Headline: Six Months After Hurricane Helene, Governor Stein Honors Lives Lost & Reaffirms Commitment to Supporting Western North Carolina
Six Months After Hurricane Helene, Governor Stein Honors Lives Lost & Reaffirms Commitment to Supporting Western North Carolina lsaito
Raleigh, NC
Today, on the six-month anniversary of Hurricane Helene, Governor Josh Stein visited western North Carolina to honor the 106 lives lost and reaffirm his commitment to supporting the region’s full recovery.
“Six months ago today, Hurricane Helene swept through western North Carolina and forever changed our state,” said Governor Josh Stein. “106 lives were tragically lost in the wake of Hurricane Helene, and their families and communities will forever grieve their absence. Today, we honor their legacies and recommit to supporting our neighbors every step of the way as they work to rebuild western North Carolina.”
Governor Stein met families who lost loved ones, including firefighters at the Fairview Fire Department, and celebrated the life of Tony Garrison, a volunteer battalion chief who dedicated his life to serving the Fairview community. Along with his nephew Brandon Ruppe, Garrison tragically died while attempting to rescue 11 individuals from a mudslide. Stein thanked the firefighters and first responders who heroically responded to the devastation of the storm and expressed his commitment to honoring the memory of those lost by continuing to fight for western North Carolina. He also signed a proclamation in commemoration of the six-month anniversary of Hurricane Helene and in remembrance of the 106 lives lost.
Six months since Hurricane Helene struck North Carolina, Governor Stein continues to advocate for the ongoing relief efforts:
Yesterday, Governor Stein submitted a finalized Action Plan for distributing $1.4 billion awarded by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development, the fastest any state has submitted a plan following a major hurricane in the past decade.
Last week, the Governor signed the Disaster Recovery Act of 2025 – Part 1, which provides $524 million in total aid for western North Carolina. The bill calls for $120 million for a CDBG-DR Home Reconstruction and Repair program, $55 million in local government infrastructure grants to help small businesses, $100 million for private road and bridge repair, and $20 million for debris cleanup among other provisions.
Governor Stein continues to advocate for $19 billion in federal funds to restore damaged roads and other infrastructure, support home repair and renovation, and reduce impacts from future natural disasters.
FEMA also recently granted Governor Stein’s requests for 30-day extensions for the Public Assistance program and the Individual Assistance Program.
See progress updates on the Governor’s Recovery Office for Western North Carolina’s recovery dashboard.
Source: United Nations General Assembly and Security Council
An increasingly volatile situation — driven by resurgent incursions by rebel militia groups — is killing and displacing civilians in the eastern region of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Head of the United Nations Mission in that country warned the Security Council today.
“The political and security context remains very tense,” said Bintou Keita, the Secretary-General’s Special Representative in that country and Head of the United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUSCO). In the country’s east, the Congo River Alliance and M23 — supported by the Rwanda Defence Force — are consolidating control over the province of South Kivu, threatening to expand into the provinces of Tshopo and Maniema and installing a parallel administration. All parties must “honour their stated commitment to silence the guns and pursue a peaceful solution”, she stressed.
Meanwhile, the overall security situation in the provinces of North Kivu and Ituri — where over 60 per cent of MONUSCO forces are deployed — remains volatile. The Allied Democratic Forces have exploited the security vacuum created by the redeployment of the Armed Forces of the Democratic Republic of the Congo to launch attacks killing hundreds of civilians. Further, clashes between the Coalition of Congolese Democrats and Zaïre armed groups have escalated in Ituri. The human-rights situation is also deteriorating, with abuses against civilians — including summary executions — and the 2025 Humanitarian Response Plan is only 8.2 per cent funded.
In this challenging context, she said, MONUSCO remains fully committed to its mandate, protecting civilians and facilitating Government-led consultations with armed groups. However, the dramatic deterioration of the security situation has seriously impacted discussions between MONUSCO and Congolese authorities on the gradual disengagement of the Mission and the transition in South Kivu. Reiterating that lasting peace in the east can only be achieved through a political solution, she called for the urgent reopening of Goma and Kavumu airports — lifelines for humanitarian efforts and key to the rotation of MONUSCO troops.
Also addressing the Council was Charlotte Slente, Secretary General of the Danish Refugee Council, who said that her organization has been “racing to respond to the erratic and constant movement of internally displaced persons seeking safety” since the end of January. The recent explosion of violence in and around Goma has exacerbated the already-dire humanitarian situation in the east and led to 660,000 people being forcibly displaced — in addition to the 6.7 million already displaced across the country at the end of 2024. “With little notice, families were kicked out of their shelters, forced to leave with nothing but the clothes they were wearing,” she said.
Detailing the appalling living conditions in makeshift camps, churches and schools, she noted widespread looting, shootings, rampant sexual violence, arbitrary arrests and reports of boys and men being forced to join armed groups. “One person told us they wake each morning to find new dead bodies on the streets,” she recalled, adding that 98 per cent of her organization’s case management for human-rights violations has been for rape. And, while humanitarian work is under extreme pressure due to recent funding cuts, the displacement crisis will only worsen. Stressing the need to ensure safe and voluntary return for internally displaced persons, she also called on the Council to ensure humanitarian access across the country.
Kinshasa, Kigali Spar Over Causes of Conflict
In the ensuing discussion, representatives of Kinshasa and Kigali sparred over the causes and culprits driving the worsening conflict, with the representative of the Democratic Republic of the Congo citing the “chaotic” humanitarian situation in east. He highlighted a series of atrocities perpetrated by the Rwanda Defence Force and M23, including killings, torture, massive destruction and numerous lootings. The alarming situation underscores the urgent need to implement — “to the letter” — the provisions of resolution 2773 (2025) to end the violence and protect civilians.
He added that the extent of the violence suggests that “we can no longer allow this crisis to drag out for eternity, claiming that an African problem requires an African solution”. Doing so, he stressed, would betray international solidarity. To date, no Rwandan soldier has withdrawn from Congolese territory, and Kigali has shown blatant disregard for the peace process to which Kinshasa has been committed. Increased pressure — including more robust sanctions — are needed against M23 and its Rwandan allies, he underscored, stating that Rwanda has no right to deploy its army on a sovereign country’s territory.
However, Olivier Nduhungirehe, Minister for Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation of Rwanda, stressed that the conflict in the eastern region “was not started by Rwanda” — despite burden for the same being placed “squarely” on its shoulders. The root cause of the violence is the continued preservation of the genocidal militia known as the Democratic Liberation Forces of Rwanda — or FDLR — despite its record of ethnic massacres, child recruitment and destabilization of both the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda. In that context, he underscored that “the defensive measures we have put in place will remain until there is a credible framework for long-term security guarantees along our border with the DRC”.
Calling the case of MONUSCO “particularly troubling”, he said that while today’s report accurately cites abusive armed groups, it shows a clear pattern of bias. Alarmingly, “MONUSCO provided direct support to the military operation of the DRC coalition, placing itself in a situation of belligerence — even sometimes fighting alongside the same groups it was created to neutralize,” he stressed, adding that the Mission has wildly exaggerated claims of civilian casualties. Nonetheless, MONUSCO can still play a positive role if it abides by its mandate, he said.
Council Members Urge End to Violence
As for Council members, the representative of Sierra Leone — also speaking for Algeria, Guyana and Somalia — expressed concern over the “catastrophic” humanitarian situation in the eastern region of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which is inflicting a severe toll on the Congolese people. While urging an immediate cessation of hostilities, he nevertheless welcomed recent steps towards de-escalation, particularly the ceasefire announcement by M23.
He further welcomed the joint road map to peace adopted by the East African Community and the Southern African Development Community (SADC), as well as commitments made by both Kinshasa and Kigali in Doha to remain fully engaged in the Luanda and Nairobi processes. Stressing that all processes for peace and security in the Democratic Republic of the Congo should align with African-led processes, he stated that external mercenary forces risk exacerbating the situation.
Multiple speakers today, among them the representative of the United States, denounced the hostilities and the increasingly antagonistic rhetoric coming from Rwandan Government officials and M23 — including threats against senior MONUSCO leadership and false claims that MONUSCO supports the FDLR. Panama’s delegate pointed to reports of M23’s indiscriminate attacks against hospitals, abductions of civilians and gang rapes.
“There is no military solution to this conflict,” affirmed Pakistan’s representative, calling all sides — particularly M23 — to engage in all relevant African-led processes to reach a peace agreement. The United Kingdom’s delegate, condemning the capture of the town of Walikale, stressed that the Rwanda Defence Force must withdraw from sovereign Congolese territory. He also said that M23’s continued restrictions on MONUSCO have hampered the Mission’s ability to deliver key tasks.
However, the Russian Federation’s delegate pushed back on the “highly dubious” hospitality extended by MONUSCO to members of European private military companies — as the Mission’s mandate to disarm, demobilize and reintegrate former combatants “bears no relation to the events we witnessed thanks to media reporting”. Given the potential further transition of MONUSCO, the Council must act without allowing the situation to deteriorate due to changes in the configuration of the peacekeeping presence in the country, she stressed.
On the humanitarian situation, the representatives of France and Slovenia condemned M23’s unacceptable restrictions on MONUSCO and humanitarian actors in Goma and occupied areas of North Kivu. On that, the representative of Denmark — Council President for March — spoke in her national capacity to call for the immediate reopening of the Goma and Kavumu airports. Further, she voiced concern over threats and reprisals against human-rights defenders, journalists, civil society and judicial authorities.
On the diplomatic front, China’s representative welcomed recent direct talks in Qatar between Kinshasa and Kigali, as well as the former’s decision to engage in direct dialogue with M23. “China always supports African countries in solving African problems in African ways,” he stated. Greece’s delegate agreed, urging leaders of both countries to re-engage immediately in political dialogue, while the representative of the Republic of Korea called on armed groups to engage in Kinshasa’s “Disarmament, Demobilization, Community Recovery and Stabilization Programme”.
Also on diplomatic engagement, Angola’s representative noted that, in 2022, the African Union mandated that his country’s President mediate the crisis. However, he recalled that the relevant summit, scheduled for 15 December 2024, did not occur as Rwanda insisted that the M23 issue be addressed, while the Democratic Republic of the Congo held that it did not fit into the framework of the Luanda Process. Despite impediments, including some foreign to an African solution, the understandings reached within the framework of the Luanda Process constitute a solid political basis for further efforts, he emphasized.
Burundi’s delegate, for his part, affirmed that only a comprehensive regional solution will put an end to the current crisis and achieve lasting peace. He also urged the Council to ensure implementation of resolution 2773 (2025), observing: “Non-compliance with these resolutions risks weakening the authority of this Council.” He added that failure to respect the territorial integrity of the Democratic Republic of the Congo could set a “dangerous precedent, which some States could make use of to nibble at portions of the territory of other sovereign States”.
FRESNO, Calif. — Following a four-day jury trial, George Thomas, 72, formerly of Fresno and Clovis, was convicted today of selling thousands of stolen catalytic converters for more than $2.7 million, Acting U.S. Attorney Michele Beckwith announced.
Thomas was also convicted of structuring the money that he received for the converters out of his bank accounts through cash withdrawals to conceal his activities from the government. Generally speaking, banks are required to report cash withdrawals over $10,000 to the government. Structuring is the intentional withdrawal of cash in increments under $10,000 to avoid that reporting threshold.
“Catalytic converter theft is a nationwide problem that has affected tens of thousands of Californians,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Beckwith. “The U.S. Attorney’s Office is proud of its continuing effort to disrupt and dismantle this type of organized criminal activity that impacts so many victims.”
“This collaboration exemplifies the power of teamwork between local and federal agencies in combating organized crime and ensuring justice for our community. I would like to extend my sincere appreciation to Deputy District Attorney Adam Kook for his initiative in engaging with federal authorities to drive a coordinated investigation in this case,” said District Attorney Lisa Smittcamp. “Thanks to collaborate efforts of the agencies involved, the ringleader behind the catalytic converter theft operations across the Central Valley is now facing significant fines and jail time for his wrongdoing.”
“The Fresno Police Department is proud to have participated with our partners, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Clovis Police Department, in this investigation and successful prosecution,” said Chief Mindy Casto. “Mr. Thomas’ criminal actions impacted countless members of our communities, both financially and emotionally. Through solid investigations by officers and detectives and the determined prosecution by the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Mr. Thomas will finally be held accountable.”
According to the evidence presented at trial, between January 2021 and November 2022, Thomas purchased stolen converters from a group of habitual thieves in the Fresno area who cut the converters off of vehicles. The sales occurred in the parking lots of motels, gas stations, and similar places at all hours of the day and night.
Thomas gave the thieves instructions on the types of converters that he was looking for and how to best cut the converters off vehicles. Thomas also loaned the thieves money to pay for their motel rooms, saws, and bail. The loans were contingent on the thieves continuing to steal converters for him.
After an initial search warrant was executed at Thomas’ home in mid-2021, Thomas continued with the illegal sales but tried to cover it up. The cover-up included taking a photograph of the thief and an identification card each time he made a sale, requesting a Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) for the vehicle from which the converter was supposedly cutoff, and having the thief sign a piece of paper stating that the converter was not stolen.
But Thomas did not actually change anything. For example, Thomas continued doing cash buys in the same places with the same thieves. He allowed the thieves to use fake and stolen IDs and provide him with false VINs. He also completed undercover sales where he said that he did not care where the VINs or converters came from.
The following is an example of an incriminating photograph taken during the search warrant at Thomas’ home.
Thomas drove the stolen converters to Oregon where he sold them to a metal recycling company for $2.7 million. The recycling company paid Thomas by wire transfer. He then withdrew the money through 386 cash withdrawals that were each under the $10,000 reporting threshold. He often made the withdrawals on his way to and from Oregon.
Importantly, after Thomas was arrested in April 2023, reports of converter theft in the Fresno area decreased by more than 60 percent.
This case is the product of an investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Fresno County District Attorney’s Office, the Clovis Police Department, and the Fresno Police Department. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Joseph Barton and Justin Gilio are prosecuting the case.
Thomas is scheduled to be sentenced on Sept. 11, 2025. He faces a maximum statutory penalty of 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine for each of his convictions The actual sentence, however, will be determined at the discretion of the court after consideration of any applicable statutory factors and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which take into account a number of variables.
Today, the SEC purports to walk away from the Climate-Related Disclosures Rule.[1] In building the rule, we journeyed up a mountain. The Commission spent at least four years taking input – we issued requests for information, made a proposal, opened and reopened comment periods when stakeholders asked for more time or the ability to provide more input, reviewed thousands of comment letters, carefully balanced the interest of investors, markets and issuers, and dutifully tailored a final rule in-line with our mission and our statutory authority.[2] It was an arduous process that led to a sound and strong result.
By way of politics, the current Commission would like to dismantle that rule. And they would like to do so unlawfully. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) governs the process by which we make rules. The APA prescribes a careful, considered framework that applies both to the promulgation of new rules and the rescission of existing ones.[3] There are no backdoors or shortcuts. But that is exactly what the Commission attempts today.
By its letter, we are apparently letting the Climate-Related Disclosures Rule stand but are withdrawing from its defense in court. This leaves other parties, including the court, in a strange and perhaps untenable situation. In effect, the majority of the Commission is crossing their fingers and rooting for the demise of this rule, while they eat popcorn on the sidelines. The court should not take the bait.
Rather, the SEC should do its job. It should defend its existing rule in litigation. If the agency chooses not to defend that rule, then it should ask the court to stay the litigation while the agency comes up with a rule that it is prepared to defend (be it by rescission or otherwise, but certainly in accordance with APA mandates). At the very least, if the court continues without the Commission’s participation, it should appoint counsel to do what the agency will not – vigorously advocate in the litigation on behalf of investors, issuers and the markets.
The Commission’s actions are inconsistent with the APA, historical practice, and they embody bad governance. We do not have license to wholesale abandon agency action simply because the now-constituted Commission would not have supported the rule when it passed. The new majority cannot now rewrite history to change the outcome of a properly held Commission vote.
To be clear, the arguments in the Commission’s Response Brief remain substantively sound. There has been no change in the relevant statutory authority; no new judicial precedent or doctrine; nor any change in the vigorous demand by the investing public. There is no new administrative record, comment file, or economic analysis. As I have said before,[4] the only change here is politics.
Today’s actions are but one symptom of a much larger problem – the Commission taking shortcuts in order to achieve preferred outcomes – this time by skirting the APA. We are now firmly in a period of policy-making through avoidance and acquiescence, rather than policy-making through open, transparent, and public processes. This approach does not benefit the markets, capital formation, or investors. In this instance, the majority of the Commission is hoping to let someone else do their dirty work.
