“America needs minerals like copper and silver to make things. Even President Joe Biden made a speech saying America will need 400-600 percent more such minerals to make “solar panels, wind turbines, and so much more!”
An iPhone alone requires aluminum, iron, lithium, gold, copper.
But when investors dare try to dig up such minerals in America, the NRDC objects and uses political connections to stop them.
Twenty years ago, entrepreneurs tried to open a mine in Alaska. Before they even got the application in, the Environment Protection Agency (EPA) vetoed it.
Why? Because groups like the NRDC say the mine “would be a catastrophic threat to the wildlife and…fragile ecosystem.”
They get their way because when Democrats run the EPA, they not only support NRDC’s positions, they even hire NRDC employees.
The next Republican administration removed the EPA’s veto. The Army Corps of Engineers then studied the mine and concluded that it wasn’t an environmental threat.
So, is Pebble a bustling mine today? No.
Democrats got elected and vetoed it again.
Physicist Mark Mills wonders why anyone would try to open a mine in America today. “Why in the world would you put millions, maybe billions of dollars at risk, spending those decades to get a permit, knowing there’s a very good chance they’ll just cancel a permit? How in the world do you build mines in America knowing that that’s the landscape you have?”
Well, you don’t.
America now ranks second to last in the time it takes to develop a new mine—roughly 29 years. Only Zambia is worse.
“You start applying for permits,” says Mills, “You’re going to be waiting not months, not years, but decades!”
Waiting while the NRDC sues and runs frightening anti-mine ads, saying nature will be “destroyed by a 2,000-foot gaping hole in the ground!”
Mills points out their deceit. Today’s mines disturb “a tiny infinitesimal pinprick in the landscape” and we do need to disturb the landscape a little, because “we need metals and materials and minerals to build everything that exists to make society possible!”
I confronted NRDC spokesman Bob Deans, saying the NRDC killing mines also kills people’s opportunity. He responded that “clean” energy creates jobs.
“We created 50,000 new jobs in this country, putting up wind turbines, solar panels, building the next generation of energy efficient cars. This is where the future is!”
“But also, you need copper and gold,” I point out.
“That’s right,” says Deans, “And we have to weigh those risks.”
But the NRDC doesn’t weigh the risks. They just oppose American mines.”
“The law defined the term “controlled by a foreign adversary” to include not only companies owned wholly by Chinese entities but also one in which a citizen of an adversarial nation “directly or indirectly own[s] at least a 20 percent stake.” In other words, even if the overwhelming majority of a company’s shares were owned by Americans, it could be banned or forced to divest so long as the remaining shares were held by Chinese, Russian, or Iranian citizens.
In order to continue operating within the United States, the only recourse would be to sell TikTok to an American company by January 19, 2025—Joe Biden’s last full day in office.
TikTok and ByteDance sued, asking courts to declare the law unconstitutional. “For the first time in history, Congress has enacted a law that subjects a single, named speech platform to a permanent, nationwide ban,” the lawsuit argued. Lawmakers’ “speculative concerns fall far short of what is required when First Amendment rights are at stake.”
The plaintiffs claimed that the law’s restrictions were subject to strict scrutiny—the highest standard of review that a court can apply to an action, reserved for potential burdens on fundamental constitutional rights. “The Act represents a content- and viewpoint-based restriction on protected speech,” the lawsuit said, and the law’s divest-or-be-banned provision constitutes “an unlawful prior restraint.”
…
“a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled against the plaintiffs, finding “the Government’s justifications are compelling” and that it did not violate the First Amendment for the state to single out one company for disfavored treatment.
“We conclude the portions of the Act the petitioners have standing to challenge, that is the provisions concerning TikTok and its related entities, survive constitutional scrutiny,” Senior Judge Douglas Ginsburg wrote for the majority. “We therefore deny the petitions.”
Ginsburg notes that while the law does require “heightened scrutiny,” it satisfies the requirements of strict scrutiny because of how narrowly tailored it was: “The Act was the culmination of extensive, bipartisan action by the Congress and by successive presidents. It was carefully crafted to deal only with control by a foreign adversary, and it was part of a broader effort to counter a well-substantiated national security threat posed by the PRC.”
In fact, that “national security threat” was not very “well-substantiated” at all—but the court didn’t seem to mind.
“TikTok contends the Government’s content-manipulation rationale is speculative and based upon factual errors,” Ginsburg wrote, referring to lawmakers’ concerns that Beijing could manipulate content on TikTok to promote Chinese propaganda. “TikTok fails, however, to grapple fully with the Government’s submissions. On the one hand, the Government acknowledges that it lacks specific intelligence that shows the PRC has in the past or is now coercing TikTok into manipulating content in the United States.” But “the Government is aware ‘that ByteDance and TikTok Global have taken action in response to PRC demands to censor content outside of China'” and “‘have a demonstrated history of manipulating the content on their platforms, including at the direction of the PRC.'”
…
“It may be that the PRC has not yet done so in the United States or, as the Government suggests, the Government’s lack of evidence to that effect may simply reflect limitations on its ability to monitor TikTok,” Ginsburg shrugs. “In any event, the Government reasonably predicts that TikTok ‘would try to comply if the PRC asked for specific actions to be taken to manipulate content for censorship, propaganda, or other malign purposes’ in the United States.”
