Category: Politics

  • MIL-OSI Australia: First festival to commence pill testing trial in NSW

    Source: New South Wales Government 2

    Headline: First festival to commence pill testing trial in NSW

    Published: 19 February 2025

    Released by: Minister for Health


    The Minns Labor Government has announced Yours and Owls Festival on 1 and 2 March will be the first music festival to participate in New South Wales pill testing trial.

    Illicit drugs remain illegal in NSW. The NSW Government reiterates that there will always be risks involved when consuming these substances and this announcement is not an endorsement of illicit drug use.

    However, the trial is designed to help people make safer choices by connecting them with qualified health staff who can provide harm reduction advice.

    The free and anonymous service allows festival goers to bring a small sample of substances they intend to consume to be analysed by qualified health staff to test for purity, potency and adulterants.  

    The pill testing service will be staffed by peer workers, health workers and analysts who will clearly communicate the limitations of drug checking to festival goers.

    People will never be advised that a drug is safe to use. They’ll be advised that all drug use carries risks, and that the only way to avoid this risk is to not consume drugs.

    Where needed, staff at the service can provide patrons with referral to health and welfare services available at the event or in the community.

    NSW Health and NSW Police are working closely with festival organisers and other stakeholders to ensure safe and effective implementation of the trial at these events.

    The trial will operate alongside other harm reduction and medical services at the participating festivals.

    The trial will run for 12 months and will be independently evaluated. The government is working with other festivals on their prospective participation.

    The trial comes after the Government’s Drug Summit concluded in early December. The Drug Summit co-chairs provided interim advice recommending a trial of music festival-based drug testing.

    Further information on the NSW Drug Checking trial can be found here.

    Quotes attributable to Minister for Health Ryan Park:

    “Let me be clear, no level of illicit drug use is safe and pill testing services do not provide a guarantee of safety. There will always be risks involved when consuming these substances.

    “However, this trial has been designed to provide people with the necessary information to make more informed decisions about drug use, with the goal of reducing drug-related harm and saving lives.

    “Illicit drug use remains illegal in NSW. These services will not be made available to suppliers and police will continue to target them.”

    Quotes attributable to Ben Tillman, Yours and Owls:

    “We enthusiastically welcome this move by the NSW Government. Pill testing is something we have been fighting for, for some time now.

    “While Yours and Owls maintains a zero-tolerance policy to illegal drugs, we are realists and see the abstinence-only approach as unhelpful. Pill Testing is not a panacea. However, it is a proven harm minimisation strategy that has been successfully implemented in many countries overseas for the past twenty or so years.

    “Ultimately, we ask individuals to take responsibility for themselves and their decision-making to ensure they have a great time safely.

    “We also encourage anyone who finds themselves or their mates in trouble to seek medical assistance immediately; there will be no judgment, you won’t get into trouble, patrons need to remember their safety and that of their mates is the most important thing.”

    MIL OSI News

  • MIL-OSI Australia: Explainer: New national and NSW hate crime laws

    Source: Australian Human Rights Commission

    The Australian Government recently updated national hate crime laws and the NSW Government is proposing similar updates to NSW laws. This explainer is designed to help readers better understand these changes and the potential human rights implications. 

    New national hate crime laws  

    On Thursday 6 February 2025, the Federal Parliament passed the Criminal Code Amendment (Hate Crimes) Bill 2025 (Cth). The new laws are widely seen as a response to the recent surge in antisemitic violence in Australia. The bill amends the existing hate crime provisions in the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). Key changes include: 

    Expanded offences: It was already a serious criminal offence under federal law to urge force or violence against specific groups and members of those groups, including those distinguished by race, religion, or national origin. These new laws strengthen some existing offences within the Criminal Code. Sections 80.2A and 80.2B now criminalise ‘advocating’ force or violence against specific groups, members of those groups and their close associates, including those distinguished by sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status and disability. These offences no longer require an intention that the force or violence actually occurs. Instead, it is enough if a person is ‘reckless’ as to whether force or violence occurs. Existing offences prohibiting the display of Nazi symbols, the Nazi salute and terrorist organisation symbols have also been expanded to protect groups distinguished by the broader list of attributes. 

    New offences: The laws introduce a number of new offences, including threatening to use force or violence against protected groups, their members and close associates, and either advocating or threatening damage to, or destruction of, places of worship or property owned or occupied by members of a protected group or their close associates.  These offences protect groups distinguished by race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status, disability, nationality, national or ethnic origin or political opinion. The exception to this is the offence of advocating force or violence against a group through causing damage to property (which includes minor damage such as painting a slogan on a building) which only applies to groups distinguished by race, religion or ethnic origin. 

    Mandatory minimum sentences: The new laws increase the maximum penalties for the offences relating to the display of Nazi symbols, the Nazi salute and prohibited terrorist organisation symbols from one year to five years, and impose mandatory minimum sentences of 12 months’ imprisonment for these offences. They also impose mandatory minimum sentences for certain terrorism-related offences ranging from one to six years.  

    New NSW hate crime laws 

    The NSW Government is in the process of introducing tougher hate crime laws in response to the recent escalation of violent antisemitism in NSW. Key changes that were introduced into Parliament over the last 10 days include: 

    Expanded offences: The Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) currently contains an offence of displaying a Nazi symbol, by public act and without reasonable excuse. This offence is punishable by a maximum of 12 months’ imprisonment. Proposed amendments would introduce a new specific offence for displaying Nazi symbols on or near synagogues, Jewish schools and the Sydney Jewish Museum, with a maximum penalty of two years. The meaning of ‘public act’ for the offences of threatening or inciting violence and the offences of displaying Nazi symbols, which currently includes ‘writing’, would be expanded to also specifically include ‘graffiti’.  

    New offences: The amendments would introduce new offences for intentionally blocking a person from accessing or leaving places of worship without reasonable excuse, and for harassing, intimidating or threatening people accessing or leaving these places, with a maximum penalty of two years. The NSW Government has also introduced into Parliament new laws to create a new criminal offence for intentionally and publicly inciting racial hatred, with a proposed maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment, fines of up to $11,000, or both, and with fines of $55,000 for corporations. 

    Expanded police powers: The proposed laws would empower police officers to issue move on directions for demonstrations and protests if they occur in or near a place of worship.  

    Aggravating circumstances: The amendments would expand the aggravating circumstances that apply to sentencing to include when an offence is partly, rather than just wholly, motivated by hatred or prejudice. Proposed amendments to the Graffiti Control Act 2008 (NSW) would also expand the circumstances of aggravation for graffiti offences where they relate to places of worship. An aggravated offence permits tougher sentencing by judges. 

    Background

    The narrow scope of these laws, which focus only on violence relating to race and religion, has been criticised, with it being suggested that they should be expanded to also protect (for example) other vulnerable groups such as LGBTIQ+ people and people with disability. 

    Last year, the NSW Law Reform Commission was tasked with reviewing s 93Z of the Crimes Act and report on its effectiveness in addressing serious racial and religious vilification in NSW. While their report acknowledged ‘the significant impact that hate-based conduct has on individuals, groups and our wider community’, it concluded that s 93Z should not be amended.

    Human rights implications 

    Both the federal laws and proposed NSW laws aim to address hate crimes, and have been introduced in response to the increase in incidents of racial hatred and violence seen recently in Australia, particularly antisemitism. The laws are intended to protect human rights by ensuring equality, non-discrimination and security of person, safeguarding individuals from targeted violence and intimidation. 

    At the same time, the laws raise a number of specific human rights concerns, notably in relation to freedom of expression, the right to peaceful assembly, and mandatory minimum sentencing. 

    Freedom of expression: Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right that allows individuals to share their opinions and ideas without undue interference or censorship. While these laws aim to protect individuals from harm and uphold equality, they also raise concerns about where the boundary between harmful speech and legitimate expression should be drawn. Striking a balance between protecting free speech and preventing harm is a key challenge in implementing hate speech laws.  To the extent that the new laws criminalise advocating or threatening physical force or violence, they will be a legitimate restriction on freedom of expression. Proposals that go beyond this to, for example, criminalise the promotion of hatred, require careful scrutiny. Guidelines developed by the United Nations emphasise that the criminalisation of hate speech should be a last resort, and reserved for the most severe forms of incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence. The NSW Law Reform Commission recently expressed concern that terms like ‘hatred’ are imprecise and subjective, with this ambiguity making them ‘an inappropriate standard for the criminal law’.  

    The right to peaceful assembly: The right to peaceful assembly is critical in a democracy. While it can be restricted to ensure public safety and protect the rights and freedoms of others, any limits must be lawful, necessary and proportionate. The proposed laws are designed specifically to protect people exercising their freedom to worship, repeat language (such as ‘harass, intimidates or threaten’) already well known to the law and contain a number of exemptions, including for authorised public assemblies. However, the provisions also use language that is less precise and imposes substantially greater penalties than similar laws, as well as expanding police powers. The proposed NSW laws should be referred to a parliamentary committee to ensure an appropriate balance is struck between the different human rights that will be impacted. 

    Mandatory minimum sentencing: Mandatory minimum sentencing laws require courts to deliver a minimum penalty for particular offences. The Australian Human Rights Commission has consistently opposed mandatory sentencing laws because they undermine judicial independence and the ability of courts to ensure that the punishment fits the crime, as well as having an unfair impact on disadvantaged groups. The Commission maintains that courts are best placed to weigh up all the relevant circumstances and impose an appropriate penalty for criminal offences.

    ENDS | Media contact: media@humanrights.gov.au or +61 457 281 897

    MIL OSI News

  • MIL-OSI Economics: Samsung R&D Institute India, Bangalore inaugurates Samsung Innovation Campus at Karnataka’s First Women-Only Engineering College

    Source: Samsung

     
    Samsung R&D Institute India, Bangalore (SRI-B) inaugurated Samsung’s flagship global citizenship programme, the Samsung Innovation Campus (SIC), at Karnataka’s first all-women’s engineering college, Geetha Shishu Shikshana Sangha (GSSS) Institute of Engineering and Technology for Women, Mysore. This initiative underscores Samsung’s unwavering commitment to advancing gender equality in STEM and fostering a new generation of women leaders in technology.
     
    Launched in September 2022, the SIC programme comprises an extensive curriculum focused on core technology skills including Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning, Big Data, and Coding & Programming, especially designed by Samsung’s global R&D experts to make India’s youth industry-ready. The students enrolled in this initiative will get an opportunity to undergo expert offline and online training at a classroom facility, and work on innovative projects under the guidance of mentors from SRI-B and GSSS Institute.
     
    “At Samsung, we believe innovation thrives when opportunities are inclusive. It brings us immense pride to inaugurate Samsung Innovation Campus (SIC) at Karnataka’s first women’s engineering college, a space where bright young minds will explore, experiment, and push the boundaries of technology. Aligned with the government’s #DigitalIndia and #MakeinIndia campaigns, it empowers students to drive technological progress from within the country. We look forward to moulding future women leaders as they create, innovate, and transform the world with technology,” said Mohan Rao Goli, Corporate Vice President and Managing Director, SRI-B.
     

     
    In 2024, Samsung Southwest Asia expanded its SIC reach by enrolling 3,500 students, up from 3,000 in 2023. Samsung’s ongoing commitment to corporate social responsibility, through initiatives such as SIC and Samsung Solve for Tomorrow (SFT), highlights its mission to nurture and train India’s future-tech leaders. Through these programmes, Samsung continues to support India’s youth, equipping them with the skills that not only advance their personal and professional growth but also empower India as a global technology hub.
     
    “Our collaboration with SRI-B ensures maximum impact, providing industry-relevant courses and niche skills, strong technical foundations, and practical exposure through capstone projects. This initiative reinforces our commitment to powering #DigitalIndia by bridging the digital skills gap and preparing women for the future workforce. Through a structured curriculum, the students will gain hands-on experience in problem-solving and emerging technologies, enhancing both employability and innovation. We deeply appreciate SRI-B for this invaluable partnership, which empowers young women technologists to drive technological advancements,” said Anupama B Pandit, Secretary, GSSS (R), Mysore.
     
    SRI-B has established SICs in seven other institutes in Karnataka, including BNM Institute of Technology, Cambridge Institute of Technology (Main & North Campuses), Don Bosco Institute of Technology, KLE Institute of Technology, RNS Institute of Technology (RNSIT) Bengaluru, as well as one in IIIT-Kurnool, training over 800 students with the necessary skills to secure relevant opportunities in the field of technology.

    MIL OSI Economics

  • MIL-Evening Report: Insider threat: cyber security experts on giving Elon Musk and DOGE the keys to US government IT systems

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Frank den Hartog, Professor of Information Systems, Research Chair in Critical Infrastructure, University of Canberra

    A few weeks ago, word started to come out that the newly minted United States Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) had acquired unprecedented access to multiple US government computer systems.

    DOGE employees – tech billionaire Elon Musk and his affiliates – have been granted access to sensitive personal and financial data, as well as other data critical for national security. This has created a national and international outcry, and serious concerns have been raised about data security, privacy and potential influence.

    A group of 14 state attorneys-general attempted to have DOGE’s access to certain federal systems restricted, but a judge has denied the request.

    Questions of trust

    What are the deeper reasons behind this outcry? After all, Musk is far from the first businessman to gain political power.

    There is, of course, US President Donald Trump himself, alongside many more on both sides of politics. Most of them kept running their businesses at arm’s length and went back to them after a stint in Washington.

    So why are so many people alarmed now, but not before? The key word here is trust. Surveys suggest many people don’t trust Musk with this kind of access.

    Does that mean we trusted the others? The foundation of modern cyber security is not to trust anything or anybody in the first place.

    So while a lack of trust in Musk is one reason for disquiet, another is a lack of trust in the current state of cyber security in US government systems and procedures. And for good reason.

    An insider threat

    The situation in the US raises the spectre of what cyber experts call an “insider threat”. These concern cyber security incidents caused by people who have authorised access to systems and data.

    Cyber security relies on controlling the so-called “CIA triad” of confidentiality, integrity and availability. Insider threats can compromise all three.

    Authentication and subsequent authorisation of access has traditionally been an important measure to prevent cyber incidents from occurring. But apparently, that is not sufficient any more.

    Perhaps the most famous insider incident in history is Edward Snowden’s leak of classified documents from the US National Security Agency in 2013. Australia too has had its share of insider breaches – the 2000 Maroochy Shire attack is still a textbook example.

    Musk and his DOGE colleagues have now become insiders.

    How to reduce the risk of insider threat

    There are plenty of strategies organisations can follow to reduce the risk of insider threats:

    • more rigorous vetting of employees

    • giving users only the bare minimum access and privileges they need

    • continuously auditing who has access to what, and restricting access immediately when needed

    • authenticating and authorising users every time they access a different system or file (this is part of what is called a “zero trust architecture”)

    • monitoring for unusual behaviour regarding insiders accessing systems and files

    • developing and nurturing a cyber-aware culture in the organisation.

    In government systems, the public should be able to trust these procedures are being rigorously applied. However, when it comes to Musk and DOGE, it seems they are not. And that’s where the core of the problem lies.

    Clearances and a lack of care

    DOGE employees without security clearance reportedly have access to classified systems which would normally be considered quite sensitive.

    However, even security clearances offer no iron-clad guarantees.

    Security clearances assume someone can be trusted based on their past. But past performance can never guarantee the future.

    In the US, obtaining and holding a security clearance has become a status symbol. A clearance may also be a golden ticket to high-paying jobs and power, and hence subject to politics rather than independent judgement.

    And it seems little care has been taken to keep users’ access and privileges to a minimum.

    You might think DOGE’s employees, tasked with seeking out inefficiency, would only need read-only access to the US government IT systems. However, at least one of them temporarily had “write” access to the systems of the treasury, according to reports, enabling him to alter code controlling trillions in federal spending.

    It all comes down to trust

    Even if all possible access control and vetting procedures are in place and working perfectly, there will always be the problem of how to declassify information.

    Or to put it another way: how do you make somebody forget everything they knew when their clearance or access is revoked or downgraded?

    What Musk has seen, he can never unsee. And there is only so much that can be done to prevent this knowledge from leaking.

    Even if all procedures to protect against insider threats are followed perfectly (and they aren’t), nothing is 100% secure.

    We would still need a certain level of public trust that the obtained data and information would be dealt with responsibly. Has trust in Musk and his affiliates reached that level?

    According to recent polling, public opinion is still divided.

    Frank den Hartog is the Cisco Research Chair in Critical Infrastructure at the University of Canberra. He is an Adjunct Fellow at the University of New South Wales.

    Abu Barkat Ullah is a steering committee member for the Canberra Cyber Hub and has received several research grants from Australian government and private organisations.

    ref. Insider threat: cyber security experts on giving Elon Musk and DOGE the keys to US government IT systems – https://theconversation.com/insider-threat-cyber-security-experts-on-giving-elon-musk-and-doge-the-keys-to-us-government-it-systems-250046

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-OSI Australia: Joint press conference, Volgren Buses, Brisbane

    Source: Australian Treasurer

    Anika Wells:

    Good morning, everybody. I’m Anika Wells, federal Member for Lilley. Welcome to the majestic kingdom of Lilley. It’s always great to be home and here at Volgren, where for the past 15 years in part of our manufacturing hub here on the Northside, Volgren has been not just helping commuters get to places on public transport but providing great secure jobs for auto electricians, for welders, for spray painters who live and love working here on the north side of Brisbane. So, welcome news yesterday for them with the RBA rate cut, it means that for the more than 90,000 people who are employed in Lilley here, working in places like Volgren or like the Brisbane Airport or like Westfield Chermside or like the Prince Charles Hospital, many of those people are mortgage holders and yesterday’s news means that they will be about $1,000 a year better off as a result of this rate cut.

    We know that is incredibly welcome news, and we know as the Albanese Labor government we have more work to do. And I say as the Aged Care Minister, you’ve seen this term us pump $15 billion into wage rises for aged care workers, some of the lowest paid people, some of the people who most needed a pay rise. We are seeing welcome results and green shoots in places like aged care, but it takes a while to turn the Queen Mary around and that’s why Murray, Jim and I are here to continue that work on cost‑of‑living relief, because the people in Lilley, their households are looking upwards of $90 a month better off as a result of yesterday’s decision, but we’re going to keep working hard for them. And to talk about that, here is Murray Watt.

    Murray Watt:

    Well, thanks very much, Anika. It’s a pleasure to join you and Jim in your electorate, thanks for having me in your electorate. And thanks to Stewart and the team here at Volgren for showing us around the incredible high‑tech manufacturing that’s going on here right here in Brisbane’s Northside. It was a pleasure to talk with a range of the tradespeople who are working here, and today we’ve had more encouraging news for the workers that we are meeting here today and for all workers across Australia.

    Building on yesterday’s rate cut from the RBA, today the Australian Bureau of Statistics has released its latest data on wage rises in our country. And what that data shows is that we have now had 5 consecutive quarters of wages growing above inflation in Australia under the Albanese Labor government. The last quarter, the December quarter 2024, showed real wage growth. So, wages growing above inflation by 0.5 per cent. And if you look at the whole year of 2024, we saw real wage growth of 0.8 per cent, leading to 5 consecutive quarters of real wage growth in Australia.

    Now, that stands in massive contrast to what we saw under the Coalition when we were first elected. The 5 quarters leading into the last election, we saw real wages going backwards under the Coalition. Wages were falling and not keeping pace with inflation. And over the last nearly 3 years, we’ve been able to turn that around to a point that wages are consistently now rising above inflation. And why does that matter?

    It matters because lifting wages is a crucial part of the Albanese government’s plan to assist Australians deal with their cost‑of‑living pressures. And it’s important to recognise that this is a real tribute to the Australian employers and workers who have delivered these wage rises, but it also demonstrates that the changes that we’ve made to Australia’s workplace laws are working as intended. At the last election, we said that we would get wages moving again, and we can now see that happening consistently over the last 5 quarters, and we need to remember that every single change Labor made to our workplace laws in this term of office was voted against by Peter Dutton and the Coalition. They have consistently tried to make life harder for Australians by stopping those wage rises, not to mention voting against everything we’ve done to deliver cost‑of‑living relief as well.

    And now, as we approach the end game heading into the next election, I think Australians are taking great notice of the fact that Peter Dutton is already on the record saying that if he wins the next election, he will unwind a number of the changes that we have made to workplace laws. Now, that’s code for sending pay backwards again. So, if you look at the Coalition’s record, when they were last in office, their deliberate policy was to keep wages low, and that’s what they did. In Opposition, they have voted against every step we’ve taken to get wages moving again. And now, as we get ready for the next election, they’re promising to take those gains away and to cut the pay of Australian workers at a time when people still need support.

    I’ve got no doubt that this will be a big issue as we head into the next campaign. But today is very encouraging news for Australian workers. I should also mention one facet of the data is that wages are rising faster in the private sector than they are in the public sector, which I think goes against a lot of what we see from the commentators. I’ll leave it at that. Happy to take questions, but I’ll hand them over to Jim now to carry on.

    Jim Chalmers:

    Thanks, Murray. Thanks, Anika, for having us in your patch. Thanks in particular to Stewart and all of your workers for welcoming us here. This is what a Future Made in Australia looks like. People working together to build, in this case the buses, but the manufacturing sector, we couldn’t be more supportive of the work that happens here in South East Queensland, but indeed right around Australia as well. When the Albanese government came to office, real wages were falling, and interest rates were rising. Now, real wages are growing, and interest rates have started to come down.

    For 5 consecutive quarters, real wages have been growing. They fell for 5 consecutive quarters under our Liberal and National predecessors, and that goes to the difference between the parties. Peter Dutton wants lower wages and higher interest rates. What we’ve been able to deliver is much lower inflation, higher real wages, low unemployment. We’ve got the Liberal debt down and now interest rates have started to come down as well. These outcomes aren’t accidental. They’re deliberate. We have been working around the clock for the best part of 3 years to fight inflation, to roll out cost‑of‑living help and to get real wages growing again in our country. And that’s because Labor’s reason for being is to make sure that there are more Australians working, earning more and keeping more of what they earn.

    That’s why today’s wages data is so encouraging because it shows that quarter after quarter after quarter, we’ve been able to get real wages growing again after they were falling for a prolonged period under our predecessors when we came to office. Earning more, keeping more of what they earn, that is the story of the labour market under this Albanese Labor government.

    We have got the lowest average unemployment rate of any government in the last 50 years. And what makes Australia unusual is we’ve been able to get inflation down while we get wages up and keep unemployment low. We’ve been able to deal with some of the debt that was left to us by the Liberals and we’re seeing interest rates starting to come down as well. Now, in New Zealand, they cut rates today as well, just like they cut rates in Australia yesterday. The difference is the New Zealand economy is in recession. Their unemployment rate is 5.1 per cent. We’ve been able to keep the economy ticking over, delivering real wages growth. We’ve been able to keep unemployment at 4.0 per cent, and all of that, I think, shows what Australians have achieved together over the course of the last 2 and a half to 3 years.

    We inherited a mess, and we’ve been working hard to clean it up. And you can see that very conspicuously when it comes to real wages growth. Just last week, Peter Dutton was making the case for higher interest rates. He is desperately disappointed that interest rates were cut yesterday and so has Angus Taylor. Angus Taylor even let it slip that Australians deserve an interest rate increase yesterday when he was responding to the Reserve Bank’s decision to cut interest rates.

    We welcome the news that interest rates are being cut in Australia. This is the rate relief that Australians desperately need and deserve after all of the progress that we’ve made together on inflation. When we came to office, inflation was much higher and rising. Now it is lower and falling. When we came to office, interest rates were going up; now they’re coming down. When we came to office, real wages were falling and now they’re growing again. All of these are deliberate design features of our economic policy, and that’s why we’re pleased to see the progress made today in wages and yesterday when it comes to interest rates.

    Happy to take some questions.

    Journalist:

    Does the wages data show that the economy is stabilising? Could it lead to further interest rate cuts?

    Chalmers:

    I don’t want to make predictions about future movements in interest rates. I welcome enthusiastically the Reserve Bank’s decision yesterday to cut rates because it will take some of the edge off mortgage costs for millions of Australians who desperately need that help. We understand that people are under substantial cost‑of‑living pressure, but more than acknowledge that, we’re doing something about it. Getting wages moving again, the tax cuts, the energy bill relief, cheaper early childhood education, cheaper medicine, rent assistance, all of this is about doing more than recognising people are under pressure and actually doing something about it. We know that one interest rate cut doesn’t automatically solve all of the challenges in our economy or all of the pressure on household budgets, but it will help, and that’s why we welcome it.

    Here, the contrast is really important. Peter Dutton wants higher interest rates and lower wages. If he had his way, Australians would be thousands of dollars worse off right now. They’ll be worse off still if he wins, and that’s because he will go after wages again, he’ll go after Medicare again, he’ll push up electricity prices with nuclear reactors and Australians would be worse off as a consequence. That means whenever the election is called, it’s a pretty simple choice: Labor getting wages moving again, helping with the cost of living, fighting inflation and building Australia’s future, a Future Made in Australia, versus Peter Dutton and the Coalition, who will make people worse off and take Australia backwards.

    Journalist:

    Do we expect a surplus in your next Budget?

    Chalmers:

    We’re not anticipating that in the government’s fourth Budget, we released not that long ago in the mid‑year update, the best assessment of the budget position. We have already delivered 2 budget surpluses. That’s the first time that’s happened in almost 2 decades and that’s helping in the fight against inflation as the Reserve Bank Governor says.

    The deficit for this year, it’s a deficit, but it’s smaller than what we inherited from our predecessors. And that’s a demonstration of our responsible economic management, which has been the defining feature of this Labor government.

    Journalist:

    [indistinct] some of the subdued reaction to the rate cut. I’ll refer to some headlines from some of the major newspapers saying it’s a rate relief with a catch, you’re the one‑cut wonder. Has that caught you by surprise?

    Chalmers:

    Well, I think the Liberal Party and their cheerleaders in the media were really disappointed when rates were cut, and we see that reflected in the commentary. A lot of that commentary is a political position dressed up as economic commentary. There are people associated with the Liberal Party who are very disappointed that rates were cut, or inflation’s come down substantially, or real wages are growing, or we’ve been able to deliver 2 [surpluses]. I try not to focus too much on the partisan commentary. I focus on the objective commentary, and any objective observer of the Australian economy under Labor would conclude that inflation is down substantially, wages are up, unemployment is low, the debt is down from what we inherited and interest rates have started to be cut as well. All 5 of those things are positive developments. We’re confident about the future of our economy, but we’re not complacent. We know that there are still cost‑of‑living pressures. That’s why the cost‑of‑living relief that we are rolling out, which Peter Dutton opposed, is so important.

    I thought the Reserve Bank Governor made a really important point yesterday. She said she’s optimistic about the future but alive to the risks in the economy. That’s a view that we share. There’s a lot of global economic uncertainty right now in particular, but we can be confident but not complacent about the future of our economy, given the progress that Australians have made together over the course of the last couple of years.

