DV Journal

For an alternate viewpoint, see “Counterpoint: Defending TikTok Defends the First Amendment”

President-elect Trump is correct in stalling the decision to ban TikTok from appearing before the Supreme Court. This delay reinforces the position of diplomacy or peace through strategy. Previously scheduled to appear before the Supreme Court on January 19, the day before the presidential inauguration, Trump is trying to push a pause.

The American public can perceive this as a strategic maneuver — not a change of position on the national ban of TikTok. A short delay ensures the Trump administration, without overlapping with the Biden administration, presents the case for such a monumental decision that will establish precedence between America and China for decades.

TikTok is a weapon of social destruction created by ByteDance, a Beijing-based company. The Chinese Communist Party owns the data of millions of users globally. This archived data is a digital footprint that can be exploited and used to create deepfakes, a realistic mirror image of its users. Deepfakes in the hands of America’s adversaries create national security concerns.

TikTok’s user data archives the lives of minors, private citizens and world leaders. Trump acknowledged that his position on TikTok had changed during his 2024 presidential campaign. The social media application helped Trump connect with voters. The new president and his administration must remember the campaign season is over, and now is the time to create and pass innovative, effective legislation. In addition, voters who were reached by Trump’s campaign on the TikTok application are American citizens whose safety is at risk in the hands of the CCP.

House Speaker Mike Johnson has been adamant about his support of a nationwide ban on TikTok and the threat the application poses to America’s national security. There has been an increasing bipartisan consensus for a national ban on TikTok. Now re-elected as speaker of the House, Johnson must hold fast to his position.

States should follow Montana’s example. It will be the first state to ban TikTok if Congress fails to pass legislation or Trump significantly delays the TikTok ban from appearing before the Supreme Court.

Trump is faced with establishing diplomacy with the CCP not only to ban TikTok but also concerning nuclear security and weapons of mass destruction. The two are related.

TikTok, a weapon of social destruction, has ramifications for weapons of mass destruction. America’s nuclear command and control uses presidential communication along a chain of command, including uniformed leaders, select positions within the president’s Cabinet, and national security advisers within the executive branch. Incoming and outgoing messages must be confirmed as reliable and authentic. The CCP could use TikTok’s data to create deepfake messages that appear genuine but confuse reliability to or in the representation of America’s leaders.

The ban on TikTok can be part of arms control and other high-level negotiations between the West and the East. In 2026, New START, a nuclear arms reduction treaty between the United States and Russia, is set to expire, and there will be no formal arms control agreement between the two powers — and now China. All three are near peers in terms of nuclear weapons and deployment capabilities.

A potential TikTok ban faces a trifecta of judgment across America’s executive, legislative and judicial branches. The checks and balances within and between each branch are constitutionally designed to ensure the nation’s and its citizens’ well-being. The data of America, in the hands of its adversaries, presents the possibility of catastrophic consequences.

The platform of peace through strategy allows Trump and the 119th Congress to cooperatively build diplomatic and intentional legislative, economic and national security policies that reflect a grand plan. The ends, ways and means should advance U.S. and partner interests globally and never at the expense of innocent Americans who trust social media applications. Innovation and the free market can allow for a new social media application that does not violate the user’s trust and risks harming the nation.

Banning TikTok is a decisive step in the right direction. Soon after Trump’s inauguration and essential administration positions are Senate confirmed, the TikTok ban should appear before the Supreme Court. If the CCP retaliates against the TikTok ban, Trump can effectively lead an appropriate national response, whether militarily, peace through strength, or diplomatically, peace through strategy.

Falsely labeled “Italian” products have been discovered in some of the biggest supermarket chains across Europe, where they are widely available to unwitting consumers.

Earlier this month, investigators from the BBC identified 17 products with “Italian” in their title or description that had in fact come from China, where they had been processed by modern-day slaves under torturous conditions and sold in Britain and Germany.

Uyghur Muslims and other predominantly Muslim groups had been forced to collect almost a ton of tomatoes per day. Those who failed to meet their quota were subjected to barbaric abuse, including being shocked with cattle prods.

One former prisoner related the torturous punishment he earned at the hands of the Chinese company he was enslaved by:

“In a dark prison cell, chains were hanging from the ceiling. They hung me up there and said, ‘Why can’t you finish the job?’ They beat [me] really hard, hit me in the ribs. I still have marks,” said Mamutjan, a Uyghur teacher who was imprisoned in 2015 for an irregularity in his travel documentation.

If products made under such conditions can worm their way into the supply chains of Europe and Britain, despite their strict due diligence requirements, then can we be sure that the same isn’t happening in the US?

In truth, we cannot anymore thanks to the Biden Administration. Though the US pioneered the rejection of Uyghur-made products with its landmark Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) of 2021 – thanks in large part to Republican leadership and the efforts of Marco Rubio – the momentum for enforcement of this and similar measures has waned under President Biden.