[3] SeePerez v. Mortg. Bankers Ass’n, 575 U.S. 92, 101 (2015) (finding that the APA “mandate[s] that agencies use the same procedures when they amend or repeal a rule as they used to issue the rule in the first instance”).
STMicroelectronics Reports on Resolutions to be Proposed at the 2025 Annual General Meeting of Shareholders
Amsterdam, March 27, 2025 – STMicroelectronics (NYSE: STM), a global semiconductor leader serving customers across the spectrum of electronics applications, announced the resolutions to be submitted for adoption at the Annual General Meeting of Shareholders (AGM) which will be held in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, on May 28, 2025.
The resolutions, proposed by the Supervisory Board, are:
The adoption of the Company’s statutory annual accounts for the year ended December 31, 2024, prepared in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). The 2024 statutory annual accounts1 were filed with the Netherlands Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM) on March 27, 2025 and are posted on the Company’s website (www.st.com) and the AFM’s website (www.afm.nl);
The distribution of a cash dividend of US$ 0.36 per outstanding share of the Company’s common stock, to be distributed in quarterly installments of US$ 0.09 in each of the second, third and fourth quarters of 2025 and first quarter of 2026 to shareholders of record in the month of each quarterly payment as per the table below;
The adoption of the remuneration for the members of the Supervisory Board;
The appointment of Werner Lieberherr, as member of the Supervisory Board, for a three-year term expiring at the end of the 2028 AGM, in replacement of Ms. Janet Davidson whose mandate will expire at the end of the 2025 AGM;
The reappointment of Ms. Anna de Pro Gonzalo, as member of the Supervisory Board, for a three-year term to expire at the end of the 2028 AGM;
The reappointment of Ms. Hélène Vletter-van Dort, as member of the Supervisory Board, for a three-year term to expire at the end of the 2028 AGM;
The appointment of PricewaterhouseCoopers Accountants N.V. as the Company’s external auditor for the financial years 2026-2029;
The appointment of PricewaterhouseCoopers Accountants N.V. to audit the Company’s sustainability reporting for the financial years 2026-2027, to the extent required by law;
The approval of the stock-based portion of the compensation of the President and CEO;
The approval of the stock-based portion of the compensation of the Chief Financial Officer;
The authorization to the Managing Board, until the conclusion of the 2026 AGM, to repurchase shares, subject to the approval of the Supervisory Board;
The delegation to the Supervisory Board of the authority to issue new common shares, to grant rights to subscribe for such shares, and to limit and/or exclude existing shareholders’ pre-emptive rights on common shares, until the end of the 2026 AGM;
The discharge of the members of the Managing Board; and
The discharge of the members of the Supervisory Board.
The record date for all shareholders to participate at the Annual General Meeting of Shareholders will be April 30, 2025. The complete agenda and all relevant detailed information concerning the 2025 AGM, as well as all related AGM materials, are available on the Company’s website (www.st.com) and made available to shareholders in compliance with legal requirements as of March 27, 2025.
Upon the completion by the Supervisory Board of an on-going nomination and selection process, the Company will further communicate on additional nominations to serve on the Supervisory Board, which will be proposed to the general meeting of shareholders.
As for rule amendments from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and conforming FINRA rule changes, on US market the standard for settlement is the next business day after a trade or t+1. European settlement rule remains at t+2 for the time being.
The table below summarizes the full schedule for the quarterly dividends:
Transfer between New York and Dutch registered shares restricted:
In Europe
in NYSE
Quarter
Ex-dividend Date
Record Date
Payment Date
Ex-dividend and Record Date
Payment Date: on or after
From End of Business in NY on:
Until Open of Business in NY on:
Q2 2025
23-Jun-25
24-Jun-25
25-Jun-25
24-Jun-25
1-Jul-25
20-Jun-25
25-Jun-25
Q3 2025
22-Sep-25
23-Sep-25
24-Sep-25
23-Sep-25
30-Sep-25
19-Sep-25
24-Sep-25
Q4 2025
15-Dec-25
16-Dec-25
17-Dec-25
16-Dec-25
23-Dec-25
12-Dec-25
17-Dec-25
Q1 2026
23-Mar-26
24-Mar-26
25-Mar-26
24-Mar-26
31-Mar-26
20-Mar-26
25-Mar-26
About STMicroelectronics At ST, we are 50,000 creators and makers of semiconductor technologies mastering the semiconductor supply chain with state-of-the-art manufacturing facilities. An integrated device manufacturer, we work with more than 200,000 customers and thousands of partners to design and build products, solutions, and ecosystems that address their challenges and opportunities, and the need to support a more sustainable world. Our technologies enable smarter mobility, more efficient power and energy management, and the wide-scale deployment of cloud-connected autonomous things. We are on track to be carbon neutral in all direct and indirect emissions (scopes 1 and 2), product transportation, business travel, and employee commuting emissions (our scope 3 focus), and to achieve our 100% renewable electricity sourcing goal by the end of 2027.
INVESTOR RELATIONS Jérôme Ramel EVP Corporate Development & Integrated External Communication Tel: +41.22.929.59.20 jerome.ramel@st.com
MEDIA RELATIONS Alexis Breton Corporate External Communications Tel: +33.6.59.16.79.08 alexis.breton@st.com
1TheAnnual Report includes the sustainability statement which is prepared based on the general principles of the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD).
Source: United States Senator for Nevada Cortez Masto
Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senators Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) and Steve Daines (R-Mont.) introduced a bill to support rural communities. The Small County PILT Parity Act would allow counties with populations under 5,000 to receive increased Payment In Lieu of Taxes (PILT) payments to create parity with larger counties where per capita funding increases as population decreases. In Nevada, five counties would qualify for increased funding under this bill: Esmeralda, Eureka, Lincoln, Mineral, and Storey.
“This bipartisan bill ensures that our most rural counties are treated fairly when it comes to receiving PILT dollars,” said Senator Cortez Masto. “These counties rely on federal funding for critical projects and services, and I will always fight to ensure that communities in all 17 of Nevada’s counties have the resources they need to thrive.”
“PILT payments are essential for many of Montana’s rural counties, and they provide funding for essential services like emergency response and transportation,” said Senator Daines. “I’m proud to introduce this bipartisan bill to bring parity to the PILT program and ensure our rural and low-population counties are treated fairly.”
“Over 1,900 counties across the United States utilize PILT funding to provide essential services for our residents, including emergency services, transportation infrastructure, law enforcement and healthcare,” said Matthew Chase, National Association of Counties Executive Director. “The Small County PILT Parity Act ensures that rural counties with significant tracts of federal land but limited populations have the resources necessary to deliver services to residents and visitors alike. Counties applaud the efforts of Senators Daines and Cortez Masto and urge swift passage of this bipartisan legislation.”
PILT funds are payments from the federal government to county governments to offset the loss of property taxes from federally owned lands in that county. The Small County PILT Party Act would create four new tiers in the PILT Formula (1,000, 2,000, 3,000, and 4,000) to allow for higher payments for eligible counties.
The full text of the bill can be found here.
Senator Cortez Masto is a champion for Nevada’s rural communities, working across the aisle to deliver for families. She has led legislation to support key tourism and outdoor industries in every corner of Nevada through economic development, and she has introduced a bipartisan bill to cut red tape for small businesses—including those in rural areas. She also ensured rural Nevada communities have better access to federal funds and services through the Rural Partners Network. In the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, she secured funding for rural schools and over $460 million for broadband. She also made sure the law included her legislation to help rural counties with internet access at local schools and streamline federal broadband funding to improve internet access for rural areas.
Source: United States Senator for New Hampshire Maggie Hassan
Washington, D.C. – Today, Congresswoman Maggie Goodlander (NH-02), U.S. Senators Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) and Maggie Hassan (D-NH), and U.S. Representative Chris Pappas (NH-01) are calling on President Donald Trump, Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought, Domestic Policy Council Director Vince Haley, and Office of Intergovernmental Affairs Director Alex Meyer to immediately reverse the President’s March 14 Executive Order dismantling the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) and implement all Congressionally appropriated funds for IMLS and its entities.
The delegation wrote, in part: “We write with dismay at your attempt to eliminate the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) ‘to the maximum extent consistent with applicable law.’ We urge you to immediately reverse your March 14 Executive Order regarding IMLS and implement all Congressionally appropriated funds for IMLS and its entities. No agency authorized by Congress can be dismantled without another act of Congress. IMLS was established by an act of Congress in 1996.”
They continued: “The Granite State received more than $1.5 million from IMLS in FY2024 alone, with the money going to statewide initiatives including an interlibrary loan system, the creation of a digital library, and literacy projects like the Summer Reading Program. From the Museum of the White Mountains to the Currier Museum of Art, New Hampshire’s museums are educational assets that make world-class exhibits accessible to students and families. They also power our local economies: The American Alliance of Museums and Oxford Economics estimate that museums supported 3,574 jobs and contributed $265 million to our state’s economy in 2017.”
They concluded: “American support for IMLS transcends party lines. We urge you to focus on supporting museums and libraries and reconsider your Executive Order that would strip educational, economic, and technical assistance opportunities from our constituents.”
The full text of the letter can be found here.
New Hampshire’s federal delegation has been outspoken about the devastating impact that dismantling the IMLS will have on our libraries, communities, and economy. Last week, Congresswoman Goodlander met with Granite Staters at the Colebrook Public Library and heard firsthand the important role our libraries play in our communities.
Source: United States Senator for Washington State Patty Murray
Murray: “All of us want a better working, more efficient government that delivers for people. But what Trump and Musk are doing has nothing to do with efficiency or with helping people. They are breaking the law, and ripping the rug out from underneath families and American businesses—all while working overtime to pass more tax breaks for billionaires like themselves.”
*** WATCH: Senator Murray’s floor remarks***
Washington, D.C. — Today, Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Vice Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, spoke on the Senate floor about how President Trump continues to defy our nation’s spending laws and rob communities across America of the resources they are owed. She also spoke about the path forward to pass full-year funding bills for fiscal year 2026.
Senator Murray’s remarks, as delivered, are below:
“Thank you, M. President. Right now, we have a couple of billionaires running our country straight into the ground—who seem to have skipped American history because President Trump and Elon Musk don’t seem to care much about our Constitution.
“Including the part that says quite clearly, ‘The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.’
“And it continues! ‘No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.’
“But M. President, their lack of interest in that section of the Constitution doesn’t make it any less real at all! You don’t have to take my word for it—it’s right down the street at the National Archives. You can go read it yourself. And I’d invite our billionaire co-presidents to go take a look!
“Stand in line with the school kids who are on trips, read up on the separation of powers, and you can even explain to the students there why you are gutting the Department of Education while you’re at it!
“And, just in case Trump and Musk struggle as much with reading comprehension as history, let me translate for you what the Constitution says:
“Congress, that is us, everyone elected here, has the power of the purse. Presidents don’t write laws—they execute them. That has been true for every spending bill this body has ever passed, including the House Republicans’ yearlong CR.
“And the basic fact that Congress has the power of the purse is something Republicans and Democrats agree on. And it won’t change no matter what Trump, or Russ Vought, or Elon Musk claim. Their legal theories are plain outlandish and so are their facts.
“If you listen to them, they argue that Presidents have been impounding funds routinely—that’s wrong! The opposite is true. Presidents have traditionally followed the law and followed the legal directives in spending bills.
“And When Nixon tried to block just a fraction of the amount of funding Trump is now blocking, Congress passed the Impoundment Control Act on a truly overwhelming bipartisan basis. In fact, it cleared the Senate unanimously.
“So, while the Constitution may be the first word on Congress’ power of the purse, this foundational principal has been affirmed time and again by the courts and by Congress.
“The law affirms what we’ve long known: presidents cannot pick and choose which parts of the spending laws to follow. And it lays out a clear procedure for the President to propose to Congress either delaying or rescinding funding.
“The Impoundment Control Act is still the law of the land. The Constitution is still the foundation of this democracy. Congress still has the power of the purse.
“And, for some of the House Republicans who seem to have forgotten—that power is a critical part of how all of us, how we fight for our constituents.
“As lawmakers, we allocate funding to solve problems, make lives better, and make our country safer—things like new bridges to safely get to work, or affordable health care and child care, clean drinking water, a strong national defense, personnel who keep planes flying safely overhead and keep toxins out of our food supply, and so much more.
“And when Congress passes legislation to make all of those priorities real—and the president signs it into law, it needs to be followed. That’s how it works in a democracy like ours.
“Don’t like the law? Come win the votes in Congress to change it.
“But I am here today on the floor because as we know all too well, this President is not doing that. He and the richest man in the world are defying our laws, hurting our constituents, and their seeking to enrich themselves in the process.
“For over two months now, President Trump has been illegally choking off huge chunks of funding. We are talking about hundreds of billions of dollars—holding up investments in everything from new roads and bridges, to cheaper energy, to stronger national security.
“Back in my home state of Washington, the reports keep rolling in about how President Trump is causing havoc by illegally blocking funds. Last week, I heard from a lumber company struggling to cover a loan given its federal grant for solar power has now been frozen for months. Earlier this week, my office heard about a terminated Spokane project focused on environmental restoration, stormwater management, and millions of dollars being canceled for Tribal public health efforts in my state alone.
“And I have no doubt the fallout will continue next week—because Trump keeps freezing more funding, ripping up more contracts, and ignoring our laws.
“It has to end. All of us want a better working, more efficient government that delivers for people.
“But what Trump and Musk are doing has nothing to do with efficiency or with helping people. They are breaking the law and ripping the rug out from underneath families and American businesses—all while working overtime to pass more tax breaks for billionaires like themselves.
“This lawlessness has to end.
“Now, I am hopeful in this chamber we get back to regular order and pass actual bipartisan full-year bills. We cannot let what happened with House Republicans’ awful CR happen ever again.
“We’ve got to ensure our constituents, each and every one of us, have their voices heard by getting full-year spending bills reflecting current needs across the finish line. And those bills need to be bipartisan. That is the bare minimum, and it is not too much to ask.
“I have worked with Republicans for years on bipartisan spending bills. During my time as Appropriations Chair, I worked with Senator Collins, from the other side of the aisle, and our colleagues on the Committee, from both sides of the aisle, to hammer out strong, bipartisan bills—two years in a row. Bills that passed out of our Committee in overwhelming bipartisan votes—many of them unanimously.
“So, I know well, it is absolutely possible to work together, and it is worthwhile. Is it easy? Of course not!
“But you look at the bills we wrote together, and you look at the disaster of a bill that House Republicans wrote all on their own, and the difference is night and day.
“And I’m not just talking about the difference in huge, painful, cuts from the House Republican bill. I’m also talking about the huge incompetence House Republicans displayed. They wrote a bill that slashed DC’s own budget by a billion dollars for no reason!
“The Senate has now passed a bill to fix the inexcusable cut to DC’s own funds. But if the House does not act quickly, now, to pass the Senate bill and fix that mistake, House Republicans will force DC to fire teachers, fire police officers, and more—by the way without saving taxpayers a dime.
“And that’s just one, one, of the many glaring issues with House Republican’s partisan CR, which I spoke about at length when I cast my vote against it. And I stand proudly by that vote today.
“Republicans should not write a bill without me and expect me just to vote for it.
“That is not how this ever works. We should not accept a false choice of accepting House Republicans’ poison pills, or facing a shutdown—otherwise that poison is only going to get more bitter each time.
“The choice we have to talk about instead is this: will we work together in a bipartisan way to fund the government and invest in the places we represent or will House Republicans cut us out, go on their own, and cause a shutdown.
“We have to start looking ahead to fiscal year 2026, and working on bipartisan funding bills. And I am focused on making sure that what happened earlier this month absolutely does not happen again.
“Because let me be absolutely clear: if Republicans draft another funding bill in September with zero Democratic input and that bill fails to pass the Senate because Democrats do not vote for it? That is on Republicans. That is Republicans forcing a shutdown. Period.
“I represent nearly 8 million people in the state of Washington: I’m not offering up my vote up in exchange for nothing. And actually, in the case of House Republicans’ CR, worse than nothing, given how it will now be used against Democrats.
“So, I am absolutely not going to stop making this point. Democrats should not offer up our votes in exchange for exactly nothing. I will be making that argument loud and clear for everyone to hear.
“We need to be focused on negotiating bipartisan bills that give our communities strong investments instead of devastating cuts. We need to ensure our constituents have a voice in this process.
“Colleagues, understand this: passing full year, bipartisan spending bills—that is my top priority. Those spending bills that carry the full authority of Congress on how we spend taxpayer dollars, that carry forward the priorities our constituents tell us about, that is my top priority.
