Latest news with #Trumps
Canada Standard
5 hours ago
- Business
- Canada Standard
European NATO states wary of buying US arms Bloomberg
Allies are reportedly put off by Trumps coercive rhetoric and rapprochement with Russia European NATO members have expressed growing unease about increasing their reliance on US weapons amid a sweeping rearmament push, Bloomberg has reported on Friday. During a summit in The Hague this week, NATO states committed to raising military spending to 5% of GDP by 2035 to counter what they described as a "long-term threat posed by Russia to Euro-Atlantic security" - a claim that Moscow has repeatedly denied. Concerns have reportedly emerged about deepening dependence on the American defense industry, particularly under the leadership of President Donald Trump. According to Bloomberg, leaders fear they could be exposed to greater risks, especially in light of Trump's efforts to improve ties with Russia and past threats to annex allied territory. Boosting reliance on US arms has become "an increasingly hard sell at home," the outlet noted. French President Emmanuel Macron has long championed the idea of securing greater defense autonomy for European NATO states, urging the development of a self-sufficient military industrial base. Canada, a key NATO ally, is reportedly reconsidering its involvement in the US-led F-35 fighter jet program and may switch to Swedish alternatives. "We should no longer send three-quarters of our defense capital spending to America," Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney stated earlier this month. Copenhagen has also displayed some resistance, telling Washington that American arms deals have become "politically difficult" given Trump's suggestion that the US annex Greenland, which is currently controlled by Denmark, Bloomberg reported. READ MORE: NATO summit grim sign for Kiev NYT Unease in the alliance has also been stoked by Trump's move to cut intelligence sharing with Ukraine earlier this year. According to unnamed officials cited by Bloomberg, this decision "alarmed allies," as it raised concerns over how much control the US might wield over weapons exports in the event of a crisis. Nevertheless, a lack of viable domestic alternatives continues to bind European nations to US suppliers, according to the outlet. Decades of underinvestment have left Europe's defense manufacturing capacity underdeveloped. As a result, countries will likely keep buying American equipment to meet rearmament targets, particularly as stockpiles have been depleted by shipments of military aid to Ukraine. Moscow has condemned the EU's militarization trend and arms transfers to Kiev, characterizing the conflict as a NATO proxy war. President Vladimir Putin has dismissed NATO's concerns of Russian aggression as "nonsense," instead blaming the alliance's expansion and "aggressive behavior" for escalating tensions. (
Canada News.Net
5 hours ago
- Business
- Canada News.Net
European NATO states wary of buying US arms Bloomberg
Allies are reportedly put off by Trumps coercive rhetoric and rapprochement with Russia European NATO members have expressed growing unease about increasing their reliance on US weapons amid a sweeping rearmament push, Bloomberg has reported on Friday. During a summit in The Hague this week, NATO states committed to raising military spending to 5% of GDP by 2035 to counter what they described as a "long-term threat posed by Russia to Euro-Atlantic security" - a claim that Moscow has repeatedly denied. Concerns have reportedly emerged about deepening dependence on the American defense industry, particularly under the leadership of President Donald Trump. According to Bloomberg, leaders fear they could be exposed to greater risks, especially in light of Trump's efforts to improve ties with Russia and past threats to annex allied territory. Boosting reliance on US arms has become "an increasingly hard sell at home," the outlet noted. French President Emmanuel Macron has long championed the idea of securing greater defense autonomy for European NATO states, urging the development of a self-sufficient military industrial base. Canada, a key NATO ally, is reportedly reconsidering its involvement in the US-led F-35 fighter jet program and may switch to Swedish alternatives. "We should no longer send three-quarters of our defense capital spending to America," Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney stated earlier this month. Copenhagen has also displayed some resistance, telling Washington that American arms deals have become "politically difficult" given Trump's suggestion that the US annex Greenland, which is currently controlled by Denmark, Bloomberg reported. READ MORE: NATO summit grim sign for Kiev NYT Unease in the alliance has also been stoked by Trump's move to cut intelligence sharing with Ukraine earlier this year. According to unnamed officials cited by Bloomberg, this decision "alarmed allies," as it raised concerns over how much control the US might wield over weapons exports in the event of a crisis. Nevertheless, a lack of viable domestic alternatives continues to bind European nations to US suppliers, according to the outlet. Decades of underinvestment have left Europe's defense manufacturing capacity underdeveloped. As a result, countries will likely keep buying American equipment to meet rearmament targets, particularly as stockpiles have been depleted by shipments of military aid to Ukraine. Moscow has condemned the EU's militarization trend and arms transfers to Kiev, characterizing the conflict as a NATO proxy war. President Vladimir Putin has dismissed NATO's concerns of Russian aggression as "nonsense," instead blaming the alliance's expansion and "aggressive behavior" for escalating tensions.
