Author

admin

Browsing

The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) announced it had terminated 113 contracts valued at $4.7 billion Tuesday, including a U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) consulting contract for Peru’s climate change activities.

‘[Tuesday] agencies terminated 113 wasteful contracts with a ceiling value of $4.7B and savings of $3.3B, including a $145K USDA consulting contract for ‘Peru climate change activities,” the department posted on X.

DOGE also announced the Department of Labor had canceled $577 million in ‘America Last’ grants, totaling $237 million in savings.

The funding that was canceled included $10 million for ‘gender equity in the Mexican workplace,’ $12.2 million for ‘worker empowerment in South America’ and $6.25 million for ‘improving respect for workers’ rights in agricultural supply chains’ in the countries of Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador.

Also eliminated was $5 million to elevate women’s participation in the workplace in West Africa, $4.3 million to assist foreign migrant workers in Malaysia, $3 million to enhance Social Security access and worker protection for internal migrant workers in Bangladesh and $3 million for safe and inclusive work environments in the southern African country of Lesotho.

DOGE, led by Elon Musk, is a temporary organization within the White House created via executive order earlier this year.

President Donald Trump tasked the organization with optimizing the federal government, streamlining operations and slashing spending and gave the agency 18 months to do it.

The department has canceled numerous diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives at federal agencies, consulting contracts, leases for underused federal buildings and duplicate agencies and programs.

As of March 26, DOGE claims on its site it has saved Americans $130 billion, or $807.45 per taxpayer.

DOGE critics contend the organization has too much access to federal systems and should not be permitted to cancel federal contracts or make cuts to various agencies.

Fox News Digital’s Eric Revell and Alexandra Koch contributed to this report.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Tesla made an appearance on Capitol Hill Wednesday where the company was held up as one of several key American manufacturers during a bipartisan event on U.S.-made robotics.

Two Tesla humanoid robots were at the event, with onlookers crowding the machines as they struck various poses. 

They waved their arms at times, and held up hands with two fingers aloft on each in a Richard Nixon-like pose. At one point, a robot’s arm swung out and hit the rope dividing it from the crowd, briefly sending a security guard scrambling to fix it.

Outside of Washington, however, Tesla car dealerships have been targeted by progressive activists across the country. The automaker and tech company is getting singled out for acts of vandalism over its founder, Elon Musk, and his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) efforts in the Trump administration.

House select committee on China Chairman John Moolenaar, R-Mich., suggested Tesla’s appearance at the bipartisan event showed Congress rising above partisanship.

‘The competition is with China, and we are united in winning that competition,’ Moolenaar told Fox News Digital at the event. 

He called Telsa ‘innovative,’ adding, ‘All the companies here have shown tremendous ingenuity, and we were pleased to highlight all of their efforts.’

The event featured bots from other events, including so-called ‘robot dogs,’ officially known as ‘Spot the Agile Mobile Robot’ by Boston Dynamics, and a similar machine by Ghost Robotics.

Moolenaar said Spot stood out to him in particular, as well as Tesla’s two robot humanoids that were present at the event.

‘It’s amazing technology, and what struck me was a lot of the same technology that’s in a vehicle is used in these humanoid robots,’ he said.

Rep. Carlos Gimenez, R-Fla., another member of the committee, said the Tesla robots could have ‘unbelievable applications.’

‘Maybe in agriculture — a lot of our farmers are going out of business, can’t compete labor-wise, right? You get a couple of robots that can actually do very detailed farm work and drive the labor costs down, we’ll save the American farmer,’ Gimenez said.

He also accused Democrats outside the event of having their ‘hair on fire’ over Musk and criticized Tesla critics who have been vandalizing its car dealerships.

‘Some people have taken things to an extreme,’ Gimenez said. 

‘There is no need for putting down something that is advancing American technology and is going to be beneficial for America.’

The Trump administration has recently made moves to crack down on those vandals, with President Donald Trump himself threatening to jail protesters. The FBI, meanwhile, has commissioned a task force to look into the matter.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

CIA Director John Ratcliffe blasted a California Democrat Wednesday for asking him ‘whether Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth had been drinking before he leaked classified information’ in a Signal chat group, calling his words an ‘offensive line of questioning.’ 

