Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders to take first trip to Israel since her father became ambassador
Sanders, widely considered a potential Republican candidate for president in 2028, is also traveling to the United Arab Emirates on the trip, her office said. Sanders leaves Sunday and returns Aug. 9.
The Senate in April confirmed Mike Huckabee, who served more than a decade as Arkansas governor, as the Trump administration's ambassador to Israel. This is Sanders' first trip to Israel since taking office as governor in 2023, though she has previously been.
Sanders plans to meet with senior Israel government officials and is hosting roundtables with Israeli companies, focused on agricultural technology and defense. She also plans to connect with several companies that already have investments in Arkansas.
She also plans to speak with companies in the UAE, focusing on aerospace and defense industries.
Israel is one of Arkansas' top trading partners, and the state exported more than $150 million in products to the country in 2024.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Chevron Corp (CVX) Q2 2025 Earnings Call Highlights: Strategic Moves and Record Production ...
Earnings: $2.5 billion or $1.45 per share. Adjusted Earnings: $3.1 billion or $1.77 per share. Organic CapEx: $3.5 billion, the lowest quarterly total since 2023. Inorganic CapEx: Approximately $200 million, primarily for lithium acreage acquisition. Cash Flow from Operations: $8.3 billion, excluding working capital. Adjusted Free Cash Flow: $4.9 billion, a 15% increase quarter-on-quarter. Production Growth: Over 40,000 barrels per day increase from last quarter. Production Guidance: Expected growth closer to the top end of 6% to 8% range, excluding Hess. Annual Run-Rate Synergies: $1 billion expected by year-end, six months ahead of schedule. Structural Cost Reductions: Targeting $2 billion to $3 billion by the end of 2026. Additional Free Cash Flow Guidance for 2026: Increased to $12.5 billion. Warning! GuruFocus has detected 1 Warning Sign with BMNM. Release Date: August 01, 2025 For the complete transcript of the earnings call, please refer to the full earnings call transcript. Positive Points Chevron Corp (NYSE:CVX) achieved a quarterly production record both in the US and worldwide, with significant growth in the Permian Basin. The company successfully acquired lithium-rich acreage in Texas and Arkansas, marking a strategic move into the lithium market. Chevron Corp (NYSE:CVX) returned over $5 billion to shareholders for the 13th consecutive quarter, demonstrating strong shareholder returns. The merger with Hess was completed, adding long-term low-cost growth in Guyana and expanding the shale portfolio. Chevron Corp (NYSE:CVX) expects to realize $1 billion in annual run-rate synergies from the Hess merger by the end of the year, six months ahead of schedule. Negative Points Adjusted second quarter earnings were down $760 million versus the previous quarter, impacted by lower realizations and higher depreciation. Foreign currency effects decreased earnings by $348 million, highlighting exposure to currency fluctuations. The Bakken shale portfolio, despite its expansion, is currently free cash flow negative due to significant midstream tariffs. Chevron Corp (NYSE:CVX) faces challenges in exploration results, with recent years not yielding the desired outcomes. The integration of Hess assets and the associated capital requirements may increase overall CapEx in the near term. Q & A Highlights Q: Can you provide insights into the capital spend expectations for the Permian Basin in 2026 and 2027 compared to 2025? A: Mark Nelson, Vice Chairman, Executive Vice President - Strategy, Policy and Development, explained that Chevron plans to be at the lower end of the $4.5 billion to $5 billion capital spend range for 2025 due to efficiencies. The company expects to further reduce capital expenditure while increasing free cash flow in the Permian, with more details to be shared at the upcoming Investor Day. Q: How confident are you in achieving the $10 billion standalone and $2.5 billion Hess-related free cash flow targets? A: Eimear Bonner, Chief Financial Officer, Vice President, expressed high confidence in achieving these targets. The $10 billion is supported by derisked production profiles and cost reduction programs. The $2.5 billion from Hess is expected from synergies and production growth, with significant milestones already achieved. Q: What are the expected benefits of Chevron's new organizational structure? A: Mark Nelson highlighted that the new structure groups similar assets to accelerate best practices, standardizes work to leverage scale and technology, and simplifies processes to improve performance. This is expected to enhance operational execution, major project delivery, and turnaround efficiency. Q: How does Chevron view the role of tight oil in its portfolio, especially after integrating Hess? A: Michael Wirth, Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer, stated that tight oil now represents a significant portion of Chevron's production. The focus is shifting from growth to free cash flow generation, with the aim to maintain a balanced portfolio that supports shareholder returns. Q: Can you update us on Chevron's operations in Venezuela? A: Michael Wirth confirmed that Chevron has been operating in Venezuela for over 100 years. Recent changes in US sanctions policy will allow limited oil flows to the US, benefiting Gulf refiners. While not materially impacting third-quarter results, it will help recover some of the debt owed to Chevron. For the complete transcript of the earnings call, please refer to the full earnings call transcript. This article first appeared on GuruFocus. Sign in to access your portfolio
31 minutes ago
After a reference to Trump's impeachments is removed from a history museum, complex questions echo
