Designation of Former President of Argentina and Former Minister of Planning of Argentina for Involvement in Significant Corruption
Press Statement
March 21, 2025
Today, I am announcing the designation of Cristina Elisabet Fernandez de Kirchner (“CFK”), former president of Argentina, and Julio Miguel De Vido (“De Vido”), former Minister of Planning of Argentina, for their involvement in significant corruption during their time in public office. This action renders CFK, De Vido, and their immediate family members generally ineligible for entry into the United States.
CFK and De Vido abused their positions by orchestrating and financially benefitting from multiple bribery schemes involving public works contracts, resulting in millions of dollars stolen from the Argentine government. Multiple courts have convicted CFK and De Vido for corruption, undermining the Argentine people’s and investors’ confidence in Argentina’s future.
The United States will continue to promote accountability for those who abuse public power for personal gain. These designations reaffirm our commitment to counter global corruption, including at the highest levels of government.
These public designations are made under Section 7031(c) of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2024 (Div. F, P.L. 118-47), as carried forward by the Continuing Appropriations, 2025 (Div. A, H.R. 1968) (“Section 7031(c)”). Section 7031(c) requires the Secretary of State to publicly or privately designate foreign officials and their immediate family members about whom the Secretary has credible information of involvement in significant corruption or a gross violation of human rights.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio with Scott Jennings on SiriusXM Patriot
Interview
February 10, 2025
QUESTION: Scott Jennings sitting here on SiriusXM Patriot 125, normally the David Webb Show. I am guest hosting for Mr. Webb today, and it is our honor to welcome to the airwaves this morning the Secretary of State of the United States Marco Rubio, former senator from Florida, and now, thanks to President Trump, the United States Secretary of State.
Mr. Secretary, welcome to the show.
SECRETARY RUBIO: Hey, thanks for having me.
QUESTION: I appreciate you being on this morning. You’re on the move. You have just returned from your first foreign trip. You went to Panama, El Salvador, Costa Rica, Guatemala, and the Dominican Republic. I want to jump right in this morning and just ask how was the trip, what did we accomplish, and what’s the disposition in those countries towards the United States now that we have a new administration?
SECRETARY RUBIO: I think the disposition is very positive. I think these are countries that want to be aligned with the United States. That’s why we picked them. They also happen to be countries that are on the migratory route, on the drug routes, and face tremendous challenges because of that. These are the places people cross in order to come to the U.S., so each of them are very different.
Like in the case of Panama, obviously we have an issue with the canal and foreign influence over it, and so we raised that. And I think we’re going to make a couple of announcements. We saw the – Panama pulled out of the Belt and Road Initiative with China, which is the first country in the Western Hemisphere to actually pull out of that. And I think we’ll hear more things. They’ve got to work through their own processes there, but I think we’ll see even more in the days to come. So, it’s very positive.
Costa Rica is an advanced economy. They’re doing very well, of course, but they do have some challenges where drug rings are running through there, and so we partner with them to stop that. But that’s a very pro-American government, and we wanted to interact with them. They’re very good partners and, also, have been very strong at standing up to the Chinese Communist Party’s influence in the region, and so that’s been great.
And then moved on to El Salvador. We have a great partner there in Nayib Bukele. I’ve known him for a long time, and he made a very generous offer. I don’t know if it can happen because of our own laws, but he offered to not only take in gang members that are illegally in the country but also any Americans who are in our jails – almost like outsourcing. So, it was an interesting offer from him. But he’s a great pro-American leader and, again, someone that has been very popular in his country by the way. He’s like 90 percent approval rating.
Guatemala is a country that obviously is right on the border with Mexico. They struggle with the migration. They’re a source country, but they’re also a transit country for drugs and people. And so, they’re trying to – they’re doing the best they can with their limited resources, and we’re helping them to stop the drugs and the migration. But they’ve also – they’re going to almost double the number of deportation flights they’re going to take, and they’re also going to accept third-country people, people from other countries that are not from Guatemala, as part of this process, and then from there move them on to the – their nation of origin.
And then we finished in the Dominican Republic, which really the biggest challenge they face there are two-fold. The one is what’s happening right across their border with Haiti, which they’re deporting people back to Haiti every day. That – we can’t really visit Haiti right now, but that’s as close as we could get. And so, we wanted to talk about that from there, and that’s important because that also poses a threat to the United States that there’s a mass migration event. And it’s just a horrifying situation with these gangs taking over Port-au-Prince or large parts of it.
And then they’re also a great partner stopping drugs. A lot of drug rings are – bring – try to bring drugs into the Dominican Republic because from there, over the Mona Passage, they get to Puerto Rico. And once you get into Puerto Rico, you’re in the U.S. There’s no more customs after that. There’s no more border protection after that. So, it’s something we’re going to work with them on.
So, it’s a good start to the trip, and then we finished off on Friday going to Southern Command, which is the Pentagon’s command for the whole region, and talked through some of these issues with them and the partnerships they have in the region. So, it’s a good way to start my – I guess my second – end my second week as Secretary of State.
QUESTION: Yeah, most folks when they start a new job in the second week are still looking for the bathroom, and here you are in all these other countries. It’s a really good way to get going.
SECRETARY RUBIO: Yeah, well, we’re still looking for the bathrooms but – finding out where everything is at in the building, but it was important to get out there and visit these countries early.
QUESTION: So, you raised an issue that I think Donald Trump, President Trump, deserves a lot of credit for tackling immediately, and that is the concept of the United States combatting Chinese influence in this region, in this hemisphere. And obviously, this has been an issue with Panama and the Panama Canal, but it’s really an issue everywhere. Can you talk a little bit about this? Is this one of your principal missions to make sure that the United States, and not China, is the dominant superpower at a minimum in this region and in the world?
SECRETARY RUBIO: Yeah, look, China is a rich, powerful country and that’s what they’re going to be. Like that’s not going to change, right? They’ve got over a billion people. They’ve got a big economy, second-largest economy in the world. I mean, and we’re going to be competing with them for the rest of the century and beyond. And I think the story of the 21st century is going to be about what happened between the U.S. and China.
What we can’t allow is for that to come at our expense. What we can’t allow is an imbalance, a dangerous imbalance, to build up where they’re more powerful than we are, and then – or we become dependent on them. And that danger is already there that we’ve become dependent on them for supply chains, for manufacturing, economically, all these sorts of things.
So, what’s happened in part of the region is that they swoop in. And look, they’re doing what I would do. If I was in charge of China, I would do exactly what they’re doing. But I have to – I I’m not in charge of China. I run the State Department for the United States and I’m an American citizen, so I’ve got to do what’s good for America. That’s what President Trump is for. And that includes not getting run out of the Western Hemisphere, not waking up one day and finding out that China has more influence over our neighboring countries than we do, that China has more presence in our neighboring countries than we do. That’s – it’s – geography is real and it’s right on top of us, and these are countries that are our neighbors, and we just – we can’t live in a world in which they have more influence and more presence than we do in the countries closest to us.
QUESTION: So, on the prospect of American influence in the world – and I wholeheartedly agree with you about our need to stand up to China – a lot of people are wondering about the reorientation of American soft power in the world. Obviously, President Trump and his administration and working with you have made some dramatic shifts in the way we distribute foreign aid and the bureaucracy, the USAID bureaucracy, which you are now also simultaneously in charge of.
I think there’s a lot of misinformation out there and a lot of political attacks out there of people trying to score points. I just kind of want to set the record straight here about what we’re doing. And we’ve eliminated some bureaucracy, but you’re in charge of American soft power and you’re in charge of our influence around the world. Can you kind of give us an idea of how this is going to work, and why the American people should be reassured that American influence is going to be top of mind for your State Department?
SECRETARY RUBIO: Well, first of all, we’re not walking away from foreign aid. We will be involved in foreign aid. I believe that foreign aid done right is good for the country, but it has to be done right. Now, the idea that somehow we spend between $40 and $60 billion on foreign aid and all that money is well spent or on things that make sense is absurd. There’s a lot of it that isn’t. And so the goal is very simple: Go through all of our foreign aid – a lot of it is through USAID, some of it is through State Department; identify the foreign aid that makes sense, the foreign aid that actually supports our country and that supports our national interests, and continue to do that; and then get rid of the ones that are a waste of money, or in some cases or run counter to our foreign – to our national interest and to our interests around the world. And that’s what we’re going through right now.
The problem is that this foreign aid industrial complex has built up of NGOs and all kinds of groups that benefit from these programs, and argue that you can’t get rid of a single one of them; if you cut any of them, if you even ask questions about them, you’re undermining American soft power. So, this is not – despite some of these reports, this is not about walking away from foreign aid. This is about doing the aid that makes sense and getting rid of the aid that does not make sense. That’s it. That’s what this is about.
So we were in Guatemala, right? And they have a program where we help them to improve their police department so they can stop and identify fentanyl before it gets into America. That’s foreign aid we’re going to support. In fact, I issued a waiver so we can continue that program. There are other things that we’re not going to do. We shouldn’t be sponsoring LGBTQ operas. I don’t know how that foreign – furthers the national interest.
And this is taxpayer money. Look, if someone wants to pay for that stuff, you’re more than happy to go out, go ahead. It’s legal. Go out and raise all the money, private-sector money, and spend it on that. But we shouldn’t be spending taxpayer money or using American Government agencies to sponsor things that make absolutely no sense. So, we put a pause on all foreign aid, and now we’re going through it project by project. We’re going to get rid of the ones that don’t make sense, and we’re going to keep or even build on the ones that do make sense.
QUESTION: So, the things that make sense in your mind – fighting drugs, fighting illegal immigration. What about lifesaving issues? There’s been a lot of back and forth in the media about things that we do from a humanitarian perspective that are lifesaving medical-type programming, particularly in Africa with PEPFAR and malaria and such. How do you view those things?
SECRETARY RUBIO: I’m a supporter of PEPFAR. I have been in Congress. I am now as Secretary of State. It’s a program we want to continue. Obviously, we’re going to have questions about it. Look, if PEPFAR is working well, it’s a program that should be getting smaller over time, not bigger, right? Because you’re preventing HIV, you’re preventing the spread of HIV, and so people aren’t testing positive because their viral load gets down, they’re not passing it on to their children.
So ideally, it’s a program that over time shrinks, not expands, because less and less people are getting HIV or are transmitting it to their children. That was always the goal was an AIDS-free generation, so no child was born with HIV. And – but it’s a program I’ve supported, and we want to continue to do it. And things like are people going to starve to death, are we going to have a famine? Is it going to destabilize a country in a way that would be negative to our national interest and open the door for radical jihadists or others to take advantage? We’re going to continue to do those. But the problem is that the definition of humanitarian has expanded beyond that – to all kinds of other things that do not make sense. That doesn’t mean they’re bad ideas. Someone should do it. It just shouldn’t be the American taxpayer.
So that’s the kind of things that we’re going through right now and identifying. And by the way, we issued a waiver which allowed all these lifesaving programs to continue. And obviously, there’s – any time you have a pause or some hiccups about how to restart the payment programs, but all that’s going to get taken care of here very quickly, and those programs will continue. We’re not walking away from foreign aid. We are walking away from foreign aid that’s dumb, that’s stupid, that wastes American taxpayer money. We’re just not going to continue to do those.
QUESTION: I think that what you’re doing is long overdue. This whole bureaucracy existed, and it really existed with very little political oversight. And really all that the Trump Administration, at your direction, is doing is making sure that whatever money we spend somehow helps the national interest. And I think every American taxpayer wants the money we spend to help the national interest. And Trump and you, Mr. Secretary, on the right side of what I think is an 80-20 issue here. And so, you see this amazing disconnect in the media, people fussing about this.
But some of these projects that you’ve identified are patently ridiculous. And so, by moving this into your office and by taking personal political oversight over it, not only are you saving us money, but you’re just aligning our spending with what’s in direct interest of the United States foreign policy under the direction of the President of the United States. I mean, that’s the point of elections. That’s the point of having a government, not to let unelected bureaucrats determine our national direction but to let our political leadership do it.
Mr. Secretary, in the time that we have, I want to move ahead. You’re about to embark on your second foreign trip. You’re going to the Munich Security Conference, and then you’re going to the Middle East. I think you’re going to Israel, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia – obviously a hot spot or region. What is your mission here? What are we trying to accomplish in the Middle East? What’s your message at the Munich Security Conference later this week?
SECRETARY RUBIO: Well, in Munich, I think it’s just to reaffirm to everybody – even though it’s located in Europe – obviously, that’s where the forum is – it’s not just about Europe. People from all – leaders from all over the world go that conference. But the top of mind for everyone is going to be war in Ukraine, and the President has been very clear. President Trump has been clear that the war in Ukraine needs to end. There’s a – he’s going to sort of begin to lay out a broad path forward, and he wants that war to end. It’d be in the interest of everybody for that war to end, and so obviously we’ll be discussing that with foreign ministers and other leaders there.
And then in the Middle East, beyond just the – what we know has happened with – after October 7th, there’s some potentially exciting opportunities to really change the dynamic in that region, and that’s the things we want to talk about. We’ve seen in Lebanon where a new government is now in place and Hizballah has been – I mean, imagine a region where you have a stable Lebanese government and Hizballah is no longer controlling the southern part of Lebanon and threatening Israel every day. Imagine potentially – we’ve got to wait and see, right? – but a Syria no longer under Assad, no longer with Iranian or Russian influence, no longer with ISIS, sort of no longer a security threat to Isreal. Imagine a region where Israel now feels secure because of what’s happened in Lebanon and in Syria that they can enter into a peace deal with Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf kingdoms; a Sunni-Israeli peace deal akin to the Camp David Accords with Egypt and the peace with Jordan. Suddenly you have a very different region where all kinds of things that were not possible before are now possible.
And that’s the opportunity that we hope to explore and see if it’s possible. We have an obligation to explore, at the end. I mean, President Trump has made very clear that part of his agenda is promoting peace in the world; and if there’s a chance to create conditions for peace, that’s certainly something we’re going to do our best to try to foster and be a part of.
QUESTION: I want to ask you briefly about the hostage deal that was in place as Biden was exiting and President Trump was coming in. Obviously, a few hostages have been released. Some of the video of the hostages is, frankly, horrific. What they had done to them in captivity at the hands of Hamas is nothing short of barbaric. I saw that President Trump last night on the way to the Super Bowl made a comment about this and said he’s seen some of these abductees coming out. He said, “They look like Holocaust survivors. I know there’s an agreement that Hamas releases a little every week, but I don’t know how long I’ll continue to endure this. My patience is running out.”
Is this something you’re going to discuss when you’re in the Middle East? Are we – is our patience running thin here, and are these hostages being more mistreated than we could have even imagined before?
SECRETARY RUBIO: Well, I don’t think there’s any coincidence in the schedule that they’re being released where they obviously released the ones, they thought were in the best condition first, then over time you’re starting to see the impact of this. But I also think it’s very revealing of who Hamas is and what Hamas is.
You look at these images of what they – first of all, the humiliation that they have to go through. Just put aside for a moment the horrifying conditions they were kept and the horrifying things that happened to some of those hostages, on top of the fact that these were innocent civilians. I mean, none of these were soldiers. These are not combatants. These are just people that were abducted for purposes of being used as leverage. And they’re getting, what, 200 certified killers in exchange for one innocent hostage. But it reveals who Hamas is.
