Insider Legacy Secret
Author

admin

Browsing
In Economy

Soundness, Trust, and the Real Case Against Fiat Money

No Comments

Discussions of money frequently slide beyond economics into looser forms of argument, especially when inflation or central banking are the topic. In that context, labeling fiat currency “counterfeit” has become a common charge, yet modern monetary systems operate through legally-sanctioned claims rather than intrinsic metal content, and treating that institutional structure as fraud mischaracterizes fiat money. The accusation resonates with those justifiably uneasy about discretionary policy or declining purchasing power, but it does not withstand even superficial analytical scrutiny. 

Fiat currency may be unsound, poorly managed, or politically abused, but it is not counterfeit by nature, and conflating monetary soundness with legal authenticity undermines any attempt at economic debate. Counterfeiting has a precise meaning: the unauthorized creation of money or financial instruments that falsely purport to be genuine. The defining features are deception and impersonation: a counterfeit bill pretends to be issued by an authority that did not, in fact, issue it. Counterfeiting is a crime under the legal theory that it undermines trust in the monetary system by introducing fraudulent claims that mimic legitimate ones.

Here is one such confident claim from the internet:

Fiat currency does not meet this definition. In much of the world today, including the United States, money is defined by legislatures and issued and managed by legally constituted monetary authorities — typically central banks — operating under explicit statutory mandates. There is no pretense involved. A dollar bill (a euro, a pound, a yen) does not claim to be gold, nor does a bank reserve pretend to be something other than what it is. Whatever one thinks of the regime under which fiat money is issued, it is not fraudulent in a legal or technical sense. It does not impersonate another issuer, nor does it masquerade as a different monetary good.

Much of the confusion stems from an implicit equation of monetary soundness with monetary legitimacy. Sound money refers to a set of desirable properties: stability of purchasing power, resistance to political manipulation, predictability, and credibility over time. Counterfeit money, by contrast, refers to authenticity — whether a monetary instrument is genuinely issued by the authority it claims to represent. Yet these are distinct concepts. An unsound currency can still be perfectly authentic, just as a sound currency could, in principle, be counterfeited.

Historically, this distinction was well understood. When governments debased coinage by reducing precious metal content, critics accused them of debasement, not counterfeiting. The coins were real; their purchasing power was diminished by policy choice. The moral and economic objection was to dilution and redistribution, not to forgery. Modern fiat systems operate on the same principle, albeit without a metallic anchor. Inflationary issuance may erode value, but erosion is not fakery.

Another source of the “counterfeit” charge is the role of inflation. When new money enters the system, it redistributes purchasing power toward early recipients and away from later ones. This effect — often associated with Cantillon’s insight — can feel unjust, especially when money creation is aggressive or poorly explained. But again, injustice and illegality are not the same thing. Unauthorized dilution is counterfeiting; authorized dilution is inflation. One may object vigorously to the latter without confusing it with the former.

Another example, with identifying details removed to protect the ignorant.

Some critics also point to the absence of commodity backing. Fiat money is not redeemable for gold or silver, and therefore, they argue, it is inherently false or fake. But backing is a feature of a monetary regime, not a test of authenticity. A property deed is not counterfeit because it isn’t convertible into land at a redemption window; it is valid because the legal system enforces the title. Attentive readers will note that this is not a benchmark of relative value or desirability, only of legal standing. An instrument is not counterfeit because it lacks intrinsic backing, especially when it doesn’t promise to. Fiat money openly derives its value from legal acceptance, institutional credibility, and network effects. Whether that foundation is stable or desirable is a separate question.

Relatedly, money does not need “intrinsic value” to be money. What matters is not physical usefulness but expected acceptability — confidence that others will accept it in exchange, and consequently its general acceptance in dealings. Historically, commodity monies prevailed because their production costs and limited supply solved trust problems in weak institutional environments, not because intrinsic value was logically required. Gold’s non-monetary uses account for only a fraction of its monetary value, just as modern fiat money’s lack of direct consumption use does not disqualify it from functioning as money. Intrinsic value may anchor credibility, but it is not synonymous with authenticity, and its absence does not singularly render fiat money counterfeit.

The strongest intuition behind the counterfeit label is moral rather than technical. Central banking is frequently opaque. Monetary policy is inevitably politicized. Long periods of inflation quietly confiscate wealth without an explicit vote or tax bill. These critiques are both accurate and serious, and they deserve attention. But economics is a science, and calling fiat money counterfeit substitutes provocation for precision. It implies fraud where the real issues are incentives, governance, and restraint.

If the goal is clarity, better terms are available. “Monetary debasement” captures the historical trend of weakening purchasing power. “Discretionary fiat issuance” highlights institutional structure. “Inflationary redistribution” names the economic mechanism directly. These phrases describe what is happening without mislabeling it.

For example:

The debate over fiat money versus commodity-backed money is ultimately a debate about trust and limits: about whether political institutions can be trusted to discharge monetary policy prudently over long time horizons. (In this regard, I believe the verdict is solidly registered.) History offers more than sufficient reason for skepticism. But skepticism does not require misdefinition or emotional retort. 

None of this should be construed as a defense of central banking, the Federal Reserve, or the monetary hijinks that wreck lives and economies. Fiat money is virtually always unsound, relatively speaking. It is fragile and subject to manipulation. A long chain of precedent suggests that every fiat issue is inevitably destined to evaporate. Yet none of that makes it counterfeit. Soundness and authenticity are not the same thing. Confusing them weakens an otherwise strong critique and hands defenders of fiat money an easy technical rebuttal. And if fiat money truly is counterfeit, why burden yourself with it? I will happily take delivery of as much of your “fake” money as you are willing to part with.

by
Read More
In Economy

But What About China? A Response to Tariff Advocates

No Comments

In a recent Wall Street Journal piece, I argued that erratic tariff policy has alienated our allies and that the world is increasingly building trade relationships that don’t require American participation. Days later, a Letter to the Editor was published responding to it. 

I’ll confess that finding so much common ground with someone of Meizlish’s caliber is both flattering and, given the state of trade policy discourse, genuinely refreshing. We agree on the core argument, we agree on the facts, and we want the same thing: a more secure and prosperous United States. That said, there are differences worth spelling out. I’ll go through the letter paragraph by paragraph, which I recognize can look combative, but isn’t meant to be.

David Hebert writes that the world is growing tired of the US and “reglobalizing around partners who commit to rules rather than those who wield tariffs like a club” (“Everyone Else Is Trading Without Us,” op-ed, Feb. 27). It’s a fair observation, but his piece avoids addressing the threat from China.

