Category: Vehicles

  • MIL-OSI New Zealand: Fourth person to appear in court after aggravated robbery, Invercargill

    Source: New Zealand Police (District News)

    Police have arrested and charged a fourth young person following an aggravated robbery in Invercargill.

    On Monday 24 March, Police were alerted to four people entering a store on North Road at around 3.30am.

    The group targeted cigarettes and tobacco before fleeing the area in a vehicle.

    After an extensive investigation, a fourth young person was taken into custody.

    Invercargill Police works hard to identify and locate those responsible for committing offences in our community and we would like to thank the members of the public who provided information that assisted our investigation.

    The young person appeared in Invercargill Youth Court today, charged with aggravated robbery and is due to reappear in mid-April.

    The three other youth previously charged are due to reappear in the coming days.

    ENDS

    Issued by Police Media Centre

    MIL OSI New Zealand News

  • MIL-OSI Economics: Build Back Better: Central Sulawei’s Journey of Recovery (Part I)

    Source: Asia Development Bank

    Transcript

    Build Back Better: Central Sulawesi’s Journey of Recovery (Part I)

    In September 2018, a powerful 7.4 magnitude earthquake struck Central Sulawesi, triggering tsunami, landslides, and liquefaction.

    Thousands of lives were lost, and critical transport infrastructure were damaged.

    In June 2019, the Asian Development Bank (ADB) approved the $297.75 million Emergency Assistance for Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Project.

    Supported by the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Internasional Trade, the project aims to rebuild key public works and transport infrastructure.

    Sumarno, Head Department of Transportation Central Sulawesi Province
    After the earthquake, tsunami, and liquefaction, the economic impact has been severe. 
    Ports, airports, and other infrastructure are in a state of disrepair, causing significant disruptions to economic activity.Following the recovery efforts, economic factors have picked up, encouraging people to engage in various activities around the port and Palu City.

    The project rehabilitated and reconstructed three ports and an airport to disaster-resilient standards with gender responsive and inclusive features.

    Donggala Port, which serves both passengers and cargo, projected to become a key logistics and passenger hub in Indonesia’s eastern region.

    Wani Port is a multipurpose port that supports agriculture, livestock transport, and government ships.

    Meanwhile, Pantoloan Port is an important gateway for the economy in Donggala and Central Sulawesi, handling various types of cargo and passenger ships.

    Mutiara Sis Al Jufri Airport, the largest in Central Sulawesi, is the main gateway to Palu and its surrounding areas.

    Yandi Hermawan, Branch Manager PT Dharma Lautan Utama Palu Branch 
    Compared to the old terminal, our passengers are very enthusiastic about the new Donggala Port terminal. The facilities are quite comprehensive, including air-conditioned rooms and seating area. Our passengers have also shown greater comfort at the Donggala passenger terminal.

    Alexander Allokendek, Head Palu Bay Port Authority 
    When it was built, we set a standard that accessibility for disabilities is crucial. In Donggala Port, we have tracking systems and accessible toilets, as well as proper signage. We also assist passengers all the way to the ship and back.

    Rudi Richardo, Airport Head Mutiara Sis Al Jufri Airport 
    Regarding gender aspects, such as nursery areas and others, these remain a focus in the rehabilitation and reconstruction project. For the disability aspect, this has already been implemented at the airport, enabling persons with disabilities to carry out their activities independently.

    Elias Katapi, Traveler with Disability
    As a person with visual impairments, there are now tactile blocks that allow us to navigate independently.

    Irmansyah, Traveler with Disability
    Before the renovation, there was no access at all for wheelchair users inside the toilet; the door was too narrow, so it was impossible to use a wheelchair. Now, it is more accessible, allowing wheelchair users to move freely from the entrance to the inside.

    With strong collaboration between the Ministry of Transportation and the local government, the project became fully operational in 2024.

    Former President Joko Widodo inaugurated several of them that same year.

    The project’s implementation follows ADB safeguards to ensure compliance with social and environmental impact standards.

    Idrus, Shop Owner Donggala Port
    When there was a plan for port construction, we were invited by the local government for relocation, and we also had several meetings with AECOM, so the relocation process went smoothly.

    Twenty-nine affected shop owners in the port area were relocated to the nearby temporary sites to continue their businesses.

    The affected shop owners will move to the permanent relocation site in front of the constructed Donggala Port in early 2025.

    For airport rehabilitation, tenants relocated to temporary sites have been returned to the terminal to continue their business.

    Cici, Shop Manager Mutiara Sis Al Jufri Airport
    Currently, everyone who was relocated has returned to their respective cafeterias upstairs. Because the air is cool inside, the place gets a lot of customers. During the relocation process,the cafeteria sellers were also given consultations by the airport authorities to ensure everything went smoothly.

    Both temporary sites in Donggala Port and Mutiara Sis Al Jufri Airport were completed with associated facilities: electricity, water, and disposal.

    The rehabilitation and reconstruction of these key transportation infrastructure symbolize recovery.

    It highlights the power of collaboration and commitment.

    Together, we are not just recovering; we are building stronger, more inclusive features.

    We are building back better. 

    MIL OSI Economics

  • MIL-OSI USA: Congressman Carter Statement on the Trump Tax and Its Impact on Louisiana’s Second Congressional District

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Troy A. Carter Sr. (LA-02)

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Congressman Troy A. Carter, Sr. (D-LA) released the following statement:

    In Louisiana’s Second Congressional District, we know the value of hard work—and we know when we’re being taken for granted. From New Orleans to Baton Rouge, from the River Parishes to the West Bank, families and small businesses will be paying more for everyday goods. And while some call it inflation, let’s be honest: this is the Trump Tax.

    “When Donald Trump imposes tariffs, he isn’t taxing foreign governments—he’s taxing us. Prices will go up on goods we rely on: clothing, food, appliances, and construction materials. Our port workers, truck drivers, shipbuilders, and small business owners will all feel the sting of these costs passed down from Washington.

    “The Trump Tax will hit our district hard. We are home to major shipping corridors, import/export businesses, manufacturing plants, and a vibrant hospitality industry—all sectors impacted by increased costs under Trump’s tariff policies. When the price of goods goes up, it doesn’t just hurt the consumer—it hurts the economy of the entire district.

    “Trump is raising taxes on working people in the 2nd District while giving billionaires and big corporations massive tax breaks. That’s not leadership—that’s a betrayal of the people who keep this country running.

    “I will continue to fight for economic justice, to lower costs, and to hold those accountable who are raising taxes on working families while calling it something else. In Louisiana’s Second District, we know a bad deal when we see one. And the Trump Tax is a bad deal for all of us.”

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Cantwell Statement on Major Trump Tariff Announcement

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Washington Maria Cantwell

    04.02.25

    Cantwell Statement on Major Trump Tariff Announcement

    Auto tariffs could increase car prices by up to $15,000 – the Port of Vancouver, WA is the largest importer of Subarus in the U.S.

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, President Donald Trump announced a “National Economic Emergency,” and signed an executive order declaring a 10% minimum baseline tariff on all countries as well as additional tariffs on nearly 60 countries. The baseline tariff will go into effect April 5 and additional reciprocal tariffs will go into effect April 9. Also included in today’s announcement, Trump reiterated his intention to impose a 25% tariff on all imported automobiles starting at 12AM on April 3. U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell, ranking member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and senior member of the Senate Finance Committee, released the following statement:

    “As a representative of one of the most trade dependent economies in America, I disagree with President Trump’s tariffs. His announcement today will hurt sectors we care about: agriculture, manufacturing, and tech,” Sen. Cantwell said. “And ultimately, consumers will pay the price. It’s time for Congress to take action to counter the president’s trade war.”

    Trump’s reciprocal tariffs set to take effect April 9 include:

    • China – 34% 
    • EU – 20%  
    • Vietnam – 46% 
    • Taiwan – 32% 
    • Thailand –36% 
    • Indonesia – 32% 
    • Switzerland – 31% 
    • India – 26% 
    • South Korea – 25% 
    • Japan – 24% 
    • Malaysia – 24% 
    • Israel – 17%  
    • Cambodia – 49%

    In Washington state, two out of every five jobs are tied to trade and trade-related industries. 

    Today’s announcement is in addition to previous tariffs President Trump announced over the past few weeks, including on goods from Mexico, Canada, and China.  More information about how those tariffs will affect consumers and businesses in the State of Washington can be found HERE.  

    Those tariffs will also have significant impacts nationwide:

    • A 25% tariff on all Canadian and Mexican goods would add an estimated $144 billion a year to the cost of manufacturing in the United States.
    • Tariffs on Canada and Mexico could increase U.S. car prices by as much as $15,000.
    • According to the Yale Budget Lab, Trump’s proposed tariffs would result in the highest U.S. effective tariff rate in more than 80 years, and depending on the level of retaliation by other trading partners, will result in increased costs of between $1,600 and $2,000 per household. According to their analysis, food, clothing, cars, and electronics will all see above-average price increases.

    The tariffs could also impact West Coast ports that import automobiles, such as the Port of Vancouver, WA, which is the largest gateway for Subaru imports in the country. In 2023, 98,000 Subarus came through the Port of Vancouver.

    Last month, Sen. Cantwell joined the Washington Council of International Trade for a Q&A session on the whiplash caused by the administration’s chaotic tariff policies – and how they particularly harm the Pacific Northwest, which is among the most trade-dependent regions in the country. Sen. Cantwell said that the current administration’s approach to trade focuses on punitive tariffs, even with America’s largest trading partners and closest allies, as opposed to innovation and alliance-building. That ethos is fundamentally at odds with how the Pacific Northwest has historically built its trade-oriented economy.

    Sen. Cantwell has remained a steadfast supporter of increased trade to grow the economy and keep prices in check in the State of Washington and nationwide. Sen. Cantwell was the leading voice in negotiations to end India’s 20% retaliatory tariff on American apples, which was imposed in response to tariffs on steel and aluminum and devastated Washington state’s apple exports. India had once been the second-largest export market for American apples, but after President Trump imposed tariffs on steel and aluminum in his first term, India imposed retaliatory tariffs in response and U.S. apple exports plummeted. The impact on Washington apple growers was severe: Apple exports from the state dropped from $120 million in 2017 to less than $1 million by 2023.  In September 2023, following several years of Sen. Cantwell’s advocacy, India ended its retaliatory tariffs on apples and pulse crops which was welcome news to the state’s more than 1,400 apple growers and the 68,000-plus workers they support.

    For the past three months, President Trump has been sowing economic chaos across the country with unpredictable and ever-changing tariff announcements. His back-and-forth announcements and actions, which have whipsawed American businesses and consumers, as well as close neighbors and allies, include:

    • On January 31 — citing punishment for failing to crack down on fentanyl trafficking — the Trump administration announced plans to impose a 25% tax on many goods imported into the U.S. from Canada and Mexico and a 10% tax on goods imported from China, then abruptly postponed those tariffs.
    • Last month, he doubled down, announcing an additional 25% tax on all steel and aluminum imports.
    • At 12:01 a.m. ET on March 4, President Trump’s long-promised 25% tariffs on goods from Mexico and Canada and 10% tariff increase on goods from China took effect, causing stock prices in the United States to plummet.
    • Then, on March 5, he announced that automobiles from Canada and Mexico would be exempt from his tariffs for one month.
    • The morning of March 6, he announced that he would suspend the tariffs for some products from Mexico. Then, later that same afternoon, he announced he was suspending most new tariffs on products from both Mexico and Canada until April 2.
    • On March 11, Trump threatened to double tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum – increasing them to 50% – before reversing himself later the same day.
    • On March 13, he threatened 200% tariffs on alcoholic products from the European Union, including all wine and Champagne.
    • On March 27, he announced plans to impose a 25% tax on all imported sedans, SUVs, crossovers, minivans, cargo vans, and light trucks, as well as some auto parts, beginning on April 2.
    • On March 29, President Trump said, “I couldn’t care less,” if automakers raise the price of cars in response to his tariffs.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI China: Tokyo stocks end mixed amid uncertainty over US reciprocal tariffs

    Source: China State Council Information Office

    Tokyo stocks closed mixed on Wednesday amid a cautious mood before the U.S. announcement of reciprocal tariffs.

    Japan’s benchmark Nikkei stock index, the 225-issue Nikkei Stock Average, ended up 101.39 points, or 0.28 percent, from Tuesday at 35,725.87.

    The broader Topix index, meanwhile, finished 11.44 points, or 0.43 percent, lower at 2,650.29.

    On the stock market, heavyweight semiconductor-related issues supported the benchmark Nikkei following rises by their U.S. counterparts on the Nasdaq index.

    Investors remained cautious over an additional 25 percent tariff set to be imposed as planned on Thursday on all cars made outside the United States, analysts said. 

    MIL OSI China News

  • MIL-OSI New Zealand: Crash causing delays – State Highway 2 Kaitoke

    Source: New Zealand Transport Agency

    |

    Drivers travelling between Upper Hutt and Wairarapa need to be prepared for delays as emergency services and contractors attend a crash scene near Kaitoke.

    The southbound lane of State Highway 2 is closed near Waterworks Road following a two-vehicle crash reported around 12:30 this afternoon.

    Stop/Go traffic management is currently in place at the crash site, and drivers can expect delays until the scene is cleared.

    The Police Serious Crash Unit is investigating, meaning traffic management is likely to remain in place until its work is complete.

    Drivers must follow all instructions of emergency services and contractors on site and take extra care when travelling through the crash site.

    Updates on the highway’s status can be found on the NZTA/Waka Kotahi website:

    Highway conditions – Wellington(external link)

    MIL OSI New Zealand News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Reed Opposes Trump’s Tariffs That Would Raise Costs on RIers & Negatively Impact Families, Farmers, and U.S. Businesses Nationwide

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Rhode Island Jack Reed
    WASHINGTON, DC –Today, President Trump announced he is imposing new tariff taxes on all countries that could raise prices significantly on every item Americans buy. 
    U.S. Senator Jack Reed says Trump’s tariffs are a costly and inefficient ‘national sales tax’ that is directly paid for by U.S. consumers while also reducing profits for many American small businesses.  Today, Reed stated:
    “President Trump’s blanket tariffs will smother economic growth and make goods more expensive for Rhode Islanders.
    “From groceries and clothes to cars and homes, President Trump’s tariffs are contributing to higher prices for everyday Americans. He is stoking uncertainty, inflation, and the cost of living.  And it’s not just families, Rhode Island manufacturers are sure to see a tariff hit on raw materials and parts they need for their operations.  Similar impacts could hit operations at the Port of Davisville. 
    “Hardworking families will be left paying the price for Trump’s tariffs when what they really need the White House to do is help lower prices.  President Trump’s policies will force Americans to pay more for the same goods and they will have less money to save or spend elsewhere. 
    “The U.S. economy is not as strong as it should be because of President Trump’s chaotic, myopic approach to tariffs that punish both U.S. consumers and some of our strongest and most reliable allies. 
    “The President needs to step back from the tariff brink and start acting in a more strategic and straightforward manner that will stabilize our economy instead of destabilizing it.”

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Global: New modelling reveals full impact of Trump’s ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs – with the US hit hardest

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Niven Winchester, Professor of Economics, Auckland University of Technology

    Getty Images

    We now have a clearer picture of Donald Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs and how they will affect other trading nations, including the United States itself.

    The US administration claims these tariffs on imports will reduce the US trade deficit and address what it views as unfair and non-reciprocal trade practices. Trump said this would

    forever be remembered as the day American industry was reborn, the day America’s destiny was reclaimed.

