Energy News Beat

The post Motion Ventures launches $100m maritime tech fund appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Energy News Beat

The post Case for engine retrofits clouded by lack of green fuels appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Energy News Beat

RegulatoryTech

The post IMO presses ahead with maritime digitalisation strategy appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Energy News Beat

An increasingly important question in iffy times. Here are the holders as of Q4, who dumped, who bought.

By Wolf Richter for WOLF STREET.

When the incredibly ballooning US national debt reached $36.22 trillion in January, it hit the “Debt Ceiling,” with which Congress prevents the government from borrowing the money needed to spend the money Congress told it to spend.

In the past, just before the government ran out of cash, Congress makes a deal with itself to raise the debt ceiling, upon which the debt spikes by hundreds of billions of dollars in just a few days as the government borrows huge amounts to refill its checking account. The flat parts followed by spikes in the chart reflect that dynamic.

These are Treasury securities that private and public entities in the US and across the world hold as interest-earning assets. The question is: Who holds this debt? And who has been buying it even as the Fed has been shedding its holdings at part of its $2.2 trillion in QT?

Who held this $36.2 trillion in Treasury securities at the end of Q4?

US Government entities: $7.34 trillion. These “intragovernmental holdings” consist of Treasury securities held by various federal civilian pension funds, military pension funds, the Social Security Trust Fund (I discussed the Social Security Trust Fund holdings, income, and outgo here), the Disability Insurance Trust Fund, the Medicare Trust Funds, and other funds. These are securities that are not traded in the market.

The “public” held the remaining $28.83 trillion in Treasury securities at the end of Q4. Most of these securities are publicly traded and their holders are spread around the US and the rest of the world.

It’s these securities “held by the public” that we’re going to look at here.

The “public” held these Treasuries, by type of security (as of the end of February, published by the Treasury Department).

Publicly traded:

• $6.4 trillion in Treasury bills (short-term securities of 1 year or less)
• $14.7 trillion in Treasury notes (2-10-year securities)
• $4.9 trillion in Treasury bonds (20-year and 30-year securities):
• $2.0 trillion in TIPS (Treasury Inflation Protected Securities):
• $0.63 trillion in Floating Rate Notes (FRN)

Not publicly traded:

• $575 billion in Treasury securities, such as the Series I Savings Bonds, Series EE Savings Bonds, etc.

Who is this “public” that holds these bonds: 30.2% are foreign holders.

Foreign entities held $8.5 trillion, or 30.2% of the publicly traded debt at the end of Q4. These holders included (Treasury Department data):

• Foreign private-sector entities: $4.73 trillion
• Foreign official entities, such as by central banks: $3.78 trillion.

They held in total:

• $7.31 trillion in long-term securities
• $1.2 trillion (14.1%) in T-bills.

That ratio of T-bills to total foreign holdings has been between 12.1% and 14.6% since mid-2020. Before the pandemic, it was in the 10% range.

But they shed securities: Foreign entities shed $166 billion of Treasury securities in Q4, or 1.9% from the record in Q3 ($8.69 trillion), led by:

• Top six financial centers (London, Belgium, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Cayman Islands, and Ireland): -$60 billion
• Japan: -$36 billion
• Brazil: -$33 billion
• India: -$28 billion
• Euro Area: -$12 billion.

But other countries added to their holdings over those three months, including Canada (+$11 billion).

The biggest foreign holders:

• The top six financial centers: $2.56 trillion (blue)
• Euro Area: $1.79 trillion, which includes three of the financial centers (green)
• Japan: $1.06 trillion (gold)
• China and Hong Kong combined: $1.01 trillion (purple).

Top 6 financial centers include US corporate holdings: $2.56 trillion, down by $60 billion from September.

US corporations hold a portion of these Treasury securities to park their overseas profits overseas, as to not have them taxed in the US. Ireland and Apple were a big example of that, as a Senate investigation in 2013 revealed.

