ReportWire

Tag: Government and politics

  • Congress would target China with new restrictions in massive defense bill

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration may have softened its language on China to maintain a fragile truce in their trade war, but Congress is charging ahead with more restrictions in a defense authorization bill that would deny Beijing investments in highly sensitive sectors and reduce U.S. reliance on Chinese biotechnology companies.

    Included in the 3,000-page bill approved Wednesday by the House is a provision to scrutinize American investments in China that could help develop technologies to boost Chinese military power. The bill, which next heads to the Senate, also would prohibit government money to be used for equipment and services from blacklisted Chinese biotechnology companies.

    In addition, the National Defense Authorization Act would boost U.S. support for the self-governing island of Taiwan that Beijing claims as its own and says it will take by force if necessary.

    “Taken together, these measures reflect a serious, strategic approach to countering the Chinese Communist Party,” said Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, the top Democrat on the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party. He said the approach “stands in stark contrast to the White House’s recent actions.”

    Congress moves for harsher line toward China

    The compromise bill authorizing $900 billion for military programs was released two days after the White House unveiled its national security strategy. The Trump administration dropped Biden-era language that cast China as a strategic threat and said the U.S. “will rebalance America’s economic relationship with China,” an indication that President Donald Trump is more interested in a mutually advantageous economic relationship with Beijing than in long-term competition.

    The White House this week also allowed Nvidia to sell an advanced type of computer chip to China, with those more hawkish toward Beijing concerned that would help boost the country’s artificial intelligence.

    The China-related provisions in the traditionally bipartisan defense bill “make clear that, whatever the White House tone, Capitol Hill is locking in a hard-edged, long-term competition with Beijing,” said Craig Singleton, senior director of the China program at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a Washington-based think tank.

    If passed, these provisions would “build a floor under U.S. competitiveness policy — on capital, biotech, and critical tech — that will be very hard for future presidents to unwind quietly,” he said.

    The Chinese embassy in Washington on Wednesday denounced the bill.

    “The bill has kept playing up the ‘China threat’ narrative, trumpeting for military support to Taiwan, abusing state power to go after Chinese economic development, limiting trade, economic and people-to-people exchanges between China and the U.S., undermining China’s sovereignty, security and development interests and disrupting efforts of the two sides in stabilizing bilateral relations,” said Liu Pengyu, the embassy spokesperson.

    “China strongly deplores and firmly opposes this,” Liu said.

    US investments in China

    U.S. policymakers and lawmakers have been working for several years toward bipartisan legislation to curb investments in China when it comes to cutting-edge technologies such as quantum computing, aerospace, semiconductors and artificial intelligence. Those efforts flopped last year when Tesla CEO Elon Musk opposed a spending bill.

    Musk has extensive business interests in China, including a Tesla gigafactory in the eastern city of Shanghai.

    The provision made it into the must-pass defense policy bill, welcomed by Rep. John Moolenaar, a Michigan Republican who chairs the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party.

    “For too long, the hard-earned money of American retirees and investors has been used to build up China’s military and economy,” he said. “This legislation will help bring that to an end.”

    Biosecurity protections

    Congress last year failed to pass the BIOSECURE Act, which cited national security in preventing federal money from benefiting a number of Chinese biotechnology companies. Critics said then that it was unfair to single out specific companies, warning that the measure would delay clinical trials and hinder development of new drugs, raise costs for medications and hurt innovation.

    The provision in the NDAA no longer names companies but leaves it to the Office of Management and Budget to compile a list of “biotechnology companies of concern.” The bill also would expand Pentagon investments in biotechnology.

    Moolenaar lauded the effort for taking “defensive action to secure American pharmaceutical supply chains and genetic information from malign Chinese companies.”

    Support for Taiwan

    The defense bill also would authorize an increase in funding, to $1 billion from $300 million this year, for Taiwan-related security cooperation and direct the Pentagon to establish a joint drone and anti-drone program.

    Another provision supports Taiwan’s bid to join the International Monetary Fund, which would provide the self-governing island with financial protection from China.

    It comes amid mixed signals from Trump, who appears careful not to upset Beijing as he seeks to strike trade deals with Chinese President Xi Jinping. The Chinese leader has urged Trump to handle the Taiwan issue “with prudence,” as Beijing considers its claim over Taiwan a core interest.

    In the new national security strategy, the White House says the U.S. does not support any unilateral change to the status quo in the Taiwan Strait and stresses that the U.S. should seek to deter and prevent a large-scale military conflict.

    “But the American military cannot, and should not have to, do this alone,” the document says, urging Japan and South Korea to increase defense spending.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump signs executive order for AI project called Genesis Mission to boost scientific discoveries

    [ad_1]

    President Donald Trump is directing the federal government to combine efforts with tech companies and universities to convert government data into scientific discoveries, acting on his push to make artificial intelligence the engine of the nation’s economic future.

    Trump unveiled the “Genesis Mission” as part of an executive order he signed Monday that directs the Department of Energy and national labs to build a digital platform to concentrate the nation’s scientific data in one place.

    It solicits private sector and university partners to use their AI capability to help the government solve engineering, energy and national security problems, including streamlining the nation’s electric grid, according to White House officials who spoke to reporters on condition of anonymity to describe the order before it was signed. Officials made no specific mention of seeking medical advances as part of the project.

    “The Genesis Mission will bring together our Nation’s research and development resources — combining the efforts of brilliant American scientists, including those at our national laboratories, with pioneering American businesses; world-renowned universities; and existing research infrastructure, data repositories, production plants, and national security sites — to achieve dramatic acceleration in AI development and utilization,” the executive order says.

    The administration portrayed the effort as the government’s most ambitious marshaling of federal scientific resources since the Apollo space missions of the late 1960s and early 1970s, even as it had cut billions of dollars in federal funding for scientific research and thousands of scientists had lost their jobs and funding.

    Trump is increasingly counting on the tech sector and the development of AI to power the U.S. economy, made clear last week as he hosted Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. The monarch has committed to investing $1 trillion, largely from the Arab nation’s oil and natural gas reserves, to pivot his nation into becoming an AI data hub.

    For the U.S.’s part, funding was appropriated to the Energy Department as part of the massive tax-break and spending bill signed into law by Trump in July, White House officials said.

    As AI raises concerns that its heavy use of electricity may be contributing to higher utility rates in the nearer term, which is a political risk for Trump, administration officials argued that rates will come down as the technology develops. They said the increased demand will build capacity in existing transmission lines and bring down costs per unit of electricity.

    Data centers needed to fuel AI accounted for about 1.5% of the world’s electricity consumption last year, and those facilities’ energy consumption is predicted to more than double by 2030, according to the International Energy Agency. That increase could lead to burning more fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas, which release greenhouse gases that contribute to warming temperatures, sea level rise and extreme weather.

    The project will rely on national labs’ supercomputers but will also use supercomputing capacity being developed in the private sector. The project’s use of public data including national security information along with private sector supercomputers prompted officials to issue assurances that there would be controls to respect protected information.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • FACT FOCUS: Trump gets it wrong claiming no murders in DC for the last six months

    [ad_1]

    In addition to pardoning two North Carolina turkeys at the annual White House ceremony Tuesday, President Donald Trump discussed his crime-fighting efforts in Washington, D.C., claiming that it’s been months since the city has seen a murder.

    But Metropolitan Police Department statistics say otherwise.

    Trump deployed National Guard troops to Washington in August in an effort to curb violent crime even though it had already reached its lowest levels in decades.

    Here’s a closer look at the facts.

    TRUMP: “We haven’t had a murder in six months.”

    THE FACTS: That’s false. There have been 62 homicides in Washington since May 25, including one last week, according to the MPD. The city has seen 123 homicides so far in 2025. Since National Guard troops were deployed to Washington on Aug. 11, there have been 24. In some data, only 61 homicides were reported in the last six months, and only 23 since Aug. 11, because of a technical error, the MPD said.

    Asked for comment on Trump’s claim, the department said that the statistics speak for themselves.

    White House spokeswoman Taylor Rogers stressed Trump’s transformation of Washington “from a crime-ridden mess into a beautiful, clean, safe city” when asked about the discrepancy between his claim and city data. She did not address the discrepancy directly.

    A federal judge on Thursday ordered the Trump administration to end its monthslong deployment of National Guard troops in the nation’s capital. U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb found that Trump’s military takeover illegally intrudes on local officials’ authority to direct law enforcement in the district. The order is on hold for 21 days to allow for appeal.

    District of Columbia Attorney General Brian Schwalb in September sued to challenge the Guard deployments. He asked the judge to bar the White House from deploying Guard troops without the mayor’s consent while the lawsuit plays out.

    During the turkey pardoning, Trump said Washington “is now considered a safe zone,” making the erroneous claim that “we haven’t seen a murder in six months.”

    A Department of Justice report from January showed that total violent crime in 2024 was at the lowest it had been in more than 30 years, including a 32% drop in homicides from 2023, when it experienced a post-pandemic peak.

    Homicides in the past six months are down 46% from the same period last year, while homicides since the August deployment are down 38% from the previous period, MPD data shows. There has been a 29% decrease in homicides in 2025 to date compared to 2024.

    Violent crime during the National Guard’s initial one-month surge in Washington was down 39% from the same period last year, including a 53% drop in homicides, with seven during the surge, compared to 15 during the same timespan in 2024.

