Source: New South Wales Government 2
16 April 2025
Importers and brokers of:
The department is adding two new document-controlled…
Source: China State Council Information Office
Multiple U.S. small businesses Monday sued to challenge the White House’s authority to unilaterally issue tariffs on April 2.
The lawsuit filed in the U.S. Court of International Trade argues that U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration has no authority to issue across-the-board worldwide tariffs without congressional approval.
The lawsuit was jointly filed by the Liberty Justice Center, a nonprofit, nonpartisan and public-interest litigation firm, and Ilya Somin, a co-counsel and professor of law at George Mason University, according to a court document.
The lawsuit is filed on behalf of five owner-operated businesses from the states of New York, Pennsylvania, Utah, Virginia and Vermont.
“Trade deficits have existed for decades, and do not constitute a national emergency or threat to security,” the Liberty Justice Center said in a release. “Moreover, the (Trump) Administration imposed tariffs even on countries with which the United States does not have a trade deficit, further undermining the administration’s justification.”
Trump invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to justify the “Liberation Day” tariffs, as well as the tariffs on Mexico, Canada and China, noted the center.
However, the IEEPA does not authorize the U.S. president to impose across-the-board tariffs, and not even authorize tariffs at all, argued the complaint.
Amid widespread opposition, Trump signed an executive order on April 2 on the so-called “reciprocal tariffs,” imposing a 10-percent “minimum baseline tariff” and higher rates on certain trading partners.
US Senate News:
Source: United States Senator for Washington State Patty Murray
ICYMI: Senator Murray, Commerce Director Nguyễn, WA Businesses and Agriculture Respond to Trump Tariffs Raising Costs on Americans, Tanking Economy
Washington, D.C. — U.S. Senators Patty Murray (D-WA), Vice Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), and 17 of their colleagues sent a letter asking U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) Ambassador Jamieson Greer for information on how the Administration’s tariff taxes will impact farmers across the nation.
“We write with great concern about the impact of the Administration’s reckless tariff agenda on our nation’s farmers,” the senators wrote. “Farmers not only have billions of dollars in commodities from last year waiting to be sold, but also have started spring planting and rely on stable markets for their planning.”
“As farm organizations and economists have been warning for months, key trading partners will continue to retaliate against U.S. agricultural products as a result of President Trump’s tariffs,” the senators continued. “The direct economic impact and uncertainty on America’s farmers stands to change the future of agricultural trade relationships for generations.”
Along with Murray and Klobuchar, the letter was signed by U.S. Senators Ron Wyden (D-WA), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Mark Warner (D-VA), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Chris Coons (D-DE), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Gary Peters (D-MI), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Tina Smith (D-MN), Ben Ray Luján (D-NM), Raphael Warnock (D-GA), Peter Welch (D-VT), Adam Schiff (D-CA), Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), and Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD).
The full letter is available here and below.
Dear Ambassador Greer,
We write with great concern about the impact of the Administration’s reckless tariff agenda on our nation’s farmers. Farmers not only have billions of dollars in commodities from last year waiting to be sold, but also have started spring planting and rely on stable markets for their planning. These farmers have made planting decisions and purchased key inputs such as seeds and fertilizer, selected crop insurance coverage, and even began marketing their expected production. Long before the President’s across-the-board tariff announcement, millions of acres of fall-planted crops like winter wheat were already in the ground and farmers already have enough uncertainty without tariffs adding more volatility.
We continue to hear from farmers and businesses across the agricultural supply chain who are bearing the brunt of the negative impacts of the global tariffs announced by President Trump on April 2, 2025, and earlier tariffs on Canada and Mexico. These actions and the resulting retaliation have injected further uncertainty into the farm economy and continue to rattle commodity markets. Heading into this year, farmers were already facing tightened margins resulting from declining commodity prices and heightened input costs. Many farmers are in a much worse position than they were heading into the 2018-2019 trade war and so are less equipped to withstand the impacts of continued volatility.
As farm organizations and economists have been warning for months, key trading partners will continue to retaliate against U.S. agricultural products as a result of President Trump’s tariffs. For example, on April 3rd, China announced a 34 percent retaliatory tariff on all products from the U.S. A major export destination for U.S.-grown soybeans, futures prices dropped 34 cents on Friday, with an estimated loss in value of unsold 2024 soybeans of nearly $300 million. That Friday drop would also cost farmers nearly $1.4 billion on the 2025 crop. Cotton, another crop that is heavily reliant on exports followed a similar steep decline. Since then, volatility in the markets has continued as the Administration has continued to change the tariffs day-by-day and sometimes hour-by-hour. While the tariffs are currently 10 percent across-the-board for nearly all countries except China, this continued uncertainty is the last thing farmers need as they begin planting season.
Farmers are also continuing to experience the long-term implications of the 2018-2019 trade war when structural trade flows shifted to favor farmers in Brazil and Argentina. A prolonged trade war now with key trading partners will just further exacerbate those trade shifts. This market share that farmers are losing is the result of more than $15 billion in investments by both taxpayers and the farmers themselves through trade promotion programs over the last 50 years.
The direct economic impact and uncertainty on America’s farmers stands to change the future of agricultural trade relationships for generations. As such, we request responses to the following questions:
Did USTR perform any analysis on the impact of the across-the-board tariff policy on farmers prior to implementation? If so, please share that analysis with us.
What do you expect to be the short- and long-term impacts of tariffs on farmers?
There have been conflicting reports as to whether tariffs are being used as leverage in trade negotiations or as a long-term structural shift in trade policy.
Can you provide clarity on the goals of the administration’s trade policy?
If tariffs are being used as leverage in trade negotiations, what are your top agriculture priorities and markets? What countries are you prioritizing in negotiations, and what is the basis for determining those countries?
President Trump indicated that U.S. farmers need to get ready to supply the domestic market instead of the international markets.
Has USTR or have other agencies done analysis to show how production and consumption of crops would need to shift, or what domestic processing would be necessary to accomplish this goal? For example, there is very limited domestic cotton spinning, weaving or apparel manufacturing.
Significant parts of the agricultural trade imbalance are related to imports of specialty crops, many of which are either grown in tropical regions or imported during the off-season. U.S. farmers will not be able to produce these commodities in the same volume or season. Will consumers need to shift from fresh produce in the off season or be forced to pay a higher price due to the tariffs on these products?
Prior to the announcement of the across-the-board tariffs and per-country rates, the USDA announced plans for trade missions to several countries including some with tariffs as high as 46%.
Did USTR consult with USDA on the trade missions or setting tariffs based on targets for opening markets?
We have serious concerns about the haphazard approach taken by the Administration to tariffs that cause unnecessary uncertainty and harm for U.S. farmers and their markets. We look forward to a prompt response.
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Lloyd Doggett (D-TX)
Contact: Alexis.Torres@mail.house.gov
Washington, D.C.—As President Trump defends Russia’s deadliest attack against Ukrainian civilians this year and continues to parrot Kremlin propaganda blaming Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky for starting the war, U.S. Representatives Lloyd Doggett (D-TX); Gregory W. Meeks (D-NY), Ranking Member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee; Steny Hoyer (D-MD), former Majority Leader; William Keating (D-MA), Ranking Member of the Europe Subcommittee; and Gerry Connolly (D-VA), Ranking Member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, introduced a comprehensive bill to support Ukraine and thwart Russia’s ability to wage its brutal, illegal war.
Specifically, the legislative package imposes numerous sanctions and other economic measures against Russia, sustains defensive security assistance to Ukraine, generates resources for post-war reconstruction, and overrides presidential actions to terminate existing sanctions without cause. The bill would also enact new sanctions and export control authorities to place additional pressure on Russia, including to curb tankers carrying Russian oil above the international price cap and to ensure dual-use controls on semiconductors and other technologies that could be used to support Russia’s weapons capabilities.
The morning after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine three years ago, which is now the deadliest war in Europe since World War II, Rep. Doggett filed the first sanctions legislation against Russia and remains a steadfast, ironclad supporter of Ukrainians in their fight for freedom. This legislative package builds on his bill banning Russian energy that was signed into law and includes two provisions he authored to strengthen the current ban on Russian petroleum products laundered into the United States and leverage frozen Russian sovereign assets to establish a reconstruction trust fund for Ukraine.
A section-by-section of the legislation can be found here. A PDF of the bill can be found here.
“I’m pleased to join this comprehensive bill, including provisions I authored to stop laundered Russian oil imports and to use frozen Russian assets for compensation to Ukrainians. We support Ukraine and reaffirm our recognition of Putin as a war criminal with sole responsibility for the war. And we strongly reject appeasement by Trump and his Republican enablers of Putin, who should bear the ever-mounting costs of his ongoing destruction. The world is watching whether America will remain a beacon of hope, standing with our democratic allies, or drift itself into Russian-style authoritarianism,” said Rep. Doggett.
“The US-led international response to Russia’s illegal, full-scale invasion of Ukraine has isolated Moscow as a global pariah, devastated the Kremlin’s capacity to fund this war, and provided essential support to the Ukrainians fighting for freedom. Now is not the time to ease up on this successful approach nor put pressure solely on the victim, Ukraine. The U.S. must remain committed to shoring up Ukraine’s ability to negotiate a just, acceptable end to this war and to holding Russia – and those supporting its illegal invasion – accountable for as long as Putin’s war of choice continues. This weekend’s missile attack in Sumy that claimed dozens of civilian lives, including children, further demonstrates the barbarity Russia has used to sow terror throughout this war, and the need to impose serious consequences for its atrocities. Make no mistake – Vladimir Putin started this war. He is a bully with no respect for peace, Ukrainian sovereignty, or international norms, and he will only end this illegal war when the world compels him to,” said Ranking Member Meeks.
“Our allies in Ukraine are on the front lines of freedom – fighting not only for their nations’ sovereignty but also against authoritarianism worldwide. I am glad to join my colleagues in introducing urgently needed legislation that will support our allies in Ukraine and invest in their recovery through tougher sanctions on Russian oil exports, security and military assistance, and dual use export provisions. Importantly, this legislation also includes provisions that will allow the Congress, a coequal branch of government, to advance resolutions of disapproval if the President waves his authority – and assert with our own voice that Ukraine has bipartisan support in the United States,” said Rep. Steny Hoyer. “I thank Ranking Member Greg Meeks for his work to put together comprehensive legislation that reflects our values, strengthens our democracy, and ensures the United States remains on the right side of history. We must not give aid and comfort to our enemy, Russia, and we must remain steadfast in the battle for democracy.”
“I am co-sponsoring this legislation because it reaffirms the American people’s unwavering commitment to a sovereign, democratic Ukraine,” said Ranking Member Keating. “As Ukraine continues to defend itself against Russia’s brutal full-scale invasion, it is critical that the United States stands firmly by its side—not just militarily, but economically and diplomatically. This legislation includes key provisions from my own bills that aim to support Ukraine across multiple fronts. It provides war risk insurance to ensure the continued flow of international commerce with Ukraine, blocks illegal U.S. technology exports to Iran where they are used to manufacture drones deployed by Russia, and promotes the diversification of Ukraine’s energy supply. Ukraine’s victory requires more than military support – it demands a comprehensive strategy to help rebuild its economy, secure its infrastructure, and restore its independence.”
“Our friends in Ukraine are fighting for the democratic ideals we share against a war criminal, Vladimir Putin, and the rising threat of authoritarianism globally,”said Ranking Member Connolly. “The American commitment to Ukraine, its sovereignty, and its recovery must be lasting and ironclad. We must stand firmly behind the Ukrainian people by countering Russian disinformation, advocating for multilateral support for Ukraine’s reconstruction, providing additional U.S. security assistance, and implementing crippling sanctions on Russia and its enablers to force Putin to the negotiating table. That’s why this bill includes provisions from my bipartisan legislation to expand sanctions on North Korea for its material support for Russia’s illegal invasion. The war in Ukraine is a battle between dictatorship and democracy. Between freedom and oppression. The United States must remain on the right side of history. Slava Ukraini.”
Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
HANOI, April 15 — China and Vietnam have vowed to jointly oppose hegemonism and power politics, all forms of unilateralism and all kinds of practices that jeopardize regional peace and stability.
The two countries made the announcement Tuesday in a joint statement released in the context of Chinese President Xi Jinping’s state visit to Vietnam.
The two sides agreed to carry out closer multilateral strategic coordination and jointly tackle global challenges, according to the statement.
Concerning trade and investment restrictions, the two sides reaffirmed their commitment to upholding the rules-based, open, transparent, inclusive and non-discriminatory multilateral trading system with the World Trade Organization at its core, and to carrying forward economic globalization in an open, inclusive, balanced, universally beneficial manner with win-win results, said the statement.
The two sides emphasized the importance of maintaining peace and security in the Asia-Pacific region and agreed to practice open regionalism, it said.
China expressed its willingness to work with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) to accelerate the signing and implementation of the agreement on the China-ASEAN Free Trade Area 3.0 and strive to push regional economic integration toward a higher level, said the statement.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Martín Boer-Cueva, Ecologist and Environmental Consultant, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid
Over the past week, the media have been inundated with news of the “de-extinction” of the dire wolf (Aenocyon dirus) – a species that went extinct about 13,000 years ago.
The breakthrough has been achieved by Colossal Biosciences, a multibillion-dollar United States company that claims their goal is to restore biodiversity through the de-extinction of species.
The project is being celebrated and marketed as a conservation win. But does this technology really have the best interests of conservation in mind?
We argue as ecologists that genetic advancements like these, while they are major scientific and technological feats, still risk minimising the severity of the current extinction crisis.
Importantly, they take away focus from proven conservation efforts that are needed to protect the biodiversity that remains.
First, it is important to recognise that Romulus, Remus and Khaleesi, the three “dire wolf” pups created, are not actually dire wolves.
Colossal carried out 20 edits in 14 genes of the grey wolf genome to create their “dire wolves” using a genetic technique called CRISPR-Cas9.
The grey wolf’s genome is 2,447,000,000 individual bases long. Would we consider a chimpanzee, with which we share 98.8% of our genome, to be human after 20 edits?
The reality is that these are three slightly modified grey wolves.
This de-extinction project has had millions of dollars poured into it – amounts of money most conservation programs could only dream of. There are proven solutions to help reverse biodiversity loss: habitat protection and restoration, the control of invasive species and the phasing out of fossil fuels.
However, these solutions are not slickly marketed as shiny, techno-fix packages like de-extinction. Instead, they are heavily underfunded.
Promoting extinction as reversible risks downplaying its gravity and legacy.
Headlines like the one that appeared on the front cover of TIME magazine – with the word “extinct” crossed out – seed a false hope that no matter what environmental damage is done, species loss can be easily undone.
The risk is that de-extinction will be used as an ultimate offset for any environmental impact.
Humans fear death. It is possibly our most primal instinct. We mourn and feel great sadness for the death of an individual, not only because they are gone, but because it is irreversible and final. Permanent.
That finality is the same for humans or any living animal. It is what makes fighting biodiversity loss such an urgent concern, so much so that people risk their lives to prevent it, with 150 wildlife rangers dying each year around the world in their fight to protect endangered species.
In the conservation movement, raising awareness of “martyr” species – like the northern white rhino and the passenger pigeon – helps underline the argument in favour of protecting current species. Framing extinction as temporary creates false hope and undermines motivation for real conservation action.
We might already be seeing this happen in response to the “de-extinction” of the dire wolf. Interior Secretary of the Trump administration, Doug Burgum, praised the new biotechnology advancement and used it as an argument for the removal of the US Endangered Species Act.
What good is bringing back species if there are no protective laws to address the drivers of their declines?
It is deeply ironic that while millions are being spent recreating a dire wolf proxy, its cousin, the grey wolf, is heavily persecuted globally. Just last month, the Spanish government voted to overturn the legal protection that prevented wolves from being hunted north of the Duero River.
Other predators are affected, too. In Australia, the dingo, which has been shown to suppress invasive cats and red foxes, helping native biodiversity, is also heavily persecuted – just like the thylacine or Tasmanian tiger was, which Colossal aims to de-extinct as well.