“That is the most important guardrail we can place on an administration that looks to punish people they disagree with, and strips funding from priorities like Army Corp dam repairs, or public transportation projects, or from public schools and universities.
“Now as we write those bills, we need transparency. We need to understand the reality on the ground of what this administration and DOGE are actually doing. Who is even calling the shots over there? What programs are functional at this point? Where do we have enough staff to even carry out the mission of specific agencies, or to faithfully follow congressional intent?
“We need a hearing with Elon Musk—and whoever else is running DOGE. We need hearings with the Department heads. Whatever form it takes—we need answers on what has been going on, we need an end to the lawlessness that is happening, and we need transparency that is sorely lacking. I don’t know when that became controversial? Isn’t DOGE supposed to be all about accountability? Isn’t it supposed to be all about transparency?
“So, let’s get to it—let’s show the American people exactly what Trump is doing. What is the problem with that? After all, it’s not like it’s meant to be a secret. Project 2025 was a public playbook. And it’s clear they are following it to the letter.
“Before he returned as OMB Director, Russ Vought made clear he wanted to ignore our laws and ‘Impound baby Impound.’ That’s a direct quote from the General Counsel by the way, he said it: ‘Impound baby impound.’
“I even asked him about this directly—will you follow our laws or just toss them in the dumpster? And he wouldn’t give a straight yes. He wouldn’t—why?—because he already laid out his plans in black and white—break the law, block funds that Congress passed, and dare the courts to stop him.
“And—shocker!—the guy who made clear he is willing to go break laws and block funding, is breaking laws and he is blocking funding.
“And President Trump and Musk have made their intentions just as clear—not just ignoring our laws—but ignoring court orders to uphold our laws and attacking our judges and our judicial system every time they don’t get their way.
“Just this week we saw new, blatantly illegal acts from the Trump Administration. First, OMB removed a website that provides transparency by displaying how it directs agencies to apportion—or spend—federal funding. M. President, that website is not optional—it’s in statute and OMB was complying with a requirement passed by Congress.
“This is a cut and dry case. OMB must publish the agency’s legally-binding budget decisions. We passed that language on a bipartisan basis because our constituents deserve transparency, and they deserve accountability for how their money is being spent. But the only thing transparent about this Administration—is how transparently illegal their actions are.
“Because the same day they illegally shut the American people out of seeing what they are doing, they also blocked funding that House Republicans continued in their own CR and that the President himself just signed into law.
“Trump wants to illegally cherry pick what gets funding we passed and what gets left in the dust. For one thing—that is straight up against the law. Open and shut case.
“For another—it fundamentally erodes our democracy, the trust people, businesses, and local and state governments across the country place in the federal government, and, of course, our ability to negotiate bipartisan deals here in Congress. And let’s not lose sight of the fact that it is bad for our country, and it is bad for our constituents.
“There is a reason we passed the emergency funds. But President Trump is choking off critical investments to combat the flow of fentanyl, he is slashing support for U.S. national security initiatives, he is weakening the competitiveness of U.S. businesses, he is setting back next-generation weather forecasting, and more.
“And that still is not all—because the very next day, we learned he wants to illegally freeze tens of millions of dollars in Title X funding—that is a program with a long bipartisan history that helps women get cancer screenings, get birth control, pregnancy tests, prevent and treat STIs.
“Last time, President Trump tried to do this through rulemaking—but now that he is throwing the law out the window entirely, he thinks he can do it with the stroke of a pen.
“And—I have to underscore these are just recent examples from just this week! This is the latest in a long trail of devastation they have left behind in this ongoing parade of lawbreaking. Because, as I mentioned, President Trump is still blocking hundreds of billions of dollars in investments we secured for our constituents.
“President Trump and Musk illegally shuttered USAID. They are illegally gutting the Department of Education. They are trying to dramatically slash medical research funding with restrictions that are in direct defiance of bipartisan language that I actually worked to negotiate with my Republican colleagues.
“I could go on all day describing the damage caused by these moves—and the many other funds that are now illegally being blocked. But I think the pattern is clear. They said they were going to cut funding regardless of the consequences, regardless of the laws, regardless of the constitution. And that is exactly what they are doing.
“Well M. President, we here in Congress cannot bury our heads in the sand while Trump, Musk, and Vought try to snatch away our power, our power, Democrats and Republicans, of the purse.
“I will continue to use every tool I have as a Senator—I will use my voice, I will use my vote, and more—to stop this lawlessness, stop the cuts that hurt my constituents, and write and pass bills that actually help people.
“So, M. President I really hope that our Republican colleagues will work with us to craft bipartisan funding bills and to conduct basic oversight to provide accountability.
“Because it absolutely matters that we not just pass strong, bipartisan funding laws, but that the laws we pass are actually followed, that our constituents, every one of our constituents, actually have a say in how their tax dollars are spent, that Congress maintains its power of the purse.
“And I am going to continue pressing all of my colleagues to stand with me on this.”
Source: United States Senator for Washington State Patty Murray
ICYMI: Senator Murray Statement on Trump Plans to Hollow Out HHS, Risking Americans’ Health and Safety
***VIDEO HERE***
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Vice Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee and a senior member and former chair of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP), held a press conference with Senators Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) and Ed Markey (D-MA) slamming the Trump administration’s plans, announced today, to push out roughly 20,000 employees at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and hollow out the Department, which is responsible for protecting Americans’ health and delivering essential health and social services. Senator Murray released a statement responding immediately to the news earlier today.
Today’s announcement follows weeks of mass firings across HHS, creating chaos at the Department that has prevented it from executing its mission to protect people’s health, and an onslaught of detrimental policies that are halting lifesaving biomedical research and more. HHS announced that it plans to cut its workforce from 82,000 to 62,000 (a 25 percent reduction) through a combination of mass firings and buy-outs and remake HHS without thoughtful consideration and partnership with Congress. Among others, Trump, RFK Jr., and Musk plan to cut:
3,500 employees at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which is charged with protecting Americans’ health by ensuring the safety and effectiveness of medicines, biologics (including vaccines), and medical devices–and regulating food safety, cosmetics, and tobacco products.
2,400 employees at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which is charged with protecting the American people from health threats, including infectious diseases.
1,200 employees at NIH, the world’s premier medical research agency, which propels biomedical research that produces life-changing and, in many cases, lifesaving treatments and cures. These cuts come as the Trump administration has already systematically decimated ongoing work at NIH to advance new cures and treatments.
300 employees at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), which has long been understaffed and is charged with helping to ensure over 100 million Americans have access to health insurance by overseeing Medicare, Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and the Affordable Care Act marketplaces.
Senator Murray’s remarks, as delivered at today’s press conference, are below and HERE:
“We are here today to raise the alarm—because the Measles President, and Secretary Kennedy, are trying to turn the Department of Health, into the Department of Disease.
“Seriously, do you know what Trump and RFK Jr. are doing about the measles outbreak? They are ripping away funding Congress already provided to respond to the outbreaks—they’re stopping public health work in its tracks, even as this outbreak is threatening to spiral out of control.
“What are they doing about the opioid crisis, or maternal death rates, or bird flu for that matter? More cuts, and don’t forget—mass firings!
“What are they doing about vaccine hesitancy? Unsurprisingly, these anti-vaxxers are slashing vaccine research. And at the very same time, dedicating resources to launch vaccine conspiracy investigations and resurrect debunked science.
“And now, RFK Jr. announces he is pushing out some 20,000 workers at HHS? That is about as good for the public health as a cough in your face.
“Looking for new ways to make government more efficient and responsive is important. But Trump and RFK Jr. are doing anything but that!
“It does not take a genius to understand that pushing out 20,000 workers at a preeminent health agency, choking off funding for cancer research, and eliminating funding that prevents infectious diseases like measles will not make Americans healthier!
“It will just mean fewer health services for our communities, more opportunities for disease to spread, and longer waits for lifesaving treatments and cures.
“These cuts will not reduce the deficit in any way. Not at all! Instead, they threaten to incur massive costs down the road when we are caught flat-footed by the next health care crisis.
“Consider how much bipartisan spending Congress had to push out the door—why? Because Trump failed to get the COVID pandemic under control when it first hit.
“It costs something to prevent pandemics, and it costs a whole lot more when we fail to stop them. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure—but Trump and RFK Jr. are picking neither. They are picking chaos, plague, and pandemonium. That may as well be their official policy—because that is what is coming down the tracks if they don’t change course.
“And I will tell you right now, when our health agencies are unprepared for a deadly pandemic…
“When our hospitals are overwhelmed with sick kids because our local public health officials can’t track a worsening measles outbreak…
“When people start getting E. coli and we cannot figure out where it came from…
“Or whooping cough starts spreading—and we can’t do basic tracing to stop it…
“Or flu season sweeps through nursing homes like never before, because no one bothered to help people get vaccinated…
“Or a vaccine doesn’t even exist because HHS stopped funding seasonal flu vaccine development…
“Or our mental health centers close because federal grants were axed, and opioid deaths rise again, because prevention and treatment work was cut off…
“The American people won’t forget it was Trump and RFK Jr. who gutted essential services and put their lives at risk.
“Today may be a great day for snake oil, it may be a great day for conspiracies, it may be a great day for measles, but it is an incredibly alarming day for America.
“It’s an incredibly scary time for moms and dads who just want to keep their kids healthy, and just want to know there are competent people on the job keeping us safe from diseases.
“I have warned my colleagues from the start, this is not some political game. The work HHS does—or in this case, stops doing—has life and death consequences.
“Well, my colleagues better get used to hearing that warning, because for as long as Trump and RFK Jr. continue down this absolutely reckless path, I will echo that warning over, and over, and over again, because it is an important one.
“Given the stakes here, given the serious threats to our families—I don’t see how any of us can do anything less.
“We need to speak up about how dangerous this is—we are speaking up.
“We need to push back and fight for our families, and we need our families to stand up and fight with us.
“I know I will be. And I am proud to be here with two of my great colleagues who feel the same.”
Source: United States Senator for Kentucky Rand Paul
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
March 27, 2025
Contact: Press_Paul@paul.senate.gov, 202-224-4343
Washington, D.C. – Yesterday, Senators Rand Paul (R-KY), Mike Lee (R-UT), and Bernie Moreno (R-OH) reintroduced legislation to eliminate the U.S. Department of Education, returning control of education policy to states, local communities, and families.
In 2020 and 2021, Dr. Paul introduced a bill to abolish the Department of Education. Additionally, he has previously
introduced the Support Children Having Open Opportunities for Learning (SCHOOL) Act as part of his broader effort to reform education. This legislation allows federal education funds to follow students, regardless of whether they are homeschooled or attend public, private, or charter schools.
“For too long, Washington bureaucrats have imposed a uniform approach to education, stifling innovation and limiting parental choice,” said Dr. Rand Paul. “It’s time to empower families and local leaders to make the best decisions for their students, rather than relying on out-of-touch federal regulators.”
“In the 45 years since the Department of Education was established, the quality of American public schooling has declined, the cost of college has skyrocketed, and parents and students have come second to administrators and unions,” said Senator Lee. “Congress should end this unconstitutional federal intrusion into American education and usher in a renaissance of school choice, parental rights, and academic achievement.”
“There is no constitutional role for the federal government in education, and returning power to the states will empower parents, cut red tape, and give our students the opportunity to receive the best possible education,” said Moreno. “After over 4 decades of Republicans promising to abolish the Department of Education, President Trump and Senate Republicans are finally delivering. This was a key part of what I campaigned on, and I’m proud to join Senator Paul and my colleagues on this long-overdue legislation.”
Dr. Paul has long been a proponent of school choice, advocating for vouchers and charter schools because educational decisions should be made locally rather than by federal agencies.
This legislation reflects his commitment to decentralization and individual freedom, aiming for a high-quality education free from federal interference.
You can read the legislation HERE.
Source: United States Senator John Hickenlooper – Colorado
WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Senators John Hickenlooper and Michael Bennet celebrated the announcement that the Sundance Film Festival will move to Boulder, Colorado in 2027.
“As mayor and governor, we worked to make Colorado an economic and cultural powerhouse,” said Hickenlooper. “Sundance is an iconic festival, and Boulder is the perfect backdrop for such a cultural force.”
“I’m pleased by the news that the Sundance Film Festival is moving to Boulder,” said Bennet. “This annual film festival is the largest of its kind in the U.S. – I’m so glad it will be calling Colorado home.”
The festival, which is the largest independent film festival in the U.S., will be centered around the Pearl Street Mall and CU campus in Boulder and will involve an array of venues in the region, potentially including the Stanley Film Center in Estes Park.
Hickenlooper advocated for Colorado’s bid to host the Sundance Film Festival after the Sundance Institute announced last April that it was weighing a potential move to a new host city.
For the past 40 years, Colorado has made investments designed to make Colorado the best place in the country to live and do business. As Mayor of Denver, Governor of Colorado, and now U.S. Senator, Hickenlooper has helped champion efforts to expand Colorado’s creative communities and attract recent graduates and young professionals.
NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION TO U.S. NEWSWIRE SERVICES OR DISSEMINATION IN THE UNITED STATES
TORONTO, March 27, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Abaxx Technologies Inc. (CBOE:ABXX)(OTCQX:ABXXF) (“Abaxx” or the “Company”), a financial software and market infrastructure company, indirect majority shareholder of Abaxx Singapore Pte Ltd., the owner of Abaxx Commodity Exchange and Clearinghouse (individually, “Abaxx Exchange” and “Abaxx Clearing”), and producer of the SmarterMarkets™ Podcast, today announces that it has closed the first tranche (the “First Tranche”) of its previously announced non-brokered private placement (the “Offering”) of secured convertible debentures (the “Debentures”) for aggregate gross proceeds of C$22.85 million. The Company may close a second and final tranche (the “Second Tranche”) of the Offering for gross proceeds of up to C$17.15 million at a later date.
The outstanding principal amount of the Debentures, together with any accrued and unpaid interest, will become due and payable in full on March 26, 2028 (the “Maturity Date”) and will be payable in cash. Each Debenture consists of C$1,000 principal amount of secured convertible debentures of the Company and is convertible into common shares of the Company (each, a “Debenture Share”) at the option of the holder thereof prior to the Maturity Date at a conversion price equal to $13.00 per Debenture Share (the “Conversion Price”).
The Company has the right to redeem the Debentures at redemption price equal to 105% of the principal amount of the outstanding Debentures plus any accrued and unpaid interest to the date prior to the date of redemption: (a) at any time, should the VWAP of the Company’s common shares exceed 130% of the Conversion Price for no fewer than 20 out of 30 consecutive trading days, or (b) after March 26, 2027.
The Debentures were issued at an original issue discount equal to 2.5% of the aggregate principal amount of the Debentures and bear interest at a rate of 7.0% per annum from the date of issue, payable semi-annually in arrears in cash on June 30 and December 31 of each year following the first interest payment date of September 30, 2026. The Debentures are secured against certain publicly-traded securities owned by the Company.
The Offering is subject to the receipt of all necessary regulatory approvals, including the final approval of Cboe Canada. The net proceeds of the First Tranche are expected to be used for general corporate and working capital purposes. The Debentures and Debenture Shares issuable pursuant to the First Tranche are subject to statutory hold periods of four months and one day from the date of issuance.
In connection with the Offering, so long as the Debentures remain outstanding, the Company has agreed to not assume any additional indebtedness without the consent of a majority of the holders of Debentures as may be outstanding from time to time, other than: (a) certain permitted debt arrangements of up to C$10,000,000 for working capital or regulatory capital requirements in the normal course of business, and (b) trade indebtedness in the normal course of its business.
The Company paid eligible finders a total cash commission of C$510,400 in connection with gross proceeds received from subscribers introduced to the Company by such finders.
A certain holder of greater than 10% of the Company’s common shares acquired $4,000,0000 principal amount of Debentures under the First Tranche (the “Insider Participation”). The Insider Participation constitutes a “related party transaction” as such term is defined under Multilateral Instrument 61-101 – Protection of Minority Security Holders in Special Transactions (“MI 61-101”). The Company is relying on an exemption from the formal valuation and minority shareholder approval requirements provided under MI 61-101 pursuant to section 5.5(a) and section 5.7(1)(a) of MI 61-101, on the basis that the Insider Participation does not exceed 25% of the fair market value of the Company’s market capitalization. The Company did not file a material change report in respect of the Insider Participation at least 21 days before the closing of the First Tranche, which the Company believes is reasonable in the circumstances in order to complete the First Tranche in an expeditious manner.