    Arson is the only type of crime that has not seen a decrease, with a 0% change from last year to this year.

    The city’s statistics came into question, however, after federal authorities opened an investigation into allegations that officials altered some of the data to make it look better. The investigation is ongoing.

    ___

    Associated Press writers Gary Fields and Lindsay Whitehurst contributed to this report.

    ___

    Find AP Fact Checks here: https://apnews.com/APFactCheck.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Naturalized US citizens thought they were safe. Trump’s immigration policies are shaking that belief

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK (AP) — When he first came to the United States after escaping civil war in Sierra Leone and spending almost a decade in a refugee camp, Dauda Sesay had no idea he could become a citizen. But he was told that if he followed the rules and stayed out of trouble, after some years he could apply. As a U.S. citizen, he would have protection.

    It’s what made him decide to apply: the premise — and the promise — that when he became a naturalized American citizen, it would create a bond between him and his new home. He would have rights as well as responsibilities, like voting, that, as he was making a commitment to the country, the country was making one to him.

    “When I raised my hand and took the oath of allegiance, I did believe that moment the promise that I belonged,” said Sesay, 48, who first arrived in Louisiana more than 15 years ago and now works as an advocate for refugees and their integration into American society.

    But in recent months, as President Donald Trump reshapes immigration and the country’s relationship with immigrants, that belief has been shaken for Sesay and other naturalized citizens. There’s now fear that the push to drastically increase deportations and shift who can claim America as home, through things like trying to end birthright citizenship, is having a ripple effect.

    What they thought was the bedrock protection of naturalization now feels more like quicksand.

    What happens if they leave?

    Some are worried that if they leave the country, they will have difficulties when trying to return, fearful because of accounts of naturalized citizens being questioned or detained by U.S. border agents. They wonder: Do they need to lock down their phones to protect their privacy? Others are hesitant about moving around within the country, after stories like that of a U.S. citizen accused of being here illegally and detained even after his mother produced his birth certificate.

    There has been no evidence of an uptick in denaturalizations so far in this Trump administration. Yet that hasn’t assuaged some. Sesay said he doesn’t travel domestically anymore without his passport, despite having a REAL ID with its federally mandated, stringent identity requirements.

    Immigration enforcement roundups, often conducted by masked, unidentifiable federal agents in places including Chicago and New York City, have at times included American citizens in their dragnets. One U.S. citizen who says he was detained by immigration agents twice has filed a federal lawsuit.

    Adding to the worries, the Justice Department issued a memo this summer saying it would ramp up efforts to denaturalize immigrants who’ve committed crimes or are deemed to present a national security risk. At one point during the summer, Trump threatened the citizenship of Zohran Mamdani, the 34-year-old democratic socialist mayor-elect of New York City, who naturalized as a young adult.

    The atmosphere makes some worried to speak about it publicly, for fear of drawing negative attention to themselves. Requests for comment through several community organizations and other connections found no takers willing to go on the record other than Sesay.

    In New Mexico, state Sen. Cindy Nava says she’s familiar with the fear, having grown up undocumented before getting DACA — Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, the Obama-era program that protected people brought to the U.S. as children from being deported — and gaining citizenship through her marriage. But she hadn’t expected to see so much fear among naturalized citizens.

    “I had never seen those folks be afraid … now the folks that I know that were not afraid before, now they are uncertain of what their status holds in terms of a safety net for them,” Nava said.

    What citizenship has meant, and who was included, has expanded and contracted over the course of American history, said Stephen Kantrowitz, professor of history at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He said while the word “citizen” is in the original Constitution, it is not defined.

    “When the Constitution is written, nobody knows what citizenship means,” he said. “It’s a term of art, it comes out of the French revolutionary tradition. It sort of suggests an equality of the members of a political community, and it has some implications for the right to be a member of that political community. But it is … so undefined.”

    American immigration and its obstacles

    The first naturalization law passed in 1790 by the new country’s Congress said citizenship was for any “free white person” of good character. Those of African descent or nativity were added as a specific category to federal immigration law after the ravages of the Civil War in the 19th century, which was also when the 14th Amendment was added to the Constitution to establish birthright citizenship.

    In the last years of the 19th century and into the 20th century, laws were put on the books limiting immigration and, by extension, naturalization. The Immigration Act of 1924 effectively barred people from Asia because they were ineligible for naturalization, being neither white nor Black. That didn’t change until 1952, when an immigration law removed racial restrictions on who could be naturalized. The 1965 Immigration and Naturalization Act replaced the previous immigration system with one that portioned out visas equally among nations.

    American history also includes times when those who had citizenship had it taken away, like after the 1923 Supreme Court ruling in U.S. vs. Bhagat Singh Thind. That ruling said that Indians couldn’t be naturalized because they did not qualify as white and led to several dozen denaturalizations. At other times, it was ignored, as in World War II, when Japanese Americans were forced into internment camps.

    “Political power will sometimes simply decide that a group of people, or a person or a family isn’t entitled to citizenship,” Kantrowitz said.

    In this moment, Sesay says, it feels like betrayal.

    “The United States of America — that’s what I took that oath of allegiance, that’s what I make commitment to,” Sesay said. “Now, inside my home country, and I’m seeing a shift. … Honestly, that is not the America I believe in when I put my hand over my heart.”

    ___

    This story has been corrected to reflect that Dauda Sesay is 48 years old, not 44.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Voters’ anger at high electricity bills and data centers looms over 2026 midterms

    [ad_1]

    Voter anger over the cost of living is hurtling forward into next year’s midterm elections, when pivotal contests will be decided by communities that are home to fast-rising electric bills or fights over who’s footing the bill to power Big Tech’s energy-hungry data centers.

    Electricity costs were a key issue in this week’s elections for governor in New Jersey and Virginia, a data center hotspot, and in Georgia, where Democrats ousted two Republican incumbents for seats on the state’s utility regulatory commission.

    Voters in New Jersey, Virginia, California and New York City all cited economic concerns as the top issue, as Democrats and Republicans gird for a debate over affordability in the intensifying midterm battle to control Congress.

    Already, President Donald Trump is signaling that he’ll focus on affordability next year as he and Republicans try to maintain their slim congressional majorities, while Democrats are blaming Trump for rising household costs.

    Front and center may be electricity bills, which in many places are increasing at a rate faster than U.S. inflation on average — although not everywhere.

    “There’s a lot of pressure on politicians to talk about affordability, and electricity prices are right now the most clear example of problems of affordability,” said Dan Cassino, a professor of politics and government and pollster at Fairleigh Dickinson University in New Jersey.

    Rising electric costs aren’t expected to ease and many Americans could see an increase on their monthly bills in the middle of next year’s campaigns.

    Higher electric bills on the horizon

    Gas and electric utilities are seeking or already secured rate increases of more that $34 billion in the first three quarters of 2025, consumer advocacy organization PowerLines reported. That was more than double the same period last year.

    With some 80 million Americans struggling to pay their utility bills, “it’s a life or death and ‘eat or heat’ type decision that people have to make,” said Charles Hua, PowerLines’ founder.

    In Georgia, proposals to build data centers have roiled communities, while a victorious Democrat, Peter Hubbard, accused Republicans on the commission of “rubber-stamping” rate increases by Georgia Power, a subsidiary of power giant Southern Co.

    Monthly Georgia Power bills have risen six times over the past two years, now averaging $175 a month for a typical residential customer.

    Hubbard’s message seemed to resonate with voters. Rebecca Mekonnen, who lives in the Atlanta suburb of Stone Mountain, said she voted for the Democratic challengers, and wants to see “more affordable pricing. That’s the main thing. It’s running my pocket right now.”

    Now, Georgia Power is proposing to spend $15 billion to expand its power generating capacity, primarily to meet demand from data centers, and Hubbard is questioning whether data centers will pay their fair share — or share it with regular ratepayers.

    Midterm battlegrounds in hotspots

    Midterm elections will see congressional battlegrounds in states where fast-rising electric bills or data center hotspots — or both — are fomenting community uprisings.

    That includes California, Georgia, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Texas.

    Analysts attribute rising electric bills to a combination of forces.

    That includes expensive projects to modernize the grid and harden poles, wires and substations against extreme weather and wildfires.

    Also playing a role is explosive demand from data centers, bitcoin miners and a drive to revive domestic manufacturing, as well as rising natural gas prices, analysts say.

    “The cost of utility service is the new ‘cost of eggs’ concern for a lot of consumers,” said Jennifer Bosco of the National Consumer Law Center.

    In some places, data centers are driving a big increase in demand, since a typical AI data center uses as much electricity as 100,000 homes, according to the International Energy Agency. Some could require more electricity than cities the size of Pittsburgh, Cleveland or New Orleans.

    While many states have sought to attract data centers as an economic boon, legislatures and utility commissions were also flooded with proposals to try to protect regular ratepayers from paying to connect data centers to the grid.

    Meanwhile, communities that don’t want to live next to one are pushing back.

    It’s on voters’ minds

    An Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll from October found that electricity bills are a “major” source of stress for 36% of U.S. adults.

    Now, as falls turns to winter, some states are warning that funding for low-income heating aid is being delayed because of the federal government shutdown.