If we can’t safeguard or protect habitat for apex predators today, in ecosystems that are already under immense pressure, what kind of world would we be bringing extinct species back into? Up to 150 species are considered to go extinct every day. No amount of genetic tech will solve this unless we address the root causes: habitat destruction, over-exploitation and climate change.
The de-extinction of the dire wolf may sound like a conservation breakthrough, but it risks distracting us from the protection of our current living species. This approach turns biodiversity conservation into a billionaire’s Jurassic Park fantasy instead of addressing the crisis we already know how to fix.
Dieter Hochuli receives funding from the Australian Research Council, NSW Department of Planning and Environment, the City of Sydney and the Inner West Council. He is President-Elect of the Ecological Society of Australia.
Marco Salvatori receives funding from European Union BIODIVERSA+ program.
Peter Banks receives funding from the Australian Research Council, The NSW Environmental Trust and the Australian Forests and Wood Initiative.
Martín Boer-Cueva does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
– ref. ‘De-extinction’ of dire wolves promotes false hope: technology can’t undo extinction – https://theconversation.com/de-extinction-of-dire-wolves-promotes-false-hope-technology-cant-undo-extinction-254479
Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
KUALA LUMPUR, April 15 — Chinese President Xi Jinping on Tuesday published a signed article titled “May the Ship of China-Malaysia Friendship Sail Toward an Even Brighter Future” in Malaysian media outlets including Sin Chew Daily, The Star and Sinar Harian ahead of his arrival in Malaysia for a state visit.
The following is the full text of the article:
May the Ship of China-Malaysia Friendship Sail Toward an Even Brighter Future
Xi Jinping
At the invitation of His Majesty Sultan Ibrahim, King of Malaysia, I will soon pay a state visit to Malaysia. This will be my second visit to your beautiful country in 12 years. I look forward to experiencing Malaysia’s remarkable progress and transformation in person, and meeting with Malaysian friends to celebrate our friendship and plan for future cooperation.
China and Malaysia are friendly neighbors across the sea. The Maritime Silk Road stood witness to the millenium-old friendly exchanges between our countries. As a Malay proverb puts it, “air dicincang tidak akan putus,” or “water can’t be cut apart.” Through the ages, such strong bonds of friendship between our peoples have grown from strength to strength. Over 1,300 years ago, Chinese Buddhist monk Yijing of the Tang Dynasty traveled to the Malay Peninsula on his pilgrimage voyage and produced the earliest known written account of the ancient kingdom of Kedah. More than 600 years ago, Chinese navigator and explorer Zheng He of the Ming Dynasty and his fleet called at Malacca during five of his seven historic expeditions. His visits planted seeds of peace and friendship. To this day, the Sam Po Kong Temple, Bukit Cina, and Princess Hang Li Poh’s Well endure as a living testament to the local community’s everlasting veneration of the legendary Chinese navigator. Some 80 years ago, when the Chinese People’s War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression reached a critical juncture, the Nanyang Volunteer Drivers and Mechanics from Malaysia braved immense dangers to reach China’s Yunnan Province, and helped keep the Burma Road operational, as it was a vital lifeline of China’s wartime supplies. Today this remarkable story of courage still echoes in the hearts of both peoples. As we honor our shared past and embrace the future, our two countries must work together to give fresh momentum to our ship of friendship that has sailed through the long river of history, and ensure that it forges ahead steadily toward brighter horizons.
We must keep a firm grip on the strategic helm that guides our ship of friendship. Fifty-one years ago, breaking through the gloom of the Cold War, leaders of China and Malaysia made the decision to establish diplomatic relations, pioneering a groundbreaking new chapter in relations between China and ASEAN countries. China and Malaysia have since respected each other’s development paths while maintaining strategic independence. We have provided mutual support on issues vital to our respective core interests and on our major concerns, setting an exemplary model for two countries to prosper together through mutually beneficial cooperation. In 2023, Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim and I agreed on building the China-Malaysia community with a shared future. The decision marked a new milestone in the bilateral relations. China and Malaysia must enhance strategic communication, increase mutual political trust, follow through on the Belt and Road cooperation plan between the two governments, strengthen the synergy between our development strategies, expand experience sharing on national governance, and promote our bilateral relations through high-standard strategic cooperation.
We must expand results-oriented cooperation which serves as the ballast that steadies our ship of friendship. In 2024, China-Malaysia trade reached 212 billion U.S. dollars, up by nearly 1,000 times the level at the inception of our diplomatic relations. China has been Malaysia’s largest trading partner for 16 consecutive years. Malaysian durians can now be delivered directly from orchards to Chinese supermarkets within 24 hours, and they are immensely popular among Chinese consumers. To date, the Malaysia-China Kuantan Industrial Park has received a total investment of over 11 billion yuan (1.5 billion dollars), and will create many long-term jobs when all its planned projects are completed with production reaching their designed capacity. Our bilateral cooperation potential is being progressively realized in the digital economy, green development, industrial investment and transport infrastructure construction. We must deepen mutually beneficial collaboration, advance high-quality Belt and Road cooperation, and strengthen cooperation on industrial and supply chains, with a focus on the digital economy, green economy, blue economy and tourism economy, so as to advance modernization of both countries.
We must fuel the engines of people-to-people exchanges to propel our ship of friendship forward. China and Malaysia have mutually granted visa exemption to each other’s nationals. The year 2024 saw nearly 6 million mutual visits between the two countries, which exceeded the pre-COVID level. “Malaysia, truly Asia,” the tourism promotional ad that highlights the unique charm of Malaysia’s culture, history and landscape, has inspired numerous Chinese tourists to visit Malaysia for leisure vacations or sightseeing. More and more Malaysian tourists are traveling to China to appreciate its historical legacy and experience its contemporary vibe. I hope our peoples will visit each other as often as family. Our two countries must promote people-to-people and cultural exchanges so as to enhance mutual understanding and friendship between our two peoples, especially the younger generation.
We must harness the momentum of collaboration at the multilateral level. China and Malaysia are both major developing countries in the Asia-Pacific. We are also emerging market economies and members of the Global South. We have similar positions on safeguarding international fairness and justice and on advancing open and inclusive development. We have maintained close collaboration within multilateral mechanisms, including East Asia cooperation, APEC and the UN. China welcomes Malaysia as a BRICS partner country. Its inclusion in the organization aligns with the historic trend of the Global South’s pursuit of solidarity-driven collective advancement and serves the common interests of developing countries. This year marks the 80th anniversary of the victory of the Chinese People’s War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression and the World Anti-Fascist War, the 80th anniversary of the founding of the UN, and the 70th anniversary of the Bandung Conference. As we honor these milestones, our two countries must strengthen mutual cooperation in international and regional affairs, and champion the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence and the Bandung Spirit. We must uphold the UN-centered international system and the international order underpinned by international law, and promote fairer and more equitable global governance. We must uphold the multilateral trading system, keep global industrial and supply chains stable, and maintain an international environment of openness and cooperation.
As a community with a shared future, China and Malaysia share the smooth times and the rough, stand united in peace and crisis, and thrive and endure together. “Share weal and woe,” a popular proverb in both countries, defines the very essence of such a relationship. We must stay ahead of the times, surge forward with unyielding resolve, and jointly build a brighter future of development, growth and prosperity.
Having weathered storms of the times, the friendly relations and cooperation between China and ASEAN countries have emerged stronger and more resilient. China was the first ASEAN dialogue partner to accede to the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia, and the first to establish a free trade area and a comprehensive strategic partnership with ASEAN. China-ASEAN cooperation is the most results-oriented and productive in the region. China and ASEAN pulled together in solidarity in response to multiple challenges, such as the Asian financial crisis, the global financial crisis, the COVID-19 pandemic and the growing headwinds against economic globalization. Our bilateral cooperation is more robust than ever. In 2024, China-ASEAN trade exceeded 980 billion dollars, making us each other’s largest trading partner for five consecutive years. The Version 3.0 China-ASEAN Free Trade Area upgrade negotiations have substantially concluded. More and more premium specialty products from ASEAN countries are now finding their way into millions of Chinese families, while Chinese literary works, animations, films and TV productions are increasingly captivating audiences in ASEAN countries with the rich tapestry of Chinese culture and the warm pulse of contemporary life in China.
China firmly supports ASEAN unity and community-building, and supports ASEAN centrality in the regional architecture. China fully supports Malaysia in its role as the ASEAN chair for 2025 and looks forward to Malaysia serving as a stronger bridge between the two sides as the country coordinator for China-ASEAN Dialogue Relations. Through its modernization, China is striving to build itself into a great modern socialist country in all respects, and advancing the rejuvenation of the Chinese nation on all fronts. Chinese modernization follows a path of peaceful development. China will promote global peace, development and shared prosperity with other countries through mutually beneficial cooperation. The Chinese economy is built on a solid foundation, with multiple strengths, high resilience and vast potential for growth. The core conditions supporting its long-term positive growth remain firmly in place, with the underlying upward trend unchanged. China has set its target for economic growth at around five percent for 2025. We will continue to pursue high-quality development, expand high-standard opening up, share development opportunities with other countries, and bring greater stability and certainty to the regional and global economy.
Unity brings strength, and cooperation leads to mutual success. China will work with Malaysia and other ASEAN countries to combat the undercurrents of geopolitical and camp-based confrontation, as well as the countercurrents of unilateralism and protectionism, in keeping with the historical trend of peace and development. We must brave the waves ahead and advance the high-level strategic China-Malaysia community with a shared future, and jointly build a stronger China-ASEAN community with a shared future.
Before you head out to celebrate this Easter, Consumer NZ wants to make sure you aren’t stung with Easter Sunday surcharges.
Consumer NZ is sharing a timely refresher on the rules about public holiday surcharges as we head towards Easter and Anzac Day.
Jessica Walker, acting head of research and advocacy at Consumer, says the cost-of-living pinch isn’t going to stop people from heading out for an Easter treat over the break, and she wants consumers to know when they can reasonably expect to pay surcharges.
“We want to arm consumers with the information they need over the upcoming holidays to ensure they aren’t misled.”
There should be no public holiday surcharges on Easter Sunday
On a public holiday, businesses can add surcharges to cover the extra costs they face, such as paying employees extra for working on that public holiday in accordance with the Holidays Act 2003.
If a business does add a public holiday surcharge, they must be upfront about the fact they’ve done so and the reason for charging it. Public holiday surcharges are very different from credit card surcharges. Credit card surcharges can apply any time of the year. But you should only encounter a public holiday surcharge on a public holiday.
And, under the act, Easter Sunday isn’t a public holiday.
“In the past, we’ve seen eateries claim they’re applying a surcharge because it’s a public holiday when it’s not actually a public holiday,” Walker warns.
Any business that imposes a public holiday surcharge on a day that isn’t a public holiday risks breaching the Fair Trading Act 1986.
“Good Friday, Easter Monday and Anzac Day are the only days businesses can add genuine public holiday surcharges this month. If a business is claiming a public holiday surcharge on Easter Sunday, let them know they shouldn’t be and take your business elsewhere.
“You can also lodge a complaint with the Commerce Commission.”
About Consumer
Consumer NZ is an independent, non-profit organisation dedicated to championing and empowering consumers in Aotearoa. Consumer NZ has a reputation for being fair, impartial and providing comprehensive consumer information and advice.
Source: The White House
Section 1. Purpose. My first term included numerous significant actions, including some of the most aggressive in recent history, to deliver lower prescription drug prices to American patients. The message was clear: no longer would the executive branch sit idly by as pharmaceutical manufacturers charged patients in our Nation more than those in other countries for the exact same prescription drugs, often made in the exact same places.
These actions included encouraging the development of generic and biosimilar alternatives to higher cost brand name prescription drugs and biologics to harness competitive forces and increase access to affordable medicines. The United States also, for the first time, established a pathway to expand access to lower cost drugs imported from outside of the country. Reform efforts ensured that Government-mandated discounts were passed through to patients instead of being retained by middlemen. New price transparency rules were promulgated to allow patients, doctors, and employers to see the actual cost of prescription drugs before purchase. Insulin copayments were capped for Medicare beneficiaries, and manufacturers, instead of patients and taxpayers, were forced to foot the bill through the provision of larger discounts. I also called on the Congress to come to the table to help craft sustainable solutions that would promote innovation and affordable access for the long-term. When the Congress refused, I proposed the test of an innovative new payment mechanism that would prevent drug manufacturers from charging our patients much higher prices than those found abroad.
Combined, these bold actions were delivering real savings for American patients and set the foundation to dramatically narrow the price disparity between the United States and foreign nations over time.
Unsurprisingly, the Biden Administration reversed, walked back, or neglected many of these initiatives, undoing the progress made for American patients. The Biden Administration then signed into law the misnamed Inflation Reduction Act, which included the Medicare Prescription Drug Negotiation Program. While this program has the commendable goal of reducing the drug prices Medicare and its beneficiaries pay, its administratively complex and expensive regime has thus far produced much lower savings than projected. Further, accompanying changes to the Medicare Part D program led to inflated premiums and diminished coverage choices for seniors, prompting a taxpayer-funded bailout of insurance companies offering Part D plans. Finally, the program imposes price controls on small molecule prescription drugs, usually in tablet or capsule form, 4 years earlier than on large molecule biological products. Known as the “pill penalty,” this discrepancy threatens to distort innovation by pushing investment towards expensive biological products, which are often indicated to treat rarer diseases, and away from small molecule prescription drugs, which are generally cheaper and treat larger patient populations.
The American people deserve better. It is time to restore the progress our Nation made in my first term to deliver lower prescription drug prices by putting Americans first and making America healthy again.
Sec. 2. Policy. It is the policy of the United States that Federal health care programs, intellectual property protections, and safety regulations are optimized to provide access to prescription drugs at lower costs to American patients and taxpayers.
Sec. 3. Improving upon the Inflation Reduction Act. (a) Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary), consistent with sections 1191 to 1198 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320f-1320f-7) and other applicable law, shall propose and seek comment on guidance for the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program for initial price applicability year 2028 and manufacturer effectuation of maximum fair price under such program in 2026, 2027, and 2028. The guidance shall improve the transparency of the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program, prioritize the selection of prescription drugs with high costs to the Medicare program, and minimize any negative impacts of the maximum fair price on pharmaceutical innovation within the United States.
(b) Within 180 days of the date of this order, the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, in coordination with the Secretary, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB Director), and the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, shall provide recommendations to the President on how best to stabilize and reduce Medicare Part D premiums.
(c) The Secretary shall work with the Congress to modify the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program to align the treatment of small molecule prescription drugs with that of biological products, ending the distortion that undermines relative investment in small molecule prescription drugs, coupled with other reforms to prevent any increase in overall costs to Medicare and its beneficiaries.
Sec. 4. Reducing the Prices of High-Cost Drugs for Seniors. Within 1 year of the date of this order, the Secretary shall take appropriate steps to develop and implement a rulemaking plan and select for testing, consistent with 42 U.S.C. 1315a(b)(2), a payment model to improve the ability of the Medicare program to obtain better value for high-cost prescription drugs and biological products covered by Medicare, including those not subject to the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program.
Sec. 5. Appropriately Accounting for Acquisition Costs of Drugs in Medicare. Within 180 days of the date of this order, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, the Secretary shall publish in theFederal Register a plan to conduct a survey under section 1833(t)(14)(D)(ii) of the Social Security Act to determine the hospital acquisition cost for covered outpatient drugs at hospital outpatient departments. Following the conclusion of this survey, the Secretary shall consider and propose any appropriate adjustments that would align Medicare payment with the cost of acquisition, consistent with the budget neutrality requirement in section 1833(t)(9)(B) of the Social Security Act and other legal requirements.
Sec. 6. Promoting Innovation, Value, and Enhanced Oversight in Medicaid Drug Payment. Within 180 days of the date of this order, the OMB Director, the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, and the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, in coordination with the Secretary, shall jointly provide recommendations to the President on how best to ensure that manufacturers pay accurate Medicaid drug rebates consistent with section 1927 of the Social Security Act, promote innovation in Medicaid drug payment methodologies, link payments for drugs to the value obtained, and support States in managing drug spending.