The securities offered in the Offering have not been, and will not be, registered under the United States Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “U.S. Securities Act”) or any U.S. state securities laws, and may not be offered or sold in the United States or to, or for the account or benefit of, United States persons, absent registration or any applicable exemption from the registration requirements of the U.S. Securities Act and applicable U.S. state securities laws. This news release does not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of any offer to buy securities in the United States, nor in any other jurisdiction.
About Abaxx Technologies Abaxx is building Smarter Markets — markets empowered by better financial technology and market infrastructure to address our biggest challenges, including the energy transition. In addition to developing and deploying financial technologies that make communication, trade, and transactions easier and more secure, Abaxx is an indirect majority-owner of subsidiaries Abaxx Exchange and Abaxx Clearing, recognized by MAS as a “recognised market operator” (RMO) and “approved clearing house” (ACH), respectively.
Abaxx Exchange and Abaxx Clearing are a Singapore-based commodity futures exchange and clearinghouse, introducing centrally cleared, physically deliverable commodities futures and derivatives to provide better price discovery and risk management tools for the commodities critical to our transition to a lower-carbon economy.
For more information about this press release, please contact:
Steve Fray, CFO Tel: +1 647-490-1590
Media and investor inquiries:
Abaxx Technologies Inc. Investor Relations Team Tel: +1 246 271 0082 E-mail: ir@abaxx.tech
Cautionary Statement Regarding Forward-Looking Information
This press release includes certain “forward-looking statements” which do not consist of historical facts. Forward-looking statements include estimates and statements that describe Abaxx’s future plans, objectives, or goals, including words to the effect that Abaxx expects a stated condition or result to occur. Forward-looking statements may be identified by such terms as “seeking”, “should”, “intend”, “predict”, “potential”, “believes”, “anticipates”, “expects”, “estimates”, “may”, “could”, “would”, “will”, “continue”, “plan” or the negative of these terms and similar expressions. Since forward-looking statements are based on current expectations and assumptions and address future events and conditions, by their very nature they involve inherent risks and uncertainties. Although these statements are based on information currently available to Abaxx, Abaxx does not provide any assurance that actual results will meet respective management expectations. Risks, uncertainties, assumptions, and other factors involved with forward-looking information could cause actual events, results, performance, prospects, and opportunities to differ materially from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking information. Forward-looking information related to Abaxx in this press release includes, but is not limited to: matters related to the Offering and the conversion of the Debentures, statements related to the closing of the Second Tranche including the timing and size thereof, regulatory approvals, the agreement to not assume additional indebtedness except certain permitted indebtedness,and the inability of Abaxx to apply the use of proceeds from the Offering as anticipated.Such factors impacting forward-looking information include, among others: the inability to obtain required approvals for the Offering, risks relating to the global economic climate; dilution; Abaxx’s limited operating history; future capital needs and uncertainty of additional financing; the competitive nature of the industry; currency exchange risks; the need for Abaxx to manage its planned growth and expansion; the effects of product development and need for continued technology change; protection of proprietary rights; the effect of government regulation and compliance on Abaxx and the industry; acquiring and maintaining regulatory approvals for Abaxx’s products and operations; the ability to list Abaxx’s securities on stock exchanges in a timely fashion or at all; network security risks; the ability of Abaxx to maintain properly working systems; reliance on key personnel; global economic and financial market deterioration impeding access to capital or increasing the cost of capital; and volatile securities markets impacting security pricing unrelated to operating performance. In addition, particular factors which could impact future results of the business of Abaxx include but are not limited to: operations in foreign jurisdictions, protection of intellectual property rights, contractual risk, third-party risk; clearinghouse risk, malicious actor risks, third-party software license risk, system failure risk, risk of technological change; dependence of technical infrastructure; and changes in the price of commodities, capital market conditions, restriction on labor and international travel and supply chains, and the risk factors identified in the Company’s most recent management’s discussion & analysis filed on SEDAR+. Abaxx has also assumed that no significant events occur outside of Abaxx’s normal course of business.
Abaxx cautions that the foregoing list of material factors is not exhaustive. In addition, although Abaxx has attempted to identify important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially, there may be other factors that cause results not to be as anticipated, estimated, or intended. When relying on forward-looking statements and information to make decisions, investors and others should carefully consider the foregoing factors and other uncertainties and potential events. Abaxx has assumed that the material factors referred to in the previous paragraphs will not cause such forward-looking statements and information to differ materially from actual results or events. However, the list of these factors is not exhaustive and is subject to change and there can be no assurance that such assumptions will reflect the actual outcome of such items or factors. The forward-looking statements and information contained in this press release represents the expectations of Abaxx as of the date of this press release and, accordingly, is subject to change after such date. Abaxx undertakes no obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements and information, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by law. Accordingly, readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements and information. Cboe Canada does not accept responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this press release.
Now that an election has been called, Australian voters will go to the polls on May 3 to decide the fate of the first-term, centre-left Australian Labor Party government led by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese.
In Australia, national elections are held every three years. The official campaign period only lasts for around a month.
This time around, Albanese will be seeking to hold onto power after breaking Labor’s nine-year dry spell by beating the more right-leaning Liberal Party, led by Scott Morrison, in 2022.
Now, he’s up against the Liberals’ new leader, a conservative with a tough guy image, Peter Dutton. It’s looking like a tight race.
So how do elections work in Australia, who’s contesting for the top spot and why is the race looking so close?
For Albanese, the honeymoon is over
Albanese was brought into power in 2022 on the back of dissatisfaction with the long-term and scandal-prone Liberal-National Coalition government.
At the time, he was considered personally more competent, warm and sensible than Morrison.
Unfortunately for Albanese, the dissatisfaction and stress about the cost of living hasn’t gone away.
Governments in Australia almost always win a second term. However, initially high levels of public support have dissipated over the first term. Opinion polls are pointing to a close election, though Albanese’s approval ratings have had a boost in recent weeks.
At the heart of what makes this such a tight contest are issues shared by many established democracies: the public’s persistent sense of economic hardship in the post-pandemic period and longer-term dissatisfaction with “politics as usual”, combined with an increased focus on party leaders.
Around the world, incumbents have faced challenges holding onto power over the past year, with voters sweeping out the Conservatives in the United Kingdom and the Democrats in the United States.
Australia has faced some similar economic challenges, such as relatively high inflation and cost-of-living problems.
Likewise, Australia – like many other established democracies – has long-term trends of dissatisfaction with major parties and the political system itself.
However, this distaste with “business as usual” manifests differently in Australia from comparable countries such the UK and US.
Australia’s voting system
In Australia, voting is compulsory, and those who fail to turn out face a small fine. Some observers have argued this pushes parties to try to persuade “swing” voters with more moderate policies, rather than rely on their faithful “bases” and court those with more extreme views who are more likely to vote.
In the UK, by comparison, widespread public distaste with the Conservatives, combined with low turnout and first-past-the-post voting, delivered Keir Steirmer’s Labour Party a dramatic victory. This was despite a limited uptick in support.
And in the US, turnout in the 2024 election was only about 64%. Donald Trump and the Republicans swept to power last year by channelling a deep anti-establishment sentiment among those people who voted.
And the country is now so polarised, that the more strongly identifying Democrat and Republican voters who do turn out to vote can’t see eye to eye on highly emotionally charged issues which dominate the parties’ platforms. Independent voters are left without “centrist” options.
Because Australia’s voting system is different, Dutton is unlikely to follow Trump’s far-right positioning too closely, despite dabbling in the “anti-woke” culture wars.
It also explains why Albanese’s personal style is usually quite mild-mannered and why he’s unlikely to present himself as a radical reformer.
However, neither man’s approach has made them wildly popular with the public. This means neither can rely on their own popularity to win over the public.
Another factor making Australia distinct is that voters rank their choices, with their vote flowing to their second choice if their first choice doesn’t achieve a majority. This means many races in the 150-seat lower house of parliament are won from second place.
Similarly, seats in the Senate (Australia’s second chamber, with the power to amend or block legislation) are won based on the proportion of votes a party receives in each state or territory. This gives minor parties and independents a better chance at winning seats compared to the lower house.
This means dissatisfaction with the major parties has in recent years created space for minor parties and a new crop of well-organised independents to get elected and influence policy. In 2022, around one-third of voters helped independents and minor parties take seats off both the Liberals and Labor in the inner cities.
To win government, Dutton will need to get them back, or take more volatile outer-suburban seats off Labor.
The big policy concerns
Against this backdrop, Australian voters both in 2022 and today have a fairly consistent set of policy concerns. And while parties want to be seen addressing them, their messaging isn’t always heard.
The 2022 Australian Election Study, run by Australian political researchers, revealed that pessimism about the economy and concerns about the cost of living were front of mind when Australians voted out the Liberal-National Coalition government last federal election.
This time around, one might think some relative improvement in economic factors like unemployment and cuts to interest rates would put a spring in the prime minister’s step.
However, the public is still very concerned about the day-to-day cost-of-living pressures and practical issues such as access to health care.
The government’s policy efforts in this direction – for example, tax cuts and subsidies for power bills – have so far not strongly cut through.
What have the major parties promised?
Comparing the parties’ platforms, Labor is firmly focused on economic and government service issues to support people in the short term.
Although expected to announce the election earlier, Albanese was handed the opportunity of delivering an extra budget by a tropical storm in early March. This included spending promises foreshadowed earlier, as well as a new modest tax cut as an election sweetener.
The Coalition, for its part, has been critical of these long-term goals and promised to repeal the newly legislated tax cuts in favour of subsidies for petrol. It has focused its message on reduced government spending, while strategically mirroring promises on health to avoid Labor attacks on that front.
Dutton has also proposed cuts to migration to reduce housing pressures and a controversial plan to build nuclear power plants at the expense of renewables.
Will these differences in long-term plans cut through? Or are people focused on short-term, hip-pocket concerns?
This election, whatever the result, will not represent a long-term shifting of loyalties, but rather a precarious compact with distrustful voters looking for relief in uncertain times.
Pandanus Petter is employed at the Australian National University with funding from the Australian Research Council.
Source: United States Senator Peter Welch (D-Vermont)
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Ranking Member of the Senate Agriculture Subcommittee on Rural Development, Energy, and Credit, this week took to the Senate Floor to speak out against President Trump’s efforts to help corporations and Big Oil pollute our air and water. In his remarks, Senator Welch highlighted the Trump Administration’s rollback of more than 30 regulations that set limits on mercury pollution, toxic wastewater, soot emissions, and more.
“The idea that the federal government would turn a blind eye to active pollution that is produced because it results in profit to the polluters is something not a single member of this body should ever tolerate. Ever, ever, ever,” said Senator Welch. “I am completely committed to doing anything I can to make regulations practical and effective. I am absolutely and adamantly opposed to giving polluters free rein to profit at the expense and welfare of the people that I represent, and we all represent.”
Watch Senator Welch’s speech below:
Senator Welch’s Committee and Subcommittee Assignments for the 119th Congress include:
Senate Committee on Finance
Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, & Forestry
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Rural Development, Energy, and Credit
Senate Committee on the Judiciary
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on the Constitution
Senate Committee on Rules & Administration
Learn more about the Senator’s work by visiting his website or by following him on social media.
Source: United States Senator for Rhode Island Jack Reed
WASHINGTON, DC – Stressing the importance of efficient customer service, U.S. Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) says Rhode Islanders should not have to wait in long lines outside of Social Security Administration (SSA) field offices, exposed to the elements, and in some cases having to return multiple times, in order to get their needs addressed. Nor should retirees be put on hold for hours, have their calls dropped, or have to wait endlessly to speak with an SSA representative.
Roughly 230,000 Rhode Islanders – including senior citizens and people with disabilities — rely on the guaranteed income provided by Social Security. Senator Reed says it is essential they be able to get their questions answered online, in-person, or over the phone. But unconscionably, the Trump Administration is slashing the Social Security Administration (SSA) workforce from 57,000 workers down to 50,000, shuttering dozens of field offices nationwide, and making it harder for Americans to get help with the Social Security benefits they earned.
“Rhode Islanders deserve better customer service from the Social Security Administration, but the Trump Administration is intentionally making it worse. Elon Musk falsely claimed Social Security is a ponzi scheme and President Trump intentionally spread false information about the program because they want to get rid of it. They’ve put forth unpopular plans to run Social Security into the ground and Americans across the country are rightfully pushing back. Trump and Musk want political cover to slash the social safety net altogether, and gutting SSA customer service and restricting benefit access is part of their plan that must be stopped,” said Reed.
Approximately 72.5 million Americans, including retirees, children, and individuals with disabilities, rely on Social Security benefits. In Rhode Island, retirement beneficiaries receive an average payment of $1,972 a month, according to the latest available Social Security Administration data.
Earlier this year, the Trump Administration announced the closure of 47 SSA field offices across 18 states. It also says most Americans can start a benefits claim over the phone but will have to go to a field office in order to complete the claim.
Senator Reed, who recently visited Pawtucket’s SSA field office, noted that degrading customer phone service and requiring in-person office visits would have a negative impact on vulnerable Americans with limited mobility.
“Under the guise of DOGE and fraud prevention, the Trump Administration is creating unnecessary barriers that will deter Americans from accessing their earned retirement benefits. Instead of cutting red tape, the Trump Administration’s strategy could force homebound seniors and people with serious medical issues to needlessly travel and fill out extra paperwork in person,” said Reed.
While the Trump Administration originally planned to implement SSA changes starting March 31, it is now backtracking and delaying major changes until April 14. However, SSA’s revisions do not go far enough and will still cause needless barriers for millions of Americans seeking to access their Social Security benefits, including individuals applying for Retirement, Survivors, or Auxiliary benefits (including Spousal or Child benefits).
Rhode Island is currently home to five SSA field offices and one location for the Office of Hearings Operations (Newport, Pawtucket, Providence, Warwick, Woonsocket).
The Social Security Administration help number is 1-800-772-1213. To find the nearest SSA office and for office hours, visit the SSA field office locator at: https://www.ssa.gov/locator/
PORTLAND, Maine: An Ellsworth woman was sentenced today in U.S. District Court in Bangor for theft of public money.
U.S. District Judge John A. Woodcock, Jr. sentenced Melissa Milliken, 33, to three years of probation. She was also ordered to pay $17,130.22 in restitution.
According to court records, in October 2022, U.S. Postal Service Office of Inspector General (USPS-OIG) launched an investigation after receiving a report that postal funds were missing following stamp stock and cash counts at the Cherryfield Post Office. Surveillance video from within the post office captured Milliken placing money into her pockets. Milliken admitted to investigators that she had been stealing from the post office for approximately a year. Investigators determined she stole more than $17,130 in government money between December 2021 and September 2023.
USPS-OIG Northeast Area Field Office, under Special Agent in Charge Matthew Modafferi, investigated the case.
BOSTON – A Dominican National, residing in Leominster, pleaded guilty yesterday in federal court in Boston to charges related to passport fraud and other offenses.
Hector Eduardo Arias Mejia, 44, pleaded guilty to aggravated identity theft and making a false statement in an application for a United States passport. U.S. District Court Judge Richard G. Stearns scheduled sentencing for May 7, 2025. In December 2023, Arias Mejia was indicted by a federal grand jury.
Arias Mejia, a citizen of the Dominican Republic, applied for a United States passport and a Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles Real ID using the name and other biographical information of a resident of Puerto Rico. In support of his application, Aris Mejia submitted a Massachusetts driver’s license in the citizen’s identity (with Arias Mejia’s photo on it), a Social Security card with the name of the citizen and a birth certificate issued in Puerto Rico in the citizen’s name.
On February 25, 2020 Arias Mejia, again using the citizen’s identity, applied for a United States Passport at the Fall River post office. In support of the passport application, Arias Mejia submitted the Real ID he obtained in the citizen’s name and the birth certificate in the citizen’s name. The passport was issued.
Law enforcement became aware of Arias Mejia fraudulent acts when it investigated individuals who simultaneously received government benefits in Boston and Puerto Rico. When it was revealed that the same individual was receiving benefits in both places, the individual in Puerto Rico was interviewed and it was determined that he was lawfully receiving benefits. Further investigation revealed that the person receiving benefits under the same name in Boston was Arias Mejia, a Dominican national. Aris Mejia had been using the Puerto Rico citizen’s identity since at least 2011.
The charge of making a false statement in an application for a United States passport provides for a sentence of up to 10 years in prison, three years of supervised release and a fine of $250,000. The charge of aggravated identity theft provides for a mandatory sentence of two years in prison to be served consecutive to any other sentence imposed, up to one year of supervised release and a fine of $250,000. The defendant will also be subject to deportation upon completion of any sentence imposed. Sentences are imposed by a federal district court judge based upon the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and statutes which govern the determination of a sentence in a criminal case.
