BlackRock Restricts Use of Company Devices for China Travel
The world's largest asset manager detailed the 'policy enhancement' on business travel to China in an internal memo seen by Bloomberg News, saying it is effective July 16.
The US firm told staff that using BlackRock issued employee devices, including iPhones and iPads, isn't permitted, according to the memo. Using BlackRock laptops or remote access via VPN will also not be allowed. Employees were notified they wouldn't have access to the BlackRock network during personal travel in China.
A BlackRock spokesperson didn't immediately reply to requests for comment.
The latest changes come amid growing jitters around business travel to China. Wells Fargo & Co. last week suspended travel to China after one of its top trade financing bankers, Chenyue Mao, was blocked from leaving the country. This week, Foreign Ministry spokesman Guo Jiakun said the case was related to a criminal matter.
China has also stopped an American citizen who works for the US Commerce Department from leaving the nation for several months, according to media reports.
US-China geopolitical tensions have weighed on the global financial industry in recent years, making it increasingly difficult for firms to navigate. Global banks have scaled back their presence in China in the past few years amid slowing economic growth and escalating trade disputes.
Since China tightened data security further with two new laws in 2021, global firms have focused on information segregation. Many banks and asset managers have created onshore centers to keep China data in the country as part of global operations, adding costs and hindering management of their Chinese businesses, according to the Asia Securities Industry & Financial Markets Association.
BlackRock's presence in China includes a wholly owned mutual fund firm as well as a wealth management joint venture with China Construction Bank Corp.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
10 minutes ago
- Time of India
Trump's America First biodiesel policy could cost US companies, consumers, trade groups warn
The Trump administration's push to discourage the use of foreign feedstocks in domestic biodiesel could lead to higher energy prices for US consumers and restricted domestic production, according to some refining and biofuel trade groups. The warning reflects ongoing friction between President Donald Trump's Environmental Protection Agency and the administration's traditional allies in the energy and agriculture industries over biofuels policy. Trump has promised to slash consumer energy costs , but is also trying to advance his America First agenda to support domestic production through trade protectionism - which can often make costs go up instead. At issue is a proposal from the EPA in June that would for the first time allocate only half as many tradable renewable fuel credits to biodiesel that is either imported or made with foreign feedstocks. Under the Renewable Fuel Standard, refiners must blend large volumes of biofuels into the US fuel supply or purchase the credits, called RINs, from those that do. While meant to help domestic farmers and producers, the new proposal - set to be finalized this autumn - would place unprecedented demand on domestic raw materials needed to make biodiesel like soybean oil, used cooking oil, and animal fat, in a market that currently must look abroad to meet its needs. Meanwhile, restricting the number of RINs that can be generated through such imports will raise credit prices, with a potential spillover impact on diesel and home heating oil, according to the industry groups. "This credit restriction ... will jeopardize the economic viability of renewable fuel production assets and raise overall compliance costs for all obligated parties, which ultimately harms US consumers," Chet Thompson, head of the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers group representing refiners, said in a July 25 letter to top Republican lawmakers. The Advanced Biofuels Association also said the policy could mean ramped up consumer costs, by putting a $250 per metric ton premium on domestic versus imported feedstocks, according to a study it commissioned. "Economic analysis shows this would impose significant costs on US biorefineries, raise fuel prices for millions of Americans, and benefit only a narrow set of stakeholders," ABFA President Michael McAdams said in a statement. The White House and EPA declined to comment directly on the price concerns, saying the administration is still seeking public comment on the proposal until August 8. Others in the biofuel industry backed the proposal. "American farmers need all the demand they can get. We should be developing our capacity here, rather than relying on imported used cooking oil from China, or giving Brazilian feedstocks preferential treatment at the expense of US producers and their farm partners," said Emily Skor, CEO of Growth Energy. However, US companies such as ADM, Bunge and Cargill that have global assets and process US soy, as well as foreign companies with significant US operations, will likely see negative effects. That includes Australia's Nufarm , which contracts with farmers in South America to grow new oilseed crops. Uncertain numbers The biofuel industry had not been seeking the import shift in EPA's June proposal, according to multiple renewable fuel lobbyists and company officials. The White House has since held several meetings with industry officials to hear about potential unintended consequences of the changes, according to multiple sources. The EPA's proposal in June was meant to set out biofuel blending mandates for the next two years. It included a quota of 7.12 billion biomass-based diesel RINs for 2026 - a measurement of the number of tradable credits generated by blending the fuel - and projected that mandate would lead to the blending of 5.61 billion gallons. The biofuels industry and the American Petroleum Institute, an oil trade group, had banded together to lobby the administration to set biomass-based diesel mandates to at least 5.25 billion gallons. The mandate was just 3.35 billion gallons in 2025. Still, there are scenarios in the EPA's accounting that could lead to a lower volume outcome. If all the biodiesel and renewable diesel used in the US next year came from domestic feedstocks, for example, the RIN mandate would yield just 4.45 billion gallons, according to several industry analyses reviewed by Reuters. Ditching the penalty on imported feedstocks could help raise that number, according to the analyses. "That probably aligns with what the administration was trying to do in terms of supporting the agricultural side and farmers," said one industry analyst, who asked to remain anonymous to speak candidly.