Look at these humiliation, they put them through before they’re released, where they do these big public displays of force. Do any of those Hamas fighters look like they’ve been skipping meals? Do any of those Hamas fighters that you see look like they’ve been suffering over the last year and a half? Clearly, these people are – the ones suffering are the people from Gaza, but not them. And then the conditions they’re held in. So, it’s incredibly revealing about what we’re dealing with. This is an evil organization. Hamas is evil. It’s pure evil. These are monsters. These are savages. That’s a group that needs to be eradicated.
And let me tell you, if they still are the dominant power in Gaza when all this is done, there is not going to peace in the Middle East, as long as a group like Hamas physically controls territory and is the most dominant power in Gaza or anywhere in the Middle East. And I hope people can see who these people actually are, in the condition of these hostages – not just the conditions that they’re in when they’re released, but what they have to endure on the way out.
QUESTION: You raise the issue of Gaza, and before you go, obviously President Trump made some news on this last week. And it strikes me that what you’re executing is a realistic foreign policy. I mean, we’re in the common-sense doctrine era of the United States, which people are saying thank goodness, finally.
On Gaza, on the idea of a two-state solution, is this no longer the policy of the United States? It seems to me that you all are injecting realism into this situation and that most of the people the Israelis have had to deal with over time simply don’t want peace, and we’ve been trying to put a square peg in a round hole here.
What is our policy? That people that run Gaza eventually are going to have to accept peace? And that’s not what – that’s just not been the disposition of the folks we’ve been dealing with heretofore.
SECRETARY RUBIO: Well, the big challenge for this whole two-state solution has not been Isreal. It’s been: Who’s going to govern that second state? Who’s going to be in charge of it? If the people in charge of it are Hamas or Hizballah or anybody like that, these are groups that – whose goal is the destruction of the Jewish state.
So, I don’t know how you’re going to have peace if you’re turning over territory to a group whose stated purpose is the destruction of the Jewish state. Why would any country in the world agree to create a second state on their border that is governed by armed elements who kidnap babies and murder babies and rape teenage girls and abduct innocents and whose stated goal and purpose for existing is the – is your destruction? Who would agree to that? So that’s the fundamental challenge.
On the broader challenge of Gaza, the President’s just pointed to the obvious. I mean, Gaza is a place that, in addition to all the damage it suffered in the war – Hamas hides in the tunnels. It’s the civilians who they hide behind and underneath that have suffered the consequences of this. But that’s a place where there’s all kinds of unexploded munitions and bombs that Hamas has, that’s been used in the conflict. Someone’s got to go in – for anybody to be able to live there, someone’s got to – you’ve got to clean it up. You’ve got to clean all that out of there even before you begin the process of removing rubble and debris and rebuilding housing, like permanent structures. Who’s going to do that?
And right now, the only one who’s stood up and said I’m willing to help do it is Donald Trump. All these other leaders, they’re going to have to step up. If they’ve got a better idea, then now is the time. Now is the time for the other governments and other powers in the region, some of these very rich countries, to basically say, okay, we’ll do it. We’re going to pay for this; we’re going to step forward; we’re going to be the ones that take charge. None of them is offering to do it. And I think that you can’t go around claiming that you’re a fighter for, an advocate for the Palestinian people, but you’re not willing to do anything to help rebuild Gaza. And so far, we haven’t seen a lot of – they’ve all – they’ll all tell you what they’re not for. But we’re still waiting for more countries to step forward and say here’s what we’re willing to do. And right now, they’ve not been willing to do anything and – or at least anything concrete.
So that’s a challenge that President Trump’s put out there. And it’s outside the box, but that’s what he always is. I mean, he is going to state the obvious. It’s the one thing about Donald Trump – he doesn’t hide behind silly, traditional lies and things of that nature. He’s going to put out blunt truth. And the blunt truth is that the Middle East has, for too long, been a region of places all of whom love to talk but don’t want to do. So, it’s time – if they don’t like Donald Trump’s plan, then it’s time for these countries in the region to step forward and offer their solution.
QUESTION: Well, I think under President Trump’s leadership, under your leadership, we’re living in a common-sense era, we’re in an aspirational era, and we’re in a realistic era. And I think the American people are grateful for it. You have had an amazing run already, just in the first few weeks of being in office. You had an amazing first foreign trip. You’ve got one coming up this week.
The foreign affairs wins of the Trump Administration are already piling up, with Mexico agreeing to send troops to their border; Canada playing ball on their border issues; Colombia accepting the repatriation flights; Panama ending its Belt and Road Initiative deal with China; the ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon. We’ve taken out an ISIS leader in Somalia. You guys are off to an amazing start. And I think that’s why Donald Trump has a high approval rating right now, and why people are so grateful that you accepted this job as U.S. Secretary of State.
Secretary Rubio, thanks for being with us on SiriusXM Patriot today.
The United States is today designating a Lebanon-based sanctions evasion network that supports Hizballah’s finance team, which oversees commercial projects and oil smuggling networks that generate revenue for Hizballah.
Such evasion networks bolster Iran and Hizballah, undermining Lebanon. As part of today’s action, the United States is designating five individuals and three associated companies, including family members and close associates of prominent Hizballah officials.
This action supports the whole-of-government policy of maximum pressure on Iran and its terrorist proxies, like Hizballah, as detailed in National Security Presidential Memorandum 2 issued on February 4.
The United States is committed to supporting Lebanon by exposing and disrupting funding schemes for Hizballah’s terrorist activities and Iran’s destabilizing influence in the region. Hizballah cannot be allowed to keep Lebanon captive. The United States will continue using tools at its disposal until this terrorist group no longer threatens the Lebanese people.
Additionally, the Rewards for Justice (RFJ) program, which is administered by the State Department’s Diplomatic Security Service, is offering a reward of up to $10 million for information leading to the disruption of the financial mechanisms of Hizballah.
Today’s action is being taken pursuant to counterterrorism authority Executive Order (E.O.) 13224, as amended. The Department of State previously designated Hizballah as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist, pursuant to E.O. 13224, which targets terrorist groups and their supporters, and as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. For more information, today’s designation can be found on the Recent Actions | Office of Foreign Assets Control website.
Up to $2 Million Reward Offers Each for Information Leading to Arrests and/or Convictions of Malicious Cyber Actors from China
Media Note
March 5, 2025
Today, the Department of State’s Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs is announcing two reward offers under the Transnational Organized Crime Rewards Program (TOCRP) of up to $2 million each for information leading to the arrests and/or convictions, in any country, of malicious cyber actors Yin KeCheng and Zhou Shuai, both Chinese nationals residing in China.
Yin and Zhou were identified as associated with an advanced persistent threat group (APT27), who are also known to private sector security researchers as “Threat Group 3390,” “Bronze Union,” “Emissary Panda,” “Lucky Mouse,” “Iron Tiger,” “UTA0178,” “UNC 5221,” and “Silk Typhoon.” Yin and Zhou are longtime members of the eco-system China uses to perpetuate its malicious cyber activity. They enrich themselves financially as hackers for hire for a myriad of Chinese entities.
An FBI investigation of APT27, which began in approximately 2014, resulted in two separate indictments, announced today by the Department of Justice. Yin is charged individually for cybercrime activity occurring from roughly 2013 to 2015, while Yin and Zhou are charged together in a separate conspiracy related to computer network intrusion activity occurring from roughly 2018 to 2020. Yin and Zhou are each charged with wire fraud, money laundering, aggravated identity theft, and violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
Today’s reward offers are authorized by the Secretary under the TOCRP, which supports law enforcement efforts to disrupt transnational crime globally. The reward offers also complement the announcement today of a Treasury sanctions action by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) against Zhou and his company Shanghai Heiying Information Technology. The combined actions represent a whole of government effort to combat malicious cyber actors.
If you have information, please contact the FBI by email at yin_zhou_info@fbi.gov. If you are located outside of the United States, you can also visit the nearest U.S. embassy or consulate. If you are in the United States, you can also contact your local FBI field office.
ALL IDENTITIES ARE KEPT STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL. Government officials and employees are not eligible for rewards.
$5 Million Reward Offer for Information Leading to Arrest and/or Conviction of Leader of Foreign Terrorist Organization MS-13
Press Statement
April 21, 2025
With the designation of Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) on February 20, 2025, as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) and a Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT), the U.S. government is working towards building a safer, stronger, and more prosperous hemisphere in the Americas by providing all available means to eliminate the threats of violent crime by MS-13 throughout the Western Hemisphere. The U.S. government is offering a reward under the Transnational Organized Crime Rewards Program (TOCRP) of up to $5 million, which was announced in 2023, for information leading to the arrest and/or conviction in any country of Yulan Adonay Archaga Carías, aka “Porky” and “Alexander Mendoza”, the leader of MS-13 in Honduras.
Archaga Carías is the highest-ranking member of MS-13 in Honduras and is responsible for directing the gang’s criminal activities, such as drug trafficking, money laundering, murder, kidnappings, and other violent crimes involving machine guns. He is also responsible for the gang’s importation of large amounts of cocaine into the United States. Archaga Carías remains at large.
Archaga Carías is one of the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted Fugitives, as well as one of the DEA’s and Homeland Security Investigations’ most wanted fugitives.
If you have information, please contact the FBI by email at archaga-carias_tips@fbi.gov or via text at +1 832-267-1688 (text/WhatsApp) for this reward. If you are located outside of the United States, you may also contact the nearest U.S. Embassy or Consulate. If you are in the United States, you may also contact the local FBI, DEA, or HSI offices in your city.
Today’s announcement reinforces the importance of public awareness for rewards targets who are members of, or associated with, the eight cartels and transnational criminal organizations designated as Foreign Terrorist Organizations on February 20, 2025. Bringing these individuals to justice is a priority for the Trump Administration.
ALL IDENTITIES ARE KEPT STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL. Government officials and employees are not eligible for rewards.
HomeVisa Restrictions for Central American Government Officials Exploiting Cuban Medical Professionals
Visa Restrictions for Central American Government Officials Exploiting Cuban Medical Professionals
Press Statement
June 3, 2025
Today, the Department of State took steps to impose visa restrictions on several Central American government officials and their family members for their nexus to the Cuban regime’s forced labor scheme. The officials are responsible for Cuban medical mission programs that include elements of forced labor and the exploitation of Cuban workers. These steps promote accountability for those who support and perpetuate these exploitative practices. The Cuban labor export program abuses the participants, enriches the corrupt Cuban regime, and deprives everyday Cubans of essential medical care that they desperately need in their homeland.
Our goal is to support the Cuban people in their pursuit of freedom and dignity, all while promoting accountability for those who contribute to a forced labor scheme. By pursuing these visa restrictions, the U.S. is sending a clear message about our commitment to promoting human rights and respect for labor rights worldwide. We encourage other nations to join us in this effort.
HomeElection of Republic of Korea President Lee Jae-myung
Election of Republic of Korea President Lee Jae-myung
Press Statement
June 3, 2025
We congratulate President Lee Jae-myung on his election as the next president of the Republic of Korea (ROK).
The United States and the Republic of Korea share an ironclad commitment to the Alliance grounded in our Mutual Defense Treaty, shared values, and deep economic ties. We are also modernizing the Alliance to meet the demands of today’s strategic environment and address new economic challenges.
We will also continue to deepen U.S.-Japan-ROK trilateral cooperation to bolster regional security, enhance economic resilience, and defend our shared democratic principles.
Thank you guys for having me. It’s an honor. I want to thank Chris for the introduction. Did you get my office? He just said – I just – the one I used to have, the one in Russell? Yeah. Did you find any cash or gold bars? No. (Laughter.)
Is there media here? There’s – (laughter) – that’s what they call – it’s a joke. It’s a joke. You guys know.
Thank you, Chris, for that introduction, and actually very proud of the work you did with us on the Small Business Committee, and then Oren and everyone here at American Compass for hosting me here tonight. A couple observations of seeing someone – we really only got to serve together for, like, 10 days, because I got confirmed pretty quickly. And by the way, the President was so – and I got 99 out of a hundred votes because the Vice President, at the time his seat had not been filled, and the President for some period of time expressed great concern about the fact that I had 99 votes in the Senate. He didn’t know if that was a good thing or a bad thing. But I told him recently, sir, you don’t have to worry about that anymore. I don’t think I’d get 99 votes now. (Laughter.)
And anyways, but thank you for this chance to speak to you, and by – one more thing I want to tell you about: I spent – now that I’m in the Executive Branch, we oftentimes have to deal with the fact that we want to do something and it’s like, well, but there’s a statute or there’s a law on the books that limit our ability to do things by executive action. It requires us to go through certain steps. And so I increasingly find myself saying who the hell wrote these laws, and in – today I was reminded it was actually me who passed a certain law that stood as an impediment to quick action. So anyways, yeah, I’ve grown in my appreciation for the Executive Branch more and more each day. And – but that’s also – the media’s going to say, oh, he’s for an authoritarian form of government. No, I just – some of these laws I passed are getting in the way of my current life, so we have to work through it. We will.
But thank you guys for this chance and the work that you’ve done, and I know that obviously you’re going to spend a lot of time focused on domestic decisions, but I want to hopefully pitch you a little bit tonight about what I’ve learned and what I already believed coming into this job, that so much about what happens domestically, economically is increasingly intertwined in geopolitics. It always has been. I think that’s one of the lessons we forgot, but I think we’ve been reminded of that here, most recently in a number of events that brought that to bear.
The first thing I would say is I think it’s always been true – one of the amazing things, one of the reasons why history repeats itself – people like to say that – is because human nature does not change. Technologies change, the clothes we wear change, even languages change, governments change. A lot of things change, but the one thing that is unchanged is human nature. It’s the same today as it was 5,000 years ago, and that’s one of the reasons why history often repeats itself.
And one of the things about human nature – I’m not trying to sound like a psychologist here, but one of the things that I think history proves is that one of the things we are programmed as people with is the desire to belong. In fact, if you notice, one of the – if you put humans anywhere, a handful of people anywhere, one of the first things they start doing is trying to create things that they can join or be a part of, and that’s true for nationhood and nation-states, the concept of nationhood.
Now, it’s a new concept. I mean, before we all – but we had something. It was like organizations, whether it was city-states or tribal organizations, but the advent of the nation-state is a normal evolution of human behavior because people think it’s important to belong to something, and being part of a nation is important. And I think that’s really true, obviously, increasingly in how geopolitical decisions are made.
I think that’s obvious and people understand that, but it’s one of the things that we forgot. And we certainly forgot it at the end of the Cold War. If I can take you back to the end of the Cold War – and understand for me these were formative years, because I grew up in the ’80s, the greatest – probably the greatest decade ever, confirmed by the – yeah. (Applause.)
You know why I know this? Because my kids – I have young – young – I say “young” and they’re, like, 24, 22, 20 – just turned 20 – and one who’s 17. Every – all they do is watch reruns from the ’80s and ’90s. They don’t make good TV anymore. Everybody wants to watch stuff from the ’80s and ’90s, so that’s just my pitch. The ’70s were a dark period of time because of disco music, but – and the ’80s just – got a disco fan back there. But the ’80s, we did – the hair was a little too big, but other than that.
