ReportWire

Tag: Government regulations

  • These are the 37 donors helping pay for Trump’s $300 million White House ballroom

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump says his $300 million White House ballroom will be paid for “100% by me and some friends of mine.”

    The White House released a list of 37 donors, including crypto billionaires, charitable organizations, sports team owners, powerful financiers, tech and tobacco giants, media companies, longtime supporters of Republican causes and several of the president’s neighbors in Palm Beach, Florida.

    It’s incomplete. Among others, the list doesn’t include Carrier Group, which offered to donate an HVAC system for the ballroom, and artificial intelligence chipmaker Nvidia, whose CEO, Jensen Huang, publicly discussed its donation.

    The White House hasn’t said how much each donor is giving, and almost none was willing to divulge that. Very few commented on their contributions when contacted by The Associated Press.

    A senior White House official said the list has grown since it was first released in October, but some companies don’t want to be publicly named until required to do so by financial disclosure regulations. No foreign individuals or entities were among the donors, according to the official who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss details that haven’t been made public.

    Here’s a look at the divulged donors:

    Amazon Background: Trump was once highly critical of company founder Jeff Bezos, who also owns The Washington Post, but has been much less so lately. Amazon donated $1 million to Trump’s inauguration, an event attended by Bezos. Its video streaming service paid $40 million to license a documentary about first lady Melania Trump. Its cloud-based computing operation, Amazon Web Services, is a major government contractor.

    Apple Background: After an up-and-down relationship during Trump’s first term, CEO Tim Cook has sought to improve his standing with the president this time. Before returning to the White House, Trump hosted Cook at his Palm Beach estate, Mar-a-Lago, and said he had spoken with Cook about the company’s long-running tax battles with the European Union. Cook also donated $1 million to Trump’s inauguration fund. In the spring, Trump threatened the computing giant with tariffs after Apple announced plans to build manufacturing facilities in India. In August, Cook presented the president with a customized glass plaque with a gold base as the CEO announced plans to bring Apple’s total investment commitment in U.S. manufacturing over four years to $600 billion.

    Google Background: During his first term, Trump’s administration sued Google for antitrust violations. While a candidate last year, Trump suggested he might seek to break up the search engine behemoth. Once Trump won the election, Google donated $1 million to his inauguration, and its CEO, Sundar Pichai, joined other major tech executives in attending the ceremony. Google’s subsidiary, YouTube, agreed in September to pay $24.5 million to settle a lawsuit with Trump after it suspended his account following the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol. According to court filings, $22 million of that went to the Trust for the National Mall, which can help pay for ballroom construction.

    HP Background: An original Silicon Valley stalwart, the company donated to Trump’s inaugural fund. HP ‘s CEO, Enrique Lores, participated in a White House roundtable event in September. Lores also previously met with President Joe Biden at the White House on multiple occasions as top CEOs endorsed that administration’s economic plans.

    Meta Background: Founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg had been critical of Trump going back to 2016, and Facebook suspended Trump for years after the Jan. 6 insurrection. This time around, Meta contributed $1 million to Trump’s inauguration, and Zuckerberg attended.

    Micron Technology Background: The producer of advanced memory computer chips announced an April 2024 agreement with the Biden administration to provide $6.1 billion in government support for Micron to make chips domestically. Then, in June, Micron pledged $200 billion for U.S. memory chip manufacturing expansion under Trump. But at least $120 billion of that involved holdovers first announced during Biden’s administration.

    Microsoft Background: The company donated $1 million to Trump’s inauguration, twice what it spent for Biden’s or for Trump’s first inauguration. CEO Satya Nadella has also met with Trump numerous times, as Microsoft has supported the administration’s relaxation of regulations on artificial intelligence. He met previously with Biden, too. Trump has called for Microsoft’s president of global affairs, Lisa Monaco, to be fired because she was a deputy attorney general under Biden when the Justice Department led several investigations against Trump.

    Palantir Technologies Background: Co-founded by billionaire libertarian Peter Thiel, the firm concentrates on artificial intelligence and machine learning. It has seen profits soar thanks to lucrative defense and other federal contracts.

    Coinbase Background: The major cryptocurrency exchange was founded by Brian Armstrong, a top donor to a political action committee that helped Trump and other pro-crypto candidates in 2024. Armstrong attended the first crypto summit at the White House in March. Coinbase also hired Trump’s co-campaign manager, Chris LaCivita, to its Global Advisory Council.

    Ripple Background: In March, the Securities and Exchange Commission dropped a lawsuit filed during Trump’s first term, which accused the company of violating securities laws by selling XRP crypto coins without a securities registration. In his second term, Trump has eased regulations on digital assets, repealing an SEC accounting rule and a previous presidential executive order mandating more federal study and proposed changes to crypto regulations.

    Tether Background: A cryptocurrency company and major stablecoin issuer, Tether paid fines for misleading investors. CEO Paolo Ardoino has been to Trump’s White House, and, in April, the company hired former Trump administration crypto policy official Bo Hines to lead its domestic expansion efforts.

    Cameron Winklevoss and Tyler Winklevoss Background: Each Winklevoss twin is listed as a separate donor. Best known as Zuckerberg’s chief antagonists in “The Social Network,” the brothers founded the Gemini cryptocurrency exchange. Biden’s SEC sued Gemini for selling unregistered securities, but the case has been paused under Trump.

    Caterpillar Background: The equipment maker ‘s PAC has donated to candidates from both parties, but given more to Republicans. It has also said publicly that Trump’s tariffs, some of which the administration has now eased, could increase its costs and hurt earnings.

    NextEra Energy Background: NextEra is the world’s largest electric utility holding company. Trump says he’ll work to ensure tech giants can secure their own sources of electricity to power data centers, especially as they expand energy-hogging artificial intelligence operations. Google recently entered into an agreement to buy power from a shuttered nuclear power plant in Iowa owned by NextEra, which the company plans to bring back online in 2029.

    Paolo Tiramani Background: An American industrial designer who has donated to Trump’s political campaigns. Tiramani, with his son, runs BOXABL, a firm specializing in modular, prefabricated homes.

    Union Pacific Background: Trump has endorsed the company’s proposed $85 billion acquisition of Norfolk Southern, which would be the largest-ever rail merger. It also will be up to the president to appoint two more Republican members of the Surface Transportation Board, who will ultimately decide whether to approve the merger. In August, Trump fired one of the two Democratic members of the board.

    Adelson Family Foundation Background: Founded to strengthen the state of Israel and the Jewish people, the foundation was created by Miriam Adelson, the majority owner of the NBA’s Dallas Mavericks, close Trump ally and longtime GOP megadonor. She’s also the widow of Sheldon Adelson, the billionaire founder and owner of Las Vegas Sands.

    Betty Wold Johnson Foundation Background: Based in Palm Beach, the foundation supports health, arts and culture initiatives, as well as environmental and educational programs. It’s named in honor of the mother of New York Jets owner Woody Johnson, who served as Trump’s ambassador to the United Kingdom during his first term.

    Laura & Isaac Perlmutter Foundation Background: The nonprofit based in Lake Worth Beach, near Palm Beach, focuses on promoting health care, social justice, the arts and community initiatives. Isaac is an Israeli American businessman and financier and former chair of Marvel Entertainment. He and his wife have donated to Trump’s presidential campaigns and affiliated PACs.

    Benjamin Leon Jr. Background: The Cuban American founder of Miami-based Leon Medical Centers is Trump’s nominee for U.S. ambassador to Spain.

    Kelly Loeffler and Jeffrey Sprecher Background: A former Republican senator from Georgia, Loeffler heads Trump’s Small Business Administration. Her husband is CEO of the energy market Intercontinental Exchange Inc. and chairs the New York Stock Exchange. The couple faced scrutiny in 2020 for dumping substantial portions of their portfolio and purchasing new stocks, including in firms making protective equipment, after Congress received briefings on the severity of the coming coronavirus pandemic.

    Lutnick Family Background: Howard Lutnick is Trump’s commerce secretary. A crypto enthusiast, he once headed the brokerage and investment bank Cantor Fitzgerald.

    Comcast Background: The mass media and telecom conglomerate has often been criticized by Trump, including in April, when the president posted that Comcast was a “disgrace to the integrity of broadcasting.” The company owns NBC and is spinning off MSNBC. It could be interested in acquiring Warner Bros. Discover, and that would leave Comcast looking for government approval.

    Hard Rock International Background: A Florida-based gaming and tourism concern owned by the Seminole Tribe, the company operates a number of casinos, including the former Trump Taj Mahal casino in Atlantic City, New Jersey. Trump has for decades criticized federal exemptions allowing tribes to operate casinos.

