Author

admin

Browsing

After the U.S. seized a tanker carrying Venezuelan crude oil, the shadowy fleet of ‘ghost ships’ used to evade sanctions drifted squarely into President Donald Trump’s crosshairs.

On Dec. 10, Trump announced the seizure of the ‘Skipper,’ a vessel that secretly ferries oil in defiance of sanctions. 

The broader fleet, a clandestine armada of roughly 1,000 tankers, quietly navigates global sea routes to move oil from sanctioned countries like Russia, Iran and Venezuela.

The so-called ‘ghost ships’ sail under foreign flags to obscure their origins, repeatedly change names, shift ownership through shell companies, disable transponders to evade tracking and conduct mid-sea transfers to mask their cargo.

The result is a labyrinthine system of handoffs and disguised voyages.

Benjamin Jensen, who heads the Futures Lab at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the challenge extends well beyond Venezuela.

‘I do think it’s time that the United States and other countries start to address what really is a global problem,’ explained Benjamin Jensen, director of the Futures Lab at the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Jensen said the seizure sends a shock not just to Caracas but to other actors as well. 

‘What we don’t know is how they’re following that up behind the scenes,’ he said, adding that further seizures under Trump are possible.

With Venezuela’s economy tethered almost entirely to oil revenue, he noted that even a single interdiction can have an outsized impact. 

‘Anything you do that puts pressure on their ability to bypass sanctions and trade in oil is a direct threat to the economy and, by extension, the regime,’ he said. 

Meanwhile, the Trump administration has signaled that the seizure of the ‘Skipper’ is only the opening salvo in a new effort to cut off the oil revenues that keep Moscow, Tehran and Caracas afloat.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said Thursday that the vessel is ‘undergoing a forfeiture process.’

‘Right now, the United States currently has a full investigative team on the ground, on the vessel and individuals on board the vessel are being interviewed, and any relevant evidence is being seized,’ Leavitt said, adding that the U.S. will take hold of the oil after the legal process is completed.

The move comes as China continues to be the leading importer of Iranian oil and the second-largest buyer of Russian crude, much of it routed through a growing fleet of nondescript tankers evading U.S. sanctions.

Earlier this year, the 19-year-old crude oil tanker named ‘Eventin’ was seized by German authorities after the ship suffered engine failure in the Baltic Sea. The vessel was previously identified as a ship that exports Russian crude oil and other petroleum products.

German authorities discovered that the Panama-flagged vessel, which was previously named Charvi and Storviken, was carrying 99,000 tons, or approximately $45 million worth, of Russian oil.


This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Real America’s Voice chief White House correspondent Brian Glenn and outgoing Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia revealed that they are engaged.

‘She said ‘yes’’ Glenn wrote in a post on X, adding the ring emoji while sharing a photo of himself with the congresswoman.

Greene shared Glenn’s post and wrote, ‘Happily ever after!!!’ along with a red heart emoji. ‘I love you @brianglenntv!!!’ she added.

‘Congratulations!’ Republican Rep. Warren Davidson of Ohio replied to both of the posts.

GOP Rep. Tim Burchett of Tennessee shared Glenn’s post and wrote, ‘Congratulations! I can perform the ceremony in Tennessee for free.’

Marjorie Taylor Greene tells

After President Donald Trump trashed Greene on Truth Social last month and suggested he would back a primary challenger, the lawmaker announced that she would resign from office, noting that her last day will be January 5.

Greene, who has served in the House of Representatives since 2021, will be leaving office in the middle of her third term.


This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Here’s a quick recap of the crypto landscape for Monday (December 15) as of 9:00 p.m. UTC.

Get the latest insights on Bitcoin, Ether and altcoins, along with a round-up of key cryptocurrency market news.

Bitcoin and Ether price update

Bitcoin (BTC) was priced at US$85,873.25, down by 3 percent over 24 hours.

Bitcoin price performance, December 15, 2025.

Bitcoin price performance, December 15, 2025.

Chart via TradingView.

A bruising bout of weekend volatility pushed Bitcoin to a two week low near US$87,500 amid thin liquidity. Buyers emerged early on Monday to briefly lift prices toward the US$89,500 to 89,700 range, but both DeFi and traditional markets slipped in early trading after Greg Jensen, co-CIO of hedge fund giant Bridgewater Associates, issued a client note warning that Big Tech’s heavy reliance on external capital for artificial intelligence (AI) investments has entered a “dangerous” phase, amplifying AI bubble fears and exacerbating last week’s tech selloff into Monday.

Bitcoin fell to lows around US$85,400, and the global crypto market cap saw a 24 hour decrease of 3.2 percent.

In a post on X, veteran trader Peter Brandt highlighted that Bitcoin’s advance has fractured after failing to hold support following October highs. He warned that this breakdown could trigger “exponential decay” since each bull cycle has yielded smaller gains. Based on historical precedents, Bitcoin could see a drop to US$25,000.

Ether (ETH) was priced at US$2,930.31, down by 5.1 percent over the last 24 hours.

