benefit

Harare, Zimbabwe – Zimbabwe wants to move beyond being a supplier of raw minerals and build industries that process and manufacture from its own resources. But as the government tightens restrictions on unprocessed mineral exports, smaller miners are asking whether they will share in that transformation or be left behind.

The government has restricted exports of unprocessed strategic minerals, including lithium, as part of a broader drive to increase domestic beneficiation. Authorities argue that Zimbabwe should capture more value from its mineral wealth instead of exporting raw materials and allowing other countries to profit from refining and manufacturing.

The policy has attracted more than $1bn in investment into Zimbabwe’s lithium value chain, according to government officials and industry representatives. But smaller miners warn that the cost of building processing facilities, unreliable electricity supplies and limited access to finance could make it difficult for them to participate in the country’s industrial ambitions.

Speaking during a technical media tour of Prospect Lithium Zimbabwe (PLZ) in Goromonzi, Mashonaland East, on 17 July, Minister of Mines and Mining Development Polite Kambamura said Zimbabwe’s 2022 ban on exports of unbeneficiated lithium ore had encouraged companies to invest in domestic beneficiation.

“The construction of the first lithium sulphate plant in Africa is behind me, and this was done in Zimbabwe,” Kambamura said.

He said Zimbabwe’s ambitions extended beyond lithium sulphate and lithium carbonate production, with a long-term goal of developing industries capable of manufacturing lithium batteries and solar panels locally.

Prospect Lithium Zimbabwe, owned by China’s Zhejiang Huayou Cobalt, said its lithium carbonate plant was about 90 percent complete.

PLZ public relations officer Patience Mushore said Huayou’s investments had generated more than $1.1bn in foreign exchange for Zimbabwe while expanding the country’s lithium value chain.

Policy shift

Supporters of Zimbabwe’s export restrictions argue that the country can no longer remain a supplier of raw minerals while other nations capture greater profits through refining and manufacturing.

Public policy expert Tedious Ncube said Zimbabwe’s lithium sector demonstrated why the government had prioritised beneficiation.

He pointed to investments at Arcadia Mine and Bikita Minerals as examples of companies expanding Zimbabwe’s lithium sector.

Ncube said domestic processing could create skilled jobs, strengthen local suppliers and allow Zimbabwe to retain a greater share of the income generated from its mineral resources.

“The success of Zimbabwe’s lithium industry shows that the right policy can attract investment that builds industries, creates jobs and leaves a bigger share of mineral wealth in Zimbabwe,” he said.

Mining concerns

For smaller producers, the debate is not whether Zimbabwe should process its minerals locally, but whether they will have the infrastructure, finance, and market access needed to participate.

Shelton Lucas, business development director at Naivo Mining, said the company operates chrome, antimony and tungsten projects in Mashava, Ngezi and Kadoma but faces challenges accessing affordable processing options.

Lucas said smaller producers were struggling to access processing capacity, particularly in the chrome sector.

“For our raw chrome, we are now forced to sell to local Chinese smelters where they underpay us. For antimony, I have the resources to build the value-addition plant, but for chrome I cannot because the plant is very expensive,” he said.

He said he supported domestic processing but warned that smaller miners could be excluded if new requirements were introduced without support mechanisms.

Lucas proposed a toll-smelting system, where public institutions or industry bodies invest in shared processing facilities that miners can access at transparent rates while retaining ownership of their minerals.

“The challenge is not only building processing plants, but also ensuring smaller producers can access capacity on fair terms,” he said.

Without such measures, he warned that a small number of companies could end up controlling processing capacity and market access.

“If these companies also hold export rights, they could dictate prices to small-scale miners, creating what could become a predatory market that undermines the very people the mining sector is meant to empower,” he said.

Economic constraints

Economists say Zimbabwe’s processing ambitions will depend on whether the country can overcome longstanding challenges affecting mining and manufacturing.

