Author

admin

Browsing

Democrats tenaciously working to thwart the second Trump administration seemingly have thrown out their playbook from the president’s first administration — abandoning repeated attempts to impeach President Donald Trump in favor of broadening their focus on leveraging Article II of the Constitution to impede MAGA policies. 

Democrats, since the early days of Trump’s second presidency, have accused him of taking steps that amount to a ‘gross overreach of presidential authority’ or launching ‘illegal power grabs,’ most notably in response to some of the more than 200 executive orders the president has signed this term. Lawsuits challenging the administration also have focused language on claims Trump is exceeding his executive authority, sparking some policies to get tied up in the courts. 

Article II of the Constitution lays out the foundation for the balance of power between the office of the president and other branches of the government, including establishing the executive branch. Section II of Article II details the duties and powers of a president. 

Political foes have turned to Article II in their legal battles against Trump, repeatedly claiming he has exceeded his authority.

‘Trump Derangement Syndrome takes on many forms — despite the Democrats’ failure to stop President Trump’s incredibly popular agenda in his first term, they’re trying a new strategy this time and failing again,’ White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson told Fox News Digital Thursday when asked about the increase in claims and cases claiming Trump is overstepping his presidential bounds. 

‘The Trump Administration’s policies have been consistently upheld by the Supreme Court as lawful despite an unprecedented number of legal challenges and unlawful lower court rulings from far-left liberal activist judges,’ she continued. ‘The president will continue implementing the policy agenda that the American people voted for in November and will continue to be vindicated by higher courts when liberal activist judges attempt to intervene.’ 

First term impeachment efforts 

Trump’s first administration was underscored by two impeachment efforts, which landed Trump as the first president in U.S. history to be impeached twice. Trump was acquitted by the Senate both times. 

The first impeachment effort in 2019 accused Trump of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress related to allegedly seeking foreign interference from Ukraine to boost his re-election efforts in 2020. 

The focus of that impeachment focused on a July 2019 phone call in which Trump pressed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to launch investigations into the Biden family’s business dealings in Ukraine, including Hunter Biden’s business dealings with Burisma holdings company. Biden was under federal investigation at the time. 

The House impeached Trump on both articles of impeachment in December 2019, with the Senate voting to acquit Trump on both articles of impeachment in February 2020. 

Months later, Democrats teed up another Trump impeachment after the breach of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. 

Impeachment has been

Trump notched another first, when the Senate tried a former president after the House voted to impeach him just a week before Joe Biden was inaugurated as the nation’s 46th president. The Senate ultimately acquitted Trump in the case. 

The second impeachment focused on the breach of the U.S. Capitol by throngs of Trump supporters when the Senate and House convened to certify Biden’s 2020 election win. Trump was accused of working to overturn the results of the election and that he incited an insurrection with rhetoric regarding the election ahead of the Capitol breach. 

‘I will never forgive the people who stormed the Capitol for the trauma that they caused in our young people, our members of the press who were covering that day, our staffers, the maintenance crew, the people who keep the Capitol neat and clean,’ then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said in an interview on MSNBC in 2022.  

‘This was a disgrace. And the president instigated an insurrection, refused to stop it and as those films show, would not, in a timely fashion, allow the National Guard to come in and stop it. And that is sinful,’ she continued.

The Senate acquitted Trump of the impeachment charge of inciting an insurrection in February 2021. 

The impeachment efforts followed Democrats threatening and vowing to impeach Trump at various points throughout his first administration. 

‘I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to call for the impeachment of the President of the United States of America for obstruction of justice. I do not do this for political purposes, Mr. Speaker. I do this because I believe in the great ideals that this country stands for — liberty and justice for all, the notion that we should have government of the people, by the people, for the people,’ Texas Democratic Rep. Al Green declared in May 2017 in regard to former FBI Director James Comey’s investigation into former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.

‘The time has come to make clear to the American people and to this president that his train of injuries to our Constitution must be brought to an end through impeachment,’ Tennessee Democrat Rep. Steve Cohen said in November 2017 over claims Trump obstructed justice when he fired Comey in May 2017. 

Out of office court battles

Trump’s four years after his first administration were riddled with a handful of civil and criminal cases, including standing trial in New York when he was found guilty on 34 counts of falsifying business records in May 2024. 

