ReportWire

Tag: Government policy

  • The Cost of Doing Business With China? A $40,000 Dinner With Xi Jinping Might Be Just the Start

    The Cost of Doing Business With China? A $40,000 Dinner With Xi Jinping Might Be Just the Start

    [ad_1]

    Updated Nov. 28, 2023 12:54 am ET

    Broadcom Chief Executive Hock Tan shelled out $40,000 to sit at Xi Jinping’s table for the Chinese leader’s recent dinner in San Francisco with the heads of American businesses. Tan had a lot more at stake—a $69 billion deal he was waiting on China to approve.

    For months, Chinese regulators wouldn’t clear the U.S. chipmaker’s bid to buy enterprise software developer VMware, leading Broadcom to put off its date for completion of the deal—first announced in May 2022—three times. Beijing had held up previous mergers involving U.S. companies. Intel’s planned acquisition of Israeli firm Tower Semiconductor, for more than $5 billion, was scuttled in August after Chinese regulators failed to approve it.

    Copyright ©2023 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • No, Jeff Bezos hasn’t been unloading Amazon stock

    No, Jeff Bezos hasn’t been unloading Amazon stock

    [ad_1]

    A number of Amazon.com Inc. executives have disclosed sales of some of their Amazon stock holdings in recent weeks, but Jeff Bezos, the company’s executive chair and a mega-shareholder, was not among them.

    Despite some reports to the contrary, Bezos hasn’t disclosed any sales of Amazon shares AMZN for two years, but he has given some shares away to nonprofit organizations.

    There…

    Master your money.

    Subscribe to MarketWatch.

    Get this article and all of MarketWatch.

    Access from any device. Anywhere. Anytime.


    Subscribe Now

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Congress returns to face big to-do list: Israel and Ukraine aid, possible border or tax deals, and more

    Congress returns to face big to-do list: Israel and Ukraine aid, possible border or tax deals, and more

    [ad_1]

    Both the House and Senate are due to get back to work this week after their Thanksgiving break, and lawmakers have a lot on their plates.

    A divided Washington put off the threat of a partial government shutdown until mid-January by enacting a short-term spending bill in mid-November, but the measure didn’t address President Joe Biden’s $106 billion funding request that includes wartime aid for Israel and Ukraine.

    So…

    Master your money.

    Subscribe to MarketWatch.

    Get this article and all of MarketWatch.

    Access from any device. Anywhere. Anytime.


    Subscribe Now

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Republicans want to pair border security with aid for Ukraine. Here’s why that makes a deal so tough

    Republicans want to pair border security with aid for Ukraine. Here’s why that makes a deal so tough

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — As Congress returns to session this week, lawmakers will be trying to forge an agreement on sending a new round of wartime assistance to Ukraine. But to succeed, they will have to find agreement on an issue that has confounded them for decades.

    Republicans in both chambers of Congress have made clear that they will not support additional aid for Ukraine unless it is paired with border security measures to help manage the influx of migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border. Their demand has injected one of the most contentious issues in American politics into a foreign policy debate that was already difficult.

    Time is short for a deal.

    A small, bipartisan group in the Senate is taking the lead and working to find a narrow compromise that can overcome a likely filibuster by winning 60 votes. But even if they can reach a modest agreement, there is no guarantee it would pass the House, where Republicans are insisting on wholesale changes to U.S. border and immigration policies.

    Republicans hope that Democrats will feel political pressure to accept some of their border proposals after illegal crossings topped a daily average of more than 8,000 earlier this fall. President Joe Biden, who is running for reelection next year, has faced pressure even from fellow Democrats over the migrant flow.

    No matter what, finding compromise will be exceedingly difficult. As they left for Thanksgiving break, Senate negotiators said they were still far apart.

    A look at some of the issues under discussion and why they have proved so difficult to resolve:

    Changing the asylum system for migrants is a top priority for Republicans. They want to make it more difficult for asylum-seekers to prove in initial interviews that they have a credible fear of political, religious or racial persecution in their home country before advancing toward asylum in the United States.

    Republicans in the House have passed legislation that would detain families at the border, require migrants to make the asylum claim at an official port of entry and either detain them or require them to remain outside the U.S. while their case is processed.

    U.S. and international law give migrants the right to seek safety from persecution, but the number of people applying for asylum in the U.S. has reached historic highs. Critics say many people take advantage of the system to live and work in the U.S. while they wait for their asylum claims to be processed in court.

    Arizona Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, an independent who is part of the Senate negotiations, said in an Arizona radio interview that one of lawmakers’ goals is to ensure that “those who are here seeking asylum have an actual claim to asylum.”

    Compromise is far from certain. Many Democrats are wary of making it harder to flee persecution, and the details of each policy shift are contentious.

    Hardline conservatives in the House, already unlikely to support further Ukraine aid, have also signaled they won’t accept policy changes that deviate much from a bill passed in May that would have remade the U.S. immigration system. Their stance means at least some support from House Democrats will be needed to pass any agreement — no easy task.

    Some progressives have already said they will oppose any Republican-led changes to immigration policy.

    “The cruel, inhumane, and unworkable solutions offered by Republicans will only create more disorder and confusion at the border,” said Democratic Rep. Pramila Jayapal of Washington, chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

    Lawmakers may find it easier to reach consensus on other areas of border policy, particularly when it comes to border staffing and enforcement.

    Negotiators have looked at steps that could be taken to reinforce existing infrastructure at the border, including hiring and boosting pay for border patrol officers and improving technology. One proposal advanced by a bipartisan group of senators would call for hiring of more border patrol agents, raising their pay and ensuring they receive overtime.

    Biden has shown a willingness to accept tougher enforcement measures, recently resuming deportation of migrants to Venezuela and waiving federal laws to allow for the construction of border wall that began under then-President Donald Trump. The White House also wants to install new imaging technology at ports of entry that would allow authorities to quickly scan vehicles for illegal imports, including fentanyl.

    Republicans say that is not enough. They want more robust improvements, including more expansive construction of a border wall.

    Biden’s emergency request to Congress included aid for Ukraine, Israel and other U.S. allies, along with $14 billion to bolster the immigration system and border security. Money would go toward hiring more border patrol agents, immigration judges and asylum officers. It’s part of Biden’s strategy of trying to simultaneously turn away from Trump’s hard-line policies but adapt to the realities of crossings at the U.S.-Mexico border.

    Still, polls indicate widespread frustration with Biden’s handling of immigration and the border, creating a political vulnerability as he seeks reelection. Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas told the Senate Appropriations Committee this month that the administration has been faced with a “global phenomenon” of displaced people migrating in numbers that have not been seen since World War II.

    “It is unanimous that our broken immigration system is in dire need of reform,” Mayorkas said.

    Democrats have other immigration priorities, such as expanding legal immigration pathways or work authorizations for migrants already in the U.S. Democrats have also warned about the danger of delaying aid to Ukraine as it enters another winter of war against Russia.

    Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, the second-ranking Democrat in the Senate, said it’s a mistake to create a situation where “we have to do significant immigration reform in the next few weeks or we won’t send money to assist the people in Ukraine or other causes important to our national security.”

    Republicans have so far been adamant about the need to address Ukraine and the border at the same time.

    Rep. Mike Turner, a strong supporter of aid to Ukraine and chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, told NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday that he thought passing Biden’s package would be “very difficult” to accomplish by year’s end. “The impediment currently is the White House policy on the on the southern border,” said Turner, R-Ohio.

    Lawmakers seem unlikely to address one of the nation’s long-standing immigration issues: granting some form of permanent legal status to thousands of immigrants who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children. Republicans have made clear that will not be addressed in this package, which they want to be more narrowly focused on border security measures.

    As Congress struggled to pass a comprehensive immigration overhaul, President Barack Obama launched the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program in 2012 to shield those immigrants from deportation and allow them to work legally in the country. But it has been caught up in the courts ever since, and Trump, the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination in 2024, tried to end it when he was in the White House.

    Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut, one of the Senate negotiators, would not say early last week whether his side had proposed DACA provisions as part of the talks. But he said any deal “has to respect both Republican and Democratic priorities.”

    “The more Republicans want, the more Democrats are going to want,” Murphy said.

    Republicans argue that Ukraine aid could be a tough sell to some of their voters, and the border policy is the compromise.

    Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton, a Republican who has been involved in the talks, said before the Thanksgiving holiday that the negotiations were not “very close yet, because Democrats have not yet accepted that the negotiations are not border security for Democratic immigration priorities. It’s border security for Ukraine aid.”

    So far, leaders in both parties have encouraged the talks. But as senators restart their work and face pressure to approve funding by the end of the year, some are warning that a narrow deal is likely the best that they can do.

    “I don’t think it’s realistic to solve anywhere close to the whole problem in the next two weeks,” Murphy said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Hamas releases first group of hostages under truce agreement with Israel

    Hamas releases first group of hostages under truce agreement with Israel

    [ad_1]

    DEIR AL-BALAH, Gaza Strip (AP) — Hamas released the first batch of hostages under a ceasefire deal that began Friday, including 13 Israelis who have been held in the Gaza Strip since the militant group staged a raid on Israel nearly seven weeks ago, according to officials and media reports.

    Twelve Thai nationals were also released, according to Thai Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin.

    Dozens of Palestinian prisoners are expected to be freed by Israel.

    The ceasefire between Israel and Hamas began Friday, setting the stage for the exchange and allowing sorely needed aid to start flowing into Gaza.

    Don’t miss: A secret line of communication and a pivotal U.S. role: How the hostage-release deal evolved — and nearly fell apart — in final days

    There were no reports of fighting after the truce began. The deal offered some relief for Gaza’s 2.3 million people, who have endured weeks of Israeli bombardment and dwindling supplies of basic necessities, as well as for families in Israel worried about loved ones taken captive during Hamas’s Oct. 7 attack, which triggered the war.

    The truce raised hopes of eventually winding down the conflict, which has flattened vast swaths of Gaza, fueled a surge of violence in the occupied West Bank and stirred fears of a wider conflagration across the Middle East. Israel, however, has said it is determined to resume its massive offensive once the ceasefire ends.

    Under the deal, Gaza’s ruling Hamas group pledged to free at least 50 of the about 240 hostages it and other militants took in the Oct. 7 raid. In exchange, Hamas said Israel would free 150 Palestinian prisoners.

    It was not expected that captive Americans would be among those released late Friday afternoon, but the Biden White House said in a statement that it continued to work to ensure that U.S. nationals, including an Israeli-American girl who turns 4 on Friday, are among the initial 50.

    Both sides agreed to release women and children first, in stages starting Friday, and as planned 13 Israelis were released, according to Israeli media, citing security officials. An Israeli official, meanwhile, confirmed that the Thai captives left Gaza and were en route to a hospital in Israel.

    The official spoke on condition of anonymity because she was not authorized to discuss the releases with the media.

    Israel said the deal calls for the truce to be extended an extra day for every additional 10 hostages freed.

    Early in the day, ambulances were seen arriving at the Hatzerim air base in southern Israel, preparing for the release. Those freed will then be taken to hospitals for assessment and treatment, Israeli officials said.

    See: Ambulances positioned at Israeli military base ahead of Hamas hostage release

    Among the Israeli citizens freed some have a second nationality, according to a Hamas official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss details with the media.

    Israel’s Justice Ministry published a list of 300 Palestinian prisoners eligible for release. Thirty-nine — 24 women, including some convicted of attempted murder for attacks on Israeli forces, and 15 teenagers jailed for offenses like throwing stones — were expected to be freed Friday, Palestinian authorities said.

    On Friday, the truce brought quiet after weeks in which Gaza saw heavy bombardment and artillery fire daily as well as street fighting as ground troops advanced through neighborhoods in the north. The last report of air-raid sirens in Israeli towns near the territory came shortly after the truce took effect.

    Not long after, four tankers with fuel and four with cooking gas entered the Gaza Strip from Egypt, Israel said.

    Israel has agreed to allow the delivery of 130,000 liters, or 34,340 gallons, of fuel per day during the truce — still only a small portion of Gaza’s estimated daily needs of more than 1 million liters.

    For most of the past seven weeks of war, Israel had barred the entry of fuel to Gaza, claiming it could be used by Hamas for military purposes — though it has occasionally allowed small amounts in.

    U.N. aid agencies pushed back against the claim, saying fuel deliveries were closely supervised and urgently needed to avert a humanitarian catastrophe since fuel is required to run generators that power water-treatment facilities, hospitals and other critical infrastructure.

    The Israeli military dropped leaflets over southern Gaza, warning hundreds of thousands of displaced Palestinians who sought refuge there not to return to their homes in the territory’s north, the focus of Israel’s ground offensive.

    Even though Israel warned that it would block such attempts, hundreds of Palestinians could be seen walking north Friday.

    Two were shot and killed by Israeli troops and another 11 were wounded. An Associated Press journalist saw the two bodies and the wounded as they arrived at a hospital.

    Sofian Abu Amer, who had fled Gaza City, said he decided to risk heading north to check on his home.

    “We don’t have enough clothes, food and drinks,” he said. “The situation is disastrous. It’s better for a person to die.”

    The hope is that “momentum” from the deal will lead to an “end to this violence,” said Majed al-Ansari, a spokesman for the Foreign Ministry of Qatar, which served as a mediator along with the United States and Egypt.

    But hours before it came into effect, Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant was quoted telling troops that their respite would be short and that the war would resume with intensity and continue for at least two more months.

    Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has also vowed to continue the war to destroy Hamas’s military capabilities, end its 16-year rule in Gaza and return all the hostages.

    Israel’s northern border with Lebanon was also quiet on Friday, a day after the militant Hezbollah group, an ally of Hamas, carried out the highest number of attacks in one day since fighting there began Oct. 8.

    Hezbollah is not a party to the ceasefire agreement but was widely expected to halt its attacks.

    The war erupted when several thousand Hamas militants stormed into southern Israel, killing at least 1,200 people, mostly civilians, and taking scores of hostages, including babies, women and older adults, as well as soldiers.

    The soldiers will only be released in exchange for all Palestinians imprisoned by Israel, according to the Islamic Jihad militant group, which is reportedly holding about 40 hostages.

    It is not clear how many of the hostages are currently serving in the military or whether the militants also consider reserve soldiers to be “military hostages.”

    According to the Palestinian Prisoners’ Club, an advocacy group, Israel is currently holding 7,200 Palestinians on security charges or convictions, including about 2,000 arrested since the start of the war.

    The Israeli offensive has killed more than 13,300 Palestinians, according to the Health Ministry in Hamas-ruled Gaza, which resumed its detailed count of casualties in Gaza after stopping for weeks because of the health system’s collapse in the north.

    The ministry says some 6,000 people have been reported missing, feared buried under rubble.

    The ministry does not differentiate between civilians and militants in its death tolls. Women and minors have consistently made up around two-thirds of the dead, though the new number was not broken down. The figure does not include updated numbers from hospitals in the north.

    Israel says it has killed thousands of Hamas fighters, without presenting evidence for its count.

    MarketWatch contributed.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • How the Hamas hostage-release deal evolved — and nearly fell apart — in final days

    How the Hamas hostage-release deal evolved — and nearly fell apart — in final days

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The negotiations hardly ran smoothly. But, in the end, persistence paid off.

    Six weeks ago, not long after Hamas killed more than 1,200 people in Israel and took scores of others hostage in a surprise assault, the government of Qatar quietly reached out to the United States to discuss how to secure the release of those who were taken captive by the militant group.

    But…

    Master your money.

    Subscribe to MarketWatch.

    Get this article and all of MarketWatch.

    Access from any device. Anywhere. Anytime.


