Author

admin

Browsing

The House Oversight Committee says it will subpoena top Biden family aide, Anthony Bernal, after the committee said he refused to testify as part of their investigation into former President Biden’s mental acuity and his use of an automatic signature tool that allowed aides to sign pardons, memos and other important documents on Biden’s behalf. 

‘Jill Biden’s longtime aide Anthony Bernal is DEFYING Congress and REFUSING to testify tomorrow about Joe Biden’s cognitive decline after the White House waived his executive privilege,’ the committee posted on X Wednesday after Bernal was expected to testify on Thursday morning.

‘He’s running scared. The cover-up is collapsing. We will subpoena him immediately.’

By proxy, as the first lady’s top aide, Bernal became one of the most influential people in the White House, according to recent reports, and he was expected to face tough questions about what he knew and when he knew about Biden’s mental decline.

‘No one spent more time, whether it was in the motorcade, on the plane, in the private residence at the White House, Camp David, and at both houses in Delaware, nobody spent more personal time around them and their family and the Biden family than Anthony,’ Democratic strategist Michael LaRosa, who served as press secretary to former first lady Jill Biden, told Fox News Digital. 

LaRosa told Fox News Digital that Bernal, former special assistant to Biden and deputy director of Oval Office Operations, was an ‘indispensable’ part of the Biden team whose top priority was ‘protecting the Bidens,’ even if it was politically harmful due to a ‘personal and emotional attachment’ that became more of a familial relationship than a professional one. 

Fox News Digital previously reported on how the book ‘Original Sin,’ by CNN anchor Jake Tapper and Axios political correspondent Alex Thompson, described Bernal as one of the most influential people in the White House who wielded loyalty as a weapon to weed out the defectors.

During the pandemic, Biden traded the campaign trail for lockdown. Bernal and Annie Tomasini, who is expected to testify next month, found their way into Joe and Jill Biden’s pod, shifting the power dynamic of Biden’s so-called ‘Politiburo,’ the group of advisors who steered Biden’s political orbit, the book explained. 

‘The significance of Bernal and Tomasini is the degree to which their rise in the Biden White House signaled the success of people whose allegiance was to the Biden family – not to the presidency, not to the American people, not to the country, but to the Biden theology,’ the authors wrote. 

‘Their instincts, to hide the ball on often frivolous issues is what ultimately got them in trouble,’ LaRosa told Fox News Digital about the ‘bunker mentality’ from Bernal and other aides around Biden. 

‘Their reflexive need to hide and protect was a deficiency and a blind spot and I never understood it.’

A former White House staffer fired back against Tapper and Thompson’s allegations about Bernal in a statement to Fox News Digital earlier this year.

‘A lot of vignettes in this book are either false, exaggerated, or purposefully omit viewpoints that don’t fit the narrative they want to push. Anthony was a strong leader with high standards and a mentor to many. He’s the type of person you want on a team – he’s incredibly strategic, effective, and cares deeply about the people he manages,’ the former White House staffer said. 

Politico reported in 2021 that Bernal’s management style was viewed by some as ‘toxic’ and would sometimes lead to crying staffers. 

LaRosa told Fox News Digital that Bernal has a ‘big heart’ but acknowledged he was one of the more ‘challenging’ people he had to work with. 

Bernal’s appearance before the committee, if it happens, follows testimony from former Biden aide Neera Tanden, who said she was authorized to direct autopen signatures but was unaware of who in the president’s inner circle was giving her final clearance.

When Tanden was asked whether she ever discussed Biden’s health or his fitness to serve as president during her time as a top aide, including during the period of the former president’s widely criticized debate performance last summer, Tanden said she did not. Lawmakers laid out a list of names of officials she could have potentially discussed it with, and Tanden said ‘no’ to each name, according to a source familiar with her closed-door testimony. 

Fox News Digital’s Liz Elkind, Alec Schemmel and Deirdre Heavey contributed to this report.


This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Mossad Director David Barnea thanked the men and women working for the agency after the success of Israel’s Operation Rising Lion. He also expressed his appreciation to the U.S. — particularly the C.I.A. — for their work in countering Iran’s nuclear program.