    T-Mobile Background: The wireless carrier is indirectly linked to Trump Mobile, which the president’s family controls and offers gold phones and cell service in a licensing deal. Trump Mobile uses Liberty Mobile Wireless, a small, Florida-based network that T-Mobile says runs its operations on T-Mobile’s network. T-Mobile says that is unrelated to its decision to donate to Trump’s ballroom, which it says is meant to “restore and enrich the historic landmarks that define our nation’s capital.”

    Altria Group Background: The tobacco giant controls Philip Morris USA, maker of Marlboro. It has pressed for federal crackdowns on counterfeit and illegal vaping products. The company donated $50,000 to Trump’s inauguration.

    Reynolds American Background: With brands including Lucky Strike and Camel, the company has been active in lobbying to steer the Trump administration away from a Biden-proposed ban on menthol cigarettes.

    Booz Allen Hamilton Background: A major defense and national security technology firm with extensive government contracts, it paid fines to settle lawsuits with the Justice Department under Biden. Booz Allen Hamilton agreed to pay more than $377 million in 2023 for improperly billing costs to its government contracts. In January, said it’d pay nearly $16 million to settle allegations that it submitted fraudulent claims in connection with government contracts.

    Lockheed Martin Corporation Background: The massive defense contractor has huge government contracts. It said in a statement that it “is grateful for the opportunity to help bring the President’s vision to reality and make this addition to the People’s House.”

    Stefan E. Brodie Background: A biotech entrepreneur and co-founder of the chemical manufacturing company Purolite, Brodie and his family donated to Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign and affiliated committees. Brodie and his brother, Donald, were convicted in 2002 of circumventing U.S. sanctions on Cuba.

    Charles and Marissa Cascarilla Background: Charles Cascarilla is co‑founder of the blockchain firm Paxos. He and his wife are philanthropists who have advocated for financial technology sector deregulation.

    J. Pepe and Emilia Fanjul Background: Longtime Republican donors and Palm Beach residents, the couple controls U.S. sugar refining interests that includes the Domino brand.

    Edward and Shari Glazer Background: Members of the family that owns the NFL’s Tampa Bay Buccaneers and has a controlling stake in the Manchester United football club, the couple donated to Trump’s campaign. Edward is the founder and CEO of US Property Trust, which operates shopping centers, and the car dealership company US Auto Trust.

    Howard Hamm Background: The billionaire oil tycoon and pioneer of hydraulic fracturing heads the oil producer Continental Resources. He’s praised the Trump administration for aggressively moving to purchase oil to replenish the Strategic Petroleum Reserve stockpile.

    Stephen A. Schwarzman Background: A Palm Beach resident and chair and CEO of the Blackstone Group, a global private equity firm he helped establish in 1985. Schwarzman has donated to Trump and his PACs previously and led his first-term President’s Strategic and Policy Forum.

    Konstantin Sokolov Background: Born in Russia, he immigrated to the U.S. and now heads the Chicago-based private equity firm IJS Investments. Sokolov has donated to many educational and charitable causes in the past, and to Trump’s political campaigns.

    ___

    Associated Press writer Darlene Superville contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • High schools in Ohio will vote in special election next month to allow NIL for athletes

    [ad_1]

    High school principals in Ohio will vote on an emergency bylaw referendum on Name, Image and Likeness regulations next month.

    The Ohio High School Athletic Association’s Board of Directors announced Thursday that the vote will take place from Nov. 17-21.

    OHSAA members decisively voted down an NIL proposal in 2022, 538-254. The OHSAA Board of Directors last month approved language for another NIL proposal that they planned to vote on in May.

    The timeline for the vote was accelerated after Franklin County Common Pleas Court Judge Jaiza Page issued a temporary restraining order on Monday, allowing all students who are part of the 818 schools in the OHSAA to enter into their own NIL deals.

    Ohio is one of six states that has rules in place that don’t allow high school athletes to accept payments for their name, image and likeness. The others are Alabama, Indiana, Michigan, Mississippi and Wyoming.

    Jasmine Brown, the mother of Jamier Brown, filed the lawsuit in Franklin County Common Pleas Court on Oct. 15 in her role as “parent or guardian.” Brown is a junior who attends Wayne High School in Huber Heights, a suburb of Dayton. He is the top wide receiver prospect in the class of 2027. Brown has verbally committed to Ohio State University, which is in Franklin County.

    Brown’s mother and attorneys stated that Brown has already missed out on more than $100,000 in potential NIL deals.

    “I’m being raised by an amazing single mom who’s always doing her best to keep things steady while helping me chase my goals on and off the field,” Jamier Brown said on X when the lawsuit was filed on Oct. 15. “Like what’s allowed in other states, i want to be able to use my name, image, and likeness to help my family financially and get the extra after school academic help and football training that can help me maximize my potential, NIL can make that possible for me and many other student athletes in Ohio.”

    Another hearing on a preliminary injunction is scheduled for Dec. 15.

    The OHSAA says the proposed new bylaw would allow student-athletes to enter into an NIL agreement, and would establish reporting procedures and limitations so that students do not jeopardize their eligibility.

    “It’s important for folks to understand high school NIL is different from college NIL,” said Luke Fedlam, Brown’s attorney with the Amundsen Davis law firm in Columbus. “There are guardrails that have been in place that protect the integrity of sport and competition. In college we have seen collectives for NIL to recruit and retain. That does not exist at the high school level. Most states have the regulations that do not allow collectives and how they can transfer and maintain eligibility.”

    ___

    AP sports: https://apnews.com/sports

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • California Gov. Gavin Newsom signs landmark bill creating AI safety measures

    [ad_1]

    SACRAMENTO, Calif. — California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday signed a law that aims to prevent people from using powerful artificial intelligence models for potentially catastrophic activities like building a bioweapon or shutting down a bank system.

    The move comes as Newsom touted California as a leader in AI regulation and criticized the inaction at the federal level in a recent conversation with former President Bill Clinton. The new law will establish some of the first-in-the-nation regulations on large-scale AI models without hurting the state’s homegrown industry, Newsom said. Many of the world’s top AI companies are located in California and will have to follow the requirements.

    “California has proven that we can establish regulations to protect our communities while also ensuring that the growing AI industry continues to thrive. This legislation strikes that balance,” Newsom said in a statement.

    The legislation requires AI companies to implement and disclose publicly safety protocols to prevent their most advanced models from being used to cause major harm. The rules are designed to cover AI systems if they meet a “frontier” threshold that signals they run on a huge amount of computing power.

    Such thresholds are based on how many calculations the computers are performing. Those who crafted the regulations have acknowledged the numerical thresholds are an imperfect starting point to distinguish today’s highest-performing generative AI systems from the next generation that could be even more powerful. The existing systems are largely made by California-based companies like Anthropic, Google, Meta Platforms and OpenAI.

    The legislation defines a catastrophic risk as something that would cause at least $1 billion in damage or more than 50 injuries or deaths. It’s designed to guard against AI being used for activities that could cause mass disruption, such as hacking into a power grid.

    Companies also have to report to the state any critical safety incidents within 15 days. The law creates whistleblower protections for AI workers and establishes a public cloud for researchers. It includes a fine of $1 million per violation.

    It drew opposition from some tech companies, which argued that AI legislation should be done at the federal level. But Anthropic said the regulations are “practical safeguards” that make official the safety practices many companies are already doing voluntarily.

    “While federal standards remain essential to avoid a patchwork of state regulations, California has created a strong framework that balances public safety with continued innovation,” Jack Clark, co-founder and head of policy at Anthropic, said in a statement.

    The signing comes after Newsom last year vetoed a broader version of the legislation, siding with tech companies that said the requirements were too rigid and would have hampered innovation. Newsom instead asked a group of several industry experts, including AI pioneer Fei-Fei Li, to develop recommendations on guardrails around powerful AI models.

    The new law incorporates recommendations and feedback from Newsom’s group of AI experts and the industry, supporters said. The legislation also doesn’t put the same level of reporting requirements on startups to avoid hurting innovation, said state Sen. Scott Wiener of San Francisco, the bill’s author.

    “With this law, California is stepping up, once again, as a global leader on both technology innovation and safety,” Wiener said in a statement.

    Newsom’s decision comes as President Donald Trump in July announced a plan to eliminate what his administration sees as “onerous” regulations to speed up AI innovation and cement the U.S.’ position as the global AI leader. Republicans in Congress earlier this year unsuccessfully tried to ban states and localities from regulating AI for a decade.

    Without stronger federal regulations, states across the country have spent the last few years trying to rein in the technology, tackling everything from deepfakes in elections to AI “therapy.” In California, the Legislature this year passed a number of bills to address safety concerns around AI chatbots for children and the use of AI in the workplace.

    California has also been an early adopter of AI technologies. The state has deployed generative AI tools to spot wildfires and address highway congestion and road safety, among other things.