But going back, the ’80s, you grew up, and I remember in 1983 – now I’m aging – I just turned 54. I feel 55, but I – and it must be 1983. Do you guys remember a movie called the – oh, gosh, what was it? It was about nuclear war. Do you remember this? It was 19 – no, War Games, that was a great movie. I’m talking about one that was on TV that scared the hell out of me. There was –
AUDIENCE: The Day After.
SECRETARY RUBIO: The Day After. Do you remember that movie, The Day After? This was traumatizing, and they had this thing on television. But basically grew up understanding that the world at any moment could end because the United States and the Soviet Union were headed for conflict and war and that maybe we wouldn’t even make it to 25 and things of this nature.
I forgot about War Games. War Games was another good movie, where this guy hacks into the computer. This was an ’80s hacker. This was not – I can remember the phone and the modem, and it was – what was that actor? It was the same – Matthew Broderick. It’s a great movie. I know I’m completely off topic – (laughter) – but let me just tell you I lived in Las Vegas at the time, and if you recall, the first city that he blows up in the war games is Las Vegas. And I was sitting in the audience and everybody was like chuckling – nothing funny about this Las Vegas strike. (Laughter.)
In any event, so this is what we grew up in. And then in 1989, in 1990 and ’91, it was my first years in college, and literally the entire world just transformed before my very eyes. Understand you grew up your whole life, and like the whole world is about the Soviet Union, and all of a sudden the Soviet Union no longer exists. My favorite memory of that is that I was actually taking a course that fall by a Soviet expert at – I think it was in Gainesville, Florida. And this poor guy’s entire career came crumbling down over a three-month period as the Soviet Union collapsed. It was like all these years of work, you have a PhD in Soviet studies, and now the Soviet doesn’t exist anymore. So I don’t know what he did after that. I need to check up on that guy.
But anyways, the point is the whole world transformed and there was this effusive exuberance, the belief that the Cold War is over, we won, and now the entire world is going to become just like us – free enterprise democracies. That was a very idealistic thing to believe.
But here’s the other conclusion they made, and that is that everybody – that it didn’t – nationhood no longer mattered when it came to economics, that right now the world would no longer have borders. It wouldn’t matter where things were made. What mattered is they were made in the most efficient place.
And it became mantra. And look, I think it became part of Republican orthodoxy for a very long time, an orthodoxy that I came up in, which was it’s okay if productive capacity moves to another country, because what that will do is it will free up our workers to do work that’s even more productive and pays them more. It was the famous or the infamous idea that who cares that you lost your job at a factory, you’re going to learn how to code, and then you’re going to be – you’re going to make a lot more money doing that.
Well, it was completely unrealistic, number one, and became incredibly disruptive that that decision was made. But here’s the other implication of it: It robbed a nation of its industrial capacity, of its ability to make things. And its industrial capacity and its ability to make things has two ramifications: The first is it hurts your economy, it hurts your country, it robs people of jobs, and the transition is not nearly as easy, but it also ends up becoming corrosive and destructive to communities. I mean, as a result we had a rust belt. We had places that were gutted and we had families that for generations that worked in a certain field or for a certain company, and all of a sudden that company or that field vanished because it moved somewhere else where it was cheaper to do. And those jobs were gone, and obviously it became incredibly destructive – not just for the United States, by the way, but for many nations in the industrialized West.
But the other thing it robbed us of is the ability to make things, which is a national security impediment – impairment – and a very significant one. If you go back to the World War – World War II, the admiral who had been tasked with planning Pearl Harbor thought it was a really bad idea. He went through and obviously followed orders, but he thought it was a very bad idea because he had spent a substantial amount of time studying in the United States when he was younger. And his conclusion was that attacking the United States was a bad idea because even though at the time militarily we were behind the Japanese, certainly technologically and otherwise, we had factories and we had access to raw material and resources. And he knew that over time, once those factories and those raw materials were put to the war machine, the Japanese would not be able to keep up.
And you could very well argue that the end of World War II, that the victory in World War II both in Europe and especially in Asia, was the result of America’s industrial capacity. When the Japanese lost a plane, they lost a plane. When we lost a plane – and their planes were better than ours for a long time. When we lost a plane, we were able to produce hundreds to replace it. Industrial capacity mattered in terms of national security, and that’s never changed. That’s always been true.
And so today, what you find is because of all of those years of neglect, because of the loss of industrial capacity, we didn’t just undermine our society, we didn’t just undermine our domestic economy, we’ve undermined our position in the world. And what you will find and what we find even now is that increasingly, on geopolitical issue after geopolitical issue, it is access to raw material and industrial capacity that is at the core both of the decisions that we’re making and the areas that we’re prioritizing.
It’s – now, the technologies are different, but nonetheless that is what we’re increasingly prioritizing. And that’s become really apparent to me. I think it was even going into this job, but in the months that I’ve been there, on place after place, every country in the world is now pitching themselves as a source of rare earth minerals. Every country in the world – by the way, they’re not that rare, so every country has access to it, but it’s become a big – but that alone is not enough because you have to have access to rare earth minerals, but then you have to have the ability to process them and you have to have – to make them into usable material.
And frankly, what the Chinese have done over the last 25 or 30 years is they’ve cornered the market. And this is one of the true challenges to sort of pure free-enterprise view of these things. You cannot compete with a nation-state who has decided they’re not interested in making money. They don’t – they’re not interested in making money in this field. They are interested in the short term in dominating the market, being the sole-source provider for the world of a certain product. Because once you establish industry dominance in any one of these fields, you can charge the world whatever you want.
Now, one thing is if we said: Well, this happened because they’re just better than us. But that’s not why it happened. It happened because we literally gave it away. Because we made the decision, we made the policy decision, that it was okay, we were okay with 80-something percent of the active ingredients in most of our generic pharmaceuticals coming from another country. We were okay with giving that away. We were okay with giving away all kinds of things like that. And now, now we are in a crunch. And I say “we.” I mean the rest of the world is in a crunch, because we have realized that our industrial capability is deeply dependent on a number of potential adversary nation-states, including China, who can hold it over our head.
And so in many ways the nature of geopolitics is now adjusted to that and is adjusting to that. And it’ll be one of the great challenges of the new century and one of the priorities of this administration under President Trump is to reorient our domestic and the way we pursue geopolitics to take into account for the fact that you can never be secure as a nation unless you’re able to feed your people, and unless you’re able to make the things that your economy needs in order to function and ultimately to defend yourself.
There is virtually none of the leading-edge industries of the 21st century in which we don’t have some level of vulnerability, and it’s become one of the highest geopolitical priorities that we now face – not simply access to raw material but figuring out how can we have more industrial capacities in these critical fields, ideally domestically, but if not here then diversify the global supply chain so that it cannot be used against us as a point of leverage at a time of potential conflict.
In fact, unless we fix it, some of these conflicts will never happen because we will never be able to enter – the amount of leverage they will have on us will begin to constrain our ability to make foreign policy. Unable to get into a tremendous amount of detail, let me just say that even as I speak to you now, there are a number of foreign policy issues in which we’re having to balance what we would ideally want to do with what we may not be able to do in the short term until we fix these problems. This is a real challenge in American geopolitics, and it’s one that’s become a priority and goes right to the heart of the decisions that were made over the last 20 or 30 years that were – that were a mistake and that we’re now trying to correct.
The other, which is more broad but I think also ties to economic policy, is the following: Part of the decisions that were made were, in the end, if something is good for the global economy, that’s really what matters. Ultimately, a lot of public policy decisions were made without the nation-state in mind. Rather, the decision was: Is this good for the global economy? Is this good for global economic growth? Is this good for prosperity in other places even if it may not be in our interest?
And we made those decisions even during the Cold War to some extent. We allowed nations to treat us unfairly in trade, but we allowed them to do it because we didn’t want those countries to become victim to a communist revolution that would overthrow them. But then we kept it going. And so today there are multiple countries around the world that are fully developed economies, but whom we have enormous trade imbalances because they want to continue that system moving along. And that has to be corrected.
But here’s the final point, and here’s why this is also critical. Because not only did we take out nation-state interest and the national interest out of our economic policies; we also took it out of the way we made foreign policy decisions. The idea that our foreign policy, depending on the place and on the issue, should be centered and focused primarily on what is good for the United States was completely lost. Time and again, we made decisions in foreign policy because of what was good for the international order or what was good for the world. And I’m not saying those things are irrelevant, but the number one priority of our foreign policy must – of the United States – the number one foreign policy priority of the United States needs to be the United States and what’s in the best interest of the United States. (Applause.)
That’s not isolationism. That’s common sense. On the contrary, in order to do that, we have to engage in the world. But we need to engage in the world in a way that prioritizes our national interest above all else. And the reason why we do that goes back to my point at the outset of this, with human nature. And that is: That’s what other countries do all the time. Virtually every single nation-state we interact with prioritizes their national interest in their interactions with us. And we need to begin to do that again, and we’re beginning to do that again – prioritizing the national interest of the United States above everything else in making these foreign policy decisions.
And I’ll close by saying that’s where foreign policy works best. As I’ve said to multiple foreign leaders, including some with whom we haven’t had engagements with for many years, I said the way foreign policy works best is when our national interests are aligned. When they’re aligned, that’s where we have incredible opportunity for partnership together. And when they’re not aligned, that’s where I expect them to pursue their national interest and us to pursue ours, and to do so peacefully if possible, and that’s the work of diplomacy.
And so I think the work you have done to reorient our thinking towards the national interest – both in our domestic economic policies as well as in our foreign policies – is critical work for 21st century conservatism. And I thank you for all the work you’ve provided. You’ve done great work. When no one else was talking about these things, when no one else was providing the material that allowed us to build public policy and challenge thinking, you were doing it. And I encourage you to continue to do it because this is going to be the work of a generation. It’s – there’s still much work to be done. We are in the midst of an important and long-overdue realignment in our thinking in American politics, and it takes organizations like American Compass to drive the innovation and the thinking. And we appreciate everything you’ve done up to this point and encourage you to continue to do that.
And one of the people who has really been a leader in this regard – someone who I actually got to know as part of this project and this thinking back when he was only a best-selling author and not even a political figure yet – is our current Vice President, who is doing a phenomenal job, and someone I’ve grown tremendous – my admiration for him has grown tremendously. I admired him before. I admired him in the Senate. I admire him a lot more now as Vice President because I think vice presidents are just more impressive than senators, Bernie. That’s all. (Laughter.) But I can say that now that I got 99 votes, see, because I don’t need their votes anymore. (Laughter.)
But the Vice President is going a phenomenal job, and I think is one of the most powerful and clearest voices in the world – really at the edge, at the leading edge of this new thinking in American politics. And it’s my honor to serve with him in this administration, and it’s my honor to invite him onto the stage now to speak to all of you.
So thank you for the opportunity to be here. Ladies and gentlemen, the Vice President of the United States, JD Vance. (Applause.)
Source: United States Senator Peter Welch (D-Vermont)
WASHINGTON, D.C. – In a joint Senate Judiciary Subcommittee hearing this week, U.S. Senator Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on The Constitution, pushed back on Republicans’ attempts to smear judges who have ruled against President Trump. Senator Welch also urged Congress to reassert its own constitutional authority in order to preserve the separation of powers and limit executive overreach.
“This moment we’re in in our country is testing whether the separation of powers, three coequal branches of government, shall endure. That’s really the question. We’ve seen an abdication of constitutional responsibility by the Congress—it’s appalling,” said Senator Welch.
“We can deal with universal injunctions. But the all-out assault on judges because they make decisions—which is the job it is they have to do—and the decision is: has a President exceeded his authority? The decision is: has the Congress passed a law that deviates from constitutional requirements? Those are so profoundly important to keep that separation of powers and to keep the competition between the three branches so that we don’t have absolute power vested in a single person—and that’s the chief executive.
“What is most profoundly important for the well-being of our country is that the Congress reassert its authority to pass laws to restrict the executive, or to empower the executive, but not to cede our authority to the executive—ever. It’s our responsibility to do every single thing we can to validate the legitimate exercise of the decision-making authority of the judiciary.”
Senator Welch also questioned witnesses about the impact and consequences of unlimited executive authority on due process.
Watch Senator Welch’s full remarks below:
Read Senator Welch’s full opening remarks here.
Senator Welch and Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Federal Courts, Oversight, Agency Action and Federal Rights, released the following joint statement ahead of the joint subcommittee hearing:
“Today’s hearing will not be on the level, and it’s important that the public and press do not put falsehoods and rhetoric before the facts. This is not a policy debate—this is yet another Republican attack on an independent judiciary.
“Let’s be clear: The reason district judges have enjoined the Trump Administration’s orders is because of unprecedented unlawfulness, not unprecedented judicial behavior. Our colleagues across the aisle are making it clear they are willing to help do Trump’s bidding and protect his unlawful activity at any cost. Republicans can either defend the rule of law and the judiciary, or defend this administration’s agenda and lies—but they cannot do both.”
Today, the Government of Canada announced that it will match every dollar donated to the Canadian Red Cross 2025 Saskatchewan Wildfires Appeal to support wildfire disaster relief and recovery efforts across Saskatchewan.
The Government of Saskatchewan will be immediately providing $15 million to the Canadian Red Cross to work with the Saskatchewan Public Safety Agency to support wildfire evacuees.
Donation matching will be open for 30 days, retroactive to when the appeal first opened on May 30th. The funds raised will be used to assist those impacted by the wildfires in Saskatchewan, including those who have evacuated their homes.
Thousands in Saskatchewan have been displaced as wildfires continue to threaten communities across the province. In response, the Canadian Red Cross is working closely with Indigenous leadership and all levels of government to provide emergency accommodations, personal services, and critical information to people who have been forced from their homes.
The Governments of Canada and Saskatchewan are committed to doing everything they can to support all those affected.
Canadians wishing to make a financial donation to help those impacted by wildfires in Saskatchewan can do so online at www.redcross.ca or by calling 1-800-418-1111.
The Majority Leader of the House of Representatives announces bills that will be considered under suspension of the rules in that chamber. Under suspension, floor debate is limited, all floor amendments are prohibited, points of order against the bill are waived, and final passage requires a two-thirds majority vote.
At the request of the Majority Leader and the House Committee on the Budget, CBO estimates the effects of those bills on direct spending and revenues. CBO has limited time to review the legislation before consideration. Although it is possible in most cases to determine whether the legislation would affect direct spending or revenues, time may be insufficient to estimate the magnitude of those effects. If CBO has prepared estimates for similar or identical legislation, a more detailed assessment of budgetary effects, including effects on spending subject to appropriation, may be included.
CBO’s estimates of the bills that have been posted for possible consideration under suspension of the rules during the week of June 9, 2025, include:
H.R. 188, Amtrak Transparency and Accountability for Passengers and Taxpayers Act, as amended
H.R. 248, Baby Changing on Board Act
H.R. 252, Secure Our Ports Act, as amended
H.R. 1182, Compressed Gas Cylinder Safety and Oversight Improvements Act of 2025
H.R. 1373, Tennessee Valley Authority Transparency Act of 2025, as amended
H.R. 1948, To authorize the International Boundary and Water Commission to accept funds for activities relating to wastewater treatment and flood control works, and for other purposes
H.R. 2035, American Cargo for American Ships Act
H.R. 2351, To direct the Commandant of the Coast Guard to update the policy of the Coast Guard regarding the use of medication to treat drug overdose, and for other purposes
H.R. 2390, Maritime Supply Chain Security Act
H. Res. 137, Designating the House Press Gallery (Rooms H-315, H-316, H-317, H-318, and H-319 of the United States Capitol) as the “Frederick Douglass Press Gallery”, as amended
H. Res. __, Denouncing the antisemitic terrorist attack in Boulder, Colorado.
H. Res. __, Condemning the rise in ideologically motivated attacks on Jewish individuals in the United States, including the recent violent assault in Boulder, Colorado, and reaffirming the House of Representatives commitment to combating antisemitism and politically motivated violence
The Kyrgyz Republic has shown strong economic performance despite global uncertainties with robust growth, stabilizing inflation, and declining public debt.