    Still, the impact is still more uneven than other financial stressors like grocery costs, which just over half of U.S. adults said are a “major” source of stress.

    And electric rates vary widely by state or utility.

    For instance, federal data shows that for-profit utilities have been raising rates far faster than municipally owned utilities or cooperatives.

    In the 13-state mid-Atlantic grid from Illinois to New Jersey, analysts say ratepayers are paying billions of dollars for the cost to power data centers — including data centers not even built yet.

    Next June, electric bills across that region will absorb billions more dollars in higher wholesale electricity costs designed to lure new power plants to power data centers.

    That’s spurred governors from the region — including Pennsylvania’s Josh Shapiro, Illinois’ JB Pritzker and Maryland’s Wes Moore, all Democrats who are running for reelection — to pressure the grid operator PJM Interconnection to contain increases.

    High-rate states vs. lower-rate rates

    Drew Maloney, the CEO of the Edison Electric Institute, a trade association of for-profit electric utilities, suggested that only some states are the drivers of higher average electric bills.

    “If you set aside a few sates with higher rates, the rest of the country largely follows inflation on electricity rates,” Maloney said.

    Examples of states with faster-rising rates are California, where wildfires are driving grid upgrades, and those in New England, where natural gas is expensive because of strained pipeline capacity.

    Still, other states are feeling a pinch.

    In Indiana, a growing data center hotspot, the consumer advocacy group, Citizens Action Coalition, reported this year that residential customers of the state’s for-profit electric utilities were absorbing the most severe rate increases in at least two decades.

    Republican Gov. Mike Braun decried the hikes, saying “we can’t take it anymore.”

    ___

    Associated Press reporter Jeff Amy in Atlanta contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Senate rejects bills to pay federal workers during government shutdown

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate on Thursday rejected dueling partisan bills to pay federal workers during the government shutdown, with both Republicans and Democrats deflecting blame as many employees are set to miss their first full paycheck at the end of this week.

    With unpaid staff and law enforcement standing nearby, Republicans objected as Democrats proposed a voice vote on their legislation to pay all federal workers and prevent President Donald Trump’s administration from mass firings. Democrats then blocked a Republican bill to pay employees who are working and not furloughed, 54-45.

    The back and forth on day 23 of the government shutdown comes as the two parties are at a protracted impasse with no signs of either side giving in. Democrats say they won’t vote to reopen the government until Republicans negotiate with them on extending expiring subsidies under the Affordable Care Act. Republicans say they won’t negotiate on the subsidies until Democrats vote to reopen the government. Trump is mostly disengaged and headed to Asia in the coming days.

    Dueling bills to pay workers

    The Republican bill by Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin would pay “excepted” workers who still have to come to work during the current government shutdown and any future shutdowns. The bill would “end this punishing federal workers for our dysfunction forever,” Johnson said.

    But Democrats say the legislation is unfair to the workers who are involuntarily furloughed and could give Cabinet secretaries too much discretion as to who gets paid.

    Johnson’s bill is “nothing more than another tool for Trump to hurt federal workers and American families and to keep this shutdown going for as long as he wants,” Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said ahead of the votes.

    The Democratic bills would have paid a much larger swath of workers as most federal workers are set to miss paychecks over the next week.

    “It seems like everyone in this chamber agrees we should pay federal workers,” Sen. Gary Peters, D-Mich., said ahead of the vote. But because of the shutdown, “they are paying a price.”

    Essential services start to dwindle

    As Congress is unable to agree on a way forward, money for essential services could soon reach a crisis point.

    Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said Thursday that his message to air traffic controllers during the government shutdown is “come to work, even if you do not get a paycheck.”

    Duffy said that air traffic controllers will miss their first full paycheck on Tuesday and that some are having to make choices to pay the mortgage and other bills, at times by taking a second job.

    “I cannot guarantee you your flight is going to be on time. I cannot guarantee your flight is not going to be cancelled,” Duffy said.

    Payments for federal food and heating assistance could also run out soon, along with funding for Head Start preschool programs, several states have warned.

    Open enrollment approaches

    Another deadline approaching is Nov. 1, the beginning of open enrollment for people who use the marketplaces created by the Affordable Care Act.

    Democrats are holding out for negotiations with Republicans as they seek to extend subsidies that started in 2021, during the COVID-19 pandemic, and expire at the end of the year. But any solution would be hard to put in place once people start purchasing their plans.

    Some Republicans are open to extending the tax credits, with changes, and lawmakers in both parties have been talking behind the scenes about possible compromises. But it’s unclear whether they will be able to find an agreement that satisfies both Republicans and Democrats — or if leadership on either side would be willing to budge.

    “Republicans have been perfectly clear that we’re willing to have a discussion about health care, just not while government funding is being held hostage,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said Thursday.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • FACT FOCUS: Democrats did not shut down the government to give health care to ‘illegal immigrants’

    [ad_1]

    President Donald Trump and other high-ranking Republicans claim Democrats forced the government shutdown fight because they want to give free health care to immigrants in the U.S. illegally.

    Democrats are trying to extend tax credits that make health insurance premiums more affordable on marketplaces established by the Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare, and reverse Medicaid cuts in Trump’s big bill passed this summer. But immigrants who entered the country illegally are not eligible for either program.

    Here’s a closer look at the facts:

    CLAIM: Democrats shut down the government because they want to give free health care to immigrants who entered the U.S. illegally.

    THE FACTS: This is false. Democrats say they are pushing for the inclusion of key health care provisions in the next congressional spending package. In particular, they are seeking an extension of tax credits that millions of Americans use to buy insurance on the Affordable Care Act exchange and a reversal of Medicaid cuts made in the bill Trump signed into law in July. However, immigrants in the U.S. illegally are not eligible for any federal health care programs, including insurance provided through the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid. Hospitals do receive Medicaid reimbursements — which would be reduced under Trump’s bill — for emergency care that they are obligated to provide to people who meet other Medicaid eligibility requirements but do not have an eligible immigration status, according to KFF, a nonprofit health policy research, polling and news organization. This spending accounted for less than 1% of total Medicaid spending between fiscal years 2017 and 2023.

    Sabrina Corlette, founder and co-director of Georgetown University’s Center on Health Insurance Reforms, called the Republicans’ claims “a flat-out lie.”

    “The law is very clear,” Corlette said.

    Speaking in the Oval Office on Tuesday about a deal with Pfizer to lower drug prices, Trump predicted the shutdown and made the false claim: ”We’ll probably have a shutdown because one of the things they want to do is they want to give incredible Medicare, Cadillac, the Cadillac Medicare, to illegal immigrants.” He added later that “they want to have illegal aliens come into our country and get massive health care at the cost to everybody else.”

    Asked by a reporter to clarify what his comments referred to, Trump said “when an illegal person comes, a person who came into our country illegally, therefore breaking the law,” adding that “we just as a country cannot afford to take care of millions of people who have broken the law coming in.”

    Other Republicans, including Vice President JD Vance and House Speaker Mike Johnson, have made similar claims.

    The Senate’s Democratic leader, Sen. Chuck Schumer, rebutted these allegations, calling them “a lie, plain and simple.”

    Immigrants in the U.S. illegally are not eligible for insurance bought on the Affordable Care Act exchange or for Medicaid. To qualify for the former, an enrollee must live in the U.S., be a U.S. citizen or have another lawful status and not be incarcerated. A Medicaid enrollee must meet certain financial requirements, be a resident of the state in which Medicaid is being received and be a U.S. citizen or have a qualifying lawful status.

    Health care premiums for millions of Americans could skyrocket if Congress fails to extend tax credits that many people use to buy insurance through Affordable Care Act marketplaces. Those subsidies were put in place during the COVID-19 pandemic but are set to expire.

    Among the Medicaid cuts Democrats are seeking to reverse is a reduction to reimbursements hospitals receive when they perform emergency care they are legally mandated to provide on people who would qualify for Medicaid if not for their immigration status. This would affect the 40 states, plus Washington, D.C., that have adopted a Medicaid expansion created by the Affordable Care Act.

    The law Trump signed would also restrict the eligibility of lawfully present immigrants such as refugees and asylees for insurance through the Affordable Care Act, Medicaid and Medicare.

    Some states use their own money, not federal funds, to provide health care to immigrants who don’t have lawful status. An earlier version of Trump’s tax breaks and spending cuts bill tried to curb these programs, but the provisions did not make it into the final version.

    “It’s a compelling talking point to say that Democrats want to provide health care to undocumented immigrants, but it’s just not true in terms of the cuts they’re trying to reverse,” said Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at KFF.

    ___

    This story was first published on Oct. 1, 2025. It was published again on Oct. 3, 2025, to correct that to qualify for insurance bought on the Affordable Care Act exchange, not for Medicaid, an enrollee must live in the U.S., be a U.S. citizen or have another lawful status and not be incarcerated.

    ___

    Find AP Fact Checks here: https://apnews.com/APFactCheck.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump says the US has secured $17 trillion in new investments. The real number is likely much less

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The economic boom promised by President Donald Trump centers on a single number: $17 trillion.

    That’s the sum of new investments that Trump claims to have generated with his tariffs, income tax cuts and aggressive salesmanship of CEOs, financiers, tech titans, prime ministers, presidents and other rulers. The $17 trillion is supposed to fund new factories, new technologies, more jobs, higher incomes and faster economic growth.

