PR in the Philippines

Climate advocates have long emphasized the importance of integrating climate considerations into all aspects of government policy, particularly economic policy, to effectively reduce emissions. Brazil stands out as a nation where this strategy has gained significant traction. During an interview with Brazil's Finance Minister, Fernando Haddad, at an event in L.A. in May, his U.S. tour focused on promoting Brazil as a destination for investment and engaging in discussions about global trade. However, climate and the energy transition were central to his thinking. The discussion covered topics such as a novel financing mechanism for forest conservation, the introduction of a domestic carbon price in Brazil, and the alignment of industrial policy with climate goals. Even his promotion of data centers highlighted Brazil's sustainable electricity grid as a key advantage for meeting the energy demands of AI. "One of our greatest strengths lies in our clean energy resources, which can be effectively combined with a forward-thinking digital policy," he stated. In the current complex global landscape, assessing the direction of the energy transition can be challenging. Haddad's efforts provide a valuable example. Brazil, an emerging market with a large export-based economy and strong diplomatic ties across geopolitical lines, is committed to green development. This commitment stems not only from the country's vulnerability to climate change but also from its recognition of the economic opportunities it presents. Brazil's ability to base its economic growth on the green transition is largely due to its abundant resources. Its agricultural land is suitable for biofuel production, and its extensive tropical forests play a vital ecological role. Furthermore, the country's vast network of waterways enables its electric grid to primarily rely on hydropower. However, utilizing these ecological assets for positive change was not guaranteed. Under the previous administration of President Jair Bolsonaro, rapid deforestation was permitted in pursuit of short-term economic benefits, disregarding international calls for climate action. With Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva's assumption of office in 2023, Brazil swiftly shifted towards a more sustainable approach, launching an Ecological Transformation Plan centered on sustainable finance, the circular economy, and the development of the bioeconomy. "Government action is being aligned with these priorities," Haddad noted. Haddad's finance ministry plays a crucial role in facilitating policies such as the country's new carbon market. It focuses on developing mechanisms to attract investment in forest protection and collaborates with the Brazilian National Development Bank, a key institution for facilitating private investment, to ensure that finance supports green development plans. For instance, a recently launched program uses Brazilian public funds to subsidize interest rates for the restoration of degraded land, encouraging private investment in reforestation initiatives. Given the U.S.'s reduced involvement in global climate collaboration and other nations' more subtle hesitations, there are concerns about a potential ripple effect. Following a meeting with U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Haddad was asked whether his green agenda posed challenges for collaboration with the U.S. "On the contrary, our ecological transformation policies do not affect our relationship with the U.S.," he replied. "Companies interested in this agenda are welcome in Brazil." Haddad envisions international climate cooperation as a collaborative effort among like-minded nations, each pursuing their own strategies while maintaining business relationships with countries outside this coalition. "I don't expect unanimous agreement on the need to accelerate the ecological transformation," he said. "However, I believe that many countries will uphold their commitments." This perspective was instrumental in the development of Brazil's cap-and-trade system, enacted last year and currently being implemented. The program establishes emissions reduction targets for industry, allowing companies to purchase credits if they fail to meet those targets. Establishing a domestic program prepares Brazil for seamless trade with other countries that have implemented a carbon price and may offer Brazil a competitive advantage due to its decarbonized grid. "The carbon market should be internationalized rather than viewed solely as a national program," he stated. "We anticipate it evolving into an international framework over time." Historically, Brazil has been seen as opposing policies that create climate-related trade barriers, such as the European carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM), which taxes high-carbon imports. However, during the interview, Haddad expressed a more nuanced view, stating that Brazil seeks "an adjustment of the adjustment." An aide described Brazil's stance as "constructive opposition." Haddad believes that if countries worldwide adopt carbon pricing, policies like CBAM can deepen climate policy. "An international arrangement with nations committed to green development may change the rules of the game," he said. One of the most pressing issues in the climate arena is whether a consensus can be achieved. The U.S. plays a central role in many institutions that have shaped the post-War world, and long-standing climate institutions face the challenge of managing persistent divisions. Brazil participates in various groups, avoiding