Breaking
Own American Vibe
Author

admin

Browsing
Politics

Trump tariff plan faces uncertain future as court battles intensify

A federal appeals court paused a lower ruling blocking President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs, siding with the administration Thursday in a legal fight over the White House’s use of an emergency law to enact punishing import taxes. 

The back-and-forth injected more volatility into markets this week after several weeks of relative calm, and court observers and economists told Fox News Digital they do not expect the dust to settle any time soon. 

Here’s what to know as this litigation continues to play out.

What’s happening now?

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit temporarily stayed a lower court ruling Thursday that blocked two of Trump’s sweeping tariffs from taking force.

The ruling paused a decision by the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) allowing Trump to continue to enact the 10% baseline tariff and the so-called ‘reciprocal tariffs’ that he announced April 2 under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA.

It came one day after the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled unanimously to block the tariffs.

Members of the three-judge panel who were appointed by Trump, former President Barack Obama and former President Ronald Reagan, ruled unanimously that Trump had overstepped his authority under IEEPA. They noted that, as commander in chief, Trump does not have ‘unbounded authority’ to impose tariffs under the emergency law. 

Now, lawyers for the Trump administration and the plaintiffs are tasked with complying with a fast schedule with deadlines in both courts. Plaintiffs have until 5 p.m. Monday to file their response to the Court of International Trade, according to Jeffrey Schwab, senior counsel and director of litigation of the Liberty Justice Center, which represents five small businesses that sued the administration. 

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit gave plaintiffs until Thursday to file a response to the stay and the Trump administration until June 9 to file a reply, Schwab told Fox News Digital in an interview. 

The goal is to move expeditiously, and lawyers for the plaintiffs told Fox News they plan to file briefs to both courts before the deadlines to mitigate harm to their clients.

‘Hopefully,’ Schwab said, the quick action will allow the courts to issue rulings ‘more quickly than they otherwise would.’

What’s at stake?

The Trump administration praised the stay as a victory.

The appellate court stay on the CIT ruling ‘is a positive development for America’s industries and workers,’ White House spokesman Kush Desai said in a statement.

‘The Trump administration remains committed to addressing our country’s national emergencies of drug trafficking and historic trade deficits with every legal authority conferred to the president in the Constitution and by Congress.’

But some economists warned that continuing to pursue the steep tariffs could backfire. 

The bottom line for the Trump administration ‘is that they need to get back to a place [where] they are using these huge reciprocal tariffs and all of that as a negotiating tactic,’ William Cline, an economist and senior fellow emeritus at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, said in an interview. 

Cline noted that this had been the framework laid out earlier by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who had embraced the tariffs as more of an opening salvo for future trade talks, including between the U.S. and China. 

‘I think the thing to keep in mind there is that Trump and Vance have this view that tariffs are beautiful because they will restore America’s Rust Belt jobs and that they’ll collect money while they’re doing it, which will contribute to fiscal growth,’ said Cline, the former deputy managing director and chief economist of the Institute of International Finance.

‘Those are both fantasies.’

What happens now?

Plaintiffs and the Trump administration wait. But whether that wait is a good or bad thing depends on who is asked.

Economists noted that the longer the court process takes, the more uncertainty is injected into markets. This could slow economic growth and hurt consumers. 

For the U.S. small business owners that have sued Trump over the tariffs, it could risk potentially irreparable harm.

‘Some of the harm has already taken place. And the longer it goes on, the worse it is,’ said Schwab. 

The White House said it will take its tariff fight to the Supreme Court if necessary. But it’s unclear if the high court would choose to take up the case.

The challenge comes at a time when Trump’s relationship with the judiciary has come under increasing strain, which could make the high court wary to take on such a politically charged case. 

Lawyers for the plaintiffs described the case as ‘very likely’ to be appealed to the Supreme Court, but it’s unclear whether it will move to review it.

‘It’s possible that because the case is before the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, which essentially applies to the country, unlike specific appellate courts, which have certain districts, that the Supreme Court might be OK with whatever the Federal Circuit decides and then not take the case,’ Schwab said. 

For now, the burden of proof shifts to the government, which must convince the court it will suffer ‘irreparable harm’ if the injunction remains in place, a high legal standard the Trump administration must meet.

Beyond that, Schwab said, the court will weigh a balancing test. If both sides claim irreparable harm, the justices will ask, ‘Who is irreparably harmed more?

‘And I think it’s fair to say that our clients are going to be more irreparably harmed than the United States federal government. Because our clients might not exist, and the United States federal government is certainly going to exist.’

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Keep Reading
Politics

Hunter Biden seen driving Toyota rental in South Africa after his Secret Service detail was terminated

Hunter Biden was seen out and about with his family in Cape Town, South Africa, Friday amid Republicans’ investigation into an alleged ‘conspiracy’ related to his father’s cognitive decline as president. 

The embattled son of the former president toured Cape Town with his wife, Melissa Cohen Biden, and son, Beau Biden Jr., driving a rented Toyota sedan, a big change from the black Chevy Suburbans he was used to traveling in before President Donald Trump yanked his Secret Service detail. 

In March, Trump terminated Hunter Biden’s Secret Service detail after former President Joe Biden extended his son’s detail indefinitely. Typically, children of former presidents only enjoy Secret Service protection if they are 16 or younger.

Trump’s move to remove Hunter Biden’s detail came as the former president’s son was once again vacationing in South Africa.

Hunter Biden and his family were seen on the Sea Point Main Road, a main thoroughfare in a wealthy part of Cape Town, paying for parking and stopping into the local butcher. Based on the images, it is apparent Hunter no longer has the luxury of a Secret Service detail.

The new pictures also mark the first time Hunter Biden has been seen publicly since his father’s public cancer announcement.

Republicans are launching a new investigation into the alleged ‘conspiracy’ behind former President Joe Biden’s cognitive decline. 

Senstors Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., and John Cornyn, R-Texas, announced plans to hold a Senate Judiciary hearing June 18 to look into the alleged cover-up of the 82-year-old former president’s mental decline while in office by the media and those closest to him.

The lawmakers are still gathering witnesses for the probe, which would be the first full congressional committee hearing on the subject.