    The “reciprocal” tariffs are designed to impose charges on other countries equivalent to half the costs they supposedly inflict on US exporters through tariffs, currency manipulation and non-tariff barriers levied on US goods.

    Each nation received a tariff number that will apply to most goods. Notable sectors exempt include steel, aluminium and motor vehicles, which are already subject to new tariffs.

    The minimum baseline tariff for each country is 10%. But many countries received higher numbers, including Vietnam (46%), Thailand (36%), China (34%), Indonesia (32%), Taiwan (32%) and Switzerland (31%).

    The tariff number for China is in addition to an existing 20% tariff, so the total tariff applied to Chinese imports is 54%. Countries assigned 10% tariffs include Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom.

    Canada and Mexico are exempt from the reciprocal tariffs, for now, but goods from those nations are subject to a 25% tariff under a separate executive order.

    Although some countries do charge higher tariffs on US goods than the US imposes on their exports, and the “Liberation Day” tariffs are allegedly only half the full reciprocal rate, the calculations behind them are open to challenge.

    For example, non-tariff measures are notoriously difficult to estimate and “subject to much uncertainty”, according to one recent study.

    GDP impacts with retaliation

    Other countries are now likely to respond with retaliatory tariffs on US imports. Canada (the largest destination for US exports), the EU and China have all said they will respond in kind.

    To estimate the impacts of this tit-for-tat trade standoff, I use a global model of the production, trade and consumption of goods and services. Similar simulation tools – known as “computable general equilibrium models” – are widely used by governments, academics and consultancies to evaluate policy changes.

    The first model simulates a scenario in which the US imposes reciprocal and other new tariffs, and other countries respond with equivalent tariffs on US goods. Estimated changes in GDP due to US reciprocal tariffs and retaliatory tariffs by other nations are shown in the table below.



    The tariffs decrease US GDP by US$438.4 billion (1.45%). Divided among the nation’s 126 million households, GDP per household decreases by $3,487 per year. That is larger than the corresponding decreases in any other country. (All figures are in US dollars.)

    Proportional GDP decreases are largest in Mexico (2.24%) and Canada (1.65%) as these nations ship more than 75% of their exports to the US. Mexican households are worse off by $1,192 per year and Canadian households by $2,467.

    Other nations that experience relatively large decreases in GDP include Vietnam (0.99%) and Switzerland (0.32%).

    Some nations gain from the trade war. Typically, these face relatively low US tariffs (and consequently also impose relatively low tariffs on US goods). New Zealand (0.29%) and Brazil (0.28%) experience the largest increases in GDP. New Zealand households are better off by $397 per year.

    Aggregate GDP for the rest of the world (all nations except the US) decreases by $62 billion.

    At the global level, GDP decreases by $500 billion (0.43%). This result confirms the well-known rule that trade wars shrink the global economy.

    GDP impacts without retaliation

    In the second scenario, the modelling depicts what happens if other nations do not react to the US tariffs. The changes in the GDP of selected countries are presented in the table below.



    Countries that face relatively high US tariffs and ship a large proportion of their exports to the US experience the largest proportional decreases in GDP. These include Canada, Mexico, Vietnam, Thailand, Taiwan, Switzerland, South Korea and China.

    Countries that face relatively low new tariffs gain, with the UK experiencing the largest GDP increase.

    The tariffs decrease US GDP by $149 billion (0.49%) because the tariffs increase production costs and consumer prices in the US.

    Aggregate GDP for the rest of the world decreases by $155 billion, more than twice the corresponding decrease when there was retaliation. This indicates that the rest of the world can reduce losses by retaliating. At the same time, retaliation leads to a worse outcome for the US.

    Previous tariff announcements by the Trump administration dropped sand into the cogs of international trade. The reciprocal tariffs throw a spanner into the works. Ultimately, the US may face the largest damages.

    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. New modelling reveals full impact of Trump’s ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs – with the US hit hardest – https://theconversation.com/new-modelling-reveals-full-impact-of-trumps-liberation-day-tariffs-with-the-us-hit-hardest-253320

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-Evening Report: New modelling reveals full impact of Trump’s ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs – with the US hit hardest

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Niven Winchester, Professor of Economics, Auckland University of Technology

    Getty Images

    We now have a clearer picture of Donald Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs and how they will affect other trading nations, including the United States itself.

    The US administration claims these tariffs on imports will reduce the US trade deficit and address what it views as unfair and non-reciprocal trade practices. Trump said this would

    forever be remembered as the day American industry was reborn, the day America’s destiny was reclaimed.

    The “reciprocal” tariffs are designed to impose charges on other countries equivalent to half the costs they supposedly inflict on US exporters through tariffs, currency manipulation and non-tariff barriers levied on US goods.

    Each nation received a tariff number that will apply to most goods. Notable sectors exempt include steel, aluminium and motor vehicles, which are already subject to new tariffs.

    The minimum baseline tariff for each country is 10%. But many countries received higher numbers, including Vietnam (46%), Thailand (36%), China (34%), Indonesia (32%), Taiwan (32%) and Switzerland (31%).

    The tariff number for China is in addition to an existing 20% tariff, so the total tariff applied to Chinese imports is 54%. Countries assigned 10% tariffs include Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom.

    Canada and Mexico are exempt from the reciprocal tariffs, for now, but goods from those nations are subject to a 25% tariff under a separate executive order.

    Although some countries do charge higher tariffs on US goods than the US imposes on their exports, and the “Liberation Day” tariffs are allegedly only half the full reciprocal rate, the calculations behind them are open to challenge.

    For example, non-tariff measures are notoriously difficult to estimate and “subject to much uncertainty”, according to one recent study.

    GDP impacts with retaliation

    Other countries are now likely to respond with retaliatory tariffs on US imports. Canada (the largest destination for US exports), the EU and China have all said they will respond in kind.

    To estimate the impacts of this tit-for-tat trade standoff, I use a global model of the production, trade and consumption of goods and services. Similar simulation tools – known as “computable general equilibrium models” – are widely used by governments, academics and consultancies to evaluate policy changes.

    The first model simulates a scenario in which the US imposes reciprocal and other new tariffs, and other countries respond with equivalent tariffs on US goods. Estimated changes in GDP due to US reciprocal tariffs and retaliatory tariffs by other nations are shown in the table below.



    The tariffs decrease US GDP by US$438.4 billion (1.45%). Divided among the nation’s 126 million households, GDP per household decreases by $3,487 per year. That is larger than the corresponding decreases in any other country. (All figures are in US dollars.)

    Proportional GDP decreases are largest in Mexico (2.24%) and Canada (1.65%) as these nations ship more than 75% of their exports to the US. Mexican households are worse off by $1,192 per year and Canadian households by $2,467.

    Other nations that experience relatively large decreases in GDP include Vietnam (0.99%) and Switzerland (0.32%).

    Some nations gain from the trade war. Typically, these face relatively low US tariffs (and consequently also impose relatively low tariffs on US goods). New Zealand (0.29%) and Brazil (0.28%) experience the largest increases in GDP. New Zealand households are better off by $397 per year.

    Aggregate GDP for the rest of the world (all nations except the US) decreases by $62 billion.

    At the global level, GDP decreases by $500 billion (0.43%). This result confirms the well-known rule that trade wars shrink the global economy.

    GDP impacts without retaliation

    In the second scenario, the modelling depicts what happens if other nations do not react to the US tariffs. The changes in the GDP of selected countries are presented in the table below.



    Countries that face relatively high US tariffs and ship a large proportion of their exports to the US experience the largest proportional decreases in GDP. These include Canada, Mexico, Vietnam, Thailand, Taiwan, Switzerland, South Korea and China.

    Countries that face relatively low new tariffs gain, with the UK experiencing the largest GDP increase.

    The tariffs decrease US GDP by $149 billion (0.49%) because the tariffs increase production costs and consumer prices in the US.

    Aggregate GDP for the rest of the world decreases by $155 billion, more than twice the corresponding decrease when there was retaliation. This indicates that the rest of the world can reduce losses by retaliating. At the same time, retaliation leads to a worse outcome for the US.

    Previous tariff announcements by the Trump administration dropped sand into the cogs of international trade. The reciprocal tariffs throw a spanner into the works. Ultimately, the US may face the largest damages.

    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. New modelling reveals full impact of Trump’s ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs – with the US hit hardest – https://theconversation.com/new-modelling-reveals-full-impact-of-trumps-liberation-day-tariffs-with-the-us-hit-hardest-253320

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-OSI New Zealand: Gaza – About 130 children born daily in Gaza amid total siege on aid and goods – Save the Children

    Source: Save the Children

    GAZA, 2 April 2025 – About 130 children are being born daily in Gaza as Israeli authorities’ total siege on supplies enters its second month, putting mothers and newborns at risk as medical and food supplies run out and a lack of flour closes all bakeries , said Save the Children.
    There are about 50,000 pregnant women in Gaza, with 4,000 deliveries estimated in March, according to UNFPA [1]. That’s about 130 babies born every day over a month into a healthcare system driven to the verge of collapse, where some may not survive complications at birth.
    Not one truck – humanitarian or commercial – has been allowed into Gaza since the Government of Israel imposed a total siege on 2 March. No goods have entered including water, flour, fuel, or medicine, and essential supplies are quickly depleting. All bakeries across the Gaza Strip – a critical source of food – have closed after exhausting their remaining flour stocks, according to the World Food Programme.
    The survival of mothers and newborn children in Gaza is under particular threat due to the lack of food, destruction of hospitals , and chronic stress. Malnutrition during pregnancy can seriously affect a baby’s development, leading to low birth weight, stunted growth , and long-term difficulties in learning and development.
    The number of miscarriages has reportedly surged with a 300% increase in Gaza during the war and pregnancy complications that would normally be treatable are now becoming life-threatening [2]. More babies are being born premature and underweight, putting them at risk of serious, lifelong health problems.
    Save the Children spoke with new mothers the organisation is assisting during the eight-week pause in hostilities that ended on 18 March who described nearly dying while giving birth in tents, and babies being born dangerously malnourished. At least 322 children have been killed and over 600 injured by Israeli forces since the resumption of hostilities, according to the UN.
    Meriem-, 31, mother of seven in Gaza:
    “I couldn’t go to the hospital. I gave birth to him in a tent, and it was complicated. I had postpartum haemorrhage and needed seven pints of blood. When I eventually made it to the hospital, the doctors told me I was between life and death.
    We had no food. Food wasn’t available, we couldn’t find anything, and two months after he was born, he became malnourished. I was watching all my children wasting away and I was helpless. I couldn’t do anything for them.”
    Fatima-, 30, mother of four Gaza:
    “I gave birth to my baby in a tent. My daughter came out so small, underweight, and I couldn’t get her adequate care. It was hard, hospitals were full. I didn’t have a cot, so my husband would find empty boxes, put them on top of each other, and we’d lay her there so she’s not sleeping on the floor. We didn’t want insects to get inside her ear or nose or hurt her head from laying on the floor. My mother-in-law used to comment on how tiny my newborn was compared to the rest of my children when they were born.”
    Save the Children is calling on the Government of Israel to immediately lift the siege on Gaza and to facilitate unimpeded humanitarian access to families across the Strip, in line with their obligations under international law. If the international community does not intervene soon, an entire generation of children in Gaza will be erased, along with their futures. There must be a definitive ceasefire, and aid must be allowed to reach people.
    Save the Children provides nutrition services and safe spaces for pregnant and breastfeeding women and young children in Gaza. We run 10 Mother Baby Areas (MBA) in Deir Al Balah and Khan Younis where mothers can access advice, support, and speak to nutrition counsellors – some of which we’ve had to temporarily suspend due to the conduct of hostilities and the lack of safety assurances for humanitarian workers.
    Save the Children has been providing essential services and support to Palestinian children since 1953 and has had a permanent presence in the occupied Palestinian territory since 1973.

    MIL OSI New Zealand News

  • MIL-OSI Australia: Fatal crash, Devonport

    Source: New South Wales Community and Justice

    Fatal crash, Devonport

    Thursday, 3 April 2025 – 10:52 am.

    Sadly, a woman in her 80s has died after a single-vehicle crash at Devonport.
    Police and emergency services were called to the Bass Highway about 6.30am Thursday after reports a vehicle had rolled.
    A woman – who was a passenger in the vehicle – sadly died at the scene.
    The driver of the vehicle was taken to the North West Regional Hospital for treatment.
    Investigations into the crash are ongoing, and a report will be prepared for the Coroner.
    Our thoughts are with the woman’s family and loved ones at this difficult time.
    Anyone with information should contact police on 131 444 or Crime Stoppers anonymously on 1800 333 000 or online at crimestopperstas.com.au

    MIL OSI News

  • MIL-OSI USA: SBA Opens New Business Recovery Assessment Center in Mitchell County

    Source: United States Small Business Administration

    ATLANTA – The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) announced the opening of a Business Recovery Assessment Center (BRAC) in Mitchell County to assist businesses, nonprofits and residents affected by Hurricane Helene.

    Beginning Wednesday, April 2, SBA customer service representatives will be on hand at the BRAC to answer questions about SBA’s disaster loan program, explain the application process and help individuals complete their application. Walk-ins are accepted, but you can schedule an in-person appointment in advance at appointment.sba.gov.  

    The BRAC’s hours of operation is listed below.

    Business Recovery Assessment Center (BRAC)

    Mitchell County

    Maryland Community College Small Business Center

    67 Hotel Place

    Spruce Pine, NC 28777

    Opening: Wednesday, April 2, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.

    Hours:     Monday – Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.

    Closed: Saturday & Sunday

    “SBA’s Business Recovery Assessment Centers have consistently proven their value to business owners following a disaster,” said Chris Stallings, associate administrator of the Office of Disaster Recovery and Resilience at the SBA. “Business owners can visit these centers to meet face-to-face with specialists who will guide them through the disaster loan application process and connect them with resources to support their recovery.”

    The SBA’s Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) program is available to small businesses, small agricultural cooperatives and private nonprofit (PNP) organizations with financial losses directly related to the disaster. The SBA is unable to provide disaster loans to agricultural producers, farmers, or ranchers, except for small aquaculture enterprises.  

    EIDLs are available for working capital needs caused by the disaster and are available even if the small business or PNP did not suffer any physical damage. The loans may be used to pay fixed debts, payroll, accounts payable, and other bills not paid due to the disaster.  

    Businesses and nonprofits are eligible to apply for business physical disaster loans and may borrow up to $2 million to repair or replace disaster-damaged or destroyed real estate, machinery and equipment, inventory, and other business assets.  

    Homeowners and renters are eligible to apply for home and personal property loans and may borrow up to $100,000 to replace or repair personal property, such as clothing, furniture, cars, and appliances. Homeowners may apply for up to $500,000 to replace or repair their primary residence.  

    Applicants may also be eligible for a loan increase of up to 20% of their physical damages, as verified by the SBA, for mitigation purposes. Eligible mitigation improvements include strengthening structures to protect against high wind damage, regrading landscaping for better drainage, and installing a safe room or storm shelter to help protect property and occupants from future damage.  

    Interest rates are as low as 4% for businesses, 3.250% for nonprofits, and 2.813% for homeowners and renters, with terms up to 30 years. Interest does not begin to accrue, and payments are not due, until 12 months from the date of the first loan disbursement. The SBA sets loan amounts and terms based on each applicant’s financial condition.