Growth is expected to gradually moderate as external trade normalizes and domestic demand slows, while inflation remains stable with continued prudent monetary policy.
Sustaining macroeconomic stability and strengthening inclusive growth will require rebuilding policy buffers, enhancing fiscal sustainability, safeguarding monetary policy independence, and advancing structural reforms to boost productivity.
Washington, DC:The Executive Board of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) completed the Article IV Consultation for the Kyrgyz Republic on a lapse of time basis on May 22, 2025.[1]
The Kyrgyz Republic has performed remarkably well amid a highly uncertain external environment. The economy grew by 9 percent annually since 2022, headline inflation has returned to the central bank’s target range, and public debt declined to 36.6 percent of GDP in 2024.
Looking ahead, growth is projected to moderate to 6.8 percent in 2025 and converge to about 5¼ percent in the medium term as re-export trade moderates and domestic demand eases. Inflation is expected to remain broadly stable under the assumption of prudent monetary policy. The large-scale public investments would widen the overall fiscal deficit, but public debt would remain contained under 42 percent of GDP thanks to robust GDP growth.
In view of the heightened global uncertainty, medium term priorities include rebuilding policy buffers and advancing structural reforms to strengthen economy’s resilience to shocks and support higher and more inclusive growth.
Executive Board Assessment
The Kyrgyz Republic has demonstrated remarkable resilience amidst global economic uncertainty. The economy has sustained robust growth supported by considerable expansion of external trade, inflows of remittances and labor, and resilient domestic demand. Inflation has moderated to mid-single digits, though underlying demand pressures warrant vigilance to keep inflation within the central bank’s target range. Lower public debt provides the needed fiscal space for priority investment in public infrastructure, energy generation capacity and human capital development.
Looking ahead, economic activity is expected to moderate from the exceptionally high levels of the past three years as re-export trade normalizes. Growth is projected to converge to its potential rate of 5¼ percent in the medium term, but the outlook is highly uncertain and depends on regional geopolitical developments. A further escalation of sanctions on Russia could weaken remittances and growth due to a depreciation of the ruble and slower growth in Russia. Conversely, a lasting peace in the region could have the opposite impact, but may also unwind some of the trade and financial flows that have boosted growth in recent years. In an increasingly uncertain world, the medium-term priority is to strengthen resilience of the Kyrgyz economy to future shocks by rebuilding policy buffers and enhance prospects for higher and more inclusive growth through structural reforms.
Strong revenue performance and a prudent fiscal stance coupled with high GDP growth have contained public debt. To further strengthen fiscal sustainability and create fiscal space for large development needs, the authorities should enhance tax policy by reducing tax exemptions and special tax regimes, increasing progressivity of the Personal Income Tax, and further strengthening revenue administration. Containing the public wage bill and energy subsidies, channeling Kumtor profits to the budget, and privatization of nonstrategic commercial SOEs would also contribute to fiscal sustainability and provide additional fiscal resources. Containing fiscal deficits would also limit borrowing and ease inflation pressures.
Preserving monetary policy independence is essential to contain inflationary pressures and maintain price stability. In view of robust domestic demand, further efforts are needed to ensure that inflation remains within the central bank’s target range. Tightening of interest rates and liquidity conditions might be warranted, if inflation pressures persist or rise. Monetary policy effectiveness could be enhanced by lifting interest rate caps, extending instrument maturities, phasing out subsidized lending, and enhancing exchange rate flexibility. Staff supports the discontinuation of domestic gold purchases by the NBKR and recommends halting NBKR profit transfers to the budget until its capital reaches the statutory threshold.
Sustaining high growth rates requires structural reforms to increase productivity and improve the business climate. Priority reform areas include governance and SOE management, competition policies, labor markets, and climate adaptation. If duly implemented, the authorities’ anti-corruption strategy could lay a solid foundation for a more resilient and dynamic economy. Strengthening the rule of law and protection of property rights, reducing the SOE footprint and enhancing competition are crucial for building trust in public institutions and improving the business climate to encourage private investment and innovation. Reforms aimed at increasing labor market flexibility, reducing gender gaps, and improving social safety nets would also support more inclusive economic growth, while investments in sustainable energy and infrastructure, and health and education remain vital to enhance resilience to climate risks.
[1]Under Article IV of the IMF’s Articles of Agreement, the IMF holds bilateral discussions with members, usually every year. A staff team visits the country, collects economic and financial information, and discusses with officials the country’s economic developments and policies. On return to headquarters, the staff prepares a report, which forms the basis for discussion by the Executive Board. The Executive Board takes decisions under its lapse-of-time procedure when the Board agrees that a proposal can be considered without convening formal discussions.
tarting today, diesel fleet and equipment owners can apply for a variety of grants to support efforts to reduce dirty transportation emissions across the state under the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality’s 2025 Clean Trucks and Infrastructure program.
Details on the clean truck and infrastructure grants are as follows:
Diesel Emissions Mitigation Grants and Federal Diesel Emissions Reduction Funding
Total: Approximately $9 million
Focus: To swap older diesel vehicles, engines or equipment for similar, newer, cleaner zero-emission vehicles, technologies or retrofit exhaust controls.
Eligibility: Oregon businesses, organizations, local governments and individuals with medium- and heavy-duty diesel fleets, model year 1992 – 2009.
Contact: Rhett Lawrence, AQ program analyst: rhett.lawrence@deq.oregon.gov
Oregon DEQ Clean Trucks Grant Program
Total: Approximately $4.8 million
Focus: To scrap and replace diesel vehicles with new zero-emission vehicles.
Eligibility: Oregon businesses, organizations, local governments and individuals with medium- and heavy-duty diesel fleets, model year 1992 and newer.
Contact: Rhett Lawrence, AQ program analyst: rhett.lawrence@deq.oregon.gov
Focus: To develop plans and install charging infrastructure for medium- and heavy-duty zero-emissions vehicle fleets.
Eligibility: Oregon businesses, organizations, local governments and individuals planning to install private and/or public charging infrastructure.
Contact: Tracie Weitzman, AQ program analyst: tracie.weitzman@deq.oregon.gov
More than $34 million is available to help purchase new zero-emissions trucks, replace or retrofit older, more polluting diesel engines, or develop medium- and heavy-duty zero-emission vehicle charging and fueling infrastructure projects. Total funding includes approximately $17 million available for the new Zero-Emissions Rebates for Oregon Fleets program, also known as the ZERO Fleet Program, which will announce its open application period soon. Submissions for programs opening today are due by 5 p.m. (PDT) on Friday, Aug. 15, 2025.
“We recognize that transitioning from older diesel vehicles to cleaner technologies can be challenging for many companies,” said Oregon DEQ Air Quality Transportation Strategies Section Manager Rachel Sakata. “This significant investment will support that transition, reduce harmful air pollution and help protect the health of communities across the state.”
Owners of medium- and heavy-duty vehicles requiring retrofits under DEQ’s Diesel Retrofit Compliance Program may also apply for funding to support the installation of diesel particulate filters. In addition, non-road equipment and fleet owners, i.e., those with diesel-powered machinery or vehicles involved in construction, may be interested in applying for a grant. If the project is awarded funding, it will improve the emissions profile for pursuing certification under DEQ’s Diesel Emissions Identification Program.
DEQ is offering two opportunities for applicants to learn more about the grants and process through two virtual webinars. They are as follows:
Clean Truck and Infrastructure GrantsWebinar #1
Wednesday, June 11, 2025
10 – 11 a.m. (PDT)
Microsoft Teams: Join the meeting now
Meeting ID: 234 081 780 139 3
Passcode: KB6ES9Jo
Phone #: 503-446-4951
Phone conference ID: 720 897 622#
Clean Truck and Infrastructure GrantsWebinar #2
Wednesday, June 18, 2025
3 – 4 p.m. (PDT)
Microsoft Teams: Join the meeting now
Meeting ID: 271 031 021 708 6
Passcode: 6tT9o2CC
Phone #: 503-446-4951
Phone conference ID: 925 484 402#
Attendees are encouraged to bring questions, as there will be a Q&A section.
The 2025 application period is the only opportunity this year to apply for the clean truck and infrastructure grants. Previous award recipients can apply for additional funds.
DEQ has approximately $72 million in funding assigned for grants through the Environmental Mitigation Trust Fund after Volkswagen was found to have cheated on emissions standards. There is $8 million available for this year’s Diesel Emissions Mitigation Grants. In addition, last summer, DEQ was awarded the Climate Equity and Resilience Through Action Grant, which provides additional funding for the Clean Trucks and Zero-Emission Fueling Infrastructure grants and the ZERO Fleet Rebates.
Links to a helpful User Guide on each grant’s web page. Applications, regardless of the grant, should be submitted through the DEQ Grants web portal. Submissions for programs opening today must be received by DEQ no later than 5 p.m. (PDT) on Friday, Aug. 15, 2025.
For more information specifically on the grants, please contact the program analysts listed above or email dieselgrants@deq.oregon.gov.
Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments
Speech
Prime Minister’s remarks at a roundtable with Lewis Hamilton: 4 June 2025
The Prime Minister gave remarks this afternoon at a roundtable with Lewis Hamilton and a group of young people, in support of Lewis’ foundation Mission 44.
The Prime Minister gave remarks this afternoon at a roundtable with Lewis Hamilton and a group of young people, in support of Lewis’ foundation Mission 44.
This focused on how we can work together to ensure young people are supported to attend and thrive in school.
As part of the discussion, the PM confirmed that government will develop a best practice framework to help schools increase pupil engagement, alongside our work to recruit and retain brilliant and inspiring teachers in every classroom.
Can I just welcome everyone to Downing Street and to this room in particular. This is the Cabinet Room. This is the room where the Prime Minister sits in this chair, opposite the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and all the Cabinet members—including Bridget, who’s obviously responsible for education—and we sit here and make the big decisions of the day.
We do it every week, on a Tuesday morning, but we also do it when we need to make big decisions.
This building, this room, this table, these chairs—they’ve been used by Prime Ministers for decades.
You’re sitting around the Cabinet table where decisions were made about the First World War, the Second World War, and many other world events in recent years.
It’s not just a piece of history—it’s a place where leaders for many, many decades have made big decisions for our country.
It’s because one of the things Lewis and I talked about when we thought about the idea of getting something together like this was having young people in a position where they could use their voices and be heard.
And I thought there’s no better place than around the Cabinet table.
You’re sitting where people have made big decisions about the country, you’re here to influence big decisions about the country.
Some of you will want to talk more than others, but it’s important that we hear the voices of young people and really listen to them.
Because the danger if we don’t is – particularly if you’re a politician – that you make assumptions about what people think. Making decisions based on what you think they’re feeling. And that’s why having this opportunity to hear from you is so important.
I want to thank Lewis—this was his idea, this is his legacy. He’s inspired generations and is now using that influence on this project and is designed to make a real difference in the lives of young people across the country.
I think we need to acknowledge we’re in a really challenging time for young people. A lot of children left school at the beginning of the COVID pandemic and haven’t gone back to school. The achievement gap between the richest and poorest is back to levels we haven’t seen since 2011. That’s shocking. Because I like to think we’re a country that always moves forwards. Always taking a step in the right direction. So when things start going backwards we know we have a real problem.
That’s why I’m really pleased we’re going to publish a best practice framework—to encourage students to enjoy learning, achieve their potential, and have confidence.
I’ve got a 16-year-old son and a 14-year-old daughter. My wife and I agreed: the two things that matters most to instil in them are that they’re happy and confident. And the best schools and teachers believe in their students. They set high expectations but also give the support that people need.
We’ve got what’s called an ‘Opportunity Mission’ which is part of what we want to achieve in government. Bridget is leading on this. It includes things like rolling out free breakfast clubs which are really important in schools, so that all children can come in and start the day with the opportunity for something to eat. Better access to mental health support which is desperately needed in schools. Getting more teachers into classrooms, and teachers in key subjects, supporting students back into school. And a big increase in the schools budget which has been much overdue.
All of that really matters because I was genuinely shocked when Bridget and I were discussing how we took on this work to learn that how far people go in their lives is still more likely to be determined by the income or salary of their parents than their own talent. That’s terrible. We’ve got to turn that around.
To some extent this is personal for me because I was lucky, I went through school, went off to university, became a lawyer, Chief Prosecutor, a politician and now I sit here.
But my brother had a different story to tell. He really struggled at school—and had difficulties learning, not because of a learning difficulty, but because then in his time he was pushed to one side and treated as someone who would never learn.
He struggled a lot as a result of that. You might think someone who sits here as Prime Minister has no idea what it’s like to struggle at school but I know from my own brother what it was like, and how much resilience and personal courage he had to have.
That shaped his life, and shaped my life as well.
As I said to some of you earlier, sometimes politics is about big decisions, policies, data analysis, and speeches.
But most of the time, it’s about who do you have in your mind’s eye when you make a decision?
Do you really know who you’re talking about?
Do you know the impact you have on their lives?
Are you thinking about them when you make those decisions?
That’s why I think it’s so important we’re having this session now because I will take away from this what you’ve said around this table.
I will take away the work that Lewis is doing. The importance of your discussions—whether in this advisory or elsewhere—so that we have got you in our mind’s eye when we make decisions about what to do. So let’s get on with it.
The question we really want to discuss in this session is how can we make sure all young people are supported to succeed at school?
Thank you for the work you’re doing.
Thank you for using your influence to make this happen.
I’m really proud to be able to sit here and support you.
H.R. 248 would require Amtrak to install baby changing tables in at least one restroom per rail car on all passenger trains purchased after enactment, including restrooms that are subject to the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), and to provide appropriate signage. The requirement would not apply to trains that are operated, but not owned, by Amtrak. Because Amtrak is considered a nonfederal entity, CBO estimates that enacting the bill would have no effect on the federal budget.
Amtrak’s new passenger trains are being designed to include baby changing stations in all onboard bathrooms, including those that are ADA-compliant. By requiring Amtrak to comply with additional signage requirements on all new passenger trains they own, H.R. 248 would impose a private-sector mandate as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). CBO estimates that the cost would not exceed the threshold established in UMRA for private-sector mandates ($203 million in 2025, adjusted annually for inflation).
The bill would not impose an intergovernmental mandate as defined in UMRA.
The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Willow Latham-Proença (for federal costs) and Brandon Lever (for mandates). The estimate was reviewed by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Director of Budget Analysis.
Source: United States Senator Joni Ernst (R-IA)
Published: June 4, 2025
Oversight comes as Congress is set to take up rescissions package to defund NPR.
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senators Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas) are demanding transparency from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) over a $1.9 million grant it provided National Public Radio (NPR) last year.