    ___

    Associated Press reporter Matt O’Brien contributed to the report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Regulators struggle to keep up with the complicated landscape of AI therapy apps

    [ad_1]

    In the absence of stronger federal regulation, some states have begun regulating apps that offer AI “therapy” as more people turn to artificial intelligence for mental health advice.

    But the laws, all passed this year, don’t fully address the fast-changing landscape of AI software development. And app developers, policymakers and mental health advocates say the resulting patchwork of state laws isn’t enough to protect users or hold the creators of harmful technology accountable.

    “The reality is millions of people are using these tools and they’re not going back,” said Karin Andrea Stephan, CEO and co-founder of the mental health chatbot app Earkick.

    ___

    EDITOR’S NOTE — This story includes discussion of suicide. If you or someone you know needs help, the national suicide and crisis lifeline in the U.S. is available by calling or texting 988. There is also an online chat at 988lifeline.org.

    ___

    The state laws take different approaches. Illinois and Nevada have banned the use of AI to treat mental health. Utah placed certain limits on therapy chatbots, including requiring them to protect users’ health information and to clearly disclose that the chatbot isn’t human. Pennsylvania, New Jersey and California are also considering ways to regulate AI therapy.

    The impact on users varies. Some apps have blocked access in states with bans. Others say they’re making no changes as they wait for more legal clarity.

    And many of the laws don’t cover generic chatbots like ChatGPT, which are not explicitly marketed for therapy but are used by an untold number of people for it. Those bots have attracted lawsuits in horrific instances where users lost their grip on reality or took their own lives after interacting with them.

    Vaile Wright, who oversees health care innovation at the American Psychological Association, agreed that the apps could fill a need, noting a nationwide shortage of mental health providers, high costs for care and uneven access for insured patients.

    Mental health chatbots that are rooted in science, created with expert input and monitored by humans could change the landscape, Wright said.

    “This could be something that helps people before they get to crisis,” she said. “That’s not what’s on the commercial market currently.”

    That’s why federal regulation and oversight is needed, she said.

    Earlier this month, the Federal Trade Commission announced it was opening inquiries into seven AI chatbot companies — including the parent companies of Instagram and Facebook, Google, ChatGPT, Grok (the chatbot on X), Character.AI and Snapchat — on how they “measure, test and monitor potentially negative impacts of this technology on children and teens.” And the Food and Drug Administration is convening an advisory committee Nov. 6 to review generative AI-enabled mental health devices.

    Federal agencies could consider restrictions on how chatbots are marketed, limit addictive practices, require disclosures to users that they are not medical providers, require companies to track and report suicidal thoughts, and offer legal protections for people who report bad practices by companies, Wright said.

    From “companion apps” to “AI therapists” to “mental wellness” apps, AI’s use in mental health care is varied and hard to define, let alone write laws around.

    That has led to different regulatory approaches. Some states, for example, take aim at companion apps that are designed just for friendship, but don’t wade into mental health care. The laws in Illinois and Nevada ban products that claim to provide mental health treatment outright, threatening fines up to $10,000 in Illinois and $15,000 in Nevada.

    But even a single app can be tough to categorize.

    Earkick’s Stephan said there is still a lot that is “very muddy” about Illinois’ law, for example, and the company has not limited access there.

    Stephan and her team initially held off calling their chatbot, which looks like a cartoon panda, a therapist. But when users began using the word in reviews, they embraced the terminology so the app would show up in searches.

    Last week, they backed off using therapy and medical terms again. Earkick’s website described its chatbot as “Your empathetic AI counselor, equipped to support your mental health journey,” but now it’s a “chatbot for self care.”

    Still, “we’re not diagnosing,” Stephan maintained.

    Users can set up a “panic button” to call a trusted loved one if they are in crisis and the chatbot will “nudge” users to seek out a therapist if their mental health worsens. But it was never designed to be a suicide prevention app, Stephan said, and police would not be called if someone told the bot about thoughts of self-harm.

    Stephan said she’s happy that people are looking at AI with a critical eye, but worried about states’ ability to keep up with innovation.

    “The speed at which everything is evolving is massive,” she said.

    Other apps blocked access immediately. When Illinois users download the AI therapy app Ash, a message urges them to email their legislators, arguing “misguided legislation” has banned apps like Ash “while leaving unregulated chatbots it intended to regulate free to cause harm.”

    A spokesperson for Ash did not respond to multiple requests for an interview.

    Mario Treto Jr., secretary of the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation, said the goal was ultimately to make sure licensed therapists were the only ones doing therapy.

    “Therapy is more than just word exchanges,” Treto said. “It requires empathy, it requires clinical judgment, it requires ethical responsibility, none of which AI can truly replicate right now.”

    In March, a Dartmouth University-based team published the first known randomized clinical trial of a generative AI chatbot for mental health treatment.

    The goal was to have the chatbot, called Therabot, treat people diagnosed with anxiety, depression or eating disorders. It was trained on vignettes and transcripts written by the team to illustrate an evidence-based response.

    The study found users rated Therabot similar to a therapist and had meaningfully lower symptoms after eight weeks compared with people who didn’t use it. Every interaction was monitored by a human who intervened if the chatbot’s response was harmful or not evidence-based.

    Nicholas Jacobson, a clinical psychologist whose lab is leading the research, said the results showed early promise but that larger studies are needed to demonstrate whether Therabot works for large numbers of people.

    “The space is so dramatically new that I think the field needs to proceed with much greater caution that is happening right now,” he said.

    Many AI apps are optimized for engagement and are built to support everything users say, rather than challenging peoples’ thoughts the way therapists do. Many walk the line of companionship and therapy, blurring intimacy boundaries therapists ethically would not.

    Therabot’s team sought to avoid those issues.

    The app is still in testing and not widely available. But Jacobson worries about what strict bans will mean for developers taking a careful approach. He noted Illinois had no clear pathway to provide evidence that an app is safe and effective.

    “They want to protect folks, but the traditional system right now is really failing folks,” he said. “So, trying to stick with the status quo is really not the thing to do.”

    Regulators and advocates of the laws say they are open to changes. But today’s chatbots are not a solution to the mental health provider shortage, said Kyle Hillman, who lobbied for the bills in Illinois and Nevada through his affiliation with the National Association of Social Workers.

    “Not everybody who’s feeling sad needs a therapist,” he said. But for people with real mental health issues or suicidal thoughts, “telling them, ‘I know that there’s a workforce shortage but here’s a bot’ — that is such a privileged position.”

    ___

    The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • After massive shrimp recalls, the FDA finds radioactive contamination in spices too

    [ad_1]

    Federal regulators have detected possible radioactive contamination in a second food product sent to the U.S. from Indonesia, even as recalls of potentially tainted shrimp continue to grow. The discovery adds to questions about the source of the unusual problem.

    U.S. Food and Drug Administration officials last week blocked import of all spices from PT Natural Java Spice of Indonesia after federal inspectors detected cesium 137 in a shipment of cloves sent to California.

    That follows the import alert imposed in August on the company PT Bahari Makmuri Sejati, or BMS foods, which sends millions of pounds of shrimp to the U.S. each year.

    Here’s what you need to know about potential cesium 137 contamination:

    Cesium 137 is a radioactive isotope created as a byproduct of nuclear reactions, including nuclear bombs, testing, reactor operations and accidents. It’s widespread around the world, with trace amounts found in the environment, including soil, food and air.

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials detected cesium 137 in shipping containers of shrimp sent by PT Bahari Makmur Sejati to several U.S. ports. CBP officials flagged the potential contamination to the FDA, which tested samples of the shrimp and detected cesium 137 in one sample of breaded shrimp.

    The company has sent about 84 million pounds (38 million kilograms) of shrimp to U.S. ports this year, according to data from Import Genius, a trade data analysis company. It supplies about 6% of foreign shrimp imported in the U.S.

    This month, FDA officials detected cesium 137 in one sample of cloves exported by PT Natural Java Spice, which sends spices to the U.S. and other countries. Records show the company sent about 440,000 pounds ( 200,000 kilograms) of cloves to the U.S. this year.

    No food that triggered alerts or tested positive has been released for sale in the U.S., FDA officials emphasized.

    But hundreds of thousands of packages of imported frozen shrimp sold at Kroger and other grocery stores across the U.S. have been recalled because they may have been manufactured under conditions that allowed them to be contaminated, the agency said.

    Although the risk appears to be small, the foods could pose a “potential health concern” for people exposed to low levels of cesium 137 over time.

    The levels of contamination detected are far below the level that could trigger the need for health protections, but long-term exposure could raise the risk of certain cancers.

    It’s not clear whether there’s a common source of contamination for the shrimp and the spices. FDA and CBP officials said their investigations are continuing. The two processing facilities appear to be about 500 miles (800 kilometers) apart in Indonesia.