Fox News Digital’s Alex Miller contributed to this report.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Keep Reading
Investing

1911 Gold Temporarily Suspends Operations at True North Complex due to Bissett Evacuation Order

VANCOUVER, BC , May 30, 2025 /CNW/ – 1911 Gold Corporation (‘ 1911 Gold ‘ or the ‘ Company ‘) (TSXV: AUMB) (OTCQB: AUMBF) (FRA: 2KY) announces the temporary suspension of operations at its True North complex in Bissett, Manitoba , following the evacuation order issued by the Province of Manitoba due to escalating wildfire activity in the region.

The Company has safely evacuated all personnel from the site and is closely monitoring the situation in coordination with local and provincial authorities. The Company has taken precautionary measures to safeguard certain site infrastructure and continues to assist with the wildfire response by hosting frontline personnel at the True North camp facilities.

Shaun Heinrichs , CEO and President, stated, ‘The safety of our employees and the community is our top priority. We are grateful for the swift and coordinated response of emergency services and are committed to supporting firefighting efforts, including the ongoing use of our camp facilities. Our thoughts are with everyone impacted by the wildfires, and we stand ready to support the community during this challenging time.’

The Company will provide further updates as more information becomes available and will resume operations at the True North complex when it is safe to do so.

About 1911 Gold Corporation

1911 Gold is a junior explorer that holds a highly prospective, consolidated land package totaling more than 61,647 hectares within and adjacent to the Archean Rice Lake greenstone belt in Manitoba , and also owns the True North mine and mill complex at Bissett, Manitoba . 1911 Gold believes its land package is a prime exploration opportunity, with the potential to develop a mining district centred on the True North complex. The Company also owns the Apex project near Snow Lake, Manitoba and the Denton-Keefer project near Timmins, Ontario , and intends to focus on organic growth and accretive acquisition opportunities in North America .

1911 Gold’s True North complex and exploration land package are located within the traditional territory of the Hollow Water First Nation, signatory to Treaty No. 5 (1875-76). 1911 Gold looks forward to maintaining open, co-operative and respectful communication with the Hollow Water First Nation, and all local stakeholders, in order to build mutually beneficial working relationships.

ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Shaun Heinrichs
President and CEO

www.1911gold.com

CAUTIONARY STATEMENT REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION

This news release may contain forward-looking statements. Often, but not always, forward-looking statements can be identified by the use of words such as ‘plans’, ‘expects’ or ‘does not expect’, ‘is expected’, ‘budget’, ‘scheduled’, ‘estimates’, ‘forecasts’, ‘intends’, ‘anticipates’ or ‘does not anticipate’, or ‘believes’, or describes a ‘goal’, or variation of such words and phrases or state that certain actions, events or results ‘may’, ‘could’, ‘would’, ‘might’ or ‘will’ be taken, occur or be achieved.

All forward-looking statements reflect the Company’s beliefs and assumptions based on information available at the time the statements were made. Actual results or events may differ from those predicted in these forward-looking statements. All of the Company’s forward-looking statements are qualified by the assumptions that are stated or inherent in such forward-looking statements, including the assumptions listed below. Although the Company believes that these assumptions are reasonable, this list is not exhaustive of factors that may affect any of the forward-looking statements.

Forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, future events, conditions, uncertainties and other factors which may cause the actual results, performance or achievements to be materially different from any future results, prediction, projection, forecast, performance or achievements expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements. All statements that address expectations or projections about the future, including, but not limited to, statements with respect to the terms of the Offering, the use of proceeds of the Offering, the timing and ability of the Company to close the Offering, the timing and ability of the Company to receive necessary regulatory approvals, the tax treatment of the securities issued under the Offering, the timing for the Qualifying Expenditures to be renounced in favour of the subscribers, and the plans, operations and prospects of the Company, are forward-looking statements. Although 1911 Gold has attempted to identify important factors that could cause actual actions, events or results to differ materially from those described in forward-looking statements, there may be other factors that cause actions, events or results not to be as anticipated, estimated or intended. There can be no assurance that forward-looking statements will prove to be accurate, as actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in such statements. Accordingly, readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements.

All forward-looking statements contained in this news release are given as of the date hereof. The Company disclaims any intention or obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except in accordance with applicable securities laws.

Neither TSX Venture Exchange nor its Regulation Services Provider (as that term is defined in the policies of the TSX Venture Exchange) accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release.

SOURCE 1911 Gold Corporation

View original content to download multimedia: http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/May2025/30/c0974.html

News Provided by Canada Newswire via QuoteMedia

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

Keep Reading
Investing

Ontario Backs Down on Key Bill 5 Provisions, Echoes BC’s Mining Debate

Ontario’s Conservative provincial government is retreating from elements of its controversial Bill 5 following weeks of intense pressure from First Nations leaders.

They have accused Premier Doug Ford’s administration of violating its constitutional duty to consult Indigenous communities on critical minerals development in the province’s far north.

In a move aimed at quelling growing unrest, Ford’s office confirmed on Wednesday (May 28) that it will introduce an amendment that explicitly incorporates the constitutional duty to consult into the bill, a key demand from Indigenous leaders who have denounced the legislation as a sweeping overreach that sidelines their rights.

“Regulations under this Act shall be made in a manner consistent with the recognition and affirmation of existing Aboriginal and treaty rights … including the duty to consult,” reads the proposed amendment, as reported by CBC.

The about-face comes amid an intensifying confrontation over the province’s push to fast track mining development in the mineral-rich Ring of Fire region, located in the James Bay lowlands.

Slated to become the first of several “special economic zones” — areas exempt from certain provincial laws and regulations — it has instead become the flashpoint for a broader reckoning over resource extraction in Canada.

Government scrambles to contain fallout

First Nations leaders, including the Chiefs of Ontario, have demanded the bill be scrapped entirely, arguing the government has already breached its legal obligation to engage in meaningful consultation from the outset.

Ontario Regional Chief Abram Benedict, who met privately with Ford last week, described the discussions as frank, but necessary. That meeting, according to the provincial government, catalyzed a round of renewed engagement, with Greg Rickford, minister of Indigenous affairs and Stephen Lecce, minister of energy and mines, pledging not to move forward with the Ring of Fire designation without further consultation.