District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office worked to prove that Trump falsified the business records to conceal a $130,000 payment to former porn star Stormy Daniels ahead of the 2016 election to quiet her claims of an alleged 2006 affair with Trump. Trump has maintained his innocence in the case, and was sentenced after his election win to an unconditional discharge, meaning he faced no prison time or fines. 

Trump also was indicted in Georgia on racketeering charges over claims he attempted to overturn the state’s 2020 election results, which the president denied. That case was put on hold after District Attorney Fani Willis was disqualified from prosecuting it. 

A pair of federal criminal cases were dismissed, including one that alleged Trump mishandled sensitive government documents at his Florida Mar-a-Lago home after his presidency, as well as another claiming Trump attempted to overturn the 2020 election results. Special counsel Jack Smith oversaw both cases. 

Trump also faced civil cases, including New York Attorney General Letitia James accusing Trump and the Trump Organization of inflating asset values. In another case, E. Jean Carroll, a former columnist who alleges Trump raped her in a New York City department store dressing room in the 1990s, accused Trump of defamation in a 2022 case. 

Trump railed against the accusations and cases as examples of lawfare to prevent him from winning a second presidency, taking a victory lap upon his 2024 win that the efforts failed. 

‘These cases, like all of the other cases I have been forced to go through, are empty and lawless, and should never have been brought,’ Trump wrote on Truth Social in November 2024, when Smith announced he would drop the felony cases. 

‘It was a political hijacking, and a low point in the History of our Country that such a thing could have happened, and yet, I persevered, against all odds, and WON. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!’ Trump added.

Second term Article II violation allegations 

Trump’s second administration has been his with more than 400 lawsuits, according to Just Security’s lawsuit tracker targeting the administration, with many disputing Trump’s executive orders and policies as they relate to slimming down the size of the federal government, his policies removing diversity, equity and inclusion language and initiatives from the federal government, protecting girls’ sports from the inclusion of biological male players, and his various directives to remove the millions of illegal immigrants who have flooded the U.S. in recent years. 

Trump and his administration are in the midst of cleaning up U.S. cities that have historically been rocked by crime, including working to remove illegal immigrants residing in the cities. Most recently, Trump ordered the National Guard to Portland, Oregon, in response to ‘radical left terrorism’ in the city, specifically members of the recently-designated domestic terrorism organization, Antifa. 

‘The Radical Left’s reign of terror in Portland ends now, with President Donald J. Trump mobilizing federal resources to stop Antifa-led hellfire in its tracks. While Democrat politicians deny reality, it’s obvious what’s happening in Portland isn’t protest; it’s premeditated anarchy that has scarred the city for years — leaving officers battered, citizens terrorized, and property defaced,’ the White House said in an announcement that Trump was deploying federal resources to Portland on Sept. 30. 

‘What President Trump is trying to do is an abuse of power,’ Democratic Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek said in September of Trump’s order to deploy the troops to Portland. ‘And it is a threat to our democracy. Governors should be in command of their National Guards, our citizens soldiers who sign up to stand up in an emergency to deal with real problems.’

Oregon sued the Trump admistration over the order, claiming Trump lacked the authority to deploy the National Guard. 

U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut issued a temporary restraining order halting Trump’s plan to deploy 200 Oregon National Guard troops, then again on Sunday expanded the order to bar the administration from deploying any National Guard units from any state to Oregon pending further proceedings. Immergut determined Trump’s order likely exceeded his presidential authority. 

The White House has hit back that Trump is within his presidential limits. 

‘I think her opinion is untethered in reality and in the law,’ Leavitt told reporters at a White House press briefing. ‘The president is using his authority as commander in chief, U.S. code 12 406, which clearly states that the president has the right to call up the National Guard and in cases where he deems it’s appropriate. … The ICE facility has been really under siege. And, by these anarchists outside, they have been, disrespecting law enforcement. They’ve been inciting violence.’

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals lifted Immergut’s ruling that blocked the Oregon National Guard troops from deploying to Portland, but the other ruling baring any National Guard troops from deploying to Portland remains in effect. 


