Podcasts about wto

In the newest season of State of Seed, launching Friday, we examine how our increasingly fragmented world is impacting access to seeds. Recorded at the World Seed Congress in Lisbon, host Laura Rosbrow-Telem talks to farmers and leaders from seed companies, government, the WTO, and the FAO about how they are grappling with this geopolitically complicated moment. But it's not all doom and gloom. Agricultural trade remained stable last year and crop breeding innovations could help farmers manage various challenges, including better optimizing inputs like fertilizers. State of Seed is a podcast from the International Seed Federation, with production services by FP Studios.

Vernichtendes Urteil: „Trumps folgenreichster außenpolitischer Fehler“Ein Kommentar von Rainer Rupp.Unter der Überschrift „The Long Shadow of the Iran War - Trump's Most Consequential Foreign Policy Mistake”, in Deutsch: “Der lange Schatten des Iran-Krieges - Trumps folgenreichster außenpolitischer Fehler“ hat die US-Zeitschrift Foreign Affairs (Auswärtige Angelegenheiten) am 17. Juni eine längere Analyse zweier Experten veröffentlicht, die Trump Krieg gegen Iran als eine einzige große Katastrophe für die USA dargestellt.Nun ist Foreign Affairs nicht irgendeine Publikation, denn sie wird von dem Prestige trächtigen Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), (Rat für Auswärtige Beziehungen) herausgegeben. Und dessen Einfluss auf die US-Außenpolitik ist kaum zu übertreffen.Wenn man dann in einem Artikel von Foreign Affairs, wie jetzt am 17. Juni geschehen, lesen kann, dass Trumps Iran-Krieg dem Prestige der USA bleibenden Schaden zugefügt und die Anstrengungen des US-Establishments, nämlich die globale Alleinherrschaft der USA zu erhalten, untergraben hat, dann sollte man den Artikel zwei Mal lesen.Aber auch ohne lange Erklärungen der beiden Autoren des Artikels, Ian Bremmer und Firas Maksad, hat auch der außenpolitisch interessierte Laie längst erkannt, dass Dank Trumps Entscheidung, Iran anzugreifen, er vor den Augen der Welt das US-Militär als Papier-Tiger demaskiert hat. Denn in diesem Krieg konnten nicht einmal die berüchtigten „Carrier-Strike-Groups“ („US-Flugzeugträger Angriffsgruppen“) wie gewohnt agieren.Diesmal mussten sich die „Carrier“ jenseits der Reichweite der iranischen Raketen auf über 1.000 Km Distanz von der iranischen Grenze zurückziehen. Das war wiederum jenseits der Reichweite ihrer Bomber, weshalb diese aufwendig pro Flug bis zu vier Mal aufgetankt werden mussten. Hinzu kam, dass die US-Airforce auch ihre Tankerflotte nicht ausreichend schützen konnte und hohe Verluste verzeichnete. Das und einiges mehr hat den bisherigen Wert der Flugzeugträger als Schlüsselelement der US-Machtprojektion zu einer Karikatur werden lassen.Nicht nur China und Russland haben das genau beobachtet, sondern auch die Mittelmächte rund um die Welt, vor allem aber auch die bisherigen US-Vasallen-Staaten in und um die Golf-Region, wie die beiden Foreign Affairs Autoren entsetzt feststellen.Zu der Qualifikation der beiden Autoren Ian Bremmer und Firas Maksad wäre noch zu sagen, dass Ian Bremmer nicht nur Gründer und Präsident der „Eurasia Group“ ist, sondern auch Herausgeber und Kolumnist des Time Magazine sowie außerordentlicher Professor für internationale und öffentliche Angelegenheiten an der Columbia University. Er ist auch Autor zahlreicher Fachbücher. Firas Maksad ist Geschäftsführer für den Nahen Osten und Nordafrika bei der Eurasia Group.Als wahrscheinlichstes Ergebnis dieses Trump US-Krieges erwarten die beiden Autoren „einen stärker polarisierten und fragmentierten Nahen Osten, in dem bestehende multilaterale Institutionen (wie die vom Westen dominierte Weltbank, der IWF, WTO, usw.) an Einfluss verlieren, rivalisierende Koalitionen sich verhärten und externe Mächte um Einfluss konkurrieren“. Wieder erwarten sie, dass„China sowie Indien, Pakistan und andere Staaten weiter an Boden gewinnen. Sie werden ihre wirtschaftliche und diplomatische Rolle ausbauen, ohne jedoch die Kosten einer hegemonialen Führungsrolle zu tragen. Dieser Trend wird sich voraussichtlich nicht auf den Nahen Osten beschränken.“...https://apolut.net/trump-verzockt-amerikas-macht-von-rainer-rupp/ Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Free trade was never actually free? That's the case Katherine Tai, Joe Biden's former U.S. Trade Representative, brings Bethany McLean and Luigi Zingales this week.  For decades, the economic consensus treated free trade as an engine for cheaper goods and faster growth. But, Tai argues, this system actually relies on ignored externalities, allowing multinational corporations to reap the benefits of zero regulation while workers and the environment absorb the costs. Zingales goes further, arguing the whole system isn't free trade at all, but something he calls “captured trade”. So who exactly is that trade free for and what exactly is it free from? Tai walks through the hidden machinery most people never see, and what she calls a plan for a worker-centered trade policy. Connect with us:

As India and the United States race to conclude the first phase of their bilateral trade agreement, critical questions remain over tariffs, market access, agriculture and India's bargaining leverage. In this episode, BusinessLine's Amiti Sen speaks with Prof Abhijit Das, an independent trade policy expert, on whether the proposed deal is truly "fair and balanced" or tilted in Washington's favour. Prof Das argues that India could be lowering its WTO-compliant tariffs while the US retains higher duties through alternative mechanisms such as Section 301 investigations. He also raises concerns about the impact on Indian agriculture, manufacturing and long-term policy autonomy, while questioning claims that the agreement would automatically boost investments or strengthen the rupee. On the uncertainty surrounding US trade policy, Das delivers a stark assessment: "In a Trumpian era, there is no certainty, no guarantee that the US will comply with its side of a deal." He adds that even if protective clauses are built into an agreement, there is no assurance that future tariff actions will not emerge under different pretexts. The conversation also explores the legality of Section 301 tariffs under WTO rules, India's options if negotiations falter, and whether New Delhi should have adopted a tougher stance to strengthen its hand at the negotiating table. (Host: Amiti Sen; Producer: Siddharth MC)

國民黨主席鄭麗文訪美，引發不少關於其兩岸論述與國際定位的討論。從智庫交流到僑界座談，鄭麗文為何呈現兩種截然不同的敘事切換？這種「場合式變臉」，究竟是在進行戰略溝通，還是資訊包裝？在智庫與學術場合，她如何將貼近北京的論述，重新包裝成「反貪腐、強國防」的理性分析？美國智庫與國安圈真的會被這種修辭落差誤導嗎？一進僑宴場域，為何又立刻切換說法，強調「兩岸同屬一中」、甚至將台積電納入中華民族敘事？這種喊話是因應不同受眾的溝通策略，還是暴露她為中國宣傳的本質？鄭麗文對第一島鏈、「修昔底德陷阱」的論述，暴露出她對美國戰略的哪些無知？鄭麗文與提出修昔底德陷阱的國際現實主義大師艾利森會面，被炒作為世紀對談，但艾利森對美國政壇還有多少影響力？鄭麗文自言「沒有鄭習會，她只是陽春主席，可能根本無足輕重」，這種自貶身價的說法反映出何種政治心理？當政治人物需要仰賴外部關愛來穩固內部地位，這會讓政黨走向邊緣化，還是自甘成為中共對外宣稱民主的「花瓶政黨」？與習近平握手後，外媒引述消息稱鄭已被中國視為2028大選的重要人選，台灣社會如何防範這種「從境外網路鋪墊，到中共隔海欽定」的介選挑戰？國民黨的「紅統化」是如何開始的？趙少康、盧秀燕等藍營建制派人物，能阻擋、甚至逆轉這種紅統化的趨勢嗎？精彩訪談內容，請鎖定@華視三國演議！ 本集來賓：#沈榮欽 #李志德 主持人：#汪浩 以上言論不代表本台立場 #紅統 #修昔底德陷阱 #藍營內鬥 #2028總統大選 電視播出時間

CannCon and Ashe in America wrap Chapter 5 and charge straight into Chapter 6 of G. Edward Griffin's The Creature from Jekyll Island, and the bailout game goes fully global. The World Bank's humanitarian branding evaporates completely as Griffin walks through country after country: Tanzania, Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, all self-sufficient before the loans arrived, all economically wrecked after. Chapter 6 then lays out the international bailout game in four clean rules and names it what it is: a mechanism to perpetuate debt forever until nations surrender their monetary sovereignty to a world central bank. The Council on Foreign Relations gets formally introduced as the brain trust behind all of it, with members on record calling for the deliberate erosion of American wealth, sovereignty, and living standards. NAFTA, GATT, the EU, and the WTO get exposed as architecture for world government, not trade. And a Reagan cabinet meeting confirms what everyone suspected: nobody believed the loans would ever be repaid. The only thing that mattered was protecting the banks.

Was passiert, wenn sich die USA aus internationalen Organisationen zurückziehen? Und wie stabil ist die multilaterale Ordnung, wenn einer ihrer wichtigsten Unterstützer plötzlich nicht mehr mitmachen will? Darüber spricht der Politikwissenschaftler Tim Heinkelmann-Wild in dieser Folge mit Liz Remter. Tim Heinkelmann-Wild hat an der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München im Fachgebiet Politikwissenschaft promoviert und forscht zum Rückzug der USA aus multilateralen Institutionen. In seiner Dissertation hat er untersucht, wann und warum die USA seit dem Ende des Zweiten Weltkriegs internationale Organisationen und Abkommen verlassen haben. Dabei zeigt er: Der Rückzug unter Donald Trump ist nicht völlig neu und auch nicht immer so chaotisch, wie er auf den ersten Blick wirkt. In der Folge erklärt Tim, welche Folgen Trump 2.0 für internationale Organisationen wie die WHO, die WTO oder die Vereinten Nationen haben kann, warum viele Institutionen widerstandsfähiger sind als oft angenommen und welche Rolle Europa dabei spielt. Außerdem hat er Musik mitgebracht, die politische Aufbruchsstimmung und Italien-Romantik verbindet.

neorealism, neoliberalism, classical realism, Richard Nixon and his foreign policy, the Center for the National Interest, Dmitri Simes, Russiagate, the Center for the National Interest as realistic think tank, establishment opposition to realism, John J. Mearsheimer, defensive vs offensive realism, what do the elite mean by neoliberalism?, classical liberalism vs progressive liberalism, nationalism, self-determination, nationalism vs democracy for self-determination, class consciousness and lack therefore of, why education has replaced class, world government, why neorealists don't think world government is even possible, the European Union (EU) as best and worst case for world government, AI, neorealist concept of an anarchistic world order, the World Trade Organization (WTO), the WTO as the actual heart of the global order, the myths of pacifism/isolationism in the heyday of classical liberalism, the genocidal legacy of America, free trade and the elite obsession with it, free trade as the US' greatest security crisis, neoliberalism and open borders, democracy and the weaponization of, velvet/color revolutions, the neoliberal push to replace democracy with technocracy, human rights as a foreign policy issue, the erosion of human rights in the US, the offshoring of human rights, capitalism's complicated relationship with nationalism, financial capitalism's destruction of property ownership, what Klaus was really talking about when he said "You'll own nothing and be happy"Music by: Keith Allen Dennishttps://keithallendennis.bandcamp.com/ Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

#高雄 正義站&黃線捷運計劃，平面車位3房全新完工 實品屋預約鑑賞中。 正義站通勤南科，未來捷運串連衛武營、Lalaport。 正義公園，風景入門廳。 陽明國中自由學區07-7801988 洽澄清路227號 https://sofm.pse.is/967nnh －－－－以上為 SoundOn 動態廣告－－－－ 代班主持人：淡江大學財金系教授 聶建中 節目時間：週一至週五 08:00-09:00 ◎節目內容大綱： ● 1941珍珠港陰謀論與二戰轉捩點：美國如何變身「世界兵工廠」 ● 從布雷頓森林體系到石油美元：黃金、原油與美元霸權的深度綑綁 ● 中國崛起的三部曲：窮、富、剛、強 ● 黑馬策略：極低匯率與WTO帶來的「比較利益」奇蹟 ● 薪資倍增計劃：從月薪300到1萬人民幣，中國市場的翻天覆地 ● 金融海嘯後的消長：中國四大銀行擠進全球前列，金融力量大洗牌 ● 國家理財新思維：主動出擊的主權基金 ● 中投基金（CIC）的策略：拿1/10外匯存底進行全球「無風險套利」 ● 科技大戰與基建狂魔的野心 ● 從四縱四橫到渝新歐鐵路：14天直達歐洲的物流奇蹟 ● 亞投行（AIIB）對決世界銀行：中國如何制定亞洲金融新規則 ● 2027建軍百年夢：台海局勢與全球隱憂 ● 中國製造2025與三步走計畫：2040年中國會是世界第一嗎？ ● 2027解放軍建軍百年的傳聞與台灣的關鍵時刻 #六四事件 #中美貿易戰#美元霸權#石油美元#中國製造2025#亞投行#主權基金#台海局勢#2027建軍百年#基建狂魔#一帶一路#經濟分析#聶建中#財經脈動 ▶ 飛碟早餐唐湘龍時間  / ufobreakfast  ▶ 網路線上收聽 http://www.uforadio.com.tw -- Hosting provided by SoundOn

Sau 20 năm Việt Nam gia nhập WTO, những nhà đàm phán, chuyên gia và cán bộ từng tham gia tiến trình lịch sử này đã có dịp hội ngộ, cùng nhìn lại hành trình 11 năm đàm phán mở ra cánh cửa hội nhập kinh tế quốc tế cho đất nước.

Lembaga ekonomi dan energi dunia memperingatkan bahwa konflik di Timur Tengah terus menekan pasokan minyak global dan meningkatkan risiko terhadap stabilitas pasar dunia. Badan Energi Internasional atau IEA Dana Moneter Internasional atau IMF Bank Dunia dan Organisasi Perdagangan Dunia atau WTO mengeluarkan pernyataan bersama terkait dampak konflik tersebut terhadap ekonomi global. Keempat lembaga menyebut cadangan minyak dunia menyusut akibat gangguan pasokan melalui Selat Hormuz yang menjadi jalur utama perdagangan energi internasional. Mereka menilai gangguan berkepanjangan dapat memperburuk kondisi pasar energi dan menambah tekanan terhadap negara yang rentan secara ekonomi.

#高雄 正義站&黃線捷運計劃，平面車位3房全新完工 實品屋預約鑑賞中。 正義站通勤南科，未來捷運串連衛武營、Lalaport。 正義公園，風景入門廳。 陽明國中自由學區07-7801988 洽澄清路227號 https://sofm.pse.is/95p74k －－－－以上為 SoundOn 動態廣告－－－－ 六四民運37週年，適逢文化大革命60週年，何以說文革從未結束？鄧小平的改革開放並非政治意義上的改革，過去國際社會期待透過經濟成長推動政治改良，其實從一開始就誤判？為什麼海外反中共運動團體不應再執著於推動政治改良？在中國政治體制日益封閉、二十一大將近的情況下，這種主張是否企盼海外民運的定位轉向革命？1989年中共宣布戒嚴當晚，學生、教師與北京市民彼此守護，當時的精神如何回應現今網路時代對歷史的戲謔與冷感？中共在國內建構集體失憶、抹除六四紀錄，反共團體則堅持保存歷史、延續紀念，這對中國民主化轉型有什麼意義？海外民運長期面臨世代斷層，前人應如何真正釋出資源與空間，讓傳承不只是口號？近期多起美籍華裔參政人士涉入中共滲透案件，引發美國關注，海外反共陣營的應對方式為何是挺身投入地方政治？美國近年社會撕裂，政治引發大量仇恨與對立，能夠如何修復？這種修復模式，能應用在中國民主化後的公民社會重建？台灣長期處於民主與威權對抗的前線，認知戰與社會對立的危機程度是否有所提高？針對台海議題提出和平論，有什麼風險？精彩訪談內容，請鎖定@華視三國演議！ 本集來賓：#王丹 #矢板明夫 主持人：#汪浩 以上言論不代表本台立場 #海外民運 #文革 #改革開放 #中國滲透 電視播出時間

Join our monthly Seed Chat at SeedChat.orgIn This Podcast: In this monthly Seed Chat, Greg Peterson and Bill McDorman explore the global rules governing seed ownership, seed saving, biodiversity, and agricultural policy. The conversation dives into international treaties, plant patenting, farmers' rights, and the growing tension between the Global North and Global South over control of genetic resources. Bill shares firsthand experiences attending United Nations treaty negotiations and working with Indigenous seed sovereignty issues through Native Seeds/SEARCH. The episode also highlights why everyday gardeners and farmers should become “seed citizens” by saving and sharing locally adapted seeds.Bill McDorman is a renowned seed saver, educator, and advocate for agricultural biodiversity. He co-founded the Rocky Mountain Seed Alliance and has spent decades teaching gardeners and farmers how to grow, save, and share heirloom seeds. Through workshops, speaking, and mentorship, Bill inspires communities to strengthen local food systems, preserve regional seed diversity, and protect seed sovereignty for future generations.Key TopicsSeed libraries and locally adapted seed sharingInternational Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA)UPOV and global plant variety protection lawsWorld Trade Organization (WTO) seed policy influenceFarmers' rights and seed sovereigntyPlant patenting and intellectual property in agricultureConvention on Biological Diversity (CBD)Nagoya Protocol and access-benefit sharingDigital Sequence Information (DSI) and genetic ownershipNative Seeds/SEARCH and Indigenous seed stewardshipOrganic Seed Alliance and seed policy debatesGlobal North vs. Global South agricultural power dynamicsSeed banks and the Multilateral System (MLS)The importance of saving open-pollinated seedsThe future resilience of local food systemsKey Questions AnsweredWhat is the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture?The ITPGRFA is a legally binding international treaty created to govern the conservation, sharing, and equitable use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture. It officially entered into force in 2004 and now includes participation from more than 180 countries.Why do global seed treaties matter to everyday gardeners and farmers?These treaties influence who can save seeds, who profits from plant genetics, and how agricultural biodiversity is preserved. The policies affect food security, seed availability, farmer independence, and long-term resilience of local food systems.What is UPOV and why is it controversial?UPOV is an international agreement that grants intellectual property protections to plant breeders. Critics argue that newer versions of UPOV weaken farmers' traditional rights to save and replant seeds while strengthening corporate control over agriculture.How does the WTO influence seed laws around the world?According to Bill McDorman, countries seeking participation in global trade systems often adopt UPOV-style protections as part of WTO-related trade expectations, creating pressure on smaller nations to align with industrial seed systems.What is the Nagoya Protocol?The Nagoya Protocol is an international agreement designed to ensure fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from genetic resources. It attempts to address historical exploitation of Indigenous and Global South biodiversity by pharmaceutical and agricultural corporations.What is Digital Sequence Information (DSI)?DSI refers to genetic sequencing data derived from crops and plant varieties. A major debate centers around who owns this information and whether communities that stewarded these crops for generations should share in the economic benefits created from their genetic data.What are farmers' rights in global seed policy?Farmers' rights include the ability to save, use, exchange, and sell farm-saved seed. These rights remain one of the most contested issues in international agricultural negotiations.Why are seed libraries important?Seed libraries help preserve locally adapted seed varieties while strengthening regional food resilience. They also create community networks for knowledge sharing and decentralized seed stewardship.How did Native Seeds/SEARCH navigate Indigenous seed stewardship?Bill shares stories from his time directing Native Seeds/SEARCH, including working with Zuni and Hopi communities to renegotiate relationships around seed stewardship, naming rights, and seed distribution.Why does Bill McDorman encourage people to attend UN treaty meetings?He believes participation in international seed policy discussions is critical for protecting biodiversity and farmers' rights. Attending these events allows citizens, gardeners, and small farmers to directly engage with global agricultural policy.Episode HighlightsBill discovers a seed library inside a small-town New Mexico library and reflects on the importance of locally adapted seeds.Greg and Bill explain how seed laws emerged alongside industrial agriculture and large-scale seed commerce.Bill breaks down UPOV, WTO policy, and how plant patenting transformed global agriculture.The conversation explores how Indigenous plant genetics were historically extracted and commercialized.Bill recounts receiving a cease-and-desist letter regarding Zuni bean varieties while directing Native Seeds/SEARCH.A deep discussion unfolds around Digital Sequence Information and the ownership of plant DNA data.Bill explains why small farmers across Africa increasingly believe they no longer have the right to save seeds.The episode concludes with a call for more “seed citizens” actively saving and sharing seeds locally.ResourcesResource — Seed Chat Live Events — SeedChat.orgPodcast — Urban Farm PodcastOrganization — UPOV – International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of PlantsOrganization — World Trade Organization (WTO)Organization — Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (CGRFA)Treaty — International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA)Organization — Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)Resource — Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-sharingCommunity — Organic Seed AllianceOrganization — Native Seeds/SEARCHEvent — Great American Seed Up — First weekend in November in Phoenix, ArizonaVisit UrbanFarm.org/987 for the show notes and links on this episode!Need a little bit of advice or just a feedback on your design for your yard or garden?The Urban Farm Team is offering consults over the phone or zoom. Get the benefits of a personalized garden and yard space analysis without the cost of trip charges.You can chat with Greg to get permaculture based feedback.Click HERE to learn more!*Disclosure: Some of the links in our podcast show notes and blog posts are affiliate links and if you go through them to make a purchase, we will earn a nominal commission at no cost to you. We offer links to items recommended by our podcast guests and guest writers as a service to our audience and these items are not selected because of the commission we receive from your purchases. We know the decision is yours, and whether you decide to buy something is completely up to you.