Altcoin price update

  • XRP (XRP) was priced at US$1.89, down by 5.2 percent over 24 hours.
  • Solana (SOL) was trading at US$125.43, down by 3.6 percent over 24 hours.

Crypto derivatives and market indicators

Bitcoin futures open interest rose slightly to US$59.63 billion, while Ether open interest dipped to US$38.2 billion, signaling modest Bitcoin accumulation amid Ether caution.

Heavy long liquidations confirm capitulation selling pressure. Positive funding rates show some bulls hanging on despite pain, but a relative strength index of 27.03 marks extreme fear, historically preceding sharp reversals in crypto.

Elevated Bitcoin funding rates reflect pricier long bias persisting, but decay could accelerate if shorts pile in.

Overall market sentiment skews fearful, with Bitcoin holding firmer than Ether.

Today’s crypto news to know

Strategy expands Bitcoin holdings amid price slump

Michael Saylor’s Strategy (NASDAQ:MSTR) announced on Monday that it has acquired an additional 10,645 BTC for US$980.3 million, paying an average price of $92,098 per coin.

That brings Strategy’s total holdings to 671,268 BTC. “As of 12/14/2025, we hodl 671,268 $BTC acquired for ~$50.33 billion at ~$74,972 per bitcoin,” the company said in an X post.

JPMorgan launches tokenized money market fund

JPMorgan Chase’s (NYSE:JPM) US$4 trillion asset management arm is launching its first tokenized money market fund, the My OnChain Net Yield Fund, on the public Ethereum blockchain. The fund runs on JPMorgan’s Kinexys platform as a private placement under Rule 506(c), targeting institutions via the Morgan Money trading system.

“Active management and innovation are at the heart of how we deliver new solutions for investors navigating today’s financial landscape,” said George Gatch, CEO of JP Morgan Asset Management. “By harnessing technology alongside our deep expertise in active management, we’re able to provide clients with advanced, innovative, and cost-effective capabilities that help them achieve their investment goals.”

Bitget launches TradFi private beta for traditional assets

Monday saw Bitget announce the private beta launch of Bitget TradFi, a new feature enabling crypto users to open bets on traditional assets using the stablecoin USDT. Fees start at US$0.09 per lot.

Positions will be margined and settled in USDT, eliminating the need for separate brokers or currency conversions, with up to 500x leverage, a tight spread and regulation by Mauritius’ Financial Services Commission.

“The shift in wealth management is happening now, assets that were previously only available on certain niche markets are now on Bitget,’ said Gracy Chen, CEO of Bitget, in the company’s announcement

‘This is historic; crypto, stocks, gold, forex and commodities now coexist under a single system. This is what a universal exchange merging wealth management under a roof looks like; it’s now present-day finance.’

UK moves to place crypto firms under full regulation

UK officials are preparing legislation that would move crypto companies fully inside the country’s financial regulatory framework. According to the Guardian, the plan involves putting crypto service providers under regulation like other financial firms, subject to the Financial Conduct Authority’s rules on consumer protection, governance, transparency and market conduct. Treasury officials say the shift is meant to close longstanding gaps as crypto activity becomes more entwined with mainstream finance rather than operating at the regulatory edges.

Legislation is expected by October 2027 to give firms time to adjust to the more demanding compliance environment.

If enacted, the move would mark a structural change for UK-based crypto startups, which until now have largely operated without full product-level regulation.

HashKey prices Hong Kong IPO at top end at US$206 million

HashKey Holdings, Hong Kong’s largest licensed crypto exchange, is set to raise about US$206 million after pricing its initial public offering near the top of its marketed range, according to a source familiar with the deal.

The company priced shares at 6.68 Hong Kong dollars, valuing the exchange operator as it prepares to debut on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange on Wednesday (December 17). HashKey operates across trading, asset management, brokerage and tokenization, and runs the city’s biggest regulated crypto exchange.

While Mainland China continues to warn against crypto speculation, Hong Kong has taken the opposite approach, positioning itself as a regulated gateway for digital finance.

North Korean hackers drain wallets using fake online meetings

North Korean cybercrime groups are using fake Zoom (NASDAQ:ZOOM) and Microsoft (NASDAQ:MSFT) Teams meetings to steal crypto, draining more than US$300 million through the tactic so far, according to security researchers.

According to CryptoNews, the scam typically starts with a message from a compromised Telegram account that appears to belong to someone the victim already knows. Victims are then invited to what looks like a legitimate video call, complete with convincing video feeds that are actually pre-recorded footage.

During the call, attackers claim there is an audio problem and send a supposed software “patch” that installs malware. The malware can extract passwords, private keys and internal security data, allowing attackers to empty crypto wallets.

Global crypto thefts have already surpassed US$2 billion this year, with North Korea-linked groups remaining among the most active and sophisticated actors in the space.

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

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

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

Here’s a quick recap of the crypto landscape for Friday (December 12) as of 9:00 p.m. UTC.

Get the latest insights on Bitcoin, Ether and altcoins, along with a round-up of key cryptocurrency market news.