This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

President Donald Trump thanked Israeli lawmakers for their enthusiastic welcome in the Knesset on Monday as the nation celebrated the release of all 20 living hostages from Hamas captivity.

‘After two harrowing years in darkness and captivity, 20 courageous hostages are returning to the glorious embrace of their families,’ Trump said. ‘Twenty-eight more precious loved ones are coming home at last to rest in this sacred soil for all of time. And after so many years of unceasing war and endless danger, today the skies are calm, the guns are silent, the sirens are still, and the sun rises on a Holy Land that is finally at peace.’

The president’s comments came as reports emerged that only four of the 28 bodies held in Gaza are expected to be returned on Monday, which could risk the stability of the ceasefire and its ability to progress to the second phase, which would see the disarmament of Hamas and the further withdrawal of Israeli forces. 

‘This is not only the end of a war. This is the end of an age of terror and death, the beginning of the age of faith and hope and of God,’ Trump said. 

Trump used his speech at the Knesset to tell Israel’s president, Isaac Herzog, to pardon Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

‘Hey, I have an idea, Mr. President – why don’t you give him a pardon?’ Trump said, prompting a standing ovation from many in the forum. 

Netanyahu was indicted in 2019 on charges that included bribery, fraud and a breach of trust, though he has denied the accusations. 

It is unclear if the president would agree to such a move, or if the majority of the Israeli parliament would support the decision given the prime minister’s previously waning support as the war continued and hostages remained in captivity for more than two years. 

Trump, during his speech, emphasized his support for Israel as the hostages continue to be returned and said, ‘Please know that America joins you in those two everlasting vows. Never forget and never again,’ Trump said.

‘As we celebrate today, let us remember how this nightmare of depravity and death all began two years ago, on the eve of the Simchat Torah holiday, thousands of innocent Israeli civilians were attacked by terrorists in one of the most evil and heinous desecration of innocent life the world has ever seen,’ he added. 

Trump described the ceasefire with Hamas ‘as a very exciting time for Israel and for the entire Middle East’ and said ‘the forces of chaos, terror and ruin that have plagued the region for decades now stand weakened, isolated, and totally defeated.’

Trump, who is also set to depart for Egypt on Monday, suggested a peace deal with Iran could be next as he looks to enfold more Middle Eastern nations into the Abraham Accords, which saw the normalization of relations with several Arab nations during his first term.

The president thanked Netanyahu for ‘having the courage’ to end the war with Hamas, and in turn seize the opportunity to make Israel stronger and stabilize relations in the Middle East.

Trump received a warm welcome from the Israeli Knesset, with the body declaring him ‘the greatest friend Israel ever had in the White House.’ Knesset Speaker Amir Ohana vowed to rally with House Speaker Mike Johnson and other legislative leaders across the globe to submit Trump’s candidacy for Nobel Peace Prize in 2026.

‘You, President Trump, are a colossus who will be enshrined in the pantheon of history. Thousands of years from now the Jewish people will remember you. We are a nation that remembers,’ Ohana said, comparing Trump to Cyrus the Great, who conquered Babylon in 539 B.C. and allowed the Jewish people to return to their homeland.

Ohana hailed Trump’s efforts to rescue hostages held by Hamas as well as combat Iran’s nuclear program and influence across the Middle East. He also praised Trump for moving the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem in 2018.

‘Donald Trump is the greatest friend Israel has ever had in the White House. No American president has ever done more for Israel than this one, and as I said in Washington, it ain’t even close,’ Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said.

Netanyahu also nominated Trump to receive the Israel Prize, Israel’s highest honor. Trump would be the first non-Israeli citizen to receive the award.


This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Monday marks the 100th anniversary of Margaret Thatcher’s birth – an occasion that brings together leaders and supporters from across the Atlantic to pay tribute to her life. 

We at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation & Institute are honored to participate in the celebration, an occasion that also invites us to reflect on her legacy and connection with Ronald Reagan in the context of our modern era. Namely, what made her partnership with President Reagan so effective, and what might it teach us today about how civility can shape world affairs?

Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher’s effectiveness – both in dealings with each other and in other world leaders with whom they were less naturally aligned – depended on trust and civility. In today’s divided political world, their example is one we can all learn from.