New York Post
a day ago
- Business
- New York Post
Trumps drop ‘Made in the USA' label for $499 smartphone: ‘Proudly American'
When the Trump family unveiled a new phone before a giant American flag at its headquarters earlier this month, the pitch was simple and succinct, packed with pure patriotism: 'Made in the U.S.A.' The Trumps are apparently having second thoughts. How about 'proudly American'? Advertisement Those are the two words that have replaced the 'Made in the USA' pitch that just a few days ago appeared on the website where customers can pre-order the so-called T-1 gold-toned phones with an American flag etched on the back. 3 Trump Mobile unveiled the $499 T-1 gold-toned phones with an American flag etched on the back last week. Trump Mobile Elsewhere on the site, other vague terms are now being used, describing the $499 phone as boasting an 'American-Proud Design' and 'brought to life right here in the U.S.A.' Advertisement The Federal Trade Commission requires that items labeled 'Made in USA' be 'all or virtually all' produced in the US and several firms have been sued over misusing the term. The Trump Organization has not explained the change and has not responded to a request for comment. Neither did an outside public relations firm handling the Trumps' mobile phone business, including a request to confirm a statement made to another media outlet. 'T1 phones are proudly being made in America,' said Trump Mobile spokesman Chris Walker, according to USA Today. 'Speculation to the contrary is simply inaccurate.' 3 Analysts say it's nearly impossible to build a smartphone here given the higher cost and lack of infrastructure to do so. Getty Images Advertisement The language change on the website was first reported by the news site The Verge. An expert on cell phone technology, IDC analyst Francisco Jeronimo, said he's not surprised the Trump family has dropped the 'Made in the USA' label because it's nearly impossible to build one here given the higher cost and lack of infrastructure to do so. But, of course, you can claim to do it. Advertisement 'Whether it is possible or not to build this phone in the US depends on what you consider 'build,'' Jeronimo said. 'If it's a question of assembling components and targeting small volumes, I suppose it's somehow possible. You can always get the components from China and assemble them by hand somewhere.' 'You're going to have phones that are made right here in the United States of America,' said Trump's son Eric to Fox News recently, adding, 'It's about time we bring products back to our great country.' The Trump family has flown the American flag before with Trump-branded products of suspicious origin, including its 'God Bless the USA' Bibles, which an Associated Press investigation last year showed were printed in China. 3 The Trump phone is part of a bigger family mobile business plan designed to tap into MAGA enthusiasm for the president. Above, Eric Trump, left and Don Trump Jr., far right, unveil the phone. Robert Mecea The Trump phone is part of a bigger family mobile business plan designed to tap into MAGA enthusiasm for the president. The two sons running the business, Eric and Don Jr., announced earlier this month that they would offer mobile phone plans for $47.45 a month, a reference to their father's status as the 45th and 47th president. The call center, they said, will be in the US, too. 'You're not calling up call centers in Bangladesh,' Eric Trump said on Fox News. 'We're doing it out of St. Louis, Missouri.' The new service has been blasted by government ethics experts for a conflict of interest, given that President Donald Trump oversees the Federal Communications Commission that regulates the business and is investigating phone service companies that are now Trump Mobile rivals. Trump has also threatened to punish cell phone maker Apple, now a direct competitor, threatening to slap 25% tariffs on devices because of its plans to make most of its US iPhones in India.
