Editor’s Note: Council Bill 26-0174 (data centers) will get another public hearing in front of the Baltimore City Council’s Land Use & Transportation Committee on the 4th floor of City Hall on the morning of September 24.
Baltimore, Maryland, currently has a moratorium on new data center development, but a proposed City Council bill has residents nervous that the door is creaking open for data centers to come into the city—and that City Council views this as “inevitable.”
Council Bill 26-0174, sponsored by City Councilmember Phylicia Porter, would require new data center projects in Baltimore to go through a conditional use approval process that includes a health equity assessment. Residents opposed to the bill say that while the bill may be well intentioned, they want a full data center ban, not stricter guidelines for data centers operating in Baltimore.
In this on-the-ground report, TRNN takes you inside the August 27 Baltimore City Planning Commission public hearing on Council Bill 26-0174:
TRNN also published a full, unedited recording of the August 27 Baltimore City Planning Commission public hearing on Council Bill 26-0174, which is free and available to the public on our YouTube channel:
Credits:
The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.
Speaker 1:
We all are well aware that we’re not dealing with good faith actors when it comes to the people who want to build data centers.
Speaker 2:
I currently work at a data center. That doesn’t mean that I approve of data centers. Every
Speaker 3:
Every time it storms, it seems that a bunch of lights go down in the city. I’m confused why we’re even talking about a data center if we can’t keep our own lights on.
Maximillian Alvarez:
Baltimore currently has a moratorium on new data center development while a city study examines the potential impacts that data centers would have on our city. However, even though that study hasn’t been completed yet, a proposed city council bill has residents here nervous that the door is creaking open for data centers to come into the city and that city council views this as inevitable. Council Bill 260174, sponsored by city council member Felicia Porter, would require new data center projects to go through a conditional use approval process that includes a health equity assessment. Now, residents who are opposed to the bill say that the bill may be well intentioned, but what they want is a full data center ban in Baltimore, not stricter guidelines for data centers to operate in Baltimore. Now, the bill is going to get another public hearing in front of the Baltimore City Council’s Land Use and Transportation Committee on the fourth floor of City Hall on the morning of September 24th.
And that meeting is open to the public. Now, I was there in the room during the last public hearing on Council Bill 260174, which took place on August 27th when the bill was reviewed by the Baltimore City Planning Commission and residents were given a chance to voice their public comments. Now, the planning commission ultimately declined to support the bill and opposition from members of the public to data centers of any sort was frankly overwhelming, but you don’t got to take my word for it. Watch for yourself.
Andy Ellis:
We’re here at the Baltimore City Planning Commission getting ready to hear a bill that would allow data centers to come in if they had a health equity assessment into Baltimore. This happens despite the fact that we have an existing moratorium. And so we’re here today to testify against the bill because we think that the moratorium should be extended or made into a ban so that we can stop data centers from coming into the community.
Blaire Postman:
Hi, I’m Blaire from Cat Ladies for America. I’m a resident of Baltimore and I’m here today because even though there’s a moratorium on AI data centers in the city, it seems like they’re laying the groundwork for them to allow them and allow them to come in without a lot of oversight. And that makes me very angry. Claws out!
Speaker 8:
The next item is number eight, city council bill number 26-017 zoning conditional use, health equity assessment data centers.
Councilmember Phylicia Porter,:
I am Councilwoman Phylicia Porter and I represent Baltimore’s 10th District and chair of the Public Health and Environment Committee and bill sponsor for 26-0174. The data center industry is looking at Baltimore at the peninsula, Fairfield, Hawkins Point and other industrial areas. At the same time, the federal government is accelerating AI infrastructure development and scrutinizing state and local laws. It regards its obstacles to that development. This creates a real risk for jurisdictions relying only on a temporary moratorium without a permanent framework under development, which will face legal and economic pressure. Other jurisdictions have already quickly learned how that pressure can arrive. Hill County, Texas faced a hundred million dollars in federal lawsuit shortly after adopting its moratorium and rescinded under that pause under the weight of that litigation. This lesson is not that Baltimore should surrender its authority. This lesson is that Baltimore must exercise its authority carefully, deliberately, and now.
A moratorium alone without companion framework and process is exposed to taking legal challenges. Moving bill 26-0174 through this process, hearings, testimonies, amendments, votes itself is a part of that good faith planning effort that the Supreme Court has been requiring. Bill 26-0174 does not promote or green light data centers. It strategically and administratively blocks development at every step of the way that does not align with community. It creates public accountable process for deciding whether a qualifying data center is appropriate for a particular location and under what conditions it may process. This is the foundational right of the conditional use ordinance process. Traditional zoning asks whether proposed use is compatible with the land around it. A health equity assessment asks an equally important question, what will this decision mean for the people who already live in those conditions surrounding that land? Bill 26-0174 puts that cumulative reality into the decision making process of the city council before approval, not after residents become ill, household costs rise and public infrastructure is strained.
This is environmental justice and it’s basic due diligence.
Jon Laria:
There are maybe some questions, but it took me a while to sort of get this straight in my head, but there are only written submissions opposed to this bill by people who are opposed to data centers and so are you. Yes. So it’s kind of odd because they’re opposing a bill and I think the reason that’s happening is because most people are starting with the idea that there’s a moratorium, meaning zero data centers. And your bill provides a path, a difficult path, but a path to data centers. No,
Councilmember Phylicia Porter,:
That’s not correct. So it is not correct. So the study adds a legal framework attached to the moratorium right now as shared within my remarks, right now we are under a moratorium where we are legally unrestricted. We are unprotected right now under this moratorium without the conjoining health equity framework attached to it.
Jon Laria:
I’m not sure I understand.
Councilmember Phylicia Porter,:
Yeah. So no worries. So when you have a data center and we currently have, I will say if you have a data center that comes into the city that’s under a moratorium right now, if they sue Baltimore City, they sue Baltimore City saying this is unjust. We understand that data center developers are getting very crafty in their arguments. They’re arguing First Amendment rights. They are arguing other rights that provide them a pathway forward. We are seeing that those moratoriums are getting overturned. The successful moratoriums that have been upheld are always assigned and/or connected to a framework that allows good faith effort to showcase that they are doing some sort of regulatory footprint with that moratorium, not just saying that you want a moratorium. So that is the issue.
Jon Laria:
Okay. Although we are doing this study, I mean the moratorium is not just a moratorium. A moratorium that just says moratorium because we feel like it, I see the weakness that you’re describing, but a moratorium so we can study it seems like a defensible position.
Councilmember Phylicia Porter,:
It’s not because again, what was mentioned in the planning commission report was that there is a lack of health equity associated with the current moratorium. This answers that response.
Jon Laria:
But it is sort of an odd posture because I think, and people should speak for themselves, but we have all these people who are opposed to data centers and they will come and testify and they’ve submitted testimony saying no data centers because I think they see in your bill a pathway to data centers and their view is we don’t want them at all. And under the moratorium – I’m not arguing with anyone. I’m just trying to get straight because they have all these people who are going to come up and say no data centers because they perceive perhaps your bill as loosening the restrictions, which is actually not how you intend
Councilmember Phylicia Porter,:
To bill. It’s not the intent of the bill. And I will also caveat, how many data centers have an application now with the current city of Baltimore that once this moratorium goes away, if we do not have the regulatory framework in place, how many of them will be actually going through the process?
Speaker 1:
But if I’m understanding the bill correctly, basically we currently have a moratorium that is pending a health review, health study review in the findings there. And that the bill is saying we need to do something that is stricter than a review and stricter than a moratorium because a moratorium can be overturned. And basically the bill is saying we’re going to provide a path to a data center, but the path is going to be very difficult. And so the hope, I believe if I’m understanding correctly, is that with the difficulty of the path, the data center should not be able to be built unless it passes very strict scrutiny that it likely will not pass. My concern as a citizen of Baltimore is this. I understand we all know full well, we cannot legislate the hearts and minds of people. We cannot put into a bill.
We all have to be nice to each other. However, we all are well aware that we’re not dealing with good faith actors when it comes to the people who want to build data centers. We’ve already heard testimony that there are people in rooms looking, combing through every law, probably across the country with fine tooth combs to see where they can actually exploit loopholes. And my concern is a citizen of the city and someone who cares about the city, who has young people who I care about in the city, who I want them to grow up in a place with clean air, clean water, not having the sound pollution and the headaches and all the things that come with having a data center in their vicinity. My concern is that if we know that we’re dealing with bad faith actors, then is it not our responsibility as citizens and as people in government to deal with the world that we have and not the world that we want to be?
You know what I mean? Deal with the people who we know are building these, which are bad faith actors and not deal with the fantasy of, oh, well, it’s going to be really hard so people aren’t going to be able to pass the test when people are looking to do everything they can to subvert every possible obstacle to getting these built.
Speaker 2:
So I’m a longtime Baltimore resident, electrician with IBW. I’m here to speak against obviously data centers. Obviously the contradiction here is that majority of the work for the IBW right now is data centers. I currently work at a data center. That doesn’t mean that I approve of data centers. One of the things that I think that we’re all missing here is that Baltimore is a city that has suffered from de-industrialization for a long period of time. Obviously the shutdown of General Millers, the shutdown of Bethlehem Steel. What we could be talking about instead of wasting our time with this is we could be thinking about how can we generate the power that the grid demands for something like this. We could be talking about solar farms, wind generation, be talking about battery storage. If you look at PJM’s own records, they say that Baltimore and the mid-Atlantic region is at risk of rolling blackouts, as others have said, by 2028.