As Congress evaluates whether to continue trusting CPB with taxpayers’ hard-earned money, the pair highlighted the need for the first rescissions package as they blasted the nonprofit for refusing to comply with congressional oversight requests to ensure editorial accuracy, objectivity, and balance, especially after NPR has repeatedly shown blatant bias in reporting.
“Withholding basic information from Congress about the grants to NPR is unacceptable. It raises serious doubts about CPB’s commitment to transparency and accountability. Ultimately, this sort of obstruction when faced with a routine congressional oversight request raises significant concerns about whether Congress can trust CPB to receive taxpayer funds at all, never mind the robust $595 million CPB is requesting for Fiscal Year 2027,” wrote the senators.
In the letter, the senators also point out that Uri Berliner, former senior business editor at NPR, publicly resigned last year in protest of NPR’s considerable political editorial bias.
Click here to view the letter.
Source: United States Senator Peter Welch (D-Vermont)
WASHINGTON, D.C.—This morning, U.S. Senator Peter Welch (D-Vt.) met with Israel’s Ambassador to the United States, Yechiel Leiter in his office. During the meeting, Senator Welch urged Ambassador Leiter and the Israeli government to end the blockade on medicine, infant formula, and other lifesaving humanitarian aid into Gaza. Senator Welch released the following statement:
“Today I had a frank and open conversation with Ambassador Yechiel Leiter. I emphasized my support for the Israeli people and for a secure, democratic State of Israel. I also stressed that America expects Israel to take all necessary steps to provide access to food, humanitarian aid, and medical supplies to suffering Palestinians in Gaza.
“We all agree that Hamas’ attack was evil. Hamas’ continued use of hostages to inflict pain and deep emotional suffering is evil, and we must bring the remaining hostages home. Not a single Vermonter or American I’ve met disputes that. At the same time, we must firmly reject even the implicit acceptance of restricting access to food, water, and medicine as a weapon of war.
“Aid distribution has been slowed and blocked by Israel in the last 24 hours. Palestinians have been killed and injured at distribution sites. The Israeli government continues to block access for the world’s humanitarian organizations. These organizations stand ready to immediately surge food and medicine into Gaza to keep two million Palestinian civilians—including the elderly, cancer patients, those requiring dialysis, and vulnerable children—alive.
“Israel must urgently act to help Palestinians in-need—this is an emergency.”
In addition to the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza, Senator Welch asked Ambassador Leiter for an update on Israel’s investigations into shootings of American citizens, including Dylan Collins, a Vermonter and video journalist with the AFP news agency who was wounded by the Israeli Defense Forces while reporting in Southern Lebanon. Five fellow journalists and colleagues were hurt, and one died in the attack, which violated U.S. and international law.
Senator Welch recently led a Senate Resolution, sponsored by 45 colleagues, which called for the delivery of lifesaving food and humanitarian aid for starving children in Gaza. Senate Republicans blocked passage of the resolution.
To Shakespeare’s Hamlet we humans are “the paragon of animals”. But recent advances in genetics are suggesting that humans are far from being evolution’s greatest achievement.
For example, humans have an exceptionally high proportion of fertilised eggs that have the wrong number of chromosomes and one of the highest rates of harmful genetic mutation.
In my new book The Evolution of Imperfection I suggest that two features of our biology explain why our genetics are in such a poor state. First, we evolved a lot of our human features when our populations were small and second, we feed our young across a placenta.
Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox.Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.
Most human early embryos have chromosomal problems. For older mothers, these embryos tend to have too many or too few chromosomes due to problems in the process of making eggs with just one copy of each chromosome. Most chromosomally abnormal embryos don’t make it to week six so are never a recognised pregnancy.
About 15% of recognised pregnancies spontaneously miscarry, usually before week 12, rising to 65% in women over 40. About half of miscarriages are because of chromosomal issues.
Other mammals have similar chromosome-number problems but with an error rate of about 1% per chromosome. Cows should have 30 chromosomes in sperm or egg but about 30% of their fertilised eggs have odd chromosome numbers.
Humans with 23 chromosomes should have about 23% of fertilised eggs with the wrong number of chromosomes but our rate is higher in part because we presently reproduce late and chromosomal errors escalate with maternal age.
Survive that, then gestational diabetes and high blood pressures issues await, most notably pre-eclampsia, potentially lethal to mother and child, affecting about 5% of pregnancies. It is unique to humans.
Historically, up until about 1800, childbirth was remarkably dangerous with about 1% maternal mortality risk, largely owing to pre-eclampsia, bleeding and infection. In Japanese macaques by contrast, despite offspring also having a large head, maternal mortality isn’t seen. Advances in maternal care have seen current UK maternal mortality rates plummet to 0.01%.
Many of these problems are contingent on the placenta. Compare us to a kiwi bird that loads its large egg with resources and sits on it, even if it is dead: time and energy wasted. In mammals, if the embryo is not viable, the mother may not even know she had conceived.
The high rate of chromosomal issues in our early embryos is a mammalian trait connected to the fact that early termination of a pregnancy lessens the costs, meaning less time wasted holding onto a dead embryo and not giving up the resources that are needed for a viable embryo to grow into a baby.
But reduced costs are not enough to explain why chromosomal problems are so common in mammals.
During the process of making a fertilisable egg with one copy of each chromosome, a sister cell is produced, called the polar body. It’s there to discard half of the chromosomes. It can “pay” in evolutionary terms for a chromosome to not go to the polar body when it should instead stay behind in the soon to be fertilised egg.
It forces redirection of resources to viable offspring. This can explain why chromosomal errors are mostly maternal and why, given their lack of ability to redirect saved energy, other vertebrates don’t seem to have embryonic chromosome problems.
Our problems with gestational diabetes are a consequence of foetuses releasing chemicals from the placenta into the mother’s blood to keep glucose available. The problems with pre-eclampsia are associated with malfunctioning placentas, in part owing to maternal immune rejection of the foetus.
Regular unprotected sex can protect women against pre-eclampsia by helping the mother become used to paternal proteins. The fact that pre-eclampsia is human-specific may be related to our exceptionally invasive placenta that burrows deep into the uterine lining, possibly required to build our unusually large brains.
Our other peculiarities are predicted by the most influential evolutionary theory of the last 50 years, the nearly-neutral theory. It states that natural selection is less efficient when a species has few individuals.
A slightly harmful mutation can be removed from a population if that population is large but can increase in frequency, by chance, if the population is small. Most human-specific features evolved when our population size was around 10,000 in Africa prior to its recent (last 20,000 years) expansion. Minuscule compared to, for example, bacterial populations.
This explains why we have such a bloated genome. The main job of DNA is to give instructions to our cells about how to make the proteins vital for life.
That is done by just 1% of our DNA but by 85% of that of our gut-dwelling bacteria Escherichia coli. Some of our DNA is required for other reasons, such as controlling which genes get activated and when. Yet only about 10% of our DNA shows any signs of being useful.
If you have a small population size, you also have more problems stopping genetical errors like mutations. Although DNA mutations can be beneficial, they are more commonly a curse. They are the basis of genetic diseases, be they complex (such as Crohn’s disease and predispositions to cancer), or owing to single gene effects (like cystic fibrosis and Huntington’s disease).
A consequence of our high mutation rate is that around 5% of us suffer a “rare” genetic disease.
Modern medicine may help cure our many ailments, but if we can’t do anything about our mutation rate, we will still get ill.
Laurence D. Hurst is the author of The Evolution of Imperfection, published by Princeton University Press. This was enabled by funding from The Humboldt Foundation and the European Research Council.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Maria Papageorgiou, Leverhulme Early Career Researcher, School of Geography, Politics, and Sociology, Newcastle University
The US president, Donald Trump, claimed he was able to secure deals totalling more than US$2 trillion (£1.5 trillion) for the US on his tour of the Gulf states in May. Trump said “there has never been anything like” the amount of jobs and money these agreements will bring to the US.
However, providing a lift for the US economy wasn’t the only thing on Trump’s mind. China’s influence in the wider Middle East region is growing fast – so much so that it was even able to mediate a detente between bitter regional rivals Saudi Arabia and Iran in 2023.
Trump’s attempt to strengthen ties with countries in the Middle East is probably also a deliberate attempt to contain China’s growing regional ambitions.
China has spent the past two decades building up its economic and political relations with the Middle East. In 2020, it replaced the EU as the largest trading partner to the Gulf Cooperation Council, which includes Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Bilateral trade between them was valued at over US$161 billion (£119 billion).
Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox.Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.
The Middle East has also become an important partner to China’s sprawling Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Massive infrastructure projects in the region, such as high-speed railway lines in Saudi Arabia, have provided lucrative opportunities for Chinese companies.
The total value of Chinese construction and investment deals in the Middle East reached US$39 billion in 2024, the most of any region in the world. That year, the three countries with the highest volume of BRI-related construction contracts and investment were all in the Middle East: Saudi Arabia, Iraq and the UAE.
China has also strengthened its financial cooperation with Middle Eastern countries, particularly the UAE and Saudi Arabia. As part of China’s efforts to reduce global reliance on the US dollar for trade, it has arranged cross-border trade settlements, currency swap agreements, and is engaging in digital currency collaboration initiatives with these countries.
American security guarantees have historically fostered an alignment between the Gulf states and the west. The string of agreements Trump signed with countries there reflects an attempt to draw them away from China and back towards Washington’s orbit.
Countering China
One of the more significant developments from Trump’s trip was an agreement to deepen US technological cooperation with the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. The US and UAE announced they would work together to construct the largest AI data centre outside of the US in Abu Dhabi.
Technology is one of the key areas where China has been trying to assert its influence in the region. Through Beijing’s so-called “Digital Silk Road” initiative, which aims to develop a global digital ecosystem with China at its centre, Chinese firms have secured deals with Middle Eastern countries to provide 5G mobile network technology.
Chinese tech giants Huawei and Alibaba are also in the process of signing partnerships with telecommunications providers in the region for collaboration and research in cloud computing. These companies have gained traction by aligning closely with national government priorities, such as Saudi Arabia’s initiative to diversify its economy through tech development.
American companies, including Amazon, Microsoft and Google, have spent years building regional tech ecosystems across the Gulf. Trump is looking to recover this momentum. He was joined in the Middle East by more than 30 leaders of top American companies, who also secured commercial deals with their peers from the Gulf.
US quantum computing company Quantinuum and Qatari investment firm Al Rabban Capital finalised a joint venture worth up to a US$1 billion. The agreement will see investment in quantum technologies and workforce development in the US and Qatar.
There are two other areas where Trump is trying to cut China off. American companies and Abu Dhabi’s state-run oil firm agreed a US$60 billion energy partnership. China is heavily dependent on the Middle East for energy, with almost half of the oil it uses coming from the region. Greater alignment with the US could hamper Beijing’s ability to secure the resources it needs.
Trump also signed a raft of defence deals with Qatar and Saudi Arabia. These included a US$1 billion deal for Qatar to acquire drone defence technology from American aerospace conglomerate Raytheon RTX, and a US$142 billion agreement for the Saudis to buy military equipment from US firms.
These moves underscore Washington’s intention to limit China’s influence in key defence sectors. China is a key player in the global market for commercial and military drones, providing Saudi Arabia and the UAE with a large share of their combat drones.
One final aspect of Trump’s trip was his brief meeting with Syria’s interim president Ahmed al-Sharaa. Trump signalled possible sanctions relief, which has since come into effect. This constituted more than a diplomatic thaw.
With China positioning itself as a regional mediator and Russia struggling with a diminished role following the fall of Bashar al-Assad in Syria, the US is looking to reassert itself as the primary power broker in the region.
Dr Maria (Mary) Papageorgiou receives funding from the Leverhulme Trust.
Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Christina E. Hoicka, Canada Research Chair in Urban Planning for Climate Change, Associate Professor of Geography and Civil Engineering, University of Victoria
First Nations across British Columbia have developed renewable electricity projects for decades. Yet they’ve experienced significant barriers to implementing, owning and managing their own electricity supply. That’s because there have been few procurement policies in place that require their involvement.
These goals may include powering buildings in the community, creating economic development and local jobs, earning revenue, improving access to affordable and reliable electricity or using less diesel.
Our new study shares the story of a coalition of First Nations and organizations that advocated for changes to electricity regulations and laws to give Indigenous communities more control to develop renewable electricity projects. Our interviews with knowledge holders from 14 First Nations offer insight into motivations behind their calls for regulatory changes.
The coalition includes the Clean Energy Association of B.C., New Relationship Trust, Pembina Institute, First Nations Power Authority, Nuu-Chah-Nulth Tribal Council, and the First Nations Clean Energy Working Group.
Models for a First Nations power authority
Almost all electricity customers in B.C. are served by BC Hydro, the electric utility owned by the provincial government.
The coalition argues that applying DRIPA to the electricity sector should allow First Nations to form a First Nations power authority. Such an organization would provide them with control over the development of electricity infrastructure that aligns with their values and would also help B.C. meet its greenhouse gas reduction targets.
We identified six proposed First Nations power authority (Indigenous Utility) models:
A capacity building point-of-contact model streamlines the development of renewable electricity projects to sell power to the provincial utility. For example, the First Nations Power Authority in Saskatchewan was formed for this purpose by SaskPower.
This would be the most conformative model. It would provide vital networks and connections to First Nations while allowing BC Hydro and the British Columbia Utilities Commission to maintain full control over the electricity sector.
In the second model, called a “put” contract, a B.C. First Nations Power Authority represents First Nations wishing to develop renewable electricity projects. Whenever the province needs to build new electricity generation projects to meet growing electricity demand, a portion of the new generation is developed by the First Nations authority.
In the third model, First Nations build and operate electricity transmission and distribution lines to allow remote industrial facilities and communities to connect to the electricity grid. This is called “Industrial Interconnection.”
For example, the Wataynikaneyap Power Transmission line in Ontario is a 1,800-kilometre line that provides an electricity grid connection for 17 previously remote nations. Twenty-four First Nations own 51 per cent of the line, while private investors own 49 per cent.
In the fourth model, the B.C. First Nation Power Authority acts as the designated body for various opportunities in the electricity sector, such as the development of electricity transmission, distribution, generation or customer services. This model is referred to as “local or regional ‘ticket’ opportunities.”
Fifth, the First Nation Power Authority develops renewable electricity projects and distributes electricity from these projects to customers as a retailer, or under an agreement through the BC Hydro electricity grid. For example, Nova Scotia Power’s Green Choice program procures renewable electricity from independent power producers to supply to electricity customers.
Sixth, new utility is formed in B.C., owned by First Nations, that owns and operates electricity generation, transmission and distribution services and offers standard customer services in a specific region of B.C. (called a “Regional Vertically-Integrated Power Authority”).
Most of these models would require changes to regulations. The sixth and most transformative model would provide First Nations with full decision-making control over electricity generation, transmission and distribution. It would also give them the ability to sell to customers and require extensive changes in electricity regulation.
Improving living standards
First Nations knowledge-holders told us that a lack of reliable power, high electricity rates, lack of control over projects on their traditional lands and the need for resilience in the face of climate events were motivations for taking electricity planning into their own hands.
They also expressed that varied factors motivate community interest in renewable energy: improving the quality of life for community members; financial independence; mitigating climate change; protecting the environment; reducing diesel use and providing stable and safe power for current and future generations.
First Nations are already seeking to capitalize on the benefits of renewable energy by developing their own projects within the current regulatory system.