“Avoid” is a strong word. I didn’t “avoid” addressing China because “addressing China” wasn’t relevant to the thesis of my piece: that inconsistent, erratic tariff policy and the sudden reneging on past agreements have alienated our friends. 

Meizlish continued, noting the collapse in imports from China — with a crucial caveat.

Recent Commerce Department data adds crucial context. American imports from China collapsed by nearly 30 percent in 2025 while European flows into the US grew. Notwithstanding the real potential of Chinese goods making their way into the US by way of Europe, that looks less like American isolation than the beginnings of a reorientation Washington has been trying to engineer.

It’s on the issue of transshipment where I part ways with Meizlish. He acknowledges that transshipment — for example, China routing goods to the United States through Europe — is a real possibility, then quickly moves past it. But this is a serious and well-documented problem, serious enough that the Department of Justice has created a Trade Fraud Task Force.

Transshipment is incredibly hard to protect against and enforce. It will almost certainly be fraught with minutiae and judgment calls. If China creates the steel that goes into engine components machined in Germany before ultimately finding their way into a Ford F-150, are those parts subject to Chinese tariff rates or German tariff rates? The answer, like beauty, “lies in the eye of the beholder.”

And therein lies the problem: in a world where tariff rates are determined by rules and long-standing relationships, the answer to this question is basically inconsequential for business-minded people. When tariffs are imposed whenever “the White House finds a new grievance,” they matter.

My suspicion is that Meizlish agrees with me on the transshipment front and that, if he had a larger word count, he could have elaborated on this. But the printed words give the impression that this is possible but not that big of a deal. But insofar as transshipment is happening, that’s an argument against the efficacy of tariffs to accomplish their stated goals and it should be counted as such.

Moving on, Meizlish points out some of the effects of the tariffs that have actually been implemented. On this, we are in total agreement. But when it comes to what to do moving forward, we differ.

Broad tariffs moved imports away from China without meaningfully closing the overall trade deficit or generating the export growth the administration needs. Finishing the job will require smarter tools — targeted tariffs, trade agreements and investment incentives — not a retreat from economic pressure.

The call for “smart policy” is a classic and technocratic move. The problem is that this argument is completely unfalsifiable. No matter what happens, proponents will always be able to say, “it would have worked if only we had used smart policy, instead.”

Targeted tariffs and other smart policies, however, aren’t some newfangled policy. They’ve been tried. President Obama did it in 2009 on Chinese tires, and President George W. Bush did it in 2002 on Chinese steel. The results weren’t great. Prices rose for American consumers and producers, retaliatory measures from countries around the world followed, and China didn’t meaningfully alter their behavior. But you don’t have to take my word for it: here’s a copy of the 2019 Economic Report of the President, signed by President Trump. From the report itself, “Rather than changing its practices, China announced retaliatory tariffs on US goods.” Targeted tariffs, on their own evidence, haven’t moved Beijing. If they had, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

“Trade agreements and investment incentives” are genuinely good tools. But for them to be a viable strategy, the US must be seen as a reliable, predictable partner. And unfortunately, the US just is not as trustworthy as we once were, so our ability to make those trade deals or to provide investment incentives has been diminished and other countries are increasingly looking elsewhere.

Hebert also notes that so-called middle powers are expanding trade among themselves. That may be true, but whether it represents a problem depends entirely on if those relations are pulling countries toward Beijing or away from it.

First: it’s absolutely true (see here, here, here, here, here, here, and here for examples). And Meizlish is correct that the key question is whether these relationships pull countries toward or away from Beijing. The answer depends crucially on what kind of trading partner the rest of the world can expect out of Beijing (as compared to the United States). On this, we don’t need to speculate. China ended 2025 with a record $1.2 trillion trade surplus precisely because, as Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney pointed out, China is “more predictable” than the US.

Now consider the broader pattern. The Greenland episode, where the US openly discussed annexing the territory of a NATO ally and threatened tariffs against anyone who stood in our way, drew global condemnation. Then, consider what happened with Switzerland just a few weeks ago: in his own words, President Trump “didn’t really like the way [Swiss Finance Minister Karin Keller-Sutter] talked to us and so instead of giving her a reduction, I raised [Swiss tariffs] to 39 percent.” Finally, remember all the humiliations that Trump launched toward Canada in early 2025. None of this bodes well for the US in terms of generating the stability and predictability that other countries are looking for when signing new trade deals.

The Supreme Court may have struck down the ability of the President to use IEEPA, which is a meaningful check on the President’s power going forward. However, it does nothing to erase what the world now knows the US is willing to attempt. Businesses deciding where to locate and who to work with aren’t just assessing today’s legal situation but its broader views on trade and property. Checks and balances are important, but there are limits to how much comfort they offer to a business underwriting a decades-long capital investment.

Finally, Meizlish argues something must be done about China.

A trading world organized around rules rather than coercion has an obvious antagonist — one whose industrial subsidies and currency manipulation destabilized the system Mr. Hebert wants to restore. Getting the rules-based order right requires naming who the rules are designed to constrain. That shouldn’t be too hard.

He’s right, it isn’t hard: China is a bad actor on the world stage. On this, we are in total agreement.

But the solution to China’s nefarious ways does not lie in tariffing Canada, the European Union, Japan, Mexico, and South Korea. Those countries have been our friends and allies for generations at this point. And they could have easily been the coalition partners we needed to build an effective multilateral response to Beijing. Instead, what we’ve done over the past year is pick trade fights with every potential ally simultaneously. 

The simple fact is that, relative to Beijing, the US looks unpredictable and chaotic. That’s a very big problem. The US cannot go it alone against China and get them to change their tune. This isn’t because we’re “too weak” or anything of the sort, it’s because that’s not how Chinese diplomacy works. It will take a coalition of willing and enthusiastic partners to accomplish the goals vis-à-vis Chinese trade policy that Meizlish and I recognize and share.

It isn’t too late to start rebuilding the relationships that have been damaged by the past year of US trade policy, but time is running out. Tariffs have been a rotten deal for the American people. If we don’t reverse course now, they’ll only make it more difficult for us to accomplish other, important goals.

by
Read More
In Economy

What a Children’s Book Taught Me About Core Economic Principles

No Comments

Communicating economics to a general audience isn’t just about accuracy. It’s also about keeping people interested. In Useful Economics, AIER Founder Colonel EC Harwood aimed to engage “both student beginners and general readers” by grounding economics in “an area of the field where they at least have some familiarity with the principal matters discussed.”  

