Leaders of a 189-member group that acts as the House GOP’s de facto conservative think tank are formally endorsing a new short-term federal funding bill.
With just over two weeks until the deadline for Republicans’ initial Nov. 21 plan and the threat of more government shutdown chaos, the Republican Study Committee (RSC) Steering Committee is calling for an extension into ‘at least’ January 2026.
‘Democrats are responsible for the longest government shutdown in U.S. history — paralyzing our country and deepening the healthcare crisis sparked by Obamacare,’ reads a statement first obtained by Fox News Digital.
‘House conservatives support a return to regular order accomplished only by a continuing resolution that funds the government at least into January 2026.’
A debate is already brewing within the GOP about how long another extension should last, with some conservatives even demanding a bill carrying last year’s federal spending levels through at least November 2026.
The House passed a short-term measure called a continuing resolution (CR) on Sept. 19, aimed at extending fiscal year (FY) 2025 funding levels for seven weeks to give lawmakers more time to strike a deal on FY 2026 federal spending.
But progress has been stalled in the Senate for weeks, where Democrats are demanding any spending bill be paired with an extension of COVID-19 pandemic-era Obamacare subsidies set to expire at the end of this year.
Senate Majority Leader Thune, R-S.D., has floated the idea of holding a vote on extending the subsidies if Democrats agree to Republicans’ CR, which is currently free of partisan policy riders.
It’s not clear if there’s an appetite for such a vote in the House, RSC leaders’ new statement suggests.
‘We are also committed to delivering a healthcare system that is truly accessible, affordable, and spurs innovation. Congress should reject any extension of the wasteful COVID-era subsidies that fuel fraud and drive up costs,’ they said.
The latest position by the RSC, led by Rep. August Pfluger, R-Texas, is likely an accurate indication of where most House Republicans’ feelings on both the CR and the Obamacare subsidies are.
Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., signaled support for a January CR on a private call with House GOP lawmakers on Tuesday, Fox News Digital was told earlier this week.
House Appropriations Committee Chairman Tom Cole, R-Okla., told Fox News Digital last month that he and others on his committee could support an extension into January.
But both issues are likely to see debate within the House GOP, not to mention the chamber as a whole.
Just over a dozen Republicans led by Rep. Jen Kiggans, R-Va., are supportive of extending the enhanced Obamacare subsidies by a year as a cushion to give the GOP more time to reform the flawed U.S. healthcare system.
Without it, some members of that coalition have argued, millions of Americans could be faced with a fiscal cliff leaving them to pay significantly more per month for their healthcare.
And on the CR debate, the House Freedom Caucus led by Rep. Andy Harris, R-Md., recently released a statement calling for a CR that extends at least into November 2026.
Their reasoning is that such a measure is the most effective way of keeping federal spending low and avoids another messy government funding fight until after the midterm elections.
But appropriators are against such a move, arguing that Congress must follow its constitutional duty in setting a yearly budget rather than relying on spending levels first passed under former President Joe Biden for another year.
It’s also not clear that Democrats, at least several of whom are needed to break a filibuster in the Senate, would accept a year-long CR.
Meanwhile, the government shutdown is in its 37th day, already having made history as the longest fiscal standoff in U.S. history.
Rio Silver Inc. (the ‘Company’ or ‘Rio Silver’) (TSX.V: RYO,OTC:RYOOD) (OTC: RYOOF) is pleased to announce that, subject to the approval of the TSX Venture Exchange, the Company intends to settle (the ‘Transaction’) an aggregate of $293,250 of indebtedness (the ‘Debt’) owed to certain arm’s length and non-arm’s length creditors through the issuance of an aggregate of 1,396,428 common shares, at a deemed price of $0.21 per common share, and 420,238 common share purchase warrants (the ‘Warrants’) of the Company. 976,190 of the common shares (and no Warrants) will be issued to non-arm’s length creditors.
Each Warrant is exercisable into a common share at the price of $0.28 per common share, for a period of three years from the date of issue.
All common shares and Warrants issued to settle the Debt will be subject to a hold period of four months and one day from the date of issuance. The Transaction is subject to TSX Venture Exchange approval. Completion of the Transaction will allow the Company to improve its current working capital deficiency position.
ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF Rio Silver INC.
Chris Verrico
Director, President and Chief Executive Officer
Neither the TSX Venture Exchange nor its Regulation Services Provider accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release.
For further information,
Christopher Verrico, President, CEO
Tel: (604) 762-4448
Email: chris.verrico@riosilverinc.com
Website: www.riosilverinc.com
This news release includes forward-looking statements that are subject to risks and uncertainties. All statements within, other than statements of historical fact, are to be considered forward looking. Although the Company believes the expectations expressed in such forward-looking statements are based on reasonable assumptions, such statements are not guarantees of future performance and actual results or developments may differ materially from those in forward-looking statements. Factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in forward-looking statements include market prices, exploitation and exploration successes, continued availability of capital and financing, and general economic, market or business conditions. There can be no assurances that such statements will prove accurate and, therefore, readers are advised to rely on their own evaluation of such uncertainties. We do not assume any obligation to update any forward-looking statements except as required by applicable laws.
The UN Climate Change Conference, COP30, starts Nov. 6 with a world leader summit and runs to Nov. 21. It will emphasize ‘the urgency of the climate crisis and the need for accelerated and collective climate actions.’ However, Microsoft founder Bill Gates just issued a memo aimed at COP30 attendees proposing a fundamental shift in priorities: focus on poverty reduction rather than climate modification.
Gates, who previously gave primary importance to measures to reduce near-term emissions, has drawn criticism for arguing that ‘a metric that should count even more than emissions and temperature change [is] improving lives. Our chief goal should be to prevent suffering, particularly for those in the toughest conditions who live in the world’s poorest countries.’
His argument rests on three key premises: climate change poses serious challenges but does not represent an existential threat to civilization; temperature metrics alone inadequately measure climate-related progress; and improved health and economic prosperity provide the most effective defense against climate change.
Gates provides data to show that achieving net-zero emissions would result in a 1.9-degree Celsius temperature increase from 1990 levels, while inaction would produce a 2.9-degree increase. This one-degree differential, he argues, suggests that resources allocated toward net-zero goals might yield greater humanitarian benefits if redirected toward energy access and disease prevention.
The correlation between energy consumption and economic prosperity is striking. Nations with annual per capita incomes below $1,145 consume approximately 1,100 kilowatts per person annually, while those exceeding $14,005 in per capita income utilize 55,000 kilowatts per person annually, according to data cited by Gates.
The genuine inequity, Gates contends, lies in human development disparities. A child born in South Sudan faces mortality risks 39 times higher before age five compared to a Swedish child. These vulnerable populations require enhanced access to energy, nutrition and healthcare infrastructure.
The relationship between economic development and energy consumption is unequivocal: no nation has achieved high per capita income with low per capita energy usage, and conversely, no country maintains high energy consumption alongside persistent poverty.
Increased energy access facilitates improved living standards through enhanced productivity, agricultural advancement and household consumption, thereby reducing dependence on subsistence farming. Energy availability either provides farmers with modern agricultural technologies or enables economic mobility to pursue alternative livelihoods.
High-energy nations benefit from superior healthcare infrastructure and water sanitation systems, resulting in reduced maternal and child mortality rates and greater capacity for environmental protection measures.
Hurricane Melissa’s destruction in Jamaica illustrates how natural disasters inflict disproportionate damage on developing nations compared to wealthy countries, due to disparities in energy infrastructure, resilient construction and recovery capabilities. Affordable energy access is essential to addressing these inequalities.
Energy poverty in many African and Latin American nations drives migration pressures, as residents seek higher living standards in fossil fuel-rich regions, particularly Europe and North America.
To support emerging economies and alleviate migration pressures, President Donald Trump has reversed restrictions on loans to developing countries for fossil fuel energy projects. Financial institutions are no longer compelled to finance exclusively renewable energy initiatives.
The 140 private banks from 44 countries that participated in the United Nations Net Zero Banking Alliance — including Barclays, JP Morgan Chase and Sumitomo — have suspended their commitments to restrict fossil fuel financing. The World Bank, which has historically discouraged fossil fuel and nuclear power lending while prioritizing renewables, may reassess its position.
