R.I. Commerce secretary resigns to lead new state nonprofit to capitalize on 2026 World Cup
'This world-class soccer event presents a major opportunity to showcase Rhode Island on the global stage — and we're ready to seize it,' said McKee. 'This new nonprofit will help ensure we're attracting visitors, supporting local businesses, and driving economic activity in the state.'
It's unclear who will serve as Commerce's new cabinet-level secretary. A spokeswoman for the governor's office could not be immediately reached for comment.
Advertisement
Seven tournament matches will be played at
Ocean State 2026 will focus on maximizing the tournament's potential to boost tourism in Rhode Island, support local businesses, enhance workforce development, and showcase the state as a premier global destination, according to a government press release.
The nonprofit will lead business sponsorship efforts to support tournament-related activities in Rhode Island. They'll also work with local agencies, like Boston 2026, to ensure a 'a unified and impactful presence before, during, and after the tournament.'
Advertisement
Alexa Gagosz can be reached at
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Epoch Times
16 hours ago
- Epoch Times
Trump Admin Is Renegotiating CHIPS Act Deals to Secure More Investment, Lutnick Says
The Trump administration is reworking deals made with semiconductor makers under the Biden-era CHIPS Act to secure better terms that would bring more investment to the United States, according to Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick. At a Senate Appropriations Committee
Yahoo
18 hours ago
- Yahoo
Milton Friedman Disproved Trump's Argument for Tariffs Decades Ago
Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick appeared before the House Appropriations Committee on Thursday, fielding questions about the current presidential administration's trade strategy. Rep. Madeleine Dean (D–Penn.) pressed Lutnick about President Donald Trump's "chaotic tariff policy." She held up a banana, imports of which are currently taxed at 10 percent. "Walmart has already increased the cost of bananas by 8 percent," she noted. "There is no uncertainty that if you build in America, and you produce your product in America, there will be no tariff," Lutnick said. "The concept of building in America and paying no tariffs is very, very clear." "We cannot build bananas in America," Dean retorted. Dean is not quite right: We can grow bananas in the U.S., just not very well or very cheaply. In 2023, the U.S. imported over 5 million metric tonnes of bananas, totaling over $2 billion, while only producing about 3,500 metric tonnes. The reason is that bananas only grow in tropical and subtropical climates: While Hawaii and Florida produce some, the majority of the world's bananas come from Southeast Asia and Latin America. While the U.S. could increase its production of bananas, we would be fools to do so: In all but a few locations, we would have to build greenhouses to simulate the tropical climates required. Even then, the trees would take longer to produce than they would in the tropics, and it could take years or even decades to reach the level of production necessary to replace the current system, in which more than one out of every five bananas imported comes to the U.S. Why go through all that trouble when bananas are currently available year-round at the grocery store and cost around 60 cents per pound—less than the average price of a single egg? Lutnick seemed to acknowledge as much earlier this year, telling CNBC that 10 percent tariffs would fall more heavily on "a product that we don't make here, like a mango." In a meeting with business leaders, Lutnick "said there would be some exemptions on imports of products like mangoes that couldn't be domestically produced at the level needed to meet U.S. demand," The Wall Street Journal reported in April. "When Trump rolled out the tariff plan on Wednesday, there were no exemptions for mango imports." Unfortunately, the banana argument reflects the same level of logic Lutnick and Trump apply to the entirety of global trade: Any product an American purchases that was manufactured somewhere else inherently represents some loss of American wealth or sovereignty. Just a day before his interaction with Dean, Lutnick appeared before the Senate, where he told Sen. John Kennedy (R–La.) that even if Vietnam offered to lower its tariff rate to zero, if the U.S. did the same, "that would be the silliest thing we could do." "There are certain products we want to reshore," Lutnick explained. "We don't want other people making them." But if other countries can make the exact same products for less, why wouldn't we let them? Making those products domestically may shore up those specific industries, but consumers would bear the brunt of it through higher prices. Incidentally, Nobel Prize–winning economist Milton Friedman explained the lack of logic behind Lutnick's argument nearly five decades ago. "You could have a great employment in the city of Logan, Utah, of people growing bananas in hothouses," Friedman said in 1978 during a lecture at Utah State University. "If we had a high enough tariff on the import of bananas, it could become profitable to build hothouses and grow bananas in those hothouses. That would give employment. Would that be a sensible thing to do?" Friedman was using the banana example as the "absurd" and "extreme" end of the argument for steel tariffs, which were in the news at the time and an audience member had asked about. "If that isn't sensible," Friedman argued, "then neither is it sensible to artificially restrict the import of steel." Trump doubled the tariffs on steel this week. The post Milton Friedman Disproved Trump's Argument for Tariffs Decades Ago appeared first on
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
GOP Senator Rips Howard Lutnick for Bonkers Logic on Trump Tariffs
Senator John Kennedy tore into Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick Thursday over his nonsensical answer on the logic of Donald Trump's sweeping reciprocal tariff policy. During an appearance on MSNBC's Morning Joe, the Louisiana Republican described his experience questioning Lutnick during a hearing before the Senate Appropriations Committee the day before. 'Well, it's clear that President Trump listens to Secretary Lutnick, so I spent the time I had trying to figure out where he's coming from. And I don't understand,' Kennedy said. 'I mean my vision of reciprocity, which I think is a good thing, is to lower tariffs if you can to zero on both sides. And let there be a free exchange of services on both sides, and let there be a free exchange of goods and services, and let the best product and the best service win. And I thought that's where Secretary Lutnick was going,' Kennedy explained. But that was in fact not what Lutnick had in mind at all. When asked if he would take a hypothetical deal with Vietnam where the tariffs on both sides went down to zero, Lutnick replied that accepting such a deal would be 'the silliest thing we could do.' Lutnick's baffling answer exposed that the goal of the ongoing tariff talks was not to ensure reciprocity, or even to reduce foreign tariffs on U.S. goods. 'So the obvious question is who's on first, what's on second, why are we having these trade talks? And I don't understand based on his answers,' Kennedy explained. Lutnick's poor response Wednesday undermined the ultimate purpose of the tariff-induced trade talks, and the tariffs themselves. 'Can you get a sense, what is the point of these tariffs?' MSNBC co-host Jonathan Lemire asked. 'Well, I know what the point is for me. It's reciprocity. But clearly the markets haven't figured that out yet,' Kennedy replied. 'What I was trying to do with Mr. Lutnick was sort of flesh out, where are we going here? Where are we going here? And I don't know whether he doesn't know, I'm going to assume he was being purposefully evasive, but the uncertainty is hurting us,' he added. The Trump administration has come a long way from its pledge to complete 90 deals during the 90-day pause on Trump's sweeping 'Liberation Day' tariffs. So far, Trump has only announced one deal with the U.K.—and that deal wasn't even finished. Earlier this week, the U.S. sent out a friendly reminder to other countries urging them to formulate their best offers by Wednesday, but with Trump's ever-vacillating tariff policies, it's unclear why any country would take that request seriously.