Time of India
10 minutes ago
- Time of India
No passports, no study abroad: China limits public employees' travel
Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads When Tina Liu was hired to teach literature in a public elementary school in southern China, her contract included the usual warnings about absenteeism and job came another line: Traveling abroad without the school's permission could get her rule was reinforced in a staff group chat. "According to regulations from higher-ups, teachers need to strengthen their disciplinary awareness," the message said. "We will currently not permit any overseas vacations."Across China, similar warnings are spreading as authorities tighten control over state employees' contacts with foreigners. Some kindergarten teachers, doctors and even government contractors and employees of state-owned enterprises have been ordered to hand in their passports. Some cities make retirees wait two years to reclaim their many cities, travel overseas by public employees, even for personal reasons, requires approval. Business trips abroad for "ordinary research, exchange and study" have been banned. And in most provinces, those who have studied abroad are now disqualified from certain public cite various reasons, including protecting national security, fighting corruption and cutting costs. But the scope of the restrictions has expanded rapidly, sweeping up employees who say they have no access to sensitive information or government funds. The New York Times spoke to seven public employees, including an elementary school music teacher, a nurse and a literature professor, who confirmed the rules are part of a push by the central authorities to impose greater so-called political discipline and ideological loyalty on government workers. Two of the people the Times spoke to said they were also ordered to disclose their personal social media accounts to their employers. Another person said she had to notify her employer if she left the city where she worked. Some local governments have banned civil servants from eating out in groups of more than three, measures that came after several reports of excessive drinking at official authorities are especially vigilant about overseas contact. The Chinese government has long been wary of the threat of espionage and what it sees as hostile foreign forces seeking to sow discontent. In July, People's Daily, the Chinese Communist Party's mouthpiece, published an article declaring that people-to-people diplomacy "exists because of the party" and should be led by the result is that even as Beijing advertises itself as eager to attract foreign businesses and tourists, it is preventing many of its own people from leaving."On the one hand, you want foreigners to come to China. You advertise Chinese culture and hope they'll boost the economy," said Liu, who is in her 20s. "But on the other hand, why are you trapping us here, rather than letting us see more of the world?"Travel restrictions for some state employees are not new. Since 2003, high-ranking officials or those handling state secrets must report foreign travel in advance. Their names are given to border officials to prevent unauthorized under Xi Jinping, China's most powerful leader in decades, the controls have extended to far lower-level officials at six fishing villages near the city of Zhoushan, in coastal Zhejiang province, were told to surrender their documents, a local government notice shows. In a city in Jiangxi province, a public health agency also told employees to report any overseas trips they'd taken since 2018.A music teacher at an elementary school in central Hebei province said that she had applied to go to Malaysia this summer because her sister would be studying abroad there. Her school principal refused the request, said the teacher, who gave only her surname, Wang, for fear of retaliation.A nurse at a hospital in Zhejiang said she would need four layers of approvals to travel abroad. The nurse, who also asked to be identified only by her surname, Zhu, for fear of retaliation, said she had not applied, even though she had long dreamed of visiting Vietnam. The restrictions, she said, seemed to show a fear that even ordinary workers might flee with sensitive information or illicit funds -- an idea she scoffed at."If there are any secrets, would people like us know about them?" she said. "What money do we have to abscond with?"Those who are allowed to travel abroad are sometimes required to pledge not to endanger national security or speak ill of China while Inner Mongolia University of Technology told employees not to accept any media interviews or to meet with any "outside parties" while abroad, without authorization. Encounters with "anti-China forces" should be reported to Chinese embassies, the university to hand in one's passport within a week of returning could lead to a five-year travel restrictions are also creeping into hiring. For new graduates hoping to join China's civil service, some of the most coveted positions are in the program known as "xuandiaosheng," which loosely translates as "selected students." Those students, who are recruited from top universities, are put on a fast track to leadership province determines which schools it will recruit from, and many, including Guangdong in the south, used to include overseas universities. This year, Guangdong listed only Chinese