Euro Area and China: The Euro Area – which includes the three financial centers Luxembourg, Belgium, and Ireland – has been a massive purchaser of Treasury securities over the years, even as China and Hong Kong combined have been backing away for nearly a decade. The Euro Area now holds far more than China has ever held. But over the past three months, the Euro Area shed $12 billion:

Canada has emerged as a large buyer since the pandemic, more than tripling its holdings over the past three years to $379 billion.

Other big foreign holders include Taiwan ($282 billion), India ($219 billion), Brazil ($202 billion).

Holders in the US are 69.8% of this “public”:

US mutual funds: 19.3% or about $5.5 trillion of the debt held by the public. This includes bond mutual funds and money market mutual funds, according to the Quarterly Fixed Income Report for Q4 from SIFMA (Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association).

Money market funds alone held $3.0 trillion in Treasury securities, including $2.4 trillion in T-bills.

Money market funds added $335 billion in Treasuries in Q4, amid an overall surge in money market fund balances.

Federal Reserve: 15.2% or $4.29 trillion of the debt held by the public as of the end of Q4.

Under its QT program, the Fed shed $93 billion in Treasuries in Q4. Since mid-2022, it has shed $1.53 trillion in Treasuries and $2.2 trillion in total, as of the Fed’s early March balance sheet.

US Households and nonprofit organizations: 9.5% or $2.68 trillion of the debt held by the public at the end of Q4 (Federal Reserve data). These are investors who hold Treasuries in their accounts in the US. But they shed $229 billion in Q4.

US Commercial Banks: 6.2% or $1.77 trillion of the debt held by the public at the end of Q4, (Federal Reserve data). And added $33 billion in Q4.

These banks include:

• US-chartered commercial banks: $1.54 trillion
• Foreign Banking Offices in the US: $100 billion
• Credit Unions: $63 billion
• Banks in U.S.-affiliated areas: $23 billion

US State and local governments, including pension funds: 7.3% or $2.07 trillion of the debt held by the public. They reduced their holdings by $28 billion in Q4.

US Insurance companies: 2.3% or $650 billion of the debt held by the public, including:

• Property and casualty insurance companies: $459 billion, they’ve been big buyers since the return of higher yields, nearly doubling their holdings since Q4 2022. They added another $40 billion in Q4.
• Life insurance companies: $191 billion.

Exchange traded funds: 2.0% or $554 billion of the debt held by the public.

US Private Pension funds: 1.6% or $452 billion of the debt held by the public. Shed $13 billion in Q4

US securities brokers and dealers: 1.4% or $408 billion of the debt held by the public. They added $72 billion in Q4.

Government Sponsored Enterprises: 0.8% or $227 billion of the debt held by the public. The big GSEs are Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They added $36 billion in Q4.

Others: $417 billion

• US nonfinancial corporate businesses: $114 billion. Does not include the Treasuries they hold in foreign financial centers (see above).
• Nonfinancial noncorporate business: $87 billion
• Holding companies: $130 billion
• Central clearing counterparties: $86 billion

Nonmarketable securities held by the public: 2.1% or $575 billion of the debt held by the public (Treasury Department data). These securities are held by the public but cannot be traded in the market and are not purchased at auctions but directly from the government. They include products for retail investors – the Series I Savings Bonds and the Series EE Savings Bonds – plus State and Local Government Series” bonds (held by state and local governments), the Government Account series bonds, and other bonds.

But there’s a new sheriff in town: “We’re focused on the real economy,” Bessent said. “Ouch,” stocks said. Where did the Trump put go? Read… Will Economic Detox Lead to a Recession? Maybe Not. But a Long Deep Stock Market Rout Will (See Dotcom Bust)

Enjoy reading WOLF STREET and want to support it? You can donate. I appreciate it immensely. Click on the mug to find out how:

The post Who Holds the Ballooning US Government Debt, even as the Fed and Foreign Holders Unloaded Treasury Securities in Q4? appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Energy News Beat

A judge revoked Atlantic Shores’ EPA permit, blocking NJ’s offshore wind project as Trump reverses Biden’s green policies over costs and wildlife risks.

