally export them to Hong Kong.
Tin was associated with international turtle smuggler Kang Juntao, of Hangzhou City, China, who was extradited from Malaysia in 2019 and later sentenced to prison after pleading guilty to money laundering. Kang caused the shipment of approximately 1,500 turtles (with a market value exceeding $2.25 million) from the United States to Hong Kong, which included shipments to Tin.
The eastern box turtle is a subspecies of the common box turtle and native to the United States. Turtles with colorful markings are highly prized pets, particularly in China and Hong Kong, and are protected by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office of Law Enforcement conducted the investigation, with assistance from Customs and Border Protection and Homeland Security Investigations.
On March 19, 2025, Hino Motors, Ltd. (HML) was sentenced to pay a criminal fine of $521.76 million, serve a five-year term of probation, during which it will be prohibited from importing any diesel engines it has manufactured into the United States, and implement a comprehensive compliance and ethics program and reporting structure. Additionally, the court entered a $1.087 billion forfeiture money judgment against the company.
Prosecutors charged HML in a single conspiracy count with five objects: to defraud the Environmental Protection Agency, to defraud the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, to violate the Clean Air Act, to commit wire fraud, and to smuggle goods into the United States, all in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371.
Between 2010 and 2019, HML submitted and caused to be submitted false applications for engine certification approvals. Company engineers regularly altered emission test data, conducted tests improperly, and fabricated data without conducting any underlying tests. HML submitted fraudulent carbon dioxide emissions test data, which resulted in the calculation of false fuel consumption values for its engines. Company engineers also failed to disclose software functions that could adversely affect engines’ emission control systems. As a result of the fraud, HML imported and sold more than 105,000 non-conforming engines between 2010 and 2022.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Criminal Investigation Division and the Federal Bureau of Investigation conducted the investigation.
Nos. 1:24-CR-00124, 1:21-CR-00016 (Northern District of New York)
AUSA Benjamin Clark
On March 20, 2025, a court sentenced Kyle Offringa to pay a $100,000 fine for conspiring to violate the Clean Air Act (CAA). His company, Highway and Heavy Parts, LLC (HHP), was sentenced on December 3, 2024, to pay a $25,000 fine. As part of the sentencing, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will monitor the company for ongoing compliance for a two-year period. HHP and Offringa pleaded guilty to conspiring to tamper with a required monitoring device in violation of the CAA (18 U.S.C. § 371).
Between June 2017 and March 2019, HHP and Offringa conspired with a diesel truck operator, and others, including co-conspirators Daim Logistics, Inc., and Patrick Oare, to remove, delete, and tamper with monitoring devices that were required under the CAA to be installed on heavy-duty diesel trucks. Truck operators delete the emissions control hardware on heavy-duty diesel trucks to allow them to run at higher horsepower, with greater fuel efficiency, and with reduced maintenance costs. HHP charged its customers a fee for Offringa to reprogram the vehicles’ on-board detection equipment so regulators would not discover the tampering. Customers paid HHP between $1,000 and $1,500 for each truck Offringa altered.
Oare and Daim Logistics were sentenced in November 2024 for tampering with a monitoring device or method in violation of the CAA (42 U.S.C. § 7413(c)(2)(C)). Oare was sentenced to time served and to pay a $15,000 fine; the company will pay a $13,000 fine. In addition, prior to sentencing, the EPA and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation monitored Daim for approximately 18 months to ensure the company complied with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations regarding the emission control devices installed on diesel vehicles owned or operated by the company.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Criminal Investigation Division conducted the investigation, with assistance from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Police.
Headline: Members discuss decarbonization, traceability, packaging, medical devices; address notifications
Thematic session: Traceability requirements for bulk agricultural commodities
The session recognized that traceability systems are becoming an important tool to demonstrate that agricultural products meet sustainability standards and regulations. Speakers discussed how such schemes could restrict market access and reviewed the challenges businesses face in complying with such requirements, especially in developing economies. They emphasized the role of public-private collaboration, national strategies, and the availability of traceability-related data to facilitate compliance with these schemes. The TBT Agreement disciplines, particularly transparency and the need to avoid unnecessary trade restrictions, were underscored as crucial for designing balanced and effective traceability schemes.