    Contaminated scrap metal or melted metal at an industrial site near the shrimp processing plant in Indonesia may be the source of the radioactive material, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency. Nuclear regulators in Indonesia said they detected the radioactive isotope at the site outside Jakarta.

    It’s possible that that type of contamination could come from recycling old medical equipment that contained cesium 137, according to Steve Biegalski, a nuclear medicine expert at the Georgia Institute of Technology.

    Contaminated transport containers or shipping methods, such as trucks, boats or shared materials could also be a source, he said.

    For now, consumers should avoid eating or serving shrimp recalled for possible cesium 137 contamination, the FDA said.

    To date, four firms have issued recalls of shrimp since August, including those listed here.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Shipping companies support 1st global fee on greenhouse gases, opposed by Trump admin

    [ad_1]

    Nearly 200 shipping companies said Monday they want the world’s largest maritime nations to adopt regulations that include the first-ever global fee on greenhouse gases to reduce their sector’s emissions.

    The Getting to Zero Coalition, an alliance of companies, governments and intergovernmental organizations, is asking member states of the International Maritime Organization to support adopting regulations to transition to green shipping, including the fee, when they meet in London next month. The statement was shared exclusively with The Associated Press in advance.

    “Given the significance of the political decision being made, we think it is important that industry voices in favor of this adoption be heard,” Jesse Fahnestock, who leads decarbonization work at the Global Maritime Forum, said Monday. The forum manages the Getting to Zero Coalition.

    The Trump administration unequivocally rejects the proposal before the IMO and has threatened to retaliate if nations support it, setting the stage for a fight over the major climate deal. The U.S. considers the proposed regulatory framework “effectively a global carbon tax on Americans levied by an unaccountable U.N. organization,” the U.S. Secretaries of State, Commerce, Energy and Transportation said in a joint statement last month.

    U.S.-based shipping companies, however, have endorsed it. The Chamber of Shipping of America wants one global system, not multiple regional systems that could double charge vessels for their emissions depending on the route, said Kathy Metcalf, the chamber’s president emeritus.

    Shipping emissions have grown over the last decade to about 3% of the global total as vessels have gotten bigger, delivering more cargo per trip and using immense amounts of fossil fuels. The IMO, which regulates international shipping, set a target for the sector to reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by about 2050, and has committed to ensuring that fuels with zero or near-zero emissions are used more widely.

    In April, IMO member states agreed on the contents of a regulatory framework to impose a minimum fee for every ton of greenhouse gases emitted by ships above certain thresholds and set a marine fuel standard to phase in cleaner fuels. The IMO aims for consensus in decision-making but, in this case, had to vote. The United States was notably absent.

    Now nations have to decide if the regulations will enter into force in 2027. If agreed upon, the regulations will become mandatory for large oceangoing ships over 5,000 gross tonnage, which emit 85% of the total carbon emissions from international shipping, according to the IMO.

    If nations don’t agree, shipping’s decarbonization will be further delayed and “the chance of the sector playing a proper and fair part in the fight to keep global heating below dangerous levels will almost certainly be lost,” said Delaine McCullough, president of the Clean Shipping Coalition and Ocean Conservancy shipping program director.

    The U.S. secretaries said in their statement that “fellow IMO members should be on notice” the U.S. will “not hesitate to retaliate or explore remedies for our citizens” if they do not support the United States, against this action. They said ships will have to pay fees for failing to meet “unattainable fuel standards and emissions targets,” driving up costs, and the fuel standards would “conveniently benefit China.” China is a leader in developing and producing cleaner fuels for shipping.

    While U.S. opposition and pressure cannot be taken for granted, it still appears as though a majority of countries currently support the regulations, said Faig Abbasov from Transport and Environment, a Brussels-based environmental nongovernmental organization. Abbasov said the deal reached in April was not ambitious enough, but this is an opportunity to launch the sector’s decarbonization and it can be strengthened.

    Shipping companies want the regulations because it gives them the certainty needed to confidently make investments in cleaner technologies, such as fuels that are alternatives to fossil fuels and the ships that run on them. In addition to the Getting to Zero Coalition, the International Chamber of Shipping, which represents over 80% of the world’s merchant fleet, is advocating for adoption when nations meet at IMO Headquarters in London from Oct. 14 to 17.

    ___

    AP Writer Sibi Arasu contributed to this report.

    ___

    The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Robinhood joins new band of companies calling the S&P 500 their home

    [ad_1]

    Online broker Robinhood Markets will join the S&P 500 index after riding the popularity of cryptocurrencies to profitability and an all-time high stock price.

    The company is set to join the benchmark index on Sept. 22, along with mobile technology platform AppLovin and construction company Emcor Group.

    Robinhood is having one of its best years since going public in 2021 after struggling early on. It closed below its IPO price of $38 on its first day of trading. The stock remained volatile over the next few years, finishing 2023 at $12.74 per share.

    The stock has tripled in 2025 so far, trading at more than $100 per share. That follows a similar gain in 2024.

    An increased interest in cryptocurrency amid a friendlier regulatory environment for the digital currency has helped turn around the online broker’s profits. The company lost 61 cents per share in 2023, but sharply reversed course in 2024 for a profit of $1.56 per share. Wall Street expects the company to close out 2025 with $1.64 per share in profit.

    The company has been benefitting from the government’s hands off approach to cryptocurrency and regulation during President Donald Trump’s tenure. Earlier this year, the Securities and Exchange Commission closed an investigation into the company. The SEC declined to pursue enforcement action over allegations that Robinhood failed to register certain crypto assets on its platform as securities.

    Robinhood was also at the center of the original “meme stock” craze in 2021 that centered on heavy trading of GameStop and AMC Entertainment. The company had to temporarily restrict trading of those companies amid a dispute between online activist retail investors and institutional investors.

    Shares of Robinhood surged 13.8% in morning trading, while AppLovin shares jumped 11.5%.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Google hit with $3.5B fine from European Union in ad-tech antitrust case

    [ad_1]

    LONDON — European Union regulators on Friday hit Google with a 2.95 billion euro ($3.5 billion) fine for breaching the bloc’s competition rules by favoring its own digital advertising services, marking the fourth such antitrust penalty for the company.

    The European Commission, the 27-nation bloc’s executive branch and top antitrust enforcer, also ordered the U.S. tech giant to end its “self-preferencing practices” and take steps to stop “conflicts of interest” along the advertising technology supply chain.

    EU regulators had previously threatened a breakup of the company but held off on that threat for the time being.

    Google said the decision was “wrong” and that it would appeal.

    “It imposes an unjustified fine and requires changes that will hurt thousands of European businesses by making it harder for them to make money,” Lee-Anne Mulholland, the company’s global head of regulatory affairs, said in a statement.

    The decision was long overdue, coming more than two years after the European Commission announced antitrust charges against Google.

    The commission had said at the time that the only way to satisfy antitrust concerns about Google’s lucrative digital ad business was to sell off parts of its business. However, this decision made only a brief mention of possible divestment and comes amid renewed tensions between Brussels and the Trump administration over trade, tariffs and technology regulation.

    Top EU officials had said earlier that the commission was seeking a forced sale because past cases that ended with fines and requirements for Google to stop anti-competitive practices have not worked, allowing the company to continue its behavior in a different form.

    It’s the second time in a week that Google has avoided a breakup.

    Google is also under fire on a separate front in the U.S., where prosecutors want the company to sell off its Chrome browser after a judge found the company had an illegal monopoly in online search.

    On Tuesday, a U.S. federal judge found that Google had illegal monopoly in online search and ordered a shake-up of its search engine but rebuffed the government’s attempt to break up the company by forcing a sale of its Chrome browser.

    But the EU indicated that breakup option is not totally off the table. Google has 60 days to tell the Commission its proposals to end its conflicts of interest, and if the regulators aren’t satisfied they will propose an “appropriate remedy.”

    “The Commission has already signaled its preliminary view that only the divestment by Google of part of its services would address the situation of inherent conflicts of interest, but it first wishes to hear and assess Google’s proposal,” it said in a press release.

    The commission’s penalty follows a formal investigation that it opened in June 2021, looking into whether Google violated the bloc’s competition rules by favoring its own online display advertising technology services at the expense of rival publishers, advertisers and advertising technology services.

    Its investigation found that Google “abused” its dominant positions in the ad-technology ecosystem, the commission said.

    Online display ads are banners and text that appear on websites and are personalized based on an internet user’s browsing history.

    Mulholland said, “There’s nothing anticompetitive in providing services for ad buyers and sellers, and there are more alternatives to our services than ever before.”

    Google is facing pressure on other fronts.

    In a separate U.S. case, the Justice Department asked a federal judge in May to force the company to sell off its AdX business and DFP ad platform — tools that are also at the heart of the EU case. They connect advertisers with publishers who have ad space to sell on their sites. The case is scheduled to move to the penalty phase, known as remedy hearings, in late September.