[powerpresss] My co-host Ken Suzan and I are welcoming you to episode 175 of our podcast IP Fridays! Today's interview guest is Bruce Dearling, patent attorney and partner at Hepworth Browne in the UK, and we talk about how non-technical features must be considered when assessing inventive step of patents at least according to recent decisions of the UK supreme court and the Unified Patent Court. Profile of Bruce Dearling UK Supreme Court Emotional Perception AI Limited UPC Abbot vs Sinocare But before we jump into this interesting interview, I have news for you: On May 20, 2026, the Swiss Federal Council adopted the fully revised Patent Ordinance, which will enter into force on January 1, 2027, together with the revised Patent Act. In the future, the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property will prepare a mandatory search report for each application; applicants can choose between a partially examined version and a full examination that assesses novelty and inventive step. The full examination costs an additional 300 Swiss francs, and renewal fees will increase by a total of eight percent over the 20-year term. On May 19, 2026, Asus entered into a licensing agreement with the Wi-Fi multimode patent pool managed by Sisvel, thereby ending all ongoing infringement proceedings. Sisvel bundles standard-essential patents in the pool from, among others, Atlantia, ETRI, and Mitsubishi Electric. On May 18, 2026, the UPC Local Chamber in Düsseldorf rejected Align Technology's application for a preliminary injunction against its Chinese competitor Angelalign. Angelalign may continue to sell its clear aligners within the UPC jurisdiction. Our partners Dirk Schulz, Ulrich Storz, and Wanze Zhang, together with Arnold Ruess, successfully represented Angelalign. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced midweek that, since October of last year, it has invalidated or is seeking to invalidate approximately 10,500 trademark applications and registrations in eleven administrative orders. Reasons include forged attorney signatures and the fabrication of non-existent filing requirements. This stems from ongoing abuse of the U.S. trademark system, primarily by non-U.S. applicants, which can lead to conflicts with validly registered trademarks for legitimate businesses. On May 12, 2026, the British Court of Appeal overturned a lower court decision that would have required Nokia to grant interim licenses for video coding patents. The court found that Nokia's license offer to the Taiwanese manufacturers Acer and Asus had already been made on RAND terms. In May, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a brief in the ongoing Corteva v. Inari litigation, expressing antitrust concerns regarding certain patent practices in the field of plant breeding. This marks the first time the agency has actively intervened in a biopharmaceutical patent dispute with implications for seed innovations. Episode 175 of the IP Fridays podcast was a conversation I will not forget quickly. My guest Bruce Dearling, partner at Hepworth Brown in the UK and a patent attorney for 36 years, took a case through every level of the British court system up to the Supreme Court and, in doing so, fundamentally changed patent law for AI inventions in the UK. The case is called Emotional Perception, and its effects reach well beyond British borders. Below I summarize the key points from our conversation. The full episode is available at IP Fridays. A. What Is the Emotional Perception Case About? The underlying invention concerns artificial neural networks. Specifically, it relates to a method of closing what is called the semantic gap at the output of a neural network. That sounds abstract, but the idea is straightforward: a neural network always produces an output that does not fully correspond to what a human would actually expect or feel. Closing that gap brings the system closer to human perception and human expectations. Bruce Dearling drafted this application himself and filed it at the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO). The Office rejected it as excluded subject matter, characterizing it as essentially a computer program as such. The legal basis for that rejection was the Aerotel decision from 2006. The case then went to the High Court, which found in favor of the applicant. The Court of Appeal reversed that decision. Then the UK Supreme Court stepped in and changed everything. B. The Aerotel Test and Its Flaws Since 2006, the Aerotel test had been the standard British method for assessing whether an invention falls within the excluded categories under patent law. It was a four-step approach: construe the claim, identify the actual contribution the invention makes to human knowledge, ask whether that contribution falls solely within excluded subject matter, and finally check whether the contribution is technical in nature. The problem Dearling described in our conversation is that Aerotel reverses the logical order of the analysis. You start with the contribution and only then ask about the exclusions under Article 52 EPC. The UK Supreme Court described Aerotel in its judgment as “unsound law” and overturned it. The EPO’s Technical Boards of Appeal had previously called Aerotel “disingenuous,” which at the time led to a public dispute between the British courts and the Boards. With the Emotional Perception ruling, that conflict has now been resolved in favor of harmonization with the EPO. C. What the UK Supreme Court Decided The Supreme Court made two central findings. First, the exclusion of computer programs “as such” is overcome as soon as a claim includes any piece of hardware. It does not matter whether that is a processor, a memory module, or any other component. The threshold is deliberately low. Dearling described this as the “any hardware” approach, which aligns fully with the EPO’s position following G1/19. Second, and in Dearling’s assessment the more important finding: when assessing inventive step, the invention must be considered as a whole. The Court introduced what it called an “intermediate step,” an analytical stage in which the interactions between all features of a claim are examined before the question of inventive step is addressed. Non-technical features cannot simply be struck out if they contribute to the overall technical effect of the invention. D. Inventive Step: The Intermediate Step This is the heart of the judgment. In EPO practice, Dearling said, it happens regularly that examiners strike through features they consider non-technical and thereby fail to assess the invention’s inventive step correctly. A recent Technical Board of Appeal decision, T 1249/22, already criticized this approach: a claim directed at a technical solution to a problem can be patentable even if the underlying problem is non-technical in nature. Dearling recalled a remark made by a Board of Appeal member at a hearing he attended years ago: “We understand that examining divisions can operate with a degree of mental laziness and that it’s too easy to throw too many things out of the basket when considering the issues of inventive step.” That quote stayed with him because it names a structural problem that the intermediate step now addresses directly. The British method for assessing inventive step is the Pozzoli test, which differs from the EPO’s problem-solution approach. The Supreme Court explicitly retained Pozzoli because the problem-solution approach, in its view, is structurally infected with hindsight reasoning: you already know the invention, you work backwards to formulate an objective technical problem, and then you ask whether it would have been obvious for the skilled person to arrive at precisely that solution. Dearling sees this as a source of unfairness toward genuine inventions. E. Alignment with the Unified Patent Court In April 2025, the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued a decision in Abbott v. Sinocare (APP_000000901/2025, judgment of 17 April 2025). Dearling pointed out that this decision uses language and reasoning strikingly similar to the UK Supreme Court’s Emotional Perception ruling of February 2025. That is significant because the UPC is bound neither by UK courts nor by the EPO. The overlap suggests voluntary convergence. Dearling reported a conversation with a person close to the EPO, whom he did not name, who used the word “permissive” to describe the UK Supreme Court’s approach and indicated that the EPO might move toward it. Whether and how quickly that happens remains to be seen. What is clear is that the UPC, as the new European patent court, is setting its own standards, and the question of how to handle non-technical features in inventive step assessment is now being asked at multiple levels simultaneously. F. Implications for the EPO and Practice The EPO is not directly bound by the ruling. It is an administrative body, not a court. Dearling is nonetheless optimistic that change is coming. On one hand, external pressure is building: when the UK Supreme Court and the UPC articulate similar principles, convergence becomes hard to resist. On the other hand, Article 27.1 TRIPS requires all contracting states to make patents available in all fields of technology. Examiners routinely striking non-technical features from AI claims and rejecting them on that basis sits uncomfortably with that obligation. For the underlying application in the Emotional Perception case, the ruling has a pointed consequence. The Supreme Court did not grant the patent itself; it referred the matter back to the UKIPO for reconsideration under the intermediate step. The Office’s subsequent response was, in Dearling’s words, unconvincing. He suspects the Office is attempting to reintroduce the Aerotel test through the back door. As a last resort, he has not excluded a judicial review, a procedure that does not simply challenge the substantive decision but holds the Comptroller General of Patents to account for whether the Office is deliberately circumventing the Supreme Court’s direction on the intermediate step. That is, as Dearling put it, “a nuclear option,” but one he would not rule out if the evidence in the file already suggests the Office is in contempt of court. There is also an international dimension. Singapore’s Intellectual Property Office launched a public consultation shortly after the ruling, asking whether Singapore should adopt the Emotional Perception approach into national law. That is British soft power operating in real time within the Commonwealth. G. Three Takeaways for Patent Practitioners At the end of our conversation I asked Bruce Dearling to distill the most important practical points. His first takeaway: make sure the claim contains hardware. This applies not only to UK and European applications but is simply good drafting hygiene. Without hardware in the claim, the application remains exposed. The second takeaway concerns the description. Anyone filing an AI invention needs to explain clearly which function is achieved by which piece of hardware, circuit, or software. Not as boilerplate, but as a complete technical account that describes the real-world effects. Dearling’s experience is that practitioners who write the claim first and fill in the description afterward run into trouble. The third takeaway emerged from the conversation itself: how the EPO assesses inventive step for AI inventions is not a settled question. It is worth following the development of UPC case law and any shifts in EPO practice closely. Anyone advising on AI patent applications today needs to know these arguments. H. Conclusion The UK Supreme Court’s Emotional Perception ruling is not a British footnote. It has declared the Aerotel test dead, introduced the intermediate step that brings non-technical features back into the inventive step analysis, and set off a convergence movement that is already visible at the UPC and still pending at the EPO. For everyone working in AI patent practice, whether in prosecution, examination, or counseling, this ruling is required reading. Rolf Claessen: Our interview guest on IP Fridays podcast is Bruce Dearling. He has been in the IP field and a patent attorney for 36 years and is partner at Hepworth Brown in the UK. Thank you very much for being on the podcast. Bruce Dearling: My pleasure, Rolf. Thank you for inviting me. Rolf Claessen: All right. We just met at the INTA annual meeting in London. And you talked about the UK Supreme Court case where you were involved. And the core questions were whether non-technical features would be considered when assessing inventive step of patents. Can you briefly summarize this case? Bruce Dearling: It’s a bit more than that. It started — I actually wrote the case. And I prosecuted it through the patent office. The patent office rejected the case for being excluded subject matter. So pretty much the excluded subject matter provisions in the UK are nearly identical. They’re as near as practical to the language of the EPC, so those of the European Patent Office — Article 52.2. But again, they apply as such. The actual technology relates to artificial neural networks. And the invention related to a very clever way of what is termed closing the semantic gap at the output of the neural network. So that means that in a neural network, there is always a discrepancy between the output of the neural network in terms of what it’s telling you you should be thinking essentially, and what reality is. So if you can close the semantic gap, then you align the neural network or the artificial intelligence system to better reflect human knowledge or human reactions and human expectations. So that’s really what the invention is about. There’s no point in going into too much detail with it — that’s the way it is. It’s very clever. So the UKIPO rejected this because they said it was essentially a computer program excluded from patentability as such. And they used a decision which is called Aerotel, which has been around since 2006. And that decision has caused considerable consternation and tension between the EPO Technical Boards of Appeal and the UK courts. Aerotel was described as being essentially disingenuous by the EPO Technical Board of Appeal. And the UK courts pushed back and said, you don’t know what you’re talking about. So that’s where it fell apart. So that’s where they rejected it for essentially being a computer program as such, possibly with a bit of business methods thrown in as well. But let’s leave that for the time being. So the case then went to the High Court and at the High Court, we won. The judge said, actually, it’s not a computer program. Neural networks aren’t computers. They’re not programs themselves. There’s more to them than that. And the invention as claimed is not excluded from patentability as such. The UKIPO obviously weren’t very happy about that because they liked their Aerotel case and so they appealed it. And they appealed it on several grounds, including a new one, which was that it was a mathematical method. The Court of Appeal decided that the UKIPO was right and that we were wrong, so we lost the case. So we then went to the Supreme Court. Well, actually, they denied us an ability to go to the Supreme Court. The court said no appeal. We went — actually, no, I think there is a bigger issue here — because we realized, or I realized at that point, that the work that we were doing was much broader than this. It requires real consideration of what an invention is at a fundamental level. So not only exclusions, but how inventive step is applied. And these issues were built into the case from the very beginning. And they sort of — I wouldn’t say crept up on the court as we went through — but they became more and more prominent to the extent that ultimately, when we made an application to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court went, yeah, we’ve got some issues here. We want to hear the full arguments on why this is not excluded from patentability, why Aerotel is potentially bad and how we more or less try to align ourselves with the European Patent Office. So that’s essentially what happened. And the Supreme Court hearing was last July. It took them the thick end of eight months to come out with a decision, which was issued in early February, at which point the entire legal landscape in the UK changed because they said we were right. The Patent Office doesn’t know what they’re talking about. Aerotel is bad. It’s unsound. That’s what they described it as — unsound law. It needs to be removed and we’re going to harmonize with the European Patent Office. So before I — I’m just going on a bit of a rant here, standing on my soapbox telling you what you already know. But the Aerotel test essentially was — it was a four-step test, past tense. So you firstly had to construe the claim. That’s pretty straightforward. Then you actually had to identify the actual contribution. This is what they said — identify the contribution. Really in this aspect, you’re asking what, as a matter of substance rather than form, the inventor has added to human knowledge. So that’s what they said the contribution was. And then they said, the next step in Aerotel was to ask, well, does that contribution fall solely within the excluded subject matter field or realm? And then they said, well, if you get through that question, then you check the actual contribution or the alleged contribution to see whether it’s technical in nature. So that’s the Aerotel test as it was. And what the Supreme Court in their unanimous final decision said was that Aerotel at best jumbles up the order. It reverses the logical order of the analysis by starting with the contributions and then addressing the Article 52 exclusions. And then finally it goes back to what the technical nature of the invention is about. So they really went, no, we don’t like any of this stuff. It’s bad, it’s stupid, it puts the cart before the horse. So, in the intervening period between finding the case and actually seeing it progress all the way to the Supreme Court, we obviously had the G1/19 decision from the EPO Enlarged Board. And they basically said that they are going to validate any hardware as the approach. And that’s essentially what the UK also went with. The UK Supreme Court said we’re going to say that the threshold of patentability — or the exclusion to patentability — is simply overcome by the inclusion in a claim of any piece of hardware, whether it’s a processor or a piece of memory or whatever. It doesn’t matter. Any hardware makes the invention a technical invention. So it’s a really low threshold to consider. And they then went, well, actually, if we now align and harmonize with the European Patent Office sensibly, then we need to look at how we assess inventive step, which is the other thing that we raised with the Supreme Court. In fact, we probably raised it at other times and in all the other instances as well, but it came to a head at the Supreme Court. So the Supreme Court then also went a bit further and said, well, actually, whilst we do like the global approach to assessing inventive step for all fields of technology — whether it’s chemistry or biotech or electronics or software or AI — we use a test called Pozzoli. So that isn’t problem-solution. We don’t like problem-solution. We think it’s not codified in the European Patent Office. It’s just a mechanism that the EPO has come up with to try to objectively assess inventive step. We don’t particularly think that’s appropriate. We like our approach called Pozzoli. That’s it. So we’re going to say with Pozzoli, however, in order to actually understand — particularly in the context of mixed inventions having technical and non-technical features — it’s necessary for the examiner to undertake the so-called intermediate step, where you have to look at the interactions between features within a claim. The invention is defined by the claim. That’s what the act says. That’s what everyone understands. It’s the invention defined by the claim. So you look at the claim features and then you have to understand the interactions that take place. And even if they are between technical and non-technical features, if they bring about an overall technical effect when you consider the invention as a whole, then your claim should be good and you can assess it for classical inventive step. So that’s really where we’re at. There’s a lot to unpack there already. It’s probably a podcast in its own right, but that’s the positive history of where we’re at. And I can keep going if you wish me to for a second and talk about why I think this is — we’ll just contrast it quickly with the problem-solution approach at the EPO and COMVIK. So for inventions in the computer-implemented field, they use COMVIK and the problem-solution approach. The Supreme Court said, as I said, they don’t like problem-solution. I think the problem-solution issue is that it is also inherently pre-baked with hindsight because you have to look at the invention and then step back and exclude those features which are common. And then you formulate a problem based on the function that the claim achieves. And then you’re asking whether or not it would be obvious for a skilled person to arrive at the claimed invention, having been given that hindsight-developed problem. So COMVIK is not great by any means. And we know from a practical perspective that examiners are only too willing to look at a claim and simply line through features which they believe are non-technical, whereas they don’t actually look at the interaction of those features in the context of the claim as a whole. There is also a decision — very recent one actually, about a year ago — T 1249/22, where the Technical Board of Appeal told the examiners and the examining division, you cannot do this. It’s okay to have a claim directed towards an invention in a non-technical field, as long as the invention is directed to a technical solution of that problem. I think it’s paragraphs 11 and 12 or 10 of that decision that are worth looking at. But they’re saying that in all fields of technology, it doesn’t matter as long as the technical solution is about technology — therefore, you should be able to obtain a patent as long as there is a realistic and appropriate technical effect. Be careful actually, Bruce — I don’t mean technical contribution, I mean technical effect. There’s a reason for that distinction. Rolf Claessen: The non-technical features are nevertheless used to assess inventive step in the UK now after this decision, right? Bruce Dearling: Yes, that is the intermediate step. The decision says you must look at the invention as a whole. It’s the important thing. There are a couple of issues that arise out of this. The first one is that you have to provide context for the invention. The Supreme Court never provided any specific guidance about how we deal with the intermediate step or what the exact test is, which is in some respects fine. It seems to be fairly clear that you just have to engage your gray matter — your neurons — to work out what is going on in the real world. And once you work out what’s going on in the real world, what the benefits are, then you look at whether or not the actual implementation of the invention fundamentally has a technical flavor to it, which is not just coding, not just simple coding, but it does something smarter. There’s a real technical impetus. There’s a technical effect. Now that actually brings me onto something I’ve postulated or said. I think the intermediate step will follow something like what I’ve termed the holistic character test, which essentially is: work out what’s going on in the real world. Then once you’ve worked out what’s actually being achieved, what the benefits are, what the invention’s concerned with, then you ask the question, how am I achieving it technically? And how is there a technical effect? How does the technical effect arise? That brings out a couple of issues. The first one is that it’s actually about the word “contribution” because it depends on how the word is used. So if you look at head note one in COMVIK, it uses the word “contribute” — how the non-technical feature contributes to the invention. So that’s an additive inclusive concept. The UK IPO historically, and arguably at the moment today whilst they’re trying to retrain their 400 examiners — which this has caused them to have to do — their idea of contribution is this backward-looking concept. So technical contribution and technical effect, I think — although we mix them up and interchange them — are distinct. Technical contribution: you’re looking backwards. Technical effect is what you look at when you look forward into what’s going on. So this is subtle — it’s really subtle, but it’s important. And once you realize that you are actually looking for the technical effects, then you’re on much safer ground. It’s much more objective in terms of the assessment. This might be somewhat contentious, because it’s the way I’m looking at this, but I’ve been working on this a long, long time and thinking about it for probably decades, worryingly so. So technical contribution and technical effects are probably not the same, where they are interchangeably used to mean the same thing within existing decisions. Rolf Claessen: And in the beginning you said, now that Aerotel is dead basically, it’s more harmonized with the EPO’s approach. But what I take from the discussion now is that maybe — especially in view of the problem-solution approach — it’s not fully harmonized with the EPO’s approach at the moment, right? Or did the UK Supreme Court get something wrong, or was that a desired outcome from your point of view that this is not so completely harmonized with the EPO? Bruce Dearling: Well, the EPO — the any-hardware solution is fully harmonized, no doubt. So it’s now a question of inventive step under Article 56 or Section 3 of the Act. The EPC nowhere mandates the use of problem-solution. And we know that there are many different ways of actually assessing inventive step, including the concrete elaboration test from last year and problem-of-invention approaches. So there are numerous ways of assessing inventive step. So the UK says, “Pozzoli — we like Pozzoli.” Interestingly, I had a discussion with someone I probably can’t mention. They’re saying that the UK approach may actually be more permissive now. It might even influence how the EPO operates. So they may move away from COMVIK towards more of a Pozzoli approach, which basically says this: You identify the notion of the skilled person — step one. You identify the common general knowledge of that skilled person — step one B. You identify the inventive concept of the claim in question, where you construe it if you can’t work out what it is. You then identify what the differences are. And then you ask the question, is it obvious to the skilled person, given knowledge of the common general knowledge? This is entirely not artificial because, as I said beforehand, when you look at problem-solution, you are formulating a problem by backtracking from what the claimed invention is to a situation where you say, well, these are the common features and I’m going to project a problem to try and solve. Now that is already tainted with hindsight reasoning. It’s not safe, it’s not thoroughly objective. There is an inherent problem with this which sees good inventions cast by the wayside. Although it’s a preferred mechanism, it’s not fully baked. There are situations where examiners are inherently lazy, or they just simply use something like the requirements specification argument, which is just factual. It just demonstrates that they can’t be bothered to actually argue it properly or think about what the invention is. Sorry to any examiners listening to this, but this is just my personal view, that sometimes there are problems. I’m reminded of a quote from an EPI hearing I was at a long time ago, where the Legal Board of Appeal member said: “We understand that examining divisions can operate with a degree of mental laziness and that it’s too easy to throw too many things out of the basket when considering the issues of inventive step.” Now that one has stayed with me because you think — did someone just say that? And the answer is yes, they did. But it just goes to show that there is some tension between the TBA and the examining divisions, and they don’t always get it right. Rolf Claessen: So there might be a small difference now between the UKIPO’s future approach of assessing inventive step and the EPO? Bruce Dearling: Yeah, it might do. But the other interesting thing here — and thank you for pointing this out, I hadn’t entirely caught up with it, I’ve been traveling beforehand and I missed some of the UPC case law. So the UPC case law — in, was it — yeah, we talked about that. Rolf Claessen: Yeah. There was a decision in April, Abbott versus Sinocare. Bruce Dearling: Yeah, 901 of 2025. So a Court of Appeal decision from the UPC. It was APP_000000901, I believe, 2025. Decision 17th of April, hearing 27th of March. The UPC is not bound by — it’s a court. The European Patent Office is not a court, it’s an agency that administers and looks after the administrative rule of law. So the fact that this decision came out from the UK Supreme Court in February, and you see almost identical language used in the UPC decision, suggests that there is some alignment here, or some convergence in thought. Now, whilst the UPC decision also references G1/19 and uses problem-solution, there is enough — you’ve got to bear in mind that high-level courts do look at each other’s decisions. And this is really a question of influence and the desire to converge. So the fact that they’ve done this at this time is quite interesting. Again, I can’t quote someone directly from the EPO, although I would love to. They were saying — at a very high level — and they used the words “converge UPC practice towards UK Supreme Court practice on interpretation of the law.” So this may actually be happening in real time. Again, it would be wrong to actually refer to anyone by name, but it’s an observation that when I looked at the case, I can see why this is going ahead. And I can see why the judiciaries — they want to maintain independent judicial controls. They won’t reference the UK Supreme Court decision, not least because we’re not in the UPC. But if you look at the arguments in sections 106 and 107 of the UK Supreme Court’s Emotional Perception decision and head note one, you go — wow, this is very close. Rolf Claessen: Very close and nearly identical wording. Yeah. And the UPC also now uses non-technical features for assessing inventive step. Is that a problem for the EPO that has historically been aggressive in throwing out non-technical features for inventive step analysis? Bruce Dearling: Well, I think they really need to get to the situation — I don’t know — this holistic character test that I’m sort of proposing, where you really have to think about what the invention is achieving, and then look at how it’s technically being achieved. And then if you look at that again in the context of that other decision I mentioned — T 1249/22 — it says something like, in the case of an invention that amounts to a technical implementation of a non-technical method, provided the non-technical method does not contribute to the technical character of the invention. The board validated the approach of identifying the non-technical method and then goes through and says it’s patentable. There are decisions like this which suggest that examining divisions have to give it a bit more thought, because the Technical Board will realize that to satisfy the WTO requirements — which pretty much everyone is bound by — Article 27.1 TRIPS, which requires that you protect all fields of technology. And that means whether it’s data processing or business methods, because business methods can be patentable so long as they are implemented on a technical basis. That essentially seems to be what T 1249/22 is saying, although it doesn’t explicitly say “allowing business methods.” The exclusion is only “as such.” So does this decision, in combination with the Supreme Court case and the movement of the UPC, say: well, actually, let’s look at this properly? It requires objective assessments, not just superficial “let’s strike through that feature because I don’t like it, it looks non-technical.” Rolf Claessen: So are you hopeful that the EPO is adjusting and will reshape their case law in view of the UPC decision and the UK Supreme Court decision? Bruce Dearling: It’s a bit unfortunate that the corresponding UK case at the EPO was dropped by the applicants, because it was heading towards an examination hearing at the examining division. It would have gone to the TBA, and I’m sure it would then have gone from the TBA to the Enlarged Board. I’m pretty sure that’s the case. There is another case from the same client which will probably argue the same thing because the specs are almost identical. It’s just lagged in time. So is it going to change? I hope so, because I think the EPO have got it wrong — more often than not in this field. Well, maybe not more often than not — they get it wrong more times than they should do. Would I like to see it changed? Yes, I would, because I want the examiners to actually think about the technology as opposed to just — oh, it’s not — I don’t want to engage the gray matter. That serves no one. That doesn’t serve technology. That doesn’t serve industry. These patent rights are there for a reason. They are property rights. I’m referring to the award of the 2025 Nobel Prize for Economics — they are a core driver for society’s development. So the 2025 Nobel Prize was for something called creative destruction — the replacement of old technology with new — and it’s based on the patent paradigm. So all this stuff is coming to a head now. It’s just a question of how quickly the EPO actually catch up, and maybe they have something to catch up on. It’s just understanding that the examiners have to start to think. As I said, we’ve got the issues at the UKIPO where they’re going to have to retrain 400 examiners. Rolf Claessen: Yeah, right. Bruce Dearling: The Emotional Perception case wasn’t granted by the Supreme Court. They referred it back to the patent office for consideration under the intermediate step. So the patent office produced a response that I would describe as — I’d say arguably — not well reasoned, which I’ve filed the response to, which basically says you don’t really know what you’re talking about. What really worries me a bit is that I think they’re trying to introduce the Aerotel case through the back door. It’s backsliding. It’s a mechanism for trying to apply it in a different way or a different context, which would be wrong. I think they believe that the applicant will appeal this if they get a bad decision — they will appeal it back to the courts again via the High Court, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court route. I say maybe not. I say maybe the client will file what they call a judicial review, which is a nuclear option. That’s when you actually hold the Comptroller General of Patents to account and get full discovery of whether or not there’s internal documentation showing that they are deliberately circumventing the direction of the Supreme Court on the intermediate step. This is basically holding them to account and saying: if you’re not applying the intermediate step appropriately, you are in contempt of the law. So judicial review is a really serious thing to do, but it’s certainly something I would not exclude from consideration. We’ll see what happens. It’s not saying we’re just going to go through the courts and make them decide on this. We’re going to say you’re wrong. And there’s already enough evidence in the files to suggest that they are probably in contempt of court and they’re not applying the intermediate step appropriately. They may not know any better at the moment — they need to be guided — but the consequences for them are potentially severe. Rolf Claessen: I have another question for you. You were the instructing attorney — do you think the decision was perfect? What argument that you made was the most underappreciated by the court? And where do you think the judgment got it wrong, or was it all perfect? Bruce Dearling: No, it got 90% or 95% correct. The intermediate step is right. That’s the most important thing in the decision — it’s the intermediate step. The any-hardware thing — that’s logical, that makes some sense — but if people say “if the any-hardware rule is the important bit,” no it isn’t. It’s the intermediate step. That’s the important thing. Where do they go wrong? I think they went wrong because — and you’ve got to bear in mind that unlike German courts, I’ve got to be careful about how I express this — generally, as I understand it, and correct me if I’m wrong, but the judiciary in Germany on patent cases are generally more technically able. They’re normally technically qualified. I look at the Supreme Court justices and the Court of Appeal justices — we had one who was a humanities undergrad, one was a chemist. Good luck with trying to argue complex artificial neural network technologies, which are difficult even for me to understand. And I’ve been working in the field. They’re hard to understand. They require real understanding, real appreciation. They could say, well, actually we don’t need to look at the technology — but frankly, if you’re looking at the statutes and exclusions to patentability and asking what a computer program is, then you need to understand what these technical terms really are. And if you can’t, then the judgment is potentially flawed. Their finding that the neural network is a computer program is, I think, technically obtuse. You know that the Singaporean government — the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore — released about six weeks ago a consultation note to the Singaporean profession and population, asking: is the Emotional Perception case right, and do we need to adopt it into Singaporean national law? So this is direct soft power from the UK Supreme Court changing Commonwealth legislation and statutes. We’ll see what happens. But from what I’ve seen of a draft response from the attorneys, they’re saying essentially: we agree any hardware is right, the intermediate step is right. The assessment of the neural network as a computer program is wrong, or it just doesn’t make any sense. And I’ve made the same comments before in SIPA, in the relevant round in March. There’s a disconnect. I mean, it’s like they equate a computer program with being able to be run on an analog computer. Now, an analog computer has no central processing unit. An analog computer just has resistors and transistors and capacitors. So if they’re saying that an analog computer can run a program — that’s essentially what they’re saying in part of the judgment. Where is the program in an analog computer? And if they’re saying it’s in the values of the resistors and the capacitors, then that has implications for any circuit we’ve got — it’s potentially a computer program — which is just madness, because it doesn’t sit well with the legislation and decisions we’ve looked at over the last 50 years. This is a real problem. It may be a storm in a teacup because you can overcome the objections by having any hardware, but it’s an argument they shouldn’t have been making. It seems to be abstract legal argumentation which has little credibility in my personal view, although it’s now law. It may be that someone can take that, have an argument with the Supreme Court, get them to fix this. The other thing is the EPO looks at a neural network as a mathematical method, and the UK now says it’s a computer program. Neither is right. The EPO is wrong as well. If you look at the actual decision which they regularly quote — the Vicom case — if you actually read the claim and look at the case, you see that it doesn’t make a huge amount of sense. A neural network has applied mathematics in it. It can be based on a computer program because it’s required to set up the learning objectives and the loss function. Mathematical processes — it tweaks the weighting factors of neurons over the course of the training epochs. But at the end of the day, if the function performed by the neural network is new and it’s directed towards a technical implementation which is technically relevant, then it shouldn’t fail for being a mathematical method. And I think the EPO guidelines actually say that. Even recommendations — the UK court said that a recommendation is not technical. Well, actually it is, because it’s data processing, and you’ve got to work out how does the data processing work to provide an improved recommendation? Again, it goes back to the T 1249/22 decision. There’s a whole raft of these things which are left not entirely resolved. There’s enough here to keep someone busy for a few more years. Rolf Claessen: Right. So I have a question for you now that we’ve talked about the decision of the UK Supreme Court and the UPC — the Unified Patent Court — with very, very similar wording. What do you say are the three most important takeaways for patent practitioners in the US, in Europe, in the UK, before the EPO? Are there any things that you really want patent practitioners to take away from our discussion here? Bruce Dearling: Yeah, okay. So first: make sure the claim has some structure in it. You need to have any hardware. That’s number one — in terms of claim drafting. In terms of the description, you really have to understand what the invention is about. And you’ve got to make sure that you explain what function is achieved by what piece of hardware, kit or software. And if you do that — don’t nickel-and-dime this by writing the claim first — I would suggest that you run into problems. You need to understand what the invention is about. And you need to make sure that the description is complete and full to describe the functionality and the effects that are achieved in the real world. And if you can do that, then you’re on a much sounder basis — much, much stronger. There’s a much stronger foundation for this. So that’s two things. Is there a third one? That’s me being a bit cheeky, but I suppose I know what’s going on. Rolf Claessen: Yeah, but maybe the third takeaway is that maybe the EPO will rethink the way — at least how AI inventions are assessed for inventive step. Bruce Dearling: Well, as I said to you before, it could be that that’s the case. I don’t want to repeat myself again. The word “permissive” was used in a conversation I had with respect to the UK Supreme Court approach. COMVIK fundamentally still breaks with me and has done for years, because the way it’s set up and the way it’s applied distorts fundamentally what the invention is about. And until such time as that distortion is removed, there is a problem of objectivity versus subjectivity. And I think that’s really what the EPO has to grapple with. It’s not an easy thing to deal with, but maybe there are things going on. Bruce Dearling: It’s not an easy thing to deal with. I don’t know who’s going to argue it. It would have been useful for me to still have the original case up and running at the EPO because these arguments would have been fleshed out. I’m pretty sure they would have been referred to the Enlarged Board. We would have got it resolved. So it’s whether or not I can now work this into the existing case to try and get the examining division to — well, they will refuse, I suspect. And then it’ll go to the TBA. And then the TBA will have to look at this, hopefully with the referrals to the Enlarged Board. And then that fixes the problem on a national and international basis. Rolf Claessen: Yeah. Let’s see. [Laughs] Bruce Dearling: No, we don’t know. I mean, you might have a different view. What do you think? Do you think COMVIK is fundamentally right or fundamentally wrong? Rolf Claessen: Well, I’m not so much into AI inventions. I’m a chemist and I usually deal with chemistry inventions. But from the discussion that we had, I think that the EPO might rethink their position. I don’t know. Let’s see. Let’s hope so. Bruce Dearling: Well, they liked it. They liked problem-solution. It’s been with us for 25 years. It suggests that it’s a compromise. It’s not mandated by the European Patent Convention — that’s the point. It’s something they think works. And these things only work until such time as someone comes along and says, actually, you’re wrong, and this is the reason. Rolf Claessen: Let’s see if they choose a different route at least for AI inventions. So Bruce, thank you very much for your insight and for talking about the case that you were involved in with the UK Supreme Court. Where could people reach you if they have more questions about this field — basically patents, AI protection in the UK and Europe — and if they want to ask you more questions about this case? Bruce Dearling: Sure. Through the Hepworth Brown website or my LinkedIn profile, I suppose. The Hepworth Brown website has an email link. I’m trying to post things on it as well to try and provide a bit more context. But if people have fundamental questions on this stuff, then I’m happy to try and answer them. I suppose that I can be considered to be quite knowledgeable in the area. Rolf Claessen: Right. Certainly more than I am. [Laughing] Bruce Dearling: So I was fortunate. As a consequence of the work I’m doing, I was appointed last year to the WIPO Standing Committee on Patents and Privacy. That was discussed for the issues of where WIPO goes and what the direction of the problems are that we have in high-tech areas. So there seems to be some degree of understanding that I might know what I’m talking about. I think I probably do. Rolf Claessen: Thank you, Bruce. Thank you very much for being on IP Fridays. Bruce Dearling: My pleasure. Thank you very much, Rolf.