Sec. 7. Access to Affordable Life-Saving Medications. Within 90 days of the date of this order, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, the Secretary shall take action to ensure future grants available under section 330(e) of the Public Health Service Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 254b(e), are conditioned upon health centers establishing practices to make insulin and injectable epinephrine available at or below the discounted price paid by the health center grantee or sub-grantee under the 340B Prescription Drug Program (plus a minimal administration fee) to individuals with low incomes, as determined by the Secretary, who:
(a) have a high cost-sharing requirement for either insulin or injectable epinephrine;
(b) have a high unmet deductible; or
(c) have no healthcare insurance.
Sec. 8. Reevaluating the Role of Middlemen. Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, in coordination with the Secretary, the OMB Director, and the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, shall provide recommendations to the President on how best to promote a more competitive, efficient, transparent, and resilient pharmaceutical value chain that delivers lower drug prices for Americans.
Sec. 9. Accelerating Competition for High-Cost Prescription Drugs. Within 180 days of the date of this order, the Secretary, through the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, shall issue a report providing administrative and legislative recommendations to:
(a) accelerate approval of generics, biosimilars, combination products, and second-in-class brand name medications; and
(b) improve the process through which prescription drugs can be reclassified as over-the-counter medications, including recommendations to optimally identify prescription drugs that can be safely provided to patients over the counter.
Sec. 10. Increasing Prescription Drug Importation to Lower Prices. Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Secretary, through the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, shall take steps to streamline and improve the Importation Program under section 804 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to make it easier for States to obtain approval without sacrificing safety or quality.
Sec. 11. Reducing Costly Care for Seniors. Within 180 days of the date of this order, the Secretary shall evaluate and, if appropriate and consistent with applicable law, propose regulations to ensure that payment within the Medicare program is not encouraging a shift in drug administration volume away from less costly physician office settings to more expensive hospital outpatient departments.
Sec. 12. Improving Transparency into Pharmacy Benefit Manager Fee Disclosure. Within 180 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Labor shall propose regulations pursuant to section 408(b)(2)(B) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to improve employer health plan fiduciary transparency into the direct and indirect compensation received by pharmacy benefit managers.
Sec. 13. Combating Anti-Competitive Behavior by Prescription Drug Manufacturers. Within 180 days of the date of this order, the Secretary or his designee shall conduct joint public listening sessions with the appropriate personnel from the Department of Justice, the Department of Commerce, and the Federal Trade Commission and issue a report with recommendations to reduce anti-competitive behavior from pharmaceutical manufacturers.
Sec. 14. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i.) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii.) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
DONALD J. TRUMP
THE WHITE HOUSE,
April 15, 2025.
Source: The White House
Section 1. Policy. A strong national defense depends on a robust economy and price stability, a resilient manufacturing and defense industrial base, and secure domestic supply chains. Critical minerals, including rare earth elements, in the form of processed minerals are essential raw materials and critical production inputs required for economic and national security. Critical mineral oxides, oxalates, salts, and metals (processed critical minerals), as well as their derivative products — the manufactured goods incorporating them — are similarly foundational to United States national security and defense.
But processed critical minerals and their derivative products face significant global supply chain vulnerabilities and market distortions due to reliance on a small number of foreign suppliers. These vulnerabilities and distortions have led to significant United States import dependencies. The dependence of the United States on imports and the vulnerability of our supply chains raises the potential for risks to national security, defense readiness, price stability, and economic prosperity and resilience.
Processed critical minerals and their derivative products are essential for economic security and resilience because they underpin key industries, drive technological innovation, and support critical infrastructure vital for a modern American economy. They are key building blocks of our manufacturing base and foundational to sectors ranging from transportation and energy to telecommunications and advanced manufacturing. These economic sectors are, moreover, foundational to America’s national security.
Processed critical minerals and their derivative products are essential for national security because they are foundational to military infrastructure, energy infrastructure, and advanced defense systems and technologies. They are key building blocks of our defense industrial base and integral to applications such as jet engines, missile guidance systems, advanced computing, radar systems, advanced optics, and secure communications equipment.
The United States manufacturing and defense industrial bases remain dependent on foreign sources for processed critical mineral products. Many of these foreign sources are at risk of serious, sustained, and long-term supply chain shocks. Should the United States lose access to processed critical minerals from foreign sources, the United States commercial and defense manufacturing base for derivative products could face significant shortages and an inability to meet demand.
Associated risks arise from a variety of factors. First, global supply chains are prone to disruption from geopolitical tensions, wars, natural disasters, pandemics, and trade conflicts.
Second, major global foreign producers of processed critical minerals have engaged in widespread price manipulation, overcapacity, arbitrary export restrictions, and the exploitation of their supply chain dominance to distort world markets and thereby gain geopolitical and economic leverage over the United States and other competitors that depend on processed critical minerals to manufacture derivative products essential to their economic and national security and national defense. Therefore, the import dependence of the United States on processed critical minerals from foreign sources may pose a serious national security risk to the United States economy and defense preparedness.
Third, the risks arising from America’s import dependence on processed critical minerals also extend to derivative products that are integral to the United States economy and economic and national security.
For the United States to manufacture derivative products, it must have ready access to an affordable, resilient, and sustainable supply of processed critical minerals. Simultaneously, a resilient and sustainable manufacturing base for derivative products is vital to creating a stable demand base for processed critical minerals. Both must coexist to ensure economic stability and national security.
Finally, overreliance on a small number of geographic regions amplifies the risks posed by geopolitical instability and regional disruptions.
In light of the above risks and realities, an investigation under section 232 of the Act (section 232) is necessary to determine whether imports of processed critical minerals and their derivative products threaten to impair national security.
Sec. 2. Definitions. As used in this order:
(a) The term “critical minerals” means those minerals included in the “Critical Minerals List” published by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) pursuant to section 7002(c) of the Energy Act of 2020 (30 U.S.C. 1606) at 87 FR 10381, or any subsequent such list. The term “critical minerals” also includes uranium.
(b) The term “rare earth elements” means the 17 elements identified as rare earth elements by the Department of Energy (DOE) in the April 2020 publication titled “Critical Materials Rare Earths Supply Chain.” The term also includes any additional elements that either the USGS or DOE determines in any subsequent official report or publication should be considered rare earth elements.
(c) The term “processed critical minerals” refers to critical minerals that have undergone the activities that occur after critical mineral ore is extracted from a mine up through its conversion into a metal, metal powder or a master alloy. These activities specifically occur beginning from the point at which ores are converted into oxide concentrates; separated into oxides; and converted into metals, metal powders, and master alloys.
(d) The term “derivative products” includes all goods that incorporate processed critical minerals as inputs. These goods include semi-finished goods (such as semiconductor wafers, anodes, and cathodes) as well as final products (such as permanent magnets, motors, electric vehicles, batteries, smartphones, microprocessors, radar systems, wind turbines and their components, and advanced optical devices).
Sec. 3. Section 232 Investigation. (a) The Secretary of Commerce shall initiate an investigation under section 232 to determine the effects on national security of imports of processed critical minerals and their derivative products.
(b) In conducting the investigation described in subsection (a) of this section, the Secretary of Commerce shall assess the factors set forth in 19 U.S.C. 1862(d), labeled “Domestic production for national defense; impact of foreign competition on economic welfare of domestic industries,” as well as other relevant factors, including:
(i) identification of United States imports of all processed critical minerals and derivative products incorporating such processed critical minerals;
(ii) the foreign sources by percent and volume of all processed critical mineral imports and derivative product imports, the specific types of risks that may be associated with each source by country, and those source countries deemed to be of significant risk;
(iii) an analysis of the distortive effects of the predatory economic, pricing, and market manipulation strategies and practices used by countries that process critical minerals that are exported to the United States, including the distortive effects on domestic investment and the viability of United States production, as well as an assessment of how such strategies and practices permit such countries to maintain their control over the critical minerals processing sector and distort United States market prices for derivative products;
(iv) an analysis of the demand for processed critical minerals by manufacturers of derivative products in the United States and globally, including an assessment of the extent to which such manufacturers’ demand for processed critical minerals originates from countries identified under subsections (b)(ii) and (b)(iii) of this section;
(v) a review and risk assessment of global supply chains for processed critical minerals and their derivative products;
(vi) an analysis of the current and potential capabilities of the United States to process critical minerals and their derivative products; and
(vii) the dollar value of the current level of imports of all processed critical minerals and derivative products by total value and country of export.
(c) The Secretary of Commerce shall, consistent with applicable law, proceed expeditiously in conducting the investigation as follows:
(i) Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Commerce shall submit for internal review and comment a draft interim report to the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Defense, the United States Trade Representative, the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, and the Senior Counselor to the President for Trade and Manufacturing.
(ii) Comments to the Secretary of Commerce from the officials identified in subsection (c)(i) of this section shall be provided within 15 days of submission of the draft interim report described in subsection (c)(i) of this section.
(iii) The Secretary of Commerce shall submit a final report and recommendations to the President within 180 days of the investigation’s commencement.
(d) In considering whether to make recommendations for action or inaction pursuant to section 232(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1862(b)), the Secretary of Commerce shall consider:
(i) the imposition of tariffs as well as other import restrictions and their appropriate levels;
(ii) safeguards to avoid circumvention and any weakening of the section 232 measures;
(iii) policies to incentivize domestic production, processing, and recycling; and
(iv) any additional measures that may be warranted to mitigate United States national security risks, as appropriate, under the President’s authority pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
Sec. 4. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
DONALD J. TRUMP
THE WHITE HOUSE
April 15, 2025.
Source: The White House
COUNTERING THREATS TO NATIONAL SECURITY AND ECONOMIC STABILITY: President Trump recognizes that an overreliance on foreign critical minerals and their derivative products could jeopardize U.S. defense capabilities, infrastructure development, and technological innovation.
STRENGTHENING AMERICAN INDUSTRY: This Executive Order builds on previous actions taken by the Trump Administration to ensure U.S. trade policy serves the nation’s long-term interests.
US Senate News:
Source: The White House
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1862) (the “Act”), it is hereby ordered:
Section 1. Policy. A strong national defense depends on a robust economy and price stability, a resilient manufacturing and defense industrial base, and secure domestic supply chains. Critical minerals, including rare earth elements, in the form of processed minerals are essential raw materials and critical production inputs required for economic and national security. Critical mineral oxides, oxalates, salts, and metals (processed critical minerals), as well as their derivative products — the manufactured goods incorporating them — are similarly foundational to United States national security and defense.
But processed critical minerals and their derivative products face significant global supply chain vulnerabilities and market distortions due to reliance on a small number of foreign suppliers. These vulnerabilities and distortions have led to significant United States import dependencies. The dependence of the United States on imports and the vulnerability of our supply chains raises the potential for risks to national security, defense readiness, price stability, and economic prosperity and resilience.
Processed critical minerals and their derivative products are essential for economic security and resilience because they underpin key industries, drive technological innovation, and support critical infrastructure vital for a modern American economy. They are key building blocks of our manufacturing base and foundational to sectors ranging from transportation and energy to telecommunications and advanced manufacturing. These economic sectors are, moreover, foundational to America’s national security.
Processed critical minerals and their derivative products are essential for national security because they are foundational to military infrastructure, energy infrastructure, and advanced defense systems and technologies. They are key building blocks of our defense industrial base and integral to applications such as jet engines, missile guidance systems, advanced computing, radar systems, advanced optics, and secure communications equipment.
The United States manufacturing and defense industrial bases remain dependent on foreign sources for processed critical mineral products. Many of these foreign sources are at risk of serious, sustained, and long-term supply chain shocks. Should the United States lose access to processed critical minerals from foreign sources, the United States commercial and defense manufacturing base for derivative products could face significant shortages and an inability to meet demand.
Associated risks arise from a variety of factors. First, global supply chains are prone to disruption from geopolitical tensions, wars, natural disasters, pandemics, and trade conflicts.
Second, major global foreign producers of processed critical minerals have engaged in widespread price manipulation, overcapacity, arbitrary export restrictions, and the exploitation of their supply chain dominance to distort world markets and thereby gain geopolitical and economic leverage over the United States and other competitors that depend on processed critical minerals to manufacture derivative products essential to their economic and national security and national defense. Therefore, the import dependence of the United States on processed critical minerals from foreign sources may pose a serious national security risk to the United States economy and defense preparedness.
Third, the risks arising from America’s import dependence on processed critical minerals also extend to derivative products that are integral to the United States economy and economic and national security.
For the United States to manufacture derivative products, it must have ready access to an affordable, resilient, and sustainable supply of processed critical minerals. Simultaneously, a resilient and sustainable manufacturing base for derivative products is vital to creating a stable demand base for processed critical minerals. Both must coexist to ensure economic stability and national security.
Finally, overreliance on a small number of geographic regions amplifies the risks posed by geopolitical instability and regional disruptions.
In light of the above risks and realities, an investigation under section 232 of the Act (section 232) is necessary to determine whether imports of processed critical minerals and their derivative products threaten to impair national security.
Sec. 2. Definitions. As used in this order: (a) The term “critical minerals” means those minerals included in the “Critical Minerals List” published by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) pursuant to section 7002(c) of the Energy Act of 2020 (30 U.S.C. 1606) at 87 FR 10381, or any subsequent such list. The term “critical minerals” also includes uranium. (b) The term “rare earth elements” means the 17 elements identified as rare earth elements by the Department of Energy (DOE) in the April 2020 publication titled “Critical Materials Rare Earths Supply Chain.” The term also includes any additional elements that either the USGS or DOE determines in any subsequent official report or publication should be considered rare earth elements. (c) The term “processed critical minerals” refers to critical minerals that have undergone the activities that occur after critical mineral ore is extracted from a mine up through its conversion into a metal, metal powder or a master alloy. These activities specifically occur beginning from the point at which ores are converted into oxide concentrates; separated into oxides; and converted into metals, metal powders, and master alloys. (d) The term “derivative products” includes all goods that incorporate processed critical minerals as inputs. These goods include semi-finished goods (such as semiconductor wafers, anodes, and cathodes) as well as final products (such as permanent magnets, motors, electric vehicles, batteries, smartphones, microprocessors, radar systems, wind turbines and their components, and advanced optical devices).
Sec. 3. Section 232 Investigation. (a) The Secretary of Commerce shall initiate an investigation under section 232 to determine the effects on national security of imports of processed critical minerals and their derivative products. (b) In conducting the investigation described in subsection (a) of this section, the Secretary of Commerce shall assess the factors set forth in 19 U.S.C. 1862(d), labeled “Domestic production for national defense; impact of foreign competition on economic welfare of domestic industries,” as well as other relevant factors, including: (i) identification of United States imports of all processed critical minerals and derivative products incorporating such processed critical minerals; (ii) the foreign sources by percent and volume of all processed critical mineral imports and derivative product imports, the specific types of risks that may be associated with each source by country, and those source countries deemed to be of significant risk; (iii) an analysis of the distortive effects of the predatory economic, pricing, and market manipulation strategies and practices used by countries that process critical minerals that are exported to the United States, including the distortive effects on domestic investment and the viability of United States production, as well as an assessment of how such strategies and practices permit such countries to maintain their control over the critical minerals processing sector and distort United States market prices for derivative products; (iv) an analysis of the demand for processed critical minerals by manufacturers of derivative products in the United States and globally, including an assessment of the extent to which such manufacturers’ demand for processed critical minerals originates from countries identified under subsections (b)(ii) and (b)(iii) of this section; (v) a review and risk assessment of global supply chains for processed critical minerals and their derivative products; (vi) an analysis of the current and potential capabilities of the United States to process critical minerals and their derivative products; and (vii) the dollar value of the current level of imports of all processed critical minerals and derivative products by total value and country of export. (c) The Secretary of Commerce shall, consistent with applicable law, proceed expeditiously in conducting the investigation as follows: (i) Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Commerce shall submit for internal review and comment a draft interim report to the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Defense, the United States Trade Representative, the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, and the Senior Counselor to the President for Trade and Manufacturing. (ii) Comments to the Secretary of Commerce from the officials identified in subsection (c)(i) of this section shall be provided within 15 days of submission of the draft interim report described in subsection (c)(i) of this section. (iii) The Secretary of Commerce shall submit a final report and recommendations to the President within 180 days of the investigation’s commencement. (d) In considering whether to make recommendations for action or inaction pursuant to section 232(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1862(b)), the Secretary of Commerce shall consider: (i) the imposition of tariffs as well as other import restrictions and their appropriate levels; (ii) safeguards to avoid circumvention and any weakening of the section 232 measures; (iii) policies to incentivize domestic production, processing, and recycling; and (iv) any additional measures that may be warranted to mitigate United States national security risks, as appropriate, under the President’s authority pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
Sec. 4. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect: (i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or (ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals. (b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations. (c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
DONALD J. TRUMP
THE WHITE HOUSE April 15, 2025.