Thematic session: Regulatory cooperation between members on food contact packaging
Balancing multiple objectives when designing and implementing measures for reducing food contact packaging is a challenge, the session stressed. The discussion noted that food packaging serves a unique and essential role in preserving the shelf-life and safety of food we consume. Speakers identified various considerations to address these challenges, including avoiding one-size-fits-all approaches, leveraging international standards, ensuring transparency, using the best available scientific information and avoiding unnecessary costs for businesses.
Thematic session: Decarbonization standards
Speakers recognized that standards and regulations are vital in supporting decarbonization objectives, with international standards playing an important role in ensuring interoperability in international markets. The importance of developing economies’ participation in developing international standards was acknowledged, alongside the necessity of coherence and periodic updates to standards.
Thematic session: Regulatory cooperation between members on medical devices regulation
Speakers emphasized the essential role of regulatory cooperation and convergence for ensuring timely access to safe and effective medical devices, particularly in times of public health emergencies. International standards were highlighted as a foundation for facilitating trade in safe medical devices, and the importance of avoiding duplication of regulatory efforts was underscored. Speakers stressed the TBT Agreement as a key tool to guide regulatory cooperation and reduce unnecessary trade barriers for medical devices.
TBT cross-cutting information session on trade and environment
The TBT Committee held a cross-cutting information session on trade and environment with the participation of delegates from the WTO Committee on Trade and Environment (CTE) in an effort by members to find synergies across the work of relevant WTO bodies. Members shared their views on possible ways in which the TBT Committee can continue enhancing members’ understanding of TBT matters at the intersection of trade and environment.
As the TBT Committee’s agenda will continue to include issues related to environmental protection and TBT measures, members expressed support for closer cooperation between the TBT Committee and the CTE, noting the benefits of fostering synergies and cross-committee learning, while avoiding duplication.
Adoption of improved TBT notification formats
Following action taken by the Transparency Working Group, and in particular by Australia, Namibia, Paraguay, the United Kingdom and the United States, significant changes to TBT notification formats were adopted to streamline and modernize information contained in these documents.
Notifications resulting from actions of Transparency Working Group
Guyana, for the first time, submitted a notification on measures it has put into place to ensure the implementation of the TBT Agreement (Article 15.2). This follows last year’s adoption of a template and accompanying guidelines to help members prepare these notifications. The new notification facilitates access to information on government agencies involved in standards and regulations and the publications and websites they use to disseminate information about their work. Canada and Colombia also shared information on their recently submitted notifications.
ePing translations
The WTO Secretariat announced the launch of a new ePing feature that allows users to request unofficial translations of the full text of notified draft regulations into English, Spanish or French. This function is now available to all WTO members and ePing users. Additionally, the Secretariat encouraged members to update their enquiry point information on ePing, emphasizing the importance of keeping contact details up to date.
International Standards Organization (ISO)/ International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) terms and definitions
In conformity with a decision members took at the 10th Triennial Review of the TBT Agreement in November 2024 and following the Secretariat’s consultations with the ISO and IEC, access to their Guide containing standardization terms and definitions is now available on the WTO website. The Guide is expressly referred to in Annex 1 of the TBT Agreement.
Specific trade concerns
Members raised eight new trade concerns and 53 previous ones.
The new trade concerns addressed proposed measures related to eco-design requirements for electrical products such as chargers and sustainable products. They also covered regulatory issues on self-driving vehicles, restrictions on use of hazardous substances in certain electrical products, and recycling and recovery of materials from waste batteries. Concerns also addressed measures related to food and liquor labelling.
Members also shared progress in their discussion of trade concerns. The United States announced progress with respect to its concerns on Mexico’s measures affecting yoghurt and cheese. Mexico and the United States reported the resolution of their trade concern regarding Saudi Arabia’s technical regulation for electric vehicles.
Annual review
Every year, the TBT Committee carries out an annual review of activities relating to the implementation and operation of the TBT Agreement, including notifications, specific trade concerns, technical assistance activities and TBT related disputes. A brochure highlighting the Committee’s key results in 2024 is available here. These results include the MC13 Declaration on Regulatory Cooperation and the adoption of the 2025-2027 workplan.