    Subscribe Now

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Turkey’s central bank hikes interest rates again as it tries to tame eye-watering inflation

    Turkey’s central bank hikes interest rates again as it tries to tame eye-watering inflation

    [ad_1]

    Turkey’s central bank has delivered another huge interest rate hike as it tries to curb double-digit inflation that has left households struggling to afford food and other basic goods

    ByThe Associated Press

    November 23, 2023, 6:33 AM

    A man purchases food from a street vendor at Kadikoy ferry terminal in Istanbul, Thursday, Nov. 16, 2023. Turkey’s central bank delivered another huge interest rate hike on Thursday, Nov. 23, 2023 continuing its effort to curb double-digit inflation that has left households struggling to afford food and other basic goods. (AP Photo/Francisco Seco)

    The Associated Press

    ANKARA, Turkey — Turkey’s central bank delivered another huge interest rate hike on Thursday as it tries to curb double-digit inflation that has left households struggling to afford food and other basic goods.

    The bank pushed its policy rate up by 5 percentage points, to 40%, marking its sixth big interest rate hike in a row focused on beating down inflation that hit an eye-watering 61.36% last month.

    However, the bank said its rate hikes would soon end.

    “The current level of monetary tightness is significantly close to the level required to establish the disinflation course,” the bank said. “Accordingly, the pace of monetary tightening will slow down and the tightening cycle will be completed in a short period of time.”

    President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has long been a proponent of an unorthodox policy of cutting interest rates to fight inflation and had fired central bank governors who resisted his rate-slashing policies.

    That runs counter to traditional economic thinking, and many blamed Erdogan’s unusual methods for economic turmoil that has included a currency crisis and an increasingly high cost of living.

    Other central banks around the world have raised interest rates rapidly to target spikes in consumer prices tied to the rebound from the COVID-19 pandemic and then Russia’s war in Ukraine.

    Following Erdogan’s reelection in May, he appointed a new economic team, which has quickly moved toward reversing his previous policy of keeping interest rates low.

    The team includes former Merrill Lynch banker Mehmet Simsek, who returned as finance minister, a post he held until 2018, and Hafize Gaye Erkan, a former U.S.-based bank executive, who took over as central bank governor in June.

    Under Erkan’s tenure, the central bank has hiked its main interest rate from 8.5% to 40%.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • SEC charges crypto platform Kraken with operating as an unregistered exchange

    SEC charges crypto platform Kraken with operating as an unregistered exchange

    [ad_1]

    The Securities and Exchange Commission charged cryptocurrency trading platform Kraken with operating as an unregistered securities exchange.

    The charges are the latest effort by regulators to crack down on crypto companies, some of which the SEC views as illegally selling securities without registering with the commission.

    Kraken didn’t immediately…

    Master your money.

    Subscribe to MarketWatch.

    Get this article and all of MarketWatch.

    Access from any device. Anywhere. Anytime.


    Subscribe Now

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Here’s how much aid the U.S. gives to Israel — and why it may get billions of dollars more

    Here’s how much aid the U.S. gives to Israel — and why it may get billions of dollars more

    [ad_1]

    Israel’s military campaign against Hamas has entered its sixth week, and the country is facing a growing backlash against the humanitarian toll of the war as well as uncertainty over the fate of a U.S. military aid package that has stalled amid partisan bickering in Washington, D.C.

    President Joe Biden has requested $14.3 billion in military assistance for Israel as it seeks to destroy Hamas after the group killed 1,200 Israeli citizens and took more than 200 hostage last month. More than 12,000 Palestinians have died in…

    Master your money.

    Subscribe to MarketWatch.

    Get this article and all of MarketWatch.

    Access from any device. Anywhere. Anytime.


    Subscribe Now

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Dissent over US policy in the Israel-Hamas war stirs unusual public protests from federal employees

    Dissent over US policy in the Israel-Hamas war stirs unusual public protests from federal employees

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — Federal government workers from the State Department to NASA are circulating open letters demanding that President Joe Biden pursue a cease-fire in Israel’s war against Hamas. Congressional staffers are picking up microphones in front of the Capitol, speaking out to condemn what they say is the silence of lawmakers about the toll on Palestinian civilians.

    As the deaths soar in Gaza, Biden and Congress are facing unusually public challenges from the inside over their support for Israel’s offensive. Hundreds of staffers in the administration and on Capitol Hill are signing on to open letters, speaking to reporters and holding vigils, all in an effort to shift U.S. policy toward more urgent action to stem Palestinian casualties.

    “Most of our bosses on Capitol Hill are not listening to the people they represent,” one of the congressional staffers told the crowd at a protest this month. Wearing medical masks that obscured their faces, the roughly 100 congressional aides heaped flowers in front of Congress to honor the civilians killed in the conflict.

    The objections coming from federal employees over the United States’ military and other backing for Israel’s Gaza campaign is partly an outgrowth of the changes happening more broadly across American society. As the United States becomes more diverse, so does the federal workforce, including more appointees of Muslim and Arab heritage. And surveys show public opinion shifting regarding U.S. ally Israel, with more people expressing unhappiness over the hard-right government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

    After weeks of seeing images of bloodied children and fleeing families in Gaza, a significant number of Americans, including from Biden’s Democratic Party, disagree with his support of Israel’s military campaign. A poll by The Associated Press and NORC Center for Public Affairs Research in early November found 40% of the U.S. public believed Israel’s response in Gaza had gone too far. The war has roiled college campuses and set off nationwide protests.

    As of late this past week, one open letter had been endorsed by 650 staffers of diverse religious backgrounds from more than 30 federal agencies, organizers said. The agencies range from the Executive Office of the President to the Census Bureau and include the State Department, U.S. Agency for International Development and the Department of Defense.

    A Biden political appointee who helped organize the multiagency open letter said the president’s rejection of appeals to push Netanyahu for a long-term cease-fire had left some federal staffers feeling “dismissed, in a way.”

    “That’s why people are using all sorts of dissent cables and open letters. Because we’ve already gone through the channels of trying to do it internally,” this person said.

    The letter condemns both the Hamas killings of about 1,200 people in Israel in the militants’ Oct. 7 incursion and the Israeli military campaign, which has killed more than 11,500 Palestinians in Gaza, according to the Palestinian Health Ministry. The letter calls for the U.S. to push for a cease-fire and a release of hostages held by Hamas and of Palestinians that the signers say are unjustly detained by Israel, as well as greater action overall on behalf of Gaza’s civilians.

    The organizers of the executive branch and congressional protests all spoke to the AP on condition of anonymity, citing fear of professional and other repercussions. The federal employees speaking up in opposition to the U.S. policy appear to be seeking a balance, raising their objections in a way that doesn’t deprive them of a seat at the table and risk their careers.

    Some current and former officials and staffers said it’s the public nature of some of the challenges from federal employees that is unusual. It worries some, as a potential threat to government function and to cohesion within agencies.

    The State Department has an honored tradition of allowing formal, structured statements of dissent to U.S. policy. It dates to 1970, when U.S. diplomats resisted President Richard Nixon’s demands to fire foreign service officers and other State Department employees who signed an internal letter protesting the U.S. carpet-bombing of Cambodia.

    Ever since, foreign service officers and civil servants have used what is known as the dissent channel at moments of intense policy debate. That includes criticism of the George W. Bush administration’s prosecution of the war in Iraq, the Obama administration’s policies in Syria, the Trump administration’s immigration restrictions on mainly Muslim countries and the Biden administration’s handling of the 2021 U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan.

    But dissent cables, which are signed, are classified and not for public release.

    In State Department tradition, at least, if “for whatever reason a criticism or complaint were not taken into account or were not believed to be sufficient to change policy, well, then, it was time to move on. It was done,” said Thomas Shannon, a retired career foreign service officer who served in senior positions at the State Department. “It was time to salute, and execute.”