Source: US Department of Energy
WASHINGTON— The Department of Energy (DOE) today released the following statement from DOE Spokesperson Andrea Woods on the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Annual Energy Outlook 2025:
“Today’s report from EIA reflects the disastrous path for American energy production under the Biden administration – a path that was soundly rejected by the American people last November. Under President Trump’s leadership, the Department of Energy is charting a new way forward for America’s energy future that promotes greater consumer choice, ensures the U.S. has the power to lead the world in AI development and expands economic growth fueled by American energy dominance. By unleashing energy that is affordable, reliable, and secure, this administration is ensuring America’s future is marked by energy growth and abundance – not scarcity.”
Background:
EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook utilizes a reference case that assumes laws and regulations that were in effect as of December 2024 remain in effect through 2050. The report reflects the consequences of the Biden administration’s short-sighted energy policies – many of which have already been reversed by President Trump. The report does not reflect policies enacted by President Trump to expand consumer choice and facilitate greater investment in American energy production.
Work is already underway at DOE to advance production of affordable, reliable and secure energy sources, including coal, natural gas and nuclear energy. To date, the Department of Energy has issued six actions removing regulatory barriers to liquefied natural gas (LNG) production, including approving four LNG export permits or project extensions for non-FTA countries. DOE has announced several policies aimed at jumpstarting America’s nuclear energy renaissance, including issuing a loan disbursement for the Palisades Nuclear Plant and announcing the first conditional commitments to distribute HALEU fuel to five U.S. nuclear developers. Just last week, DOE announced a series of new actions that will modernize U.S. coal technologies and promote coal-fired power generation.
Under President Trump’s leadership, the Department of Energy is continuing to work with its counterparts on the National Energy Dominance Council to remove regulatory hurdles standing in the way of building critical infrastructure and limiting America’s energy potential.
###
Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)
NEW YORK, April 15, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — XWELL, Inc. (Nasdaq: XWEL) (“XWELL” or the “Company”), a pioneer in democratizing wellness, today reported results for the year ended December 31, 2024.
Recent Highlights:
“We believe that XWELL’s improved 2024 financial and operational performance reflects the successful execution of our growth and productivity initiatives,” said Ezra Ernst, CEO of XWELL. “We continue to capitalize on compelling growth opportunities across our brands and remain focused on achieving sustainable expansion alongside our relentless focus on wellness and our customers.”
“We’re also grateful and proud to continue the work we developed with our partners at the CDC and Ginkgo Bioworks for another three years. An early warning system for dangerous pathogens, the Traveler-based Genomic Surveillance Program plays a crucial role in protecting national security and public health.” Mr. Ernst added, “Looking ahead, I’m excited about the opportunities ahead for XWELL. By accelerating growth both in and out of the airport, unifying our offerings under the XWELL brand, and reinforcing our role in U.S. biosecurity and exploring biosecurity opportunities outside of the United States, I believe that we’re positioning XWELL for continued growth and long-term value creation.”
Bringing A Unified Wellness Brand to the Market
Committed to capitalizing on compelling growth opportunities in the wellness market, XWELL has developed and communicated a clear vision, mission, and purpose-driven forward-looking plan.
The Company’s forward-looking plan focuses on expanding and integrating offerings across its brands, with a key emphasis on unifying airport and off-airport locations under the XWELL brand. This strategic alignment will enable the development of membership and loyalty programs like Priority Pass that provide seamless access to XWELL locations, fostering deeper customer relationships and enhancing brand loyalty. Additionally, a strong customer community will support targeted marketing initiatives and cross-promotional opportunities, strengthened by advanced technology and customer relationship management capabilities from the HyperPointe unit.
At the same time, XWELL is actively broadening its retail product portfolio to feature a range of cutting-edge wellness offerings. These offerings include state-of-the-art wellness devices, nutritional supplements, and innovative wellness patches — each designed to support holistic health and cater to the evolving needs of today’s wellness-conscious consumers.
Planned Strategic Investment in Medical Spas
In March 2025, XWELL unveiled plans to acquire select medical spas during 2025, leveraging its recent $4 million private placement to expand into the high-growth wellness and beauty sector.
This strategy aligns with XWELL’s mission to liberate wellness by creating a seamless continuum of care, extending beyond airports and into metropolitan areas where demand for advanced beauty and wellness treatments is rising.
XWELL will initially focus on select metropolitan areas with strong demand for medspa services, including Orlando, Austin, Texas, and Salt Lake City.
Operating At the Intersection of Travel, Health and Wellness
Operating at the intersection of travel, health and wellness, the Company’s brands currently include XWELL™, XpresSpa®, Treat™, Naples Wax Center®, XpresCheck® and HyperPointe™.
Travel Wellness Portfolio – XpresSpa®
XpresSpa is the leading airport retailer of wellness services and related retail offerings. As of December 31, 2024, there were 18 domestic XpresSpa locations in total, comprised of 17 Company-owned locations and one franchise. The Company also had 10 international locations operating as of December 31, 2024, including two XpresSpa locations in the Dubai International Airport in the United Arab Emirates, one XpresSpa location in the Zayad International Airport in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, three XpresSpa locations in the Schiphol Amsterdam Airport in the Netherlands and four XpresSpa locations in the Istanbul Airport in Turkey.
Out-of-Airport Wellness Portfolio – Naples Wax Center®
XWELL’s first off-airport brand, Naples Wax Center, is a group of upscale hair removal and aesthetic services boutiques. Acquired in mid-September 2023, Naples Wax Center provides core products and service including face and body waxing as well as a range of skincare and cosmetic products from its current three locations.
In December 2024, the Company announced the ongoing expansion of its out-of-airport spas with the opening of a new Naples Wax location in Estero, FL. This opening is the first in a series of strategic growth initiatives to expand the XWELL brand beyond airports. Looking ahead, in addition to its Estero location, XWELL has plans to open 6 additional locations across Florida during 2025.
New York City’s Penn Station XpresSpa®
Consistent with XWELL’s strategy to extend its footprint into transportation hubs, the Company is executing plans to open an XpresSpa location in New York City’s Penn Station in 2025. The tech-forward spa will serve commuters, neighborhood locals, and tourists with wellness-focused retail, autonomous massage, and nail care services, enabling seamless and efficient experiences for time-crunched New York City travelers.
Life Sciences & Biosurveillance — XpresCheck® and HyperPointe™
XpresCheck in collaboration with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) and Ginkgo Bioworks, currently operates biosurveillance stations in 8 of the nation’s busiest airports.
In March of 2025, XWELL announced that the CDC extended its Traveler-based Genomic Surveillance Program for three years. The contract has a total base value of $53.7 million over three years, with a maximum ceiling value of $85.7 million within the same timeframe. This program has been supported in whole or in part by the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention under contract number 75D30125C20439.
The TGS program functions as an early detection platform for emerging pathogens. By providing multimodal data, it enhances global biosecurity and illuminates migratory disease origin, to inform medical countermeasure research and development. The program utilizes wastewater samples from inbound international aircraft and airport triturators, along with nasal swab samples from volunteers arriving in the U.S. on select international flights.
Additionally, the Company began reporting operating results for HyperPointe within its XpresCheck business. Beginning in June 2020, and following its acquisition by XWELL in January 2022, HyperPointe’s management team and suite of services and technology have been utilized to develop and deploy the technological infrastructure necessary to scale the growth of the XpresCheck business. HyperPointe’s experience in this space continues to play a critical role in the expansion of ongoing biosurveillance efforts created in partnership with Ginkgo Bioworks and the CDC.
Liquidity and Financial Condition
As of December 31, 2024, the Company had approximately $4.6 million of cash and cash equivalents (excluding restricted cash), approximately $7.3 million in marketable securities, total current assets of approximately $15.3 million, and no long-term debt.
The Company significantly reduced operating and overhead expenses in the 2023 and 2024, while it continues to focus on returning to overall profitability.
In January 2025, the Company announced the closing of its private placement offering of $4.0 million of the Company’s newly designated Series G Convertible Preferred Stock. The Company also issued to the investors in the private placement Series A warrants and Series B warrants exercisable for the Company’s common stock. The gross proceeds of the private placement were approximately $4.0 million, before deducting other offering expenses payable by the Company.
Summary 2024 Financial Results
Total Revenue
Total revenue for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024 was $33.9 million compared to $30.1 million in the prior year.
Revenue for 2024 primarily consisted of approximately $18.3 million from XpresSpa locations, $430,000 from Treat locations and approximately $13.1 million from XpresTest, which includes XWELL’s bio-surveillance partnership and its HyperPointe business. Naples Wax Center accounted for approximately $2.1 million.
Total Cost of Sales
Total cost of sales for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024 were approximately $25.0 million compared to approximately $26.4 million in the prior year.
General and Administrative Expenses; Salaries and Benefits
General and administrative expenses for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024 were approximately $12.5 million compared to approximately $13.0 million in the prior year.
Salaries and benefits for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024 were approximately $7.5 million compared to approximately $8.0 million in the prior year.
Total Operating Expenses
Total operating expenses for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024 were approximately $25.6 million compared to approximately $31.9 million in the prior year.
Operating Loss
The operating loss for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024 totaled approximately ($16.7) million compared to approximately ($28.2) million in the prior year.
Net Loss Attributable to XWELL
Net loss attributable to XWELL for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024 totaled approximately ($16.9) million compared to approximately ($27.7) million in the prior year.
About XWELL, Inc.
XWELL, Inc. (Nasdaq: XWEL) is a leading global wellness holding company operating multiple brands: XWELL™, XpresSpa®, Treat™, Naples Wax Center®, XpresCheck® and HyperPointe™.
For more information on XWELL’s offerings, visit www.XWELL.com.
Forward-Looking Statements
This press release may contain “forward-looking” statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. These include statements preceded by, followed by or that otherwise include the words “believes,” “expects,” “anticipates,” “estimates,” “projects,” “intends,” “should,” “seeks,” “future,” “continue,” or the negative of such terms, or other comparable terminology. Important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those indicated by such forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements relating to expectations about future results or events are based upon information available to XWELL as of the date of this press release, and are not guarantees of the future performance of the Company, and actual results may vary materially from the results and expectations discussed. Additional information concerning these and other risks is contained in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K, as amended, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q and Current Reports on Form 8-K, and other Securities and Exchange Commission filings. All subsequent written and oral forward-looking statements concerning XWELL, or other matters and attributable to XWELL or any person acting on its behalf are expressly qualified in their entirety by the cautionary statements above. XWELL does not undertake any obligation to publicly update any of these forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances that may arise after the date hereof.
Media
Heather Tidwell
MWW
htidwell@mww.com
Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)
TORONTO, April 15, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Rivalry Corp. (TSXV: RVLY) (OTCQB: RVLCF) (“Rivalry” or the “Company”), the leading sportsbook and iGaming operator for digital-first players, today announces that it will be late in filing its audited financial statements and management’s discussion and analysis for the year ended December 31, 2024 and related certifications (the “Annual Filings”).
In response to the Annual Filings delay, the Company has applied to the Ontario Securities Commission for a management cease trade order (the “MCTO”) under National Policy 12-203 – Management Cease Trade Orders (“NP 12-203”) that will prohibit the management of the Company from trading in the securities of the Company until such time as the Annual Filings are filed. No decision has yet been made by the Ontario Securities Commission on this application. The Ontario Securities Commission may grant the application and issue the MCTO or it may impose an issuer cease trade order if the Annual Filings are not filed in a timely fashion. If the MCTO is granted, such an order would not generally affect the ability of persons who have not been directors, officers or insiders of the Company to trade the securities of the Company pending the filing of the Annual Filings on SEDAR+.
As previously announced, the Company has initiated a review of strategic alternatives to maximize long-term stakeholder value (the “Strategic Review”). The Company has determined that it is in the best interests of the Company to utilize its current management resources to advance the Strategic Review, resulting in a delay of completing the Annual Filings by the April 30, 2025 deadline.
The Company is working on the preparation of the Annual Filings and expects to complete the Strategic Review and the Annual Filings by June 30, 2025. Until the Annual Filings are filed, the Company intends to satisfy the provisions of the Alternate Information Guidelines as set out in NP 12-203 for as long as it remains in default, including the issuance of bi-weekly default status reports, each of which will be issued in the form of a news release.
The Company confirms that it is not subject to any insolvency proceeding as of the date hereof. The Company also confirms that there is no other material information concerning the affairs of the Company that has not been generally disclosed as of the date hereof.
Company Contact:
Steven Salz, Co-founder & CEO
ss@rivalry.com
Investor Contact:
investors@rivalry.com
Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Information and Statements
This news release contains certain forward-looking information within the meaning of applicable Canadian securities laws (“forward-looking statements”). All statements other than statements of present or historical fact are forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are often, but not always, identified by the use of words such as “anticipate”, “achieve”, “could”, “believe”, “plan”, “intend”, “objective”, “continuous”, “ongoing”, “estimate”, “outlook”, “expect”, “project” and similar words, including negatives thereof, suggesting future outcomes or that certain events or conditions “may” or “will” occur. These statements are only predictions. Forward-looking statements in this news release include, but are not limited to, statements with respect to the Strategic Review, the anticipated filing of the Annual Filings, the application for the MCTO and the granting thereof by the Ontario Securities Commission.
Forward-looking statements are based on the opinions and estimates of management of the Company at the date the statements are made based on information then available to the Company. Various factors and assumptions are applied in drawing conclusions or making the forecasts or projections set out in forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are subject to and involve a number of known and unknown, variables, risks and uncertainties, many of which are beyond the control of the Company, which may cause the Company’s actual performance and results to differ materially from any projections of future performance or results expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Such factors, among other things, include regulatory or political change such as changes in applicable laws and regulations; the ability to obtain and maintain required licenses; the esports and sports betting industry being a heavily regulated industry; the complex and evolving regulatory environment for the online gaming and online gambling industry; the success of esports and other betting products are not guaranteed; changes in public perception of the esports and online gambling industry; negative cash flow from operations and the Company’s ability to operate as a going concern; failure to retain or add customers; the Company having a limited operating history; operational risks; cybersecurity risks; reliance on management; reliance on third parties and third-party networks; exchange rate risks; risks related to cryptocurrency transactions; risk of intellectual property infringement or invalid claims; the effect of capital market conditions and other factors on capital availability; competition, including from more established or better financed competitors; and general economic, market and business conditions. For additional risks, please see the Company’s management’s discussion and analysis for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2024 under the heading “Risk Factors”, and other disclosure documents available on the Company’s SEDAR+ profile at www.sedarplus.ca.
No assurance can be given that the expectations reflected in forward-looking statements will prove to be correct. Although the forward-looking statements contained in this news release are based upon what management of the Company believes, or believed at the time, to be reasonable assumptions, the Company cannot assure shareholders that actual results will be consistent with such forward-looking statements, as there may be other factors that cause results not to be as anticipated, estimated or intended. Readers should not place undue reliance on the forward-looking statements and information contained in this news release. The forward-looking information and forward-looking statements contained in this press release are made as of the date of this press release, and the Company does not undertake to update any forward-looking information and/or forward-looking statements that are contained or referenced herein, except in accordance with applicable securities laws.
Neither TSX Venture Exchange nor its Regulation Services Provider (as that term is defined in the policies of the TSX Venture Exchange) accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release.
Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)
CHICAGO, April 15, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — LanzaTech Global, Inc. (NASDAQ: LNZA) (“LanzaTech” or the “Company”), a carbon management solutions company, today filed its annual report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024 (the “Form 10-K”).
Key Takeaways:
Fourth-Quarter and Full-Year 2024 Financial Results
The table below outlines key reported fourth-quarter and full-year 2024 results ($ millions, unless noted):
| Three Months Ended December 31, | Years Ended December 31, | ||||||||||||||
| 2024 | 2023 | 2024 | 2023 | ||||||||||||
| Revenue | $ | 12.0 | $ | 20.5 | $ | 49.6 | $ | 62.6 | |||||||
| Cost of revenue | 5.6 | 12.0 | 26.0 | 45.0 | |||||||||||
| Gross Profit | 6.5 | 8.5 | 23.6 | 17.7 | |||||||||||
| Operating expenses | 33.5 | 27.1 | 132.6 | 124.0 | |||||||||||
| Net loss | (27.0 | ) | (18.7 | ) | (137.7 | ) | (134.1 | ) | |||||||
| Adjusted EBITDA loss (1) | $ | (21.2 | ) | $ | (19.6 | ) | $ | (88.2 | ) | $ | (80.1 | ) | |||
(1) See “Non-GAAP Financial Measures” and “Reconciliations of GAAP Net Loss to Adjusted EBITDA” sections herein for an explanation and reconciliations of non-GAAP measures used throughout this release.
Revenue
Cost of Revenue
Operating Expenses
Net Loss
Adjusted EBITDA Loss
Balance Sheet and Liquidity
As of December 31, 2024, LanzaTech had $58.1 million in total cash, restricted cash, and investments, compared to total cash of $89.1 million at the end of third-quarter 2024.
About LanzaTech
LanzaTech Global, Inc. (NASDAQ: LNZA) is the carbon recycling company transforming waste carbon into sustainable fuels, chemicals, materials, and protein. Using its biorecycling technology, LanzaTech captures carbon generated by energy-intensive industries at the source, preventing it from being emitted into the air. LanzaTech then gives that captured carbon a new life as a clean replacement for virgin fossil carbon in everything from household cleaners and clothing fibers to packaging and fuels. For more information about LanzaTech, please visit https://lanzatech.com.
Forward Looking Statements
This press release includes forward-looking statements regarding, among other things, the plans, strategies and prospects, both business and financial, of LanzaTech. These statements are based on the beliefs and assumptions of LanzaTech’s management. Although LanzaTech believes that its plans, intentions and expectations reflected in or suggested by these forward-looking statements are reasonable, LanzaTech cannot assure you that it will achieve or realize these plans, intentions or expectations. Forward-looking statements are inherently subject to risks, uncertainties and assumptions. Generally, statements that are not historical facts, including statements concerning possible or assumed future actions, business strategies, events or results of operations, are forward-looking statements. These statements may be preceded by, followed by or include the words “believes,” “estimates,” “expects,” “projects,” “forecasts,” “may,” “will,” “should,” “seeks,” “plans,” “scheduled,” “anticipates,” “intends” or similar expressions. The forward-looking statements are based on projections prepared by, and are the responsibility of, LanzaTech’s management. These forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance, conditions or results, and involve a number of known and unknown risks, uncertainties, assumptions and other important factors, many of which are outside LanzaTech’s control, that could cause actual results or outcomes to differ materially from those discussed in the forward-looking statements, including the Company’s ability to continue to operate as a going concern. LanzaTech may be adversely affected by other economic, business, or competitive factors, and other risks and uncertainties, including those described under the header “Risk Factors” in its Form 10-K and in future SEC filings. New risk factors that may affect actual results or outcomes emerge from time to time and it is not possible to predict all such risk factors, nor can LanzaTech assess the impact of all such risk factors on its business, or the extent to which any factor or combination of factors may cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in any forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are not guarantees of performance. You should not put undue reliance on these statements, which speak only as of the date hereof. All forward-looking statements attributable to LanzaTech or persons acting on its behalf are expressly qualified in their entirety by the foregoing cautionary statements. LanzaTech undertakes no obligations to update or revise publicly any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by law.
Non-GAAP Financial Measures
To supplement our financial statements presented in accordance with US GAAP and to provide investors with additional information regarding our financial results, we have presented adjusted EBITDA, a non-GAAP financial measure. Adjusted EBITDA is not based on any standardized methodology prescribed by US GAAP and is not necessarily comparable to similarly titled measures presented by other companies.
We define adjusted EBITDA as our net loss, excluding the impact of depreciation, interest income, net, stock-based compensation, change in fair value of warrant liabilities, change in fair value of SAFE liabilities, change in fair value of the FPA Put Option liability and Fixed Maturity Consideration, change in fair value of our outstanding convertible note, transaction costs on issuance of Forward Purchase Agreement, (loss) gain from equity method investees and other one-time costs related to the Business Combination and securities registration on Form S-4 and our registration statement on Form S-1. We monitor adjusted EBITDA because it is a key measure used by our management and Board of Directors to understand and evaluate our operating performance, to establish budgets, and to develop operational goals for managing our business. We believe adjusted EBITDA helps identify underlying trends in our business that could otherwise be masked by the effect of certain expenses that we include in net loss. Accordingly, we believe adjusted EBITDA provides useful information to investors, analysts, and others in understanding and evaluating our operating results and enhancing the overall understanding of our past performance and future prospects.
Adjusted EBITDA is not prepared in accordance with US GAAP and should not be considered in isolation of, or as an alternative to, measures prepared in accordance with US GAAP. There are a number of limitations related to the use of adjusted EBITDA rather than net loss, which is the most directly comparable financial measure calculated and presented in accordance with US GAAP. For example, adjusted EBITDA: (i) excludes stock-based compensation expense because it is a significant non-cash expense that is not directly related to our operating performance; (ii) excludes depreciation expense and, although this is a non-cash expense, the assets being depreciated and amortized may have to be replaced in the future; (iii) excludes gain or losses on equity method investee; and (iv) excludes certain income or expense items that do not provide a comparable measure of our business performance. In addition, the expenses and other items that we exclude in our calculations of adjusted EBITDA may differ from the expenses and other items, if any, that other companies may exclude from adjusted EBITDA when they report their operating results. In addition, other companies may use other measures to evaluate their performance, all of which could reduce the usefulness of our non-GAAP financial measures as tools for comparison.
| LANZATECH GLOBAL INC. CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS (In thousands, except share and per share data) |
|||||||
| December 31, | |||||||
| 2024 | 2023 | ||||||
| Assets | |||||||
| Current assets: | |||||||
| Cash and cash equivalents | $ | 43,499 | $ | 75,585 | |||
| Held-to-maturity investment securities | 12,374 | 45,159 | |||||
| Trade and other receivables, net of allowance | 9,456 | 11,157 | |||||
| Contract assets | 18,975 | 28,238 | |||||
| Other current assets | 15,030 | 12,561 | |||||
| Total current assets | 99,334 | 172,700 | |||||
| Property, plant and equipment, net | 22,333 | 22,823 | |||||
| Right-of-use assets | 26,790 | 18,309 | |||||
| Equity method investment | 4,363 | 7,066 | |||||
| Equity security investment | 14,990 | 14,990 | |||||
| Other non-current assets | 6,873 | 5,736 | |||||
| Total assets | $ | 174,683 | $ | 241,624 | |||
| Liabilities and Shareholders’ Equity | |||||||
| Current liabilities: | |||||||
| Accounts payable | $ | 5,289 | $ | 4,060 | |||
| Other accrued liabilities | 8,876 | 7,316 | |||||
| Warrants | 3,531 | 7,614 | |||||
| Fixed Maturity Consideration and current FPA Put Option liability | 4,123 | — | |||||
| Contract liabilities | 6,168 | 3,198 | |||||
| Accrued salaries and wages | 2,302 | 5,468 | |||||
| Current lease liabilities | 158 | 126 | |||||
| Total current liabilities | 30,447 | 27,782 | |||||
| Non-current lease liabilities | 30,619 | 19,816 | |||||
| Non-current contract liabilities | 5,233 | 8,233 | |||||
| Fixed Maturity Consideration | — | 7,228 | |||||
| FPA Put Option liability | 30,015 | 37,523 | |||||
| Brookfield SAFE liability | 13,223 | 25,150 | |||||
| Convertible Note | 51,112 | — | |||||
| Other long-term liabilities | 587 | 1,421 | |||||
| Total liabilities | 161,236 | 127,153 | |||||
| Shareholders’ Equity | |||||||
| Common stock, $0.0001 par value, 600,000,000 and 400,000,000 shares authorized; 194,915,711 and 196,642,451 shares issued and outstanding as of December 31, 2024 and December 31, 2023, respectively | 19 | 19 | |||||
| Additional paid-in capital | 981,638 | 943,960 | |||||
| Accumulated other comprehensive income | 1,393 | 2,364 | |||||
| Accumulated deficit | (969,603 | ) | (831,872 | ) | |||
| Total shareholders’ equity | $ | 13,447 | $ | 114,471 | |||
| Total liabilities and shareholders’ equity | $ | 174,683 | $ | 241,624 | |||
| LANZATECH GLOBAL INC. CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS (In thousands, except share and per share data) |
|||||||||||||||
| Three Months Ended December 31, | Years Ended December 31, | ||||||||||||||
| 2024 | 2023 | 2024 | 2023 | ||||||||||||
| Revenues: | |||||||||||||||
| Contracts with customers and grants | $ | 5,311 | $ | 13,834 | $ | 22,995 | $ | 45,953 | |||||||
| CarbonSmart product sales | 3,933 | 2,072 | 7,943 | 5,337 | |||||||||||
| Collaborative arrangements | 1,104 | 2,413 | 5,573 | 5,529 | |||||||||||
| Related party transactions | 1,682 | 2,144 | 13,081 | 5,812 | |||||||||||
| Total revenues | 12,030 | 20,463 | 49,592 | 62,631 | |||||||||||
| Costs and operating expenses: | |||||||||||||||
| Contracts with customers and grants(1) | 985 | 8,818 | 15,341 | 37,653 | |||||||||||
| CarbonSmart product sales(1) | 3,894 | 2,390 | 7,543 | 4,889 | |||||||||||
| Collaborative arrangements(1) | 532 | 761 | 2,566 | 2,265 | |||||||||||
| Related party transactions(1) | 157 | 22 | 520 | 172 | |||||||||||
| Research and development expense | 16,459 | 16,303 | 77,007 | 68,142 | |||||||||||
| Depreciation expense | 1,278 | 1,471 | 5,567 | 5,452 | |||||||||||
| Selling, general and administrative expense | 15,745 | 9,343 | 49,981 | 50,438 | |||||||||||
| Total cost and operating expenses | 39,050 | 39,108 | 158,525 | 169,011 | |||||||||||
| Loss from operations | (27,020 | ) | (18,645 | ) | (108,933 | ) | (106,380 | ) | |||||||
| Other income (expense): | |||||||||||||||
| Interest income, net | 710 | 1,408 | 3,162 | 4,572 | |||||||||||
| Other expense, net | 5,616 | 524 | (17,726 | ) | (29,388 | ) | |||||||||
| Total other expense, net | 6,326 | 1,932 | (14,564 | ) | (24,816 | ) | |||||||||
| Loss before income taxes | (20,694 | ) | (16,713 | ) | (123,497 | ) | (131,196 | ) | |||||||
| Income tax expense | — | — | — | — | |||||||||||
| Loss from equity method investees, net | (6,299 | ) | (1,961 | ) | (14,234 | ) | (2,902 | ) | |||||||
| Net loss | $ | (26,993 | ) | $ | (18,674 | ) | $ | (137,731 | ) | $ | (134,098 | ) | |||
| Other comprehensive loss: | |||||||||||||||
| Changes in credit risk of fair value instruments | (1,096 | ) | — | (1,096 | ) | — | |||||||||
| Foreign currency translation adjustments | 322 | 578 | 124 | (376 | ) | ||||||||||
| Comprehensive loss | $ | (27,767 | ) | $ | (18,096 | ) | $ | (138,703 | ) | $ | (134,474 | ) | |||
| Unpaid cumulative dividends on preferred stock | — | — | — | (4,117 | ) | ||||||||||
| Net loss allocated to common shareholders | $ | (26,993 | ) | $ | (18,674 | ) | $ | (137,731 | ) | $ | (138,215 | ) | |||
| Net loss per common share – basic and diluted | $ | (0.14 | ) | $ | (0.10 | ) | $ | (0.70 | ) | $ | (0.79 | ) | |||
| Weighted-average number of common shares outstanding – basic and diluted | 197,789,128 | 196,227,601 | 197,579,945 | 176,023,219 | |||||||||||
(1) exclusive of depreciation
| LANZATECH GLOBAL INC. CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS (In thousands) |
|||||||
| Years Ended December 31, | |||||||
| 2024 | 2023 | ||||||
| Cash Flows From Operating Activities: | |||||||
| Net loss | $ | (137,731 | ) | $ | (134,098 | ) | |
| Adjustments to reconcile net loss to net cash used in operating activities: | |||||||
| Share-based compensation expense | 13,208 | 15,199 | |||||
| Gain on change in fair value of SAFE and warrant liabilities | (17,887 | ) | (14,471 | ) | |||
| Loss on change in fair value of the FPA Put Option and the Fixed Maturity Consideration liabilities | 23,510 | 44,300 | |||||
| Loss on change in fair value of Convertible Note | 11,894 | — | |||||
| Provisions for losses on trade and other receivables, net of recoveries | 961 | 700 | |||||
| Depreciation of property, plant and equipment | 5,592 | 5,452 | |||||
| Amortization of discount on debt security investment | (854 | ) | (1,301 | ) | |||
| Non-cash lease expense | 1,713 | 1,526 | |||||
| Non-cash recognition of licensing revenue | (11,532 | ) | (1,805 | ) | |||
| Loss from equity method investees, net | 14,234 | 2,902 | |||||
| Gain from disposal of PPE | (25 | ) | — | ||||
| Unrealized (Gain)/loss on net foreign exchange | (284 | ) | 182 | ||||
| Changes in operating assets and liabilities: | |||||||
| Accounts receivable, net | 557 | 104 | |||||
| Contract assets | 9,162 | (10,049 | ) | ||||
| Accrued interest on debt investment | 183 | (266 | ) | ||||
| Other assets | (2,066 | ) | (2,658 | ) | |||
| Accounts payable and accrued salaries and wages | (1,790 | ) | (4,991 | ) | |||
| Contract liabilities | 311 | 95 | |||||
| Operating lease liabilities | 641 | (337 | ) | ||||
| Other liabilities | 1,143 | 2,220 | |||||
| Net cash used in operating activities | (89,060 | ) | (97,296 | ) | |||
| Cash Flows From Investing Activities: | |||||||
| Purchase of property, plant and equipment | (5,312 | ) | (8,553 | ) | |||
| Proceeds from disposal of property, plant and equipment | 25 | — | |||||
| Purchase of debt securities | (27,083 | ) | (93,858 | ) | |||
| Proceeds from maturity of debt securities | 60,722 | 50,000 | |||||
| Purchase of additional interest in equity method investment | — | (288 | ) | ||||
| Origination of related party loan | — | (5,212 | ) | ||||
| Net cash provided by/(used in) investing activities | 28,352 | (57,911 | ) | ||||
| Cash Flows From Financing Activities: | |||||||
| Proceeds from the Business Combination and PIPE, net of transaction expenses (Note 3) | — | 213,381 | |||||
| FPA prepayment | — | (60,096 | ) | ||||
| Proceeds from exercise of options | 300 | 2,550 | |||||
| Repurchase of equity instruments of the Company | (48 | ) | (7,650 | ) | |||
| Settlement of FPA | (10,039 | ) | — | ||||
| Proceeds from issuance of Convertible Note, net | 40,000 | — | |||||
| Net cash provided by financing activities | 30,213 | 148,185 | |||||
| Effects of currency translation on cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash | (52 | ) | (404 | ) | |||
| Net decrease in cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash | (30,547 | ) | (7,426 | ) | |||
| Cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash at beginning of period | 76,284 | 83,710 | |||||
| Cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash at end of period | $ | 45,737 | $ | 76,284 | |||
| Supplemental disclosure of non-cash investing and financing activities: | |||||||
| Acquisition of property, plant and equipment under accounts payable | $ | 132 | $ | 279 | |||
| Right-of-use asset additions | 10,194 | 12,866 | |||||
| Non-cash partial reversal of FPA upon settlement | 24,084 | — | |||||
| Third-party issuance costs for the Convertible Note | 3,169 | — | |||||
| Reclassification of capitalized costs related to the business combination to equity | — | 1,514 | |||||
| Cashless conversion of warrants on preferred shares | — | 5,890 | |||||
| Recognition of public and private warrant liabilities in the Business Combination | — | 4,624 | |||||
| Reclassification of AM SAFE warrant to equity | — | 1,800 | |||||
| Conversion of AM SAFE liability into common stock | — | 29,730 | |||||
| Conversion of Legacy LanzaTech NZ, Inc. preferred stock and in-kind dividend into common stock | — | 722,160 | |||||
| Reclassification of FPA Warrants to equity | $ | — | $ | 3,063 | |||
| Reconciliation of GAAP Net Loss to Adjusted EBITDA (In thousands) Unaudited |
|||||||||||||||||
| Three Months Ended December 31, | Years Ended December 31, | ||||||||||||||||
| 2024 | 2023 | 2024 | 2023 | ||||||||||||||
| Net Loss | $ | (26,993 | ) | $ | (18,674 | ) | $ | (137,731 | ) | $ | (134,098 | ) | |||||
| Depreciation | 1,278 | (1,471 | ) | 5,567 | 5,452 | ||||||||||||
| Interest income, net | (710 | ) | (1,408 | ) | (3,162 | ) | (4,572 | ) | |||||||||
| Stock-based compensation expense and change in fair value of SAFE and warrant liabilities (1) | 6,191 | — | (4,679 | ) | 728 | ||||||||||||
| Change in fair value of the FPA Put Option and Fixed Maturity Consideration liabilities (net of interest accretion reversal) | — | — | 23,283 | 44,300 | |||||||||||||
| Change in fair value of Convertible Note and related transaction costs | (7,296 | ) | — | 14,276 | — | ||||||||||||
| Transaction costs on issuance of FPA | — | — | — | 451 | |||||||||||||
| Loss from equity method investees, net | 6,299 | 1,961 | 14,234 | 2,902 | |||||||||||||
| One-time costs related to the Business Combination, initial securities registration and non-recurring regulatory matters(2) | — | — | — | 4,693 | |||||||||||||
| Adjusted EBITDA | $ | (21,231 | ) | $ | (19,592 | ) | $ | (88,212 | ) | $ | (80,144 | ) | |||||
| (1 | ) | Stock-based compensation expense represents expense related to equity compensation plans. | |||||||||||||||
| (2 | ) | Represents costs incurred related to the Business Combination that do not meet the direct and incremental criteria per SEC Staff Accounting Bulletin Topic 5.A to be charged against the gross proceeds of the transaction, but are not expected to recur in the future, as well as costs incurred subsequent to deal close related to our securities registration on Form S-4 and our registration statement on Form S-1. Regulatory matters includes fees related to non-recurring items during the year ended December 31, 2023. | |||||||||||||||
Investor Relations Contact
Kate Walsh
VP, Investor Relations & Tax
Investor.Relations@lanzatech.com
Source: US Commodity Futures Trading Commission
CFTC Staff Issues No-Action Letter Regarding the Merger of UBS Group and Credit Suisse Group | CFTC
/PressRoom/PressReleases/9066-25
Skip to main content
April 15, 2025
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s Market Participants Division and Division of Clearing and Risk today issued a no-action letter regarding the CFTC’s swap clearing and uncleared swap margin requirements. The letter is in connection with a court-supervised transfer, consistent with United Kingdom laws, of certain swaps from Credit Suisse International to UBS AG London Branch following the merger of UBS Group AG and Credit Suisse Group AG.