close alignment with any side of the current global divisions. Haddad does not foresee climate action being driven solely by existing blocs. "There will not be a simple division between clubs that are for or against," he said. "There is no unity at the G7 today, nor is there unity at the BRICS... The environmental agenda will emerge through other arrangements." Brazil has the opportunity to influence these emerging arrangements. The country will host the upcoming United Nations climate conference, COP30, in Belém, a city in the Amazon, in November. Regardless of the outcome of COP30, Brazil has the foundation to shape the global agenda for decades to come. To receive this story in your inbox, subscribe to the TIME CO2 Leadership Report newsletter. This story is supported by a partnership and Journalism Funding Partners. TIME retains sole responsibility for the content. ```

A new federal report from the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Commission suggests a worrying decline in children's health. The report attributes this decline to factors like poor diet, chemical exposure, excessive medical treatment, and insufficient physical activity. It primarily blames industry groups, the American healthcare system, and parental choices, while downplaying the impact of socioeconomic factors that research indicates significantly influence these issues. President Donald Trump commissioned the report in February, establishing the MAHA Commission with the core objective of tackling chronic childhood illnesses. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. leads the commission. The report identifies four key contributors to chronic childhood illness, with a strong emphasis on children's diets and daily routines. It particularly targets ultra-processed foods, referencing a 2021 study showing that almost 70% of an American child's calorie intake comes from this category, which it claims promotes weight gain. The report also asserts that children are excessively exposed to chemicals, receive too much medication, lack sufficient physical activity, and are overly reliant on technology. While the report assigns some responsibility to the food and pharmaceutical industries, which it alleges exert undue influence on dietary guidelines and drug research, it also criticizes specific decisions made by parents. For example, the report links the rise in chronic childhood diseases directly to children's diets and suggests that the dependence on ultra-processed foods "is a dramatic change since the 1960s when most food was cooked at home using whole ingredients," hinting at demographic shifts where more women are employed outside the home. It further states that over a third of parents leave electronic devices on in their children's bedrooms overnight, disrupting their sleep patterns. It also suggests that children are over-medicated partly due to "well-intended physicians and parents attempting to help a child." Additionally, the report claims that pregnant women consume too many ultra-processed foods, that pesticides, microplastics, and pollutants are commonly found in the blood and urine of children and pregnant women, and that almost every breast milk sample tested in America "contains some level of persistent organic pollutants." The report's authors contend that teenagers from single-parent families are more prone to anxiety, depression, and ADHD than those from two-parent households, citing studies from 2017 and 2015. They also criticize "gentle parenting," a popular approach that emphasizes empathy and respect, referencing a report that suggests it and trauma-informed care "potentially pathologize normal emotions, undermine resilience, and contribute to rising anxiety and depression rates among children and teenagers." Some have praised the report's comprehensive scope and its emphasis on the numerous challenges families face in raising healthy children. Scott Faber, senior vice president of government affairs for the Environmental Working Group, a national nonprofit focused on food, farming, and the environment, stated, "Parents are being set up to fail. There are simply too few good choices and too many bad choices." The report is representative of the Make America Healthy Again platform, which concentrates on the idea that food and chemicals are detrimental to people's health. The movement has support from figures like Surgeon General nominee Dr. Casey Means and a network of doctors across the country. Echoing many policies of the Trump Administration, it seeks a return to a perceived better time in America decades ago, a claim that is debatable concerning health. Peter Lurie, the president and executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a nonprofit focused on food safety, nutrition, and health, commented, "In this report, there are these ideas that we need to get back to some nostalgic, pre-existing state where children didn’t have cellphones, slept more, and went camping. It doesn’t seem to really live in the real world." This isn't the first time a presidential administration has investigated the decline in child health in America and attributed it to lifestyle choices. The Biden Administration also issued a report, and the Obama Administration established a Task Force on Childhood Obesity that reported to the president. However, the MAHA Commission’s report stands out because it gives scant attention to socioeconomic factors that worsen obesity and childhood disease, such as limited access to healthy food or green spaces. People may understand what constitutes a healthy lifestyle but lack convenient