WASHINGTON – After a shocking report revealed that the Biden Small Business Administration (SBA) failed to pursue nearly two million individuals suspected of stealing pandemic aid, U.S. Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship Chair Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) and House Committee on Small Business Chair Roger Williams (R-Texas) are introducing the SBA Fraud Enforcement Extension Act.
The bill extends the statute of limitations to 10 years for fraud surrounding the Shuttered Venue Operators Grant (SVOG) and the Restaurant Revitalization Fund (RRF) COVID relief programs to ensure criminals are caught and held accountable. Similar action was taken in 2022 to extend the statute of limitations surrounding the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) and COVID Economic Injury Disaster Loans (EIDL) to 10 years.
“I will not allow criminals to run out the clock and escape justice simply because the Biden administration was asleep at the wheel,” said Ernst. “Thousands of hardworking small businesses were deprived of desperately needed relief because swindlers, gang members, and felons cashing in on COVID drained the programs. Every single con artist who stole from taxpayers will be held accountable.”
“The SBA distributes millions of dollars to small businesses in need every year. However, where small business owners found the capital needed to stay afloat during the COVID-19 pandemic, bad actors saw the opportunity to defraud the government,” said Williams. “It is imperative that every fraudster who stole and exploited taxpayer dollars during our nation’s utmost hour of need be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. As we approach the five-year anniversary of the pandemic and its lockdowns, the statute of limitations must be extended to ensure that no fraudster gets away scot-free.”
While criminals cashed in, thousands of small businesses in Iowa, Texas, and across the country were left out in the cold as RRF funds ran out.
Business Insider reported that celebrities received taxpayer funds through the SVOG program for private jets, parties, luxury clothes, and multi-million dollar bonuses for themselves.
Background:In a comprehensive 2023 report, Ernst outlined the Biden SBA’s effort to discount the full extent of fraud and cast doubt on the legitimate estimates made by expert investigators.
Ernst’s tireless advocacy forced the Biden administration to eventually take action to recover billions in COVID aid in January 2024.
As a University arm in providing service to the nation, the University of the Philippines Resilience Institute envisions people, institutions and communities that are resilient to disaster and climate change risks. This shall be done by empowering them with open, accessible, accurate, understandable, and timely risk-based information and by developing a culture of safety and preparedness. It adopts the whole of government, nation and society approach and the trans-disciplinary science, arts, and humanities.
DRR activities
UP NOAH Website and Mobile Application
The UP NOAH (Nationwide Operational Assessment of Hazards) website and mobile application is an initiative by the University of the Philippines (UP) that provides real-time weather, flood, landslide, and other disaster-related data for the Philippines. It aims to enhance disaster risk reduction and management by offering scientific tools and hazard maps to local governments, emergency responders, and the general public.
Basics of Resilience Massive Open Online Courses
The Basics of Resilience is a free, self-paced MOOC collaboratively offered by the UPRI and the UP Open University (UPOU). This foundational course aims to equip learners with essential knowledge and skills to understand and implement DRRM, as well as CCAM strategies.
Scientific and Policy Research
UPRI is dedicated to advancing scientific and policy research aimed at enhancing disaster resilience and climate adaptation in the Philippines. UPRI undertakes a variety of research initiatives, including policy research, action research, and interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary studies, all aimed at producing and applying new knowledge in DRRM.
Probabilistic Risk Assessment
UPRI advocates for the implementation of Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) to enhance disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation in the Philippines. PRA is a systematic approach that evaluates the likelihood and potential impacts of various hazard scenarios, including those beyond historical records, by incorporating uncertainty and randomness into risk analysis. This method contrasts with deterministic assessments, which typically consider only single, often historical, scenarios. UPRI emphasizes the necessity of PRA in national development planning to anticipate and prepare for future hazards that may surpass those previously experienced.