Obviously our grid needs investment. Our infrastructure needs investment. The city needs investment. Investment from Google Meta does not solve our issues. If we actually care about having a city that functions, we’re going to need to be thinking about where are we putting power, not where are we taking power to? It’s really just that simple. And on that topic, if we’re talking about actually maintaining a labor force, we should be talking about how do we get the young people in our city into the trades that this type of work demands by doing some type of local hire mandates, something to make sure that our young people are not just left in the wind. Roughly 25% of young black men in the city aren’t working. Why are we not talking about what we can be doing for our city? It pains me. I just see no solutions, but we’re talking about something that can help billionaires become trillionaires.
Speaker 10:
Baltimore ordered the nine month study specifically required to recommend conditional use standards for data centers, yet this bill is already establishing conditional use framework. Why not finish the study and let the evidence inform the legislation? Second, under this bill, the company seeking approval prepares the health equity assessment evaluating its project’s potential health and environmental impacts. Subjection C9 even requires that applicants to explain the compelling public interest in its own project would serve. When a company has financial stake in an outcome, relying heavily on evidence prepared by that same company creates a conflict of interest. Why isn’t this assessment independent from the applicant seeking approval? Where is the scientific independence in this process? Finally, if this legislation is truly about putting community first, where is the community process when this hearing is being held in the middle of the day? As other people have stated, my friend, she had to leave.
Many working class Baltimoreans cannot take off to participate. So we are urging that this study be completed, that we require independent assessment, give affected communities meaningful participation. Please oppose this bill and enact a ban on data centers.
Blaire Postman:
I’m a 29 year resident of Remington in Baltimore. I want to tell you about a new building that’s being built. I know this hearing is not about that, but it’s relevant. This new building is going to use more energy than Remington and Charles Village combined. It required the building of a new electric substation. It’s going to be as big as the convention center. It’s on the edge of Stony Run, ground not appropriate for such a large building requiring very deep pilings. It’s displacing animals already. There are deer on my street. For the first time in 29 years, there are deer on my street. My street is five blocks from any wooded area. Deer are walking five city blocks to come to my street to eat all my flowers. I don’t care that they’re eating my flowers because they’re hungry. This building also has a truck road.
It’s going to result in this destruction of over a hundred trees. There was strong community opposition to this building. We were told that this building would not be a data center. I personally don’t know if it’s a data center. The amount of power it’s using, the size of it makes me wonder. So I have some questions. How did this happen? What’s the definition of a data center? And I just want to say that’s why I want to ban. I don’t believe this is a legal issue. I believe it’s a trust issue. There are bad actors. The megas of the world are bad actors and often our representatives do not support us. Odette supported our community. We voiced our opposition and yet Zeke Cohen voted for this and said data centers are inevitable and we need them.
Speaker 11:
I want to also remind everybody that people in Baltimore City, many, many are living on the edge. They’re living week to week. They’re living month to month already. Now, data centers are needed for AI. So you have AI and data centers working together. For some reason, we’re rushing into unregulated, unplanned black box of technology. I don’t know why, except I think it’s the investors who are creating this, creating this need and creating this bubble. So we have people, regular people striving to just get by. AI on the one hand is displacing jobs. It has displaced jobs. Everybody involved in AI says it’s going to massively destroy jobs. Sam Altman bragged about it. On the other hand, we have data centers which have raised utility rates for people around the city. As they’re built, they will raise more utility rates. Now we have people who are barely getting by.
What happens to them?
Speaker 3:
I love Baltimore. It’s a fantastic city. Fell in love here. We’ll have lots of friends and I’m connected to a lot of local art communities. It’s an important city to me and everyone in this room. And I say that because there’s a lot of conversations going on about water, about power. Every time it storms, it seems that a bunch of lights go down in the city. I’m confused why we’re even talking about a data center if we can’t keep our own lights on. I see streets and potholes all over the place and I would really like Baltimore to be a city that is ready for something like a data center. And to be clear, I want a ban on data centers.
But if I’m looking at the infrastructure we currently have just to support homes, just to support me, just to support my friends and family using regular water, I turn the heat down on my water heater. I’m doing what I can to try to make sure that I’m a good citizen in a drought, in a moment of contention. So I am asking council to put a ban on data centers, period, until we deal with potholes, until I can drive my car and not worry about it, period, until we can deal with power outages after storms, until we can make sure that all of our neighbors have access to grocery stores that are healthy for them in their local neighborhoods.
Speaker 12:
I’m a longtime participant in Baltimore’s professional filmmaking community. I’m also a longtime member of IATSE Local 487. So I think I’ll kind of address my concerns in terms of in sort of a cinematic fashion with a metaphor of sorts. When I think of the evolution of data centers as a topic of debate in the public consciousness, I can’t help but think of vampires as a metaphor for what they offer, both in how they mystify the impressionable and how they have the power to leach resources and destroy communities. When I look at this bill, it almost feels like they’re saying, “Hey, vampires want to come to Baltimore. We want to lay the groundwork to only allow the right vampires to come into the city. Vampires are risky. We want to make sure we know what a vampire is and then we want to make sure we get the old money vampires who have accumulated their wealth over hundreds of years and only bite certain kinds of people, maybe vampires that’ll make some of us super hot and young forever.
We want the best vampires for the community.” I don’t think I’m alone when I think of that and I go, “What if we just did no vampires?
This is an article about China’s booming automobile industry and Germany’s declining automobile industry, but in reality, it is really a story about how anti-immigration China increasingly dominates the open borders, multicultural West.
That is not the typical way to open an article in our modern Western press, but this framing is entirely accurate, fair, and a reflection of reality.
For one, we need to stop trying to understand China entirely through the lens of “communism” or “authoritarianism.” Whether it is Bloomberg, Spiegel, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, or the Guardian, all of these media megaphones endlessly gloss over a core reality: China is an ethnostate that exists to advance the interest of the Han Chinese people.
Not only is China incredibly successful in this regard, but there is nothing inherently wrong in pursuing this goal. In fact, it not only accounts for China’s increasing strength, but also accounts for the economic success of a range of Asian countries, including Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, all of which feature stringent anti-immigration policies that ensure ethnic and cultural homogeneity.
The latest data from Germany’s automobile industry only adds to the growing body of evidence that despite years of diversity and mass immigration, Germany is failing. The data shows that China has now become Germany’s largest supplier of new passenger cars after imports from China more than doubled in the first seven months of 2026, official figures show.
The surge in Chinese vehicles is the main driver behind a sharp rise in overall car imports. Notably, at the same time, German exports declined.
This is far from the only data point. Remix News has been running an ongoing series comparing Western countries like Germany that have tied their economic fortunes to mass immigration to anti-immigration Asian countries (part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5, and part 6). Once again, the latest figures prove that despite claims that immigration has made the German economy stronger, the reality is that Asian countries are proving this baseless claim wrong many times over.
Between January and July, 175,000 new passenger cars arrived from China in Germany, 13.8 percent of all imports and 120.9 percent more than in the same period a year earlier. That leap pushed China ahead of other importers, including the Czech Republic which sent 173,000 cars and Spain with 157,000 cars. A year earlier, China had ranked only fourth among supplier countries.
At the same time, German exports of new passenger cars fell. Around 2 million vehicles left the country, 4 percent fewer than a year earlier. Their value dropped 8.9 percent to €73.5 billion.
These numbers do not tell the full story either and actually underplay the strength of the Chinese auto manufacturing industry.
Headlines also now routinely dominate the German press regarding the decline of the auto sector, including planned layoffs for tens of thousands of VW workers.
China has pulled ahead of Germany by investing in its own native population instead of relying on foreign labor. In fact, there are more foreigners in just one German city, Berlin, than there are in all of China, a country of 1.4 billion people.
Many German leftists and even those in the Christian Democrats (CDU) claim the German economy would fall apart without immigrants. However, China and other Asian countries provide a sharp contrast to this ideological and factually unsound narrative. Instead, these Asian countries sharply rejected mass immigration and turned to innovation, automation, and investment in research and development. At the same time, Asian countries are known for their stringent and in-depth education systems designed for the benefit of their own native populations.
The result is that these Asian nations have now soared ahead of languishing European economies that chose open borders and foreign workforces, which often fueled illusory GDP growth resembling a pyramid scheme based entirely on rising populations rather than true innovation and productivity growth.
In key industries, including automobile production, machine tools, chemical production, and renewable energy, China and other anti-immigration Asian countries are leapfrogging ahead. This is all on top of China’s chokehold on rare earth metals, which theoretically could allow China to shut down production of Western weapons, automobiles, and renewable energy, just to name a few sectors.
In terms of automobile exports to Europe, China’s growth has to be put in context. The reality is that China would be on the verge of bankrupting or overtaking nearly every European automobile company if it was not for extreme protectionism.
China’s growth in Europe is mostly coming from hybrid vehicles, as EU tariffs on battery electric vehicles (BEVs) can go as high as 45 percent. On the other hand, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) only face the standard 10 percent duty.
Without these tariffs on BEVs, the European EV automobile market would collapse due to Chinese competition. Despite these barriers, more and more Chinese vehicles are making their way into the European market. China is simply far too innovative in nearly every aspect of EV production. China is also building battery production plants within Europe because the Europeans can no longer do it themselves. Even top automobile executives, whether in the United States or Europe, admit they are years behind China.
European automakers are so far behind that they rely on batteries, which are by far the most expensive and vital components of any electric vehicle, almost exclusively from China. China accounts for over 80 percent of global battery cell production and supplies a major share of the cells and lithium iron phosphate (LFP) chemistry used in European-branded electric vehicles. There are other players, however, these also include immigration-restrictionist nations like South Korea and Japan.
Europe is now racing to place tariffs on PHEVs as well, as European automaker CEOs beg for relief. However, these same European automakers would have no electric vehicle market at all if they were cut off from Chinese batteries.