Rep. Jimmy Gomez sparked the testy exchange during a House Intelligence Committee hearing on worldwide threats, where Ratcliffe appeared alongside Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and other top Trump administration officials. 

‘The main person who was involved in this thread that a lot of people want to talk to is, Secretary of Defense Hegseth. And a lot of questions were brought up regarding his drinking habits in his confirmation hearing. To your knowledge, do you know whether Pete Hegseth had been drinking before he leaked classified information?’ Gomez asked Gabbard, to which she responded, ‘I don’t have any knowledge of Secretary Hegseth’s personal habits.’ 

When Gomez then asked Ratcliffe the same question, telling him it was either a ‘yes or no’ answer, Ratcliffe fired back, saying ‘You know, no. I’m going to answer that. I think that’s an offensive line of questioning.’ 

‘The answer is no. I find it interesting…’ Ratcliffe continued before Gomez began shouting ‘Hey, I yield back, this is my time, director! Director!’ 

‘You asked me a question, do you want an answer?’ Ratcliffe said. ‘You don’t want to focus on the good work that the CIA is doing, that the intelligence community…’ 

‘Director, I reclaim my time. Director, I reclaim my time,’ Gomez then said. ‘I have huge respect for the CIA, huge respect for men and women in uniform. But this was a question that’s on the top of the minds of every American, right?’ 

‘He stood in front of a podium in Europe holding a drink,’ Gomez then claimed. 

‘Was his performance compromised because of a successful strike?… you think he should accept responsibility for a successful strike to make Americans safer?’ Ratcliffe started saying as Gomez again interrupted him in an attempt to get the situation under control. 

Rep. Ben Cline, R-Va., followed Gomez’s questioning and allowed Ratcliffe to speak without interruption. 

‘I appreciate that, Congressman. I guess, you know, just a general reflection here again, that, for the last two days, members of the intelligence community have been asking questions about a Signal messaging group and not asking questions — from Democrats either in the Senate or the House — on China, Russia, Iran and the real threats, that are going on the United States,’ the CIA director said.  

‘No one’s asked me about my second day on the job here, where I lit the fuse that led to a foreign government participating with us to capture one of the senior planners of the Abbey gate bombing that killed 13 Americans,’ he added, ‘But instead, we’re getting questions about whether or not someone has drinking habits.’ 

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

A federal judge denied President Donald Trump’s administration’s efforts to ban transgender people from joining the military, which was set to go into effect Friday.

The Department of Justice has since filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeal for the District of Columbia.

Washington, D.C.-based U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, a Biden appointee, on Wednesday, denied the government’s motion to dissolve her order that prevents the military from denying transgender people the ability to enlist in the military.

Reyes presided over a hearing on March 21, when she requested the Department of Defense (DOD) delay its original March 26 deadline to enact the policy.

On March 21, the defendants in the suit, who include Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, filed a motion to dissolve the injunction blocking the Pentagon’s ban. The filing argued that the policy is not an overarching ban but instead ‘turns on gender dysphoria – a medical condition – and does not discriminate against trans-identifying persons as a class.’

The Trump administration further requested that, if the motion to dissolve is denied, the court should stay the preliminary injunction pending appeal.

The government cited new guidance issued March 21 that it expected to enact the policy if not for the ongoing litigation. The guidance clarified that ‘the phrase ‘exhibit symptoms consistent with gender dysphoria’’ solely applies to ”individuals who exhibit such symptoms as would be sufficient to constitute a diagnosis.”

Reyes said she wanted to allow more time for the appeals process. She also said she had previously allowed plenty of time to appeal her earlier opinion blocking the ban from going into effect.

On Wednesday, Reyes acknowledged that Military Department Identification Guidance (MIDI Guidance) is new, but the argument presented by the defense is not.