    Journalist:

    What do you make of Clive Palmer and his trumpet politics and sticking a million dollars into the [indistinct]?

    Chalmers:

    Any vote for a minor right‑wing party is the same as a vote for the major right‑wing party, and that puts Medicare and wages at risk. So, I say to Australians who are tempted by the big dollars of Clive Palmer and others to be very careful about where you put your vote at the next election. Any non‑Labor vote puts Medicare and wages at risk. And we know that because Peter Dutton has said that he will cut $350 billion, he needs to find $600 billion from somewhere for nuclear reactors and he won’t tell Australians where those cuts are going to come from.

    That should send a shiver up the spine of every Australian, and particularly every Australian worker, not telling us the agenda for secret cuts. And so, a vote for Clive Palmer or Pauline Hanson or any one of a number of these minor right‑wing parties is a vote for Peter Dutton, and that’s a vote for cuts that we won’t know about until after the election.

    Journalist:

    How would you categorise the Budget you’re putting together? Are we going to see more cost‑of‑living sugar hits like rebates, or is it going to be more responsible?

    Chalmers:

    The best hint I could give you for the government’s fourth Budget is that it will be like the first 3, and that means responsible. The government’s fourth Budget will be defined by responsible economic management, rolling out meaningful and substantial cost‑of‑living relief where that is responsible and affordable. That’s been the approach we took in the first 3, that’ll be the approach that we take in the fourth. We know even with the progress that we’ve made together on inflation and wages, and now interest rates, we know that people are still under pressure. What we do in every budget, not just this fourth Budget, is we weigh up the economic conditions, the budget pressures, the pressures on people in their household budgets, and we do the best that we can by them.

    Journalist:

    Will power bill rebates, do you classify that as responsible?

    Chalmers:

    We haven’t finalised the Budget yet, and obviously there are a whole range of measures which are under consideration, but not yet finalised. We’ve made it clear in our first 3 budgets, the tax cuts are helping people right now. The energy bill relief, early childhood education, cheaper medicines, getting wages moving again, rent assistance, Fee‑Free TAFE. We’ve shown a willingness before to fund cost‑of‑living help in a substantial way, but in a responsible way. And if we can afford to do more in the fourth Budget, of course, we’re considering that right now.

    Journalist:

    Do you intend to deliver a Budget before the election, Treasurer?

    Chalmers:

    That’s our expectation. We’ve spent some hours in the Cabinet room earlier this week putting together the Budget for the 25th of March, and we will continue to work towards that.

    The timing of the election is a matter for the Prime Minister, my job is to continue to work on the Budget with Katy Gallagher and other colleagues to make sure that we’re ready to go.

    Journalist:

    Wages have slowed, their growth has slowed. Should Australians expect this to continue?

    Chalmers:

    We want strong and sustainable wages growth, and we’re absolutely delighted to see that. For 5 consecutive quarters now, we’ve seen annual real wage growth in our economy because it was falling for 5 quarters when we came to office. I think, as I said before, our reason for being as a Labor government is to get more people working, earning more and keeping more of what they earn. Not as some kind of accidental outcome, but as a deliberate consequence of our economic strategy. The tax cuts are a big part of that, keeping more of what you earn.

    All of our policies on wages, which Murray is now responsible for, they are part of getting wages growing again. So, we’re seeing real wages growth. That’s a good thing. The Wage Price Index has moderated a little bit, but not a lot. Overwhelmingly, the story of the last 5 quarters has been real wages growth and that’s a good thing.

    Journalist:

    Will any pre‑election handouts stoke inflation?

    Chalmers:

    We’re obviously very conscious of the broader economic conditions when we finalise the Budget and not just when it comes to cost‑of‑living help. And what we’ve shown in our cost‑of‑living relief to date is we’ve been able to put downward pressure on electricity prices, on early childhood education, on rent as well, to take some of the edge off those cost‑of‑living pressures. That would be a similar approach that we would consider as we put the fourth Budget together.

    Again, it comes back to the choice and the contrast. Peter Dutton opposed our cost‑of‑living help. If he had his way, Australians would be thousands of dollars worse off right now and they’ll be worse off still if he wins, and that comes to the choice at the election: a Labor government working around the clock to get people better pay, to give every taxpayer a tax cut to help with their electricity bills – or Peter Dutton, who will come after wages again, come after Medicare again, push electricity prices up with these nuclear reactors. As we get closer to the election, whenever it is, the choice is really crystallising. Labor, helping with the cost of living, getting wages moving again, strengthening Medicare and building Australia’s future, versus Peter Dutton and the Coalition who will make people worse off and take Australia backwards.

    I’ll take one more question then I think we’re done here.

    Journalist:

    Can I ask you about the Whyalla steelworks? The ABC has been told that potentially that’s been placed into administration by the state government. Have you been briefed on that and have you got any assurances for workers?

    Chalmers:

    More than being briefed, a number of us have been in discussions with our South Australian counterparts for a little while now. We want to see a future for steel in Whyalla. That is a really important town, and we are big believers in the future of Whyalla. We’re big believers in the future of the Australian steel industry and Australian manufacturing more broadly. No government has been a bigger believer in a Future Made in Australia than ours, and so that’s really driven us in our conversations with our South Australian counterparts.

    The Prime Minister has been talking to Premier Malinauskas; Minister Husic’s been talking to his counterpart. I’ve been talking to Treasurer Mullighan, and we’ll have more to say about those discussions in due course.

    Journalist:

    Can’t say whether it has been placed into administration?

    Chalmers:

    We’ll have more to say about that when that’s appropriate. Thanks very much.

    MIL OSI News

  • MIL-OSI Economics: Asian Development Blog: Get Moving: Smarter Logistics Can Boost Efficiency and Cut Costs in South Asia

    Source: Asia Development Bank

    Enhancing multimodal transport, standardization, and digital integration can improve efficiency, reduce costs, and strengthen manufacturing in India, Bangladesh, and Nepal’s logistics sectors.

    The logistics sectors of India, Bangladesh, and Nepal face remarkably similar constraints that are central to their governments’ plans to expand the industries that rely heavily on logistics. 

    In each country, roads – the most heavily used form of transport – are overburdened, leading to a variety of problems, including slow and unpredictable delivery times. A lack of standardization in warehousing facilities means time is wasted on unpacking and repacking pallets to fit shelving racks following different standards.

    Insufficient multimodal infrastructure means that cargo cannot easily move between trains, trucks, and ships. These hindrances affect both economies and the environment alike, in that an inefficient logistics sector is a cost borne by both consumers, in the form of higher product prices, and the environment, in the form of added emissions from idling vehicles.

    India, for its part, has made the most progress in recent years toward alleviating logistics inefficiencies in the service of its broader economy, particularly in manufacturing. 

    India’s logistics sector, once plagued by inefficiencies, is undergoing a positive transformation. With a market size of approximately $200 billion, India transports 4.6 billion tons of freight annually. 

    The sector is projected to double in size by 2030, driven by aggressive expansion in road, rail, shipping and air freight. Recent improvements in road infrastructure, dedicated freight corridors and use of technological advancements in the logistics supply chain have set the stage for a more efficient logistics network. 

    India’s logistics sector now includes all key components needed for a modern economy, such as seamless transport across different modes (road, rail, air, and sea), efficient customs processing for domestic and international trade, and better management of ports, airports, and land borders. 

    From that and other significant policy reforms, India’s manufacturing sector has been on a steady growth trajectory, underpinned by significant policy and infrastructural reforms including in its logistics sector. India continues to experience rapid growth in its Manufacturing Purchasing Managers’ Index (PMI). 

    The latest Manufacturing PMI for December 2024 remains firmly within the expansionary zone, fueled by new business gains and robust demand. According to the RBI’s Industrial Outlook Survey, manufacturing firms anticipate further enhancements in Q4 FY25 and Q1 FY26. 

    India’s export landscape has also undergone substantial growth, with merchandise and services exports increasing significantly over the past two decades. Goods exports rose from $48.5 billion in 2000 to $467.5 billion in 2022. 

    Despite the recent very large outlays in infrastructure and policy reforms, India’s logistics sector is still confronted by several challenges also faced by Nepal and Bangladesh, where heavy investment in infrastructure is also still needed. 

    The transformation of the logistics sector is pivotal in fostering regional integration and economic development across South Asia.

    Like India, the logistics sectors of Bangladesh and Nepal need greater consolidation for regulatory bodies in the logistics sector, overarching standardization, and better institutional coordination. In Bangladesh, congestion in external trade is an additional complication.

    The development of the logistics sector has a profound impact on economic competitiveness and the environment. Improved logistics efficiency enhances supply chain resilience, reduces transaction costs, and boosts export competitiveness. 

    The integration of digital technologies and standardized processes facilitates smoother movement of goods, which is crucial for manufacturing growth and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

    Logistics sector reforms are also expected to create substantial employment opportunities, both in urban and rural areas. The increased demand for skilled logistics workers, driven by private sector investments and process efficiency, will contribute to job creation. 

    Additionally, the digitization and automation of logistics processes will generate new types of employment, aligning with the evolving needs of the sector.

    Historically, Bangladesh has not fared well in the competitiveness and logistics rankings. For example, in the 2019 World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Index, Bangladesh ranked 105th out of 141 countries, lagging other Asian nations such as India (68), Viet Nam (67), and Indonesia (50). Bangladesh ranked 88th of 139 in World Bank’s 2023 Logistics Performance Index, while India ranked 38th globally, up from 44th in 2019. 

    Bangladesh heavily relies on road-based cargo movement, with railways accounting for only about 4% of passenger and freight transport. Given the country’s dense population, expanding the road network poses significant challenges. 

    Therefore, shifting to rail transport and upgrading the rail network, including gauge conversion, could significantly enhance the logistics sector, improving efficiency in cargo evacuation and greener movement of goods. 

    Further, development of a multi-modal logistics park will be essential to facilitate freight aggregation and distribution, multimodal freight transport, integrated storage and warehousing, technology support, and value-added services. All of this contributes to a reduction in transit time and a streamlining of export processes. 

    Problems in Nepal are much more fundamental and revolve around basic infrastructure such as roads. Nepal, with its unique geographical challenges, can benefit from India’s experience in logistics sector reforms. Nepal should adopt a strategic approach to infrastructure development, focusing on improving road and rail connectivity to facilitate the movement of goods. 

    They also need to establish institutional arrangements for logistics planning at the national and local levels. Nepal can also leverage digitization and process reforms to enhance the efficiency and reliability of its logistics network. Logistics sector development is critical for paving the way for the economic diversification that Bangladesh and Nepal need as they transition away from least developed country status. 

    The transformation of the logistics sector is pivotal in fostering regional integration and economic development across South Asia.

    MIL OSI Economics

  • MIL-OSI USA: Murray, Colleagues Request Information on Elon Musk’s Access to VA Medical Records

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Washington State Patty Murray
    ICYMI: Senator Murray: Trump Must Reverse Firing of VA Researchers Across the Country, Threatens to Decimate Lifesaving Work on Veterans’ Medical Care, Prosthetics, and More
    ICYMI: FACT SHEET: Trump & Elon’s Layoffs Jeopardize Essential Services Americans Rely On, Threaten Critical Agency Objectives Keeping Americans Safe & Healthy
    Washington, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Vice Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee and a senior member and former Chair of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee, joined Senators Jon Ossoff (D-GA), Jack Reed (D-RI), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), and Gary Peters (D-MI) in pressing Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Secretary Doug Collins to protect veterans, their families, and VA staff from unprecedented access to sensitive information by Elon Musk and his “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE). According to a recent report by Military.com, DOGE employees accessed VA computer systems at the Department’s headquarters in Washington, D.C.
    “We understand that personnel reporting to Mr. Musk have recently visited VA facilities,” wrote the senators to Secretary Collins. “Senators, veterans, and members of the public have serious concerns regarding Mr. Musk’s extraordinary and unprecedented activities and the lack of transparency surrounding them, including his potential access to and handling of sensitive or personal information.”
    “Accordingly, we seek specific information regarding VA’s engagement with Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency,” they continued.
    Senator Murray and her colleagues requested a list of DOGE personnel who have visited VA facilities, the systems they accessed, and whether veteran data—including medical and service records—may have been viewed, copied, or transferred. They also requested that Secretary Collins reveal the nature of the agreement under which DOGE personnel are governed by in their engagement with the VA.
    Senator Murray has spoken out forcefully against President Trump and Elon Musk’s mass firing of VA employees across the country who are in the middle of critical research on topics including mental health, alcohol and opioid withdrawal, cancer treatments, burn pit exposure, prosthetics, diabetic ulcers, and more. Earlier this month, Senator Murray sounded the alarm over reports of DOGE at the VA and voted against Collins’s nomination to be VA Secretary, making clear that the Trump administration’s lawlessness was putting our national security and our veterans at risk. Alongside 25 of her colleagues, Murray sent another letter earlier this month to Secretary Collins, demanding that he deny and sever Musk and DOGE’s access to any VA or other government system with information about veterans, and to delete any veterans’ information in their possession.
    The full text of the senators’ letter to Secretary Collins can be found here.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-Evening Report: Official interest rates have been cut, but not everyone is a winner

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Isaac Gross, Lecturer in Economics, Monash University

    Gumbariya/Shutterstock

    The Reserve Bank’s decision to cut interest rates for the first time in four years has triggered a round of celebration.

    Mortgage holders are cheering the fact their monthly repayments are now slightly lower, while the Albanese government hopes the small easing in the cost of living will lift voters’ moods.

    This is despite the Reserve Bank’s warnings that further rate cuts may not eventuate, depending on how much further progress is made on taming inflation.

    But it’s important to remember not everybody benefits from an interest rate cut. Some will be worse off.

    Savers lose out

    Not all Australian households are net borrowers. Many are net savers, retirees or prospective homebuyers, who actually lose out when rates fall.

    For starters, only about a third of households are in hock to the banks when it comes to a monthly mortgage repayment.

    Another third of households have paid off their mortgage entirely, and so don’t benefit from a reduction in mortgage interest rates. And the remaining third are renters, who also don’t pay a mortgage.

    So while this news is generally a good thing for borrowers, a fall in mortgage rates only directly benefits a minority of households.

    Here are some of the ways lower interest rates might actually hurt rather than help the typical Australian household.

    Higher house prices

    One of the most immediate effects of lower interest rates is their impact on the housing market. With cheaper borrowing costs, more buyers can afford larger loans, bidding up house prices. This is great if you already own a home, but terrible if you’re still trying to buy one.

    For young Australians locked out of home ownership, a rate cut makes things even harder. It drives prices higher, forcing prospective buyers to stretch their finances further just to get a foot in the market. Reserve Bank calculations suggest that, in the long run, higher house prices from lower rates can outweigh the benefit of lower mortgage repayments.

    Lower returns on savings

    If you’re a saver rather than a borrower, interest rate cuts are unequivocally bad news. Whether you’re saving for a home deposit, retirement, or just an emergency fund, lower rates mean you earn less on your bank deposits. The money in your savings account is now growing more slowly, making it harder to build wealth over time.

    Indeed, more than 20 banks actually cut their term deposit rates in advance of the Reserve Bank’s decision on Tuesday, according to Canstar research.

    Analysis of HILDA data, which surveys household wealth and income, suggests net savers tend to be younger households without property, retirees living off savings, and those who are not in full-time employment. For these groups, lower rates mean less income and fewer financial opportunities.

    Retirees will feel the squeeze

    Many retirees rely on income from interest-bearing assets such as term deposits or cash savings. When rates fall, their returns shrink. The cost-of-living crisis has made it harder for retirees on a fixed income to fund their lifestyles, and a rate cut only makes things worse.

    While some retirees have exposure to the stock market via superannuation, many prefer the stability of cash savings. With rates falling, they face the tough choice of either reducing their spending or taking on more investment risk in their old age.

    Bad news for the dollar, and overseas travellers

    When the Reserve Bank cuts rates, it tends to weaken the Australian dollar. A weaker dollar makes overseas travel more expensive for Australians. That pint of beer in London, that piña colada in Puerto Rico, or that shopping trip to New York all become pricier.

    For Australians planning international holidays, rate cuts are a blow. A strong Australian dollar makes travel cheaper, and lower rates work against that. So while mortgage holders might celebrate, anyone hoping to travel overseas finds themselves worse off.

    woman in a paris street
    A weaker dollar will make overseas travel more expensive.
    Shutterstock



    Read more:
    Heading on an overseas holiday? The Australian dollar tumbled this week – but that’s not bad news for everyone


    More expensive imports

    Just as a weaker Australian dollar makes travel more expensive, it also increases the cost of imported goods. And Australia imports a lot – especially cars and petrol.

    Since the closure of domestic car manufacturing, all new vehicles sold in Australia are imported. Petrol, the second-largest import, is also sensitive to currency fluctuations. When the Australian dollar weakens due to lower interest rates, the cost of these essential goods rises. For the millions of Australians who rely on their cars for daily life, this is a significant financial burden.

    This isn’t to say rate cuts don’t benefit a large portion of Australians. Anyone with a significant mortgage debt will find themselves with lower monthly repayments, and that’s undoubtedly a financial relief.

    But the public narrative around interest rates tends to treat cuts as a universal good, ignoring the many Australians who are left worse off.

    Falling interest rates are a sign the high inflation that has caused the cost-of-living crisis has abated. That is an economic success that ought to be celebrated. But that now rates are falling again, we should at least acknowledge the costs that come with them.

    The Conversation

    Isaac Gross 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.

    ref. Official interest rates have been cut, but not everyone is a winner – https://theconversation.com/official-interest-rates-have-been-cut-but-not-everyone-is-a-winner-250140

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-OSI Economics: Trump 2.0 is shaking up the world

    Source: GlobalData

    Join GlobalData’s webinar to explore the impact of disruptive shifts in geopolitics

    Which parts of the US President Donald Trump’s geopolitical agenda matters most for global business risks and opportunities? Trump’s bid to settle the Russia-Ukraine war without including Ukrainian or European officials in discussions is the latest in a series of foreign policy moves that include moves to annex Greenland, reclaim the Panama Canal, and “clear out” the Gaza Strip. GlobalData’s latest Strategic Intelligence webinar will focus on the Trump administration’s policies towards US adversaries, including China, Russia, and Iran.

    This insightful webinar from the Strategic Intelligence team at GlobalData, a leading data and analytics company, takes place on Thursday, 20 February 2025 at 4pm GMT/11am EST. You can register here

    Our panel of experts for this webinar are Carolina Pinto, Analyst in the Strategic Intelligence team; Christopher Granville, Managing Director, Global Political & Policy Research, TS Lombard; and Grace Fan, Managing Director, Global Policy Research and Disruptive Themes Research, TS Lombard.

    Granville and Fan say: “Trump’s first month back in the White House has opened a disruptive new chapter in global geopolitics, with shockwaves from his early moves on trade to foreign policy already rippling across borders and industries. This indispensable webinar will offer our incisive analysis of Trump 2.0’s initial geopolitical gambits, framed within the intricate web of the US’s three traditional adversaries (China, Russia, Iran, and proxies) and amid the powder keg of two live conflicts. We will examine the complex interplay of these issues not only from a bilateral perspective (US versus adversary country) but also touching on their profound reverberations on the wider US alliance network (from Europe to Asia) as well as the global economy, with high-stakes ramifications ahead for investors, capital markets and global supply chains.”

    Pinto adds: “Supply chain disruptions are becoming worse and more frequent. Geopolitical fractures are a leading cause of this trend. This webinar will explore whether Trump’s America First agenda will raise or ease geopolitical tensions.”

    Register now for GlobalData’s Trump shaking up the world webinar on Thursday 20 February 2025 at 4pm GMT/11am EST.

    MIL OSI Economics

  • MIL-OSI Economics: India robotic surgical systems market to record 10% CAGR during 2024-36, driven by increasing adoption, says GlobalData, says GlobalData

    Source: GlobalData

    India robotic surgical systems market to record 10% CAGR during 2024-36, driven by increasing adoption, says GlobalData, says GlobalData

    Posted in Medical Devices

    The installation of a surgical robot at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) in Delhi recently marks a testament to the Indian government’s commitment to narrowing the disparity between public and private healthcare services in terms of quality and technological advancements. In light of this context, the market for robotic surgical systems in India is projected to expand at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of around 10% through 2036, forecasts GlobalData, a leading data, and analytics company.

    GlobalData’s report, “Robotic Surgical Systems Market Size by Segments, Share, Regulatory, Reimbursement, Installed Base and Forecast to 2036” reveals that India’s market is projected to constitute around 6% of the Asia-Pacific market in 2024, bolstered by government initiatives aimed at increasing the adoption of surgical robotics.

    Recently, the AIIMS in Delhi has introduced a state-of-the-art surgical robot within its General Surgery Department. This acquisition positions AIIMS as one of the first government hospitals in India to embrace such advanced technology. The robot offers surgeons a magnified, 3D view of the surgical area and features robotic arms for exceptional dexterity, allowing for precise procedures, especially in intricate dissection and suturing in confined anatomical spaces.

    Divya Soni, Medical Devices Analyst at GlobalData, comments: “Robotic-assisted surgeries not only enhance precision and minimize errors but also signify a fundamental transformation in healthcare delivery. These advanced procedures hold the potential to improve long-term outcomes, expedite recovery periods, and redefine the dynamics between surgeon and patient. Governmental support can be instrumental in overcoming barriers such as high cost and lack of enough specialized training, thereby ensuring equitable healthcare access for all socio-economic strata.”

    In a significant development, Apollo Cancer Centre in Kolkata has also recently reached a notable milestone by successfully conducting India’s first robotic-assisted excision of a rare prostatic stromal tumor. This achievement underscores the increasing implementation of robotic surgery throughout the nation, providing new hope to patients suffering with rare and complicated conditions.

    Soni concludes: “The integration of robotics into public healthcare facilities signifies a pivotal moment in the standardization of high-quality healthcare across public and private sectors. This advancement is anticipated to transform surgical procedures, providing insight into the future of medical treatment in India.”

    MIL OSI Economics

  • MIL-OSI USA: ICYMI—Hagerty Joins Squawk Box on CNBC to Discuss Budget Resolution, DOGE

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Tennessee Bill Hagerty

    WASHINGTON—United States Senator Bill Hagerty (R-TN), a member of the Senate Appropriations, Banking, and Foreign Relations Committees and former U.S. Ambassador to Japan, today joined Squawk Box on CNBC to discuss the negotiations between the White House and Congress on the Budget Resolution, along with the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) uncovering wasteful and fraudulent spending.

    *Click the photo above or here to watch*

    Partial Transcript

    Hagerty on the Budget Resolution negotiations: “There’s been a lot that’s been done by executive order, but in this case, we’re working very closely, again, with the House and the Senate together, and we’ll work closely with the White House as well. We’re coming up into a point where the American public really expects us to deliver. It’s about energy independence. It’s about our national defense. It’s about bringing inflation down. All of this has to be addressed, also in the context of the broader tax cuts that President Trump wants to see in place, because that will have long-term positive implications for the economy. So, it’s a complex process. The House is working at pace on its product. We’re moving forward in the Senate, and I’m certain the White House is going to step in, and we’re going to have to bring all of this together pretty soon […] I think the conversations are on a regular basis between Leader [John] Thune, and also Budget [Committee Chairman Lindsey] Graham, as well as with [the Speaker of] the House, Mike Johnson. I think they’re working very closely. Mike Johnson obviously has a higher hurdle. He’s got a very narrow margin to navigate with. They put a product together right now, a larger product. Senator Graham, the Budget Committee [Chairman], who put something together, that would be a little bit slimmer, really focused just on energy independence, national defense, and the Coast Guard. But what we’re trying to do is keep things moving forward and make certain that we’ve got options as we come into the spring here. But what I want to do, and I’m setting process aside, I’m not too hung up on whether it’s one bill, two bills, or three bills. I think President Trump feels the same way. We just need to deliver on what the American public has asked us to do. And that is to step up, bring inflation under control, get energy independence back on the forefront, and get our southern border corrected and fixed once and for all when it’s all said and done.”

    Hagerty on DOGE’s discoveries of wasteful spending: “The critical aspect of it here is that DOGE has been underway for three weeks. We’ve got to start moving in the right direction. We’re looking at a situation now where we’ve got a thirty-seven trillion-dollar budget deficit that is so significant, and we’ve got to begin moving again in the right direction to become more fiscally responsible. I think what DOGE is uncovering is the fact that there’s a considerable amount of waste, fraud, and abuse that’s in the system. If we go about the process of systematically uncovering that, two things will happen. One is that there’ll be immediate opportunities that DOGE will uncover that they can address. The other more significant component is that they’re going to be signaling back to the legislative branch that we’ve got major areas that we can come in, reform, modify, and cut, but the whole streamlining process ought to have, in the long run, not only the impact of reducing the deficit spending, but also increasing our efficiency as a nation. Both of those things combined, I think, will have very positive implications for our deficit, for our fiscal situation, in the long run. And I think it’s something that we’ve absolutely got to get started on. I think the American public are ready for it.”

    Hagerty on the success of confirming Trump’s cabinet nominees: “In terms of President Trump’s influence, the American public spoke loud and clear. We’re cognizant of that here in the Senate. The point is President Trump is entitled to his team. He’s put together an incredible team. They’re very disruptive. I think what we want to see, what the American public wants to see, is real change, and you’ve got people coming into office to do that.”

    Hagerty on the Democrats in disarray: “The Democrat party is coming unraveled. And I think frankly, a lot of their allies in the media are as well, because I’ve heard the term ‘constitutional crisis’ over and over again. And now that we’re presiding in the United States Senate, because the Republicans have taken the majority, I’ve had the benefit of sitting there on the Senate floor listening to, time and again, my Democrat colleagues coming in saying that if, for example, Russ Vought, who is now our OMB Director, were he to be confirmed as OMB Director, millions of people would die, that we’re in a constitutional crisis. This isn’t happening. There are not people piling up dead on the streets. And this crying wolf constantly, I think, just discredits the Democrat party. They need to figure out where their core is. They need to get back to the basics and join us in governing, rather than just these shrill cries, again, because I think people are just becoming numb to it.”

    Hagerty on negotiations to end the Russia-Ukraine war: “You’ve heard a lot of speculation about what’s taking place. One thing I want to be careful to do, Joe, is not get ahead of the negotiating team. Last night in Riyadh, they agreed to put a high-level team together to focus on bringing this to resolution. I think what we all want to see is an end to the death, to the carnage. What’s happened in Ukraine has been absolutely awful. I think we’d all like to see that come to an end. President Trump has clearly been focused on that. I’ll let that team get to the point of negotiating the details, and the last thing I’m going to do is try to get ahead of them and start speculating right now. But I think one thing is clear: the American public wants to see this come to an end. I think the world needs to see this come to an end as well, and I’m hopeful that that’s going to happen post haste.”