When we think of the two leaders, we tend to picture strength: two leaders who stood firm against communism, championed free markets and restored confidence in the West. But President Reagan also believed that personal relationships were central to politics. In a 1989 letter in National Review, he crystallized that sentiment as follows: ‘personal relations matter more in international politics than the historians would have us believe.’

That was the core of his approach: even the hardest negotiations work best when leaders see each other as partners, not just opponents. It doesn’t mean that personal relationships supersede national interest – great leaders have to be unwavering at times – but it does mean that a key component of good diplomacy is the ability to remain civil and acknowledge others’ humanity, be they adversaries or allies.

Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan’s leadership in Soviet Union dealings demonstrates this principle in action. For instance, when Mikhail Gorbachev emerged on the world stage, Thatcher chose to approach him as a person worthy of negotiation rather than a caricature of Soviet power. ‘We can do business together,’ she pragmatically asserted. And she was right. Though their visions for their country were vastly different, grounding Soviet negotiations in respect and practical assessment made diplomacy possible.

Importantly, President Reagan and Prime Minister Thatcher never abandoned principle for politeness. They were strong leaders, firm and uncompromising in their convictions. But civility gave them the leverage to achieve what force or rhetoric alone could not. 

The INF Treaty, the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the eventual end of the Cold War all depended on this kind of disciplined, strategic civility. Leaders could disagree sharply and even spar aggressively, but they never allowed that disagreement to destroy trust or get in the way of progress.

Civility is not a moral high road, it’s a tool. It allowed these leaders to be candid with each other, trusting they would be received with understanding – and creating the strong foundation which underpinned the U.S. and U.K. alliance. Then as now, civility creates space for honest conversations. It allows important initiatives to move forward without unnecessary friction.

Today, that lesson is urgent. The United States and our democratic allies face pressure from resurgent authoritarian powers, global instability and domestic polarization. The instinct to respond with anger or mistrust is strong. But history shows that enduring security and progress come from discipline, mutual respect and the ability to maintain civility even under pressure. 

And in times of global tension, reinforcing alliances matters more than ever. We saw this exemplified by President Donald Trump in his recent meeting with U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer, where he declared, ‘We have a relationship like no other… we will always be united.’ His statement embodies the Reagan-Thatcher alliance at its best. This disposition is a precursor to any constructive discussions about advancing security and stability, especially when it comes to complex issues such as these.

President Reagan and Prime Minister Thatcher remind us that civility is not deference; rather, it is a practical strategy for getting things done. As we remember Margaret Thatcher on her 100th birthday, we should also remember the example she set. Civility enabled both leaders to be effective and, ultimately, to shape history. In a world full of uncertainty and division, their legacy remains as essential now as it was then.


This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham announced in September that New Mexico will become the first state in the nation to guarantee free childcare for its residents beginning November 1. While the governor’s intentions may be admirable, her approach misdiagnoses the cause of rising childcare costs and other childcare-related challenges facing American families. Rather than serving as a model for other states or the federal government to follow, New Mexico’s plan is a trial run in the wrong direction. 

Rising childcare costs are a real and pressing problem for American families. Over the last four years, formal childcare costs have risen by 29 percent across the nation—far outpacing the general rate of inflation and placing an increasingly heavy burden on working parents. In response, more parents are likely to leave the workforce, postpone career advancement, or have additional children.  Aside from New Mexico’s bold strategy, is there any other way to address the childcare burden on families? 

Understanding Baumol’s Cost Disease 

First, it is important to take a step back to better understand why costs are rising. Much like education and healthcare, childcare is an inherently labor-intensive service that cannot easily benefit from productivity improvements through automation or productivity-enhancing technologies.  

This phenomenon is best explained through what economists call Baumol’s cost disease, named after economist William Baumol (1922 – 2017). His theory explains why certain sectors of the economy, particularly those that rely on human interaction and care, experience cost increases that outpace inflation and wage growth in other sectors. 

In many other industries, technological advances allow workers to produce more output with the same amount of labor, driving down per-unit costs. Baumol’s cost disease helps explain why service sectors like childcare, education, and healthcare appear slow to adapt and benefit from technological changes. A teacher can only effectively instruct so many students, and a doctor can only see so many patients a day while maintaining quality interactions.  