    “Under eight months of Trump, we’ve already secured commitments of $17 trillion coming in,” the president said in a speech last month. “There’s never been any country that’s done anything like that.”

    But based on statements from various companies, foreign countries and the White House’s own website, that figure appears to be exaggerated, highly speculative and far higher than the actual sum. The White House website lists total investments at $8.8 trillion, though that figure appears to be padded with some investment commitments made during Joe Biden’s presidency.

    The White House didn’t lay out the math after multiple requests as to how Trump calculated $17 trillion in investment commitments. But the issue goes beyond Trump’s hyperbolic talk to his belief that the brute force of tariffs and shaming of companies can deliver economic results, a strategy that could go sideways for him politically if the tough talk fails to translate into more jobs and higher incomes.

    Just 37% of U.S. adults approve of Trump’s handling of the economy, according to a September poll by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs. That’s down from a peak of 56% in early 2020 during Trump’s first term — a memory he relied upon when courting voters in last year’s election.

    Adam Posen, president of the Peterson Institute of International Economics, said the public commitments announced by Trump do represent a “meaningful increase” — but one that amounts to hundreds of billions of dollars, not trillions. Even then, that comes with long-term costs as countries might be less inclined to invest with the U.S. after being threatened to do so.

    “It is a national security mistake because you’re turning allies into colonies of a sort — you’re forcibly extracting from them things that they don’t see as entirely in their interest,” Posen said. “Twisting the arms of governments to then twist the arms of their own businesses is not going to get you the payoff you want.”

    Trump banking on foreign countries making good on promises

    The Trump administration is betting that tariffs are an effective tool to prod other countries and international companies to invest in the United States, a big stick that other administrations failed to wield. Trump’s pitch to voters is that he will play a role in directly managing the investment commitments made by foreign countries — and that the allocation of that money starting next year will revive what has been a flagging job market.

    “The difference between hypothetical investments and ground being broken on new factories and facilities is good leadership and sound policy,” said White House spokesman Kush Desai.

    The White House said that Japan will invest $1 trillion, largely at Trump’s direction. The European Union will commit $600 billion. The United Arab Emirates made commitments of $1.4 trillion over 10 years. Qatar pledged $1.2 trillion. Saudi Arabia intends to pony up $600 billion, India $500 billion and South Korea $450 billion, among others.

    The challenge is the precise terms of those investments have yet to be fully codified and released to the public, and some numbers are under dispute, potentially fuzzy math or, in the case of Qatar, more than five times the annual gross domestic product of the entire country. The White House maintains that Qatar is good for the money because it produces oil.

    South Korea already has misgivings about its investment commitment, which is $100 billion lower than what the White House claims, after immigration agents raided a Hyundai plant under construction in Georgia and arrested Korean citizens. There are also concerns that an investment that large without a better way to exchange currencies with the U.S. could hurt South Korea’s economy.

    “From what I’ve seen, these commitments are worth about as much as the paper they’re not written down on,” said Jared Bernstein, who was the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers in the Biden White House.

    As for the $600 billion committed by European companies, that’s based on those businesses having “expressed interest” and having stated “intentions” to do so through 2029 rather than an overt concession, according to European Union documents.

    Still too soon to see any investment impact in overall economy

    So far, there has yet to be a notable boost in business investment as a percentage of U.S. gross domestic product. As a share of the overall economy, business investment during the first six months of Trump’s presidency has been consistently bouncing around 14%, just as it was before the pandemic.

    But economists also note that Trump is double-counting and relying on investments that were initially announced during the Biden administration or investments that were already likely to occur because of the artificial intelligence build out.

    For example, the White House lists a $16 billion investment by computer chipmaker Global Foundries. But of that sum, more than $13 billion was announced during the Biden administration and supported by $1.6 billion in grants by the 2022 CHIPS and Science Act, as well as other state and federal incentives.

    Similarly, the White House is banking on $200 billion being invested by the chipmaker Micron, but at least $120 billion of that was announced during the Biden era.

    ‘The tariffs played a big role’

    For their part, White House officials largely credit Trump’s tariffs — like those imposed on Oct. 1 on kitchen cabinets, large trucks and pharmaceutical drugs — for forcing companies to make investments in the U.S., saying that the risk of additional import taxes if countries and companies fail to deliver on their promises will ensure that the promised cash comes into the economy.

    On Tuesday, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla endorsed this approach after his pharmaceutical drug company received a three-year grace period on tariffs and announced $70 billion in investments in the U.S.

    “The president was absolutely right,” Bourla said. “Tariffs is the most powerful tool to motivate behaviors.”

    “The tariffs played a big role,” Trump added.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • FACT FOCUS: No, taxpayers will not receive new stimulus checks this summer

    [ad_1]

    Don’t splurge just yet.

    Rumors spread online Friday that the U.S. government will soon be issuing stimulus checks to taxpayers in certain income brackets.

    But Congress has not passed legislation to authorize such payments, and, according to the IRS, no new stimulus checks will be distributed in the coming weeks.

    Here’s a closer look at the facts.

    CLAIM: The Internal Revenue Service and the Treasury Department have approved $1,390 stimulus checks that will be distributed to low- and middle-income taxpayers by the end of the summer.

    THE FACTS: This is false. Taxpayers will not receive new stimulus checks of any amount this summer, an IRS official said. Stimulus checks, also known as economic impact payments, are authorized by Congress through legislation and distributed by the Treasury Department. Republican Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri last month introduced a bill that would send tax rebates to qualified taxpayers using revenue from tariffs instituted by President Donald Trump. Hawley’s bill has not passed the Senate or the House.

    The IRS announced early this year that it would distribute about $2.4 billion to taxpayers who failed to claim on their 2021 tax returns a Recovery Rebate Credit — a refundable credit for individuals who did not receive one or more COVID-19 stimulus checks. The maximum amount was $1,400 per individual.

    Those who hadn’t already filed their 2021 tax return would have needed to file it by April 15 to claim the credit. The IRS official said there is no new credit that taxpayers can claim.

    Past stimulus checks have been authorized through legislation passed by Congress. For example, payments during the coronavirus pandemic were made by possible by three bills: the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act; the COVID-related Tax Relief Act; and the American Rescue Plan Act.

    In 2008, stimulus checks were authorized in response to the Great Recession through the Economic Stimulus Act.

    The Treasury Department, which includes the Internal Revenue Service, distributed stimulus payments during the COVID-19 pandemic and the Great Recession. The Treasury’s Bureau of the Fiscal Service, formed in 2012, played a role as well during the former crisis.

    Hawley in July introduced the American Worker Rebate Act, which would share tariff revenue with qualified Americans through tax rebates. The proposed rebates would amount to at minimum $600 per individual, with additional payments for qualifying children. Rebates could increase if tariff revenue is higher than expected. Taxpayers with an adjusted annual gross income above a certain amount — $75,000 for those filing individually — would receive a reduced rebate.

    Hawley said Americans “deserve a tax rebate.”

    “Like President Trump proposed, my legislation would allow hard-working Americans to benefit from the wealth that Trump’s tariffs are returning to this country,” Hawley said in a press release.

    Neither the Senate nor the House had passed the American Worker Rebate Act as of Friday. It was read twice by the Senate on July 28, the day it was introduced, and referred to the Committee on Finance.

    ___

    Find AP Fact Checks here: https://apnews.com/APFactCheck.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Who Donald Trump chose to help lead in his second term as president

    [ad_1]

    HUMERA LODHI, PARKER KAUFMANN, CHRISTOPHER L. KELLER

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Latest AP Polls | AP-NORC Polling

    [ad_1]

    HUMERA LODHI, EUNICE ESOMONU, LINLEY SANDERS, HYOJIN YOO, PABLO BARRIA URENDA

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris, paper reports

    Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris, paper reports

    [ad_1]

    The Washington Post Building at One Franklin Square Building in Washington, D.C., June 5, 2024.

    Andrew Harnik | Getty Images

    The Washington Post said Friday that it will not endorse a candidate in the presidential election this year — or ever again — breaking decades of tradition and sparking immediate criticism of the decision.

    But the newspaper also published an article by two staff reporters revealing that editorial page staffers had drafted an endorsement of Democratic nominee Kamala Harris over GOP nominee Donald Trump in the election.

    “The decision not to publish was made by The Post’s owner — Amazon founder Jeff Bezos,” the article said, citing two sources briefed on the events.

    Trump, while president, had been critical of the billionaire Bezos and the Post, which he purchased in 2013.

    The newspaper in 2016 and again in 2020 endorsed Trump’s election opponents, Hillary Clinton and President Joe Biden, in editorials that condemned the Republican in blunt terms.

    In a 2019 lawsuit, Amazon claimed it had lost a $10 billion cloud computing contract with the Pentagon to Microsoft because Trump had used “improper pressure … to harm his perceived political enemy” Bezos.

    The Post since 1976 had regularly endorsed candidates for president, except for the 1988 race. All those endorsements had been for Democrats.

    In a statement to CNBC, when asked about Bezos’ purported role in killing the endorsement, Post chief communications officer Kathy Baird said, “This was a Washington Post decision to not endorse, and I would refer you to the publisher’s statement in full.”