    Hagerty on the transparency of the Trump Administration: “In terms of bringing the country along, I’d go back to election day where seventy-five percent of the American public said that we were on the wrong track. They want to see change. I think that opens the opportunity for us. And if you look at what’s happening right now, President Trump is holding daily press conferences. That’s transparency that we’ve not seen in the past four years, and I think that’s refreshing to the American people. As you say, they may or may not agree with a particular policy point, but what we’ve seen is transparency at a level that we have not for many years.”

    Hagerty on resignations within the federal government: “This is disruption. Look, I’m from a corporate background, when you’ve got a situation like we’re facing right now, with amounts of debt and deficit spending that we’re dealing with, you’ve got to come in and deal with it in a very rapid pace. Some people are uncomfortable with that; I get it. They can find another place to work. I also lived in the first Administration; I served in President Trump’s first Administration. There were a number of people that resigned for high sounding reasons, but I think it really was having to do with their own career and where they hope to land next. So, I think we should just let this move forward. Again, it’s early in the process. There’s going to be disruption; there’s going to be change, but I think overall we’re moving the direction that the American public wants to see us move.”

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Security: Honolulu Man Sentenced to 151 Months in Prison for Child Exploitation of Multiple Minors

    Source: Office of United States Attorneys

    HONOLULU – Acting United States Attorney Kenneth M. Sorenson announced that Jonathan Farr, 31, of Honolulu, was sentenced today in federal court by U.S. District Judge Shanlyn A.S. Park to 151 months of imprisonment followed by 30 years of supervised release for receipt of child pornography. Farr will also be required to pay $3,000 in restitution to two minor victims and register as a sex offender when he is released. Farr previously pled guilty on February 14, 2024.

    In his plea agreement, Farr admitted that from approximately June 2019 through May 2020, he used the internet to contact two minor females and engaged in sexually explicit conversations with them. Farr also solicited and received images and videos of the minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct, including masturbation videos.

    In Court at sentencing, the government explained that Farr not only groomed the minors over time and solicited sexually explicit images and videos, `but also distributed those videos to others, including to other minors. Farr also discussed purchasing flights for the minors to travel to Hawaii or for him travel to the mainland where they were located. According to information provided to the Court, Farr’s predatory conduct included additional victims beyond the two minors who were victimized as part of the federal charges. Farr admitted to law enforcement and told other minor victims that he had hands-on sexual contact with at least three minor females and another minor, all located in Hawaii.

    This case was brought as part of Project Safe Childhood, a nationwide initiative launched in May 2006 by the Department of Justice to combat the growing epidemic of child sexual exploitation and abuse. Led by U.S. Attorney’s Offices and the Department’s Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, Project Safe Childhood marshals federal, state, and local resources to better locate, apprehend, and prosecute individuals who exploit children via the internet, as well as to identify and rescue victims. For more information about Project Safe Childhood, please visit www.justice.gov/psc.

    This case was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Violent Crimes Against Children Section. Assistant U.S. Attorney Rebecca A. Perlmutter prosecuted the case.

    MIL Security OSI

  • MIL-Evening Report: Politics with Michelle Grattan: Danielle Wood on how to trim back housing regulations

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

    Housing supply in Australia will be a key battleground in the election campaign. With home ownership more and more out of reach for young and not so young Australians, red tape and low productivity are strangling the builder industry just when it needs to be stepping up.

    The productivity Commission, the government’s independent think tank, has a new report report pointing to ways governments need to address the issues. In this podcast we talk to commission chair Danielle Wood about the housing challenge, as well as Australia’s parlous productivity performance generally and her drive to get some fresh ideas on how to improve it.

    On one of the report’s main recommendation, cutting red tape for construction approvals, Wood says,

    I like to think of regulation as a bit like a hedge. […] There’s almost an unwavering tendency for it to grow over time if you don’t clip it back. And I think in housing that’s particularly true. You have multiple levels of government involved, particularly local governments and state governments. Lots of different policy objectives in play. So obviously, quality and safety being pivotal, local amenity, heritage, traffic, environmental, accessibility.

    Lots and lots of decisions are taken, often without considering the trade off. And every time we add new regulations or more complex regulations, that imposes a cost. And ultimately that is a drag on housing, productivity and supply.

    So what should be done?

    We’ve certainly said we think there should be a good look at the national construction code, which is one source of regulatory burden where we think there’s scope to improve. I would love to see state governments – and I think they are turning their mind to this – to look at this question of just the sheer amount of regulation, the timeframes for approvals and look to ways to streamline the burden and also help develop and builders coordinate their way through that process more smoothly.

    On why productivity in construction in particular has fallen so far, Wood explains,

    You do not see many sectors go backwards in productivity  over that sort of time horizon. One reason is that our homes are bigger and better quality. So I think that is worth noting. If we adjust for that, productivity has declined, but only by 12% rather than 50%.

    We haven’t seen the same sort of innovation in homebuilding that we’ve seen in other parts of the economy. We still essentially build most houses the same way we did 100 years ago so we haven’t had that technological change driver of productivity. It’s an industry that’s characterised by lack of scale.

    And then there are workforce challenges as well. And, you know, we all hear a lot about the challenge of attracting and retaining skilled trades workers. You know, that can make it hard, particularly building.

    The Productivity Commission asked for submissions from the public on how to improve Australia’s productivity more generally. Wood is happy with how the initiaive is going,

    It’s been worth the effort. We’ve actually ended up with more than 500 submissions in the end, And they’re from a mix from individuals, from businesses, from organisations. But for me, the beauty is being able to hear from people that we wouldn’t normally hear from in our reviews and the point is that all of us interact with aspects of government policy every day in our lives and I think we absolutely heard that through the submissions.

    There were some fun ones there – high quality Japanese public toilets, more freely available free coffee. But more generally, I mean, we heard from small business owners about impacts of red tape and regulation [and] lots of interest in education policy. Unsurprisingly, again, it touches a lot of our lives, but looking for things like more work experience in schools, trying to build more industry-relevant skills into higher education.

    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.

    ref. Politics with Michelle Grattan: Danielle Wood on how to trim back housing regulations – https://theconversation.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-danielle-wood-on-how-to-trim-back-housing-regulations-250260

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-OSI USA: Cortez Masto, Rosen Express Concern, Demand Transparency Regarding Termination of Forest Service and Department of the Interior Employees

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Nevada Cortez Masto

    Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senators Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) and Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.) sent two letters to the Trump administration regarding his recent decision to terminate several thousand employees at the United States Forest Service (USFS) and the Department of the Interior (DOI). The senators expressed deep concerns about the risks that these mass firings could have on the millions of acres of public lands in Nevada and demanded transparency about the projects the terminated employees had been responsible for.

    “The Trump administration has made the chaotic decision to fire thousands of hard-working federal employees who keep Nevadans safe from wildfires and protect their access to clean water,” said Senator Cortez Masto. “The federal government is responsible for managing over 80% of the land in Nevada, and our families deserve answers about how this decision will impact their communities.”

    “President Trump’s reckless firing of thousands of employees at the Department of the Interior and the United States Forest Service raises serious concerns about the impacts this could have on Nevada’s public lands,” said Senator Rosen. “I’m joining Senator Cortez Masto in pushing back and requesting more information from the Trump Administration to understand how this will impact ongoing projects across our state.”

    Nevada has the highest percentage of land managed by DOI – more than any other state. Specifically, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages over 60 percent (approximately 48 million acres) of Nevada’s land. Nevada is also home to prominent lands managed by the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), National Park Service (NPS), and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Additionally, the USFS manages approximately 5.9 million acres of land in Nevada, including some of our most cherished landscapes such as the Lake Tahoe Basin, the Ruby Mountains within the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, and the Spring Mountains National Recreation Area outside of Las Vegas. Many Nevadans rely on the services provided by Forest Service staff.

    The Senators asked that the following information about the terminated employees be made public:

    • The number of employees terminated.
    • A description of the position and responsibilities of each terminated employee.
    • A list and description of the projects to which each terminated employee was assigned.
    • A description of what information the terminated employees were provided.

    The letter to the USFS can be found here and the letter to the DOI can be found here.

    Senators Cortez Masto and Rosen are champions for Nevada’s great outdoor spaces and public lands. They passed critical legislation to permanently fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), which protects public lands in Nevada and across the U.S. They passed bipartisan, bicameral legislation to reauthorize the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act, and they delivered critical funding to protect Lake Tahoe in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. Cortez Masto has introduced legislation to ban oil and gas development in Nevada’s beautiful and pristine Ruby Mountains.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI New Zealand: ‘A peaceful, prosperous, democratic Pacific’

    Source: New Zealand Government

    Good Evening
     
    Let us begin by acknowledging Professor David Capie and the PIPSA team for convening this important conference over the next few days. Whenever the Pacific Islands region comes together, we have a precious opportunity to share perspectives and learn from each other. That is especially true in our region, where distances between us are large. 
     
    We acknowledge, too, members of the Diplomatic Corps, Parliamentary colleagues, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen.
     
    New Zealand’s place in the world
    New Zealand, as a country, has a myriad of influences. We have enduringly strong connections – for reasons of history, migration and foreign policy alignment – to our traditional partners of Australia, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada. 
     
    First and foremost, among these is Australia, New Zealand’s one formal ally, and our closest and most likeminded partner. We cooperate extremely closely with Australia, in the Pacific and around the world. 
     
    We are increasingly integrated socially, economically and strategically into Asia, with large and increasing Asian communities here in New Zealand and ever closer diplomatic relationships in South, South East, and North East Asia.
     
    At the same time, the starting point for understanding how New Zealand views the Pacific is the following, very simple statement: New Zealand is a Pacific Island country, linked by geography, history, culture, politics, demography and indeed DNA. 
     
    Fully 1.3 million New Zealanders, or about one-in-four of us are in full or part Polynesian, Melanesian or Micronesian, with either Māori heritage or relatives or ancestors from other Pacific islands. 
     
    Auckland is home to more Polynesians than any other city. Around the same number of Samoans and Tongans live in New Zealand as do in Samoa and Tonga. Vastly more Cook Islanders, Niueans and Tokelauans live in New Zealand than back in their homelands.
     
    The original discovery and settlement of the Pacific Islands, including New Zealand, is one of the most remarkable stories of exploration in human history. The late New Zealand historian Michael King compared it to space exploration as both were voyages into the unknown. 
     
    But Pacific navigation is arguably even more remarkable because the canoes that set out from the Asian landmass knew not where they would land, nor when, nor indeed if they would find any new territory. 
     
    But find land they did, as they forged new identities and societies on atolls and islands that today stand as a testament to their imagination, endurance and the resilience to overcome formidable challenges of distance, geography, demography, and resource scarcity. 
     
    Last year, we had the enormous privilege of visiting almost all of those island nations spread across our vast Blue Continent. So, this evening we’d like to share some reflections about the Pacific, within the context of New Zealand’s Foreign Policy Reset. 
     
    We note, too, your conference theme, which raises the question of whether the Pacific Islands are a zone of peace or ocean of discontent. In 1520, the great Portuguese explorer Ferdinand Magellan named this massive body of water the Pacific, due to its calmness – Pacific meaning peaceful. Ironically, it didn’t end that way for him, or some of his crew, so your conference theme holds both historical justification and appeal.
     
    An active, engaged Pacific policy
    When we again took on the role of New Zealand Foreign Minister in November 2023, we were determined to put the Pacific at the forefront of an energetic, engaged and active New Zealand foreign policy once more. This lay behind our decision to undertake the most ambitious, intensive year of Pacific diplomacy in New Zealand history. 
     
    Never before has a New Zealand political leader tried to spend time in all 18 member countries of the Pacific Islands Forum in a single year. But try we did: meeting the many diverse peoples scattered across this vast, beautiful blue continent. 
     
    As often as we were able, we took Parliamentary colleagues from across the spectrum of New Zealand’s political parties to reinforce that our friendship is bipartisan, enduring and long-term. 
     
    The purpose of all these discussions was to take the pulse of the region. As a democratic country operating in a democratic region, New Zealand is driven in our Pacific policy by three foundational questions focused on our region’s people: 

    Is what New Zealand is doing in the region reflective of what the people of the Pacific Islands want and need? 
    Are we effectively supporting the prosperity and security of Pacific Island peoples?; and 
    Are we undertaking and explaining this work in a way which maintains New Zealanders’ support for our objectives in the region? 

     
    When describing our observations of last year’s travel, an obvious starting point is the unimaginable vastness of our region. It is a massive ocean, covering over 30 percent of the Earth’s surface.
     
    While in the Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palau, we learned of the logistical difficulties they faced in getting to last year’s Pacific Islands Forum in Tonga. We decided on the spot to offer the use of one of our 757 aircraft to take Micronesian leaders to and from Nuku’alofa. We have also announced, over the past year, significant investment in digital connectivity in the Pacific, alongside such partners as the Australia, Taiwan, United States and Japan. 
     
    Connecting all members of the Pacific family is vital given the huge, isolating physical distances between us. But because we believe that all Pacific voices are important and that talanoa – coming together for dialogue – must be regular and meaningful, we were happy to facilitate their coming together in Nuku’alofa. 
     
    Why? Because Pacific regionalism sits at the core of our Pacific approach, with the Pacific Islands Forum at its centre. We are a region with challenging issues that can polarise us, such as deep seabed mining and how best to manage strategic competition. The Forum plays a critical role in helping us to form a cohesive approach, resolve differences, bolster regional development and security, and use our collective voice to hold bigger countries to account.
     
    The Blue Continent’s challenges
    We have also reflected on how the Blue Pacific Continent and its peoples face a multitude of challenges. Our region is faced with the sharpest strategic competition it has confronted since World War 2 ended almost eighty years ago. As we face external pushes into our region to coerce, cajole and constrain, we must stand together as a region – always remembering that we are strongest when we act collectively to confront security and strategic challenges. 
     
    Climate change is a great threat facing the Pacific and we are at the global forefront of disaster risk exposure. Our ambition is that all Pacific peoples remain resilient to the impacts of climate change and other disasters and that New Zealand can support building resilience in practical ways. 
     
    Fisheries are vital to the economies, livelihoods, food security, and social and cultural wellbeing of many Pacific Island countries and is a crucial source of government revenue. But they face several complex interrelated and transboundary issues, such as illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and the management of migratory fish species. 
     
    After years of volatility, the long-term growth trajectory risks settling well below pre-COVID averages for Pacific Island countries. Increasing investment, building fiscal and climate resilience, and improving the access to finance and greater regional connectivity will be key to improving long-run growth prospects in the Pacific.  
     
    Answering to the people
    One truism that runs through our three stints as Foreign Minister is this: there are no votes in it. Struggling New Zealand taxpayers and their families find it difficult to understand why their government is handing out multi-million-dollar aid grants overseas.
     
    Foreign policy practitioners and academics may focus intently on our obligations to New Zealand’s development partners and the way we conduct our relations with them. But the bottom line is that we are accountable first and foremost to the New Zealand taxpayer. 
    During our three tenures as Foreign Minister, we have demonstrated a staunch commitment to a well-resourced New Zealand development programme with a predominant focus on the Pacific. 
     
    Few New Zealand Governments have gone to the wire to significantly lift the size of our international development programme as a proportion of New Zealand’s Gross National Income. One was Norman Kirk’s Government in the 1970s. Two others were during my two previous terms as Foreign Minister. 
     
    In short, we have been determined to use all of our influence and all of our negotiating power to get the best possible New Zealand development programme for the Pacific. 
     
    And while times are very tough here at home right now, we will continue to advocate with our Cabinet colleagues and the New Zealand people for the importance of an active Pacific policy and a properly-resourced international agenda – whether in defence, foreign policy, or development. That’s what is right for New Zealand and it’s what is in the best interests of the Pacific.
     
    We will never apologise for directly connecting New Zealand’s security and prosperity to the security and prosperity of the region and world around us. 
    The Coalition Government’s Foreign Policy Reset established a new strategic direction for New Zealand, including for our international development programme, with an emphasis on sustaining our deep focus on the Pacific. 
     
    As part of ensuring our accountability to the New Zealand taxpayer, last year the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade undertook a review of our development programme to gauge alignment with government priorities and assess its overall impact and efficiency. A report on the review’s findings is being released today.
     
    The review found that while our development is generally aligned with Government priorities, some reshaping and streamlining is required. In short, we will achieve more impact by doing fewer, bigger, projects better. This work is already under way.
     
    Our predominant focus remains on the Pacific, where we will be working with partners including the United States, Australia, Japan and in Europe to more intensively leverage greater support for the region. We will maintain the high tempo of political engagement across the Pacific to ensure alignment between our programme and New Zealand and partner priorities. And we will work more strategically with Pacific Governments to strengthen their systems, so they can better deliver the services their people need.
     
    Greater development funding is being devoted to South East Asia to meet our ambition for closer relations overall with this important region. We have also increased humanitarian funding in response to the scale of need regionally and globally. And we have reduced multilateral funding, to focus on those partners who make the most concrete impact.
     
    We see this work of reshaping our development programme as part of meeting our obligation to the New Zealand taxpayers whose continuing support underpins its social licence.
     
    Friendship, challenges and dialogue
    Over the decades, our Pacific-oriented foreign policy has been defined as much by our actions as our words. We are there in times of need, whether in response to natural disasters, helping with budget support during fiscal emergencies, spurring economic development, or helping to resolve conflicts. 
     
    Our 2018 Pacific Reset emphasised that exhibiting friendship in all our engagements was the cornerstone of our Pacific foreign policy orientation. What does friendship in that context mean? 
     
    It means we are honest, empathetic, trustful and respectful through frequent engagement. And it means having frank and open conversations with our Pacific counterparts.
     
    Over the past year, we have consistently stressed that we see all states as equal, whatever their size. We are guided by the mutual respect and trust that has grown over time between New Zealand and other Pacific Island countries. A second theme that has run through all our public engagements is just how important diplomacy is in our troubled world. 
     
    New Zealand has faced two isolated challenges in the past twelve months in our relations with the Pacific. In these two very different cases, our accountability to our taxpayers and our fidelity to promoting the interests of Pacific peoples throughout the region require that we explain openly what has taken place. 
     
    Of the 18 Pacific Islands Forum member countries, the only one we did not spend time in during the past year was Kiribati. That was not for a lack of trying. 
     
    For more than a year we respected Kiribati’s preference to avoid outside engagement. But with over $100 million of development assistance committed to Kiribati over the past three years, we had to review the status of existing projects and understand Kiribati’s ongoing development needs. After all, we all have to negotiate with our Ministers of Finance. 
     
    This requirement was urgent given our own budget cycle and the need to make decisions about how future development spending is allocated in Micronesian countries and across the region for the next three years. 
     
    So, we were pleased when a visit to Kiribati was finally scheduled for January 2025. We began organising our cross-party Parliamentary group to visit Tarawa. Then, with about a week to go, we were told President Maamau, who is also my counterpart as Kiribati’s Foreign Affairs Minister, would no longer meet with our delegation. 
    We made public our regret and concern, as well as our consequent decision to review our development programme to Kiribati. We are accountable to the worker in Kaitaia, the builder in Gore, and the farmer in the Waikato for the spending of taxpayer money, and we felt it important to express our concerns openly and transparently. 
     
    At the same time, we have a long-standing relationship with the Kiribati people, which has overcome previous challenges. We will weather this one too. 
     
    We have made clear that we are still working towards meaningful dialogue with Kiribati’s President and Foreign Minister, whether in Kiribati, New Zealand or elsewhere in the region. We are taking positive steps towards that goal in coming weeks. 
     
    The second isolated challenge we have faced has been developments in our relationship with the Cook Islands Government. Unlike the people of Samoa, the people of the Cook Islands have never opted for their country to be fully independent from New Zealand – though they are of course always free to choose to do so. 
     
    Rather, they have opted since 1965 to be in free association with New Zealand. This means that New Zealand is bound constitutionally to the Cook Islands by sharing the King of New Zealand as a head of state, a common, single citizenship and passport, as well as by shared values and interests. 
     
    Over the past 60 years, New Zealand has taken very seriously its obligations and commitments to the Cook Islands people. Every year we deliver for the Cook Islands people in areas as broad as health and education, economic development, defence and security, good governance, resources and environment, and culture and heritage.
     
    The Cook Islands, in exercising self-government, is supported by New Zealand funding and provision of expertise. As long as the Cook Islands remain tied to New Zealand constitutionally, we have an expectation that the Government of the Cook Islands will not seek benefits only available to fully independent states – such as separate passports and citizenship, or membership of the United Nations or the Commonwealth – or pursue policies that are significantly at variance with New Zealand’s interests. 
     
    We also have an expectation that New Zealand will be fully and meaningfully consulted on all major international actions that the Cook Islands contemplates that affect our interests.
     
    These are not unreasonable expectations. And they are not new. For example, our Prime Ministers, Norman Kirk in 1973, David Lange in 1986 and Helen Clark in 2001 all expressed these expectations formally. 
     
    To use but one example: in 2001, Helen Clark stated that Cook Islanders retained New Zealand citizenship “on the basis that there will continue to be a mutually acceptable standard of values in Cook Islands’ laws and policies”. She again repeated our longstanding position that if full independence from New Zealand was what the Cook Islands people wanted, then they were free to opt for it at any time.
     
    These have been well-established and previously settled understandings between us, although there have been periodic attempts by Cook Islands Prime Ministers to test the boundaries of this constitutional pact. 
     
    But our free association relationship in its current form has endured because the overwhelming majority of Cook Islands people have wanted to maintain their New Zealand citizenship and passport and the rights it affords them to the same opportunities and privileges as all other New Zealanders, including in health and education. The wishes of the Cook Islands people are paramount here.
     
    Our explicit advice to Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown and his officials since he first raised the issue with us in July 2024 was that if he proceeded with trying to implement a separate Cook Islands citizenship and passport system then the people of the Cook Islands would risk losing their New Zealand citizenship and passport – an outcome we know is opposed by the vast majority of Cook Islanders.
     
    There is also the matter of the Cook Islands Government’s decision to enter into a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership (CSP) and a number of other agreements with China last week without any meaningful consultation with New Zealand or its own people over either the architecture or details of those deals. 
     
    New Zealand and the Cook Islands people remain, as of this evening, in the dark over all but one the agreements signed by China and the Cooks last week. 
     
    Given this lack of consultation, the New Zealand Government, once it has seen the text of all of the agreements that were signed, will need to undertake its own careful analysis of how they impact our vital national interests. Only then will we be able to fully gauge the deals’ impact on the relationship between New Zealand and the Cook Islands. 
     
    While the connection between the people of the Cook Islands and New Zealand remains resolutely strong, we currently face challenges in the government-to-government relationship. 
     
    But this state of affairs – disagreements and debates between the leaders of New Zealand and the Cook Islands – has been a periodic feature of our 60 years of free association. We have always found a way through, guided by the wisdom and wishes of the Cook Islands people. 
     
    As then US President Franklin Roosevelt said in 1945, “We shall strive for perfection. We shall not achieve it immediately – but we still shall strive. We may make mistakes – but they must never be mistakes which result from faintness of heart or abandonment of moral principle”.
     
    During 2025, as we celebrate 60 years of free association, we are going to need to reset the government-to-government relationship. We will also need to find a way, as we did in 1973 and 2001, to formally re-state the mutual responsibilities and obligations that we have for one another and the overall parameters and constraints of the free association model.
     
    Resetting and formally re-stating the parameters of the relationship is not a small task. But it is one which we are confident we can meet – powered by the history of goodwill and common bonds between New Zealand and the Cook Islands people.
     
    Another issue on which the region has devoted significant attention over the past year has been New Caledonia – which is, geographically, New Zealand’s closest neighbour. Uncertainty and discord there is obviously something that prompts concern and discussion right around our region. 
     
    From the moment of the unrest onwards, New Zealand has been very clear that everyone – no matter their view on New Caledonia’s political status – should agree that violence is not the answer. 
     
    The focus must be on dialogue – and finding a new pathway forward on the important issues facing New Caledonia. We had the benefit – working closely with authorities in Paris and Nouméa – to have had a productive visit to New Caledonia in December. 
     
    We went there to listen and to learn, and to engage with a very wide range of New Caledonians of all backgrounds. Hearing New Caledonians voice their hopes and dreams for economic development led us to the view that there may be lessons from New Zealand’s own experiences that might be of value. 
     
    We hope lessons from New Zealand’s own economic development as a multi-ethnic Pacific Island country can be shared with New Caledonians, who might be able to adapt them to their unique context.
     
    Conclusions
    When we reflect on the past year, it is impossible not to be optimistic about this region’s future. As we travelled to places as diverse as Suva, Pohnpei, Alofi, Port Vila, Nauru and Apia, we were struck also by a profound commonality. 
     
    Pacific Islanders scattered around our vast, beautiful region all want a brighter, more prosperous and more secure future for their children and for future generations. 
     
    As a founding member of the Pacific Islands Forum, and as a Pacific and Polynesian country itself, New Zealand has always been at the forefront of efforts to bring about that future. 
     
    Over the past year, we have done our very best to deliver, through words and actions, on New Zealand’s commitment to contribute to a brighter future for all Pacific peoples. This very important work – involving discussion, debate and, yes, sometimes disagreement – will continue.
     
    The Pacific Islands region is a profoundly democratic one. People from every village, town or city in every Pacific Island country have a direct say in how their affairs are run. Just this year, people in six Pacific Islands Forum countries – Australia, the Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru, New Caledonia, Tonga and Vanuatu – are heading to the polls to cast ballots which will help determine the future direction of their countries. 
     
    And so it is Pacific peoples’ hopes and aspirations which must drive political leaders and policy makers. Our policies must be responsive and accountable to the perspectives of those we represent. 
     
    And no matter the future we face, or the challenges we encounter, we will always be members of the same Pacific family. We inhabit the most vast and breathtaking ocean continent in the world. And as family, we will always find a way forward, together, towards the secure and prosperous future that our people deserve.
     
    Thank you. Kia kaha. Go well. 

    MIL OSI New Zealand News

  • MIL-OSI Global: Trump wants to do a deal for Ukraine’s critical minerals. Will Zelensky give him what he wants – or will Putin?

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Alexander Korolev, Senior Lecturer in Politics and International Relations, UNSW Sydney

    The United States and Russia agreed to work on a plan to end the war in Ukraine at high-level talks in Saudi Arabia this week. Ukrainian and European representatives were pointedly not invited to take part.

    US President Donald Trump seemingly entered into these negotiations prepared to capitulate on two main points that Russian President Vladimir Putin has been seeking. Russia is opposed to Ukraine joining NATO and wants to retain Ukrainian territory captured since its invasion of Crimea in 2014.

    Such a dramatic shift in Washington’s approach to Ukraine’s sovereignty and security has undermined Western-Ukrainian unity on the acceptable parameters around ending the war.

    Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said Ukraine won’t accept a deal negotiated without them. Former US National Security Adviser John Bolton said Trump “effectively surrendered” to Putin.

    European leaders, too, are concerned after they were excluded from the Saudi talks. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said:

    This does not mean that peace can be dictated and that Ukraine must accept what is presented to it.