​A federal judge at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revoked a permit for New Jersey’s first offshore wind energy farm, potentially obstructing or ending the ambitions of the project entirely. [emphasis, links added]

Environmental Appeals Court Judge Mary Kay Lynch remanded a Clean Air Act permit back to the U.S. EPA, which was issued last September to Atlantic Shores Offshore Wind.

The move closely follows President Donald Trump’s Jan. 20 memo calling for a review of the federal government’s “leasing and permitting practices for wind projects” and a temporary withdrawal of all areas on the outer continental shelf from offshore wind leasing.

The remanded permit authorized Atlantic Shores “to construct and operate two wind energy-generation projects off the coast of New Jersey,” though it will now be pending review, according to the new ruling.

EPA officials filed a motion on Feb. 28 to have the court remand the offshore wind permit, so that the agency could reevaluate the project’s environmental impacts.

The EPA, now led by Administrator Lee Zeldin, has taken several actions within the past month alone to eliminate climate and renewable green energy initiatives that were greenlit under previous presidential administrations.

The New Jersey Board of Public Utilities granted Atlantic Shores Offshore Wind a contract in 2021 for 1.5 megawatts of renewable energy to be generated in a facility off the coast of Atlantic City.

Atlantic Shores Offshore Wind is a renewable energy company with “three offshore wind energy lease areas totaling more than 400 square miles under active development,” according to its website.

Friday’s court decision seems to cast a grim shadow on the future of the project. …snip…

Protests erupted over the offshore wind farms between 2023 and 2025, as protesters raised concerns over high-powered cables running through residential neighborhoods and dead whales and dolphins washing up on the Jersey Shore.

Wind turbines off the coast of New England have also previously shed debris into the ocean, prompting environmentalists’ concerns for wildlife.

This is not the first hurdle for the Atlantic Shores project, as Shell pulled its planned $1 billion investment in January of this year.

A few days later, New Jersey’s Board of Public Utilities abandoned plans for a fourth offshore wind solicitation for bids.

This effectively ended the expansion of Atlantic Shores. …snip…

Trump moved quickly to reverse several of former President Joe Biden’s green energy policies, invoking a freeze on permits for and construction of new wind projects on federal land and waters.

The Biden administration supported and subsidized efforts to meet its goal of 30 gigawatts of offshore energy by 2030, though the push reeled as inflation, high interest rates, and logistics forced postponements and cancellations of major projects.

The administration also championed the Inflation Reduction Act, a more than $1 trillion climate bill.

Trump’s Jan. 20 memo cites “environmental impact and cost to surrounding communities of defunct and idle windmills” as major concerns surrounding offshore wind farms.

Allegations of deadly impacts on whales and other marine mammals have also made headlines.

Read full post at Daily Caller

The post Judge Blocks NJ Offshore Wind Farm As Trump Reverses Biden’s Green Gambits appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Energy News Beat

Pennsylvania lawmakers are considering a bill to study climate costs, following a public event by well-funded activists backing climate lawsuits.

​Pennsylvania State lawmakers are considering a proposal put forward by Representative Joe Webster, a Democrat from Montgomery County, to study the costs of climate change in Pennsylvania. [emphasis, links added]

The bill – H.R. 90 – sponsors a plan to require Pennsylvania’s Joint State Government Commission to study the cost of measures to combat future climate change in Pennsylvania, as well as analyze future global warming’s impact on the state’s “natural, built, and social environments.”

While the bill may sound innocuous enough, Rep. Webster’s media blitz touting the proposal came just days after a public event hosted by well-known billionaire-funded activists supporting climate lawsuits in Pennsylvania, raising questions about the groups’ continued lawfare agenda in the state.