United Kingdom-based Zimbabwean economist Chenayi Mutambasere told Al Jazeera that the policy faced obstacles including power shortages, expensive financing, weak transport infrastructure, foreign exchange constraints and limited access to processing technology.

“The ban should be more than a political slogan; it should be an industrial practical strategy,” she said.

Mutambasere said the government needed to support the policy with reliable electricity, investor incentives, skills development and clear implementation timelines.

She warned that restrictions introduced before the necessary support systems were in place could create unintended consequences.

“An abrupt ban where companies have invested in the sector may push the mining sector further underground, which could increase mineral leakage,” she said.

Government vision

Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Information, Publicity and Broadcasting Services Nick Mangwana told Al Jazeera that the policy was intended to ensure Zimbabwe gains more from its finite mineral resources.

“The government is implementing this beneficiation policy in our minerals for the growth of our economy and to create a lasting legacy that will be witnessed by future generations,” Mangwana said.

He said the policy applied not only to lithium but also to other strategic minerals, including platinum group metals such as palladium, rhodium, ruthenium, iridium and osmium.

Zimbabwe’s push reflects a wider debate among resource-rich countries: whether restricting raw exports can build domestic industries without concentrating opportunities among a few large companies.

For smaller miners, the success of the strategy will depend not only on how much mineral processing takes place inside the country, but whether beneficiation creates broader participation or leaves only the biggest players able to compete.

Lucas said the goal should be to ensure that local processing expands opportunities across the mining sector rather than creating new barriers for smaller producers.

“Beneficiation should not become a barrier to participation. It should be an enabler of inclusive growth, industrial development and sustainable economic transformation,” Lucas said.

Gustavo Dudamel’s farewell to Los Angeles will also function as a benefit for his homeland of Venezuela, which suffered catastrophic losses from twin earthquakes in late June.

Dudamel and the Los Angeles Philharmonic announced Monday that the beloved composer’s final Hollywood Bowl performance as the orchestra’s music and artistic director, originally programmed as “Celebrating Gustavo at the Bowl: A Musical Legacy,” will instead be called “A Concert for Venezuela.” Still scheduled for Aug. 23, the show will raise funds for communities affected by the earthquakes.

“Venezuela will always be my home, and every moment, my thoughts are with the families whose lives have been forever changed by this tragedy,” Dudamel said in a statement. “The suffering is immense, but so is the strength and resilience of our people. This concert at the Hollywood Bowl is an invitation to stand together and transform our compassion into action.”

A full program and special guests will be announced later. Dudamel and the musicians will contribute their time and services free of charge.

Donations will benefit Dudamel’s Earthquake Recovery to Support Venezuelan Communities fund, in partnership with the United Nations Development Programme and the Development Bank of Latin America and the Caribbean fund. The L.A. Phil will contribute $50,000 to the fund, announced President and Chief Executive Kim Noltemy.

“In moments of profound need, our responsibility as an institution extends beyond the stage,” she said. “We are grateful for the opportunity to provide direct financial support to relief efforts for communities in Venezuela with a $50,000 charitable donation and to stand alongside Gustavo in bringing this concert to life at the Bowl.”

Twin earthquakes on June 24 devastated Venezuela, with more than 3,300 deaths and more than 30,000 people reported missing. As international rescue teams depart and locals are left to search through rubble, Venezuelans abroad, including L.A. restaurants, have looked for ways to send support.

Dudamel, who was born and raised in Barquisimeto, Venezuela, wrote in a 2015 op-ed for The Times that he is a “product” of El Sistema, the country’s government-funded youth music program. He has been the music director of the Simón Bolívar Symphony Orchestra since 1999.

U.S. Navy sailor Chase Humes is moving back to his dad’s house in Texas.