‘Defendants re-emphasize their ‘consistent position that the [Hegseth] Policy is concerned with the military readiness, deployability, and costs associated with a medical condition,’’ the judge wrote. ‘Regulating gender dysphoria is no different than regulating bipolar disorder, eating disorders, or suicidality. The Military Ban regulates a medical condition, they insist, not people. And therein lies the problem.

‘Gender dysphoria is not like other medical conditions, something Defendants well know,’ Reyes continued. ‘It affects only one group of people: all persons with gender dysphoria are transgender and only transgender persons experience gender dysphoria.’

She later noted that the opinion has generated a heated public debate, and, as the court predicted, the Trump administration will appeal.

‘This is all to the good,’ Reyes said. ‘But let’s recall that our service members make the debate and appeals possible. Their sacrifices breathe life into the phrase, ‘one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.’ The Court, again, thanks them all.’

The legal challenge comes as the Supreme Court also considers a high-profile case dealing with transgender rights. 

The issue in the case, United States vs. Skrmetti, is whether the equal protection clause, which requires the government to treat similarly situated people the same, prohibits states from allowing medical providers to deliver puberty blockers and hormones to assist with a minor’s transition to another sex.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has been the cornerstone of U.S. aviation security since its establishment in the wake of 9/11. During that time, it has been subject to much criticism – at times fair, at times not. Despite its imperfections, the men and women of TSA have achieved their mandate of securing the U.S. transportation sector for more than 20 years. 

After two decades, it’s worth asking: Is TSA working as well and efficiently as it could? And if not, how should the agency operate today?

Like many bureaucracies under anemic congressional oversight, TSA relies heavily on inefficient staffing and operational models. As the Trump administration ushers in a long-awaited championing of zero-based budgeting, privatizing most of the TSA’s labor pool – while retaining and empowering its intelligence, oversight and standards-creation roles – offers a path to taxpayer savings, better passenger experiences and continued security. 

TSA – at its core – is a national security organization, and its employees serve critical national security functions. On that basis, the Trump administration recently announced it terminated the collective bargaining agreement with the union representing TSA’s frontline workers. 

Privatizing screening officers should be based on a clearly communicated, step-by-step process that respects the service and important national security roles filled by these employees. Not only is this the right thing to do, but it will help ensure no security lapses occur – particularly critical during a decade that will see the U.S. host the Olympics and World Cup and several other major international sporting events guaranteed to strain the U.S. aviation ecosystem. 

The Trump administration and Congress could undertake three major efforts to reform TSA without sacrificing security:

Begin the process of privatization

Expand existing programs and congressionally sponsored authorities for privatized screening. The long-standing Screening Partnership Program (SPP) allows airports to use qualified private companies, under a cost-savings model that still requires on-the-ground TSA oversight, for security screening. 

Today approximately 20 airports leverage SPP, which requires vendors to follow the same processes, training and regulations as TSA-staffed screening. It also allows for performance incentives when TSA Acceptable Quality Levels are exceeded, encouraging vendors to invest in their workforce and new operational technologies to outperform – and ultimately enhance public safety. 

Based on analysis of seven recent contract awards compared to government cost estimates for the same locations, SPP saves the U.S. taxpayer approximately 15% in screening costs at each airport; the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure also found it leads to shorter wait times. With a TSA FY 2025 screening workforce budget of almost $6.5 billion, that greater efficiency applied nationwide could save the American taxpayer nearly $1 billion a year.

Another program to formalize and expand is the Reimbursable Screening Services Program (RSSP), which ‘…(E)nables TSA to be reimbursed for establishing and providing screening services outside an airport terminal’s existing primary screening area for passengers.’ RSSP creates efficiencies for regional connections and air connectivity in parts of the country without immediate access to major international aviation hubs.

Incentivize airports through a multi-year plan

The administration should develop, and Congress should back, a multi-year privatization plan for all U.S. aviation screening services that clearly communicates timelines and milestones for rapid implementation. 

Ultimately, such a plan will directly incentivize each airport nationwide to provide faster, more effective screening services to their customers under the oversight and standards enforcement of a restructured TSA as they compete for passenger market share.