This policy shift enables developing nations to secure financing for conventional power plants, transmission infrastructure, distribution networks and household connections. Importantly, this change diminishes China’s strategic advantage in lending to African and Latin American nations — often securing ports and other assets as collateral.
Gates’s reversal in the climate debate challenges the international community to confront an uncomfortable reality. While climate conferences convene in developed nations with reliable electricity and healthcare systems, billions lack access to the energy that makes such gatherings possible.
His argument suggests that the most effective climate strategy may be ensuring that vulnerable populations have the resources to adapt and thrive, rather than pursuing emissions targets that may perpetuate the very poverty that exacerbates climate vulnerability. Whether policymakers at COP30 will heed this message remains uncertain, but Gates has succeeded in reframing the conversation around what climate action should ultimately serve: economic progress, not merely atmospheric targets.
On Sunday, October 26, Argentine President Javier Milei’s party, La Libertad Avanza, won big in the country’s legislative elections. In the lower house, the Chamber of Deputies, it won 50.4 percent of the available seats on a plurality — 40.7 percent — of the vote. In the upper house, the Senate, it won thirteen of 27 available seats for a net gain of six.
Many doubted such an outcome a month ago when, according to Polymarket, the party’s odds of winning most seats fell to a low of 52.5 percent, down from 89.5 percent on August 19. Argentina was, then, in the grip of one of its perennial economic crises, with the peso falling and bond yields rising. The fate of Milei’s bid to right the country’s economy by balancing the budget with deep spending cuts — which, as Noah Smith noted in July, had eliminated the budget deficit and brought inflation down from a monthly rate of 25 percent to 2.4 percent — hung in the balance.
The proximate cause of Argentina’s latest economic crisis occurred on September 7, when, with Milei’s sister embroiled in a corruption scandal, Alianza La Libertad Avanza suffered a heavy electoral defeat at the hands of the center-left Fuerza Patria. “Markets panicked,” The Economist reported, “worried that this signaled the end of popular support for his reforms, and the potential return of spendthrift Peronists. A sharp peso sell-off began, while investors ditched Argentine bonds.”
While Argentina is not alone in feeling the fiscal pain of rising bond yields, few countries nowadays worry very much about their exchange rates. But Argentina is different.
The Necessity and Peril of Foreign Currency Borrowing
The ultimate cause of Argentina’s crisis is its long history of fiscal and monetary mismanagement. It has defaulted on its international sovereign debt nine times, three of those in the past two decades, and suffered repeated bouts of high inflation. As a result, nobody will lend pesos to its government at a remotely affordable interest rate because they either might not get repaid at all (a hard default) or be repaid in currency which is worth much less than when they loaned it (a soft default).
So, to borrow the pesos it needs to finance its operations, the Argentine government first borrows dollars which it then exchanges for those pesos. But a government which borrows dollars must be able to repay dollars. So how does a government which borrows in a currency it doesn’t issue — which isn’t a “monetary sovereign” — get that currency? It has two sources.
Taxation is the first. The Argentine government could impose taxes on its population payable in dollars, but that merely transfers the problem of getting those dollars in the first place from the government to the taxpayers. To do so, those taxpayers would need to sell more to the United States (or anyone else who is willing to transact with them in dollars) than they buy from it. In short, Argentina would have to run a current-account surplus, something it has done only rarely in recent years.
Borrowing is the second. Here, however, the Argentine government is effectively buying dollars with pesos, and this is why the exchange rate — the peso price of dollars — matters. In April, 1,000 pesos bought you 93 cents; on September 21, it bought you just 68 cents. Milei’s government needed more pesos to buy the same amount of dollars, and this, as The Economist noted, raised the familiar specter of money printing and inflation, with the consequent flight from pesos and peso denominated debt, like Argentine government bonds, and the resulting fall in the currency and rise in bond yields.
The Folly of Fixed Exchange Rates
To protect themselves from such a situation, the Argentine government has tried to fix the exchange rate, but there are limits to this.