For those who do not want to read long treatises on the dominance of Chinese automakers, there are also plenty of video formats available that explore this topic. This video from “Modern MBA” is just one that illustrates just how far ahead Chinese auto manufacturers are in terms of innovation and development. This dominance is not down to cheap labor either or even government subsidies. At its heart, this dominance is about the engineering talent and technological leapfrogging Chinese automakers have managed to achieve in an extremely short time.
It seems as Europe becomes more “diverse,” it also falls farther and farther behind in terms of industrial strength, with the automobile industry perhaps one of the most glaring examples. However, this basic claim undersells just how far European industry has fallen in comparison to China.
China, with its anti-immigration policies, has ascended into the modern age and pulled ahead in key modern industries on a scale that is unprecedented in world history. Just like many other modern Asian nations that pursue similar anti-immigration policies, instead of relying on waves of cheap foreign labor, China continues to automate and innovate around its falling population through robotics, engineering and artificial intelligence.
The future of Germany and other Western nations also appears less and less bright. A multicultural student body has led to chaos in classrooms, falling test scores, lower achievement, and conflict among students across the Western world. Meanwhile, systems like Singapore and major Chinese cities, such as Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu, and Zhejiang, consistently maintain elite scores in mathematics, reading, and science cycle after cycle of PISA testing.
That is why headlines like “Asia dominates global education. A historic decline for the West,” are par for the course.
If White European countries pursued similar policies as their Asian counterparts, these same Western news outlets that dominate the West would endlessly berate them as racists, Nazis, and xenophobes. There is some occasional sniping at the immigration policies of these Asian countries, yet this central and core policy of maintaining ethnic homogeneity is more or less ignored.
For one, these countries are not White, so mostly White journalists do not know how to approach this topic.
However, there is another reason and it is perhaps more important.
If these same journalists continuously attacked the Asian tigers on a daily basis for being racist and xenophobic — while still complaining that they are continuously more successful in terms of education, innovation, and economics — then their Western liberal audiences might begin to second-guess their own open-borders policies.
It could also be possible that Western liberal audiences are not actually as smart as they think they are, and they will forever fail to make this connection.
Nevertheless, on a fundamental level, these Asian countries represent a core threat to the open-borders vision that has been relentlessly promoted among Western countries.
The reality is the Western world is confronted daily with the failures of diversity and multiculturalism.
The other reality is that we are ruled by elites, business executives, and an ideologically captured populace that not only refuses to acknowledge this despite facts, figures, data, and real-world experience. In fact, those who point all of this out are facing persecution, censorship, and even imprisonment.
The post The big immigration lie: China increasingly dominate Germany’s automobile industry appeared first on Remix News.
Essen-based chemical group Evonik plans to cut 3,200 jobs worldwide, including 2,150 in Germany, and is looking to put new money into Asia and the United States instead.
Interim chief Claus Rettig said management, the supervisory board and employee representatives were aligned on the diagnosis. “The board of directors, supervisory board and employee representatives share a conviction: We are in a structural and economic crisis of our industry,” Rettig announced.
Two-thirds of the planned cuts fall in Germany. Evonik employed more than 31,000 people worldwide at the end of 2025, according to German news outlet Tagesschau. Existing savings and efficiency programs are already expected to remove about 2,800 jobs by the end of this year. The additional wave is scheduled through the end of 2029 and is to be carried out “in a socially responsible manner” through early retirements, severance payments and leaving vacant posts unfilled. The company says there will be no compulsory redundancies.
Growth, Rettig said, looks better outside Europe. Further investment projects are being examined in Asia and America.
Evonik also wants to sell subsidiaries Oxeno and Syneqt, which together employ more than 4,300 people.
“We speak with investors at Oxeno, but that’s not yet the case with Syneqt,” Rettig said. He added that both units are to be put up for sale.
The group is one of Germany’s largest chemical firms. Revenue in 2025 came to €14.1 billion, down 7 percent from the year before. Its portfolio covers more than 4,000 products used in pharmaceuticals, food and mechanical engineering.
The cuts sit inside a wider slump. Germany’s chemical-pharmaceutical industry remains the country’s third-largest industrial sector, with more than 476,000 employees. In May, the Munich-based ifo Institute warned that the sector’s business climate had deteriorated sharply. High energy prices, bureaucracy and the Iran war were cited as causes.
“The consequences of the hostilities in the Middle East are hitting the already struggling chemical industry with full force,” said Anna Wolf, head of the ifo Centre for Innovation Economics.
Evonik’s answer is a familiar story in German industry this year: fewer jobs at home, asset sales, and a search for cheaper growth abroad.
The post Germany: Chemical giant Evonik to cut thousands of jobs appeared first on Remix News.
In many Western NC communities devastated by Helene, volunteer organizations have helped bring relief while government funding has been slow.
Filling the gaps after Helene. Volunteer groups have stepped up across the NC mountains over last 2 years. is a story from Carolina Public Press, an award-winning independent newsroom. Our breakthrough journalism shines a light on the critical overlooked and under-reported issues facing North Carolina’s more than 11 million residents. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.
by Nicolas Hulscher, MPH – originally published on his Substack Focal Points
All links to previopus Gospa News post or videos have deen added in the aftermath by virtue of the ties with topic covered
A coalition of 168 physicians, scientists, researchers, health-freedom advocates, and public figures—collectively representing over 63 million followers across social media—has just sent an open letter to HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and President Donald Trump calling for decisive action on the mRNA platform.
The effort was coordinated by Dr. Mary Talley Bowden and includes signatories such as Dr. Peter McCullough, Louisiana Deputy Surgeon General Dr. Sean Troxclair, U.S. Rep. Thomas Massie, former U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, Tucker Carlson, and myself. The full list is at the bottom of this article.
The letter argues that current federal actions have fallen short of the health-freedom movement’s stated goals and calls for the removal of mRNA/gene-therapy-derived vaccine technologies, termination of the COVID-19 PREP Act declaration, repeal of the PREP Act, an end to pharmaceutical direct-to-consumer advertising, and reforms addressing conflicts of interest and coercive healthcare incentives.
Below is the full open letter and list of signatories:
Dear Secretary Kennedy and President Trump,
As influential leaders within the MAHA and health freedom movements, we are writing to object to policies under your oversight related to the mRNA platform, and to call you to act on our policy goals.
While the centerpiece of the MAHA and health freedom agenda has been removal of mRNA shots, you have failed to take decisive action on this front despite overwhelming credible evidence to the harm of this technology. Instead, your policies related to mRNA technology are neutered and self-defeating, putting pregnant women and children at risk, misleading parents and eroding their rights, and failing to help those harmed by vaccines.
If you continue to ignore our central issue of removing the mRNA platform, the MAHA and health freedom movements will withdraw their support of you, and you will face the political consequences.
We are writing to express deep concerns about policies emerging from HHS, the CDC, and the FDA. Specifically, we object to:
Removal of the mRNA platform from the market remains one of the central goals of the grassroots medical freedom movement.
Millions of concerned citizens set aside partisan differences and identities to support the historic MAGA/MAHA alliance. Instead of decisive policy actions on these core issues, we see distractions, linguistic misdirections, and watered-down announcements that avoid serious action on the deadly mRNA injections.
Despite the Executive Order from August 10, 2026 reducing the recommended vaccination schedule from 17 to 11 types of vaccines, it simultaneously elevates pneumococcal and HPV shots into the “universal core recommendation”.
The elevation of HPV shots to universal core recommendation is surprising given Merck just reached a $50M settlement¹ with 200 plaintiffs who alleged the Gardasil HPV vaccine caused autoimmunity. In addition, the EO promotes the unconstitutional notion of “shared” decision making between the federal government and parents with respect to the mRNA and some additional vaccines. This Orwellian language does not belong in a free society.
We do not need more data to determine whether mRNA products should be removed from the market. The data are already in from multiple credible sources, including over 4,550 peer reviewed publications, the Pfizer documents released through Aaron Siri’s lawsuits, the VAERS and V-safe datasets, and data from foreign governments.
These sources document catastrophic levels of deaths and serious injuries from the mRNA injections, as well as reproductive harm, including approximately 400% increase in miscarriage rates.
You stated that the shots were removed from the CDC recommendation for pregnant women. Yet pregnancy remains listed as a “high-risk” health category in the revised FDA policy for mRNA shots. It is especially troubling that the new versions of these injections are recommended for all pregnant women, even though this platform has never been tested and proven safe in pregnancy.
Pregnant women have not been made safer by this linguistic shift. Removing the mRNA injection from CDC recommendations for pregnant women and healthy children is meaningless when the American Academy of Pediatrics, to which the vast majority of pediatricians belong, still recommends all babies get a mRNA shot.
Further, the CDC still recommends the shots for every child except those labeled “healthy.” Those outside of this category include children with minor ailments such as an acute illness or allergies. The risks of these shots far outweigh any benefits, particularly given they now carry an FDA warning for increased risk of myocarditis and pericarditis in children.
Parental choice is not realistic when parents are not getting informed consent on the true risks of these products. CDC language appears to erode parental rights. Even for healthy children, the CDC frames the decision as one that parents must “share” with healthcare providers—including pharmacists who lack authority to treat patients. By treating the decision to inject a child with mRNA as a “shared decision,” while treating routine injections as the default, a dangerous legal precedent is being set that assigns powers to the federal government that have historically belonged solely to parents.
The CDC’s COVID shot policy claims to be evidence-based. However, no evidence has been provided—and none exists to our knowledge—showing that the categories of people labeled “vulnerable” under this policy would benefit from mRNA injections.
A formal Citizen Petition authored by Children’s Health Defense, asking to properly relabel the COVID-19 vaccines by Pfizer and Moderna as “EUA Countermeasures” is pending with HHS since December 8, 2025.