‘These are historic days for the people of Israel. The Iranian threat, which endangered our security for decades, has been significantly thwarted thanks to the extraordinary cooperation between the IDF, which led the campaign, and the Mossad, which operated alongside it, with the support of our ally, the United States,’ Barnea said.

The Mossad, Israel’s equivalent of the C.I.A., had personnel in Iran ready for the launch of Operation Rising Lion, something that was revealed in unprecedented fashion when the agency released video of its operatives at work.

Ahead of the U.S. strikes in the early hours of Sunday morning, Iran time, there was speculation whether Washington and Jerusalem were coordinating. President Donald Trump made it clear after the strikes that he and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had been working together behind the scenes.

‘I want to thank and congratulate Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu. We worked as a team — like perhaps no team has ever worked before — and we’ve gone a long way to erasing this horrible threat to Israel,’ Trump said in his address to the nation following the strikes on Iran.

While Barnea expressed his gratitude to Israeli and American forces alike, he also said that ‘the mission is not yet complete.’

‘The Mossad will continue, with determination, to monitor, track, and act to thwart the threats against us—just as we always have—for the sake of the State of Israel and its people,’ Barnea said.

Iran’s nuclear chief, Mohammad Eslami, said on Tuesday that the country was assessing the damage and preparing to restore the facilities, according to Reuters. He added that Iran’s ‘plan is to prevent interruptions in the process of production and services.’

Both Trump and Netanyahu vowed to respond if Iran rebuilds its nuclear program.


This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

President Donald Trump’s on-again, off-again feud with Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell has market observers apprehensive. Economists, policymakers, businessmen, and commentators are worried about growing threats to the Fed’s independence. If elected officials unduly influence the Fed, the conventional wisdom goes, rising inflation and financial-sector turbulence will surely follow.

America’s central bank is arguably the government’s most powerful and respected agency. For decades it has been relatively insulated from the rough-and-tumble realities of politics. Trump’s badgering of Powell for interest rate cuts transgresses an informal yet fundamental norm of public life. Fed decisions are supposed to be guided by disinterested experts, not demagogic politicians.

But does central bank independence deserve the near-unanimous respect it currently enjoys? There are reasons to be skeptical. Recent scholarship on central bank independence suggests a more nuanced view than the one adopted by the popular and financial press. And in the United States, central bank independence is legally questionable at best, and unconstitutional at worst. We have good reasons to question the feasibility and desirability of central bank independence.

In my new AIER Explainer on central bank independence, I discuss the theory and history behind this tricky concept. I go over the arguments for and against central bank independence, survey important works of scholarship on the topic, and consider the legal and constitutional standing of the Fed. 

The case for central bank independence seems obvious. Rather than hand the reins of monetary policy to politicians, it is better to entrust them to experts and technocrats, who by design are unanswerable to politics. This is supposed to guarantee monetary policymakers are disinterested.

The vast majority of economists think it is a good thing the Fed has a wide berth to operate. And while they acknowledge the Fed’s legal accountability to Congress, they are pleased Congress has been unwilling to specify narrower and more observable goals than “full” employment, “stable” prices, and “moderate” interest rates. 

There is a plausible link in economic theory between central bank independence and good macroeconomic outcomes, such as low and stable inflation. Come election season, politicians have an incentive to run the printing presses to make themselves look better. Bureaucrats, who aren’t elected, don’t. Hence the public and its representatives might rationally choose to remove this specific power (monetary policy) from elected officials’ hands.

It is a compelling argument. But it has several weak spots. Both scholarly investigations and legal realities complicate the triumphalist narrative of central bank independence.

While classic studies of central bank independence find a strong link between political protections for central bankers and low, predictable inflation, more recent scholarship is mixed. As I detail in the Explainer, many of the desirable economic outcomes we associate with an independent central bank are plausibly attributable to strong background commitments to constitutionalism and the rule of law. Good political institutions and a strong civic culture, rather than tenure for monetary technocrats, is how we get good economic outcomes.

As for the law, the US Constitution (art. I, § 8, cl. 5) is quite clear: Congress controls monetary policy. Whatever authority Congress gives to the Fed is not the Fed’s by right. It is a delegation. As I note in the Explainer, “The Fed’s operational independence de facto depends on Congress’s continued goodwill. Congress controls the Fed de jure and can intervene at any time to restrict goal, instrument, financial, or personnel independence.”