Most of those we spoke to see a First Nations power authority in B.C. as a means to provide opportunities for economic development without discrimination — and to achieve self-determination, self-reliance and reconciliation by addressing the root causes of some of the colonial injustices they face by obtaining control over the electricity sector on their lands.
This article was co-authored by David Benton, an adopted member and Clean Energy Project Lead of Gitga’at First Nation and Kayla Klym, a BSc student in Geography at the University of Victoria.
For this research project, Dr. Christina E. Hoicka received funding from Natural Resources Canada Clean Energy for Rural and Remote Communities Program (CERRC), Capacity Building Stream funding program. The research was conducted in partnership for the Clean Energy Association of British Columbia, and the New Relationship Trust. This work was also supported by the New Frontiers in Research Fund Global NFRFG-2020-00339 and the Canada Research Chair Secretariat CRC-2020-00055.
Anna Berka is affiliated with Community Power Agency, a not-for-profit workers co-operative working to ensure a fair and accessible energy transition for all.
Adam J. Regier and Sara Chitsaz 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.
A major national art exhibition has opened in Stoke-on-Trent as the city celebrates its Centenary year.
Stoke-on-Trent has been chosen as the first place in the UK to host an outdoor exhibition by The National Gallery.
The exhibition has seen 15 famous masterpieces from the world-famous London gallery printed at life-size and installed in Bethesda Gardens, opposite The Potteries Museum & Art Gallery.
It is a huge cultural coup for Stoke-on-Trent, and a reflection of its unique cultural heritage. Not only is it a World Craft City but also an Arts Council priority area and one of the National Lottery Heritage Fund’s heritage places.
The National Gallery is one of the most prestigious art galleries in the world, housing a collection of paintings from the late 13th to the early 20th century.
The exhibition in Stoke-on-Trent is part of the Art On Your Doorstep project, which will see villages, towns and cities partner with the gallery to bring a selection of its art to outdoor public spaces for anyone to enjoy without being restricted by opening hours or entry fees.
These will include:
Renaissance Masters such as Caravaggio’s Boy bitten by a Lizard.
The stunning candlelight painting, An Experiment on a Bird in the Air Pump by Joseph Wright ‘of Derby’.
Impressionist legends such as Claude Monet’s The Water-Lily Pond and Georges Seurat’s Bathers at Asnières.
JMW Turner’s dramatic Rain, Steam, and Speed – The Great Western Railway in this bicentenary year of the steam-powered locomotive.
The exhibition opens on Wednesday, 4 June and runs until 7, January 2026.
Lord Mayor of Stoke-on-Trent, Councillor Steve Watkins, said: “We’re so proud to be chosen to team up with the world-renowned National Gallery to showcase some of their collection outside in our city during our centenary year.
“Residents will be able to enjoy a relaxing stroll through the beautiful Bethesda Gardens and pause to enjoy work by famous artists.
“Coming face-to-face with a piece of art is the best way to experience it. Art On Your Doorstep is going to open these paintings to such a wide audience.”
The National Gallery: Art On Your Doorstep is organised by Stoke-on-Trent City Council in collaboration with the National Gallery, London.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Paul Brindley, Senior Lecturer, Department of Landscape Architecture, University of Sheffield
Daxiao Productions / shutterstock
Outside of the home, public playgrounds are the most common places for children to play and the fundamental right of every child to play is even recognised in a UN convention. Despite this, there has been very limited research exploring inequality in the provision of playgrounds.
To help address this, we have analysed data from almost 34,000 playgrounds in England – the largest national dataset on playgrounds yet. In particular, we looked at England’s largest 534 settlements with populations over 15,000 and mapped patterns from the 18,077 children’s playgrounds within them.
We found substantial inequalities. For example, with two places broadly comparable in population size, one might have five times the number of children per playground.
Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox.Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.
With the exception of London, deprived settlements in England tend to have fewer, smaller and further-away playgrounds – a serious social justice issue. In London however, relationships were found to be the opposite, with deprived areas tending to have more playgrounds in close proximity.
There are many different ways to measure the provision of playgrounds, but we used 21 indicators across three domains: the number of playgrounds per child, the size of playgrounds, and their closeness to where children live.
This ensured our results were not heavily influenced by a single variable, since some settlements excelled in one domain but were lacking in others.
Winners and losers
The graph below shows children’s playground provision for major settlements in England:
More deprived settlements tend to have fewer, smaller playgrounds. Brindley & Martin (2025)
Places on the left of the graph have smaller playgrounds, while in places towards the bottom of the graph kids have to travel further to a playground. Circle size indicates how many playgrounds there are per child.
Here’s the same graph for boroughs of London, where the relationship is reversed:
In London, kids in more deprived inner city boroughs have better access to playgrounds. Brindley & Martin (2025)
Comparing major settlements, Liverpool has nearly five times more children under 16 per playground than Norwich (1,104 compared to 236). In London, the difference is even greater: the borough of Redbridge has nearly eight times more children per playground than Islington (1,567 v 204).
In terms of playground size, Leicester dedicates four times more of its urban area to playgrounds than Leeds (0.30% v 0.07%), while Norwich offers seven times more playground space per child than Birmingham (4.2 metres to 0.7 metres). In London, Islington has five times the playground area of Barnet (0.64% of total urban area v 0.13%), and three times more space per child than Redbridge (2.8 metres v 0.9 metres).
Liverpool has the lowest percentage of children within 100, 300 and 500 metres of playgrounds, with Coventry having the lowest percentage at 800 metres. In contrast, Southampton, Plymouth and Reading have the highest percentages of children living close to playgrounds.
In London, Redbridge and Kingston upon Thames had the lowest percentages of children living close to playground, while Islington, Tower Hamlets and Hackney had the highest levels of provision. These distance measures will be heavily influenced by population density, especially in London (Redbridge is suburban; Islington is inner city). However, patterns outside of London appear more complex.
Different solutions for different places
Places like Norwich, Islington and Milton Keynes fared well across all three domains, while places like Liverpool, Leeds or Stockton-on-Tees did comparably poorly in all three. But most areas fell somewhere in between.
For example, places such as Portsmouth or Nottingham have good scores for distance but have poor provision in terms of size. They would, therefore, benefit most from expanding existing playgrounds.
In contrast, playgrounds in Brighton and Lincoln are bigger but tend to be further away. Places like these would benefit from a few new strategically positioned playgrounds to fill in the gaps.
As with any dataset, there are constraints. In future, we want to incorporate additional data on accessibility for disabled children, and we recognise that playgrounds are just one element across the wider spectrum of places where children play. For instance, children in outer London boroughs with few playgrounds might live nearer to woods or sports fields.
We also acknowledge that we have no data to monitor the quality of playgrounds. Is a 100 square metre playground filled with interesting and safe features? Or a single worn out slide surrounded by fencing? Ultimately, playground use rather than provision is the most important measure. After all, a bad playground will not make children more active.
Our hope is that, as people become more aware of the problem, we’ll see new policies and better placemaking for children. Already we are working with Play England (England’s national charity for play) on a “digital dashboard” capable of supporting councils to plan more strategically for play in their local areas.
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.
Ozempic and Wegovy have been hailed as wonder drugs when it comes to weight loss. But as the drug has become more widely used, a number of unintended side-effects have become apparent – with the weight loss drug affecting the appearance of everything from your butt to your feet.
“Ozempic face” is another commonly reported consequences of using these popular weight loss drugs. This is a sunken or hollowed out appearance the face can take on in people taking weight loss drugs. It can also increase signs of ageing – including lines, wrinkles and sagging skin.
This happens because the action of semaglutide (the active ingredient in both Ozempic and Wegovy) isn’t localised to act just on the fat in places we don’t want it. Instead, it acts on fat across the whole body – including in the face.
But it isn’t just the appearance of your face that semaglutide affects. These drugs may also affect the mouth and teeth, too. And these side-effects could potentially lead to lasting damage.
Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox.Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.
Dry mouth
Semaglutide effects the salivary glands in the mouth. It does this by reducing saliva production (hyposalivation), which can in turn lead to dry mouth (xerostomia). This means there isn’t enough saliva to keep the mouth wet.
It isn’t exactly clear why semaglutide has this effect on the salivary glands. But in animal studies of the drug, it appears the drug makes saliva stickier. This means there’s less fluid to moisten the mouth, causing it to dry out.
Another species that has been shown to thrive in conditions where saliva is reduced is Porphyromonas gingivalis. This bacteria is a significant contributor to the production of volatile sulphur compounds, which cause the foul odours characteristic of halitosis.
Another factor that might explain why semaglutide causes bad breath is because less saliva being produced means the tongue isn’t cleaned. This is the same reason why your “morning breath” is so bad, because we naturally produce less saliva at night. This allows bacteria to grow and produce odours. Case report images show some people taking semaglutide have a “furry”-like or coated appearance to their tongue. This indicates a build up of bacteria that contribute to bad breath.
Some people taking the weight loss drug experience a bacterial buidl-up on their tongue. sruilk/ Shutterstock
Tooth damage
One of the major side-effects of Ozempic is vomiting. Semaglutide slows how quickly the stomach empties, delaying digestion which can lead to bloating, nausea and vomiting.
Repeated vomiting can damage the teeth. This is because stomach acid, composed primarily of hydrochloric acid, erodes the enamel of the teeth. Where vomiting occurs over a prolonged period of months and years the more damage will occur. The back surface of the teeth (palatal surface) closest to the tongue are more likely to see damage – and this damage may not be obvious to the sufferer.
Vomiting also reduces the amount of fluid in the body. When combined with reduced saliva production, this puts the teeth at even greater risk of damage. This is because saliva helps neutralise the acid that causes dental damage.
Saliva also contributes to the dental pellicle – a thin, protective layer that the saliva forms on the surface of the teeth. It’s thickest on the tongue-facing surface of the bottom row of teeth. In people who produce less saliva, the dental pellicle contains fewer mucins – a type of mucus which helps saliva stick to the teeth.
Reducing the risk of damage
If you’re taking semaglutide, there are many things you can do to keep your mouth healthy.
Drinking water regularly during the day can help to keep the oral surfaces from drying out. This helps maintain your natural oral microbiome, which can reduce the risk of an overgrowth of the bacteria that cause bad breath and tooth damage.
Drinking plenty of water also enables the body to produce the saliva needed to prevent dry mouth, ideally the recommended daily amount of six to eight glasses. Chewing sugar-free gum is also a sensible option as it helps to encourage saliva production. Swallowing this saliva keeps the valuable fluid within the body. Gums containing eucalyptus may help to prevent halitosis, too.
There’s some evidence that probiotics may help to alleviate bad breath, at least in the short term. Using a probiotic supplements or consuming probiotic-rich foods (such as yoghurt or kefir) may be a good idea.
Women are twice as likely to have side-effects when taking GLP-1 receptor agonists – including gastrointestinal symptoms such as vomiting. This may be due to the sex hormones oestrogen and progesterone, which can alter the gut’s sensitivity. To avoid vomiting, try eating smaller meals since the stomach stays fuller for longer while taking semaglutide.
If you are sick, don’t immediately brush your teeth as this will spread the stomach’s acid over the surface of the teeth and increase the risk of damage. Instead, rinse your mouth out with water or mouthwash to reduce the strength of the acid and wait at least 30 minutes before brushing.
It isn’t clear how long these side effects last, they’ll likely disappear when the medication is stopped, but any damage to the teeth is permanent. Gastrointestinal side-effects can last a few weeks but usually resolve on their own unless a higher dose is taken.
Adam Taylor does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Marcel Plichta, PhD Candidate in the School of International Relations, University of St Andrews
Russia launched its largest single drone attack of the war against Ukraine’s cities on June 1. The Ukrainian Air Force reported that they faced 472 unmanned one-way attack (OWA) drones overnight.
The record may not stand for long. The prior record was on May 26, when Moscow launched some 355 drones. The day before Russia had set a record with 298 Shaheds, which itself surpassed the May 18 tally.
Russia’s enormous OWA drone attacks came as a surprise to politicians and the general public, but it’s the culmination of years of work by the Russia military. Initially purchased from Iran, Russia began building factories in 2023 to assemble and then manufacture Shaheds (Iranian-designed unmanned drones) in Russia. Greater control over production gave Russia the opportunity to expand the number of Shaheds quickly.
Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox.Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.
It also helps them gradually upgrade their drones. Investigations into downed Shaheds show that Russia has been coating the drones in carbon, which resists detection by radar by absorbing incoming waves instead of reflecting them back. They have also been adding SIM cards to transmit data back to Russia through mobile networks.
Shaheds also had their warheads upgraded. On May 20 the Ukrainian media reported that Shaheds were using newer incendiary and fragmentation warheads which start fires and spread large volumes of shrapnel respectively to increase their effectiveness.
Russia hit Kyiv with its biggest ever drone strike a few days ago.
These upgrades were simple in order to keep the cost of the drone, its major advantage over a missile, under control. These drones are both inexpensive and long-range.
This means that an attacker such as Russia can launch hundreds every month at targets across Ukraine with little concern about how many are lost along the way. Meanwhile, the defender is stuck figuring out how to shoot all incoming drones down at a reasonable cost indefinitely.
The problem is made even more complicated by the fact that air defence systems are sorely needed at the front line to shoot down hostile aircraft, making it a difficult trade-off.
Adding to the problem is the recent production of decoy Shaheds. While they carry no warhead and pose little threat by themselves, Ukrainian air defence cannot always tell the decoy from the real thing and still need to shoot them down. In late May, Ukrainian officials told the media that up to 40% of incoming Shaheds were decoys.
Consequently, Russia’s 472-drone attack reflects all of Russia’s innovations so far. These have improved the number of drones that survive, increased lethality, while using decoys alongside armed drones to ensure as many as possible reach their target.
What are the challenges for Ukraine?
Ukraine shoots most incoming Shaheds down. Even the 472-drone attack still had 382 claimed interceptions, a rate of 81%. However, the relatively high interception rate disguises the Shahed’s benefits for Russia.
Shaheds are cheap by military standards, so launching constant attacks is a disproportionate burden for Ukrainian air defence units. Kyiv has mobilised an enormous amount of resources to protect its cities, from mobile units in trucks to counter-Shahed drones that function like a cheaper anti-aircraft missile.
That said, these systems often have short ranges, which means that the savings per interception are somewhat offset by the need to maintain many hundreds of systems across a country as large as Ukraine. Ukraine also has the option of trying to strike Russia’s Shahed factories, which they have attempted a few times.
Despite Ukraine’s evolving air defence, Russia still sees military benefits to constant Shahed attacks. In a study I contributed to last year, we found that Russia’s initial OWA drone strategy in 2022 and 2023 did little to force Ukraine to negotiate an end to the war on terms favourable to Russia.
That may still be the case now, but the volume of drones and the high tempo of attacks means that Russian strategy could well be aimed at systematically exhausting Ukrainian air defence.
As Ukraine grapples with unpredictable US military support, Kyiv is more vulnerable to running out of ammunition for its more advanced air defence systems. This means that constant Shahed attacks make it more difficult for Ukraine to stop incoming missiles, which carry much larger warheads.
Ukraine’s drone strike this week.
Of course, Ukraine has its own versions of the Shahed, which it uses to routinely launch strikes against Russian military and oil facilities. Less is known about Ukraine’s OWA drones, but they often use many similar features to Shaheds such as satellite navigation.