Under the PREP Act declaration for COVID emergency, the products that went on the market de novo as “EUA Countermeasures” – a non-investigational legal status – cannot be declared “safe, effective and fully approved by the FDA” without complying with the investigational pharmaceutical product requirements under the applicable federal law.
The PREP Act was extended by the Biden Administration in December 2024 and upheld by you to date to last until December 31, 2029. The COVID-19 injections never underwent legally valid investigational assessment for safety and efficacy, being subject to only emergency distribution requirements, since the PREP Act precludes use of bio-chemical compounds in clinical investigation.
This Petition gathered a record number of public comments in support of it (over 104,000). Your failure to respond to this Petition speaks louder than any placating HHS / Trump Administration messaging on vaccine schedule issues in advance of the midterm elections.
Conflating clearly established risks with an automatically assumed benefit from a product that remains a poorly regulated, liability-free EUA Countermeasure under the PREP Act emergency declaration defies both scientific reason and common sense.
We did not fight to place you in positions of leadership so that our clearly stated policy goals would suffer a “bait and switch” that rebranded the grassroots powerful objection to the damaging mRNA platform as a concern about coloring agents in Skittles.
Health freedom is not the possession of Secretary Kennedy or his advisors. Health freedom agenda arose from the voices of millions of those impacted by the harmful government policies during the pandemic.
The MAHA/health freedom vote was a historic game-changer. Neither Republicans nor the Democrats could have prevailed without this critical swing vote.
Health freedom voters can and will walk away if we continue to see inaction—or condescending non-policy—on our core issues.
If you continue to ignore the centerpiece of our policy agenda—removing all mRNA products covered by PREP Act emergency declarations entirely from the market—you will pay a political price. We will run our own candidates at the state level, and we will support other challengers and sponsors who share our values and advance our draft bills at the federal level for the midterms and for 2028.
We ask you to deliver our actual policy goals in the near term, or face the political consequences:
by Nicolas Hulscher, MPH – originally published on his Substack Focal Points
Epidemiologist and Foundation Administrator, McCullough Foundation
Support our mission: mcculloughfnd.org
Please consider following both the McCullough Foundation and my personal account on X (formerly Twitter) for further content.
The names below with a link are those for which we have written an article on Gospa News regarding vaccines.
Deborah Adams, RN
Sally Adams, DVM
Adnan Al-Daini, PhD
Arden Andersen, DO, MSPH, PhD
Lars Bo Appel, World Council for Health
Robert Apter, MD
Anthony Arnott, MD
Raphael Balbino, MD
Clayton Baker, MD, Brownstone Institute Senior Scholar, Global Wellness Forum Council
Bradley Banko, MD
Richard Bartlett, MD, Texas HHS Meritorious Service Award, Texas Health Disparities Taskforce
Nancy Benedict, RN
Laura Bevis, DNP, APRN
Kimberly Biss, MD, FACOG, Senior OBGYN Fellow for Independent Medical Alliance
Marsha Blakeslee, DO, Personaldocs LLC
Mary Talley Bowden, MD, Americans for Health Freedom, Independent Medical Alliance, VSRF
Avery B. Brinkley, Jr., MD
Mark Brody, MD
Margaret Aranda Brown, MD, PhD, CTP
Lisa Bryhn, MD
Dariusz Brzezinkski, DC
Ora Burstein, MD
David B. Collum, PhD.
Carrie S Cannon, MD, MS, CTP
Buckley Carlson
Tucker Carlson
Renee Carlson, BSN, RN (ret)
Lora Chamberlain, DO
Pete Chambers, LTC (Ret), DO
Geeta Chougule, World Council for Health
Liz Churchill, Medical Freedom Activist
Ryan Cole, MD, Head of Medical and Scientifc Affairs, Independent Medical Alliance
Esther N. Cooper, MD, Texas Medical Do No Harm Physician Activist
Jean Coyer, NP
Greta Crawford, Survivor of COVID Hospital Protocol, Founder of ProtocolKills.com
Michelle A. Cretella, MD, Past Executive Director of the American College of Pediatricians
Barbara A. Crothers, DO, FCAP, FMCP-M
John Davidson, Director, “Epidemic of Fraud”
Hannah Davis, BSN, RN
John Day, MD
Xylie Desiree, Founder, Interest of Justice
Maryanne Demasi, PhD, Investigative Journalist
Jan DeNapoli, MHS, PA (ret)
Jimmy Dore, Host of “The Jimmy Dore Show”
Jeff Dornik, CEO Pickax
William Campbell Douglass III, MD, MS – DutyToDissent.Substack.com
Edward Dowd, Phinance Technologies
Henry Ealy, Energetic Health Institute
Richard Edgerly, MD
Charles Fall, Green Liberty Caucus
Brian Festa, Esq.
Harry Fisher, EMT, Medical Freedom Activist
Catherine Austin Fitts, The Solari Report
Christina Flaming, CRNA, DNAP
Jon Fleetwood, Investigative Journalist
Kim D. Folse, DC
Tracy Forker, RN
Jeremy Friedman, Esq.
Lynn Fynn, MD, Global COVID Summit, Independent Medical Alliance
Suzanne Gazda, MD
Eleftherios Gkioulekas, PhD, Professor
Simon Goddek, PhD
Russ Gonnering, MD, MMM, FACS, CPHQ(ret)
Dana H. Granberg-Nill, MD, COO Goldcare.com
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Former U.S. Representative – GA
Erin Greer, MD
Arthur Grinstead, MD
Joseph Guarino, MD, Piedmont Occupational and Urgent Care
Meredith Harwell, DC
Sierra Hamm, RN, BSN, World Council for Health
Dan Hartman, Father of COVID vaccine victim Sean Hartman
Thomas F. Haviland, 2022-2025 “Worldwide Embalmer Blood Clot Survey”
Mary Helms, Health Freedom Advocate
Margaret Hertel, Naturalist
Eric Hensen, DO
Jennifer Hibberd, DDS, FRCDC, Global COVID Summit
Trisha Hope, National Delegate, Texas
Lyndsey Nicole House, RN
Nicolas Hulscher, MPH, Epidemiologist, McCullough Foundation
John Humiston, MD
Stella Immanuel, MD, Faith and Freedom
Ehsan Joader, Medical Freedom Advocate
Daniel Jones, APRN, FNP-C
Jack Jasper, The Paradox Press
Bobbie Jo Jenkins, RN
Sayer Ji, Founder Restore the 1st and Greenmedinfo, Chairman Global Wellness Forum
Shannon Joy, The Shannon Joy Show
Laura Kasner, “Worldwide Embalmer Blood Clot Survey”
Tamra Kelly, MSN, CRNA, APRN
Sandy Kim, MD
Stacy Kiraly-Duran, RPh
Steven Kirsch, Founder, Vaccine Safety Research Foundation
Deanna Kline, AGNP-C, MSN, RN, Author, Substack NPTru4u
Jack Kruse, MD, Kruse Longevity Centers, Inc
Brian Kung, MD
Karl Lambert, ARNP
Seth Landry, FNP
Sasha Latypova, Independent Investigator and Writer, “Due Diligence and Art”
Tess Lawrie, PhD, Founder, World Council for Health
Levi Leatherberry, National Organizer for Medical Freedom
Lionel Lee, DO, FACOEP
Susan Lee, MD
Debbie Lerman, The Brownstone Institute
Maria Liljeblad, World Council for Health
Katarina Lindley, DO FACOFP, Americans for Health Freedom, Independent Medical Alliance
John Littell, MD
Lisa Lopes, World Council for Health
Donna Lowery, RN
Aseem Malhotra, MD
Robert Malone, MD, MS, pioneer of mRNA technology
Jill G. Malone, PhD
Leslie Manookian, Founder/President, Health Freedom Defense Fund
Ben Marble, MD, Nobel Peace Prize Nominee
Allen Martin, Parent of COVID vaccine victim Trista Martin
Taylor Martin, Parent of COVID vaccine victim Trista Martin
Thomas Massie, U.S. Representative – KY
Jonathan Maxham, DO
Kevin McCairn, PhD, Synpatek Labs
Culpepper McCuller, MD, Informed Health Initiative
Peter McCullough, MD, President, McCullough Foundation
Shane Mekeland, Rep., MN (R) District 27A
Reni Moon, MD
Kirk Moore, MD, Ex-Defendant, Freedom Surgical and Aesthetics
Cindy L. Morris, MD, World Council for Health
David Nelson, PhD
MyHuong Nguyễn, MD
Hanna Parikka, MSc, Biotechnology
Gayln Perry, MD
Ivan Raiklin, Esq., Green Beret Lieutenant Colonel (ret)
Tom Renz, Esq.
Charles Rixey, MA, MBA, Edogawa Hospital & D.R.A.S.T.I.C.