    Many believe Trump’s moves to splinter this trans-Atlantic front against Russia send a signal that Washington is
    abandoning its commitment to European security.

    However, there’s another important factor at play in Trump’s actions: the intensifying global competition over critical minerals. Trump wants to secure access to Ukraine’s vast reserves of these minerals, even if it means breaking with the US’ traditional allies in the European Union.

    Why are Ukraine’s minerals so valuable

    According to some reports, Ukraine has deposits of 22 of the 34 minerals identified as critical by the EU. These include:

    • lithium and cobalt, used in rechargeable battery production
    • scandium, used for aerospace industry components
    • tantalum, used for electronic equipment
    • titanium, used in the aerospace, medical, automotive and marine industries
    • nickel ore, manganese, beryllium, hafnium, magnesium, zirconium and others, used in the aerospace, defence and nuclear industries.

    China currently dominates the world’s supply chains of these minerals – it is the largest source of US imports of 26 of the 50 minerals classified as critical by the United States Geological Survey.

    This is the reason behind Trump’s suggestion last week that the US be granted 50% of Ukraine’s rare earth minerals as reimbursement for the billions of dollars in weapons and support it has provided to Kyiv since the war began.

    The problem, however, is that at least 40% of Ukraine’s minerals are currently under Russian occupation in the eastern Donetsk and Luhansk regions of the country. (Other sources put this figure as high as 70%.)

    Concerned about Ukraine’s territorial integrity, Zelensky has publicly rejected the US demand for half of Ukraine’s mineral resources, because the proposal does not include security guarantees. It only vaguely referred to payment for future aid, according to reports.

    In response, the White House National Security Council spokesperson Brian Hughes said:

    President Zelensky is being short-sighted about the excellent opportunity the Trump administration has presented the Ukraine.

    What kind of deal could be made?

    A big question ahead of any peace negotiations over Ukraine is whether commercially-minded Trump would be willing to accept a counter-proposal from Putin.

    Since Russia currently controls large swathes of mineral-rich eastern Ukraine, Putin may be willing to offer Trump an exclusive critical minerals deal in exchange for the US formally committing to not restoring Ukraine’s pre-2014 borders and not letting the country into NATO.

    Ukraine, meanwhile, may be angling for its own minerals deal with European countries in exchange for their continued support. Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal expressed his country’s willingness to set up joint ventures with the EU in this area:

    We could replace Russian titanium on the European market, contributing to the development of both the EU’s civilian industry and advanced military technologies.

    He also said the project of rebuilding Ukraine could be a boon for the entire bloc.

    The European Commission has recommended a policy of encouraging Ukraine to export these materials to the EU. In response, authorities in Kyiv started working out the necessary regulatory and legal measures to integrate Ukraine into the EU’s resource strategy.

    With so many powers keen to access its minerals, Ukraine is in an extremely complex and hard-to-navigate geopolitical situation.

    Zelensky’s bet on the EU, instead of the US, might be right, given the growing rift between Brussels and Washington over Ukraine’s future. But as Thucydides, the ancient Greek historian, once said, the odds may be stacked against it:

    Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.

    Alexander Korolev 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.

    ref. Trump wants to do a deal for Ukraine’s critical minerals. Will Zelensky give him what he wants – or will Putin? – https://theconversation.com/trump-wants-to-do-a-deal-for-ukraines-critical-minerals-will-zelensky-give-him-what-he-wants-or-will-putin-250064

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI New Zealand: Release: Rate cuts highlight Willis’ economic blunders

    Source: New Zealand Labour Party

    Today’s Official Cash Rate cut is good news for borrowers, but also a symptom of rising unemployment and an economy in recession.

    “Nicola Willis loves to take credit for the decisions of the Reserve Bank, which is an independent agency outside of her control, but if she wants to own the rate cuts then she needs to own what’s causing those cuts: rising unemployment and the worst recession in 30 years, excluding COVID-19,” Labour finance spokesperson Barbara Edmonds said.

    “I welcome the Reserve Bank’s decision and hope that this provides some relief for Kiwis who are struggling under National’s recession, which the Bank cites as taking a sharp decline in mid-2024. The Bank’s rate cut is a direct response to the economic downturn that Luxon’s government’s decisions have caused. The economy is weak thanks to the government’s cancellation of infrastructure projects, leaving 13,000 construction workers out of a job.

    “New Zealanders are expressing their frustration by leaving Aotearoa New Zealand. The latest data shows a record number of people are leaving, with 128,700 departures last year.

    “If the government was serious about economic growth, it would take immediate action to stabilise the job market. That means investing in public services, infrastructure, and climate initiatives that create jobs, not axing funding for schools, hospitals, and public housing. It’s time for leadership that invests in jobs, skills, and the future, not cuts and excuses,” Barbara Edmonds said.


    Stay in the loop by signing up to our mailing list and following us on FacebookInstagram, and X.

    MIL OSI New Zealand News

  • MIL-Evening Report: Civics education is at an all-time low in Australia. Mapping our ‘civic journeys’ may help

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Brenton Prosser, Professor of Public Policy and Leadership, UNSW Sydney

    Although Australia has a strong and proud democracy, it nonetheless faces important challenges.

    Among these, youth democratic engagement and civics education have been matters of national concern for more than two decades.

    With the latest national curriculum testing showing the lowest levels of civics on record, and a parliamentary inquiry finding that civics education is not working in Australia, it is timely to ask why, after so much attention over so many years, so little has changed.

    One of the potential explanations for this is the difficulties researchers face collecting evidence on what works in civics education and engagement programs long-term. The importance of the availability of this evidence for political and policy leaders has been reinforced by calls for a more robust understanding of democratic literacy and civics engagement across the lifecourse.

    Importantly, new UK-based research, currently being applied in Australia by UNSW, seeks to address this vital data and decision making gap.




    Read more:
    Australian students just recorded the lowest civics scores since testing began. But young people do care about politics


    Identifying the gaps in democratic evidence

    In Australia, there is a well-documented decline in civics education and public trust. However, a common theme in the research is that it is easier to measure decline and disaffection than to identify what works.

    While many inspirational initiatives have been publicly and privately funded in Australia, they tend to be siloed, small and difficult to assess.

    In the UK, research has revealed that, historically, there had been no clear coordination or alignment of civic learning, engagement, and participation initiatives across national and local government. Moreover, it found there was little long-term commitment to civic initiatives, with many not outliving the relevant government or minister who initiated them.

    Prominent recent reports in Australia suggest a similar situation.

    Meanwhile, research indicates that fostering democratic participation and resilience is an ongoing process across people’s lives. But how to best gather and use data on this life process remains a challenge.

    It is a response to such research and policy challenges that is at the core of the “civic journey” concept.

    Effective civics education should go beyond just the school years.
    Shutterstock

    What are ‘civic journeys’?

    The notion of journeys in human experience is not new. Often, education, health and social sectors seek to map client journeys as part of effectiveness and equity analyses. In the civic context, the notion of journey is applied to democratic literacy, civic momentum, transformative action and lifelong engagement. In other words, it’s not just about civics education at school.

    The civic journey concept originated in the UK. At its core is an intention to establish “an integrated and high-quality, seamless tapestry of opportunities” to learn about and engage in the democratic process and civic life.

    The UK civic journeys initiative has informed research into youth as a fundamental stage in citizens’ life-long journeys. It noted that the opportunity to experience democracy (be citizens) was as important as the education to understand democracy (become citizens) in shaping democratic literacy and participation. But crucially, both were forged during key transitions within childhood and adolescence.

    Further, the UK study identified the importance of entry, exit and re-entry into political and civic learning and activity at different points of youth transitions to adulthood and throughout adult life. Put another way, it found that “hot spots” of high engagement, “cold spots” of disengagement and “black spot” openings to extremism all coalesced around major transition points in the life course.

    The civic journey approach also highlighted the importance of connecting volunteering and other forms of civic activism with formal approaches to civics education and youth democratic participation. This highlights the importance of linking youth civic socialisation programmes in schools, local communities, and online.

    When understood and mapped, these points can be prioritised for attention.

    A uniquely Australian approach to civic journeys

    The adaptation of civic journeys for research and policy provides an important opportunity. With its focus around collecting data on outcomes, it helps identify what works in the democratic experiences of citizens at different stages of their lives. When applied to the full life course, it supports the most effective allocation of public resources to interventions.

    The civic journey metaphor also helps guide future work in this space. Such an approach could support governments with their interest in better coordination, design and funding of long-term data to identify the best initiatives.

    There is also the potential to apply the civic journey concept in a multicultural context. Civic journeys can be used as a lens to examine the diverse journeys in and between different cultural groups to help preempt and mitigate disruption. This in turn helps build a collective democratic journey. Further, it could be used to identify the “black spots” and reduce exposure to alienation or extremism.

    In summary, the civic journeys approach has significant potential to better understand and shape the individual and collective experiences of Australians across the life course. It can also help build a national narrative underpinning ongoing work to further strengthen Australia’s civics education and democracy.

    The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. Civics education is at an all-time low in Australia. Mapping our ‘civic journeys’ may help – https://theconversation.com/civics-education-is-at-an-all-time-low-in-australia-mapping-our-civic-journeys-may-help-250138

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-Evening Report: Trump wants to do a deal for Ukraine’s critical minerals. Will Zelensky give him what he wants – or will Putin?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alexander Korolev, Senior Lecturer in Politics and International Relations, UNSW Sydney

    The United States and Russia agreed to work on a plan to end the war in Ukraine at high-level talks in Saudi Arabia this week. Ukrainian and European representatives were pointedly not invited to take part.

    US President Donald Trump seemingly entered into these negotiations prepared to capitulate on two main points that Russian President Vladimir Putin has been seeking. Russia is opposed to Ukraine joining NATO and wants to retain Ukrainian territory captured since its invasion of Crimea in 2014.

    Such a dramatic shift in Washington’s approach to Ukraine’s sovereignty and security has undermined Western-Ukrainian unity on the acceptable parameters around ending the war.

    Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said Ukraine won’t accept a deal negotiated without them. Former US National Security Adviser John Bolton said Trump “effectively surrendered” to Putin.

    European leaders, too, are concerned after they were excluded from the Saudi talks. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said:

    This does not mean that peace can be dictated and that Ukraine must accept what is presented to it.

    Many believe Trump’s moves to splinter this trans-Atlantic front against Russia send a signal that Washington is
    abandoning its commitment to European security.

    However, there’s another important factor at play in Trump’s actions: the intensifying global competition over critical minerals. Trump wants to secure access to Ukraine’s vast reserves of these minerals, even if it means breaking with the US’ traditional allies in the European Union.

    Why are Ukraine’s minerals so valuable

    According to some reports, Ukraine has deposits of 22 of the 34 minerals identified as critical by the EU. These include:

    • lithium and cobalt, used in rechargeable battery production
    • scandium, used for aerospace industry components
    • tantalum, used for electronic equipment
    • titanium, used in the aerospace, medical, automotive and marine industries
    • nickel ore, manganese, beryllium, hafnium, magnesium, zirconium and others, used in the aerospace, defence and nuclear industries.

    China currently dominates the world’s supply chains of these minerals – it is the largest source of US imports of 26 of the 50 minerals classified as critical by the United States Geological Survey.

    This is the reason behind Trump’s suggestion last week that the US be granted 50% of Ukraine’s rare earth minerals as reimbursement for the billions of dollars in weapons and support it has provided to Kyiv since the war began.

    The problem, however, is that at least 40% of Ukraine’s minerals are currently under Russian occupation in the eastern Donetsk and Luhansk regions of the country. (Other sources put this figure as high as 70%.)

    Concerned about Ukraine’s territorial integrity, Zelensky has publicly rejected the US demand for half of Ukraine’s mineral resources, because the proposal does not include security guarantees. It only vaguely referred to payment for future aid, according to reports.

    In response, the White House National Security Council spokesperson Brian Hughes said:

    President Zelensky is being short-sighted about the excellent opportunity the Trump administration has presented the Ukraine.

    What kind of deal could be made?

    A big question ahead of any peace negotiations over Ukraine is whether commercially-minded Trump would be willing to accept a counter-proposal from Putin.

    Since Russia currently controls large swathes of mineral-rich eastern Ukraine, Putin may be willing to offer Trump an exclusive critical minerals deal in exchange for the US formally committing to not restoring Ukraine’s pre-2014 borders and not letting the country into NATO.

    Ukraine, meanwhile, may be angling for its own minerals deal with European countries in exchange for their continued support. Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal expressed his country’s willingness to set up joint ventures with the EU in this area:

    We could replace Russian titanium on the European market, contributing to the development of both the EU’s civilian industry and advanced military technologies.

    He also said the project of rebuilding Ukraine could be a boon for the entire bloc.

    The European Commission has recommended a policy of encouraging Ukraine to export these materials to the EU. In response, authorities in Kyiv started working out the necessary regulatory and legal measures to integrate Ukraine into the EU’s resource strategy.

    With so many powers keen to access its minerals, Ukraine is in an extremely complex and hard-to-navigate geopolitical situation.

    Zelensky’s bet on the EU, instead of the US, might be right, given the growing rift between Brussels and Washington over Ukraine’s future. But as Thucydides, the ancient Greek historian, once said, the odds may be stacked against it:

    Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.

    Alexander Korolev 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.

    ref. Trump wants to do a deal for Ukraine’s critical minerals. Will Zelensky give him what he wants – or will Putin? – https://theconversation.com/trump-wants-to-do-a-deal-for-ukraines-critical-minerals-will-zelensky-give-him-what-he-wants-or-will-putin-250064

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-OSI Russia: Exhibition “Life as a Vocation” to Open at NSU

    Translartion. Region: Russians Fedetion –

    Source: Novosibirsk State University – Novosibirsk State University –

    On February 26 at 11:50 the NSU History Museum will open the exhibition “Life as a Vocation” dedicated to the activities of Varlen Lvovich Soskin. The exhibition is part of a series of events dedicated to the 100th anniversary of the birth of Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor, Honorary Professor of NSU, Honored Scientist of the Russian Federation, founder of the scientific school of modern Siberian science studies and cultural studies, veteran of the Great Patriotic War Varlen Lvovich Soskin.

    In addition to the exhibition, on February 26 from 10:00 to 17:00 there will be Scientific Readings “Worlds of the Domestic Intelligentsia in the 20th Century: Profession, Society, Power”. The program includes reports by leading experts in the history of the Soviet and Russian intelligentsia on current issues of modern cultural studies and science studies, as well as speeches by V. L. Soskin’s students, colleagues, and a presentation of a book of memoirs.

    Detailed program of the event and registration —on the website of the Humanities Institute of NSU.

    Varlen Lvovich Soskin is a participant in the Great Patriotic War. He graduated from the history department of Leningrad State University and completed his postgraduate studies at Novosibirsk State Pedagogical Institute. Doctor of Historical Sciences, Honored Scientist of the Russian Federation, Honored Worker of Higher Education of the Russian Federation, Honorary Professor of NSU. He worked at NSU part-time since 1964, and was one of the founders of historical training at the Humanities Department. Associate Professor (1964–1969), Professor (1969–2017) of the Department of History of the USSR/Russian History.

    V. L. Soskin was the first in Russian historiography to use materials from the Siberian region to show the processes of transformation of cultural institutions in the extreme conditions of the era of wars and revolutions from the point of view of the relationship between the continuity of some and the rupture of others in cultural traditions. He was the first to develop the phenomena of cultural crises during the NEP years, the periodization of the stages of formation and development of the Soviet intelligentsia in the post-revolutionary period, and the mechanisms and factors of its socio-political differentiation in the first decade of Soviet power. V. L. Soskin’s ideas and approaches in the field of historical intelligentsia studies were further disseminated and developed in research centers that were established in the 1990s at the universities of Ivanovo, Yekaterinburg, and Omsk. A prominent researcher of the history of the formation and development of the scientific and educational potential of Siberia in the 20th century: from the emergence of the first organizational forms at the beginning of the century to the formation of the Siberian Branch of the USSR Academy of Sciences. One of the pioneers in adapting the systems approach to the tasks of historical research in the field of culture.

    V. L. Soskin was the executive secretary of the Main Editorial Board of the 5-volume “History of Siberia” (1962–1968), deputy chairman of the organizing committee of the largest All-Union scientific conference of the Soviet period, “The Soviet Intelligentsia and Its Role in the Construction of Socialism and Communism” (Novosibirsk, 1979), was a member of a number of scientific councils on the theory and history of Soviet culture, and the editorial boards of the journals “Intelligentsia and the World” (Ivanovo), “Cultural Studies in Siberia” (Omsk).

    V. L. Soskin is the creator of the scientific direction on the social history of Russian culture, science and intelligentsia, which gained fame and recognition not only in Siberia, but also in Russia. During his half-century of work at the Humanities Faculty, he created a permanent research seminar, in which 131 students received specialization, having defended their final qualifying works. 21 graduates of the Humanities Faculty prepared and defended candidate dissertations under the scientific supervision of V. L. Soskin. In the research works completed by students and dissertators under the supervision of V. L. Soskin, the problems of the history of the culture of Soviet society, professional detachments of the Russian intelligentsia, science and scientists were studied, including the history of the formation and development of the Siberian Branch of the Academy of Sciences. A number of students of V. L. Soskin – graduates of the Humanities Faculty became famous scientists who developed their own scientific directions, employees of research institutes and lecturers of universities.

    More information about the work, scientific and educational activities of V.L. Soskin can be found here Here. 

    Please note: This information is raw content directly from the source of the information. It is exactly what the source states and does not reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.

    MIL OSI Russia News

  • MIL-OSI USA News: Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies

    Source: The White House

     By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:  

         Section 1.  Policy and Purpose.  The Constitution vests all executive power in the President and charges him with faithfully executing the laws.  Since it would be impossible for the President to single-handedly perform all the executive business of the Federal Government, the Constitution also provides for subordinate officers to assist the President in his executive duties.  In the exercise of their often-considerable authority, these executive branch officials remain subject to the President’s ongoing supervision and control.  The President in turn is regularly elected by and accountable to the American people.  This is one of the structural safeguards, along with the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches, regular elections for the Congress, and an independent judiciary whose judges are appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, by which the Framers created a Government accountable to the American people.   

         However, previous administrations have allowed so-called “independent regulatory agencies” to operate with minimal Presidential supervision.  These regulatory agencies currently exercise substantial executive authority without sufficient accountability to the President, and through him, to the American people.  Moreover, these regulatory agencies have been permitted to promulgate significant regulations without review by the President.  

         These practices undermine such regulatory agencies’ accountability to the American people and prevent a unified and coherent execution of Federal law.  For the Federal Government to be truly accountable to the American people, officials who wield vast executive power must be supervised and controlled by the people’s elected President.   

         Therefore, in order to improve the administration of the executive branch and to increase regulatory officials’ accountability to the American people, it shall be the policy of the executive branch to ensure Presidential supervision and control of the entire executive branch.  Moreover, all executive departments and agencies, including so-called independent agencies, shall submit for review all proposed and final significant regulatory actions to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the Executive Office of the President before publication in the Federal Register

         Sec2.  Definitions.  For the purposes of this order:

         (a)  The term “employees” shall have the meaning given that term in section 2105 of title 5, United States Code.   

         (b)  The term “independent regulatory agency” shall have the meaning given that term in section 3502(5) of title 44, United States Code.  This order shall not apply to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System or to the Federal Open Market Committee in its conduct of monetary policy.  This order shall apply to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System only in connection with its conduct and authorities directly related to its supervision and regulation of financial institutions.  

         (c)  The term “independent regulatory agency chairman” shall mean, with regard to a multi-member independent regulatory agency, the chairman of such agency, and shall mean, with regard to a single-headed independent regulatory agency, such agency’s chairman, director, or other presiding officer.    

         (d)  The term “head” of an independent regulatory agency shall mean those appointed to supervise independent regulatory agencies and in whom the agencies’ authorities are generally vested, encompassing the chairman, director, or other presiding officer, and, as applicable, other members, commissioners, or similar such officials with responsibility for supervising such agencies.   

         Sec. 3.  OIRA Review of Agency Regulations.  (a)  Section 3(b) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”), as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows:   

         “(b)  “Agency,” unless otherwise indicated, means any authority of the United States that is an “agency” under 44 U.S.C. 3502(1), and shall also include the Federal Election Commission.  This order shall not apply to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System or to the Federal Open Market Committee in its conduct of monetary policy.  This order shall apply to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System only in connection with its conduct and authorities directly related to its supervision and regulation of financial institutions.”.

         (b)  The Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) shall provide guidance on implementation of this order to the heads of executive departments and agencies newly submitting regulatory actions under section 3(b) of Executive Order 12866.  Agency submissions by independent regulatory agencies under such section shall commence within the earlier of 60 days from the date of this order, or completion of such implementation guidance.  

         Sec4.  Performance Standards and Management Objectives.  The Director of OMB shall establish performance standards and management objectives for independent agency heads, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, and report periodically to the President on their performance and efficiency in attaining such standards and objectives. 

         Sec5.  Apportionments for Independent Regulatory Agencies.  The Director of OMB shall, on an ongoing basis:   

         (a)  review independent regulatory agencies’ obligations for consistency with the President’s policies and priorities; and   

         (b)  consult with independent regulatory agency chairmen and adjust such agencies’ apportionments by activity, function, project, or object, as necessary and appropriate, to advance the President’s policies and priorities.  Such adjustments to apportionments may prohibit independent regulatory agencies from expending appropriations on particular activities, functions, projects, or objects, so long as such restrictions are consistent with law. 

         Sec6.  Additional Consultation with the Executive Office of the President.  (a)  Subject to subsection (b), independent regulatory agency chairmen shall regularly consult with and coordinate policies and priorities with the directors of OMB, the White House Domestic Policy Council, and the White House National Economic Council.  

         (b)  The heads of independent regulatory agencies shall establish a position of White House Liaison in their respective agencies.  Such position shall be in grade 15 of the General Schedule and shall be placed in Schedule C of the excepted service.  

         (c)  Independent regulatory agency chairmen shall submit agency strategic plans developed pursuant to the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 to the Director of OMB for clearance prior to finalization. 

          Sec7.  Rules of Conduct Guiding Federal Employees’ Interpretation of the Law. The President and the Attorney General, subject to the President’s supervision and control, shall provide authoritative interpretations of law for the executive branch.  The President and the Attorney General’s opinions on questions of law are controlling on all employees in the conduct of their official duties.  No employee of the executive branch acting in their official capacity may advance an interpretation of the law as the position of the United States that contravenes the President or the Attorney General’s opinion on a matter of law, including but not limited to the issuance of regulations, guidance, and positions advanced in litigation, unless authorized to do so by the President or in writing by the Attorney General. 

          Sec8.  General Provisions.  (a)  If any provision of this order, or the application of any provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be invalid, the remainder of this order and the application of its provisions to any other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.  

         (b)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:  

         (i)   the authority granted by law to an executive department, agency, or the head thereof; or 

         (ii)  the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.  

         (c)  This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.  

         (d)  This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.  

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA News: Interview of President Trump and Elon Musk by Sean Hannity, “The Sean Hannity Show”

    Source: The White House

    class=”has-text-align-center”>Roosevelt Room

    11:48 A.M. EST

         Q    Mr. President, great to see you again.

         THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you very much.  Thank you.

         Q    How are you?

         THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you. 

         Q    Elon Musk.

         MR. MUSK:  Hi.

         Q    Great to see you. 

         MR. MUSK:  Thanks.  Thanks for having me.

         Q    I’ve been reading a lot about you.  I’ve got to start with this.  So, he’s working for free with DOGE.  He’s — he’s kind of put a lot of his life on hold, and you sued Twitter a number of years ago.  You just made him pay you $10 million?

         THE PRESIDENT:  That’s right.  That’s right.

         Q    That’s — that’s right.  (Laughs.)

         THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I sued — I sued from long before he had it. 

         MR. MUSK:  Yeah.  Yeah.  (Inaudible.)

         THE PRESIDENT:  And, I mean, they really did a number on me, you know.  And I sued, and they had to pay.  You know, they paid $10 million settlement.

         Q    You’re okay with that?
        
         MR. MUSK:  I mean, I left it up to the lawyers and, you know, the team running Twitter.  So, I said, “You guys do what you think is the right — makes sense.”

         Q    I think it’s funny.

         THE PRESIDENT:  I think —

         Q    Because —

         THE PRESIDENT:  — it’s a very low — I was looking to get much more money than that.
        
         Q    So, you gave him a discount w- — in the lawsuit?

         THE PRESIDENT:  He got — oh, he got a big discount.  I don’t think he even knows about it.

         Q    He’s become one of your — if you read and believe the media — he’s become one of your best friends.  He’s working for free for you.  He’s —

         MR. MUSK:  Well, I love the president.  I just want to be clear about that.  

         Q    You don’t care about that? 

         MR. MUSK:  I — no, I love the pr- — I —

         Q    You love the president? 

         MR. MUSK:  I think — I think President Trump is a good man, and — and he’s, you know — I — I —

         THE PRESIDENT:  That’s the way he said that.  You know, there’s something nice about.  (Laughter.)

         MR. MUSK:  No, it is.  I, you know —

         THE PRESIDENT:  It is.

         MR. MUSK:  Because, I mean, the president has been so — so unfairly attacked in the media.  It’s truly outrageous.  And I’ve sp- — at this point, spent a lot of time with the president, and not once have I seen him do something that was mean or cruel or — or wrong.  Not once. 

         Q    You know, I’ve known him for 30 years.

         MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

         Q    And I’ve never seen anybody take as much as he’s taken.

         MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

         Q    And we’ve discussed this.  And I’m like, “How do you deal with it?”

         THE PRESIDENT:  Did have a choice?  (Laughs.)  I didn’t have a choice.

         Q    Well, you would say that to me.  I’m like, “What — what am I going to do?  Worry about it?”

         THE PRESIDENT:  That’s the only thing I can say.

         Q    And, you know — and then culminating in two assassination attempts, which resulted in your endorsement. 

         MR. MUSK:  Well, I was going to do it anyway, but that was —

         Q    That was it?

         MR. MUSK:  — a precipitating event, yeah.

         THE PRESIDENT:  That speeded it up a little bit?

         MR. MUSK:  Yeah.  Yeah.

         Q    The day of the assassination? 

         THE PRESIDENT:  Nice.  I didn’t know that. 

         MR. MUSK:  Yeah, it just — it sped it up, but I was going to do it anyway.

         Q    Mr. President, with your indulgence, I’m convinced that people only know a little bit about Elon.  I don’t think they know everything about Elon, because as I studied for and prepared for this interview, I learned a lot about you that I didn’t know.  I think people will think about Tesla.  Democrats are demonizing you and — and trying to make the country hate you. 

         I just want people to understand you a little bit better, and the person that you’ve gotten to know and have now put a lot of trust in. 

         THE PRESIDENT:  Sure.

         Q    And, you know, just — let’s go over a little bit of your bio, starting —

         MR. MUSK:  Ah, okay.

