ReportWire

Tag: national security

  • What to know about the Supreme Court arguments over Trump’s tariffs

    [ad_1]

    Three lower courts have ruled President Donald Trump’s use of emergency powers to impose worldwide tariffs to be illegal. Now the Supreme Court, with three justices Trump appointed and generally favorable to muscular presidential power, will have the final word.In roughly two dozen emergency appeals, the justices have largely gone along with Trump in temporarily allowing parts of his aggressive second-term agenda to take effect while lawsuits play out.But the case being argued Wednesday is the first in which the court will render a final decision on a Trump policy. The stakes are enormous, both politically and financially.The Republican president has made tariffs a central piece of his economic and foreign policy and has said it would be a “disaster” if the Supreme Court rules against him.Here are some things to know about the tariffs arguments at the Supreme Court:Tariffs are taxes on importsThey are paid by companies that import finished products or parts, and the added cost can be passed on to consumers.Through September, the government has reported collecting $195 billion in revenue generated from the tariffs.The Constitution gives Congress the power to impose tariffs, but Trump has claimed extraordinary power to act without congressional approval by declaring national emergencies under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act.In February, he invoked the law to impose tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China, saying that the illegal flow of immigrants and drugs across the U.S. border amounted to a national emergency and that the three countries needed to do more to stop it.In April, he imposed worldwide tariffs after declaring the United States’ longstanding trade deficits “a national emergency.”Libertarian-backed businesses and states challenged the tariffs in federal courtChallengers to Trump’s actions won rulings from a specialized trade court, a district judge in Washington and a business-focused appeals court, also in the nation’s capital.Those courts found that Trump could not justify tariffs under the emergency powers law, which doesn’t mention them. But they left the tariffs in place in the meantime.The appeals court relied on major questions, a legal doctrine devised by the Supreme Court that requires Congress to speak clearly on issues of “vast economic and political significance.”The major questions doctrine doomed several Biden policiesConservative majorities struck down three of then-President Joe Biden’s initiatives related to the coronavirus pandemic. The court ended the Democrat’s pause on evictions, blocked a vaccine mandate for large businesses and prevented student loan forgiveness that would have totaled $500 billion over 10 years.In comparison, the stakes in the tariff case are much higher. The taxes are estimated to generate $3 trillion over 10 years.The challengers in the tariffs case have cited writings by the three Trump appointees, Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, in calling on the court to apply similar limitations on a signal Trump policy.Barrett described a babysitter taking children on roller coasters and spending a night in a hotel based on a parent’s encouragement to “make sure the kids have fun.”“In the normal course, permission to spend money on fun authorizes a babysitter to take children to the local ice cream parlor or movie theater, not on a multiday excursion to an out-of-town amusement park,” Barrett wrote in the student loans case. “If a parent were willing to greenlight a trip that big, we would expect much more clarity than a general instruction to ‘make sure the kids have fun.’”Kavanaugh, though, has suggested the court should not apply the same limiting standard to foreign policy and national security issues.A dissenting appellate judge also wrote that Congress purposely gave presidents more latitude to act through the emergency powers law.Some of the businesses that sued also are raising a separate legal argument in an appeal to conservative justices, saying that Congress could not constitutionally delegate its taxing power to the president.The nondelegation principle has not been used in 90 years, since the Supreme Court struck down some New Deal legislation.But Gorsuch authored a dissent in June that would have found the Federal Communications Commission’s universal service fee an unconstitutional delegation. Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas joined the dissent.“What happens when Congress, weary of the hard business of legislating and facing strong incentives to pass the buck, cedes its lawmaking power, clearly and unmistakably, to an executive that craves it?” Gorsuch wrote.The justices could act more quickly than usual in issuing a decisionThe court only agreed to hear the case in September, scheduling arguments less than two months later. The quick turnaround, at least by Supreme Court standards, suggests that the court will try to act fast.High-profile cases can take half a year or more to resolve, often because the majority and dissenting opinions go through rounds of revision.But the court can act quickly when deadline pressure dictates. Most recently, the court ruled a week after hearing arguments in the TikTok case, unanimously upholding a law requiring the popular social media app to be banned unless it was sold by its Chinese parent company. Trump has intervened several times to keep the law from taking effect while negotiations continue with China.