access to nutritious food due to the absence of grocery stores in their area. They might desire for their children to spend more time outdoors but are concerned about crime or the lack of available green spaces. Nour Makarem, co-leader of the chronic disease unit at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health, suggests, "One approach is to invest in these communities so that people have access to the resources they need." The commission now has 80 days to develop a strategy, based on the report, to improve the health of American children. However, some critics highlight that efforts to address some of the issues raised in the report have been reduced by the current Administration. The report's release coincides with significant cuts or eliminations of numerous government programs that aim to address these issues. Layoffs have severely impacted the chronic disease prevention center at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Trump Administration ended a program that provided food from local farms to schools. Shortly before the MAHA report was published, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill that would reduce funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, which assists low-income families in purchasing food. Makarem adds that clinical trials and studies examining chronic disease prevention and strategies to improve access to healthy foods have been affected by the Administration's grant cuts from the U.S. National Institutes of Health and other sources. She concludes, "I don’t know that we’ve identified the most innovative approaches to knowing what’s healthy and having people engage in healthy behaviors. None of that can be accomplished without research and clinical trials." ```

Donald Trump is scheduled to attend a private dinner on Thursday evening with key investors in his meme coin. Democrats are criticizing this event as a clear conflict of interest, suggesting Trump is exploiting his position for personal financial gain. The event, expected to host over 200 crypto investors, will be held at Trump’s golf club in northern Virginia. Trump and his associates have touted the venture as the "hottest" opportunity. The dinner was framed as a competition where the top 220 purchasers of Trump's meme coin would secure a seat. The top 25 buyers were offered extra benefits, including a separate cocktail reception. According to an analysis by Nansen, a blockchain analytics firm, attendees spent an average of over $1.7 million per seat. The top seven investors each spent more than $10 million. Investors could monitor a leaderboard to track the amount of Trump's meme coin, called $TRUMP, needed to buy to improve their ranking. Ethics watchdogs argue that Trump was essentially offering access to himself in exchange for investment in his cryptocurrency, which he began selling shortly before his inauguration in January. Democrats and some Republicans in Congress view the event as the clearest example of the Trump family's crypto dealings blurring the lines between public service, personal enrichment, and potentially untraceable foreign funds. Senator Elizabeth Warren described Trump's dinner as an "orgy of corruption" at a Democratic press conference leading up to the event. She stated that Trump is using the presidency to enrich himself through crypto, openly and blatantly. Wyoming Senator Cynthia Lummis, a Republican and digital asset advocate, also expressed reservations, stating that while she supports the President, the event gives her pause. While meme coins are often considered lighthearted, Trump's have become a vehicle for wealthy individuals to gain access to him and channel funds to his family. Chainalysis, a crypto analytics firm, estimates that Trump's coin has generated at least $320 million in fees. The identities of most dinner guests are not public, and the White House has not indicated whether it will release the guest list. When questioned about the dinner, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt stated that the President is attending in his personal time and that it is not a White House event. She dismissed ethical concerns about the selection of dinner guests, reiterating that Trump's assets are in a blind trust managed by his children. Leavitt asserted that it is absurd to suggest the President is profiting from his position, noting his prior success and sacrifices made to serve the country, including significant financial losses and personal risk. Trump and his family have embraced cryptocurrencies during his second term, with Trump expressing a desire to make the U.S. the "crypto capital" and a "bitcoin superpower," promising favorable regulation for the industry. In March, he held a crypto summit at the White House, bringing together key figures in the sector, and signed an executive order to establish a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve and Digital Asset Stockpile. The Trump family also holds a significant stake (around 60%) in World Liberty Financial, a crypto venture that has generated hundreds of millions in revenue since January. The venture received a boost when it was selected by an investment firm in the UAE for its $2 billion investment in Binance, the world's largest crypto exchange. Trump's involvement in crypto coincides with Congress preparing to vote on legislation concerning digital assets. Senator Warren has called on Congress to amend the GENIUS Act, to prevent any President from profiting from stablecoin ventures. Senator Chris Murphy has introduced legislation to ban sitting Presidents from profiting