If the peso rises against the dollar, the Argentine central bank, as the issuer of pesos, can print them in unlimited quantity, using them to buy dollars, pushing the relative price of pesos down and the relative price of dollars up.
It is a very different situation when the peso is falling against the dollar. Then, the Argentine central bank must push the price of the dollar down relative to pesos by selling dollars for pesos, pushing the relative price of those pesos up. But the Argentine central bank only has access to a certain number of dollars so there are limits to how far it can pursue this policy. This is the great asymmetry at the heart of currency pegs like Argentina’s; as the British discovered in 1992, it is easy to weaken a relatively strong currency, but not to strengthen a relatively weak one.
In the run-up to the election, Argentina blew through its dollar reserves attempting to defend the peso’s peg. When it ran out of ammo, President Trump stepped in. However helpful, depending on the president is not a macroeconomic strategy for the long term.
The Prospects for Argentina
Milei aims to get Argentina’s borrowing under control so that it is less vulnerable to swings in the exchange rate. The country’s electorate gave him a vote of confidence this Sunday. Unlike voters in other countries, they might have felt a level of economic pain which has led them to acknowledge the need for Milei’s medicine.
With this mandate, work remains to be done. “The main problem is that Argentina has a large welfare state given the size and level of development of its economy, and a highly distorted tax and transfer system that funds it,” political economist Jean-Paul Faguet told Newsweek in September. “It only manages to remain stable during good times; a bad international economy or specific international shocks throw it out of kilter and into crisis.” Sunday’s election was a positive shock, with the peso and bond prices rising and yields falling on the news. But as long as Argentina’s structural problems persist, the economy – and the country – will remain vulnerable. Its welfare state must, like that in France, for example, be brought into proportion with the economy’s ability to support it and that will mean further cuts. With Milei up for reelection in 2027, much work remains for him to do.
New York City is celebrating the win of its most defining election in years. On November 4, voters selected their new mayor.
Zohran Mamdani, a self-described democratic socialist, surged in popularity — especially among Gen Z — on promises to freeze rent, open government-run grocery stores, eliminate bus fares, and raise the minimum wage to $30 an hour. His victory on Tuesday marks a major political shift in one of the world’s most influential cities — and it could be an ominous sign of where America is headed.
Media coverage right now is focused on whether Mamdani’s policies will actually make life in New York more affordable — and while that’s an important question, it’s not the only one we should be asking. Some — including President Trump — have labeled Mamdani a communist. Mamdani rejects the charge, insisting he’s a democratic socialist and that the two couldn’t be more different. But that raises an even more important question that few people are asking: how different is Mamdani’s “democratic socialism” from the Marxist socialism it claims to distance itself from?
Marx’s Vs Mamdani’s Framework
In The Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx built his entire system around class conflict. He saw history as a constant struggle between the bourgeoisie — the wealthy owners of factories, land, and capital — and the proletariat, the working class who labored for them. To Marx, the capitalist was the villain: the exploiter of workers and the thief of their labor. His solution was total upheaval: abolish private property, erase class divisions, and replace capitalism with collective ownership managed by the state.
The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible.
In other words, Marx believed the working class should use the power of the state to seize control of all production, centralizing it “in the hands of the state” — which he described as the proletariat organized as the ruling class. In theory, this meant the economy would be run “for the people.” In reality, it means the state would run everything — because the state was the people, at least in name.
Cultures that have adopted Marxist principles promise fairness, but in practice, concentrate nearly all power in the hands of government. What begins as a call to liberate workers from oppression ends with individuals stripped of both property and choice.
Mamdani’s version of socialism sounds less radical, but it flows from the same logic. He’s not calling for a violent revolution, nor the complete abolition of private ownership. Instead, he frames the “villain” differently — the greedy billionaire, the corporate landlord, the capitalist system that supposedly makes New York unaffordable. His plan is to make life “fairer” for working-class New Yorkers through rent freezes, government-run grocery stores, and higher minimum wages. But each solution leans on the same idea Marx started with: using government power to fix inequality. None of his proposals limit government power or expand individual liberty — they expand the state’s power in the name of helping the people. It may sound democratic, but the foundation is the same: more control from the top, less freedom for the individual.