As wages rise in the broader economy, these labor-intensive sectors must compete for workers by raising wages, but they do not experience the same productivity gains that offset higher wages. The result is that costs in these sectors rise faster than the general price level, which is exactly what we are seeing in the childcare market today. 

Lessons from Universal Healthcare and Education 

The similarities between childcare and other labor-intensive sectors allow us to make some pattern predictions about New Mexico’s approach. Consider, for example, proposals to establish universal healthcare and universal higher education in the United States. 

Medical for All proposals have been estimated to cost between $28 and $32 trillion over 10 years, depending on the specific plan. More modest universal healthcare proposals have price tags in the tens of trillions. Similarly, plans for universal higher education—such as making all public colleges and universities tuition-free—have been estimated to cost the federal government between $28 and $75 billion annually. 

The enormous cost estimates reflect not only the inherent labor-intensive expense of these services, but also the additional demand that universal access would create among people who do not currently purchase these services. New Mexico’s childcare proposal faces the same economic pressures.  

The Supply Problem 

New Mexico’s own estimates reveal a huge supply-side problem. The state’s announcement of the new program acknowledges it will need approximately 5,000 additional childcare professionals to accommodate the increased demand that free childcare will generate. This is a massive expansion of physical infrastructure and childcare workers that cannot be achieved overnight, if at all. 

The state’s proposal also includes a plan to address quality concerns by incentivizing providers to pay higher wages—they will offer higher rates to providers who pay at least $18 per hour to entry-level staff. This raises the question of if New Mexico will have enough qualified providers to meet the surge in demand, especially if parents aren’t paying higher wages than can be found in other sectors. Currently, New Mexico requires that all childcare workers first receive training in 11 topic areas and maintain 24 hours of additional training each year.  

Looking to healthcare policy is particularly instructive here. In higher education, increased availability through government subsidies is causing many students and families to rethink the value of a college degree. Demand for higher education has begun to decrease in many segments, providing some natural correction.  

The healthcare scene more closely mirrors what we expect from universal childcare policy. Despite rising costs, demand for healthcare services continues to expand from government-sponsored insurance coverage for select age and income groups. The result has been persistent supply shortages and long waiting lists, especially for specialists and for all different kinds of healthcare services in rural areas.  

Much like childcare, healthcare suffers from regulatory constraints that limit supply expansion. Licensing requirements, facility regulations, certificate-of-need laws, and professional credentialing create barriers to entry from responding efficiently to increased demand. Government measures are simultaneously increasing demand while keeping a cap on supply. 

Regulation and Childcare Costs 

Despite the inherent labor-intensive features of childcare services, regulation also plays a major role in determining the cost of care. This becomes clear when examining cost variation at the state level. For example, Massachusetts, with some of the most stringent childcare regulations in the nation, sees average annual childcare costs exceeding $25,000 per infant per year—nearly double the national average. While often well-intentioned, regulations on child-to-staff ratios, maximum group size, and education and training requirements create substantial barriers to entry for potential providers and drive up operating costs for existing centers.  

The contrast between states with heavy regulatory burdens and those with relatively less oversight demonstrates that policy choices significantly impact both cost and availability of childcare services.  

A wider range of childcare options would better serve families. Parents are uniquely positioned to understand their children’s needs and developmental requirements, as well as their family’s schedule. They benefit from access to a diverse array of childcare options, including home-based alternatives that can be more flexible and cost-effective than traditional center-based care.  

Current regulations often create unnecessary barriers to these alternatives. Many states require childcare center directors to have college degrees, despite limited evidence that formal credentials correlate with better care or child outcomes. Instead of making childcare more uniform, states should create pathways for entrepreneurs who have gained expertise working in childcare to open their own centers on the basis of practical experience.  

A More Sustainable Model 

New Mexico’s “model for the nation” fails because it ignores fundamental economic principles. In making childcare “free” to all residents while failing to address inherent supply constraints, New Mexico is likely to create persistent shortages and frustrating waiting lists. The state’s Early Childhood Education and Care Department will have to respond with costly expansion projects currently estimated at around $20 million per year. This funding will go toward building up infrastructure that was formerly sponsored by business owners, and it ultimately passes the tab along to taxpayers.  