“We will not use the authorities like a special economic zone until we’ve meaningfully consulted,” Lecce said.

Rickford added, “We are going to enunciate explicitly in each one that the duty to consult is there and it will be upheld to the highest standards. The aim is to make First Nations partners.”

Officially titled the ‘Protect Ontario by Unleashing Our Economy Act’, Bill 5 was unveiled at the Toronto Stock Exchange in April, with Ford and Lecce framing it as a decisive response to geopolitical tensions.

They also positioned it as a means of asserting control over Canada’s critical mineral resources.

“With President Trump taking direct aim at our economy, it cannot be business as usual,” Ford said at the time, referencing the US push to prioritize domestic mineral supply chains.

The bill grants the province sweeping new powers to revoke mining claims, restrict foreign ownership — particularly from “hostile regimes” — and override environmental and regulatory hurdles.

It also proposes replacing Ontario’s Endangered Species Act with a narrower Species Conservation Act, a change that environmentalists warn could spell extinction for at-risk wildlife.

“The definition of habitat is so narrow that what it means is less habitat than the species has now,” Laura Bowman of Ecojustice told CBC when the bill was introduced. “And less habitat than the species has now, for a species already in decline, virtually ensures extirpation or extinction.”

US$3.1 billion budget boost targets Indigenous inclusion

Even as heated discourse unfolds with Ontario’s First Nations, the province unveiled last week a massive C$3.1 billion investment to supercharge the province’s mining and energy infrastructure.

The 2025 budget includes a tripling of the Indigenous Opportunities Financing Program, which has been expanded to support Indigenous participation across the mining, pipeline and energy sectors.

Minister of Finance Peter Bethlenfalvy emphasized that the goal is “unlocking the province’s critical mineral reserves” while placing Indigenous partnerships “at the forefront of the province’s resource development strategy.”

The program is designed to offer loan guarantees that enable Indigenous communities to secure equity stakes in major projects — a model that First Nations have long advocated for as a way to transform economic marginalization into opportunity.

National parallels in BC’s Bill 15 battle

Ontario’s retreat on consultation provisions follows similar tensions in BC, where Premier David Eby is facing backlash over Bill 15 — a legislative proposal that would allow cabinet to fast-track infrastructure and resource projects deemed of “provincial significance,” including critical minerals development.

Eby unveiled a broad vision this week to unlock billions in investments in Northwest BC, emphasizing partnerships with Indigenous communities and positioning mining as central to both economic recovery and climate transition.

But critics argue the rhetoric masks a legal and ethical failure.

“Trust has been broken between First Nations and the David Eby government,” Tsartlip First Nation Chief Don Tom said bluntly. Calling Eby a “snake oil salesman,” Tom accused the provincial government of undermining true consultation, while pushing legislation that could override Indigenous opposition.

Like Ontario’s Bill 5, BC’s Bill 15 is being slammed as a dangerous precedent that gives the government outsized power to override environmental protections and community consent.

Both the BC and Ontario governments are facing similar dilemmas on the acceleration of critical minerals development to meet global demand while tempering their legal and moral obligations to stakeholders.

The minerals — including nickel, lithium and rare earth elements — are essential to the green energy transition, forming key components of batteries, solar panels, and electric vehicles.

Still, First Nations are demanding that any progress must start not only with a recognition of their economic potential, but of their right to self-determination and free, prior and informed consent.

Securities Disclosure: I, Giann Liguid, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

Keep Reading
Investing

Appeals Court Grants Trump Temporary Reprieve on Tariffs, “TACO” Taunts Gain Steam

US President Donald Trump scored a temporary reprieve in his ongoing trade war efforts after a federal appeals court stayed a lower court’s decision that struck down most of his global tariffs.

The Thursday (May 29) decision allows the administration’s controversial import duties to remain in place for now.

The decision by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit provides breathing room for Trump and his trade team as they prepare a full appeal, following a blistering Wednesday (May 28) night ruling by the US Court of International Trade that invalidated nearly all of the Trump-imposed tariffs not tied to national security.

The trade court found Trump overstepped under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, saying it “does not confer such unbounded authority” to enact sweeping economic penalties without congressional oversight.

The decision jeopardized key components of Trump’s aggressive tariff program — including a blanket 10 percent import tax and recent “reciprocal tariffs” targeting countries like China, Canada, Mexico and members of the European Union.

But for now, the tariffs will remain in effect. The appellate court granted the Trump administration’s request to pause enforcement of the trade court’s order “until further notice while this court considers the motions papers.”

The next hearing is set for June 5.

White House reacts swiftly, blasts judicial overreach

Trump administration officials reacted with fury to the trade court’s initial decision, describing it as an affront to executive authority in foreign policy and economic matters.

“The political branches, not courts, make foreign policy and chart economic policy,” the White House said in its appeal filing. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt expressed similar concerns on Thursday, saying:

“America cannot function if President Trump, or any other president for that matter, has their sensitive diplomatic or trade negotiations railroaded by activist judges.”

Trump himself took to social media on Thursday morning to vent, writing: “Hopefully, the Supreme Court will reverse this horrible, Country threatening decision, QUICKLY and DECISIVELY.”

He later added: “This would completely destroy Presidential Power — The Presidency would never be the same!”

Peter Navarro, Trump’s top trade advisor, also signaled that the administration was already exploring alternatives, stating that even if it lost the battle in the Supreme Court, it “will do it another way.”

The Wednesday judgment had required the White House to make changes within 10 days.

The administration responded by notifying both the trade court and the appellate court of its intent to challenge the ruling all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary.

“TACO trade” meme gains steam as Trump backpedals

Adding to the storm surrounding the tariffs is growing traction of the term “TACO trade” — a satirical acronym coined by Financial Times columnist Robert Armstrong that stands for “Trump Always Chickens Out.”

The phrase has caught fire on Wall Street and social media, referring to Trump’s habit of threatening steep tariffs, only to roll them back amid market backlash or diplomatic pressure.