NEW YORK -- It would seem the most straightforward of notions: A thing takes place, and it goes into the history books or is added to museum exhibits. But whether something even gets remembered and how — particularly when it comes to the history of a country and its leader — is often the furthest thing from simple. The latest example of that came Friday, when the Smithsonian Institution said it had removed a reference to the 2019 and 2021 impeachments of President Donald Trump from a panel in an exhibition about the American presidency. Trump has pressed institutions and agencies under federal oversight, often through the pressure of funding, to focus on the country's achievements and progress and away from things he terms 'divisive.' A Smithsonian spokesperson said the removal of the reference, which had been installed as part of a temporary addition in 2021, came after a review of 'legacy content recently' and the exhibit eventually 'will include all impeachments.' There was no time frame given for when; exhibition renovations can be time- and money-consuming endeavors. In a statement that did not directly address the impeachment references, White House spokesperson Davis Ingle said: 'We are fully supportive of updating displays to highlight American greatness.' But is history intended to highlight or to document — to report what happened, or to serve a desired narrative? The answer, as with most things about the past, can be intensely complex. The Smithsonian's move comes in the wake of Trump administration actions like removing the name of a gay rights activist from a Navy ship, pushing for Republican supporters in Congress to defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and getting rid of the leadership at the Kennedy Center. 'Based on what we have been seeing, this is part of a broader effort by the president to influence and shape how history is depicted at museums, national parks, and schools,' said Julian E. Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University. 'Not only is he pushing a specific narrative of the United States but, in this case, trying to influence how Americans learn about his own role in history.' It's not a new struggle, in the world generally and the political world particularly. There is power in being able to shape how things are remembered, if they are remembered at all — who was there, who took part, who was responsible, what happened to lead up to that point in history. And the human beings who run things have often extended their authority to the stories told about them. In China, for example, references to the June 1989 crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators in Beijing's Tiananmen Square are forbidden and meticulously regulated by the ruling Communist Party government. In Soviet-era Russia, officials who ran afoul of leaders like Josef Stalin disappeared not only from the government itself but from photographs and history books where they once appeared. Jason Stanley, an expert on authoritarianism, said controlling what and how people learn of their past has long been used as a vital tool to maintain power. Stanley has made his views about the Trump administration clear; he recently left Yale University to join the University of Toronto, citing concerns over the U.S. political situation. 'If they don't control the historical narrative,' he said, 'then they can't create the kind of fake history that props up their politics.' In the United States, presidents and their families have always used their power to shape history and calibrate their own images. Jackie Kennedy insisted on cuts in William Manchester's book on her husband's 1963 assassination, 'The Death of a President.' Ronald Reagan and his wife got a cable TV channel to release a carefully calibrated documentary about him. Those around Franklin D. Roosevelt, including journalists of the era, took pains to mask the impact that paralysis had on his body and his mobility. Trump, though, has taken it to a more intense level — a sitting president encouraging an atmosphere where institutions can feel compelled to choose between him and the truth — whether he calls for it directly or not. 'We are constantly trying to position ourselves in history as citizens, as citizens of the country, citizens of the world,' said Robin Wagner-Pacifici, professor emerita of sociology at the New School for Social Research. 'So part of these exhibits and monuments are also about situating us in time. And without it, it's very hard for us to situate ourselves in history because it seems like we just kind of burst forth from the Earth.' Timothy Naftali, director of the Richard M. Nixon Presidential Library and Museum from 2007 to 2011, presided over its overhaul to offer a more objective presentation of Watergate — one not beholden to the president's loyalists. In an interview Friday, he said he was 'concerned and disappointed' about the Smithsonian decision. Naftali, now a senior researcher at Columbia University, said museum directors 'should have red lines' and that he considered removing the Trump panel to be one of them. While it might seem inconsequential for someone in power to care about a museum's offerings, Wagner-Pacifici says Trump's outlook on history and his role in it — earlier this year, he said the Smithsonian had 'come under the influence of a divisive, race-centered ideology' — shows how important those matters are to people in authority. 'You might say about that person, whoever that person is, their power is so immense and their legitimacy is so stable and so sort of monumental that why would they bother with things like this ... why would they bother to waste their energy and effort on that?' Wagner-Pacifici said. Her conclusion: 'The legitimacy of those in power has to be reconstituted constantly. They can never rest on their laurels.'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Could this be Warren Buffett's last big investment?