    Shannon was briefly interim secretary of state in the Trump administration. There, he fended off a recommendation from White House spokesman Sean Spicer that State Department staffers who signed a dissent cable against President Donald Trump’s so-called Muslim ban should quit.

    Growing diversity of the State Department’s workforce is a positive, Shannon said. But “in the foreign service as in military service, discipline is real and it’s important,” he said, citing the need for consistent, cohesive foreign policy.

    “I guess I’m just saying I’m not a fan of open letters,” Shannon said.

    State Department officials say several expressions of dissent have made their way through the formal channels to Secretary of State Antony Blinken.

    One State Department official, 11-year veteran Josh Paul, quit late last month to protest the administration’s rush to provide arms to Israel.

    Blinken addressed internal opposition to the administration’s handling of the Gaza crisis in a departmentwide email to staffers this past Monday. “We’re listening: what you share is informing our policy and our messages,” he wrote.

    State Department spokesman Matthew Miller said the dissent was welcome. “One of the strengths of this department is that we do have people with different opinions,” he said.

    Unlike the dissent cables, the multiagency open letter and another endorsed by more than 1,000 employees of the U.S. Agency for International Development have been made public. They also are anonymous, with no names of signers publicly attached to them.

    The USAID letter with 1,000 staffers backing it, which was given to The Washington Post, Foreign Policy and others, calls for an immediate cease-fire. But one longtime USAID staffer said it distressed some of the agency’s staffers, including some who are Jewish, by not addressing the Hamas killings of civilians in Israel. The delivery of the letter to news organizations also seemed outside the agency’s tradition of handling matters internally in a consultative way, the staffer said, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter.

    In comparison, an internal State Department memorial for all civilians killed since Oct. 7, organized by Muslim, Christian and Jewish employee organizations, brought more solace, and seemed to bring colleagues of diverse outlooks and backgrounds closer together, that USAID staffer said.

    The organizers of the multiagency open letter said they acted out of frustration after other efforts, particularly a tense meeting between White House officials and Muslim and Arab political appointees, seemed to have no effect.

    Staying silent, or resigning, would shirk their responsibility to the public, the staffer said. “If we just leave, there’s never going to be any change.”

    ___

    Associated Press writer Jamey Keaten in Geneva and AP Diplomatic Writer Matthew Lee contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Kansas school forced 8-year-old Native American boy to cut his hair, ACLU says

    Kansas school forced 8-year-old Native American boy to cut his hair, ACLU says

    [ad_1]

    MISSION, Kan. — A Kansas grade school forced an 8-year-old Native American boy to cut off his hair after he grew it out for cultural reasons, the American Civil Liberties Union said.

    In a letter sent Friday, the ACLU demanded that the Girard School District rescind a policy at the elementary school that bars long hair for boys, alleging it violates state and federal laws.

    The boy, who is member of the Wyandotte Nation, attended an annual tribal gathering geared toward children over the summer. He saw many men with long hair and was inspired to adopt the common cultural practice of cutting hair only when mourning the loss of a loved one, according to the ACLU.

    But in August, school officials told him that he needed to cut his hair to comply with the dress code, the ACLU said. His mother went to the school in September and explained that he grew out his hair for cultural reasons and offered to show documentation of his tribal affiliation. The ACLU said she was told there were no exemptions.

    The assistant principal then emailed the mother on a Friday, telling her she had until the following Monday to get her son’s hair cut or he would be sent home.

    Unable to reach the superintendent, she cut her son’s hair over that September weekend, convinced it was the only way to keep him in school. But she said it caused him distress because it violated his spiritual tradition.

    The nation’s history of “multifaceted efforts to separate Native American children from their families and tribes and to deny them their rights of cultural and religious expression” makes this particularly problematic, the letter said.

    It noted that Native American children often had their hair cut when they were placed in boarding schools, which systematically abused students to assimilate them into white society.

    The letter said there is no legitimate reason for imposing the requirement, noting that girls are allowed to have long hair. The policy also promotes “rigid views of gender norms and roles,” the letter said.

    The superintendent, Todd Ferguson, told the Kansas Reflector that he could not comment on the case. Ferguson said the district would review the dress code policy during a December board meeting.

    He did not immediately respond to an email message Saturday by The Associated Press seeking comment.

    Girard has a population of around 2,500 and is located about 115 miles (185 kilometers) south of Kansas City.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • How a second set of Trump tax cuts could jack up the national debt

    How a second set of Trump tax cuts could jack up the national debt

    [ad_1]

    If Donald Trump were to be elected president in 2024, what would it mean for U.S. tax policy and the national debt?

    There are growing expectations that he could deliver another round of big tax cuts, with the reductions coming right as those enacted in 2017’s Tax Cut and Jobs Act are due to expire in 2025.

    “If Republicans hold their House…

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • California’s first lesbian Senate leader could make history again if she runs for governor

    California’s first lesbian Senate leader could make history again if she runs for governor

    [ad_1]

    SACRAMENTO, Calif. — The first time Toni Atkins acted as the governor of California, she used her powers to honor the passing of San Diego Padres baseball player Tony Gwynn while playfully rebuffing Jimmy Kimmel’s advice that she “ invade Oregon. ”

    It was 2014, and Atkins — the first lesbian to be the speaker of the state Assembly — was filling in for former Gov. Jerry Brown, a quirk of the California Constitution that requires governors to put someone else in charge whenever they leave the state.

    Atkins, now the president pro tempore of the state Senate, has filled in as governor a few more times since then, most recently in July when she signed three bills into law and quipped that she was thrilled to once again step into the governor’s shoes, “ although I have better shoes. ”

    Now, the 61-year-old lawmaker is turning her attention once again to the governor’s office — only this time, she’s exploring a much longer stay.

    “I’m very interested in looking at that possibility” of running for governor, Atkins told The Associated Press in an interview, saying publicly for the first time what many have assumed since she announced she would step down as the Senate’s top leader next year. “I am looking at it seriously.”

    The race to replace Gov. Gavin Newsom will likely be a Democratic free-for-all sure to attract the party’s top talent for the chance to lead the nation’s most populous state and the world’s fifth largest economy. California voters have never elected a woman to the governor’s office, nor a person who is openly LGBTQ. And a host of other Democratic candidates are also vying to make history.

    Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis was the first to formally announce her candidacy just a few months into Newsom’s second term. Tony Thurmond, the Black state superintendent of public instruction, is also in, along with former Controller Betty Yee. Attorney General Rob Bonta, who is Filipino, has said he is seriously considering a run.

    But Atkins is banking on her experience to give her an edge. That includes a brief stint as mayor of San Diego, one of the nation’s largest cities. And it includes becoming just the third person and first woman ever to hold both of the Legislature’s top jobs: speaker of the Assembly and president pro tempore of the Senate, where she negotiated eight state operating budgets and had her hands in countless major policy decisions.

    “I sort of feel like I’m addicted to responsibility,” she said. “I think experience counts and matters, and I believe I have experience to continue to contribute in some way.”

    California’s top legislative leaders are some of the most powerful people in the state, but it often doesn’t feel like it. While they negotiate major polices, it’s the governor who gets the attention when the deals are done.

    That’s especially true for Atkins, who has been a more quiet leader than most. During her tenure as Senate leader, Democrats have grown their caucus to 32 out of 40 seats — their largest majority since 1883. That majority means there is little incentive to work with Republicans. But Atkins made sure Republicans had their bills heard in public hearings and even pushed for former Republican Leader Shannon Grove to be included in briefings with the Newsom administration.

    “She always included us and there was never any surprises. I didn’t agree with what was going on, but we had input and participation,” said Grove, who noted she and Atkins bonded over their impoverished upbringing and a shared love of country music icon Dolly Parton. “She understands that we represent a portion of Californians as well and we were duly elected and therefore our voices should be heard.”

    Atkins grew up in rural southwest Virginia, where her dad was a miner and her mother was a seamstress. Her childhood home did not have running water, and some of her earliest memories are of walking down a hill with her twin sister to fetch water from a spring to use for cooking and doing laundry.