A totally independent central bank would violate our commitments to democratic self-governance. Although Congress has often been reluctant to discipline Fed officials, the fact remains that the legislature has the first and last word. Given the Fed’s rather poor performance since 2008 — a global financial crisis, a laboriously slow recovery, and recent sky-high inflation — it’s past time for Congress to act.

Rather than chase the mirage of independence, we should find ways to make Congressional oversight of the Fed more productive. There are many ways legislators could increase central banker accountability without politicizing the central bank. Congress could specify a more concrete monetary policy target for the Fed, put it on appropriations for non-monetary policy duties, change the conditions of continuing service for premier Fed officers, or make a host of other changes to promote responsible behavior. Let us not forget that a mere three years ago, the Fed allowed inflation to reach 9 percent, in clear violation of its price stability mandate. As of this writing, nobody at the Fed has been subject to any professional consequences for this monumental error.

It’s time to put the myths of central bank independence behind us. That includes the boogeyman of politicized monetary policy. Just because Congress can and should discipline the Fed doesn’t mean we want the House Financial Services Committee making interest rate decisions. That’s a false alternative. Instead, Congress must draw up a better framework for our central bank and make sure those who run it do their jobs.

Download the Explainer: What is Central Bank Independence?

The teachers unions, led by figures like Chicago Teachers Union (CTU) president Stacy Davis Gates, believe they own your children, and they’re not shy about admitting it. Their fierce resistance to school choice and their brazen claims over the minds of America’s youth reveal a chilling agenda.  

They don’t just want a monopoly on education funding — they want control over the hearts and minds of nearly 50 million students. But the Supreme Court has long affirmed that parents, not unions or the state, hold the fundamental right to direct their children’s upbringing, a principle that exposes the unions’ overreach as an assault on liberty. 

This week, Gates’ hubris was on full display at the City Club of Chicago, where she declared, “The children are always ours. Every single one of them. All over the globe.” She admitted her critics are right when they say her union believes it owns the children in public schools.  

This moment wasn’t a gaffe — it was a confession. Last year, she led a CTU rally chant: “Whose children? Our children!” Vice President Kamala Harris, whom Gates supported in her presidential run, echoed this socialist sentiment in 2022: “When you see our kids, and I truly believe that they are our children, they are the children of our country, of our communities.”  

As bestselling author Michael Malice put it, “Socialists regard your property as their property, but even more nefariously regard your children as their property.” 

The irony is glaring: if the CTU were a parent, it would lose custody for educational neglect and abuse, given the catastrophic failure of Chicago’s public schools. 

In 2023, data revealed that 55 Chicago Public Schools had zero students proficient in either math or reading. Zero. If a parent allowed their child to languish in such an environment, child protective services would intervene. Yet Gates has the audacity to claim these children “belong” to her union, as if their abysmal outcomes are a point of pride rather than a damning indictment.  

The CTU’s fight against school choice exposes their true motives: not to educate, but to control. They work to trap other people’s children in failing government schools, not out of faith in those schools, but to maintain a monopoly on funding and, more sinisterly, on the minds of students for 13 years, seven hours a day. The more kids they keep captive, the more money they can funnel to far-left political agendas and Democratic campaign coffers.  

In 2023, the CTU fought to kill the Invest in Kids Act, an Illinois scholarship program that gave thousands of low-income students access to better schools. Every child who escapes their grip threatens their power. 

The Supreme Court has consistently rejected this kind of authoritarianism. In Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925), the Court struck down an Oregon law that banned private education to enforce ideological conformity, declaring, “The child is not the mere creature of the State.” This landmark ruling affirmed that parents have a fundamental right to direct their children’s education and upbringing.  

Similarly, Meyer v. Nebraska (1923) overturned a state law prohibiting foreign language instruction in schools, protecting parents’ rights to choose educational content that aligns with their values. In Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972), the Court exempted Amish families from compulsory schooling laws, upholding their right to educate their children according to their religious beliefs. These precedents make clear that children belong to their parents, not to unions or government bureaucrats. Yet the CTU’s rhetoric and actions defy this settled law, treating students as pawns in an ideological crusade. 