Last month, the 25-year-old was notified that his “voluntary separation” from the Navy, which he’d applied for in May 2025, had been approved — he would be released from service. He and his wife must be out of their military housing in San Diego by mid-July.
Humes, a transgender man who’s been taking testosterone for seven years, was among at least 1,000 service members who chose to leave on their own terms rather than face involuntary separation following the military’s February 2025 ban on transgender service members. By choosing a voluntary separation, he’s been approved for an “honorable discharge,” which preserves access to benefits like Veterans Affairs healthcare that others worry they might not have access to.
Humes is one of about 4,200 transgender service members the Department of Defense estimates have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria and could be subject to the policy. Advocates say the transgender service member population could exceed 15,000, according to a UCLA study from 2014.
A new California bill, Assembly Bill 1775, is intended to assist people who don’t have the certainty of Humes’s honorable discharge and worry about their future prospects if they were forced out of the military. Proponents say the bill, by San Diego Democratic Assemblymember Chris Ward, could help people who are given less than honorable discharge for hiding their transgender identity by helping them restore access to services.

In the meantime, service members like Humes are scouting their next move. The sailor and his wife have been searching for jobs near his dad’s house outside Houston. They can’t afford to start their life in San Diego, despite having fallen in love with the city’s accepting atmosphere.
“The whole reason I joined was for a better future for myself and my family, and it just got torn away,” Humes said of the separation.

Over a year in limbo

Among the flurry of executive orders President Trump issued at the start of his second term was the Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness order.

It rescinded President Biden’s policy permitting transgender people to openly serve in the forces, and asserted that gender dysphoria and using pronouns different than one’s biological sex at birth were inconsistent with the country’s “high standards for troop readiness, lethality, cohesion, honesty, humility, uniformity, and integrity.”

What followed the Jan. 27, 2025 order was a series of legal challenges, some of which are still ongoing. Last month, a federal appeals court ruled that Trump’s ban on transgender people in the military was likely unconstitutional, allowing a group of 28 plaintiffs from across the country to continue serving while their case proceeds.
Transgender troops were faced last spring with the choice of either voluntarily leaving the military, and in some cases receiving separation pay, or saying nothing and hoping they were not found out and “involuntarily separated” from the forces.

Humes is choosing to voluntarily leave the Navy after the Trump administration announced a policy banning transgender troops.

(Adriana Heldiz / CalMatters)

Kat Koehlmoos, who was in active duty for eight years and is now in an inactive Army Reserve status, said the military chain of command does not know she is transgender.
“Anyone could use my testimony today to report me to the Army Reserves here, and they would be required to take action to involuntarily discharge me from the U.S. military,” she told lawmakers during a hearing on the legislation last month.
Koehlmoos is a board member for SPARTA Pride, which advocates for transgender service members and co-sponsored the legislation. She said the bill came about in part because supporters are concerned the federal government might replicate the actions it took during its “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, which allowed gay, lesbian and bisexual troops to serve if they concealed their sexual orientation. Some 2,000 troops were given less than honorable discharges in connection to the policy, and were shut out of some veterans’ benefits, according to a class-action lawsuit that was settled in 2025.

Koehlmoos said the group anticipates some people who are “involuntarily separated” under the 2025 transgender ban will be punished by the Department of Defense for not complying with the law.

“They may pursue other charges: accusing them of falsifying records or lying on federal documents, and attempt to get them a less than honorable discharge because of that,” she said, although SPARTA Pride does not know of any such cases so far.
If that happened in California, Ward’s bill would help those people qualify for expedited professional licensing in civilian careers like contracting and nursing and prioritize them for discharge upgrades as well as housing and support services.

Ward said he believes the benefits of all service members should be secured, whether they leave voluntarily or involuntarily.

“They have served honorably, and this was a separation that was involuntary, and they would deserve the full benefits that they otherwise would have been due had they been cisgender,” he said.