         Q    — with PayPal and how you became involved in Tesla and SpaceX and Neuralink —

         MR. MUSK:  This — this could take a while.

         Q    — and all these —

         MR. MUSK:  I mean, you know, I — I think the way you think of me is, like, I’m a technologist and I try to make technologies that improve the world and make life better.

         Q    You can show them your shirt.

         MR. MUSK:  Yeah, and that’s why, like, my t-shirt says “tech support” — (laughter) — because I’m here to provide the president with — with technology support. 

         And now, that — that may seem, like, well, is that a silly thing?  But actually, it’s a very important thing, because the president will make these executive orders, which are very sensible and good for the country, but then they don’t get implemented, you know?

         So, if you take the — for example, all the funding for the migrant hotels, the president issued an executive order: Hey, we need to stop taking taxpayer money and — and paying for luxury hotels for illegal immigrants —

         Q    It’s crazy.

         MR. MUSK:  — which makes no sense.  Like, obviously, people do not want their tax dollars going to — to fund high-end hotels for — for illegals.  And yet, they were still doing that, even as late as last week. 

         And so, you know, we went in there, and we were like, “This is in violation of the presidential executive order.  It needs to stop.” 

         So — so, what we’re — what we’re doing here is — is — one of the biggest functions of the DOGE team is just making sure that the presidential executive orders are actually carried out.  And this is — I just want to point out, this is a very important thing, because the president is the elected representative of the people, so he’s representing the will of the people.  And if the bureaucracy is fighting the will of the people and preventing the pres- — the president from implementing what the people want, then what we live in is a bureaucracy and not a democracy.

         Q    Yeah.  You — you’re both aware — you have to be keenly aware that the media and — and the punditry class — not that — you know, I think you’ve proven they have no power anymore, because they threw everything they had at you, and they didn’t win.  And that was, you know, the New York Times, Washington Post, three networks, every late-night comedy show, two cable channels — they — they just threw — they threw everything — lawfare, weaponization. 

         THE PRESIDENT:  It’s true.

         Q    And now I see they want you two to start — they want a divorce.  They want you two to start hating each other.  And they try — “Oh, President Elon Musk,” for example.  You do know that they’re doing that to you?

         THE PRESIDENT:  Oh, I see it all the time.  They tried it, then they stopped.  That wasn’t — they have many different things of hatred. 

         Actually, Elon called me.  He said, “You know they’re trying to drive us apart.”  I said, “Absolutely.” 

         You know, they said, “We have breaking news: Donald Trump has ceded control of the presidency to Elon Musk.  President Musk will be attending a Cabinet meeting tonight at 8 o’clock.”  (Laughter.)  And I say — it’s just so obvious.  They’re so bad at it. 

         I used to think they were good at it.  They’re actually bad at it, because if they were good at it, I’d never be president because I — I think nobody in history has ever gotten more bad publicity than me. 

         I could do the greatest things; I get 98 percent bad publicity.  I could do — outside of you and a few of your very good friends.  It’s, like, the craziest thing. 

         But you know what I have learned, Elon?  The people are smart.  They get it. 

         MR. MUSK.  Yeah.  They do, actually.  Yeah.

         THE PRESIDENT:  They get it.  They really see what’s happening. 

         MR. MUSK:  Yes.

         Q    And at the end of this interview, I — what I would like is, I — I want people to know the relationship and know more about you. 

         What is the relationship, Mr. President?

         THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I respect him.  I’ve always respected him.  I never knew that he was right on certain things, and I’m usually pretty good at this stuff.  He did Starlink.  He did things that were so advanced and nobody knew what the hell they were. 

         I can tell you, in North Carolina, they had no communication.  They were wiped out.  Those people were — you know, they had rivers in between — land that never saw water, all of a sudden, there was a river and a vicious — like, rapids.  People were dying all over.  They had no communication. 

         They said, “Do you know Elon Musk?”   And they didn’t really know I knew him.  I said, “Yeah.”  They said, “Could you get Starlink?”  It’s, like, the first time I ever heard of it.  I said, “What’s Starlink?”  “A communication system that’s unbelievable.” 

         Q    I have it.

         THE PRESIDENT:  And he — yeah.  And he said — I called him, and I said, “Listen, they really need it.”  And he got, like, thousands of units of this communication, and it saved a lot of lives.  He got it immediately.  And you can’t get it.  I mean, you have to wait a long time to get it.  But he got it to him immediately. 

         And I said, “That’s pretty amazing.”  And I didn’t even know he had it. 

         We watch the rocket ships, and we watch Tesla.

         I think, you know, something that had an effect on me was when I saw the rocket ship come back and get grabbed like you grab a beautiful little baby.  You grab your baby.  It just —

         MR. MUSK:  Just hug the rocket. 

         THE PRESIDENT:  I’d never seen —

         MR. MUSK:  Everyone — right.  Everyone needs (inaudible) —

         Q    You hug the rocket.  You hug the rocket.

         MR. MUSK:  — (inaudible) rockets. 

         THE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.  No, but — and he said, “You know, you can’t really have a rocket program if you’re going to dump a billion dollars into the ocean every time you fly.  You have to save it.”  And he saved it.  First time —

         Q    That’s ever been done.
        
         THE PRESIDENT:  — I’ve ever seen that done.  Now nobody else can do it. 

         If you look at the U.S., Russia, or China, they can’t do it, and they won’t be able to do it for a long time.  He has the technology.  So, you learn — I wanted somebody really smart to work with me, in terms of the country — a very important aspect.  Because, I mean, he doesn’t talk about it.  He’s actually a very good businessman.  And when he talks about the executive orders — and this is probably true for all presidents: You write an executive order and you think it’s done, you send it out; it doesn’t get done.  It doesn’t get implemented.  They don’t implement it. 

         They — maybe they’re from the last administration — and they are, in some cases.  You try and get them out as fast as you can.  But I could — as soon as he said that, I said, “You know, that’s interesting.”  You write a beautiful executive — and you sign it and you assume it’s going to be done, but it’s not.  What he does is he takes it, and with his hundred geniuses — he’s got some very brilliant young people working for him that dress much worse than him, actually —

         MR. MUSK:  Yeah, the do.

         THE PRESIDENT:  — they dress in just t-shirts.  (Laughter.)  You wouldn’t know they have 180 IQ.

         Q    Wait.  Wait.  So, what — he’s — he’s your tech support?

         MR. MUSK:  I —

         THE PRESIDENT:  No, no.  He is —

         MR. MUSK:  I actually virtually am tech support.

         THE PRESIDENT:  He’s much more than that.

         MR. MUSK:  I actually am tech support, though.  But that’s —

         THE PRESIDENT:  But he gets it done.  He’s a leader.  He really is a — he gets it done.  You get a lot of tech people, and you have people, they’re good with tech, but they — he gets it done. 

         You know, I said, in real estate, you had guys that would draw beautiful renderings of a building, and they’d draw the rendering, it would be great, and you’d say, “Great.  When are you starting?”  But they were never able to get it built.  They couldn’t get the finances.  They couldn’t get the approvals.  It would never get done.  And then you have other guys that are able to get it done.  You know, they could just get it done. 

         I was in real estate.  Same thing in this.  He gets it done. 

         So, when he said that — he said, “You know, when you sign these executive orders, a lot of them don’t get done, and maybe the most important ones,” and he would take that executive order that I’d signed, and he would have those people go to whatever agency it was — “When are you doing it?  Get it done.  Get it done.”  And some guy that maybe didn’t want to do it, all of a sudden, he’s signing — he just doesn’t want to bothered.

         Q    Does — do a lot of those executive orders have to be codified into law to — do you need the Republican Congress to follow up?

         THE PRESIDENT:  Yeah, and they will.  A lot of them will be.  Yeah.

         Q    They will?

         THE PRESIDENT:  Look, in the meantime, we have four years.  The beauty is, we have four years.  That’s why I like doing it right at the beginning.  Because an executive order is great.  I mean, the one problem — it’s both good and bad, because when they did all these executive orders, I’ve canceled most of them.  They were terrible.  I mean, we were going to go radical left, communist, okay?  It was crazy.  Their —

         MR. MUSK:  Really crazy.

         THE PRESIDENT:  — executive orders were so bad, if they ever got them codified, you’d never be able to break them.  So, the damage that Biden has done to this country — and it’s not even Biden; it’s the people that circled him in the Oval Office, okay? — but the damage they did to this country, in terms of, let’s say, open borders — you know, there’s so many things, but open borders, where millions of people poured into our country, and hundreds of thousands of those people are criminals.  They’re murderers.  They’re drug dealers.  They’re gang members.  They’re people from prisons from all over the world. 

         And we have a great guy, Tom Homan, and he is doing so incredibly.  You saw the numbers.  They’re down like 96 percent.

         Q    Ninety-five percent.

         THE PRESIDENT:  He is a phenomenal guy.  And Kristi Noem is doing an unbelievable job.  And he wanted her.  He said, “She’s so tough.”  And I said, “I don’t think of her as that way.  You know, she’s very nice.”  He said, “No, she’s so tough.”  And she is.  I see her with the horses.  She’s riding the horse.  Let’s — (laughter) — she’s great. 

         But the team we have is — is really unbelievable. 

         But those executive orders, I sign them, and now they get passed on to him and his group and other people, and they’re all getting done.  We’re getting them done.

         Q    Let me go back a little bit to your background, because —

         MR. MUSK:  Sure.

         Q    — it’s beyond impressive.  You were the chief engineer, for example — you were an early believer in Tesla.  You became the CEO and — and then the chief engineer, which was phenomenal.  SpaceX, same thing, which is unbelievable. 

         I mean, you were the first company — private company to send astronauts successfully into — into space, first private company to send astronauts into orbit. 

         MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

         Q    That’s — that’s pretty deep. 

         THE PRESIDENT:  He’s going to go into orbit soon.

         Q    Okay.

         MR. MUSK:  (Laughs.)  Yeah.

         THE PRESIDENT:  No, he’s going to go to Mars.  He’s going to fly on his —

         Q    Starlink.

         MR. MUSK:  At some point, yeah.

         Q    As in (inaudible) —

         MR. MUSK:  But they say — they always ask me, like, “Do you want to die on Mars?”  And I say, “Well, yes, but not on impact.”  (Laughter.)

         Q    Star- — Starlink is in 100 countries. 

         This is going to be hard.  I feel like I’m interviewing two brothers here.

         MR. MUSK:  You go ahead. 

         Q    Starshield, which could be used for national defense. 

         MR. MUSK:  Yeah, it is already being used for national defense. 

         Q    Then you have a — what is it called?  Optimus, a part of Tesla.

         MR. MUSK:  They’re a robot, yeah.

         Q    A robotic arm.  Then you have an AI arm.  And then you have something that really fascinated me, and it’s called Neuralink. 

         MR. MUSK:  Yes.

         Q    You might help the blind to see and people with spinal cord injuries that they — that they can recover, where in the past — how close is that to becoming a success?

         MR. MUSK:  At Neuralink we’re — we’ve ha- — we’ve implanted Neuralink in three patients so far, who are quadriplegics, and it allows them to directly control their phone and computer just using their mind, just by thinking.  It’s like — so, we call this product Telepathy, so you control your computer and phone just by thinking, and it’s possible to actually control the computer and phone faster than someone who has working hands.

         Then the next step would be to add a second Neuralink implant past the point where these — the neurons are damaged, so that somebody can walk again and so the pe- — they can have full-body functionality restored.  And —

         THE PRESIDENT:  And you like Bobby, right?

         MR. MUSK:  I like Bobby, actually.  Yeah.  I — I supported Bobby Kennedy.  I think he — you know, he’s unfairly maligned as someone who is anti-science.  But I think he — he isn’t.  He just wants to question the science, which is the essence of the science — the scientific method, fundamentally, is about always questioning the science. 

         Q    Well, they didn’t tell us the truth about COVID.

         MR. MUSK:  Correct.

         Q    That’s for sure. 

         MR. MUSK:  Yes. 

         Q    And we learned a lot with the Twitter files.  And that just, then, raises a question.  You’re the richest man in the world.  You may not like that part. 

         THE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.

         Q    You’re pretty competitive.

         MR. MUSK:  I mean, it’s neither here nor there.

         Q    I’ve known you a long time.

         MR. MUSK:  I don’t think it matters.

         Q    But —

         THE PRESIDENT:  That’s why I became president.

         Q    — he’s on your team.

         THE PRESIDENT:  (Inaudible) —

         Q    Well, that’s true.  He can’t top that.

         THE PRESIDENT:  He’s good.  You know, I wanted to find somebody smarter than him.  I searched all over.  I just couldn’t do it.  I couldn’t.  I couldn’t.
        
         Q    You really tried hard.

         THE PRESIDENT:  I couldn’t find anyone smarter, right?  So, we had to — we had to, for the country.

         Q    But this is the thing —

         THE PRESIDENT:  So, we settled on — we settled on this guy.

         MR. MUSK:  Well, thanks for having me.

         THE PRESIDENT:  (Laughs.)  Yeah.

         Q    So —

         MR. MUSK:  I’m just trying to be useful here.

         Q    But this is the interesting — but this is where we are as a so- — a society.  And I — I hate to do this to you, but I’m going to do it anyway.  You’re doing all of these things.  At DOGE, nobody at DOGE gets paid a penny, correct?

         MR. MUSK:  Well, actually, some people are federal employees, so they do. 

         Q    Oh, okay.

         MR. MUSK:  Yeah.  They’re (inaudible).  But it’s fair to say that the software engineers at DOGE could be earning millions of dollars a year and instead of earning a small fraction of that as federal employees.

         Q    Okay.  So, just —

         THE PRESIDENT:  And they’re very committed people. 

         MR. MUSK:  Yes.

         Q    So — you’re — you’re committed to helping the blind see, people with spinal cord injuries recover. 

         MR. MUSK:  Yes.

         Q    You’re committed to getting to Mars.  You’re committed to rescue — you’re going to help rescue, next month, two astronauts that I think were abandoned.  They — they dispute that in an interview.

         THE PRESIDENT:  When are you — when are you getting them?

         MR. MUSK:  At the — at the president’s request, we — or instruction, we are accelerating the return of the astronauts, which was postponed, kind of, to a ridiculous degree.

         THE PRESIDENT:  They got left in space. 

         Q    They’ve been there.  They were supposed to be there eight days.  They’re there almost 300.

         THE PRESIDENT:  Biden. 

         MR. MUSK:  They were put —

         Q    Yeah.

         MR. MUSK:  Yes, they were left up there for political reasons, which is not good. 

         Q    Okay, it’s not good.  Now, if I had the weight and pressure of doing that successfully on my shoulders, I think I’d be, you know — but you — when we spoke before we did this interview, you were very confident.  You think this will be a successful mission. 

         MR. MUSK:  Well, we don’t want to be complacent, but we have brought astronauts back from the space station many times before, and always with success.  So, as long as we’re not complacent —

         THE PRESIDENT:  When are they — when are you going to launch?

         MR. MUSK:  I think it’s about — about four weeks to

    bring them back. 

         Q    About four weeks? 

         MR. MUSK:  Yeah. 

         THE PRESIDENT:  And you have the go-ahead.

         MR. MUSK:  We’re being extremely cautious.

         Q    Yeah.

         THE PRESIDENT:  You now have the go-ahead.

         MR. MUSK:  Yes.  Well, thanks to you —

         THE PRESIDENT:  They didn’t have the go-ahead with Biden. 

         Q    What’s that?

         THE PRESIDENT:  He was going to leave him in space.  I think he was going to leave them in space.

         Q    Well, it’s like the (inaudible) —

         THE PRESIDENT:  He considered it a —

         Q    — growing up, lost in space. 

         THE PRESIDENT:  Yeah, he didn’t want the publicity.  Can you believe it?

         Q    Unbelievable.  And so —

         MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

         Q    — I want to echo something that the president said and then ask an overarching question.  So, people in — get hit with Hurricane Helene, they have no communication with the outside world.  You come to the rescue.  You donated that, I believe?

         MR. MUSK:  Yes.  Yes.

         Q    You donated to the people of —

         THE PRESIDENT:  He saved a lot of lives.  In North Carolina, he saved a lot of lives. 

         Q    And California, after the wildfires?

         THE PRESIDENT:  California.  But, I mean, in North Carolina, where they were really in trouble, they had no communication, people were dying.

         Q    Nothing.

         THE PRESIDENT:  They were dying of starvation.  He saved a lot of lives in North Carolina.

         Q    Okay.  Now you’re going to rescue astronauts.  And now — again, you do — you do all of this — I would think liberals would love the fact that you have the biggest electric vehicle company in the world. 

         MR. MUSK:  Yeah.  I mean, I used to be adored by the left, you know.

         Q    Not anymore.

         MR. MUSK:  Le- — less so these days.

         Q    He killed that, huh?

         MR. MUSK:  I mean, less —

         THE PRESIDENT:  I really (inaudible) —

         MR. MUSK:  Well, I mean, this — this whole sort of, like, you know — it was — they call it, like, “Trump derangement syndrome.”  And I didn’t — you know, you don’t realize how real this is until, like, it’s — you can’t reason with people. 

         So, like, I was at a friend’s birthday party in L.A., just a birthday dinner, and it was, like, a nice, quiet dinner, and everything was — everyone was behaving normally.  And then I happened to mention — this was before the election, like a month or two before — I happened to mention the president’s name, and it was like they got shot with a dart in the jugular that contained, like, the methamphetamine and rabies.  Okay?  (Laughter.)

         And they’re like, “Whyy?”  And I’m, like, “What is wrong — like, guys, like” — you just can’t have, like, a normal conversation.  And it’s like — it’s like they become completely irrational. 

         Q    He — he has no idea, if you’re friends with him —

         MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

         Q    — you pay a price.  You know, it’s like, I walk into a restaurant in New York, and it’s like half the room gets daggers and they want to —

         MR. MUSK:  The eye-daggers — eye-daggers level is insane.  (Laughter.)

         I mean, there was, like — I had, like, some — some invitation because — so, I got invited to, like, so- — basically, a big, sort of, damn — damn event like that was — but I’d received the invitation, like, the beginning of last year and then — and I still attended, even after I’d endorsed President Trump, and I didn’t realize how profoundly that would affect, you know, how I was received.  (Laughter.)

         I mean, I walk into the room and I’m getting just the dirty looks from — from everyone.  Like, if looks could kill, I would have been dead several times over.

         Q    But that was not — (laughter) — before Trump

         MR. MUSK:  (Inaudible) —

         Q    Before Trump: “BC” —

         MR. MUSK:  — ashes on the floor.  (Laughs.)

         Q    — or “BT.”  Before Trump, that never happened.  Right?

         MR. MUSK:  No.

         Q    No.  So —

         MR. MUSK:  I — I just — doesn’t seem strange?  Like, what — what is up with this total, like, madness?

         Q    You’re smarter than me.  Can you — I actually think that there’s a level of irrationality.  It’s almost like a trigger and —

         MR. MUSK:  It totally triggers. 

         Q    And it’s like — look, I — I’ve been on TV — this is my 29th year.  I’ve been on radio 35 years.  I will — I’ve gone hard in the paint to — for candidates that lost.

         MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

         Q    And guess what?  I get over it.

         MR. MUSK.  Sure.  Yeah, yeah.

         Q    And I just keep doing my show, and I just — you know, I come back to fight another day.

         So, here’s the big — then this is the million dollar or billion dollar — I’m among billionaires — question.  So, you have all this going on and you stop, in a way — you’re still doing it — and you partner with him.  And this is what you get for it from the Democrats.  You get “nobody voted for Elon.”  Well, nobody voted for any of your Cabinet nominees.  Okay?  “People are dying because of DOGE cuts.”  I’ll give you a chance to respond to all that.  “What DOGE is doing is illegal.”  “Elon Musk is” — more street vernacular for a male body part.  “It’s a constitutional crisis.”

         MR. MUSK:  How c- — why — why are they reacting like this?

         Q    Well, first of all, do you give a flying rip?  Number one.  And —

         MR. MUSK:  Well, I guess we must be — if we’re the target, we’re doing something right.  You know, if — like, they wouldn’t be complaining so much if they — we weren’t doing something useful, I think. 

         What — all we’re really trying to do here is restore the will of the people through the president.  And — and what we’re finding is there’s an unelected bureaucracy.  Speaking of unelected, there’s a — there’s a vast federal bureaucracy that is implacably opposed to the — the president and the Cabinet. 

         And you look at, say, D.C. voting.  It’s 92 percent Kamala.  Okay, so we’re in 92 percent Kamala.  That’s a lot. 

         Q    Yeah.  They don’t like me here either. 

         MR. MUSK:  I think about that number a lot.  I’m like, 92 percent.  That’s, basically, almost everyone.  And so — but if — but how can you — if — if the will of the president is not implemented, and the president is representative of the people, that means the will of the people is not being implemented, and that means we don’t live in a democracy, we live in a bureaucracy. 

         And so, I think what we’re seeing here is the — sort of, the thrashing of the bureaucracy as we try to restore democracy and the will of the people.

         Q    You —

         MR. MUSK:  Is this making sense?  I mean — sorry.

         Q    Y- — no, of course it does.  I mean, to me, if you look at our framers and our founders — and you’ve really become a student of history, Mr. President, and we’ve ta- — we’ve had conversations both on air and off air — and if we talk about constitutional order or transformational change, nobody can argue that what’s happening here is going at the speed of light. 

         But however, what were the principles of our framers and our founders?  They wanted limited government, greater freedom for the people — and we’ll get to the specific cutting of waste, fraud, and abuse.  That — that is your goal, is it not?

         THE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.  And my goal was to get great people.  And when you look at what this man has done, I mean, it was something — I knew him a little bit through the White House. Originally, I’d see him around a little bit.  I didn’t know him before that, and I respected what he did.  And he fought hard.  You know, he was a — he was maybe questioned for a while.  He was having some difficulties.  It was not easy doing what he did. 

         I mean, how many people have started a car company and made it really successful and made a better car where it’s, you know, beating these big companies that that’s all they do is cars?  I mean, it’s really amazing the things that he’s done.

         But I didn’t know it as much then as now.  I mean, the fruits have sort of taken hold.

         But I wanted great people, and he’s a great person.  He’s an amazing person.  He’s also a caring person.  You know, he uses the word “care.” 

         So, they sign a contract in a government agency, and it has three months.  And the guy leaves that signed the contract, and nobody else is there, and they pay the contract for 10 years.

         So, the guy is getting checks for years and years and years, and he’s telling his family, obviously — maybe it was crooked, maybe he paid to get the contract, or maybe he paid that they didn’t terminate him.  But, you know, we have contracts that go forever, and they’ve been going for years, and they’re supposed to end in three months or five months or two years or something, and they go forever.  So, the guy is either crooked — you know, where he knew this was going to happen — or he’s crooked because he’s getting payments that he knows he shouldn’t be getting.

         MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

         THE PRESIDENT:  But they’re finding things like that.  They’re finding things far worse than that.  And they’re finding billions — and it will be hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of fraud.  I say waste and abuse, but fraud, waste, and abuse.  And he’s doing an amazing job.

         And he attracts a young, very smart type of person.  I call them high-IQ individuals, and they are.  They’re very high Q and — high IQ.  And when they go in to see the people and talk to these people — you know, the people think they’re going to pull it over.  They don’t.  These guys are smart, and they love the country.  You know, there’s a certain something. 

         But he uses the word “care.”  So, people have to care.  Like, when I bought Air Force One —

         MR. MUSK:  Exactly.

         THE PRESIDENT:  — I negotiated the price.  It was $5.7 billion, and I got it — I got them down $1.7 billion.  Now they’re not building the plane fast enough.  I mean, they’re actually in default — Boeing.  They’re supposed to —

         Q    When is it —

         THE PRESIDENT:  They’ve been building this thing forever.  I don’t know —

         Q    This is the new Air Force One?

         THE PRESIDENT:  — what’s going on.

         MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

         THE PRESIDENT:  We don’t build the way we used to build.  You know, we used to build like a ship a day, and now to build a ship is, like, a big deal, and we’re going to get this country back on track.  We could do it, but so many things — it takes so long to get things built and get things done. 

         And a lot of it could be something we’ve been discussing.  The regulators go in and they make it impossible to build.  They make it very difficult to build anything, whether it’s a ship, a plane, or a building or anything.  And some of them do it because they want to show how important they are.  Some of them do it maybe because they think they’re right.  They use the environment to stop progress and to stop things.  It’s always the environment.  “It’s an environmental problem.”  It’s not an environmental problem at all.  But they do a lot of things. 

         And, by the way, speaking of that, Lee Zeldin is going to be fantastic in the position.  So important.  He could take 10 years to approve or disapprove something, or he could do it in a month.  You know, just as good.

         Q    Sure. 

         THE PRESIDENT:  And I think you’re going to see some fantastic — a fantastic job done by him.  He’s a tremendous guy. 

         Q    Newt — you echoed something when I had just met you, and it was very similar to what Newt has been saying, that we’re — he brought this country to the dance.  This is the opportunity to be transformational, and to have, I would argue, a — the most consequential presidency if we — if we’d really dig down and do something that had never been done before, and that is get rid of this bureaucracy.  And I’m going —

         MR. MUSK:  Yes.

         Q    — to get to specifics.  You say the same thing.  It’s not done yet. 

         MR. MUSK:  Absolutely.

         Q    And what did you mean by that?

         MR. MUSK:  Well, I mean the — w- — winning the election is really the opportunity to fix the system.  It is not fixing the system itself.  So, it’s an opportunity to fix the system and to restore the power of democracy. 

         And, you know, people — like, it’s funny how — how often it — you — when these attacks occur, the thing that they’re accusing the administration of is what they are guilty of.  They’re saying that things are — are being done are unconstitutional, but what they are doing is unconstitutional.  They are guilty of the crime of which they accuse us.

         THE PRESIDENT:  That’s always the first thing they do.

         MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

         THE PRESIDENT:  “He’s in violation of the Constitution.”  They don’t even know what they’re talking — well, they know.

         MR. MUSK:  It’s absurd. 

         THE PRESIDENT:  It’s just a con job.  It’s a big con job.  And they’re so bad for the country, so dangerous and so bad.

         And the media is so bad.  When I watch MSNBC, which I don’t watch much, but you have to watch the enemy on occasion, the level of arrogance and — and cheating and — they’re just horrible people.  These are horrible people.

         Q    They lie. 

         THE PRESIDENT:  These are horrible people. 

         Q    They tell conspiracy theories.

         THE PRESIDENT:  They lie, and they start up with the Constitution.  They couldn’t care less about the Constitution.

         CNN, likewise.  I mean, I watched them asking questions with, you know, the hatred with the — why — I said, “What are you asking the question with such anger?  You’re asking me a normal question.”  But you see the bias.  The bias is so incredible.  Those two are bad.

         PBS is bad.  AP is bad.  CBS is terrible. 