What’s the Difference Between Democratic Socialism and Marx’s Socialism?
In his NBC interview, Mamdani was asked point-blank if he’s a communist. His response: “No, I am not…I call myself a democratic socialist.” Today, democratic socialists claim their version is different. The word “democratic” makes it sound safer — like it’s no longer about force, just about fairness. The idea is that instead of taking power through revolution, socialism can be voted in peacefully. But voting for socialism doesn’t make it any less socialist, nor does it promise government power will be used for good. Calling it “democratic” doesn’t change the system — it just changes how it’s introduced. The end goal is still the same: to let government, not individuals, decide what’s “fair,” and force everyone else to conform.
That same mindset carries into how Marxists and their colleagues view wealth. Democratic socialists begin with the belief that inequality itself is injustice — that the success of some must come at the expense of others. It starts with envy and entitlement disguised as fairness: the idea that those who have more should be forced to “give back” to those who have less. Beneath it lies a quiet moral assumption rooted in Marxist thought — the notion that some know better than others how much people should earn, how their money should be spent, and that government should step in to correct that “injustice.” It echoes Marx’s famous line, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” In theory, it sounds compassionate. In practice, it hands the power of deciding both ability and need to the state.
None of it is voluntary; it relies on the power of government to enforce a vision of equality that punishes success instead of encouraging opportunity. So they push for higher taxes, arguing that the state should decide who has “too much” and redistribute it. But once that line is drawn, it never stops moving. Today it’s billionaires. Tomorrow it’s millionaires. Eventually, it’s the middle class. Because government doesn’t create wealth — it can only take, until there’s nothing left to take.
Then there’s the question of government control over the means of production. Democratic socialists insist they’re different from communists because they’re not asking for the government to run everything — just the “important stuff.” Housing, healthcare, public transit… and whatever else they decide to add to that list next. But it’s fine, they argue, because these necessities shouldn’t be managed by greedy corporations in search of profit.
That’s exactly how socialism starts — small, targeted, and “reasonable.” Every socialist system begins with the promise of managing only a few “key” industries that are “too important” for the free market. That’s how it started in Venezuela. The government first nationalized the oil and steel industries, claiming state control was necessary to stabilize prices and protect workers. But over time, that “limited” control spread — first into agriculture, then banking, electricity, tourism, and transportation — until nearly every sector of the economy was under state management. What began as “helping” key industries became total control of production, and with it, the collapse of an entire nation.
Once government controls one industry, there’s nothing stopping it from reaching for another.
So while Mamdani’s version of socialism may sound softer than Marx’s, it grows from the same root. Both rest on the belief that government — not individuals or markets — should manage economic life in the name of fairness. One makes demands by force; the other asks for it by vote, but both seek unchecked control.
Mamdani’s Is Right About the Problem, Wrong About the Solution
Mamdani is right about the problem — New York has become unaffordable. But it’s not the “unfair capitalist system” that made the city expensive to live in; it’s decades of government interference that have limited supply, inflated costs, and buried productivity under layers of bureaucracy. The same policies fueled New York’s housing crisis and soaring cost of living. And now, Mamdani’s solution is to expand the very system that created the problem — inviting even deeper government control into the very systems that caused this crisis in the first place.
Democratic Socialism vs Marx’s Communism: The Same Plant, Different Stages
So what really separates democratic socialism from Marx’s communism? In short, it’s the same plant — just at different stages of growth. I created this diagram to help envision it: democratic socialism is the seed, socialism is the growing plant, and communism is the full-grown tree, where the state controls every part of economic life and, eventually, people’s choices.
When Mamdani says he’s not a communist, he may genuinely believe that. But the ideology he’s promoting comes from the same soil Marx planted in 175 years ago — the belief that government control can ‘fix’ what free people built. What Mamdani calls “democratic socialism” isn’t a rejection of what Marx built; it’s this generation’s version of it. It’s communism with training wheels — rebranded for today’s youth.