The post-WW2 world order is dead. The UN doesn't work. The WTO can't function. Multilateralism has collapsed. And the world is now in a dangerous "interregnum" — a period of fragmentation, conflict, and competing alliances where every country is fighting to shape what comes next. So what does this mean for India? In this conversation with Roshan Cariappa, Ambassador Dr. Mohan Kumar — Former Indian Ambassador to France and Bahrain, India's lead negotiator at the WTO/GATT for nearly a decade, Professor of Diplomatic Practice at OP Jindal Global University, and Chairman of RIS — takes us inside the rooms where India's biggest global negotiations actually happen. This is not theory. This is a 40-year practitioner explaining how it really works. We cover: - Why the liberal world order has "certainly ended" - The non-polar world and India's multi-alignment strategy - "No light at the end of the tunnel" — his honest diagnosis - Can India be a Vishwa Guru? The truth about DPI and AI - The Poverty Veto — why 800M on dole holds India back - What really happens behind closed doors in negotiations - His toughest negotiations: TRIPS Doha and Paris climate - The Nvidia comparison — India's economy = one company - Why India can't have a confrontation with China - Trump-XI "bilateral strategic stability" and India - Jaishankar's "three mutuals" approach with China ⏱️ TIMESTAMPS 00:00 Cold open: The world order is dead 00:54 Are we witnessing the collapse of the post-Cold War order? 02:13 "The liberal international order has certainly ended" 03:42 What changed about globalization 05:05 Was it Trump — or structural factors? 07:00 The "non-polar" world explained 08:13 India's multi-alignment strategy 11:04 Fragmentation of the world order 12:08 "I've never seen this deficit of cooperation in 40 years" 13:25 "There is no light at the end of the tunnel" 14:39 Can India step up as Vishwa Guru? 16:27 "800 million on dole is dragging India down" 17:52 India's 1991 redux moment — bite the bullet 20:26 Multilateralism has collapsed — UN and WTO 21:11 The huge gap between US, China and the rest 23:36 What actually happens behind closed doors 25:35 The brief, the non-negotiables, the tradeables 27:21 The Poverty Veto — Mohan's original concept 31:37 The toughest negotiation: TRIPS in Doha (2001) 33:25 The Paris climate accords — India's red lines 36:20 Is there bipartisan consensus on foreign policy? 38:14 Pranab Mukherjee's all-party meeting idea 40:08 What makes an effective negotiator? 44:33 Why "anyone can become Ambassador overnight" is wrong 45:07 Should India look beyond the IFS cadre? 49:00 Why India can't have a Jared Kushner 49:26 40 years of negotiation — how India's leverage has grown 51:32 India = the size of Nvidia ($4 trillion comparison) 53:00 "9-10% growth for 10 years — the world will be at your feet" 58:43 The final question — US-China dynamics 1:00:00 Trump-XI "bilateral strategic stability" 1:01:44 Why India can't have a confrontation with China 1:02:13 Jaishankar's "three mutuals" with China 1:03:13 Closing thoughts

VOV1 - Hội nghị Bộ trưởng thương mại Diễn đàn Hợp tác Kinh tế châu Á - Thái Bình Dương (APEC) lần thứ 32 vừa kết thúc ngày 23/5 tại thành phố Tô Châu, tỉnh Giang Tô, Trung Quốc. Đoàn Việt Nam đã nêu 4 khuyến nghị tại hội nghị. Hội nghị Bộ trưởng Thương mại APEC lần thứ 32 tổ chức từ ngày 22-23/5 dưới sự chủ trì của ông Vương Văn Đào, Bộ trưởng Thương mại Trung Quốc.Phát biểu tại cuộc họp báo sau hội nghị, ông cho biết, hội nghị lần này đã đạt được kết quả và đồng thuận trên 5 phương diện. Theo đó, hội nghị tái khẳng định sự ủng hộ mạnh mẽ đối với tầm nhìn dài hạn về Khu vực Thương mại Tự do châu Á - Thái Bình Dương (FTAAP); đưa ra tiếng nói chung trong việc thúc đẩy cải cách Tổ chức Thương mại Thế giới (WTO); vạch ra kế hoạch cho sự phát triển của ngành dịch vụ trong 10 năm tới; đạt đồng thuận mới về việc mở rộng không gian hợp tác thương mại số và tích cực tìm kiếm các biện pháp ​​mới về phát triển thương mại xanh.Đoàn Việt Nam do Thứ trưởng Bộ Công Thương Nguyễn Sinh Nhật Tân làm Trưởng đoàn tham dự hội nghị.Phát biểu tại Phiên 2 của hội nghị về Thúc đẩy các động lực mới cho hợp tác thương mại - đầu tư đổi mới và năng động, ông đã đưa ra 4 khuyến nghị cho hợp tác thương mại - đầu tư trong khu vực thời gian tới. Thứ nhất, Nhà nước kiến tạo, doanh nghiệp tiên phong, công - tư đồng hành. Thứ hai, tăng cường hợp tác để từ đó có cơ chế ưu đãi, huy động và sử dụng hiệu quả các nguồn lực với tinh thần “nội lực là cơ bản, chiến lược, lâu dài và quyết định; ngoại lực là quan trọng, đột phá”. Thứ ba, đẩy mạnh hợp tác, phát triển nguồn nhân lực chất lượng cao đáp ứng yêu cầu chuyển đổi xanh, chuyển đổi số. Thứ tư, đẩy mạnh hợp tác và chuyển giao khoa học - công nghệ, trong đó rất cần sự hỗ trợ lẫn nhau giữa các nền kinh tế và từ các doanh nghiệp hàng đầu thế giới, nhất là trong các lĩnh vực trí tuệ nhân tạo, công nghệ sinh học, công nghệ lượng tử, bán dẫn, năng lượng…Hội nghị đã kết thúc ngày 23/5 với việc thông qua Tuyên bố chung của các Bộ trưởng Thương mại APEC kèm phụ lục về Lộ trình Dịch vụ Sáng tạo, Cạnh tranh và Tự cường.Bích Thuận/VOV-Bắc KinhThứ trưởng Bộ Công Thương Nguyễn Sinh Nhật Tân dẫn đầu đoàn Việt Nam tham dự Hội nghị. Ảnh: Bộ Công thương

Darrell Castle talks about President Trump’s recent summit with Premier Xi in China and points out the similarities with President Nixon’s summit in China in 1972. Transcription / Notes NIXON WENT TO CHINA TOO Hello, this is Darrell Castle with today's Castle Report. This is Friday the 22nd day of May in the year of our Lord 2026. President Trump just completed a three-day historic summit with Premier Xi in China. He is not the first President to visit China since President Nixon made that trip in 1972 when China was a far different nation than today as it was in the throes of suffering through the Maoist revolution. This is the Friday before Memorial Day when we pause to remember the fallen and for most it is the start of a 3-day weekend, but for Joan and I it is a different sort of anniversary to remember. Forty-nine years ago, on this date we saw each other for the first time because we were introduced on a blind date with mutual friends. So, we met forty-nine years ago on this date and we have been together ever since but our actual anniversary, the forty-nine will be in December. This Memorial Day falls 81 years after the end of World War ll, seventy-seven years after the end of the Korean War, and fifty-one years after the end of the Vietnam War. I guess the other wars, the desert wars, are still going on. Since we are into a little nostalgia this week and to prevent burying the lead it was 54 years ago that Nixon made his historic trip to China. It was historic because China and the US, although friends in World War ll had been bitter enemies for 23 years or since the Maoist revolution. The governing principle upon which the Chinese government has been based for all those years now 77 has been that capitalism would inevitably fail, and communism would ultimately triumph around the world. The triumph would come by way of revolution as it did in China but with the aid of countries where the Communist revolution had already occurred. That principle explains why the real enemy of the Western forces fighting in Korea and Vietnam was China and Russia, not North Korea and North Vietnam. When Nixon arrived in China in 1972 the Communist Revolution had been ongoing since 1949 or 23 years but China had not fared well under Communism. It was a desperately poor, agrarian society in which the people were making little or no progress. There was very little indoor plumbing, especially in rural areas, and very little access to electricity. GDP per capita was barely at subsistence levels. Unlike today, China was technologically backward with a massive military but unable to technically compete. Trade with China was at $95.9 million and Nixon sought to build a bridge across the hostility of that world. He famously declared it “the week that changed the world.” President Clinton had a different approach to China because he apparently believed that massive technology transfers and resulting economic success would ease tensions and result in a more peaceful world. In 2000 he gave the Chinese PNTR or Permanent Normal Trade Relations and supported Chinese membership in the WTO or World Trade Organization in 2001. Before Chinese entry into the WTO the US-China trade deficit was about $83 billion but by 2015 it was $367 billion. Chinese imports into the US also surged massively with an estimated replacement of US jobs at about 2.4 to 3.4 million. Communities built in the US around the manufacture of electronics, clothing, furniture, automobiles, and other products were devastated and became just the rust belt. Nixon visited a weak, agrarian society but the new economic policies turned it into an economic and military superpower. Now President Trump has visited this country which has been hostile to the United States for 77 years. Trump's approach to negotiating is to assume he has the strength in the relationship and to use it to his advantage. Tariffs, export controls, global alliances, and military power are all used in an effort to help benefit US farmers, manufacturers, energy workers, and many others. I predict that Trump's trip to China will prove similar to Nixon's in some ways. They both sought direct personal negotiation producing tangible economic benefits to both sides with protection from dangerous strategic competition. There is a knowledge or at least an assumption that President Clinton's belief that economic success alone would moderate strategic behavior did not work and guardrails have to be installed and adhered to. Nixon engaged an impoverished third-world China for the purpose of using it to counter the Soviets. Trump engaged a powerful superpower to prevent it from obtaining or maintaining dominance in key areas. He got a public commitment from Xi to stop supplying weapons to Iran and to not aid in Iranian nuclear efforts. I have some thoughts on Xi's statement about Iranian efforts to develop nuclear weapons. In my view his statement meant nothing or it was what in the law is referred to as legal fiction. He said that Iran should not have nuclear weapons and Iran should reopen the Strait of Hormuz. Well of course for the world's economies the Strait should be reopened; a no brainer. Both sides know that nukes are not the reason for the attack on Iran and not the real reason for the continuation of the war. Thomas Massie just found out in his Republican primary what the real reason is. If the Israel lobby or the friends of Israel wants you out of congress then you are out of congress. There aren't many surviving Republicans who are not totally sold out the Israel lobby. Rand Paul is an example and Thomas Massie was another. So almost no Republicans and about the same number of Democrats although some Democrats seem to survive without total subservience. If there are grounds for optimism coming from the summit they can be found in Xi's public speech or at least that's how I see them. The English version of Xi's speech comes to me via George Friedman and his Geopolitical Futures so quoting Mr. Xi. “Honorable President Donald J. Trump, ladies and gentlemen, friends, looking back at the cause of China-U.S. relations, whether or not we could have mutual respect, peaceful coexistence and win-win cooperation is the key to whether the relationship can advance steadily. The world today is changing and turbulent. China-U.S. relations concern the well-being of over 1,7 billion people of both countries and affect the interests of the over 8 billion people of the world. Both sides should rise up to this historic responsibility and steer the giant ship of China-U.S. relations forward steadily and in the right direction.” To me that statement says this is a multi-polar world and if we are to progress together and for the good of the world's people you must recognize that. If you are willing to do that then 77 years of hostility can end at least open hostility can end. President Trump probably had the speech examined by his China people and he probably pointed out the thousands of Chinese spies who occupy every university of note, every corporation of note and even hold political office. Yes the mayor of Alameda, California has confessed to being a Chinese agent. There are hardly any members of Congress or the Senate who haven't slept with at least one Chinese spy. Mr. Xi let me ask you this if the Chinese are so smart and so technologically proficient why do you have to steal your technology and your scientific advances from us. I'm just guessing but I imagine all those things were discussed. In short, China needs the American market to save its economy. In recent years economists have noted that Chinese domestic consumption has fallen off a cliff, but production is soaring. Thar means that China cannot absorb nearly enough of its production and needs the American market to do that. America needs China and Russia to help it find a face-saving exit from its war against Iran. You both control Iran and we will endeavor to control Netanyahu. To carry my point a little further Xi mentioned the Thucydides Trap in which the ancient Greek Geopolitical Thinker pointed out that when a rising power collides with an old power war is always the result. Xi said he hopes that can be avoided for China and the U.S. If that is the case and both sides want to avoid war then talking is at least the first step and a necessary one. To that end they have scheduled another summit for Washington in September, I think. Finally, folks, it seems to me that China has everything to lose and nothing to gain by war with the United States. George Friedman pointed out the fact that he mentioned Thucydides but did not mention Lenin, or Marx, and to me that's pretty significant and could mean a turning away from 77 years of false assumptions. Why are these two men meeting and negotiating, well, I think necessity is the mother of invention and right now they need each other. At least that's the way I see it, Until next time folks, This is Darrell Castle, Thanks for listening.