The investigation was conducted by Homeland Security Investigation’s Document and Benefit Fraud Task Force (DBFTF), a specialized investigative group comprising personnel from various state, local, and federal agencies with expertise in detecting, deterring, and disrupting organizations and individuals involved in various types of document, identity and benefit fraud schemes.
United States Attorney Leah B. Foley and Michael J. Krol, Special Agent in Charge of Homeland Security Investigations in New England made the announcement. Valuable assistance in the investigation was provided by Homeland Security Investigations in Santo Domingo; Puerto Rico Department of Public Safety; U.S. Department of State’s Diplomatic Security Service; Social Security Administration, Office of Inspector General; U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Office of Inspector General; U.S. Postal Inspection Service; and Massachusetts State Police. Assistant U.S. Attorney David G. Tobin of the Major Crimes Unit is prosecuting the case.
MIAMI – A federal district judge in South Florida has sentenced an Orlando man to almost six years in prison for leading a scheme that defrauded California’s Employment Development Department of over $4 million in state and federal unemployment insurance benefit money. The judge also ordered him to pay over $1.2 million in restitution.
Zachary Kameron Ramyard, 23, of Orlando, Fla. pleaded guilty to wire fraud conspiracy in October 2024.
From August 2020 to August 2022, Ramyard and others submitted fraudulent unemployment insurance (UI) claims to California’s Employment Development Department (EDD). UI payments are intended to provide temporary financial assistance to lawful workers who are unemployed through no fault of their own. They purchased the personally identifiable information (PII) of victims (including names, dates of birth, and social security numbers), created counterfeit driver licenses with it, and submitted at least 68 fraudulent UI benefits applications using the victims’ PII.
Ramyard also withdrew hundreds of thousands of dollars in UI funds from Automated Teller Machines (ATMs) in different states using fraudulent debit cards. (The EDD typically distributed UI benefits electronically to debit cards that were mailed to claimants.) Ramyard used the cash to buy luxury items like the diamond-studded teeth jewelry, also known as “grills,” pictured above.
U.S. Attorney Hayden P. O’Byrne, Acting Special Agent in Charge José R. Figueroa of Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) Miami and Special Agent in Charge Mathew Broadhurst of the U.S. Department of Labor Office of Inspector General (DOL-OIG), Southeast Region announced the sentence.
HSI Miami and DOL-OIG investigated the case. Assistant U.S. Attorney Joseph Egozi prosecuted the case. Assistant U.S. Attorney Joshua Paster is handling asset forfeiture.
Additional Background Information: Beginning in or around March 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, several federal programs expanded UI eligibility and increased UI benefits, including the Pandemic Unemployment Assistance Program (PUA), Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation Program (FPUC), and the Lost Wages Assistance Program (LWAP). In the State of California, the EDD administered the UI program.
In March 2020, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (“CARES”) Act was enacted. It was designed to provide emergency financial assistance to the millions of Americans suffering the economic effects caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Among other sources of relief, the CARES Act authorized and provided funding to the SBA to provide Economic Injury Disaster Loans (“EIDLs”) to eligible small businesses, including sole proprietorships and independent contractors, experiencing substantial financial disruptions due to the COVID-19 pandemic to allow them to meet financial obligations and operating expenses that could otherwise have been met had the disaster not occurred. EIDL applications were submitted directly to the SBA via the SBA’s on-line application website, and the applications were processed, and the loans funded for qualifying applicants directly by the SBA.
COVID-19 Fraud Enforcement Task Force: On May 17, 2021, the Attorney General established the COVID-19 Fraud Enforcement Task Force to marshal the resources of the Department of Justice in partnership with agencies across government to enhance efforts to combat and prevent pandemic-related fraud. The Task Force bolsters efforts to investigate and prosecute the most culpable domestic and international criminal actors and assists agencies tasked with administering relief programs to prevent fraud by, among other methods, augmenting and incorporating existing coordination mechanisms, identifying resources and techniques to uncover fraudulent actors and their schemes, and sharing and harnessing information and insights gained from prior enforcement efforts. For more information on the Department’s response to the pandemic, please visit https://www.justice.gov/coronavirus.
On September 15, 2022, the Attorney General selected the Southern District of Florida’s U.S. Attorney’s Office to head one of three national COVID-19 Fraud Strike Force Teams. The Department of Justice established the Strike Force to enhance existing efforts to combat and prevent COVID-19 related financial fraud. For more information on the department’s response to the pandemic, please click here.
Reporting: Anyone with information about allegations of attempted fraud involving COVID-19 can report it by calling the Department of Justice’s National Center for Disaster Fraud (NCDF) Hotline at 866-720-5721 or via the NCDF Web Complaint Form at: https://www.justice.gov/disaster-fraud/ncdf-disaster-complaint-form.
Related court documents and information may be found on the website of the District Court for the Southern District of Florida at www.flsd.uscourts.gov or at http://pacer.flsd.uscourts.gov, under case number 22-cr-20382.
GREENWICH, Conn., March 27, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Stardust Power Inc. (“Stardust Power” or the “Company”) (Nasdaq: SDST), an American developer of battery-grade lithium products, today announced its results for the year ended December 31, 2024.
Full Year Business Highlights
Operational highlights for the full year 2024 include:
Listing on the Nasdaq: Completion of the Business Combination and subsequent listing on the Nasdaq Global Market (the “Nasdaq”).
Purchase of refinery site: On December 16, finalized the purchase of 66-acre site in Muskogee, Oklahoma, for a total consideration of approximately $1.7 million.
Permitting and approvals: Secured the necessary stormwater discharge permit and received administrative approval for the Air Permit, with the technical approval pending. The Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality has accepted our application as a minor source for emissions, and we believe we are on track for final stage approvals.
DFS advancing: Primero USA is in the final stages of the Definitive Feasibility Study (DFS), or FEL 3 study, having advanced nearly to completion our detailed process design package, updated cost estimates, and refined project schedules, along with other key milestones and reviews.
Personnel hire and director appointment: Chris Celano as Chief Operating Officer, bringing over 20 years of energy sector leadership and international drilling and mining experience and Martyn Buttenshaw to the Board of Directors, offering extensive metals and mining industry experience to support the Company’s U.S. lithium supply chain efforts.
Capital raise: During the year a total of $6.4 million of capital raised consisting of $2.8 million equity and $3.5 million debt funding general operational, engineering and corporate uses.
Subsequent Events since Year End 2024
Broke ground on centrally located site: On January 22, 2025, the Company held a groundbreaking ceremony in Muskogee, Oklahoma, marking a major business milestone. This event, attended by key local and state officials, also marked the beginning of groundwork and preparation for heavy construction commencing once Final Investment Decision is reached.
Offtake agreement with Sumitomo Americas: Entered into a non-binding agreement (“The Agreement”) for a potential long-term supply deal for up to 25,000 metric tons of lithium carbonate annually with Sumitomo Americas. The 10-year agreement includes an option to extend to 15 years.
KMX Technologies licensing agreement: Signed definitive agreement with KMX Technologies for advanced VMD concentration technology, granting access across the U.S., Canada, and select international markets for lithium production. The technology is expected to help the Company reduce energy consumption, water usage and logistics costs, while improving the economic and environmental performance of operations.
Equity raise and warrant inducement: In January 2025, the Company raised $5.75 million through an equity transaction with a large institutional investor, issuing 4,792,000 shares of common stock at $1.20 per share along with 4,792,000 cash warrants at an exercise price of $1.30. Additionally, on March 17, 2025, the Company entered into a warrant inducement agreement with the same investor, generating approximately $2.9 million in gross proceeds for the exercise of 4,792,000 warrants at a revised exercise price of $0.62.
“As we move forward, we are focused on executing our business plan and achieving key milestones that are crucial for meeting the growing demand for secure U.S. supply chains and energy independence. The successful Nasdaq listing in 2024, alongside the recent acquisition and groundbreaking of our strategic site in Muskogee, Oklahoma, is a significant step in our journey. With strong support from new hires, key partnerships, like the Agreement with Sumitomo, and strategic investments in innovative technologies, we are positioning ourselves for growth and value creation in the lithium sector,” commented Roshan Pujari, CEO and Founder of Stardust Power.
Full Year 2024 Financial Highlights
For the year ended December 31, 2024 i.e. the current year, the Company incurred a net loss of $23.8 million and for the period from March 16, 2023 (inception date) through December 31, 2023 i.e. the prior period, the Company incurred a net loss of $3.8 million, the increase being driven by higher administrative expenses in connection with being a public company and to complement an increased scope of operations.
Loss per share was $0.55 for the current year, compared to $0.09 for the prior period, the increase being driven primarily by higher general and administrative costs due to personnel related costs and finance charges for short term loans.
Net cash used in operating activities totaled $9.7 million for the current year, compared to $3.0 million for the prior period, the increase driven by continued investment in operations, hiring of key talent and certain expenses related to the close of the Business Combination.
Net cash used in investing activities was $4.8 million for the current year, compared to $0.3 million for the prior period, the increase driven by the purchase of land, engineering, initial capital investments made in the anticipated building of the refinery, strategic investments and promissory notes given to partners.
Net cash provided by financing activities was $14.1 million during the current year, compared to $4.6 million for the prior period. The increase was driven primarily by $11.6 million in cash received from subscription agreements entered around the time of the closing of the Business Combination, short term loans and exercise of warrants. Funds were used to meet working capital needs, capital investments and to pay for some of the transaction costs related to the Business Combination.
Annual Report on Form 10-K
The Company’s financial statements and related footnotes will be available in its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2024, which is expected to be filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) by 28 March, 2025.
Participants should log in at least 15 minutes early to receive instructions. The earnings call will be available on the Company website following the event.
About Stardust Power
Stardust Power is a developer of battery-grade lithium products designed to supply the electric vehicle (EV) industry and bolster America’s energy leadership by building resilient supply chains. Stardust Power is developing a strategically central lithium refinery in Muskogee, Oklahoma with the anticipated capacity of producing up to 50,000 metric tons per annum of battery-grade lithium. The company is committed to sustainability at each point in the process. Stardust Power trades on the Nasdaq under the ticker symbol “SDST.”
This press release and any oral statements made in connection herewith include “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Forward-looking statements are any statements other than statements of historical fact, and include, but are not limited to, statements regarding the expectations of plans, business strategies, objectives and growth and anticipated financial and operational performance. These forward-looking statements are based on management’s current beliefs, based on currently available information, as to the outcome and timing of future events. Forward-looking statements are often identified by words such as “anticipate,” “appears,” “approximately,” “believe,” “continue,” “could,” “designed,” “effect,” “estimate,” “evaluate,” “expect,” “forecast,” “goal,” “initiative,” “intend,” “may,” “objective,” “outlook,“ ”plan,“ ”potential,“ ”priorities,“ ”project,“ ”pursue,“ ”seek,“ ”should,“ ”target,“ ”when,“ ”will,“ ”would,” or the negative of any of those words or similar expressions that predict or indicate future events or trends or that are not statements of historical matters, although not all forward-looking statements contain such identifying words. In making these statements, we rely upon assumptions and analysis based on our experience and perception of historical trends, current conditions, and expected future developments, as well as other factors we consider appropriate under the circumstances. We believe these judgments are reasonable, but these statements are not guarantees of any future events or financial results. These forward-looking statements are provided for illustrative purposes only and are not intended to serve as, and must not be relied on by any investor as, a guarantee, an assurance, a prediction or a definitive statement of fact or probability. Actual events and circumstances are difficult or impossible to predict and will differ from assumptions. Many actual events and circumstances are beyond our control.
These forward-looking statements are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties, including the ability of Stardust Power to recognize the anticipated benefits of the business combination, which may be affected by, among other things, competition, the ability of Stardust Power to grow and manage growth profitably, maintain key relationships and retain its management and key employees; risks related to the price of Stardust Power’s securities, including volatility resulting from recent sales of securities, issuance of debt, and exercise of warrants, changes in the competitive and highly regulated industries in which Stardust Power plans to operate, variations in performance across competitors, changes in laws and regulations affecting Stardust Power’s business and changes in the combined capital structure; the regulatory environment and our ability to obtain necessary permits and other governmental approvals for our operation; Stardust Power’s need for substantial additional financing to execute our business plan and our ability to access capital and the financial markets; worldwide growth in the adoption and use of lithium products; the Company’s ability to enter into and realize the anticipated benefits of offtake and license and other commercial agreements; risks related to the ability to implement business plans, forecasts, and other expectations and identify and realize additional opportunities; the substantial doubt regarding the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern and the need to raise capital in the near term in order to maintain the Company’s operations; the Company’s continued listing on the Nasdaq; and those factors described or referenced in filings with the SEC, including its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2024, which is expected to be filed with the SEC by March 28, 2025. The foregoing list of factors is not exhaustive. If any of these risks materialize or our assumptions prove incorrect, actual results could differ materially from the results implied by these forward-looking statements. There may be additional risks that we do not presently know or that we currently believe are immaterial that could also cause actual results to differ from those contained in the forward-looking statements. In addition, forward-looking statements reflect our expectations, plans or forecasts of future events and views as of the date of this press release. We anticipate that subsequent events and developments will cause our assessments to change.
We caution readers not to place undue reliance on forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements speak only as of the date they are made, and we undertake no obligation to update publicly or otherwise revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events, or other factors that affect the subject of these statements, except where we are expressly required to do so by law. All written and oral forward-looking statements attributable to us are expressly qualified in their entirety by this cautionary statement.
SHANGHAI, China, March 27, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Qifu Technology, Inc. (NASDAQ: QFIN; HKEx: 3660) (“Qifu Technology” or the “Company”), a leading AI-empowered Credit-Tech platform in China, today announced the completion of its offering of convertible senior notes (the “Notes Offering”) in an aggregate principal amount of US$690 million due 2030 (the “Notes”), including the initial purchasers’ full exercise of option to purchase an additional US$90 million principal amount of the Notes. The Notes have been offered to persons reasonably believed to be qualified institutional buyers pursuant to Rule 144A under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”).
The Company plans to use the net proceeds from the Notes Offering for repurchasing the American depositary shares (“ADSs”) and/or class A ordinary shares of the Company concurrently with the pricing of the Notes Offering and from time to time after the pricing of the Notes Offering pursuant to a newly established share repurchase plan (the “March 2025 Share Repurchase Plan”) authorized by the board of directors of the Company. The March 2025 Share Repurchase Plan will run in addition to the Company’s existing share repurchase plan announced in November 2024.
The Company expects the offering to be immediately accretive to 2025 earnings per ADS upon closing, facilitated by (i) the execution of the repurchase of ADSs concurrently with the pricing of the Notes Offering with an aggregate value of approximately US$230 million from certain purchasers of the Notes in off-market privately negotiated transactions effected through one of the initial purchasers or its affiliates, as the Company’s agent, and (ii) the cash-par conversion settlement mechanism of the Notes.
The Notes will be general unsecured obligations of the Company and bear interest at a rate of 0.50% per year, payable semiannually in arrears on April 1 and October 1 of each year, beginning on October 1, 2025. The Notes will mature on April 1, 2030 unless repurchased, redeemed, or converted in accordance with their terms prior to such date.
The initial conversion rate of the Notes is 16.7475 ADSs, per US$1,000 principal amount of the Notes, which is equivalent to an initial conversion price of approximately US$59.71 per ADS.
The Notes, the ADSs deliverable upon conversion of the Notes, if any, and the class A ordinary shares represented thereby or deliverable upon conversion of the Notes in lieu thereof have not been registered under the Securities Act, or any securities laws of any other places. They may not be offered or sold within the United States or to U.S. persons, except to persons reasonably believed to be qualified institutional buyers in reliance on the exemption from registration provided by Rule 144A under the Securities Act.
This press release shall not constitute an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to purchase any securities, nor shall there be a sale of the securities in any state or jurisdiction in which such an offer, solicitation or sale would be unlawful.
About Qifu Technology
Qifu Technology is a leading AI-empowered Credit-Tech platform in China. By leveraging its sophisticated machine learning models and data analytics capabilities, the Company provides a comprehensive suite of technology services to assist financial institutions and consumers and SMEs in the loan lifecycle, ranging from borrower acquisition, preliminary credit assessment, fund matching and post-facilitation services. The Company is dedicated to making credit services more accessible and personalized to consumers and SMEs through Credit-Tech services to financial institutions.
For more information, please visit: https://ir.qifu.tech.