Unknown number affected

It’s unclear how many people could be affected by the legislation. Ward has repeatedly told fellow lawmakers that 2,900 of the federal government’s estimated 4,200 transgender troops — 69% — are either from California or are currently stationed in California. In an emailed statement in response to a question from CalMatters, Ward said the figures were mistakenly adopted after conversations with veterans’ advocates, and he would no longer use them to describe the number of affected California service members.
The bill would also require the state’s Department of Veterans Affairs to create a new housing and supportive services grant for veterans, which Ward said would fill a gap in existing housing support for veterans experiencing imminent homelessness. But the budget Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Monday does not include funding for that program.
Instead, it directs $2 million toward the state’s existing Veteran’s Military Discharge Upgrade Grant Program, which provides legal assistance for veterans fighting for a discharge upgrade.
As Humes prepares to leave San Diego, Ward’s bill is still pending in Sacramento. The legislation has cleared policy committees in both houses and awaits a hearing in the Senate appropriations committee.
Koehlmoos said the moment is stressful for most transgender troops — those being removed voluntarily, who have few options; the people who haven’t notified the chain of command, who may be living in fear; and the service members who will delay their transition, or never transition, because of the federal government’s ban on transgender troops.

“For me that’s heartbreaking, because that really is putting your life on hold,” she said.

Kate Wolffe writes for CalMatters.

The federal government can’t block benefits from the nation’s largest food aid program from being used to buy candy, soda and other sugary drinks, a judge ruled.

Monday’s ruling scuttles restrictions now in place or planned for the federally funded and state-run Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program in 23 states. President Trump’s administration has not said whether it will appeal to a higher court.

U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson, who sits in Washington and was nominated to the bench by former President Obama, said in her opinion that the ruling was because the federal government did not follow its own definition of “food.” She said it wasn’t a comment on whether the restrictions are a good idea.

“The federal defendants and the states may have a genuine desire to improve the health of SNAP households by encouraging healthy choices at the store, and they can take lawful steps to meet those goals,” she wrote. “But what they cannot do is violate the law and their own regulations along the way.”

The restrictions are part of the Make America Healthy Again campaign

Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. have encouraged states to limit what the food aid can be used to buy as part of the “Make America Healthy Again” campaign.

They reason that soda and candy fuel obesity, diabetes and chronic disease epidemics — and taking them off the menu would encourage healthier food choices.

The Agriculture Department has given 23 states so far permission to implement restrictions. Some have been implemented already, while others are queued to take effect in the coming months and years.

At least one state that was set to limit soda and candy purchases changed course earlier this year. Colorado’s human services board voted against implementing the ban after a March hearing in which SNAP beneficiaries and advocates said people would face stigmas if they mistakenly tried to use the benefits on prohibited items. They also said the rules were confusing because they would have allowed buying drinks with at least 50% fruit or vegetable juice, but not those with less.

While the goals are similar, the exact rules vary by state. Some wanted to ban both sugary drinks and candy, while others only sought to ban sugary beverages.

A legal challenge to the candy and soda ban — which includes items such as sports drinks in some states — was filed by SNAP beneficiaries in Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee and West Virginia.

Judge says government ignored a definition of food

Jackson said the main legal misstep in restricting what SNAP benefits could buy came because it ran contrary to Congress’s definition of “food.”

Under the law, SNAP benefits — formerly known as food stamps — can be used for “any food or food product for home consumption except alcoholic beverages, tobacco, hot foods or hot food products ready for immediate consumption.”

The government can waive requirements, but limiting use of the benefits to improve nutrition isn’t listed as a reason to do so. Yet when states asked the Agriculture Department to let them restrict purchases, their requests included using alternate definitions of “food.”

This may not be the final word

The Agriculture Department has not said whether it intends to appeal the ruling.

The case is among scores of challenges to Trump administration policies that hinge on whether the administration has the authority to change policies without congressional approval.

While it’s a big program helping nearly 39 million Americans — about 1 in 9 — buy groceries, SNAP is normally relatively low-profile. That’s been different since Trump returned to office last year.

Under his big tax and policy law signed last year, more recipients are subject to work requirements and states are being required to pay a larger share of administrative costs — and could be on the hook for benefit costs if their error rates are too high.

During a government shutdown last year, courts blocked the administration from cutting off benefits. Meanwhile, Rollins has said that there’s rampant fraud in the program.

Mulvihill writes for the Associated Press.