Rubio’s unwavering commitment to exposing human rights abuses and advocating for ethical trade practices was instrumental in pushing the UFLPA forward, setting a global precedent. However, the current administration’s diminished focus risks undermining this critical progress.

When Biden won the 2020 election, there were more than three million Uyghurs detained in Chinese concentration camps and millions more being treated as slaves.

Nonetheless, just a few months into his term, Biden made an  Emergency Declaration – lifting all tariffs on Southeast Asian imports of solar components, for example. Chinese corporations could exploit this gaping loophole to circumvent tariffs on their imports by completing minor final manufacturing processes elsewhere.

For these companies, Biden’s Declaration came as a welcome reprieve, as many were already implicated in intellectual property theft, anti-competitive practices, and – most critically – human rights abuses in their exploitation of Uyghur Muslims. By leveraging forced labor, they were, in essence, stealing American jobs while profiting from modern-day slavery.

Under the first term of President Trump, China’s abuse of Uyghur Muslims was formally declared a genocide. This impactful statement, underscored by reports from the United Nations, was never rescinded by President Biden, and yet he turned a blind eye to the horrors unfolding.

When Trump returns to the White House, he must urgently restore America’s leadership on this issue and many more.

He has many tools at his disposal beyond tariffs. He could, for example, expand the UPLFA to include goods processed in third-party countries. He could also establish a national interagency Task Force to develop clearer guidelines on required evidence, making it harder to obscure links to forced labor while exploring the use of advanced technologies to improve the traceability of US supply chains.

Of course, technology is not the only solution. Trump could bolster funding for Customs and Border Protection, empowering it to thoroughly investigate incoming shipments – effectively creating a more muscular border wall around our ports. Additionally, he could demand that companies conduct mandatory third-party audits, alleviating the pressure on overburdened Customs workers while ensuring greater accountability in supply chains.

Trump’s landslide victory in 2024 was in part due to his embrace of a whole new demographic, who have their own reasons to be persuaded by his ambitious approach.

Many Italian-Americans, for example, have been enthralled by Trump since he first graced the political stage in 2016. Given that Uyghur labor has been exposed in imposter tomato products bearing their proud Italian name, an almighty crackdown would likely earn their support. This issue resonates deeply, especially as tomatoes join a troubling list of renowned Italian products found to use slave labor, including luxury brands like Armani and Dior – many of which are destined for American markets.

Pope Francis himself has previously drawn attention to the plight of the Uyghurs, describing them as persecuted people and calling for global solidarity against such injustices. His moral leadership and willingness to address this sensitive issue could inspire Italian Americans, many of whom hold the Pope in high regard, to rally behind efforts to combat forced labor and protect the integrity of Italian products.

Trump’s victory in this year’s election was also, in part, due to the record number of Muslim Americans who came out in their droves. In some ways, he owes them his support of their Uyghur peers. While Hilton hotels have been built on bulldozed Uyghur mosques in China, there are no Trump hotels there.

Americans of all persuasions realize that the use of forced labor by China allows the Communist Party to steal American jobs directly through competition or indirectly by flooding America with counterfeit goods.

Ultimately, our forthcoming President has a critical opportunity to reassert America’s moral leadership on human rights and ethical trade, while simultaneously galvanizing his historically diverse coalition.

Threats from China to cut off supplies of critical manufacturing minerals have industry advocates saying it’s time to “Make American Mining Great Again.”

The Communist Party in Beijing is restricting the export of rare minerals to the United States, including gallium, germanium and antimony. These elements are essential to the manufacture of high-tech semiconductors, particularly those used in weapons systems. They are also essential ingredients in infrared technology and fiber optics.

National Mining Association president and CEO Rich Nolan says China has weaponized the world’s mineral supply chains, and the United States must “confront Chinese mineral extortion.”

“We can and should be producing gallium, geranium and antimony right here at home,” Nolan said in a statement. “Our challenge is not geology — the U.S possesses vast mineral resources — but the lack of comprehensive, urgent policy to turn those resources into the secure supply chains we so desperately need.”

Domestic mining advocates argue that the United States has significant supplies of these elements, but it has relied on foreign suppliers instead. For example, the U.S. stopped mining gallium in 1987. Instead, America gets its supply from China, Japan and Germany. China, meanwhile, has been providing more than half (54 percent) of germanium used by the United States.

Now, the United States is taking a fresh look at what’s under the nation’s soil right now.

For example, there is the Perpetua’s Stibnite Gold Project. Located near Cascade and Yellow Pine, Idaho, it is the only domestic antimony reserve.

Antimony is a primer in hundreds of munition types, a doping agent in semiconductors and printed circuit boards, and a central component in solar panels and wind turbines.

“Antimony is essential for national defense, technology, and energy security,” said  Marty Boughton, a spokesperson for Perpetua Resources. “With a reserve of 148 million pounds of antimony, it is one of the largest antimony reserves not under Chinese influence and is expected to supply about 35 percent of total U.S. antimony demand in the first six years of operations.”