The Age
2 days ago
- Business
- The Age
The Genius move that could blow up in America's face
There are already about $US250 billion of stablecoins on issue but, assuming the House endorses the bill (it has previously passed a slightly different version, named the STABLE Act) the legislation is likely to encourage a flood of new issuers. Amazon and Walmart and other retailers, large and small, are said to be preparing to issue their own tokens, along with other participants in payment chains. The major US banks have talked about creating one, the big tech companies would inevitably become involved and, as with the Trumps, there'd be a host of entrepreneurial types entering the sector. A report by Citigroup earlier this year said there could be $US3.7 trillion of stablecoins on issue by 2030, while a US Treasury analysis estimated there'd be $US2 trillion on issue by 2028. The potential benefits of wide use of stablecoins are obvious. They'd cut out the middlemen of finance – the crypto universe is a peer-to-peer one – making merchant fees, interchange fees and wire transfer fees increasingly redundant, along with the waiting for funds to be cleared. That explains retailers' interest in them, and the threat they pose to the major credit and debit card operators. US Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent, is also enthusiastic about what they might mean for the US dollar and US Treasury market. Loading The dollar and US Treasury securities are already the most common assets used to back stablecoins and could be expected to be the assets of choice for tokens issued within the framework established by the Genius Act. That would provide a massive new source of demand for the dollar and Treasury securities, buttressing the dollar's global dominance and lowering the US government's cost of funds, or at least that's Bessent's theory. In practice, most of the funds to provide the dollar-for-dollar backing for the stablecoins would probably come from traditional finance sources – banks and money market funds being the most obvious. The flows of US dollar assets would be redirected, rather than new sources tapped. That's an important point, because it means deposits could be withdrawn from highly-regulated and, for deposits of less than $US250,000 in the US, insured environments into one that is far less onerously regulated and where the funds would not be insured. Unlike bank deposits, where the Federal Reserve Board backstops the system, there would be no lender of last resort (one of the BIS criticisms), fewer protections against the use of the tokens for illicit activities (another) and they don't have the capacity that banks have to create money (yet another weakness identified by the BIS). Unlike a US dollar, which is trusted and accepted almost universally, there is no guarantee that a $US1 dollar stablecoin will actually be worth a dollar, or be accepted by everyone as a medium of exchange. If the forecasts of the extent to which the stablecoin issuance could grow are correct, they could have an impact on the stability of the US and potentially other banking systems. They would convert largely retail deposits, which are generally stable and are covered by federal insurance, into more volatile and uninsured wholesale deposits. The regional banking crisis in the US in 2023 was triggered by a run on Silicon Valley Bank's wholesale deposits. Under the Genius Act, stablecoin issuers would be required to hold $US1 of easily cashable assets for each $US1 of stablecoins. It's relatively easy for the issuers to acquire US Treasury bills, or repurchase agreements backed by Treasury securities or cash to match new deposits. If there were, however, a sudden flood of redemption requests and a need to cash out the underlying assets urgently – if the issuer had to dump assets to raise cash in the face of what, in a bank, would be a 'run' – there would be a likelihood of losses on the face value of the Treasury bills and other assets in a forced sale. Some existing stablecoins have traded well below par. With no guarantor or lender of last resort, any liquidity event in a stablecoin would spark a frenetic scramble for the exit by investors, exacerbating the losses and raising the spectre of contagion for the rest of the sector. While the Genius Act makes it explicit that the stablecoins wouldn't be guaranteed by the government or have access to the Fed's facilities, if there were a sector-wide implosion and trillions of dollars of Treasury securities and bank deposits were being dumped into the markets, the pressure for the White House to intervene would be extreme. It would be even more extreme if the president at that moment had a multi-billion exposure to the stablecoin market. The act prohibits members of Congress or the US executive branch from owning or issuing stablecoins, but an attempt by the Democrats to include the president and vice president in that prohibition failed. The other major criticism of the act is that it could create a 'back to the future' moment, a return to a 19th century America where almost anyone could open a bank and issue their own currency as long as they had a dollar of collateral for each dollar they issued. Unlike a US dollar, which is trusted and accepted almost universally, there is no guarantee that a $US1 dollar stablecoin will actually be worth a dollar, or be accepted by everyone as a medium of exchange. Fiat currencies are fungible, crypto assets are not. Each stablecoin could be backed by a different mix of assets and therefore their vulnerability to an external event, or ability to respond to a run, will differ between issuers. Loading Short of real time continuous auditing of every stablecoin issuer, there can't be the same level of trust that there is in the traditional banking and payment systems. By endorsing and providing credibility for stablecoins, however, the US lawmakers are bringing crypto into the mainstream of the US banking and payments systems, fragmenting them to at least some degree and introducing a potential new source of instability.