The court’s decision is yet another instance where vague claims of “national security” trump individuals’ First Amendment rights. Claiming that Congress has the authority to force a company to sell one of its holdings—not through an established power like antitrust, but simply because they don’t like how it could be used in the future—is not only a weak justification; it is a plainly unconstitutional one.”
“A Russian court on Monday denied relief to a U.S. citizen serving 12 years in a penal colony for treason in connection with a $51.80 donation she made, while in the U.S., to a pro-Ukraine charity.
Ksenia Karelina, who is also a Russian citizen, was arrested in January during a trip to visit her 90-year-old grandmother and other family members in Yekaterinburg, Russia. She immigrated to the U.S. in 2012 and became a citizen in 2021.
Trouble for Karelina, 33, began shortly after landing in Russia, where the Federal Security Service (FSB) flagged her after learning she had a U.S. passport. The agency interrogated her, took her cell phone—on which the FSB discovered her 2022 donation to Razom, a charity dedicated to “actively contributing to the establishment of a secure, prosperous, and democratic Ukraine”—and ultimately arrested her for “petty hooliganism,” which was later ratcheted up to treason. Her prosecution is part of a larger Russian crackdown on alleged treason that is unprecedented even by the country’s illiberal standards.”
“The US shipbuilding industry is a shadow of what it was in the final years of the Cold War. The Navy is reliant on only a handful of major shipbuilders that design and construct different ship classes: Huntington Ingalls Industries (aircraft carriers, submarines, amphibious ships, destroyers), General Dynamics (submarines, destroyers, support ships), and Fincantieri Marinette Marine Corporation (frigates). Higher production rates would require infrastructure costs and a larger workforce. Repair and maintenance are likewise constrained by the few public yards available.
A Department of the Navy review earlier this year found that top US Navy shipbuilding projects, from new submarines to surface ships, are delayed by years and facing ballooning costs.
The longest project delays, expected to be at least three years, are for the coming Block IV Virginia-class attack submarines and the Constellation-class guided-missile frigate. The Navy’s first Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine, a priority for the Pentagon, isn’t expected to arrive until 12 to 16 months after its planned delivery, potentially leaving a hole in readiness plans for the nation’s nuclear forces. And the Navy’s next Ford-class carrier, USS Enterprise, faces a delay of 18 to 26 months.”
…
“the US needs to make significant investments in rejuvenating its military shipbuilding capabilities and capacity, ramp up production, and streamline its design process. A clearer strategy for industry and establishing stable supply chains, as well as hiring and keeping talented workers, is critical, too. Larger investments and drastic changes may be needed to build and maintain a force beyond 300 ships.”
“Jeff Bezos, Larry Fink and Donald Trump’s Treasury pick Scott Bessent all agree: Turbocharging economic growth is the best route to reining in the U.S.’s massive $36 trillion debt. History is not on their side.
Bessent warns that this is the “last chance” for the country to grow its way out of the record debt without becoming a “European-style socialist democracy.” Fink, who heads the world’s largest asset manager BlackRock, urged the incoming administration in an Election Day op-ed to promote artificial intelligence and infrastructure investments to grow the economy and tame the deficit. And Amazon founder Bezos told economic power brokers at the DealBook Summit this month that the only way to solve the problem is to expand the economy by 3 to 5 percent a year while simultaneously trimming annual deficits.”
…
“That’s a tall order that few modern presidents have managed to achieve for any sustained period. Bill Clinton famously generated budget surpluses while the economy soared at rates of more than 4 percent in the late 1990s. Ronald Reagan brought down deficits in 1984 and 1987 but otherwise ran up the red ink. And Trump himself will face even more significant challenges if he follows through on tax and tariff pledges that budget forecasters say could add $4.1 trillion to $15.6 trillion to the debt over the next decade.
Trump promised during the campaign that a combination of lower taxes, more energy production, looser regulations and punishing tariffs would generate “explosive” growth to pay down the debt. And government budgets would shrink by “trillions,” he said, with Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy tasked with tackling government waste.
But Trump has also vowed that he won’t touch entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare, which are by far the chief drivers of the debt and are projected to be insolvent by the mid-2030s. Imposing tariffs on imports could trigger reprisals that would harm growth, and even if they didn’t, many economists believe it would take a historic economic boom to meaningfully address the country’s fiscal challenges.
“You can’t improve this with growth,” said Tom Porcelli, the chief U.S. economist at PGIM Fixed Income. “You’d have to have 5 percent growth for a pretty decent amount of time to have any real notable impact.””
…
” Fiscal watchdogs and credit-rating agencies have been clanging alarms for years about the U.S.’s growing debt, which is the accumulation of annual budget deficits. Rising deficits — which can be inflationary and push up interest rates — could become more acute as the population ages and spending for mandatory entitlement programs climbs. Even steep cuts to discretionary federal programs wouldn’t make a meaningful dent in the debt without extensive structural reforms.”
“European countries take a much more precautionary approach to additives in their food, Benesh says. “If there are doubts about whether a chemical is safe or if there’s no data to back up safety, the EU is much more likely to put a restriction on that chemical or just not allow it into the food supply at all.”
In the US, we’re more likely to see action at the state level. California banned four chemicals in 2023: brominated vegetable oil, Red Dye No. 3, propylparaben, and potassium bromate. This year, lawmakers in about a dozen states have introduced legislation banning those same chemicals and, in some states, additional chemicals as well. But federal oversight has been limited, constrained by priorities, authority, and by a lack of resources.”