The hypocrisy is galling. Gates, who claims public school children “belong” to her union, sends her own son to a private Catholic school. She once called school choice “racist” — before her personal choices were exposed. This double standard is the union playbook: control your kids while opting out for their own. Meanwhile, Illinois Democrats, allied with the unions, pushed to regulate homeschooling in 2025. Their bill, which passed out of committee on a party-line vote despite over 40,000 registered opponents, aimed to curb parents’ freedom to educate their children independently. Though the bill died, the message was unmistakable: the war on parental rights continues. 

Gates can wield such uncontrolled influence because the CTU is a public sector union, a structure even Franklin D. Roosevelt warned against. Unlike private sector unions, public sector unions like the CTU bargain with government entities funded by taxpayers, using taxpayer dollars — collected through mandatory dues — to lobby against the public’s interests. And if you don’t like it, your kids are held hostage without an escape hatch. 

Emboldened by decades of unchecked power, unions now say the quiet part out loud. But their arrogance is backfiring — it’s free advertising for school choice and homeschooling. Parents are awakening to the reality that unions see their children as political tools, not individuals with unique needs. The Pierce, Meyer, and Yoder rulings remind us that the state — and by extension, its union surrogates — has no claim over our kids. The CTU’s claim of ownership is particularly hollow when 55 of its schools produce zero proficient students, a failure that would disqualify any parent from custody. 

A school choice revolution is already underway. Over the past four years, 17 red states have embraced universal school choice policies, empowering parents to direct education funding to schools or programs that fit their children’s needs. These states understand that dollars should follow students, not prop up failing systems. The Educational Choice for Children Act, included in the Big Beautiful Bill, will supercharge this movement, expanding opportunities in blue states like Illinois, where unions and their allies have stifled families’ options. 

The stakes are immense. Teachers unions aren’t just fighting for funding — they’re battling for ideological dominance. They’ve infiltrated public schools, turning them into machines for shaping the country’s future without raising children of their own. By trapping kids in unionized schools — especially those where zero students meet basic proficiency — they secure both funds and influence to push their agenda.  

But parents aren’t powerless. School choice, backed by Supreme Court precedent, is the key to breaking this monopoly. 

Gates’ chutzpah should rally every parent and citizen who values liberty. The unions’ claim over “our children,” coupled with their educational failures, violates the principle, enshrined in Pierce, that children are not the state’s property.  

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, and the unions will keep targeting homeschoolers, private school families, and anyone who defies their control. It’s time to unleash school choice nationwide and free families from the depraved clutches of the teachers unions once and for all.

In game theory, a “first-mover advantage” gives the opening player the power to set the rules of engagement. President Donald Trump built much of his political brand — and his Art of the Deal persona — on this idea: act big, set the tone, make others play defense. The strategy is simple: push hard up front, frame the deal, and only backtrack if necessary. It’s a tactic that can yield results in business, where individual stakes are limited and profit-and-loss signals keep players accountable.

But politics and governance aren’t business transactions. They’re repeated, dynamic games with millions of stakeholders, unclear incentives, and no bottom-line feedback. In this setting, the first-mover tactic, combined with erratic unpredictability, doesn’t create leverage — it creates dysfunction.

As Trump himself recently said on the White House lawn:

“I may do it… I may not do it. I mean, nobody knows what I’m going to do.”

That kind of uncertainty may work in a poker game — but it’s catastrophic for the economy. It undermines trust, destabilizes markets, and delays investment. And we’ve seen the consequences of this “nobody knows” governing style play out across nearly every major policy initiative — from trade and taxes to tariffs and pandemics.

Strategic Blunders in Economic Policy

Take trade policy. The United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA) didn’t improve on NAFTA — it layered on more restrictions, mandates, and regulatory hurdles, making trade less free. It imposed stricter rules of origin, weakened investor protections, and made regional auto manufacturing more expensive. Rather than liberalizing trade, it entrenched protectionism under a new name.

Meanwhile, Trump’s tariffs are one of the largest tax increases on Americans. The Tax Foundation estimated that US tariffs imposed from 2018–2020 raised tax revenues by over $80 billion annually and increased consumer costs by an average of $1,277 per household. Retaliatory tariffs from China, the EU, and others directly harmed US exporters, especially in agriculture and manufacturing.