Sydney Morning Herald
3 days ago
- Business
- Sydney Morning Herald
The US is about to bring crypto into the mainstream of finance
There are already about $US250 billion of stablecoins on issue but, assuming the House endorses the bill (it has previously passed a slightly different version, named the STABLE Act) the legislation is likely to encourage a flood of new issuers. Amazon and Walmart and other retailers, large and small, are said to be preparing to issue their own tokens, along with other participants in payment chains. The major US banks have talked about creating one, the big tech companies would inevitably become involved and, as with the Trumps, there'd be a host of entrepreneurial types entering the sector. A report by Citigroup earlier this year said there could be $US3.7 trillion of stablecoins on issue by 2030, while a US Treasury analysis estimated there'd be $US2 trillion on issue by 2028. The potential benefits of wide use of stablecoins are obvious. They'd cut out the middlemen of finance – the crypto universe is a peer-to-peer one – making merchant fees, interchange fees and wire transfer fees increasingly redundant, along with the waiting for funds to be cleared. That explains retailers' interest in them, and the threat they pose to the major credit and debit card operators. US Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent, is also enthusiastic about what they might mean for the US dollar and US Treasury market. Loading The dollar and US Treasury securities are already the most common assets used to back stablecoins and could be expected to be the assets of choice for tokens issued within the framework established by the Genius Act. That would provide a massive new source of demand for the dollar and Treasury securities, buttressing the dollar's global dominance and lowering the US government's cost of funds, or at least that's Bessent's theory. In practice, most of the funds to provide the dollar-for-dollar backing for the stablecoins would probably come from traditional finance sources – banks and money market funds being the most obvious. The flows of US dollar assets would be redirected, rather than new sources tapped. That's an important point, because it means deposits could be withdrawn from highly-regulated and, for deposits of less than $US250,000 in the US, insured environments into one that is far less onerously regulated and where the funds would not be insured. Unlike bank deposits, where the Federal Reserve Board backstops the system, there would be no lender of last resort (one of the BIS criticisms), fewer protections against the use of the tokens for illicit activities (another) and don't have the capacity that banks have to create money (yet another weakness identified by the BIS). Unlike a US dollar, which is trusted and accepted almost universally, there is no guarantee that a $US1 dollar stablecoin will actually be worth a dollar, or be accepted by everyone as a medium of exchange. If the forecasts of the extent to which the stablecoin issuance could grow are correct, they could have an impact on the stability of the US and potentially other banking systems. They would convert largely retail deposits, which are generally stable and are covered by federal insurance, into more volatile and uninsured wholesale deposits. The regional banking crisis in the US in 2023 was triggered by a run on Silicon Valley Bank's wholesale deposits. Under the Genius Act, stablecoin issuers would be required to hold $US1 of easily cashable assets for each $US1 of stablecoins. It's relatively easy for the issuers to acquire US Treasury bills, or repurchase agreements backed by Treasury securities or cash to match new deposits. If there were, however, a sudden flood of redemption requests and a need to cash out the underlying assets urgently – if the issuer had to dump assets to raise cash in the face of what, in a bank, would be a 'run' – there would be a likelihood of losses on the face value of the Treasury bills and other assets in a forced sale. Some existing stablecoins have traded well below par. With no guarantor or lender of last resort, any liquidity event in a stablecoin would spark a frenetic scramble for the exit by investors, exacerbating the losses and raising the spectre of contagion for the rest of the sector. While the Genius Act makes it explicit that the stablecoins wouldn't be guaranteed by the government or have access to the Fed's facilities, if there were a sector-wide implosion and trillions of dollars of Treasury securities and bank deposits were being dumped into the markets, the pressure for the White House to intervene would be extreme. It would be even more extreme if the president at that moment had a multi-billion exposure to the stablecoin market. The Act prohibits members of Congress or the US executive branch from owning or issuing stablecoins, but an attempt by the Democrats to include the president and vice president in that prohibition failed. The other major criticism of the Act is that it could create a 'back to the future' moment, a return to a 19th century America where almost anyone could open a bank and issue their own currency as long as they had a dollar of collateral for each dollar they issued. Unlike a US dollar, which is trusted and accepted almost universally, there is no guarantee that a $US1 dollar stablecoin will actually be worth a dollar, or be accepted by everyone as a medium of exchange. Fiat currencies are fungible, crypto assets are not. Each stablecoin could be backed by a different mix of assets and therefore their vulnerability to an external event, or ability to respond to a run, will differ between issuers. Loading Short of real time continuous auditing of every stablecoin issuer, there can't be the same level of trust that there is in the traditional banking and payment systems. By endorsing and providing credibility for stablecoins, however, the US lawmakers are bringing crypto into the mainstream of the US banking and payments systems, fragmenting them to at least some degree and introducing a potential new source of instability.