The phenomenon was on full display last month, when Trump announced what he called “Liberation Day,” unveiling sweeping tariffs as high as 145 percent on imports from nearly every major trading partner.

Within a week, those tariffs were scaled down to a baseline 10 percent. Duties on Chinese goods were first reduced to 30 percent and then to 10 percent, while deadlines for tariffs on European goods were postponed.

On Wednesday, visibly irritated by the nickname, Trump lashed out at a reporter who asked about the “TACO trade” label. “Oh, I chicken out. Isn’t that nice? I’ve never heard that,” Trump said, bristling at the question.

“You call that chickening out? It’s called negotiation,” he added.

“Six months ago, this country was stone cold dead. We had a dead country. We had a country that people didn’t think was going to survive. And you ask a nasty question like that,’ Trump continued.

Despite his protests, “TACO trade” has become a viral symbol of his erratic approach to global commerce. California Governor Gavin Newsom mocked the administration after the trade court ruling, saying, “It’s raining tacos today.”

So far, the administration’s tariffs on steel, aluminum and cars remain untouched by the ruling.

Securities Disclosure: I, Giann Liguid, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

Keep Reading
Investing

Top 5 Canadian Mining Stocks This Week: Adyton Sparkles with 97 Percent Gain

Statistics Canada reported on Friday (May 30) that real gross domestic product (GDP) gained 0.5 percent during the first quarter of 2025. Even on a per capita basis, real GDP posted a strong 0.4 percent increase.

The agency primarily attributed the rise to a 1.6 percent increase in exports during the quarter. The higher export amounts were led by a 16.7 percent growth in passenger vehicle exports and a 12 percent rise in industrial machinery, equipment and parts exports, both of which were driven higher in response to imposed and threatened tariffs from the United States.

On a monthly basis, the GDP registered a 0.1 percent gain in March, following a 0.2 percent contraction in February. The most significant contributor to the rise came from the resource sector, which posted a 2.2 percent increase, with oil and gas gaining 2 percent.

When it came to mining, metal ore mining rose 1.7 percent overall. Copper, nickel, lead and zinc recorded a 2.4 percent gain, while the other metal mining category increased by 16.9 percent. However, a 3.1 percent decline in gold and silver mining hindered overall growth across the subsector.

South of the border, the US Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) released its second estimate for first quarter GDP on Thursday (May 29). Its figures indicated that GDP contracted 0.2 percent in the first three months of the year, down significantly from a 2.4 percent gain in the fourth quarter of 2024.

The Bureau attributed the decline to an increase in imports and a decrease in government spending. However, the agency also noted that upturns in investment and exports partially offset the fall during the quarter.

On Friday, the BEA released April’s personal consumption expenditures (PCE) index. The data shows that on an annual basis, all items PCE growth had further slowed to 2.1 percent compared to the 2.3 percent recorded in March. PCE less the volatile food and energy categories also slowed on an annual basis, up 2.5 percent in April compared to 2.7 percent in March.

The PCE is the preferred inflationary measure used by the US Federal Reserve to set its benchmark interest rate, the Federal Funds Rate. The slowing pace is currently in line with the central bank’s 2 percent target goal. Still, with uncertainty surrounding tariffs and US economic policy, most analysts expect the Fed to maintain the rate at the current 4.25 to 4.5 percent range when it next meets on June 18 and 19.

Markets and commodities react

In Canada, major indexes were mixed at the end of the week.

The S&P/TSX Composite Index (INDEXTSI:OSPTX) gained 0.9 percent during the week to close at 26,175.05 on Friday. However, the S&P/TSX Venture Composite Index (INDEXTSI:JX) fell 0.02 percent to 694.40 and the CSE Composite Index (CSE:CSECOMP) shed 3.78 percent to 115.01.

US equities were in positive territory this week, with the S&P 500 (INDEXSP:INX) gaining 2.24 percent to close at 5,911.68, the Nasdaq-100 (INDEXNASDAQ:NDX) rising 2.57 percent to 21,340.99 and the Dow Jones Industrial Average (INDEXDJX:.DJI) adding 1.79 percent to 42,270.08.

The gold price was flat this week, posting a loss of just 0.04 percent, to close Friday at US$3,293.21. The silver price was also marginally down, shedding 0.54 percent during the period to US$32.87.

In base metals, the COMEX copper price fell 3.47 percent over the week to US$4.72 per pound, pulling back from its gains seen late last week. Meanwhile, the S&P GSCI (INDEXSP:SPGSCI) posted a decline of 1.57 percent to close at 524.66.

Top Canadian mining stocks this week

How did mining stocks perform against this backdrop?

Take a look at this week’s five best-performing Canadian mining stocks below.

Stock data for this article was retrieved at 4 p.m. EDT on Friday using TradingView’s stock screener. Only companies trading on the TSX, TSXV and CSE with market capitalizations greater than C$10 million are included. Companies within the non-energy minerals and energy minerals sectors were considered.

1. Adyton Resources (TSXV:ADY)

Weekly gain: 96.55 percent
Market cap: C$59.79 million
Share price: C$0.285

Adyton Resources is working to advance the Feni Island and Fergusson Island gold projects in Papua New Guinea.

The Feni Island site has seen historic exploration, with 212 holes drilled over 18,813 meters. While limited work has been conducted by Adyton, a 2021 resource estimate shows an inferred resource of 1.46 million ounces of gold. The company has been working to expand its gold resource and explore for copper at greater depths than previous exploration.

While Feni Island has been its primary focus, Adyton has also been working to advance its Fergusson Island project.

The project consists of two advanced exploration licenses for the Wapolu and Gameta targets, which host a combined indicated resource of 173,000 ounces of gold and an inferred resource of 540,000 ounces of gold. The site also hosts a past-producing mine, which was abandoned in the 1990s.

On March 12, Adyton reported that a team from the Papua New Guinea Mineral Resource Authority had visited the Fergusson Island site to familiarize themselves with the project and to provide an approval process for the restart of the mine.

The most recent news from Adyton came on Wednesday (May 28), when it released its first quarter management discussion and analysis. In the report, the company provided a summary of its activities during the first quarter and demonstrated an increase in its balance sheet compared to the previous quarter.