         I mean, CBS now — they changed an answer in Kamala.  They asked her some questions.  She answered them like, you know, a low-IQ person.  The opposite of him — the absolute opposite.  But she gave a horrible answer.  They took the entire answer out, and they put another answer that she gave 20 minutes later into the — in- — as the answer.  

         Q    It was part of her word salad. 

         THE PRESIDENT:  I’ve never even heard of that be- — I thought I heard of it all.

         MR. MUSK:  Right. 

         Q    That wh- — “60 Minutes” once — one — wanted to do an interview with me, and I said, “Live to tape.” 

         MR. MUSK:  Yeah, exactly. 

         Q    They said, “No.”  And I said, “No” —

         MR. MUSK:  Right.

         Q    — “No deal.” 

         MR. MUSK:  Exactly.  They can- —

         Q    Like, this interview will —

         THE PRESIDENT:  I’ve never even heard — you know, I’ve seen where they take a sentence off or something and they’ll do — but they —

         Q    Sometimes you cut for time o- — 

         THE PRESIDENT:  No, no.  They took the entire — this long, terrible statement that she made and put another. 

         Nobody’s ever seen what’s happening.  And, you know, the people that do all this complaining, they’re very dishonest people. 

         MR. MUSK:  Yeah. 

         Q    Yeah.  I — I’m going to, just for the sake of saving time —

         THE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.

         Q    — because I could spend — and I’ve done this on radio and TV, I — I can spend an hour finding the outrageous amounts of money being spent abroad, like USAID.

         MR. MUSK:  Sure.

         Q    And I do want to mention a couple, but I’m going to —

         MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

         Q    — scroll it and —

         MR. MUSK:  Well — well, I guess, at a high level, I think it’s what the president mentioned earlier, which is that in order to save taxpayer money, it comes down to two things: competence and caring.  And —

         THE PRESIDENT:  That’s right. 

         MR. MUSK:  — and when — when president was shown the outrageous bill for the new Air Force One and — and then negotiated it down, if he had — if the president had not applied competence and caring, the price would have been 50 percent higher — literally, 50 percent higher.  The president cared.  The president was competent.  The price was not 50 percent higher as the result. 

         And so, when you add more competence and caring, you get a better deal for the American people. 

         THE PRESIDENT:  But we could take — we were talking about this yesterday.  I could take — give me thousands of bills — any — I could pick any one of them, and I could —

         MR. MUSK:  Yes, exactly.

         THE PRESIDENT:  — take all thousand.  And let’s say it’s a bill for $5,000 — just $5,000, and it’s done by some bureaucrat.  And if he would say, “I’ll give you three.  I don’t want to pay you five.  It’s too high.  I’ll give you three.”  But they don’t do that.  If a guy sends in a bill for $5,000, they pay $5,000.  They expect to be cut.  Everybody expects to be cut.  When you send in a bill, you expect to be cut.  They send in the bill higher, for the most part.  This is true with lawyers, legal fees.  When they send in legal fees, you — I can cut — I wish I had the time, I would save so — but I could cut these bills in half — much better than half. 

         But you offer people a much lower number because you know they — they actually put fat — I’m not even saying it’s — it’s like a way of business.  They put more on because they expect to be negotiated.  When you send in a bill to the government, there’s nobody to negotiate. 

         MR. MUSK:  Yes.

         THE PRESIDENT:  You send it a bill for $10,000, and they send you a check back for $10,000.  If you would call them and said, “We’ll give you five.”  “No, no, no.  I need more than five.”  “We’ll give you a five.”  “I’m not going to pay any more than five.”  “Make it six.”  “No, I’m not going to make it six.”  And you’ll settle for $5,500.  You’ve just cut the bill almost in half, and it took, like, two minutes.  When did that stop?  But —

         Q    (Inaudible) the art of the deal?

         THE PRESIDENT:  — that’s caring.  No, it’s not even the art of the deal.  It’s caring.  He uses the word —

         MR. MUSK:  It’s — it’s competence and caring.

         THE PRESIDENT:  — it’s caring. 

         Q    Yeah.

         THE PRESIDENT:  It’s — it’s a certain competence, but I think it’s more caring. 

         MR. MUSK:  I — if you —

         THE PRESIDENT:  (Inaudible.)

         MR. MUSK:  Actually, if you add either ingredient — either competence or caring — you’ll — you’ll get a better outcome.  But it stands to reason —

         Q    Right.  People don’t want to do this (inaudible.)

         MR. MUSK: — that’s the reason that if you don’t have competency and you don’t have caring, you’re going to get a terrible deal.  And the problem is that the American taxpayer has been — been getting a terrible deal, because — look at the last administration.  Can you — can anyone — can any reasonable person say that last administration was either competent or caring?

         Q    But they lied to us and said that Joe didn’t have a cognitive decline.

         MR. MUSK:  They fully lied. 

         Q    They said the borders were closed.  They said that the borders were secure.  They said that —

         MR. MUSK:  Right.

         Q    You know, they said Obamacare would save —

         MR. MUSK:  They flat out lied. 

         Q    They flat out lied — 

         MR. MUSK:  It was insane.

         Q    — on many occasions. 

         MR. MUSK:  Yes.

         Q    I tell my audience all the time: Don’t trust government. 

         MR. MUSK:  Yes.

         Q    So, the — I want — as I scroll this information, and it’s — it’s — I’ll scroll a lot more than I’ll mention to both of you, and this is the cost savings.  I want you — I want people at home to understand this part: The average American makes $66,000 a year. 

         MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

         Q    Okay?  We have $37 trillion in national debt. 

         MR. MUSK:  Yes. 

         Q    Now, all the money I’m about to mention and what we’re going to scroll on our screen — and all of this is going to foreign countries.  It is not being spent here in America —

         MR. MUSK:  Yes.

         Q    — for better schools, law and order. 

         MR. MUSK:  I — I think the average taxpaying American should be mad as hell because their tax money is being poorly spent.

         Q    I’m mad.  It’s stealing from —

         MR. MUSK:  It’s a — it’s an outrage —

         Q    — our kids and grandkids.

         MR. MUSK:  Yes, and the — and people —

         THE PRESIDENT:  And a lot of fraud, Sean.  A lot of fraud.

         Q    Yes.

         THE PRESIDENT:  And a lot of kickbacks. 

         They’re sending money out.  They’re not that stupid.  These people aren’t that stupid.  They’re sending for transgender — something having to do with the opera, and they’re sending out $7 million —

         MR. MUSK:  (Laughs.)  Literally.

         THE PRESIDENT:  — $7 million.  (Inaudible) —

         Q    You just stole my next line.  I can’t believe that. 

         THE PRESIDENT:  No, it’s incredible. 

         Q    I was going to mention that.

         THE PRESIDENT:  No, but it’s incredible: $7 million.

         Now, you know they — they’re not so stupid.  They’re sending all this money.  They expect to get a lot of it back.  And that’s what happens.

         Q    Okay.  So, let’s go through it.

         MR. MUSK:  Yes, they’re — a bunch of —

         Q    So, for the average person at home —

         MR. MUSK:  — this stuff is round-tripping.  To the president’s point, they’ll — they’ll make it sound like it’s going to help some people in a foreign country, but then they — then they get kickbacks. 

         Q    All right.  Let me go to the ne- — to the fir- —

         MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

         Q    — to the second question first.  I want to know, because people like Joni Ernst, and — and House —

         MR. MUSK:  Yeah, Joni — Joni Ernst has been —

         Q    They tried to get —

         MR. MUSK:  — has tried for a long time, and she’s actually got a lot of good data.  Senator Ernst has been really helpful, actually.

         Q    Okay, but they — they actually hide what the real purpose of the spending is. 

         MR. MUSK:  That’s true.

         Q    In other words, they — and — and h- — this is a question: How did you decipher?  It will say, “Humanitarian blah, blah, blah in Serbia or Afghanistan.”  We’ve been giving money to China for crying out loud, which I think is nuts.

         MR. MUSK:  Well, we’re giving money to the Taliban.

         Q    Money to the Taliban?

         MR. MUSK:  Like a lot.

         Q    All right.  So —

         MR. MUSK:  (Laughs.)  I’m like, for what?

         Q    But they —

         MR. MUSK:  I — I want to see pictures of what they did.

         Q    But they try to obscure it, and — and — but then you got to the bottom line, which is what I’m now scrolling on the screen —

         MR. MUSK:  Yes.

         Q    — and that is: $20 million on a Sesame Street show in Iraq; $56 million to boost tourism in Tunisia and Egypt; $40 million to build schools in Jordan; $11 million to tell the Vietnamese to stop burning trash; $45 million for DEI scholarships in Burma; $520 million for consultant-driven ESG investments in Africa; DEI programs in Serbia; the president’s favorite — I’m sure you — you love that taxpayer money was spent on a DEI musical in Ireland or a chan- — transgender opera in Colombia or a —

         MR. MUSK:  If I could, like, it sounds like —

         Q    — transgender comic book in Peru. 

         MR. MUSK:  It sounds like — it sounds like how can these things be real?  But this is actually what was done. 

         Q    Okay.  The — I —

         MR. MUSK:  It — it sounds like a comedy sketch or something.  It’s like —

         Q    I have 20 pages of this.

         MR. MUSK:  Right.  It’s not — the list is a mile long.

         THE PRESIDENT:  The one thing you didn’t mention, the media.  The media is getting millions of dollars. 

        MR. MUSK:  Yes.

         THE PRESIDENT:  Now, they say Politico, which is a radical left —

         Q    Subscriptions. 

         THE PRESIDENT:  — you know, garbage magazine or — or program.  I guess they have magazine and they have some — some media of all types.  $8 million. 

         I hear the New York Times got a lot.  I hear they get subscriptions — where they have subscriptions but maybe the paper is not sent.  I have no idea if that’s true or not, but it’s — they call it subscriptions.  Lots of subscri- — to different media, not just the Times — maybe the Times, and maybe not the Times.

         Q    A million dollars in subscriptions is a lot.

         THE PRESIDENT:  Well — but — but millions of dollars going to media that’s radical-left, crooked, dishonest media.

         MR. MUSK:  Well — well, Reuters — this is actually really wild: Reuters got like — something like $10 million for something that was literally titled “mass disinformation campaign.” 

         Q    Well —

         MR. MUSK:  That was on the purchase order.  Well, I — I

    thought that was a little bold.  (Laughs.) 

         Q    I will tell you what was bold is when you released —

         MR. MUSK:  I’m like —

         Q    — the Twitter files.

         MR. MUSK:  — shouldn’t you at least try to call it something else?  (Laughs.)

         Q    The Twitter files — how they targeted him; how Twitter, at the time, worked closely with the FBI, the CIA; and, even before the release of Hunter’s very real laptop, they were feeding them disinformation.  That —

         MR. MUSK:  Absolutely.

         Q    — you found all that out. 

         MR. MUSK:  Well, I think —

         Q    That’s called transparency, right?

         THE PRESIDENT:  The FBI has to be rehabbed.  The FBI —

         MR. MUSK:   Yeah.

         THE PRESIDENT:  What’s happened with the FBI and the DOJ is just — their — their stock has gone way down.  I mean, their reputation is shot.

         Q    And intelligence.

         THE PRESIDENT:  And I think Pam is going to do great.  I think Kash is going to do great.  I think they have to do great or we have a problem. 

         But when you look at what they did, the raid of Mar-a-Lago — the raid of Mar-a-Lago — you look at what they did, their reputation is shot.

         Q    It is. 

         What — you were going to say, Elon?

         MR. MUSK:  Well, no, I was going to say that I think probably a — like, a lot of people still —

         Q    How — how did you find (inaudible)?

         MR. MUSK:  — still believe, like, the Russia hoax, even though you’ve done a lot to combat that.  The — you know, the — the Steele dossier was an incre- — a massive scam that was concocted by Hillary Clinton and her — her campaign.

         Q    She bought and paid it — for it —

         MR. MUSK:  Right.

         Q    — Russian disinformation. 

         MR. MUSK:  There was — it was — the — people still think the — the Russia hoax is real.  Like a lot of people s- — because they never — they never heard the counterpoint.  I mean — I mean, a bunch of people should be in prison for that.  That was a — that was outrageous election interference, creating a fake Russia hoax. 

         Q    How much — if you had to put a number on it, how much do you think you’ve identified waste, fraud, abuse, corruption at this point?  And again, we’ve been — we’re going to be scrolling this throughout the program. 

         MR. MUSK:  Well, the — the overall goal is to try to get a trillion dollars out of the deficit.  And if we — if we — if the deficit is not brought under control, America will go bankrupt.  This is a very important thing for people to understand.  A country is no different from an individual, in that if an individual overspends, an individual can go bankrupt, and so can a country. 

         And — and the out- — the massive waste, fraud, and abuse that has been going on, which is leading to a $2-trillion-a-year deficit, that — that’s what the president was handed on Jan. 20th, a $2 trillion deficit.  It’s insane. 

         Q    For this fiscal year?

         THE PRESIDENT:  Two trill- — yeah.  We inherited it.

         MR. MUSK:  Two —

         THE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.  And inflation is back.  I’m only here for two and a half weeks. 

         Q    That was January —

         THE PRESIDENT:  Inflating is back —

         Q    — you were there for a week. 

         THE PRESIDENT:  No, think of it, inflation is back.  And they said, “Oh, Trump infla-” — I had nothing to do with it.  These people have — have run the country.  They spent money like nobody has ever spent.  They were — they were given $9 trillion to throw out the window — $9 trillion, and they spent it on the Green New Scam, I call it.  It’s the greatest scam in the history of the country.  One of them.  We have a lot of them, I guess.  But one of them.

         Q    Well —

         THE PRESIDENT:  Dollar-wise, probably —

         Q    — and DEI —

         THE PRESIDENT:  — it is.

         Q    — and wokeism —

         THE PRESIDENT:  Yeah, yeah.

         Q    — and transgenderism —

         THE PRESIDENT:  Well, that’s all part of it.  Yeah.

         Q    — and LGBTQ+.

         MR. MUSK:  Yes.

         Q    And, by the way, not in America — other countries, not here. 

         THE PRESIDENT:  You know, the amazing thing is when you see, like, the teaching of DEI: $9 million.  How do you spend $9 million to teach no matter what it is?

         MR. MUSK:  Right.

         THE PRESIDENT:  You could teach physics. 

         MR. MUSK:  Exactly.  Totally.

         THE PRESIDENT:  You could go to MIT for a lot less.

         MR. MUSK:  It’s (inaudible) expensive.  (Laughs.)  Expensive.

         THE PRESIDENT:  Yeah, the teaching —

         MR. MUSK:  Expensive BS.

         THE PRESIDENT:  — of DEI.

         Q    Well, I think it would be better spent on —

         THE PRESIDENT:  No, it’s a kickback.  It’s got to be a kickback.  Nobody is that — nobody could do that.  Nobody is —

         Q    Well, it —

         THE PRESIDENT:  Nobody is giving — to assess the dialog of an audience coming out of a theater: $4 million.

         Q    How much do you believe, Elon, you’ve identified in — in waste, fraud, abuse, corruption now?  And how much —

         MR. MUSK:  Well —

         Q    — do you anticipate you will?

    MR. MUSK:  Sure.  Well, the — I — I think —

    THE PRESIDENT:  One percent.

    MR. MUSK:  (Laughs.)

    THE PRESIDENT:  No, because it’s so massive.  It’s — this is —

    MR. MUSK:  Yeah, exactly.

    THE PRESIDENT:  — huge money.  Huge money.  Look —

    Q    So, what we’ve found now is one percent?

    MR. MUSK:  Well, we’ve j- — we’ve just gotten started here.

    THE PRESIDENT:  As good as they are, they’re not going to find some contract that was crooked — you know, crooked as hell.  And, I mean, there’s going to be so much that isn’t found.  But what is found — I think he’s going to find a trillion dollars.

    MR. MUSK:  Yeah, I think so. 

    THE PRESIDENT:  But I think it’s a very small percentage compared to what it is.  I mean, he could tell you about treasuries; he could tell you about a woman that worked for Biden that became a very wealthy woman while she was working for him.  Right?

    MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

    Q    Yeah, I know who you’re talking about.

    MR. MUSK:  I mean, there are some strange situations where people — where, you know, someone’s working for the government earning $200,000 a year, and then, suddenly, they’re worth tens of millions of dollars within a few years.  Where’d the money come?

    Q    How’d they earn it?

    MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

    Q    They have a private company on the side? 

    MR. MUSK:  We’re just curious.  Like, can you —

    THE PRESIDENT:  While they were working.

    MR. MUSK:  Can you show us — because, like, in order to be worth tens of millions of dollars, you’d have to start a company, or you’ve got to get some kind — the compensation has got to come from somewhere.  So, how does a civil servant with — earning $200,000 a year suddenly, within a span of a few years, be worth tens of millions dollars?

    Q    W- —

    MR. MUSK:  So, I just want to connect the dots here. 

    Q    All right, s- —

    MR. MUSK:  Maybe there’s a legitimate explanation, but I don’t think so.  (Laughter.)

    Q    So, you know, and this gets to kind of the heart of where I am.  I — I looked at your work, and I look at this amount of money, and I get angry.  And I don’t get v- — I’m not an angry person. 

    MR. MUSK:  Sure.

    Q    I don’t get angry.  I get a- — I get annoyed sometimes, but I don’t get angry. 

    And I did live paycheck to bay- — paycheck a part of my life.  And I think of, you know, the working men and women in this country that the — 56 percent of which cannot afford a $1,000 emergency after four years of Harris and Biden.

    MR. MUSK:  Sure.

    Q    Okay?  That is serious, you know, financial trouble.  Or they’re putting bare necessities on credit cards. 

    And I’m looking at this and I’m thinking, well, how much — when we — when all is said and done, we could have written a check or cut the taxes or fixed our schools —

    MR. MUSK:  Yes.  Yes.

    Q    — or deported these illegals that we keep finding, known terrorists, cartel members, gang members. 

    MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

    Q    And — and we’re not doing it.

    THE PRESIDENT:  Sean, the saddest thing is they don’t talk about the individual lines.  I could go on your show right now,  I could get a list that I have on the beautiful Resolute Desk in the Oval Office, and it’s got 40 points, and all they are is the heading of what this money is. 

    You don’t have to go deep into it, and you see it’s, you know, all different things and it’s so ridiculous. 

    I mean, normally, when you look for fraud, you’re looking for one thing out of a hundred.  Here, out of a hundred, 95 are going to be bad.  I mean, they’re — and they’re so obvious just by the heading.

    But they never mention that.  They only mention, “This is a violation of our Constitution.  This is a” — the word they give, you know, it’s like a sound bite — “constitutional crisis.”  It’s a new thing, “constitution-” —  But they never mention about where the money is going. 

    MR. MUSK:  Yes.  Exactly.

    THE PRESIDENT:  And when people hear that — I had a very smart man, John Kennedy — he’s actually a very smart man.  He said, “Sir, you should just go on television and just read the name of the topic that you’re giving all the money — just the topic that you’re giving this money to, and don’t say anything more,” and he’s right.

    MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

    THE PRESIDENT:  And I’ll do it at some point, you know, when — 

    But they never talk about where the money is going.  They just talk about, “It’s a constitutional crisis.” 

    It’s so sad.  And honestly, I think they’re bad people.  I used to give them the benefit of the doubt, but you almost think they hate the country.  I think they hate the country.  They’re sick people. 

    Q    Remember, what they can’t — what they couldn’t accomplish at the ballot box, what they can’t accomplish legislatively, now they’re using the courts.

    MR. MUSK:  Yes.

    Q    And they c- — they’re trying to bury you in lawsuits.

    THE PRESIDENT:  That’s right.  You know the good news, though?  They’ve lost their confidence.  They’re not the same people. 

    Q    I think you’re right.

    THE PRESIDENT:  They’re — they’re not the same people. 

    This election was brutal for them.  We won every swing state.  We won by millions and millions of votes.  We won everything.  We — all 50 states went up — all 50.  It’s never happened.

    Q    Popular vote. 

    THE PRESIDENT:  Every one.  All 50 states went up. 

    They’ve lost their confidence.  I see it.  And they’re — they’re just swirling and twirling.  They don’t know what the hell is happening.  They’re much different.  They’re just as mean, but they’re not getting to the point.

    Q    Why do you invite them into the Oval Office nearly every day?

    MR. MUSK:  (Laughs.)

    THE PRESIDENT:  Well, the media — you’re talking about the media.

    Q    Yeah, your friends in the media.

    THE PRESIDENT:  The media — no, they’re — you know, the anger that — they ask questions so angry — a question — a normal question.  I give them an answer.  They — but they — I say, “Why are you so angry when you ask a question?”  Just a standard question.  And, I don’t know, there’s something —

    Q    They haven’t had a- — they haven’t been allowed in that office for the last four years, and here you’re giving them access. 

    Let me go to an area that I think is key, and — and you talked about this in recent interviews, and that is: We don’t need a Department of Education.  Okay.  And what some people are trying to do is stoke fears that, “Oh, my gosh, my kid is not going to get the money for education.”

    THE PRESIDENT:  (Laughs.)  Yeah.

    Q    Or “grandma’s Social Security and Medicare.”  This was a big promise of yours on the campaign trail.

    THE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.  Yeah.

    Q    So, I really want to give you both an opportunity to assure the American people you will keep — that money will be allocated for students, but with higher standards.  For example, I would assume associated with monies given or vouchers.

    THE PRESIDENT:  (Inaudible) so much and — and then Elon goes.  But, look, Social Security won’t be touched — 

    Q    Won’t be touched.

    THE PRESIDENT:  — other than if there’s fraud or something — we’re going to find it; it’s going to be strengthened — but won’t be touched.  Medicare, Medicaid, none of that stuff is going to be touched.  It’s just — 

    Q    Nothing.  I want you to —

    THE PRESIDENT:  (Inaudible) don’t have to.

    Now, if there are illegal migrants in the system, we’re going to get them out of the system, and all of that fraud.  But it’s not going to be touched.

    School — I want to bring school back to the states, so that Iowa, Indiana — all these places — Idaho, New Hampshire — there’s so many places, the states.  I figure 35 really run well. 

    And right now, it’s Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, China — China, can you imagine? — has top — top schools.  We’re last. 

    So, they have a list of 40 countries.  We’re number 40.  Usually we’re 38, 39, but last time, we were number 40.  And what I say is you’ve got to give it back. 

    So, it doesn’t work. 

    I’ll tell you what we’re number one in: cost per pupil.  We spend more money than any other country by far — it’s not even close — per pupil.  Okay?  So, we know it doesn’t work. 

    So, we spend the most and we have the worst — right? — the worst result.  When we give that — when we give that back to Indiana, when we give that b- — back to Iowa and back to a lot of the states that run well — they run well, a lot of them — 35, 37, 38 — now, you’re going to have 10 laggards, but you’re going to have 5 real laggards, but that’s going to be okay. 

    Take New York — you give it to Westchester County, you give it to Suffolk County, you give it to Upstate New York, and you give it to Manhattan — but you give it to four or five subsections.  Same thing in California.  Los Angeles is going to be a problem, but you’re going to give it to places that run well.  We can change education

    Now, school choice is important, but that will get care — taken care of automatically. 

    We want to bring education back to the states.  You will spend half the number.  And I’m not even doing this —

    Q    So, you’re leaning more towards grants not vouchers, like to parents?

    THE PRESIDENT:  I’m not even — I’m not even doing this to save, but you will save.  It will cost you much less money.  You get a much better education. 

    If you go to some of these states, you’ll be the equivalent of Norway, Sweden, Denmark — places that really have a good school system.  You’ll have — those places will be the equivalent, and your overall numbers will get so much better. 

    Q    Do you want standards associated with the money?

    THE PRESIDENT:  The only thing I want to do from — from Washington, D.C., is make sure they’re teaching English, reading, writing —

    Q    Math and science.

    THE PRESIDENT:  — and arithmetic.  Okay?

    Q    Science?  Science might help.

    THE PRESIDENT:  Okay.  A little science.  You know —

    Q    Computers.

    THE PRESIDENT:  — you’re not going to have much of a problem with that, but that’s it. 

    Do you know, we have half the buildings — I mean, you look at Department of Education —

    MR. MUSK:  It’s empty.

    THE PRESIDENT:  Look at the real estate and the —

    MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

    THE PRESIDENT:  — the level.  For what?  To — to — I mean, for — what do they do?

    We have really bad educa- — the teachers — I love teachers.  I respect teachers.  And, by the way, there’s no reason why teachers can’t form a union.  They can do whatever they want to do, if it’s back in the states.  So, we’re not looking to hurt the teacher — I’m — I’m going to help the teachers.  I think the teachers should be incentivized, because a good teacher is like a good scientist, is like a great doctor.

    MR. MUSK:  Sure.

    THE PRESIDENT:  It’s a valuable commodity. 

    MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

    THE PRESIDENT:  I think they should be incentivized. 

    MR. MUSK:  Yes.

    THE PRESIDENT:  So, I’m totally for the teachers.

    MR. MUSK:  Absolutely.

    Q    I interview a guy a lot on radio.  He’s from Wichita, Kansas.  And he started —

    THE PRESIDENT:  Right.

    Q    — as a medical doctor.  Started Atlas.MD, and he’s now — he’s rolled it out nationwide.  Concierge care, $50 a month, 24-hour access to a doctor. 

    THE PRESIDENT:  Right.

    Q    You know, they use a lot of telemedicine now as part of it — very innovative.  He negotiates directly with pharmaceutical companies.  People — if they have high blood pressure, they walk out with their medicine.  They have high cholesterol, they walk out with their medicine.  And they pay pennies on the dollar.

    You mentioned —

    THE PRESIDENT:  By the way, forms of that could be done.

    Q    Forms of that?

    THE PRESIDENT:  Forms of that could be done.

    Q    Innovation. 

    THE PRESIDENT:  We got hurt when we didn’t get the vote on Obamacare.  I made Obamacare — I had a choice: I could let it rot and win a point, or I could do the best you could do with it.  And that’s what I did.  We did a great job with it, and we made it sort of work, but it’s lousy.  We could do so much better. 

    And when you say — you go to certain areas, they — they have doctors round the clock.  They have great medical care for a fraction of what we’re paying right now. 

    There are things we could do. 

    But, look, just overall, this man has been so valuable.  I hate to see the way they go after him.  They go after him.  It’s so unfair.  He doesn’t need this.  He wants to do this. 

    First of all, this is bigger than anything he’s ever done.  He’s done great companies and all, but this is much — you know, this is trillion — everything’s trillions, right?

    MR. MUSK:  Yeah.  The numbers are crazy.

    Q    To go back to my original point —

    THE PRESIDENT:  He can save —

    MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

    Q    But let me — give him his $10 million back.

    MR. MUSK:  Well — well — I — no.  So, people ask me, like, “What’s — what’s the — what’s the — what’s, like, the — what’s your biggest surprise in — in D.C.?”  And I’m like, “The sheer scale.”

    Q    It’s massive.  So, you love the challenge?