Brian Roberts, Americans for Health Freedom
Jessica Rose, The Brownstone Institute
Jeanne A. Rungby, MD, World Council for Health
Molly Rutherford, MD, Americans for Health Freedom
Erica Samp, Vaccine-injured mother from Iowa with Federal lawsuit pending
Andy Schmitt, The Paradox Press
Carl Scott, PhD, Professor, Author, Dissident Conservative Substack
Cynthia Shoemake, RN
Michelle Simpson, RN
Brad Skistimas, Five Times August
Patrick Slater, MD, Austin Ear Clinic
Laurel Starr, MD
Daniel Stock, MD, Senior Fellow, Independent Medical Alliance
Mary Kelly Sutton, MD
Edward Szall, CEO, TLM Global, Producer, Died Suddenly
James Thorp, MD, ObGYN – Maternal Fetal Medicine
Mark Trozzi, MD, World Council for Health
Sean Troxclair, MD, Deputy Surgeon General of Louisiana
Tamella Trulson, MD
Jeffrey Tucker, The Brownstone Institute
Dan Twelmeyer, Medical Freedom Activist, Iowa
Suzanne Vandenhul, MD
Kenneth G. Varley, MD, FRCPC, BSc, MSc, MBA
Rajeev Varma, MD
Joe Varon, MD, President and CMO, Independent Medical Alliance
David Vella, MD, CovidAccountabilityNow.org
Denise Verni, PA
Kelly Victory, MD, President, Victory Health
Joel Wallskog, MD, Co-Chair React19
Bret Weinstein, PhD
Sheri Weinstein, MD, Founder, Health and Freedom Forum
Marcus Wheeler, MD
Lauren Witzke
Gizela Wolan-Szymanski, RN
Katherine Zbodula, NP
Andrew Zywiec, MD, Co-founder, CEO Ekklesia Research Group
This article was originally published by Truthout on Sept. 21, 2026. It is shared here under a Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) license.
A coalition of Democratic states and Paramount reached a settlement in a lawsuit against its proposed $111 billion merger with Warner Bros. Discovery on Monday, paving the way for one of the largest media mergers in history — and a massive consolidation of power over a huge swath of the entertainment and news industries under the conservative billionaire Ellison family.
The antitrust lawsuit was the last major obstacle for the deal, which has already been blessed by the Trump administration. Attorneys general from 12 states had sued to block the merger, which leading California Attorney General Rob Bonta had called “unlawful,” amid a flurry of antitrust concerns from prominent Hollywood figures and press freedom groups. The Writers Guild of America’s (WGA) lawsuit against the merger was also settled on Monday, with the union saying that its members could not afford to continue the legal battle on their own.
The merger will grant widespread power to a company that would effectively control CNN; CBS News; and, in all, roughly 30 percent of wide-release theatrical film distribution and basic cable channel licensing. It amounts to roughly 20 percent of Americans’ television watching time — all conglomerated under the leadership of Paramount Skydance CEO David Ellison. David Ellison is a major ally to Trump and son of Oracle CEO Larry Ellison, who has personally donated millions to Israel’s military; Paramount had once dubiously suggested that opposition to the merger was a result of antisemitism.
David Ellison, who thanked California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) in his statement celebrating the deal, has said that the merger is expected to go through in two weeks. Pro-Israel David Zaslav, the president of Warner Brothers Discovery — an entity that’s a conglomerate on its own, formed as a result of several other contentious mergers — is slated to receive $660 million from the merger, which would likely make him a billionaire.
Under the settlement, the newly formed megacorporation will be obligated to comply with several provisions, including the theatrical release of 30 films a year (something Paramount already independently pledged to do last year); a requirement for separate negotiations for cable channel distribution; management of two historic production lots; and an apparent commitment to domestic filmmaking.
The deal also includes a supposed commitment to a “News Editorial Independence Board” for the management of CNN and CBS, which will comprise of former or current journalists who are hand-picked by the conglomerate’s board of directors. News analysts and advocates have already cast doubt on the idea that the board will be effective, however, as past efforts to form similar such structures have failed.
David Ellison has already demonstrated a willingness to steer the news toward the right wing in his appointment of right-wing media figure Bari Weiss as CBS’s editor-in-chief last year. Meanwhile, press freedom advocates on Monday also urged David Ellison to oppose Trump’s recent ban on CNN in the press pool, noting his silence on the issue despite his stated commitments to press freedom.
Some of the world’s most repressive regimes will have a say at the company, too. The settlement comes just days after the Federal Communications Commission approved Paramount Skydance’s plan to allow the sovereign wealth funds of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates to have a 49.5 percent equity stake in the newly merged company.
The deal immediately faced a deluge of criticism after it was announced on Monday, with critics saying that it will have “devastating” results for the nation’s media landscape and press freedom at a time of massive repression under the Trump administration.
“Today, billionaires have yet again bribed, censored, and bullied their way to the top,” said Alvaro Bedoya, a senior advisor for the American Economic Liberties Project. “As a result, a billionaire media conglomerate closely allied with the president will soon own one of its closest rivals, including some of the nation’s most critical news outlets.”
Over 5,000 filmmakers, documentarians, and other movie and television professionals signed a letter in April stating their opposition, including prominent directors and actors, under the umbrella of a group called the Block the Merger coalition. The coalition said that their members “vehemently oppose” the agreement on Monday.
“This is a bad deal for the future of film, entertainment, independent journalism, and a strong democracy in this country,” the group said. “We are disappointed and angry that the interests of average Americans have been trampled to benefit oligarch billionaires.”
The settlement comes despite experts saying that the states had a chance at blocking the merger, having secured a pause by a judge earlier this year.
“The Paramount/Warner Brothers merger seems facially illegal,” said Lina Khan, former Federal Trade Commission chair and leading antitrust expert, in a statement on Sunday. Khan noted that the lawsuit against it was strong, meaning it had a chance of succeeding.
However, she said, “[i]t’s troubling to hear that the states may now settle for behavioral remedies, allowing the deal to go through subject to various promises from the firms. Behavioral remedies routinely fail, and the stakes here are particularly high given that a strong democracy requires open markets for sound journalism and creative expression.”
by Fabio Giuseppe Carlo Carisio
UPDATE ON OCTOBER, 2, 2026
«A mysterious breakup of a decades-old American spy satellite has sent debris hurtling through low-Earth orbit, with the U.S. Space Force now tracking the fragments for potential threats to other spacecraft, according to Space-Track» the famous American Journalist Tyler Durden has reported yesterday under the title “Mystery Shrouds Destruction Of US Spy Satellite” relaunching a huge fake news….
On September 21st, we published an investigation to clear up the mystery surrounding the alleged explosion of the American spy satellite USA-32 (NORAD 19460).
We did so by publishing orbital radar tracking data showing the satellite was still fully operational, noting that the shedding of minor debris is a normal occurrence for a satellite.
Since our site is banned by Google and many other mainstream outlets, the story did not receive the coverage it deserved; now, the self-styled investigative journalist Tyler Durden is reviving the report—just as many American and Italian sites have done—basing it solely on a false confirmation from Google Gemini AI derived from completely unverified social media posts.
For this reason, we deem it necessary to publish another video from a satellite-tracking site, ALLMYSAT.COM; it shows the satellite—which various articles claimed had exploded—passing over the UK and Spain, and finally reaching Morocco, starting at 16:34 (Italian time, GMT+2) today.
The shedding of debris, as highlighted in our investigation below, is a fairly routine occurrence for a satellite.
However, it is a very different matter from an explosion. We regret that, nearly ten days after our detailed investigation, journalist Tyler Durden has also shown himself to be a believer in fake news…
NB The primary source of the news was not the Spake.Tracker site cited by Durden but—as we highlighted in our investigation—the experimental TRACSS site affiliated with the US Department of Commerce; the report on the explosion we documented via screenshots can no longer be found there, as the inevitable cover-up of a blatant lie has taken place.
ARTICLE POSTED ON SEPTEMBER, 21. 2026
The explosion of the largest American spy satellite in space ought to be breaking news for many international newspapers, even in this era of censorship regarding events involving Western governments—and the US government in particular.
Instead, news of the fragmentation of USA-32 has been circulating on various social media platforms for days, bouncing from one to another, without any official confirmation…
True to our practice, we launched an in-depth investigation to verify the facts and uncovered a bafflingly contradictory mystery…
The TRACSS website—a pilot project of the Office of US Department of Commerce—issued a “Break-Up Notification” stating the following:
“U.S. Space Forces–Space (S4S) confirms the fragmentation of USA 32 (#19460) in LEO on 13 Sep 2026 (JDay 256) at approximately 2113 UTC. All tracked debris are being incorporated into routine conjunction assessment screenings to support spaceflight safety. No immediate threats have been identified; further analysis is ongoing.”
USA 32 (NORAD 19460) is a satellite launched Sep 5, 1988 by NRO of US. It operates in LEO, CIRCULAR, POLAR orbit with a mass of 1450.00 kg. The NRO – National Reconnaissance Office makes the world a better, safer, stronger place and ensures America remains the undisputed leader in space.
However, the Orbital Radar website, which provides real-time satellite positioning, continues to track the movements of USA-32 (#19460), showing it as active.
While the details mention occasional debris shedding, there is no reference to an explosion or a resulting cessation of operations.
«USA 32 orbits at an average altitude of 777 km in the mid-LEO band, where atmospheric drag is minimal but radiation exposure remains manageable. Objects at this altitude persist for decades to centuries, making debris mitigation critical» we can read in the website among many other information.
Who is right? It is almost impossible to say with absolute certainty, for now…
But let’s try to unravel the mystery by delving into every detail.
In the last few hours, even Italian website “Sorvegliati Speciali” aka “Space Sentinels”—a project launched in Italy in 2019 by INAF (National Institute for Astrophysics) using PNRR funding—reported the story.
«”Space Sentinel” (Sorvegliati Spaziali)—”Understanding Space to Protect the Planet”—is a public outreach project by the National Institute for Astrophysics (INAF) dedicated to Planetary Defense. This term encompasses the study of celestial events that could affect Earth’s environment—such as potential asteroid and comet impacts during close approaches, meteors, and meteorite impacts—as well as the necessary prevention or mitigation measures» explained the website.
We can read in this website (obviously in Italian…)
USA 32, launched in 1988 to intercept Soviet radar signals, has generated a cloud of debris in a highly congested region of Earth’s orbit. The cause remains unknown. This incident highlights the importance of “passivating” satellites at the end of their operational lives.