A more sustainable model for childcare reform involves reducing burdensome regulations that prevent new, diverse facilities from opening, creating more career progression opportunities for non-degree holders, and allowing parents to make informed choices about their children’s care. Solutions that increase competition will prove far more effective at lowering costs and improving access than creating a free-for-all over a limited number of “free” childcare services.

Almost two years ago, the enthusiasm of the 56 percent of Argentine voters who called for “Freedom” when electing Javier Milei as President of Argentina seemed unstoppable. The pace of change also seemed unstoppable. Expectations were enormous for a government that had restored hope to an Argentina plagued by annual inflation exceeding 210 percent and a poverty rate of over 50 percent. A libertarian president took office to rescue the country from a new populist crisis.

The Argentina Milei Received

It is difficult to briefly describe the devastated country President Milei found upon taking office. Beyond the aforementioned inflation rate, an increasingly indebted Central Bank, and a public spending level of 44 percent (currently close to 35 percent), a country where 7 out of 10 children were poor, and where 7 out of 10 young people would choose to emigrate if they had the opportunity. At a glance, this was the legacy of the populism of the Kirchnerist governments.

Currently, President Milei’s greatest achievement, as perceived by the public, has been and is the reduction of the inflation rate from more than 210 percent annually to 33.6 percent by August 2025. With the drop in inflation, the economic reality of Argentines “calmed down” for ordinary citizens, and we began to look ahead, to plan, to implement dreams, escaping the perverse previous situation, one of mere defense and survival.

The elimination of regulations was also a huge achievement, although it was less visible to people with more technical training. Another important achievement was the partial end of what we call the “money trap,” which allows the international circulation of personal money, but not yet that of companies. The impossibility of taking money invested in the Argentine economy out of the country is, without a doubt, a major disincentive to foreign investment in the country.

Ideology or Interests?

But — in contrast to the hope generated by the charismatic leader Javier Milei, and the global impact of his image and message — his political power upon taking office faced significant restrictions, both at the parliamentary level (he only holds 15 percent of Representatives and 10 percent of Senators), and at the provincial governments (0 percent of governors) and municipal governments (three out of every 1,100 municipalities). This situation gives us an idea of the challenges of implementing profound reforms, which — evidently — affect the interests of powerful sectors that live off the federal government’s money.

One of the major differences between the current president and the previous president who managed to implement market-oriented reforms (Carlos Menem, president between 1989 and 1999), is that the latter (despite having taken office with hyperinflation of more than 5000 percent annually) enjoyed majorities in the House of Representatives and the Senate, and enjoyed the political support of more than half of the governors from his party.

The rigidity of possible reforms is high. Even today, and despite good intentions, 21 million Argentines (out of a total of 46 million) continue to receive salaries or payments from the Federal Government every month. This persists due to the government’s difficulties in reducing the four million public employees in a country where six million people work in the formal sector. This also stems from the legal impossibility of eliminating the four million (out of a total of eight million) “non-contributory pensions” that were given away by populist parties. And so on.

 It is not easy for a president to change the reality of a country like Argentina. It is not enough to 1) win an election. It is also necessary to 2) have the right ideas, and 3) have the capacity to implement the right ideas.

Politics Without Romance

Since the beginning of 2025, the Milei administration has faced increasing challenges. It has combined its significant achievements in reducing inflation with exchange rate and financial system measures that maintain a relatively cheap foreign currency for citizens. Argentina is now an expensive country in terms of dollars (at least compared to other Latin American countries), impacting competitiveness. The Big Mac Index reflects this.

Although some achievements — despite the limited power in parliament and state governments — have been significant, the influence of the state has not been strongly perceived by a portion of the population. As noted, the number of people receiving funds from the national government (federal government, provinces, and counties) has not significantly decreased. Faced with minimal international reserves, the government received a loan of more than $20 billion from the IMF in April 2025, which provided temporary breathing space and allowed it to buy time.

At the same time, the elimination of subsidies in some areas meant a greater burden on services such as electricity, natural gas, water, and transportation (bus, subway, train) in the budgets of lower-income sectors, generating unrest. This also led to a decline in activity in the least competitive sectors of the economy (industry), which — paradoxically — are those that generate the most employment.