Bitcoin and Ether price update

Bitcoin (BTC) was priced at US$90,250.03, down by 2.6 percent over 24 hours. It has extended its bullish tone this week as markets absorbed the US Federal Reserve’s interest latest rate cut and reassessed risk sentiment across assets.

Bitcoin price performance, December 12, 2025.

Bitcoin price performance, December 12, 2025.

Chart via TradingView.

The Fed has now cut rates three times in three months, bringing the target range down to 3.5 to 3.75 percent.

Bitcoin dipped to US$89,000 to US$90,000 lows at the US market open, echoing post-Fed pullback patterns noted by Santiment across all three cuts since September.

Ether (ETH) was priced at US$3,084.18, down by 5 percent over the last 24 hours.

Altcoin price update

  • XRP (XRP) was priced at US$2, down by 2.1 percent over 24 hours.
  • Solana (SOL) was trading at US$131.52, down by 4.2 percent over 24 hours.

Fear and Greed Index snapshot

Open interest eased, while US$3.1 million Bitcoin and US$3.92 million Ether long liquidations signaled deleveraging. A neutral relative strength index and low funding rates kept positioning balanced post-expiry.

CMC’s Crypto Fear & Greed Index continues to hold firm in fear territory, remaining firmly risk-averse on Friday and staying at 29 for a second consecutive day. Despite Bitcoin’s recent upward trend and stabilization at the US$92,000 mark, investors continue to exercise caution after a volatile fourth quarter, reinforcing the view that traders remain reluctant to take on aggressive positions despite improved liquidity conditions elsewhere.

CMC Crypto Fear and Greed Index, Bitcoin price and Bitcoin volume.

CMC Crypto Fear and Greed Index, Bitcoin price and Bitcoin volume.

Chart via CoinMarketCap.

Today’s crypto news to know

Bessent prepares policy shift on crypto regulation

US Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent is preparing a major policy letter that would direct the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) away from its post-2008 focus on tightening rules and toward re-evaluating whether existing regulations hinder growth. The draft letter, obtained by CNBC, says the FSOC will begin assessing whether certain oversight measures “impose undue burdens” that may undermine stability by limiting innovation.

The FSOC, originally created to prevent another financial collapse, coordinates oversight between the Fed, the SEC, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and other agencies.

If finalized, the policy would empower agencies to roll back or revise rules deemed outdated or overly restrictive.

OCC approves US trust bank approvals

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) has conditionally approved national trust bank charters for Circle’s (NYSE:CRCL) First National Digital Currency Bank and the Ripple National Trust Bank. The OCC also endorsed transitions for existing state charters held by Paxos Trust Company, BitGo Bank & Trust and Fidelity Digital Assets.

With these approvals, the firms can now operate nationwide under federal oversight, enhancing stablecoin issuance and digital asset services like custody.

Pakistan clears Binance and HTX to begin licensing process

Pakistan has granted initial clearance for Binance and HTX to set up local subsidiaries and begin preparing applications for full digital asset exchange licences.

The Pakistan Virtual Assets Regulatory Authority issued “no objection certificates” after reviewing each platform’s governance, compliance structures and risk controls, though the approvals stop short of permitting trading activity.

The certificates also allow both companies to register on Pakistan’s anti-money-laundering system and begin establishing regulated local entities ahead of a forthcoming licensing regime.

Pakistan Virtual Assets Regulatory Authority Chair Bilal bin Saqib said the phased model will admit only platforms that meet strict global standards on anti-money-laundering and counter-terror financing.

Pakistan, one of the world’s largest crypto markets by retail activity, is simultaneously developing a Virtual Assets Act, while coordinating with US-based World Liberty Financial on digital infrastructure proposals.

Phantom integrates Kalshi prediction market

Phantom has integrated Kalshi’s regulated prediction markets, allowing in-app trading on events like elections, sports, crypto trends and macroeconomics using Solana or its CASH stablecoin.

Users can access live odds, notifications, tokenized positions and community chat without external accounts, leveraging Kalshi’s CFTC oversight and recent high volumes.

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

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

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

TSX-V: WLR

Frankfurt: 6YL

 Walker Lane Resources Ltd. (TSXV: WLR,OTC:CMCXF) (Frankfurt: 6YL) ‘Walker Lane’) announces the resignation of John Land as a Director of the Company and the appointment of Mr. Kevin Brewer, Director and CEO as interim Chairman of the Board.

Walker Lane Resources Ltd. logo (CNW Group/Walker Lane Resources Ltd)

The Board wishes to thank Mr. Land for his significant contribution to the Company. 

About Walker Lane Resources Ltd.

Walker Lane Resources Ltd. is a growth-stage exploration company focused on the exploration of high-grade gold, silver and polymetallic deposits in the Walker Lane Gold Trend District in Nevada and the Rancheria Silver District in Yukon/B.C. and other property assets in Yukon. The Company intends to initiate an aggressive exploration program to advance the Tule Canyon (Walker Lane, Nevada) and Amy (Rancheria Silver District, B.C.) projects through drilling programs with the aim of achieving resource definition in the near future.