    Authorities in Canada and Britain are also targeting the company over its digital ad business.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • As summers grow deadlier, here’s what to know about utility shutoffs

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK — As the cost of electricity outpaces inflation and summers grow deadlier, consumer advocates are sounding alarms about the risks to low-income people who can’t afford consistent air conditioning in dangerous temperatures.

    While about half of U.S. states offer protections from utility shutoffs during extreme heat, the rest do not. In contrast, 41 states have “cold weather rules,” which forbid utility companies from shutting off household heat during extreme cold. The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) provides funds for vulnerable groups who have trouble affording heating bills in the winter, but the program has less funding available to meet consumers’ increasing needs in the summer months.

    Shylee Johnson, 27, based in Wichita, Kansas, saw firsthand the protection that the local Low Income Energy Assistance Program (LIEAP) brought to her community during the three years she worked as a case manager for families who were behind on utility bills.

    “It was amazing at keeping people’s electricity on in the winter,” she said of the program, which subsidizes costs for households who can’t afford utility expenses. “Families would be deciding between paying their heating bill or another bill, and this took that decision away.”

    In the summer, though, Johnson said she’s seen how late or missed utility payments can result in the shutoff of electricity and the removal of vital services, despite air conditioning becoming increasingly essential to families’ health and well-being.

    “It’s terrifying,” she said. “There’s a ‘cold weather rule’ — in freezing temperatures, your heat can’t be turned off. But there isn’t an equivalent for summer in Kansas.”

    The clients Johnson served were often the most vulnerable, including families with young children, pregnant people, and those with sick or disabled family members, including some who need electricity to operate essential medical equipment in their homes. LIHEAP also sometimes provides air conditioning units in the summer for households that can’t afford to purchase their own units.

    Recent studies show that extreme heat in the summer is now the leading cause of weather-related deaths, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). That’s ahead of deaths due to extreme cold in the winter or other weather emergencies, like hurricanes or tornadoes. The frequency, duration and intensity of extreme heat waves has significantly increased over the past several decades, according to the EPA, and insignificant support for low-income households contributes to the danger.

    In 2023, the death certificates of more than 2,300 people who died in the summer mention the effects of excessive heat, the highest number in 45 years of records, according to an Associated Press analysis of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data. And that figure is only a fraction of the real death toll, according to coroner, hospital, and ambulance records, also analyzed by the AP.

    Nationally, the cost of electricity has risen at twice the pace of the average cost of living, exacerbating the problem.

    According to the National Energy Assistance Directors Association (NEADA), which represents state program managers of LIHEAP, almost 20% of very low-income families lack consistent access to cooling. Currently, 26 states and the District of Columbia offer assistance with summer energy bills, while 21 states plus D.C. have policies protecting low-income families from utility disconnections during summer months.

    Still, roughly 85% of LIHEAP resources are used for heating in the winter, leaving little support for households seeking cooling, according to Mark Wolfe, executive director of NEADA.

    “Rules that were written thirty years ago, that were adequate for winter, are not adequate for the summer,” he said. “How do we protect vulnerable households both during periods of extreme heat and extreme cold? The rules haven’t caught up.”

    Karen Lusson, senior attorney at the National Consumer Law Center who focuses on energy and utility affordability, said that many deaths from extreme heat in the summer months are preventable.

    “The impression we’ve all had is that weather is most dangerous in the wintertime,” she said. “Not any more.”

    While the Trump administration fired the entire staff of the LIHEAP program in April, Wolfe and Lusson are hopeful Congress will approve slightly more funding for the program in the fall compared to the previous fiscal year, they said.

    To protect households during increasingly hotter summers, Lusson recommends individuals seek information about their rights when it comes to utility shutoffs. State utility commissions, which regulate public utilities, dictate local rules. To find your relevant commission, consult the government site operated by the national association of regulatory commissions, which has a state-by-state look-up tool.

    Lusson also encourages people to look into whether their state protections are calendar- or temperature-based, which can make a difference in planning. While some states forbid shut-offs during certain months of the year, others base the protections on the temperature of a given day or the presence of a heat advisory. This LIHEAP site has a break-down of every state’s policies.

    Some state attorney generals’ offices also have public utility bureaus that advocate on behalf of consumers, Lusson said.

    Lastly, it can be helpful to determine if your utility company offers discount rates or percentage-of-income payment plans to help with electricity bills. Both commission and utility websites have specific information about how to access LIHEAP assistance and whether or not the utility company itself offers assistance.

    ___

    The Associated Press receives support from Charles Schwab Foundation for educational and explanatory reporting to improve financial literacy. The independent foundation is separate from Charles Schwab and Co. Inc. The AP is solely responsible for its journalism.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Fed governor Cook to seek court order blocking her firing by Trump

    [ad_1]

    A case that could provide the Trump administration with new and expansive power over the traditionally independent Federal Reserve will get its first court hearing Friday.

    Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook has requested an emergency injunction to block President Donald Trump’s attempt to fire her over allegations that she committed mortgage fraud when she purchased a home and condo in 2021. She was appointed to the Fed’s board by former president Joe Biden in 2022.

    If her firing is allowed to stand, it would likely erode the Fed’s longstanding independence from day-to-day politics. No president has ever fired a Fed governor in the agency’s 112-year history. Economists broadly support Fed independence because it makes it easier for the central bank to take unpopular steps such as raising interest rates to combat inflation.

    Cook has asked the court to issue an emergency order that would block Trump’s firing of her and enable her to remain on the seven-member board of governors while her lawsuit seeking to overturn the firing makes its way through the courts. Many observers expect her case will end up at the U.S. Supreme Court.

    The law governing the Fed says the president can’t fire a governor just because they disagree over interest rate policy. Trump has repeatedly demanded that the Fed, led by Chair Jerome Powell, reduce its key interest rate, which is currently 4.3%. Yet the Fed has kept it unchanged for the last five meetings.

    But the president may be able to fire a Fed governor “for cause,” which has traditionally been interpreted to mean inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance. Cook’s lawyers argue that it also refers only to conduct while in office. They also say that she was entitled to a hearing and an opportunity to rebut the charges.

    “The unsubstantiated and unproven allegation that Governor Cook ‘potentially’ erred in filling out a mortgage form prior to her Senate confirmation — does not amount to ‘cause,’” the lawsuit says.

    Trump has moved to fire a number of leaders from a host of independent federal regulatory agencies, including at the National Transportation Safety Board, Surface Transportation Board, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and Nuclear Regulatory Commission, as well as the Fed.

    The Supreme Court declined to temporarily block the president from firing directors of some independent agencies earlier this year while those cases move through the courts. Legal experts say the high court this year has shown more deference to the president’s removal powers than it has in the past.

    Still, in a case in May, the Supreme Court appeared to single out the Fed as deserving of greater independence than other agencies, describing it as “a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity.” As a result, it’s harder to gauge how the Supreme Court could rule if this case lands in its lap.

    As a governor, Cook votes on all the Fed’s interest rate decisions and helps oversee bank regulation. The Fed has substantial power over the economy by raising or cutting its key interest rate, which can then influence a broad range of other borrowing costs, including mortgages, car loans, and business loans.

    Bill Pulte, Trump’s appointee to the agency that regulates mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, first leveled the accusation against Cook that she has committed mortgage fraud.

    It’s a charge he has also made against two of Trump’s biggest political enemies, California Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff and New York Attorney General Letitia James, who has prosecuted Trump. Pulte has ignored a similar case involving Ken Paxton, the Texas attorney general who is friendly with Trump and is running for Senate in his state’s Republican primary.

    Cook’s lawsuit responds by arguing that the claims are just a pretext “in order to effectuate her prompt removal and vacate a seat for President Trump to fill and forward his agenda to undermine the independence of the Federal Reserve.”

    If Trump can replace Cook, he may be able to gain a 4-3 majority on the Fed’s governing board. Trump appointed two board members during his first term and has nominated a key White House economic adviser, Stephen Miran, to replace Adriana Kugler, another Fed governor who stepped down unexpectedly Aug. 1. Trump has said he will only appoint people to the Fed who will support lower rates.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • NJ governor seeks restrictions on nonessential helicopter flights after chopper crash

    [ad_1]

    TRENTON, N.J. — New Jersey’s governor is asking federal officials to impose restrictions on nonessential helicopter flights in his state after a New York City sightseeing helicopter broke apart in midair in April, killing six people.

    Gov. Phil Murphy, in an Aug. 18 letter, requested the Federal Aviation Administration use its authority to “prohibit or sharply reduce” the number of the aircrafts operating in the state.