    To apply online and receive additional disaster assistance information visit sba.gov/disaster. Applicants may also call the SBA’s Customer Service Center at (800) 659-2955 or send an email to disastercustomerservice@sba.gov for more information on SBA disaster assistance. For people who are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability, please dial 7-1-1 to access telecommunications relay services.

    The filing deadline to return applications for physical property damage is April 27, 2025. The deadline to return economic injury applications is June 30, 2025.

    ###

    About the U.S. Small Business Administration

    The U.S. Small Business Administration helps power the American dream of business ownership. As the only go-to resource and voice for small businesses backed by the strength of the federal government, the SBA empowers entrepreneurs and small business owners with the resources and support they need to start, grow or expand their businesses, or recover from a declared disaster. It delivers services through an extensive network of SBA field offices and partnerships with public and private organizations. To learn more, visit www.sba.gov. 

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-Evening Report: Trump highlights Australian beef in ‘Liberation Day’ trade crackdown

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

    US President Donald Trump singled out Australia’s beef trade for special mention in his announcement that the United States would impose a 10% global tariff as well as “reciprocal tariffs” on many countries.

    In a long speech in the White House Rose Garden, Trump said: “Australia bans – and they’re wonderful people and wonderful everything – but they ban American beef.

    “Yet we imported US$3 billion of Australian beef from them just last year alone.

    “They won’t take any of our beef. They don’t want it because they don’t want it to affect their farmers and you know, I don’t blame them but we’re doing the same thing right now starting at midnight tonight, I would say.”

    Australia bans US fresh beef imports because of biosecurity concerns. The US just-released Foreign Trade Barriers report says, “the United States continues to seek full market access for fresh US beef and beef products”.

    Trump announced a “minimum baseline tariff” of 10%, which would apply to Australia as well as to all other countries.

    Initially, given Trump’s language, there was confusion about what will happen with beef but later it was clarified it would face the basic 10% general tariff, and nothing more.

    Prime Minister Anthony Albanese condemned the new US trade regime and said Australia would continue to try to get exemptions for Australia.

    The trade decision was “not unexpected” but had “no basis in logic” and “was not the act of a friend”.

    Albanese announced a response package, but flagged the government did not want to take the US to the World Trade Organisation. The package includes:

    • strenghening anti-dumping provisions

    • providing A$50 million to affected sectors to secure and pursue new markets

    • sending five missions abroad to develop other markets

    • setting up a new resilience program, involving $1 billion in loans to capitalise on new investment opportunities

    • putting Australian businesses at “the front of the queue” in a “buy Australian” policy in government procurement

    • setting up a strategic reserve for Australian critical minerals.

    Albanese re-emphasised Australia would make no changes to the country’s biosecurity rules.

    Under Trump’s announcement, varying “reciprocal” rates are being imposed on individual countries according to the barriers they impose on American items.

    The president described this as “one of the most important days in American history”, saying it represented a “declaration of economic independence”.

    China will face a 34% tariff, while there will be a 25% global tariff on cars imported into the US. Imports from the European Union will have a 20% tariff imposed.

    There will be 25% on imports from South Korea, as well as 24% on imports from Japan and 32% on those from Taiwan.

    Trump’s message to countries seeking special treatment could not have been blunter.

    “To all of the foreign presidents, prime ministers, kings, queens, ambassadors, and everyone else, who will soon be calling to ask for exemptions from these tariffs, I say, terminate your own tariffs, drop your barriers, don’t manipulate here your currencies – they manipulate their currencies, like, nobody can even believe, when it’s a bad, bad thing, and very devastating to us.

    “And start buying tens of billions of dollars of American goods.

    “Tariffs give us protection against those looking to do us economic harm.”

    He said the new US trade regime would raise trillions of dollars that would reduce American taxes and pay down its debt.

    Opposition campaign spokesman James Paterson described the announcement as “disappointing”, He said Australia should work “calmly and directly” with the US administration to get a better deal.

    Nationals leader David Littleproud said action against beef would mean the price of Big Mac burgers would go up for American consumers. Australian beef exported to the US is especially for burgers.



    Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. Trump highlights Australian beef in ‘Liberation Day’ trade crackdown – https://theconversation.com/trump-highlights-australian-beef-in-liberation-day-trade-crackdown-253111

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-OSI Canada: Statement on U.S. Tariffs Announcement

    Source: Government of Canada regional news

    NOTE: The following is a statement from Premier Tim Houston.

    In the past few months, we’ve seen Canada’s relationship with the United States drastically evolve.

    We’ve lived on pins and needles wondering if the U.S. would honour its trade agreements and respect our long-standing relationship as friends and allies.

    But we didn’t sit idly by and wait. We came together as a country and province like never before.

    We’ve seen entire industries raise their hands and offer to accept retaliatory tariffs, impacting them at their great expense, because they felt it right to put the country before self.

    That is who we are as Canadians, and it will never change.

    Today, some Canadians are taking a breath.

    While it appears that Canada may not have been hit with the worst-case scenario in terms of tariffs, thousands of Nova Scotians will be impacted.

    I also want to recognize the impact that the buildup to this moment has had on businesses and people. This entire experience has been a huge drain on the mental health of Canadians, and thousands of Nova Scotians are exhausted from the stress of dealing with this uncertainty and instability.

    But please know that we are here for you.

    We will do whatever it takes to protect you.

    You did nothing wrong.

    Moving forward, there will still be impacts from the trade direction of the U.S. administration. Our work to diversify markets will not change. In fact, it will ramp up. And, of course, we will work with those who remain impacted on both an individual basis and larger-scale programming basis, as needed.

    This could mean loans, grants, support for diversification or whatever. We will work with you to find the best support for your circumstance.

    During this period of uncertainty, the initial non-tariff retaliatory measures we put in place will remain.

    This means we will continue to look for ways to put Nova Scotia and Canadian companies first as we review and cancel non-essential contracts with U.S. suppliers.

    The increased tolls at the Cobequid Pass for commercial vehicles from the U.S. will remain.

    American alcohol will remain off the shelves of the Nova Scotia Liquor Corp. stores.

    The message from this experience remains and we have heard it loud and clear – putting too many eggs in one basket is never a good idea. This is why we will work hard to ensure that Nova Scotia becomes more and more self-reliant.

    We will do this through developing our natural resources. We have tremendous resource wealth. By capitalizing on our natural resources, we can and must secure our province’s energy and economic security.

    We will continue to lead the country on removing interprovincial trade barriers. We passed a first-of-its-kind law to help remove internal trade barriers and improve labour mobility. I expect you will see other provinces signing on over the coming weeks.

    Finally, I want to thank Prime Minister Carney for his leadership. This is not an easy time for our country or our people. Canadians are patient people, but the “governor” references and “51st state” jokes grew old and angered Canadians. Your approach seems to be working as we have collectively noticed these derogatory messages have stopped. Thank you.

    I remain committed to Team Canada and to the people of Nova Scotia. We will be ready no matter how this relationship evolves. But I believe that the strength of our longtime friendship with the U.S. will ultimately prevail. It has survived wars, recessions and pandemics, and it will survive this administration.

    We are stronger as a nation when we stand together.

    As always, I am committed to you and your family.

    MIL OSI Canada News

  • MIL-Evening Report: Australian beef highlighted by Donald Trump in ‘Liberation Day’ trade crackdown

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

    US President Donald Trump singled out Australia’s beef trade for special mention in his announcement that the United States would impose a 10% global tariff as well as “reciprocal tariffs” on many countries.

    In a long speech in the White House Rose Garden, Trump said: “Australia bans – and they’re wonderful people and wonderful everything – but they ban American beef.

    “Yet we imported US$3 billion of Australian beef from them just last year alone.

    “They won’t take any of our beef. They don’t want it because they don’t want it to affect their farmers and you know, I don’t blame them but we’re doing the same thing right now starting at midnight tonight, I would say.”

    Australia bans US fresh beef imports because of biosecurity concerns. The US just-released Foreign Trade Barriers report says, “the United States continues to seek full market access for fresh US beef and beef products”.

    Trump announced a “minimum baseline tariff” of 10%, which would apply to Australia as well as to all other countries.

    Initially, given Trump’s language, there was confusion about what will happen with beef but later it was clarified it would face the basic 10% general tariff, and nothing more.

    Prime Minister Anthony Albanese condemned the new US trade regime and said Australia would continue to try to get exemptions for Australia.

    The trade decision was “not unexpected” but had “no basis in logic” and “was not the act of a friend”.

    Albanese announced a response package, but flagged the government did not want to take the US to the World Trade Organisation. The package includes:

    • strenghening anti-dumping provisions

    • providing A$50 million to affected sectors to secure and pursue new markets

    • sending five missions abroad to develop other markets

    • setting up a new resilience program, involving $1 billion in loans to capitalise on new investment opportunities

    • putting Australian businesses at “the front of the queue” in a “buy Australian” policy in government procurement

    • setting up a strategic reserve for Australian critical minerals.

    Albanese re-emphasised Australia would make no changes to the country’s biosecurity rules.

    Under Trump’s announcement, varying “reciprocal” rates are being imposed on individual countries according to the barriers they impose on American items.

    The president described this as “one of the most important days in American history”, saying it represented a “declaration of economic independence”.

    China will face a 34% tariff, while there will be a 25% global tariff on cars imported into the US. Imports from the European Union will have a 20% tariff imposed.

    There will be 25% on imports from South Korea, as well as 24% on imports from Japan and 32% on those from Taiwan.

    Trump’s message to countries seeking special treatment could not have been blunter.

    “To all of the foreign presidents, prime ministers, kings, queens, ambassadors, and everyone else, who will soon be calling to ask for exemptions from these tariffs, I say, terminate your own tariffs, drop your barriers, don’t manipulate here your currencies – they manipulate their currencies, like, nobody can even believe, when it’s a bad, bad thing, and very devastating to us.

    “And start buying tens of billions of dollars of American goods.

    “Tariffs give us protection against those looking to do us economic harm.”

    He said the new US trade regime would raise trillions of dollars that would reduce American taxes and pay down its debt.

    Opposition campaign spokesman James Paterson described the announcement as “disappointing”, He said Australia should work “calmly and directly” with the US administration to get a better deal.

    Nationals leader David Littleproud said action against beef would mean the price of Big Mac burgers would go up for American consumers. Australian beef exported to the US is especially for burgers.



    Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. Australian beef highlighted by Donald Trump in ‘Liberation Day’ trade crackdown – https://theconversation.com/australian-beef-highlighted-by-donald-trump-in-liberation-day-trade-crackdown-253111

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-OSI USA: Statement of U.S. Sen. Mark R. Warner on Trump Tariffs

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Commonwealth of Virginia Mark R Warner
    WASHINGTON – U.S. Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-VA) issued the following statement on the widespread tariffs announced by Donald Trump today:
    “These tariffs are nothing more than an enormous tax hike on American consumers, who will soon be left footing the bill as they pay more for groceries, electronics, clothes, and cars. Tariffs should be targeted wisely, not applied to practically all goods in a way that eliminates jobs, alienates our closest partners, and evaporates the retirement savings of hardworking Americans. I look forward to a vote tonight on our Senate resolution to remove misguided tariffs against Canada and take a strong first step towards reasserting Congressional authority over trade policy.”

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-Evening Report: Australian beef targeted by Donald Trump in ‘Liberation Day’ trade crackdown

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

    US President Donald Trump singled out Australia’s beef trade for special mention in his announcement that the United States would impose a 10% global tariff as well as “reciprocal tariffs” on many countries.

    In a long speech in the White House Rose Garden, Trump said: “Australia bans – and they’re wonderful people and wonderful everything – but they ban American beef.

    “Yet we imported US$3 billion of Australian beef from them just last year alone.

    “They won’t take any of our beef. They don’t want it because they don’t want it to affect their farmers and you know, I don’t blame them but we’re doing the same thing right now starting at midnight tonight, I would say.”

    Australia bans US beef imports because of biosecurity concerns. The US just-released Foreign Trade Barriers report says, “the United States continues to seek full market access for fresh US beef and beef products”.

    While exactly what will happen with beef is unclear, Trump announced a “minimum baseline tariff” of 10%, which would apply to Australia as well as to all other countries.

    Prime Minister Anthony Albanese condemned the new US trade regime, and said Australia would continue to try to get exemptions for Australia.

    The trade decision was “not unexpected” but had “no basis in logic” and “was not the act of a friend”.

    Albanese announced a response package, but
    flagged the government did not want to take the US to the World Trade Organisation. The package includes:

    • strenghening anti-dumping provisions

    • providing A$50 million to affected sectors to secure and pursue new markets

    • sending five missions abroad to develop other markets

    • setting up a new resilience program, involving $1 billion in loans to capitalise on new investment opportunities

    • putting Australian businesses at “the front of the queue” in a “buy Australian” policy in government procurement

    • setting up a strategic reserve for Australian critical minerals.

    Albanese re-emphasised Australia would make no changes to the country’s biosecurity rules.

    Under Trump’s announcement, varying “reciprocal” rates are being imposed on individual countries according to the barriers they impose on American items.

    The president described this as “one of the most important days in American history”, saying it represented a “declaration of economic independence”.

    China will face a 34% tariff, while there will be a 25% global tariff on cars imported into the US. Imports from the European Union will have a 20% tariff imposed.

    There will be 25% on imports from South Korea, as well as 24% on imports from Japan and 32% on those from Taiwan.

    Trump’s message to countries seeking special treatment could not have been blunter.

    “To all of the foreign presidents, prime ministers, kings, queens, ambassadors, and everyone else, who will soon be calling to ask for exemptions from these tariffs, I say, terminate your own tariffs, drop your barriers, don’t manipulate here your currencies – they manipulate their currencies, like, nobody can even believe, when it’s a bad, bad thing, and very devastating to us.

    “And start buying tens of billions of dollars of American goods.

    “Tariffs give us protection against those looking to do us economic harm.”

    He said the new US trade regime would raise trillions of dollars that would reduce American taxes and pay down its debt.

    Opposition campaign spokesman James Paterson described the announcement as “disappointing”, He said Australia should work “calmly and directly” with the US administration to get a better deal.

    Nationals leader David Littleproud said action against beef would mean the price of Big Mac burgers would go up for American consumers. Australian beef exported to the US is especially for burgers.



    Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. Australian beef targeted by Donald Trump in ‘Liberation Day’ trade crackdown – https://theconversation.com/australian-beef-targeted-by-donald-trump-in-liberation-day-trade-crackdown-253111

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-OSI USA: Rep. Cleaver’s Statement on President Trump Levying National Import Tax, Instigating Global Trade War

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Emanuel Cleaver II (5th District Missouri)

    (Washington, D.C.) – Today, U.S. Representative Emanuel Cleaver, II (D-MO) released the following statement on President Trump’s decision, with the permission of Congressional Republicans, to instigate a global trade war, levy a new import tax on everyday goods, and raise prices on American families.

    “Tariffs are not an all-encompassing economic strategy—at least not one that is made for long-term prosperity. When used appropriately, they are a tool in America’s toolbox to protect vital industries and our national security. When used inappropriately, as I believe the president is doing with across-the-board import taxes on our allies and adversaries alike, they lead to higher prices, fewer jobs, slower economic growth, and more contentious relationships with nations around the world. With inflation already on the rise again due to previously implemented tariffs, this is a recipe for disaster.

    “Missouri families, including our farmers, are already struggling with the cost of living, but rather than focusing on lowering essentials like groceries, housing, and healthcare, President Trump has instigated a reckless trade war—and the American people will pay the price. 