On behalf of the Board:
‘Kevin Brewer’
Kevin Brewer, President, CEO and Director
Walker Lane Resources Ltd.

Cautionary and Forward Looking Statements

This press release and related figures, contain certain forward-looking information and forward-looking statements as defined in applicable securities laws (collectively referred to as forward-looking statements). These statements relate to future events or our future performance. All statements other than statements of historical fact are forward-looking statements. The use of any of the words ‘anticipate’, ‘plans’, ‘continue’, ‘estimate’, ‘expect’, ‘may’, ‘will’, ‘project’, ‘predict’, ‘potential’, ‘should’, ‘believe’ ‘targeted’, ‘can’, ‘anticipates’, ‘intends’, ‘likely’, ‘should’, ‘could’ or grammatical variations thereof and similar expressions is intended to identify forward-looking statements. These statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause actual results or events to differ materially from those anticipated in such forward-looking statements. These statements speak only as of the date of this presentation. These forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements concerning: our strategy and priorities including certain statements included in this presentation are forward-looking statements within the meaning of Canadian securities laws, including statements regarding the Tule Canyon, Cambridge, Silver Mountain, and Shamrock Properties in Nevada (USA), and its properties including Silverknife and Amy properties in British Columbia, the Silver Hart, Blue Heaven and Logjam properties in Yukon and the Bridal Veil property in Newfoundland and Labrador all of which now comprise the mineral property assets of WLR. WLR has assumed other assets of CMC Metals Ltd. including common share holdings of North Bay Resources Inc. (OTC-US: NBRI) and all conditions and agreements pertaining to the sale of the Bishop mill gold processing facility and remain subject to the condition of the option of the Silverknife property with Coeur Mining Inc. (TSX:CDE). These forward-looking statements reflect the Company’s current beliefs and are based on information currently available to the Company and assumptions the Company believes are reasonable. The Company has made various assumptions, including, among others, that: the historical information related to the Company’s properties is reliable; the Company’s operations are not disrupted or delayed by unusual geological or technical problems; the Company has the ability to explore the Company’s properties; the Company will be able to raise any necessary additional capital on reasonable terms to execute its business plan; the Company’s current corporate activities will proceed as expected; general business and economic conditions will not change in a material adverse manner; and budgeted costs and expenditures are and will continue to be accurate.

Actual results and developments may differ materially from results and developments discussed in the forward-looking statements as they are subject to a number of significant risks and uncertainties, including: public health threats; fluctuations in metals prices, price of consumed commodities and currency markets; future profitability of mining operations; access to personnel; results of exploration and development activities, accuracy of technical information; risks related to ownership of properties; risks related to mining operations; risks related to mineral resource figures being estimates based on interpretations and assumptions which may result in less mineral production under actual conditions than is currently anticipated; the interpretation of drilling results and other geological data; receipt, maintenance and security of permits and mineral property titles; environmental and other regulatory risks; changes in operating expenses; changes in general market and industry conditions; changes in legal or regulatory requirements; other risk factors set out in this presentation; and other risk factors set out in the Company’s public disclosure documents. Although the Company has attempted to identify significant risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially, there may be other risks that cause results not to be as anticipated, estimated or intended. Certain of these risks and uncertainties are beyond the Company’s control. Consequently, all of the forward-looking statements are qualified by these cautionary statements, and there can be no assurances that the actual results or developments will be realized or, even if substantially realized, that they will have the expected consequences or benefits to, or effect on, the Company.

The information contained in this presentation is derived from management of the Company and otherwise from publicly available information and does not purport to contain all of the information that an investor may desire to have in evaluating the Company. The information has not been independently verified, may prove to be imprecise, and is subject to material updating, revision and further amendment. While management is not aware of any misstatements regarding any industry data presented herein, no representation or warranty, express or implied, is made or given by or on behalf of the Company as to the accuracy, completeness or fairness of the information or opinions contained in this presentation and no responsibility or liability is accepted by any person for such information or opinions. The forward-looking statements and information in this presentation speak only as of the date of this presentation and the Company assumes no obligation to update or revise such information to reflect new events or circumstances, except as may be required by applicable law. Although the Company believes that the expectations reflected in the forward-looking statements and information are reasonable, there can be no assurance that such expectations will prove to be correct. Because of the risks, uncertainties and assumptions contained herein, prospective investors should not read forward-looking information as guarantees of future performance or results and should not place undue reliance on forward-looking information. Nothing in this presentation is, or should be relied upon as, a promise or representation as to the future. To the extent any forward-looking statement in this presentation constitutes ‘future-oriented financial information’ or ‘financial outlooks’ within the meaning of applicable Canadian securities laws, such information is being provided to demonstrate the anticipated market penetration and the reader is cautioned that this information may not be appropriate for any other purpose and the reader should not place undue reliance on such future-oriented financial information and financial outlooks. Future-oriented financial information and financial outlooks, as with forward-looking statements generally, are, without limitation, based on the assumptions and subject to the risks set out above. The Company’s actual financial position and results of operations may differ materially from management’s current expectations and, as a result, the Company’s revenue and expenses. The Company’s financial projections were not prepared with a view toward compliance with published guidelines of International Financial Reporting Standards and have not been examined, reviewed or compiled by the Company’s accountants or auditors. The Company’s financial projections represent management’s estimates as of the dates indicated thereon.