Pennsylvania’s Climate Litigation Campaign Coordinated by Billionaire-Funded Activists

The February event preceding Rep. Webster’s bill was hosted by the Heinz Endowments-backed environmental “Group Against Smog & Pollution – Pittsburgh” (GASP-PGH), Corporate Accountability, and the Rockefeller-funded environmental groups Center for Climate Integrity (CCI) and Union of Concerned Scientists.

CCI, the main activist group supporting climate lawsuits, has clearly recognized that climate suits are near-impossible unless a court can localize and put a price tag on the effects of global greenhouse gas emissions.

To that end, CCI has poured resources into biased “climate costs” studies tailor-made for use in the courtroom.

These studies purport to show the economic impacts of climate change, right down to the congressional district level.

Climate Cost Studies Used by Activists to Create Evidence for State Climate Lawsuits

Similar “climate costs” studies have been explicitly designed by climate plaintiffs, for climate plaintiffs.

For example, the group Resilient Analytics was contracted by the City of Boulder to conduct a climate costs study just a week before Boulder filed its climate lawsuit against oil and natural gas companies.

That taxpayer-funded study would go on to be cited in the Colorado municipalities’ case.

The same groups appear to be trying to replicate this model in Pennsylvania. In 2023, Resilient Analytics and CCI published a similar climate costs report in Pennsylvania.

Later, in April 2024 CCI partnered with GASP-PGH to host a public event titled “What is Climate Change Costing Allegheny County and Who Should Pay?” to promote their findings.

It’s yet to be seen if CCI and its partners have their hands in Rep. Webster’s proposal as well. The bill does not rule out working with outside parties in the development of a potential climate costs study, saying:

“…to prepare the study, the Joint State Government Commission shall engage subject-area experts and other stakeholders, as needed, to contribute to the study…”

Any climate cost study put forward by the Pennsylvania legislature should not be conducted alongside outside interests, particularly when those interests are directly aligned with climate plaintiffs.

PA Continues to Soundly Reject More Climate Lawfare

CCI’s renewed activity in Pennsylvania goes to show that the activists have clearly not gotten the message that climate lawfare will not find a welcome audience in the energy-rich state.

As Energy in Depth has highlighted, the sole climate lawsuit in the state, filed in 2024 by Bucks County, was met with harsh criticism over the closed-door deliberations that preceded its filing.

A mere two weeks after the suit was announced, Republican County Commissioner Gene DiGirolamo even withdrew his support:

“I have considered this for the past seven or eight days,” said DiGirolamo. “And at this point, I would like to withdraw my support for the lawsuit.”

And in April of last year, when CCI presented to the Allegheny County Council in hopes of recruiting a new plaintiff, a coalition of manufacturing and labor groups sent an open letter to the Council blasting a potential lawsuit:

“Fundamentally the activists don’t care about impacts on Pennsylvanians; the state is just one stop on their nation-wide road show. It doesn’t take a lawyer to know that filing a lawsuit will not solve climate change.

It won’t prevent natural disasters or rehabilitate old infrastructure. It will, however, drive up the cost of energy for Pennsylvanians, waste taxpayer dollars, and demonize an industry that is a crucial economic driver for our state.”

The plaintiffs’ and activists’ approach was even squarely rejected by the Democratic nominee for Pennsylvania Attorney General, Eugene DePasquale, who denounced climate lawfare in a debate:

“[Climate litigation] is not a direction I am looking to go. Look – I am pro Pennsylvania energy. That [seeking repayment from energy companies for climate change] is a policy issue, that’s something for the government and the legislature and obviously if the Congress wants to do something like that… Simply punishing companies is not going to get us there.” (emphasis added)

Outside of Pennsylvania, the momentum and recent case law are not in climate activists’ favor.

In recent months, state judges in Baltimore, New York City, Annapolis and Anne Arundel Counties, and New Jersey have dismissed similar climate lawsuits on the grounds that the lawsuits inappropriately aim to regulate global emissions.