Making economics accessible often means finding relatable situations. Colonel Harwood used the example of making decisions in a supermarket. One such moment caught me by surprise while reading to my children. In the pages of Richard Scarry’s What Do People Do All Day? I found an illustration of Say’s Law of Markets. 

Scarry’s story offers a case that can help general readers — especially children — grasp the basic intuitions of economics.

The Busy World of Markets 

What Do People Do All Day? Is a collection of illustrated short stories set in fictional Busytown, a community populated by animal characters who go about their daily jobs, aiming to teach children about different occupations and how they contribute to the wider community. 

The story “Everyone is a worker” follows Farmer Alfalfa and his interactions with five other workers in Busytown. He grows food, keeps some for his family, and then sells the rest to Grocer Cat in exchange for money. With the money, Farmer Alfalfa buys a new suit from Stitches the tailor, a new tractor to boost his productivity, and presents for his wife and son from Blacksmith Fox. He then puts the remainder of his earnings into the bank. 

The story doesn’t end there. Grocer Cat sells the food to other people in Busytown, using the proceeds to buy a dress for his wife and a present for his son. Stitches and Blacksmith Fox first use the money to buy food, then new clothes, and then other goods. Stitches buys an eggbeater to make fudge while Blacksmith Fox buys more iron for his shop, reinvesting in his business. Any money left over, Scarry notes, is saved in the bank. 

Those familiar with Say’s Law may already see the connection. While Scarry does not include equations or a specific discussion of economic terms, he includes the core aspects of Say’s Law: exchange, money, and a division of labor. 

What Is Say’s Law? 

Say’s Law (named after nineteenth-century French political economist Jean-Baptiste Say) is often reduced to the phrase “supply creates its own demand.” Taken literally, that would mean any good or service automatically generates buyers. If that were true, I could get rich selling surfboards at the Continental Point of Inaccessibility in South Dakota (the farthest spot from any ocean in the continental US).  

Say himself wrote in A Treatise on Political Economy: “[I]t is production which opens a demand for products…Thus the mere circumstance of the creation of one product immediately opens a vent for other products.” Essentially, one’s ability to produce is the source of demand.  

Say’s Law means that one’s ability to do his or her job enables that person to demand all the goods and services he or she cannot personally produce (also known as “noncompeting” goods and services). Recall Farmer Alfalfa. Because he can grow his own food, he does not demand additional food. Instead, he trades his output for money and then uses the money to purchase goods that do not compete with his own labor. 

A more influential criticism comes from John Maynard Keynes. He argued that Say’s Law implies market economies cannot experience economy-wide gluts or shortages, because income from production should always be sufficient to purchase what is produced — in other words, that aggregate supply must equal aggregate demand. Critics then point to recessions and depressions as evidence that Say’s Law fails.

Economist Steven Horwitz explained why this critique misses the point. Say’s Law, he noted, “has nothing to do with an equilibrium between aggregate supply and aggregate demand.” Instead, it describes how production generates income, which then becomes demand. As each worker becomes employed, Horwitz explained, he or she can purchase goods and services from other noncompeting producers, creating opportunities for their employment as well.

Farmer Alfalfa’s ability to grow and sell food allows him to demand the goods produced by others. Those workers, in turn, can demand food and other noncompeting goods and services. Production, not consumption, drives the process. 

Horwitz also noted that larger, wealthier communities support greater product variety, specialization, and competition, while smaller, poorer areas face fewer choices because they produce less. As Busytown becomes more productive — shown by workers reinvesting in their businesses — residents can offer one another a wider range of goods and services.

Money also plays a crucial role in connecting production and demand. The Busytown workers receive money in exchange for their productive actions, and the money serves as an intermediary good facilitating exchange. In a barter economy, if Stitches does not want Farmer Alfalfa’s vegetables, no trade can be made. Money makes exchange possible even when preferences do not align. 

Savings matter too. When Busytown’s workers deposit money in the bank, those funds become available for loans. When people delay consumption, spending power shifts to borrowers, whose purchases replace what savers set aside. So long as savings flow through the banking system, overall spending need not fall.

Economics in Ordinary Life

From the little I was able to read about Richard Scarry, he did not appear to have any economic training or particular interest in economics. Yet, intentional or not, Say’s Law shines through the ordinary interactions of Busytown residents.  

That’s the beauty of economics. Its core principles reveal themselves in everyday life. While young children may not grasp the great debates in economics, they can still see through a simple picture book that honest work, currency, and exchange help make communities prosper.

by
Read More
In Latest News

The US government targeted me for my political speech. It could happen to you, too

No Comments

Three years ago, I came to the United States as a graduate student with the intention of studying public and international affairs at Columbia University, with a focus on public service. Like many who come here from across the world, I had a vision of the United States as the land of the free, a place where freedom of speech was cherished and where I could study freely. I thought it was a place where I could stand up for what I believed in without fear of retaliation from the government.

On March 8, 2025, that vision shattered. Multiple plainclothes ICE agents in unmarked cars grabbed me, without a warrant, from the lobby of my apartment building in New York and threw me on a plane to a federal detention center in Louisiana. As a green card holder with a U.S. citizen wife — who was 8 months pregnant at the time — I couldn’t believe what was happening. I had been targeted by the government because of my lawful speech in support of Palestinian rights, for protesting the use of my tax dollars and tuition fees to support the Israeli occupation.

Throughout my 104 days in federal detention, during which I missed the birth of my first child, I considered myself a political prisoner. The government had deprived me of my liberty, not because I had broken any laws, but because it didn’t like what I had to say.

Once I challenged my detention and Secretary Rubio’s determination that my political views posed a foreign policy threat, the government scrambled to add new accusations. They alleged, baselessly, that I had committed fraud on my green card application. Claims invented not out of evidence, but out of retaliation. Recent evidence in federal court revealed that DHS itself acknowledged, a day before my arrest, that there were no issues with the information I provided on my green card application because everything was complete, true, and correct. Yet I was arrested anyway.

I was not alone. Other students and scholars with valid immigration status were similarly targeted for detention and deportation despite having committed no crime. They were pulled off streets by masked agents, targeted outside of their homes, and tricked into arrests during citizenship appointments. What happened to us is exactly what the First Amendment is designed to prevent: the government deciding which speech is acceptable and which is not. Once that protection is weakened, everyone is at risk.