An aging U.S. spy satellite broke apart after spending 38 years in orbit around Earth. U.S. Space Forces–Space confirmed that the event involved USA 32—identified as object number 19460 in the NORAD catalog, the system used to track artificial objects in orbit under the North American Aerospace Defense Command. The breakup occurred on September 13, 2026, at approximately 21:13 UTC (23:13 Italian time).
The fragmentation took place in low Earth orbit, at an altitude of about 775 kilometers. The identified fragments are being progressively added to the systems used to assess potential close encounters with operational satellites. A definitive fragment count has not yet been released, and the cause of the event remains unknown.
They essentially republished the conttents of a Reddit post that is circulating globally and has even been validated by Google’s AI—confirming that Artificial Intelligence is not yet intelligent enough to perform fact-checking…
SpaceWeather.com is cited as the source of the news, yet no information regarding the incident appears on that site. Other sites, however, cite Space-Track.org, which in turn points to TRACSS.
We can read in this alleged US Governement project:
NOAA’s Office of Space Commerce (OSC) is developing the Traffic Coordination System for Space (TraCSS) to provide basic space situational awareness (SSA) data and services to civil and private space operators in support of spaceflight safety.
And more:
TraCSS is being developed to implement President Trump’s direction in Space Policy Directive 3 for the Department of Commerce to provide space operators with space traffic safety data and services.
But at the top of the site, right before the breaking news about the exploded American satellite, it reads:
TraCSS is currently in a pilot phase. Data and products are intended to be used for evaluation purposes only at this time.
The suspicion is that this is actually an experiment to monitor media reactions to the site.
Consequently, one might be led to believe that Orbital Radar is more reliable and that USA-32 never exploded.
However, for the sake of completeness, we include below a video on the topic and a link to an article published on *VT UnCensored Foreign Policy* by a space and science fiction enthusiast.
Fabio Giuseppe Carlo Carisio – founder and director of Gospa News
VIDEO SOURCE: 7even via social YouTube
On September 13, the U.S. Space Force detected the unexpected breakup of USA-32, a nearly 38-year-old satellite orbiting about 775 kilometers above Earth. Originally launched in 1988 for a highly classified Cold War mission, USA-32 was designed to monitor Soviet radar systems and remained largely hidden from public view for decades.
ALL SOURCES
Property owner describes Cherokee cultural artifacts and possibly burials. TVA plans transmission line there as data center drives demand.
Power-grid needs come up against cultural history claims in Cherokee County is a story from Carolina Public Press, an award-winning independent newsroom. Our breakthrough journalism shines a light on the critical overlooked and under-reported issues facing North Carolina’s more than 11 million residents. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.
Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor find themselves at the center of a political clash involving the Israeli Prime Minister, two government ministers, and top intelligence officials. The catalyst is *Naza*, the documentary they presented at the 83rd Venice International Film Festival—a film that, in just a few days, transformed them from acclaimed filmmakers into targets of accusations of treason.
After declaring he would seek to revoke their Israeli citizenship, Israeli Culture Minister Miki Zohar made a fresh appeal to Shin Bet chief David Zini, urging him to investigate how various materials were obtained. The film features testimony from 24 anonymous Israeli intelligence soldiers denouncing the techniques used by the Israeli military to kill civilians in Gaza.
Israel has rejected the film’s content, reiterating that it makes every effort to avoid civilian casualties despite many previous UN reports on war crimes and genoicide.
DEVIL NETANYAHU’s HOLOCAUST. Explosive UN findings: “Israel DELIBERATELY TARGETED Gaza CHILDREN”
In a letter to Zini, Zohar asks the agency to investigate whether there was any illegal use of sensitive or classified information.
“When anonymous sources are used to spread serious, false accusations against the State of Israel and the IDF during wartime, it is imperative to establish who is behind these allegations,” Zohar stated. “I have asked the head of the Shin Bet to investigate the source of the material, who provided it, and whether hostile elements were involved,” the minister added.
Following the political controversy, various Zionist extremists gathered in a threatening manner outside the filmmaker’s parents’ home.
Immediately after the documentary film was presented in Venice, Culture Minister Miki Zohar called the film “vile” and announced plans to “act immediately” to revoke the Israeli citizenship of Abraham and Szor.
He accused them of “treason against the State” and of a “self-loathing” that drives them to harm their own homeland in order to garner applause from “antisemites around the world.” Zohar stated that he had contacted senior officials at the Ministry of the Interior and the Population Authority to evaluate revoking their citizenship on the grounds of a breach of loyalty to the country.
Joining the chorus of accusations were Army Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir—who claimed the film relied on “blood libels and deliberate distortions of reality”—and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, who called on the pair to leave the country.
Finally, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu linked the case to broader “antisemitic incitement” and lashed out at opposition political forces.
The Israeli military largely rejected the documentary’s content, maintaining that it could not verify the identities or military roles of the anonymous sources and reiterating that it does everything possible to avoid civilian casualties.
IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir on Monday instructed the military’s top legal official to examine legal action against the film “NAZA” and those involved in it, saying it defamed the military, and separately ordered an investigation into the leaking of classified material used in its production.
His comments came shortly after IDF Spokesperson Brig. Gen. Effie Defrin issued a statement inviting the documentary’s filmmakers to allow military officials to view the film in full so that the IDF could respond in a “substantive manner.” So far, the military has only reacted to clips of the movie posted online, and has not yet seen the full documentary.
The 80-minute film by Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor — whose title is a Hebrew acronym meaning collateral damage — claims to explore AI-powered strikes by Israel in the Gaza Strip it alleges have led to civilian deaths, including testimonies from 24 purported Israeli intelligence soldiers.
In the days following the award, Yuval Abraham recounted deleting his social media profiles after being inundated with offensive photomontages targeting both him and his mother; he openly admitted his fear: “Israel is my home… but now, obviously, I am afraid I won’t be able to return.” Abraham had also rejected the idea of positioning himself as a voice of moral superiority, explaining that, as Israelis, they all feel—to some extent—co-responsible for what occurred in Gaza.
The process of stripping Abraham and Szor of their Israeli citizenship—which they hold by birth—is neither swift nor within the sole authority of the Minister of Culture, who lacks the legal power to order it.
Under Israeli law, citizenship can only be revoked in limited cases involving a proven “breach of loyalty” to the State—as established by a 2022 Supreme Court ruling. The procedure requires the Minister of the Interior to submit a request to the Minister of Justice, followed by final approval from a panel of judges. It is, therefore, a lengthy and uncertain process—one that has never before been applied to a case involving journalism or filmmaking.
A more immediate prospect, at least from an investigative standpoint, is Zohar’s request for the Shin Bet to investigate the origins of the material used in the film.
Such an inquiry could lead to investigations into potential offenses related to the disclosure of classified information, carrying criminal consequences not only for the filmmakers but also for the military sources who collaborated anonymously.
Compounding this is the immediate concern for the two creators’ personal safety—a fear fueled by past incidents, such as the assault on Hamdan Ballal following the Oscar win for *No Other Land*.
RELATED POSTS
Diesel prices have climbed to record or multiyear highs in several European countries this week, squeezing truckers, farmers and households already strained by months of elevated energy costs tied to the Middle East conflict, the war in Ukraine, and tight global fuel supplies.
Germany posted a new all-time high of €2.471 per liter on Wednesday, according to the ADAC motoring club, as reported by German news outlet t-online. This price has left motorists paying about €0.71 more per liter than before the war began. Gasoline prices also set a nationwide record.
Alternative for Germany (AfD) politicians are going on the offensive.
“Fuel price: Merz government is done for! Incredible €2.55 per liter for diesel and €2.34 for super here at the gas station. In Germany, the highest taxes on fuel are paid. Two days ago, I filled up for €176.00 and my car wasn’t even full,” wrote German MP Dr. Ingo Hahn.
Spritpreis: Merz-Regierung hat fertig!
— MdB Prof. Dr. Ingo Hahn AfD (@IngoHahnAfD) September 18, 2026
Unglaubliche 2,55 € für den Liter #Diesel und 2,34 € für SUPER hier an der #Tankstelle. In Deutschland werden die höchsten Steuern auf den #Sprit bezahlt. Vor zwei Tagen hatte ich für 176,00 € getankt und mein Auto war nicht voll. pic.twitter.com/fgHfK1CMy0
Finland led the European Union at €2.505 per liter in the latest official weekly data, followed closely by Denmark at €2.502 and the Netherlands at €2.494. The EU-wide average stood at €2.075 per liter as of mid-September.
Some individual stations in Germany, France and Italy have even approached or exceeded €2.90 per liter. The weighted average across eight major markets reached €2.172 per liter on Thursday.
One AfD politician, Martin Hess, even highlighted one gas station where prices reached €3.00 per liter for the first time.
Erstmals kostete Diesel gestern an einer Tankstelle im Kreis Göppingen (Baden-Württemberg) über 3 Euro pro Liter, Super 2,859 Euro.
— Martin Hess (@Martin_Hess_MdB) September 17, 2026
Und was macht Merz? Kurz vor den Wahlen in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern und Berlin kündigt er Entlastungen an, statt endlich zu handeln. Die Bürger… pic.twitter.com/fSgtbHB2qk
Physical wholesale diesel prices in northwest Europe and the Mediterranean hit record or near-record levels earlier this week before easing slightly.
The surge in energy costs stems from disruptions to shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, along with advances by Houthi forces in Yemen, Russia’s extended ban on diesel exports, depleted inventories, high refining margins, and seasonal demand. With winter heating season fast approaching, experts warn the energy crisis could worsen.
“Supply disruptions, depleted inventories and strong refining margins highlight an increasingly severe shortage of middle distillates,” Ole Hansen, head of commodity strategy at Saxo, wrote in a note Sept. 16.