The Stibnite Gold Project is expected to receive its final approval from the U.S. Forest Service in the coming weeks. The Department of Defense has awarded the project $75 million, and the U.S. Export-Import Bank issued a $1.8 billion letter of interest to debt finance construction.

And Nyrstar, a global mining company, says it can generate up to 80 percent of America’s supply of germanium and gallium at an old zinc factory in Tennessee that’s been turned into a smelter.

Experts say there are two major obstacles to expanding U.S. mining. One is opposition from environmental groups that promote heavy regulation and often oppose any expanded mining. That includes for rare earth metals essential to building the green technology needed to end America’s reliance on fossil fuels.

In Maine, state laws backed by environmentalists prevent the mining of the world’s richest known lithium deposit. Lithium is used in batteries for electric vehicles and other green tech, and global demand is expected to grow by 575 percent by 2028.

By 2028, it is projected that the global demand for nickel for battery production will grow by 1,237 percent. In that time, lithium demand for batteries is expected to grow by 575 percent. However, regulations will keep this massive domestic supply in the ground.

“You cannot overstate the importance of strong coordination and communication between permitting agencies,” Boughton said. “A rigorous interagency permitting review process that prioritizes efficiency is needed to advance responsible mining projects and end our critical mineral dependence on China.”

Not everyone is fond of mining. Even though it may be key to a renewable energy future filled with wind turbines, solar panels and electric vehicles, environmentalists warn that rare earth mining may also lead to things such as pollution, toxic waste, destruction of ecosystems, and human health problems allegedly linked to nearby production efforts. Still, Perpetua Resources said the United States can do it right.

“The United States has incredible mineral resources, as well as some of the most robust environmental and human rights protections in the world,” Boughton said. “Where we can produce these minerals safely and ethically in our backyard, we should.”

The Biden administration has taken steps to promote domestic production, including an announcement in April that it was investing more than $17 million toward the construction of a domestic supply chain for critical minerals and materials. But America is still losing ground, as the threatened boycott by China shows.

To date, the Stibnite Gold Project has been the subject of 14 years of study and public engagement. The project — which also promises to clean up and restore the area — also went through eight years in the National Environmental Policy Act permitting process and received thousands of public comments, the majority of which were in support of the project.

“We believe that the Stibnite Gold Project is a win-win-win,” Jon Cherry, the president and CEO of Perpetua Resources said of the project. “It’s a win for Idaho, it’s a win for the environment, and it’s a win for America’s national security.”

During a campaign swing through western Pennsylvania this week, former President Donald Trump met with local farmers to talk about inflation, energy costs and, perhaps surprisingly, foreign policy.

Trump says the unique threat to America’s security posed by China means it’s time to ban Chinese nationals from purchasing U.S. farmland. He made his remarks in Westmoreland County at an event hosted by the Protecting America Initiative led by Richard Grenell, a former ambassador to Germany, and former New York Congressman Lee Zeldin.

Republican U.S. Senate candidate Dave McCormick and Pennsylvania Senate President Pro Tempore Kim Ward (R-Westmoreland) also attended.

Trump said he negotiated a deal requiring China to buy $50 billion of American farm products. But the Biden administration isn’t honoring that agreement.

“Now they don’t enforce it. I enforced it. Every single week, I’d go into the office, I’d say, ‘How’s China doing, buying the product?’

“‘Good, sir. Good. They’re doing good.’ And they were doing good, because they knew I was watching,” Trump said.

“I don’t think Biden is exactly watching. Do you? Does anybody think that Biden is? Let’s check it. I don’t think so. And it’s a shame. And that number is way lower than it’s supposed to be.”

Grenell warned China poses a direct threat to American democracy and national security.

“China has quietly but strategically worked against us whenever we are distracted by wars or COVID,” said Grenell. “China goes in and absolutely tries to distract the American people. Quietly, they go after our local and state politicians, they go after our manufacturing. And there is no question that they are looking at some point to leverage that activity.”

“China is getting into our farmland,” said Grenell.

Zeldin said Trump understands the CCP threat and protected America. China now owns 449,442 acres of agricultural land in the U.S., up 82 percent from three years before. Pennsylvania is 26 percent farmland.

“America’s food supply and the farmland that produces it is critical to our national security interest, especially due to China’s aggressive ventures into the U.S. food supply,” said Zeldin. In 2018, Trump signed a law requiring the government to review CCP land purchases around critical infrastructure like ports and military bases. Trump put in place the USMCA trade deal to replace NAFTA that resulted in $2 billion in annual exports. Vice President Kamala Harris, then a California senator, voted against it.

Harris also opposed Trump’s tariffs on Chinese imports and cast the deciding vote for the Biden-Harris bill “that sold our auto industry to China,” said Zeldin.

Nick Steffari is a farmer who raises freezer beef and hay in Fayette County.