Politicians like Mamdani get away with selling socialism because they’re not trying to overthrow capitalism overnight — they say they’re trying to reform it. They replace free exchange with state intervention one policy at a time, until the line between “helping” and “owning” disappears. Mamdani might not be Marx reborn, but his ideas come from the same place — and if history has taught us anything, it’s that the outcome doesn’t change just because the packaging looks friendlier. And the outcome always has a body count.
So as New Yorkers celebrate Mamdani’s win, I hope they — and the rest of America — pay attention. Because what happens here won’t just shape one city’s future. It will reveal how much longer we’re willing to flirt with the same ideology that has destroyed freedom everywhere it’s been tried.
As I write this, a mother somewhere in Detroit just swiped her EBT card at a grocery store, trying to buy food for her children. She was denied, forcing her to leave the food at the cashier as her kids looked on, hungry and wondering why they’re not able to carry the food out of the store tonight. She and 42 million other Americans are facing this dilemma because Congress hasn’t passed a budget. While politicians point fingers at one another, families are starting to wonder how they’ll put food on the table. Despite all the doomsayers, something amazing is happening that offers lessons for countries around the world: people are solving the problem without the federal government.
Several states announced that they would dip into their budgets to partially fund food assistance programs. But more tellingly are the local and private responses to this. H-E-B, a Texas-based grocery store, pledged $5 million to Texas food banks and $1 million for Meals on Wheels. DoorDash announced that it would deliver one million free meals and that they were going to waive delivery and service fees for 300,000 grocery orders. Communities, churches, and local charities, not to mention small businesses across the country are collecting increased donations and filling the gap left behind by Congress. All of this without federal authorization, oversight, or influence.
This isn’t the first time people in local communities have stepped up in this way. In 2023, when Congress ended pandemic-era SNAP allotments, several pundits cried disaster. Food banks across the nation reported “increased demand” in the months following the cuts. And while there were some initial challenges, the American people once again rose to the occasion. Private charities donated some 5.3 billion meals that year, in exactly the same way that Americans are doing right now. The Archdiocese of St. Louis mobilized over 100 parishes within 48 hours. No hearings required.
This raises an interesting question: if communities and people can do something, why are we charging the federal government with doing it, and what net effect has the federal government’s involvement had?
Whenever governments get involved in distributing benefits, it creates concentrated benefits for some and dispersed costs for taxpayers. With food assistance programs, there are two groups of beneficiaries. The most obvious beneficiary is the people who receive food assistance. But the less obvious beneficiary is none other than the well-connected members of the food industry.
As it turns out, there is a tremendous scope for cronyism in determining eligibility, benefit amounts, and purchase restrictions. Using the US’s food assistance program as our example, consider the fact that you can buy cold chicken, but not hot, ready-to-eat chicken. Kellogg’s Corn Flakes? Those are fine. Store-brand corn flakes made with the same ingredients? Maybe not. Nutrition science doesn’t explain this. Lobbying does.
As another example, WIC, a federal program designed to further assist Women, Infants, and Children, leaves it to states to determine which products are eligible. Michigan lists 9,890 items, down to brand and package sizes. You can buy two-percent milk, but only if it’s from certain brands and only one quart at a time. Want a gallon of milk instead to save yourself (and the taxpayer) money? Sorry, Lansing bureaucrats know better.
Imagine the lobbying effort that went into securing a product’s placement on this list and similar lists in the other 49 states. Then realize that there are multiple levels of bureaucracy that must be navigated before a tax dollar reaches the recipients of these programs, all of which are staffed by people who do not work for free. The efficiency gains alone of cutting out the government are simply staggering.
According to some estimates, food pantries provide one meal for every nine that SNAP and other food assistance programs provide. But when these programs fail, those pantries, thanks to community involvement, almost instantly scale up, despite cries from the commentariat that “philanthropy can’t fill the gap.” Critics will argue that charity cannot replace the $8 billion per month the US spends on SNAP alone. They’re right about the scale but wrong about the implications.
The irony here is that the same government, which claims the sole ability to prevent hunger, criminalizes feeding the homeless without permits in over 70 cities and requires food banks to navigate FDA regulations designed more for commercial enterprises. Philanthropy plus federalism plus free markets equals results. Not perfect results, of course, but far more effective results done much more efficiently than Washington’s one-size-fits-none approach. This is because people know and understand their neighbors’ actual needs, not just their demographic categories.