Crude prices have remained elevated above $100 a barrel, but the price of refined diesel has risen at a much faster rate compared to crude barrels, which is also the case across the Atlantic in the United States.
Electricity wholesale prices vary widely across Europe. Italy has seen day-ahead prices well above €200 per megawatt-hour in some zones, while Nordic markets have managed to remain much lower.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen told the European Parliament on Wednesday that the Hormuz crisis has added €90 billion to the EU’s fossil-fuel import bill since the conflict started “without a single molecule of energy added.”
She urged faster investment in grids, storage and clean power, saying Europe cannot remain an industrial powerhouse with structurally high energy prices.
“Let’s make Europe’s future electric,” she said, calling for electricity’s share of energy consumption to double by 2040.
The Commission’s AccelerateEU package, launched in April, emphasizes closer coordination on gas storage filling and possible oil stock releases, a new Fuel Observatory to track supplies, and a temporary state-aid framework (METSAF) running through Dec. 31 for agriculture, fisheries, transport and energy-intensive industries.
Member states are encouraged to use targeted, time-limited tools such as income support, energy vouchers, social tariffs and lower electricity taxes for vulnerable households rather than broad fossil-fuel subsidies.
Meanwhile, EU governments are scrambling to contain the crisis.
German Economy Minister Katherina Reiche proposed a temporary cut in fuel VAT from 19 percent to 7 percent, saying it “could address the burden where it is felt directly: at the gas pump and it would take effect immediately.”
Chancellor Friedrich Merz has pledged action against “price gouging” but has not announced specific actions. German Finance Minister Lars Klingbeil and other officials pressed on Friday for discussion of windfall taxes on energy companies, arguing these companies are “exploiting the situation.”
EU Economic Commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis said Brussels has no current plan for an EU-wide levy and that taxation remains a national competence.
Industry groups warn that high diesel costs are raising freight rates and threatening competitiveness, particularly for road transport, which remains heavily dependent on the fuel.
EU and national officials say winter gas storage is on track and there is no immediate supply emergency, but they acknowledge prices will stay elevated until geopolitical risks ease and more homegrown clean energy comes online.
The post Diesel price explodes to record highs across Europe appeared first on Remix News.
“The European Union has decided that the textile and clothing sectors must become circular. But there is a gap – one that no one has yet measured – between the strategy set out in Brussels and the factory that has to implement it, and it is this gap that will determine whether or not the European textile and clothing industry will survive its own transition,” writes César Araújo, President of ANIVEC, the Portuguese Association of Clothing, Apparel and Fashion Industries, and Chair of the Executive Committee of the Lusitano Project Consortium.
The textile and clothing sectors are by no means minor players in the European industrial landscape. We are talking about a turnover of around 166 billion euros, nearly 1.2 million jobs and almost 200,000 companies – the overwhelming majority of which are micro, small and medium-sized enterprises. We are talking about an industrial sector which, according to the latest figures from EURATEX (the European confederation for the sector, of which ANIVEC is a member), exports €61 billion worth of goods and, in 2024 alone, invested a total of €5.3 billion in tangible assets.
This is an industry that has demonstrated truly exemplary resilience within the European Single Market, operating in a highly competitive and profoundly unequal environment; one that is open to all manner of external sources, whose requirements are applied relentlessly to domestic producers, but which, in practice, operates without any form of effective control or trade safeguards vis-à-vis external producers.
Without first rectifying the unfairness in the European Single Market, new requirements are now being imposed on the European textile and clothing industry, requiring it to absorb, simultaneously and within a short space of time, new eco-design rules, the introduction of the digital product passport and extended producer responsibility, amongst countless other demands.
The decision to move towards a circular economy is not in question. Indeed, this is probably the only way forward for an industry that Europe should wish to retain within its borders. The problem lies in the way this future is being shaped: with rules devised exclusively from the top down, aimed at a sector that continues to compete on a daily basis under conditions that no one else would tolerate. We are, moreover, well aware of the measures, support and initiatives from which the European automotive industry has benefited, precisely because it is now experiencing what the textile and clothing sectors have been facing for decades.
Let’s look at what happened a few weeks ago in Paris, on the fringes of Première Vision. The European textile and fashion federations have once again joined forces to denounce the competitive imbalance caused by fast fashion. The abolition of the customs exemption for low-value parcels and the introduction of a transitional customs duty of 3 euros were a first step. But that is just that: a first step. Now, the federations are calling for a more ambitious European handling fee, closer to 10 euros, capable of reflecting the real cost of customs control, market surveillance and the safety of the millions of products entering the EU every day. We continue to demand of compliant European brands what we do not demand of those who flood our market from outside. What is being called for is not protectionism; it is simply reciprocity.
That is why circularity cannot be treated as a mere exercise in documentary compliance. A factory that already complies with strict European environmental and social standards, operates under recognised certifications and ensures traceable supply chains, should embark on this transition with a real advantage. But this advantage will only translate into competitiveness if the EU is able to distinguish it – and reward it – from production that disregards circularity criteria and, consequently, does not internalise these costs in the final price of the product.
We have long known what needs to be done to ensure that, by 2030, we have sustainable and circular textiles and clothing in the EU. European industry is the right partner to drive the value chain forward, ensuring that products placed on the market are genuinely durable, repairable and recyclable; made largely from recycled fibres; free from hazardous substances; and produced with full respect for social rights.
However, whilst we must ensure fairness within the Single Market, the key question that remains to be answered in order to realise the 2030 vision is not a conceptual one, but a strictly operational one. Who collects? Who sorts? Who recycles? Who pays and on what scale? What is needed for textile recycling to move beyond the pilot project stage and truly become an industry?
It is to answer these questions, backed by data and practical experience, that ANIVEC, CENIT and the Lusitano Project are organising a meeting at the European Parliament in Brussels on 30 September. Under the patronage of MEPs Paulo Cunha (PT/EPP) and Bruno Gonçalves (PT/S&D) and under the theme “Making circular textiles work in Europe: Transparency, Recycling and Industrial Competitiveness” (https://shorturl.at/r8Ml4), the aim is clear: to bring together European institutions, industry and organisations that are already implementing circular solutions on the ground – with practical experience in extended producer responsibility and recycling – to discuss what is actually needed for textile circularity to work on a European scale.
At the end of the day, the question is not whether the European textile and clothing industry wants to be circular. The answer to that question is given in the affirmative, every single day, by our companies. The question on the table is whether Brussels wants to rely on the European textile and clothing industry as its chosen partner to make this circularity a reality within the European Single Market. To this end, it is imperative to ensure the industrial and commercial conditions that make circularity genuinely competitive. If the response continues to be regulation without reciprocity, we run the very real risk of being left with only the world’s most stringent standards whilst exporting whatever production we have left.
The starting date for the mandatory payment of rent exclusively through a bank account has been postponed until July 1, 2027, following a decision signed by the governor of the Independent Authority for Public Revenue (AADE), Giorgos Pitsilis. According to an AADE announcement on Thursday, the extension was considered necessary in order to complete a […]
The post Mandatory rent payment through bank account postponed to summer 2027 appeared first on Keep Talking Greece.
On Wednesday (16 September) Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney had a good day at the EU Parliament in Strasbourg. Commission President Ursula von der Leyen indicated that she would like to work with Mr Carney “on opening the door for Canada to be the first associate member of the European Union", writes Dick Roche.
Prime Minister Carney was given a standing ovation by the Parliament’s Members. While it is not clear what ‘associate EU Membership’ means, the offer from the Commission President and the welcome by MEPs was a plus, of sorts, for Mr Carney in his battle with President Trump.
The relationship between Prime Minister Carney and President Trump was always destined to be a bumpy one. Days before President Trump was sworn in for his second term Justin Trudeau stepped down as Prime Minister of Canada. As Trudeau was leaving office the president-elect repeated comments that he had made during the 2024 US elections about Canada becoming the 51st US State.
On 1 February 2025, as the contest to replace Mr Trudeau as the Liberal Party leader was getting underway President Trump, announced a 25% tariff on imports from Canada, Mexico and Canada: Canadian energy exports were subject to a 10% tariff. Trump explained the tariffs were intended to address the emergency related to fentanyl trafficking and illegal immigration.
Nine days later Trump announced a blanket 25% tariff on all imported steel and aluminium to “protect US industry and national security.” This hit Canada the biggest foreign supplier of steel and aluminium into the US market badly.
The pain for Canada did not stop there, on 26th March Trump announced his 25% tariff on all automobile imports into the US. Again, another bad hit on - most Canadian vehicle production is destined for the US market. The impact on Canadian auto producers was somewhat ameliorated by the fact that the tariff applied only to non-US content vehicle imports from Canada.
The stream of tariff announcements from the US while hurting Canada played to Mark Carney’s advantage in the race for leadership of Canada’s Liberal Party. While a "political ingénue" never having held political office or been a Member of a Member of Canada’s Parliament Mr Carney brought deep economic experience to the contest. He won almost 87% of the votes cast in the leadership election.
Mr Carney was sworn in as Prime Minister of Canada on 14th March 2025 - seven weeks into President Trump’s second term. Six weeks after his swearing in Mark Carney was elected to the Canadian House of Commons in the General Election of 28th April 2025.
From the outset Prime Minister Mark Carney invested considerable effort in improving relations with President Trump. The two leaders met in the White House on 6th May. The meeting, reportedly, went well.
Asked at the press briefing after the meeting about Trump’s suggestions that Canada should become the 51st US state, Carney responded humorously. He recalled that during the recent elections he had met the owners of Canada. They were not he said interested in ‘selling the property’, something that Mr Trump as a property man would understand. Smiling President Trump responded ‘never say never.’