“The rules-based system just hasn't worked. China's system is so opaque that you can't see the subsidies. And when you've got China not interested in new rules and the US not interested in a referee, you've got two of the world's biggest actors who aren't on board.” — Soumaya Keynes It would have been nice to get John Maynard Keynes on the show to get his critique of Trump's trade war. But in the long run, we're all dead — even old Maynard. So instead, we found his great-great-niece, Soumaya Keynes — Financial Times columnist and co-author of How to Win a Trade War: An Optimistic Guide to an Anxious Global Economy. Having already appeared on Jon Stewart this week, Soumaya has a bit of Keynesian star quality about her. But she's also a first-rate economist. Her thesis is that the old rules-based trading system that her great-great-uncle helped design after World War II is gone. And it ain't coming back. China's subsidies are so opaque that rules can't be written to constrain them, let alone enforced. The US is no longer willing to submit to a referee. Without the two biggest players, no rules-based system is meaningful. So — now what? Keynes says we must think like a trade warrior. Donald Trump should leverage the tools available — but use them strategically. Trump's error in his second term was not being tough on China while being too tough on everyone else, especially allies like Canada and Mexico. Soumaya Keynes' most contemporary idea might be her most Keynesian one. John Maynard Keynes proposed penalties for countries running large trade surpluses as well as those running deficits — recognising that global imbalances are a two-sided problem. That idea didn't make it into the 1944 Bretton Woods agreement. Eighty years later, in equally anxious economic times, his optimistic great-great-niece is reviving it. Five Takeaways •       Can Trade Wars Be Won? Yes, Sometimes: The conventional wisdom: no one wins a trade war. Keynes and Bown agree — in theory. In practice, countries in a weaker position cave. History has examples: France in the late nineteenth century told its trading partners they were renegotiating treaties, and the smaller partners complied. Trump's tariffs in his first term produced concessions. The problem is not that trade wars can't be won. It's that the smaller power's only defence — coordinating with other smaller powers — is extremely hard to sustain. There's always an incentive to cut a deal first. •       China Is the Doper on the Sports Field: Keynes's sharpest analogy: the global trading system is like a sports game that needs rules to ensure a level playing field. China's subsidies — cheap credit, corporate handouts, opaque support for state-linked companies — are the equivalent of performance-enhancing drugs. The problem is that unlike doping in sport, China's subsidies are invisible. You can write a rule saying China won't give these handouts. But you can't verify compliance. And without enforcement, rules are meaningless. The WTO has not solved this. Nothing has solved this. •       Trump Was Right About China, Wrong About Everything Else: Keynes is careful here. She credits Robert Lighthizer in Trump's first term with identifying China as the real problem and building a focused strategy. In the second term, Trump put tariffs on everyone simultaneously — which dissipated leverage, alienated the coalition of allies needed to pressure Beijing, and mixed up the problem of China's subsidies with grievances against Canada, Mexico, and the EU. If you were genuinely tough on China, you wouldn't have put tariffs on everyone. You would have been more targeted. •       The Rules-Based System Is Gone and Isn't Coming Back: Why can't we return to the system Keynes's great-great-uncle helped build? Two reasons. China's subsidies are too opaque to write enforceable rules against. And the US has lost confidence in any international referee — a long and complex story, but the result is that America won't submit to neutral adjudication. Without the two biggest players, no rules-based system is meaningful. Yearning for the old approach is not an option. A new strategy is needed — and that's what the book is about. •       AI and the Next Trade War: Services: AI is central to the US-China conflict already — chip restrictions, military advantage, economic supremacy. But Keynes's less-noticed observation: AI could fundamentally reshape international services trade. The UK, for example, is a massive services exporter — finance, legal, consulting, accounting. If AI eliminates demand for those services, the UK faces a new current account crisis, new trade tensions, a new wave of economic conflict. Nobody knows how this plays out. Which is why, she suggests, the tools in the book will remain relevant for longer than the current tariff cycle. About the Guests Soumaya Keynes is an economics columnist at the Financial Times and host of The Economics Show with Soumaya Keynes. Before joining the FT she spent eight years at The Economist. She co-founded the Trade Talks podcast with Chad Bown during Trump's first term. Chad P. Bown is the Reginald Jones Senior Fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics and former Chief Economist at the US State Department under President Biden. Together they are the authors of How to Win a Trade War: An Optimistic Guide to an Anxious Global Economy (Simon & Schuster, May 26, 2026). References: •       How to Win a Trade War: An Optimistic Guide to an Anxious Global Economy by Soumaya Keynes and Chad P. Bown (Simon & Schuster, May 26, 2026). •       Soumaya Keynes on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, May 19, 2026 — referenced in the interview. •       Episode 2892: Jason Pack on the Iran war — the companion episode on America's strategic distractions from the China problem. About Keen On America Nobody asks more awkward questions than the Anglo-American writer and filmmaker Andrew Keen. In Keen On America, Andrew brings his pointed Transatlantic wit to making sense of the United States — hosting daily interviews about the history and future of this now venerable Republic. With nearly 2,900 episodes since the show launched on TechCrunch in 2010, Keen On America is the most prolific intellectual interview show in the history of podcasting. WebsiteSubstackYouT...

This week on rabble radio, Thomas Ponniah joins rabble editor Nick Seebruch to talk about the heavy influence of the U.S. on the world stage. They break down why massive military power hasn't led to a better quality of life in the States and how a better future is possible. About our guest Thomas Ponniah is a co-writer of Unholy Trinity: the IMF, World Bank, and WTO, co-editor of Another World is Possible: World Social Forum proposals for an Alternative Globalization, co-editor of The Revolution in Venezuela: Social and Political Change Under Chávez, and is a contributor to rabble.ca. If you like the show please consider subscribing on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube and now: subscribe to rabble on Patreon to hear exclusive bonus episodes of rabble radio. 

A currency becomes “internationalized” when it is widely used beyond its home economy for trade, financial transactions, and as a store of value. Achieving that status can lower transaction costs and exchange rate risks, while also enhancing the issuing country's geopolitical influence. Today, the global financial system remains overwhelmingly dollar-centric, with China's renminbi playing a comparatively modest role. Yet over the past decade, Beijing has taken steps to expand its global use, expanding offshore renminbi markets, establishing bilateral swap lines, and developing alternative payment infrastructure.  To help us unpack where China's renminbi internationalization efforts stand today, we are joined by Zongyuan Zoe Liu, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. Zoe's research centers on international political economy and global financial markets, with a focus on China and East Asia, as well as the Middle East. She is the author of Can BRICS De-dollarize the Global Financial System? and Sovereign Funds: How the Communist Party of China Finances Global Ambitions.   Timestamps:  [00:00] Introduction  [01:54] Strategic Motivations for Beijing  [04:55] Progress Report on RMB Internationalization  [08:16] Main Mechanisms Used to Promote the RMB  [11:08] RMB in the Belt and Road Initiative  [13:46] Using Clean Energy Supply Chains to Promote RMB in Key Commodities  [15:57] RMB as a Reserve Currency?  [21:23] Xi's Fourth Term Goals with the RMB  [27:26] How Global Conflicts Impact RMB Internationalization 

The global order is BREAKING in real time — and almost nobody is explaining what that actually means for you. They keep screaming that Trump is “destroying democracy,” “collapsing NATO,” and “ending the world order.” But here's the question nobody in the media wants to ask: what if the system was already failing long before Trump ever entered politics? In this bombshell episode, Jillian breaks down the slow-motion collapse of the post-WWII order that governed the world for nearly 80 years — NATO, the UN, the WTO, the IMF, the dollar system, globalization, America's manufacturing collapse, China's rise, and the growing fracture between the United States and its allies. And this is NOT abstract. If this system breaks, it hits YOUR life fast: Gas prices explode Supply chains collapse Food prices surge Mortgage rates rise Retirement accounts get crushed Semiconductor shortages cripple industries America loses leverage to China, Russia, and BRICS nations building alternatives to the dollar This episode connects the dots the political class refuses to connect: Why NATO is under more strain than at any point since the Cold War Why America's allies are starting to hedge against U.S. power Why China is preparing for a world where America no longer leads Why Taiwan could trigger an economic catastrophe worse than 2008 Why the collapse of deterrence could reshape the century Why Trump's tariff wars, Greenland push, Panama focus, and reshoring agenda may all be part of a larger strategic shift From Iraq to the 2008 financial crash… from the rise of BRICS to the unraveling of arms control treaties… from Ukraine to Iran to Taiwan… this is the story behind the story of the collapsing world order. The scariest part? Serious people in Washington, Beijing, Moscow, and Brussels no longer treat major global conflict as “unthinkable.” The rules-based order is cracking. The alliances are straining. The guardrails are weakening. And the next decade could determine whether America reforms the system… or gets buried by the collapse of it. Fox One: Sign up at https://fox.com to watch Keeping It Real and more on-demand with FOX One.Beam: Visit https://shopbeam.com/REAL and use code REAL to get our exclusive discount of up to 40% off.Cardiff: Get fast business funding without bank delays—apply in minutes with Cardiff and access up to $500,000 in same‑day funding at https://Cardiff.co/JILLIAN Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

A year since the reciprocal tariff bombshell, how has trade changed and what realignments are in the making? We invite back to Kopi Time, Deborah Elms, Hinrich Foundation’s head of trade policy, to mark the tumultuous period. We begin by taking stock of the macro impact on the US and rest of the world over the past year, with little evidence of a major change in the import appetite of American consumers or export viability of Asia. Deborah points out that there is nonetheless a substantial realignment in production origins and trade patterns. We talk about the many uncertain aspects related to new rounds of US tariffs, investigations, and deal status for most countries in the world. We conclude with a roundup on the many consequential deals being done outside the US, and the parts of WTO framework still functional. Wars may command headlines presently; trade matters are not going away at all.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

My co-host Ken Suzan and I are welcoming you to episode 174 of our podcast IP Fridays! In today's interview, Ken Suzan interviews Brian McGinnis, partner at Barnes & Thornburg and co-chair of the firm’s data security and privacy practice, about why companies need to stop treating data privacy as a compliance burden and start treating it as a core business asset. McGinnis argues that data is either a managed asset or an unmanaged liability, with no middle ground. But before we jump into this interview, I have news for you! The EPO saw a Record Year with 200,000+ Patent Applications in 2025: German filings dropped 2.2% while China grew 9.7%, overtaking Japan for the first time. Germany remains Europe’s top patent nation but loses ground globally. SMEs and universities now account for nearly half of all Unitary Patents granted to European innovators. News from the UPC Court of Appeal: Non-Technical Features Count for Inventive Step. An April 17 ruling clarifies that all claim features must be evaluated in their combined effect, including non-technical ones. Companies with software-related or mixed-technology inventions pending at the EPO or UPC should reassess recent inventive step objections at the UPC in light of this decision. Nokia Withdraws UPC and Munich Suits After Global FRAND Settlement; Following a global FRAND rate-setting decision by the UK High Court, Nokia withdrew parallel suits against Warner Bros. and Paramount at the UPC and in Munich. One UK ruling resolved litigation spanning Germany, the UPC, the US, and Brazil simultaneously. China Abandons Anti-Suit Injunctions in SEP Disputes: After a WTO arbitration ruling from July 2025, China withdrew its practice of blocking SEP holders from filing suits abroad. The EU Commission continues monitoring compliance, since the former policy was largely informal rather than codified in statute. The Trump Administration has put 100% Tariffs on Imported Patented Pharmaceuticals: Based on Section 232, the Trump administration imposed 100% tariffs on patented drugs and biologics effective April 2, 2026, with a 120-day transition period until July 31. EU member states face a reduced rate of 15%. Generics and biosimilars are explicitly excluded. China Rejects 1.27 Million Trademark Applications in Three-Year Crackdown: China’s CNIPA rejected over 1.27 million trademark applications and invalidated more than 3,300 marks, targeting so-called edge-ball marks designed to mislead consumers about product quality or origin. The announcement was made at an official press conference on April 23, 2026. Now let's jump into the interview with Brian McGinnis! Brian McGinnis is a partner at Barnes & Thornburg and co-chair of the firm’s data security and privacy practice. In this episode of IP Fridays, he argues that companies treating data privacy as a compliance burden are missing the point entirely and leaving significant value on the table. Data Is Either an Asset or a Liability Most companies still treat their data as invisible and costless. They do not manage it the way they would manage a patent portfolio or a trademark. That, McGinnis argues, is a fundamental strategic error. Data is either a managed asset or an unmanaged liability. There is no middle ground. When companies invest in understanding what data they collect, how it is used, and who has access to it, they unlock opportunities to drive real revenue and growth. Done right, a data governance program is not a cost center. It is a foundation for trust, operational efficiency, and competitive advantage. One Program, Not Twenty With more than 20 US state privacy laws now in effect, and major economies worldwide introducing their own frameworks, building separate compliance programs for each jurisdiction is neither practical nor smart. McGinnis recommends a single, comprehensive governance framework designed around the core purpose and intent of privacy law, flexible enough to absorb new requirements as they emerge. Companies that threw together a quick program when California’s CCPA came into force in 2020 are now overdue for an upgrade. The goal is to move from reactive compliance to a mature, proactive program that positions the company ahead of the regulatory curve rather than perpetually catching up. Website Tracking Tools: An Underestimated Risk One of the fastest-growing areas of privacy litigation involves tracking technologies built into company websites: pixels, session replay tools, analytics scripts, and chat widgets. Legal teams are often entirely unaware of what IT or marketing has deployed. That gap is expensive. Plaintiffs’ attorneys are applying 1970s-era telephone wiretapping statutes, including the California Invasion of Privacy Act, to argue that collecting any personal information, including IP addresses, before a user has consented constitutes illegal interception. Demand letters are being sent at industrial scale, with settlements typically running between $10,000 and $20,000 per case. What makes this particularly difficult is that a company can be fully compliant with statutory privacy law and still face these wiretapping claims, because the legal theory turns on the timing of data collection rather than the existence of a privacy notice. Vendor Contracts: The Hidden Exposure Marketing and technology agreements are another major source of unmanaged data risk. When a company deploys a third-party tool that handles personal data, the underlying contract needs to define precisely who owns that data, what the vendor is permitted to do with it, and what obligations flow down to any sub-processors involved. McGinnis draws a direct parallel to IP licensing: owning valuable data and then handing it to a vendor under a poorly drafted agreement is the equivalent of signing a bad IP license. Data processing agreements need to cover ownership, use restrictions, sub-processor obligations, breach notification timelines, audit rights, and deletion obligations. Many companies simply do not have these terms in place. Without them, a vendor who suffers a breach of non-personal business information has no contractual obligation to disclose it. Consumer Rights Requests: Process Matters Privacy laws give individuals the right to access, correct, delete, and opt out of the use of their personal data. Responding to these requests effectively requires pre-built processes, trained staff, and the technical ability to locate and act on individual data across all systems and sub-processors. Most companies, before engaging in formal data mapping, are not in a position to do this reliably. Staff failing to recognize a deletion request as a legal data subject request and routing it through a standard customer service queue instead is one of the most common failures McGinnis sees. The consequences can include regulatory complaints and class action lawsuits, particularly when a company continues to send emails to someone who has already requested deletion of their data. A newer risk involves Global Privacy Controls: browser-level opt-out signals that regulators and courts are now treating as legally binding deletion and non-collection requests. Companies receiving these signals daily without acting on them face growing exposure under several state laws. AI Governance: Policy Before Tools Generative AI tools are now embedded across business functions, from contract review and customer service to content creation and internal search. McGinnis is direct: every company needs an AI acceptable-use policy, and the absence of one is not a neutral position. Without clear rules, employees will use unapproved or publicly available tools regardless, feeding proprietary and sensitive information into open models with no control over how that data is used or retained. He draws a precise parallel to patent law. Posting proprietary information into an open AI system carries the same risk as publishing it publicly, potentially destroying patentability. The distinction between closed, organization-specific AI systems and open, publicly accessible ones is something employees need to understand explicitly. Making compliance easier than non-compliance is the practical goal. The Regulatory Outlook: More Laws, More Enforcement McGinnis expects the regulatory landscape to continue expanding. The EU AI Act is already setting the direction, and several US states have introduced or are developing AI-specific legislation. The pattern mirrors what happened with data privacy: Europe leads, US states follow in a patchwork, and federal legislation remains uncertain. Enforcement of existing privacy laws is also intensifying. GDPR has been in force since 2018, CCPA since 2020, and regulators are now past the period of extended tolerance for companies that are still catching up. Companies with immature compliance programs should expect less patience from regulators going forward. McGinnis closes with a clear point of view: if you have to comply anyway, get credit for it. A well-built governance program is a trust signal to customers, a sales asset, and a foundation for responsible AI use. Compliance done right is not a tax. It is a differentiator. The Full Transcript: Ken Suzan: Our guest today on the IP Fridays podcast is Brian McGinnis. Brian is a partner with Barnes and Thornburg and a founding member and co-chair of the firm’s data security and privacy law practice group. Brian serves as a member of the intellectual property department and the internet and technology practice. Brian is a Chambers Global and national ranked privacy and data security attorney, a certified information privacy professional, and the firm’s chief privacy officer. Brian brings nearly two decades of experience at the intersection of law and technology. Brian advises on a wide range of technology-driven legal matters, including privacy and data security, intellectual property, artificial intelligence, corporate transactions, software, and internet law. His deep understanding of privacy and technology law enables him to guide clients through rapidly evolving regulatory and operational challenges. Welcome Brian to the IP Fridays podcast. Brian McGinnis: Hey, thanks Ken. I appreciate it. Great to be here and thanks for having me. Ken Suzan: Excellent. Brian, the C-suite tends to treat data privacy as a compliance tax, something to hand off to legal and forget about. But when you see how companies actually get into serious trouble, what’s really going on? Brian McGinnis: Yeah, well, it’s a great place to start Ken and looking forward to the conversation today covering some of these privacy issues and AI issues, which I found in my own practice is really bled into the straight privacy stuff. Companies can’t really handle these things in a silo anymore. It’s really about managing and coming together as a coherent program for governance for the organization. I think if you do that right, the good news is we can become revenue generators and show growth for the company and not just compliance centers and a compliance tax. But I think the core problem that we face in working with most companies is that a lot of companies still treat their data as invisible, costless. They don’t treat it, in other words, like they would a patent portfolio or trademark or other IP portfolio. It’s just not managed as an asset in the ways that we’ve seen more sophistication around IP. And it really should be. Data is either a managed asset for the company or it’s an unmanaged liability. There’s really not an in between. And so for those companies that haven’t gotten their arms around all this data and what can be done with it, I think they’re really missing an opportunity. Having an understanding of what data the organization is collecting, how it’s being used, and having the proper governance around it really unlocks a lot of opportunity for use of that data in new ways — ways that can drive revenue and growth for the company. So I approach privacy not just about compliance, not just about avoiding penalties or doing it because some law out there says that we have to do it. It’s really about knowing and controlling one of the company’s core assets. And if you’re not doing that, you’ve got unmanaged data that you’re not getting value out of and that potentially could be a huge liability for the company. Managed well, it really supports trust, efficiency, and growth of the organization. Otherwise, I think it’s a missed opportunity. Ken Suzan: Yes, well said. Now let’s talk about state laws. With 20-plus state privacy laws now in effect, how should companies build a program that actually works across the board without starting over every time a new state law kicks in? Brian McGinnis: Yeah, so the first answer is don’t build 20 separate programs. This really goes back to having a comprehensive, sophisticated, well thought out program that really takes into account not only the 20 state laws, but obviously we’ve got international exposure with laws like GDPR and upcoming privacy laws internationally. Most of the larger economies in the world have some form of laws around privacy and AI. So you can’t really anymore build programs that account for the one, two, three, four, five different laws that in the past we had experience with — where you could just treat California as its own thing, treat New York as something else, and treat Europe as something else. The laws and the pace of these have really forced companies into having comprehensive programs. I don’t expect to see fewer laws. You’re only looking at potentially additional state laws, additional federal laws here in the US, and then certainly additional laws throughout the world. So a lot of the strategy these days is not only where are we today with these laws, but how do we set up our governance program in a way that really cuts to the core of the purpose and intent behind these laws so that we can be better prepared when new laws come about in the future. Historically, at least in the US, most companies just haven’t had laws that force them into compliance postures. As these laws have started to come along, a lot of companies have been playing from behind and saying, oh, the California Consumer Privacy Act, I just read about it and it goes into effect next week — let’s throw something together and call that our compliance program. We’ve now got years of these laws being in place, CCPA came into effect in 2020, and what we’re seeing much more of are companies looking to get more sophisticated in their programs and stop feeling like they’re always rushing to catch up. The goal is to level up their program, going from level one — constantly playing from behind — to level two and then level three, so that they really feel like they’re on top of it and have a sophisticated program that not only accounts for all the various privacy requirements that come at them, but also positions them to take advantage of the data and all the things that come along with having a good governance program. Ken Suzan: Brian, there’s an explosion of litigation targeting something most companies barely think about — the tracking tools baked into their own websites: pixels, session replay tools, analytics scripts, chat widgets, the list goes on and on. What’s happening, Brian, and what should companies do? Brian McGinnis: Yeah, and I think a lot of companies — the executives, the business teams — don’t even realize a lot of these tools are on their sites. IT deployed them years ago, the web team deployed them, marketing teams are constantly using them and certainly have a good understanding of it. But in a lot of cases, legal has never touched them and has no idea what’s happening on the website. We also see a lot of cases of companies who, even if they’re generally aware these tools are in use, aren’t aware what other teams are putting on the site or what those pieces of technology are tracking. And that gap can be really expensive. What we’re seeing right now — and this has been a trend for a number of months now and is really continuing to pick up steam — is a series of what I call gotcha lawsuits, where you have some enterprising plaintiffs’ counsel who have taken a look at some 1970s-era telephone wiretapping laws, including a law called CIPA, the California Invasion of Privacy Act, passed in the 70s with the idea that you shouldn’t be able to wiretap people’s telephone conversations. They’ve taken that and applied that theory to the internet. The way it works is: if a website has some sort of cookie, pixel, or other tracking technology on it that collects personal information about an individual — and that can be as simple as an IP address and device ID — and if that collection occurs as soon as the individual shows up at the website, prior to them being able to have notice provided to them or opt in and consent to that collection, then the theory under these lawsuits is that it constitutes wiretapping. We see a lot of this with the Meta pixel, with LinkedIn pixels, and the like. What they’re doing is effectively showing up and suing, threatening to sue, trying to take you to arbitration, depending upon what’s included in the company’s existing privacy notice. If you don’t have a cookie banner, if you don’t have a cookie notice, if you’re not getting opt-in on these things, they’re leaning on those failures and effectively trying to force you into a position where you are forced to make a settlement. Because the cost to litigate one of these to their conclusion would be expensive, whereas a lot of these cases will settle for $10,000 to $15,000 somewhere in that range. They’ve got technology crawling the internet looking for websites that don’t have these risks covered, sending demand letters and then collecting settlements, $10,000 to $20,000 at a time. It’s been very profitable for them and a very dangerous thing for our clients. And it’s a bit unusual because you can be fully compliant with the statutory privacy laws that require notification of the use of tracking technologies and cookies and banners — and still be subject to these lawsuits because of the wiretapping arguments being made. The timing wherein the data is collected from the individual could still subject you to these lawsuits. So it’s a tricky problem, one that I hate seeing companies get hit with and one that we spend a lot of time helping companies avoid. Ken Suzan: Yes, let’s talk about contracts, Brian, because I know you work with contracts probably on a daily basis. A lot of data risk lives inside vendor and technology agreements — the contracts companies sign with marketing platforms, analytics providers, cloud infrastructure, and SaaS tools. What should those agreements actually contain? Brian McGinnis: Yeah, so there’s quite a lot of things. You’ve got a world where marketing is constantly under pressure to learn more about their customers. The way they can do that is through any number of different tools and data gathering techniques, and we have all this technology available to help marketing and sales do better at their jobs. But we, at least in this country, got to a position where people really felt like they lost control of their information and their data. And so these privacy laws came along and really started to provide more rights to individuals — to have an understanding of what data exists within various companies that they do business with, who they’re sharing it with, trading it with, selling it to for advertising purposes; to have the right to opt out; the right to delete their information. Not checking through the agreements by which these teams are implementing these tools is a huge issue for companies. As part of an overall compliance program, having some kind of process where people who are aware of the growing numbers of privacy laws are reviewing these marketing contracts to make sure they are aligned with that program and aligned with those laws is absolutely critical. To talk about IP, given the IP Fridays audience: it’s kind of the equivalent of having really bad IP licenses. In other words, you own and control this information and data, and you need to control what the other side can do with one of your most valuable assets — or you’ve effectively given it away. So thinking about it in that way could be useful. In terms of more specifics: a big one is ownership of the data. The agreement itself may or may not have anything that addresses data. If there’s personal information involved, you probably need what we call a data processing agreement or addendum — a DPA — that specifically controls what that third party is able to do with that data, how they’re able to use it, whether they’re able to share it, whether they’re able to get value out of it on their own, or if they’re only allowed to be what we call a service provider, just providing services to the business that hired them. There needs to be explicit prohibition on retaining, using, and disclosing personal information for any purpose other than performing the exact services in the contract. Whether or not they’re permitted to sell or share data under CCPA terms is another key point. Certification that the provider will comply with any restrictions and security requirements you have on your data, and making sure those obligations flow down to any sub-processors they might use. You hire Company A, but Company A works with Company B and C to provide parts of their service. You’re effectively responsible for the protection of personal information throughout its lifecycle. A couple of other key provisions: breach notification triggers and timeline. It’s very possible under a lot of agreements that one of your vendors can suffer the world’s worst hacker breach and have no legal obligation to tell the company that hired them about it — unless there’s personal information involved. State data breach laws apply to personal information, not to other types of sensitive business information. Unless you have a contract that explicitly requires notification, there’s a good chance that vendor may not want to disclose it. And then other things like audit rights and deletion obligations go in there as well. Ken Suzan: Certainly a lot to cover. Let’s talk about privacy laws and consumer rights. Privacy laws give consumers real rights — to access their data, correct it, delete it, and opt out of how it’s being used. Most companies have a process for this on paper. What does it actually take to get it right, and what happens when it breaks down? Brian McGinnis: Yeah, it takes pre-planning. It takes a process. Some companies receive many more of these requests than others — some B2B companies receive none or a couple per year, while companies heavily involved in marketing to consumers might receive tens or hundreds a day. To be able to respond to these effectively and efficiently requires some forethought. It requires policy and procedure internally to be set up, and it requires the education of the team. Some of the common ways we see this go wrong: staff isn’t trained to know the difference between what we call a DSR — data subject request — versus a regular customer service inquiry. Maybe somebody submits what would be construed by law to be a deletion request and you just put it into your normal customer service response flow — and then you’re potentially missing timelines and the like. There also need to be systems in place to respond in accordance with the individual’s rights. Somebody submits a request saying, you have my information — what information do you have about me? Can your company determine that right now? Can you look through all your systems and down the line to all the processors and sub-processors you’ve worked with and hired, and identify what information you have about that individual? Most companies, until they engage in a governance program and data mapping, are at a real disadvantage to be able to do that. Why is that a problem? Because two weeks from now your company could be sending emails to the individual who just told you to delete their data, and they get really upset. That’s when they go and complain to regulators or start class action lawsuits. The lack of planning can be really, really expensive for a lot of companies. Making sure you’ve got some kind of process to understand what’s coming in, that the people receiving those requests know the difference between a regular customer service request and a data subject request, and that it gets to the appropriate parties for action — all of that is really, really key. Another one that we’re seeing pop up is what we call GPC, or Global Privacy Controls. It used to be that people would say “do not track” in their browser and most companies would ignore those signals. Now we’ve got advancements in law and browser technology where the browser you’re using to visit a company’s website sends a signal saying, opt me out of this. Regulators and courts are construing those as deletion requests, as opt-out requests that companies are now required to respond to. If your company hasn’t gone through an exercise to understand that, and is probably receiving GPC opt-out requests on a daily basis without acting on them, there’s some exposure there. At the end of the day, a lot of this really is about getting the appropriate people from across the organization — really each department — around a table, figuring out what data you collect, how you use it, who you share it with, where it comes from. That starts the process of your data map. Then you set about mapping that to the various legal requirements and figuring out how to respond, how to make it easy for people to exercise their rights so they’re not complaining, not suing, not going to regulators. Letting these squeaky wheels out of the process — the ones who don’t want you to be processing their information any longer — is really key. Ken Suzan: Let’s switch gears a bit and talk about AI. I know we’re hearing about it every day. Generative AI tools are now embedded in how companies work — contract review, customer service, content creation, internal search. Before employees start using these tools with customer data, confidential business information, or proprietary content, what has to be in place first? Brian McGinnis: Yeah. I think we’re long past the days when companies provided individuals access to corporate technology — computers, devices, and the like — without having some kind of acceptable use policy that governs that. We don’t want you downloading stuff that could harm our network or create security issues. We don’t want you using our technology in certain ways, whether that’s a BYOD policy or just general use of company internet or company devices. An AI acceptable use policy is really a continuation of those. Every company needs to have an AI acceptable use policy. Period. In my opinion, things like that are as important as the fire escape policy out in the hallways for these companies. I can tell you with absolute certainty: if your organization has not provided rules to your employees and personnel about the use of AI, what they can and can’t use — or if you’ve said you can’t use any AI — the personnel is still using AI. They’re just not using any approved tools. They’re probably using their own private tools that they subscribe to, or even worse, tools they don’t pay for, in which case they’re putting company information into a wide open public model. The more companies can do to think through this ahead of time, reduce it to policy, and then train and educate people on that company’s particular policy, the better. You need to make it easier for people to comply than not comply. An acceptable use policy should talk about: here’s how we can and can’t use it, here’s the data that should and should not go into the system, here’s some proper uses of AI, here’s some data that’s on the fringe that we need to keep out — more sensitive information, proprietary information, etc. Making sure you’re funneling and educating people about the difference between closed systems and open systems. In other words, this is a tool that only looks at our organization, only uses the data within a certain box, and is not publicly available — the AI system is not training on our data. You have more leeway to put more sensitive information into those types of systems than you do with open systems which potentially lose control of your data. It’s almost like a patent consideration in terms of keeping information secret. If something potentially has some patentability that you want to seek to file in the future, you can’t just go out and post it publicly and use public search engines and all this other stuff at the risk of exposing it. Similar concepts here — really getting a handle and control over what tools people can use and providing some education to them about how the company wants to think about what’s acceptable and what’s not in those uses is really the key starting point. Ken Suzan: Very useful information. Indeed, we’re coming towards the end of today’s episode. One final question for you, Brian. Where do you think we’ll be two years from now in this developing field, and how best for companies to stay ahead of the curve? Brian McGinnis: Yeah, this kind of takes us full circle, Ken. I think it’s kind of back to the beginning comments about the privacy space — and we’ve only got more of these laws coming. It’s still a developing field. We’re still really in the early days of enforcement. I mean, GDPR has been around since 2018, CCPA in the US really kicked us off in about 2020, and so there’s been a settling-in period as companies adjust and get used to having these laws and get compliance programs in place at various levels — from not at all prepared to highly sophisticated. We’re still pretty early on in terms of enforcement of these things. We’re already starting to see enforcement of more egregious violations of these various laws, and we’ll only continue to see more enforcement as the laws exist currently and as they continue to come along. The days of not having to pay attention to this are kind of over. And I always tell clients: if you’re going to have to do these things, you’re going to have to be compliant — you might as well get credit for it. By which I mean, let’s put all the policies in place, let’s do all the compliance activities, let’s have a sophisticated governance program, but then let’s also use that as a sales tool, as a way to help grow the company, as a way to sell new products and gain trust and earn trust with our customers — so that they know when they’re doing business with us, or when they’re giving us information, or when they’re using our AI tool, that we respect that and are going to take care of their information and have the structure in place internally to be able to do that. With respect to AI, what I’m seeing is very similar to what we have seen with the growth of privacy law — again led by Europe, with the EU AI Act in this case. Now you’ve got a handful of states in the US that already have AI laws, and others that are interested in continuing to roll those out. There’s friction with the federal government around whether there’s going to be a comprehensive law there. Like the privacy space, you’ve got varying factions — some of which want to develop really quickly with very little guardrails, others which say we’re threatening the future of humanity if we don’t get those guardrails in place. I think ultimately, at least in the US, we’re going to end up with another patchwork of AI laws for the foreseeable future that we’ll have to navigate. So really having a company position, a company philosophy of how do we handle all these various laws, how do we treat people’s data, how do we get our arms around it, how do we respond to whatever legal rights they currently have, and what principles do we put in place so that we can adapt for the future — and then, once we’ve done those things, how do we actually get value out of this and move the business forward. So it’s not a compliance tax, but a benefit to the business. That’s the end goal here, and I think the North Star for us. Ken Suzan: Fantastic, Brian. This has certainly been a very comprehensive interview. Really appreciate you taking the time to talk about it with us here on the IP Fridays podcast. Brian McGinnis: Happy to do it, Ken. Thanks for asking me and good to see you. Thank you.