Bottom Line

Activist-backed “climate costs” reports are not impartial research, but PR tools tailor-made for activists and plaintiffs.

And, given the swift backlash in Bucks County, Pennsylvanians have already made it clear that climate litigation is not welcome in the natural gas-producing state.

It’s time that CCI and its partners got the message.

Read more at EID Climate

The post Pennsylvania Bill To Study Climate Costs Follows Billionaire-Backed Lawsuit Push appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Energy News Beat

A new study shows that the Inflation Reduction Act subsidies could cost taxpayers trillions over 25 years.

When former President Joe Biden’s signature Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) passed in 2022, it did so along party lines with not a single Republican voting for it. [emphasis, links added]

At the time, a Senate one-pager summarized the law as costing taxpayers $369 billion, based on Congressional Budget Review (CBO) estimates.

A new study from the Cato Institute finds that the law could cost as much as $4.67 trillion by 2050. That’s roughly 12 times the stated cost.

The study also concludes that the subsidies are undermining innovation and driving investments toward subsidy farming rather than satisfying consumer demand.

“The government should not have a hold on the economy in such a way that it can truly distort entire markets, and that’s what the Inflation Reduction Act [does],” Joshua Loucks, a research associate with the Cato Institute and co-author of the analysis, said in a video explaining the study.

The Trump administration has been executing a series of reviews of regulations that federal agencies passed during the Biden years.

Repealing some agency decisions may require congressional action. Due to the massive costs and market-impacting effects of the IRA, the study’s authors argue Congress should take a hard look at it.

The law, they say, should be fully repealed, or Congress should place limitations on the subsidies, which the IRA mostly lacks.

Fact-Finding Endeavor

Loucks and his co-author Travis Fisher, director of energy and environmental policy studies at the Cato Institute, explained that the impetus for doing the study was the wildly varying estimates of the costs of the IRA that came out since its passage.

While the CBO pegged the figure at $369 billion, Goldman Sachs estimated in May 2023 that it would be closer to $1.2 trillion. There were other estimates as well, all coming to different conclusions.

“We decided to go on our own fact-finding endeavor here, and that’s what resulted in this paper,” Loucks said.

The subsidies for the IRA come in two forms — Production Tax Credits (PTC), which provide tax credits per unit of energy produced, and Investment Tax Credits (ITC), which provide tax credits for various investments in carbon-free energy.

Which one developers take depends on the project and their business preferences. With the ITC, the subsidies provide an infusion of cash up front, whereas the PTCs provide payouts over time.

Some are not capped, and others are only phased out when certain greenhouse gas emission reductions are met.

Using models from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the study shows there’s little likelihood that these reductions will be met in the next 25 years, meaning the subsidies have no meaningful end date.

The authors estimated all the ITCs and PTCs that might come from the various carbon-free eligible projects — whether they be nuclear, wind, solar, geothermal, energy storage, green manufacturing, or hydrogen — and using complex models, the authors came to some overall estimates.

Over the next 10 years, according to the study, the IRA could cost taxpayers anywhere from $936 billion to $1.97 trillion. By 2050, it will cost between $2.04 trillion and $4.67 trillion.

Read rest at Just The News

The post New Study: Inflation Reduction Act Likely To Cost Taxpayers Trillions appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Energy News Beat

China has not received a single cargo of U.S. liquefied natural gas in 40 days and there are currently no LNG tankers en route to the country, Bloomberg has reported, citing data it compiled from ship-tracking information providers and energy analytics provider Kpler.

The purchase freeze was the result of the tariff exchange that President Donald Trump started as soon as he took office, by slapping an additional 10% tariff on all Chinese imports. In response, China imposed 15% tariffs on U.S. LNG imports and a lower tariff of crude oil imports.

Following the tariffs, Chinese LNG buyers with long-term supply contracts with U.S. producers have started reselling the cargos to Europe, Bloomberg reported, citing sources from the trading world. What’s more, Chinese traders have grown cold towards new long-term commitments for future supply from the United States, instead seeking long-term deals with gas producers in the Middle East and the Asia Pacific.