    As a young lesbian in Appalachia, Atkins dreamed of moving to California. She got her chance when her twin sister joined the Navy and was stationed in San Diego. Atkins moved there to help care for her sister’s young son, and never left.

    In San Diego, Atkins was director of a women’s health clinic that performed abortions. She was also politically active, working to help elect Christine Kehoe to the San Diego City Council. Kehoe hired Atkins to work for her, and then urged her to run for her seat when Kehoe was elected to the state Assembly.

    “Toni is not the kind of person that wants to be the smartest person in the room. She wants to be the most helpful and effective person in the room. And oftentimes she is,” Kehoe said.

    Atkins followed her mentor to the state Legislature in 2010, where she soon found herself in a contentious race for speaker against Anthony Rendon of Los Angeles. Atkins won, but left after two years to run for the Senate.

    It wasn’t long before Atkins was selected by her colleagues to lead the state Senate, forcing her to work with Rendon, who had replaced her as speaker in the Assembly. Their relationship was rough at times, but fruitful for Democrats. Their partnership expanded Medicaid to include all eligible adults regardless of immigration status and free meals for public school students.

    “We had problems, but I think it was, you know, related more to ambition than anything and, you know, probably to an extent immaturity on my part, too,” said Rendon, who plans to run for state treasurer in 2026. “Toni Atkins is a very forgiving person. I have not always been the easiest person to deal with. But she, you know, kept coming back and trying to forge a relationship.”

    Atkins said she is most proud of the policies that were inspired by her impoverished upbringing, including helping implement the federal Affordable Care Act and creating a tax credit for poor families worth several hundred dollars.

    Those wins are part of what’s driving her potential run for governor, too.

    “I see what you can do when you’re in that role,” she said. “There is something about being at the table.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • A fragile global economy is at stake as US and China seek to cool tensions at APEC summit

    A fragile global economy is at stake as US and China seek to cool tensions at APEC summit

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — The United States and China are the two global economic heavyweights. Combined, they produce more than 40% of the world’s goods and services.

    So when Washington and Beijing do economic battle, as they have for five years running, the rest of the world suffers, too. And when they hold a rare high-level summit, as Presidents Joe Biden and Xi Jinping will this week, it can have global consequences.

    The world’s economy could surely benefit from a U.S.-China détente. Since 2020, it has suffered one crisis after another — the COVID-19 pandemic, soaring inflation, surging interest rates, violent conflicts in Ukraine and now Gaza. The global economy is expected to grow a lackluster 3% this year and 2.9% in 2024, according to the International Monetary Fund.

    “Having the world’s two largest economies at loggerheads at such a fraught moment,” said Eswar Prasad, senior professor of trade policy at Cornell University, “exacerbates the negative impact of various geopolitical shocks that have hit the world economy.”

    Hopes have risen that Washington and Beijing can at least cool some of their economic tensions at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit, which starts Sunday in San Francisco. The meeting will bring together 21 Pacific Rim countries, which collectively represent 40% of the world’s people and nearly half of global trade.

    The marquee event will be the Biden-Xi meeting Wednesday on the sidelines of the summit, the first time the two leaders will have spoken in a year, during which time frictions between the two nations have worsened. The White House has sought to tamp down expectations, saying to expect no breakthroughs.

    At the same time, Prasad suggested that the threshold for declaring a successful outcome is relatively low. “Preventing any further deterioration in the bilateral economic relationship,” he said, “would already be a victory for both sides.’’

    The U.S.-China economic relationship had been deteriorating for years before it erupted in 2018, at the instigation of President Donald Trump, into an all-out trade war. The Trump administration charged that China had violated the commitments it made, in joining the World Trade Organization in 2001, to open its vast market to U.S. and other foreign companies that wanted to sell their goods and services there.

    In 2018, the Trump administration began imposing tariffs on Chinese imports to punish Beijing for its actions in trying to supplant U.S. technological supremacy. Many experts agreed with the administration that Beijing had engaged in cyberespionage and had improperly demanded that foreign companies turn over trade secrets as the price of gaining access to the Chinese market. Beijing punched back against Trump’s sanctions with its own retaliatory tariffs, making U.S. goods more expensive for Chinese buyers.

    When Biden took office in 2021, he kept much of Trump’s confrontational trade policy, including the China tariffs. The U.S. tax rate on Chinese imports now exceeds 19%, versus 3% at the start of 2018, before Trump imposed his tariffs. Likewise, Chinese import taxes on U.S. goods are up to 21%, from 8% before the trade war began, according to calculations by Chad Bown of the Peterson Institute for International Economics.

    One of the tenets of Biden’s economic policy has been to reduce America’s economic reliance on Chinese factories, which came under strain when COVID-19 disrupted global supply chains, and to solidify partnerships with other Asian nations. As part of that policy, the Biden administration last year forged the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity with 14 countries.

    In some ways, U.S.-China trade tensions are even higher under Biden than they were under Trump. Beijing is seething over the Biden administration’s decision to impose — and then broaden — export controls that are designed to prevent China from acquiring advanced computer chips and the equipment to produce them. In August, Beijing countered with its own trade curbs: It began requiring that Chinese exporters of gallium and germanium, metals used in computer chips and solar cells, obtain government licenses to send those metals overseas.

    Beijing has also taken aggressive actions against foreign companies in China. Orchestrating what appears to be a counterespionage campaign, its authorities this year raided the Chinese offices of the U.S. consulting firms Capvision and the Mintz Group, questioned Shanghai employees of the Bain & Co. consultancy and announced a security review of the chipmaker Micron.

    Some analysts speak of a “decoupling’’ of the world’s two biggest economies after decades in which they relied deeply on each other for trade. Indeed, imports of Chinese goods to the United States were down 24% through September compared with the same period of 2022.

    The rift between Beijing and Washington has forced many other countries into a delicate predicament: Deciding which side they’re on when they actually want to do business with both countries.

    The IMF says such economic “fragmentation’’ is damaging to the world. The 190-country lending agency estimates that higher trade barriers will subtract $7.4 trillion from global economic output after the world has adjusted to the higher trade barriers.

    And those barriers are rising: Last year, the IMF said, countries imposed nearly 3,000 new restrictions on trade, up from fewer than 1,000 in 2019. The agency foresees international trade growing just 0.9% this year and 3.5% in 2024 — down sharply from the 2000-2019 annual average of 4.9%.

    The Biden administration insists it isn’t trying to undermine China’s economy. On Friday, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen met with her Chinese counterpart, Vice Premier He Lifeng, in San Francisco and sought to set the stage for Biden-Xi summit.

    “Our mutual desire — both China and the United States — is to create a level playing field and ongoing, meaningful and mutually beneficial economic relations,” Yellen said.

    Xi, too, has reason to try to restore economic cooperation with the United States. The Chinese economy is under heavy strain. Its real estate market has collapsed, youth unemployment is rampant and consumer spirits are low. The raids on foreign businesses have spooked international companies and investors.

    “With serious headwinds facing the Chinese economy and many U.S. firms packing up their bags and leaving China, Xi needs to convince investors that China is still a profitable place to conduct business,’’ said Wendy Cutler, vice president of the Asia Society Institute and a former U.S. trade negotiator. “This will not be an easy sell.’’

    Complicating matters is that the tensions between Washington and Beijing go well beyond economics. Under Xi, the Chinese Communist Party has punished dissent in Hong Kong and the autonomous Muslim region of Xinjiang. His government made aggressive territorial demands in Asia, engaging in deadly border clashes with India and bullying the Philippines and other neighbors in parts of the South China Sea it claims as its own. It has increasingly threatened Taiwan, which it considers a renegade Chinese province.

    U.S.-China tensions could intensify next year with presidential elections in Taiwan and the United States, where criticism of Beijing is among the few areas that unite Democrats and Republicans.