Safe Harbor Statement
Any forward-looking statements contained in this press release are made under the “safe harbor” provisions of the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements can be identified by terminology such as “will,” “expects,” “anticipates,” “future,” “intends,” “plans,” “believes,” “estimates” and similar statements. Qifu Technology may also make written or oral forward-looking statements in its periodic reports to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”), in announcements made on the website of The Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited (the “Hong Kong Stock Exchange”), in its annual report to shareholders, in press releases and other written materials and in oral statements made by its officers, directors or employees to third parties. Statements that are not historical facts, including the Company’s beliefs and expectations, are forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements involve inherent risks and uncertainties. A number of factors could cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in any forward-looking statement, which factors include but not limited to the following: the Company’s growth strategies, the Company’s cooperation with 360 Group, changes in laws, rules and regulatory environments, the recognition of the Company’s brand, market acceptance of the Company’s products and services, trends and developments in the Credit-Tech industry, governmental policies relating to the Credit-Tech industry, general economic conditions in China and around the globe, and assumptions underlying or related to any of the foregoing. Further information regarding these and other risks and uncertainties is included in Qifu Technology’s filings with the SEC and the announcements on the website of the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. All information provided in this press release is as of the date of this press release, and Qifu Technology does not undertake any obligation to update any forward-looking statement, except as required under applicable law.
They are neither as leafy nor as affluent as much of the Liberal heartland, but Peter Dutton believes the outer ring-roads of Australia’s capitals provide the most direct route to power.
He has been telling his MPs these once-safe Labor-voting suburbs are where the 2025 election can be won.
From the moment the Queenslander assumed control of the Liberal Party in 2022, he was intent on this suburbs-first strategy, even if it seemed historically unlikely and involved repositioning his formerly business-loyal party as the new tribune of the working class. As he told Minerals Week in September 2023:
The Liberal Party is the party of the worker. The Labor Party has become the party of the inner city elite and Greens.
This has been Dutton’s long game. It’s an outsider approach reminiscent of what US President Donald Trump had achieved with disaffected blue-collar Democratic supporters in the United States, and what Boris Johnson managed by turning British Labour supporters in England’s de-industrialised north into Brexiteers and then Conservative voters.
It was not the obvious play but it may prove the right one.
After a tumultuous period in which the Liberals had cycled through three prime ministers and ignored a clear public clamour for policy modernisation on women, anti-corruption and climate change, the Morrison government had been bundled from office.
Morrison hadn’t merely failed to attract disengaged undecideds in the middle-ground, but had haemorrhaged engaged constituents from some of Australia’s safest Liberal postcodes.
Nineteen seats came off the Coalition tally in that election, yet Labor’s gain was only nine.
Something fundamental had happened. Six new centrist independents now sat in Liberal heartland seats – all of them professional women.
Numerically, they formed a kind of electoral Swiss Guard around the new Labor government’s otherwise weak primary vote and thin (two-seat) parliamentary majority.
In a sharp visual contrast to the Coalition parties, women made up around half of Anthony Albanese’s new Labor government and he moved to prioritise the very things on which the Coalition had steadfastly refused to budge – including meaningful constitutional recognition of First Peoples.
Albanese, it seemed, had tuned in to the zeitgeist. He would even go on to break a 102-year record a year later, becoming the first PM to increase his majority by taking a set off the opposition in a byelection. One more urban jewel shifted out of the Liberals’ column.
Dutton, however, never blinked.
His first press conference as leader in 2022 had been notable for the absence of the usual mea culpa – a suitably contrite acknowledgement that he’d heard the message from erstwhile Liberals who had abandoned their party for more progressive community independents.
Instead, Dutton confidently responded that the 2025 election would be decided not in these comfortable seats but in the further-flung parts of Australia’s cities where people make long commutes to work and struggle to find adequate childcare and other services.
It was a bold strategy because it meant targeting seats with healthy Labor margins.
Canberra insiders wondered privately if this was brave or simply delusional. Some concluded it could only work as a two-election strategy.
Many asked where a net gain of 19 seats would come from if not through the recovery of most or all of what became known as the “teal” seats?
Yet the combative Liberal continued to focus on prising suburbanites away from Labor with a relentless campaign emphasising the rising cost-of-living under Labor.
Three years later and even accounting for the first interest rate cut in over four years, it is Dutton’s strategy that has looked the more attuned to the electoral zeitgeist.
So much so that he goes into this election with a realistic chance of breaking another longstanding electoral record: that of replacing a first-term government.
This hasn’t been done federally since the Great Depression took out the Scullin Labor government of 1929-1931.
It’s all about geography
While only votes in ballot boxes will tell, the Coalition’s rebounding support appears to have come from the outer mortgage belt, just as he predicted.
These voters absorb their political news sporadically via social media feeds, soft breakfast interviews, and car-radio snippets.
These are media where Dutton’s crisp sound-bite messaging around cost-of-living pressures has simply been sharper and more resonant than Labor’s.
And it is by this means that these voters may have picked up that a Dutton government would seek to deport dual citizens convicted of serious crimes, stop new migrants from buying property (a policy first ridiculed as inconsequential by Labor and since copied), and cut petrol excise, temporarily taking around $14 off the price of a tank of fuel.
These voters may have noticed Dutton’s campaign against the supermarket duopoly, which includes the option of forced divestiture for so-called “price-gouging”.
And they might have heard his dramatic nuclear “solution” to high energy costs and emissions (in reality, devilishly complex and expensive).
On top of these, semi-engaged voters might recall Dutton’s culture-war topics for which he has regularly received generous media minutes, including:
his opposition to what he called “the Canberra Voice”
his defence of Australia Day
his refusal to stand in front of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander flags
his oft-made claim that a Greens-Teals-Labor preoccupation with progressive issues has left the cost-of-living crisis unaddressed.
Beyond such rhetoric, Dutton has had little to say in detailed policy terms. But will that matter? However comprehensive, Labor’s list of legislated achievements has, arguably, achieved even less purchase in the electoral mind.
Polls taken as the election campaign neared showed Dutton’s Coalition was well-placed to win seats from Labor in suburban and outer-suburban areas of Perth, Melbourne, and Sydney, as well as regional seats in the NSW Central Coast.
These include seats such as Tangney and Bullwinkel in outer Perth; McEwen and Chisolm in suburban Melbourne, and as many as seven seats in NSW – mostly on the periphery of Sydney or in the industrial Hunter Valley region.
There may be other seats to move also. Liberal sources say they like their chances in Goldstein, currently held by the Teal, Zoe Daniel. And with a recent conservative turn in the Northern Territory election to the CLP, seats like the ultra-marginal Lingiari and the numerically safer Solomon could also be in play.
A YouGov MRP poll reported by the ABC on February 16 put Dutton’s chances of securing an outright majority after the election at 20%.
It measured the Coalition’s two-party-preferred support at 51.1% over Labor on 48.9%. That represents a swing towards the Coalition of 3.2%. But it is where the swing occurs that matters most.
Seat-by-seat assessment of the YouGov results suggested the Coalition would be likely to win about 73 seats (median), with a lower estimate of 65 and an upper estimate of 80, if a federal election was held today.
The same modelling indicates Labor would go backwards, holding about 66 seats in the next parliament, with a lower estimate of 59 and an upper estimate of 72. This is just one, albeit unusually large poll, but it will concern Albanese that even on its upper margin of Labor seat holds, he would not retain a majority.
Of course, the campaign can change things and already, the delayed start caused by Cyclone Alfred introduced further variables in the form of a federal budget, replete with income tax cuts.
A succession of polls conducted through March point to a Labor recovery with a Redbridge poll of 2,007 respondents, taken over March 3–11 putting Labor ahead 51%–49%. The same poll however showed a majority of people worry that the country is heading in the wrong direction.
The final contest
In political circles, people talk about momentum in campaigns, and say things like “the trend is our friend”. If true, that electoral amity has leaned decisively towards Dutton for the past year, and only recently to Labor.
But caution is always advised. Election counts invariably throw up oddities – swings being more (or less) marked in one state compared to others, and seats retained (or lost) against a broader national trend on the night.
Such surprises give the lie to the concept of uniform swings and makes prediction of a final seat count more difficult.
If the polling consensus is broadly correct – rather than being the result of herding – and the source of Dutton’s rising support is former Labor suburbs, the question is, will those vote gains materialise at sufficient scale to translate into seat gains?
If so, this election could redraw the political map and require new thinking about major party voting bases, policies and strategies into the future.
The final outcome seems likely to turn on three things:
Dutton’s ability to stay on message about the cost-of-living through the campaign when others in his team, buoyed by Trump’s war on wokeness, want to raise tendentious social issues.
Albanese’s effectiveness in convincing wayward Labor voters that Labor has in fact delivered, that the economy has turned the corner, and that Dutton’s comparative toughness is code for budget cuts that would hit them hardest.
Unforeseen events – at home or abroad.
The Liberal leader is surprisingly well-placed. But remember, he is coming from a long way back.
Mark Kenny 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.
At the last federal election, Australia elected the largest lower house crossbench in its post-war federal history.
In addition to four Greens MPs, Rebekah Sharkie from the Centre Alliance and Bob Katter (with his own micro-party), there were ten independent MPs, seven of them new to parliament. These MPs have the freedom and flexibility to vote on every piece of legislation without having to adhere to any party-room pledge.
Micro-parties and independents also fared well in the Senate in 2022, thanks in part to the fact that we use proportional representation to elect our senators. In a half-Senate election with 40 vacancies, six went to the Greens, one to Independent ACT candidate David Pocock, one to United Australia Party Senator Ralph Babet and one to Pauline Hanson in Queensland.
Defections during the 47th parliament grew the crossbench even further. Five former Coalition MPs and Senators have moved to the crossbench, one over allegations of sexual harassment, one over the Voice to Parliament referendum and three over bruising preselection defeats.
Senator Fatima Payman defected from the Labor Party last year, citing problems with the party’s stance on Palestine, and has now set up the Australia’s Voice party.
Getting elected
Independents hardly enjoy a level playing field in federal elections. Brian Costar and Jennifer Curtin pointed out in their book, Rebels with a Cause, that independent candidates lack equal access to the electoral roll, do not initially benefit from the public funding that flows consistently to the major parties, and cannot be listed above the line on the Senate ballot paper unless they form a group or party.
Unless they are party defectors with a seat in parliament already, independent candidates also lack the advantages of incumbency. Previous research from the Australia Institute has shown the dollar value of an incumbent MP’s entitlements (in terms of their salary and those of staff, printing and travel allowances, public exposure), is about $2.9 million per term.
Once elected, though, Independents have shown the major parties that they can be very hard to beat. Helen Haines and her predecessor as Member for Indi, Cathy McGowan, have won four consecutive elections between them. Zali Steggall, who famously beat former prime minister Tony Abbott in the electorate of Warringah in 2019, has been re-elected once, and the people of metropolitan Hobart have returned former public servant and whistleblower Andrew Wilkie to Canberra five times in a row.
No safe seats
Political parties and journalists have conventionally treated certain seats as “safe” (if the winning party’s vote two-party preferred margin was 60% or higher), others as “fairly safe” (if the winning party’s 2PP margin was between 56% and 60%) and others as “marginal” (those won by less than 56% at the previous election).
But the days of safe and marginal seats are over. These terms belong to an age of two-party contests and more predictable preference flows. As Bill Browne and Richard Denniss of the Australia Institute have pointed out, the major party vote share has now “crossed a threshold” below which the idea of “safe seats” becomes redundant.
Independent candidates can win with a relatively low share of the primary vote. In 2022, community independent Kylea Tink won the electorate of North Sydney with 25% of the primary vote, having ranked favourably, but not first, on many voters’ ballots.
Holding on?
Several contests involving current crossbenchers may prove nationally influential in the event of a hung parliament. Tink, whose electorate has been abolished in a routine redistribution, will not be among the incumbents hoping to hold their seat.
The Liberal Party, by some accounts, perceives the Perth seat of Curtin, won by community independent Kate Chaney in 2022, as an important litmus test for the future. January saw a “surge in volunteers and donations” for Liberal candidate Tom White’s campaign, according to media reports.
Elsewhere, the Liberals are attempting to meet incumbent community independents with candidates that more closely resemble them. The Liberal candidate for Warringah, Jaimee Rogers, is, like the sitting member Zali Steggall, a former athlete with a public profile. Wentworth candidate Ro Knox, a former Deloitte consultant, will run against Allegra Spender, whose own pitch for re-election has emphasised tax reform and productivity.
In Victoria, Monique Ryan, who won the seat of Kooyong from then-treasurer Josh Frydenberg, will this time face Amelia Hamer, a local woman, professional and grand-niece of former Victorian premier Rupert Hamer.
There are exceptions to that pattern. Former RSL President James Brown was preselected as the Liberal candidate for Mackellar, currently held by community independent Sophie Scamps. And in Goldstein, there will be a rerun of the previous contest between community independent Zoe Daniel and her Liberal predecessor Tim Wilson.
At least three of the major party defectors in both houses are hoping to keep their seats, too. Gerard Rennick, formerly a Coalition senator who was denied a winnable spot on the Liberal National Party ticket, has registered the Gerard Rennick People First Party ahead of his bid for re-election this year. Rennick has pointed out that this will get his name “above the line” on the Senate ballot paper.
Former Liberals Ian Goodenough and Russell Broadbent have both indicated they will run as independents to defend their seats – Moore and Monash respectively – from their erstwhile colleagues.
Room for growth?
Despite the watershed result in 2022, the crossbench may grow yet. Fundraising group Climate 200 is reported to be backing up to 35 candidates across the country, and an army of volunteers has already begun to mobilise in support.
Health professional Carolyn Heise will hope that, with the support of the new campaign fundraiser the Regional Voices Fund, her second campaign in the regional electorate of Cowper may land her in parliament alongside Indi MP Helen Haines.
The retirement of shadow minister Paul Fletcher as member for Bradfield in inner-Sydney makes for a particularly interesting contest in that electorate. Gisele Kapterian, who won Liberal preselection against Warren Mundine, will campaign against community independent Nicolette Boele, who would need a swing of only 5% in her favour to win on her second attempt.
In Victoria’s western district, community independent Alex Dyson will attempt for the third time to win the seat of Wannon from shadow immigration minister Dan Tehan. Dyson came close in 2022 and would need only a 4% swing (two-candidate preferred) to win this time.
In 2022, community groups supported independent candidate Penny Ackery in her campaign against then-minister and now shadow treasurer Angus Taylor. The two-candidate preferred vote left the seat “relatively safe” (in old terms), but declining support for the Coalition saw the state electorate of Wollondilly (within Hume’s borders) elect community independent Judy Hannan in a “surprise win” at the 2023 state election.
There is plenty of potential for surprise victories and shock defeats at the forthcoming election. Community independents are running in at least four Labor-held seats. What should surprise nobody is that every vote in every seat will count on election day.
Joshua Black is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Australia Institute.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Pandanus Petter, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, School of Politics and International Relations, Australian National University
Now that an election has been called, Australian voters will go to the polls on May 3 to decide the fate of the first-term, centre-left Australian Labor Party government led by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese.
In Australia, national elections are held every three years. The official campaign period only lasts for around a month.
This time around, Albanese will be seeking to hold onto power after breaking Labor’s nine-year dry spell by beating the more right-leaning Liberal Party, led by Scott Morrison, in 2022.
Now, he’s up against the Liberals’ new leader, a conservative with a tough guy image, Peter Dutton. It’s looking like a tight race.
So how do elections work in Australia, who’s contesting for the top spot and why is the race looking so close?
For Albanese, the honeymoon is over
Albanese was brought into power in 2022 on the back of dissatisfaction with the long-term and scandal-prone Liberal-National Coalition government.
At the time, he was considered personally more competent, warm and sensible than Morrison.
Unfortunately for Albanese, the dissatisfaction and stress about the cost of living hasn’t gone away.
Governments in Australia almost always win a second term. However, initially high levels of public support have dissipated over the first term. Opinion polls are pointing to a close election, though Albanese’s approval ratings have had a boost in recent weeks.
At the heart of what makes this such a tight contest are issues shared by many established democracies: the public’s persistent sense of economic hardship in the post-pandemic period and longer-term dissatisfaction with “politics as usual”, combined with an increased focus on party leaders.
Around the world, incumbents have faced challenges holding onto power over the past year, with voters sweeping out the Conservatives in the United Kingdom and the Democrats in the United States.
Australia has faced some similar economic challenges, such as relatively high inflation and cost-of-living problems.
Likewise, Australia – like many other established democracies – has long-term trends of dissatisfaction with major parties and the political system itself.
However, this distaste with “business as usual” manifests differently in Australia from comparable countries such the UK and US.