The Supreme Court recognized eighty years ago that the First Amendment protects all of us in the United States — citizens and noncitizens alike — from government persecution for our beliefs. If we allow that boundary to be violated for noncitizens, or when the government claims a foreign policy concern, a precedent is created that can be used against all of us. Even citizens. Even people who disagree with me vehemently about Palestine.

The government has argued that federal courts must let people sit in immigration detention for months or years before reviewing allegations of constitutional violations. They have argued that Pro-Palestine speech constitutes a foreign policy threat. They have argued that I deserve to be deported because they dislike my ideas. If they can do this to a lawful permanent resident with a U.S. citizen wife and newborn U.S. citizen child, there’s no telling who else they will come for.

The government isn’t allowed to control how we can speak and think. Attorneys representing me in my case, and others like me in similar cases, argued this point in court and secured our release from detention. But my case is still ongoing, and the executive branch’s immigration agency may soon order my deportation. So, I ask Americans directly: do you want to live in a country where you can be snatched off the street by plainclothes agents for your thoughts?

In Assad’s Syria, where I grew up in a Palestinian refugee camp, that was routine. Since the beginning of 2025, the United States, a country whose Constitution protects freedom of speech, has seen an increase in these actions that I once associated with Assad: abductions by plainclothes officers without warrants, forced detention of people who express views the government doesn’t like, and the targeted silencing of dissent.

I will continue to use my platform to advocate for human rights in Palestine. But I ask each and every person reading this to use their voice to defend our First Amendment rights. The right to speak our minds, no matter who holds power, is the foundation of our democracy, and it is in peril. Whatever you may think of me or my views, that foundation belongs to all of us.


This post appeared first on FOX NEWS
by
Read More
In Latest News

Trump ends Biden’s drug price nightmare — Americans get real relief with TrumpRx

No Comments

As a physician and a mother, I have seen firsthand how Washington’s decisions ripple into the exam room and around the kitchen table. At a time when healthcare debates often divide, it is worth recognizing leaders who safeguard freedom while tackling real health needs. The Trump administration is doing exactly that: protecting access, preserving choice and confronting public-health challenges while trusting families and their physicians to decide what is best.

President Donald Trump is proving that when Washington listens to everyday Americans and acts with urgency, real change is possible. For too long, the crushing cost of prescription drugs has forced families to make an impossible choice between filling a prescription and paying their bills.

Lowering drug prices has been a cornerstone of his presidency, and he has taken meaningful steps to deliver by expanding generics and biosimilars, implementing historic price transparency rules, capping insulin costs for seniors, advancing TrumpRX to increase competition to increase competition and direct access, and pursuing a ‘Most Favored Nation’ policy, so Americans are no longer paying more for medications than patients in other developed countries.

These policies represent an important shift toward putting patients, not middlemen, first. It’s a strong and necessary start, but sustaining this momentum by increasing competition and expanding access will be critical to finally bringing lasting relief to Americans.

This is not the first time Trump has revolutionized healthcare access. He set the tone during his first term with Operation Warp Speed, a milestone in American biomedical history, after COVID-19 paralyzed the world six years ago this month. By pairing private‑sector innovation with decisive federal coordination, it accelerated effective vaccine development and distribution; proving speed and rigor can coexist when government clears paths instead of creating bottlenecks. Just as important, it expanded options for patients and families, reinforcing a simple principle: access first, always.

What followed, however, is where public trust began to erode. Not because of Operation Warp Speed, but because its success was taken over by bureaucratic overreach. I watched in real time as public trust in health institutions collapsed, common sense was dismissed, legitimate debate was shut down and universal COVID vaccine mandates were imposed. Patients did not turn away from the vaccine recommendations because of the science; they turned away because of coercion despite evolving science and varying risk levels.

When personal autonomy gave way to mandates, they undermined confidence in both institutions and vaccines themselves. The result wasn’t the product of Trump’s leadership and scientific progress; it was the consequence of power being prioritized over personal choice.

Today, this administration is again pursuing strong public‑health outcomes without treating Americans as bystanders. Trust should be built where it matters most: in the home and in the doctor’s office. Parents want choice. Doctors want access. Parents overwhelmingly trust their own physicians. Doctors who know a child’s history and needs should remain the most trusted voices and, increasingly, America’s health agencies are speaking that same language.

President Trump: This will be better healthcare at a much lower cost

The recent shift in tone from top health leaders is significant and worth recognizing. Acting Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Jay Bhattacharya is urging Americans to get the measles vaccine as cases rise and the U.S. risks losing its hard-won elimination status. He called the decision ‘deeply personal’ while making clear that ‘measles is preventable and vaccination remains the most effective way to protect yourself and those around you.’

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Administrator Mehmet Oz echoed that in February: ‘There will never be a barrier to Americans getting access to the measles vaccine. It is part of the core schedule.’ This is what responsible public health communication looks like: honest, direct, and rooted in science, without coercion.

President Donald Trump is proving that when Washington listens to everyday Americans and acts with urgency, real change is possible.

The challenge now is sustaining this posture. Keeping vaccines available, affordable and accessible is not a concession to one side of the political debate, it’s broadly popular across the spectrum and conservatives are no exception. Skepticism of mandates and top-down health edicts does not translate into a desire to see vaccines become harder to get or more expensive to access. Americans want the freedom to make their own choices alongside their doctors and that freedom is only meaningful when access is guaranteed.

At the same time, the message must be clear: removing mandates does not mean vaccines are no longer recommended, or they have somehow been deemed unsafe. Vaccines remain one of the most effective tools in modern medicine. When vaccination rates fall, history and modern-day show that preventable disease and mortality rise.

Trump understands this, and his agencies need to hold the line: speak honestly about what the science says, respect personal decision-making and ensure that no American faces a barrier to a vaccine they want. That’s a winning posture politically — and more importantly, it’s the right thing to do.


This post appeared first on FOX NEWS
by
Read More
In Investing

Questcorp Mining Completes Induced Polarization Survey at the Marisa Zone – North Island Copper Project

No Comments

Questcorp Mining Inc. (CSE: QQQ,OTC:QQCMF) (OTCQB: QQCMF) (FSE: D910) (the ‘Company’ or ‘Questcorp’) is pleased to announce the successful completion of 12.8 line kilometres of induced polarization (‘IP’) surveying over the Marisa Zone at its 1,168-hectare North Island Copper Project located near Port Hardy on Vancouver Island, British Columbia.