    Xi’s policies appear to be costing China in the battle for world opinion. In a recent survey of people in 24 countries, the Pew Research Center reported that the United States was viewed more favorably than China in all but two (Kenya and Nigeria) nations.

    Could China change course?

    Speaking at the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank in Washington, Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, an Illinois Democrat who serves on a House committee that monitors China, noted optimistically that Xi has reversed himself before — notably in declaring a sudden end to the draconian zero-COVID policies that crippled China’s economy last year.

    “We have to give that possibility a chance, even at the same time that we hedge and protect our interests,’’ Krishnamoorthi said. “That’s what I’m hoping we also see come out of this meeting.’’

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • A fragile global economy is at stake as US and China seek to cool tensions at APEC summit

    A fragile global economy is at stake as US and China seek to cool tensions at APEC summit

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — The United States and China are the two global economic heavyweights. Combined, they produce more than 40% of the world’s goods and services.

    So when Washington and Beijing do economic battle, as they have for five years running, the rest of the world suffers, too. And when they hold a rare high-level summit, as Presidents Joe Biden and Xi Jinping will this week, it can have global consequences.

    The world’s economy could surely benefit from a U.S.-China détente. Since 2020, it has suffered one crisis after another — the COVID-19 pandemic, soaring inflation, surging interest rates, violent conflicts in Ukraine and now Gaza. The global economy is expected to grow a lackluster 3% this year and 2.9% in 2024, according to the International Monetary Fund.

    “Having the world’s two largest economies at loggerheads at such a fraught moment,” said Eswar Prasad, senior professor of trade policy at Cornell University, “exacerbates the negative impact of various geopolitical shocks that have hit the world economy.”

    Hopes have risen that Washington and Beijing can at least cool some of their economic tensions at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit, which starts Sunday in San Francisco. The meeting will bring together 21 Pacific Rim countries, which collectively represent 40% of the world’s people and nearly half of global trade.

    The marquee event will be the Biden-Xi meeting Wednesday on the sidelines of the summit, the first time the two leaders will have spoken in a year, during which time frictions between the two nations have worsened. The White House has sought to tamp down expectations, saying to expect no breakthroughs.

    At the same time, Prasad suggested that the threshold for declaring a successful outcome is relatively low. “Preventing any further deterioration in the bilateral economic relationship,” he said, “would already be a victory for both sides.’’

    The U.S.-China economic relationship had been deteriorating for years before it erupted in 2018, at the instigation of President Donald Trump, into an all-out trade war. The Trump administration charged that China had violated the commitments it made, in joining the World Trade Organization in 2001, to open its vast market to U.S. and other foreign companies that wanted to sell their goods and services there.

    In 2018, the Trump administration began imposing tariffs on Chinese imports to punish Beijing for its actions in trying to supplant U.S. technological supremacy. Many experts agreed with the administration that Beijing had engaged in cyberespionage and had improperly demanded that foreign companies turn over trade secrets as the price of gaining access to the Chinese market. Beijing punched back against Trump’s sanctions with its own retaliatory tariffs, making U.S. goods more expensive for Chinese buyers.

    When Biden took office in 2021, he kept much of Trump’s confrontational trade policy, including the China tariffs. The U.S. tax rate on Chinese imports now exceeds 19%, versus 3% at the start of 2018, before Trump imposed his tariffs. Likewise, Chinese import taxes on U.S. goods are up to 21%, from 8% before the trade war began, according to calculations by Chad Bown of the Peterson Institute for International Economics.

    One of the tenets of Biden’s economic policy has been to reduce America’s economic reliance on Chinese factories, which came under strain when COVID-19 disrupted global supply chains, and to solidify partnerships with other Asian nations. As part of that policy, the Biden administration last year forged the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity with 14 countries.

    In some ways, U.S.-China trade tensions are even higher under Biden than they were under Trump. Beijing is seething over the Biden administration’s decision to impose — and then broaden — export controls that are designed to prevent China from acquiring advanced computer chips and the equipment to produce them. In August, Beijing countered with its own trade curbs: It began requiring that Chinese exporters of gallium and germanium, metals used in computer chips and solar cells, obtain government licenses to send those metals overseas.

    Beijing has also taken aggressive actions against foreign companies in China. Orchestrating what appears to be a counterespionage campaign, its authorities this year raided the Chinese offices of the U.S. consulting firms Capvision and the Mintz Group, questioned Shanghai employees of the Bain & Co. consultancy and announced a security review of the chipmaker Micron.

    Some analysts speak of a “decoupling’’ of the world’s two biggest economies after decades in which they relied deeply on each other for trade. Indeed, imports of Chinese goods to the United States were down 24% through September compared with the same period of 2022.

    The rift between Beijing and Washington has forced many other countries into a delicate predicament: Deciding which side they’re on when they actually want to do business with both countries.

    The IMF says such economic “fragmentation’’ is damaging to the world. The 190-country lending agency estimates that higher trade barriers will subtract $7.4 trillion from global economic output after the world has adjusted to the higher trade barriers.

    And those barriers are rising: Last year, the IMF said, countries imposed nearly 3,000 new restrictions on trade, up from fewer than 1,000 in 2019. The agency foresees international trade growing just 0.9% this year and 3.5% in 2024 — down sharply from the 2000-2019 annual average of 4.9%.

    The Biden administration insists it isn’t trying to undermine China’s economy. On Friday, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen met with her Chinese counterpart, Vice Premier He Lifeng, in San Francisco and sought to set the stage for Biden-Xi summit.

    “Our mutual desire — both China and the United States — is to create a level playing field and ongoing, meaningful and mutually beneficial economic relations,” Yellen said.

    Xi, too, has reason to try to restore economic cooperation with the United States. The Chinese economy is under heavy strain. Its real estate market has collapsed, youth unemployment is rampant and consumer spirits are low. The raids on foreign businesses have spooked international companies and investors.

    “With serious headwinds facing the Chinese economy and many U.S. firms packing up their bags and leaving China, Xi needs to convince investors that China is still a profitable place to conduct business,’’ said Wendy Cutler, vice president of the Asia Society Institute and a former U.S. trade negotiator. “This will not be an easy sell.’’

    Complicating matters is that the tensions between Washington and Beijing go well beyond economics. Under Xi, the Chinese Communist Party has punished dissent in Hong Kong and the autonomous Muslim region of Xinjiang. His government made aggressive territorial demands in Asia, engaging in deadly border clashes with India and bullying the Philippines and other neighbors in parts of the South China Sea it claims as its own. It has increasingly threatened Taiwan, which it considers a renegade Chinese province.

    U.S.-China tensions could intensify next year with presidential elections in Taiwan and the United States, where criticism of Beijing is among the few areas that unite Democrats and Republicans.

    Xi’s policies appear to be costing China in the battle for world opinion. In a recent survey of people in 24 countries, the Pew Research Center reported that the United States was viewed more favorably than China in all but two (Kenya and Nigeria) nations.

    Could China change course?

    Speaking at the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank in Washington, Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, an Illinois Democrat who serves on a House committee that monitors China, noted optimistically that Xi has reversed himself before — notably in declaring a sudden end to the draconian zero-COVID policies that crippled China’s economy last year.

    “We have to give that possibility a chance, even at the same time that we hedge and protect our interests,’’ Krishnamoorthi said. “That’s what I’m hoping we also see come out of this meeting.’’

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • US, Chinese finance ministers lay groundwork for Biden-Xi meeting

    US, Chinese finance ministers lay groundwork for Biden-Xi meeting

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and her Chinese counterpart will meet in San Francisco on Thursday to start two days of talks aimed at making progress on a slew of economic issues when competition has markedly intensified between their countries.

    Yellen’s talks with Vice Premier He Lifeng are designed to help lay the groundwork for an expected meeting between President Joe Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping next week on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in San Francisco, which would be their first engagement in nearly a year.