This plan should direct TSA to immediately open the SPP’s Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity contract to allow more companies to be vetted and qualify as screening vendors and facilitate a jobs portal for Transportation Security Officers interested in transitioning to the private sector. It should also include a review of how the September 11th Passenger Security Fee is utilized. 

A structured, transparent process will ensure no lapses in security, demonstrate deserved respect for our long-serving TSA employees, create an appropriate offramp for younger employees, and place security screening costs on airport balance sheets, realigning client-customer incentive structures.

By transferring the operational aspects of airport security screening to private entities, a restructured TSA will be able to better focus on its governmental functions of intelligence, setting and overseeing stringent security standards, and testing and evaluating new security technologies with the potential to change the face of commercial aviation. This separation of duties – common in most European airports – would focus TSA’s specialization and ensure oversight of private screeners remains robust.

Lean into technology

Investment should be accelerated into new, privacy-respecting automation technologies. Developments in privacy-by-design biometrics, AI-enabled threat detection and seamless baggage handling solutions mean immense opportunities for increased aviation-screening efficiency – particularly at the passenger checkpoint.

 TSA could reallocate savings from privatization, or a greater element of the September 11th Passenger Fee, to aggressively testing these and similar technologies. The agency should prioritize validating these technologies, not managing inefficient government procurement processes that take years to bring new tech to market.

Private companies, freed from bureaucratic red tape, competing for airport contracts based on speed, efficiency, and professionalism, and incentivized by bottom-line mandates from shareholders, can adopt and implement these technologies at speed under TSA’s oversight. They should be mandated to do so once TSA-vetted technology is determined ready for deployment. 

Privatizing the TSA advances the TSA’s ultimate mission – securing our transportation networks – and leads to a more seamless travel experience in the United States. The private sector can bring innovation and agility to airport security, ensuring the U.S. aviation ecosystem remains safe, secure and prepared for the future. 

It also happens to be a great way to save the taxpayer billions.

Tom Plofchan is a former counselor to the secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. He is a former managing partner and chief investment officer of Pangiam, a leader in vision AI for the global trade, travel, and digital identity industries.  

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

For the first time in nearly 10 years, a Berkshire Hathaway employee claimed Warren Buffett’s $1 million grand prize for his company’s NCAA bracket contest.

An anonymous employee from aviation training company FlightSafety International, a subsidiary of Buffett’s Berkshire, won the annual internal bracket contest after correctly calling 31 of the 32 games in the first round of the men’s basketball tournament dubbed March Madness, according to a statement.

The 94-year-old Oracle of Omaha was finally able to give out the big prize after relaxing the rules multiple times since the competition’s inception in 2016. Originally, Buffett, a Creighton basketball fan, set out to award anyone who could perfectly predict the Sweet 16.

Then, in 2024, after the $1 million jackpot remained unclaimed, participants were given the advantage of waiving the results of the eight games among the No.1 and No. 2 seeds. Still, nobody cracked the code.

This year, the rules were changed again so anyone who picks the winners of at least 30 of the tournament’s 32 first-round games would be eligible to win the prize.

In fact, 12 Berkshire employees guessed 31 of the 32 first-round games correctly. The $1 million prize went to the person from that group that picked 29 games consecutively before a loss. That winner went on to pick 44 of the 45 games correctly.

The other 11 contestants are getting $100,000 each.

This post appeared first on NBC NEWS

Investors have closely watched Nvidia’s week-long GPU Technology Conference (GTC) for news and updates from the dominant maker of chips that power artificial intelligence applications.

The event comes at a pivotal time for Nvidia shares. After two years of monster gains, the stock is down 15% over the past month and 22% below the January all-time high.

As part of the event, CEO Jensen Huang took questions from analysts on topics ranging from demand for its advanced Blackwell chips to the impact of Trump administration tariffs. Here’s a breakdown of how Huang responded — and what analysts homed in on — during some of the most important questions:

Huang said he “underrepresented” demand in a slide that showed 3.6 million in estimated Blackwell shipments to the top four cloud service providers this year. While Huang acknowledged speculation regarding shrinking demand, he said the amount of computation needed for AI has “exploded” and that the four biggest cloud service clients remain “fully invested.”