“I married the farmer’s daughter,” he said.  “My wife and I are both energy workers. With the energy transition in Pennsylvania, our ability to take our pay and put those resources back in the farm has been tremendous. Without that energy job, we wouldn’t have been able to better our farm and better our situation.

“As you sit here today, you’re sitting on top of the Marcellus and Utica shale, the most prolific shale plays in the world are underneath your feet. My family depends on my salary and my wife’s salary.

“Appalachia produces nearly 30 billion cubic feet of gas per day. We could double the amount if we were just given the opportunity. Common sense policies allow for infrastructure to be built here. Pipelines. We need more pipelines. Doubling the output would be the equivalent of putting 10 million barrels of energy on the market for the world stage, providing opportunities for families to remain in farming because (gas companies) pay those royalties,” he said.

Kevin Sweeney, a cattle farmer from Washington County, wants to leave his farm to his kids and grandkids.

“I’m being approached by companies to put solar panels onto his farm for $3,000 per acre a month for 30 years,” he said. “Who subsidizes that? Our government?”

“They are,” said Trump. “And they’re allowing China to come in and just dominate the industry.”

Sweeney worries the federal government will condemn his land and turn it over to solar panel companies. He asked Trump about the “death tax” or inheritance tax.

Trump noted that he had rescinded the federal inheritance tax in his tax 2017 package that’s due to expire next year, so small farms and businesses could be passed down to the family. Democrats want to reinstate it.

“A lot of farmers are land rich but cash poor,” said Trump. “You leave it to your children…And [those heirs take out] big liens on the farms” and end up losing them to the banks.

“We got rid of the estate tax or the death tax and it will come back into play under Comrade Kamala,” said Trump. “They have unrealized capital gain…you’ll have every business person, every company leaving this country…It will affect farmers.”

McCormick, a military veteran and former hedge fund manager, accused the Biden administration of encouraging Chinese aggression through its lack of leadership.

“China is our adversary, smells weakness in all of its relationships with the United States because of the weak policies of Harris, Biden and Bob Casey… We have 52,000 farms [in Pennsylvania] and under the Biden-Harris-Casey administration it’s been a disaster,” McCormick.

Trump blasted McCormick’s opponent, incumbent Sen. Bob Casey Jr. (D) as a do-nothing senator.

“Bob Casey has done nothing for farmers,” said Trump.

Casey did not respond when asked his position on selling farmland to China. Neither did Democratic Reps. Mary Gay Scanlon (D-Delaware) nor Madeleine Dean (D-Montgomery).

However, Rep. Chrissy Houlahan (D-Chester) voted for the Protecting American Agriculture from Foreign Adversaries Act of 2024 when it passed the House two weeks ago. Dean and Scanlon voted no. Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Bucks) voted yes.

That bill requires the secretary of agriculture to report to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), the government body that reviews foreign purchases and other investments from outside the United States. At CFIUS’ recommendation, the president may block transactions deemed threatening to American national security.

Please follow DVJournal on social media: X@DVJournal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal

.

After Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, the United States quickly made large amounts of liquefied natural gas available to our allies in Europe. The shipments saved Europe from a cutoff of Russian gas. Now, the race is on to secure the strategic metals needed to build weapons to defend Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan.

These metals — everything from rare earths to antimony used in munitions and cutting-edge intelligence systems — are the foundational building blocks of our national security. Alarmingly, China dominates these minerals supply chains and is flexing its power to cut off supplies.

As competition turns to heated geopolitical rivalry, China has issued reminders that it can eliminate the West’s supply of essential metals needed for military systems at the drop of a hat.

A year ago, China announced it would restrict gallium and germanium exports, which dominate global output. These metals are critical for lasers, radars and spy satellites. No less disturbing is China’s threat to cut off exports of rare earth minerals, which are indispensable for virtually every advanced weapons system ranging from aircraft and missile defense to night-vision optics. China has banned the export of technology used to process rare earth minerals.

The United States relies heavily on China for many minerals needed for military production — including vanadium, beryllium, indium, titanium and antimony. In August — with another shot across our bow — China decided to place export controls on antimony. More than 300 munitions require antimony, and China accounts for half of the world’s production. Russia and Tajikistan account for most of the rest. The United States does not mine any antimony; it sources more than 60 percent of its supply from China.

China has overtly zeroed in on our national security Achilles’ heel, and we’ve allowed it. However, we don’t need to be this vulnerable if we choose not to be.

The problem isn’t a lack of mineral resources in the United States. Our nation’s resources are huge, worth $6.2 trillion, but we stand in our way. While there is widespread recognition that our absurd reliance on Chinese mineral supply chains must be addressed, efforts to do so have been painfully incomplete. Tariffs on Chinese imports and grants and loans for miners have been vital steps in the correct direction, but they are of little use if new mines are blocked or get lost in a permitting purgatory.