從商業管理角度來看中國發展，由「科舉、專制、穩定、技術」四個維度組成的「EAST模式」，揭示了中國模式的哪些優缺點？是否也預示中國目前面臨的經濟問題核心，其實源自制度限制？中國GDP成長長年維持在8%左右，國民收入卻在實行中國模式後明顯下滑，這是單純的所得分配不均嗎？為什麼中國模式「抄作業」可以，但創新卻不行？明治維新使日本脫胎換骨，為何同期的中國洋務運動遭遇重大阻礙？科技發展需要國家支持，中國在科研支出上可能做得比美國更好，在大型語言模型競賽上為什麼仍輸美國？中國模式造就習近平，在GDP成長速度已明顯放緩的狀況下，習近平會改變模式嗎？經濟萎靡可能引發社會問題，中共會不會為了轉移國內焦點而發動對台戰爭？精彩訪談內容，請鎖定@華視三國演議！ 本集來賓：#黃亞生 #黃澎孝 主持人：#矢板明夫 以上言論不代表本台立場 #中國模式 #奴性 #AI競賽 #國民所得 電視播出時間

In today's episode on 15th April 2026, we talk about why the WTO's  temporary rule from 1998 is still shaping global trade today.Sign up for FREE insurance masterclass by Ditto

Happy “Tax Day”! I wonder what the American Revolutionary Founders would think of ‘Tax Day’, on this momentous 250th Anniversary of our American Independence…? Links Videos / Clips [x] = Played The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer – American Archive of Public Broadcasting [x] 48:56--49:39 JIM LEHRER: What is the proper relationship, what should be the proper relationship between a chairman of the Fed and a president of the United States? ALAN GREENSPAN: Well, first of all, the Federal Reserve is an independent agency, and that means, basically, that there is no other agency of government which can overrule actions that we take. So long as that is in place and there is no evidence that the administration or the Congress or anybody else is requesting that we do things other than what we think is the appropriate thing, then what the relationships are don’t, frankly, matter. And I’ve had very good relationships with presidents. 1. [x] Understanding Fractional Reserve Banking: How It Fuels Economic Growth Fractional reserve banking is the banking system most countries use today. It requires banks to hold only a fraction of the money their customers deposit. That amount is the reserve requirement, and in most countries, it is set by the central bank. Banks can loan the rest of their deposits to other customers, which serves to expand the economy. It works like this. Banks accept deposits from individuals and businesses providing them with savings and checking accounts in return. Banks can loan out the bulk of those deposits to other customers to buy homes or cars, start businesses, or to fund other projects. If a customer deposits $100,000 into a bank and the reserve requirement is 5%, the bank can loan $95,000 out to other customers. Once the bank has loaned out $95,000, it in essence has created $195,000. Customers borrow that $95,000 and deposit some or all of it into other banks. If the reserve requirement is still 5%, then the other banks can loan $90,250 to new customers. And the process keeps repeating itself. Financial crisis occurs when the fractional banking system breaks down and the money supply does not expand. Many US banks had to shut down during the Great Depression, because so many people attempted to withdraw their money at the same time. Today, safeguards exist to prevent such an occurrence. 1. Dollar Decline, Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) & IMF as World Federal Bank – Jim Rickards – The Triffin Dilemma Headlines [x] = Mentioned / Discussed [x] Secretive Bilderberg group just met – but who knows what global elite said? | Washington DC | The Guardian [x] Prosecutors from Jeanine Pirro’s office tried to access Federal Reserve headquarters, but were turned away | CBS News [x] Grand jury declines criminal charges against 6 Democrats who urged military to reject illegal orders | CBS News [x] Google, Microsoft, Meta All Tracking You Even When You Opt Out, According to an Independent Audit | 404 Media WebinarTV Secretly Scraped Zoom Meetings of Anonymous Recovery Programs | 404 Media Farmer Arrested for Speaking Too Long at Datacenter Town Hall Vows to Fight | 404 Media The Rest [x] = Mentioned / Discussed Previous RWR Episodes [x] Road Warrior Radio with Chris Hinkley, April 14, 2026 | Hour 1 | Hour 2 Administrative Fourth Branch [x] The Birth of the Administrative State: Where It Came From and What It Means for Limited Government | The Heritage Foundation [x] The Rise and Rise of the Administrative State on JSTOR [x] America Is A Don't Ask Don't Tell Nation – Road Warrior Radio The Paper Ponzi Scheme [x] Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 27 May 1788 The bankruptcies in London have recommenced with new force. There is no saying where this fire will end. Perhaps in the general conflagration of all their paper. …nothing is necessary but a general panic, produced either by failures, invasion or any other cause, and the whole visionary fabric vanishes into air and shews that paper is poverty, that it is only the ghost of money, and not money itself. [x] Money, whence it came, where it went : Galbraith, John Kenneth, 1908-2006 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent. [x] Economists John Kenneth Galbraith and Alan Greenspan appeared before… News Photo – Getty Images [x] Crash Could Not Happen Again, Heller, Galbraith and Greenspan Tell Congress – The New York Times [x] FRB Speech, Bernanke – On Milton Friedman’s ninetieth birthday – November 8, 2002 Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve. I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression. You’re right, we did it. We’re very sorry. But thanks to you, we won’t do it again. [x] Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval (1816) – Teaching American History We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts, as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses; and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they now do, on oatmeal and potatoes; have no time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to account; but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers. Our landholders, too, like theirs, retaining indeed the title and stewardship of estates called theirs, but held really in trust for the treasury, must wander, like theirs, in foreign countries, and be contented with penury, obscurity, exile, and the glory of the nation. This example reads to us the salutary lesson, that private fortunes are destroyed by public as well as by private extravagance. And this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for a second; that second for a third; and so on, till the bulk of the society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery, and to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering. Then begins, indeed, the bellum omnium in omnia, which some philosophers observing to be so general in this world, have mistaken it for the natural, instead of the abusive state of man. And the fore horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression. [x] Andrew Jackson, Farewell Address (Mar 4, 1837) | The American Presidency Project The severe lessons of experience will, I doubt not, be sufficient to prevent Congress from again chartering such a monopoly, even if the Constitution did not present an insuperable objection to it. But you must remember, my fellow-citizens, that eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing. It behooves you, therefore, to be watchful in your States as well as in the Federal Government. The power which the moneyed interest can exercise, when concentrated under a single head and with our present system of currency, was sufficiently demonstrated in the struggle made by the Bank of the United States. [x] Federal Reserve Act – Wikisource, the free online library Sec. 30.. The right to amend, alter, or repeal this Act is hereby expressly reserved. [x] hypothecate – definition and meaning [x] Websters 1828 – Webster’s Dictionary 1828 – Hypothecate HYPOTH’ECATE, verb transitive [Latin hypotheca, a pledge; Gr. to put under, to suppose.] 1. To pledge, and properly to pledge the keel of a ship, that is, the ship itself, as security for the repayment of money borrowed to carry on a voyage. In this case the lender hazards the loss of his money by the loss of the ship, but if the ship returns safe, he received his principal, with the premium or interest agreed on, though it may exceed the legal rate of interest. 2. To pledge, as goods. [x] 321gold: Gold and Economic Freedom by Alan Greenspan 1966 In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold. If everyone decided, for example, to convert all his bank deposits to silver or copper or any other good, and thereafter declined to accept checks as payment for goods, bank deposits would lose their purchasing power and government-created bank credit would be worthless as a claim on goods. The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists’ tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists’ antagonism toward the gold standard. Triffin dilemma – Wikipedia The Shot Heard Round The World [x] Battles of Lexington and Concord – Wikipedia On This Day Events April 2026 Calendar of Public Holidays | Office Holidays Holidays and Observances in the United States in 2026 What day is it today? Important events every day ad-free | United States OTD Worldwide Public Holidays Wednesday April 15th 2026 | Office Holidays On This Day – What Happened on April 15 Today in History: April 15, the Titanic sinks in the North Atlantic | AP News What Happened on April 15 – On This Day What Happened on April 15 | HISTORY April 15 – Wikipedia What Happened On April 15 In History? 15 | April | 2020 | Executed Today Holidays Tax Day (US) Father Damien Day (Hawaii) Jackie Robinson Day (US) Titanic Remembrance Day (US) American Sign Language (ASL) Day (US) Historical Events 2013 – Boston Marathon Bombing: Two bombs made from pressure cookers exploded at the Boston Marathon finish line, killing two women and an 8-year-old boy and injuring more than 260. But: Who is Graham Fuller, and who is Uncle Ruslan…?123456789 1998 – Pol Pot, the architect of Cambodia's killing fields, dies of apparently natural causes while serving a life sentence imposed against him by his own Khmer Rouge. 1994 – The World Trade Organization is founded: The WTO coordinates and strives to liberalize international trade. It has been criticized for ignoring and escalating the negative social and environmental side-effects of globalization. 1990 – Sketch comedy TV series In Living Color premieres on FOX TV 1989 – A small group of students initiates pro-democracy protest on Tiananmen Square in Beijing: The death of reformer Hu Yaobang triggered the demonstrations, which grew in size and were brutally dispersed in the Tiananmen Square Massacre on June 4. 1986 – The United States launches retaliatory air strikes against Libya: Around 40 Libyans died in Operation El Dorado Canyon, including an infant girl. The attack was the United States’ response to the bombing of a Berlin discotheque on April 5, in which 3 people had died. 1974 – Members of the Symbionese Liberation Army held up a branch of the Hibernia Bank in San Francisco; a member of the group was SLA kidnap victim Patricia Hearst. (Hearst later said she had been forced to participate in the robbery.) 1960 – Guy Carawan sings We Shall Overcome to the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee in Raleigh, popularizing the song as a protest anthem 1955 – Ray Kroc opened the first franchised McDonald's restaurant in Des Plaines, Illinois. 1945 – The German concentration camp Bergen-Belsen is liberated: British and Canadian troops found about 53,000 prisoners inside the camp. Tens of thousands died before and after the liberation. 1935 – The Eastman Kodak Company launches Kodachrome: The photographic film was one of the most popular media used by professional and hobby photographers around the world. The product was discontinued in 2009 because of the advent of digital photography. 1924 – Rand McNally publishes its first road atlas. 1912 – British luxury liner RMS Titanic sunk in the North Atlantic off Newfoundland just over two and a half hours after hitting an iceberg on its maiden voyage. Over 1,500 people died; 710 survived. 1900 – Philippine–American War: Filipino guerrillas launch a surprise attack on U.S. 1892 – The General Electric Company is formed. 1877 – World’s first home telephone is installed in Somerville, Massachusetts at the house of Charles Williams Jr. 1874 – First Impressionist art exhibition opens in Paris, features Claude Monet, Edgar Degas, Pierre-Auguste Renoir, Camille Pissarro and Berthe Morisot 1865 – Abraham Lincoln died after being shot by John Wilkes Booth at Ford's Theater the previous evening; Andrew Johnson was sworn in as the 17th president hours later. 1861 – Federal army of 75,000 volunteers is mobilized by President Abraham Lincoln at the start of the American Civil War 1802 – William Wordsworth and his sister, Dorothy see a “long belt” of daffodils, inspiring the former to pen I Wandered Lonely as a Cloud. 1783 – Preliminary articles of peace ending the American Revolutionary War (or American War of Independence) are ratified. 1755 – Samuel Johnson’s A Dictionary of the English Language is published in London 1729 – Johann Sebastian Bach’s St Matthew Passion premieres at the Thomaskirche in Leipzig, Holy Roman Empire (now Germany) Births 1978 – Chris Stapleton, American country singer-songwriter and guitarist (48) 1922 – Harold Washington, American lawyer and politician, 51st Mayor of Chicago (died 1987) 1894 – Nikita Khrushchev, Soviet politician, 7th Premier of the Soviet Union (died 1971) 1858 – Émile Durkheim, French sociologist, psychologist, and philosopher [read Lark’s Collected Musings] (died 1917) 1843 – Henry James, American/English author (died 1916) 1841 – Joseph E. Seagram, Canadian businessman and politician, founded the Seagram Company Ltd (died 1919) 1832 – Wilhelm Busch, German poet, painter, illustrator (died 1908) 1452 – Leonardo da Vinci, Italian painter, sculptor, architect (died 1519) Deaths 2025 – Wink Martindale, American DJ, radio personality, and TV personality (born 1933) 2024 – Whitey Herzog, American professional baseball outfielder and manager (born 1931) 2018 – R. Lee Ermey, USMC drill instructor, American actor (born 1944) 1998 – Pol Pot, Cambodian general and politician, 29th Prime Minister of Cambodia (born 1925) 1990 – Greta Garbo, Swedish actress (born 1905) 1980 – Jean-Paul Sartre, French philosopher, writer, Nobel Prize laureate (born 1905) 1912 – Victims of the Titanic disaster: Archibald Butt, American general and journalist (born 1865) Benjamin Guggenheim, American businessman (born 1865) Charles Melville Hays, American businessman (born 1856) Edward Smith, English Captain (born 1850) Henry B. Harris, American producer and manager (born 1866) Henry Tingle Wilde, English chief officer (born 1872) Ida Straus, German-American businesswoman (born 1849) Isidor Straus, German-American businessman and politician (born 1845) Jack Phillips, English telegraphist (born 1887) Jacques Futrelle, American journalist and author (born 1875) James Paul Moody, English Sixth Officer (born 1887) John B. Thayer, American business and sportsman (born 1862) John Jacob Astor IV, American colonel, businessman, and author (born 1864) Thomas Andrews, Irish shipbuilder (born 1873) Wallace Hartley, English violinist and bandleader (born 1878) William McMaster Murdoch, Scottish First Officer (born 1873) William Thomas Stead, English journalist (born 1849) 1889 – Father Damien, Flemish missionary, priest, and saint (born 1840) 1865 – Abraham Lincoln, American lawyer, politician, 16th President of the United States (born 1809) Footnotes Jimenez, Guillermo. “The Tsarnaevs and the CIA: Who Is Graham Fuller?” Traces of Reality by Guillermo Jimenez, 2026, web.archive.org/web/20130503080950/tracesofreality.com/2013/04/29/the-tsarnaevs-and-the-cia-who-is-graham-fuller/. Accessed 15 Apr. 2026. It has been confirmed that the Tsarnaev family, at least to some degree, have been connected to the Central Intelligence Agency for almost 20 years. In 1995, Ruslan Tsarni (formerly known as Ruslan Tsarnaev, affectionately known as “Uncle Ruslan,” the American corporate media darling who bemoaned the alleged actions of his nephews Dzhokar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev ) married the daughter of the former Deputy Director of the CIA's National Council on Intelligence, Graham Fuller. While the marriage of Samantha Ankara Fuller and Ruslan Tsarnaev was short-lived, reportedly ending in divorce in 1999, it appears that Ruslan and Graham Fuller were more than just father-in-law and son.  They may also been business partners. These key details in the history of the Tsarnaev family and the CIA were first reported by Daniel Hopsicker of Mad Cow Morning News, and the marriage of Fuller's daughter and Ruslan has indeed been confirmed by Al-Monitor reporter, Laura Rozen. ↩ Hopsicker, Daniel. “Boston Bombers' Uncle Married Daughter of Top CIA Official.” MadCow Morning News, 26 Apr. 2013, www.madcowprod.com/2013/04/26/boston-bombers-uncle-married-daughter-of-top-cia-official/. Accessed 15 Apr. 2026. ↩ Hopsicker, Daniel. ““Uncle Ruslan” Aided Terrorists from CIA Official's Home.” MadCow Morning News, 29 Apr. 2013, www.madcowprod.com/2013/04/29/uncle-ruslan-aid-to-terrorists-from-cia-officials-home/. Accessed 15 Apr. 2026. ↩ Corbett, James. “Who Is Graham Fuller?” The Corbett Report, 2026, corbettreport.com/who-is-graham-fuller/. Accessed 15 Apr. 2026. ↩ “Graham Fuller – Wikispooks.” Wikispooks.com, 2026, wikispooks.com/wiki/Graham_Fuller. Accessed 15 Apr. 2026. ↩ Wikipedia Contributors. “Graham E. Fuller.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 30 Mar. 2026, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_E._Fuller. Accessed 15 Apr. 2026. ↩ Wikipedia Contributors. “Islamism.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 23 Feb. 2019, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism. Accessed 15 Apr. 2026. ↩ Wikipedia Contributors. “Tablighi Jamaat.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 9 Apr. 2020, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tablighi_Jamaat. Accessed 15 Apr. 2026. ↩ Engdahl, F. William. “Graham E. Fuller Where Were You on the Night of July 15?” Archive.org, 9 Aug. 2016, www.williamengdahl.com/englishNEO9Aug2016.php. Accessed 15 Apr. 2026. ↩