At the G7 meeting held in Kananaskis, Alberta, in June President Trump and Mr Carney had another cordial meeting.
The cordiality did not last long. At the end of June the first payments on Canada’s Digital Services Tax (DST) were due to be made. The DST legislation enacted during the Trudeau Government, hit US tech companies causing fury in the White House. Trump called the tax a "direct and blatant attack on our country" and announced all trade talks with Canada would cease immediately.
Within days Carney announced that his administration would rescind the DST and halt the collection of the tax to advance negotiations with the US.
There was another flashpoint in January when President Trump reacted to reports that Canada and China were pursuing a comprehensive free trade deal. Prime Minister Carney defused the situation by explaining the talks with China were focused on adjusting existing arrangements.
While Carney faced criticism for ‘climbing down’ on the DST issue and for being too eager to placate the White House on China, his approach got US-Canada trade talks back underway.
By August 2025 there was some optimism that a breakthrough trade talks was close. On August 18th President Trump announced that a tentative understanding had been reached and as a result he was prepared to push back on the late August deadline for US tariff increases.
The talks came to an abrupt halt three days later when Carney instructed Canada’s negotiating team to return to Ottawa.
That decision came as a surprise. Walking away risked incurring the wrath of President Trump. That was a risk that the Canadian PM had clearly calibrated.
When the US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer sought to blame Canada for the breakdown Carney responded that it was the US United States that made last-minute demands which Canada considered unacceptable, including efforts to introduce provisions that would impact Canada's trade autonomy and sovereignty.
President Trump reacted immediately to Canada’s decision. Using a section of the Tariff Act 1930 that had never been used previously Trump imposed 50% tariffs across US$20 billion worth of Canadian products exported to the US.
Carney announced that Canada would hit US exports to Canada with “dollar for dollar” retaliatory measures. These would come into effect immediately after Labour Day 7th September –the day when the starting gun for US mid-term elections is ‘fired’ to get into full swing.
Asked at the press conference whether Canada was starting a trade war with the United States, Mr. Carney responded: “you’re at war when you get attacked—we got attacked.”
In a televised address, Carney acknowledged that the steps he was taking would come at a cost but argued that U.S. actions had left him with little alternative. He characterized the measures being taken by the United States as an attempt to hurt and divide Canadians. That, he suggested, was a miscalculation. Rather than weakening Canada, U.S. pressure would, he said, bring Canadians closer together.
All of indications suggest that Prime Minister Carney was correct in his assessment.
The leader of the Conservative Party Canada, Pierre Poilievre who previously accused Carney of being too willing to concede to Trump, strongly supported the decision to walk away from those trade talks.
Mr Poilievre was not alone, with one exception the Premiers of Canadian Provinces publicly supported Prime Minister Carney’s stance.
The Premier of Ontario Canada’s most populous province, Doug Ford, an open critic of the US President, encouraged PM Carney to respond to Trump “tariff for tariff, dollar for dollar.”
The Quebec Premier, Christine Fréchette, was particularly supportive of Carney’s refusal to make concessions to Trump on Quebec’s cultural protections.
Other Premiers have encouraged Carney to “fight back,” praised “team Canada,” criticised US tariff threats as unjustified, promised “full support,” and urged that Canada not accept a ‘subordinate economic relationship’ to the US.
The Premier of Alberta where a referendum on a range of questions including Alberta’s future within Canada is to be held on 19th October was the lone outrider, cautioning against celebrating retaliatory tariffs and expressed the hope that negotiations be resumed.
Public support in Canada for the position taken by Carney has been positive. Reuters referred to the tariff dispute encouraging a ‘rally around Canada’ effect that will likely dampen support for Alberta separation from Canada.
Ten days after the Canadian negotiating team abandoned the trade talks in Washington Carney’s Liberal Party received a very tangible indication of voter support when it won three by-elections for seats in the Canadian House of Commons including a seat in Quebec that had previously been held by a Conservative Party Member.
Opinion polls since the Canadian team walked away from the negotiations also show strong support for the position taken the Carney government.
An Ipsos poll taken on August 26-27 indicates support across party lines for Canada standing up to the US - even if it resulted in higher costs and job losses: 63% of those surveyed felt Canada was right to stand firm in the negotiations. Just 18 per cent said Canada should have made additional sacrifices to get a deal.
An Angus Reid Institute poll taken on 22 and 23 August immediately after the talks were ended found that 76% supported the line taken by the Canadian government.
A third poll by Abacus Data one of Canada’s most cited polling firms found that 60% approved of how the Carney government had handled the dispute while 18% disapproved.
In the US, unsurprisingly, positions on the trade war with Canada splits along party lines. Democrats overwhelmingly oppose the Trump’s position arguing that tariffs cost consumers and businesses.
On 9th September a group of nine Democrat Senators from states with close business ties with Canada issued a joint statement attacking President Trump’s “senseless trade war” with a key trading partner, primary export market and most enduring defence partner, pointing out that the President’s actions would force Canada to “diversify away from the US and deepen trade ties with other countries including China.”
Republicans generally, but not universally, support Trump’s position, arguing that Trump’s tariff stance is ‘putting America first.’ Concerns have been flagged in the Republican ranks that the tariffs will be an issue in the November mid-terms, particularly in competitive Senate and House races.
Senator Susan Collins of Maine, the US state most exposed to the tariff dispute with Canada, who is facing a tough re-election contest in November has labelled the tariffs on Canada ‘a mistake’ pointing out that Canadian retaliation could cost Maine up to $170 million in export losses. The Republican governor of Vermont has also been openly critical.
The position for President Trump is considerably less positive than that of Prime Minister Carney. The Canadian Prime Minister enjoys the public and political support that President Trump conspicuously lacks. As this week's appearance in the European Parliament demonstrated Mr Carney’s support is not confined to Canada; he has international support which, President Trump again conspicuously lacks.
At the moment there is no obvious ‘off ramp’ to facilitate a return to the negotiating table. Politically and temperamentally it will be harder for President Trump to pull back from the position he has taken in the tariff war than it will be for Mark Carney. Mr Carney has more political support for his position, at home and internationally than President Trump. He has also played an infinitely better game than Mr Trump. For the moment the ball is very much in Mark Carney’s court.
Dick Roche is a former Irish Minister for European Affairs and former Minister for the Environment.
The circular economy is no longer an aspiration—it is becoming a necessity. As industries seek to reduce their environmental footprint while preserving valuable resources, extending the life of products through refurbishment has emerged as one of the most effective strategies available, writes Julien Morganti, General Manager of P.E.P. ecopassport®.
Across the electrical, electronic and HVAC sectors, demand for refurbished equipment is growing rapidly. Customers are increasingly looking for solutions that combine environmental responsibility with economic value, while manufacturers and service providers are investing in refurbishment capabilities to meet these expectations. Yet one major challenge has remained: how can we assess the environmental performance of refurbished products in a way that is both robust and transparent?
For new products, environmental declarations have become an established tool for measuring and communicating environmental performance. Refurbished products, however, have lacked a common methodology capable of reflecting their specific characteristics while ensuring consistency and credibility across the market.
This is precisely the challenge that P.E.P. ecopassport® has sought to address through the publication of a new methodological guide dedicated to refurbished equipment—the first initiative of its kind in France and, to our knowledge, across Europe for electrical, electronic and HVAC equipment.
Developing this methodology required answering a fundamental question: how should the environmental impacts and benefits associated with refurbishment be allocated? Inspection, repair, component replacement and testing all generate environmental impacts, yet refurbishment also avoids the production of an entirely new product and extends the useful life of existing equipment.
Finding the right balance was only possible through close collaboration between manufacturers, industry associations and technical experts. The resulting methodology recognises the environmental contribution of both the refurbished product and the original product designed with refurbishment in mind. Rather than focusing solely on carbon emissions, it evaluates the full range of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) indicators, including material and resource consumption, providing a far more comprehensive picture of environmental performance.
This broader perspective matters because the transition to a circular economy cannot be measured by greenhouse gas emissions alone. Conserving raw materials, reducing resource depletion and maximising product longevity are equally critical objectives if we are to build truly sustainable industrial systems.
Importantly, this guide is not intended to be the final word. It provides a shared foundation that the industry can build upon as experience grows. As more refurbished products are assessed, the methodology will continue to evolve and, ultimately, become integrated into the
programme's Product Category Rules (PCRs) and Product Specific Rules (PSRs), where applicable.
Standardised environmental assessment is about more than technical consistency. It creates confidence. Manufacturers gain a recognised framework for communicating the environmental value of refurbished products. Specifiers and purchasers receive comparable, reliable information to support procurement decisions. Ultimately, the entire market benefits from greater transparency.
The transition towards circularity requires more than innovation in products—it also requires innovation in the way environmental performance is measured. By establishing a common methodology for refurbished equipment, we hope to remove one of the barriers that has limited wider adoption and provide the market with the confidence needed to accelerate the circular economy.
Because if refurbishment is to become a mainstream component of sustainable industry, it must be supported by environmental assessment methods that are as rigorous, credible and forward-looking as the products themselves.
About the P.E.P Association
Founded in 2009, the P.E.P Association is a non-profit organization whose purpose is to help reduce the environmental impact of electrical, electronic, and digital products by facilitating the dissemination of reliable, transparent, and verified information across the entire value chain.
In compliance with ISO 14025, its mission is to define governance rules, develop, verify, and publish Product Environmental Profiles (PEP) or Environmental Product Declarations (EPD), while adhering to principles of transparency and ethics. It also aims to bring together industry stakeholders to promote these practices.
Recognized as a leading operator in the sector at the international level, the P.E.P Association contributes to national and European standardization and works toward harmonizing programs across countries.
Login