SOURCE Walker Lane Resources Ltd

Cision View original content to download multimedia: http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/December2025/16/c7861.html

News Provided by Canada Newswire via QuoteMedia

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

Language matters. Words have not only technical meanings; they also summon particular attitudes and impressions. And sometimes these attitudes and impressions differ significantly from the words’ technical meanings. 

In no domain of economic policy is the confusion created by the divergence of words’ technical meanings from the attitudes and impressions conveyed by those words greater than in the domain of trade policy.

Trade Deficit

The most obvious, commonly used confusing term is “trade deficit.” “Deficit” inherently sounds bad. Everyone instinctively resists being in any kind of “deficit.” But those of us who understand the technical definition of “trade deficit” know that this “deficit” is merely the result of an accounting convention by which inflows into a country of money are counted as “positive” while outflows of money are counted as “negative.” 

Yet as many economists, including the Nobel laureate Vernon Smith, have pointed out, if the convention were instead (as it could be) to count as a positive the monetary value of imports – and as a negative the monetary value of exports – then so-called “trade deficits” would instead be “trade surpluses.”

The words “trade surpluses,” alas, are more difficult to demagogue than are the words “trade deficits.”

Concessions

Another technical term that conveys a misleading impression is “concessions,” which means agreements by governments to lower their trade barriers in exchange for other governments agreeing to lower their barriers. 

As the excellent trade-policy scholar Daniel Griswold summarizes, in trade agreements, “exports are a benefit and imports a ‘concession.’” The technical term “concession” is thus used to describe those instances in which governments allow their citizens to trade more freely. Greater freedom of trade and the additional goods and services that it makes available are bizarrely rendered as costs – as burdens – that the people of the home country endure in order to obtain the benefit of greater ease of exporting.

Dumping

Yet another term that distorts understanding is “dumping.” To accuse foreigners of “dumping” goods on our market is to suggest that foreigners are harming us by discarding their trash on our shores or otherwise burying us in things that we’d prefer not to have. No sane person wants to be dumped upon!

This suggestion is completely mistaken. The great trade economist Douglas Irwin notes that “the government’s definition of ‘dumping’ is a lower price charged in the United States than in a foreign exporter’s home market.” And so what really occurs with so-called “dumping” is that the people of the home country are offered the opportunity to buy particular goods at prices lower than foreigners must pay. If the practice of charging differentially lower prices in the US was called not “dumping” but “competitive pricing” or “bargain pricing,” perhaps domestic firms would have less success at persuading the government to use regulations against “dumping” to secure protection from vigorous foreign competition.

There is, after all, no economic reason why any particular good should sell in one country at a price identical to its price in another country. 

Plenty of factors explain why a particular model of automobile might sell for less in the US than in the producer’s home market. American demand for that model might simply be lower—perhaps because tastes differ, or because the US retail market is more competitive and offers more alternatives. It’s also possible that auto retailing in the US faces fewer costly government rules than abroad.

Whatever the reason, when imports sell here at lower prices than they do elsewhere, Americans benefit. These lower prices are a gain, not a problem to be “protected” from. Yet by labeling the practice of selling exports at differentially lower prices as “dumping,” policymakers create an unjustified bias against foreign competition.

‘Made in’ Labels

“Made in China” — or Canada, Malaysia, Namibia, or anywhere else — is now a misleading label. In today’s global economy, most goods and services are produced with ideas and inputs drawn from dozens of different countries. As I wrote in this space a few months ago,

In today’s global economy, the great majority of the manufactured goods that you consume consist of parts and ideas from around the world, including the US. A “Made in” label on some good tells you only where that good’s final assembly occurred. Bath towels at Target labeled “Made in Turkey” might well be made of cotton grown in Texas, dyed with pigments from Germany, woven on a loom made in India, and shipped to the US on a freighter made in Korea that is carrying a shipping container manufactured in Denmark. That label would be more accurate if it instead read “Final Processing Done in Turkey” — or, more accurate still, “Made on Earth.”

Americans Trade With

As a linguistic shorthand, we often describe countries as exporting, importing, and trading. 

“Germany exported $1.5 trillion of goods last year.” 

“Ireland is among the world’s leading suppliers of pharmaceutical products.” 

“America trades with China.” 

“The Netherlands ran a trade surplus.” 

We know what these sentences mean: Individuals — alone or in voluntary groups called firms — in one country engage in commerce with individuals in another. But the aggregate outcomes of all this commerce are then described in ways that imply each country itself engaged in these transactions, as if the results reflect a conscious collective choice made by its people.

Because all international commerce is carried out by individuals, and because each individual believes he or she is made better off by each transaction voluntarily conducted with foreigners, it’s difficult to see how the overall outcome could be negative. Mistakes aside — and there’s no reason to think Americans make more errors than non-Americans — every commercial exchange with a foreigner yields a gain for the American involved. The sum of these gains cannot plausibly be a negative number.