The question isn’t whether we can feed hungry families without federal oversight. We’re doing it right now, and history shows this isn’t an isolated incident. The question is why we pretend that only Washington can solve problems that communities solved long before the Department of Agriculture existed.
The global lithium market saw sharp swings in Q3 2025 as shifting supply dynamics, policy uncertainty, and geopolitical developments reshaped investor sentiment.
After hitting a four-year low in June, benchmark lithium carbonate prices briefly surged to an 11 month high in August on speculation of Australian supply cuts, before easing to US$11,185 per metric ton by quarter’s end.
Market watchers say sentiment-driven moves continue to dominate a sector still facing oversupply, while US policy shifts and China’s regulatory measures add further uncertainty to the outlook.
Against this backdrop, Canadian lithium stocks are gaining attention as investors look for companies positioned to benefit from long-term demand growth while navigating short-term price pressure.
Consolidated Lithium Metals is a Canadian junior exploration company focused on acquiring, developing and advancing lithium projects in Québec. Its properties — Vallée, Baillargé, Preissac-LaCorne and Duval — are located within the spodumene-rich La Corne Batholith area, near the restarted North American Lithium mine, a key area in Canada’s growing lithium sector.
Consolidated Lithium started the year with a C$300 million private placement earmarked for working capital and general corporate purposes.
In July, the company commenced its 2025 summer exploration program at the Preissac project, excavating a 100-by-30-meter trench in an area with a known lithium soil anomaly, uncovering an 18-meter-wide pegmatite body at surface.
Twenty-five channel samples were collected and sent for analysis, while additional soil and biogeochemical sampling was conducted to further assess lithium-bearing pegmatites on site.
At the end of August, Consolidated Lithium signed a non-binding letter of intent with SOQUEM, a subsidiary of Investissement Québec, to acquire an option to earn up to an 80 percent interest in the Kwyjibo rare earth project.
The project is located roughly 125 kilometers northeast of Sept-Îles in Québec’s Côte-Nord region.
The acquisition news led to a share price spike for the company. While the company has made no recent announcements, an uptick in lithium prices in October helped Consolidated shares rally further to a year-to-date high of C$0.06 on October 22 and again on October 28.
Stria Lithium is a Canadian exploration company focused on developing domestic lithium resources to support the growing demand for electric vehicles and lithium-ion batteries.
The company’s flagship Central Pontax lithium project spans 36 square kilometers in Québec’s Eeyou Istchee James Bay region.
Cygnus Metals (TSXV:CYG) has an earn-in agreement with Stria to earn up to a 70 percent interest in the Pontax project. Cygnus completed the first stage in July 2023, acquiring a 51 percent interest by investing C$4 million in exploration and issuing over 9 million shares to Stria.
Through its joint venture with Cygnus, Stria has outlined a JORC-compliant maiden inferred resource of 10.1 million metric tons grading 1.04 percent Li2O.
At the start of 2025 Stria closed a non-brokered private placement for C$650,000. The funds will be used in part for the evaluation of new mineral opportunities, according to the company.
In May, Stria and Cygnus agreed to extend the second stage of Cygnus’s earn-in agreement on the Pontax lithium project by 24 months.
Shares of Stria registered a year-to-date high of C$0.38 on October 16, coinciding with rising lithium prices.
Canada-based Lithium South Development owns 100 percent of the HMN lithium project in Argentina’s Salta and Catamarca provinces, situated in the heart of the lithium-rich Hombre Muerto Salar. The project lies adjacent to active lithium operations, including Rio Tinto’s (ASX:RIO,NYSE:RIO,LSE:RIO) lithium operations to the south and South Korean company POSCO Holdings’ (NYSE:PKX,KRX:005490) billion-dollar lithium development to the east.
Exploration has defined a NI 43-101 compliant resource of 1.58 million metric tons of lithium carbonate equivalent (LCE) at an average grade of 736 milligrams per liter lithium, with the majority in the measured category.
