CMR is the leading provider of funding and management support for small to medium-sized businesses and entrepreneurs 

Authored by Dave DeCamp via AntiWar.com,

The US will fund and construct a base for fast boats for the Philippine military on the South China Sea amid heightened tensions between Manila and Beijing over disputed rocks and reefs in the area.

The base will be built on the west coast of the Philippine island province of Palawan and is expected to be completed by the first quarter of the 2026 fiscal year. According to USNI News, the base will house five boats, including both "assault boats" and rigid-hulled inflatable boats, which will be constructed by the US-based company ReconCraft.

The USNI report said that the base will be situated approximately 160 miles east of Second Thomas Shoal, a major source of tensions in the maritime dispute and the site of collisions and encounters between Chinese and Philippine vessels.

Despite the distance, the Philippine military frequently deploys small boats to the disputed reefs, and the US project will give them a more effective way to do that.

It’s unclear how much the project will cost the US, but it’s the latest in a series of US-funded military construction projects in the Philippines.

In 2023, Washington and Manila signed a deal to expand the US military presence in the country, and the US has also been increasing military aid to the Southeast Asian nation.

The South China Sea has become a potential flashpoint for a conflict between the US and China since Washington has repeatedly affirmed that its mutual defense treaty with Manila applies to attacks on Philippine vessels in the disputed waters.

Last year, it was revealed that US troops were secretly deployed to Palawa to assist the Philippines in its maritime dispute with China.

The US military has also been involved in military drills in the area and fired missiles using HIMARS rocket systems into the South China Sea from Palawan earlier this year as part of the US-Philippine Balikatan exercise.

Authored by Ivan Maldonado via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Perhaps it’s too soon to mark nuclear power’s revival in the U.S. but there is a burst of activity that should ultimately yield a new generation of advanced nuclear plants and small modular reactors.

This is especially true for major industrial energy consumers—which now also includes data centers—where there is a strong economic incentive to use more nuclear power instead of natural gas and intermittent renewables.

In Illinois, Meta recently signed a long-term agreement to buy nuclear power from Constellation’s Clinton nuclear plant, the latest in a slew of deals between big tech and the nuclear industry. Constellation also said it would restart Three Mile Island Unit One in Pennsylvania and sell the power to Microsoft under a 20-year agreement. Google, too, has agreed to fund the development of small modular reactors, or SMRs, at three new nuclear sites in Oregon. TVA plans to build SMRs at its Clinch River site and Kairos Power has a blueprint for an advanced molten salt reactor. Moreover, Amazon, Google and Meta signed a pledge in March calling for nuclear energy worldwide to triple by 2050.

Elevating nuclear power on our list of energy options makes sense because it is the only way to generate large amounts of emission-free electricity reliably for AI-powered data centers, electric vehicles and industries. But surging demand for electricity and nuclear power underscores a serious issue: Who will provide the huge amounts of uranium needed to fuel nuclear plants?

Currently, 95 percent of the uranium used at US nuclear plants is imported from other countries, with Russia and former Soviet States flooding the global market and driving free-market companies out of business. China is also rapidly expanding its influence in the global uranium supply chain. But our dependence on uranium imports is not for lack of domestic resources.

In fact, in the mid-1970s the U.S. was the sole supplier of enriched uranium in the West, and business boomed. Since then, artificially low prices—and policy antagonism to domestic production—have forced U.S. customers into the hands of foreign competitors. Currently, there are only five uranium mines operating in the U.S. in contrast to several dozen in the 1970s and 20 as recently as 2009.

A uranium crisis may not be imminent, but the long-term implications of buying cheap foreign uranium instead of from US mining companies are ominous, particularly for national defense, including the Navy’s fleet of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines. Our nation’s fleet of 94 nuclear power plants also requires a dependable supply of uranium.

American industries, including our defense industrial base, are currently under immense pressure from China’s export restrictions on mineral exports—including rare earth metals. We know too well that the era of overreliance on mineral imports must come to an end. This is an economic, energy and national security vulnerability that has become untenable.

Given the risk of a cutoff of uranium imports or a huge spike in the price of uranium, we need a government policy to counter the threat to our national security and economy. President Trump recently said the Administration will draw up recommendations for reviving and expanding U.S. uranium production. That’s a good first step but we must match intent with action.