Merle Groneweg zu Staatskapitalismus, Ökologie und Klimapolitik in China. Shownotes Merle Groneweg M.A. M.Sc. Merle Groneweg an der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin  https://www.iaaw.hu-berlin.de/de/ostasien/mitarbeiter-innen/personal/merle-groneweg Merles Interview-Reihe bei Klimareporter.de zu Chinas Klima- und Umweltpolitik: https://klimareporter.de/tag/chinas-klima-und-umweltpolitik zur Konferenz ‘China und WIR: Perspektiven für Frieden, Menschenrechte und sozial-ökologischen Wandel': https://www.attac.de/china-konferenz/startseite zu ‘Nationally Determined Contributions' unter dem Pariser Klimaabkommen:    https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/nationally-determined-contributions-ndcs zu Chinas neuem Fünfjahresplan:  https://www.surplusmagazin.de/china-neuer-funfjahresplan-nationalervolkskongress/ zu CREA (Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air): https://energyandcleanair.org/ zu CREAs Analyse zu Klimafolgen Chinas neuem Fünfjahresplan:  https://energyandcleanair.org/chinas-15th-five-year-plan-implications-for-climate-and-energy-transition/ zu ‘civil-military integration': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military%E2%80%93civil_fusion zu ‘dual-use technology:': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual-use_technology zum Bereich ‘Rohstoffpolitik' von PowerShift e.V.: https://power-shift.de/themen/rohstoffpolitik-globale-gerechtigkeit-schaffen/ Fatheuer, T., Fuhr, L. & Unmüßig, B. (2015). Kritik der grünen Ökonomie. oekom. https://www.oekom.de/buch/kritik-der-gruenen-oekonomie-9783865817488 zu ‘the securitization of everything' von MERICS (Mercator Institute for China Studies): https://merics.org/en/report/comprehensive-national-security-unleashed-how-xis-approach-shapes-chinas-policies-home-and Merles Interview mit Lifei Yi in der Klimareporter.de Serie:  https://klimareporter.de/international/chinas-umweltpolitik-gibt-dem-staat-mehr-macht Yifei Li an der NYU Shanghai:  https://shanghai.nyu.edu/academics/faculty/directory/yifei-li zu den erwähnten Sondervermögen für die Bundeswehr und Infrastruktur:  https://www.bundestag.de/dokumente/textarchiv/2022/kw22-de-sondervermoegen-897614 https://www.bundestag.de/dokumente/textarchiv/sondervermoegen-doku-1106000 zu ‘Special Economic Zones':  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_economic_zones_of_China Xiangming, C. (2020). Change and Continuity in Special Economic Zones: A Reassessment and Lessons from China. International Corporations Journal 26(2).  https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3623042 zur Recycling-Kampagne in Shanghai: https://www.deutschlandfunknova.de/beitrag/recycling-muelltrennung-in-shanghai Schaupp, S. (2024). Stoffwechselpolitik. Arbeit, Natur und die Zukunft des Planeten. Suhrkamp. https://www.suhrkamp.de/buch/simon-schaupp-stoffwechselpolitik-t-9783518029862 zum Vorschlag der IEA (International Energy Agency) zur Reduzierung der Autofahrten angesichts der Weltölkrise:  https://www.iea.org/news/new-iea-report-highlights-options-to-ease-oil-price-pressures-on-consumers-in-response-to-middle-east-supply-disruptions zu Merles Interview mit Client Earth bei Klimareporter.de:  https://klimareporter.de/international/china-hat-erhebliche-fortschritte-im-umweltrecht-gemacht zu Client Earth:  https://www.clientearth.org/ zur European Union CBAM (Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism) Policy:  https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/carbon-border-adjustment-mechanism_en zu Zollpolitik zwischen China und dem ‘Globalen Süden': Adachi, A. (2025). The Global South in the wake of China's economic surplus: Industrial challenges for developing countries and policy recommendations for the EU. BKHS Perspectives.  https://www.helmut-schmidt.de/fileadmin/BKHS_Perspectives_25_09_The_Global_South_in_the_wake_of_China_s_economic_surplus.pdf zum Sprichwort ‘Frauen tragen die Hälfte des Himmels':  https://ostasieninstitut.com/bibliothek/sprichwoerter-ostasiens/frauen-tragen-die-haelfte-des-himmels-%E5%A5%B3%E4%BA%BA%E8%83%BD%E9%A1%B6%E5%8D%8A%E8%BE%B9%E5%A4%A9%E3%80%82-nuren-neng-ding-ban-biantian/ zu den UN Millenniums-Entwicklungszielen und zur Armutsbekämpfung in China:  https://www.un.org/german/sites/default/files/2024-09/MDG%25202015%2520web.pdf https://progressive.international/blueprint/16a350d7-9d05-49d6-b855-5de756f52963-pro-poor-development-how-china-eradicated-poverty/de/ zum ‘New International Economic Order' für die Reformierung internationaler Wirtschaftsbeziehungen:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_International_Economic_Order https://www.iwm.at/publication/iwmpost-article/the-new-international-economic-order-useful-history-for-a-multipolar-world zur Afrikanischen Gruppe (African Group) der United Nations:  https://www.africanunion-un.org/africangroup zum GATT Abkommen 1947 (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade): https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/gatt47_e.htm zu Deng Xiaoping und seiner Öffnungspolitik :  https://www.bpb.de/themen/asien/china/44262/portraet-deng-xiaoping/ zum IAA (Industrial Accelerator Act): https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/growth/items/928572/en zum IRA (Inflation Reduction Act): https://www.energy.gov/edf/inflation-reduction-act-2022 zum Third World Network-Africa:  https://www.twnafrica.org/ zur 14. WTO-Ministerkonferenz in Yaoundé, Kamerun:  https://www.bpb.de/kurz-knapp/hintergrund-aktuell/576435/14-wto-ministerkonferenz-in-yaounde/ von Redecker, E. (2026). Dieser Drang nach Härte. Über den neuen Faschismus. S. Fischer.  https://www.fischerverlage.de/buch/eva-von-redecker-dieser-drang-nach-haerte-9783103977240 Relevante Future Histories Folgen S03E60 | Felix Wemheuer zu unserer Zukunft mit China  https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s03/e60-felix-wemheuer-zu-unserer-zukunft-mit-china/ S03E08 | Simon Schaupp zu Stoffwechselpolitik https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s03/e08-simon-schaupp-zu-stoffwechselpolitik/ S02E38 | Eva von Redecker zu Bleibefreiheit und Demokratischer Planung https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s02/e38-eva-von-redecker-zu-bleibefreiheit-und-demokratischer-planung/ S02E09 | Isabella M. Weber zu Chinas drittem Weg  https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s02/e09-isabella-m-weber-zu-chinas-drittem-weg/ — Future Histories Kontakt & Unterstützung: Wenn euch Future Histories gefällt, dann erwägt doch bitte eine Unterstützung auf Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/join/FutureHistories Schreibt mir unter: office@futurehistories.today Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/futurehpodcast/ Mastodon: https://mstdn.social/@FutureHistories Website mit allen Folgen: https://futurehistories.today Episode Keywords #MerleGroneweg, #JanGroos, #Interview, #HUBerlin, #FutureHistories, #Klimareporter #China, #Planning, #Kapitalismus, #Sozialismus, #Reform, #Klima, #Klimaschutz, #Klimapolitik, #Ökologie, #Staatskapitalismus, #WTO  

A cornerstone of modern globalization, the World Trade Organization (WTO), is collapsing. Following the Cold War, the post-WWII system needed a legal system to enforce trade rules, so the WTO was born. Join the Patreon here: https://www.patreon.com/PeterZeihan Full Newsletter: https://bit.ly/4vaKeoS

**Come see WTO/99 at The Balboa Theater SF on Sunday, April 26th 7:30pm, hosted by Hit Factory featuring a post-screening Q&A w/ director Ian Bell. Tickets are available here.**Filmmaker Caroline Golum joins Aaron to discuss her singular, stunning new feature Revelations of Divine Love (now playing in New York and Seattle with more cities on the way) alongside the work of visionary Winnipegian aueteur Guy Maddin, and his mesmeric, troubled Twilight of the Ice Nymphs. Revelations of Divine Love is a dramatization of the life and holy visions of the 14th-Century anchoress and mystic Julian of Norwich, whose collected writings are the oldest surviving English language texts written by a woman. the film is also, to quote friend of the show critic Robert Rubsam “a plague story; a rebellion story; an expression of the persistent supremacy of Love in a world of nearly unbearable suffering. It is both period-accurate and pointedly anachronistic, carefully handmade and plainly artificial. It is totally remarkable, and then some.”Alongside Caroline, we discuss the linkages between faith and a radical politics, the need for splendor within a vision of a new world, and the ways that the distancing effect of artifice in film binds us to a material history of handcrafted artistry in the medium. Then, we detail the fraught production history and conflicted returns of Guy Maddins Twilight of the Ice Nymphs, a film that famously almost broke the director, and led him to consider quitting filmmaking altogether. Finally, we extract the virtues of Twilight, its place in a canon of "cinema of the erotic lanscape", its gorgeous art direction, and a sublime turn from the inimitable Shelley Duvall. Watch the trailer for Revelations of Divine Love.Follow Caroline Golum on Twitter.Follow Revelations of Divine Love on Instagram.Get access to all of our premium episodes and bonus content by becoming a Hit Factory Patron for just $5/month.....Our theme song is "Mirror" by Chris Fish. 

Host: Cindy Allen Show: Simply Trade – Cindy's Version Published: April 9, 2026 Length: ~16 minutes Presented by: Global Training Center The Story of Us: Tariff Changes, CAPE Confusion, and the Trade Community Waiting for Answers Cindy Allen returns with a wide-ranging trade update set to Taylor Swift's “The Story of Us,” using the song's theme of miscommunication to frame the current disconnect between CBP, the courts, and the trade community. From a new DHS funding update and fresh uncertainty around tariffs and valuation to the evolving CAPE refund process and the latest questions around customs business, this episode captures a moment where the trade world is working hard to keep up with fast-moving policy changes. What You'll Learn in This Episode DHS and trade funding DHS remains largely unfunded, although TSA funding has now passed and some CBP officers remain funded under prior legislation. Many trade-related staff are still working without pay, and the shutdown pressure has now stretched beyond a month. Last sale and valuation debate Congress is still considering the last sale bill, which could eliminate last sale as a valuation method. Cindy explains that last sale has long been treated as part of the broader transaction value framework and is supported by court history, but Congress can still change the law if it chooses. White House tariff threats The White House floated 50% duties on countries that sell weapons to Iran, though Cindy questions what legal authority could support that now that IEEPA has been ruled unlawful. For China, the government could potentially revise Section 301 tariffs, but for other countries, the implementation path is unclear. Forced labor enforcement The Labor Department announced a new tool for assessing foreign forced labor practices, but details were sparse. Cindy notes that CBP already has a strong forced labor framework and suggests the Labor Department may be stepping into a larger detection/enforcement role. WTO criticism from USTR U.S. Trade Representative Jameson Greer published an op-ed criticizing the World Trade Organization, signaling frustration with its current effectiveness and casting doubt on the U.S. role going forward. Cindy highlights this as another sign that global trade institutions may be under pressure to prove relevance. 232 updates now in effect The recent steel and aluminum 232 changes took effect on April 6. Cindy notes that the system seems to be running smoothly, with de minimis treatment for some shipments under 15%, reduced or removed tariff coverage for certain HDS annex items, and new component-level classifications that reduce ambiguity even if the tariff burden remains high. CBP also released guidance on April 3, which importers subject to 232 should review carefully. USMCA remains strained USMCA negotiations continue, but Cindy says they are tense and may not conclude by the July 1 deadline. Despite frustration and mixed positions among the three governments, she notes the agreement still matters for North American production and U.S. manufacturing support. Customs business ruling and trade tech A recent customs business ruling has created concern among AI and trade tech companies, especially around whether certain activities now require a licensed customs broker. Cindy explains that the issue muddies the water for brokers, tech providers, and importers alike and will likely require clarification from CBP. ACE portal account requirement CBP has rolled out a new ACE portal account application process. Importers seeking refunds now need an ACE Portal account, and Cindy recommends checking CBP's site or speaking with a broker to understand the new application process. Strait of Hormuz and market impact The war with Iran is paused for two weeks, but a reported $2 million vessel toll for safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz is raising alarms. Cindy also points to Bloomberg reporting that some Asian factories are seeing 55% price increases on plastics, showing how oil transit issues ripple into fertilizers, plastics, diesel, and broader market volatility. CAPE and “The Story of Us” Cindy says she chose “The Story of Us” because the song reflects the miscommunication and silence she sees between CBP, the courts, and the trade community. The CAPE process is still being built, and while CBP has filed detailed updates with the court, the real uncertainty is how the court will interpret those filings and what rules will ultimately apply to importers. The biggest unresolved questions remain whether finally liquidated entries will be included, whether protests or court actions will be required, and how refund filings will ultimately work. Cindy notes that the lead case changed from Artemis to a new test case after Artemis withdrew, meaning the court started over with new orders and the process remains in motion. Subscribe & Follow New episodes every Friday. Presented by Global Training Center • Global Training Center on LinkedIn • YouTube • Spotify • Apple Podcasts • Trade Geeks Community

LISTEN and SUBSCRIBE on:Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/watchdog-on-wall-street-with-chris-markowski/id570687608 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/2PtgPvJvqc2gkpGIkNMR5i WATCH and SUBSCRIBE on:https://www.youtube.com/@WatchdogOnWallstreet/featured  Is the World Trade Organization beyond repair? U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer calls out dysfunction, endless bureaucracy, and ineffective global agreements. From stalled negotiations to bloated trade rules, this segment explores why multinational institutions struggle to deliver—and asks the big question: should the U.S. ditch the WTO and pursue direct, fair trade deals instead?

Episode 86 – Is the WTO Still Relevant? MC14, Trade Chaos & a Surprisingly Resilient System | Peter Foster (FT)

科技浪潮持續推進，投資機會不只在科技巨頭，也延伸至全球供應鏈。野村全球科技多重資產策略，聚焦美國創新、亞洲製造與關鍵供應鏈，搭配全天候債券策略，迎向下一波成長動能。投資一定有風險，基金投資有賺有賠，申購前應詳閱開說明書。*搶占科技先機看這裡： https://fstry.pse.is/95rpez ——以上廣告由 Firstory 與【月城南廣告】共同執行—— 第一季已經遠去，不知道大家的清明節假期過得怎麼樣？今天，讓我們暫時放下伊朗亂局，把焦點放回好久沒有關心的全球貿易現況，看看川普口中的解放日，或是說貿易大戰搞了一年後，現況到底怎麼樣了？另外呢，有人把今年稱為 超級IPO大年，真的假的？難道股市繁榮將迎來大爆發？如果貿易復甦，股市爆發，我信。但反過來說，如果貿易沒有起色，股市繼續往上竄？你信，我不信。 一， 一年前的4月2日，川普以「解放日」（Liberation Day）為名，對其他國家祭出了全球10%基準關稅與針對57國的對等關稅，強硬改寫了自1930年代以來最劇烈的全球貿易賽局。 到了今年3月26日，世界貿易組織(WTO)秘書長伊衛拉在喀麥隆呼籲各國進行全球貿易規則的改革，原因無他，在美國關稅與地緣政治緊張引發動盪的一年後，舊世界秩序早就已經 不復存在。 有趣的是，3月30日，全球最大物流服務供應商DHL發布《2026年全球連結報告》（DHL Global Connectedness Report 2026），報告指出，儘管地緣政治緊張、科技顛覆以及貿易模式演變等因素重塑了全球商業格局，全球經濟的深層次互聯不僅穩定，甚至因各國與企業尋求穩定、機會與成長而持續強化。 另外，4月2日，根據WTO發表的《全球貿易展望與統計》報告，2025年的香港成為全球第五大商品貿易經濟體，較前一年耀升了兩位。商品貿易總額按年上升17.5%至15,850億美元，看來中國也沒有如川普所願 大受重傷，我們到底應該怎麼解讀全球貿易過去一年的格局變化？ 二， 據信，由Elon Musk創立的航天與衛星公司SpaceX，正考慮將IPO的募資規模設定在約750億美元，這一數字遠超此前市場預期。如果成功，此項交易不僅將顯著高於此前約500億美元的預期，更將大幅刷新全球IPO紀錄，超越沙烏地阿拉伯Aremco 2019年創下的290億美元歷史最高水平。 事實上，2025年的中國和香港IPO活動在全球呈現激增態勢，A股和香港市場 全年IPO宗數和集資額分別佔全球總量的16%和33%。其中港交所以全年360億美元集資額躍居全球榜首。 全球IPO市場持續改善，IPO宗數和集資額分別呈基本持平和上升趨勢。 但10年河東，10年河西，有人笑，當然就會有人哭，去年的倫敦IPO案件數量急劇下降，倫敦在IPO目的地排名，已跌至第23位，竟被墨西哥、阿曼等地超越，國際金融中心的地位變得岌岌可危！我們要怎麼看待今年的全球IPO市場？ Powered by Firstory Hosting

HEADLINES:• UAE breaks into global top 10 exporters for first time, as per WTO• Dubai property sales hit AED176.7bn in Q1 as prices hold firm • American publisher Semafor doubles down on Gulf expansion amid rising global focus

**Come see WTO/99 at The Balboa Theater SF on Sunday, April 26th 7:30pm, hosted by Hit Factory featuring a post-screening Q&A w/ director Ian Bell. Tickets are available here.**Prolific filmmaker Alice Maio Mackay joins us to discuss her newest feature The Serpent's Skin (expanding this week to Los Angeles and San Francisco) alongside the high-gloss, sugary sweet, and characteristically transgressive Gregg Araki film Splendor. Structured as a prototypical romantic comedy, the film subverts the classic love triangle dynamic to explore the unique dynamics and language of intimacy that develops between a romantically committed threesome. We begin with a discussion of Alice's latest film The Serpent's Path - a lush, bold trans lesbian fantasy that wears its debts to teen classics like The Craft and Buffy the Vampire Slayer proudly on its sleeve. Then, we dive into the 90s work of Gregg Araki, and how Splendor subverts the expectations laid by the director's previous films in the Teen Apocalypse trilogy while losing none of the director's antagonisms toward the stricutres of heteronormative American society. Finally, we interrogate the film's subtle complexities, how Araki navigates the shifting dynamics of the threesome within the language of the romcom, and how the film pushes past the trap of "selling out vs. buying in" customary to so many films of the decade. See The Serpent's Skin, now playing in NY, SF & LA.Follow Alice Maio Mackay on Twitter. Get access to all of our premium episodes and bonus content by becoming a Hit Factory Patron for just $5/month.....Our theme song is "Mirror" by Chris Fish. 