    “The president has admitted himself that these new taxes will create more pain for American families, farmers, and small businesses, saying that he ‘couldn’t care less’ about the prospect of higher prices on everything from cars to groceries. Well, the American people care, and they will make their feelings known if the president does not quickly reverse course, repair the relationships that America has spent decades forging, and focus on lowering costs for the public.”

    ###

    Emanuel Cleaver, II is the U.S. Representative for Missouri’s Fifth Congressional District, which includes Kansas City, Independence, Lee’s Summit, Raytown, Grandview, Sugar Creek, Greenwood, Blue Springs, North Kansas City, Gladstone, and Claycomo. He is a member of the exclusive House Financial Services Committee and Ranking Member of the House Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Lawmakers Issue Letter Endorsing State Request for Federal Disaster Declaration

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Trent Kelly (R-Miss)

    Lawmakers Issue Letter Endorsing State Request for Federal Disaster Declaration

    Washington, April 2, 2025

    Washington, D.C. – The Mississippi congressional delegation today shared their strong support for Governor Tate Reeves’ request for a federal disaster declaration after deadly weather struck the state on March 14-15.

    U.S. Senators Roger Wicker, R-Miss., and Cindy Hyde-Smith, R-Miss., and U.S. Representatives Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., Trent Kelly, R-Miss., Michael Guest, R-Miss., and Mike Ezell, R-Miss., sent President Trump a letter endorsing the governor’s request for an expedited major disaster declaration for the State of Mississippi, and for individual federal assistance for 14 counties. If approved, the presidential disaster declaration would unlock additional federal resources to supplement state recovery efforts.

    “In the wake of recent extreme weather that brought severe thunderstorms and violent tornadoes to the State of Mississippi, we request your full consideration of Mississippi Governor Tate Reeves’ request for a federal disaster declaration,” the lawmakers wrote.

    The letter follows a preliminary disaster assessment, which highlights the extent of loss of life, injuries, and damage.

    “Available resources from state and local governments and volunteer organizations are inadequate to meet the state’s recovery needs. Significant federal assistance and cooperation are needed for Mississippi to rebuild,” the lawmakers wrote.

    To read the full letter, please click on the link.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Strong Touts Critical Funding for Scottsboro Law Enforcement

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Dale Strong (Alabama)

    WASHINGTON—Today, Representative Dale W. Strong (AL-05) visited with the Scottsboro Police Department after securing $120,000 for new vehicles through community project funding in the Fiscal Year 2024 (FY24) appropriations package.  

    The congressionally directed spending enabled the Scottsboro Police Department to purchase new vehicles for their law enforcement officers to replace vehicles approaching the end of their operational life.  

    “I am proud to have secured $120,000 in funding for the Scottsboro Police Department to purchase and outfit new patrol vehicles. This investment ensures our officers have the reliable equipment they need to protect and serve their community.

    “Supporting our law enforcement is essential to maintaining the safety and well-being of North Alabama’s residents. Investments like this not only enhance public safety but demonstrate our unwavering support for the brave men and women who serve,” said Representative Dale Strong.  

    Scottsboro Police Department was able to purchase two fully outfitted Ford Police Inceptor Utility vehicles. These vehicles permit the Department to investigate crimes on all severity levels with better and more up-to-date equipment.  

    “We would like to thank Congressman Dale Strong and his office for allowing the Scottsboro Police Department the opportunity to apply for and obtain federal dollars through his office,” said Scottsboro Police Lieutenant Coty Durham. “With the funding from Congressman Strong, the Scottsboro Police Department was able to purchase new patrol vehicles in order to better serve our citizens!”

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Senator Reverend Warnock Issues Statement on Potential Harm President Trump’s Reckless Tariffs Will put on Price of Groceries, Everyday Goods

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator Reverend Raphael Warnock – Georgia

    Senator Reverend Warnock Issues Statement on Potential Harm President Trump’s Reckless Tariffs Will put on Price of Groceries, Everyday Goods

    Today, President Trump announced the rollout of a sweeping set of tariffs that will raise the cost of everyday goods for ordinary Georgians

    The tariffs will increase costs on many consumer purchases, including cars and groceries, and risk the loss of Georgia manufacturing jobs

    Today’s announcement will directly harm Georgia’s agriculture and manufacturing sectors

    Senator Reverend Warnock is the Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Subcommittee on International Trade, Customs, and Global Competitiveness

    Senator Reverend Warnock: “Today’s tariffs announcement won’t make Georgians’ lives easier or more affordable, but instead will make life more expensive”

    Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Reverend Raphael Warnock (D-GA), ranking member of the Senate Finance Subcommittee on International Trade, Customs, and Global Competitiveness, issued the following statement after President Trump rolled out a sweeping set of tariffs that raise the prices of everyday goods, like groceries.

    “I was sent to the Senate to advocate on behalf of Georgians from across the state, to help bring down their everyday costs, to fight to protect their jobs, and to help more people afford things like a car and a home.”

    “Today’s tariffs announcement won’t make Georgians’ lives easier or more affordable, but instead will make life more expensive.”

    “The chaos of these tariffs will raise the prices of cars, groceries, housing, and so much more, all while putting American farmers, the backbone of our state’s economy, in the middle of an international trade war that will only lead to reduced access to foreign markets and even shuttered farms.”

    “Tariffs can be a good tool to protect American jobs and force other nations to play by the rules. But when they are imposed in such an unpredictable, chaotic, and sweeping manner, it is the average American who will bear the brunt in the fallout of these actions.”

    “I will continue to fight back on any actions that put Georgia and American families in overwhelmingly burdensome financial situations. These tariffs won’t help anybody and will wreck our economy.”

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI New Zealand: Workplace – Better guidance a good idea, but must be backed up by investment in WorkSafe

    Source: New Zealand Institute of Safety Management

    Message: Improved guidance to help companies better understand the risks in workplaces and how best to mitigate them is a welcome step, says the professional body for health and safety experts, the New Zealand Institute of Safety Management.
    “The announcement by the Minister today is exactly what needs to happen to remove uncertainty and make the job of helping companies understand and reduce risks much easier,” said Mike Cosman, NZISM’s Chair.
    “Guidance on how to do health and safety well is a cornerstone of our health and safety system but has been missing since the Health and Safety at Work Act came into force nine years ago. It’s also something that we advocated strongly for in the consultation over these reforms, so we’re pleased to see this included.
    “Unfortunately, it’s an area where both MBIE’s and WorkSafe’s records have not been good. The failure to complete the core Regulations needed to support the Act has created the gap the Minister refers to. More than half of WorkSafe’s guidance is out-of-date and much of the current guidance is not well tailored to its audience.”
    WorkSafe needs the expertise and resources to deliver the quality guidance and Approved Codes of Practice (ACOP) that are needed and to keep it current, given the pace of technological change occurring. NZISM welcomes the ability to enable industry, such as forestry to develop their own ACOPs in conjunction with their workers, given that it’s now 12 years since the need for clearer guidance in that high-risk sector was first recognised by the Independent Forestry Safety Review.
    “In the short term we encourage the Minister to finish the job on the plant and structures (machines, vehicles and buildings) regulations which are largely complete and to begin work on other regulations such as hazardous substances which are dangerously out of date. The intent of following the Australian model law was so that we could ‘steal with pride’ and quickly adapt their Regulation and guidance, rather than trying to reinvent a kiwi-shaped wheel.
    “Health and safety experts are a vital part of mature health and safety systems, not the pointless burden suggested in the Minister’s statement.”
    There’s some technical detail here around the difference between regulations and guidance. Regulations are agreed by Order in Council (essentially by the Governor General on advice from the Prime Minister) and (in the health and safety space) set mandatory requirements for dealing with certain types of work or risk. They are the next step down from the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015.
    Health and safety duties are focused on what an organisation “knows or ought to know” about dealing with certain risks so the role of guidance is very important. Industry guidance can be useful and information from WorkSafe or the other health and safety regulators is particularly important. The most formal and significant type of guidance is an Approved Code of Practice (ACOP); this guidance is signed off by the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety and is the most persuasive. Minister van Velden proposes to lift the status of ACOPs by making compliance with an ACOP a legal defence (a safe harbour). This makes the rules in the ACOP much more significant.
    Background NZ Institute of Safety Management
    NZISM is New Zealand’s leading professional association for health and safety practitioners. We are a 2,800-strong community, operating nationwide through a network of 14 branches, whose members represent the entire spectrum of New Zealand business and 3,000 health and safety professionals. Our purpose is to influence better health and safety outcomes at work. We achieve this by representing the interests of our members at industry and Government levels, and by supporting the growth and development of members.

    MIL OSI New Zealand News

  • MIL-OSI Security: Sullivan Man Indicted for Fentanyl and Methamphetamine Possession

    Source: Office of United States Attorneys

    SPRINGFIELD, Mo. – A Sullivan, Mo., man who was arrested in southwest Missouri with 16.8 pounds of methamphetamine and 4.7 pounds of fentanyl has been indicted by a federal grand jury for possession with the intent to distribute methamphetamine and fentanyl.

    Tyler Kittrell, 38, was charged in a two-count indictment returned by a federal grand jury in Springfield, Mo. Today’s indictment replaces a criminal complaint that was filed against Kittrell on Feb. 24, 2025.

    According to an affidavit filed in support of the original criminal complaint, Kittrell was stopped on Interstate 44 by Joplin, Mo., police officers on Feb. 14, 2025. When officers searched his vehicle, they found $13,120 in cash and multiple packages containing methamphetamine and fentanyl. Officers seized approximately 7,658 grams of methamphetamine and 2,142 grams of fentanyl from inside the vehicle.

    The charges contained in this indictment are simply accusations, and not evidence of guilt. Evidence supporting the charges must be presented to a federal trial jury, whose duty is to determine guilt or innocence.

    This case is being prosecuted by Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Hannah R. Lucas. It was investigated by the Joplin, Mo., Police Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. 

    MIL Security OSI

  • MIL-OSI Security: Guatemalan man arrested, charged with illegal reentry

    Source: Office of United States Attorneys

    ROCHESTER, N.Y.-U.S. Attorney Michael DiGiacomo announced today that Wilson Oswaldo Galvan-Lope, 25, a citizen of Guatemala, was arrested and charged by criminal complaint with illegal reentry, which carries a maximum penalty of two years in prison.

    Assistant U.S. Attorney Nicholas M. Testani, who is handling the case, stated that according to the complaint, on March 24, 2025, Homeland Security Investigations special agents were conducting surveillance on an Orange Street residence in Rochester, targeting Galvan-Lope, an illegal alien under investigation for being a found in the United States after being deported. As a truck exited the driveway of the residence, agents noticed that the driver appeared to resemble of the photograph of Galvan-Lope. They conducted a vehicle stop near the intersection of Whitney Street and Lyell Avenue. Through routine questioning of identity documents and record checks, the agents determined that Galvan-Lope and two passengers in the vehicle had no immigration status in the United States. All three were taken into immigration custody. Galvan-Lope was previously ordered deported from the United States in May 2023.

    This case is part of Operation Take Back America, a nationwide initiative that marshals the full resources of the Department of Justice to repel the invasion of illegal immigration, achieve the total elimination of cartels and transnational criminal organizations (TCOs), and protect our communities from the perpetrators of violent crime.

    Galvan-Lope made an initial appearance today before U.S. Magistrate Judge Colleen D. Holland and was ordered detained.

    The criminal complaint is the result of of an investigation by Homeland Security Investigations, under the direction of Special Agent-in-Charge Erin Keegan. 

    The fact that a defendant has been charged with a crime is merely an accusation and the defendant is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty.   

    # # # #

    MIL Security OSI

  • MIL-OSI Economics: Podcast: AI Is lowering the cost of expertise. What does that mean for business?

    Source: Microsoft

    Headline: Podcast: AI Is lowering the cost of expertise. What does that mean for business?

    MOLLY WOOD: Today I’m talking to Karim Lakhani, a Harvard business professor who also chairs several university programs dedicated to technology management, innovation, and AI transformation, including the university’s new research center called Digital Data Design Institute. In 2020, before a lot of business leaders had even heard of generative AI or large language models, Lakhani co-authored a book titled, Competing in the Age of AI: Strategy and Leadership When Algorithms and Networks Run the World. That’s kind of happening now. AI is revolutionizing every aspect of how we work. We thought he would be a great person to talk to about strategies and insights that can help leaders and organizations navigate the AI era. And now my conversation with Karim. Thanks so much for joining me.  

    KARIM LAKHANI: Thanks, Molly. Great to be here with you.  

    MOLLY WOOD: So you’ve been writing about and teaching about digital transformation and the potential of AI for years now. I’d love to know what this relatively recent rise of generative AI looks like to you as somebody who’s been such a close observer for so long. 

    KARIM LAKHANI: The generative AI moment was sort of like, for me, feels like the 1992, 1993 browser moment. Like, we had 30 years of the internet, then Andreessen invents the browser and then, boom, the internet becomes democratized and becomes available. And so generative AI, for me, is that moment where all of a sudden AI, which was sort of the work of the pointy-headed nerds who knew math and computer science, where all of a sudden you could now use a generative AI yourself for your particular tasks. We anticipated democratization of this technology, but we didn’t anticipate the scale, the speed, and the scope of what generative AI has unleashed. 

    MOLLY WOOD: So what changes now? So, you know, there you are, as a Harvard business professor, what are you telling these baby MBAs, these aspiring MBAs? 

    KARIM LAKHANI: Yeah, I have 935 of them right now, so I’m actually, I just launched a brand new course I’ve co-developed with my colleagues, and it’s called Data Science and AI for Leaders. We’ve tried to make this an AI-native course. There are two bots. There’s a bot that sort of understands all the concepts, from statistics and machine learning to data architectures, all the way to transformation challenges inside of organizations. And then also we’re using a service which basically removes the constraint of programming R or Python to do machine learning, to do statistics. You could now basically do that in natural language. So all of a sudden our MBAs have this superpower available to them. The big thesis I have, and we have some data on this, if you sort of imagine this discussion we’re having right now on video and audio, 30 years ago, this would’ve cost us $10,000 per minute. Now, the marginal cost for us to do this conversation is effectively zero. And what the internet did is that it basically lowered the marginal cost of information transmission. Everything else flew from that. And so my view has been, and we now have evidence of this, that generative AI is lowering the cost of expertise. 

    MOLLY WOOD: Right. In fact, you recently co-wrote a piece about that for Harvard Business Review, and this seems really relevant to this conversation about AI transformation. It’s called Strategy in an Era of Abundant Expertise. 

    KARIM LAKHANI: Yeah, we had some great colleagues from Microsoft actually work with us on this. And so if you believe this world of abundant expertise, companies are just bundles of expertise, right? We have expertise in software, we have expertise in marketing, in customer, in supply chain, and so forth. And if effectively the cost of expertise is dropping, then that changes the very core of what the firm is. So we’re obsessed, you know, at our institute with various questions around this. One perspective we have at our institute is that generative AI is like a drug. We don’t know dose, we don’t know efficacy, we don’t know the right regimes, we don’t know side effects in the world of business. The only way we’ll actually be able to figure out what it’s good for, what it’s not good for, what all the issues are is to actually do these as randomized controlled trials, be experimental, be scientific about their effects, so we can both advise the companies that are adopting what to do, but also the creators of these tools to say like, here’s the good signs and here’s the bad signs.  

    MOLLY WOOD: Right. And then how should leaders be thinking about the way they introduce AI into their organization? If it’s controlled trials, is it, you know, phase one and phase two? We’ve had a lot of conversations on this show, in fact, about whether you should pilot or whether you need to give it to everybody, because bottom-up is the only way that you truly determine the value. 