Warren Buffett is heading for retirement. Earlier this year, the Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE:BRK.B) CEO announced his intention to stand down at the end of the year. I think, however, there's still time for one last big deal before Buffett hands over to Greg Abel. And an ideal opportunity might just have presented itself. Railroads One of Berkshire's largest subsidiaries is Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF). It's one of the four Class 1 railroads in the US and operates along the western side of the country. Its competitor over there is Union Pacific, with CSX and Norfolk Southern over in the east. And those regional duopolies have led to some very attractive unit economics for the businesses. Despite high capital requirements, the major railroads all have operating margins comparable to Microsoft. And they offer customers a much cheaper way of moving freight than trucking. The competitive dynamic, however, is set to change. Union Pacific (in the west) has agreed to merge with Norfolk Southern (in the east) and that raises a question for Berkshire Hathaway. Consolodation Combining Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern could have some significant benefits. Most notably, it could improve efficiency for goods moving across the country. At the moment, goods travelling from east to west (or the other way around) are usually handed off from one railroad company to another. But this creates waiting times and difficulties for operators who are picking up products. A single network operating across the country could solve this problem. And it would still mean there are two Class 1 railroads on each side of the country, so antitrust concerns shouldn't arise. It would, however, put both the remaining railroads at a disadvantage. So the big question is whether Berkshire might respond by trying to acquire CSX to combine with BNSF. Obstacles The idea of Buffett doing one last big deal before stepping down is very tempting, but there are a couple of obstacles in the way. One is the differences in approach between BNSF and CSX. Unlike all the other major railroads, Berkshire hasn't gone in for precision scheduled railroading (PSR). In short, it has looked to focus on revenues and customer service, rather than margins. Union Pacific, Norfolk Southern, and CSX have all implemented elements of PSR. As a result, joining BNSF with CSX is more complicated than combining Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern. The other issue is price. Buffett is well-known for looking to be opportunistic and buying shares when they trade at unusual discounts. That isn't obviously true of CSX a the moment. One last big deal? The proposed merger of Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern presents Buffett with a dilemma. It threatens to create a stronger competitor and the only way to prevent this is to buy CSX. Berkshire has denied reports that it has contacted Goldman Sachs to explore a deal. I believe it hasn't, but only because Buffett typically tries to avoid paying investment bankers for advice. Whether or not we'll see one last deal before Buffett retires remains to be seen. But one thing I'm sure of is that Berkshire has the cash to make it happen. Whatever happens, I think any of the US railroad stocks are worth considering. Their long-term competitive advantages – together or separately – make them stand out to me as investments. The post Could this be Warren Buffett's last big investment? appeared first on The Motley Fool UK. More reading 5 Stocks For Trying To Build Wealth After 50 One Top Growth Stock from the Motley Fool Stephen Wright has positions in Berkshire Hathaway and CSX. The Motley Fool UK has recommended Microsoft. Views expressed on the companies mentioned in this article are those of the writer and therefore may differ from the official recommendations we make in our subscription services such as Share Advisor, Hidden Winners and Pro. Here at The Motley Fool we believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. Motley Fool UK 2025 Sign in to access your portfolio