Even the widely publicized “Phase One” trade deal with China fell short. China failed to meet its purchase commitments, and the structural reforms promised — on intellectual property theft and forced technology transfers — never materialized. Strategic ambiguity resulted in economic underperformance.

Uncertainty Is a Tax on Growth

In economics, uncertainty acts like a tax on business decisions. Research shows that policy uncertainty reduces private investment, hiring, and innovation. The Hoover Institution noted that by 2019, Trump’s trade war and erratic regulatory threats were already slowing business investment before COVID hit.

Tax reform followed the same chaotic path. The 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) made some positive moves — cutting the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent, doubling the standard deduction, and improving full expensing. But it was undermined by temporary provisions and a lack of spending restraint. The Manhattan Institute found that despite strong pre-COVID growth, the Trump administration added $4.7 trillion to the national debt, including $3.9 trillion in new borrowing from legislation signed into law. 

Why? As I found while working at the White House then, sending fiscal progressives like Steven Mnuchin to negotiate massive spending bills was a mistake. At the White House Office of Management and Budget, we saw how Mnuchin consistently prioritized deal-making over fiscal discipline — resulting in bloated omnibus bills and exploding deficits.

Pandemic Panic and Government Overreach

COVID-19 response amplified these failures. What began as “15 days to slow the spread” became 15 months of federal overreach, lockdowns, and more than $5 trillion in COVID-related spending. Much of it — like enhanced unemployment benefits and state bailouts — was extended long after the emergency faded.

This was not a market correction. It was a government overreaction to previous government failures. The Congressional Budget Office reported that federal spending reached 31 percent of GDP in 2020 — exceeding even World War II levels as a share of the economy. That’s not “stimulus” — it’s control.

The Wrong Game, the Wrong Incentives

In business, unpredictability might create bargaining power. In government, it creates instability. That’s because public policy affects long-term decisions across millions of households and firms. Public choice theory explains how politicians often respond to the wrong incentives — seeking short-term wins instead of long-term outcomes.

We saw it with proposals to block Nippon Steel’s acquisition of U.S. Steel. It’s a private deal, but political posturing — under both Trump and Biden — has turned it into a nationalist spectacle. It’s great that Trump recently approved it, but not after making it politically-charged, more restrictive, and an agreement that presidents shouldn’t get involved in. Likewise, new tariffs on $18 billion in Chinese imports will raise prices, reduce output, not solve perceived trade problems, and be a drag on other pro-growth efforts by Trump.

The outcome? Higher costs. More uncertainty. Less investment. Slower growth.

The Way Forward: Economic Freedom Over Erratic Power

There’s still time to get it right. The presidency is a powerful platform — but it should be used to unleash markets, not micromanage them. That starts with credible first moves that restore fiscal sanity, reduce tax burdens, lift regulatory burdens, and build trust through policy stability.

We should learn from bold reformers like Argentina’s Javier Milei, who are shrinking government and restoring trust in free markets. In the US, we have the tools — we just lack the direction and leadership to a brighter future.

What America needs isn’t another flawed deal. It needs a direction rooted in liberty, stability, and prosperity. As I often say, let people prosper. That’s the real art of leadership.

One of the sharpest copper supply crunches in recent memory is rattling global commodities markets, as inventories at the London Metal Exchange (LME) plummet and the spot price soars.

Bloomberg reported that as of Monday (June 23), copper for immediate delivery was trading at a premium of US$345 per metric ton over three month futures, the widest spread since a record squeeze in 2021.

That dramatic price divergence reflects the market’s acute concerns over access to physical copper, with readily available inventories on the LME falling by around 80 percent this year alone.

Available stockpiles now cover less than a single day of global demand, amplifying anxiety across the supply chain.

Historic backwardation signals market distress

Backwardation in metals markets typically suggests that buyers are scrambling to obtain physical supply. In copper’s case, a combination of logistical, geopolitical and structural forces is driving the surge.

LME stockpiles have been rapidly drawn down as traders and manufacturers shift metal to the US in anticipation of potential trade barriers, spurred by US President Donald Trump’s tariff moves.

That migration has created acute shortages in Europe and Asia. Chinese smelters, responding to the price premium and slackening domestic demand, have begun exporting surplus copper to global markets. Yet those flows have not kept pace with the drawdowns, and China’s own inventories have also dwindled.