A preliminary economic assessment outlines the potential for a 15,600 metric ton per year lithium carbonate operation, and the company is advancing the project toward a feasibility study.
In January 2024, Lithium South and POSCO signed an agreement to jointly develop the HMN lithium project. Under the deal, the companies will share production 50/50 from the Norma Edith and Viamonte blocks in Salta and Catamarca, resolving overlapping claims.
As for 2025, at the end of July, Lithium South received a non-binding cash offer of US$62 million from POSCO for HMN and all of Lithium South’s other concessions in the Hombre Muerto Salar.
The offer is subject to a 60 day due diligence period and a subsequent 60 day negotiation and execution phase for a definitive agreement, the company said. As of late September, the due diligence has largely been completed and the companies are negotiating the definitive agreement.
Company shares surged to C$0.41 in early August following the news. Shares rose to a year-to-date high of C$0.415 on October 24, likely in conjunction with lithium price positivity.
Standard Lithium is a US-focused lithium development company advancing a portfolio of high-grade lithium-brine projects with an emphasis on sustainability and commercial-scale production.
The company employs a fully integrated direct lithium extraction process and is developing its flagship Smackover Formation assets in Arkansas and Texas, including the South West Arkansas project in partnership with Equinor ASA, under the joint venture subsidiary Smackover Lithium.
Standard is also actively exploring additional lithium brine opportunities in East Texas.
In April, the South West Arkansas project was one of 10 US critical minerals projects designated for fast-tracking under FAST-41.
According to Standard’s Q2 2025 results released in August, Smackover Lithium reported strong progress on its South West Arkansas project during the quarter.
Exploration for the project’s Phase 1 operations concluded, and the Lester exploration well yielded the highest lithium brine grades to date, averaging 582 milligrams per liter and peaking at 616 milligrams per liter. Key regulatory milestones included the Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission approving a 2.5 percent royalty rate and granting brine production unit approval for Phase 1.
Additionally, through a partnership with Telescope Innovations the company advanced a new process to convert lithium hydroxide into battery-grade lithium sulfide.
In September, Standard Lithium reported results of its definitive feasibility study (DFS) for the South West Arkansas project with a targeted first production date in 2028.
The DFS notes an initial capacity of 22,500 metric tons per year of battery-grade lithium carbonate. The study outlines a 20-year-plus operating life based on average lithium concentrations of 481 milligrams per liter, supported by detailed resource and reserve modeling.
The company officially filed the DFS on October 14, leading to a share price bump and year-to-date high of C$7.65 on October 16.
Exploration and development companyUnited Lithium owns a portfolio of global assets in Sweden, Finland and the United States. The company’s primary focus is the Bergby lithium project in Central Sweden.
In March, United Lithium reported positive results from mineralogical test work on four pegmatite samples — B, C, D and E — at the Bergby project. The study analyzed the chemical and mineralogical composition of the samples to better understand the lithium-bearing LCT (lithium, cesium, tantalum) pegmatites.
An October 17 announcement from United reported it entered a binding letter of intent to acquire all issued and outstanding shares of Swedish Minerals. If the deal goes through, it will create a Nordic-based company with lithium, uranium and rare earth projects.
Under the agreement, United Lithium will issue Swedish Minerals shareholders 25 million common shares of United at C$0.20 each and pay C$450,000 in cash, subject to regulatory approval.
Shares of United Lithium spiked following the acquisition news and continued upward to a year-to-date high of C$0.35 on October 27.
Securities Disclosure: I, Georgia Williams, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.
Brien Lundin, editor of Gold Newsletter and New Orleans Investment Conference host, shares his outlook for gold and silver as prices continue to consolidate.
‘At the end of this cycle, I’ve long predicted that we’re going to get to a US$6,000 to US$8,000 (per ounce) price range, whenever that may happen — I hope it takes years from now,’ he said about gold.
Securities Disclosure: I, Charlotte McLeod, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.
Metals Australia (MLS:AU) has announced Drilling the Manindi Vanadium-Titanium-Magnetite Discovery
Altech Batteries (ATC:AU) has announced Altech – Service Data Confirms Exceptional Failure Rate