    KARIM LAKHANI: So I see a lot of leaders here. You know, we have both an MBA program, but we also have exec ed. Today, the average leader is happy to talk about AI, be in meetings about AI, but they’re not themselves using AI. And I think that’s a problem.  

    MOLLY WOOD: That’s not gonna work.  

    KARIM LAKHANI: That’s not gonna work because you can’t outsource your browsing to somebody else. You can’t outsource your email to somebody else. You have to do it yourself. And similarly, because this is a cognitive effect, because it’s an expertise story, it’s a skill story, you actually have to use it yourself to understand its power, and then you can start to make decisions. So my complaint right now to them, and I’m very frank with them, it’s like, you actually have to use this stuff and do it for your own work. And then you’ll know what it means. And so the first thing is like, what I tell organizations, is that pilot or no pilot, you first need to get activated, and it’s activation at the highest levels of the organization and the C-suite, and for them to actually understand how this works. And so my colleague, Iavor Bojinov, who’s a faculty member here at HBS, he came up with this brilliant exercise that in 90 minutes, through a series of structured prompts, you can create a snack food company. You sort of do this—they’re very skeptical. You go, yeah, you only have 90 minutes, you work in teams, there’s a set of prompts. Start to use these prompts and get answers. At the end, they have a business plan, they have a jingle, they have a deck, go-to-market plan in 90 minutes, and all of a sudden they’re stunned. That’s the big light bulb moment that I gotta pay attention on. So the activation is important and the activation has to be across the board at the C-suite level and so forth. And the activation has to be, I think, tied to, like, what’s gonna be your bold stroke? Like, if you believe this conversation and we have evidence, we have data from companies about the cost of expertise going down, what’s gonna be your bold stroke around this? How do you think about this? What do you want people to do? And then there’s a question about, are you gonna democratize or are you gonna do this in pilots? I think it just depends on the organization and where they’re comfortable.  

    MOLLY WOOD: I wonder, as you interact with the next generation of leaders, what are they bringing to the table on this topic? 

    KARIM LAKHANI: If we get it right here with our MBAs, there’s gonna be a generation of leaders coming out now that will be AI native, and—   

    MOLLY WOOD: It’ll be like breathing to them.  

    KARIM LAKHANI: Exactly.    

    MOLLY WOOD: You wouldn’t go anywhere without the phone, you wouldn’t run a business without AI, yeah. 

    KARIM LAKHANI: You know, we said if the last century was about MBAs with Excel spreadsheets, this century will be MBAs with AI. You’ve heard this in many ways. You know, we say, machines aren’t gonna replace humans, but humans with machines are gonna replace humans without machines. And so our view is that, you know, if we do it right here at HBS, that many of our graduates will be AI native. They’ll know how to use these tools. We’ll have a sense of some of the downsides, the sharp edges and know how to navigate that. But we’ll come in with a variety of interesting approaches to solve business problems. And I think there’ll be two things going on. I was just talking to some colleagues in our entrepreneur management unit, they have a founder’s class, about 30 students that are starting companies, and, typically in the MBA program there are people that have technical knowledge and business knowledge—and of course we give them all business knowledge. But if you’re founding a company, the folks that have a business orientation are looking for technical co-founders. Early indications are that they may not need them right away. That they could do the first MVP using the tools that, you know, Microsoft has in coding and website design. This is the expertise story. Like, all of a sudden some of our students will be feeling very empowered to go start these companies now with these AI bots, and then those that join incumbent companies, they’ll be coming with the tool set, and the question will become, how will their managers, how will their peers respond to them showing up with their AI tools and AI agents?  

    MOLLY WOOD: Right. I want to relate this back to the idea of abundant expertise, and then what happens to the value of expertise, which is, I would venture to say, the question.  

    KARIM LAKHANI: We’re in the business. I mean, that’s what we do. We give degrees because we think you’re an expert in something.  

    MOLLY WOOD: Exactly. And so how do companies continue to be the best at expertise when expertise is so abundant?  

    KARIM LAKHANI: I think the, and this is part of the paper that we wrote, that for companies—and I think this is also for individuals—that you will have to be thinking about you with AI compared to AI itself. If the AI keeps improving, what value am I adding so that I’m better?  

    MOLLY WOOD: No pressure. 

    KARIM LAKHANI: No pressure, no pressure. And that, I think, is gonna be the key thing. At the moment, what this requires is—these large language models love to freelance, love to solve more problems than you’ve asked them to solve, right? And they come up with amazing answers. How do you know that these answers are correct? And if you don’t know what it’s talking about, but it sounds good, you better go back to your large language model, understand what it’s talking about, and then come up with an answer, if that makes sense. So in statistics, right, you’d run a regression, but it might do five different regressions, it might do additional tests. If you’re gonna go present to your management board results of some analysis you did and you don’t understand what the large language model did to give you the answer, and it gave you a task and it’s significant, that’s not good enough. You actually have to understand that, is this the right test? Is it appropriate or not? So I think it’s the combination of what you know, how well you know it, what the AI is unlocking for you, and then this ongoing conversation about, AI is getting better. How are you with AI going to be better?  

    MOLLY WOOD: So it sounds like, if I had to break it down, it sounds like what you’re saying to your students, but also even within the context of the Harvard Business Analytics program, to existing executives, it’s use it but don’t turn everything over to it, which is the message we’ve heard before, I think, on the show.  

    KARIM LAKHANI: Yeah. You know, my postdoc, Fabrizio Dell’Acqua, did this great study while he was at Columbia doing his PhD, and his thing was like falling asleep at the wheel.  

    MOLLY WOOD: Yes. I liken this to the level three, level four self-drive. 

    KARIM LAKHANI: Exactly. Like, with full self-driving cars, you know, right now they have sort of the various tools to alert you. There’s automatic braking, it’ll buzz you, if your eyes are darting it’ll intervene. The current versions of these models don’t do that in our knowledge work, they’ll just be happy to please you and so forth. And what Fabrizio found in his experiment is that good people with good AI often fell asleep at the wheel because they started just like, trust the output and didn’t pay attention. And so I think that paying attention and knowing your expertise, improving your expertise, and you with AI is gonna be a critical factor. 

    MOLLY WOOD: It takes a lot of discipline though, right? I mean, ultimately, that is a leadership skill. Like the ability to—because good leaders do the research behind the scenes, good leaders actually read the reports that they’re given. I mean, it’s very interesting because it sounds like what you’re describing is also still pretty basic leadership. 

    KARIM LAKHANI: Leadership 101?  

    MOLLY WOOD: Leadership 101, turns out.  

    KARIM LAKHANI: Like, come prepared to your meeting? Read the report?  

    MOLLY WOOD: [Laughter] Yeah. You’ve also written about the need to focus on the customer problems that you can directly solve. I think where people feel overwhelmed with AI is like, I have this tool, but I don’t know what it’s for. 

    KARIM LAKHANI: Throughout this journey I’ve been on, and sort of looking at AI in its various forms, you would always see pilot hell—lots of pilots, no implementation. What would happen in most organizations is that people would not say that if the pilot works, I’m going to implement. I think now we’re at a stage where, you know, you can solve real customer problems with these tools. You can actually get voice of the customer. So, for example, and on the customer side where I sort of focus a lot of my research on, which is on the new product development side, you can start to explore and hypothesize way more. There’s always this limited bandwidth of, do I have access to customers? Can I run consumer tasks? Can I do all these things? Now you can do way more. From design to testing in virtual in silico and lead to better outcomes. So that’s one side. The second is the customer experience, right? Both from customer service to how the products are being used. Certainly we see low-hanging fruits on changing customer experiences by embedding generative AI in your user workflows. And in many ways, I think customers are now going to be sort of expecting that. You know, everybody wants one-click shopping, you know, and they get mad when they don’t have that. I think very soon, I think those standards will change around that. And then I think the pilots can be on like, what are some customer value problems that we can solve first? Let’s go build those pilots first and actually have an intention to scale. So, the scaling story is like, if it works, and in many cases they work, you should not then be in another yearlong process to think about scaling. The managerial, the leadership decision is, if it works, we’re gonna scale and we’re gonna change our process.  

    MOLLY WOOD: Right.  

    KARIM LAKHANI: Not that we’re not gonna think about it. If you were a leader and you say, I’ve got my tech team, my IT department figuring it out, or my marketing group figuring it out, they will figure it out, but then they’ll face a ton of friction. It behooves leaders to be engaged. Now, you’re not gonna spend all day, every night on this, but it has to be your projects, sponsored by you, with a commitment to launch. And I think now there are low-hanging fruits on the customer side, customer service side, customer innovation side, on the marketing side, on the software side, software development side. Those are things that there’s no doubt those can be implemented and put into play. And the longer you wait, the harder the jump is gonna be. So what I say to many leaders is that these models, these capabilities, the performance capabilities of these models and what they can continue to do appears to be increasing quite radically or exponentially. And we don’t know what the ceiling is. Of course, everything has a ceiling. We’ll get to the ceiling when we get to it, but at least for the time being, we don’t see ceilings. And you add gentech workflows on top, it’s like, wow.  

    MOLLY WOOD: Well, so that actually, that’s my next question. You’ve got this leadership challenge, and you’re clearly saying, in the words of the new great American classic Twisters, if you feel it, chase it. 

    KARIM LAKHANI: Yes, yes. Oh, I like that. [Laughter]  

    MOLLY WOOD: Thanks, Glen Powell for the new catchphrase for all of us. And then there is this question of agents rewriting team structures, potentially.  

    KARIM LAKHANI: Yes. Yes.  

    MOLLY WOOD: So how do you, as a leader, think about incorporating AI agents on top of AI?   

    KARIM LAKHANI: Yes. Figure it out—that’s why you get paid the big bucks. [Laughter] Figure it out. No, I mean, so let me just add one more bit and then we’ll go to agents and you’ll see the connectivity. So, technology is improving quite radically, exponentially. Most companies are absorbing linearly. So that creates, over time, an increasing exponential gap between what you are able to do and what these models are able to do. But this question about adoption is not a simple technological adoption. Should we have Wi-Fi or not in our buildings? Remember, this was a question?  

    MOLLY WOOD: Yes, I do.  

    KARIM LAKHANI: Twenty years ago. Big debates.  

    MOLLY WOOD: And should it be public Wi-Fi, and should it be locked Wi-Fi?  

    KARIM LAKHANI: And how many layers of authentication do we need? You know, this is not a Wi-Fi adoption question because Wi-Fi’s about communication and information transmission. If these tools are about expertise, then it’s back to the work. It’s about work. Your work has to change, and your workflow has to change, your work process has to change, and the longer you wait to adopt, the bigger the hurdle is gonna be for you to change your work processes. Your teams, your organizations, your people haven’t kept up with the speed of change that these models are undergoing. And so they will be doing old line processes, but all of a sudden you’re gonna have a totally transformed process because you need to build the fitness in your companies to be able to keep changing and keep adapting and get everybody ready for it. Which would then, by the way, argue this question about democratization. Like, you really need to make everybody available to this kind of stuff. So I think the answer is yes, people will get there one way or the other. But, you know, it’s already on your bloody phone, right? Come on. Like, you’re gonna say no, they’re gonna do it on their phone with other risks. But the problem is change and change management and change fitness. And we know from lived experiences by all of us, and also lots of research, lots of papers, lots of data, lots of blog posts. That change is damn hard in organizations. It’s really hard to change—  

    MOLLY WOOD: And risky.  

    KARIM LAKHANI: Risky, change is hard to do, people don’t like it. Given that, if your organization is gonna be averse to change, then this becomes an even harder task. So just think, you are living in this world where your people haven’t kept up, your processes haven’t kept up, and then agents pop in and then, boom, what are you gonna do? Versus, you have been in the journey, everybody is adapting, everybody’s figured out, oh, I can do this, I can do that. I can actually take advantage of these core capabilities and actually do something additional with that. Then you’ll be in better shape. To your question about agents, I think agents are team technology. It’s a work technology. And I, you know, I’m an HBS professor, so I’m always used to asking. I never give answers, I ask questions. So, Molly, let me ask you a question. What in your life today is, and I think most people listening will have experienced this, basically has some kind of an algorithm directing the work of humans, some kind of a proto agent. So, like, everybody takes Uber, right? Who’s the manager for the driver? It’s the AI algorithm at Uber. Amazon warehouses, AI algorithm. Instacart, you know, you name it. So, already, services we’re using every day are already, have this world where the agent is part of the workflow. It’s not a GenAI agent yet at Uber or at Lyft, but it tells you that already some work is already being transformed because we don’t have the dispatcher telling people where to go. We basically have an algorithm directing work. So when we now think about agents, what we imagine, and this is part of the work in our recent HBR paper, an expertise paper, is that people will come with their own agents. Or the companies will give them their agents. One of the conversations we’re having at Harvard and with HBS is like, should we have an agent companion for our students that learns with them and then it goes off and keeps learning? That feature is not that far off. It probably exists in some form already. So workers will come with their agents, workers will have teammates that are agents. And then workers may also have bosses that are agents.  

    MOLLY WOOD: Yeah. And soon. 

    KARIM LAKHANI: And soon. And in many ways, a version of that exists at Uber, right, and various automated warehouses and that kind of stuff.  

    MOLLY WOOD: Yeah.  

    KARIM LAKHANI: So that’s already happening.  

    MOLLY WOOD: Is there anything that we have not discussed yet about AI and opportunities and challenges that you think we’re really overlooking? 

    KARIM LAKHANI: So let’s think about this at the three layers—at the company level, at the leader level, and at the individual level. At the company level, my biggest worry is strategic shifts are ahead. They might happen faster than we imagine, but the bigger story is if you sort of, again, you’ll remember this time, Molly, Amazon being invented, right, and you have e-commerce. So bookstores also—remember, Barnes and Noble had an e-commerce site, and Borders also had a website too. It’s not as if Barnes and Noble and Borders did not have websites, but they didn’t reimagine their business from top to bottom because the cost of communication had dropped to zero. They all invested. They, you know, they hired all the consultants. E-commerce, is it, we’re gonna have new business, we’re gonna do that. They did all that. But they did the old business. The operating model of a retailer had changed dramatically. And they didn’t realize it until much, much later, until it was too late. So the worry I have with companies is that they will do the Barnes and Noble-Borders strategy. Let’s add a chatbot, check the box, go to the board. We’re AI native. Instead of saying, if you believe what I’m saying, that the cost of expertise has dropped, then you should be really rethinking your business and reimagining it from the core up before somebody else does. So I think that’s the first thing at the company level. At the leader level, I think there are three big gaps. There’s a learning gap, right, like, they don’t know enough. They haven’t, you know, what I call the learning-doing gap. Everybody talks about AI. Nobody does AI. So I think there’s a learning gap. Then there’s an adoption gap, like, you are just not adopting fast enough, fierce enough, wide enough. And then a transformation gap. Like, you’ve thought of this as a technology play when this is a culture play, this is a work play, this is a team play. And your HR officer should be married to your data AI officer, and all adoption needs to be thought about in terms of technology and change and process change, not in terms of anything else. And for individuals what I would say is, you know, I sort of hark back to the bicycle of the mind analogy that allows you to go further and faster. Well, that’s what these things are showing, but we’re adults now trying to learn the bike, and if you remember trying to ride a bike when you were a kid, you know, you fell down, you scraped knees, you were embarrassed. It was hard to learn, but you had to keep practicing to learn to use this new instrument called the bike. And then once you got that, you had all this amazing freedom, you could sort of pretend to run away from your house very quickly when you were upset at your parents. That never happened to me. [Laughter]  

    MOLLY WOOD: I did that like 30 times. I’m just flashing back to my entire childhood, and it was always the bike. [Laughter

    KARIM LAKHANI: Right? So, but you had to invest, and you had, you know, maybe even a concussion to get there. So this is a practice thing. You’ve gotta practice this stuff to really understand. Like, don’t talk about—I got so mad at an exec class recently. I’m like, all of you guys are just talking about it. One was like, oh yeah, we’re thinking about AI and regulation. I go, does AI have a seat at the table with you? Are you asking it what it thinks? And they’re like, no. I’m like, then, what’s it gonna do? And so that, that’s where I see, I think, you know, at the company level, the leader level, and the individual level.  