The Company is currently reviewing the newly acquired geophysical data and will release a detailed interpretation once the technical team has completed its evaluation. As part of this process, Peter E. Walcott and Associates Limited will integrate the historical 1992 IP survey data with the new 2026 survey results to generate a comprehensive 3D inversion model of the target area.

The results of this work are expected to assist in defining priority drill targets. Subject to final interpretation and permitting timelines, the Company intends to initiate permitting for a drill program in late H1 or early H2 2026.

Previous exploration at the Marisa Zone identified copper mineralization associated with an IP chargeability anomaly. In 1992, two of five diamond drill holes were completed to test the anomaly intersected copper mineralization, including:

  • 0.078% copper over 56.39 metres (DDH92-01)
  • 0.041% copper over 70.71 metres (DDH92-03)

Both intercepts were encountered within altered quartz diorite, with copper grades increasing with depth in DDH92-03.

Source: Geophysical and Diamond Drilling Report on the Marisa Property, G.J. Allen and P.G. Dasler, February 29, 1992, prepared for Great Western Gold Corporation.

‘This recently completed IP survey represents an important step in advancing the Marisa Zone target,’ stated Saf Dhillon, President & Chief Executive Officer of Questcorp Mining. ‘The survey has successfully confirmed the presence of the historical chargeability anomaly identified in earlier work. Once Walcott and Associates completes the 3D inversion and our technical team finishes reviewing the results, we expect to refine potential drill targets and move toward a drill program later in 2026.’

The Company cautions that a Qualified Person has not verified the historical exploration data referenced in this release. The presence of mineralization on adjacent or nearby properties, including NorthIsle Copper and Gold and BHP properties, is not necessarily indicative of mineralization on the North Island Copper Project.

The technical content of this news release has been reviewed and approved by R. Tim Henneberry, P. Geo (BC), a Director of the Company and a Qualified Person under National Instrument 43-101 – Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects.

About Questcorp Mining Inc.

Questcorp is engaged in the business of the acquisition and exploration of mineral properties in North America, with the objective of locating and developing economic precious and base metal properties of merit. The Company holds an option to acquire an undivided 100-per-cent interest in and to mineral claims totalling 1,168.09 hectares comprising the North Island Copper property, on Vancouver Island, B.C., subject to a royalty obligation. The Company also holds an option to acquire an undivided 100-per-cent interest in and to mineral claims totalling 2,520.2 hectares comprising the La Union project located in Sonora, Mexico, subject to a royalty obligation.

ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS,

Saf Dhillon
President & CEO

Questcorp Mining Corp.
saf@questcorpmining.ca
Tel. (604-484-3031)
Suite 550, 800 West Pender Street
Vancouver, British Columbia
V6C 2V6

https://questcorpmining.ca

This news release includes certain ‘forward-looking statements’ under applicable Canadian securities legislation. Forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements with respect to the intended use of proceeds from the Offering; and closing of subsequent tranches of the Offering. Forward-looking statements are necessarily based upon a number of estimates and assumptions that, while considered reasonable, are subject to known and unknown risks, uncertainties, and other factors which may cause the actual results and future events to differ materially from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Such factors include, but are not limited to general business, economic, competitive, political and social uncertainties, uncertain capital markets; and delay or failure to receive board or regulatory approvals. There can be no assurance that such forward-looking statements will prove to be accurate, as actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in such statements. Accordingly, readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements. The Company disclaims any intention or obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by law.

Neither the Canadian Securities Exchange nor its Regulation Services Provider (as that term is defined in the policies of the Canadian Securities Exchange) accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release.

Corporate Logo

To view the source version of this press release, please visit https://www.newsfilecorp.com/release/288086

News Provided by TMX Newsfile via QuoteMedia

This post appeared first on investingnews.com
by
Read More
In Investing

Prince Silver

No Comments

Investor Insight

With a strong asset foundation, C$8 million in cash, and an experienced technical team, Prince Silver is well-positioned to capitalize on the current macro tailwinds in the silver and manganese markets. The project has a US Critical Minerals advantage, hosting silver, zinc, lead, and manganese, in addition to gold.

Overview

Prince Silver (CSE:PRNC,OTCQB:PRNCF) is a Vancouver-based exploration company focused on unlocking value at the Prince silver project in southeastern Nevada.

In July 2025, the company completed a transformational acquisition of Stampede Metals Corporation and subsequently rebranded from Hawthorn Resources to Prince Silver Corp.

Map of Prince Silver and Stampede Gap Projects in Nevada, showing mines and highways.

The flagship asset is a district-scale, past-producing silver-gold-zinc-manganese carbonate replacement system, historically mined through the early to mid-1900s. The immediate objective is to validate and expand upon the 129 historic drill holes (over 16,600 meters) to convert the exploration target into a maiden NI 43-101 mineral resource, targeted for the fourth quarter of 2026.

Company Highlights

  • Flagship Project: 100 percent ownership of the historic Prince silver mine in Lincoln County, Nevada, an open, near-surface silver-gold-zinc carbonate replacement deposit. It has an exploration target of 23 to 45 million tons, with strong historic grades.
  • Fully Funded Drilling Program Underway: A 9,000-meter reverse-circulation drill program is now underway with a steady stream of assay results expected from January to May 2026. This follows an recent funding raise of approximately C$4.75 million in gross proceeds.
  • Clean Corporate Reset: Hawthorn Resources completed the Stampede Metals acquisition and re-listed as Prince Silver Corp. on July 11, 2025.
  • Tight Share Structure: The company has 58.9 million shares issued and outstanding as of February 23, 2026.
  • US Critical Minerals Leverage: The Prince Project hosts critical and strategic minerals on the 2025 USGS list: silver, zinc, lead, and manganese, in addition to gold.
  • Experienced, Hands-on Leadership: President Ralph Shearing, CEO Derek Iwanaka, and new directors Marco Montecinos, Robert Wrixon and Darrell Rader add mine-building, corporate, and capital-markets depth to the leadership team.
  • Expanded Land Position: The land package at the Prince Silver Project has more than doubled, securing over 7 kilometers of prospective strike length along the mineralized fault system.

Key Projects

Prince Silver Project

Aerial view of Prince Silver historic mine area with sinkholes and headframe in a desert landscape.

The Prince silver project is a large-scale, polymetallic Carbonate Replacement Deposit (CRD) located just west of Pioche, a historic mining district in southeastern Nevada. The project hosts a structurally and stratigraphically controlled system of silver-rich mantos, breccias, and fissure veins. Historic underground production between 1912 and 1949 totaled approximately 1.12 million tons (Mt) at average grades of 100 grams per ton (g/t) silver, 4.5 percent zinc, and 10 percent manganese.