    The Democrat noted that the helicopter involved in the April 10 crash was based at a heliport in Kearny, New Jersey and plummeted into the Hudson River just 75 feet (22 meters) from the Jersey City waterfront.

    He argued that future crashes could be more devastating if they occurred on land as he called on the FAA to impose more stringent regulations, akin to the cap on tourist helicopter flights over Hawai’i Volcanoes National Park that the agency adopted in 2023.

    “We must not wait for such a tragedy to occur being taking decisive action,” Murphy wrote.

    The governor suggested flights from Kearny could be routed over Newark Bay rather than directly over densely populated Jersey City and Hoboken, reducing impacts on residential neighborhoods and enhancing safety by having helicopters fly more over water than land.

    He also asked the FAA to consider limiting the operating hours for non-essential flights from 9 a.m. to 7 p.m.

    The FAA, in a statement Thursday, said it would reach out directly to Murphy.

    The agency also noted helicopters are not subject to the same minimum altitude restrictions as airplanes, which must fly at least 1,000 feet (300 meters) above the nearest obstacle when over densely populated areas. But, under federal regulations, they must not pose a hazard to people or property on land when operating.

    Industry trade groups didn’t immediately comment.

    The aircraft operated by New York Helicopter had been giving a typical tour of the Manhattan skyline when it broke apart about 18 minutes into the flight.

    The crash killed the helicopter pilot and a prominent family from Barcelona. It also revived concerns about the safety of the popular and costly aerial tours over New York City.

    The National Transportation Safety Board released its preliminary report on the doomed flight in May, but is still investigating what caused the helicopter to break apart.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump fires Democratic member of Surface Transportation Board ahead of huge rail merger decision

    [ad_1]

    President Donald Trump has fired one of two Democratic members of the U.S. Surface Transportation Board to break a 2-2 tie before the body considers the largest railroad merger ever proposed.

    Board member Robert Primus said on LinkedIn that he received an email from the White House Wednesday night terminating the position he has held since he was appointed by Trump in his first term. The vacancy would allow Trump to appoint two additional Republicans to the board before its decision on the Union Pacific-Norfolk Southern merger though the Senate would have to confirm them.

    Primus was named Board Chairman last year by former President Joe Biden and he was the only board member to oppose Canadian Pacific’s acquisition of Kansas City Southern railroad two years ago when it was approved. Trump elevated Board member Patrick Fuchs to Chairman after he was elected.

    This follows Trump’s previous firings of board members at the National Transportation Safety Board, Federal Reserve, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which are all supposed to be independent agencies.

    “Robert Primus did not align with the President’s America First agenda, and was terminated from his position by the White House,” White House spokesman Kush Desai said. “The administration intends to nominate new, more qualified members to the Surface Transportation Board in short order.”

    Primus said the firing is “deeply troubling and legally invalid” so he plans to continue serving until he is blocked and then he will consider legal actions to fight it. Primus has already been removed from the STB website.

    “I have worked tirelessly to build bipartisan trust and have demonstrated myself to be truly an independent board member that has consistently rendered fair and impartial decisions,” Primus said. “My record during my four and a half years at the board reflects this and I strongly believe the actions of the White House would weaken the board and adversely affect the freight rail network in a way that may ultimately hurt consumers and the economy.”

    The nation’s largest railroad union that represents conductors, SMART-TD, quickly condemned the firing.

    “The explanation provided for this decision — that his position has been “eliminated” — is nothing short of outrageous. Appointed bodies established through federal code are not designed to be erased at the whim of powerful corporate interests,” the union said. “This action is unprecedented, unlawful in spirit, and reeks of direct interference from hedge funds and the nation’s largest rail carriers.”

    The board is set to consider Union Pacific’s $85 billion acquisition of Norfolk Southern in the next two years before deciding whether to approve the nation’s first transcontinental railroad and reduce the number of major freight railroads in the U.S. to five.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Nexstar Media Group buying Tegna in deal worth $6.2 billion

    [ad_1]

    Nexstar Media Group is buying broadcast rival Tegna for $6.2 billion, which will help strengthen its local news offerings.

    The transaction, if approved, will bring together two major players in U.S. television and the country’s local news landscape. Nexstar oversees more than 200 owned and partner stations in 116 markets nationwide today and also runs networks like The CW and NewsNation. Meanwhile, Tegna owns 64 news stations across 51 markets.

    “The initiatives being pursued by the Trump administration offer local broadcasters the opportunity to expand reach, level the playing field, and compete more effectively with the Big Tech and legacy Big Media companies that have unchecked reach and vast financial resources,” Nexstar Chairman and CEO Perry Sook said in a statement on Tuesday. “We believe Tegna represents the best option for Nexstar to act on this opportunity.”

    Nexstar said Tuesday that the deal will also help it give advertisers a bigger variety of local and national broadcast and digital advertising options.

    Nexstar will pay $22 in cash for each share of Tegna’s outstanding stock.

    The deal could potentially help kick off even further consolidation in America’s broadcast industry. Nexstar, founded in 1996, has itself grow substantially with acquisitions over the latest two decades, becoming the biggest operator of local TV stations in the U.S. after it purchased Tribune Media back in 2019.

    Nexstar’s purchase of Tegna also arrives amid wider regulatory shifts. Brendan Carr, the Trump-appointed chairman the Federal Communications Commission, which will need to give the transaction the green light, has long advocated for loosening industry restrictions. On Aug. 7, the FCC announced that it would be repealing 98 broadcast rules and requirements that it identified as “obsolete, outdated, or unnecessary.”

    Some of those rules date back nearly 50 years, the FCC said, and apply to “old technology that is no longer used.” Carr maintained that such provisions no longer serve public interest.

    In late July, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit also vacated the FCC’s “top four” rule, which has long prohibited ownership of more than one of the top four stations in a single market. The ruling is still subject to a monthslong assessment by the FCC, but could significantly clear the way for future mergers in the industry.

    In company earnings calls held in early August, before Tegna and Nexstar publicly confirmed merger talks, both Tegna CEO Michael Steib and Nexstar’s Sook pointed directly to this ruling, and applauded Carr’s deregulation agenda as a whole.

    “We believe that deregulation is necessary, important and coming,” Steib said in Tegna’s Aug. 7 call, noting that local broadcasters are “up against big tech competitors who have absolutely no encumbrances in how they compete.”

    Beyond their core broadcast TV businesses, both Nexstar and Tegna also boast digital news, mobile app and streaming offerings, all of which have played key roles for the industry as consumers change the way they consume news and other entertainment.

    Broadcast TV has been hit particularly hard by “cord-cutting,” with more and more households trading their cable or satellite subscriptions into content they can get via the internet.

    The deal is expected to close by the second half of 2026. It still needs approval from Tegna shareholders.

    Shares of Nexstar jumped 7.6% in premarket trading, and Tegna’s rose 4.3%.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Carbon removal industry calls on U.S. government for regulation in new industry report

    Carbon removal industry calls on U.S. government for regulation in new industry report

    [ad_1]

    The unregulated carbon dioxide removal industry is calling on the U.S. government to implement standards and regulations to boost transparency and confidence in the sector that’s been flooded with billions of dollars in federal funding and private investment.

    A report Wednesday by the Carbon Removal Alliance, a nonprofit representing the industry, outlined recommendations to improve monitoring, reporting, and verification. Currently the only regulations in the U.S. are related to safety of these projects. Some of the biggest industry players, including Heirloom and Climeworks, are alliance members.

    “I think it’s rare for an industry to call for regulation of itself and I think that is a signal of why this is so important,” said Giana Amador, executive director of the alliance. Amador said monitoring, reporting and verification are like “climate receipts” that confirm the amount of carbon removed as well as how long it can actually be stored underground.

    Without federal regulation, she said “it really hurts competition and it forces these companies into sort of a marketing arms race instead of being able to focus their efforts on making sure that there really is a demonstrable climate impact.”

    The nonprofit defines carbon removal as any solution that captures carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and stores it permanently. One of the most popular technologies is direct air capture, which filters air, extracts carbon dioxide and puts it underground.

    The Inflation Reduction Act and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law have provided around $12 billion for carbon management projects in the U.S. Some of this funding supports the development of four Regional Direct Air Capture Hubs at commercial scale that will capture at least 1 million tons of carbon dioxide annually. Two hubs are slated to be built in Texas and Louisiana.

    Some climate scientists say direct air capture is too expensive, far from being scaled and can be used as an excuse by the oil and gas industry to keep polluting.

    Gernot Wagner, a climate economist at Columbia Business School at Columbia University, said this is the “moral hazard” of direct air capture — removing carbon from the atmosphere could be utilized by the oil and gas industry to continue polluting.

    “It does not mean that the underlying technology is not a good thing,” said Wagner. Direct air capture “decreases emissions, but in the long run also extends the life of any one particular coal plant or gas plant.”