    MOLLY WOOD: Thank you so much. Karim Lakhani is a Harvard professor and chair of the school’s Digital Data Design Institute. What an absolute treat. Thanks for the time.  

    KARIM LAKHANI: So much fun, Molly. 

    MOLLY WOOD: Thank you all for joining us, and keep checking your feeds. We have more fascinating guests on the way with actionable insights that can help leaders develop an AI-first mindset, and maximize the ROI of AI. If you’ve got a question or a comment, please drop us an email at worklab@microsoft.com. And check out Microsoft’s Work Trend Indexes and the WorkLab digital publication, where you’ll find all our episodes along with thoughtful stories that explore how business leaders are thriving in today’s new world of work. You can find all of that at microsoft.com/worklab. As for this podcast, please, if you don’t mind, rate us, review us, and follow us wherever you listen. It helps us out a ton. The WorkLab podcast is a place for experts to share their insights and opinions. As students of the future of work, Microsoft values inputs from a diverse set of voices. That said, the opinions and findings of our guests are their own, and they may not necessarily reflect Microsoft’s own research or positions. WorkLab is produced by Microsoft with Godfrey Dadich Partners and Reasonable Volume. I’m your host, Molly Wood. Sharon Kallander and Matthew Duncan produced this podcast. Jessica Voelker is the WorkLab editor.

    MIL OSI Economics

  • MIL-OSI USA: Gillibrand Slams Trump’s Massive Cuts To Food Bank Funding

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for New York Kirsten Gillibrand

    Amid Sky-High Grocery Prices, Trump Is Denying Food To Hungry Families 

    New York Food Banks Receive Tens Of Millions Of Dollars’ Worth Of Food Through Now Slashed Federal Programs 

    Today, U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand held a virtual press conference slamming the Trump administration’s massive cuts to funding for food banks.

    Last month, President Trump slashed $1 billion in federal funding used to purchase food for food banks and other organizations that provide meals, like schools and child care centers. Now, he is canceling another $500 million in already approved funding for food banks and other emergency food providers through The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP). New York receives roughly $30 million through TEFAP each year in regular funding; this supplemental money would have funded additional food purchases at New York’s regional food banks and their partner soup kitchens and food pantries.

    Senator Gillibrand was joined by CEO of Hunger Free America Joel Berg. 

    Seventy-two days into Trump’s presidency, grocery prices are still sky-high, with no sign of improvement on the horizon,” said Senator Gillibrand. “And as hungry families turn to food banks and soup kitchens for help, Trump is now slashing the funding they rely on. It’s outrageous. Programs like TEFAP have overwhelming bipartisan support. They help serve every community – rural, urban, Democratic, Republican – in every state in times of need. They are not an extraneous expense; they are an investment in healthy kids, healthy families, and healthy futures. I am calling on the Trump administration to provide answers on what plans – if any – it has to keep Americans from going hungry after these cuts, and I will be doing everything in my power to reverse them.”

    The full text of Senator Gillibrand’s letter to USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins on cuts to The Emergency Food Assistance Program is available here or below.

    Dear Secretary Rollins:

    We write regarding the reported cancellation of hundreds of millions of dollars in previously approved funding for food banks and other emergency food providers through The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP). A cancellation of these funds could result in $500 million in lost food provisions to feed millions of Americans at a time when the need for food shelves is extremely high due to costly groceries and an uncertain economy. If true, this major shift in a program utilized by emergency food providers in every state in the nation will have a significant and damaging impact upon millions of people who depend upon this program for critical food assistance.

    In addition, this program consists of purchases of U.S. commodities at a time when America’s growers and producers are struggling due to tariffs, proposed tariffs, animal disease and many other challenges.

    According to recent statistics, nearly one in every seven Americans have faced food insecurity. Many of these households turn to community and emergency relief organizations such as food banks and food pantries to help them obtain sufficient nutrition. In 2023 alone, 50 million Americans turned to emergency food providers, according to a report from Feeding America, America’s largest network of food banks. While food banks rely on a variety of sources (including private) to obtain food for distribution through their networks, federally purchased commodities are a key part of how they provide nutritious meals to Americans.

    Due to this reported change, a number of us have heard that trucks delivering American-grown foods may not arrive. These trucks represent hundreds of thousands of nutritious meals containing poultry, fruits, vegetables, and dairy. If confirmed, the cancellation of this previously announced funding also comes on top of the cancellation of Local Food for School Program and the Local Food Purchase Assistance Program funding, which also helps farmers deliver nutritious foods to schools and food banks. These cuts will deprive Americans of food assistance, emergency food providers of necessary support to carry out their work, and American farmers of vital domestic markets.

    To help us understand USDA’s actions and their impact on communities around the country, we ask that you answer the following questions.

    1. Has USDA cancelled previously approved purchases of food provided through TEFAP? If so, what level of funding has been cancelled thus far and when will state agencies be notified of any cancelled TEFAP purchases?

    2. Does USDA plan to cancel additional purchases of food provided through TEFAP?

    3. Has USDA paused any TEFAP food orders or purchases? If so, what is the current status of those orders or purchases? Does USDA intend to un-pause these funds?

    4. Please provide information on what types of funding, by commodity, have been cancelled and the financial impact of those cancellations on producers such as pork, chicken, turkey and dairy farmers.

    5. Is the funding announced on October 1, 2024 and detailed in the implementation memo that the Food and Nutrition Service sent to state agencies on December 2 rescinded?

    6. Does USDA intend to use Commodity Credit Corporation funds in Fiscal Year 2025 for future purchases that will be distributed through TEFAP?

    We ask for a prompt response to these questions by the end of the week.

    Sincerely,

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI New Zealand: Rule of Two for faster access to medicines

    Source: New Zealand Government

    Associate Health Minister David Seymour is welcoming Cabinet’s decision to enable medicines to be approved in less than 30 days if the product has approval from two recognised overseas jurisdictions.   
    This change is included in the Medicines Amendment Bill (the Bill), which amends the Medicines Act 1981. The pathway will be in operation by early 2026.
    The policy will start with Australia, the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, the European Union, Singapore and Switzerland, as recognised countries. These are the main countries Medsafe currently recognises. 
    “Faster access to medicines has always been a priority of mine. For many New Zealanders, pharmaceuticals are life or death, or the difference between a life of pain and suffering or living freely,” Mr Seymour says. 
    “This change will increase access to medicines for Kiwis by introducing a streamlined verification pathway for medicines. People will access new treatments more quickly. This is committed to in the ACT-National and National-NZ First coalition agreements. 
    “Cabinet has agreed to give the responsible Minister powers to regulate the Rule of Two. That means I will be outlining the proposed regulatory pathway for industry and the public to feedback on via the Select Committee process. This system should be as straightforward as possible to allow New Zealanders the greatest level of access to innovative medicine possible. 
    “New cars are acceptable for the New Zealand market if they meet at least one of several foreign standards. We can apply the same principle to medicines, if other jurisdictions have already done the work and can ensure the products’ safety, we don’t need to delay patient’s access by doing the exact same tests,” Mr Seymour says. 
    “This is a common-sense efficiency that costs nothing. It helps Kiwis in need. It can shave months off the approval process. A perfect example of this was with a treatment for asthma which could have been approved by the end of 2022 under this pathway, but was not approved until 16 months later in May 2024. 
    “This Government is making medicines access a priority because it leads to better patient outcomes. So far, we have:

    Changed Pharmac’s process so it can assess a funding application at the same time as Medsafe is assessing the application for regulatory approval
    Allocated Pharmac its largest ever budget of $6.294 billion over four years, and a $604 million uplift to give Pharmac the financial support it needs to carry out its functions – negotiating the best deals for medicine for New Zealanders
    Made patient voice a crucial consideration in Pharmac’s funding decisions
    Put pseudoephedrine back on the shelves of pharmacies

    “We’re committed to ensuring that the regulatory system for pharmaceuticals is not unreasonably holding back access. It will lead to more Kiwis being able to access the medicines they need to live a fulfilling life.”
    Notes to editors: 
    Draft criteria for regulatory pathway rules will likely relate to ensuring that:

    manufacturing sites associated with product have evidence of Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) compliance which is valid to Medsafe’s satisfaction,
    if a product is a generic or biosimilar prescription medicine, the innovator or reference product is identical to that approved for New Zealand.

    MIL OSI New Zealand News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Luján: President Trump’s Reckless Tariffs Will Make Life More Expensive for Families and Put New Mexico Jobs at Risk

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator Ben Ray Luján (D-New Mexico)

    Experts Say Trump Tariffs Could Throw U.S. Into a Recession, Increase Annual Costs By Thousands for New Mexico Families 

    Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.), a member of the Senate Committee on Finance, issued the following statement on President Trump’s announcement to impose additional tariffs on global trading partners:

    “President Trump’s sweeping tariffs are a tax on hardworking New Mexicans. From the cost of groceries, to the price at the pump, to buying a car or building a home, these new tariffs will make daily life more expensive for many New Mexico families and businesses.

    “While President Trump should be focused on lowering prices for Americans, he is instigating a trade war and making everyday Americans the casualties. President Trump – who has said that he doesn’t care if costs go up – is creating economic uncertainty, shrinking life savings, putting New Mexico jobs at risk, and driving up costs for working families.

    “These tariffs are new and drastic tax increases on New Mexicans and the American people. President Trump is recklessly threatening the American economy – all while working to give the wealthiest few another tax handout and blowing up the national debt.”

    What People Are Saying: 

    Chamber of Commerce: “[T]he imposition of tariffs … will only raise prices for American families and upend supply chains.”

    National Association of Manufacturers: “Ultimately, manufacturers will bear the brunt of these tariffs, undermining our ability to sell our products at a competitive price and putting American jobs at risk.”

    United Steelworkers: “Our union calls on President Trump to reverse course on Canadian tariffs so that we can focus on trade solutions that will serve working families for the long-term.”

    International Association of Machinists: “The 25% tariffs on Canadian goods imported to the U.S., will result in job losses, increased prices, and a variety of other negative impacts.”

    National Association of Home Builders: “Tariffs on lumber and other building materials increase the cost of construction and discourage new development, and consumers end up paying for the tariffs in the form of higher home prices.”

    American Farm Bureau: “farmers and rural communities will bear the brunt of retaliation. … Tariffs that increase fertilizer prices threaten to deliver another blow to the finances of farm families.”

    National Farmers Union: “We are already facing significant economic uncertainty, and these actions only add to the strain. … Without a clear plan, family farmers will once again be left to bear the burden of decisions beyond their control, and eventually, so will consumers.”

    Retail Industry Leaders Association: “Stacking tariffs on household goods will also raise costs on American families.”

    Food Industry Association: “New tariffs will also drive up the cost of doing business and food prices at a time consumers are extremely concerned about prices.”

    National Consumers League: “these tariffs could hurt everyday Americans. … Higher prices on basic goods would make life harder for families across the country, all as a result of these ill-conceived trade policies.”

    American Automakers: “Our American automakers, who invested billions in the U.S. to meet these requirements, should not have their competitiveness undermined by tariffs that will raise the cost of building vehicles in the United States and stymie investment in the American workforce.”

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA News: Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Declares National Emergency to Increase our Competitive Edge, Protect our Sovereignty, and Strengthen our National and Economic Security

    Source: The White House

    PURSUING RECIPROCITY TO REBUILD THE ECONOMY AND RESTORE NATIONAL AND ECONOMIC SECURITY: Today, President Donald J. Trump declared that foreign trade and economic practices have created a national emergency, and his order imposes responsive tariffs to strengthen the international economic position of the United States and protect American workers.

    • Large and persistent annual U.S. goods trade deficits have led to the hollowing out of our manufacturing base; resulted in a lack of incentive to increase advanced domestic manufacturing capacity; undermined critical supply chains; and rendered our defense-industrial base dependent on foreign adversaries.
    • President Trump is invoking his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA) to address the national emergency posed by the large and persistent trade deficit that is driven by the absence of reciprocity in our trade relationships and other harmful policies like currency manipulation and exorbitant value-added taxes (VAT) perpetuated by other countries.
    • Using his IEEPA authority, President Trump will impose a 10% tariff on all countries.
      • This will take effect April 5, 2025 at 12:01 a.m. EDT.
    • President Trump will impose an individualized reciprocal higher tariff on the countries with which the United States has the largest trade deficits. All other countries will continue to be subject to the original 10% tariff baseline.
      • This will take effect April 9, 2025 at 12:01 a.m. EDT.
    • These tariffs will remain in effect until such a time as President Trump determines that the threat posed by the trade deficit and underlying nonreciprocal treatment is satisfied, resolved, or mitigated.
    • Today’s IEEPA Order also contains modification authority, allowing President Trump to increase the tariff if trading partners retaliate or decrease the tariffs if trading partners take significant steps to remedy non-reciprocal trade arrangements and align with the United States on economic and national security matters.
    • Some goods will not be subject to the Reciprocal Tariff. These include: (1) articles subject to 50 USC 1702(b); (2) steel/aluminum articles and autos/auto parts already subject to Section 232 tariffs; (3) copper, pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, and lumber articles; (4) all articles that may become subject to future Section 232 tariffs; (5) bullion; and (6) energy and other certain minerals that are not available in the United States.
    • For Canada and Mexico, the existing fentanyl/migration IEEPA orders remain in effect, and are unaffected by this order. This means USMCA compliant goods will continue to see a 0% tariff, non-USMCA compliant goods will see a 25% tariff, and non-USMCA compliant energy and potash will see a 10% tariff. In the event the existing fentanyl/migration IEEPA orders are terminated, USMCA compliant goods would continue to receive preferential treatment, while non-USMCA compliant goods would be subject to a 12% reciprocal tariff.

     
    TAKING BACK OUR ECONOMIC SOVEREIGNTY: President Trump refuses to let the United States be taken advantage of and believes that tariffs are necessary to ensure fair trade, protect American workers, and reduce the trade deficit—this is an emergency.