    The White House is not expecting the face-to-face meeting to result in major changes to the relationship between the two nations, according to a person familiar with the planning, although it hopes to see some signs of progress.

    Analysts say expectations should be kept low, given the competitive nature of the countries’ relationship.

    Nicholas Szechenyi, deputy director for Asia at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said at a preview event for the APEC summit that “it seems difficult for the United States to credibly emphasize themes such as inclusiveness, interconnectedness — the themes of this year’s APEC summit — when the primary driver for U.S. economic strategy in the Indo-Pacific is not economic cooperation, necessarily, but rather economic competition.”

    “U.S. strategy is very much focused on economic competition with China,” he said.

    Ahead of the meeting, China’s state media laid out Beijing’s major concerns: the Biden administration’s China policy, supply chain curtailments, restrictions on high-tech products such as advanced chips, and tariffs on Chinese products.

    “The US is restricting Chinese companies all around, including their abilities to raise funds and operate in the US,” the state broadcaster China Central Television said on one of its social media accounts. “More than 1,300 Chinese companies are being sanctioned by the US. If the U.S. wants to cooperate with China, it needs to ‘slim down’ this list.”

    “The US must take concrete steps. Only with that, China and the US can join hands to cope with challenges together,” it said. “Only with this, China and the US can stabilize market expectations, create good conditions for investment activities and send positive signals to the outside.”

    In August, Biden signed an executive order designed to regulate and block high-tech U.S.-based investments going toward China, a move his Democratic administration said is based on protecting national security. And last year, the U.S. moved to block exports of advanced computer chips to China.

    Earlier this year, U.S. lawmakers held hearings over data security and harmful content with TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew, contemplating whether to ban the hugely popular app because of its Chinese connections.

    And tensions between the countries heightened earlier this year when a Chinese surveillance balloon was spotted traveling over sensitive U.S. airspace. The U.S. military shot down the balloon off the Carolina coast after it traversed sensitive military sites across North America. China insisted the flyover was an accident involving a civilian aircraft and threatened repercussions.

    With all of the tensions, the two nations have worked to smooth economic ties.

    Biden spoke with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi at the White House for about an hour late last month, when Beijing’s top diplomat traveled to Washington for talks with Secretary of State Antony Blinken and White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan.

    Xi similarly met with Blinken in June when the secretary of state traveled to Beijing for talks with Wang.

    Yellen has met with a host of Chinese officials throughout this year. In January, she had her first face-to-face meeting with former Vice Premier Liu He in Zurich. She traveled to China in July to discuss economic policies between the nations and urged Chinese government officials to cooperate on climate change and other global challenges and not let sharp disagreements about trade and other irritants derail relations.

    “I do not see the relationship between the U.S. and China through the frame of great power conflict,” she said at a July 8 news conference. “We believe that the world is big enough for both of our countries to thrive.”

    In September, the Treasury Department and China’s Ministry of Finance launched a pair of economic working groups in an effort to ease tensions and deepen ties between the nations.

    ___

    Associated Press writers Colleen Long and Aamer Madhani contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • To help 2024 voters, Meta says it will begin labeling political ads that use AI-generated imagery

    To help 2024 voters, Meta says it will begin labeling political ads that use AI-generated imagery

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — Facebook and Instagram will require political ads running on their platforms to disclose if they were created using artificial intelligence, their parent company announced on Wednesday.

    Under the new policy by Meta, labels acknowledging the use of AI will appear on users’ screens when they click on ads. The rule takes effect Jan. 1 and will be applied worldwide.

    Microsoft unveiled its own election year initiatives on Tuesday, including a tool that will allow campaigns to insert a digital watermark into their ads. These watermarks are intended to help voters understand who created the ads, while also ensuring the ads can’t be digitally altered by others without leaving evidence.

    The development of new AI programs has made it easier than ever to quickly generate lifelike audio, images and video. In the wrong hands, the technology could be used to create fake videos of a candidate or frightening images of election fraud or polling place violence. When strapped to the powerful algorithms of social media, these fakes could mislead and confuse voters on a scale never seen.

    Meta Platforms Inc. and other tech companies have been criticized for not doing more to address this risk. Wednesday’s announcement by Meta — which comes on the day House lawmakers hold a hearing on deepfakes — isn’t likely to assuage those concerns.

    While officials in Europe are working on comprehensive regulations for the use of AI, time is running out for lawmakers in the United States to pass regulations ahead of the 2024 election.

    Earlier this year, the Federal Election Commission began a process to potentially regulate AI-generated deepfakes in political ads before the 2024 election. President Joe Biden’s administration last week issued an executive order intended to encourage responsible development of AI. Among other provisions, it will require AI developers to provide safety data and other information about their programs with the government.

    The U.S. isn’t the only nation holding a high-profile vote next year: National elections are also scheduled in countries including Mexico, South Africa, Ukraine, Taiwan and Pakistan.

    AI-generated political ads have already made an appearance in the U.S. In April, the Republican National Committee released an entirely AI-generated ad meant to show the future of the United States if Biden, a Democrat, is reelected. It employed fake but realistic photos showing boarded-up storefronts, armored military patrols in the streets, and waves of immigrants creating panic. The ad was labeled to inform viewers that AI was used.

    In June, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ presidential campaign shared an attack ad against his GOP primary opponent Donald Trump that used AI-generated images of the former president hugging infectious disease expert Dr. Anthony Fauci.

    “It’s gotten to be a very difficult job for the casual observer to figure out: What do I believe here?” said Vince Lynch, an AI developer and CEO of the AI company IV.AI. Lynch said some combination of federal regulation and voluntary policies by tech companies is needed to protect the public. “The companies need to take responsibility,” Lynch said.

    Meta’s new policy will cover any advertisement for a social issue, election or political candidate that includes a realistic image of a person or event that has been altered using AI. More modest use of the technology — to resize or sharpen an image, for instance, would be allowed with no disclosure.

    Besides labels informing a viewer when an ad contains AI-generated imagery, information about the ad’s use of AI will be included in Facebook’s online ad library. Meta, which is based in Menlo Park, California, says content that violates the rule will be removed.

    Google unveiled a similar AI labeling policy for political ads in September. Under that rule, political ads that play on YouTube or other Google platforms will have to disclose the use of AI-altered voices or imagery.

    Along with its new policies, Microsoft released a report noting that nations such as Russia, Iran and China will try to harness the power of AI to interfere with elections in the U.S. and elsewhere and warning that the U.S. and other nations need to prepare.

    Groups working for Russia are already at work, concluded the report from the Redmond, Washington-based tech giant.

    “Since at least July 2023, Russia-affiliated actors have utilized innovative methods to engage audiences in Russia and the west with inauthentic, but increasingly sophisticated, multimedia content,” the report’s authors wrote. “As the election cycle progresses, we expect these actors’ tradecraft will improve while the underlying technology becomes more capable.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Right turn on red? With pedestrian deaths rising, US cities are considering bans

    Right turn on red? With pedestrian deaths rising, US cities are considering bans

    [ad_1]

    CHICAGO — Sophee Langerman was on her way to a bicycle safety rally in Chicago’s Lakeview neighborhood in June when a car turning right rolled through a red light and slammed into her bike, which she was walking off the curb and into the crosswalk.

    The car was moving slowly enough that Langerman escaped serious injury, but the bicycle required extensive repairs. To Langerman, it’s another argument for ending a practice that almost all U.S. cities have embraced for decades: the legal prerogative for a driver to turn right after stopping at a red light.

    A dramatic rise in accidents killing or injuring pedestrians and bicyclists has led to a myriad of policy and infrastructure changes, but moves to ban right on red have drawn some of the most intense sentiments on both sides.

    Washington, D.C.’s City Council last year approved a right-on-red ban that takes effect in 2025. New Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson’s transition plan called for “restricting right turns on red,” but his administration hasn’t provided specifics. The college town of Ann Arbor, Michigan, now prohibits right turns at red lights in the downtown area.