universities; so did five other regions in the past year. Only Shanghai now explicitly accepts graduates of foreign universities for the elite province, in the northeast, went even further. Anyone who had lived overseas for more than six months, and whose "experience and political performance abroad" were hard to investigate, was deemed ineligible this departments in major cities have imposed similar rules. In Shanghai, even having a spouse or close relative who has moved abroad can disqualify a Liu, a professor at City University of Hong Kong who studies China's civil service, said that many of the restrictions most likely did not stem from a clear central mandate. But as the central government's scrutiny of midlevel officials has grown, those midlevel officials were probably trying to avoid any possible sources of trouble."Because of U.S.-China relations, because of the competition, I think it's fair to say that Chinese society in general has become more sensitive to foreign countries," Liu said. For policymakers, that makes "everything related to foreign countries risky," he Chinese government still wants to broadcast an image of openness, and would prefer to keep its inward turn more quiet, said Wu Qiang, an independent political analyst in Beijing. Although some local governments have published their passport regulations online, many interviewees said they were told only of the restrictions appears to be uneven. Zhu said nurses at other hospitals in her city still had their passports, for government employees are not the only ones being scrutinized for overseas ties. China's state security agency has repeatedly warned ordinary citizens about the dangers of traveling overseas, or to look out for foreigners who might be Mingzhu, chair of Gree Electric, a major Chinese appliance manufacturer, said this year that she would avoid hiring people who returned from overseas, because they might be declaration drew widespread criticism from social media users who said it promoted discrimination and would harm China's global competitiveness. Even People's Daily ran an opinion piece defending overseas while ordinary Chinese might complain about restrictions on their freedoms, government employees are unlikely to put up much resistance, said Liu, in Hong the government workers the Times spoke to all said they would not quit over having their passports the nurse in Zhejiang, said her stable salary of about $27,000 a year -- much more than the average in her city -- was worth the "emotional value" she was being denied. And she knew many other workers around her were in the same situation."If everyone dies, it's OK, you know?" she said. "As long as I'm not the only one."
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
40 minutes ago
- First Post
Democracies snubbed, dictators courted: Inside Trump's embrace of Pakistan
US President Donald Trump looks on as a member of the media raises their hand, at the White House in Washington, DC, US, August 1, 2025. File Image/Reuters On July 31, 2025, Lara Loomer launched a broadside against billionaire Tom Barrack, President Donald Trump's ambassador to Turkey and special envoy for Syria. Loomer, whose outside vetting of Trump appointees has led to waves of firings across his national security bureaucracy, pulled no punches. 'His [Barrack's] appointment to high-level diplomatic posts is alarming, given that his primary expertise lies in leveraging political connections for financial gain,' she wrote. His actions have enabled Islamists to thrive, even at the expense of US national security. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'Barrack has a history of opaque financial dealings and what many view as political influence peddling,' she continued. 'His real estate empire, intertwined with Gulf investments, has long raised concerns about conflicts of interest and whether he is truly serving America or if he is flashing his political access.' She included in her tweet a copy of Barrack's 2018 indictment for acting as an unregistered foreign agent on behalf of Middle East interests. Barrack is the rule rather than the exception in Trump's inner circle. Many of the most influential people in the Trump administration have pre-service financial entanglements with Qatar. The US magazine Newsweek reported that, in addition to Trump himself, five major Trump administration officials have financial ties to Qatar: Chief-of-Staff Susie Wiles, FBI Director Kash Patel; Attorney General Pam Bondi; Middle East Envoy Steve Witkoff; and Environmental Protection Agency administrator Lee Zeldin. Democrats remain up-in-arms over Trump's acceptance of a $400 million jet from Qatar, alleging it amounts to a bribe; given Republican concern that a desire to influence motivates the $20 billion in assistance that Qatar provides American universities, it is hard to deny that Qatari money is not altruistic. For almost a quarter century, successive American presidents have cultivated relations with India. The development of US-India ties has coincided with perhaps the most contentious period in US foreign policy since the debate between isolationists and internationalists in the 1930s. Israel, Russia, NATO, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, and China each became political footballs. India, however, stood out as a rare example of bipartisanship. Every US president from George W Bush to Joe Biden worked to cultivate US-India ties. That commitment to a US-India partnership included Trump, at least in his first term. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD In his second term, Trump has staked out an opposite position. He approached Pakistani terrorism and its Indian victims with moral equivalency and even dined with Pakistan Army Chief Asim Munir, mastermind of the Pahalgam massacre, at the White House. Just as intelligence operatives recruit and compromise targets with either blackmail, bribes, or buffeting ego, so too did Islamabad handle Trump, telling him how much he deserved a Nobel Prize and entrancing Trump with notions of gas deals. The numbers do not lie. On July 31, 2025, Trump slapped 25 per cent sanctions on India, greater than Pakistan (19 per cent), Bangladesh (20 per cent), Sri Lanka (20 per cent), and Afghanistan (15 per cent). Trump treats India with disdain, belittling its economy and privileging countries like Pakistan and Sri Lanka that are Chinese satrapies and Bangladesh and Afghanistan that are hubs for Islamist terror. Each of those countries to which Trump offers better terms ranks well below India on Transparency International's annual corruption index. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD There is no proof that Pakistan, Qatar, or Turkey bribed Trump, though a commonality of Trump's two terms is the conflict of interest between public policy and personal business. Trump's reference to gas deals with Pakistan, his Qatari involvement, and his and Barrack's repeated endorsements of Turkish President Recep Erdogan are coincidences that no Indian should ignore, especially given the coincidences, Trump's policy choices, and the lack of any other logical policy-driven explanation. India must respond in the only way Trump will understand, by denying opportunities to American businesses until Trump or his successors change US policy and again ground it in a partnership of democracies and consensus against terrorism rather than a partnership with corrupt, terror-sponsoring dictatorships. Here, India's decision to abandon the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter makes sense. The US defence industry purposely spreads itself across states and Congressional districts in order to immunise itself from cutbacks by ensuring it always has several dozen, if not hundreds, of lawmakers willing to protect the corporate interest for the sake of their employees. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD According to the Congressional Research Service, F-35 components are produced across 250 different districts in 45 US states. The same pattern holds true with other platforms that the United States would like to sell to India. Cutting contracts makes single headlines, but sending diplomats to each Congressional district to explain why New Delhi made its decision will augment pressure on Trump, especially as midterm elections loom. Trump might even reverse course. While some politicians double down to save face, Trump knows no shame, and if the pressure is great enough, he might simply change policy and try to scrub his recent past in an Orwellian frenzy of sycophantic press and statements. This still leaves India with a problem in the short term: Given the threat China poses to India, some Indian politicians may wish to replace the F-35 with Russia's fifth-generation Sukhoi-57E; this would be a mistake, given Russia's failure to honour previous contracts. Rather, India might shift toward European aircraft until such a time that Trump departs and the United States can right its present wrongs. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Even if New Delhi abandons Lockheed Martin because Trump's antics have raised questions about American reliability, such systems represent not only a lethal combat platform but also a decades-long partnership of training and maintenance. Whatever animus New Delhi might have toward Washington, the long-term stability of Moscow remains a bad bet given the political vacuum that will develop after Putin's death. Trump treats India unfairly, but Trump is an old and, frankly, corrupt man whose time is limited. India will soon be the world's third largest economy; Trump's failure to recognise the benefits of that and the wisdom of choosing democracies over dictatorships and kleptocracies is America's loss. The current crisis, though, can be the stress test to prove the strength of US-India ties. Trump can become the exception that proves the rule. The US Congress still favours India over Pakistan, and every politician motivated more by national security than side business deals will remember which country sheltered Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and which country will drive the international economy through the 21st century. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Bribery can never provide a solid base for bilateral ties like democracy and mutual interests do. Pakistan, like Turkey, will ultimately fall into the dustbin of past American partners no longer worth a future administration's time and energy. India must fight back but should not go scorched earth out of animus toward a man for whom the curtain of power is already closing. Michael Rubin is director of policy analysis at the Middle East Forum and a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect the views of Firstpost.