    • He is the first President in modern history to stand strong for hardworking Americans by asking other countries to follow the golden rule on trade: Treat us like we treat you.
    • Pernicious economic policies and practices of our trading partners undermine our ability to produce essential goods for the public and the military, threatening national security.
    • U.S. companies, according to internal estimates, pay over $200 billion per year in value-added taxes (VAT) to foreign governments—a “double-whammy” on U.S. companies who pay the tax at the European border, while European companies don’t pay tax to the United States on the income from their exports to the U.S.
    • The annual cost to the U.S. economy of counterfeit goods, pirated software, and theft of trade secrets is between $225 billion and $600 billion. Counterfeit products not only pose a significant risk to U.S. competitiveness, but also threaten the security, health, and safety of Americans, with the global trade in counterfeit pharmaceuticals estimated at $4.4 billion and linked to the distribution of deadly fentanyl-laced drugs.
      • This imbalance has fueled a large and persistent trade deficit in both industrial and agricultural goods, led to offshoring of our manufacturing base, empowered non-market economies like China, and hurt America’s middle class and small towns. 
      • President Biden squandered the agricultural trade surplus inherited from President Trump’s first term, turning it into a projected all-time high deficit of $49 billion.
    • The current global trading order allows those using unfair trade practices to get ahead, while those playing by the rules get left behind.
    • In 2024, our trade deficit in goods exceeded $1.2 trillion—an unsustainable crisis ignored by prior leadership.
    • “Made in America” is not just a tagline—it’s an economic and national security priority of this Administration. The President’s reciprocal trade agenda means better-paying American jobs making beautiful American-made cars, appliances, and other goods.
    • These tariffs seek to address the injustices of global trade, re-shore manufacturing, and drive economic growth for the American people.
    • Reciprocal trade is America First trade because it increases our competitive edge, protects our sovereignty, and strengthens our national and economic security.
    • These tariffs adjust for the unfairness of ongoing international trade practices, balance our chronic goods trade deficit, provide an incentive for re-shoring production to the United States, and provide our foreign trading partners with an opportunity to rebalance their trade relationships with the United States.

     
    REPRIORITIZING U.S. MANUFACTURING: President Trump recognizes that increasing domestic manufacturing is critical to U.S. national security.

    • In 2023, U.S. manufacturing output as a share of global manufacturing output was 17.4%, down from 28.4% in 2001.
    • The decline in manufacturing output has reduced U.S. manufacturing capacity.
      • The need to maintain a resilient domestic manufacturing capacity is particularly acute in advanced sectors like autos, shipbuilding, pharmaceuticals, transport equipment, technology products, machine tools, and basic and fabricated metals, where loss of capacity could permanently weaken U.S. competitiveness.
    • U.S. stockpiles of military goods are too low to be compatible with U.S. national defense interests.
      • If the U.S. wishes to maintain an effective security umbrella to defend its citizens and homeland, as well as allies and partners, it needs to have a large upstream manufacturing and goods-producing ecosystem.
      • This includes developing new manufacturing technologies in critical sectors like bio-manufacturing, batteries, and microelectronics to support defense needs.
    • Increased reliance on foreign producers for goods has left the U.S. supply chain vulnerable to geopolitical disruption and supply shocks.
      • This vulnerability was exposed during the COVID-19 pandemic, and later with Houthi attacks on Middle East shipping.
    • From 1997 to 2024, the U.S. lost around 5 million manufacturing jobs and experienced one of the largest drops in manufacturing employment in history.

     
    ADDRESSING TRADE IMBALANCES: President Trump is working to level the playing field for American businesses and workers by confronting the unfair tariff disparities and non-tariff barriers imposed by other countries.

    • For generations, countries have taken advantage of the United States, tariffing us at higher rates. For example:
      • The United States imposes a 2.5% tariff on passenger vehicle imports (with internal combustion engines), while the European Union (10%) and India (70%) impose much higher duties on the same product. 
      • For networking switches and routers, the United States imposes a 0% tariff, but India (10-20%) levies higher rates.
      • Brazil (18%) and Indonesia (30%) impose a higher tariff on ethanol than does the United States (2.5%). 
      • For rice in the husk, the U.S. imposes a tariff of 2.7%, while India (80%), Malaysia (40%), and Turkey (31%) impose higher rates. 
      • Apples enter the United States duty-free, but not so in Turkey (60.3%) and India (50%).
    • The United States has one of the lowest simple average most-favored-nation (MFN) tariff rates in the world at 3.3%, while many of our key trading partners like Brazil (11.2%), China (7.5%), the European Union (5%), India (17%), and Vietnam (9.4%) have simple average MFN tariff rates that are significantly higher.
    • Similarly, non-tariff barriers—meant to limit the quantity of imports/exports and protect domestic industries—also deprive U.S. manufacturers of reciprocal access to markets around the world. For example:
      • China’s non-market policies and practices have given China global dominance in key manufacturing industries, decimating U.S. industry. Between 2001 and 2018, these practices contributed to the loss of 3.7 million U.S. jobs due to the growth of the U.S.-China trade deficit, displacing workers and undermining American competitiveness while threatening U.S. economic and national security by increasing our reliance on foreign-controlled supply chains for critical industries as well as everyday goods.
      • India imposes their own uniquely burdensome and/or duplicative testing and certification requirements in sectors such as chemicals, telecom products, and medical devices that make it difficult or costly for American companies to sell their products in India. If these barriers were removed, it is estimated that U.S. exports would increase by at least $5.3 billion annually.
      • Countries including China, Germany, Japan, and South Korea have pursued policies that suppress the domestic consumption power of their own citizens to artificially boost the competitiveness of their export products. Such policies include regressive tax systems, low or unenforced penalties for environmental degradation, and policies intended to suppress worker wages relative to productivity.
      • Certain countries, like Argentina, Brazil, Ecuador, and Vietnam, restrict or prohibit the importation of remanufactured goods, restricting market access for U.S. exporters while also stifling efforts to promote sustainability by discouraging trade in like-new and resource-efficient products. If these barriers were removed, it is estimated that U.S. exports would increase by at least $18 billion annually.
      • The UK maintains non-science-based standards that severely restrict U.S. exports of safe, high-quality beef and poultry products.
      • Indonesia maintains local content requirements across a broad range of sectors, complex import licensing regimes, and, starting this year, will require natural resource firms to onshore all export revenue for transactions worth $250,000 or more.
      • Argentina has banned imports of U.S. live cattle since 2002 due to unsubstantiated concerns regarding bovine spongiform encephalopathy.  The United States has a $223 million trade deficit with Argentina in beef and beef products.
      • For decades, South Africa has imposed animal health restrictions that are not scientifically justified on U.S. pork products, permitting a very limited list of U.S. pork exports to enter South Africa. South Africa also heavily restricts U.S. poultry exports through high tariffs, anti-dumping duties, and unjustified animal health restrictions. These barriers have contributed to a 78% decline in U.S. poultry exports to South Africa, from $89 million in 2019 to $19 million 2024.
      • U.S. automakers face a variety of non-tariff barriers that impede access to the Japanese and Korean automotive markets, including non-acceptance of certain U.S. standards, duplicative testing and certification requirements, and transparency issues. Due to these non-reciprocal practices, the U.S. automotive industry loses out on an additional $13.5 billion in annual exports to Japan and access to a larger import market share in Korea—all while the U.S. trade deficit with Korea more than tripled from 2019 to 2024.
    • Monetary tariffs and non-monetary tariffs are two distinct types of trade barriers that governments use to regulate imports and exports. President Trump is countering both through reciprocal tariffs to protect American workers and industries from these unfair practices.

     
    THE GOLDEN RULE FOR OUR GOLDEN AGE: Today’s action simply asks other countries to treat us like we treat them. It’s the Golden Rule for Our Golden Age.

    • Access to the American market is a privilege, not a right.
    • The United States will no longer put itself last on matters of international trade in exchange for empty promises.
    • Reciprocal tariffs are a big part of why Americans voted for President Trump—it was a cornerstone of his campaign from the start.
      • Everyone knew he’d push for them once he got back in office; it’s exactly what he promised, and it’s a key reason he won the election.
    • These tariffs are central to President Trump’s plan to reverse the economic damage left by President Biden and put America on a path to a new golden age.
      • This builds on his broader economic agenda of energy competitiveness, tax cuts, no tax on tips, no tax on Social Security benefits, and deregulation to boost American prosperity.

     
    TARIFFS WORK: Studies have repeatedly shown that tariffs can be an effective tool for reducing or eliminating threats that impair U.S. national security and achieving economic and strategic objectives.

    • A 2024 study on the effects of President Trump’s tariffs in his first term found that they “strengthened the U.S. economy” and “led to significant reshoring” in industries like manufacturing and steel production.
    • A 2023 report by the U.S. International Trade Commission that analyzed the effects of Section 232 and 301 tariffs on more than $300 billion of U.S. imports found that the tariffs reduced imports from China and effectively stimulated more U.S. production of the tariffed goods, with very minor effects on prices.
    • According to the Economic Policy Institute, the tariffs implemented by President Trump during his first term “clearly show[ed] no correlation with inflation” and only had a temporary effect on overall price levels.
    • An analysis from the Atlantic Council found that “tariffs would create new incentives for US consumers to buy US-made products.”
    • Former Biden Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen affirmed last year that tariffs do not raise prices: “I don’t believe that American consumers will see any meaningful increase in the prices that they face.”
    • A 2024 economic analysis found that a global tariff of 10% would grow the economy by $728 billion, create 2.8 million jobs, and increase real household incomes by 5.7%.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA News: Regulating Imports with a Reciprocal Tariff to Rectify Trade Practices that Contribute to Large and Persistent Annual United States Goods Trade Deficits

    Source: The White House

    class=”has-text-align-left”>By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)(IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.)(NEA), section 604 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2483), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, 

    I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, find that underlying conditions, including a lack of reciprocity in our bilateral trade relationships, disparate tariff rates and non-tariff barriers, and U.S. trading partners’ economic policies that suppress domestic wages and consumption, as indicated by large and persistent annual U.S. goods trade deficits, constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and economy of the United States.  That threat has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States in the domestic economic policies of key trading partners and structural imbalances in the global trading system.  I hereby declare a national emergency with respect to this threat.

    On January 20, 2025, I signed the America First Trade Policy Presidential Memorandum directing my Administration to investigate the causes of our country’s large and persistent annual trade deficits in goods, including the economic and national security implications and risks resulting from such deficits, and to undertake a review of, and identify, any unfair trade practices by other countries.  On February 13, 2025, I signed a Presidential Memorandum entitled “Reciprocal Trade and Tariffs,” that directed further review of our trading partners’ non-reciprocal trading practices, and noted the relationship between non-reciprocal practices and the trade deficit.  On April 1, 2025, I received the final results of those investigations, and I am taking action today based on those results.  

    Large and persistent annual U.S. goods trade deficits have led to the hollowing out of our manufacturing base; inhibited our ability to scale advanced domestic manufacturing capacity; undermined critical supply chains; and rendered our defense-industrial base dependent on foreign adversaries.  Large and persistent annual U.S. goods trade deficits are caused in substantial part by a lack of reciprocity in our bilateral trade relationships.  This situation is evidenced by disparate tariff rates and non-tariff barriers that make it harder for U.S. manufacturers to sell their products in foreign markets.  It is also evidenced by the economic policies of key U.S. trading partners insofar as they suppress domestic wages and consumption, and thereby demand for U.S. exports, while artificially increasing the competitiveness of their goods in global markets.  These conditions have given rise to the national emergency that this order is intended to abate and resolve.

    For decades starting in 1934, U.S. trade policy has been organized around the principle of reciprocity.  The Congress directed the President to secure reduced reciprocal tariff rates from key trading partners first through bilateral trade agreements and later under the auspices of the global trading system.  Between 1934 and 1945, the executive branch negotiated and signed 32 bilateral reciprocal trade agreements designed to lower tariff rates on a reciprocal basis.  After 1947 through 1994, participating countries engaged in eight rounds of negotiation, which resulted in the General Agreements on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and seven subsequent tariff reduction rounds. 

    However, despite a commitment to the principle of reciprocity, the trading relationship between the United States and its trading partners has become highly unbalanced, particularly in recent years.  The post-war international economic system was based upon three incorrect assumptions:  first, that if the United States led the world in liberalizing tariff and non-tariff barriers the rest of the world would follow; second, that such liberalization would ultimately result in more economic convergence and increased domestic consumption among U.S. trading partners converging towards the share in the United States; and third, that as a result, the United States would not accrue large and persistent goods trade deficits. 

    This framework set in motion events, agreements, and commitments that did not result in reciprocity or generally increase domestic consumption in foreign economies relative to domestic consumption in the United States.  Those events, in turn, created large and persistent annual U.S. goods trade deficits as a feature of the global trading system. 

    Put simply, while World Trade Organization (WTO) Members agreed to bind their tariff rates on a most-favored-nation (MFN) basis, and thereby provide their best tariff rates to all WTO Members, they did not agree to bind their tariff rates at similarly low levels or to apply tariff rates on a reciprocal basis.  Consequently, according to the WTO, the United States has among the lowest simple average MFN tariff rates in the world at 3.3 percent, while many of our key trading partners like Brazil (11.2 percent), China (7.5 percent), the European Union (EU) (5 percent), India (17 percent), and Vietnam (9.4 percent) have simple average MFN tariff rates that are significantly higher.  

    Moreover, these average MFN tariff rates conceal much larger discrepancies across economies in tariff rates applied to particular products.  For example, the United States imposes a 2.5 percent tariff on passenger vehicle imports (with internal combustion engines), while the European Union (10 percent), India (70 percent), and China (15 percent) impose much higher duties on the same product.  For network switches and routers, the United States imposes a 0 percent tariff, but for similar products, India (10 percent) levies a higher rate.  Brazil (18 percent) and Indonesia (30 percent) impose a higher tariff on ethanol than does the United States (2.5 percent).  For rice in the husk, the U.S. MFN tariff is 2.7 percent (ad valorem equivalent), while India (80 percent), Malaysia (40 percent), and Turkey (an average of 31 percent) impose higher rates.  Apples enter the United States duty-free, but not so in Turkey (60.3 percent) and India (50 percent).

    Similarly, non-tariff barriers also deprive U.S. manufacturers of reciprocal access to markets around the world.  The 2025 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers (NTE) details a great number of non-tariff barriers to U.S. exports around the world on a trading-partner by trading-partner basis.  These barriers include import barriers and licensing restrictions; customs barriers and shortcomings in trade facilitation; technical barriers to trade (e.g., unnecessarily trade restrictive standards, conformity assessment procedures, or technical regulations); sanitary and phytosanitary measures that unnecessarily restrict trade without furthering safety objectives; inadequate patent, copyright, trade secret, and trademark regimes and inadequate enforcement of intellectual property rights; discriminatory licensing requirements or regulatory standards; barriers to cross-border data flows and discriminatory practices affecting trade in digital products; investment barriers; subsidies; anticompetitive practices; discrimination in favor of domestic state-owned enterprises, and failures by governments in protecting labor and environment standards; bribery; and corruption.

    Moreover, non-tariff barriers include the domestic economic policies and practices of our trading partners, including currency practices and value-added taxes, and their associated market distortions, that suppress domestic consumption and boost exports to the United States.  This lack of reciprocity is apparent in the fact that the share of consumption to Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in the United States is about 68 percent, but it is much lower in others like Ireland (27 percent), Singapore (31 percent), China (39 percent), South Korea (49 percent), and Germany (50 percent).

    At the same time, efforts by the United States to address these imbalances have stalled.  Trading partners have repeatedly blocked multilateral and plurilateral solutions, including in the context of new rounds of tariff negotiations and efforts to discipline non-tariff barriers.  At the same time, with the U.S. economy disproportionately open to imports, U.S. trading partners have had few incentives to provide reciprocal treatment to U.S. exports in the context of bilateral trade negotiations.

    These structural asymmetries have driven the large and persistent annual U.S. goods trade deficit.  Even for countries with which the United States may enjoy an occasional bilateral trade surplus, the accumulation of tariff and non-tariff barriers on U.S. exports may make that surplus smaller than it would have been without such barriers.  Permitting these asymmetries to continue is not sustainable in today’s economic and geopolitical environment because of the effect they have on U.S. domestic production.  A nation’s ability to produce domestically is the bedrock of its national and economic security.