On 2 April 2025, the United States imposed tariffs on almost every country on earth. The next day, China responded with export controls on the entire world. In the space of one week, world trade had been weaponised as it has never been in peacetime.Richard Baldwin of IMD Business School, the founder of VoxEU and a former president of the Centre for Economic Policy Research, wrote World War Trade to make sense of the events of the last 12 months. The dramatic April salvos have settled into a trade Cold War; US tariffs and Chinese export controls are lodged in place, with neither side expecting the other to back down. And yet world trade grew in 2025; exports from every country rose except from the US, which recorded its largest trade deficit. The rest of the world is self-organising a new order. When one country joins a rules-based regional agreement, the cost of staying out rises for the next. EU-Mercosur and EU-Australia deals, stalled for years, crossed the line. An expanding CPTPP and early alignment talks between the EU and CPTPP blocs are pulling more partners in. The old system was a cathedral built and maintained largely by the US; the architect burned it down. Something else is being built in its place.The book discussed in this episode:Baldwin, Richard. 2026. World War Trade: Conflict, Containment, and the Emergent World Trading Order. Rapid Response Economics 6. CEPR Press. Free to download from CEPR Press.To cite this episode:Phillips, Tim, and Richard Baldwin. 2026. "World War Trade." VoxTalks Economics (podcast). Assign this as extra listening. The citation above is formatted and ready for a reading list or VLE.About the guestRichard Baldwin is Professor of International Economics at IMD Business School in Lausanne. He founded VoxEU, the Centre for Economic Policy Research's policy portal, and served as president of CEPR. His research spans trade policy, globalisation, and the political economy of trade; he is one of the architects of modern thinking on global value chains and the "second unbundling" of production. World War Trade is the sixth book in the CEPR Press Rapid Response Economics series.Research cited in this episodeTACO (Trump Always Chickens Out) began as a joke in finance markets as a description of the pattern in which the US president announces aggressive trade measures and then partially or fully reverses them when markets react or negotiations begin. Baldwin argues that financial markets eventually priced in a TACO floor; once they believed Trump would back down before a full market meltdown, they stopped reacting to his escalations as if they were terminal. The dynamic makes tariff threats simultaneously more frequent and less credible.Domino regionalism describes the self-reinforcing logic by which regional trade agreements attract new members. When one economy gains preferential access to a large market, the cost of staying outside that agreement rises for its trading partners; that pressure brings in the next country, which raises the cost for the next, and so on. Baldwin identified this mechanism in the regional trade wave of the 1990s and argues it is now operating again, accelerated by the uncertainty created by US and Chinese trade weapons. The EU-Mercosur deal unblocking was the trigger; EU-Australia followed within weeks.G-0 world is a concept developed by political scientist Ian Bremmer to describe a world in which no single country or group of countries provides consistent global leadership. Baldwin draws on this framework to explain why regional conflicts and trade disputes have become harder to contain since the US began stepping back from its hegemonic role; the trade cold war is one expression of that leadership vacuum, but so is the reduced capacity to broker deals in the Middle East or manage the Black Sea grain corridor.CPTPP (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership) is a rules-based regional trade agreement covering eleven countries across Asia and the Pacific, including Japan, Canada, Australia, Vietnam, and the United Kingdom. It operates without US or Chinese membership and maintains deep disciplines on intellectual property, investment, and trade in services. Baldwin identifies it, alongside the EU, as one of the two main "pools of predictability" around which the new post-war trading order is forming. The two blocs have opened alignment discussions that, if concluded, would bring a very large share of world trade under compatible rules.RCEP (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership) is a large but shallower regional agreement covering much of Asia, including China, Japan, South Korea, Australia, and the ten ASEAN nations. It involves Chinese leadership and does not carry the depth of disciplines found in CPTPP. Baldwin notes that it is rules-based and that as long as China plays by those rules it could enlarge; but it has not attracted the same wave of new joiners as CPTPP and the EU framework.The EU Anti-Coercion Instrument is a European Union mechanism, adopted in 2023, allowing the EU to retaliate against third countries that use trade or economic measures to coerce member states into changing their policies. Baldwin cites it as an example of the "building bunkers" response adopted by many economies; rather than retaliating directly against US tariffs, countries are changing their domestic laws to give themselves tools to counter future coercion without breaching WTO rules.More VoxTalks Economics episodesThis is the second time Richard Baldwin has discussed the 2025 trade upheaval on VoxTalks Economics. He appeared alongside Gene Grossman of Princeton in What's Next for Trump's Tariffs, broadcast in January 2026, which covered the seismic moves of 2025 as they were unfolding. 

Pakistan will in den kommenden Tagen Gespräche zwischen Israel, den USA und dem Iran ausrichten. Ziel sei es, den Krieg dauerhaft beizulegen, teilte das pakistanische Aussenministerium mit. Zuvor hatten sich die Aussenminister Saudi-Arabiens, der Türkei, Ägyptens und Pakistans beraten. Alle Themen: (00:00) Intro und Schlagzeilen (01:45) Nachrichtenübersicht (05:23) Pakistan: Vermittler zwischen den Kriegsparteien (10:33) Weiterhin keine dringend nötigen Reformen bei der WTO (14:21) Grossratswahlen in Bern: mehr als eine Niederlage für die Mitte (18:41) UNRWA-Chef Philippe Lazzarini geht nicht ohne Bitterkeit (25:26) Das Thema Deepfakes erreicht den Deutschen Bundestag (31:30) «Echo-Wissen»: US-Regierung und die Wissenschaft - keine Freunde

China has voiced support for the adoption of a major World Trade Organization agreement on electronic commerce. The E-Commerce Agreement is considered a significant milestone for the WTO.

“The global economy is full of uncertainty… business doesn't do that well with uncertainty. So with respect to trade… what is going on in the Middle East will have a significant impact on trade” Ben Thompson speaks to Dr Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala Director General of the World Trade Organisation. The global trade system - embodied by the WTO - is supposed to bring countries together by setting and enforcing the rules for them to sell goods and services to each other as well as resolve trade disputes. This week in Cameroon a WTO ministerial Conference is taking place against the backdrop of war in the Middle East and unprecedented challenges to the established world trading system. The war, President Trump's tariffs and a growing urge for independence are all impacting the way goods and services flow across borders. In this interview Dr Okonjo-Iweala discusses the restrictions coming into force and their impact on global trade. She also talks about the need to reform the trading system so it works better for all parties. The Interview brings you conversations with people shaping our world, from all over the world. The best interviews from the BBC, including episodes with Samantha Power, former US ambassador to the UN and Dame Sarah Mullally, the archbishop of Canterbury. You can listen on the BBC World Service on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays at 0800 GMT. Or you can listen to The Interview as a podcast, out three times a week on BBC Sounds or wherever you get your podcasts. Presenter: Ben Thompson Producers: Jonathan Josephs, Clare Williamson Editor: Damon Rose Get in touch with us on email TheInterview@bbc.co.uk and use the hashtag #TheInterviewBBC on social media.(Image: Dr Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala Credit: PIERRE ALBOUY/AFP via Getty Images)

David discusses the movies he's been watching, including "Carol & Joy," Merrily We Roll Along, WTO/99, It Was Just an Accident, The Baltimorons, Magellan and A Private Life.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Former Acting Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency David Shedd joins hosts Ray Powell and Jim Carouso to discuss his bestselling book “The Great Heist: China's Epic Campaign to Steal America's Secrets.” Shedd reveals how China has executed the largest illicit wealth transfer in history - an estimated $600 billion per year in stolen Intellectual Property - and why it matters to everyone from Main Street workers to Indo-Pacific allies.In Ep. 138, Shedd breaks down China's “capture, cage, and kill” strategy that lures Western companies with market access, traps them with restrictive laws, then undercuts them with cheaper copies of their own technology. He traces the campaign from Deng Xiaoping's 1984 vision through Made in China 2025 and explains how two false Western assumptions - that China would play by WTO rules and eventually democratize - left the door wide open.The conversation covers the Tesla-to-BYD pipeline, the sale of advanced Nvidia chips, China's hypersonic breakthroughs built on stolen stealth technology, Salt Typhoon and Volt Typhoon cyber intrusions embedded in critical infrastructure, and what allies like Japan, South Korea, Australia, and the Philippines are doing - or not doing - to respond. Shedd also delivers a direct simulated intelligence briefing to U.S. President Donald Trump ahead of his planned Beijing summit, warning that China's Ministry of State Security now fields over 300,000 operatives with a dedicated bureau targeting the United States.This podcast is essential listening for policymakers, business leaders, academics, and anyone concerned about the intersection of economic security, technology competition, and the future of the Indo-Pacific.

In seiner ersten Bilanz nach drei Monaten im Amt warnt der neue Chef der Schweizer Armee, Benedikt Roos, vor den Gefahren der aktuellen Weltlage und wünscht sich mehr Mittel für die Sicherheit der Schweiz. Alle Themen: (00:00) Intro und Schlagzeilen (01:20) Armeechef Benedikt Roos zieht eine erste Bilanz (06:12) Nachrichtenübersicht (11:00) Zivildienstgesetz: die Argumente von Befürwortern und Gegnern (15:25) Ein freiwilliger Verhaltenskodex für Unterschriftensammler (18:35) Zweifacher Frauenmörder kämpft für seine Freiheit (22:45) Aufräumen in Italien: Giorgia Meloni trennt sich von Weggefährten (25:48) Der unbestrittene Reformbedarf der WTO – und die Hürden (31:14) Die Bilanz der Schweizer UNO-Botschafterin Pascale Baeriswyl (37:55) China verordnet den Kinderwunsch

Die USA und der Iran stehen laut pakistanischen Sicherheitskreisen in Kontakt betreffend eines möglichen Ende des Krieges. Auch Ägypten ist demnach in die Bemühungen involviert. Der Iran dementiert allerdings nach wie vor jegliche Verhandlungen mit den USA. Alle Themen: (00:00) Intro und Schlagzeilen (01:32) Was ist dran an den Verhandlungen der USA mit dem Iran? (05:26) Nachrichtenübersicht (09:50) Zukunft der WTO: gelingt die notwendige Reform? (15:36) Die Schweiz ist die heimliche Wirtschaftsmacht Afrikas (20:33) Erderwärmung von zwei Grad: Folgen lassen sich nicht abschätzen (24:25) Indisches Parlament verabschiedet neues Transgendergesetz (29:22) Weinbaugebiet Lavaux: Unesco-Label ist Fluch und Segen zugleich (35:20) In der Globen-Manufaktur in London

Ocean fish populations are under pressure, and public money is still part of the problem. The World Trade Organization adopted a Fisheries Subsidies Agreement to curb harmful funding tied to illegal fishing, but major loopholes remain. Billions of dollars in government support continue to prop up industrial fleets that contribute to overcapacity and overfishing. Research published in Nature estimates that governments provide approximately 35 billion USD annually in fisheries subsidies, with the majority considered harmful or capacity enhancing. While the WTO agreement marks progress, it does not yet eliminate subsidies that expand fleets or intensify fishing pressure on already stressed stocks. The OECD continues to track uneven reform efforts across countries, showing that global fisheries governance remains inconsistent. Can fish populations truly rebuild while governments continue to finance fleet expansion? This episode breaks down the science, the economics, and the political reality shaping the future of global fisheries. Support Independent Podcasts: https://www.speakupforblue.com/patreon Help fund a new seagrass podcast: https://www.speakupforblue.com/seagrass Join the Undertow: https://www.speakupforblue.com/jointheundertow Connect with Speak Up For Blue Website: https://bit.ly/3fOF3Wf Instagram: https://bit.ly/3rIaJSG TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@speakupforblue Twitter: https://bit.ly/3rHZxpc YouTube: www.speakupforblue.com/youtube    

Colonel Grant Newsham describes how China attacked Baltimore through economic subversion and fentanyl, detailing US policy failures that welcomed China into the WTO despite missed requirements and systematic exploitation of American industry. 1

SEGMENT 10: NIXON, KISSINGER, AND MAO'S MURDEROUS REGIME Guest: Lee Smith Smith examines how Nixon and Kissinger flattered and empowered Mao in 1972 despite his murderous record. Tiananmen Square proved the regime's brutality, yet American leaders ushered China into the WTO anyway, prioritizing riches over human rights and enabling Beijing's rise to global economic dominance.`1905 Shanghai

SHOW SCHEDULE 1-23-261935 BRUSSELSSEGMENT 1: WEST COAST CITIES IN CRISIS Guest: Jeff Bliss (Pacific Watch) Bliss surveys struggling western cities: Las Vegas grapples with $45 martinis reflecting inflation pressures, Seattle deteriorates worse than Portland, while In-N-Out Burger expands eastward seeking better markets. San Francisco's doom loop deepens as LA gangs now control homeless encampments, marking new lows in urban dysfunction.SEGMENT 2: NEWSOM'S 2028 PRESIDENTIAL AMBITIONS Guest: Jeff Bliss (Pacific Watch) Bliss examines Governor Gavin Newsom positioning for a 2028 presidential run through public sparring with Trump. Despite national media attention from these confrontations, Newsom faces weak approval ratings within California where residents experience firsthand the failures his administration struggles to address or explain away.SEGMENT 3: LISA COOK CASE DRAWS FED GIANTS TO SCOTUS Guest: Richard Epstein Epstein analyzes oral arguments in the Lisa Cook case with Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell and former Chair Ben Bernanke attending the Supreme Court proceedings. Discussion examines the legal questions at stake, implications for Federal Reserve independence and appointments, and why this case attracted such extraordinary central banking attention.SEGMENT 4: GREENLAND TARIFFS LACK LEGAL FOUNDATION Guest: Richard Epstein Epstein argues Trump's tariff threats over Greenland lack constitutional justification, representing neither genuine emergency nor legitimate tool to punish nations disagreeing with American territorial claims. Discussion covers executive overreach on trade policy, legal vulnerabilities of using economic coercion for diplomatic leverage, and likely judicial constraints ahead.SEG 5 BATCHELOR POD 012326.mp3MP3SEG 6 BATCHELOR POD 012326.mp3MP3SEG 7 BATCHELOR POD 012326.mp3MP3SEGMENT 5: ITALY'S WINTER OLYMPICS FACE SNOW CRISIS Guest: Lorenzo Fiori and Jeff Bliss Fiori and Bliss report on Cyclone Harry striking Italy while the eastern Alps suffer inadequate snowfall threatening upcoming Winter Olympics venues. Discussion covers the paradox of extreme weather alongside poor ski conditions, organizers scrambling to prepare bobsled and alpine courses, and climate uncertainties plaguing winter sports planning.SEGMENT 6: LANCASTER COUNTY POST-CHRISTMAS CALM Guest: Jim McTagueMcTague reports from Lancaster County, Pennsylvania experiencing typical post-Christmas slowdown as locals anticipate incoming snowfall with excitement rather than dread. Discussion recalls past snow panic in Alexandria, Virginia and contrasts rural Pennsylvania's practical winter preparedness with urban areas' tendency toward weather-driven hysteria and supply hoarding.SEGMENT 7: BEZOS CHALLENGES MUSK WITH SATELLITE CONSTELLATIONGuest: Bob Zimmerman Zimmerman reports Jeff Bezos's Blue Origin aims to launch a communications satellite constellation rivaling Elon Musk's Starlink dominance. Discussion covers the growing competition among private space ventures, numerous startup companies entering the market, Rocket Lab experiencing launch delays, and the commercial space race intensifying across multiple fronts.SEGMENT 8: SPACE TUG AND OUTER PLANET PROBE DISCOVERIES Guest: Bob Zimmerman Zimmerman discusses a new space tug designed to deorbit Pentagon satellites addressing orbital debris concerns. Discussion turns to Jupiter and Saturn probes returning surprising scientific results, expanding understanding of the outer solar system, and how commercial and government space programs increasingly collaborate on solving both practical and exploratory challenges.SEG 9 BATCHELOR POD 012326.mp3MP3SEG 10 BATCHELOR POD 012326.mp3MP3SEG 11 BATCHELOR POD 012326.mp3MP3SEG 12 BATCHELOR POD 012326.mp3MP3SEGMENT 9: ORIGINS OF THE CHINA LOBBY Guest: Lee Smith, Author of "The China Matrix" Smith traces the China lobby's origins to a pivotal October 1997 White House dinner with the Clintons where VIPs secured immense personal wealth through Beijing connections. Nancy Pelosi and Daniel Moynihan protested these arrangements, but the pact enriching American elites at China's service was firmly established.SEGMENT 10: NIXON, KISSINGER, AND MAO'S MURDEROUS REGIME Guest: Lee Smith Smith examines how Nixon and Kissinger flattered and empowered Mao in 1972 despite his murderous record. Tiananmen Square proved the regime's brutality, yet American leaders ushered China into the WTO anyway, prioritizing riches over human rights and enabling Beijing's rise to global economic dominance.SEGMENT 11: FEINSTEIN AND BLUM'S SHANGHAI CONNECTIONS Guest: Lee Smith Smith details how San Francisco Mayor Diane Feinstein and husband Richard Blum cultivated relationships with Shanghai's mayor and later Tiananmen dictator Deng Xiaoping, becoming apologists for the regime. These connections exemplify how American political figures enriched themselves while providing cover for China's authoritarian government.SEGMENT 12: TRUMP AIMS TO END THE CHINA LOBBY Guest: Lee Smith Smith argues China operates as marauder, thief, and killer, wrecking world trade and undermining American manufacturing while enriching the China lobby Trump calls "globalists." The Trump administration learned not to trust Xi Jinping after COVID lies shattered any remaining confidence, signaling determination to dismantle this corrupt arrangement.LL SEPARATE FILES. GUEST, HEADLINE, 50 WORD SUMMARY FOR EACH.  NUMBER 13-16....13 MIHL TCHAOTH OF CIVITAS INSTITUTE ATTENDING SCOTUS ORAL ARGUMENT OF AN ENERGY VS ENVIRONMENT DISPUTE DATING TO CLAIM BY LOIUISIANA THAT THE OIL AND GAS EXTRACTION DURING SECOND WORLD WAR DANAGED COASTLIBEAND QUALITY OF LIFE.  DEFENDING OIL GAS IS PAUL CLEMENT, FORMER SOLICITIR GENERAL  ARGUES THAT DURING WSRTIME NO LIMITS, EXISTENITSIL8:19 PMI only received information for segment 13. Could you provide the guest and topic details for segments 14, 15, and 16 so I can complete all four summaries?SEGMENT 13: SCOTUS HEARS WARTIME OIL EXTRACTION LIABILITY CASE Guest: Michael Toth (Civitas Institute) Toth reports from Supreme Court oral arguments on Louisiana's claim that World War II oil and gas extraction damaged coastlines and quality of life. Former Solicitor General Paul Clement defends energy companies, arguing wartime production faced no limits given the existential threat requiring maximum resource extraction for national survival.14  MICHAEL TOTH DNDR PF SCOTUS SYMPSATHIRC TO OIL GAS COM[ANIES THAT THEYWERE SUPPLYING HOMEFRONT CASE BELONGS IN FEDERAL COURT, NOT PUNITIVE STATE COURT.8:21 PMSEGMENT 13: SCOTUS HEARS WARTIME OIL EXTRACTION LIABILITY CASE Guest: Michael Toth (Civitas Institute) Toth reports from Supreme Court oral arguments on Louisiana's claim that World War II oil and gas extraction damaged coastlines and quality of life. Former Solicitor General Paul Clement defends energy companies, arguing wartime production faced no limits given the existential threat requiring maximum resource extraction for national survival.SEGMENT 14: SCOTUS SYMPATHETIC TO OIL AND GAS DEFENSE Guest: Michael Toth (Civitas Institute) Toth reports the Supreme Court appears sympathetic to oil and gas companies arguing they supplied the homefront during wartime under government direction. Justices signal the case belongs in federal court rather than punitive state courts where energy companies face hostile juries and politically motivated litigation against essential wartime production.Please provide guest and topic details for segments 15 and 16 to complete the schedule.CLIFF MaY OF FDD ARGUES THST POTUS IS CHASING out the dictators of caracas, havana and tehran cuba regime change i 8:34 PMSEGMENT 15: TRUMP TARGETS DICTATORS IN CARACAS, HAVANA, AND TEHRANGuest: Cliff May (FDD) May argues Trump is aggressively pursuing regime change against the dictatorships in Venezuela, Cuba, and Iran. Discussion examines the administration's maximum pressure campaigns, weakened positions of Maduro, Díaz-Canel, and Iranian leadership, and whether coordinated American pressure can finally topple these longstanding authoritarian regimes in the hemisphere and beyond.Please provide guest and topic details for segment 16 to complete the schedule.16 q6 ucstion ccenter reports on fresh ai generated data that finds geothermal success overlooked by us testing.  s prioe=ritytrmp admin to a tals fest. action..  16 henry sokolski of non proliferstion rpolcy ed8:35 PMSEGMENT 16: NON-NUCLEAR ICBM TO DESTROY UNDERGROUND BUNKERSGuest: Henry Sokolski (Nonproliferation Policy Education Center) Sokolski discusses development of a massive conventional ICBM designed to penetrate hardened underground bunkers without nuclear warheads. Discussion examines strategic rationale for this kinetic weapon against buried Iranian or North Korean facilities, technical challenges of achieving sufficient destructive force, and arms control implications of such capabilities.Please clarify: You mentioned both a geothermal/AI story and Henry Sokolski for segment 16. Should these be two separate segments, or did segment 15 include geothermal content? Let me know and I can adjust accordingly.SEGMENT 9: ORIGINS OF THE CHINA LOBBY Guest: Lee Smith, Author of "The China Matrix" Smith traces the China lobby's origins to a pivotal October 1997 White House dinner with the Clintons where VIPs secured immense personal wealth through Beijing connections. Nancy Pelosi and Daniel Moynihan protested these arrangements, but the pact enriching American elites at China's service was firmly established.SEGMENT 10: NIXON, KISSINGER, AND MAO'S MURDEROUS REGIME Guest: Lee Smith Smith examines how Nixon and Kissinger flattered and empowered Mao in 1972 despite his murderous record. Tiananmen Square proved the regime's brutality, yet American leaders ushered China into the WTO anyway, prioritizing riches over human rights and enabling Beijing's rise to global economic dominance.SEGMENT 11: FEINSTEIN AND BLUM'S SHANGHAI CONNECTIONS Guest: Lee Smith Smith details how San Francisco Mayor Diane Feinstein and husband Richard Blum cultivated relationships with Shanghai's mayor and later Tiananmen dictator Deng Xiaoping, becoming apologists for the regime. These connections exemplify how American political figures enriched themselves while providing cover for China's authoritarian government.SEGMENT 12: TRUMP AIMS TO END THE CHINA LOBBY Guest: Lee Smith Smith argues China operates as marauder, thief, and killer, wrecking world trade and undermining American manufacturing while enriching the China lobby Trump calls "globalists." The Trump administration learned not to trust Xi Jinping after COVID lies shattered any remaining confidence, signaling determination to dismantle this corrupt arrangement.SEGMENT 13: SCOTUS HEARS WARTIME OIL EXTRACTION LIABILITY CASE Guest: Michael Toth (Civitas Institute) Toth reports from Supreme Court oral arguments on Louisiana's claim that World War II oil and gas extraction damaged coastlines and quality of life. Former Solicitor General Paul Clement defends energy companies, arguing wartime production faced no limits given the existential threat requiring maximum resource extraction for national survival.SEGMENT 14: SCOTUS SYMPATHETIC TO OIL AND GAS DEFENSE Guest: Michael Toth (Civitas Institute) Toth reports the Supreme Court appears sympathetic to oil and gas companies arguing they supplied the homefront during wartime under government direction. Justices signal the case belongs in federal court rather than punitive state courts where energy companies face hostile juries and politically motivated litigation against essential wartime production.SEGMENT 15: TRUMP TARGETS DICTATORS IN CARACAS, HAVANA, AND TEHRANGuest: Cliff May (FDD) May argues Trump is aggressively pursuing regime change against the dictatorships in Venezuela, Cuba, and Iran. Discussion examines the administration's maximum pressure campaigns, weakened positions of Maduro, Díaz-Canel, and Iranian leadership, and whether coordinated American pressure can finally topple these longstanding authoritarian regimes in the hemisphere and beyond.SEGMENT 16: NON-NUCLEAR ICBM TO DESTROY UNDERGROUND BUNKERSGuest: Henry Sokolski (Nonproliferation Policy Education Center) Sokolski discusses development of a massive conventional ICBM designed to penetrate hardened underground bunkers without nuclear warheads. Discussion examines strategic rationale for this kinetic weapon against buried Iranian or North Korean facilities, technical challenges of achieving sufficient destructive force, and arms control implications of such capabilities.