Lacking a parliamentary majority has made it difficult for the government to approve sweeping reforms (tax cuts, labor deregulation, and the pension system), key to changing the economy’s major incentives.

We are currently experiencing complex times. The government has lost a symbolically key legislative election in the Province of Buenos Aires (40 percent of the population) and faces national parliamentary elections toward the end of October. In this context, country risk has increased from 800 basis points to almost 1,400 basis points, and the dollar has risen from 1,350 pesos to 1,500 pesos in just a few days (even with intervention by the Ministry of Economy to lower it).

The challenge of reversing the fate of a state like Argentina, captured for decades, is enormous. Misguided ideologies may be a justification for redistributive populism, but the specific interests of rent-seeking groups — in James Buchanan’s terms — seem to strongly explain the resistance to change. As Mancur Olson taught us, paradoxically, the economically least competitive sectors are often the strongest at defending their privileges.

The case of Argentina also prompts us to reflect on the redistributive incentives implicit in majoritarian democracies.

Perth, Australia (ABN Newswire) – OTC Markets Group Inc. (OTCMKTS:OTCM), operator of regulated markets for 12,000 U.S. and international securities, today announced that Locksley Resources Ltd (ASX:LKY,OTC:LKYRF) (FRA:X5L) (OTCMKTS:LKYRF), an exploration and development company focused on rare earths and antimony critical minerals, has qualified to trade on the OTCQX Best Market.

Highlights

– Locksley Resources Limited has qualified to trade on the OTCQX(R) Best Market, upgrading from the OTCQB(R) Venture Market

– Trading on OTCQX enhances Locksley’s visibility and accessibility to U.S. investors, supporting its U.S. focused critical minerals strategy

– Locksley’s flagship Mojave Project in California is strategically located adjacent to MP Materials’ Mountain Pass Mine, targeting rare earth elements (REEs) and antimony as part of a fully integrated mine-tomarket strategy

– The Company’s downstream technology partnerships underpin its role in re-establishing U.S. domestic supply chains for critical materials, with a particular focus on antimony

– Rare earths and Antimony are front and center in the global race to secure critical materials, with Locksley’s Mojave Project positioned at the heart of America’s efforts to restore domestic supply independence through a 100% U.S. mine-to-market strategy

Locksley has upgraded to OTCQX from the OTCQB Venture Market, and the symbol remains as ‘LKYRF.’ U.S. investors can find current financial disclosure and Real-Time Level 2 quotes for the company on www.otcmarkets.com.

The OTCQX Market is designed for established, investor focused U.S. and international companies. To qualify for OTCQX, companies must meet high financial standards, follow best practice corporate governance, and demonstrate compliance with applicable securities laws. Graduating to the OTCQX Market marks an important milestone for companies, enabling them to demonstrate their qualifications and build visibility among U.S. investors.

Rare Earths & Antimony – Front and Centre in a Shifting Global Landscape

Locksley’s progression to the OTCQX comes amid escalating global focus on rare earth security, following new export restrictions and rising trade tensions. As nations move to safeguard access to critical materials, Locksley’s Mojave Project stands at the center of America’s effort to restore domestic supply independence. With a fully integrated mine-to-market strategy across antimony and rare earths, the Company is advancing a 100% American made approach that aligns directly with U.S. national policy priorities and the reshoring of strategic materials.

Nathan Lude – Head of Strategy, Capital Markets & Commercialisation commented

‘Graduating to the OTCQX Market in record time since our initial listing just over three months ago, is a significant milestone for Locksley as we broaden our visibility and accessibility to U.S. investors. Our Mojave Rare Earths and Antimony Critical Minerals Project are strategically located in a tier-one jurisdiction adjacent to MP Materials’ Mountain Pass Mine. Locksley is positioned to play a pivotal role in re-establishing domestic supply chains through its mine-to-market strategy for critical materials, with a particular focus on antimony.’

About Locksley Resources Limited:

Locksley Resources Limited (ASX:LKY,OTC:LKYRF) (FRA:X5L) (OTCMKTS:LKYRF) is an ASX listed explorer focused on critical minerals in the United States of America. The Company is actively advancing exploration across two key assets: the Mojave Project in California, targeting rare earth elements (REEs) and antimony. Locksley Resources aims to generate shareholder value through strategic exploration, discovery and development in this highly prospective mineral region.