    In 2023, Occidental Petroleum Corporation purchased the direct air capture company, Carbon Engineering Ltd, for $1.1 billion. In a news release, Occidental CEO Vicki Hollub said, “Together, Occidental and Carbon Engineering can accelerate plans to globally deploy (the) technology at a climate-relevant scale and make (it) the preferred solution for businesses seeking to remove their hard-to-abate emissions.”

    Jonathan Foley, executive director of Project Drawdown, doesn’t consider carbon dioxide removal technologies to be a true climate solution.

    “I do welcome at least some interventions from the federal government to monitor and verify and evaluate the performance of these proposed carbon removal schemes, because it’s kind of the Wild West out there,” said Foley.

    “But considering it can cost ten to 100 times more to try to remove a ton of carbon rather than prevent it, how is that even remotely conscionable to spend public dollars on this kind of stuff?” he said.

    Katharine Hayhoe, chief scientist of The Nature Conservancy and a distinguished professor at Texas Tech University, said standards for the direct carbon capture industry “are very badly needed” because of the level of government subsidies and private investment. She said there’s no single fix for the climate crisis, and many strategies are needed.

    Hayhoe said these include improving the efficiency of energy systems, transitioning to clean energy, weaning the world off fossil fuels and maintaining healthy ecosystems to trap carbon dioxide. On the other hand, she said, carbon removal technologies are “very high hanging fruit.”

    “It takes a lot of money and a lot of energy to get to the top of the tree. That’s the carbon capture solution,” said Hayhoe. “Of course we need every fruit on the tree. But doesn’t it make sense to pick up the fruit on the ground to prioritize that?”

    Other climate scientists are entirely opposed to this technology.

    “It should be banned,” said Mark Z. Jacobson, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University.

    Carbon removal technologies indirectly increase the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, Jacobson said. The reason, he said, is that even in cases where direct air capture facilities are powered by renewable energy, the clean energy is being used for carbon removal instead of replacing a fossil fuel source.

    “When you just look at the capture equipment, you get a (carbon) reduction,” Jacobson said. “But when you look at the bigger system, you’re increasing.”

    ___

    The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Supreme Court allows a rule limiting pollution from coal-fired power plants to remain in effect

    Supreme Court allows a rule limiting pollution from coal-fired power plants to remain in effect

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday allowed a Biden administration regulation aimed at limiting planet-warming pollution from coal-fired power plants to remain in place as legal challenges play out.

    The court denied a push from Republican-led states and industry groups to block the Environmental Protection Agency rule. One justice, Clarence Thomas, publicly dissented.

    Two other conservative justices, Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch, said they thought challengers would likely win on at least some of their claims eventually, but the court didn’t need to block the rule now because compliance work wouldn’t have to begin until at least June 2025. The case could end up back before the high court relatively quickly.

    Justice Samuel Alito did not take part.

    The rule requires many coal-fired power plants to capture 90% of their carbon emissions or shut down within eight years, though deadlines do not take effect for several years.

    The power industry is the nation’s second-largest contributor to climate change, and the rule is a key part of President Joe Biden’s pledge to eliminate carbon pollution from the electricity sector by 2035 and economy-wide by 2050.

    The high court earlier this month also left two other regulations in place for now, but other environmental regulations have not fared well before it in recent years. In 2022, the justices limited the EPA’s authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants with a landmark decision. In June, the court halted the agency’s air-pollution-fighting “good neighbor” rule.

    Another ruling in June, overturning a decades-old decision known colloquially as Chevron, is also expected to make environmental regulations more difficult to set and keep, along with other federal agency actions. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce cited that ruling in court papers supporting the challenge in the coal plant case.

    An appeals court had allowed the EPA’s new power plant rule to go into effect.

    A panel of three judges — two nominated by Democratic President Barack Obama and one by Republican President Donald Trump — found that the states were not at risk of immediate harm because compliance deadlines do not take effect until 2030 or 2032.

    Environmental groups have said the standards are reasonable, cost-effective and achievable, and well within the EPA’s legal responsibility to control harmful pollution, including from greenhouse gas emissions.

    The National Mining Association argued that the rules threaten the reliability of the nation’s power grid by forcing the premature closure of power plants as demand for electricity surges.

    The EPA projects the rule would yield up to $370 billion in climate and health net benefits and avoid nearly 1.4 billion metric tons of carbon pollution through 2047, equivalent to preventing annual emissions of 328 million gasoline-powered cars.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Elon Musk makes first appearance at Trump rally casting election in dire terms

    Elon Musk makes first appearance at Trump rally casting election in dire terms

    [ad_1]

    Billionaire tech executive Elon Musk cast the upcoming presidential election in dire terms during a Saturday appearance with Donald Trump, calling the Republican presidential nominee the only candidate “to preserve democracy in America.”

    The CEO of SpaceX and Tesla who also purchased X, Musk joined Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania, where the former president survived an assassination attempt in July. He warned “this will be the last election” if Trump doesn’t win and, clad in a black-on-black cap bearing the “Make America Great Again” slogan of Trump’s campaign, appeared to acknowledge the foreboding nature of his remarks.

    “As you can see I am not just MAGA — I am Dark MAGA,” he said.

    The appearance marked the first time Musk joined one of Trump’s trademark rallies and represented the growing alliance between the two men in the final stretch of a competitive presidential election. Musk created a super PAC supporting the Republican nominee that has been spending heavily on get-out-the-vote efforts in the final months of the campaign. Trump has said he would tap Musk to lead a government efficiency commission if he regains the White House.

    Trump joined Musk in August for a rare public conversation on X, an overwhelmingly friendly chat that spanned more than two hours. In it, the former president largely focused on the July assassination attempt, illegal immigration and his plans to cut government regulations.

    Before a massive crowd on Saturday, Musk sought to portray Trump as a champion of free speech, arguing that Democrats want “to take away your freedom of speech, they want to take away your right to bear arms, they want to take away your fight to vote, effectively.” Musk went on to criticize a California effort to ban voter ID requirements.

    Saturday’s rally took place at the same property where a gunman’s bullets grazed Trump’s right ear and killed his supporter, Corey Comperatore. The shooting left multiple others injured.

    Several members of Comperatore’s family, as well as other attendees and first responders from the July rally, returned to the site on Saturday. Also appearing with the former president were his running mate Republican Ohio Sen. JD Vance, son Eric Trump, daughter-in-law and RNC co-chair Lara Trump, along with Pennsylvania lawmakers and sheriffs.

    ___

    Kinnard reported from Chapin, South Carolina, and can be reached at http://x.com/MegKinnardAP.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Fortified bouillon cubes are seen as a way to curb malnutrition in Africa

    Fortified bouillon cubes are seen as a way to curb malnutrition in Africa

    [ad_1]

    IBADAN, Nigeria (AP) — In her cramped, dimly lit kitchen, Idowu Bello leans over a gas cooker while stirring a pot of eba, the thick starchy West African staple made from cassava root. Kidney problems and chronic exhaustion forced the 56-year-old Nigerian woman to retire from teaching, and she switches between cooking with gas or over a wood fire depending on the fuel she can afford.

    Financial constraints also limit the food Bello has on hand even though doctors have recommended a nutrient-rich diet both to improve her weakening health and to help her teenage daughter, Fatima, grow. Along with eba, on the menu today is melon soup with ponmo, an inexpensive condiment made from dried cowhide.

    “Fish, meat, eggs, fruits, vegetables and even milk are costly these days,” Bello, 56, said, her lean face etched with worry.

    If public health advocates and the Nigerian government have their way, malnourished households in the West African nation soon will have a simple ingredient available to improve their intake of key vitamins and minerals. Government regulators on Tuesday are launching a code of standards for adding iron, zinc, folic acid and vitamin B12 to bouillon cubes at minimum levels recommended by experts.

    While the standards will be voluntary for manufacturers for now, their adoption could help accelerate progress against diets deficient in essential micronutrients, or what is known in nutrition and public health circles as “hidden hunger.” Fortified bouillon cubes could avert up to 16.6 million cases of anemia and up to 11,000 deaths from neural tube defects in Nigeria, according to a new report from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

    “Regardless of economic situation or income level, everyone uses seasoning cubes,” Bello said as she unwrapped and dropped one in her melon soup.

    A growing and multipronged problem

    Making do with smaller portions and less nutritious foods is common among many Nigerian households, according to a recent government survey on dietary intake and micronutrients. The survey estimated that 79% of Nigerian households are food insecure.

    The climate crisis, which has seen extreme heat and unpredictable rainfall patterns hobble agriculture in Africa’s troubled Sahel region, will worsen the problem, with several million children expected to experience growth problems due to malnutrition between now and 2050, according to the Gates Foundation report released Tuesday.