Morgan Stanley analyst Joseph Moore noted that Huang’s commentary on Blackwell demand in data centers was the first-ever such disclosure.

“It was clear that the reason the company made the decision to give that data was to refocus the narrative on the strength of the demand profile, as they continue to field questions related to Open AI related spending shifting from 1 of the 4 to another of the 4, or the pressure of ASICs, which come from these 4 customers,” Moore wrote to clients, referring to application-specific integrated circuits.

Piper Sandler analyst Harsh Kumar said the slide was “only scratching the surface” on demand. Beyond the four largest customers, he said others are also likely “all in line looking to get their hands on as much compute as their budgets allow.”

Another takeaway for Moore was the growth in physical AI, which refers to the use of the technology to power machines’ actions in the real world as opposed to within software.

At previous GTCs, Moore said physical AI “felt a little bit like speculative fiction.” But this year, “we are now hearing developers wrestling with tangible problems in the physical realm.”

Truist analyst William Stein, meanwhile, described physical AI as something that’s “starting to materialize.” The next wave for physical AI centers around robotics, he said, and presents a potential $50 trillion market for Nvidia.

Stein highliughted Jensen’s demonstration of Isaac GR00T N1, a customizable foundation model for humanoid robots.

Several analysts highlighted Huang’s explanation of what tariffs mean for Nvidia’s business.

“Management noted they have been preparing for such scenarios and are beginning to manufacture more onshore,” D.A. Davidson analyst Gil Luria said. “It was mentioned that Nvidia is already utilizing [Taiwan Semiconductor’s’] Arizona fab where it is manufacturing production silicon.”

Bernstein analyst Stacy Rasgon said Huang’s answer made it seem like Nvidia’s push to relocate some manufacturing to the U.S. would limit the effect of higher tariffs.

Rasgon also noted that Huang brushed off concerns of a recession hurting customer spending. Huang argued that companies would first cut spending in the areas of their business that aren’t growing, Rasgon said.

This post appeared first on NBC NEWS

Fintech lender Affirm said Tuesday that it’s reached an agreement with JPMorgan Chase to offer its buy now, pay later loan services to merchants on the bank’s payments network.

U.S. merchants who use JPMorgan to handle payments can soon add Affirm to their checkout pages, according to a release. Consumers will have access to loans ranging from 30 days to 60 months, according to Affirm.

The deal follows a similar announcement from rival Klarna last month, in which the Swedish fintech said it would be available to JPMorgan’s merchants. Affirm and Klarna are increasingly going head-to-head as the buy now, pay later field matures in the U.S.; Affirm is publicly traded and seeking to steadily grow profits, while Klarna recently filed for a U.S. IPO.

“The demand for diverse payment options, flexibility, and seamless transactions from both merchants and their customers is at an all-time high,” Michael Lozanoff, global head of merchant services at J.P. Morgan Payments, said in the release.

“By incorporating Affirm as a payment method into our Commerce Platform, we are empowering businesses to deliver the services they need and the experiences that customers increasingly expect as part of their retail journey,” he said.

Affirm said the deal was an expansion of existing banking and processing relationships with JPMorgan, the largest U.S. bank by assets. It wasn’t immediately clear when the new option would be available to merchants.

This post appeared first on NBC NEWS

From a chain of massive barges stretching from a Chinese beach into the sea, to a powerful new design for cutting undersea cables at record depths, China’s latest maritime innovations have captured the attention of defense experts – fueling concerns about their potential role in a future invasion of Taiwan.

While these new tools may ostensibly have civilian uses, experts say they highlight China’s expanding military and technological prowess – at a time when the ruling Communist Party is ramping up pressure on Taiwan, the self-governing democracy it claims as its own and has vowed to seize by force if necessary.

China already sends fighter jets and warships near the island almost daily and stages increasingly frequent military drills to intimidate what it calls “Taiwan separatist forces.”