Watch The X22 Report On Video No videos found (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:17532056201798502,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-9437-3289"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");pt> Click On Picture To See Larger Picture The EU/Germans are starting to see that the direction of the world has changed, they are now trapped in destroying the power infrastructure. Trump placed tariffs on EU, the EU thinks they can fight back, they already lost. The Fed is panicking, they keep repeating independence, in the end there will be no Fed. The [DS] is trying to keep their agenda on track and they are trying to maintain the old guard power structure. Trump is the process of dismantling the old guard power structure and the [DS] cannot stop it. Everything is at stake, the people must take back the power. Trump is leading the [DS] down the path to have an insurrection against the people of this country, trap set. Hold the line justice is coming, Trump is getting all the leverage.   Economy German Chancellor Merz Admits Shutting Down Nuclear Energy Production Was a “Severe Strategic Mistake” Germany has a severe electricity shortage and cost problem, and it's getting worse. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz recently made the admission that shutting down the German nuclear power reactors was a “severe strategic mistake.” “To have acceptable market prices for energy production again, we would have to permanently subsidize energy prices from the federal budget,” Merz said, adding: “We can't do this in the long run.” “So, we are now undertaking the most expensive energy transition in the entire world,” Merz said with pronounced frustration. “I know of no other country that makes things so expensive and difficult as Germany.” Keep in mind, Germany represents the largest contributing economy in the European Union.  The German industrial sector is the backbone of the European economic model. Source: theconservativetreehouse.com (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:18510697282300316,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-8599-9832"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");    very successfully, at that! Nobody will touch this sacred piece of Land, especially since the National Security of the United States, and the World at large, is at stake. On top of everything else, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, The United Kingdom, The Netherlands, and Finland have journeyed to Greenland, for purposes unknown. This is a very dangerous situation for the Safety, Security, and Survival of our Planet. These Countries, who are playing this very dangerous game, have put a level of risk in play that is not tenable or sustainable. Therefore, it is imperative that, in order to protect Global Peace and Security, strong measures be taken so that this potentially perilous situation end quickly, and without question. Starting on February 1st, 2026, all of the above mentioned Countries (Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, The United Kingdom, The Netherlands, and Finland), will be charged a 10% Tariff on any and all goods sent to the United States of America. On June 1st, 2026, the Tariff will be increased to 25%. This Tariff will be due and payable until such time as a Deal is reached for the Complete and Total purchase of Greenland. The United States has been trying to do this transaction for over 150 years. Many Presidents have tried, and for good reason, but Denmark has always refused. Now, because of The Golden Dome, and Modern Day Weapons Systems, both Offensive and Defensive, the need to ACQUIRE is especially important. Hundreds of Billions of Dollars are currently being spent on Security Programs having to do with “The Dome,” including for the possible protection of Canada, and this very brilliant, but highly complex system can only work at its maximum potential and efficiency, because of angles, metes, and bounds, if this Land is included in it. The United States of America is immediately open to negotiation with Denmark and/or any of these Countries that have put so much at risk, despite all that we have done for them, including maximum protection, over so many decades. Thank you for your attention to this matter! DONALD J. TRUMP PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA   https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/2012565207730545125?s=20 https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/2012634968556523924?s=20   https://twitter.com/KobeissiLetter/status/2012875286702899711?s=20  restrict US access to the EU market, potentially blocking US banks from EU procurement and targeting US tech giants. This trade weapon has never been used before. In short, yes—a potential trade war triggered by these actions would likely inflict more economic pain on the EU than the U.S., though both sides would suffer. The asymmetry stems from trade dependencies, market sizes, and broader leverage. Trump will counter the EU Raise the threatened tariffs beyond 25% (e.g., to 50-60% on key EU goods like autos, steel, or agriculture) to force concessions. He’s already signaled willingness to go higher if no Greenland deal materializes. Impose sanctions on specific EU sectors or companies, such as luxury goods (hurting France) or tech imports, while exempting allies who break ranks (e.g., if Italy or Eastern Europe hesitate on ACI). Broader Leverage: Link trade to NATO or security, threatening to reduce U.S. troop presence in Europe or cut funding unless EU backs off. He could also accelerate “Buy American” policies to boost domestic alternatives. Publicly dismiss the ACI as “weak” or “all talk” via X or statements, then push for bilateral deals with individual EU countries to divide the bloc (e.g., deals with the UK post-Brexit).  If ACI activates, pursue WTO challenges or rally non-EU allies (e.g., Canada, Japan) against EU measures, while advancing U.S. Arctic strategy independently.   https://twitter.com/FUDdaily/status/2012668421612183897?s=20  on stolen IP with fraudulent certification, and made with slave labour, while plundering the world’s oceans and polluting the planet like no other. Then as Europe deindustrialises and offshores its manufacturing to China (along with the knowledge economy that goes with it), it passively allows China to subvert its customs enforcement and tariff regime, and rolls out the red carpet for industrial scale data theft. Make no mistake. China IS at war with the West. This is an economic war that’s been going on for thirty years or more. But Western liberals would rather align with China because Orange man bad. That’s the mentality we’re dealing with here. For sure, China isn’t planning on invading the West, but they don’t need to – because we’re already handing over everything of value without a fight. https://twitter.com/OpenSourceZone/status/2012615143331352606?s=20   https://twitter.com/profstonge/status/2012140279965401446?s=20 U.S. Economy Best Served by Independent Federal Reserve, Fed's Kashkari Says Kashkari says that the Fed's policy committee is focused on its economic goals as it deals with a complex scenario of a cooling labor market and inflation The U.S. economy is best served by having an independent Federal Reserve that executes monetary-policy decisions based only on data and analysis, Minneapolis Fed President Neel Kashkari said in a virtual conversation with the Wisconsin Bankers Association. With a new Fed chair on the horizon, and increased pressure on the committee after it received subpoenas from the Justice Department late last week relating to Chair Jerome Powell's testimony about renovations of the central bank's headquarters in Washington, Kashkari said Wednesday that the Fed's policy committee is focused on its economic goals as it deals with a complex scenario of a cooling labor market and inflation that has remained above its 2% target. Source: wsj.com   Journal call me to ask whether or not such an offer was made? I would have very quickly told them, “NO,” and that would have been the end of the story. Also, one was led to believe that I offered Jamie Dimon the job of Secretary of the Treasury, but that would be one that he would be very interested in. The problem is, I have Scott Bessent doing a fantastic job, A SUPERSTAR — Why would I give it to Jamie? No such offer was made there, or even thought of, either. The Wall Street Journal ought to do better “fact checking,” or its already strained credibility will continue to DIVE. Thank you for your attention to this matter! Political/Rights      Order securing an EXCLUSIVE 4 hour Broadcast window, so this National Event stands above Commercial Postseason Games. No other Game or Team can violate this Time Slot!!!   On the field, they are rivals, but on the battlefield they are America's unstoppable Patriots, defending our Country with tremendous Strength and Heart. We must protect the Tradition, and the Players, who protect us. Please let this serve as Notice to ALL Television Networks, Stations, and Outlets. God Bless America, and God Bless our great Army-Navy Game!!! President Donald J. Trump https://twitter.com/DHSgov/status/2012590105265947114?s=20  enforcement are not only dangerous but also serious crimes. By putting law enforcement in danger and creating a conflagration of chaos, you are also risking your own life. https://twitter.com/CollinRugg/status/2012635139839520983?s=20  before protesters tried ripping him from the car to get him back on the street. “I just got stabbed by a crazie white commie leftist rioter today in Minnesota…” Lang said on X. “Plate carrier blocked it…” Horrific. https://twitter.com/JakeLang/status/2012691764251861167?s=20 https://twitter.com/nicksortor/status/2012583407557959872?s=20       of attention off the 18 Billion Dollar, Plus, FRAUD, that has taken place in the State! Don't worry, we're on it!  DOGE https://twitter.com/RedWave_Press/status/2012640651855233169?s=20   below) Leavitt: “[Trump] said, ‘Make sure you guys don't cut the tape, make sure the interview is out in full.” Tony Dokoupil: “Yeah, we're doing it, yeah.” Leavitt: “He said, ‘If it's not out in full, we'll sue your a$$ off.'”   https://twitter.com/VigilantFox/status/2012692074336829815?s=20 Thread   that reaffirm facts and separate facts from opinion. We want diversity of opinion. We don't want diversity of facts. That, I think, is one of the big tasks of social media. By the way, it will require some government regulatory constraints… Geopolitical https://twitter.com/KobeissiLetter/status/2012865218641277321?s=20   can therefore not, even symbolically, be passed on or further distributed,” they add.    very successfully, at that! Nobody will touch this sacred piece of Land, especially since the National Security of the United States, and the World at large, is at stake. On top of everything else, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, The United Kingdom, The Netherlands, and Finland have journeyed to Greenland, for purposes unknown. This is a very dangerous situation for the Safety, Security, and Survival of our Planet. These Countries, who are playing this very dangerous game, have put a level of risk in play that is not tenable or sustainable. Therefore, it is imperative that, in order to protect Global Peace and Security, strong measures be taken so that this potentially perilous situation end quickly, and without question. Starting on February 1st, 2026, all of the above mentioned Countries (Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, The United Kingdom, The Netherlands, and Finland), will be charged a 10% Tariff on any and all goods sent to the United States of America. On June 1st, 2026, the Tariff will be increased to 25%. This Tariff will be due and payable until such time as a Deal is reached for the Complete and Total purchase of Greenland. The United States has been trying to do this transaction for over 150 years. Many Presidents have tried, and for good reason, but Denmark has always refused. Now, because of The Golden Dome, and Modern Day Weapons Systems, both Offensive and Defensive, the need to ACQUIRE is especially important. Hundreds of Billions of Dollars are currently being spent on Security Programs having to do with “The Dome,” including for the possible protection of Canada, and this very brilliant, but highly complex system can only work at its maximum potential and efficiency, because of angles, metes, and bounds, if this Land is included in it. The United States of America is immediately open to negotiation with Denmark and/or any of these Countries that have put so much at risk, despite all that we have done for them, including maximum protection, over so many decades. Thank you for your attention to this matter! DONALD J. TRUMP PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA https://twitter.com/ElectionWiz/status/2012627390527045862?s=20  no place in this context. Europeans will respond in a united and coordinated manner if they are confirmed. We will ensure respect for European sovereignty. It is in this spirit that I will speak with our European partner. https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/2012879305936621840?s=20 President Trump Announces New Tariffs Against “EU Leadership” Nations Attempting to Interfere in North American Strategic Defense and Greenland Negotiations Trump is telling the EU to quit talking and start actively being responsible for their own security.  In the background Trump has bigger plans. Hans Mahncke has a solid take on the bigger picture: “The notion that America wants Greenland for its raw materials is either insanely ignorant or just engagement bait. Extracting anything in the Arctic is prohibitively expensive, and often physically impossible, with extreme cold, thick ice, equipment that won't function, and no roads, rail or ports to move anything once you have it. The real reason America needs Greenland is its immense geostrategic military value, which should be obvious to anyone with a functioning brain, especially anyone who has ever looked at a map from above, with the North Pole at the center. Sure, some tasks could be outsourced to NATO, but that alliance is on its last legs, burdened by too many countries with conflicting priorities, and has mainly served as a way for Europe to freeload on US security guarantees. Relying on it for American national security is reckless. It's far smarter to cut out the endless middlemen and take direct control.” (source) As also noted by Jim Ferguson: “Ursula von der Leyen just went on camera and declared that Greenland “belongs to Denmark and NATO” — directly rebuking President Trump. Let's translate that. This isn't about the Greenlandic people. This is about Brussels panicking because Trump is exposing the Arctic power game. Greenland controls: • the northern missile corridor • Arctic shipping lanes • and the gateway to North America That makes it one of the most important strategic territories on Earth. And Trump said the quiet part out loud: If the U.S. doesn't secure it, China or Russia will. Von der Leyen's response wasn't to protect the West, it was to protect EU control. She wrapped it in pretty words about “NATO unity” — but what she really meant was: Brussels gets a veto over American security. That's what this is about. Trump isn't breaking the alliance. he's breaking the illusion that unelected EU bureaucrats get to decide the future of the Arctic. Greenland is not a Brussels bargaining chip; it is the northern shield of the United States, and for the first time in decades, America has a president willing to say it. Ursula doesn't hate Trump because he's reckless, she hates him because he won't let Europe freeload on American security while selling the future to Beijing.” Source: theconservativetreehouse.com https://twitter.com/kadmitriev/status/2012621940402368862?s=20   War/Peace Iraq takes full control of air base after US withdrawal, defence ministry says  U.S. forces have withdrawn from Iraq’s Ain al-Asad Airbase, which housed U.S.-led forces in Western Iraq, and the Iraqi army has assumed full control, the Iraqi defence ministry said on Saturday. In 2024, Washington and Baghdad reached an understanding, opens new tab on plans for the withdrawal of U.S.-led coalition forces from Iraq and a move towards a bilateral security relationship. Source: reuters.com      As Chairman of the Board of Peace, I am backing a newly appointed Palestinian Technocratic Government, the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza, supported by the Board’s High Representative, to govern Gaza during its transition. These Palestinian leaders are unwaveringly committed to a PEACEFUL future!   With the support of Egypt, Turkey, and Qatar, we will secure a COMPREHENSIVE Demilitarization Agreement with Hamas, including the surrender of ALL weapons, and the dismantling of EVERY tunnel. Hamas must IMMEDIATELY honor its commitments, including the return of the final body to Israel, and proceed without delay to full Demilitarization. As I have said before, they can do this the easy way, or the hard way. The people of Gaza have suffered long enough. The time is NOW.   PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH. https://twitter.com/UnderSecE/status/2012860595121295443?s=20 the Union's project was unstoppable. Today, we are seeing that same spirit here: a relentless drive to push ahead with AI-scale growth and supply chain integration and investment. This is what Trump Time looks like. NONE of this would be possible without President Trump and Secretary Rubio's leadership! The work continues.   Trump Appoints Rubio, Witkoff, Kushner, And Blair To Gaza ‘Board Of Peace’ The White House announced on Jan. 16 the names of members appointed to the Gaza Board of Peace, which President Donald Trump created as part of phase two of a U.S.-backed plan to end the war in Gaza. Among the “founding executive board” members are U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, presidential special envoy Steve Witkoff, Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner, and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair. The board also includes private equity executive Marc Rowan, World Bank President Ajay Banga, and U.S. national security adviser Robert Gabriel, according to a White House statement. The board, to be chaired by Trump, will oversee the Palestinian technocratic committee—also known as the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza (NCAG)—which will be led by former Palestinian Authority official Ali Abdel Hamid Shaath. The White House said each of the members will be tasked with managing Gaza's “governance capacity-building, regional relations, reconstruction, investment attraction, large-scale funding, and capital mobilization,” which it said are vital to the enclave's stability and long-term success. The administration also named Aryeh Lightstone and Josh Gruenbaum as senior advisers to manage the board's daily strategy and operations, and appointed Nickolay Mladenov, a Bulgarian diplomat and former United Nations envoy to the Middle East, as the high representative for Gaza. Trump also tapped Maj. Gen. Jasper Jeffers to lead the International Stabilization Force, which will oversee security operations and the safe delivery of humanitarian aid and reconstruction materials to Gaza. The administration also announced a separate 11-member executive board, comprising some of the founding members, which will support both the technocratic committee and Mladenov's office. In announcing the board's formation on Jan. 15, Trump said the United States will work with Egypt, Turkey, and Qatar to secure an agreement that will require Hamas to surrender all weapons and dismantle its tunnel network. “Hamas must immediately honor its commitments, including the return of the final body to Israel, and proceed without delay to full Demilitarization,” the president said.  Source: zerohedge.com   https://twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/2012227016418816311?s=20    https://twitter.com/RyanSaavedra/status/2012568999738163323?s=20  the slaughter of its people. His country is the worst place in the world to live because of failed leadership.” “The crime he has committed as the leader of a country is the complete destruction of the country and the use of violence on a scale that has never been seen before. To maintain the functioning of a country, even if that functioning is at the lowest possible level, a leader must focus on properly administering his country, as I do in the United States, rather than killing thousands of people to maintain control.” https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/2012703384986382564?s=20   Medical/False Flags [DS] Agenda https://twitter.com/WarClandestine/status/2012657028783628755?s=20 Minnesota Governor Activates National Guard According to the Minnesota Dept of Public Safety, Governor Tim Walz has activated the national guard. However, in a statement on their X account the officials note, the guard “are not deployed to city streets at this time, but are ready to help support public safety, including protection of life, preservation of property and supporting the rights of all who assemble peacefully.” This is likely a proactive move to block President Trump from invoking the ‘insurrection act' to stop the chaos being fueled by the governor himself as well as professional leftists in the region. [SOURCE]  . The Minnesota national guard are being called to duty as a chaos management operation.  They are not being called up to stop the violence, merely facilitate the ongoing violent street protests.  The national noticing, along with the riots and violence, continues…. Source: theconservativetreehouse.com President Trump's Plan US Ends Aid to Somalia After Locals Torch and Loot Warehouse Filled with 76 Tons of US-Donated Food The United States ended taxpayer-funded food aid to Somalia after local officials torched and looted the stockpiles of food stored in a local warehouse. The US State Department released a statement after the warehouse was destroyed. https://twitter.com/USForeignAssist/status/2008980437591355644?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2008980437591355644%7Ctwgr%5E31d6d49d23e10c7438fba10706fbb66143259707%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegatewaypundit.com%2F2026%2F01%2Fus-ends-aid-somalia-after-locals-torch-loot%2F policy for waste, theft, and diversion of life-saving assistance. Source: thegatewaypundit.com DOJ Launches a CRIMINAL Investigation into Renee Good's Widow for Her Alleged Role in ICE Self-Defense Shooting: Report The widow of Renee Good is now reportedly in legal trouble following her actions in this month's ICE self-defense shooting in Minneapolis.  Department of Justice has launched a criminal investigation into Becca Good for allegedly impeding an ICE agent in the moments before her wife's death. The probe will focus on Becca's ties to far-left activist groups and her actions leading up to her wife's fatal shooting.  n. NBC News reported:   Source: thegatewaypundit.com https://twitter.com/FBIDirectorKash/status/2011987701113786455?s=20 Trump Reportedly Puts OVER 1,000 Active Duty Soldiers on Standby For Deployment to Minnesota After Threatening to Invoke Insurrection Act – White House Responds   As The Washington Post reported, the Trump Administration has ordered roughly 1,500 active-duty soldiers to be on standby for deployment to Minnesota following the massive anti-ICE riots over the past several days. These riots have reached a new and dangerous level following the ICE self-defense shooting of leftist protester Renee Good. Here are more details on the possible deployment from The Post: Source: thegatewaypundit.com https://twitter.com/amuse/status/2012873723376799902?s=20 https://twitter.com/TheStormRedux/status/2012887587396927854?s=20  of the United States. Foreign illegal aliens who broke into this country who then raped children, who committed human trafficking, sex trafficking, drug trafficking – protected, shielded, sheltered, coddled, defended at every level by the leadership in Minnesota… Willfully aiding and abetting this violence.” Stephen Miller continued on to explain that it's all to protect their “mass migration scheme” because the illegal aliens are “the heart of the Democrat party's political power.” Deport the criminals and the D party loses their voting base. To @realDonaldTrump , pull the trigger. The American people stand behind you! https://twitter.com/WarClandestine/status/2012272658780434598?s=20  . The Military would be assisting in the deportation operation, and serving as both a physical and psychological deterrent for would-be rioters. And given that the Dems are using illegals to steal elections, this operation is literally a matter of NATSEC, so the usage of US MIL to expedite the process is more than justified. Trump will strike when the time is right. https://twitter.com/Rasmussen_Poll/status/2012878860732228047?s=20   Presidency but, when you think of it, neither did Joe Biden. The whole thing was RIGGED. There must be a price to pay, and it has got to be a BIG ONE! PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP   https://twitter.com/amuse/status/2012897466685763881?s=20   backing her challenge to Bill Cassidy and formalizing a long-simmering rift with RINO leadership in the Senate. The endorsement underscores Trump's push to remake the Senate with loyal America First fighters. The move could reshape multiple races, including in Texas, where Trump has signaled support for Ken Paxton as Sen. John Cornyn's campaign continues to falter. https://twitter.com/mattvanswol/status/2012586397442416715?s=20   https://twitter.com/AwakenedOutlaw/status/2011915642543525943?s=20   understand why he has to do what he’s doing, you will.  Everyone will. https://twitter.com/Pat_Stedman/status/2012152603468034264?s=20 The emotionally incontinent on this website were screaming all year that Trump had to arrest people Day 1, not understanding this was a siege, and the route to long term political dominance lay in not only attriting the enemy before battle but developing the moral high ground to fight in the first place. The left’s choices now are lose slowly and get picked off one by one or throw it all on one last dice roll while you still have some assets to deploy. They are the ones who are desperate not Trump. And they are about to give him the political capital to deploy the military against them and destroy them utterly and completely – not just their networks, but their entire narrative. By the time it’s all over