Australia’s voting system
In Australia, voting is compulsory, and those who fail to turn out face a small fine. Some observers have argued this pushes parties to try to persuade “swing” voters with more moderate policies, rather than rely on their faithful “bases” and court those with more extreme views who are more likely to vote.
In the UK, by comparison, widespread public distaste with the Conservatives, combined with low turnout and first-past-the-post voting, delivered Keir Steirmer’s Labour Party a dramatic victory. This was despite a limited uptick in support.
And in the US, turnout in the 2024 election was only about 64%. Donald Trump and the Republicans swept to power last year by channelling a deep anti-establishment sentiment among those people who voted.
And the country is now so polarised, that the more strongly identifying Democrat and Republican voters who do turn out to vote can’t see eye to eye on highly emotionally charged issues which dominate the parties’ platforms. Independent voters are left without “centrist” options.
Because Australia’s voting system is different, Dutton is unlikely to follow Trump’s far-right positioning too closely, despite dabbling in the “anti-woke” culture wars.
It also explains why Albanese’s personal style is usually quite mild-mannered and why he’s unlikely to present himself as a radical reformer.
However, neither man’s approach has made them wildly popular with the public. This means neither can rely on their own popularity to win over the public.
Another factor making Australia distinct is that voters rank their choices, with their vote flowing to their second choice if their first choice doesn’t achieve a majority. This means many races in the 150-seat lower house of parliament are won from second place.
Similarly, seats in the Senate (Australia’s second chamber, with the power to amend or block legislation) are won based on the proportion of votes a party receives in each state or territory. This gives minor parties and independents a better chance at winning seats compared to the lower house.
This means dissatisfaction with the major parties has in recent years created space for minor parties and a new crop of well-organised independents to get elected and influence policy. In 2022, around one-third of voters helped independents and minor parties take seats off both the Liberals and Labor in the inner cities.
To win government, Dutton will need to get them back, or take more volatile outer-suburban seats off Labor.
The big policy concerns
Against this backdrop, Australian voters both in 2022 and today have a fairly consistent set of policy concerns. And while parties want to be seen addressing them, their messaging isn’t always heard.
The 2022 Australian Election Study, run by Australian political researchers, revealed that pessimism about the economy and concerns about the cost of living were front of mind when Australians voted out the Liberal-National Coalition government last federal election.
This time around, one might think some relative improvement in economic factors like unemployment and cuts to interest rates would put a spring in the prime minister’s step.
However, the public is still very concerned about the day-to-day cost-of-living pressures and practical issues such as access to health care.
The government’s policy efforts in this direction – for example, tax cuts and subsidies for power bills – have so far not strongly cut through.
What have the major parties promised?
Comparing the parties’ platforms, Labor is firmly focused on economic and government service issues to support people in the short term.
Although expected to announce the election earlier, Albanese was handed the opportunity of delivering an extra budget by a tropical storm in early March. This included spending promises foreshadowed earlier, as well as a new modest tax cut as an election sweetener.
The Coalition, for its part, has been critical of these long-term goals and promised to repeal the newly legislated tax cuts in favour of subsidies for petrol. It has focused its message on reduced government spending, while strategically mirroring promises on health to avoid Labor attacks on that front.
Dutton has also proposed cuts to migration to reduce housing pressures and a controversial plan to build nuclear power plants at the expense of renewables.
Will these differences in long-term plans cut through? Or are people focused on short-term, hip-pocket concerns?
This election, whatever the result, will not represent a long-term shifting of loyalties, but rather a precarious compact with distrustful voters looking for relief in uncertain times.
Pandanus Petter is employed at the Australian National University with funding from the Australian Research Council.
The usual story for a first-term government is a loss of seats, as voters send it a message, but ultimate survival.
It can be a close call. John Howard risked all in 1998 with his GST, and almost lost office, despite having a big majority.
But you have to go back to 1931 to find a first-term government thrown out.
So, going into this campaign, Anthony Albanese has the weight of history on his side. But modern day politics is volatile, and the voters are cranky, which has in recent months given the opposition hope it could run the government close or even defy the odds.
Government and opposition start the formal campaign with the polls close on the two-party vote. In the past few weeks, the government has improved its position, arguably to be now in the lead. If the election were held today, Labor would probably win more seats than the Coalition, and form government.
But the margins are narrow. With the next parliament, like this one, expected to have a large crossbench, present polling is pointing towards a minority government as a likely outcome. Things can change during a campaign.
Albanese started the term with substantial public goodwill – although his majority was razor thin, and his 2022 election owed more to the unpopularity of then prime minister Scott Morrison than to any real enthusiasm for Labor.
If one had to point to the single biggest political mistake the prime minister made, it was his over-investment in the Voice referendum. Whatever one thinks of the proposal itself, Albanese let it distract from what was a growing-cost-of-living crisis. The referendum was probably always destined to fail, but Albanese and the “yes” side were also out-campaigned by the “no” forces, strongest among them opposition spokeswoman Jacinta Price.
Albanese never properly recovered from the Voice’s defeat.
Early in the term the government was complacent about its opponents, believing Peter Dutton was unelectable. Indeed, that was a widespread view, including among many on the conservative side of politics. It underestimated Dutton’s strategic and tactical skills, the changing nature of the electorate, and how deeply the cost-of-living crisis – with its dozen interest rate rises under Labor, on top of one under Morrison – would bite.
Suburbia up for grabs
What was once ALP heartland, outer suburbia, is now up for grabs. Many of the tradies have become conservatives, to whom Dutton’s blunt, black-and-white political pitch is not just acceptable but potentially attractive.
Labor’s appeal to working people in this campaign is that that the worst is over on the economy, with unemployment still low and real wages in (slightly) positive territory. The latest national accounts figures showed Australia’s per capita recession, which had lasted seven quarters, was over. The February interest rate fall has also been a plus for the government: it may not be a big vote changer but it has reinforced Labor’s argument that things are going in the right direction.
The question remains: will people buy the story of life getting better when they are still not back to where they were a few years ago, and continue to feel under the financial pump?
This week’s budget and Dutton’s reply have homed in on cost of living. The government has come up with modest tax cuts, starting mid next year. These were legislated in a rush before parliament rose, so the Coalition was forced into saying it would repeal them. Dutton countered by promising an immediate cut to the excise on petrol and diesel. The opposition leader also used his budget reply to open another front in the battle over the energy transition, with the promise of a gas reservation scheme.
In the past month or two, there has been some change in the political atmosphere. Dutton’s momentum seemed to have stalled. The tight internal disciple he had maintained frayed somewhat, with messages over some policy and internal fears Dutton had left policy announcements too late.
Will voters think they don’t know enough about Peter Dutton?
The risk for Dutton is that people will fear they’re buying a pig in a poke. He has run a small target strategy; leaders (Howard in 1996, Abbott in 2013) have won on these before.
But if Dutton’s policy offerings in the campaign fall short, or his policy doesn’t stand up to the forensic scrutiny that comes in a campaign, he is likely to stall. So far, Dutton has established himself as a strong negative campaigner but he has yet to come through as a positive alternative prime minister.
His signing up to Labor’s $8.5 billion bulk-billing initiative was an example of a short-term tactic to neutralise an issue that raised questions about the Coalition’s inability to produce its own health blueprint.
The government will mobilise industrial relations against the Coalition, arguing Labor has delivered benefits to workers that a Coalition government would attack. This is risky for Dutton. His plans for slashing the public service, curbing working-from-home and removing the right to disconnect will fuel Labor’s negative campaigning, which will focus too on Dutton’s general plan to cut spending.
The Trump factor
A major unknown is what impact overseas events will have on this election. There has been a general swing to the right internationally. But the Trump factor has become a danger for Dutton.
His opponents seek cast Dutton as Trump-lite. The opposition leader is a critic of Trump on Ukraine, and he’s aware Trumpism is now politically scary for many voters. Nevertheless, Dutton’s pre-occupation with the size of the public service and his emphasis on cuts (without giving detail) will, to some voters, sound like echoes (albeit faint) of Trump. Labor claims its focus groups show people have been increasingly seeing Dutton as Trumpist.
Trump this week announced tariffs on foreign cars (not a worry to Australia, which doesn’t make any anymore). Next week he’ll announced the next stage in his tariff policy. This will feed into the election campaign. The extent it does will depend on whether Australia is directly hit. The government is busy with intense last-minute lobbying.
The cost of living is front and centre in the election, but the recent appearance of Chinese ships near Australia and their live-fire exercise has contributed to making national security and defence (especially how much we should be spending on it) issues as well, although second tier for most voters.
Major attention in this election will be on the performance of independents. Half a dozen so-called teals seized Liberal seats in 2022, and it would be very hard for the Coalition to obtain a majority without regaining some of them. The Melbourne seats of Kooyong and Goldstein will be especially closely watched. In New South Wales, one teal seat has already been lost through the redistribution.
The teals ran last time on climate change, integrity, and equity for women. This election, climate is less to the fore in the voters’ minds, while we now have an anti-corruption body, the National Anti-Corruption Commission. And there is no Scott Morrison, who was a lightning rod for the Liberals’ “women problem”. So in terms of issues, the teals have a harder case to make than before.
On the other hand, people remain deeply disillusioned with the major parties, and the teals have had plenty of time to dig into their seats. The general “community candidate” movement has strengthened and broadened. Whatever its precise composition, the new House of Representatives is expected to have a large crossbench.
In the event of a hung parliament, the crossbench will come into play. This means its potential members, especially the teals, will be under pressure during the campaign to indicate what factors they would take into account in deciding to whom to give confidence and supply. They are likely to keep their cards close to their chests.
The election will also test whether the hardline positions the Greens have taken, on local and foreign issues, have alienated or attracted voters. The Greens are at an historic high with four seats in the lower house. The three of those that are in Queensland will be on the line.
Given the closeness of the polls as the formal campaign starts, what happens in the coming five weeks, and notably the personal performances of Anthony Albanese and Peter Dutton could be crucial to the outcome. This is not one of those elections where either side can be confident it has the result in the bag.
Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Australians will go to the polls on May 3 for an election squarely centred on the cost of living.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese visited Governor-General Sam Mostyn at Yarralumla first thing on Friday morning.
Later he told an 8am news conference at parliament house the election choice was “between Labor’s plan to keep building or Peter Dutton’s plan to cut.
“Only Labor has the plan to make you better off over the next three years,” he said. “Now is not the time for cutting and wrecking, punching down.”
Less than a week after the federal budget and following an earlier delay caused by Cyclone Alfred, the formal campaign starts with government and opposition neck and neck and minority government considered a real possibility.
But in recent days, the government has gained more momentum and Labor enters the campaign more confident than at the start of the year.
The aggregated January-March quarterly Newspoll had the Coalition leading Labor 51-49%, but Albanese leading Peter Dutton as preferred PM 45% to 40%. Polling only shows a snapshot of the present, and the campaign itself could be crucial to the election result.
This is the fourth consecutive election launched off the back of a budget, with both sides this week bidding for voters’ support with big handouts.
Labor pushed through legislation for its $17 billion tax cut, the first stage of which comes in mid next year. Opposition leader Peter Dutton in his budget reply promised a 12-month halving of excise on petrol and diesel and a gas reservation scheme.
Labor goes into the election with 78 seats in the lower house, and the Coalition with 57 (counting the seats of two recent Liberal defectors). The large crossbench includes four Greens and half a dozen “teals”.
With a majority being 76 seats in the new 150-seat parliament, the Coalition needs to win 19 seats for an outright majority. This would require a uniform swing of 5.3% (although swings are not uniform). A swing of less than 1% could take Labor into minority. The Coalition would need a swing of about 3.6% to end with more seats than the government. While all states are important if the result is close, Victoria and NSW are regarded as the crucial battlegrounds.
If the Coalition won, it would be the first time that a first-term government had been defeated since 1931, during the great depression.
Since the end of the second world war, while all first term governments have been reelected, each saw a two-party swing against them.
One challenge for Albanese is that he has only a tiny majority, providing little buffer against a swing.
The combined vote of the major parties will be something to watch, with the vote steadily declining from 85.47% of the vote just 19 years ago at the 2007 election, to only 68.28% at the 2022 election.
Labor won the last election with a two-party vote of
52.13% to the Coalition’s 47.87%.
As of December 31 2024, 17,939,818 Australians were enrolled to vote.
The start of the formal campaign follows a long “faux” campaign in which both leaders have been travelling the length and breadth of the country non-stop, with the government making a series of major spending announcement but the opposition holding back on policy.
Marginal seats based on the redistribution
Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: United States Senator for Alabama Tommy Tuberville
WASHINGTON – Yesterday, as Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Personnel,U.S. Senator Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) led a hearing with the superintendents of the U.S. military academies. During the hearing, the superintendents outlined their plan to educate and train America’s future military officers. Sen. Tuberville emphasized the important role each service academy plays in ensuring our nation’s best and brightest men and women stay on the cutting-edge of leadership and warfighting.
During the hearing, Sen. Tuberville and his Republican colleagues emphasized the importance of focusing the curriculum at each institution on lethality and removing any traces of antisemitism or Critical Race Theory (CRT) from the classroom. They also asked the superintendents about the process of hiring civilian versus military instructors and possible ways to boost enrollment, including by allowing academy athletes to pursue professional sports before completing their service. This was the first time in 30 years that the service academy superintendents have testified together before the Senate.
Last week, President Trump announced he was appointing Sen. Tuberville to the Board of Visitors for the U.S. Air Force Academy.
Witnesses included:
Lieutenant General Steven Gilland, Superintendent of the U.S. Military Academy
Vice Admiral Yvette Davids, Superintendent of the U.S. Naval Academy
Lieutenant General Tony Bauernfeind, Superintendent of the U.S. Air Force Academy
Read excerpts of the transcript below or watch clips of the hearing on YouTube or Rumble.
OPENING STATEMENT:
“I’d like to call this Committee hearing into session. The Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Personnel meets this afternoon to conduct oversight and receive testimony on the status of the military service academies. Thank you for being here. The last time this body conducted a hearing on this topic with these witnesses, or with any witnesses from the academies, was more than 30 years ago.
We are fortunate to have these three distinguished officers here today:
Lieutenant General Steven Gilland is the Superintendent of the U.S. Military Academy; Vice Admiral Yvette Davids is the Superintendent of the U.S. Naval Academy; and Lieutenant General Tony Bauernfeind […] [is the Superintendent of the U.S. Air Force Academy.]
As this is the first meeting of the Personnel Subcommittee in the 119th Congress, let me begin by saying that I look forward to working with you, Ranking Member Warren, thank you for being here, as we continue the bipartisan tradition of the Armed Services Committee in developing the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).
Nothing is more bipartisan than supporting our men and women in uniform and their families. This subcommittee has a long history of prioritizing the well-being and morale of our servicemembers, and I am eager to continue that work as the new Chairman.
The military service academies are foundational to the successes of the military officer corps. In many ways, the service academies establish the culture of their respective service. Moreover, [the academies] occupy an important position in our society. They are perhaps the last universities in the country that focus on building character and improving the morality of their student body. The American people often perceive the academies as being emblematic of the entire U.S. military—for better or worse.
Over the last several years, the academies have lost sight of the fundamental reason for their existence, which is to commission officers with the education required by their respective military branches. All three academies have been sued for engaging in race-based affirmative action that is now prohibited at every other university in the country.
We have repeatedly heard over the last several years that ‘our diversity is our strength,’ it is not. Diversity can be an awesome advantage, but our unity of effort and shared [beliefs] in our Constitution and common values are our strength. Diversity for the sake of diversity alone weakens us.
A professor at the Air Force Academy proudly authored a Washington Post op-ed proclaiming that she teaches Critical Race Theory to cadets. Both West Point and the Air Force Academy established ‘diversity and inclusion’ minors, which may be trendy in other university settings, but were so unpopular with cadets that when they were abruptly cancelled by President Trump, hardly anyone noticed. More importantly, any effort to teach our future leaders to judge and sort people by immutable characteristics, like race, runs counter to the Constitution and is devastating to good order and discipline.
Last fall, the Naval Academy appropriately cancelled a lecture after it was revealed that the speaker planned to use the opportunity to make a partisan political speech. But one must ask why was this speaker invited in the first place?
[The academies] must always remember [why] they were created in the first place. The American people devote tremendous resources to maintaining all of these institutions. If the [academies] are not entirely focused on building officers of character to lead our nation’s sons and daughters in combat, then what is the purpose?
I hope our witnesses will address these criticisms but also tell us about the great things that are happening every day at the academies.
The vast majority of the cadets, midshipman, faculty, and staff at the service academies are properly focused on the only mission that matters, which is defending our Constitution and the American people.