The most critical thing we need to do to answer China’s mineral saber rattling is to streamline the permitting process for new mines. The U.S. mining industry is saddled with a permitting process so burdensome that, according to a recent report by S&P Global, it now takes nearly three decades from the idea for a new mine to first production. It’s the second longest lead time for mines globally, only behind Zambia. Since 2002, only three significant new mines have come online in the United States.

Consider the case of antimony, the latest target of China’s export controls. The United States has a world-class deposit in Idaho, but the proposed mine has been in permitting for more than a decade. The company behind the project — which has received Department of Defense support — is painstakingly working through 50 permit applications from federal, state and local agencies. Even if the permits are granted, there’s a good chance of years of legal challenges from anti-mining groups.

Our national and economic security is withering due to our inability to address a broken permitting system. An overwhelming policy case to make mine permitting reform a strategic priority. China is tightening its minerals vise on the United States and our allies, and it’s far past time we do something about it.

China’s strong hold on the supply chain for rare earth elements is well known.

Beyond stating that we need to shift our reliance on China and begin building robust domestic supply chains, what are the tangible, actionable steps that will get us there?

To minimize our dependency on China, which controls 85 percent of the world’s production of rare earth elements (REE), we need to explore alternative supply sources. Identifying and developing alternative mining sites or regions abundant in REEs yet underutilized could provide a much-needed diversification strategy.

Significant reserves of REE in the United States, Canada and Australia that remain largely untapped and present promising opportunities for exploration and development. Prominent REE mines in Australia include Mount Weld and Browns Range, while notable Canadian mines include Mount Pleasant and Strange Lake. In the United States, notable mines include the Mountain Pass Mine in California, historically one of the world’s largest producers of REE, and the Bokan-Dotson Ridge project in Alaska holds significant REE deposits.

Fostering international collaboration and trade agreements to diversify supply chains beyond a single dominant source is paramount for strengthening global REE market resilience.

Here’s the thing: All supply chains start with mining — because, of course, we need to secure the critical raw materials — but it’s not enough to get the materials; we also need processing facilities that can handle the materials in an environmentally sustainable way and at a competitive cost. 

An issue in our existing REE supply chain is that we may be able to mine the materials, but then there is a lack of infrastructure for processing. As a result, much of our REE is sent to China for processing. Until we can address this chink in the chain, we will not see a completely secure and resilient national supply chain for REE.

In addition to increasing mining and processing capacity domestically, we must focus on technological innovation to improve processing efficiency and sustainability. Advancements such as novel extraction techniques, recycling technologies, and automation in processing facilities hold promise for reducing costs, minimizing environmental impacts and enhancing overall supply chain resilience. 

Moreover, investing in specialized education and training programs focused on material processing is crucial for building a skilled workforce capable of innovating new technologies and processes to enhance supply chain resilience. By fostering collaboration between industry, academia and government, we can accelerate the development of sustainable and efficient methods for processing critical raw materials while mitigating environmental effects and ensuring long-term availability.

Addressing transparency and traceability issues in the REE supply chain is critical for ensuring ethical sourcing practices and mitigating risks associated with environmental degradation and human rights abuses. Initiatives such as blockchain technology for supply chain transparency and certification schemes for responsible sourcing can play a critical role in promoting accountability and trust across the supply chain.

Efficiently streamlining the permitting process for mining operations is another thing that is imperative to bolster the competitiveness of the Western mining sector. Governments must focus on developing regulatory frameworks that balance stringent environmental standards with expedited approval timelines. 

Additionally, directing government funding toward research grants and tax incentives while fostering public-private partnerships is vital for catalyzing innovation within the mining industry.

Finally, addressing the environmental effects associated with REE mining and processing is crucial for sustainable supply chain management. Initiatives for environmental restoration, pollution prevention measures, and community engagement programs demonstrate a commitment to balancing economic development with environmental stewardship and social responsibility.

In the end, none of this change will happen overnight — it will be a gradual process that requires concerted efforts from governments, industry stakeholders and the public. However, committing to these tangible steps, we can lay the foundation for a secure and resilient national supply chain for REE. 

It’s not just about reducing our dependency on external sources; it’s about fostering innovation, sustainability and long-term prosperity for future generations.

Please follow DVJournal on social media: Twitter@DVJournal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal

“China poses the gravest threat to our security and our wellbeing since the end of World War II.”

That was David McCormick’s message in a speech Thursday, delivered in the shadow of Philadelphia’s Independence Hall. The Republican U.S. Senate candidate’s foreign policy address made it clear he believes America “is in a contest for our prosperity” against Beijing.

“If we lose, we sacrifice the future long promised to our daughters and their children. The Biden administration is taking us on a dangerous path,” McCormick said. “I am proposing a new one.”

McCormick’s China policy is centered around a series of “dramatic policy changes” he said would slow Communist China’s efforts at expansion. He decried incremental change in U.S.-China policy, arguing for a major overhaul instead.