Yet it’s an easy, if careless, step from portraying trade as something done by large collective entities to concluding that these entities make choices contrary to the interests of their own people. “America,” for instance, is said to buy such large quantities of imports that most Americans supposedly suffer as a result. Somehow, “America” is acting against Americans. But once we recall that importing is done not by “America” but by individual Americans, the idea that we suffer net losses from importing becomes absurd.

It’s trite but true that language matters and can mislead. Nowhere in economic policy is this more evident than in trade.

The Federal Reserve lowered the federal funds target range by 25 basis points on Wednesday—its third consecutive rate cut—to 3.5 to 3.75 percent. Markets had anticipated the decision for weeks, reflecting growing expectations that the Fed would respond to rising downside risks in the labor market. Three officials dissented: Governor Stephen Miran again favored a larger 50-basis-point cut, while Chicago and Kansas City Fed Presidents Austan Goolsbee and Jeffrey Schmid preferred to hold rates steady. Schmid’s dissent was his second in as many meetings.

Powell used his press conference to place the decision within the broader tensions facing the Fed’s dual mandate. He emphasized that “[c]onditions in the labor market appear to be gradually cooling, and inflation remains somewhat elevated.” He noted that the government shutdown restricted access to some data, but that the available evidence suggests the “outlook for employment and inflation has not changed much” since the Fed’s October meeting.

Still, Powell said the available indicators point to moderate economic growth, supported by solid consumer spending and continued business fixed investment. He noted that the temporary government shutdown likely slowed activity somewhat, but that this effect “should be mostly offset by higher growth” in the coming months. The updated Summary of Economic Projections reinforces that outlook, with the median projection for 2025 GDP growth rising modestly from 1.6 in September to 1.7 percent. 

Looking ahead, the median GDP projection for 2026 rose more sharply, increasing to 2.3 percent from 1.8 percent in the September projections. Powell acknowledged the size of the revision when asked about it at the press conference, pointing to continued resilience in consumer spending and a pickup in business investment tied to data centers and artificial intelligence. He added that a similar upgrade in growth expectations has also appeared among private-sector forecasters, suggesting a broader reassessment of the medium-term outlook rather than a shift unique to the Fed.

Powell said the available evidence points to a softening labor market, noting that “layoffs and hiring remain low” and that perceptions of job availability and hiring difficulty continue to decline. As in recent meetings, he partly attributed the slowdown to “a decline in the growth of the labor force, due to lower immigration and labor force participation,” while noting that weakening labor demand is also playing a role. Still, the median unemployment projections for 2025 and 2026 were unchanged from September.

Powell acknowledged that inflation “remains somewhat elevated,” but said the government shutdown has limited the flow of new price data since the October meeting. At that point, the Fed had seen goods inflation pick up—likely reflecting tariffs—even as services inflation continued to ease. He added that “[n]ear-term measures of inflation expectations have declined from their peaks earlier this year” and that longer-term expectations still align with the Fed’s two percent goal. The Fed’s median inflation projection now stands at 2.9 percent for 2025 and 2.4 percent for 2026, both slightly lower than in September.

Powell said the Fed faces “a challenging situation,” with “risks to inflation…tilted to the upside and risks to employment to the downside.” He reiterated that the inflationary effects of tariffs should be temporary, describing them as “effectively a one-time shift in the price level,” and stressed that the Fed must ensure that this does not “become an ongoing inflation problem.” Because downside risks to employment have risen, he said, the balance of risks has shifted toward the employment side of the mandate—a shift he said justified lowering the policy rate.

Powell said the 75 basis points of easing over the past three meetings “should help stabilize the labor market while allowing inflation to resume its downward trend toward 2 percent once the effects of tariffs have passed through.” He added that the current stance of policy is “within a range of plausible estimates of neutral.” The newest projections put the policy rate at 3.4 percent at the end of 2026 and 3.1 percent at the end of 2027—unchanged from September. Even so, Powell stressed that the projections are not a plan, reiterating that policy “is not on a preset course.”

Beyond the stance of policy, Powell outlined several steps affecting the implementation framework. Alongside the rate cut, he announced that the Fed will “initiate purchases of shorter-term Treasury securities for the sole purpose of maintaining an ample supply of reserves over time.” He said the move responds to “continued tightening in money market interest rates relative to” the Fed’s administered rates. Such purchases, he explained, help keep the policy rate “within its target range” and accommodate the rising demand for liquidity that comes with economic growth. Powell stressed that the purchases are purely technical, though the return to balance-sheet expansion is likely to renew debate over its broader implications for monetary policy and government debt.

Powell explained that under the current framework, “the federal funds rate and other short-term interest rates are primarily controlled by the setting of our administered rates rather than day-to-day discretionary interventions in money markets.” Standing repurchase agreement operations are a key part of that framework, helping to keep the federal funds rate “within its target range” even when liquidity pressures rise. To ensure they can continue to operate effectively, the Fed eliminated the aggregate limit on their use. While not entirely new, Powell’s emphasis on administered rates—and the decision to remove limits on standing repo operations—highlighted the extent to which rate control now relies on policy-set prices rather than market clearing, raising broader questions about the future role of the federal funds rate itself.