    Both my first Administration in 2017, and the Biden Administration in 2022, recognized that increasing domestic manufacturing is critical to U.S. national security.  According to 2023 United Nations data, U.S. manufacturing output as a share of global manufacturing output was 17.4 percent, down from a peak in 2001 of 28.4 percent. 

    Over time, the persistent decline in U.S. manufacturing output has reduced U.S. manufacturing capacity.  The need to maintain robust and resilient domestic manufacturing capacity is particularly acute in certain advanced industrial sectors like automobiles, shipbuilding, pharmaceuticals, technology products, machine tools, and basic and fabricated metals, because once competitors gain sufficient global market share in these sectors, U.S. production could be permanently weakened.  It is also critical to scale manufacturing capacity in the defense-industrial sector so that we can manufacture the defense materiel and equipment necessary to protect American interests at home and abroad.  

    In fact, because the United States has supplied so much military equipment to other countries, U.S. stockpiles of military goods are too low to be compatible with U.S. national defense interests.  Furthermore, U.S. defense companies must develop new, advanced manufacturing technologies across a range of critical sectors including bio-manufacturing, batteries, and microelectronics.  If the United States wishes to maintain an effective security umbrella to defend its citizens and homeland, as well as for its allies and partners, it needs to have a large upstream manufacturing and goods-producing ecosystem to manufacture these products without undue reliance on imports for key inputs. 

    Increased reliance on foreign producers for goods also has compromised U.S. economic security by rendering U.S. supply chains vulnerable to geopolitical disruption and supply shocks.  In recent years, the vulnerability of the U.S. economy in this respect was exposed both during the COVID-19 pandemic, when Americans had difficulty accessing essential products, as well as when the Houthi rebels later began attacking cargo ships in the Middle East. 

    The decline of U.S. manufacturing capacity threatens the U.S. economy in other ways, including through the loss of manufacturing jobs.  From 1997 to 2024, the United States lost around 5 million manufacturing jobs and experienced one of the largest drops in manufacturing employment in history.  Furthermore, many manufacturing job losses were concentrated in specific geographical areas.  In these areas, the loss of manufacturing jobs contributed to the decline in rates of family formation and to the rise of other social trends, like the abuse of opioids, that have imposed profound costs on the U.S. economy.

    The future of American competitiveness depends on reversing these trends.  Today, manufacturing represents just 11 percent of U.S. gross domestic product, yet it accounts for 35 percent of American productivity growth and 60 percent of our exports.  Importantly, U.S. manufacturing is the main engine of innovation in the United States, responsible for 55 percent of all patents and 70 percent of all research and development (R&D) spending.  The fact that R&D expenditures by U.S. multinational enterprises in China grew at an average rate of 13.6 percent a year between 2003 and 2017, while their R&D expenditures in the United States grew by an average of just 5 percent per year during the same time period, is evidence of the strong link between manufacturing and innovation.  Furthermore, every manufacturing job spurs 7 to 12 new jobs in other related industries, helping to build and sustain our economy.

    Just as a nation that does not produce manufactured products cannot maintain the industrial base it needs for national security, neither can a nation long survive if it cannot produce its own food.  Presidential Policy Directive 21 of February 12, 2013 (Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience), designates food and agriculture as a “critical infrastructure sector” because it is one of the sectors considered “so vital to the United States that [its] incapacity or destruction . . . would have a debilitating impact on security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or any combination of those matters.”  Furthermore, when I left office, the United States had a trade surplus in agricultural products, but today, that surplus has vanished.  Eviscerated by a slew of new non-tariff barriers imposed by our trading partners, it has been replaced by a projected $49 billion annual agricultural trade deficit. For these reasons, I hereby declare and order:

    Section 1.  National Emergency.  As President of the United States, my highest duty is ensuring the national and economic security of the country and its citizens.  

    I have declared a national emergency arising from conditions reflected in large and persistent annual U.S. goods trade deficits, which have grown by over 40 percent in the past 5 years alone, reaching $1.2 trillion in 2024.  This trade deficit reflects asymmetries in trade relationships that have contributed to the atrophy of domestic production capacity, especially that of the U.S. manufacturing and defense-industrial base.  These asymmetries also impact U.S. producers’ ability to export and, consequentially, their incentive to produce. 
    Specifically, such asymmetry includes not only non-reciprocal differences in tariff rates among foreign trading partners, but also extensive use of non-tariff barriers by foreign trading partners, which reduce the competitiveness of U.S. exports while artificially enhancing the competitiveness of their own goods.  These non-tariff barriers include technical barriers to trade; non-scientific sanitary and phytosanitary rules; inadequate intellectual property protections; suppressed domestic consumption (e.g., wage suppression); weak labor, environmental, and other regulatory standards and protections; and corruption.  These non-tariff barriers give rise to significant imbalances even when the United States and a trading partner have comparable tariff rates. 

    The cumulative effect of these imbalances has been the transfer of resources from domestic producers to foreign firms, reducing opportunities for domestic manufacturers to expand and, in turn, leading to lost manufacturing jobs, diminished manufacturing capacity, and an atrophied industrial base, including in the defense-industrial sector.  At the same time, foreign firms are better positioned to scale production, reinvest in innovation, and compete in the global economy, to the detriment of U.S. economic and national security.  
    The absence of sufficient domestic manufacturing capacity in certain critical and advanced industrial sectors — another outcome of the large and persistent annual U.S. goods trade deficits — also compromises U.S. economic and national security by rendering the U.S. economy less resilient to supply chain disruption.  Finally, the large, persistent annual U.S. goods trade deficits, and the concomitant loss of industrial capacity, have compromised military readiness; this vulnerability can only be redressed through swift corrective action to rebalance the flow of imports into the United States.  Such impact upon military readiness and our national security posture is especially acute with the recent rise in armed conflicts abroad.  I call upon the public and private sector to make the efforts necessary to strengthen the international economic position of the United States.  

    Sec. 2.  Reciprocal Tariff Policy.  It is the policy of the United States to rebalance global trade flows by imposing an additional ad valorem duty on all imports from all trading partners except as otherwise provided herein.  The additional ad valorem duty on all imports from all trading partners shall start at 10 percent and shortly thereafter, the additional ad valorem duty shall increase for trading partners enumerated in Annex I to this order at the rates set forth in Annex I to this order.  These additional ad valorem duties shall apply until such time as I determine that the underlying conditions described above are satisfied, resolved, or mitigated.   

    Sec. 3.  Implementation.  (a)  Except as otherwise provided in this order, all articles imported into the customs territory of the United States shall be, consistent with law, subject to an additional ad valorem rate of duty of 10 percent.  Such rates of duty shall apply with respect to goods entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on April 5, 2025, except that goods loaded onto a vessel at the port of loading and in transit on the final mode of transit before 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on April 5, 2025, and entered for consumption or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption after 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on April 5, 2025, shall not be subject to such additional duty.  

    Furthermore, except as otherwise provided in this order, at 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on April 9, 2025, all articles from trading partners enumerated in Annex I to this order imported into the customs territory of the United States shall be, consistent with law, subject to the country-specific ad valorem rates of duty specified in Annex I to this order.  Such rates of duty shall apply with respect to goods entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on April 9, 2025, except that goods loaded onto a vessel at the port of loading and in transit on the final mode of transit before 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on April 9, 2025, and entered for consumption or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption after 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on April 9, 2025, shall not be subject to these country-specific ad valorem rates of duty set forth in Annex I to this order.  These country-specific ad valorem rates of duty shall apply to all articles imported pursuant to the terms of all existing U.S. trade agreements, except as provided below. 

    (b)  The following goods as set forth in Annex II to this order, consistent with law, shall not be subject to the ad valorem rates of duty under this order:  (i) all articles that are encompassed by 50 U.S.C. 1702(b); (ii) all articles and derivatives of steel and aluminum subject to the duties imposed pursuant to section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and proclaimed in Proclamation 9704 of March 8, 2018 (Adjusting Imports of Aluminum Into the United States), as amended, Proclamation 9705 of March 8, 2018 (Adjusting Imports of Steel Into the United States), as amended, and Proclamation 9980 of January 24, 2020 (Adjusting Imports of Derivative Aluminum Articles and Derivative Steel Articles Into the United States), as amended, Proclamation 10895 of February 10, 2025 (Adjusting Imports of Aluminum Into the United States), and Proclamation 10896 of February 10, 2025 (Adjusting Imports of Steel into the United States); (iii) all automobiles and automotive parts subject to the additional duties imposed pursuant to section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended, and proclaimed in Proclamation 10908 of March 26, 2025 (Adjusting Imports of Automobiles and Automobile Parts Into the United States); (iv) other products enumerated in Annex II to this order, including copper, pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, lumber articles, certain critical minerals, and energy and energy products; (v) all articles from a trading partner subject to the rates set forth in Column 2 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS); and (vi) all articles that may become subject to duties pursuant to future actions under section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962.

    (c)  The rates of duty established by this order are in addition to any other duties, fees, taxes, exactions, or charges applicable to such imported articles, except as provided in subsections (d) and (e) of this section below. 

    (d)  With respect to articles from Canada, I have imposed additional duties on certain goods to address a national emergency resulting from the flow of illicit drugs across our northern border pursuant to Executive Order 14193 of February 1, 2025 (Imposing Duties To Address the Flow of Illicit Drugs Across Our Northern Border), as amended by Executive Order 14197 of February 3, 2025 (Progress on the Situation at Our Northern Border), and Executive Order 14231 of March 2, 2025 (Amendment to Duties To Address the Flow of Illicit Drugs Across Our Northern Border).  With respect to articles from Mexico, I have imposed additional duties on certain goods to address a national emergency resulting from the flow of illicit drugs and illegal migration across our southern border pursuant to Executive Order 14194 of February 1, 2025 (Imposing Duties To Address the Situation at Our Southern Border), as amended by Executive Order 14198 of February 3, 2025 (Progress on the Situation at Our Southern Border), and Executive Order 14227 of March 2, 2025 (Amendment to Duties To Address the Situation at Our Southern Border).  As a result of these border emergency tariff actions, all goods of Canada or Mexico under the terms of general note 11 to the HTSUS, including any treatment set forth in subchapter XXIII of chapter 98 and subchapter XXII of chapter 99 of the HTSUS, as related to the Agreement between the United States of America, United Mexican States, and Canada (USMCA), continue to be eligible to enter the U.S. market under these preferential terms.  However, all goods of Canada or Mexico that do not qualify as originating under USMCA are presently subject to additional ad valorem duties of 25 percent, with energy or energy resources and potash imported from Canada and not qualifying as originating under USMCA presently subject to the lower additional ad valorem duty of 10 percent.  

    (e)  Any ad valorem rate of duty on articles imported from Canada or Mexico under the terms of this order shall not apply in addition to the ad valorem rate of duty specified by the existing orders described in subsection (d) of this section.  If such orders identified in subsection (d) of this section are terminated or suspended, all items of Canada and Mexico that qualify as originating under USMCA shall not be subject to an additional ad valorem rate of duty, while articles not qualifying as originating under USMCA shall be subject to an ad valorem rate of duty of 12 percent.  However, these ad valorem rates of duty on articles imported from Canada and Mexico shall not apply to energy or energy resources, to potash, or to an article eligible for duty-free treatment under USMCA that is a part or component of an article substantially finished in the United States. 

    (f)  More generally, the ad valorem rates of duty set forth in this order shall apply only to the non-U.S. content of a subject article, provided at least 20 percent of the value of the subject article is U.S. originating.  For the purposes of this subsection, “U.S. content” refers to the value of an article attributable to the components produced entirely, or substantially transformed in, the United States.  U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), to the extent permitted by law, is authorized to require the collection of such information and documentation regarding an imported article, including with the entry filing, as is necessary to enable CBP to ascertain and verify the value of the U.S. content of the article, as well as to ascertain and verify whether an article is substantially finished in the United States. 

    (g)  Subject articles, except those eligible for admission under “domestic status” as defined in 19 CFR 146.43, which are subject to the duty specified in section 2 of this order and are admitted into a foreign trade zone on or after 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on April 9, 2025, must be admitted as “privileged foreign status” as defined in 19 CFR 146.41. 

    (h)  Duty-free de minimis treatment under 19 U.S.C. 1321(a)(2)(A)-(B) shall remain available for the articles described in subsection (a) of this section.  Duty-free de minimis treatment under 19 U.S.C. 1321(a)(2)(C) shall remain available for the articles described in subsection (a) of this section until notification by the Secretary of Commerce to the President that adequate systems are in place to fully and expeditiously process and collect duty revenue applicable pursuant to this subsection for articles otherwise eligible for de minimis treatment.  After such notification, duty-free de minimis treatment under 19 U.S.C. 1321(a)(2)(C) shall not be available for the articles described in subsection (a) of this section.  

    (i)  The Executive Order of April 2, 2025 (Further Amendment to Duties Addressing the Synthetic Opioid Supply Chain in the People’s Republic of China as Applied to Low-Value Imports), regarding low-value imports from China is not affected by this order, and all duties and fees with respect to covered articles shall be collected as required and detailed therein.

    (j)  To reduce the risk of transshipment and evasion, all ad valorem rates of duty imposed by this order or any successor orders with respect to articles of China shall apply equally to articles of both the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and the Macau Special Administrative Region.

    (k)  In order to establish the duty rates described in this order, the HTSUS is modified as set forth in the Annexes to this order.  These modifications shall enter into effect on the dates set forth in the Annexes to this order.

    (l)  Unless specifically noted herein, any prior Presidential Proclamation, Executive Order, or other Presidential directive or guidance related to trade with foreign trading partners that is inconsistent with the direction in this order is hereby terminated, suspended, or modified to the extent necessary to give full effect to this order.

    Sec. 4.  Modification Authority.  (a)  The Secretary of Commerce and the United States Trade Representative, in consultation with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, the Senior Counselor for Trade and Manufacturing, and the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, shall recommend to me additional action, if necessary, if this action is not effective in resolving the emergency conditions described above, including the increase in the overall trade deficit or the recent expansion of non-reciprocal trade arrangements by U.S. trading partners in a manner that threatens the economic and national security interests of the United States. 

    (b)  Should any trading partner retaliate against the United States in response to this action through import duties on U.S. exports or other measures, I may further modify the HTSUS to increase or expand in scope the duties imposed under this order to ensure the efficacy of this action. 

    (c)  Should any trading partner take significant steps to remedy non-reciprocal trade arrangements and align sufficiently with the United States on economic and national security matters, I may further modify the HTSUS to decrease or limit in scope the duties imposed under this order.

    (d)  Should U.S. manufacturing capacity and output continue to worsen, I may further modify the HTSUS to increase duties under this order.

    Sec. 5.  Implementation Authority.  The Secretary of Commerce and the United States Trade Representative, in consultation with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, the Senior Counselor for Trade and Manufacturing, the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, and the Chair of the International Trade Commission are hereby authorized to employ all powers granted to the President by IEEPA as may be necessary to implement this order.  Each executive department and agency shall take all appropriate measures within its authority to implement this order.

    Sec. 6.  Reporting Requirements.  The United States Trade Representative, in consultation with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, the Senior Counselor for Trade and Manufacturing, and the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, is hereby authorized to submit recurring and final reports to the Congress on the national emergency declared in this order, consistent with section 401(c) of the NEA (50 U.S.C. 1641(c)) and section 204(c) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1703(c)).

    Sec. 7.  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, 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 2, 2025.

    MIL OSI USA News