These legacy swaps were entered into prior to the relevant compliance dates for the CFTC’s margin and clearing requirements, and, therefore, were not subject to such requirements prior to this court-supervised transfer.
The no-action letter states, in connection with such transfer and subject to certain specified conditions:
MPD will not recommend the Commission take an enforcement action against certain of UBS AG London Branch’s swap dealer counterparties for their failure to comply with the CFTC’s uncleared swap margin requirements for such transferred swaps; and
DCR will not recommend the Commission take an enforcement action against UBS AG or certain of its counterparties for their failure to comply with the CFTC’s swap clearing requirement for such transferred swaps.
The letter responds to a request from UBS AG.
-CFTC-
US Senate News:
Source: United States Senator for Massachusetts – Elizabeth Warren
April 15, 2025
Private equity roll-ups of fire truck manufacturers create sky-high prices and manufacturing backlogs, putting firefighters and communities in danger
“While CEOs and shareholders pad their pockets, consolidation in the industry impedes fire fighters’ ability to do their jobs safely and effectively, squeezes fire departments’ budgets, and forces taxpayers to bear the consequences.”
Text of Letter (PDF)
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Jim Banks (R-Ind.) opened a bipartisan investigation into the harms of private equity roll-ups of fire truck manufacturers. The lawmakers wrote to the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), North America’s largest union of firefighters, seeking information about the adverse impact of private equity consolidation on firefighters and communities in Massachusetts, Indiana, and across the country.
“While CEOs and shareholders pad their pockets, consolidation in the industry impedes fire fighters’ ability to do their jobs safely and effectively, squeezes fire departments’ budgets, and forces taxpayers to
bear the consequences,” wrote the lawmakers. “We have heard from dozens of fire departments in Massachusetts, Indiana, and elsewhere about difficulties they have faced related to serial roll-ups of fire truck manufacturers, including delivery delays, defective parts, and price increases.”
In 2006, private equity group American Industrial Partners (AIP) began rolling up independent fire equipment manufacturers, eventually consolidating four smaller companies into REV Group. Today, as a result of additional acquisitions, REV Group owns about a third of the fire truck manufacturing market, the largest share of any company. Meanwhile, independent companies account for only about 20 percent of the market.
Large fire truck manufacturers may be exploiting their market power to raise fire truck prices and restrict the supply of fire trucks. In 2013, a pumper truck cost $500,000, and a ladder truck cost $900,000. Today, these prices have skyrocketed to nearly $1 million and $2 million, respectively, far outpacing inflation for heavy-duty truck manufacturing over that time period. Some manufacturers also use “floating” prices, increasing the final price of a truck after it goes into production and even withholding the delivery of the vehicles if fire departments do not agree to the price increases. At the same time, companies like REV have permanently shut down their own manufacturers’ plants, reducing manufacturing capabilities and leading to a nationwide backlog in fire truck delivery.
“Rising costs and longer delivery times for fire apparatus and ambulances are hurting fire departments and communities across Massachusetts. I just ordered a fire engine that won’t be delivered for another four years. It took three years for our community to get two ambulances. These manufacturing roll-ups only make it harder for us to do our jobs and protect families,” said Mike Kelleher, President of the Fire Chiefs Association of Massachusetts and Chief of the Foxborough Fire Department.
Firefighters report that they are forced to use outdated fire trucks because their department can’t afford new trucks. When Los Angeles faced deadly wildfires in January 2025, more than half of the Los Angeles Fire Department’s fire trucks were out of service, hindering the Department’s ability to effectively contain the fires. Skyrocketing costs and lengthy wait times for fire trucks and truck repairs, spurred by private equity’s entry into the fire truck manufacturing industry, leave communities across the country less safe.
“Private equity is padding shareholders’ wallets at the expense of public safety,” wrote the lawmakers.
On a shareholders’ call, REV Group’s CFO noted that manufacturing backlogs benefit the company, saying “strong backlogs” provide the “visibility and opportunity to drive significant shareholder value.”
The senators warned that private equity’s serial roll-ups may be allowing companies to increase their market share while evading antitrust scrutiny. The Federal Trade Commission and U.S. Department of Justice’s 2023 Merger Guidelines clarify that when a merger is part of a series of multiple acquisitions, the agencies may examine the whole series.
“These guidelines are important, as they make clear that antitrust enforcers have authority to investigate and unwind serial roll-ups that threaten competition in a single industry,” concluded the senators.
Source: WTO
Headline: Trade Policy Review: Sierra Leone
The following documents are available:
Secretariat report
A detailed report written independently by the WTO Secretariat.
Government report
A policy statement by the government of the member under review.
From the meeting
The Secretariat and Government reports are discussed by the WTO’s full membership in the Trade Policy Review Body (TPRB).
Concluding remarks
Background
Trade Policy Reviews are an exercise, mandated in the WTO agreements, in which member countries’ trade and related policies are examined and evaluated at regular intervals. Significant developments that may have an impact on the global trading system are also monitored. All WTO members are subject to review, with the frequency of review depending on the country’s size.
Share
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Niven Winchester, Professor of Economics, Auckland University of Technology
Forecasting the potential impact of Donald Trump’s turbulent tariff policies is a fraught business – and fraught for business. The United States president has changed, paused and exempted various categories of goods so often, the only certainty is uncertainty.
On “Liberation Day” (April 2) he famously announced far-reaching “reciprocal tariffs” on imports from most trading nations. Since then he has paused those tariffs, but kept 25% on imports of steel, aluminium and motor vehicles, and 10% “baseline” tariffs on all other imports.
The big exception is China, whose retaliation against the reciprocal US tariffs has resulted in an escalating trade war between the world’s two largest economies.
On April 9, the US raised tariffs on Chinese goods to 145%, but later scaled back duties on electronic goods such as laptops and smartphones to 20%. On April 12, China increased its tariff on US goods to 125%.
With China being New Zealand’s largest trade partner by far, and the US its third largest (just behind Australia), the impacts of this global standoff will be indirect but nevertheless significant.
To estimate the impacts of a US-China trade war, as well as other tariffs imposed by the US, I use the same global model of production, trade and consumption of goods and services employed to recently calculate the impacts of the Liberation Day tariffs.
As we can see, China and the US both lose from the tariff war. China’s GDP decreases by US$114 billion (0.58%), which equates to $236 per household per year on average. US GDP declines by $76 billion (0.25%) or $604 per household (all figures in US$).
The tariffs all but eliminate trade in goods between China and the US, except for electronic goods exported from China, which are subject to a lower tariff (for now).
Vietnam and India gain from the trade war because they produce many goods that substitute for Chinese products in the US market.
The trade war will affect New Zealand in at least three ways:
as the two nations buy less from each other, there is room for other nations to expand their exports to these markets
decreased incomes in China and the US will reduce global demand for all goods
and the tariffs will increase the costs of global supply chains.
The net effect is a 0.03% decrease in New Zealand’s GDP, equivalent to $70 million or $36 per household per year (roughly NZ$120 million and NZ$60 respectively).
The simulations do not capture the impact of uncertainty caused by Trump’s frequent and abrupt changes in tariffs, carve-outs and clarifications (sometimes announced via social media).
The global US Trade Policy Uncertainty Index, last updated before the Liberation Day tariffs, is at a record high – 29 times higher than before the 2024 presidential election. This unprecedented uncertainty, coupled with the risk of high tariffs, is making exporters increasingly reluctant to commit to the US market.
The US currently accounts for 26.3% of global GDP. With higher future growth in many developing economies, especially in Asia, this is forecast to fall to 16.3% by 2050.
China is predicted to supplant the US as the world’s largest economy sometime in the 2030s, and by 2050 to account for 18.4% of global GDP (up from 16.9%).
India’s global GDP share is expected to increase significantly, from its current value of 3.7% to 9.7%. Indonesia and Philippines are also expected to grow rapidly.
New Zealand signed a free trade agreement with China in 2008 (and an upgrade to the agreement in 2022), has begun negotiations for one with India, and has regional agreements with many other rapidly developing Asian economies.
It remains to be seen whether Trump’s rollout of high tariffs signals a lasting policy shift or is merely a negotiating tactic to secure more favourable terms for US exporters. But New Zealand is well placed to pivot to alternative markets if needed.
Niven Winchester has previously received funding from the Productivity Commission and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to estimate the impacts of potential trade policies. He is affiliated with Motu Economic & Public Policy Research.
– ref. US-China trade war leaves NZ worse off, but still well placed to weather the storm – new modelling – https://theconversation.com/us-china-trade-war-leaves-nz-worse-off-but-still-well-placed-to-weather-the-storm-new-modelling-254469
US Senate News:
Source: United States Senator for Alaska Dan Sullivan
04.14.25
I recently delivered my annual address to the Legislature in Juneau. I spoke about the success we’ve had in continuing our military build-up, including the possibility of re-opening the U.S. Navy base in Adak, to counter the unprecedented number of Russian and Chinese incursions near our air and waters.
I spoke about our veterans and how we’re continuing to work to make sure they get the benefits they have earned. We’ve also passed significant legislation, the Social Security Fairness Act, to ensure that our other outstanding public servants — like teachers, firefighters, police officers — get the Social Security benefits they have earned. I spoke about our focus on making aviation safer, and the work we’re doing to help our hard-working fishermen and coastal communities, all of whom have experienced very rough times recently.
But the heart of my speech centered on two visions for Alaska that have existed since statehood. One sees our state more run by an absent federal landlord who seeks to protect us and occasionally gives us scraps from the wealth of America’s table to keep us happy. This arrogant federal landlord view of Alaska reached its zenith under President Biden with his “Last Frontier lock-up” — 70 executive orders and actions exclusively focused on shutting down Alaska’s private sector economy, harming working families, and killing hundreds if not thousands of jobs.
The other vision, which I believe most Alaskans support, envisions unlocking the wealth of Alaska to create sustainable, private sector economic growth and good-paying jobs. With the stroke of a pen on his first day in office, President Trump fully endorsed this vision by issuing an Alaska-specific executive order that undoes much of the Biden lock-up and sent an unmistakable message that unleashing Alaska’s extraordinary resources and growing our economy is a top priority of his administration.
I encourage all Alaskans to read the EO, understand it, and most importantly, work to use it for the betterment of Alaskans. This executive order could help us achieve many of the big, long-sought ambitions in our state and create thousands of good-paying jobs.
To be clear, this EO is not a panacea. But we are the only state in the country that got one. Alaska has never seen such a positive signal directly from a U.S. president that we should pursue our vision of a state that seeks private sector wealth and job creation with a federal government that is a partner in opportunity, not a hostile opponent.
As I was delivering my speech in Juneau, the Interior Department released another order lifting the decades-obsolete Public Land Order 5150, long used to hinder major resource projects in our state. This order puts ANWR and NPR-A back on the table for responsible development and enables the State of Alaska to select lands along the Dalton Highway corridor for conveyance, including the land beneath the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, something Alaskans have been trying to get done since the 1970s.
We’ve also seen major progress on a dream that has eluded our grasp for decades — the Alaska LNG project. As a state and federal official, I’ve been working on this project for over 15 years. I understand there is skepticism. We have been hearing about this for decades. But the potential transformative benefits for our state are so huge, and the geostrategic imperative for America and our Asian allies so compelling, that my team and I have, for years, kept ramming our shoulders into the cement wall of Alaska LNG, hoping someday that this wall would give way.
As of late, a crack has developed — an 800-mile crack in this wall that shows undeniable progress.
After the November election, I met with President Trump and pitched him and his team on the huge benefits of this project for America. I asked the president for his full backing, and we’ve gotten it.
In his recent meeting with the Japanese Prime Minister, President Trump pressed him on the Alaska LNG project. And last month in his address to Congress, President Trump said:
“My administration is also working on a gigantic natural gas pipeline in Alaska—among the largest in the world—where Japan, South Korea, and other nations want to be our partner with investments of trillions of dollars each. There’s never been anything like that one. It will be truly spectacular.”
None of this progress happens by accident. I worked closely with Gov. Dunleavy and our teams to secure these actions.
But we’re pushing on an open door. The Trump administration wants to help Alaska.