Taken together, Powell’s remarks highlighted the inherent difficulty of balancing inflation and employment under the current mandate. The Fed continues to wrestle with competing risks on both sides of that mandate. Importantly, this tension is not imposed by external forces but created by the mandate itself, which compels policymakers to weigh higher prices against lower employment rather than focus on the underlying drivers of each. A nominal GDP target would avoid this conflict. By stabilizing aggregate demand, the Fed would allow prices and employment to adjust naturally, eliminating the need for continual fine-tuning and removing the artificial tradeoff between inflation and unemployment.

2025 was a watershed year for gold, which set new highs as its safe-haven appeal increased.

As global uncertainty intensified, the metal began to receive mainstream attention as a standout asset.

With the year set to mark one of gold’s strongest annual performances in decades, it’s a fitting moment to look back and revisit our most popular gold news stories of 2025.

Read on to see what caught our audience’s attention over the last 12 months.

1. Germany, Italy Face Pressure to Repatriate US$245 Billion in Gold as Trust in US Custody Wavers

Publish date: June 24, 2025

In June, growing distrust in US custodianship of foreign gold reserves and political uncertainty linked to the Trump administration put pressure on Germany and Italy to repatriate their foreign bullion.

At the time, both countries collectively held more than US$245 billion in gold reserves at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and local political leaders were raising concerns that the US had become a less neutral custodian.

German taxpayer advocates warned that increasing political influence over the US Federal Reserve could jeopardize access to foreign-owned bullion. Similar concerns surfaced in Italy, where critics argued that continuing to store gold abroad posed a strategic risk during a period of heightened geopolitical tension.

Germany repatriated 674 metric tons of gold from 2013 to 2017, but 37 percent of its reserves remain in New York.

2. What Does the GDX Index Change Mean for Gold Investors?

Publish date: September 19, 2025

In September, the world’s largest gold-mining stock exchange-traded fund (ETF) — the US$20.5 billion VanEck Gold Miners ETF (ARCA:GDX) — underwent a major structural overhaul.

VanEck transitioned GDX from the NYSE Arca Gold Miners Index to the MarketVector Global Gold Miners Index, ending a benchmark relationship in place since 2004.

The switch adopted free-float market-cap rules that exclude locked-up or government-held shares, aligning the fund with index standards commonly used in broader equity markets.

3. Barrick’s Bristow Steps Down Following Hemlo Sale and Mali Challenges

Publish date: September 29, 2025

Barrick Mining (TSX:ABX,NYSE:B) went through a major leadership transition this year after CEO Mark Bristow unexpectedly left the company following nearly seven years at the helm.

Bristow, who had led the company since the 2019 merger with Randgold Resources, stepped down amid strategic disagreements with Barrick Chair John Thornton and a year marked by operational challenges, including ongoing legal and political challenges in Mali, where its Loulo-Gounkoto complex is located.

Bristow’s departure also came shortly after Barrick finalized a US$1.09 billion sale of its Hemlo mine in Ontario, formally marking its exit from primary Canadian gold production to concentrate on higher-margin international operations.

Chief Operating Officer Mark Hill assumed interim CEO responsibilities as the board initiated a global search for a successor. Hill previously oversaw Barrick’s Latin America and Asia-Pacific operations, and played a key role in the company’s initial decision to explore the Fourmile gold project in Nevada.

4. Mali Enforces Gold Seizure at Barrick’s Loulo-Gounkoto Mine

Publish date: January 13, 2025

Barrick’s tensions with Mali’s military government intensified at the start of 2025 after authorities seized gold shipments from the firm’s Loulo-Gounkoto mine, which accounts for roughly 14 percent of its annual production.

At the time, officials claimed Barrick owed more than US$500 million in unpaid taxes and state dividends under a revised mining code implemented in 2023. Detentions and legal threats against local staff heightened the conflict further, and the government reportedly intercepted approximately 3 metric tons of bullion.

The year-long dispute reached a conclusion on November 24, when Barrick confirmed a settlement with the Malian government that restores full control over the Loulo-Gounkoto mine.

Under the terms, the company was to pay 244 billion CFA francs (US$430 million), with 144 billion CFA francs due within six days of signing and an additional 50 billion CFA francs applied through VAT credit offsets.

In exchange, Mali was to drop all charges against Barrick, lift state control of Loulo-Gounkoto, release four detained employees and renew the company’s mining permit for another decade.

The agreement also requires Barrick to comply with Mali’s 2023 mining code — the same legislation that triggered the original confrontation.

5. Navigating Uncertainty: How Trump’s Tariffs Are Affecting the Gold Market

Publish date: August 27, 2025

US trade policy sparked gold market turbulence after confusion surrounding import tariffs, including whether Swiss-refined 1 kilogram and 100 ounce bars would be subject to rates near 39 percent. Traders rushed to secure physical imports amid the uncertainty, widening spreads between New York futures and London spot benchmarks.