The publication mentioned one new deal, between China Resources Gas International and Woodside Energy, which has a term of 15 years and is the first long-term deal between a Chinese company and an Australian company to be signed in years.

The moment is rather opportune for Europe, which is nearing the end of its leak gas demand season as spring comes. Yet demand is going to remain elevated for a while as it restocks its depleted gas storage. Indeed, Kpler predicted European gas demand will tick higher in the coming weeks because it is coming out of winter with lower levels of gas in storage.

Kpler also revised South Korea’s 2025 LNG demand higher—but it revised Chinese LNG demand for this year down, based on weaker LNG imports in February, part of the reason for which is quite likely the tariff exchange with the United States.

By Irina Slav for Oilprice.com

Is Oil and Gas An Investment for You?

The post China Stops Buying U.S. LNG appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Energy News Beat

But it’s not in housing; it’s spread across much of the economy. And it’s not just the end of the temporary GST (goods & service tax) holiday.

By Wolf Richter for WOLF STREET.

Inflation has a tendency to dish up nasty surprises, and it did that in Canada today for February, on top of the nasty surprises for January and December.

I’ll just walk briefly through some of the key numbers, and then I’ll post the commentary from the Economics and Strategy shop at the National Bank of Canada, the sixth largest bank in Canada, where the frustration with this mess bleeds through thickly, right from the beginning of their discussion: “The data published this morning by Statistics Canada is enough to shake observers’ convictions about the inflation situation in the country.”

Canada’s overall Consumer Price Index spiked by 0.68% in February from January (8.4% annualized), seasonally adjusted, the worst month-to-month spike since the heady days of June 2022, and way above expectations (blue). The year-over-year CPI rose by 2.6%, the worst increase since July last year (red).

The month-to-month price increases in February were hot to red-hot in 6 of 8 major categories, but were cool in the housing components (shelter) and transportation, which includes gasoline.

In order of month-to-month inflation magnitude:

• Food: +2.04% (+27% annualized)
• Alcohol & tobacco: +1.66% (+22% annualized)
• Recreation & education: +1.16% (+15% annualized)
• Household operations & furnishings: +0.46% (+5.7% annualized)
• Health & personal care: +0.33% (+4.0% annualized)
• Clothing & footwear: +0.32% (+3.9% annualized)
• Shelter: +0.16% (+1.9% annualized)
• Transportation: +0.11% (+1.3% annualized).

“Core” CPI, which excludes the food and energy components to track underlying inflation, spiked by 0.52% in February from March (6.5% annualized), the worst increase since June 2022, after the already expectation-busting increases in December and January (blue in the chart below).

This pushed the year-over-year increase to 2.74%, the worst increase since June 2024, and the third month in a row of acceleration (red):

But it’s not the housing components that pushed up CPI this time. The CPI for shelter, which includes a collection of different housing expenses, decelerated further, and rose only 0.16% in February from January (1.9% annualized), roughly back in the middle of the range before the pandemic (blue).

The year-over-year shelter CPI decelerated to an increase of 4.2% (red):

So here is the frustrated commentary from the Economics and Strategy shop at the National Bank of Canada:

“The data published this morning by Statistics Canada is enough to shake observers’ convictions about the inflation situation in the country.

An acceleration of inflation was certainly inevitable in February with the end of the GST [goods and services tax] holiday in the middle of the month, which will also have an upward impact in March.

To get a more accurate picture of the situation, we have been focusing on inflation measures excluding indirect taxes for some months now. In February, the CPI excluding indirect taxes increased by a whopping 0.4% and the annual rate is now 2.9%, which is close to the upper limit of the Bank of Canada’s target range.

On an annualized three-month basis, this measure stands at 5.1%, its highest rate since September 2023.