McCormick called the 4,000 fentanyl overdose deaths in Pennsylvania a tragedy and one that could be stopped if the U.S. and its allies took a tougher stance against China. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, “fentanyl and methamphetamine precursors, opioid additives, and synthetic opioids are manufactured and distributed by China-based chemical companies.”

“We must use sanctions, intelligence resources, military interdictions at seas, and all the tools at our disposal to make it difficult – if not impossible – to produce fentanyl with ingredients originating in China,” McCormick said. To those who might see his policy as too extreme, he added: “I think this fentanyl epidemic is extreme, and it’s time for serious measures to stop it.”

Other proposals include pushing for the removal of China from the World Trade Organization (WTO) and revoking Beijing’s permanent normal trade relations status.

“Going forward, we must chart a new path on trade that focuses on shifting critical supply chains to more reliable trading partners or, even better, bringing them home,” he said. McCormick hopes to keep American farmers protected from any sort of economic coercion from China. “This is a massive project that will require leaders in Washington who understand this challenge.”

McCormick also pushed policies to end U.S. reliance on Chinese-imported lithium batteries and solar panels. Subsidizing green tech dominated by China and its resources “might as well be a direct transfer from Pennsylvanian’s bank accounts to the CCP [Chinese Communist Party],” he said.

He added the U.S. needed to stop trade and investment that supports the CCP’s national security state.

“It’s unconscionable to me to consider the possibility that U.S. dollars would fund a military buildup that could one day be deployed against Pennsylvania’s sons and daughters,” he warned. “We must now presume that Chinese companies seeking U.S. financing or technology will become partners to China’s military and security services.”

McCormick advocated for Congress to aggressively cut off U.S. investment in Chinese technology companies critical to national security. American companies should also be banned from working with the Chinese army, he added. Also important to McCormick is that all public corporations and investment funds reveal Chinese investment in public filings.

Perhaps the most popular proposal involved removing China from the World Health Organization (WHO). Calling it obvious, McCormick said China and the Wuhan Institute of Virology behaved recklessly and refused transparency regarding the COVID-19 pandemic.

“Everyone in this audience was affected by [the pandemic],” he declared after cheers from the crowd. “From those we lost to those who lost their jobs. To years of education that were lost from lockdowns…I won’t have it. I won’t stop until China is removed from the World Health Organization.”

His last proposal involved a ban on strategic purchases of American land by the CCP. McCormick tied the policy to food security in the U.S., saying American farmland was a “strategic asset” that needed protection. He believes any significant purchase of land by Chinese companies or individual should have a national security review.

“Our enemies are at the gate, led by the Chinese Communist Party,” McCormack warned. “As we speak, China is propping up Russia and buying Iranian oil so the jihadist regime in Tehran can fund terrorism against Israel and the United States.”

Before McCormick’s speech, protestors drove a billboard truck through Philadelphia, pointing out that he and Bridgewater Associates, the hedge fund he once ran, did business with China.

McCormick faced the criticism head-on, acknowledging that Bridgewater had investments in China, but dismissed the relevance of the criticism. “These attacks are predictable,” McCormick said. “The real question is who has the will and strength to act.”

Should he win the GOP primary, McCormick would face incumbent Democrat U.S. Sen. Bob Casey next November. McCormick would like Casey to say whether he agrees with McCormick’s China proposals, but he doesn’t expect any answer.

“The senator has proven for two decades he won’t stand firm against the CCP or stand up for a stronger and more resilient America. He has dithered while China moved aggressively. He has failed and should be replaced.”

U.S. consumers assume that the United States always leads the world in safety issues. For example, they expect federal regulations will ensure the trustworthiness of the food and medicines they buy. However, when it comes to the products they purchase online, things are less clear.

Millions of packages are shipped directly to U.S. consumers daily — but few are inspected. When Americans shop online, they frequently have no idea where the products they buy are manufactured. With unsafe imports causing safety issues, it’s time for Congress to mandate “Country of Origin” (COOL) labeling for all internet transactions.

How serious is the problem of unsafe e-commerce? A Wall Street Journal investigation found 10,870 items for sale on Amazon that had been declared unsafe by federal agencies were labeled deceptively, lacked federally required warnings, or were banned by federal regulators. This included many items that big-box retailers would bar from their shelves. Of the 1,934 sellers whose addresses could be determined, 54 percent were based in China.

China has become the epicenter of unsafe e-commerce, with 83 percent of all intellectual property seizures in the United States now originating from the People’s Republic. In fact, China accounts for 40 percent of all Amazon sales, and 75 percent of all new sellers on Amazon are Chinese companies. It’s even estimated that multiple new product listings are uploaded to Amazon from China every second.

Americans already know this is a problem, and polls show they want to buy American-made goods — 40 percent saying they’ll no longer buy anything made in China. They have already seen news stories about unsafe imports — like the Missouri man killed in a motorcycle accident due to a fraudulently labeled helmet bought online or the Georgia family whose home burned down because of a faulty hoverboard bought on Amazon.