The volatility eased only after US officials clarified their position.

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

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

US President Donald Trump is reportedly weighing a major shift in federal drug policy that would relax decades-old restrictions on cannabis, potentially injecting new life into the industry.

Six people familiar with the discussions told the Washington Post that Trump is preparing an executive order directing federal agencies to pursue the reclassification of cannabis from a Schedule I substance to Schedule III.

The effort, still under internal review, was the focus of a December 10 phone call between Trump and House Speaker Mike Johnson, several of the sources said. Joining the call were cannabis industry executives, Secretary of Health Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Mehmet Oz, administrator for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

The people spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the meeting publicly.

Johnson reportedly expressed skepticism and laid out several studies and data points opposing rescheduling, but by the end of the call, Trump appeared inclined to proceed. However, the sources emphasized that no final decision has been made and that he could still change course; this was later confirmed by another White House official.

Reclassification would shift cannabis from Schedule I status — reserved for substances deemed to have high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use — to Schedule III, which includes Tylenol with codeine and certain steroids.

The shift would not legalize recreational use under federal law, but would remove some of the most onerous constraints faced by medical researchers and by companies operating legally in dozens of states.

“This would be the biggest reform in federal cannabis policy since marijuana was made a Schedule I drug in the 1970s,” said Shane Pennington, a DC attorney who represents companies involved in rescheduling litigation.

He noted that while Trump cannot unilaterally change the drug schedule, he can instruct the Department of Justice to bypass a pending administrative hearing and finalize the rule.

The political backdrop has shifted sharply in recent years. Cannabis is legal for medical use in most states and for recreational use in 24, and has become a multibillion-dollar industry. Both Democrats and Republicans have expressed interest in rescheduling even as broader legalization remains deeply contested at the federal level.

For cannabis businesses, reclassification would be economically transformative.

Current tax rules prohibit companies that sell Schedule I substances from deducting ordinary business expenses, a barrier that industry representatives have long described as crushing.

“This monumental change will have a massive, positive effect on thousands of state-legal cannabis businesses around the country,” said Brian Vicente, founding partner at Vicente. “Rescheduling releases cannabis businesses from the crippling tax burden they have been shackled with and allows these businesses to grow and prosper.”

Policy advocates say the move would eliminate a central pillar of the federal government’s 50 year prohibition regime, while also highlighting how much work remains.

“This is the beginning of a new era of public health policy,” said Shawn Hauser, also a partner at Vicente.

She called the directive “a long-overdue acknowledgment of marijuana’s medical value and safety,” while warning that rescheduling alone will not resolve broader regulatory inconsistencies or criminal justice disparities.

Trump, who said in August that he was “looking at reclassification,” inherited a stalled proposal originally launched by then-President Joe Biden that recommended moving cannabis to Schedule III.

Rescheduling’s origins trace back to October 2022, when Biden instructed the Department of Health and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to review whether the current classification for cannabis is scientifically justified.

Health officials concluded in 2023 that it is not, prompting the DEA to propose shifting cannabis to Schedule III in early 2024. The proposed rule has been frozen since March 2025.

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

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

American Rare Earths (ASX: ARR | OTCQX: ARRNF | ADR: AMRRY) (“ARR” or the “Company”) has successfully completed another critical stage in its mineral processing program by producing a mixed rare earths oxide (“MREO”) using the updated preliminary PFS mineral processing flowsheet.

Highlights

  • Rare earth oxides were produced from Halleck Creek ore using the updated preliminary Pre-Feasibility Study (“PFS”) mineral processing flowsheet1
  • A Mixed Rare Earth Oxalate and Mixed Rare Earth Oxide was created from purified leachate solution using the material from the impurity removal testing2
  • This is the most significant technical milestone achieved for the Project to date

MREO from Halleck Creek (“the Project”) was produced using the material – a pregnant leach solution (“PLS”) – from the impurity removal testing campaign3. This was achieved through precipitating a mixed rare earth oxalate and then creating MREO powder (see Figure 1). This major technical milestone confirms that rare earths can be extracted into metallic oxides from Halleck Creek ore using the updated preliminary PFS mineral processing flowsheet currently being finalized for the upcoming PFS. Solvent extraction computer simulation is now underway, using the results of these tests.

SGS in Lakefield, Ontario, Canada created the MREO from the Halleck Creek PLS through a two- step process. The first step consists of precipitating the metals in solution using oxalic acid to create a mixed rare earth oxalate. Oxalic acid is highly selective in precipitating rare earth elements (“REE”) from PLS while other elements stay in solution. SGS performed three precipitation tests using variable oxalic acid addition rates. The second step, called calcining, involved SGS heating the combined mixed rare earth oxalates to 1,000oC to oxidize the material into a MREO. A beneficial effect of calcining is that it oxidizes the cerium, converting it from Ce3+ to Ce4+. Ce4+ is not soluble in the reagent which will be used to dissolve REEs from the MREO for solvent extraction.

Click here for the full ASX Release

This post appeared first on investingnews.com