Our dependence on imported minerals, particularly from adversaries, poses a grave threat to national security. And it will cause serious trouble for key sectors of our economy if something isn’t done soon to boost domestic production. For these reasons, the U.S. now faces a monumental challenge: scaling up production of uranium, diversifying supply chains to protect national security and doing so in ways that are sustainable.

Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

President Donald Trump’s $9 billion rescissions package, advanced by Senate Republicans in a narrow procedural vote on July 15, seeks to claw back funding that Congress had already approved for foreign aid, humanitarian programs, and public broadcasting.

Officially titled the Rescissions Act of 2025, the bill reflects the Trump administration’s effort to translate proposed Department of Government Efficiency cuts into law, aiming to reallocate billions of dollars toward domestic priorities. A final vote is needed by a Friday deadline, along with a second House vote on the Senate’s amendments.

Supporters have said the rescissions promote responsible spending and put U.S. interests first. Critics have said such cuts could undermine U.S. global leadership and disrupt programs that deliver important support both internationally and within local communities.

Here’s who could be affected if the bill becomes law.

US Taxpayers

Supporters have said that the measure promotes fiscal discipline and prioritizes domestic needs over foreign programs, cutting wasteful or needless spending at a time of record-high national debt.

“President Trump’s proposed rescissions are an essential piece to implementing his agenda to protect U.S. taxpayers and enact lasting change in Washington by dealing a major blow to the weaponized foreign aid bureaucracy and public funding of woke indoctrination at NPR and PBS,” Heritage Action Vice President of Government Relations Steve Chartan said in a statement.

Critics, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), have argued that, among other things, it would reduce access to public media in the United States.

“For Republicans to turn around and slash local news and public radio in the name of fiscal responsibility is a vindictive swipe at rural America, where these stations are needed so badly,” Schumer said in floor remarks. “It’ll leave rural communities twisting in the wind.”

The bill proposes eliminating the entire $1.1 billion in advance funding set aside for fiscal years 2026 and 2027 for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). That funding supports NPR, PBS, and about 1,500 local public radio and television stations nationwide.

Local stations use CPB grants to fund operations, emergency alerts, educational programming, and community news coverage. According to the Public Media Alliance, many of these stations—especially those in smaller markets—could lose significant portions of their budgets.

The advocacy group warned that cutting CPB funding could create “news deserts” in regions with limited commercial media options, leaving communities without local reporting on civic issues, elections, and public safety. Supporters of the cuts, like Jeffrey Miron of the think-tank Cato Institute, have said that with the internet, media subsidies are no longer needed.

Citizens of Other Countries

Developing nations stand to lose about $2.5 billion that would be rescinded from the $3.9 billion that Congress set aside for USAID’s development assistance in fiscal year 2025. These funds are aimed at reducing poverty and fostering democratic institutions.

Foreign communities that benefit from global health programs face a $500 million reduction, affecting initiatives aimed at combating diseases such as malaria and tuberculosis and improving maternal and child health.

Although the House’s original version of the bill proposed $900 million in health-related cuts, the Senate ultimately spared $400 million initially targeted for the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. The program, which supports global HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment, has saved about 26 million lives, according to the agency. Critics have accused the agency of using some of the funds to promote anti-family agendas.

Refugees and displaced people worldwide could feel the effects of an $800 million cut to the State Department’s Migration and Refugee Assistance fund. The money is for emergency shelters, clean water, food, and family reunification for those fleeing war and persecution.

Regions grappling with ongoing conflicts could feel the effects of nearly $1 billion in cuts to U.S. contributions to international organizations and peacekeeping operations. Roughly $361 million would come from funding for international peacekeeping missions, and more than $638 million would be cut from broader multilateral efforts, including $437 million from the International Organizations and Programs account and $202 million from the Contributions to International Organizations account.

Government Employees

Within the federal government, the rescissions package would affect key agencies and their employees.

For example, the bill includes a $125 million cut to USAID’s $1.7 billion operating budget, which covers staff salaries and benefits.

This could lead to further layoffs or downsizing, as the Trump administration consolidates many of its functions into the State Department.

Critics have said the move may weaken USAID’s specialized development expertise, and supporters have said that it will enable better oversight.

Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Children’s Hospital Los Angeles (CHLA), the nation’s largest provider of gender procedures for youth identifying as transgender, announced it will shut down its program on July 22, citing mounting legal and financial pressures stemming from the Trump administration’s policies.

In a recent statement, CHLA described the decision as “heartbreaking” for staff, adding that it followed a thorough legal and financial review in light of “the increasingly severe impacts of recent administrative actions and proposed policies.”