from meme coins while in office. Senator Murphy characterized the dinner as potentially the most blatant example of corruption, emphasizing that the public nature of the activity does not diminish its corrupt nature. Among those expected to attend the dinner is crypto billionaire Justin Sun, founder of the Tron blockchain, who claims to be the top holder of Trump's memecoin. Sun was previously charged with fraud by the SEC in 2023, but the case was paused shortly after Trump assumed office. Representative Maxine Waters and other senior Democrats introduced the "Stop The Rug Pulls by Unethical Members and Presidents Act," aimed at preventing all elected officials from launching or endorsing crypto products. Waters stated that Trump has transformed the presidency into a personal money-making venture through his crypto businesses. ```

This article is part of The D.C. Brief, TIME’s politics newsletter. Sign up to get stories like this sent to your inbox. It seems President Donald Trump either doesn't grasp the implications of the policy he's pushing on House Republicans, or he simply doesn't care about them. House Republicans recently supported much of Trump’s domestic agenda by passing a tax-cutting bill. This bill could cause 8.6 million Americans to lose their health insurance through Medicaid or Obamacare subsidies. Additionally, the 1,100-page bill could significantly increase the federal deficit, potentially leading to major cuts in Medicare, a very popular program for older Americans. The bill would also add trillions to the national debt. Essentially, Trump convinced weary Republicans to vote for a bill that can easily be used against them, without providing a good justification for potentially worsening the lives of millions of elderly, unemployed, working-poor, or disabled Americans. Despite this, only two Republicans voted against it, indicating their belief that loyalty to Trump will outweigh any political damage from supporting policies that could negatively affect their poorer and more rural districts. The last-minute negotiations required lawmakers and White House officials to work intensely throughout the week, testing the patience of the divided Republican party. Even the most ardent Trump supporters were exhausted after returning to the Capitol for the final vote before dawn. The process was messy. No House Republican got everything they wanted, and everyone feels somewhat shortchanged. High-tax states sought relief through exemptions for state and local taxes, which saw a slight increase in the cap but received little sympathy because these areas are typically Democratic strongholds like California and the Northeast. Some workers might benefit from the proposed elimination of taxes on overtime and tips, but it’s unclear if these savings will offset the anger of those losing their health coverage. Deficit hawks might be pleased with cuts to green-energy projects and rural-hospital funding, but this won’t lessen the impact of the bill’s overall cost. Nevertheless, the bill is passed, and the Senate must now address some of the damaging spending cuts. Cuts to social safety nets for the poor and elderly are difficult to defend, and Democrats are already emphasizing how this bill will disproportionately benefit the wealthiest Americans. According to an independent analysis, about one-third of those with coverage through Obamacare-era Medicaid expansion programs could lose it in states like North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. In the crucial state of Wisconsin, more than half of the program could disappear, according to a non-partisan analysis by the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. Another analysis from the Center for American Progress indicates that Republican districts will also be significantly affected. Trump himself warned his allies against these types of cuts during a private meeting on Tuesday, saying, “Don’t f— around with Medicaid.” However, he also instructed them to fall in line and do whatever was necessary to extend his 2017 tax cuts while adhering to congressional rules. Trump is again trying to have it both ways, hoping his party will overlook his disregard for their political futures. To be clear, Republicans are not happy about any of this. Trump visited the House on Tuesday and told lawmakers that dissent would be punished with a primary challenge from a MAGA candidate seeking revenge. Fiscal conservatives particularly dislike the bill's insufficient spending cuts but still yielded to his demands. The focus now shifts to the Senate, where Republicans hold a 53-47 majority. Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky has stated he will vote against the bill because it would raise the debt ceiling. This means the GOP can only afford to lose two other Republicans to pass the bill (with Vice President J.D. Vance serving as the tie-breaker). Given the diverse interests and personalities in the Senate, completing this by the July 4 holiday will be challenging. Senators are already discussing adjustments and revisions, hoping to lessen some of the harsher cuts and reinstate some local projects that were cut. But the fact remains: Republicans may be giving Trump his One Big Beautiful Bill Act—yes, that is its actual name—while simultaneously creating their own political downfall. Voters may support the extension of the Trump tax cuts, but they will certainly feel the impact if they lose their health coverage, their elderly neighbors risk losing access to important social programs, and many hospitals face critical funding shortages. Make sense of what matters in Washington. . ```

Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Milgrim, two young Israeli embassy staffers, were killed Wednesday night in Washington, D.C., after leaving a Jewish community gathering. Witnesses report the attacker yelled "Free Palestine" before opening fire and stated, "I did it for Gaza." This was a deliberate antisemitic act, and sadly, it's not an isolated case. Since the conflict in Israel, antisemitism has surged in North America. It's appearing on campuses, at demonstrations, on social media, and now on the streets of the U.S. capital. Most concerning is the increasing ease with which it's tolerated, justified, or disregarded. Historically, antisemitism has often been treated as a secondary concern, even in spaces dedicated to human rights and justice. However, this form of hatred is not only persistent but also adaptable, aggressive, and, as we've seen, increasingly violent. My human rights work, particularly with the Raoul Wallenberg Centre, has shown me how unchecked hate evolves and spreads. In various leadership roles, I've strived to create coalitions that unite against systemic racism, antisemitism, Islamophobia, and other forms of hate. However, antisemitism today requires immediate, focused attention. Therefore, building strong alliances is crucial. Initiatives like Van Jones’ Exodus coalition, which unites Black and Jewish leaders to combat rising hate and foster understanding, provide a model for the solidarity needed now. These coalitions don't diminish the unique dangers faced by each group; instead, they strengthen our collective determination to confront them all. It is possible to support Palestinian rights while also condemning antisemitism. However, this requires empathy and the courage to speak clearly, even when it's inconvenient or unpopular. The victims in Washington were not abstract symbols. They were real people with families and futures. Their deaths must not be just another news item but a warning. This is not a time for silence, but for clarity and, above all, courage. Let's honor those we've lost not only with mourning but with action. Let's stand together firmly and unapologetically against the ancient hatred that has resurfaced with deadly consequences.

On Thursday, the Trump Administration revoked Harvard University's authorization to enroll international students, stating that thousands of current students must either transfer to other institutions or leave the United States. This action signifies a significant escalation by the Trump Administration, potentially affecting a substantial portion of the university's student population and a vital source of its financial resources. Approximately 27% of Harvard's students, which amounts to about 6,800 individuals, are from countries outside the U.S., a figure that has been consistently increasing over the past decade. Many of these students contribute significantly to the university's nearly $6 billion annual budget by paying full tuition. The decision has shocked students, faculty, and higher education administrators nationwide. A Harvard spokesperson told TIME that the university considers the Trump Administration’s move “unlawful” and that the University is "fully committed" to its international students. Harvard spokesperson Jason A. Newton stated, “We are fully committed to maintaining Harvard’s ability to host our international students and scholars, who hail from more than 140 countries and enrich the University—and this nation—immeasurably. We are working quickly to provide guidance and support to members of our community. This retaliatory action threatens serious harm to the Harvard community and our country, and undermines Harvard’s academic and research mission.” Here's what you need to know about the Trump Administration's action. What does the revocation mean? The Department of Homeland Security's decision to revoke Harvard's certification, communicated in a letter to the university and subsequently made public by Secretary Kristi Noem, immediately removes Harvard's authorization under the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP). This revocation prevents the university from admitting any new international students, and current foreign students will have to transfer to another institution or risk losing their legal status in the U.S. “I am writing to inform you that effective immediately, Harvard University’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification is revoked,” Noem stated in the letter. Why did the Administration revoke the certification? In her letter, Noem attributed the Trump Administration's decision to Harvard's alleged non-compliance with record requests, its implementation of diversity and inclusion policies, and its handling of pro-Palestinian protests on campus. The Trump Administration has asserted that Harvard refused to provide documents that Homeland Security claims are related to possible "misconduct and other offenses" committed by foreign students. Noem also accused the university—without presenting evidence—of creating "an unsafe campus environment that is hostile to Jewish students, promotes pro-Hamas sympathies, and employs racist 'diversity, equity, and inclusion' policies," along with supposed collaboration with the Chinese Communist Party. “Consequences must follow to send a clear signal to Harvard and all universities that want to enjoy the privilege of enrolling foreign students, that the Trump administration will enforce the law and root out the evils of anti-Americanism and antisemitism in society and campuses,” Noem