    MR. MUSK:  Well, I mean, to —

    THE PRESIDENT:  He’ll never do anything bigger.

    MR. MUSK:  To the president’s point —

    THE PRESIDENT:  That’s the only thing you can say, “He’ll

    never do anything” —

         MR. MUSK:  But, I mean, you do something slightly better, and you save billions of dollars for the American taxpayer — just slightly better.  Slightly.  (Laughs.)

         Q    When you say “tech support” —

         MR. MUSK:  You go one percent better, and it’s, like, you know, tens of billions of dollars saved to the American taxpayer. 

    Now, if I may address the point that you — the question you asked earlier, which is, you know, how do we assure people that —

    Q    They want to know.

    MR. MUSK:  Yeah, how do we assure people that we’re going to do the right thing, that their — that their Social Security benefits will be there, that their — the medical care will be good and s- — and — in fact, how do we make it — ensure that there’s better medical care in the future?  How do we improve their benefits?  How do we make sure that their Social Security check goes further than it did in the past and not — it doesn’t get weakened by inflation?

    So, the — if we — if we address the — the massive deficit spending, the sort of — the — the waste in the government, then — then we can actually address inflation. 

    So, provided the economy grows faster than the money supply, which means you stop the government overspending and the waste, and the output of real useful goods and services exceeds the increase in the money supply, you have no inflation.

    Q    Yeah.

    MR. MUSK:  And — and you also drop the — the interest payments that people pay, because if the government keeps —

    Q    Way too high.

    MR. MUSK:  Yes.  The — the reason the interest payments are so high is because the — the national debt keeps increasing.  So, the — the government is competing for — to sell debt with — for — with — with the private citizens.  This drives up the interest rate. 

    So, if you have a — if you have a — if you cut back on the deficit, you actually have an amazing situation for people, because you get r- — you get rid of inflation and you drop the interest rates.  And that means people’s mortgage payments go down, their credit card payments go down, their car payments go down, their student loans go down.  Everything — their — their life becomes more affordable and they’re standard of living improves.

    Q    How quickly?  Because I think people are suffering now.  We’re still living under the Biden-Harris economy. 

    THE PRESIDENT:  But, Sean, you have states right now —

    Q    Yeah.

    THE PRESIDENT:  You have some states that operate that way.  They operate as well as any corporation.  They really operate well.

    MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

    Q    Florida.

    THE PRESIDENT:  They have surpluses.  They ha- — they don’t —

    MR. MUSK:  Texas is — has a surplus, for example.

    Q    Yeah.

    THE PRESIDENT:  When they — when they look at New York and — and California and some of these places that should have an advantage — I mean, there’s a big advantage — or Pritzker does such a bad job in Illinois; it’s horrible how bad he is — and they don’t have that advantage. 

    You know, New York has stock exchange and a lot of things.  And California has the weather and the beautiful water and all the thing- —

    MR. MUSK:  California has — has great weather.  The most expensive weather on Earth.

    THE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.  (Laughter.)  But — but —

    Q    I like Florida.

    MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

    THE PRESIDENT:  But some states operate the way he’s talking about.

    Q    Efficiently.

    THE PRESIDENT:  When you go into some of these states, you’re going to find very little.  You’re going to find almost nothing.  They really operate well — big surpluses, low taxes.  And —

    Q    You know, my taxes went up the first time you were president, because you took away the SALT deduction —

    THE PRESIDENT:  I — well, I did.

    Q    — which, by the way, I thought was the right decision.

    THE PRESIDENT:  It was the right decision — in fact, Reagan tried to do it — because it rewards badly run states.

    But at the same time, it’s a tough — it was — it’s tough for the states.  I mean, it really is tough for the states. 

    The sad part is it rewards really badly run states. 

    Q    Yeah.

    THE PRESIDENT:  And Reagan tried to do it.  He was unable to do it.  I got it done. 

    Q    You got it done, and —

    THE PRESIDENT:  And now we’re going to give some back.

         Q    A little bit.

    THE PRESIDENT:  Because you know what?  We’ve got to help them.

    Q    It’s only a little.

    THE PRESIDENT:  We’ve got to help.

    Q    Because otherwi- — we’re encouraging people to elect high taxes, spen- —

    THE PRESIDENT:  Nobody had any idea it would be that devastating.  I did the right thing.  I got something that Reagan couldn’t do.  I got it done, where everybody is — are the same.  But you know what?  We’ve got to help them out.

    Q    Reagan had the Grace Commission, some of the best business minds in the country.

    THE PRESIDENT:  Right.

    Q    And they came up with recommendations.  Congress adopted none of them, and none of them were implemented. 

    I’ve got to ask this question, because the media is obsessed about it: What — what if there is a conflict?  In other words, because you do business — it was funny, when it came out the other day, that there was going to be, I think, $400 million — billio- — I don’t know if it was millions or billions — a lot of money on Teslas that Joe Biden’s administration w- — did with Tesla, and —

    MR. MUSK:  I’m not familiar with that.

    Q    You’re not even familiar with it?  But —

    MR. MUSK:  I — I don’t think — are you talking about, like, the Inflation Reduction Act stuff or —

    Q    It was some — it was a purchase order of Tesla vehicles. 

    MR. MUSK:  Oh.  Oh, that was — that was incorrect.  There was s- — like, there’s some sort of — the media claim that there was, like, $400 million worth of Cybertrucks —

    Q    That was it.

    MR. MUSK:  — being bought by the DOD.

    Q    And that he gave it to you.

    MR. MUSK:  No — well, first of all, that was —

    THE PRESIDENT:  No, actually, it was —

    MR. MUSK:  Th- — it was fa- —

    THE PRESIDENT:  It was Biden.

    Q    It was Biden.

    THE PRESIDENT:  And you know Biden wouldn’t give him much.

    MR. MUSK:  But — but it wasn’t even — it was fake news, six weeks to Sunday.  Tesla is not getting $400 million for Cybertrucks.  And the — and the — and this alleged —

    Q    That’s what it was, Cybertrucks.

    MR. MUSK:  This — yeah.  This alleged award occurred in December, before the president took office.  So, it’s — it’s fake on multiple levels.  There i- — Tesla isn’t getting $400 million.  And even if it — even if it was, which it isn’t, it was awarded during the Biden administration. 

    Q    Okay, but you’re — you — you —

    MR. MUSK:  It’s total fake news. 

    Q    There — there is —

    MR. MUSK:  It’s fake on, like — it’s like multiple leverals —

    Q    There is some integration —

    MR. MUSK:  — multiple layers of fake.

    Q    So, you’re — you’re tasked now — and I pray to God this is successful.  I really do.  I wish you Godspeed. 

    MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

    Q    You know, “Godspeed, John Glenn.”

    THE PRESIDENT:  It’s — it’s going to be, by the way.  I really believe it’s going to be.

    Q    But — but there —

    MR. MUSK:  Oh, yeah.

    Q    But there are legitimate areas —

    THE PRESIDENT:  Because the country is going to do well beside this. 

    This is cutting.  We’re only talking about cutting. 

    We’re also going to make a lot of money.  We’re g- — we’re taking in so much money.

    Q    But what about his business?  What if — if there is —

    THE PRESIDENT:  Then we won’t let him do it.

    Q    — a contract he would otherwise get?

    THE PRESIDENT:  We’re not going to let him do it.  He — if —

    Q    You’re not going to let him do it?

    THE PRESIDENT:  If he’s got a conflict — I mean, look — he —

    Q    Y- — now y- —

    THE PRESIDENT:  He’s in certain areas — I mean, I see this morning — I didn’t — I didn’t know, but I said, “Do the right thing” — where they’re cutting way back on the electric vehicle subsidies.

    MR. MUSK:  Yes.

    THE PRESIDENT:  They’re cutting back.

    Q    You’re losing —

    THE PRESIDENT:  Not only cutting back —

    Q    It hurts you.

    MR. MUSK:  Correct.

    THE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.

    Now, I will tell you —

    Q    You don’t care? 

    MR. MUSK:  Well —

    THE PRESIDENT:  He’s probably not that happy with it, but that would have been one thing he would have come to me and said, “Listen, you got to do me a favor.  This is crazy.”  (Laughter.)  But this was in the tax bill.  They’re cutting back on the subsidies. 

    I didn’t — I wasn’t involved in it.  I said, “Do what’s right, and you get” — and they’re coming up with the tax, but it’s just preliminary. 

         But I mean, if he were involved, wouldn’t you think he’d probably do that?  Now, maybe he does better if you cut back on the subsidies.  Who knows.  Because he figures — he does think differently.  He thinks he has a better product, and as long as he has a level playing field, he doesn’t care what you do —

         MR. MUSK:  Exactly.

         THE PRESIDENT:  — which he’s very — he’s told me that.

    MR. MUSK:  Yeah.  I mean, I haven’t asked the president for anything ever.

    THE PRESIDENT:  It’s true.

    Q    And if it comes up, how — how will you handle it?  (Inaudible.)

    THE PRESIDENT:  He won’t be involved. 

    MR. MUSK:  Yeah, I’ll — I’ll re- — I’ll recuse myself if it is a conflict.

    THE PRESIDENT:  If there’s a conflict, he won’t be involved. 

    MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

    THE PRESIDENT:  I mean, I wouldn’t want that, and he won’t want it.

    MR. MUSK:  Right.  And — and also, I’m getting a — sort of a daily proctology exam here.  You know, it’s not like I’ll be getting away from something in the dead of night. 

    Q    Welcome to D.C.  If you want a friend, get a dog. 

    MR. MUSK:  Well, I do have a dog, but I also have friends.  (Laughter.)  My dog loves me, poor little creature. 

    THE PRESIDENT:  You know the truth was —

    MR. MUSK:  I need to bring him to D.C.

    THE PRESIDENT:  He’s — I know every businessman.  I know the — the good ones, the bad ones, the smart ones, the lucky ones.  I know them all.  This guy is a ver- — he’s a brilliant guy.  He’s a great guy.  He’s got tremendous imagination and scientific imagin- — far beyond — you know, you keep talking about a technologist and all, but you’re much more than a technologist.  You are that.  But he’s also a good person.  He’s a very good person, and he wants to see the country do well. 

    And I know a lot of great businesspeople, really great business people, but, you know, they’re not really, in some cases, very good people.  And I know people that would try and take advantage of the situation. 

    This guy is somebody that really cares for the country, and I saw that very early on.  I saw it, really, a long time ago when I got to know him.  He’s a very different kind of a character. 

    That’s why — you know who loves him: young people that are very smart and that love the country.  He’s got, like, a tremendous following, because that’s what he’s — he’s a good person.

    And he doesn’t need this.  He didn’t need this, and he’s doing this to help the country.  If I didn’t win this election, this country was — I don’t think it could have made it.  I don’t — I mean, we’re allowing criminals — millions of criminals into our country, where everything is transgender, it’s men playing in women’s sports. 

    I mean, none of this stuff — you could go — I could give you a hundred things.  It’s almost like they’re trying to destroy the fabric of — of the country, of the world, because the world was following us.  Now the world is following us out of this pit. 

    We’ve done a lot.  I’ll tell you what, in three weeks, we’ve done more — I think we’ve done more — in — in terms of meaningful, not just dollars — than maybe any president ever.  And a lot of people are saying that.

    Q    Shock — it’s been shock and awe. 

    THE PRESIDENT:  I mean, if we can keep it going at this level, this country is going to be at a level that it’s never seen before. 

    Q    You know one of the things you did that I really thought was pretty clever and smart and fair, and that was reciprocal tariffs. 

    THE PRESIDENT:  Yeah, reciprocal. 

    Q    Ta- — I didn’t know India charged so much.  I didn’t know the European Union to charge them. 

    MR. MUSK:  Yeah, totally.

    Q    I didn’t know Canada was charging us.

    THE PRESIDENT:  Everybody.  Everybody.  Everybody but us.

    Q    Brazil, why?

    THE PRESIDENT:  And I was doing it — you know, I charged China tariffs.  I took in hundreds of billions of dollars, and I was doing that.  But when we got — we had the greatest economy in history.  But then we got hit with COVID, and we had to solve that problem, because I was doing it — and now I said, I want to come back and do the recipri- — because every country in the world almost — we have a deficit with almost every country — not every one, but just about, pretty close.

    And — but every country in the world takes advantage of us, and they do it with tariffs.  They makes — make it — it’s impossible for him to sell a car, practically, in, as an example, India.  I don’t know if that’s true or not, but I think —

    MR. MUSK:  The tariffs are like 100 percent import duty. 

    THE PRESIDENT:  The tariffs are so high —

    MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

    THE PRESIDENT:  — they don’t want to — now, if he built the factory in India, that’s okay, but that’s unfair to us.  It’s very unfair. 

    And I said, “You know what we do?”  I told Prime Minister Modi yesterday — he was here.  I said, “Here’s what you do.  We’re going to do — be very fair with you.”  They charge the highest tariffs in the world, just about.

    Q    36 percent?

    THE PRESIDENT:  Oh, much — much higher.

    MR. MUSK:  It’s 100 percent on — auto imports are 100 percent.

    THE PRESIDENT:  Yeah, that’s peanuts.  So, much higher.  And — and others too.  I said, “Here’s what we’re going to do: reciprocal.  Whatever you charge, I’m charging.”  He goes, “No, no, I don’t like that.”  “No, no, whatever you charge, I’m going to charge.”  I’m doing that with every country. 

    MR. MUSK:  It seems fair.

    Q    Don’t you —

    THE PRESIDENT:  (Laughs.)  It does.

    MR. MUSK:  It’s — it’s like fair is fair.

    THE PRESIDENT:  Nobody can argue with me.  You know, the media can’t argue — I said — they said, “Tariffs — you’re going to charge tariffs?”  You know, if I said, like, 25 percent they’d say, “Oh, that’s terrible.”  I don’t say that anymore —

    Q    Can I — (inaudible) —

    THE PRESIDENT:  — because I say, “Whatever they charge, we’ll charge.”  And you know what? 

         Q    They stop.

         THE PRESIDENT:  They — then they say, “Oh, that sounds fair.”

    MR. MUSK:  All the president is saying is that —

         Q    (Inaudible.)

         MR. MUSK:  — it needs to be at a level playing field and — and fair and square.

    Q    Yeah.  And how does — how —

    THE PRESIDENT:  And we’re going to make a lot of money and a lot of businesses are going to come pouring in.

    MR. MUSK:  How can you argue with a fair and square situation?

    Q    Don’t — don’t you think most of them will look at the — the — for example, without America, China’s economy will tank.  They need our business. 

    THE PRESIDENT:  They do.  Everybody needs us. 

    Q    Everybody needs it. 

    THE PRESIDENT:  And you know what?

    Q    Do- — don’t you think they’ll stop?

    THE PRESIDENT:  We only have so long left where we’re in this position.  We’re the bank, and the bank is getting smaller and smaller and smaller.  We — we’re the bank.  We got to do this now.  We can’t wait another 10 years and have a shell of a country left, because that’s what was going to happen.

    Q    Mr. President —

    THE PRESIDENT:  This country — if I didn’t win this election and have people like this man right here that really do care, because that’s the other word — if you don’t care, you could be the smartest guy in the world, it’s not going to matter.  But if we didn’t win this election, I’m telling you, we would not have had a country for very long.

    Q    How quickly —

    MR. MUSK:  May I say —

    Q    — do you balance the budget and — and when do we start paying down that debt?

    THE PRESIDENT:  Well, potentially, very quickly, between what he’s doing and with income coming in from tariffs and other things.  I mean, I hope we can — I don’t want to give a date, because then these people are going to say, “Oh, well, he didn’t make the date.”  But I think we can do it very quickly. 

    We would have never done it if this didn’t happen.  Never.  It would have never been — it would only get worse and worse, and ultimately, it would have exploded. 

    This country was headed down a very bad track.  And the whole DEI thing, that was — that was a trap.  That was a sick trap.

    Q    (Inaudible.)

         MR. MUSK:  (Inaudible.)

    THE PRESIDENT:  And, you know, we’ve destroyed that.  That’s gone.  That’s pretty much gone. 

    Q    I agree. 

         MR. MUSK:  (Inaudible) —

         Q    We’re not — we’re not funding it. 

    MR. MUSK:  If — I really want to — I really want to emphasize to people that — this is a very important point — if we don’t solve the deficit, there won’t be money for medical care.  There won’t be money —

    THE PRESIDENT:  Right.

    MR. MUSK:  — for Social Security.  We either solve the deficit or all we’ll be doing is paying debt.

    Q    Nobody — 

    MR. MUSK:  It’s — it’s got to be solved, or there’s no medical care, there’s no Social Security, there’s no nothing.  That’s got to be solved.  It’s not optional.  America will go bankrupt if this is not done.  That’s why I’m here. 

    Q    The president’s —

    THE PRESIDENT:  Europe takes advantage of us.

    MR. MUSK:  And — and I’d like to also just send a message — like, because, as the president said, like, this — there’s a lot of rich people out there.  They should be caring more about the country because — the reason they should be caring about — more about country is: America falls, what do you think is going to happen to your business?  What do — what do you think — do you think you’re be going to be okay if — if the ship of America sinks?  Of course not. 

    Like, what — what I’m doing here, what the president is doing is it’s just long-term thinking.  The ship of America must be strong.  The ship of America cannot sink.  If it sinks, we all sink with it.

         THE PRESIDENT:  Sean, you’re a —

    Q    This is what — this is what drives you? 

    MR. MUSK:  Yes.

    Q    This is important.  It says “tech support.”  So, you’re not trying to be president, as the media suggests.  You are really here because your heart and your passion is this.  And the president described you as being — this is the biggest thing you ever done.  Now you trying to bring sight to —

    THE PRESIDENT:  There could be nothing bigger.  There’s nothing —

    Q    You’re sending ships up to Mars — you know, spaceships up in the sky all the time —

    THE PRESIDENT:  That’s peanuts.

    Q    — and saving astronauts.  That’s pretty big. 

    THE PRESIDENT:  That’s peanuts compared to what we’re talking about.

    Q    It’s peanuts?

    THE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.

    Q    Do you agree with that?

    MR. MUSK:  Well, it’s esse- — it’s essential that America be healthy, that America’s economy be strong.  And — and if that — if — basically, like, my concern is like, if — if — America is the central pillar holding up Western civilization.  That pillar must be strong.  If that pillar falls, the whole roof comes crashing down.

    THE PRESIDENT:  Including his ships.

    MR. MUSK:  There’s no place to hide.

    THE PRESIDENT:  Including his ships going up.

    MR. MUSK:  There’s no place to run.

    THE PRESIDENT:  Nothing.  There’s nothing left. 

    Q    Why — why, if this is your goal, your motivation, you’re losing money in the process, you’re offeri- — you do all these nice things for people for free; you’re trying to solve, you know, blindness; you’re going to rescue astronauts; you help the people in North Carolina, California; you’re cutting money that was sent abroad that’s not helping the American people, then why the rage —

    MR. MUSK:  Actually, I think it was like —

         Q    But why this rage?

         MR. MUSK:  — it was not helping the American people and hurting people overseas, to be clear.

    Q    Why this rage against you now?  First, they hated him.  Now they hate both of you. 

    MR. MUSK:  Well, I think we’re seeing an antibody reaction from — from those who are receiving the — the wasteful and fraudulent money. 

    Q    They’re being exposed. 

    MR. MUSK:  Yes.

    Q    Nobody wants to be exposed when you’re corrupt. 

    MR. MUSK:  I’ll — I’ll tell you a lesson I learned at PayPal.  You know who complained the loudest — the quickest and the loudest and with the most amount of righteous indignation?  The fraudsters.  That’s who complained first, loudest, and — and they would generally have this immense overreaction.  That’s how we knew there were the fraudsters.  That’s how we knew.  There’s a tell.

    Q    What di- — I’ve never — I’ve never met you before today.

    MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

    Q    And it’s nice to meet you, by the way.  Thank — thank you for doing this. 

    You guys are really friends.  I could s- — you guys — I could see you kicking up your shoes.

    THE PRESIDENT:  Well, he doesn’t do this kind of thing.  And the way I figured that you’d get to know him is if I did it with him.  I said, “Come on, let’s do it together.”  He doesn’t do this. 

    I think he’s smarter not doing it, overall.  Because, you know, I mean, he’s done very well without doing it.  But he doesn’t feel it’s really worthwhile.  He wants the product to speak for itself, or whatever he does speak for itself.  But he views it as — you know, does it matter? 

    And I’m doing this with you today because I wanted to have people understand him.  And I think it’s very important — I disagree with him.  I think it’s very important that they do understand him. 

    He doesn’t need this.  He doesn’t need it.  Now, I happen to think it’s made him very popular.  I think it — he’s more popular now because there are so many people — you know, you’re talking about the radical left — they have the lowest ratings.  MSNBC is dying.  CNN is dying.  They’re all dying.  The New York Times is doing lousy.  The Washington Post is doing horribly.  They’re all doing badly because people don’t buy it anymore. 

    But I think it was important that he do this one interview.  You’ve been a very fair guy.  I think you were the right guy to do it.  If we could get some radical left guy — and he’d do just as well, frankly, because it’s all about common sense.

    Q    They would attack him —

    THE PRESIDENT:  But this — Sean —

    Q    — as being unconstitutional, not — a fascist. 

    THE PRESIDENT:  — to me this was a — it was important for people to understand, he’s doing a big job.  He’s doing a very thankless job.  He’s doing a thankless job, but he’s helping us to save our country. 

    Our country was in serious trouble, and I had to get the best guy, somebody with credibility, because if he were just a regular, good — very good, solid businessman, he wouldn’t have the credibility.  He’s got the best credibility for this. 

    And people also know he’s an honest guy.  He’s an honest guy.  He’s just a very, very smart guy who’s done amazing things.  And this will be the biggest thing he’s ever done, because, you know, his companies are all great.  But if this country goes bad — I guess where he is a little selfish is this.  He knows one thing and probably doesn’t think — but if his — if this country goes bad, his stuff is not going to be worth very much, I can tell you.

    MR. MUSK:  Well, I’d say, if the — if the ship of America sinks, we’re all go- — going down with it.  You know, this idea that people can escape to New Zealand or some other place is false.  If the central pillar of Western civilization that is America falls, the whole roof comes crashing down and there is no escape. 

    Q    It’s amazing, since you’ve been elected, to watch Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Colombia — I — I was shocked at the statements that Vladimir Putin made about you.  I — I was shocked at the hostage release.  I was shocked that Venezuela had done it — had done it.  Zelenskyy wants a deal.  Putin wants a deal. 

    THE PRESIDENT:  All good statements.

    Q    King Abdullah was interested.

    THE PRESIDENT:  You mean by that all good statements.  Look, they respect the president of this country.  They respect — they did not respect the last president.  They laughed at him, and they laughed at our country, and he’s done great damage to our country. 

    Q    Have foreign leaders told you what they thought of Biden?

    THE PRESIDENT:  Yeah, they have, but I’d rather not say.  They — they have.  It’s not — it — look —

    Q    It’s the obvious. 

    THE PRESIDENT:  He was not George Washington, let’s put it that way. 

    MR. MUSK:  (Inaudible.)

    THE PRESIDENT:  Not the greatest. 

    Q    Sorry, if that’s (inaudible).

    THE PRESIDENT:  He’s done a tremendous disservice. 

    Q    Will you be here —

    THE PRESIDENT:  And, by the way, the Democrats have done a great disservice, and they ought to get their act together and use a little judgment, and they ought to work with us on straightening out this mess that — 

    Q    Who?  John Fetterman?

    THE PRESIDENT:  — a lot of people have —

    Q    Maybe?  Who — what Democrat is not radicalized? 

    THE PRESIDENT:  Actually, you mention John.

    Q    John Fetterman. 

    THE PRESIDENT:  He’s become the best voice in the Democrat party.  You know, I had lunch with him, and I thought he was terrific, but he’s a much different man than he was before he had this difficulty.  He used to be radical left, and I think he became much smarter, actually.  He’s really — he’s really a voice of reason. 

    But the Democrats have to get together.  They have to get their act together, because the stuff they — they talk about makes no sense.  It makes — none whatsoever.  And they must know it.  They must know.

    MR. MUSK:  Yeah.  I mean, like, the country has spoken very clearly and rejected the core tenets of the Demo- — Democratic Party.  The country voted t- — fo- — I mean, the country made the — America has made its vote clear.  The president won the popular vote decisively.  The Republicans won the House.  Repub- — Republicans won the Senate.  What more do you need?

    The Democratic Party needs to take a hard look in the mirror and — and change their ways. 

    Q    I think they went from shock, denial, into the depression stage of grief, and now they’re in the rage stage, where I anticipate they’ll stay for four years, and if they get the chance, they’ll want to impeach him 10 times.  Do you anticipate you’ll be here in four years?  My last question.

    MR. MUSK:  I’ll — I’ll be as helpful as long as I can be helpful.

    THE PRESIDENT:  That’s a good question.  I mean, I was thinking about that just now.  I said, “I wonder how long he’s going to be doing it.”  You can’t get somebody like this.  He cares, and he’s brilliant, and he’s got energy. 

    You need energy, also, in addition to those other things.

    You know, I have a lot of guys that are very smart, but they have no energy.  They want to sleep all day long.  You need a lot of energy.  He’s got a lot of energy.  He’s doing a great job. 

    If there’s any conflict, he — he will stop it.  But if he didn’t, I’d stop it.  I’d see if there’s a conflict.  I mean, we’re talking about big stuff.

    But he’s under a pretty big microscope. 

    MR. MUSK:  Yeah, seriously.

    THE PRESIDENT:  I mean, everybody is watching him.  If there’s a conflict, you’re going to be reading about it within about two minutes after the conflict.

    MR. MUSK:  Exactly.  There — there’s — the possibility of me getting away with something is 0 percent — 0.0.  I — I’m scrutinized to a ridiculous degree. 

    And — and the other thing is that we — you know, what — what’s — you know what’s better than saying “trust — trust me” is just full transparency.  So, what we’re doing with — with the DOGE — DOGE dot — just go to DOGE.gov.  You can see every single action that’s being taken. 

    And now –and I want to be clear, we are going to make some mistakes.  We’re not going to be perfect.  Nobody bats a thousand.  But we’re going to fix the mistakes very quickly.  That’s what matters: not that you don’t make mistakes, but that you fix the mistakes very fast. 

    THE PRESIDENT:  And you’re going to ask the other side, when they talk about, “This is a constitutional crisis,” you got to a- — what are they paying for?  Where are those tax — because when you read off the list of things, it’s a big con job.  See, when they talk Constitution —

    MR. MUSK:  Totally.

    THE PRESIDENT:  — it’s a total con job.

    MR. MUSK:  Yes.

    THE PRESIDENT:  They never talk — and I watch some of the shows —

    MR. MUSK:  It’s specifics — they avoid specifics.

    THE PRESIDENT:  Yeah, when you start talking about how did — how come they spent money on transgender here and transgender there —

    MR. MUSK:  Yeah, totally.