In the past week, I’ve had productive discussions with President Trump, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and other members of Trump’s cabinet on prioritizing the Alaska LNG project and, in particular, long-term Alaska LNG off-take agreements from countries like Japan, South Korea and Taiwan in their tariff agreement negotiations. Both Trump and Bessent have stated that this is one of their goals in these negotiations.
In my speech, I respectfully asked our state legislators to find creative ways to build on this unprecedented momentum we’re seeing at the federal level for the Alaska LNG project, not stop it. To the naysayers and pessimists, I asked, what is the alternative for Alaskans? Importing gas from Canada or Mexico? If we do, energy prices are going to double or triple for our homes, businesses, schools, and hospitals. Low-cost energy will be closed for a generation, and the good-paying jobs and possibilities that go with the Alaska LNG project will flee our state — and so will our kids.
To be clear, I don’t agree with everything the Trump administration has done, particularly some of the DOGE actions in Alaska.
But difficult choices have to be made. Our $36 trillion national debt is at a dangerous and unsustainable level. Last year, we paid out more in interest on this debt — upwards of $950 billion — than we did to fund our military at about $870 billion. When you look at history, great powers begin to fail when they hit this precarious inflection point. These debt and spending levels also drive high inflation rates as we’ve seen over the past few years, which remain the top concern of Alaska families.
I’ve spoken directly with DOGE and Trump administration leaders regularly on this effort. They know that some mistakes will be made, and they want to work with us to correct them. We have had some successes reversing or preventing certain actions — on things like GSA leases and frozen federal funding on numerous projects across our state — particularly if they undermine the President’s Alaska-specific EO to unleash Alaska’s economy.
But it’s vital that we Alaskans not forget the bigger picture. We have opportunities like never before to grow our state’s economy, create thousands of good-paying jobs and permit and build our long-sought projects. Imagine what we could achieve with a nearly inexhaustible supply of our own affordable natural gas for the whole state. Imagine the private sector opportunities that could start here — a manufacturing base, thousands of good-paying jobs, a steady source of income for many years to come to our state’s coffers.
We can’t lose sight of the vision arising from our frontier heritage. This vision built our state and is still brimming with strength, invention, energy, and opportunity.
By: Sen. Dan SullivanSource: Anchorage Daily News
Source: Government of India
Posted On: 15 APR 2025 8:12PM by PIB Delhi
“The Indian hydrocarbon sector is entering a new era of accelerated exploration and development,” said Shri Hardeep Singh Puri, Minister of Petroleum and Natural Gas, while addressing the Open Acreage Licensing Policy (OALP) Round-IX and Special Discovered Small Field (DSF) Signing Ceremony held here tonight. He highlighted that through investor-friendly reforms, swift approvals, scientific exploration, and a strong emphasis on sustainability, India is steadily building a resilient and future-ready energy ecosystem aligned with the vision of Viksit Bharat.
Addressing the esteemed gathering of dignitaries, industry stakeholders, and investors, Shri Puri noted that today’s signing ceremony signifies much more than the completion of a procedural formality—it is a powerful testament to India’s unwavering commitment to reducing its import dependence and securing its energy future.
With India currently reliant on imports for 88% of its crude oil and 50% of its natural gas needs, the urgency for domestic exploration and production has never been greater. As the Minister pointed out, “In the next two decades, 25% of the world’s incremental energy demand growth will come from India.”
Reflecting on the past, Shri Puri acknowledged the challenges the Indian upstream sector faced between 2006 and 2016—a “dull decade” marred by policy paralysis and procedural delays, leading to the exit of global energy giants like BP, ENI, and Santos. However, the tide has turned. “We were determined to unlock India’s untapped energy potential, estimated at approximately 42 billion tonnes of oil and oil equivalent of gas,” he said.
To that end, the Government has implemented a series of transformative reforms over the past decade. A key achievement has been the expansion of exploration activity, with the explored area of India’s sedimentary basins increasing from 6% in 2014 to 10% today, with a target of reaching 15%. The Minister reiterated the commitment to increasing exploration acreage to 1 million sq. km by 2030, highlighting the dramatic 99% reduction in “No-Go” areas within India’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).
Scientific, data-driven exploration has been a cornerstone of this strategy, backed by a ₹7,500 crore investment into new seismic data acquisition, aerial surveys in remote terrains, and stratigraphic wells. Importantly, geo-scientific data is now available for major basins on both coasts, with the National Data Repository being upgraded to a cloud-based platform to ensure faster, transparent access to seismic, production, and well data.
The Minister proudly noted that 76% of the total area currently under exploration has been brought under active exploration only since 2014. Under OALP Round-IX alone, 28 blocks across eight sedimentary basins have been awarded, covering 1.36 lakh square kilometers—38% of which fall in areas previously designated as “No-Go.” Additionally, two blocks were awarded under the Special DSF Round, with a total of 60 bids received.
“Congratulations to all the awardees. Your success will play a pivotal role in meeting our increasing energy demands as India continues its ascent as one of the world’s largest energy consumers,” Shri Puri said.
Looking ahead, the Minister announced that OALP Round-X has already been launched at the India Energy Week 2025, offering 25 blocks across 13 sedimentary basins—covering the largest-ever acreage of 1.92 lakh square kilometers, with 51% falling in previously restricted zones.
Furthermore, DSF Round-IV is being launched tonight, comprising 55 discoveries across nine contract areas with estimated reserves of 258.59 million metric tonnes of oil equivalent (MMTOE). All blocks have undergone rigorous technical vetting by global experts, and critically, all relevant data is being made freely available to potential investors.
He also shared that under previous DSF Bid Rounds (I, II, and III), a total of 85 Revenue Sharing Contracts covering 175 fields have been awarded.
Highlighting the potential in unconventional hydrocarbon sources, Shri Puri elaborated on India’s Coal Bed Methane (CBM) assets, currently estimated at 2,600 BCM. With 15 active CBM blocks—five already under production—the Government is preparing to launch a Special CBM 2025 Round to offer three new blocks (two in West Bengal and one in Gujarat), further diversifying India’s energy portfolio.
In a major legislative update, the Minister announced that the amended Oilfields (Regulation and Development) Act, 1948 (ORDA), will come into effect in April 15, 2025. This “landmark reform” modernizes India’s upstream regulatory framework and aligns it with international best practices.
The Government has also been responsive to industry concerns through the establishment of a Joint Working Group (JWG) comprising private E&P operators, National Oil Companies, the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, and the Directorate General of Hydrocarbons. “The JWG has submitted its report, and we are formally launching it this evening,” Shri Puri announced.
In a move towards inclusive governance and legal clarity, the Minister also launched the draft PNG Rules Public Consultation Portal, encouraging industry and public stakeholders to share feedback. These rules will help shape future Model Revenue Sharing Contracts and streamline sectoral regulations.
***
MONIKA
(Release ID: 2121952) Visitor Counter : 40
Source: Government of India
Aims to achieve ~$ 25 billion exports in the next 10 years; generate ~35 lakh jobs
Interventions include building world-class hand tool clusters with advanced infrastructure and addressing structural cost disadvantages through market reforms
Posted On: 15 APR 2025 6:02PM by PIB Delhi
NITI Aayog launched a report on Hand and Power tools sectors – ‘Unlocking $25+ Billion Export Potential – India’s Hand & Power Tools Sector’. The report underscores the transformative potential of hand and power tools industry for India’s economic growth, delving into the challenges, policy headwinds, and necessary interventions vital for strengthening the Indian hand and power tool ecosystem. It outlines a strategic path for the sector to enhance its global competitiveness and capture a significantly larger share of the international market. The report was launched by Shri Suman Bery, Vice Chairman, NITI Aayog in the presence of Dr. V.K. Saraswat, Member, Dr. Arvind Virmani, Member, and Shri BVR Subrahmanyam, CEO, NITI Aayog.
The report suggests that the global trade market for power and hand tools, currently valued at approximately $ 100 billion, is projected to grow significantly, reaching around $ 190 billion by 2035. Within this market, hand tools account for $ 34 billion and are expected to expand to $ 60 billion by 2035, while power tools, including tool accessories, represent $ 63 billion and are anticipated to surge to $ 134 billion, with electrical tools comprising the majority. China dominates global exports, holding about 50% of the hand tools market with $ 13 billion and 40% of the power tools market with $ 22 billion, whereas India has a smaller presence, exporting $ 600 million in hand tools (1.8% market share) and $ 470 million in power tools (0.7% market share).
One important finding of the report is that India has the potential to capture a larger share of the global market, targeting $ 25 billion in exports over the next decade, which could create approximately 35 lakh jobs by achieving a 10% market share in power tools and 25% in hand tools. Through fostering innovation, empowering our MSMEs, strengthening India’s industrial ecosystem, we can solidify the nation’s position as a reliable, high-quality global manufacturing hub. The potential rewards for Indian economy and its people are immense.
The report also analyses the challenges which India may face, including a 14-17% cost disadvantage compared to China, driven by higher structural costs and smaller operational scale. This disadvantage stems from elevated raw material costs, such as steel, plastic, and motors, as well as lower labour productivity due to higher overtime wages and restrictions on overtime hours. Furthermore, higher interest rates and logistics costs for transporting goods from inland states to ports further hinder India’s competitiveness in the global market.
To achieve India’s potential of $ 25 billion in power and hand tool exports over the next decade, the report delves into the issues impacting hand and power tools sectors and recommends three key categories of interventions which are essential. These include:
The report observes that the tools industry serves as a foundational pillar of the global manufacturing ecosystem. The Hand and Power Tools sector represents a significant opportunity to realise India’s ambition of becoming a ‘global manufacturing hub’. The report underlines that India stands at the cusp of becoming a developed nation i.e Viksit Bharat @ 2047, where the industrial eco-system will play a pivotal role. The Hand and Power Tools sector will help enhance our domestic manufacturing and expand our global footprint by $ 25 billion in the next 10 years, with the growth in the construction and DIY markets, augmenting the “Make in India” initiative and accelerating nation’s economic growth.
The report can be accessed at: https://www.niti.gov.in/sites/default/files/2025-04/India_Hand_Power_Tools_Sector_Report.pdf
******
MJPS/SR/SKS
(Release ID: 2121901) Visitor Counter : 78
Source: European Parliament
1. Under the current customs legal framework, the consumers are the importers of goods that they have ordered from third countries via platforms. The Customs Reform proposal[1] introduces the concept of deemed importer, by which the platforms that have registered for the VAT Import One Stop Shop (IOSS) are considered responsible for the financial and non-financial requirements applicable on these e-commerce imports. The proposal to amend the VAT Directive now includes the provisions on the mandatory IOSS, which will be further discussed in Council and which may require a further adjustment in the definition of the deemed importer. Both proposals are likely to evolve during the negotiation process. They are now both in the Council but the customs reform is subject to ordinary legislative procedure so both co-legislators will still have a say.
2. Subject to the negotiations of the co-legislators, the deemed importer will provide data regarding their distance sales of imported goods to the customs authorities at the moment of the sale. The deemed importer will have the same information requirements as any other importer.
3. The proposed customs reform aims indeed at reinforcing the customs supervision of all goods entering and leaving the Union, including e-commerce. A new EU Customs Authority and an EU Customs Data Hub will centralise data to improve targeting of unsafe products entering the Union. The customs reform will therefore contribute to reducing the number of unsafe products entering the EU, in synergy with other EU legislation, such as the Digital Service Act[2] and the General Product Safety Regulation[3].
US Senate News:
Source: United States Senator for Delaware Christopher Coons
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senators Chris Coons (D-Del.), Todd Young (R-Ind.), John Cornyn (R-Texas), and John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.) introduced The Finding Opportunities for Resource Exploration (Finding ORE) Act to strengthen U.S. mineral security and reduce strategic vulnerabilities. Representatives Rob Wittman (R-Va.) and Kathy Castor (D-Fla.) will introduce a companion bill in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Critical minerals are essential to producing technologies for the defense, semiconductor, automotive, and energy sectors—industries that will determine America’s economic future and global influence. Although we have an abundance of domestic mineral resources, demand already outstrips this supply. We must work with allies and partners to achieve mineral security. Additionally, the U.S. is heavily dependent on China for production and processing of many key critical minerals. This bill would leverage the strengths of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in geological mapping of critical mineral reserves while giving U.S. firms a leg up in responsibly developing global mineral resources around the world.
“From the technology that powers the cell phones in our pockets to the systems that keep us safe, Americans depend on critical minerals for our economic strength and national security,” said Senator Coons. “The Finding ORE Act makes sure that our nation will have access to the essential materials we need to keep innovating, growing our economy, and deterring our enemies. I’m grateful for the bipartisan and industry support this bill has received and look forward to pushing for its enactment.”
“Many countries are unmapped or reliant on outdated geological surveys. Our bill would create opportunities for collaboration between the United States and these countries to update geological mapping with the goal of locating critical mineral deposits. These partnerships would be mutually beneficial and provide the United States access to more critical minerals, reducing our dependence on China,” said Senator Todd Young.
“We can’t solve climate change or strengthen national security without harnessing the power of critical minerals,” said Senator Hickenlooper. “Better and more accurate maps will help us and our allies safely and ethically explore untapped critical mineral deposits.”
“Access to a reliable supply chain of critical minerals is essential to meet our nation’s defense, manufacturing, and energy needs,” said Senator Cornyn. “By shoring up alliances with trusted allies and promoting geological mapping of critical mineral reserves, this legislation would ensure America has the resources needed to keep up with global demand and bolster both our mineral security and national security in the years ahead.”
“Critical minerals and rare earth elements are the building blocks of our modern economy and our national security,” said Representative Wittman. “This bill ensures that the United States can work hand-in-hand with like-minded nations to identify and responsibly develop these essential resources, while strengthening supply chain resilience and promoting American leadership in mineral exploration. Through this bill, we are reinforcing our alliances, building technical capacity, and supporting global standards in responsible mineral development. I’m proud to introduce the Finding ORE Act as a forward-looking solution to this pressing global challenge.”
“America’s dependence on adversarial nations for critical minerals poses a significant threat to our national security and our clean energy future,” said Representative Castor. “The Finding ORE Act leverages our expertise in geologic mapping to promote the sustainable development of critical mineral supply chains through international partnerships. This legislation will make our nation safer and stronger while supporting our strategic alliances. I’m grateful to my bipartisan colleagues for working together to enhance U.S. leadership in the clean energy transition.”
“The United States has too often watched from the sidelines as our adversaries explored, invested in, and secured the world’s most promising mineral deposits,” said Abigail Hunter, Executive Director of SAFE’s Center for Critical Minerals Strategy. “This bill changes that. It positions the United States—our geological experts and industry—to help identify and potentially develop the next generation of great deposits. It ensures we show up in resource-rich nations, rather than leaving them to deepen their ties with China.”
“The American Critical Minerals Association welcomes the bipartisan, bicameral introduction of the Finding ORE Act by Senators Coons, Young, Hickenlooper, and Cornyn and Representatives Wittman and Castor,” said Sarah Venuto, Executive Director of ACMA. “Expanding our knowledge base of global minerals resources and growing partnerships with our allies will ensure the United States is a leading force in resourcing critical minerals in a responsible way. ACMA looks forward to working with Senator Coons and his colleagues to advance the Finding ORE Act.”
“Colorado School of Mines commends Senators Coons, Young, Hickenlooper, and Cornyn and Reps. Wittman and Castor for their bipartisan efforts to leverage U.S. expertise in mineral mapping to support safe, secure, and responsible mineral supply chains,” said Dr. John Bradford, Vice President for Global Initiatives at Colorado School of Mines. “When called upon to contribute, institutions with strong partnerships with USGS, like Colorado School of Mines, seek to support America’s government and industry partners to advance the technology, knowledge, and workforce required to responsibly identify, assess, and produce mineral resources in the U.S. and around the world.”
“BPC Action applauds the bipartisan introduction of the Finding ORE Act. The bill will strengthen U.S. supply chain security by enhancing coordination with allies on critical mineral development, helping secure new critical minerals sources free from adversary control,” said Michele Stockwell, president of Bipartisan Policy Center Action (BPC Action).