wrote. This decision from the Trump Administration is the latest in a series of federal penalties against Harvard, including billions in lost funding and recent threats to take away the university's tax-exempt status. Earlier this week, the Department of Health and Human Services announced it would be terminating $60 million in grants to the university. A White House spokesperson told TIME on Thursday that “Harvard has turned their once-great institution into a hot-bed of anti-American, anti-Semitic, pro-terrorist agitators.” White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said, “They have repeatedly failed to take action to address the widespread problems negatively impacting American students and now they must face the consequences of their actions. Enrolling foreign students is a privilege, not a right.” The conflict between the Trump Administration and Harvard occurs as President Donald Trump has been increasingly attempting to exert control over elite universities, often portraying his actions as part of a larger effort to eliminate what he sees as ideological bias and campus extremism. However, critics argue that the Trump Administration is punishing academic institutions for political motives and restricting the freedom of intellectual exchange. The Trump Administration has also taken steps to revoke the legal status of international students across the country, including those at Harvard. A federal judge intervened on Thursday, blocking the government from arresting, incarcerating, or relocating students based on their legal status until another related case is resolved. What happens next? The Department of Homeland Security has given Harvard 72 hours to submit the requested records to regain its certification. Even if the university complies, the timeline for reinstatement is uncertain, and many students are now urgently assessing whether they need to leave the country. This move is likely to lead to a legal challenge. Harvard previously filed a lawsuit against the Trump Administration last month regarding federal attempts to dictate changes to its admissions and hiring procedures. ```

The 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) was presented as beneficial for working-class families and a driver of economic expansion. Then-President Trump and Republican legislators asserted that the nearly 50% reduction in the corporate tax rate would generate more employment opportunities, higher salaries, and increased investment in American ingenuity and infrastructure. Now that Trump is again in office, Republican members of Congress are prioritizing the extension of the Trump tax cuts to, in the words of House Ways and Means Chairman Jason Smith, "deliver on President Trump’s promises to the American people.” However, after eight years, the actual impact is apparent. The TCJA significantly boosted corporate earnings but provided minimal benefits to working families. Instead of reinvesting these profits, corporations have enriched their shareholders, resulting in record profits and increased inequality. A from Groundwork Collaborative analyzed corporate pricing and profits since the enactment of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA). Our analysis supports the long-held suspicions of many economists and workers: the TCJA greatly increased corporate profits, which companies directed to shareholders, offering little advantage to the broader economy. The data reveals a clear pattern. Following the TCJA's reduction of the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%, corporate profits surged. However, rather than utilizing these gains to employ more individuals or raise wages, companies primarily allocated the surplus to stock buybacks and dividend payments, enriching their affluent shareholders and improving their financial reports. From 2018 to 2022, S&P 500 companies alone spent over on buybacks and dividends, vastly exceeding investments in labor, infrastructure, or research. Consider PepsiCo. Despite consistently citing rising production costs as the reason for price increases, the company enhanced its profitability, reporting a between 2021 and 2023. To achieve this, the company increased prices by double-digit percentages for , directly passing costs—and more—onto consumers and . Simultaneously, it distributed to its wealthy investors. Comcast followed a similar pattern. It over $43 billion in shareholder returns between 2021 and 2023, while broadband and cable prices. During the same timeframe, the company . These actions benefited shareholders but increased costs for working families and made jobs less secure. UnitedHealth, on the other hand, by 12% to exceed $22 billion in 2023 and nearly $15 billion in stock repurchases and dividends. Instead of reducing patient expenses, UnitedHealth invested in AI-driven technology that reduces company expenses by increasing coverage denials by . These are not unique occurrences. Across various sectors, companies are opting to enrich their wealthy investors rather than expanding productive capacity, educating employees, or creating new technologies. These strategies increase share values and executive compensation but fail to address supply chain issues or invest in innovations that would reduce long-term costs. This behavior is not only disappointing but also economically harmful. When companies prioritize shareholder enrichment over investments in their workforce and products, they and exacerbate economic disparities. Stock buybacks might be celebrated by Wall Street, but they contribute nothing to productivity, capacity expansion, or