There are certainly specific factors to mention, notably travel tours surging (+23% y/y). But that does not mean that inflation was not widespread in February, as evidenced by the central bank’s preferred core inflation measures, which have been growing at rates of 0.3% m/m and annualized rates that exceed the Bank of Canada’s target range over the past three months (CPI-Median at 3.4% and CPI-Trim at 3.3%).

We have repeatedly argued that these measures were skewed upwards by the housing component and that care should be taken in their use. But this was no longer the case in February, as monthly inflation in the housing sector had essentially returned to its historical average during the month.

This bias led us, as well as the central bank, to focus on the diffusion recently, which is not a concern over a year but is enough to raise eyebrows over the last three months with no less than 35 components moving above the target of 2.0% at an annualized rate (average 1999-2019 at 27).

There is no doubt that the Bank of Canada was surprised by the recent price developments in a context where the economy had started to improve.

In such a context, there is a strong chance that the rate cut we were expecting in April will not materialize unless the economy deteriorates very rapidly in a context of tariff uncertainty.

It remains that inflation is a lagging indicator, and the central bank may once again focus on economic variables that could weaken rapidly in the coming months if there is no improvement in trade relations with the United States. That scenario would justify lower path for the policy rate.”

Enjoy reading WOLF STREET and want to support it? You can donate. I appreciate it immensely. Click on the mug to find out how:

The post Not Just in the US: Inflation Dishes Up Another Nasty Surprise in Canada, Throwing Further Rate Cuts into Doubt appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Energy News Beat

ENB Pub Note: While Putin is saying that Ukraine cannot receive more munitions and weapons for the ceasefire, it appears there was a positive dialogue. The loser in this process is the Left-leaning EU. I will be interviewing several people and getting their take on the call and next steps. 

---

From AMG-News:

“In a world where global tensions have reached a boiling point, two of the most powerful leaders on Earth have just finished a groundbreaking two-hour phone call. President Donald J. Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke today for over two hours, discussing some of the most critical global conflicts, including Ukraine, the Middle East, and the escalating nuclear situation with Iran.

The corporate media won’t admit it, but this call could mark the beginning of a new era of peace—one where strong leadership replaces the disastrous foreign policies of the past.

But what exactly did they discuss? What does this mean for Ukraine, Russia, China, and the Middle East? And most importantly—is Trump about to do what Biden never could?”

---

Bloomberg

• Europe leaders fear the US may try to cut a deal without them
• Putin wants a halt in arms sales before agreeing to pause

President Donald Trump and Russian leader Vladimir Putin wrapped up their phone call on Tuesday after about 90 minutes as the US continues to push for a ceasefire to halt the conflict in Ukraine

Both sides said the call ended and readouts were expected soon.

The conversation was the second call between the US and Russian leaders since Trump returned to the White House in January. The first was in mid-February, after which Trump said he’d probably meet with Putin in the “not-too-distant-future.” That was followed by a flurry of renewed engagement between the two countries.

Recent comments by Trump have prompted fears that the US may be willing to sacrifice Kyiv’s interests as part of a push for a 30-day ceasefire. Before the call, Trump wrote in a Truth Social post that “many elements of a Final Agreement have been agreed to, but much remains.”

Those remarks, along with Trump’s comments to reporters Sunday night that the two sides were already talking about how to divide assets, suggest that many decisions have already been made — with or without Ukraine.

Putin, who met with Trump envoy Steve Witkoff last week, has made the halt to arms supplies a prerequisite for signing up to the ceasefire, according to a senior European official and three people in Moscow familiar with Russia’s position.

While Russia wants to halt all weapons deliveries to Ukraine, the minimum aim is that US aid should stop, said two of the people in Moscow with knowledge of the Kremlin’s thinking.

— With assistance from Iain Marlow – Source: Bloomberg

Is Oil and Gas An Investment for You?

The post Trump and Putin Conclude Phone Call as US Pushes Ceasefire appeared first on Energy News Beat.