2. Sterling Metals (TSXV:SAG)

Weekly gain: 80.77 percent
Market cap: C$15.15 million
Share price: C$0.47

Sterling Metals is an exploration company working to advance a trio of projects in Canada.

Over the past year, its primary focus has been on exploration at its brownfield Soo copper project in Ontario, which it recently renamed from Copper Road. The 25,000 hectare property hosts two past-producing copper mines and has the potential for larger intrusion-related copper mineralization.

On January 15, Sterling announced results from a 3D induced polarization and resistivity survey that covered an area of 5 kilometers by 3 kilometers and revealed multiple high-priority drill-ready targets. The company intends to use the survey results, along with historical exploration, to inform a drill program at the site.

The company’s other two projects are located in Newfoundland and Labrador. Adeline is a 297 square kilometer district-scale property with sediment-hosted copper and silver mineralization along 44 kilometers of the strike, and Sail Pond is a silver, copper, lead and zinc project that hosts a 16 kilometer long linear soil anomaly and has seen 16,000 meters of drilling.

On Thursday, Sterling announced that the first of four diamond drill holes from the initial drill program at Soo ‘demonstrated a continuous, bulk-tonnage copper-molybdenum-silver-gold target, called the GFP Porphyry.’ The company highlighted a broad, near-surface zone grading 0.28 percent copper equivalent over a length of 482.8 meters, which included an intersection of 0.56 percent copper equivalent over the first 75.2 meters.

3. Grid Battery Metals (TSXV:CELL)

Weekly gain: 58.33 percent
Market cap: C$23.19 million
Share price: C$0.095

Grid Battery Metals is a North America battery metals company with a portfolio of lithium projects in Nevada, US, including the Clayton Valley lithium project. The company also recently acquired the Grid copper-gold project in North-central British Columbia, Canada.

The project consists of 17 claims covering a total land package of 27,525 hectares in the Omineca Mining Division near Fort St. James. Grid announced on March 17 that it had completed the acquisition of the property from former Grid subsidiary AC/DC Battery Metals (TSXV:ACDC) in exchange for 5 million shares in Grid at C$0.05 per share as well as a C$48,172.15 payment for staking costs.

The property has seen minimal exploration, but a technical report for the site included a mineral resource estimate for the neighboring Kwanika-Stardust project owned by Northwest Copper (TSXV:NWST,OTC Pink:NWCCF).

The Kwanika Central Zone hosts measured and indicated resources of 385.7 million pounds of copper, 532,500 ounces of gold and 1.97 million ounces of silver from the open pit area, as well as 410.6 million pounds of copper, 738,000 ounces of gold and 1.9 million ounces of silver from the underground portion.

Shares in Grid saw gains this week, but the company’s most recent project-related news came on May 20, when it announced it had engaged with Hardline Exploration to begin to begin work at the property.

4. EMP Metals (CSE:EMPS)

Weekly gain: 54.17 percent
Market cap: C$40.79 million
Share price: C$0.37

EMP Metals is a lithium exploration and development company working to advance its EMP direct lithium extraction project in Saskatchewan, Canada. The project is composed of three prospective lithium brine properties covering an area of 81,000 hectares.

A February 2024 preliminary economic assessment for the lithium brines in the Viewfield area of Southern Saskatchewan suggests a resource of 130,056 metric tons of lithium in place from a total brine volume of 1.06 billion cubic meters.

The economics of the project indicate an after-tax net present value at a discount rate of 8 percent of C$1.44 billion with an internal rate of return of 45.1 percent over a payout period of 2.4 years.

Shares in EMP gained this past week after it announced on Thursday it entered into a deal with Saltwork Technologies to develop, build and operate a lithium refining demonstration plant at the Viewfield property.

Once complete, the plant will process 10 cubic meters per day of lithium brine into concentrated lithium chloride. Additionally, Saltworks will upgrade its lithium conversion plant in Richmond, British Columbia, to continuously process lithium chloride into lithium carbonate.

5. Mogotes Metals (TSXV:MOG)

Weekly gain: 54.05 percent
Market cap: C$48.46 million
Share price: C$0.285

Mogotes Metals is an explorer working to advance its Filo Sur copper-gold-silver project, which straddles the border between Argentina and Chile in the Vicuña copper district.

The Argentinean portion of the site, representing the bulk of the land package at 8,118 hectares, is the subject of an earn-in agreement with Golden Arrow Resources (TSXV:GRG,OTCQB:GARWF), a member of the Grosso Group.

On March 26, Mogotes announced that it had closed an amended deal that would provide the company with 100 percent ownership of the project. Under the terms of the deal, Mogotes paid Golden Arrow C$550,000 in cash, issued 10.71 million common shares and invested C$450,000 in Golden Arrow via a private placement. The terms also include future commitments.

The company’s most recent news came on May 12, when it announced that the first line of a geophysical survey had identified a large, near surface anomaly located 2.8 kilometers south of Lundin Mining’s (TSX:LUN,OTCQX:LUNMF) Filo Del Sol project.

FAQs for Canadian mining stocks

What is the difference between the TSX and TSXV?

The TSX, or Toronto Stock Exchange, is used by senior companies with larger market caps, and the TSXV, or TSX Venture Exchange, is used by smaller-cap companies. Companies listed on the TSXV can graduate to the senior exchange.

How many mining companies are listed on the TSX and TSXV?

As of February 2025, there were 1,572 companies listed on the TSXV, 905 of which were mining companies. Comparatively, the TSX was home to 1,859 companies, with 181 of those being mining companies.

Together the TSX and TSXV host around 40 percent of the world’s public mining companies.

How much does it cost to list on the TSXV?

There are a variety of different fees that companies must pay to list on the TSXV, and according to the exchange, they can vary based on the transaction’s nature and complexity. The listing fee alone will most likely cost between C$10,000 to C$70,000. Accounting and auditing fees could rack up between C$25,000 and C$100,000, while legal fees are expected to be over C$75,000 and an underwriters’ commission may hit up to 12 percent.

The exchange lists a handful of other fees and expenses companies can expect, including but not limited to security commission and transfer agency fees, investor relations costs and director and officer liability insurance.

These are all just for the initial listing, of course. There are ongoing expenses once companies are trading, such as sustaining fees and additional listing fees, plus the costs associated with filing regular reports.

How do you trade on the TSXV?

Investors can trade on the TSXV the way they would trade stocks on any exchange. This means they can use a stock broker or an individual investment account to buy and sell shares of TSXV-listed companies during the exchange’s trading hours.

Article by Dean Belder; FAQs by Lauren Kelly.

Securities Disclosure: I, Dean Belder, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.

Securities Disclosure: I, Lauren Kelly, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

Keep Reading
Investing

NVIDIA Rallies After Strong Q1, AI Demand Outshines China Export Hit

NVIDIA (NASDAQ:NVDA) shares rose over 5 percent to hit US$142.50 on Thursday (May 29), extending a powerful rally that reflects Wall Street’s optimism in the chipmaker’s long-term trajectory

The company’s positive performance came despite a bruising blow from US export restrictions to China.

The semiconductor giant, seen by many industry experts as the backbone of the global artificial intelligence (AI) boom, reported better-than-expected financial results for its first fiscal quarter of 2026 on Wednesday (May 28), allaying fears that geopolitical tensions and tighter trade controls could derail its momentum.

In the face of a projected US$8 billion revenue hit from the export ban on China and a US$4.5 billion writedown on unsold inventory, investors appeared to focus on NVIDIA’s dominant position in the fast-expanding AI market.

“There is one chip in the world fueling the AI Revolution and it’s Nvidia,” wrote Dan Ives, a tech analyst at Wedbush Securities. “That narrative is clear from these results and the positive commentary from Jensen.”

NVIDIA posted quarterly revenues of US$44.1 billion, beating consensus analyst estimates of US$43.3 billion. That’s also a staggering 69 percent increase from the US$26 billion reported in the same quarter last year.

The company’s flagship data center division, which supplies AI chips to major clients like Microsoft (NASDAQ:MSFT) and Meta Platforms (NASDAQ:META), reported US$39.1 billion in sales.

Although that’s a slight miss from Wall Street’s US$39.2 billion forecast, it’s still up from US$22.5 billion last year.

“Our breakthrough Blackwell NVL72 AI supercomputer — a ‘thinking machine’ designed for reasoning — is now in full-scale production across system makers and cloud service providers,” said Jensen Huang, founder and CEO of NVIDIA.

“Global demand for NVIDIA’s AI infrastructure is incredibly strong. AI inference token generation has surged tenfold in just one year, and as AI agents become mainstream, the demand for AI computing will accelerate.”

Earlier this month, Huang traveled with US President Donald Trump to the Middle East, where the company reportedly secured orders for hundreds of thousands of chips from Saudi Arabia.

Yet NVIDIA’s latest results also expose the mounting risks the firm faces as global trade policy tightens.

In recent months, Washington has sharply escalated restrictions on semiconductor exports to China, targeting chips like NVIDIA’s H20 — a China-specific product designed to comply with US rules. The US Department of Commerce has banned shipments of these chips to Chinese firms, citing concerns about potential military applications.

The move forced NVIDIA to write off US$4.5 billion in H20 inventory, and the company estimates a US$2.5 billion revenue loss in the current quarter as a result. Huang placed the broader impact of the China restrictions at US$15 billion.

“The US$50 billion China market is effectively closed to US industry,” he said in an interview. “We are exploring limited ways to compete, but Hopper is no longer an option. China’s AI moves on with or without US chips.”

While NVIDIA has previously indicated that it could redesign chips to meet evolving US export rules, Huang has become increasingly vocal in his criticism of Washington’s policy direction. Speaking to reporters after NVIDIA’s earnings call, he described the restrictions as a “failure” that will ultimately hurt American companies more than Chinese rivals.

The pressure on NVIDIA intensified further this week, as the Financial Times reported that Trump has instructed US suppliers of chip-design software to halt sales to Chinese firms.

Nonetheless, NVIDIA’s strong earnings, coupled with a federal court ruling blocking some of Trump’s proposed tariffs, have reassured investors. AI-driven demand appears robust enough to offset near-term geopolitical volatility.

For now, the markets have spoken — and they’re betting big on NVIDIA’s future.

“Countries around the world are recognizing AI as essential infrastructure — just like electricity and the internet — and NVIDIA stands at the center of this profound transformation,” Huang emphasized post-earnings.

NVIDIA’s share price spike this week put it on track for its highest close since January, and triggered a broader rally across the semiconductor sector.

Securities Disclosure: I, Giann Liguid, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

Keep Reading
Business

U.S. foreign tax bill sends jitters across Wall Street

While U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariffs play out in U.S. courts, another one of his proposed laws could weaponize the American tax system.

Investment banks and law firms warn this step could prove to be as significant as the impact of duties on investors.

The “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” which passed through the U.S. House of Representatives last week, includes the most sweeping changes to the tax treatment of foreign capital in the U.S. in decades under a provision known as Section 899. The bill must still gain the Senate’s approval.

“We see this legislation as creating the scope for the US administration to transform a trade war into a capital war if it so wishes,” said George Saravelos, global head of FX research at Deutsche Bank on Thursday.

“Section 899 challenges the open nature of US capital markets by explicitly using taxation on foreign holdings of US assets as leverage to further US economic goals,” Saravelos added in the note to clients, under the subtitle “weaponization of US capital markets in to law.”

Section 899 says it will hit entities from “discriminatory foreign countries” — those that impose levies such as the digital services taxes that disproportionately affect U.S. companies.

France, for instance, has a 3% tax on revenues from online platforms, which primarily targets big technology firms such as Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Apple. Germany is reportedly considering a similar tax of 10%.

Under the new tax bill, the U.S. would hit investors from such countries by increasing taxes on U.S. income by 5 percentage points each year, potentially taking the rate up to 20%.

Emmanuel Cau, head of European Equity Strategy at Barclays, suggested that the mere passage of the tax legislation could make dollar assets less valuable for foreign investors.

“In our view, this is a risk for those companies generating US revenues, and domiciled in countries that have enacted Digital Services Taxes (DST) or are implementing the OECD’s Under Taxed Payment Rule (UTPR),” Cau said in a Friday note to clients.

He highlighted companies such as London-listed Compass Group, which provides catering services to U.S. schools, and InterContinental Hotels, which owns at least 25 luxury hotels in the U.S., are likely to be affected by the proposed law.

“Given US net international investment position is sharply negative, there is indeed scope for capital outflows if indeed S899 passes through the Senate in its current form,” he added.

The impact of the bill won’t be limited to European companies or individuals from those states.

The bill “could significantly increase tax rates applicable to certain non-U.S. individuals and business, governmental, and other entities,” said Max Levine, head of U.S. tax at the law firm Linklaters.

This means it could also ensnare governments and central banks, which are large investors of U.S. Treasuries. France and Germany, for instance, held a combined $475 billion worth of U.S. government bonds as of March.

The proposed tax would lower returns on U.S. Treasuries for those investors as “the de facto yield on US Treasuries would drop by nearly 100bps,” Deutsche Bank’s Saravelos added. “The adverse impact on demand for USTs and funding the US twin deficit at a time when this is most needed is clear”.

“It’s very bad,” said Beat Wittmann, chairman of Switzerland-based Porta Advisors. “This is huge — this is just one piece in the overall plan and it’s completely consistent with what this administration is all about.”

“The ultimate judge for this is not our opinions, it’s the bond market,” Wittmann added. “The U.S. bond market is discounting these developments, and we have seen in the last few weeks, that if there was a safe haven move, investors clearly prefer German bunds.”

Large Australian pension funds with U.S. investments have also been reportedly concerned by the bill, since Australia operates a medicines subsidy scheme that is opposed by large U.S. pharmaceutical companies.

Legal experts at the Mayer Brown law firm suggest that “significant changes” could be made to the bill as it passes through the U.S. Senate before it’s enshrined into law by Trump.

“As such, there may be questions about whether the provisions of the proposal that override tax treaties could be included in the US Senate’s version of the tax bill,” Mayer Brown’s experts said.

This post appeared first on NBC NEWS

Keep Reading
World

Dreams cut short, Chinese students anxious and angry over ‘aggressive’ US visa ban plans

Kiwi Zhang, a computer science student from China, was full of hope for his academic future in the United States – until his visa was revoked at the US border last week.

The first-year PhD student at a university in central US had just presented his research at a conference in Asia. He was returning to the US after a brief visit home when his American dream was abruptly cut short.

According to Zhang, he was detained at the border for 48 hours by US officials, who confiscated his phone and laptop, and searched his belongings. He said they questioned him about his ties to the Chinese Communist Party and meetings with friends while in China.

At the end of the interrogation, Zhang said he was deported and barred from the US for five years, on suspicion of having shared his research with the Chinese government – an allegation he denies. He is now back in China and mulling his next steps.

Now, many Chinese students studying in the US fear they could meet the same fate, after President Trump’s administration vowed on Wednesday to “aggressively revoke visas for Chinese students, including those with connections to the Chinese Communist Party or studying in critical fields.”

The announcement by Secretary of State Marco Rubio was brief and vaguely worded, but it sent shock waves through China, triggering widespread confusion, anxiety and fear among current and prospective students and their families, as well as strong opposition from Beijing.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio attends a ceremony in the Oval Office of the White House earlier on May 6.
Kent Nishimura/Reuters/File

Student chat groups lit up with messages of disbelief. Education consultants were flooded with panicked phone calls. Many students aired their frustration and anger on social media.

At a regular news conference Thursday, China’s foreign ministry accused the Trump administration of using ideology and national security as a “pretext” for the “politically motivated and discriminatory” move.

Suddenly, hundreds of thousands of young Chinese minds, drawn by the prestige of a world-class education and the allure of the American dream, found themselves facing a stark reality: the future they had worked so hard for now hangs in the balance, held hostage by the whims of a US administration that increasingly views them – and their homeland – as a threat.

“What strikes me is how tiny individuals are in the tide of history – career plans can collapse overnight,” said Joyce, who received an offer from her dream school, Harvard, to pursue a master’s degree in architecture.

Her visa from her undergraduate program in the US is still valid for another year, but she did not dare to return to China for the summer, worrying that she might be denied reentry at the US border.

“I can’t help wishing I’d grown up in a golden age of US-China relations,” she said.

Growing mistrust

For decades, China’s brightest minds have flocked to America, as their home country played catch-up with the world’s leading superpower. Until last year, Chinese students made up the largest group of international students in the US, contributing significantly to the economy and helping America maintain its competitive edge in scientific research and technological innovation.

But as strategic rivalry between the two nations intensifies, mistrust has deepened. Both sides have ramped up national security measures and grown more protective of their advanced technologies – particularly in sensitive sectors with military implications.

During his first term in 2020, Trump introduced a ban that effectively denied US visas to graduates in the science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields from Chinese universities believed to be linked to the military. Within just three months, more than 1,000 Chinese nationals had their visas revoked, and the order remained in place under former President Joe Biden.

They include David Yang, whose heart sank when he saw Rubio’s announcement. “This is just too surreal,” said the second-year PhD student in theoretical chemistry at a top university in the Midwestern US.

“When the news broke, some classmates said they were working on their final assignments but completely lost the motivation to continue. I felt the same way,” he said.

In recent weeks, Yang has found it nearly impossible to focus on his research, simulating how molecules interact with each other in the human body. Instead, he’s been glued to the news, anxiously tracking Trump’s escalating war on elite universities and international students, trying to gauge whether he might land in the crossfire.

People participate in a “Harvard Stand United” rally in support of the school’s international students on Tuesday.
Brian Snyder/Reuters

Last week, the Trump administration barred Harvard University from enrolling international students, accusing the prestigious institution of “coordinating with the Chinese Communist Party,” among other allegations.

Although a federal court has since blocked the move, the State Department soon followed with a diplomatic cable instructing US embassies and consulates worldwide to halt new student visa appointments.

As Yang scrolled through the headlines, periods of anxiety would suddenly hit, and he found himself compulsively refreshing news sites over and over.

“I felt sad, lost and helpless. It’s been incredibly stressful,” he said. “The constant policy changes bring so much uncertainty into our lives. It really impacts productivity and, over time, takes a toll on your mental health – and for me, it already has.”

Worried about his visa, Yang is planning on canceling his trip home this winter. His major could well fall under what Rubio called “critical fields” and – like millions of Chinese students – he’s a member of the Communist Youth League, a youth branch of the 99-million-strong Communist Party for those aged between 14 and 28.

Students hold flags, including the Communist Youth League of China flag, second left, during a city-wide sporting event in Yumen, Gansu province, China, in 2021.
Qilai Shen/Bloomberg/Getty Images

In China, most students are Youth League members by the time they finish high school, or have party members among family and friends – thanks to the party’s ubiquity across government and business, as well as cultural and social sectors.

“The vast majority of people in China have some connection to the Communist Party – so this is essentially the same as condemning all Chinese students with a single stroke,” Yang said.

Zhang, the student whose visa was revoked at the border, said US officials asked whether anyone in his family was a member of the Communist Party. He told them both of his parents were. They then questioned him about his own affiliation with the Communist Youth League, he said.

“I said I’ve never had any connection with them. The Communist Youth League charges us seven or eight yuan (about $1) a year, but there are no activities at all. But the officials said: ‘You are lying.’ I honestly didn’t know what to say. I could only sit there, stunned,” Zhang said.

Other alternatives

Facing potential deportation in the middle of their hard-won education, some Chinese students are considering other options.

Ella Liu, a math undergraduate at the University of Michigan, is visiting family in the southern city of Guangzhou before her summer research project in the US starts next month.

“Me and my parents are all praying that I won’t be banned from entering the country in June,” she said.

Liu was drawn to the US by its academic freedom and resources. But if the hardline visa policy continues, she might consider transferring to another university in Europe or Hong Kong.

“I am very determined to study mathematics and there are also many excellent math resources in other countries, such as in France,” she said.

Like many Chinese students, Liu comes from a middle-class family. Her parents saved for years for her to attend college in the US, where tuition and living costs can run to more than $80,000 – much more than getting a degree in Europe or Asia.

Some Chinese students are already looking elsewhere. In recent years, the number of Chinese students in the US has steadily declined from a peak in the 2019-2020 school year – a drop that coincides with the Covid-19 pandemic but also increasing friction between the two governments.

Nelson Urena Jr., co-founder and director of college counseling at an education management firm in Shanghai, said that for years many Chinese families saw American universities as the “gold standard” for college education.

Since around 2018, however, he has noticed more interest from students and parents alike in universities in the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia, as well as the semi-autonomous Chinese city of Hong Kong.

“A lot of families were concerned legitimately about their children’s safety, and then also just the rhetoric of, you know, whether they’re welcome in the US,” he said, citing issues such as gun violence and racist hostility or even violence against Asian people.

“More recently, I think people are starting to see the growing disconnect between the US and China, and feeling like maybe things are going to be more difficult for them – from getting the visa to making payments for tuitions.”

Rubio’s announcement Wednesday also vowed to “revise visa criteria to enhance scrutiny of all future visa applications” from China, including Hong Kong.

Since then, Urena has been inundated by phone calls from anxious students preparing to start their college education in the US. But he didn’t have a ready response for them.

“It’s just a lot of uncertainty right now. The students are trying to figure out what to do…The options are very limited at this point – Do they do a gap year? Do they go to university elsewhere? Do they have to go back to the application process?” he said.

Nevertheless, for some Chinese parents, the allure of American higher education has not worn off.

Arno Huang, a 56-year-old businessman from China’s coastal Fujian province, still wants to send his kids to the US for graduate schools after they finish undergraduate studies in Hong Kong.

“The US represents one of the most civilized, developed, and open places for humanity. Although US-China relations are currently strained, smart people still recognize this fact,” said Huang.

Having kids studying in the US gives a family “face,” he said, using a common Chinese phrase to refer to good reputation or social standing. “Once their child is in the US, they can proudly tell others, ‘Look how successful my son is!’”

Zichen Wang, a research fellow at the Center for China and Globalization, a non-government think tank in Beijing, lamented a seemingly bygone era, when Chinese officials, entrepreneurs and scientists alike were trained in the US – especially those who played key roles during China’s reform and opening-up era that began in 1978.

“When they returned to China, they brought back not only professional knowledge and credentials, but also a deep respect and admiration for America as an open and inclusive society,” he said.

“I believe many Chinese people see what makes America great not merely as its economic or military strength, but its openness – its world-class universities, its confidence in the marketplace of ideas, and its ability to attract top global talent,” Wang added.

“That, at least in my view, is what many people around the world truly admire about the United States.”

This post appeared first on cnn.com

Keep Reading
World

Russell Brand pleads not guilty to rape and sexual assault charges

British comedian and actor Russell Brand pled not guilty to multiple charges of rape and sexual assault at a court in London on Friday.

In April, 49-year-old Brand was charged with one count of rape, one count of indecent assault, and one count of oral rape, as well as two counts of sexual assault. The charges relate to four separate women.

The alleged assaults took place between 1999 and 2005. He has previously denied all the allegations.

Brand walked into the courtroom at Southwark Crown Court wearing a dark suit and an unbuttoned, pinstripe shirt. He spoke only to confirm his name and enter five not guilty pleas.

A trial date has been scheduled for June 3, 2026.

Detectives started investigating the actor in September 2023 after receiving allegations following a joint investigation led by three British media outlets – The Sunday Times, The Times and Channel 4’s “Dispatches.”

According to London’s Metropolitan Police, it is alleged that one woman was raped in 1999 in Bournemouth, southern England; one woman was indecently assaulted in London’s Westminster area in 2001; a woman was orally raped and sexually assaulted in Westminster in 2004; and a woman was sexually assaulted between 2004 and 2005, also in Westminster.

Brand has appeared in numerous Hollywood films and hosted radio and TV shows in the United Kingdom.

More recently, he has sought to frame himself as a social commentator and promoted conspiracy theories online, particularly on YouTube, where he has amassed almost 6.8 million subscribers.

This post appeared first on cnn.com

Keep Reading