    “Farmlands are destroyed, you have a shortage of food, the system is strained, leading to inflation making it difficult for the people to access foods, including animal-based proteins,” Augustine Okoruwa, a regional program manager at Helen Keller Intl, said, highlighting the link between malnutrition and climate change.

    Dietary deficiencies of the micronutrients the government wants added to bouillon cubes already have caused a public health crisis in Nigeria, including a high prevalence of anemia in women of child-bearing age, neural tube defects in newborn babies and stunted growth among children, according to Okoruwa.

    Helen Keller Intl, a New York-based nonprofit that works to address the causes of blindness and malnutrition, has partnered with the Gates Foundation and businesses and government agencies in Africa to promote food fortification.

    In Nigeria, recent economic policies such as the cancellation of gasoline subsidies are driving the country’s worst cost-of-living crisis in generations, further deepening food hardship for the low-income earners who form the majority of the country’s working population.

    Globally, nearly 3 billion people are unable to access healthy diets, 71% of them in developing countries, according to the World Health Organization.

    The large-scale production of fortified foods would unlock a new way to “increase micronutrients in the food staples of low-income countries to create resilience for vulnerable families,” the Gates Foundation said.

    Bouillon cubes as the vehicle

    Bouillon cubes — those small blocks of evaporated meat or vegetable extracts and seasonings that typically are used to flavor soups and stews — are widely consumed in many African countries, nearing 100% household penetration in countries like Nigeria, Senegal, Ivory Coast, and Cameroon, according to a study by Helen Keller Intl.

    That makes the cubes the “most cost-effective way” to add minerals and vitamins to the diets of millions of people, Okoruwa said.

    No Nigerian manufacturers already include the four micronutrients at the recommended levels, but there is industry interest.

    Sweet Nutrition, located in Ota, near Lagos in Nigeria’s southwest, started adding iron to some of its products in 2017. Marketing manager Roop Kumar told The Associated Press it was a “voluntary exercise” to contribute to public health.

    “But we are taking trials and looking at further fortification” with the launch of the new regulatory framework, Kumar said.

    Although NASCON Allied Industries, a Nigerian company that produces table salt and seasoning cubes, currently does not make products with any of the four micronutrients, quality control manager Josephine Afolayan said fortification is a priority.

    “If we’re successful, that would mean that the fortified bouillon seasoning cubes in so many Nigerian dishes would also contribute to improving the micronutrient content of the dishes in my country,” Ladidi Bako-Aiyegbusi, the director of nutrition at Nigeria’s Ministry of Health and Social Welfare, wrote in the Gates Foundation report.

    ___

    The Associated Press receives financial support for news coverage in Africa from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and for news coverage of women in the workforce and in statehouses from Melinda French Gates’ organization, Pivotal Ventures.

    ___

    Compliance and science

    Despite the promise of enriching a product that most people have in their pantries, some challenges need to be addressed. One is the “campaign of calumny” in a region where science-led interventions in the food sector have sometimes faced resistance from interest groups, Okoruwa said.

    Educating people about the benefits of fortified products may help counter any possible disinformation campaign, said Yunusa Mohammed, the head of the food group at the Standards Organization of Nigeria, the government regulator for consumer products.

    There is also the need to make fortified cubes affordable for struggling households like Bello’s, where a pile of firewood she uses to cook outdoors on an open flame is stacked against a wall.

    “What we can do is to influence the government and industry on rebates on the importation of raw materials as a public health intervention,” Mohammed said.

    Food fortification is not new in Nigeria. Most of the salt consumed in the country is iodized, and products such as wheat flour, cooking oil and sugar are fortified with vitamin A by law. But the requirement for adding the four vitamins and minerals to bouillon is the most comprehensive fortification regulation to date.

    Although Nigerian companies do not have to enrich their seasoning cubes yet, experts think setting standards that producers must follow if they choose to will make a difference.

    A working group involving representatives from companies, regulatory agencies, research groups and development organizations is in place to accelerate voluntary compliance.

    “Ultimately, we will make the bouillon fortification mandatory after seeing the acceptance of the voluntary regulations in the industry,” Mohammed said.

    ___

    The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Google wins legal bid to overturn 1.5 billion euro antitrust fine in digital ad case

    Google wins legal bid to overturn 1.5 billion euro antitrust fine in digital ad case

    [ad_1]

    LONDON — Google won a court challenge on Wednesday against a 1.49 billion euro European Union antitrust fine imposed five years ago that targeted its online advertising business.

    The EU’s General Court said it was throwing out the 2019 penalty imposed by the European Commission, which is the 27-nation bloc’s top antitrust enforcer.

    “The General Court annuls the Commission’s decision in its entirety,” the court said in a press release.

    The commission’s ruling applied to a narrow portion of Google’s ad business: ads that the U.S. tech giant sold next to Google search results on third-party websites.

    Regulators had accused Google of inserting exclusivity clauses in its contracts that barred these websites from running similarly placed ads sold by Google’s rivals. The commission said when it issued the penalty that Google’s behavior resulted in advertisers and website owners having less choice and likely facing higher prices that would be passed on to consumers.

    But the General Court said the commission “committed errors” when it assessed those clauses. The commission failed to demonstrate that Google’s contracts deterred innovation, harmed consumers or helped the company hold on to and strengthen its dominant position in national online search advertising markets, it court said.

    The ruling can be appealed, but only on points of law, to the Court of Justice, the bloc’s top court.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Federal judge temporarily blocks Biden administration rule to limit flaring of gas at oil wells

    Federal judge temporarily blocks Biden administration rule to limit flaring of gas at oil wells

    [ad_1]

    BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) — A federal judge in North Dakota has temporarily blocked a new Biden administration rule aimed at reducing the venting and flaring of natural gas at oil wells.

    “At this preliminary stage, the plaintiffs have shown they are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim the 2024 Rule is arbitrary and capricious,” U.S. District Judge Daniel Traynor ruled Friday, the Bismarck Tribune reported.

    North Dakota, along with Montana, Texas, Wyoming and Utah, challenged the rule in federal court earlier this year, arguing that it would hinder oil and gas production and that the Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management is overstepping its regulatory authority on non-federal minerals and air pollution.

    The bureau says the rule is intended to reduce the waste of gas and that royalty owners would see over $50 million in additional payments if it was enforced.

    But Traynor wrote that the rules “add nothing more than a layer of federal regulation on top of existing federal regulation.”

    When pumping for oil, natural gas often comes up as a byproduct. Gas isn’t as profitable as oil, so it is vented or flared unless the right equipment is in place to capture.

    Methane, the main component of natural gas, is a climate “super pollutant” that is many times more potent in the short term than carbon dioxide.

    Well operators have reduced flaring rates in North Dakota significantly over the past few years, but they still hover around 5%, the Tribune reported. Reductions require infrastructure to capture, transport and use that gas.

    North Dakota politicians praised the ruling.

    “The Biden-Harris administration continuously attempts to overregulate and ultimately debilitate North Dakota’s energy production capabilities,” state Attorney General Drew Wrigley said in a statement.

    The Bureau of Land Management declined comment.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Federal judge temporarily blocks Biden administration rule to limit flaring of gas at oil wells

    Federal judge temporarily blocks Biden administration rule to limit flaring of gas at oil wells

    [ad_1]

    BISMARCK, N.D. — A federal judge in North Dakota has temporarily blocked a new Biden administration rule aimed at reducing the venting and flaring of natural gas at oil wells.

    “At this preliminary stage, the plaintiffs have shown they are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim the 2024 Rule is arbitrary and capricious,” U.S. District Judge Daniel Traynor ruled Friday, the Bismarck Tribune reported.

    North Dakota, along with Montana, Texas, Wyoming and Utah, challenged the rule in federal court earlier this year, arguing that it would hinder oil and gas production and that the Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management is overstepping its regulatory authority on non-federal minerals and air pollution.

    The bureau says the rule is intended to reduce the waste of gas and that royalty owners would see over $50 million in additional payments if it was enforced.

    But Traynor wrote that the rules “add nothing more than a layer of federal regulation on top of existing federal regulation.”

    When pumping for oil, natural gas often comes up as a byproduct. Gas isn’t as profitable as oil, so it is vented or flared unless the right equipment is in place to capture.

    Methane, the main component of natural gas, is a climate “super pollutant” that is many times more potent in the short term than carbon dioxide.

    Well operators have reduced flaring rates in North Dakota significantly over the past few years, but they still hover around 5%, the Tribune reported. Reductions require infrastructure to capture, transport and use that gas.

    North Dakota politicians praised the ruling.

    “The Biden-Harris administration continuously attempts to overregulate and ultimately debilitate North Dakota’s energy production capabilities,” state Attorney General Drew Wrigley said in a statement.

    The Bureau of Land Management declined comment.

    [ad_2]

    Source link