For Russia’s Vladimir Putin, using Shaheds is not all about military benefit. Politically, he has increasingly used Shahed attacks to project a sense of power to his domestic audiences. On May 9, Russia paraded Shaheds through Moscow’s streets as part of its annual Victory Day celebrations, which had not been done in years past.
Ukraine has begun employing its own OWA drones as part of the “Spiderweb” operation to attack military and oil infrastructure across Russia.
Russia’s 472-drone attack is unlikely to remain its largest attack for long. Putin has shown a determination to expand the scale and tempo of its drone campaign and resist Ukaine’s calls for a permanent “ceasefire in the sky”, but this week Ukraine’s drone strategy has shown that prolonging the drone war can also have serious and unexpected effects for Moscow.
So long as the conflict continues, Ukraine’s defenders will find themselves facing more, and better, drones aimed at their cities. But increasingly it looks like Russia must worry about Ukraine’s drone capabilities too.
Marcel Plichta works for Grey Dynamics Ltd. as an intelligence instructor.
Children no longer play freely in driveways, on their streets or in urban parks and courtyards. In many places, children’s freedom to roam has been diminishing for generations, but the pandemic has hastened the decline of this free play.
Since the pandemic, children’s physical activity has become ever more structured. It now mostly happens in after-school or sports clubs, while informal, child-led play continues to decline.
In many cases, children don’t have easy access to purpose-built spaces like playgrounds. They need adults to get them there. Without the use of more informal spaces to spend time with other children, this means they often lack daily opportunities for play.
Unstructured play happens when children are given the opportunity to behave freely in spaces with other children. They will often need support from adults – such as through supervision – to help them play safely.
Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox.Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.
Play – and especially unstructured opportunities for play – is essential for children. Beyond providing opportunities for physical activity, play is good for children’s development. It helps them to push boundaries, find ways of exploring friendships and resolving conflicts, and to stretch their imagination and creativity.
Schools are important for encouraging play. They can, for instance, combine play with potential benefits for physical activity levels, and with compassion for the environment and an interest in climate change and biodiversity.
But they are not the sole solution. Supporting play needs to reach beyond the school gates.
Urban play
The charity Playing Out has been working in Bristol, where we are based, and in many other cities across the UK to champion community-led “play streets”. Residents apply to their local council for temporary road closures, which allows them to let their children play on the street without fearing passing cars. Parents and carers supervise resident children to play outside their houses.
Finding ways to encourage children to play in places such as driveways, courtyards, and on their streets can also help with their independence in the outdoors. The three of us have worked on a variety of research projects on children’s interaction with the urban environment.
Lydia is involved with children and families living in an urban area of Bristol, exploring how to get children to play in these urban pockets of space. The “OK to play” project intends to create a toolkit to help families enhance these small threshold areas, such as driveways, into play spaces.
The experience of COVID lockdowns worldwide emphasised the importance of green spaces and nature for all of us in maintaining good levels of physical and mental health. This was often particularly challenging for children who lived in cities without easy access to gardens or green spaces.
Debbie has worked with artists and primary-aged children on the “What does nature mean to me” project. The children explored green spaces in Bristol, collecting natural materials for collages as well as painting, drawing and taking photographs.
The children were fascinated to see that nature resides even in the most urban places. Making art as well as spending time freely in natural spaces gave the children opportunities to explore big ideas: their hopes and fears for the future and what their role might be in the climate crisis.
Helping play happen
Adults have a crucial role in making being outside safer for children’s play. What the projects we’ve worked on have in common is willing adults who see the value of unstructured play, who can enthuse children, put in place structures to make being outside safer and support each other in enabling more children to engage in their right to play.
If you’re a parent or carer, you can take action. You could start by considering how you prioritise how your children spend their time. This might mean signing up to one less activity class, and instead using that regular time to supervise your children – and perhaps offering to supervise friends or neighbours’ children, too – as they play freely in your driveway, courtyard or other urban pocket.
Damien Hirst is never far from scandal. Perhaps best known for immersing animal corpses into formaldehyde and selling them as art, the “enfant terrible” of the 1990s Young British Artists (YBA) movement seems to court controversy for a living – and has made an extraordinary amount of money in the process. Reputedly worth around £700 million, this working-class lad “easily” topped a recent list of the world’s richest artists.
Money is at the root of a lot of the questions that hover around Hirst’s legacy to the art world as he reaches his 60th birthday. Few artists have stress-tested the question of artistic value (and price) more than him – not least in his 2007 work For The Love of God: a platinum cast of a human skull encrusted with thousands of flawless diamonds.
Last year, Hirst’s money-related motives were called into question again in an investigation by the Guardian which revealed he had backdated three formaldehyde sculptures to the 1990s when they were, in fact, made in 2017. The report also found he had backdated some of the 10,000 original spot paintings from his NFT project The Currency to 2016, despite them being made between 2018 and 2019.
Hirst’s company, Science Ltd, defended the artist by reminding critics that his art is conceptual – and that he has always been clear that what matters is “not the physical making of the object or the renewal of its parts, but rather the intention and the idea behind the artwork”. His lawyers pointed out:
The dating of artworks, and particularly conceptual artworks, is not controlled by any industry standard. Artists are perfectly entitled to be (and often are) inconsistent in their dating of works.
But some of the art world did not respond kindly to this approach. Writing about Hirst’s “backdating scandal”, New York’s Rehs Galleries asked not only if Hirst could be sued by buyers and investors, but whether he was in creative decline. And Jones accused Hirst of being stuck in the past, calling the Guardian’s findings a “betrayal” for the artist’s admirers which could “threaten to poison Hirst’s whole artistic biography”.
The Insights section is committed to high-quality longform journalism. Our editors work with academics from many different backgrounds who are tackling a wide range of societal and scientific challenges.
Ever since Hirst burst on the art scene in the 1990s with his macabre readymades (or “objets trouvé”) of dead animals in vitrines, he has divided art critics and the public alike. He has faced – and denied – multiple allegations of plagiarism and been censored by animal rights activists, while also being acclaimed as a “genius” and one of the leading global artists of the 20th and 21st centuries. Amid all the eye-watering auction sales, he has donatedartworks to numerous charities throughout his career.
So, was the backdating incident another instance of Hirst mastering the art of the concept – and even offering a sly critique of consumerism and the art world machine, of which he is such a large cog? Or was it really just a big lie by a multi-millionaire artist seeking even more financial gain?
As philosophers of art, we think our discipline can shed light on these complex questions by exploring the nature of conceptual art, aesthetic deception and the ethics of the art market. As we contemplate the legacy of Hirst at 60, we ask: must artists always be truthful?
What only the best art can attain
Hirst had a humble upbringing. Born in the English port city of Bristol in 1959, he was raised in Leeds by his Irish mother, who encouraged him to draw. He never met his father and got in trouble with the police on a few occasions in his youth. His early artistic education was rocky too: he got a grade E in art A-Level and was rejected a handful of times by art schools.
But as a teenager, he had fallen in love with Francis Bacon’s paintings, later explaining that he admired their visceral expressions of the horror of the fragile body, and that he “went into sculpture directly in reaction … to Bacon’s work”. Hirst would also use his work experience in a morgue to hone his anatomical drawing skills.
His love of conceptual art blossomed when he began studying fine art at London’s Goldsmiths University in 1986 – taught by art world legends such as Michael Craig-Martin and catching the attention of collector and businessman Charles Saatchi. Craig-Martin had risen to fame for his conceptual artwork An Oak tree (1973), consisting of a glass of water on a pristine shelf with a text asserting that the glass was, in fact, an oak tree. Hirst has described this artwork as “the greatest piece of conceptual sculpture – I still can’t get it out of my head”.
Hirst’s fascination with death culminated in his most notorious work of art, The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living (1991) – a dead tiger shark, caught off the coast of Queensland in Australia, preserved in formaldehyde in a glass vitrine.
We encountered the work, separately and ten years apart, in London and New York. We both felt inclined to dislike and dismiss it. Instead, we were simply overwhelmed. By forcing us to stare death in the face, literally, the work put everything on its edge – awe-inspiring and horrifying, life-affirming and fatal, in your face yet somehow apart and absent.
Like it or not, Hirst’s shark achieved what only the best art can: jolting us out of our everyday registers – making us confront mortality, the value of life, and the human condition.
Video: Khan Academy.
Not everyone agreed, of course. After it was exhibited in the first YBA show at the Saatchi Gallery in 1992, there was a swarm of hate. According to the Stuckist Art Group (an anti-conceptual art movement), a dead shark isn’t art. Of Hirst’s entire oeuvre, the group’s co-founders have said: “They’re bright and they’re zany – but there’s fuck all there at the end of the day.”
After Hirst won the Turner Prize in 1995 for Mother and Child, Divided (a bisected cow and calf in glass tanks) Conservative politician Norman Tebbit asked whether the art world had “gone stark raving mad”. Art critic Brian Sewell exclaimed that Hirst’s work is “no more interesting than a stuffed pike over a pub door”.
But Hirst never seemed to care about such criticism as he tackled controversial themes ranging from death, science and religion to the unrelenting power of capitalism. Along the way, he has used his power to criticise the very art world of which he forms such an important part, and from which he has gained such enormous riches.
You might say his art reached a logical endpoint with The Currency in 2021 – a conceptual experiment in which 10,000 unique, hand-painted spot paintings were reduced to money itself, as they corresponded to 10,000 non-fungible tokens (NFTs). Buyers were given the choice of keeping either the physical or the digital version, while the other would be destroyed. Speaking to the actor and art enthusiast Stephen Fry, Hirst said of these paintings:
What if I made these and treated them like money? … I’ve never really understood money. All these things – art, money, commerce – they’re all ethereal. It relies not on notebooks or pieces of paper but belief, trust.
How Hirst makes his art
It’s not just what Hirst’s art supposedly means that sometimes rocks the boat, but how he makes it.
While he began his career by personally making and manipulating his chosen artistic materials – from paint and canvas to flies and maggots – he now unapologetically relies on a studio populated by numerous assistants to produce the works that bear his name. It is largely these studio workers who pour the paint on spinning canvases, handle the formaldehyde, construct the glass boxes, and source the dead animals.
Hirst has fully endorsed the conceptual artist’s mantra of “the art is the idea”. If the artwork is the idea rather than the material object, then it should suffice merely for the artist to think or conceptualise the objects for them to count as his works of art. According to this perspective, exactly who makes the objects which are exhibited, sold and debated in the media is entirely unimportant.
But to some, this adds to the ways in which they feel deceived or “had” by Hirst. After all, at least in the western artistic tradition, the connection between artist and artwork has for hundreds of years been considered unique, sacred even. If an artist doesn’t actually make the art any more, to what extent can they really be said to be an artist at all?
Except that, in this respect, Hirst is not particularly unusual. Outsourcing the physical act of making an artwork is almost standard among contemporary artists such as Anish Kapoor, Rachel Whiteread and Jeff Koons – all of whom have long relied on trainee artists, engineers, architects, constructors and more to build their large structural works.
And while Andy Warhol was the trendsetter in this regard from the early 1960s – calling his studio The Factory for its assembly line-style of production – the practice predates even him by hundreds of years. The great masters of the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries, having acquired sufficient fame and fortune, were rarely the sole creators of their masterpieces.
The 17th-century Flemish artist Rubens, for example, would often leave the painting of less central or prominent features in his works to his studio assistants – many of whom, including Anthony van Dyck and Jacob Jordaens, went on to highly successful artistic careers of their own. Even 14-year-old Leonardo da Vinci started out as a studio apprentice in the workshop of the Italian sculptor and painter Andrea del Verrocchio.
Unlike Rubens, however, Hirst now only rarely makes any kind of material contribution to his works, beyond adding his signature. The Currency series involved Hirst merely adding a watermark and signature to the thousands of handmade spot paintings.
Video: HENI.
Also, Hirst’s works make no formal recognition of this studio input, whereas for Rubens, the arrangement was fairly transparent. Indeed, the division of labour was sometimes even negotiated with the painting’s buyer – the more a buyer was willing to pay, the more Rubens would paint himself.
But Hirst makes no secret of his lack of physical involvement in the material process, explaining:
You have to look at it as if the artist is an architect – we don’t have a problem that great architects don’t actually build the houses … Every single spot painting contains my eye, my hand and my heart.
Hirst’s social media pages often show the artist arriving at his studio while his team are busy at work. And clearly, not all potential buyers care about his “hands-off approach” – a large part of what they value is, precisely, the signature. In 2020, Hirst told The Idler magazine’s editor Tom Hodgkinson:
If I couldn’t delegate, I wouldn’t make any work … If I want to paint a spot painting but don’t know how I want it to look, I can go to an assistant … When they ask how you want it to look, you can say: ‘I don’t know, just do it.’ It gives you something to kick against or work against.
In the past decade, though, Hirst says he has scaled back his studio, admitting his art life felt like it was out of control:
You start by thinking you’ll get one assistant and before you know it, you’ve got biographers, fire eaters, jugglers, fucking minstrels and lyre players all wandering around.
The product of a specific place and time
Hirst disrupts our beliefs about art to an extent matched by few of his contemporaries. Always in the business of fragmenting the already vague expectations of the art market – and wider general public – he continues the trajectory outlined by fellow experimental conceptual artists such as Marcel Duchamp, Joseph Beuys, Adrian Piper, Sol LeWitt, Joseph Kosuth and Yoko Ono – now well over 50 years ago.
When the making of art moves into this level of abstraction, a historical fact like the precise inception date seems harder to pin down – and it becomes much less clear which aspects of the creative process should determine when the work was “made”.
Of course, the same question arises outside the confines of this artistic genre. How should we deal with performative arts such as theatre, jazz or opera? Is it all that important to date John Coltrane’s Blue Train to its first recording in 1957, rather than any of the other dates on which the American jazz legend performed it? Surely some aesthetic and artistic qualities are added on each occasion?
However, art in general, be it Blue Train or one of Hirst’s spot paintings, is always the product of a specific place and time. It is undoubtedly a significant fact about Hirst’s Cain and Abel (1994) – one of the artworks highlighted by the Guardian misdating investigation – that it was “made” in the YBA boom of the 1990s.
Can we engage with these pieces without bringing knowledge of this fact into our experience of them? Yes. Can we grasp at least some of their wider meaning? Almost certainly. But can we fully appreciate them as cultural objects – defining a precise moment in the evolution of art and society at large, perhaps foreseeing a certain shift in our larger value systems including what art means to us? Maybe not.
But there is another possibility we need to consider – one that touches on the worries of some of Hirst’s critics. What if Hirst intentionally misled the public for financial and commercial gain, and that the dating debacle has nothing to do with his cunning conceptual practice?
Jon Sharples, senior associate at London-based law firm Howard Kennedy – one of the first UK practices to advise on art and cultural property law – observed a few reasons why an artist might deliberately fudge or mislead on the origin of their art:
The potential for commercial pressure to do so is obvious. If works from a certain period achieve higher market prices than works from other periods, there is a clear incentive to increase the supply of such works to meet the demand for them.
Another reason Sharples offered is an art-historical one – to make the artist appear more radical: “In the linear, western conception of art history – in which ‘originality’ is often elevated above all other artistic virtues, and great store is placed in being the ‘first’ artist to arrive at a particular development – artists have sometimes been given to tampering with the historical record.”