Requiring country-of-origin labeling should be a no-brainer. Amazingly, though, some in Congress have blocked efforts to mandate COOL labeling. They appear to be following the whims of importers who claim that COOL labeling would add encumbrances to their business. That’s ludicrous since Amazon sales in Mexico already require this type of country-of-origin information. And Amazon recently started collecting similar information for new postings of products sold in the United States.

A Senate committee recently passed bipartisan legislation requiring clear country-of-origin labeling for all website product descriptions. This is a helpful first step, but the full Senate and the House must also take action.

More and more Americans are shopping online. They want to ensure the medicines, electronics, toys and household items they buy are safe. Country-of-origin labeling for this type of e-commerce would mark an important step toward reclaiming internet shopping safety.

Consumers deserve safe e-commerce. Requiring COOL labeling would be a small price for safe, reliable online shopping. Congress should move quickly to pass bipartisan country-of-origin labeling provisions and ensure that consumers’ lives aren’t put at risk by unsafe imports.

American politics may be harshly divided along unbendable partisan lines, but one topic brings the two parties together: China.

President Biden’s director of national intelligence, Avril Haines, said China “represents both the leading and most consequential threat to U.S. national security and leadership globally.”

Former president Donald Trump’s national security Adviser John Bolton called China “the existential threat in the 21st century.”

China watchers are now raising the alarm about China’s ability to evade Western sanctions on technology, particularly microchips, and increase its ability to threaten the United States.

National security experts are sounding the alarm about open-source tech, which is rapidly becoming a workaround to sanctions against China’s advanced technology sector. With chips — which are used to power cell phones, automobiles, drones and advanced military tech — the stakes couldn’t be higher.

A computer chip with a history dating to the early 1980s could revolutionize the technological sector. The RISC-V (pronounced “risk five”) is open-source standard technology that “allows anyone to freely develop their own hardware” to run software. Instead of using proven, vetted technology that is not prone to manipulation but is subject to U.S. export controls — such as those developed by Intel, AMD or Arm — open-source technology can be used by anyone, anywhere, with the know-how to do so, opening up a world of potential security risks.

Rick Switzer, a director in the State Department’s Special Envoy for Technology office, warned the next pandemic could involve chips made in China. “The attacks were traced to a cloud service provider for regional banking firms, but outages now appear to be more widespread, covering close to 40 percent of all cloud storage services across the country,” he wrote in “Future Scenario 2028” for Special Competitive Studies Project.

“Government investigators finally discover the issue: a hardware-based on-off switch embedded in a series of voltage-regulating chips. The attackers flipped billions of these switches simultaneously, preventing logic chips from connecting to the storage chips in cloud servers.”

Switzer’s worry is focused on the RISC-V chip model.

Almost six dozen Chinese companies, including companies the U.S. government has placed on the restricted entity list, are involved in the RISC-V alliance.

Chinese chip design firms switched to the technology because of its accessibility and the Chinese government’s push to do so. That includes tech giant Alibaba, which released two RISC-V-based processors. So far, it appears China remains behind the curve on RISC-V. Alibaba’s RISC-V processor can only run simple processes on Android’s O.S. But if U.S. and Chinese companies are allowed to continue sitting side by side in the development of that technology, that soon will change.

“We’re on track to have 62.4 billion RISC-V cores by 2025,” said Calista Redmond, RISC-V International CEO, in 2020. “The market for RISC-V IP and software is expected to grow to over a billion dollars by 2025.”

Not everyone sees that as good news.

“China’s pivot towards open-source chip design demonstrates how difficult it is to implement restrictions on any single type of technology,” said Elaine Dezenski, senior director and dead of the Foundation for Defense of Democracy’s Center of Economic and Financial Power. “On the other hand, export controls, sanctions and related restrictions have tremendous near-term value in protecting U.S. leadership and constraining malign uses of American technology. But the toolkit of U.S. economic statecraft must remain as flexible and nimble as those inevitable attempts to circumvent it.”

Tech commentators believe American corporations will simply follow the profits.

“American companies do business with China for many reasons, but a lot of the time it comes down to money,” said Amy Chang, resident senior fellow in Cybersecurity and Emerging Threats at the R Street Institute on China’s allure to U.S. companies. “Labor and logistics and taxes are cheaper than doing business elsewhere, and because there is a large swath of relatively wealthy middle and upper class in China as prospective consumers.”

Ryan Nabil, director of technology policy at the National Taxpayers Union Foundation, said the interdependence of the American and Chinese economies means more business for everyone.

“Bilateral trade relations continue to be driven largely by the market forces at play in each economy,” Nabil said. “Top U.S. exports to the PRC include soybeans, civilian aircraft, automobiles, corn and coal. Conversely, top imported products from China include machinery and mechanical appliances, furniture, toys and other miscellaneous manufactured items.”

There is disagreement on what the United States can and should do regarding RISC-V and China. Switzer suggested a national security review of open-source hardware in critical infrastructure, import restrictions, and more domestic investment. Nabil wants more transparency and disclosure requirements before determining risks.