Meanwhile Taiwan is looking on nervously as US President Donald Trump transforms Washington’s global relationships with his mercantilist “America First” foreign policy, discarding decades-old guarantees towards Europe and pushing long-standing Asian allies and partners to pay more for US protection.

Footage of the landing barges first surfaced – then quickly vanished – on Chinese social media this month, showing three enormous vessels stationed off a sandy beach strewn with seaweed, fishing boats and a handful of scattered tourists.

The three barges stood above the water on sturdy legs and were linked by bridges to form one giant causeway that stretched from the beach to more than 800 meters from the shore.

Defense analysts J. Michael Dahm and Thomas Shugart said the barges constitute a “significant upgrade” to the amphibious assault capacity of China’s People Liberation Army (PLA). In the event of an invasion of Taiwan, they could form a relocatable pier, delivering large amounts of tanks, armored vehicles and other heavy equipment – once fire superiority has been established.

“The innovation really is the volume that they could potentially put onto a remote beach or a damaged port or an austere landing area, probably in excess of hundreds of vehicles per hour, if they chose to do that,” said Dahm, a retired US Navy intelligence officer and senior resident fellow at the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies.

Shugart, a former US submariner and adjunct senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, noted the barges add to a growing list of innovative platforms, munitions and weapon systems the Chinese military has tested in recent years.

“There’s nothing like them in the West. I have never seen anything like what we’re seeing here,” he said.

Taiwan’s defense ministry said it had assessed that the new barges were “designed with an extendable ramp to serve as a makeshift dock, enabling the rapid offloading of main battle tanks and various vehicles in support of amphibious operations.” It said it would continue to monitor the barges and assess their capabilities and operational limitations.

Meanwhile, Chinese researchers from state-affiliated institutions claimed to have developed a powerful deep-sea device: a cable cutter capable of severing heavily fortified communication and power lines at depths of up to 4,000 meters – nearly twice the depth of the world’s deepest undersea cable.

The new design, published last month in the peer-reviewed Chinese journal Mechanical Engineer and first reported by the South China Morning Post, emerges amid growing concerns over the vulnerability of Taiwan’s critical infrastructure. Recently, suspicious damage to the island’s undersea cables has fueled fears of Chinese efforts to undermine the island’s communications with the outside world.

Collin Koh, a research fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS) in Singapore, said cable-cutting tools are commonly used for maintenance, and a breakthrough in the ability to sever cables at record depths with great efficiency isn’t alarming in itself.

“But what is alarming here is the political context that we attach to it,” he noted, pointing to recent incidents of undersea cable damage involving Chinese vessels around Taiwan and in the Baltic Sea.

The concern is that in the event of an invasion, China could sever the undersea cables around Taiwan, sowing panic among its public and potentially disrupting the island’s military communication with the US and other partners.

But Koh pointed out that the new cable-cutting design may have existed so far only in the experimental stage. “Whether it has translated into operationalized tool for use is a big question mark,” he said.

‘Invasion’ barges

The video of the landing barges offered the first close-up look at what the Naval News reported in January as “special and unusual barges” spotted at Guangzhou Shipyard. The outlet described them as reminiscent of Britain’s Mulberry Harbors, which were built for the Allied invasion of Normandy during World War II.

While some analysts suggest the barges could serve civilian purposes such as humanitarian relief, many experts – both in and outside Taiwan – believe they were built primarily for a military purpose.

Su Tzu-yun, a director at the Institute for National Defense Security Research in Taiwan, said the barges could offer the PLA a strategic advantage by creating makeshift costal landing points – particularly if Taiwan destroys its own ports in self-defense in the event of an invasion.

“Such barges have six or eight hydro feet that can lift them out of the water to create a stable platform, and then they can create a bridge from shallow water to a deeper area,” Su said.

Shugart, the former submariner, said the barges could even potentially drop a ramp across seawalls or other obstacles onto a coastal road, allowing the PLA to send troops and equipment to shore.

He added that the barges also enhance operational speed. “We’ve seen them set up and broken down and set up again multiple times within a matter of days,” Shugart said, citing satellite images.