Highlights

  • Geological compilation work has defined an exploration target ranging between 23 and 45 Mt, grading approximately 37 to 40 g/t silver, 1.5 percent zinc, and 0.8 percent lead.
  • The fully-funded 9,000 meter drill program is underway with a steady stream of assay results expected from January to May 2026, targeting a maiden NI 43-101 Mineral Resource Estimate (MRE) in the fourth quarter of 2026.
  • The company recently expanded its land position, securing over 7 kilometers of prospective strike length along the mineralized fault system.

Stampede Gap Copper-Gold-Molybdenum Project

Map showing Prince Silver

The Stampede Gap Copper-Gold-Molybdenum Project is a large, early-stage porphyry target in Nevada featuring over 200 claims. Historical geophysics have identified multiple IP-resistivity anomalies, and a single 700 meter drill hole encountered extensive skarn alteration. Its location is only 150 kilometers south of KGHM’s Robinson copper-gold-silver-molybdenum mine. The project presents a deep-seated exploration target that has the hallmarks of a large-scale copper-molybdenum deposit.

Management Team

Derek Iwanaka – Chief Executive Officer and Director

Derek Iwanaka is a mining-sector executive with over 23 years of investor relations, corporate development, and capital markets experience. He has supported more than 20 corporate transactions and helped raise over US$100 million, including one of Canada’s first at-the-market financings. Iwanaka previously held senior roles at BeMetals and First Mining Gold Corp., contributing to strategic acquisitions, project advancement, and significant market-cap growth.

Ralph Shearing – President and Director

Ralph Shearing is a professional geologist and mine developer with over 35 years in mineral exploration development and public company management. Since 1987, Shearing has held senior executive positions with public junior mining and exploration companies, notably Luca Mining, a company he founded and guided through exploration, development, construction, and pre-production of the Tahuehueto mine in Mexico. He currently acts as a Qualified Person for Prince Silver’s technical disclosure.

Rob Scott – Chief Financial Officer and Corporate Secretary

Rob Scott’s professional experience has helped raise over $200 million in equity with past and current executive and board positions with TSXV issuers, including Great Bear Resources, Valore Metals, Riverside Resources, Capitan Silver, and First Helium.

Dr. Robert Wrixon – Independent Director

Robert Wrixon is the managing director of Starboard Global, a Hong Kong-based project incubator and VC firm. Wrixon is a seasoned executive and engineer with over 20 years’ experience across ASX- and LSE-listed mining companies. He holds a PhD in mineral engineering from UC Berkeley and brings deep technical, corporate development, and mergers and acquisitions experience.

Darrell Rader – Independent Director

Darrell Rader is the president and chief executive officer of Minaurum Gold, a silver explorer in Mexico. He has directly raised over $150 million for mineral exploration and development and has strong relationships with institutional investors and bankers. Rader founded Defiance Silver Corp, a silver developer, and previously was the head of corporate development at IMPACT Silver. Rader holds a BBA in Finance from Simon Fraser University.

Marco Montecinos – Independent Director

Marco Montecinos has over 40 years of mineral exploration experience across the Americas, including a key role in the three-million-ounce Marlin Gold discovery, multiple gold discoveries, and current roles as chief president of exploration at Gunpoint Exploration and US Critical Metals, as well as president of Tigren, Inc.

This post appeared first on investingnews.com
by
Read More
In Investing

Benchmark: Surging Copper Prices Highlight Looming Global Supply Challenges

No Comments

Copper prices surged through 2025 and into 2026, placing the red metal firmly back into the spotlight as concerns about a looming global supply shortfall mount among market watchers.

Analysts say the tightening outlook reflects a powerful mix of rising demand — driven by urbanization, the energy transition and the rapid expansion of artificial intelligence infrastructure — against a backdrop of stagnant mine supply.

Speaking at the Benchmark Summit, held in Toronto on March 2, Carlos Piñeiro Cruz, principal copper analyst at Benchmark Mineral Intelligence, outlined the key forces shaping the copper market in the near term, while warning that structural supply challenges could intensify over the coming decade.

Copper supply side increasingly tight

It would be a lie to suggest that the copper supply and demand situation is tenable.

In 2025, mining disruptions led to significant declines in output. Cruz noted that production in Q4 2024 exceeded that of any quarter in 2025; in fact, the sector lost around 1 million metric tons (MT) of output in total.

Much of the reduction was due to unforeseen situations, such as the mudslide at Freeport-McMoRan’s (NYSE:FCX) Grasberg in Indonesia, seismic events at Ivanhoe Mines’ (TSX:IVN,OTCQX:IVPAF) Kamoa-Kakula in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and worker strikes at BHP’s (ASX:BHP,NYSE:BHP,LSE:BHP) Escondida in Chile.

While the operations will eventually recover, the incidents come at a time when the copper market is increasingly tight and is expected to enter into a supply deficit in the coming years.

Cruz is predicting copper production growth of 1.5 percent in 2025, suggesting that the growth rate is behind what is expected from refined copper demand. The majority of the increase will come from mines returning to normal operations, with additional amounts from projects or expansions that began ramping up in 2025.

Cruz stated that pre-disruption growth was originally forecast at around 2 million MT in 2026, but has since been downgraded by around 700,000 MT, with the majority of the reduction coming from Escondida.

“We see that supply coming in this year will be highly skewed towards H2 as mines recover, with a 9 percent increase between Q1 and Q4, with most of this growth coming from South America, Africa and Asia, ex-China,” Cruz said.

From there, he expects growth to stabilize in 2027 at a much higher rate than this year, with Africa to experience a faster growth rate than the overall market. In the long run, Cruz predicts a compound annual growth rate of 0.9 percent between 2025 and 2035, with copper output peaking in 2033 at 27 million MT.

Copper demand drivers to watch

One of the main areas Cruz focused on was the acceleration of demand driven by the energy transition, artificial intelligence and technology. A lot of the new demand is coming from electric vehicles (EVs) — while the amount of copper in each EV is seen declining, demand growth will remain strong as sales increase.

“We do think that copper density on EVs is going to go down substantially. From 2010 to 2035, it’s going to go from 85 kilograms per unit to 64 kilograms per unit. In spite of this, we still think that copper demand from battery EVs and hybrid vehicles will grow substantially from around 2.3 million MT in 2025 to 6 million MT in 2035,” Cruz said.