He said, “Clearer and evidence-based security standards could be helpful” regarding device security. Nabil added that open-source technology is overall positive because it “makes it easier for more firms, including U.S. and European companies, to enter the global semiconductor markets.”

RISC-V International did not comment on whether there was concern the U.S. government might take steps to make RISC-V adoption harder for companies.

Please follow DVJournal on social media: Twitter@DVJournal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal

The United States is falling way behind in the global minerals race and the big loser could be the green energy sector, which is heavily reliant on minerals to power energy sources like wind and solar.

The U.S. Geological Survey’s annual Mineral Commodity Summaries report warns America is entirely reliant on foreign sources for more than half the critical minerals needed for its modern economy. That includes both green energy technologies of the near future, plus the batteries required to power laptops, cell phones, and other everyday items integral to everyday life.

And while the U.S. has agreements with friendly nations for these imports, China remains America’s top supplier — the nation that just sent a spy balloon through the skies over some of the nation’s top security areas.

“We have never been more dependent on China and others for the minerals that are absolutely essential to modern life,” said Katie Sweeney, executive vice president and chief operating officer of the National Mining Association. “The U.S. is stumbling when it comes to our supply chains. With each new announcement of a blocked mine or a foreign sourcing agreement with countries that have questionable labor practices, we are locking in our position of competitive weakness.”

Last year, the U.S. was 100 percent reliant on net imports for 51 nonfuel mineral commodities according to the Geological Survey. The report estimated the value of domestic metal mine production in 2022 was $34.7 billion, which was 6 percent lower than the revised value from 2021. The country’s capacity utilization for the metals mining industry dropped two percentage points from 2021 to 63 percent capacity last year.

The issue is not that the U.S. does not have the capability or resources to produce many of these minerals. The problem, according to mining advocates, is mine permitting takes an average of seven to 10 years.

“It takes forever to get a new permit. How crazy is that?” Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm said last March at the CERAWeek energy conference. Her comments that she would streamline permitting for sources of minerals needed for electric vehicles “elicit[ed] loud applause,” Reuters reported at the time.

But while comments from Granholm and Jigar Shah, head of the Department of Energy’s Loan Program Office sounded encouraging, the Biden administration remains reluctant to approve new mining projects. Just this month, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency denied permits for Pebble Mine in Alaska – a significant source of copper and gold – to protect salmon habitat.

The project would have mined up to 73 million tons of minerals per year, and Pebble Limited Partnership John Shively said the EPA’s action was “unlawful” and promised litigation over the denial.

Ian Lange, a faculty fellow at the Payne Institute for Public Policy at the Colorado School of Mines, bluntly assessed domestic production of minerals as “crappy.” Despite widespread acknowledgment among advocates of green energy that the U.S. cannot reach aggressive climate goals without critical minerals, Lange said many are more comfortable with outsourcing mining so they don’t have to see it happening – an advanced NIMBY-ism.

“The people who are supportive of clean energy but don’t want mining in the U.S. call it ‘friend-shoring’ where it’s sourced out to countries like Canada and Australia that do have environmental safeguards and labor standards,” he said.

The average time for permits in both of those countries is two to three years, according to the National Mining Association. But regardless of the good relationship the U.S. enjoys with those countries, China far surpasses them in production.

China is the largest processor of copper, nickel, cobalt, lithium, and rare earth minerals – all needed to power rechargeable batteries and other components of green technology, the association said. China is also planning 107 lithium-ion battery mega factories compared to nine in the U.S.; according to the mining association, that is the equivalent of China building one factory per week while the U.S. builds one every four months.

Increasing domestic production would meet two goals for the disparate groups that support mining and oppose it on environmental grounds: increasing economic development here at home.

“Both parties are interested in the same story of economic growth in the U.S.,” Lange said. “Low-income populations would a chance to expand [opportunities] because that’s where mineral deposits tend to be. But we’re missing out on the jobs and economic development that might come from developing a mine and supporting infrastructure.”

North Carolina has significant lithium deposits, and Idaho features large deposits of copper. In Minnesota, Twin Metals, which could produce approximately 30 million pounds of cobalt, and PolyMet, which could yield as much as 170 million pounds of nickel, are both stalled in the permitting process, the mining association said. And neither Resolution Copper in Arizona – a potential source of 25 percent of U.S. copper – nor Lithium Americas Thacker Pass in Nevada – the largest lithium deposit in the country – show signs of progress.

And then there’s the story from Maine, where the world’s richest hard rock lithium deposit was recently discovered, but state law forbids the mining procedures needed to extract it. Thanks to anti-mining laws, the $1.5 billion find may have to remain in the ground, and not in U.S. manufactured technology.

“We have tons of these minerals,” Lange said. “We have more than we’ll ever need but nobody likes a mine in their backyard.”

Please follow DVJournal on social media: Twitter@DVJournal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal