Senator Young asks SEC to protect U.S. from 'Chinese market manipulation'
HENDERSON, Ky. (WEHT) – U.S. Senator Todd Young sent a letter to Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Chair Paul Atkins outlining concerns related to the Chinese Communist Party's (CCP) 'manipulation' of global financial markets and 'evasion' of U.S. financial regulators.
Sen. Young says the letter also encourages the SEC to consider additional steps to protect American markets, shareholders and the country's economic and national security.
IN Department of Health celebrates decrease in infant mortality rate
Senator Young writes, 'As you get settled in your new role, I write to express my concern with the continued risk that Chinese companies traded in U.S. exchanges pose to American investors and fiduciaries. I encourage the SEC to explore additional options to protect American economic and national security interests from these companies. Despite their presence on stock exchanges in the United States, these corporations are marked by a chronic—and often intentional—lack of transparency; poor corporate governance or even fraudulent behaviors and the constant threat of arbitrary or spurious enforcement actions by Chinese regulators. Moreover, the Chinese corporations lack incentives to disclose their business practices because the enforcement measures available to U.S. regulators pale in comparison to the punitive threats posed by Chinese agencies.'
USPS audit sheds light on Evansville mail delays
Sen. Young says American investors, fiduciaries and publicly-traded firms with operations, supply chains and business arrangements in both mainland China and Hong Kong often experience a lack of transparency, fraudulent behaviors and arbitrary threats at the hands of the CCP. Without proper protections in place, malign CCP actions are a risk to American investors and firms as well as the country's economic and national security.
The letter can be viewed below.
20250519-Letter-to-SEC-Chair-Atkins-on-Chinese-Public-CompaniesDownload
'Eyewitness News. Everywhere you are.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Insider
24 minutes ago
- Business Insider
Global logistics giant bets big on African and Middle Eastern markets with €500m investment
DHL Group plans to invest around €500 million ($575 million) in healthcare infrastructure across Africa and the Middle East over the next five years. DHL plans to invest €500 million in healthcare infrastructure in Africa and the Middle East over the next five years. The investments aim to address growing demand for pharmaceutical logistics and involve key hubs in South Africa, Egypt, Kenya, Dubai, and Saudi Arabia. Focus areas include high-value, time-sensitive shipments like vaccines and stem cells, and ensuring product traceability. DHL Group plans to invest around €500 million ($575 million) in healthcare infrastructure across Africa and the Middle East over the next five years. The move is part of efforts to tap into growing demand, driven in part by China's expanding presence in the region, according to Bloomberg. Annette Naude, DHL's head of healthcare for Europe, Middle East, and Africa (EMEA), said the logistics giant sees strong growth potential in Africa, with a focus on high-value, time-sensitive shipments such as vaccines, stem cells, and cryogenic materials. 'We see America has come in and cut costs, but we do see other countries coming to the forefront and filling those gaps,' said Naude. 'I went to China and met with several investors who are going to make investments on the African continent. Chinese investment in the region is really big.' Africa, the world's fastest-growing continent by population, is witnessing a sharp rise in demand for pharmaceutical products. According to Grand View Research, the continent's pharmaceutical market is projected to generate $33.8 billion in revenue by 2030. Focus on healthcare As part of its strategy to tap into this growth, DHL is directing about 25% of its €2 billion global healthcare investment toward Africa and the Middle East, roughly €500 million over the next five years, said Annette Naude, head of DHL's EMEA healthcare division. The logistics giant's regional healthcare operations span warehousing, packaging, and supply-chain management, with key hubs in South Africa, Egypt, Kenya, Dubai, and Saudi Arabia. A major focus for DHL is ensuring that medical products, especially drugs and devices, are properly tracked from production to delivery. 'We've built specialized warehouses that support ultra-cold shipments and allow for product serialization,' Naude explained, underscoring the company's commitment to safety and traceability in the health-care supply chain. 'When a doctor issues medicine at the bedside of a patient he has to trust and rely on the network that medicine has been transported through,' Naude said. While tackling entrenched diseases like malaria remains a priority, Africa is also facing new healthcare challenges, said Annette Naude, DHL's head of healthcare for EMEA. One emerging trend is the growing demand for advanced insulin therapies from China, driven by their ease of use and longer-acting formulas that reduce the frequency of injections, a factor appealing to many governments across the continent. Naude also highlighted a recent collaboration between China and DHL to establish a medical devices facility in Kenya. The plant now exports equipment to markets in the Middle East and Europe, showing Africa's rising role in global health supply chains.
Hamilton Spectator
25 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Australia's defense minister downplays concerns over Pentagon review of multi-billion submarine deal
BANGKOK (AP) — Australia's defense minister dismissed concerns Thursday that a deal between the U.S., Australia and Britain to provide his country with nuclear-powered submarines could be in jeopardy, following a report that the Pentagon had ordered a review. Australian Defense Minister Richard Marles told Sky News Australia that he had known about the review of the deal 'for some time,' saying that it was a 'very natural step for the incoming administration to take.' He noted that the UK's government also reviewed the deal, the centerpiece of a three-way alliance known as AUKUS after it was elected, and that his own government had looked at it as part of its own review of Australia's entire defense posture. 'I think an incoming government having a look at this is something that they have a perfect right to do and we welcome it and we'll work with it,' he said. The deal, worth more than $200 billion, was signed between the three countries in 2021 under then President Joe Biden, designed to provide Australia, one of Washington's staunchest allies in the region, with greater maritime capabilities to counter China's increasingly strong navy . The deal also involves the U.S. selling several of its Virginia-class submarines to Australia to bridge the gap as the new submarines are being jointly built. In January, Australia made the first of six $500 million payments to the U.S. under the AUKUS deal, meant to bolster American submarine manufacturing. Marles met with U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on the sidelines of a defense conference in Singapore less than two weeks ago, and told reporters afterward that he had come away with 'a sense of confidence about the way in which AUKUS is proceeding.' 'AUKUS is on track and we are meeting all the timelines that are associated with it,' he said. 'We are very optimistic.' Hegseth's address to the defense forum made multiple mentions of cooperation with Australia but no reference to AUKUS, however, though he did later mention the deal when he was taking questions. Hegseth did urge allies in the Indo-Pacific to increase their defense spending, and underscored the need for a 'strong, resolute and capable network of allies and partners' as the U.S. seeks to counter China. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Indianapolis Star
27 minutes ago
- Indianapolis Star
IU's governance crisis reflects dangerous trend undermining democracy
Recent commentary in IndyStar defended Indiana University's leadership and questioned the focus and intensity of faculty criticism. But what's happening at IU isn't just a campus controversy — it's part of a national trend. Across the country, public institutions are quietly dismantling the democratic processes that once guided their decisions. IU has become a flashpoint not because of any one leader or protest, but because it shows how shared governance and expert input are being replaced by top-down control. For over a century, American universities have followed a model known as shared governance. That means faculty, administrators and trustees work together to shape a school's mission and values. It's not just tradition — it's a safeguard. It ensures that decisions about teaching, research and student life are made by the people who do the work. In recent years, IU's shared governance has been steadily eroded through a series of top-down decisions. The April 2024 no-confidence vote in President Pamela Whitten by IU Bloomington faculty — 827 to 29 — wasn't about politics or personalities. It was a response to a pattern: refusing to recognize graduate workers' union efforts; sending state police to arrest peaceful protestors in Dunn Meadow; and canceling a long-planned exhibition by Palestinian-American artist Samia Halaby without consulting curators or faculty committees. These decisions bypassed longstanding university processes like faculty review, shared governance consultation and curatorial oversight — processes that have historically guided how academic and cultural decisions are made. Now, that erosion has been written into law. Indiana's House Enrolled Act 1001, passed in 2024, officially reduced faculty governance to an 'advisory only' role. Some argue that faculty governance was always advisory in practice — but this law removes any doubt. It replaces collaboration with control. Opinion: I was running for IU Board of Trustees — until Mike Braun took it over What is happening at IU is a symptom of a pattern playing out more broadly. We're seeing the slow dismantling of democratic decision-making in public institutions. At the federal level, the National Institutes of Health was recently blocked from posting notices in the Federal Register, which froze the review of over 16,000 new research grant applications — worth about $1.5 billion. Around the same time, the agency abruptly canceled more than 1,400 already awarded grants, halting active research projects without the usual expert review or explanation. Both the review of new applications and the continuation of awarded grants typically rely on deliberative panels of scientists to ensure decisions are fair, transparent and based on merit. In both of these cases, those processes were bypassed. Though some meetings have resumed, the damage is clear: Critical systems can be disrupted with little warning and no input from the people who are supposed to guide them. Other federal agencies have followed suit. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration have recently bypassed their own expert advisory committees in making major public health decisions. The Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee was not convened to review or vote on the 2024–2025 influenza vaccine strain selection, breaking with decades of precedent. Around the same time, both ACIP and VRBPAC were sidelined in the rollout of new COVID-19 vaccine guidance and, just this week, the entire 17-member ACIP committee was fired. A top CDC vaccine adviser resigned, citing concerns that the agency was ignoring its own deliberative processes. Whether in universities or federal agencies, the pattern is the same: Leaders are cutting out the people who should have a voice. That might seem faster or easier — but it comes at a profound and ultimately self-defeating cost. When decisions are made without input from those most affected, institutions don't just lose trust — they undermine their own legitimacy and effectiveness. And in a democracy, trust is everything. Opinion: IU deserves a serious president. Pamela Whitten must go. This isn't a partisan issue. No matter your politics, the loss of open, thoughtful decision-making should be alarming. Processes like faculty governance, peer review and public advisory boards aren't meant to slow things down or push a political agenda. They exist because they lead to better decisions. When they're ignored, we don't just lose transparency. We lose trust. Indiana's public universities — and all public institutions — can only succeed when decisions are made with the people who do the work, not imposed on them from above. When we exclude the experts, educators, scientists, and advisors who sustain these institutions, we don't just weaken the process. We weaken the outcomes.