the support of hardworking Americans who enable corporate success. Congress has the power to discourage this type of corporate negligence. The Inflation Reduction Act established a new 1% tax on stock buybacks; increasing this tax would deter companies from directing profits to wealthy shareholders and instead reward businesses that invest in their workforce and productivity. However, Republican legislators are advocating for reinforcing the TCJA's failed promises. This would be a significant error. We have already witnessed the consequences of providing corporations with substantial tax breaks without any conditions: they exploit them. Extending the Trump tax cuts would only perpetuate the existing situation: increased prices, stagnant salaries, weakened public services, and excessive profits for the wealthiest individuals. Corporate America has had almost ten years to demonstrate that lower taxes result in shared prosperity. The evidence is clear: they have not fulfilled their obligations. It is time for a tax system that prioritizes working families and ensures that the most profitable corporations contribute their fair portion. ```

A key point often missed in discussions about deep-sea mining is that the seafloor nodules only contain four economically viable metals: nickel, cobalt, copper, and manganese. Given the abundance of copper and manganese on land, the focus is primarily on nickel and cobalt. Furthermore, contrary to some claims, these nodules do not contain significant amounts of rare earth elements. In the early 2020s, deep-sea mining was promoted as a source for metals crucial to electric vehicle (EV) batteries. However, battery technology has evolved, with new chemistries using affordable iron, phosphorus, and sodium instead of cobalt or nickel. Cobalt and nickel prices have plummeted since 2022 due to a global oversupply. Therefore, batteries relying on cobalt and nickel are becoming obsolete. As the EV battery market shifts, The Metals Company (TMC), a Canadian deep-sea mining firm, now argues that seafloor mining would allow the United States to reduce its reliance on China. China dominates the processing of critical metals, not the mining of raw ore. While China mines less than 5% of the world's nickel or cobalt ore, it controls approximately 75% of global nickel and cobalt processing and sales. To secure its metal supply chains, the United States should streamline permitting for domestic critical metal processing or collaborate with allies, instead of deep-sea mining. China imports ore from Indonesia and the Congo to maintain its dominance in nickel and cobalt. The U.S. could easily and affordably replicate this strategy with its allies, compared to seafloor mining. TMC projects an annual output of 119,000 tons of nickel and 9,000 tons of cobalt in eight to ten years, which would only represent about 3% of the projected global production for each metal in 2025. The remaining 97% would still come from terrestrial sources. The cost estimates for deep-sea mining seem to disregard inflation and interest rate changes. TMC's 2021 public filings estimated total costs through 2046 at nearly $3 billion. However, there has been no public revision to this figure despite significant inflation and a doubling of offshore interest rates since then. Regarding environmental impact, TMC argues that it is preferable to extract critical minerals from areas with minimal life, rather than from biodiverse areas such as Indonesian rainforests. However, this is a false comparison as mines exist in non-rainforest regions like Australia and Canada. Moreover, terrestrial mines yield an average of 564 tons of nickel per hectare over their lifespan, whereas the seafloor yields only 1.5 tons per hectare. Consequently, seafloor mining would require mining 500 to 2,000 times more area to obtain the same amount of metal. Additionally, the deep ocean remains largely unexplored, so the full extent of potential harm is still unknown. Deep-sea mining is governed by the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which 169 countries have ratified. The Secretary General of the International Seabed Authority has stated that any unilateral action would violate international law. Unable to secure a mining permit from the U.N., TMC is proceeding outside of UNCLOS, relying on support from the United States, the only country that has not ratified UNCLOS. However, this strategy replaces one problem—lack of U.N. approval—with another. It raises the question of which companies will actually undertake the mining. TMC's operational partners, Allseas and Glencore, are Swiss firms. Will they disregard international norms that Switzerland adheres to? What about the insurance and finance companies needed to support seafloor miners? Will these minerals be considered conflict minerals on the international market? They should be. To secure critical minerals affordably and with minimal risk, the United States should invest in domestic mining and processing facilities, or collaborate with allies like Canada and Australia, who possess larger metal reserves. The recent partnership with Ukraine exemplifies how to secure critical minerals while strengthening alliances, avoiding international law violations, and discouraging hostile nations from doing the same. Proponents of deep-sea mining advocate investing billions in an unproven technology to secure two metals whose predicted shortages are now in doubt, all to benefit an industry struggling for relevance and solvency. Supporting seafloor mining could become a costly failure, akin to Solyndra. ```