However, due to their size and slow speed, these vessels are highly vulnerable to enemy fire and would likely only be deployed as part of a second wave, following the initial landing forces across the Strait, which is around 80 miles wide at its narrowest point, experts say.

“Before they even think about embarking a landing force and sending troops across the (Taiwan) Strait, they would already make sure that they have seized air, information and naval dominance all the way across the strait,” Shugart said.

The barges “wouldn’t be brought forward until the environment had been made safe for them, just like in World War II D-Day, the US had complete air control and sea control before the landing forces went ashore,” he added.

Collin, the expert at RSIS in Singapore, said the barges are not designed for high intensity warfare at sea.

“They are slow, they are not so well protected on their own, and they require escorts, which must go at the same speed as those barges. And for some of the war fighting assets, speed is the essence,” he said.

Days before the video of the barges surfaced on Chinese social media, the Marine Safety Administration of Guangdong province issued a notice banning ships from entering a long, narrow body of water due to “maritime tests.” The geo-coordinates of the restricted zone matched the location of the barges confirmed by satellite imagery.

By March 21, satellite imagery from Maxar Technologies showed that the barges had moved about 15 kilometers south along the coast. The images also captured a roll-on/roll-off (RO-RO) ferry docked beside the third and largest barge, positioned farthest from shore. Days later, a Planet Labs satellite image showed another RO-RO cargo ship approaching the same barge from the opposite side.

According to Shugart, Chinese authorities may be testing the barges’ ability to interface with civilian RO-RO vessels, which could significantly boost the PLA’s sealift capabilities by enabling the rapid transfer of large numbers of wheeled and tracked vehicles.

Designed to transport large numbers of vehicles to overseas markets, RO-RO ships have proliferated globally, but especially in China in recent years to meet the surging global demand for Chinese electric vehicles. But Chinese military planners and state media have also taken note of their dual-use capabilities to support the PLA’s operations.

In a 2021 military drill, China’s state broadcaster CCTV praised RO-RO ferries for enabling “large-scale, full-unit land and sea deployment with immediate unloading and loading.” Footage aired by the broadcaster showed rows of tanks neatly lined up inside such a ferry.

“These barges can significantly improve the PLA capability to deliver logistics following an invasion,” said Dahm, the former US Navy intelligence officer.

But he noted they are only part of Chinese leader Xi Jinping’s ambition to modernize the PLA and transform it into a “world class” military.

American officials believe Xi has instructed the PLA to be ready to invade Taiwan by 2027, though they have stressed that doesn’t mean an invasion will occur in 2027.

“In the context of all of the other improvements that we’re seeing to PLA capabilities and especially to PLA infrastructure, the barges are just the shiny object that draws attention to the fact that the PLA is making these preparations to be prepared to act on Xi Jinping’s orders in the next several years, if called upon to do so,” Dahm said.

This post appeared first on cnn.com

The White House said Tuesday that both Ukraine and Russia have agreed to stop using force in the Black Sea – a deal in principle that the Kremlin says comes with several conditions before it can be implemented.

US officials held a series of separate meetings with Russian and Ukrainian delegations in Saudi Arabia in recent days. The White House outlined the agreements it said the US struck with Russia and Ukraine in two separate, but very similar statements on Tuesday.

Both said that the US and each of the respective countries “have agreed to ensure safe navigation, eliminate the use of force, and prevent the use of commercial vessels for military purposes in the Black Sea.”

Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky confirmed in a news conference in Kyiv that Ukraine has agreed to stop using military force in the Black Sea. However, the Kremlin’s statement added that it would only implement the deal when restrictions on its banks and food and fertilizer exports are lifted.

The sanctions were imposed after Moscow launched its unprovoked full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

The US appeared to have offered different rewards to Kyiv and Moscow for sticking to their side of the bargain, including a promise that it would “help restore Russia’s access to the world market for agricultural and fertilizer exports, lower maritime insurance costs, and enhance access to ports and payment systems for such transactions” – a possible indication of willingness by the US to lift some of its strict economic sanctions. The details and timeline of relaxing restrictions remain unclear, as does the future of European sanctions.