Capacity Building of Higher Education Institutions
UPRI actively enhances disaster resilience and climate adaptation capacities across the University of the Philippines System and other state universities and colleges (SUCs) through various strategic initiatives. UPRI actively collaborates with various SUCs to co-create local knowledge and build capacity in disaster resilience. These partnerships are crucial for formulating effective DRRM strategies tailored to local contexts.
Rural and remote Albertans play a crucial role in the province’s prosperity, from feeding the world to producing raw materials and adding to Alberta’s vibrant cultural landscape. They also face unique challenges when it comes to accessing affordable utilities and heating costs. By ensuring rural Albertans have affordable access to the utilities they need, Alberta’s government is helping keep lights on, homes warm and businesses in operation, powering both livelihoods and success.
Budget 2025 provides $8.5 million for the Rural Utilities Program – which consists of the Rural Electric Program, Rural Gas Program and Rural Water Program – and the Remote Area Heating Allowance. This will help communities access critical services like gas, power and water, as well as deliver direct financial relief to thousands of rural Albertans facing high utility bills so that they can continue their vital work.
“Farmers, ranchers and rural communities are the backbone of Alberta, working hard to support us all. In return, we must ensure they can keep doing what they do best, and these grants do just that by ensuring they can access the utilities they need – at a reasonable cost.”
“These grants are making a difference for Albertans across the province, ensuring that everyone, no matter where they live, has access to essential utilities. I’m proud of how this government continues to support and stand by the hard-working rural communities that help drive our province forward.”
A total of $700,000 is allocated to the Rural Electric Program, recognizing the increasing role electricity plays in modern farming and ranching. Under this program, grants are administered by the Alberta Federation of Electrification Associations and support the construction of electrical services for farms and ranches.
“Alberta’s Rural Electric Grant Program is helping rural Albertans access the power they need to continue putting food on tables around the world. We’re grateful for the government’s ongoing support and commitment to rural electrification.”
When it comes to home heating, Budget 2025 commits $5.7 million to the Natural Gas Program, to be administered by the Federation of Alberta Gas Co-ops, to expand and update natural gas infrastructure. This funding will help provide more rural Albertans with reliable and affordable home heating options as well as help communities attract new businesses, create jobs and diversify the local economy.
For those who are unable to access the natural gas system, Budget 2025 also commits $1.6 million for the Remote Area Heating Allowance program. Direct financial relief is provided to more than 2,000 households, the majority from Indigenous communities, to help with the high cost of alternative heating fuels, such as heating oil and propane.
“With this funding, gas co-operatives can continue the ongoing expansion of our natural gas distribution system so that we can connect even more rural communities to affordable gas heating.”
Equally as important as electricity and heat is access to safe, abundant water for residential, livestock and irrigation needs. Budget 2025 commits $500,000 for the Rural Water Program, first introduced in 2024, to ensure rural water co-ops across the province have access to modern water treatment and distribution systems. Grants are administered by the Alberta Federation of Rural Water Co-operatives.
“Access to clean water is non-negotiable for any home or farming operation. The Rural Water Program is providing support as we work to ensure rural Albertans have the modern water distribution systems they need. ”
Budget 2025 is meeting the challenge faced by Alberta with continued investments in education and health, lower taxes for families and a focus on the economy.
Quick facts:
The Rural Electric Program was established in 2013 and has provided more than $7 million in grants to rural Albertans who are actively farming and where the services are being used for a farming operation.
The Rural Gas Program was established in 2001 and has distributed more than $70 million to help build the largest rural gas distribution system in the world.
More than 18 per cent of Albertans live in rural and remote communities.
Related information
Farm fuel and rural utility programs
Utilities Consumer Advocate
Financial Assistance Resources (UCA)
Related news
Power up, costs down (March 25, 2025)
Don’t default to the Rate of Last Resort (Feb. 4, 2025)
Keeping Albertans’ lights on and homes warm (Oct. 21, 2024)
Introducing the Rate of Last Resort (Sept. 25, 2024)
Power rates slashed in half by new market rules (Sept. 5, 2024)
Power watchdog supports Alberta’s electricity market reforms (Aug. 6, 2024)
Preventing power price spikes (June 26, 2024)
Affordable and reliable electricity for Albertans (March 11, 2024)