    The Post on Friday evening published a third article, signed by opinion columnists for the newspaper, who said, “The Washington Post’s decision not to make an endorsement in the presidential campaign is a terrible mistake.”

    “It represents an abandonment of the fundamental editorial convictions of the newspaper that we love, and for which we have worked a combined 218 years,” the column said. “This is a moment for the institution to be making clear its commitment to democratic values, the rule of law and international alliances, and the threat that Donald Trump poses to them — the precise points The Post made in endorsing Trump’s opponents in 2016 and 2020.”

    CNBC has requested comment from Amazon, where Bezos remains the largest shareholder.

    Amazon founder Jeff Bezos arrives for his meeting with British Prime Minister Boris Johnson at the UK diplomatic residence in New York City, Sept. 20, 2021.

    Michael M. Santiago | Getty Images News | Getty Images

    Post publisher and chief executive Will Lewis, in an article published online explaining the decision, wrote, “The Washington Post will not be making an endorsement of a presidential candidate in this election. Nor in any future presidential election.”

    “We are returning to our roots of not endorsing presidential candidates,” Lewis wrote.

    “We recognize that this will be read in a range of ways, including as a tacit endorsement of one candidate, or as a condemnation of another, or as an abdication of responsibility,” he wrote.

    “That is inevitable. We don’t see it that way. We see it as consistent with the values The Post has always stood for and what we hope for in a leader: character and courage in service to the American ethic, veneration for the rule of law, and respect for human freedom in all its aspects.”

    Seven of the 13 paragraphs of Lewis’ article either quoted at length or referred to Post Editorial Board statements in 1960 and 1972 explaining the paper’s rationale for not endorsing presidential candidates in those years, which included its identity as “an independent newspaper.”

    Lewis noted that the paper had endorsed Jimmy Carter in 1976 “for understandable reasons at the times” — which he did not identify.

    “But we had it right before that, and this is what we are going back to,” Lewis wrote.

    “Our job as the newspaper of the capital city of the most important country in the world is to be independent,” he wrote. “And that is what we are and will be.”

    Post editor-at-large Robert Kagan, a member of the paper’s opinions section, resigned following the decision, multiple news outlets reported.

    More than 10,000 reader comments were posted on Lewis’ article, many of them blasting the Post for its decision and saying they were canceling their subscriptions.

    “The most consequential election in our country, a choice between Fascism and Democracy, and you sit out? Cowards. Unethical, fearful cowards,” wrote one comment. “Oh, and by the way, I’m canceling my subscription, because you are putting business ahead of ethics and morals.”

    The announcement came days after Mariel Garza, the head of The Los Angeles Times‘ editorial board, resigned in protest after that paper’s owner, Patrick Soon-Shiong, decided against running a presidential endorsement.

    “I am resigning because I want to make it clear that I am not okay with us being silent,” Garza told the Columbia Journalism Review. “In dangerous times, honest people need to stand up. This is how I’m standing up.”

    Soon-Shiong, like Bezos, is a billionaire.

    Marty Baron, the former editor of The Washington Post, called that paper’s decision “cowardice, with democracy as its casualty.”

    ″@realdonaldtrump will see this as an invitation to further intimidate owner @jeffbezos (and others),” Baron wrote. “Disturbing spinelessness at an institution famed for courage.”

    The Washington Post Guild, the union that represents the newspaper’s staff, in a statement posted on the social media site X said it was “deeply concerned that The Washington Post — an American news institution in the nation’s capital — would make a decision to no longer endorse presidential candidates, especially a mere 11 days ahead of an immensely consequential election.”

    “The message from our chief executive, Will Lewis — not from the Editorial Board itself — makes us concerned that management interfered with the work of our members in Editorial,” the Guild said in the statement, which noted the paper’s reporting about Bezos’ role in the decision.

    “We are already seeing cancellations from once loyal readers,” the Guild said. “This decision undercuts the work of our members at a time when we should be building our readers’ trust, not losing it.”

    Read more CNBC politics coverage

    Former Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, whose stories about the Watergate break-in during the Nixon administration won the newspaper a Pulitzer Prize for Public Service, in a statement said, “We respect the traditional independence of the editorial page, but this decision 11 days out from the 2024 presidential election ignores the Washington Post’s own overwhelming reportorial evidence on the threat Donald Trump poses to democracy.”

    “Under Jeff Bezos’s ownership, the Washington Post’s news operation has used its abundant resources to rigorously investigate the danger and damage a second Trump presidency could cause to the future of American democracy and that makes this decision even more surprising and disappointing, especially this late in the electoral process,” Woodward and Bernstein said.

    Post columnist Karen Attiah, in a post on the social media site Threads, wrote, “Today has been an absolute stab in the back.”

    “What an insult to those of us who have literally put our careers and lives on the line to call out threats to human rights and democracy,” Attiah wrote.

    Rep. Ted Lieu, a Democrat from California, in his own tweet on the news wrote, “The first step towards fascism is when the free press cowers in fear.”

    Trump in August told Fox Business News that Bezos called him after the Republican narrowly escaped an assassination attempt in July at a campaign rally in western Pennsylvania.

    “He was very nice even though he owns The Washington Post,” Trump said of Bezos.

    Bezos last posted on X on July 13, hours after the assassination attempt.

    “Our former President showed tremendous grace and courage under literal fire tonight,” Bezos wrote in that tweet. “So thankful for his safety and so sad for the victims and their families.”

    Trump on Friday met in Austin, Texas, with executives from the Bezos-owned space exploration company Blue Origin, among them CEO David Limp, the Associated Press reported

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Nigeria releases American crypto executive after dropping money laundering case

    Nigeria releases American crypto executive after dropping money laundering case

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON (AP) — An American cryptocurrency executive held in Nigeria for the past eight months has been released after authorities there announced they were ending his money laundering trial on health and diplomatic grounds.

    Tigran Gambaryan, Binance’s head of financial crime compliance, was freed on a humanitarian basis and was returning to the United States to receive medical attention, White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan said in a statement Thursday announcing the release.

    “I am grateful to my Nigerian colleagues and partners for the productive discussions that have resulted in this step and look forward to working closely with them on the many areas of cooperation and collaboration critical to the bilateral partnership between our two countries,” Sullivan said. He said he had spoken with Gambaryan’s wife “to share the good news.”

    Gambaryan was arrested in February during a business trip to Nigeria alongside Nadeem Anjarwalla, the company’s regional manager in Africa, who fled custody and remains at large.

    Nigerian authorities had accused Binance, the world’s largest cryptocurrency exchange, and Gambaryan of using the platform to launder up to $35 million and to manipulate the local naira currency, which they deny.

    Nigeria is Africa’s largest crypto economy in terms of trade volume, with many citizens using crypto to hedge their finances against surging inflation and the declining local currency.

    But as its users grew and the government struggled to stabilize the currency, officials alleged without providing evidence publicly that the platform was being used to launder money and finance terrorism, forcing it to stop all trading with the local currency on its platform.

    On Wednesday, R.U. Adaba, a prosecuting lawyer with Nigeria’s Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, told the Federal High Court in Nigeria’s capital, Abuja, that the government was ending the case after “taking into consideration some critical international and diplomatic reasons.”

    Binance still faces charges on suspicion of tax evasion and operating without the required license.

    Gambaryan’s trial has been shrouded in controversy, including over allegations that he and his colleague were illegally detained and their passports seized. Binance also alleged that Nigerian officials demanded bribes to release him and Anjarwalla.

    The Nigerian government denied the bribery allegation and defended the prosecution as following the rule of law.

    Gambaryan’s health deteriorated as his court case dragged on. The court in Abuja denied him bail twice after a judge ruled he was a flight risk and that he should remain at the Kuje prison in the capital city.

    ____

    Asadu reported from Abuja, Nigeria.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • AP Decision Notes: What to expect in New Mexico on Election Day

    AP Decision Notes: What to expect in New Mexico on Election Day

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON (AP) — Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris, Republican former President Donald Trump and five third-party candidates will compete for New Mexico’s five electoral votes, but the most competitive race on the ballot will likely be a U.S. House race that could determine control of the narrowly divided chamber.

    New Mexico was once one of the nation’s most competitive presidential battlegrounds, having gone for Democrat Al Gore in 2000 and Republican George W. Bush in 2004 by less than 1 percentage point. Democratic presidential candidates have since won seven of the last eight general elections in the state, where neither of the major party candidates has campaigned this year.

    In the U.S. House, Democratic Rep. Gabriel Vasquez is seeking a second term in the 2nd Congressional District against the Republican he narrowly defeated in 2022, former Rep. Yvette Herrell. Immigration has been a major issue in the sprawling district that spans the state’s entire border with Mexico. Republicans hold a slim majority in the House, and a Herrell victory would complicate Democratic hopes to retake the chamber.

    In the U.S. Senate, Democratic incumbent Martin Heinrich is seeking a third term against Republican Nella Domenici. She is the daughter of the late Republican Sen. Pete Domenici, who served six terms, from 1973 to 2009 and was the last Republican elected to the Senate from New Mexico.

    More than 60% of New Mexicans typically vote before Election Day. A 2023 law requires counties to post early and absentee results no later than 11 p.m. ET.