The LME had hoped recent regulatory interventions would prevent another disorderly squeeze like the one that disrupted the nickel market in 2022. Last week, the exchange enacted new rules mandating that traders with large front-month positions offer to lend those holdings if they exceed available inventories.

The so-called “front-month lending rule” is meant to discourage hoarding and promote liquidity.

However, recent copper trading data suggest that no single trader is behind the current squeeze. On Monday, the Tom/next spread — a one day lending rate — spiked to US$69 per metric ton.

This would only occur if no one entity held enough copper to trigger lending obligations under the new rules, indicating the tightness is likely the result of broad-based market dynamics rather than manipulation.

LME tightens oversight

As mentioned, the LME has begun cracking down on oversized positions across its metals complex.

In a June 20 statement, the exchange introduced a temporary, market-wide rule to manage large front-month exposures. Under the updated rules, traders holding positions in the front-month contract for a metal that exceed the total available exchange inventories — excluding any stock they already own — must offer to lend those positions at “level,” meaning they are required to roll them over to the next month at the same price.

The rule aims to rein in aggressive moves by commodities trading houses that have made deep inroads into metals markets over the past year. The LME emphasized in its release that recent market interventions are targeted, adding that the newly introduced rule offers a standardized approach.

Still, the unprecedented depth of copper’s backwardation — now extending years into the future — suggests that broader supply/demand dynamics are at play, beyond what position limits alone can control.

For manufacturers and industrial users, the squeeze presents a serious cost and planning risk. Many rely on the LME as a pricing and hedging mechanism. But when exchange inventories drop this low, even large players can face trouble sourcing metal to meet contract obligations. With exchange-based supply nearly exhausted, companies may increasingly turn to off-market deals or bilateral supply agreements — often at higher prices.

This shift weakens the LME’s role as a central clearinghouse for global copper, and raises questions about its ability to handle future shocks, especially as energy transition policies boost long-term demand for the metal.

Market watchers will also be looking to the next moves from Chinese exporters, US trade policy under Trump and the LME’s enforcement of its new regulations.

Securities Disclosure: I, Giann Liguid, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

Cobalt prices are surging after the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), the world’s largest producer, extended its export ban by three months in a bid to address global oversupply and stabilize plunging prices.

According to the Financial Times, cobalt prices on China’s Wuxi Stainless Steel Exchange rose nearly 10 percent after the DRC government announced the news over the weekend.

The ban — originally set to expire on Monday (June 23) — will now remain in effect until at least September.

The DRC’s Strategic Mineral Substances Market Regulation and Control Authority (ARECOMS) said the extension was necessary “due to the continued high level of stock on the market.”

The ban, first imposed in February of this year, was initially slated to last four months.

It came after a prolonged slump in cobalt prices, which have plummeted approximately 60 percent over the past three years, reaching a nine year low of US$10 per pound earlier this year.

The DRC produced 72 percent of the global cobalt mine supply in 2024, as per market intelligence firm Project Blue.

The export halt has already begun to ripple through international markets. In China, where most of the world’s cobalt is refined, prices for the metal and related company stocks spiked.

‘We are likely to see an initial price spike, but real pressure will be later in the year as intermediate stocks begin to dry up,’ Thomas Matthews, a battery materials analyst at CRU Group, told Bloomberg. ‘In short, strap yourselves in.’

The government of the DRC is attempting to tackle a persistent supply glut that has undermined the cobalt market since 2022. By curbing exports, Kinshasa is aiming to drive up prices, thereby increasing revenues from royalties and taxes on mining companies, while also incentivizing further investment in its domestic mining infrastructure.

ARECOMS said that a follow-up decision will be made before the new deadline in September, signaling that the ban could be modified, extended or lifted depending on market developments.

Reuters reported last week that Congolese officials are also exploring a quota-based system for cobalt exports, which would allow selected volumes to leave the country while still exerting downward pressure on global supply.

The proposal has garnered support from major industry players.