I thank the witnesses for appearing today, and I look forward to their testimony.
Now I’ll turn the microphone over to Senator Warren.”
[…]
ON CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT OF CIVILIAN PROFESSORS:
TUBERVILLE: “Permanent military faculty are Senate-confirmed. Should we [Congress] have any input towards civilian professors, General? On your recommendation.”
GILLAND: “Sir, I think that when we look at the confirmation of our permanent faculty, which is a fairly small number, I would have to, we’d make that recommendation to you as Congress. With regards to our civilian faculty, I think it just—even with their swearing to the oath—an oath to the Constitution of the United States, I would ask, I’d have to go back and ask about their civilian hiring practices because civilian-hired practices and regulations that govern that are different from our uniformed members.”
TUBERVILLE: “Admiral?”
DAVIDS: “Very similar, except that I would say at the Naval Academy, we have a proven formula that works, sir. And that includes these incredible civilian faculty that are charged to support everything that we do there. They’re completely in in our mission and they complement the military aspect of our faculty as well, sir. So, when I say proven, I say that 89% graduation rate at the United States Naval Academy and a great deal of that is because of the incredible coaches, mentors, faculty, and staff that we have there are all focused on that mission, sir.”
TUBERVILLE: “Thank you. General?”
BAUERNFEIND: “Sir, I’m very comfortable under my authorities on picking the civilian faculty for our force as we go forward, but if our elected leaders want to have a voice in that, I’m also very comfortable working with our elected leaders to detail a process that enables us to work through that process quickly.”
ON ENCOURAGING MILITARY RECRUITS PURSUING PROFESSIONAL ATHLETIC CAREERS:
TUBERVILLE: “I’d be remiss if I didn’t bring something up about sports, and I’d like to get each one of your thoughts about this. I’ve always felt that playing sports was invaluable to leadership development. Many of the cadets and shipmen at your institutions are athletes participating on the various academy sports teams. They represent the best of your institutions and our country. Occasionally—occasionally—some of these athletes develop to an elite level and are forced to forego living out their dreams of playing the sport they love at a professional level because of outdated—to me—outdated regulations governing their service obligations. I’d like to see this year’s NDAA reflect a serious commitment to these outstanding individuals. When appropriate, these cadets and midshipmen should graduate and commission with their classes and defer their service obligation until their professional sports-playing careers are complete. These would be commissioned officers in our armed services subject to the same rules and regulations as their peers, while at the same time providing exposure and increased visibility to the academics while they play sports at the highest level. I know that’s not protocol for what we do as we speak. But General, I’d like to get your thoughts on that with an all-volunteer military now, we are looking for possible ways to get more and more young men and women involved in our academies.”
GILLAND: “Senator, the Army is a team contact sport. That’s how I view the Army. And those young men and women that are coming into the Army regardless of their background or upbringing better be prepared to get involved in a team contact sport [because] that’s what you all as citizens of this nation ask of us. As a result, when we think through the development of leaders of character, I’m looking for the—may not be the best player—because numbers don’t always define someone’s potential—the best player for the team. And for those individuals that have the elite capability to pursue professional sports, I absolutely support, and I think that we have to look at measures, as you outlined, from a commission perspective that would allow those individuals to go into that professional sport of whatever their talent is in, execute that, and then have them serve in the Army. And I think there are combinations of ways to do that through not only active service concurrent with their respective playing for a team. Of course, there’s different things that would have to go with that as they’re moving around and such if they’re treated, or there’s the deferral of the respective active-duty service obligations that they have. But I think that it results in multiple benefits, not only to each of our academies, but I think it benefits our services also through deliberate outreach and engagement that we would ask of those talented individuals.”
TUBERVILLE: “Thank you. Admiral?”
DAVIDS: “Sir, when I was a midshipmen fourth class, Napoleon McCallum was my upper class. The original ‘Admiral’ David Robinson was also in my upper class. They were heroes of mine, I saw how brilliant they did in their careers to not only bring in incredible talent to the Navy, to the Naval Academy, as well to supporting our nation. There are many ways to serve, sir, and they brilliantly in that. So, I am a huge fan of it, I appreciate it. We may look at this. I think that the return on investment is incredible, and I fully support it, sir.”
TUBERVILLE: “Thank you. General?”
BAUERNFEIND: “Senator Tuberville, I also, as a freshman, looked up to one Chad Hennings, a monster of a football player.”
TUBERVILLE: “Big ol’ boy. Yeah.”
BAUERNFEIND: “Yes sir. And benefitted greatly. He also, during that time, his value was not only was he an amazing football player, but he also went out and served and flew combat operations in Desert Storm during that time, bringing both of that immediate value, you know, that recruiting value to bear the service and the professional capabilities. And I believe where the NDAA is now by giving us opportunity for three per year is a great opportunity for us to pick those truly elite athletes that can go on to that next level. As a data point, over the last five years, we’ve had 20 Air Force Academy cadets or—excuse me, 22—that have moved forward into professional sports. Thirteen met their first seasons and unfortunately did not, were not able to continue, and they came back to active duty. And nine are continuing. And over that time, that two to three is, I think, an opportunity for us to continue to go forward. I would also ask, sir, as we have this conversation for pro sports to have a fulsome conversation of the impact of the transfer portal on our military service academies, and how that is taking young men and women away from service to the nation until they’ve had an opportunity to blossom as leaders.”
TUBERVILLE: “Yeah. Well, that’s a great point. And I look forward to visiting with all three of you about this before our NDAA is put together this June. And I know it’s a huge problem, and I can understand it’s a huge problem for you also. So again, we’ll sit down—I wanna sit down with all three of you before we get to that point in June—and hopefully, we’re gonna—we can work something out because I think it’d be a great tool for all of you for recruiting because y’all take our best and brightest and all […] of us in here, all the senators, we—and congressmen—we have an opportunity to send the best young men and women we possibly have in our states and you do a great job with them. So, I wanna thank you for coming today. This is a fact-finding mission. We haven’t done it in 30 years. We’ll do it again next year. And hopefully, we’ll make it bigger and brighter. We just want to enlighten people about what you do because leadership, discipline, teamwork is everything that goes along with what our country is about. And again, it’s so, so important. We can’t really do this enough, but thanks again for what you do, how you do it. And tell all of your cadets and midshipmen that we’re for them. And I look forward to being on the Board of Visitors at the Air Force Academy this year and visiting with you. And again, you’re our future. And we hope you use our young people at your convenience but also give them the best and brightest future they can possibly get because we’re gonna be, how we’re gonna go as a country is how they go. So, thanks again, and this has been a good hearing, and this hearing is adjourned.”
Senator Tommy Tuberville represents Alabama in the United States Senate and is a member of the Senate Armed Services, Agriculture, Veterans’ Affairs, HELP, and Aging Committees.
Source: United States Senator for Alabama Tommy Tuberville
Bill would privatize airport security under federal oversight
WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Senators Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) and Mike Lee (R-UT) introduced the Abolish TSA Act, which would dissolve the bloated and ineffective Transportation Security Administration (TSA) while allowing America’s airports to compete to provide the safest, most efficient, and least intrusive security measures, under a new Office of Aviation Security Oversight.
“The TSA has become an inefficient, bureaucratic mess that infringes on Americans’ freedoms and wastes taxpayer money,” said Sen. Tuberville. “It’s a bloated agency that offers minimal security benefits while causing unnecessary delays and frustration for travelers. We need to focus on smarter, more effective methods to protect our country without sacrificing the liberties that make America great. The TSA should be eliminated and replaced with more targeted, streamlined, and accountable solutions.”
“The TSA has not only intruded into the privacy and personal space of most Americans, it has also repeatedly failed tests to find weapons and explosives,” said Sen. Lee.“Our bill privatizes security functions at American airports under the eye of an Office of Aviation Security Oversight, bringing this bureaucratic behemoth to a welcome end. American families can travel safely without feeling the hands of an army of federal employees.”
Read full text of the legislation here and the Fox News exclusive here.
BACKGROUND:
The TSA is not equipped to manage the fast-evolving threats posed to aviation transportation. Over the past two decades, it has ballooned into an over-bloated, inefficient agency of 60,000 employees. Its highly bureaucratic and non-competitive nature make it slow-moving, perpetually out of date, highly resistant to innovation and modernization, and simply ineffective. In addition to widespread allegations of employee misconduct and theft, a 2015 assessment found that TSA agents missed 95% of mock explosives and banned weapons during checkpoint screenings. The 95% failure rate was repeated in 2017 at Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport and repeat national tests that year were “in the ballpark” of 80% failure rates.
Switching to privatization with appropriate but limited government oversight is the answer for modern aviation security. Over 80% of European commercial airports privatized airport security screening, and the overall performance of the U.S. airports—such as the San Francisco International Airport—participating in the TSA’s limited privatization program (Screening Partnership Program, or SPP) frequently outperformed their federalized counterparts in reducing wait times and mitigating threats.
Competition drives excellence, efficiency, and safety—not bureaucracy. TSA, the regulating entity in aviation security, should not be conducting the regulated activity.
Abolish TSA Act:
TSA is abolished three years after enactment, allowing time for privatization and the repeal or transfer of additional authorities.
Within 90 days of enactment, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of Transportation, shall submit a reorganization plan to Congress that includes:
Creation of the Office of Aviation Security Oversight within the FAA, solely responsible for overseeing the privatization of aviation security screening.
Rapid transfer of security activities and equipment to qualified private companies.
Transfer of non-aviation security functions to DOT (mass transit, freight rail, pipelines, etc.).
Proportional reductions of TSA operations and personnel to facilitate transfer of duties.
The reorganization plan cannot include requirements for private security companies to conduct warrantless searches and seizures or extend the TSA’s existence. Congress will consider, amend, vote up or down on the reorganization plan through expedited and privileged procedure. Compliance will be monitored by the GAO and regular reports to Congress.
MORE:
Tuberville, Scott Urge Leadership to Support DOGE, Cut Waste When Funding Government
ICYMI: Tuberville on X: Trump and DOGE are Making the Federal Government Efficient Again
ICYMI: Tuberville in Newsweek: America is Back. President’s Joint Address Will Celebrate It
Tuberville, Paul Introduce Legislation to Rein in Government, Hold Bureaucrats Accountable
Tuberville, Scott Lead Legislation to Restore Merit-Based Hiring
Senator Tommy Tuberville represents Alabama in the United States Senate and is a member of the Senate Armed Services, Agriculture, Veterans’ Affairs, HELP, and Aging Committees.
A range of road safety upgrades will be implemented to address 162 dangerous sites on roads in Western Australia, Victoria and Queensland, with the Albanese Government committing over $85 million to fully fund upgrades under the 2025-26 Black Spots Program.
These 162 Black Spot projects will make an important contribution towards reducing serious injuries and deaths with safety improvements funded under this latest round of works to include roundabouts, traffic calming measures, upgraded lighting and safety barriers.
Throughout the project selection process, Black Spot Consultative Panels in each state have provided the opportunity for stakeholders to have their say to ensure nominations are of the highest priority and importance to the local community.
These panels are chaired by Senator Varun Ghosh, Lisa Chesters MP and Shayne Neumann MP in each of these states respectively, and include representatives from state road authorities, local government associations, automobile clubs and road safety action groups.
Funding for the Black Spots Program has substantially increased as part of the Albanese Government’s response to a worsening road toll, which also includes progressively doubling the Roads to Recovery funding from $500 million to $1 billion a year and delivering nationally aligned data sets to inform road safety decision making.
More information on the Black Spots Program, including prompts on how to nominate a black spot, can be foundhere. Full lists of projects in Western Australia, Victoria and Queensland can be accessedhere.
Quotes attributable to Assistant Minister for Regional Development, Anthony Chisholm:
“This investment demonstrates the Albanese Government’s promise to building safer roads, reducing the crushing impacts of road trauma and supporting local jobs.
“We recently announced our significant boost to road safety funding, which included a commitment to increase annual Black Spots Program funding to $150 million from next year.
“Removing Black Spots across Australia’s road network forms a major part of our ongoing commitment to work with state and territory governments to fund the priority road safety works they identify.
“This Program is driven by communities, for communities and I’d like to thank the Black Spot Consultative Committee Chairs for their advocacy.
“Anyone can nominate a dangerous site for Black Spot funding, if you know a Black Spot near you please consider nominating that site for investigation.”
The Albanese Government is continuing to improve road safety on regional and remote roads, delivering funding towards the over $11 million Springs Road East upgrade in the Mount Barker district.
This investment will provide a safer, more productive route for housing and business development in the Mount Barker district.
The Albanese Government is committing $5 million to the project under the Safer Local Roads and Infrastructure Program (SLRIP), with the Malinauskus Government and Mount Barker District Council each committing $3 million.
The project will widen one kilometre of Springs Road between Bald Hills Road and Heysen Boulevard, as well as widening the bridge on Springs Road and installing upgraded safety barriers to accommodate the wider road and cycling infrastructure.
The SLRIP commenced on 1 July 2024 to provide funding for projects to address current and emerging priorities in road infrastructure needs.
At least $200 million per year is available under the program.
More information on the SLRIP can be accessed here.
Quotes attributable to Federal Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government Minister Catherine King:
“We know that that local governments in the regions often require more funding to manage rising costs and increased pressure on transport infrastructure due to climate change and extreme weather events.
“The Albanese Government is committed to delivering the funding local councils need to improve road safety, allowing more money to be spent on projects and less on administration.
“We’ve increased funding under the Safer Local Roads and Infrastructure Program, as well as the Roads to Recovery Program and the Black Spot Funding Program to strengthen investment in safer and more productive local roads.
Quotes attributable to SA Minister for Infrastructure and Transport Tom Koutsantonis:
“In partnership with the Albanese Government, we are making a significant investment in improving road safety.
“It is great to see Springs Road East in Mount Barker receive the funding it needs to ensure a safer, smoother journey for the many residents who use the road.”
Quotes attributable to Mount Barker District Council Mayor David Leach:
“Australian and South Australian government support for the Spring Roads East upgrade will help provide a safer, more efficient route for locals in the Mount Barker district.
“We’re keen to continue to work with the Australian and South Australian governments to deliver even more critical road upgrades in the future.”
Source: United States Senator for New Hampshire Jeanne Shaheen
(Washington, DC) – On the anniversary of the bipartisan McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act becoming law in 2002, U.S. Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) reintroduced a Constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. FEC decision, which removed campaign finance restrictions and enabled entities to spend unlimited money to influence elections. The Shaheen-led Democracy for All Amendment would also overturn other far-reaching decisions around campaign finance that wrongfully equated money with free speech and unfairly determined that big, wealthy corporations have the same First Amendment rights as people.
“Extreme, misguided court rulings like Citizens United have flooded our elections with dark money and special interests that drown out the voices of our citizens,” said Shaheen. “The promise that we are a government ‘of the people, by the people, for the people’ is a core tenet of our democracy that all Americans—regardless of political affiliation—hold dear. I’m reintroducing this Constitutional amendment to overturn the disastrous Citizens United decision and return the power to the American people in our elections.”
The Democracy for All Amendment would empower Congress and states to set reasonable campaign finance rules and limit corporate spending. The amendment would enshrine in the Constitution the right of the American people to regulate the raising and spending of funds in public elections and curb the concentration of political influence held by the wealthiest Americans.
Along with Shaheen, U.S. Senators Alex Padilla (D-CA), Brian Schatz (D-HI), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Chris Coons (D-DE), Raphael Warnock (D-GA), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Tina Smith (D-MN), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Angus King (I-ME), Mark Kelly (D-AZ), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Andy Kim (D-NJ), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Maggie Hassan (D-NH), Peter Welch (D-VT), Ed Markey (D-MA), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Patty Murray (D-WA), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), Jacky Rosen (D-NV), Jack Reed (D-RI), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Adam Schiff (D-CA), John Fetterman (D-PA), Gary Peters (D-MI), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Ben Ray Lujan (D-NM), Mark Warner (D-VA) and Cory Booker (D-NJ) are also cosponsors of the Democracy for All Amendment.
Shaheen has led the Democracy for All Amendment for years and has long supported Congressional action to protect election integrity in our country. Last year, Shaheen called on the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) to clarify whether grant funds from the Help America Vote Act can be used to make local elections more accessible to voters with disabilities. In 2022, Shaheen helped introduce and pass two proposals that include legislation to reform and modernize the outdated Electoral Count Act of 1887 to ensure that the electoral votes tallied by Congress accurately reflect each state’s vote for President. In 2021, Shaheen helped reintroduce the DISCLOSE Act, legislation that would require organizations spending money in federal elections to disclose their donors and help guard against hidden foreign influence in our democracy.