    Democratic presidential candidates historically have won most of the state’s largest counties — Bernalillo, which includes Albuquerque; Santa Fe, the state’s capital; and Dona Ana, in the south part of the state. Republicans tend to do well in the east of the state bordering Texas, and in San Juan County in the Four Corners area in the northwest.

    The Associated Press doesn’t make projections and will declare a winner only when it has determined there is no scenario that would allow the trailing candidates to close the gap. If a race hasn’t been called, the AP will continue to cover any newsworthy developments, like candidate concessions or declarations of victory. In doing so, the AP will make clear it hasn’t declared a winner and explain why.

    Here’s a look at what to expect in the 2024 election in New Mexico:

    Election Day

    Nov. 5.

    Poll closing time

    9 p.m. ET.

    Presidential electoral votes

    5 awarded to statewide winner.

    Key races and candidates

    President: Harris (D) vs. Trump (R) vs. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (DTS) vs. Chase Oliver (OTH) vs. Jill Stein (Green) and two others.

    U.S. Senate: Heinrich (D) vs. Domenici (R).

    2nd Congressional District: Vasquez (D) vs. Herrell (R).

    Other races of interest

    U.S. House, state Senate, state House, district attorney, bond measures, ballot measures.

    Past presidential results

    2020: Biden (D) 54%, Trump (R) 44%, AP race call: Tuesday, Nov. 3, 2020, 9 p.m. ET.

    Voter registration and turnout

    Registered voters: 1,361,117 (as of Sept. 30, 2024). About 43% Democrats, 31% Republicans and 24% other.

    Voter turnout in 2020 presidential election: 68% of registered voters.

    What to know about the 2024 Election

    Pre-Election Day voting

    Votes cast before Election Day 2020: about 85% of the total vote.

    Votes cast before Election Day 2022: about 63% of the total vote.

    Votes cast before Election Day 2024: See AP Advance Vote tracker.

    How long does vote-counting take?

    First votes reported, Nov. 3, 2020: 9:24 p.m. ET.

    By midnight ET: about 78% of total votes cast were reported.

    ___

    Associated Press writer Maya Sweedler contributed to this report.

    ___

    Read more about how U.S. elections work at Explaining Election 2024, a series from The Associated Press aimed at helping make sense of the American democracy. The AP receives support from several private foundations to enhance its explanatory coverage of elections and democracy. See more about AP’s democracy initiative here. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Fox’s Bret Baier acknowledges ‘mistake’ in Harris interview over airing of Trump clip

    Fox’s Bret Baier acknowledges ‘mistake’ in Harris interview over airing of Trump clip

    [ad_1]

    Fox News anchor Bret Baier says he “made a mistake” during his interview with Kamala Harris in not airing video of a Donald Trump comment, something Harris pointed out to him in real time.

    Baier made that admission on Thursday roughly 24 hours after his interview with the Democratic presidential candidate was aired. Just under 8 million people watched the session, Harris’ first sit-down with a Fox News Channel journalist during the campaign.

    It wasn’t immediately clear, however, what Baier meant by saying he made a mistake.

    Their exchange over the Trump video, one of the most contentious of the interview, came after Harris criticized her Republican opponent for saying that he might have to call out the National Guard or military to deal with “the enemy within,” whom he defined as “radical left lunatics.”

    Baier then said his colleague, Harris Faulkner, had asked Trump about his “enemy within” comment earlier in the day, “and this is how he responded.” The clip showed Trump saying he wasn’t threatening anybody, and criticized “phony investigations” of him, cracking a joke his audience laughed at.

    “Bret, I’m sorry, and with all due respect, that clip was not what he has been saying about the enemy within … that’s not what you just showed,” Harris said.

    Speaking a day later, Baier said that when he asked his staff for video to play during the interview, he was expecting to get two clips — one that showed Trump making the “enemy within” comment to Fox’s Maria Bartiromo, and the one from Faulkner’s town hall that was played during the Harris interview.

    “Take a listen to what I meant to roll,” Baier said on Thursday. He then aired both clips back to back.

    Yet during the interview, Baier had given no indication that he meant to air the “enemy within” comment at all, even after Harris had pointed it out. For that reason, his explanation of a mistake met with some skepticism online.

    “Newsflash: When wrong clips run (which happens) hosts can easily say `Sorry that was the wrong clip,’” former Fox News anchor Gretchen Carlson wrote on “X.” “He or his producers would have know it was the wrong one right then.”

    There was no immediate comment from a Fox representative on Friday to clarify what Baier meant.

    ___

    David Bauder writes about media for the AP. Follow him at http://x.com/dbauder.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Fox News says none of its employees wrote jokes for Trump to tell at traditional campaign dinner

    Fox News says none of its employees wrote jokes for Trump to tell at traditional campaign dinner

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK (AP) — Fox News Channel on Friday denied Donald Trump’s assertion that any of its employees wrote jokes for him to deliver this week at a New York appearance.

    The former president and current candidate said on “Fox & Friends” that “a couple of people from Fox” helped him prepare jokes for Thursday’s Al Smith dinner, a traditional event in the last weeks of a presidential campaigns where candidates usually appear.

    “I shouldn’t say that,” Trump said. “But they wrote some jokes. For the most part, I didn’t like any of them.”

    Candidates often turn to professional comedians for material when needed for such appearances; it would be eye-opening and ethically suspect if a news organization contributed.

    But Fox, in a statement, said none of its employees or freelancers did so. Instead, Trump is believed to have received material from a comic who occasionally tries to sell jokes to the Fox show “Gutfeld.”

    Trump was at the dinner, while opponent Kamala Harris sent in a taped routine.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Arnold Palmer’s daughter reacts to Donald Trump’s references to her father

    Arnold Palmer’s daughter reacts to Donald Trump’s references to her father

    [ad_1]

    One of the late golf legend Arnold Palmer’s daughters calls Donald Trump’s references to her father’s genitalia “a poor choice of approaches” to honoring his memory, adding that she wasn’t upset by the remarks.

    “There’s nothing much to say. I’m not really upset,” Peg Palmer Wears, 68, told The Associated Press in an interview on Sunday. “I think it was a poor choice of approaches to remembering my father, but what are you going to do?”

    On Saturday in Latrobe, Pennsylvania — the city where Palmer was born in 1929 and learned to golf from his father — Trump kicked off his rally in the campaign’s closing weeks with a detailed, 12-minute story about Palmer that included an anecdote about what Palmer looked like in the showers.

    “When he took the showers with other pros, they came out of there. They said, ‘Oh my God. That’s unbelievable,’” Trump said with a laugh. “I had to say. We have women that are highly sophisticated here, but they used to look at Arnold as a man.”

    Wears said that she had only had passing encounters with Trump at functions decades ago but that her father and the GOP presidential nominee, an avid golfer who owns courses around the world, primarily shared a kinship over “an interest in golf and a love of golf.”

    Emotional at times as she recalled conversations with her father, who died in 2016 at 87, Wears said her father “believed in the Republican Party.”

    “A day doesn’t go by that I don’t think about what my father would say about something or what’s happening,” Wears said. “We didn’t always agree on things, but he was a quintessential American who believed fervently in this country, even when he questioned its direction.”

    Asked three times Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union,” about what he thought of Trump’s remarks, House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., refused to answer.

    “I’ll address it, let me answer it,” Johnson said, without ever answering the question. “Don’t say it again. We don’t have to say it. I get it.”

    Gov. Chris Sununu, R-N.H., told ABC’s “This Week” that he didn’t like Trump’s comments, including one in which he used a profanity to refer to Vice President Kamala Harris, but that the former president’s remarks would not sway voters one way or the other.

    “I mean it’s just par for the course. He speaks in hyperbole. He gets his crowds riled up,” Sununu said.

    But Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, an independent who backs Harris, argued the comments show how little Trump is focusing on important issues, which will turn off voters.

    “I think you have a lot of Americans, whether you are conservative, whether you’re progressive or moderate, who say, ‘Really?’” Sanders said on CNN. “We have major issues facing this country. Is this the kind of human being that we want as president of the United States?

    Wears, who declined to say for whom she would vote in the Nov. 5 election, said she would be casting her ballot in North Carolina, a pivotal state, and described herself as an “unaffiliated” voter.

    “The people of western Pennsylvania are very smart people, and they’re very hard working, and they’ll make their own decisions, as I will make my own decision, using all the history and awareness I have,” Wears said of the upcoming election. “And that’s what I hope people go vote with.”

    ___

    Kinnard reported from Chapin, South Carolina, and can be reached at http://x.com/MegKinnardAP. Associated Press writer Amanda Seitz in Washington contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Iran aided Russia against Ukraine. Now it needs to call in the favor

    Iran aided Russia against Ukraine. Now it needs to call in the favor

    [ad_1]

    Russian President Vladimir Putin (C) enters the hall during the meeting with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian (not pictured), October 11, 2024, in Ashgabat, Turkmenistan.

    Contributor | Getty Images News | Getty Images

    Iran has been one of Russia’s few staunch allies throughout the war against Ukraine, but Tehran now faces the strain of indirectly fighting its nemesis Israel on two fronts.

    Under pressure — but still defiant — Iran could start looking to Russia for help, given its need for greater air defense capabilities and military intelligence to detect a highly-anticipated but yet-to-materialize direct Israeli attack on Iran, analysts told CNBC.