Mojave Project

Located in the Mojave Desert, California, the Mojave Project comprises over 250 claims across two contiguous prospect areas, namely, the North Block/Northeast Block and the El Campo Prospect. The North Block directly abuts claims held by MP Materials, while El Campo lies along strike of the Mountain Pass Mine and is enveloped by MP Materials’ claims, highlighting the strong geological continuity and exploration potential of the project area.

In addition to rare earths, the Mojave Project hosts the historic ‘Desert Antimony Mine’, which last operated in 1937. Despite the United States currently having no domestic antimony production, demand for the metal remains high due to its essential role in defense systems, semiconductors, and metal alloys. With significant surface sample results, the Desert Mine prospect represents one of the highest-grade known antimony occurrences in the U.S.

Locksley’s North American position is further strengthened by rising geopolitical urgency to diversify supply chains away from China, the global leader in both REE & antimony production. With its maiden drilling program planned, the Mojave Project is uniquely positioned to align with U.S. strategic objectives around critical mineral independence and economic security.

Tottenham Project

Locksley’s Australian portfolio comprises the advanced Tottenham Copper-Gold Project in New South Wales, focused on VMS-style mineralisation

About OTC Markets Group Inc.:

OTC Markets Group Inc. (OTCQX:OTCM) operates regulated markets for trading 12,000 U.S. and international securities. Our data-driven disclosure standards form the foundation of our public markets: OTCQX(R) Best Market, OTCQB(R) Venture Market, OTCID(TM) Basic Market and Pink Limited(TM) Market. Our OTC Link(R) Alternative Trading Systems (ATSs) provide critical market infrastructure that broker-dealers rely on to facilitate trading.

Our innovative model offers companies more efficient access to the U.S. financial markets.

OTC Link ATS, OTC Link ECN, OTC Link NQB, and MOON ATS(TM) are each SEC regulated ATS, operated by OTC Link LLC, a FINRA and SEC registered broker-dealer, member SIPC.

Source:
Locksley Resources Limited OTC Markets Group Inc.

Contact:
Locksley Resources Limited
T: +61 8 9481 0389
E: info@locksleyresources.com.au

News Provided by ABN Newswire via QuoteMedia

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

President Donald Trump will spend the first part of the week in the Middle East to oversee a historic peace deal between Israel and Hamas, a landmark agreement expected to end the two-year war in Gaza and bring home the remaining hostages.

Before boarding Air Force One, Trump told reporters that the hostages could be released earlier and said Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did a ‘very good job’ helping secure the deal.

‘The war is over,’ Trump told reporters at Joint Base Andrews before boarding a nearly 12-hour flight to Israel. After landing in Tel Aviv, Trump is expected to meet with families of hostages and then give an address at the Knesset, Israel’s parliament, in Jerusalem.

Trump will then travel to Egypt to attend an international summit in the seaside city of Sharm el-Sheikh on Monday to finalize an agreement aimed at ending the war in Gaza. More than 20 world leaders, including Trump, are expected to attend, an Egyptian presidential spokesperson said, according to Reuters.

After a handful of hours in Israel and Egypt, Trump will board Air Force One and return to the White House in the early morning hours on Tuesday in order to honor the late Charlie Kirk with the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation’s highest civilian award.

‘It’s a very quick trip, but I’ll be making two major stops, and then I’ll be on the plane trying to get back in time for Charlie,’ Trump told reporters at the White House on Friday. ‘They’re going to have a great celebration at the White House in the East Room,’ he added. The award ceremony coincides with what would have been Kirk’s 32nd birthday on Oct. 14.

Kirk, the charismatic founder of Turning Point USA (TPUSA), gained recognition for his signature political debates on college campuses. He was assassinated on Sept. 10, during an outdoor event at Utah Valley University. The gathering was the first stop on TPUSA’s planned ‘American Comeback Tour.’

Kirk’s memorial service drew one of the largest public turnouts for a private citizen, with about 90,000 people in attendance at State Farm Stadium in Glendale, Arizona and nearby overflow venues.

Trump previously announced last month that he would award Kirk the award posthumously.


This post appeared first on FOX NEWS