Glencore (LSE:GLEN,OTC Pink:GLCNF), the world’s second largest cobalt producer and a key stakeholder in Congolese mining operations, is backing the potential quota system. The Swiss trader declared force majeure on some of its cobalt supply contracts earlier this year due to the export restrictions, citing exceptional circumstances. Nevertheless, Glencore has managed to fulfill its obligations so far, thanks to pre-existing cobalt stockpiles located outside the DRC.

By contrast, CMOC Group (OTC Pink:CMCLF,HKEX:3993,SHA:603993), the China-based firm that overtook Glencore as the world’s top cobalt producer in 2024, has been lobbying for the ban’s complete removal.

CMOC, which processes a significant share of Congolese cobalt in China, argues that prolonged supply constraints could jeopardize downstream industries and global battery production.

A race against the clock

Despite initial cushioning from global stockpiles, experts warn that refined cobalt supply may soon run thin.

Transporting cobalt from the landlocked DRC to China’s processing hubs typically takes about 90 days. This means that if shipments do not recommence soon, shortages could begin to materialize in late Q3 or early Q4.

‘Stockpiles of cobalt outside the DR Congo will reach very low levels by the September 21 deadline if nothing else changes,’ Jack Bedder, founder of Project Blue, told the Financial Times.

Cobalt plays a vital role in lithium-ion batteries used in electric vehicles, consumer electronics and renewable energy storage. While many battery makers have begun shifting toward lower-cobalt or cobalt-free chemistries, demand for the metal remains strong — especially for high-performance applications.

Complicating the supply/demand dynamics is the fact that cobalt is often a by-product of copper mining.

With copper prices rebounding sharply — trading around US$9,600 per metric ton this week on the London Metal Exchange — producers have little incentive to curb overall output.

The move to extend the cobalt ban also coincides with the DRC’s recent efforts to assert greater control over its vast mineral wealth. The Central African nation is currently in discussions with the US over a potential minerals partnership aimed at strengthening supply chain security for clean energy technologies.

The export suspension is just the latest in a series of efforts by resource-rich countries to assert more control over key commodities. Similar moves have been seen in Indonesia, which banned nickel ore exports in 2020 to spur domestic processing, and in Chile, where the government is pushing for greater state participation in the lithium sector.

Securities Disclosure: I, Giann Liguid, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

Melbourne, Australia (ABN Newswire) – Lithium Universe Limited (ASX:LU7) (FRA:KU00) (OTCMKTS:LUVSF) is pleased to announce that further to its announcement dated 18 June 2025 (Announcement), it has now settled the first tranche of its placement to sophisticated and professional investors (Tranche 1).

Highlights

– Successful settlement of Tranche 1 of the share placement to sophisticated and professional investors, raising $0.60 million

– Tranche 2 of the placement (subject to shareholder approval) is anticipated to be completed on or around 29 July 2025, raising $1.10 million

Tranche 1 comprised of 150,000,000 fully paid ordinary shares in the capital of the Company (Shares), which have been issued today under the Company’s existing capacity under ASX Listing Rule 7.1 (15% capacity). The Shares under Tranche 1 were issued at a price of A$0.004 per Share, raising A$600,000. In addition, subject to shareholder approval, the Tranche 1 investors will be entitled to one new option for every two Shares subscribed for and issued, expiring 36 months from the date of issue of the options, and an exercise price of $0.008 (Options).

Tranche 2 Placement

As detailed within the Announcement, the placement comprises a second tranche of 275,000,000 Shares at an issue price of A$0.004 per Share, subject to shareholder approval (Tranche 2). Investors under the Tranche 2 placement will also receive a free attaching Option on a 1 for 2 basis, subject to shareholder approval.

The Company will seek shareholder approval at an upcoming general meeting, which is scheduled to be held on or around Wednesday, 23 July 2025.

Cleansing for secondary trading

The Company advises that the Shares issued under Tranche 1 have been issued without disclosure under Part 6D.2 of the Act in reliance on sections 708(8) and 708(11) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act).

In accordance with Section 708A(11) of the Corporations Act 2001, the Company confirms:

– the Shares under Tranche 1 are in a class of securities that are quoted securities;

– the Company lodged a prospectus with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission on 20 June 2025 (Prospectus);

– the Prospectus includes an offer of securities by the Company in the same class as the Shares issued under Tranche 1; and

– the offer under the Prospectus is and was open at the time of issue of the Shares under Tranche 1.