Kyiv and its European allies have previously warned against lifting sanctions before a ceasefire is in place.

The two statements from the White House also said that the US and the two countries – separately – agreed to “develop measures for implementing” an agreement to ban strikes against energy facilities of Russia and Ukraine.

Zelensky seemed more optimistic about this part of the agreement, telling reporters in Kyiv that Ukraine and Russia have also agreed to pause strikes on each other’s energy infrastructure. He said that Ukraine has provided the US with a list of energy facilities it would like to be protected.

However, he also confirmed that “civilian infrastructure will not be included in the agreement.” Russia has been regularly attacking Ukrainian cities in recent weeks, killing dozens of Ukrainian civilians this month.

In the statement outlining the results of the talks with Ukraine, the White House said the US “remains committed to helping achieve the exchange of prisoners of war, the release of civilian detainees, and the return of forcibly transferred Ukrainian children.”

As the Trump administration pushes for peace in Ukraine, Russian officials have previously indicated interest in US-led proposals, accompanied by strenuous conditions. Earlier this month, after Kyiv accepted a US proposal for a 30-day ceasefire covering the entire front line, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that he “agreed with the proposal” in spirit but requested a number of concessions before signing up to it.

An agreement that Ukraine and Russia stop targeting energy infrastructure has also been marred by allegations that both sides have continued to attack energy sites.

No joint statement from US and Russia

The White House statements came after lengthy talks between the two sides on a potential ceasefire in Ukraine ended without a joint statement, despite expectations that there would be one.

The Russian state news agency Interfax quoted the first deputy chairman of the Russian Federation Council’s Defence and Security Committee, Vladimir Chizhov, as telling state TV channel Rossiya-24 that the statement was “not adopted because of Ukraine’s position.”

“The fact that they sat for 12 hours and seemed to agree on a joint statement, which however was not adopted due to Ukraine’s position, is also very characteristic and symptomatic,” Chizhov told Russia-24, according to Interfax.

Kyiv was not represented in the talks and Chizhov did not give any details on “Ukraine’s position.”

Russian and US officials had met at the Ritz-Carlton hotel in Riyadh on Monday, the same location where the US delegation met with Ukrainian officials a day earlier. Ukraine’s Defense Minister Rustem Umerov described his meeting with President Donald Trump’s envoy Keith Kellogg on Sunday as “productive and focused.”

Trump has made ending the war in Ukraine one of his priorities. He went as far as promising during his election campaign that he would achieve peace within 24 hours of being in office.

Instead of a full truce, the White House statements on Tuesday outline an agreement to stop using force in the sea, similar to the Black Sea grain initiative that was in place earlier in the war.

Brokered by the United Nations and Turkey, the deal allowed Ukraine to export grain by sea, with ships bypassing a Russian blockade of the country’s Black Sea ports and navigating safe passage through the waterway to Turkey’s Bosphorus Strait in order to reach global markets. Ukraine was one of the world’s leading grain exporters before Russia’s full-scale invasion.

The initiative was signed in July 2022 and renewed three times before Russia allowed it to lapse in July 2023, saying that its demands had not been met. Moscow had for some time complained that it had been prevented from adequately exporting its own foodstuffs under the deal.

However, Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Tuesday that Moscow was in favor of resuming the Black Sea Grain Initiative, “with certain conditions.”

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said Tuesday that Moscow was “analyzing” the results of the second round of talks between Russian and US officials.

He also said there were currently no plans for Trump and Putin to speak, although he added that a conversation between the two leaders could be arranged “quite quickly.”

Meanwhile, Lavrov told Russia’s Channel One that the US must “order” Zelensky to respect a new Black Sea grain deal, hinting at the belief by Moscow that the US is prepared to strong-arm Kyiv into an agreement.

Indeed, the White House has made it clear to Zelensky and his nation that US military, economic and intelligence support rests on his willingness to participate in Trump’s peace process.

This post appeared first on cnn.com