    San Francisco leaders recently voted to urge their transportation agency to ban right on red across the city, and other major cities such as Los Angeles, Seattle and Denver have looked into bans as well.

    “Drivers should not have the option to decide for themselves when they think it’s safe,” said Langerman, 26. “People are busy. People are distracted.”

    But Jay Beeber, executive director for policy at the National Motorists Association, an advocacy organization for drivers, called it a “fallacy” to assume such blanket bans would make streets safer.

    He cited an upcoming study by his association that analyzed California crash data from 2011-2019 and found that drivers turning right on red accounted for only about one pedestrian death and less than one bicyclist death statewide every two years.

    “What’s really behind this movement is part of the agenda to make driving as miserable and as difficult as possible so people don’t drive so much,” Beeber said.

    Safety advocates counter that official crash reports are often mislabeled, undercounting the dangers.

    The United States is one of few major countries that generally allow right turns on red. Concerned that cars idling at stop lights could compound an energy crisis, the U.S. government warned states in the 1970s that they could risk some federal funding should cities prohibit right on red, except in specific, clearly marked areas. Although another energy-conscious provision capping speed limits at 55 mph has long been abandoned, right on red has endured.

    “It’s an example of bad policy,” said Bill Schultheiss, director of engineering at Toole Design Group, which consults with public transportation agencies. “It made sense in the context of the gas crisis, but it was way oversold on what it would achieve. It’s a mandate that doesn’t consider the full consequences.”

    Right on red has never been allowed across most of New York City, where large signs alert Manhattan’s visitors that the practice is prohibited there. But it was the default policy practically everywhere else in the U.S. until last year’s vote in the nation’s capital.

    Safety advocates who pushed for the change in Washington, D.C., are bracing for blowback from drivers, particularly if the city also allows the so-called Idaho Stop in which cyclists are permitted to go through a red light after stopping to make sure the coast is clear.

    “There are just some battles, in terms of public opinion, where you have to be content to sacrifice that for the safety of the people,” said Jonathan Kincade, communications coordinator at the Washington Area Bicyclists Association. “It doesn’t make sense to treat cars and bikes the same. They’re not the same vehicle, and we’ve seen the outcomes of that.”

    Critics argue that banning right on red will not only inconvenience motorists but also slow down commuter buses and deliveries. The United Parcel Service hasn’t taken an official position on right on red but has long directed its drivers to avoid left turns whenever possible, viewing them as inefficient.

    Priya Sarathy Jones, deputy executive director at the Fines and Fees Justice Center, is concerned penalties from right-on-red bans will fall disproportionately on lower-income drivers who have to drive to work because they can’t afford housing near public transit. If there’s more enforcement at red lights, more cameras are certain to follow, she said. And in the Chicago area, any discussion of red light policy often conjures up memories of the region’s vilified red-light camera program, which spurred bribery charges against public officials accused of trying to influence the high-profit contracts.

    “It generates a lot of money for the city, instead of our decisions being driven by safety strategies backed by evidence,” she said, suggesting that road infrastructure improvements would be a much more effective way to reduce accidents.

    There are no recent, nationwide studies of how many people are hurt or killed by right-turning drivers.

    According to a national report by the Governors Highway Safety Association, more than 7,500 people walking were struck and killed by automobiles in 2022, the highest number since 1981. The spike, which included all accidents — not just those involving right turns on red, was attributed in part to an increase in larger vehicles such as SUVs and pickup trucks on the road.

    The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found that the odds a pedestrian would be killed when struck by an automobile turning right were 89% higher when the vehicle was a pickup and 63% higher when it was an SUV, due to larger blind spots and the deadlier force associated with heavier models.

    “These big, blunt front hoods, they knock people down and run over them, as opposed to before when people would crumple onto the hood,” said Mike McGinn, a former Seattle mayor who is the executive director of America Walks, a national nonprofit that advocates for pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods.

    Much of the research looking directly at the impact of right-on-red policies is years if not decades old, but both sides argue it’s still relevant.

    The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in a 1994 report to Congress looked at four years of crash data from Indiana, Maryland and Missouri and three years of data from Illinois, counting a combined 558 injury crashes and four fatalities stemming from right turns on red. Advocates of a ban point out that study came before the nation’s vehicle fleet grew much larger and more lethal.

    But Beeber said the National Motorists Association study of California found that even when there was an accident associated with right turns on red, at least 96% of the injuries sustained by pedestrians or cyclists were minor.

    “One injury or death is too many,” said Washington state Sen. John Lovick, the primary sponsor of a bill this year that would have prohibited right on red statewide near schools, parks and certain other locations. “If it were me at that intersection crossing, I would want something done.”

    Lovick’s bill didn’t make it out of committee, but Seattle this year made it the default policy to prohibit right on red when new traffic signals are added.

    Melinda Kasraie testified on behalf of Lovick’s bill at a legislative hearing, sharing her experience being struck by a car turning right on red in Seattle. She needed a total knee replacement, had to give up her 20-year job and moved to a small town in part due to her newfound fears of crossing the street.

    “He just needed to wait 20 more seconds and he would have had a green light, and that 20 seconds made a big impact on me,” Kasraie said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Estonia will allow Taiwan to establish a nondiplomatic representative office in a policy revision

    Estonia will allow Taiwan to establish a nondiplomatic representative office in a policy revision

    [ad_1]

    HELSINKI — Estonia will allow Taiwan to open a nondiplomatic representative office of Taipei in the Baltic country to boost economic and cultural ties with the self-governing island but pledged to stick with the “One China” policy in political relations.

    The government of Estonia, a member of the European Union and NATO, revised its approach to Taiwan at a Cabinet meeting on Nov. 2 while discussing the country’s China policy, Foreign Minister Margus Tsahkna told local media outlets on Friday.

    China claims Taiwan, an island about 160 kilometers (100 miles) off its east coast, as its territory. Beijing considers Taiwan as a rebel province to be brought under its control by force if necessary.

    “Just like many other countries of the European Union, Estonia is also ready to accept the establishment of a nondiplomatic economic or cultural representation of Taipei in order to promote the respective relations,” Tsahkna said in remarks first published by Estonia’s foreign ministry after Thursday’s Cabinet meeting. He didn’t provide any details about when such an office would be established in Estonia.

    Under the “One China” principle, Beijing holds a position that there is only one sovereign state under the name of China, and that Taiwan is an inalienable part of China.

    Nevertheless, some countries, like the United States, maintain unofficial relations with Taiwan or allow its economic or cultural representative office — under Taipei’s name — on their territory.

    “Estonia does not recognize Taiwan as a country. As part of the One China policy, we will not develop political relations with Taiwan,” Tsahkna said. “At the same time, we consider it important to revive relations with Taiwan in economy, education, culture, communication between civil society organizations and other such fields,” he said.

    He said that Estonia, which has a population of 1.3 million people, wants to align its current China policy with that of the 27-member EU, which similarly to the Baltic nation sees Beijing as “a partner, a competitor, and a rival.”

    “All these aspects must be taken into account in (Estonia’s) China policy,” he said.

    Tsahkna’s comments came just days before Joseph Wu, Taiwan’s foreign minister, is set to visit Estonia. Wu will deliver a speech on Taiwan’s foreign policy and attend a discussion panel by a local think tank in the capital, Tallinn, on Nov. 8.

    Wu isn’t arriving to Tallinn at the invitation of the Estonia’s government and won’t officially meet with Cabinet members during his visit, Tsahkna stressed but added that “we see nothing wrong with Mr. Wu visiting Estonia.”

    In 2021, Estonia’s Baltic neighbor Lithuania allowed Taiwan to open an unofficial diplomatic representative office — a de facto embassy — in its capital, Vilnius, despite Beijing’s strong opposition. The move triggered Beijing to launch an unprecedented economic coercion campaign against EU and NATO member Lithuania.

    [ad_2]

    Source link