The planned closure has led to demonstrations outside CHLA in recent days, with protester Sage Sol Pitchenik telling The Associated Press that “trans kids are done being quiet” and that a facility like CHLA “meant the world” for transgender youth.

CHLA’s announcement comes in the context of President Donald Trump’s executive order, issued shortly after his second term began in January, which bars federal support for gender transition procedures for individuals under 19.

Trump’s order said such treatments—including puberty blockers and surgeries—are medically risky and potentially irreversible, stating that many minors lack the maturity to fully grasp the long-term consequences. It also prohibits federal insurance programs like Tricare and Medicaid from covering these treatments, directs the Department of Justice to pursue legal action against providers, and suspends funding for hospitals and universities offering transgender procedures, which it described as “chemical and surgical mutilation.”

Following the order, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a directive suspending federal grants, loans, and financial assistance related to transgender programs pending further review. In response, a coalition of 23 state attorneys general sued in federal court to block the OMB directive, arguing that the funding freeze was unlawful.

Meanwhile, CHLA’s imminent closure follows the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent 6–3 ruling upholding Tennessee’s ban on gender-related medical treatments for minors—a decision that could support similar laws nationwide.

Tennessee’s law prohibits health care providers from administering puberty blockers or hormones for the purpose of “enabling a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex” or “treating purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor’s sex and asserted identity.”

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the opinion that such state laws need only meet a “rational basis” test, suggesting that similar restrictions in other states will probably withstand legal challenges. Roberts said Tennessee’s law focuses on age, not sex-based discrimination, and cited concerns about the risks and irreversible impacts of transgender medical procedures for minors.

Several other hospitals, including facilities in Colorado, Illinois, Virginia, and Washington, DC, have also paused transgender procedures for minors in response to the evolving legal landscape.

Rush University Medical Center in Illinois recently became the latest Chicago-area hospital to stop transgender procedures for minors, with a spokesperson telling WBEZ Chicago that Rush had “paused” hormonal care for new patients under 18, though it will continue to provide mental health services to transgender youth.

Sam Dorman contributed to this report.

Authored by Travis Gillmore via The Epoch Times,

President Donald Trump on Wednesday told a crowd at the White House, which included dozens of family members of fentanyl poisoning victims, that China will honor a deal he made with Chinese leader Xi Jinping during his first term and sentence people to death for fentanyl manufacturing and distribution.

The president made the remarks during a signing ceremony for the Halt All Lethal Trafficking of Fentanyl Act.

“The death penalty is going to be imposed on people from China that make fentanyl and send it into our country,” Trump said. “I believe that is going to happen soon.”

After taking office again in 2025, Trump targeted China with punitive tariffs for failing to live up to the deal that would help address the U.S fentanyl crisis.

Manufacturers in China distribute the precursor chemicals needed to create the illicit drug to various criminal organizations around the world.

Altering the compounds can allow deliveries to go unnoticed at some inspection points, and criminals have begun creating alternative versions of the deadly drug, including carfentanil, which is 100 times more potent than fentanyl, according to the Drug Enforcement Administration.

“I imposed a 20 percent tariff on China because of the fentanyl ... it’s a penalty because China delivers much of the fentanyl, some people would say all of it, delivered into Mexico and even into our own country,” Trump said.

“We have a 20 percent [tariff], so they pay billions of dollars and billions of dollars in damages for what they’ve done.”

Following a meeting in June with U.S. Ambassador David Perdue, the Chinese communist regime added two fentanyl precursors to its list of banned substances, with enforcement beginning July 20.

More than 450,000 Americans have died of synthetic opioid overdoses over the past decade, with millions more addicted.

President Donald Trump holds up the "Halt All Lethal Trafficking of Fentanyl Act," which strengthens prison sentences for fentanyl traffickers, after signing it in the East Room of the White House on July 16, 2025. Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP via Getty Images

Before signing the HALT Fentanyl Act on Wednesday, Trump said: “This is a very special time because we’ve worked very hard to put ourselves in this position. Today we strike a righteous blow to the drug dealers, narcotic traffickers, and criminal cartels that we’ve heard about for so many years.”

The legislation, which passed with bipartisan support, reclassifies substances related to the synthetic opioids as Schedule 1 narcotics, the strictest designation established by the Controlled Substances Act.

The new law mandates a minimum 10-year prison sentence for those convicted of distributing at least 100 grams of any fentanyl-related substance, enough to kill approximately 50,000 people, based on DEA statistics.

Critics of the bill suggested that demand is fueling supply and argued that the new law could disproportionately impact marginalized communities by increasing incarceration rates.

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said in March that the bill would do little to solve the fentanyl crisis.

“[It] will make it harder to research addiction and overdose reversal medication, disrupt communities and families by incarcerating rather than treating addiction, and divert resources from methods that work to disrupt the flow of fentanyl in the United States to strategies from the outdated War-on-Drugs solutions that do not work,” Markey said. “Families are asking us to do something about the fentanyl crisis, and rather than do that, we are simply enabling a political stunt at the expense of real solutions.”

Authored by Aaron Gifford via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

When classes resume in public schools next month, parents across the nation should expect notification from school administrators about any “LGBTQ+ inclusive” instruction and the right to opt their children out of it for religious reasons.

The U.S. Supreme Court on June 27 ruled in favor of Maryland parents, many of them Christians and Muslims, who complained their school district forced instruction about LGBT lifestyles on their young children. In a 6–3 vote, justices determined that while the district said the instruction was lessons in mutual respect, the materials conveyed and reinforced viewpoints about same-sex marriage.

The district, Montgomery County Public Schools, incorporated LGBT storybooks that promoted same-sex romance between children, Pride celebrations, and gender transitions in 2022, according to court papers. Parents initially were told they could opt their children out of the sessions when such books were read, but in the fall of 2023, the district made story time mandatory.

The Supreme Court decision establishes a national precedent, requiring all public school districts to broaden their existing protocols for curriculum and opt-outs to include LGBT materials.

Nate Kellum, senior counsel for the First Liberty Institute, said that these communication measures were likely in place for decades with respect to health and sex education instruction.

“It’s easy enough to incorporate,“ Kellum told The Epoch Times. ”It’s just a matter of common sense and common courtesy. It won’t become an administrative nightmare.”

“But it becomes a question of will. For some districts, this is a bitter pill to swallow.”

Kellum said there will likely be questions about activities outside the classroom, like morning announcements, school-wide assemblies, and displays. If those events are planned ahead of time and potentially interfere with a family’s religious exercise, the school is obligated to provide advance notice and the option not to attend.

Questions will also emerge about age and grade level. While advance notice is a reasonable request, it’s also reasonable to expect that older students are less impressionable, so families should act in good faith before taking actions against their school, Kellum said.

Still, given that the Supreme Court establishes the law of the land, families who are not granted the appropriate accommodations as stated by that federal branch have a “slam dunk” case, he said, adding that he anticipates some lawsuits across the nation in the coming months as the parameters of this federal court decision are fleshed out.

Kellum successfully represented parents in a similar case in suburban San Diego. They sued in federal court after their district didn’t allow them to opt their children out of a program where pairs of fifth graders read “My Shadow is Pink” to a kindergartner.

The book is about a boy with a pink shadow who likes to play with dolls and wear dresses. The fifth graders were also required to chalk an outline of their kindergarten buddy’s body and discuss with them their preferred shadow color, according to court papers.

Following the May 12 U.S. District Court decision in favor of the parents, the plaintiff, Encinitas Union School District, appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court.

With the recent Supreme Court decision, Kellum said, “I don’t know if they really have any place to go.”

Montgomery County Schools, following the Supreme Court decision, announced that it will provide further guidance to parents before the school year begins.

How other school leaders across the nation plan to proceed remains to be seen. Attorneys general from Massachusetts, Maryland, and California issued statements expressing disappointment with the decision.

“By ensuring our curriculum reflects the full diversity of our student population, we foster an environment where every student feels seen, supported, and empowered to succeed,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a June 27 news release.

Republican members of Congress called the decision a historic win for families.

“Children are not wards of the state, and families, not government officials, should decide how curriculum related to human sexuality is introduced to their children,” Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-Ala.) said in a news release.

Defending Education, an education watchdog group, is encouraging parents to contact their local schools about this matter before the school year begins. The organization has provided an email template that cites the Supreme Court decision and further requests that the school allow a child to opt out of mandatory preferred pronoun usage and shared bathrooms and locker rooms with the other sex.

“It is the right of religious parents to opt their children out of this type of sex and gender-focused curriculum, regardless of when and where it is introduced during the school day,” Defending Education’s July 13 announcement said.

The organization also asks parents to let them know if their school district does not allow children to opt out of the programs in question.