    THE PRESIDENT:  — and all the stuff in some country that nobody ever heard of, they don’t want to talk about it.  They just talk about, “This is a constitutional crisis.” 

    Q    It shocks the conscious.

    THE PRESIDENT:  The money is being squandered purposely — tremendous theft, tremendous kickbacks, everything — and we’re straightening it out.  And thank goodness.  I look up, and I say, “Thank you,” because I think if it went on for four more years, it would not be salvageable.  You wouldn’t be able —

    MR. MUSK:  Absolutely.

    THE PRESIDENT:  You wouldn’t be able to save it. 

    Q    You believe, too, that when you were in Butler, came within a millimeter being assassinated —

    THE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.

    Q    The day you endorsed him, that was that day.

    MR. MUSK:  Yes.

    Q    But you had been planning on it?

    MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

    Q    Pretty — I think everybody will never forget that iconic blood on your face.  “Fight, fight, fight.”  I actually was afra- — watching it and thought you might drop again.  You know, I didn’t know if it had hit you.  You can sometimes get up and then the blood starts to accumulate.  It was scary — pretty scary. 

    MR. MUSK:  Well, I mean, th- — this is how you know someone’s true character, because everyone can say they’re brave, but the president was actually shot.  Okay?  Courage under fire.  “Fight, fight, fight,” blood streaming down the face.  That’s true courage.  You can’t fake that. 

    Q    Yeah.  Thank you both. 

         Mr. President, thank you, sir. 

    THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you very much. 

    Q    Appreciate it.  Elon, thank you for your time.  Really nice to meet you. 

                                  END                    1:01 P.M. EST

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI China: Sentiment over property sector seen recovering

    Source: China State Council Information Office 3

    An aerial drone photo taken on Nov. 9, 2023 shows a newly-built residential complex in Feixi County of Hefei City, east China’s Anhui Province. [Photo/Xinhua]

    Six out of 10 investors expect market activity to recover by the end of this year and property investment transactions are projected to stage a growth of 5 percent-10 percent on the Chinese mainland, a report on Chinese investor intentions suggested.

    The projection is based on a survey looking to offer an in-depth analysis of investors’ views and strategic preferences for en bloc commercial property transactions in China this year, according to the survey published on Thursday by commercial real estate services and investment firm CBRE.

    Industrial logistics and rental housing are the most favored types of assets for investors, while retail property investment is expected to continue its positive trend from 2024, according to the analysis.

    “Key office buildings in first-tier cities will maintain their attractiveness for both long-term capital and enterprises looking for self-use space,” the survey said.

    Geopolitics, economic recession and weak rental demand are the top three challenges for commercial real estate investment in 2025. However, commercial real estate remains an important part of investors’ asset allocation, as 80 percent of people polled plan to increase or maintain the proportion of real estate assets in 2025, an increase of 5 percentage points from a year ago.

    “The attractiveness of China’s high-quality commercial property for investment is on a gradual rise after corrections to asset pricing, central bank interest rate reductions, as well as the positive impact of macro incremental policies on corporate and consumer confidence in 2025,” said Li Ling, president of CBRE China.

    As many as 61 percent of respondents believe that commercial property investment activity will recover by the end of 2025, leading CBRE’s forecast for a year-on-year growth of between 5 and 10 percent for en bloc commercial property transactions across the Chinese mainland this year, the survey found.

    “After several years of volatility and price adjustments in the Chinese market, some assets have shown higher investment value and they have drawn investor attention,” said Eric Pang, head of capital markets for JLL China.

    “As investors pay more attention to the operational management capabilities and long-term revenue generation potential of projects, high-quality assets with prime locations, stable cash flow and high value prices will continue to be sought after. Looking ahead, we expect more investors would like to seize market opportunities, therefore driving a recovery in transaction volume,” said Pang.

    Institutional investors remain cautious about commercial real estate, while private wealth and corporates have become more active, said the latest version of JLL’s Asia Pacific Capital Tracker published in January.

    “As we enter a new economic cycle in 2025, the influx of capital and competition for high-quality assets will enhance market activity, and signs of a recovery have been seen in investment and trading activity. The real estate market is at a critical juncture in the improvement of the liquidity cycle,” JLL said.

    Not only are institutional investors more active in key markets, but private buyers are also raising their allocation to prime locations in core markets. It is expected that along with the transaction level rise, investors will be ready to diversify their asset allocations, JLL added.

    Li said investors will focus on rental housing, regional shopping malls, high-standard logistics facilities, and Grade A office buildings in first-tier city CBDs with limited supply.

    Industrial logistics is believed to continue at its top position among all investment categories, and high-standard warehouses in major Chinese cities are a primary focus, said the report. Rental housing has been the second most preferred category for three years in a row, and 18 en bloc rental housing transactions were registered in China in 2024, with a combined value of 7.5 billion yuan, CBRE said.

    The tone-setting annual Central Economic Work Conference in December urged making boosting consumption a top priority for 2025.Retail property is believed to be the third most sought-after category in property investment, particularly regional shopping centers with consistent population inflows, said the survey.

    Properties related to life sciences and healthcare ranked in top positions in terms of alternative assets. As the industrial adjustment of the biopharmaceutical sector gradually comes to an end, leading biopharmaceutical industrial clusters in Shanghai, Beijing, Guangzhou of Guangdong province, and Suzhou of Jiangsu province are expected to take the lead in demand recovery, CBRE said.

    Its report is based on a survey conducted between Nov 12 and Nov 29, with a total of 125 valid responses.

    MIL OSI China News

  • MIL-OSI China: Foreign firms to ramp up investment

    Source: China State Council Information Office 3

    This photo taken with a mobile phone shows the skyline during the early morning in Beijing, capital of China, Oct. 19, 2024. [Photo/Xinhua]

    China’s sustained efforts to boost domestic demand and reinforce supply chain resilience, as well as drive businesses toward green and digital transformation, will pave the way for deeper global business collaboration in its market this year, said executives of multinational corporations on Monday.

    Despite the slowdown in global trade and investment growth in recent years, foreign companies remain steadfast in ramping up their investment in the Chinese market, they added.

    Lan Qingxin, a professor specializing in cross-border investment studies at the University of International Business and Economics in Beijing, said that as China embraces a new era of green and innovation-driven growth, global investors are increasingly focusing on digital solutions, supply chain optimization, high-end manufacturing, customized innovation and green businesses in the Chinese market.

    Noting the widespread adoption of the advanced large language model DeepSeek among domestic and overseas users, Chen Shihua, deputy secretary-general of the China Association of Automobile Manufacturers, said that China’s ability to attract foreign investment will be further enhanced this year.

    DeepSeek, a two-year-old startup based in Hangzhou, Zhejiang province, has created the open-source LLM of the same name at a cost much lower than its foreign peers.

    Even though geopolitical tensions are rising, global demand remains subdued and certain countries have tightened investment regulations, China saw the establishment of 59,080 new foreign-invested companies in 2024, marking a 9.9 percent year-on-year increase, data from the Ministry of Commerce shows.

    Cummins Inc, a United States-based engine manufacturer, plans to increase its market share this year in key application sectors within China, including power generation equipment for data centers and high-tech manufacturing.

    “Together with local partners, we will also accelerate the innovation pace on the internal combustion engine system, including high-efficiency diesel, natural gas and hydrogen internal combustion engines,” said Nathan Stoner, vice-president of Cummins.

    Eager to seize more market share in China, Thai beverage company TCP Group, will commence operations of a production base in the Guangxi Zhuang autonomous region later this year to supply its popular energy drink Red Bull.

    The production base, set up with a total investment of 1.3 billion yuan ($179.2 million), will strengthen the supply chain network, empower upstream and downstream partners, and create another important link connecting the markets between China and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, said Saravoot Yoovidhya, CEO of TCP Group.

    “The rapid response capability and strong execution power of China’s supply chain enable us to quickly adapt to market changes and promptly adjust production and supply chain strategies to meet the diversified demands of markets worldwide,” he added.

    Yin Zheng, executive vice-president of Schneider Electric’s China and East Asia operations, said that as a major engine of global economic growth, China has a huge market, a strong industrial base and abundant innovation resources, while its cultivation of new quality productive forces provides an even stronger impetus for industrial transformation and upgrading.

    The French industrial conglomerate has continuously increased research and development investment in China and has established a series of world-class innovation institutes in China to support industrial upgrading and energy transformation.

    “We have been introducing innovative Chinese solutions and advanced products to the global market, expanding China’s impact and realizing the vision of ‘in China for the world’,” Yin said.

    According to a recent survey by the Japanese Chamber of Commerce and Industry in China, more than 58 percent of Japanese companies surveyed recognize China as a key market for their global operations, and they plan to maintain or expand their investment in the Chinese market this year.

    Several factors have influenced their investment decisions, including increasing demand and rising orders. The chamber said that Japanese businesses are also more confident about the Chinese market this year, driven by an improved business environment, a visa-free policy for Japanese citizens and government initiatives such as trade-in policies.

    MIL OSI China News

  • MIL-Evening Report: Feeding your baby butter won’t help them sleep through the night, whatever TikTok says

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Karleen Gribble, Adjunct Professor, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Western Sydney University

    BaLL LunLa/Shutterstock

    Sleep is the holy grail for new parents. So no wonder many tired parents are looking for something to help their babies sleep.

    A TikTok trend claims giving your baby a tablespoon or two of butter in the evening will help them sleep more at night.

    As we’ll see, butter is just the latest food that promises to help babies sleep at night. But no single food can do this.

    So if you’re a new parent and desperate for a good night’s sleep, here’s what to try instead.

    Is my baby’s sleep normal?

    Babies need help to fall asleep, through feeding, movement (like rocking) or touch (like a cuddle or massage).

    Newborn babies also do not know night from day. Melatonin in breastmilk helps babies sleep more at night until they start to make this sleep-inducing hormone themselves. Bottlefed newborn babies do not have access to this melatonin. Regardless of how you feed your baby, it can take several months for them to develop a sleep pattern with longer stretches at night.

    Babies also sleep lighter than older children and adults. Light sleep helps ensure they continue breathing, protecting them from SIDS (sudden infant death syndrome). It also means they wake easily and often.

    The idea that babies should sleep deeply, alone and for long stretches, goes against their physiology. So “sleeping like a baby” usually means waking quite a lot at night.

    Yet, many parents have been asked whether their baby is sleeping through the night and is a “good baby”. The perception is that if a baby doesn’t sleep for long stretches at night, it must be “bad”.

    This may lead parents to say their babies sleep longer than they really do, setting unrealistic expectations for other new parents.

    Could feeding butter do any harm?

    The social pressure around baby sleep can add stress and anxiety for new parents. So the Tiktok trend about feeding babies butter may seem tempting.

    But giving babies any solid food before they are around six months old is not recommended. Babies’ digestive systems are not ready for solid food until they are around six months and feeding them before this can cause constipation or make them more likely to catch an illness. For this reason alone, you should not give your young baby butter.

    From about six months old, babies should be offered nutritious, iron-rich solid foods. Butter doesn’t fit this bill because it is almost all saturated fat. If butter replaces more nutritious foods, babies may not get the vitamins and minerals they need.

    Butter is just the latest food claimed to help babies sleep better at night.
    Pixel-Shot/Shutterstock

    Butter is the latest in a long line of beliefs about certain foods making babies sleep longer at night. It was once thought that adding cereal or crushed arrowroot biscuits in bottle of milk before bedtime would make them sleep longer. Research found this did not increase sleep at all.

    Similarly, there is no evidence that giving babies butter before bed makes them sleep longer.

    In fact, research shows the foods babies eat make no difference to night waking.

    What else can I try?

    Waking overnight doesn’t necessarily mean a baby is hungry. And stopping breastfeeds or bottle feeds overnight doesn’t necessarily reduce night waking.

    Your baby could be too hot or cold, or need a nappy change. But some babies continue to wake at night even without an obvious problem.

    The good news is, sleeping is a skill babies develop naturally as they grow.

    Behavioural sleep interventions, known as “sleep training”, are not very effective in increasing overnight sleep. In one study, sleep training did not reduce the number of night wakes and only increased the length of the longest sleep by about 16 minutes. Sleep training is especially not recommended for babies under six months.

    The good news is that babies do eventually get the hang of sleeping at night.
    Miljan Zivkovic/Shutterstock

    Look after yourself

    If you’re missing out on sleep at night, try to have small naps during the day while your baby sleeps. Ask friends and family to do some chores to allow you to nap.

    If your baby is crying and you find yourself getting overwhelmed it is OK to put your baby down somewhere safe (like a cot or baby mat) and take some time to settle yourself.

    If your baby’s sleep pattern changes significantly or they haven’t slept at all for more than a day, or if your baby seems to have pain or a fever see your doctor, or family and child health nurse, as soon as possible.

    Some helpful resources

    If you think your baby is not sleeping well because of a breastfeeding problem, the Australian Breastfeeding Association has a national helpline. The association can also advise on co-sleeping.

    The charity Little Sparklers provides peer support for parents, including someone to chat to, about baby sleep. It also has helpful resources.

    UNICEF has resources about caring for your baby at night. And the UK-based Baby Sleep Info Source (Basis) provides evidence-based information about babies and sleep.

    Karleen Gribble is a volunteer breastfeeding educator and counsellor with the Australian Breastfeeding Association, a member of the Public Health Association of Australia and the World Public Health Nutrition Association.

    Naomi Hull is the National Coordinator of the World Breastfeeding Trends Initiative – Australia and is on the Executive of the Infant and Toddler Foods Research Alliance. Naomi is a volunteer breastfeeding counsellor with the Australian Breastfeeding Association, and a member of the International Lactation Consulants Association, the Lactation Consultants of Australia and New Zealand, the Public Health Association of Australia and the World Public Health Nutrition Association. Naomi receives funding from a RTP Stipend Scholarship from the federal government.

    Nina Chad has been the Infant and Young Child Feeding Consultant for the World Health Organization since 2021. She is a member of the Public Health Association of Australia, the World Public Health Nutrition Association and the Australian Breastfeeding Association.

    ref. Feeding your baby butter won’t help them sleep through the night, whatever TikTok says – https://theconversation.com/feeding-your-baby-butter-wont-help-them-sleep-through-the-night-whatever-tiktok-says-249699

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-OSI USA: Duckworth Votes Against Confirming Howard Lutnick to Serve as Commerce Secretary

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Illinois Tammy Duckworth

    February 18, 2025

    [WASHINGTON, D.C.] – Today, U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL)—a member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation (CST)—released the following statement after voting against Howard Lutnick’s nomination to serve as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Commerce. The Senate confirmed Lutnick by a vote of 51-45.

    “I cannot vote for any nominee who won’t publicly pledge without hesitation that they’d refuse an unlawful order from President Trump—and Mr. Lutnick failed that simple test. As Donald Trump and Elon Musk continue their illegal spree to freeze federal funding and make deep cuts at critical agencies so they can pave the way for tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy, we need a Secretary of Commerce who is not afraid to stand up to this chaos, uphold the law and put our economy and middle-class Americans first. And yet, by confirming Mr. Lutnick today, Republicans are once again proving how easily they will appease Trump out of fear for their own political survival—and it will be American farmers, businesses and the middle class who will pay the price.”

    -30-



    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: ICYMI: Senator Coons joins CBS’ ‘60 Minutes’ to discuss the Trump administration’s efforts to abolish USAID and other agencies

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Delaware Christopher Coons

    WASHINGTON – In case you missed it, CBS News’ 60 Minutes aired a segment on Sunday featuring U.S. Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.), where he discussed the Trump administration’s efforts to dismantle our foreign aid apparatus and warned that it’s a “dress rehearsal” for the administration’s attacks on other essential parts of the federal government.

    Shortly after taking office, President Trump signed an executive order freezing all foreign aid. Soon after, nearly all USAID personnel in the U.S. and abroad were put on paid administrative leave. Judges have temporarily halted Trump’s efforts to dismantle USAID and freeze federal funding, but whether funding will start flowing again remains unclear. 

    “You’re principally reporting on what’s happened to USAID. It’s a dress rehearsal,” Senator Coons said to 60 Minutes correspondent Scott Pelley.

    Senator Coons said that USAID is not the only agency on the chopping block. Elon Musk, head of the newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), has already begun to dismantle other agencies and entire departments of the federal government.

    “Next up is the Department of Education. They’re gonna take it down next. They’re already talking about getting into and going after the Department of Labor, the Veterans Administration, the Department of Defense, the Social Security Administration. Why?” said Senator Coons

    A video and transcript of Senator Coons’ segment are available below.

    WATCH HERE.

    Senator Coons: You’re principally reporting on what’s happened to USAID. It’s a dress rehearsal.

    Chris Coons is a Democratic senator from Delaware — a member of the Committees on Appropriations and Foreign Relations.

    Senator Coons: Next up is the Department of Education. They’re going to take it down next. They’re already talking about getting into and going after the Department of Labor, the Veterans Administration, the Department of Defense, the Social Security Administration. Why?

    Scott Pelley: Do you believe you have a sense of what DOGE is doing?

    Senator Coons: No. I think DOGE is an unelected, unofficial, small group of young ‘tech bros’ who are charging into different federal agencies, getting into their core computer systems, doing things with them that at least I don’t know the full details of, copying and downloading reams of data. 

    Scott Pelley: What does it matter that DOGE has access to U.S. government computer systems?

    Senator Coons: What matters is that the U.S. government has information about you, about me – our Social Security information, our Medicare, Medicaid, veterans benefit payments, things that matter to us, obviously – our tax filings. And if they have access to it and control it, they can change it.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI China: Chinese industry association opposes additional US tariffs on aluminum

    Source: China State Council Information Office

    The China Nonferrous Metals Industry Association on Tuesday expressed strong dissatisfaction with and firm opposition to the U.S. government’s move to impose additional tariffs on aluminum products.

    The U.S. government on Feb. 10 announced that it will adjust tariffs on certain steel and aluminum imports, with the U.S. Federal Register revealing the tariff adjustment plans in recent days.

    The association made its statement in response to the U.S. move. It noted that the aluminum industry plays a crucial role in the global supply chain, and that the U.S. move is set to disrupt the balance of supply and demand in the global aluminum industry and related sectors, leading to price volatility and impacting the interests of global aluminum producers, traders, consumers and related supply chain enterprises.

    This case of U.S. unilateralism and protectionism aims to seek “protective umbrellas” and “safe havens” for the U.S. aluminum industry’s technological shortcomings, low energy efficiency, high carbon emissions and overall weak competitiveness, the association said.

    The U.S. practice has seriously violated the World Trade Organization’s basic principle of promoting fairness and non-discrimination in trade.

    The United States, as the world’s largest importer of aluminum products, will see the tariff hikes impact foreign aluminum companies’ exports to the country.

    These hikes are expected to raise the costs of importing electrolytic aluminum, aluminum materials and aluminum products significantly for the United States, the association said, adding that ultimately, these costs will be borne by U.S. consumers as they are passed on to the downstream manufacturing sector. 

    MIL OSI China News

  • MIL-OSI China: China to further remove market access barriers for private sector

    Source: China State Council Information Office

    Technicians check products at a private chemical fiber enterprise in Tongxiang, Zhejiang province. [Photo/Xinhua]

    China is set to expedite the revision of its negative list for market entry and further remove barriers to market access, as part of its larger drive to bolster the healthy development of the private economy, the country’s top economic regulator said on Tuesday.

    The move came after President Xi Jinping, during a symposium on private enterprises on Monday in Beijing, reiterated China’s commitment to boosting the private sector through concrete efforts, sending a clear message of support from the government, analysts said.

    They said that policymakers will take further targeted measures to resolve issues faced by private companies and create a favorable business environment, which will significantly help boost confidence and expectations among private enterprises and entrepreneurs.

    “China will accelerate the push for revising and updating the negative list on market access, and areas that are not on the list will all be deemed as fully open,” said Zheng Bei, deputy head of the National Development and Reform Commission, according to a China Central Television news report.

    She said the country will continue to open up fields, such as competitive infrastructure sectors and major national scientific research infrastructure, to private companies.

    China will also encourage private enterprises to play a more active role in the implementation of major national strategies and the buildup of the nation’s security capacity in key areas, as well as in programs for large-scale equipment upgrades and trade-in deals for consumer goods.

    “The country is sending strong signals on optimizing the business environment for private enterprises, addressing market access and financing issues, and enhancing corporate confidence through the rule of law, which will help promote high-quality economic development,” said Hong Yong, an associate research fellow at the Chinese Academy of International Trade and Economic Cooperation.

    He highlighted that the healthy development of the private economy plays a pivotal role in keeping the economy dynamic, serving as a driving force for shoring up growth and stabilizing the overall economy.

    According to the NDRC, the private sector’s scale, innovation capabilities and international competitiveness have all significantly improved in recent years. Official data showed that private enterprises account for over 92 percent of the total number of businesses in China and more than 92 percent of the nation’s high-tech companies.

    Going forward, the government will work to remove the remaining obstacles to market entry and access to factors of production, building a unified, open, competitive and orderly market system, the NDRC said.

    Zheng from the NDRC said that China will continue to strengthen legal protection for private enterprises and entrepreneurs, pushing forward the legislative process for a private economy promotion law. The draft law on promoting the private economy was submitted for deliberation in December to the Standing Committee of the 14th National People’s Congress.

    Bai Wenxi, vice-chairman of the China Enterprise Capital Union, said that China has outlined a clear direction for the future development of the private economy — promoting the high-quality growth of the private economy and encouraging private enterprises to play a bigger role in the implementation of national strategies and key areas of development.

    “These initiatives have sent a clear signal of the country’s high regard and support for the private economy, demonstrating that the private sector’s position in China’s economy is irreplaceable,” he noted. “The country will continue to optimize the business environment and support the healthy development of the private economy.”

    Citing measures mapped out by the NDRC, such as revising the negative list on market access and addressing financing difficulties, he said that these will “provide a rising number of growth opportunities for private companies and help alleviate their burdens”.

    Looking ahead, Bai said it is advisable for the government to take further moves to remove some implicit barriers and resolve issues faced by the private sector, such as difficulties in accessing affordable financing.

    “Potential moves may include further encouraging financial institutions to develop financial products tailored to private enterprises and expand their financing channels,” he added.

    Bai’s views were echoed by Pan Helin, a member of the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology’s Expert Committee for the Information and Communication Economy, who said he believes that the government will introduce more measures to support the development of the private economy.

    “The focus will be placed on optimizing the business environment, such as streamlining administrative approval processes, improving efficiency, reducing operational costs for businesses, and enhancing the overall satisfaction and sense of benefit for private enterprises,” Pan said.

    MIL OSI China News

  • MIL-OSI United Nations: Deputy Secretary-General’s remarks at the Member States’ Briefing on the Second Food Systems Summit Stocktake (UNFSS+4) [as delivered]

    Source: United Nations secretary general

    HE Amb. Tesfaye Yilma Sabo, Permanent Representative of Ethiopia to the United Nations, 

    HE Amb. Maurizio Massari, Permanent Representative of Italy to the United Nations, 

    Excellencies, distinguished delegates,
    Ladies and Gentlemen,

    It is a real pleasure to join our Permanent Representatives and welcome you all today. 

    As you all know transforming our food systems is essential to driving progress across the Sustainable Development Goals and delivering for everyone, everywhere – sufficient, nutritious food – now and in the future, particularly as we go towards the five years to deliver on the 2030 Agenda.

    That is why, in 2021, the UN Secretary-General convened the UN Food Systems Summit.  This established the foundation for a new, integrated approach to food systems—placing food at the heart of our efforts to address poverty, zero hunger, inequality, climate change, and biodiversity loss. 

    It has reshaped the global narrative, building an engine of transformation that recognizes food systems as a key lever to accelerate and reinforce SDG progress.

    Building on this momentum, the first Summit Stocktake, hosted by the Government of Italy in 2023, reaffirmed strong political will among nations. Countries pledged to increase the pace of their efforts towards sustainable, inclusive, and resilient food systems transformation.

    But it also highlighted persistent gaps and challenges. Among them, an urgent need to enhance public-private-community partnerships, and strengthen private sector engagement. 

    These crucial issues identified at the first stocktake, resulted in the UN Secretary-General’s Call to Action. 

     The Call identified six critical areas for concerted action, including: securing concessional finance, investments, budget support, and debt restructuring. It also emphasized addressing food security in crisis situations. 

    The proposed SDG stimulus – of $500 billion a year – was recognized as a game-changer, offering fiscal space and resources, including through SDR rechannelling. 

    Finance was emphasized as a critical component of food systems transformation, along with support of our Multilateral Development Banks in unlocking investments in this field. 

    Given the global context riddled with challenges of rising living costs, social inequalities, climate change, and geopolitical tensions, we will need all hands on deck to reach food systems transformations with the impact to advance on the 2030 Agenda. 

    Now, in just over five months, Addis Ababa will host the Second United Nations Food Systems Summit Stocktake. 

    We are grateful to the Government of Ethiopia for hosting this important event and for making our commitment to take the second stocktake to a developing country, a reality. Worth noting also is its leadership and extensive work on its policy environment, infrastructure development and the production of food that engages small holder farmers across the country. We are grateful to Italy, which has agreed to co-host, for its legacy and continued leadership and support to food systems transformation. It is important that we see leadership and sustainability of that support at country level.
     
    The Stocktake will be different, it has to be, in response to many of the requests for us to have more focus and impact.

    First, we will be reflecting on progress since 2023, with a Report from the system, but also a shadow report from our stakeholders.

    Second, we will be partnering to track commitments and outcomes through national food systems pathways to accelerate SDG implementation. 

    And third, unlocking investments to sustain and scale transformative initiatives aligned with the SDGs.

    In preparations for the Stocktake, we are committed to an inclusive, cross-sectoral efforts and consultations. 

     We will hold a second briefing in Nairobi next week engaging UN Headquarters in Nairobi, Rome and Geneva. 

    In addition, we will hold five regional briefings, on the margins of the United Nations Regional Forums on Sustainable Development, from March to May. 

    We will also be engaging all our Resident Coordinators in UN Country Teams, at the country level so that they are fully engaged with our member states in bringing to Addis Ababa, the progress and of course, the challenges and opportunities.

    At the same time, we will push progress towards food systems transformation, including through important gatherings this year – the Fourth Financing for Development Conference in Spain, UNFCCC COP 30 in Brazil, the Second World Summit on Social Development in Qatar, and the Third United Nations Ocean Conference in France. 

    These are all critical platforms to drive progress, harness collective action and create new investment opportunities.

    As Member States, you are at the forefront of this transformation. Your leadership and coordination will be instrumental in ensuring that the Stocktake inspires real action at the national level.

    The United Nations is with you –committed to creating sustainable, inclusive, healthy and resilient food systems everywhere, across all our regions, reaching everyone.

    We thank you for this important opportunity that will help us to shape the Stocktake in Addis Ababa in July. 
     

    MIL OSI United Nations News