It’s not just EVs, other technologies like artificial intelligence, data centers and communications are placing additional strains on the electrical infrastructure. Increasing demand for new power lines, electrical generators and energy storage is further bolstering downstream demand for copper.

“We anticipate demand from these particular sectors will grow from around 10 million MT in 2025 to 14 million MT in 2035. With most of the demand coming from energy transmission and generation,” Cruz said.

He went on to explain that transmission and generation account for 77 percent of the anticipated growth.

Cruz thinks energy demand has been overshadowed by the growth in data centers, where he suggested that copper demand will increase by only about 400,000 MT between 2025 and 2035.

“Of the growth I told you about from EVs with almost 4 million MT, or the demand from energy infrastructure with a little less than 3 million MT, it’s not that impressive. Although it still adds up to a substantial growth,” he said.

100 new copper mines by 2035?

The key takeaway from Cruz’s presentation was that a copper supply gap is developing. While he pointed out that the annual supply growth rate will come in at around 1 percent, demand is nearly double at 1.9 percent.

“This basically means that with the mines that currently exist, plus the projects that are under construction, we expect to see a difference in what needs to be mined and what will be mined in 2035 of around 7.4 million MT,” he said.

When probable projects are factored in, the supply gap narrows, but a 2.2 million MT shortfall still exists. However, these additional projects are not guaranteed. Cruz suggested that to avoid shortfalls, 100 new mines with output in the 75,000 MT range need to be built by 2035 — but this won’t be an easy task. Of the 10 largest mines in the world, only two were built after 2010; meanwhile, many of the others are decades or over 100 years old.

One reason new mines are scarce is long permitting processes, but Cruz also acknowledged that newly found large-scale deposits are at greater depths and lower grades. This has led to a scarcity of greenfield projects, with most growth coming from expansions at existing mines, a trend Cruz expects to continue over the coming years.

“Looking ahead, we expect this trend to continue to the point that we anticipate that by 2031, new production from greenfield projects will be half of what it was in 2011,” he said.

Additionally, Cruz said the copper market is becoming increasingly bifurcated, with China set to be a dominant force in both production and refinement of the red metal moving forward.

“The supply gap, or the future copper shortage, is something that the industry has been warning about for years now. The truth is, it seems not a lot of people are paying attention to it, but China has,” he said.

Cruz explained that China’s involvement in the Democratic Republic of Congo was the result of extensive planning and considerable investment. In fact, Chinese companies have collectively surpassed western producers and are securing their own supply chain.

Investor takeaway

Overall, Cruz believes the copper sector is well positioned for investment.

While he has some concern that smelting capacity is nearing saturation, he expects the situation to return to balance by 2031 and thinks that competition for concentrate will keep producer costs lower until then.

The combination of low treatment charges, high copper prices and even higher by-product gold, silver and molybdenum prices has helped increase margins and profitability for operators.

“We think that the market is in a very good position right now for miners at least. You could argue that for smelters it’s good as well despite the treatment and refinement charges, and we think that if these factors last a little bit longer, we expect some of these projects to bring the copper that humanity needs,” Cruz said.

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

This post appeared first on investingnews.com
by
Read More
In Investing

Canada’s Junior Miners Still in Challenging Financial Climate as Metals Prices Climb

No Comments

Canada is a premier destination for mineral exploration and mining, but the nation’s exploration-stage companies are still struggling to attract investment dollars.

The country’s appeal is showcased in the Fraser Institute’s most recent Annual Survey of Mining Companies, which tracks the investment attractiveness of global mining jurisdictions. It places the Canadian provinces of Ontario and Saskatchewan among the world’s top mining jurisdictions, behind only Nevada.

The Canadian mining industry “serves as a proxy for the global (mining) industry” as it is home to “the largest concentration of public mineral companies in the world,” with Toronto at “the center of the mining finance universe,” said Douglas Silver, partner and senior advisor at Benwerrin Investment Partners, during his presentation at this year’s Prospectors & Developers Association of Canada (PDAC) convention, held last week.

Jeff Killeen, director of policy and programs for PDAC, shared similar sentiments in his own presentation, telling conference attendees, “Almost 30 percent of every dollar raised somewhere in the world for the (mining) sector comes through the Canadian marketplace: the TSX, the Venture and the CSE.”

Canada’s unique tax incentives crucial for mining investment

Canada owes its leading position in the global mining industry to its large landmass and abundance of natural resources. However, both Silver and Killeen pointed out that the nation’s flow-through share tax incentive — unique to Canada — is also “incredibly critical” to the success of the natioin’s mining sector.

Flow-through shares are a highly specialized financing tool that allow resource companies to transfer eligible exploration and development expenses to investors, who then deduct them from their own taxable income.

Under the Mineral Exploration Tax Credit (METC), funds generated from this type of capital raise must be put into a project within 18 months. There’s also the Critical Mineral Exploration Tax Credit (CMETC), which applies to critical minerals used for batteries and magnets, including rare earths, nickel, uranium, lithium and graphite, among others.

Generational shift shrinking pool of mining investors

Although Canada dominates the global mining finance sector and is teeming with multiple types of mineral deposits, it’s becoming increasingly difficult for the nation’s exploration-stage companies to attract investment dollars.

The tight financial landscape for today’s explorers stems in part from both a complex regulatory system that limits the areas open to mining activity, and a lack of proper infrastructure in the more remote regions of the country. Both of these shortcomings strike at the heart of perceived jurisdictional risk for both retail and institutional investors.

During his presentation, Killeen highlighted a few of the key financing trends affecting access to capital in the mineral industry, noting that last year saw a dramatic uptick in investment in the mining sector.

Where is capital originating from? Most of it was equity raised through private placements, which poses a problem as it represents a very narrow investor base that consists of friends and family of the management team and strategic investors that probably already own shares in the company.

“That just tells us that we’re not broadening the investor base. We’re not pulling in more investors. There’s no more new retail folks coming in investing in shares in Canada. This tells us that we’re in a very risky balance in terms of who actually can fund the sector through the next generation,” he warned the PDAC audience.

“There is a lesser population of retail investors as time goes on. You know that the Boomer generation is going away in terms of an investment pool, and the next generation isn’t necessarily replicating that.”

Silver also views the generational shift in the investment landscape as a problem for raising money in the mining industry. “There’s no question from what I’ve read and heard that the younger generations don’t pick individual stocks. They tend to lean towards ETFs or crypto or other stuff,” he said. “Crypto is definitely competing with mining.”