Accordingly, the T1 Placement Shares are eligible for immediate trading without on-sale restrictions.

About Lithium Universe Ltd:  

Lithium Universe Ltd (ASX:LU7) (FRA:KU00) (OTCMKTS:LUVSF), headed by industry trail blazer, Iggy Tan, and the Lithium Universe team has a proven track record of fast-tracking lithium projects, demonstrated by the successful development of the Mt Cattlin spodumene project for Galaxy Resources Limited.

Instead of exploring for the sake of exploration, Lithium Universe’s mission is to quickly obtain a resource and construct a spodumene-producing mine in Quebec, Canada. Unlike many other Lithium exploration companies, Lithium Universe possesses the essential expertise and skills to develop and construct profitable projects.

Source:
Lithium Universe Ltd

Contact:
Iggy Tan
Executive Chairman
Lithium Universe Limited
Email: info@lithiumuniverse.com

News Provided by ABN Newswire via QuoteMedia

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

Anthony Bernal, the former advisor to former first lady Jill Biden, is refusing to appear before the House Oversight Committee to be questioned about the alleged cover-up of former President Joe Biden’s mental decline.

Chair James Comer, R-Ky., said in a press release Tuesday that Bernal was refusing to appear on June 26 for a transcribed interview, as part of the committee’s investigation into the Biden cover-up, and also the potentially unauthorized use of autopen for executive actions and pardons.

‘Now that the White House has waived executive privilege, it’s abundantly clear that Anthony Bernal – Jill Biden’s so-called ‘work husband’ – never intended to be transparent about Joe Biden’s cognitive decline and the ensuing cover-up,’ Comer said. ‘With no privilege left to hide behind, Mr. Bernal is now running scared, desperate to bury the truth. The American people deserve answers and accountability, and the Oversight Committee will not tolerate this obstruction.’

The chairman added that if Bernal does not wish to come on his own, he will issue a subpoena to compel Bernal to provide testimony before the committee.

Letters obtained by Fox News Digital from a source familiar with the matter show the Trump administration will not allow the people of interest in Comer’s probe to use their past White House work as a legal shield.

Deputy Counsel to the President Gary Lawkowski sent the letters to former Biden Chief of Staff Ron Klain, former senior advisors Anita Dunn, Steve Ricchetti, Mike Donilon, Annie Tomasini, Bruce Reed, Ashley Williams and Bernal.

‘In light of the unique and extraordinary nature of the matters under investigation, President Trump has determined that an assertion of executive privilege is not in the national interest, and therefore is not justified, with respect to particular subjects within the purview of the House Oversight Committee,’ the letters said. ‘Those subjects include your assessment of former President Biden’s fitness for the office of the President and your knowledge of who exercised executive powers during his administration.’

Congressional Republicans and the White House are investigating whether the senior Biden aides in question played any role in keeping concerns about the former president’s mental acuity shielded from the public eye and even from lower-level White House staffers.

‘Just yesterday, we heard from our first witness, Neera Tanden, the former Staff Secretary who controlled the Biden autopen,’ Comer said Wednesday. ‘Ms. Tanden testified that she had minimal interaction with President Biden, despite wielding tremendous authority. She explained that to obtain approval for autopen signatures, she would send decision memos to members of the President’s inner circle and had no visibility of what occurred between sending the memo and receiving it back with approval.

‘Her testimony raises serious questions about who was really calling the shots in the Biden White House amid the President’s obvious decline,’ Comer continued. ‘We will continue to pursue the truth for the American people.’

Bernal’s team previously confirmed he would appear for a transcribed interview on June 26, 2025, according to Comer’s office. But yesterday, the White House counsel’s office notified Bernal that it was waiving executive privilege regarding the Oversight Committee’s investigation.

Bernal’s legal team then told the committee he would no longer appear for the interview.

Comer’s team said in the press release that during the last Congress, the chairman subpoenaed three key White House aides, including Bernal, who allegedly ran interference for Biden to cover up his decline.

Despite the subpoenas, the White House under Biden allegedly obstructed the committee’s investigation by refusing to make the aides available for interviews or depositions.

Fox News Digital’s Elizabeth Elkind contributed to this report.


This post appeared first on FOX NEWS