    Russia is well-positioned to provide Tehran with such capabilities, but the extent to which it will assist the Islamic Republic remains uncertain.

    “I fully expect that the Iranians have high expectations of the Russians to provide them with something,” Bilal Y. Saab, associate fellow in the Middle East and North Africa Programme at think tank Chatham House, told CNBC Thursday, noting that reputation is of the utmost importance in international relations — even among authoritarian countries.

    “So if the Russians are going to bail on this, it’s going to have consequences with regards not only to its relationship with the Iranians, but to any other partner, such as the Chinese,” he said.

    “They’ve got to maintain some kind of reputation that they are good for it, and so I have medium-to-high expectations that they would actually provide them with what they need. Now, whether they provide them with everything they need, this is what nobody knows.”

    Russia is unlikely to offer military intervention against Israel on behalf of the Iranians, Saab said, given it is already “too bogged down in Ukraine.”

    “It’s also too risky of a game to go against the United States over the Iranians … so I think that [it’s] more likely they would stay on the sidelines and try to help from as far away as possible,” he said.

    CNBC has contacted the Kremlin and Iranian foreign ministry for comment and has yet to receive a response.

    ‘Strategic alliance’

    Russian President Vladimir Putin (R) shakes hands with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian (L) during their meeting, October 11, 2024, in Ashgabat, Turkmenistan.

    Contributor | Getty Images News | Getty Images

    Arms transfers between the two allies have led the U.S. to describe Iran as Russia’s “top military backer,” although both countries deny drone and missile transfers have taken place. Tehran has conceded that it sent drones to Russia before the war began, however.

    Russia also denies using drones to attack Ukrainian infrastructure, although there have been numerous instances of Iranian-made drones damaging Ukrainian infrastructure or being intercepted during the war.

    In the meantime, Tehran has turned to Russia to help build up its own military capabilities, looking to procure sophisticated Russia air defense systems and a variety of combat aircraft, according to reports, although the details surrounding the delivery of such hardware remain hazy.

    “The provision of Iranian drones and, more recently, missiles to Russia for its campaign in Ukraine marked a significant evolution in the Russia-Iran relationship. In part, the war itself served as an accelerant to the already burgeoning Russia-Iran ties, propelling their cooperation to new heights,” Karim Sadjadpour and Nicole Grajewski from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace think tank noted in analysis earlier this month.

    In return for Iran’s support, Russia has bolstered Iran’s military capabilities in several areas, they noted: “Iran has made notable progress in acquiring advanced conventional weaponry from Russia, allowing it to achieve some of its defense officials’ long-standing goals. In November 2023, Tehran secured deals for Su-35 fighter jets, Yak-130 training aircraft, and Mi-28 attack helicopters, though only the Yak-130s have been delivered so far.”

    Russia has been offering Iran “an unprecedented level of military and technical support that is transforming their relationship into a full-fledged defense partnership,” National Security Council Spokesperson John Kirby said in late 2022. “This partnership poses a threat, not just to Ukraine, but to Iran’s neighbors in the region,” he said at the time.

    Fast forward to October 2024 and Russia’s appetite to bolster Tehran’s military capabilities might be waning as its war against Ukraine drags on, while Iran’s ability to supply Russia with weaponry could now be limited.

    Tehran is indirectly fighting its nemesis Israel on two fronts with its regional proxies, the militant groups Hamas and Hezbollah, coming under heavy and sustained Israeli attacks in the Gaza Strip and in Lebanon, respectively, and looking severely weakened after the deaths of the militant groups’ leaders.

    Iranian protesters shout anti-Israeli slogans while burning an Israeli flag in a celebration for Iran’s missile attack against Israel, in Tehran, Iran, on October 1, 2024. 

    Morteza Nikoubazl | Nurphoto | Getty Images

    The factions, along with Iranian-backed Houthis in Yemen, make up what Tehran refers to as the “Axis of Resistance,” which Iran backs in order to oppose Israeli and U.S. influence in the region. That shared antipathy toward the U.S. and desire to create a “new world order” are what largely binds Iran and Russia.

    This week could bring more clarity on their deepening economic and strategic cooperation, when Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Iranian counterpart Masoud Pezeshkian meet on the sidelines of the BRICS summit in Russia.

    Both countries have said they are close to signing a “strategic partnership agreement” — negotiations over which began in early 2022 — and this could be finalized at forum. It remains to be seen what the partnership will entail.

    An alliance, with limits

    Russia is likely watching the expansion of Israel’s military action in the Gaza enclave and Lebanon carefully given its own military, economic and geopolitical interests in the Middle East.

    It has, so far, maintained generally good relations in the region, including with arch rivals Iran and Israel, as well as deepening strategic ties with Syria, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

    Mikhail Svetlov | Getty Images

    Saudi Arabian Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (R) welcomes Russian President Vladimir Putin (L) at Al Yamamah Palace in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia on December 06, 2023. 

    Royal Court of Saudi Arabia | Anadolu | Getty Images

    Moscow’s war in Ukraine means it has “no time” for another war, according to Smagin, who added that Russia would only be motivated to involve itself indirectly in the conflict with Israel if the end result were to weaken the U.S.

    “Russia could seek to support Iran by supplying weapons to Iranian proxy forces, including Hezbollah and the Houthis,” Smagin said. “However, for the Kremlin, that would be more logical if such deliveries were going to harm the United States, rather than Israel.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump vows to deport millions. Builders say it would drain their crews and drive up home costs

    Trump vows to deport millions. Builders say it would drain their crews and drive up home costs

    [ad_1]

    Construction of a KB Home single-family housing development is shown in Menifee, California, on Sept. 4, 2024.

    Mike Blake | Reuters

    Both presidential candidates promise to build more homes. One promises to deport hundreds of thousands of people who build them.

    Former President Donald Trump’s pledge to “launch the largest deportation operation in the history of our country” would hamstring construction firms already facing labor shortages and push record home prices higher, say industry leaders, contractors and economists.

    “It would be detrimental to the construction industry and our labor supply and exacerbate our housing affordability problems,” said Jim Tobin, CEO of the National Association of Home Builders. The trade group considers foreign-born workers, regardless of legal status, “a vital and flexible source of labor” to builders, estimating they fill 30% of trade jobs like carpentry, plastering, masonry and electrical roles.

    Either I make half as much money or I up my prices. And who ultimately pays for that? The homeowner.

    Brent Taylor

    President of Taylor Construction Group, Tampa, Fla.

    Nearly 11 million undocumented immigrants were living in the U.S. as of 2022, the latest federal data shows, down from an 11.8 million peak in 2007. The construction sector employs an estimated 1.5 million undocumented workers, or 13% of its total workforce — a larger share than any other, according to data the Pew Research Center provided to NBC News. Industry experts say their rates are higher in Sun Belt states like Florida and Texas, and more pronounced in residential than in commercial construction.

    For Brent Taylor, home building has been “a very, very difficult industry the past few years, and it seems to only be getting worse.” His five-person, Tampa-based business hires subcontractors to perform all the labor, and if those firms’ employees “show up on my jobsite because they work for that company, I don’t know if they’re legal or not,” he said.

    The labor pool is tight already, with the U.S. construction industry still looking to fill 370,000 open positions, according to federal data. If work crews dwindle further, “now I can only do 10 jobs a year instead of 20,” Taylor said. “Either I make half as much money or I up my prices. And who ultimately pays for that? The homeowner.”

    Rhetoric or reality?

    Trump hasn’t detailed how his proposed “whole of government” effort to remove up to 20 million people — far more than the undocumented population — would work, but he has made it central to his housing pitch. The Republican nominee claims mass deportations would free up homes for U.S. citizens and lower prices, though few economists agree. The idea has also drawn skepticism on logistical grounds, with some analysts saying its costs would be “astronomical.”

    Doubts also run high among homebuilders that Trump would deliver on his promise.

    “They don’t think it’s going to happen,” Stan Marek, CEO of the Marek Family of Companies, a Texas-based specialty subcontracting firm, said of industry colleagues. “You’d lose so many people that you couldn’t put a crew together to frame a house.”

    You’d lose so many people that you couldn’t put a crew together to frame a house.

    Stan Marek

    CEO of the Marek Family of Companies

    Bryan Dunn, an-Arizona based senior vice president at Big-D Construction, a major Southwest firm, called “the idea that they could actually move that many people” out of the country “almost laughable.” The proposal has left those in the industry “trying to figure out how much is political fearmongering,” he said.

    But while Trump has a history of floating outlandish ideas without seriously pursuing them — like buying Greenland — he has embraced other once-radical policies that reset the terms of political debate despite fierce criticism and litigation. That is especially true with immigration, where his administration diverted Pentagon money to build a border wall, banned travel from several Muslim-majority countries and separated migrant children from their parents.

    Trump has emphasized his deportation pitch on the stump, at times deploying racist rhetoric like claiming thousands of immigrants are committing murders because “it’s in their genes.” This month he accused immigrant gangs of having “invaded and conquered” cities like Aurora, Colorado, which local authorities deny, saying they need federal assistance but want no part in mass deportations. Still, recent polling has found broad support for removing people who came to the U.S. illegally.