Gold grabbing all the dollars

Canada’s minerals industry did experience a strong rebound in terms of equity investment in 2025, but it was heavily targeted at producers and developers with large-scale, near-production projects. Gold dominated, but investment also increased in projects associated with critical minerals like lithium, nickel, copper and graphite.

“How much is going to the bottom end, to those sub-$100 million market cap companies, the lion’s share of the junior explorers that are out there? Well, in the Canadian marketplace, only about 10 percent of every dollar raised is getting down to those size of companies,” explained Killeen, highlighting the discrepancy.

In his view, the lack of investment over the past decade is bringing about a decline in grassroots exploration.

Gold is grabbing many mineral investment dollars, not only because its price is surging to unprecedented highs, but also because there’s a faster return on investment compared to other metals. Killeen said that’s due to the fact that gold mining doesn’t require large amounts of infrastructure such as railways and ports.

“In some cases, you don’t need roads. The capital to develop a gold mine might be one-sixth of, one-10th of or one-20th of a copper mine or a zinc mine,” he commented. “So the rate of return for the average investor who’s looking at an exploration stock saying, ‘Could I get money back into this? Could I get value back into this?’ Today that timeframe is much shorter, and the capital to bring it to market is much lower.”

Looking at copper, which is much more capital intensive, Killeen said production is down nearly 30 percent from seven or eight years ago. Reserves are also down, even though rising copper prices have resulted in more resources being upgraded to reserves. Silver agreed with that take — his research shows that the Canadian mining industry is overflowing with gold companies. Of the 1,555 mining companies in Canada in 2024, 42 percent of them were gold-focused firms compared to only 17 percent for copper, the second highest amount.

“So why do we have so many gold companies? I think the answer is pretty obvious to me, which is if you want to build a porphyry copper mine, you’ve got to go raise $5 (billion) or $10 billion,” said Silver. “That’s very difficult in the mining industry, because we just don’t have that much gross capital available to us relative to what some of the other industries have … but you can build a gold mine for a couple hundred million (dollars).’

Despite the massive focus on gold, Killeen and Silver both noted that Canada is actually seeing increasing exploration activity for rare earths, lithium, cobalt, graphite and uranium.

Improving the investment case for Canada’s juniors

Killeen said PDAC and its members are pushing for the Canadian government to make the METC and CMETC permanent to bring more investment into mineral exploration in greenfield regions and making new discoveries.

Last year, flow-through shares generated C$1.6 billion in investment into the sector, according to Silver’s research, or about 76 percent of funding received by mineral exploration companies in Canada.

“When you look at the role of Canadian flow through, it’s so incredibly critical to Canadian mining,” he said. Silver too is advocating for the mining industry and investors to “fight for flow through way more than you do.’

To address infrastructure challenges for bringing critical metals projects into production sooner for a quicker return on investment, Killeen suggested more pension funds investing in Canada and easing government regulations.

“We need them cooperating together with the federal government to develop major infrastructure that doesn’t exist beyond 100 kilometers from the border,” he said.

Killeen noted that “the world is changing” and governments, including Canada’s, are becoming more focused on securing domestic sources of critical minerals. For example, at PDAC, Tim Hodgson, Canada’s minister of energy and natural resources, announced a C$3.6 billion suite of investments targeting the critical minerals sector.

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

This post appeared first on investingnews.com
by
Read More
In Latest News

Rubio designates Afghanistan as ‘state sponsor of wrongful detention’: ‘Despicable tactics’

No Comments

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio designated Afghanistan as a ‘state sponsor of wrongful detention,’ accusing the Taliban of ‘unjustly’ detaining Americans and other foreign nationals.

In his announcement on Monday, Rubio said the Taliban continues to use ‘terrorist tactics’ that he insisted ‘need to end.’

‘I am designating Afghanistan as a State Sponsor of Wrongful Detention,’ Rubio said in a statement. ‘The Taliban continues to use terrorist tactics, kidnapping individuals for ransom or to seek policy concessions. These despicable tactics need to end.’

The secretary also called on the terror group to free a pair of Americans who are ‘unjustly detained’ in Afghanistan.

‘It is not safe for Americans to travel to Afghanistan because the Taliban continues to unjustly detain our fellow Americans and other foreign nationals,’ he said. ‘The Taliban needs to release Dennis Coyle, Mahmoud Habibi, and all Americans unjustly detained in Afghanistan now and commit to cease the practice of hostage diplomacy forever.’

Coyle, 64, was detained more than a year ago without charges by the Taliban General Directorate of Intelligence, according to his family, noting that he still has not been charged. His family said he was legally working to support Afghan language communities as an academic researcher.

Habibi, a 38-year-old American citizen who was born in Afghanistan, was taken along with his driver from their vehicle in the capital of Kabul in August 2022 by the Taliban General Directorate of Intelligence, according to the State Department.

The FBI said Habibi was previously Afghanistan’s director of civil aviation and worked for the Kabul-based telecommunications company Asia Consultancy Group. The FBI said the Taliban detained 29 other employees of the company but has released most of them.

Habibi has not been heard from since his arrest, and the Taliban has not disclosed his whereabouts or condition, according to the State Department and FBI. The Taliban has previously denied it detained Habibi.

The U.S. is also calling for the return of the remains of Paul Overby, an author who was last seen close to Afghanistan’s border with Pakistan in 2014, according to Reuters, citing two sources familiar with the situation.

The State Department could restrict the use of U.S. passports for travel to Afghanistan if the Taliban does not meet the U.S. government’s demands, the sources told the outlet.

A passport restriction of this kind is currently only in place for North Korea.

The Taliban called the decision by Rubio to designate Afghanistan a ‘state sponsor of wrongful detention’ regrettable, adding that it wanted to resolve the matter through dialogue.

The Taliban took control of Afghanistan in 2021 during the U.S. military’s chaotic withdrawal from the country that ended the 20-year war in the region.

Rubio gave the ‘state sponsor of wrongful detention’ designation to Iran late last month, just one day before the U.S.-Israeli strikes on the country. He warned that the U.S. could restrict travel to Iran over its detention of U.S. citizens, but there have not been any restrictions yet.

‘The Iranian regime must stop taking hostages and release all Americans unjustly detained in Iran, steps that could end this designation and associated actions,’ Rubio said at the time.

Reuters contributed to this report.


This post appeared first on FOX NEWS
by
Read More