“Terra AI celebrates this forward-thinking, bi-partisan critical minerals exploration legislation introduced by Senators Coons, Young, Hickenlooper, and Cornyn and Reps. Wittman and Castor,” said John Mern, CEO of Terra AI. “The Finding ORE Act would empower America’s agencies and private firms to explore and claim the next major deposits of critical minerals which will supply our industries for decades to come; supporting manufacturing, aerospace, energy, and artificial intelligence. We support this act’s unique approach to winning the critical minerals race by leveraging America and Her Allies’ relative advantages — strong diplomatic relations, world-leading technology, and entrepreneurial spirit. This act is the essential early stage first step to establishing US global mineral dominance and winning this generational opportunity. As a mineral exploration AI company, we see huge value in collaboration between the private sector and our nation’s diplomatic, geologic and financial agencies abroad. It is a winning playbook, and we look forward to seeing more legislation in this area.”
The Finding ORE Act would authorize the Director of USGS to enter into memoranda of understanding (MOU) with foreign partner countries related to mapping of critical minerals. The bill identifies four objectives for these MOU:
Committing USGS to assist the partner country with a range of critical mineral mapping activities
Committing the partner country to offer a right of first refusal to private companies based in the United States or an allied country in the further development of mapped critical minerals
Facilitating investment in the development of critical minerals in the partner country, including by leveraging financing from the U.S. Development Finance Corporation and Export-Import Bank
Ensuring that mapping data created through partnership with USGS is not disclosed to governmental or private entities in non-allied countries
The bill requires USGS to collaborate with both the State Department and the private sector in identifying which countries to prioritize for negotiation of an MOU and would involve the State Department in the negotiation and implementation process.
A one-pager on the bill is available here.
The full text of the bill is available here.
Translartion. Region: Russians Fedetion –
Source: Government of the Russian Federation – An important disclaimer is at the bottom of this article.
Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Patrushev held a meeting within the framework of incident No. 58 “Organization of the system for handling municipal solid waste”. It was attended by heads of relevant departments and heads of regions.
Special attention in the context of the incident was paid to the law that came into force in March of this year. It introduces a three-year moratorium on fines for exceeding the axle load for garbage trucks. Dmitry Patrushev emphasized that the task is not only to develop domestic trucks, but also to launch their serial production. The Ministry of Natural Resources and the Russian Ecological Operator will also be involved in the design process.
The Deputy Prime Minister noted that the new model must comply with the law, be environmentally friendly, maneuverable, universal for all climate zones of the country and affordable. Dmitry Patrushev noted that the Ministry of Industry and Trade should speed up the implementation of the project.
Dmitry Patrushev reported that the Government’s order approved a list of organizations with which individual regions can conclude concession agreements without a tender for the construction of waste management infrastructure. The Russian Ecological Operator will be included in the authorized capital of the organizations. This will allow monitoring the timely implementation of infrastructure projects. Dmitry Patrushev drew the attention of the heads of these 19 regions to the need to carefully monitor the implementation of “road maps” for the implementation of investment projects.
Thanks to this mechanism, 5 million tons of capacity will be created for processing solid municipal waste, 2.3 million tons for its disposal, and 3.5 million tons for burial.
The meeting also discussed regional provision of infrastructure for waste collection – containers, sites, special equipment. The heads of regions where the implementation of the waste management reform is causing the greatest difficulties spoke.
Incident No. 58 “Organization of a system for handling municipal solid waste” was created on the instructions of the Chairman of the Government to ensure the implementation of reform in the area of waste management.
When working in the incident format, a special project management system is used, which is deployed on the basis of the Government Coordination Center. It allows for prompt coordination of the actions of participants and monitoring of project implementation in real time.
Please note: This information is raw content directly from the source of the information. It is exactly what the source states and does not reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.
Translartion. Region: Russians Fedetion –
Source: Government of the Russian Federation – An important disclaimer is at the bottom of this article.
First Deputy Prime Minister of Russia Denis Manturov and Minister Coordinating for Economic Affairs of the Republic of Indonesia Airlangga Hartarto held the 13th meeting of the Russian-Indonesian Joint Commission on Trade, Economic and Technical Cooperation. Its participants considered a wide range of issues of bilateral cooperation in the fields of trade, industry, investment, transport and energy, as well as science, education and culture.
Despite global challenges, bilateral trade between Russia and Indonesia is showing positive dynamics. Over the past five years, mutual trade turnover has grown by more than 80% (to $4.3 billion by the end of 2024), and last year Indonesia was among Russia’s three leading foreign trade partners in ASEAN. “At the same time, the potential for economic cooperation is much broader. This was confirmed, among other things, by the Russian-Indonesian business forum held yesterday in Jakarta. Business circles are demonstrating practical interest in developing mutually beneficial cooperation. Given the success of the format, I propose to continue the practice of combining such business events with commission meetings. I also consider it necessary to encourage the participation of Russian and Indonesian companies in major congress and exhibition events held in our countries,” Denis Manturov noted.
The business dialogue between Russia and Indonesia contributes to the diversification of the trade structure. Thus, along with fuel and energy products, the export of food and mineral fertilizers is growing. In 2023, deliveries of Russian wheat resumed. “We expect to begin shipping meat products that will meet halal standards in the near future. We see opportunities for developing the export of forestry and metallurgy products,” the First Deputy Prime Minister emphasized.
The conclusion of the Free Trade Agreement between the EAEU and Indonesia, as well as the intergovernmental agreement on cooperation and mutual assistance in customs matters will allow further increase in trade turnover and simplify procedures for mutual access of goods to markets. Denis Manturov also emphasized the importance of ensuring uninterrupted mutual settlements.
Special attention at the meeting was paid to the development of cooperation in the field of digital technologies. Domestic companies are ready to implement their own developments in the field of information security, artificial intelligence and smart city technologies in Indonesia. The First Deputy Prime Minister also confirmed readiness for dialogue on projects in the space industry, including technologies for remote sensing of the Earth, satellite navigation, manned spaceflight and personnel training.
Cooperation in the spheres of culture, education, tourism and sports is developing successfully. Speaking about strengthening partnership relations in the media, Denis Manturov welcomed the plans of the Russia Today TV channel to jointly produce news content in Indonesian for local channels, which will allow objective coverage of both the Russian-Indonesian agenda and global events in the interests of the audience of our countries.
Following the event, a final protocol was signed, as well as a Memorandum of Understanding between Rosakcreditatsiya and the Indonesian Halal Product Quality Assurance Agency, which is aimed at improving the conditions for access of halal products to the Indonesian market. In addition, an Agreement on Cooperation in the Field of Improving Quality and Business Excellence was signed between Roskachestvo and the Indonesian Association for Quality and Productivity Management, as well as an Agreement on Cooperation in the Field of Sports between the Russian National Badminton Federation and the Indonesian Badminton Association.
Please note: This information is raw content directly from the source of the information. It is exactly what the source states and does not reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.
Translartion. Region: Russians Fedetion –
Source: Moscow Exchange – Moscow Exchange –
For bidders
We inform you that, based on the letter of the Bank of Russia and in accordance with Part I. General Part and Part II. Stock Market Section of the Rules for Conducting Trading on the Stock Market, Deposit Market and Credit Market of Moscow Exchange PJSC, the order establishes the form, time, term and procedure for holding auctions for the placement and trading of the following federal loan bonds:
1.
| Name of the Issuer | Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation |
| Name of security | federal loan bonds with constant coupon income |
| State registration number of the issue | 26242RMFS from 01/19/2023 |
| Date of the auction | April 16, 2025 |
| Information about the placement (trading mode, placement form) | The placement of Bonds will be carried out in the Trading Mode “Placement: Auction” by holding an Auction to determine the placement price. BoardId: PACT (Settlements: Ruble) |
| Trade code | CO26242RMFSB |
| ISIN code | RO000A105RV3 |
| Calculation code | B01 |
| Additional conditions of placement | The share of non-competitive bids in relation to the total volume of bids submitted by the Bidder may not exceed 90%. |
| Trading time | Trading hours: bid collection period: 12:00 – 12:30; bid execution period: 13:00 – 18:00. |
2.
| Name of the Issuer | Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation |
| Name of security | federal loan bonds with constant coupon income |
| State registration number of the issue | 26248RMFS from 08.05.2024 |
| Date of the auction | April 16, 2025 |
| Information about the placement (trading mode, placement form) | The placement of Bonds will be carried out in the Trading Mode “Placement: Auction” by holding an Auction to determine the placement price. BoardId: PACT (Settlements: Ruble) |
| Trade code | CO26248RMFS3 |
| ISIN code | RO000A108EH4 |
| Calculation code | B01 |
| Additional conditions of placement | The share of non-competitive bids in relation to the total volume of bids submitted by the Bidder may not exceed 90%. |
| Trading time | Trading hours: bid collection period: 14:30 – 15:00; bid execution period: 15:30 – 18:00. |
Contact information for media 7 (495) 363-3232Pr@moex.kom
Please note: This information is raw content directly from the source of the information. It is exactly what the source states and does not reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.
Please Note; This Information is Raw Content Directly from the Information Source. It is access to What the Source Is Stating and Does Not Reflect
HTTPS: //VVV. MOEX.K.M.M.
Source: Government of Canada regional news
Released on April 15, 2025
Province Ranks First in Canada for Growth in Urban Housing Starts
Today, Statistics Canada released data showing that urban housing starts in Saskatchewan increased by 96.5 per cent in the first three months of 2025 compared to the same period in 2024. This places Saskatchewan first among the provinces for growth in this category.
“Saskatchewan is growing at rates not seen for more than a century and these numbers are demonstrating the effectiveness of our economic growth initiatives,” Trade and Export Development Minister Warren Kaeding said. “By creating jobs, encouraging investment and expanding opportunities, we are delivering the programs, services and infrastructure needed for a growing province.”
In March 2025, urban housing starts in Saskatchewan increased by 160.8 per cent, compared to March 2024. This ranks third among the provinces for year-over-year growth.
In March 2025, housing starts on single family dwellings increased by 90.8 per cent, and multiple units increased by 193.3 per cent, compared to March 2024.
Housing starts are a measure of the number of new housing builds where construction has begun.
Statistics Canada’s latest GDP numbers indicate that Saskatchewan’s 2023 real GDP reached an all-time high of $77.9 billion, increasing by $1.8 billion, or 2.3 per cent. This ties Saskatchewan for second in the nation for real GDP growth, and above the national average of 1.6 per cent.
Private capital investment in Saskatchewan increased last year by 17.3 per cent to $14.7 billion, ranking first among provinces for growth. Private capital investment is projected to reach $16.2 billion in 2025, an increase of 10.1 per cent over 2024. This is the second highest anticipated percentage increase among the provinces.
Last year, the province released Securing the Next Decade of Growth: Saskatchewan’s Investment Attraction Strategy, in conjunction with the launch of the investSK.ca website. These initiatives are positioned to amplify growth in Saskatchewan, serving as pivotal instruments in driving further development.
For more information visit: InvestSK.ca.
-30-
For more information, contact:
US Senate News:
Source: United States Senator for Illinois Dick Durbin
April 15, 2025
WASHINGTON — U.S. Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL), a member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, joined U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and 17 of their colleagues to ask U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) Ambassador Jamieson Greer for information on how the Administration’s tariff taxes will impact farmers across the nation.
“We write with great concern about the impact of the Administration’s reckless tariff agenda on our nation’s farmers,” wrote the Senators. “Farmers not only have billions of dollars in commodities from last year waiting to be sold, but also have started spring planting and rely on stable markets for their planning.”
“As farm organizations and economists have been warning for months, key trading partners will continue to retaliate against U.S. agricultural products as a result of President Trump’s tariffs,” the Senators continued. “The direct economic impact and uncertainty on America’s farmers stands to change the future of agricultural trade relationships for generations.”
Along with Durbin and Klobuchar, the letter was signed by U.S. Senators Patty Murray (D-WA), Ron Wyden (D-WA), Mark Warner (D-VA), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Chris Coons (D-DE), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Gary Peters (D-MI), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Tina Smith (D-MN), Ben Ray Luján (D-NM), Raphael Warnock (D-GA), Peter Welch (D-VT), Adam Schiff (D-CA), Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), and Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD).
The full letter is available here and below:
April 11, 2025
Dear Ambassador Greer,
We write with great concern about the impact of the Administration’s reckless tariff agenda on our nation’s farmers. Farmers not only have billions of dollars in commodities from last year waiting to be sold, but also have started spring planting and rely on stable markets for their planning. These farmers have made planting decisions and purchased key inputs such as seeds and fertilizer, selected crop insurance coverage, and even began marketing their expected production. Long before the President’s across-the-board tariff announcement, millions of acres of fall-planted crops like winter wheat were already in the ground and farmers already have enough uncertainty without tariffs adding more volatility.
We continue to hear from farmers and businesses across the agricultural supply chain who are bearing the brunt of the negative impacts of the global tariffs announced by President Trump on April 2, 2025, and earlier tariffs on Canada and Mexico. These actions and the resulting retaliation have injected further uncertainty into the farm economy and continue to rattle commodity markets. Heading into this year, farmers were already facing tightened margins resulting from declining commodity prices and heightened input costs. Many farmers are in a much worse position than they were heading into the 2018-2019 trade war and so are less equipped to withstand the impacts of continued volatility.
As farm organizations and economists have been warning for months, key trading partners will continue to retaliate against U.S. agricultural products as a result of President Trump’s tariffs. For example, on April 3rd, China announced a 34 percent retaliatory tariff on all products from the U.S. A major export destination for U.S.-grown soybeans, futures prices dropped 34 cents on Friday, with an estimated loss in value of unsold 2024 soybeans of nearly $300 million. That Friday drop would also cost farmers nearly $1.4 billion on the 2025 crop. Cotton, another crop that is heavily reliant on exports followed a similar steep decline. Since then, volatility in the markets has continued as the Administration has continued to change the tariffs day-by-day and sometimes hour-by-hour. While the tariffs are currently 10 percent across-the-board for nearly all countries except China, this continued uncertainty is the last thing farmers need as they begin planting season.
Farmers are also continuing to experience the long-term implications of the 2018-2019 trade war when structural trade flows shifted to favor farmers in Brazil and Argentina. A prolonged trade war now with key trading partners will just further exacerbate those trade shifts. This market share that farmers are losing is the result of more than $15 billion in investments by both taxpayers and the farmers themselves through trade promotion programs over the last 50 years.
The direct economic impact and uncertainty on America’s farmers stands to change the future of agricultural trade relationships for generations. As such, we request responses to the following questions:
Did USTR perform any analysis on the impact of the across-the-board tariff policy on farmers prior to implementation? If so, please share that analysis with us.
What do you expect to be the short- and long-term impacts of tariffs on farmers?
There have been conflicting reports as to whether tariffs are being used as leverage in trade negotiations or as a long-term structural shift in trade policy.
Can you provide clarity on the goals of the administration’s trade policy?
If tariffs are being used as leverage in trade negotiations, what are your top agriculture priorities and markets? What countries are you prioritizing in negotiations, and what is the basis for determining those countries?
President Trump indicated that U.S. farmers need to get ready to supply the domestic market instead of the international markets.
Has USTR or have other agencies done analysis to show how production and consumption of crops would need to shift, or what domestic processing would be necessary to accomplish this goal? For example, there is very limited domestic cotton spinning, weaving or apparel manufacturing.
Significant parts of the agricultural trade imbalance are related to imports of specialty crops, many of which are either grown in tropical regions or imported during the off-season. U.S. farmers will not be able to produce these commodities in the same volume or season. Will consumers need to shift from fresh produce in the off season or be forced to pay a higher price due to the tariffs on these products?
Prior to the announcement of the across-the-board tariffs and per-country rates, the USDA announced plans for trade missions to several countries including some with tariffs as high as 46%.
Did USTR consult with USDA on the trade missions or setting tariffs based on targets for opening markets?
We have serious concerns about the haphazard approach taken by the Administration to tariffs that cause unnecessary uncertainty and harm for U.S. farmers and their markets. We look forward to a prompt response.
-30-