Here, Sharples referenced the famous example of “the father of abstraction”, Russian artist Kazimir Malevich, backdating the first version of his Black Square by two years.
So, has Hirst just told a big fib about the origins of some of his art?
Philosophers largely agree that lying involves asserting something you believe to be untrue; speaking seriously but not telling the truth. And most of the time, we all assume that people around us abide by the norm that everyone ought to speak truthfully to each other. If we didn’t believe this, we would barely be able to communicate with one another. Lying involves violating this “truth norm”.
Yet, the case of art seems to stand in stark contrast to this. When we ask whether an artist has lied as part of their artistic practice, it is often not clear that there is a straightforward truth norm in the art world to be violated: it’s not clear that the artist is speaking ‘seriously’ in the first place.
I (Daisy) have researched in depth the reasons why lying in the art world is such a tricky business. In many exhibitions, it is the aesthetic experience that is of primary value. If what matters is creating beauty, then straightforward truth is not the point.
Moreover, even in cases where the art is designed to convey a specific message, it’s tricky to say in what sense they ought to tell “the truth”. Many artworks represent fictional scenarios which needn’t be fully accurate.
For instance, it was quite acceptable in the 16th century for painters of religious paintings to give central biblical figures inaccurate clothing – and for portrait artists not to paint their sitter’s flaws and blemishes. And in the perplexing art world of the 21st century, many post-1960 artforms are designed to challenge and critique the very nature of truth itself.
All of which means straightforward “truth games” do not operate as smoothly in the art world as they do in the ordinary world. With its self-reflective and self-critical structure, the art world of today offers a space to think open-endedly and creatively. Do you expect everything you see in an art gallery, or even speeches by conceptual artists, to be straightforwardly “true”? We don’t think so.
The art world is hardly renowned for its straightforwardly communicated messages. To accuse Hirst of lying assumes he is playing the truth game that the rest of us are signed up to in the first place. And it’s not clear he is.
Hirst might be closer to a novelist or actor who plays with and explores the very nature of truth and falsehood. In this way, he’s maybe at most a “bullshitter” who doesn’t play – or care for – the truth game at all.
The real problem?
But this fascination with Hirst’s dating practices may overlook the more important – if equally complex – problem of how his art works were made, rather than when. Are the ethical concerns about the production of Hirst’s enormous oeuvre the real issue in assessing his legacy as an artist?
For instance, Hirst has been criticised for treating his staff as “disposable”. During the peak of the COVID pandemic, he laid off 63 of his studio assistants even though his company had reportedly received £15 million of emergency loans from the UK government.
And while Hirst’s lawyers insist his studios always adhere to health-and-safety regulations, some of the “factory line” workers producing artworks for The Currency were allegedly left with repetitive strain injuries. One artist described their year-long toil as “very, very tedious”. Another commented on the work tables being at a low level, forcing them to constantly bend down.
Hirst has publicly praised assistants such as the artist Rachel Howard, who he described as “the best person who ever painted spots for me”. Likewise, Howard described working with Hirst as “a very good symbiotic” relationship.
Hirst is famous for exhibiting slain animals … and for the use of thousands of butterflies whose wings are torn and glued on various objects. Death and the taste of the macabre serve to attract attention. Then wealthy collectors such as Saatchi and even the prestigious Sotheby’s artificially inflate the prices of Hirst’s junk. It’s a squalid commercial operation based on death and contempt for living and sentient beings.
Video: Channel 4 News.
Indeed, some of Hirst’s macabre formaldehyde pieces are known for rotting a little too much. The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living originally deteriorated due to an improper preservation technique, and had to be replaced by another shark caught off the same Australian coast. It’s not clear how many sharks have now been killed – or will need to be killed in the future – to preserve this masterpiece.
Further concerns have been raised about the environmental ethics of Hirst’s art, including that The Currency project incurred a hefty carbon footprint because of its reliance on blockchain technology. While Hirst used a more environmentally-friendly sidechain to release his NFTs, he still received payment via bitcoin, which has a far higher energy consumption.
Traditionally, art historians, critics and investors have championed an artwork’s meaning over any of its moral flaws in its production. But the ethics of artmaking are now being questioned by philosophers such as ourselves, as well as by many influential figures in the art world. Artworks that incur large carbon footprints, cause damage to ecosystems, or use and kill animals, are now considered morally flawed in these ways.
Philosophers such as Ted Nannicelli argue that these ethical defects can actually diminish the artistic value of the work of art. Meanwhile, artists such as Angela Singer and Ben Rubin and Jen Thorp use their art for animal and eco-activism, while doing no harm to creatures or the ecosystem in the process.
As we both acknowledge, Hirst’s shark expressed a laudable meaning in an arresting way. But is this enough to excuse the (repeated) killing of this awesome animal? Do we become complicit in its death by praising it as art? It is a question anybody who was impressed by its sheer aesthetic presence all those years ago should ask themselves.
In this and many other ways, Hirst’s work continues to raise fundamental questions about art – long after it was created, or dated. If nothing else, surely this confirms his enduring position in the British art establishment.
Damien Hirst’s representatives were contacted about the criticisms of Hirst that are highlighted in this article, but they did not respond by the time of publication.
To hear about new Insights articles, join the hundreds of thousands of people who value The Conversation’s evidence-based news. Subscribe to our newsletter.
Elisabeth Schellekens has received funding from Vetenskapsrådet (Swedish Funding Council) as Principal Investigator for research into Aesthetic Perception and Aesthetic Cognition (2019-22), and an AHRC Innovation Award on Perception and Conceptual Art with Peter Goldie (2003).
Daisy Dixon does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: Africa Press Organisation – English (2) – Report:
ACCRA, Ghana, June 4, 2025/APO Group/ —
Industry leaders at the Mining in Motion 2025 summit spotlighted Ghana’s ongoing efforts to formalize its artisanal and small-scale gold mining (ASGM) sector.
Participants on an India Gold Metaverse-sponsored session – titled Case Studies in ASGM Formalization: Learning from Successes and Addressing Challenges – emphasized that formalization has the potential to catalyze sustainability, build stronger communities and drive long-term economic growth.
“We need regulatory and legislative changes that support small-scale miners and ensure that revenue from their contributions translates into real economic, social and communal growth,” stated Martin Ayisi, CEO of the Minerals Commission of Ghana.
Ayisi called for bold regulatory and financial interventions in the sector, stressing the urgent need for investment in geological investigations and sustainable technologies to prevent encroachment on protected areas and improve sector-wide outcomes.
From an regional perspective, Cisse Vakaba, Advisor to the President on Mining, Ivory Coast, emphasized the foundational role of geology in building a viable ASGM sector. He stressed that state support must go beyond issuing permits to include geological surveys, professional training, community engagement and digital tools for traceability.
“I really think that the basis for small mines is the geological aspect. This is the aspect where we have to work, to see the areas where they can exploit,” Vakaba stated, adding, “The State must provide support. It’s not enough to issue a title, a permit. We need to support prospecting and geological research.”
Meanwhile, Melissa Correa Vélez, Program Manager, Swiss Better Gold, highlighted the human-centered approach necessary to make formalization efforts successful. Velez – through Swiss Better Gold’s Boots on the Ground initiative – advocates for programs, including technical support and community-oriented training, that extend beyond legal structures to genuinely improve livelihoods and environmental stewardship.
“If you want to work with artisanal miners, work with them. Keep the miners interested in being responsible. If the miners lose interest because of the challenges, they will become illegal,” Velez stated.
For his part, Kwaku Afrifa Nsiah-Asare, Lawyer and Entrepreneur, Typhoon Greenfield Development, emphasized that government support will be a requisite for ASGM formalization in Ghana, speaking candidly on social and financial challenges in the sector.
“By doing everything properly, the Minerals Commission of Ghana has been extremely supportive and made it worthwhile for us to do business. It’s about partnerships and leadership in government,” Nsiah-Asare stated.
Bringing a tech-forward perspective, Lamon Rutten, Managing Director and CEO of India Gold Metaverse, spoke to the transformative potential of digital innovation in the ASGM value chain.
“Blockchain technologies and AI can help improve artisanal and small-scale mining operations. Tools like geo-tracking, radio-frequency identification-equipped machinery and internet-of-things devices allow us to trace ore sources. If you really want to develop small-scale mining, work with local banks. Let them understand the sector and they will help drive sustainable growth,” Rutten said.
During the presentation, the panelists agreed that projects including the Ghana Land Restoration and Small-Scale Mining Project – a joint initiative with the World Bank – are setting a precedent. By offering financial and technical support, simplifying license through District Mining Committees, and organizing miners into Community Mining Schemes, Ghana is building an ASGM sector that is increasingly legal, sustainable and community driven.
Organized by the Ashanti Green Initiative – led by Oheneba Kwaku Duah, Prince of Ghana’s Ashanti Kingdom – in collaboration with Ghana’s Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources, World Bank, and the World Gold Council, with the support of Ghana’s Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources, the summit offers unparalleled opportunities to connect with industry leaders.
The Labour government is on the wrong side of history and it has Palestinian blood on its hands
More in External Affairs
Scottish Greens MSP Maggie Chapman joined protesters outside the UK Government offices in Edinburgh as part of the Red Line for Gaza demonstration, calling for an immediate end to arms sales to Israel and demanding accountability for the UK’s role in the ongoing violence against Palestinians.
The protest coincides with Israel’s ongoing assault on Gaza, with catastrophic impacts on civilians.
The UK Government is currently facing a judicial review in the High Court challenging their continued supply of F-35 parts in arms exports used by Israel. Despite mounting evidence the Government lawyer’s have argued no violation of the duty to prevent genocide “can occur unless and until there is actually a genocide”.
European countries such as Spain, Canada, the Netherlands, Belgium and Italy have suspended arms sales to Israel, however, the UK Government continues to fight the case as aircraft continue to bomb Gaza.
“Gaza has been turned into rubble – hospitals, schools, homes – all destroyed. Over 90% of housing has been wiped out. Families are being displaced and forced into camps with no food, water or shelter. This is not just a humanitarian crisis – it’s a moral catastrophe and the UK Government is helping it happen. The UK Government is complicit.
“It’s shameful that the UK refuses to act. Instead of standing up for peace, the Prime Minister came to Scotland to announce more money for war. Keir Starmer’s expects yet more UK tax money to feed the war machine and his government’s denial of genocide shows he’s more interested in retaining power than defending human rights. This Labour government is on the wrong side of history and it has Palestinian blood on its hands.
“The UK Government is currently defending its position in a high court case, claiming there’s “no evidence” of genocide or intentional targeting of civilians in Gaza. It doesn’t require much thought to reject that argument outright: this genocide is being live-streamed for all to see. We’ve all seen the videos. We’ve seen the bodies. The world knows what’s happening in Gaza – the destruction, the killing of women and children. For the UK Government to say there’s no evidence is not only dishonest – it’s dangerous.
“The Scottish Greens know that genuine security doesn’t come at the end of a gun or aftermath of a bomb. It comes from investing in healthcare, affordable housing and a green economy built on sustainability and compassion.
“We have consistently called for an immediate end to arms sales to Israel, full transparency over any UK or indeed Scottish Government funding linked to Israeli military production, an immediate and unconditional ceasefire, recognition of the State of Palestine, and Israel’s suspension from international bodies, including the United Nations, until compliance with international law is restored.
“Together, outside the UK Government offices, we gathered in protest but we also gathered in hope. Hope for the Palestinian people and hope for humanity.”
The United Arab Emirates (UAE) boasts one of the most secure and stable electricity supply systems in the region. Leveraging its substantial natural gas and oil reserves, among the largest globally, the UAE generates sufficient electricity to satisfy domestic consumption. The nation primarily utilizes its gas for power generation and for re-injection into oil fields to enhance production, while designating a significant portion of its oil for export. Backed by an increase in electricity demand, power capacity in the country is expected to reach 79.1GW in 2035, registering a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 3.4% during 2024-35, according to GlobalData, a leading data and analytics company.
Attaurrahman Ojindaram Saibasan, Power Analyst at GlobalData, comments: “The power sector in the UAE offers abundant opportunities for investors, with the government poised to make significant investments in the expansion and modernization of its generation and supply infrastructure. The anticipated increase in capacity is projected to occur predominantly in gas-based thermal power, as opposed to oil, where capacity is expected to remain stable. Manufacturers of gas turbines stand to benefit from this surge in gas-fired power capacity.”
The UAE’s conditions are exceptionally conducive to solar power generation, prompting the government to allocate extensive tracts of undeveloped land for solar parks, including both photovoltaic (PV) and Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) installations. These developments will not only meet local demand but also cater to export needs.
Saibasan adds: “Over the past decade, the UAE has experienced a marked increase in electricity demand, necessitating the importation of natural gas from Qatar. In response to this growing demand and to diversify its energy portfolio, the UAE has strategically shifted away from exclusive dependence on natural gas, expanding into renewable and nuclear energy sectors.”
The UAE is experiencing a notable surge in electricity demand, driven by its expanding population and urban development. As of 2024, the current population stands at approximately 11 million and is projected to rise to 11.9 million by the year 2030. A significant factor in this increased energy consumption is the high expatriate population, which constitutes around 88% of the total and contributes to the growth in residential and commercial energy needs.
Saibasan concludes: “Additionally, the development of mega urban projects, such as Masdar City and Expo City Dubai, underscores the necessity for sustainable energy solutions. These smart cities are at the forefront of innovation, yet they also contribute to higher electricity consumption. Consequently, this trend necessitates the expansion of the electrical grid and investment in smart infrastructure to meet the evolving demands.”
The need for reshoring and friend-shoring supply chains has been a long time coming. Companies that adapted early to these shifts are now better positioned to weather the challenges posed by the US trade war, as demonstrated by Ferrero‘s proactive approach, according to GlobalData, a leading data and analytics company.
Hannah Cleland, Consumer Analyst at GlobalData, comments: “As part of a decade-long strategy to grow its sales in the US, Ferrero has invested in North American production facilities and acquired US businesses such as Fannie May, Nestle’s US confectionery arm (including Nerds and Butterfingers), and Wells Enterprises (Halo Top owner). Additionally, it has introduced several of its global and European brands, including Kinder. However, its most recent US range deliberately Americanizes the flavors of some of its most iconic products, including Nutella Peanut and Dr Pepper Tic Tacs.”
Ferrero’s localized tactics not only mitigate the impact of tariffs but also align with growing consumer demand for domestic products. GlobalData’s Q1 2025 global consumer survey reveals that 55% of US consumers claim political events have heightened their awareness of the country of origin of the products they purchase, underscoring the importance of country-of-origin marketing in products.* By incorporating distinctly American flavors such as peanuts and Dr Pepper into its offerings, Ferrero effectively encourages consumers to perceive its products as locally made.
This strategy resonates with consumers who are increasingly motivated by both financial considerations and a desire to support local businesses, especially during a persistent cost-of-living crisis. 61% of US consumers strongly or somewhat agree that they prefer local products due to their affordability compared to imports. *
Cleland concludes: “A reactive approach to supply chain shocks is no longer sufficient. Brands must invest in long-term strategies that ensure stability and resilience in the face of unpredictable market dynamics. Ferrero’s successful localization strategy serves as a valuable lesson for global companies navigating the complexities of trade wars and economic uncertainty.”
*GlobalData Q1 2025 global consumer surveys, 22,000 respondents across 42 countries