    “President Trump’s mass deportation of illegal immigrants will not only make our communities safer but will save Americans from footing the bill for years to come,” Taylor Rogers, a Republican National Committee spokesperson for the campaign, said in a statement, referring to undocumented people’s use of taxpayer-funded social services and other federal programs.

    Trump campaign press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement that the former president’s remarks about genetics were “clearly referring to murderers, not migrants.”

    Tobin said the NAHB has real concerns about the deportation proposal but is engaging with both campaigns. It has called on policymakers to “let builders build” by easing zoning and other regulatory hurdles and improving developers’ access to financing.

    We have to have a serious conversation in this country about immigration policy and reform, and we can no longer delay it.

    Jim Tobin

    CEO of the National Association of Home Builders

    “The rhetoric on immigration, it’s at 11,” Tobin said. “We have to have a serious conversation in this country about immigration policy and reform, and we can no longer delay it.”

    Marek, who has long advocated for more ways for undocumented people to work legally in construction, said reforms are decades overdue. As an employer, “I do everything I can to make sure everybody’s legal,” he said, even as the industry’s hunger for low-cost labor has created a shadow economy that he says often exploits the undocumented workers it depends upon.

    “We need them. They’re building our houses — have been for 30 years,” he said. “Losing the workers would devastate our companies, our industry and our economy.”

    ‘The math is just not there’

    There is evidence that foreign-born construction workers help keep the housing market in check. An analysis released in December 2022 by the George W. Bush Institute and Southern Methodist University found U.S. metro areas with the fastest-growing immigrant populations had the lowest building costs.

    “Immigrant construction workers in Sun Belt metros like Raleigh, Nashville, Houston, and San Antonio have helped these cities sustain their housing cost advantage over coastal cities despite rapid growth in housing demand,” the authors wrote.

    But builders need many more workers as it is. “The math is just not there” to sustain a blow from mass deportations, said Ron Hetrick, a senior labor economist at the workforce analytics firm Lightcast. “That would be incredibly disruptive” and cause “a very, very significant hit on home construction,” he said.

    Private employers in the field have been adding jobs for the past decade, with employment levels now topping 8 million, over 1 million more since the pandemic, according to payroll processor ADP. But as Hetrick noted, “the average high school student is not aspiring to do this work,” and the existing workforce is aging — the average homebuilder is 57 years old.

    Undocumented workers would likely flee ahead of any national deportation effort, Hetrick said, even though many have been in the U.S. for well over a decade. He expects such a policy would trigger an exodus of people with legal authorization, too.

    “That’s exactly what happened in Florida,” he said.

    Past as prologue

    Last year, the state’s Republican governor, Ron DeSantis, enacted a series of restrictions and penalties to deter the employment of undocumented workers. Many immigrant workers hastily left the state even before the policies took effect, with social media videos showing some construction sites sitting empty.

    “These laws show that they have no idea what we do,” said Luciano, a carpenter who is originally from Mexico and has worked on residential builds across South Florida for the past decade.

    “No one else would work in the conditions in which we work,” the 40-year-old said in Spanish, asking to be identified by his first name because he lacks legal immigration status, despite living in the U.S. for over 20 years. Workers on jobsites “have an entry time but no exit time,” often logging 70-hour weeks in rain and extreme heat, he said.

    Taylor recalled fellow Florida builders’ panic at the time of the statewide crackdown but said he reassured them, “Look, just give it six months. We don’t have enough people to enforce it, so they’re coming back.”

    Republican state Rep. Rick Roth, who voted for the measure, later conceded that Florida was unprepared for the destabilization it would cause and urged immigrant residents not to flee, saying the law “is not as bad as you heard.”

    Some workers returned after realizing the policies weren’t being rigorously enforced, Taylor said: “Sure enough, now things are more normal.”

    DeSantis’ office didn’t respond to a request for comment.

    When Arizona in 2010 enacted what were then some of the toughest immigration restrictions in the country, Dunn was working in Tempe as an executive at a construction management firm. As the legislation rolled out, he said, “a lot of people moved away, and they just never came back.”

    By the time much of the law was overturned in 2012, he said, “Arizona had a bad rap” relative to other states that “were a lot more open and just less of a hassle to go work in.”

    Dunn, a Democrat, said he’s “definitely” backing Vice President Kamala Harris, but other construction executives sounded more divided. Marek, a “lifelong Republican,” declined to share how he’s voting but noted that “a lot of Republicans aren’t voting for Trump.”

    Taylor also wouldn’t say which candidate he’s supporting but praised Trump’s ability to “get things done.”

    “There are many other issues with the economy that we are fighting daily that have nothing to do with immigration reform,” he said. “I am not a one-policy voter.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Harris campaign calls plagiarism claims a partisan attack. Expert says it was ‘sloppy writing’

    Harris campaign calls plagiarism claims a partisan attack. Expert says it was ‘sloppy writing’

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON (AP) — Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris’ campaign is dismissing accusations that she and a co-author plagiarized parts of a 2009 book on the U.S. criminal justice system as a desperate attempt by “rightwing operatives” to distract voters.

    Plagiarism experts and academics who reviewed the claims said several were benign or could not be proven, and others were more due to careless writing than malicious intent.

    The allegations surrounding the book, “Smart on Crime: A Career Prosecutor’s Plan to Make Us Safer,” surfaced Monday when conservative activist Christopher Rufo posted an article on his Substack platform that listed a handful of passages he said were copied from other sources without any or adequate attribution.

    “Taken in total, there is certainly a breach of standards here,” Rufo wrote. “Harris and her co-author duplicated long passages nearly verbatim without proper citation and without quotation marks, which is the textbook definition of plagiarism.”

    James Singer, a spokesman for the Harris campaign, said in an emailed statement that the plagiarism allegations represent a partisan attack on a book Harris co-authored more than a decade ago.

    “Rightwing operatives are getting desperate as they see the bipartisan coalition of support Vice President Harris is building to win this election, as (former president Donald) Trump retreats to a conservative echo chamber refusing to face questions about his lies,” Singer wrote. “This is a book that’s been out for 15 years, and the vice president clearly cited sources and statistics in footnotes and endnotes throughout.”

    Rufo’s article cited a new study of Harris’ 248-page book by Stefan Weber, an Austrian academic known in Europe as a “plagiarism hunter.” Among the findings, the book plagiarized a section from a Wikipedia article and made up a childhood anecdote that originated with Martin Luther King Jr., according to Weber.

    Trump’s running mate, Ohio Republican Sen. JD Vance, seized on the allegations to needle Harris.

    “Hi, I’m JD Vance. I wrote my own book, unlike Kamala Harris, who copied hers from Wikipedia,” he wrote on X. Vance’s 2016 memoir, “ Hillbilly Elegy ” recounts his blue-collar upbringing in Kentucky and Ohio.

    The allegation involving King centers on a story Harris said her mother told her about a time when she was fussing as a toddler. Her mother, according to the book, asked her what was wrong and what she wanted. “I wailed back, ‘Fweedom,’” Harris wrote. Weber said Harris appropriated the anecdote, without attribution, from an interview King gave in 1965.

    But other plagiarism experts questioned the severity of the claims. Jonathan Bailey, a consultant and publisher of the website Plagiarism Today, said in a Tuesday post that the King story allegation first arose in early 2021 and couldn’t be proven based on available evidence. But several other plagiarism accusations are more troublesome, he said, including Weber’s allegation that Harris’ book copied and pasted, without citation, a section of a Wikipedia article.

    But the patterns in the book point to “sloppy writing habits, not a malicious intent to defraud,” he said.

    What to know about the 2024 Election

    “Though some of the passages, such as the Wikipedia one, are sloppy to the point of negligence, when you look at the portion of the book involved, the nature of the issues, and the citations provided, negligence remains more likely than malice in my eyes,” Bailey wrote.

    Miguel Roig, a psychology professor at St. John’s University in New York who studies plagiarism in the sciences, said the lapses described by Weber meet the definition of plagiarism. But, he added, context is important. The problematic passages amount to a small total of the overall book and “hardly seems like an attempt to defraud,” he said.

    “Any time minor issues like these occur, the offending authors should simply acknowledge the obvious errors, apologize, and make corrections where feasible, and just move on,” Roig said.

    Harris wrote “Smart on Crime” when she was the district attorney for San Francisco. The book spelled out her ideas for improving public safety and making the criminal justice system more effective. In 2010, a year after the book was published, she was elected attorney general of California.

    Harris’ co-author, Joan O’C. Hamilton, works as a book collaborator and ghostwriter, according to her website.

    Weber, the plagiarism researcher in Austria, said in an email that much of the work to check Harris’s book was done by an associate whom he did not identify. But he said the associate was “driven by personal choice and interest, not by political motivations.” This was Weber’s first “international case,” he said.

    He also said he was unaware until the Harris review had been released that Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, had published books.

    “Every scientist can feel free to check the books of Donald Trump or whomsoever as we did it with Kamala Harris,” Weber said.

    Debora Weber-Wulff, a professor of media and computing at Berlin University of Applied Sciences in Germany and no relation to Weber, sided with Bailey’s assessment and said the book’s publisher would have to decide whether any problems justify removing it from sales. Any legal action is unlikely because the original author of the plagiarized content would have to pursue a potentially costly lawsuit.

    “No one in their right mind would invite a suit like this,” Weber-Wulff said. “Only the lawyers profit.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link