    Three lower courts have ruled President Donald Trump’s use of emergency powers to impose worldwide tariffs to be illegal. Now the Supreme Court, with three justices Trump appointed and generally favorable to muscular presidential power, will have the final word.

    In roughly two dozen emergency appeals, the justices have largely gone along with Trump in temporarily allowing parts of his aggressive second-term agenda to take effect while lawsuits play out.

    But the case being argued Wednesday is the first in which the court will render a final decision on a Trump policy. The stakes are enormous, both politically and financially.

    The Republican president has made tariffs a central piece of his economic and foreign policy and has said it would be a “disaster” if the Supreme Court rules against him.

    Here are some things to know about the tariffs arguments at the Supreme Court:

    Tariffs are taxes on imports

    They are paid by companies that import finished products or parts, and the added cost can be passed on to consumers.

    Through September, the government has reported collecting $195 billion in revenue generated from the tariffs.

    The Constitution gives Congress the power to impose tariffs, but Trump has claimed extraordinary power to act without congressional approval by declaring national emergencies under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

    In February, he invoked the law to impose tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China, saying that the illegal flow of immigrants and drugs across the U.S. border amounted to a national emergency and that the three countries needed to do more to stop it.

    In April, he imposed worldwide tariffs after declaring the United States’ longstanding trade deficits “a national emergency.”

    Libertarian-backed businesses and states challenged the tariffs in federal court

    Challengers to Trump’s actions won rulings from a specialized trade court, a district judge in Washington and a business-focused appeals court, also in the nation’s capital.

    Those courts found that Trump could not justify tariffs under the emergency powers law, which doesn’t mention them. But they left the tariffs in place in the meantime.

    The appeals court relied on major questions, a legal doctrine devised by the Supreme Court that requires Congress to speak clearly on issues of “vast economic and political significance.”

    The major questions doctrine doomed several Biden policies

    Conservative majorities struck down three of then-President Joe Biden’s initiatives related to the coronavirus pandemic. The court ended the Democrat’s pause on evictions, blocked a vaccine mandate for large businesses and prevented student loan forgiveness that would have totaled $500 billion over 10 years.

    In comparison, the stakes in the tariff case are much higher. The taxes are estimated to generate $3 trillion over 10 years.

    The challengers in the tariffs case have cited writings by the three Trump appointees, Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, in calling on the court to apply similar limitations on a signal Trump policy.

    Barrett described a babysitter taking children on roller coasters and spending a night in a hotel based on a parent’s encouragement to “make sure the kids have fun.”

    “In the normal course, permission to spend money on fun authorizes a babysitter to take children to the local ice cream parlor or movie theater, not on a multiday excursion to an out-of-town amusement park,” Barrett wrote in the student loans case. “If a parent were willing to greenlight a trip that big, we would expect much more clarity than a general instruction to ‘make sure the kids have fun.’”

    Kavanaugh, though, has suggested the court should not apply the same limiting standard to foreign policy and national security issues.

    A dissenting appellate judge also wrote that Congress purposely gave presidents more latitude to act through the emergency powers law.

    Some of the businesses that sued also are raising a separate legal argument in an appeal to conservative justices, saying that Congress could not constitutionally delegate its taxing power to the president.

    The nondelegation principle has not been used in 90 years, since the Supreme Court struck down some New Deal legislation.

    But Gorsuch authored a dissent in June that would have found the Federal Communications Commission’s universal service fee an unconstitutional delegation. Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas joined the dissent.

    “What happens when Congress, weary of the hard business of legislating and facing strong incentives to pass the buck, cedes its lawmaking power, clearly and unmistakably, to an executive that craves it?” Gorsuch wrote.

    The justices could act more quickly than usual in issuing a decision

    The court only agreed to hear the case in September, scheduling arguments less than two months later. The quick turnaround, at least by Supreme Court standards, suggests that the court will try to act fast.

    High-profile cases can take half a year or more to resolve, often because the majority and dissenting opinions go through rounds of revision.

    But the court can act quickly when deadline pressure dictates. Most recently, the court ruled a week after hearing arguments in the TikTok case, unanimously upholding a law requiring the popular social media app to be banned unless it was sold by its Chinese parent company. Trump has intervened several times to keep the law from taking effect while negotiations continue with China.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Police/Fire

    [ad_1]

    In news taken from the logs of Cape Ann’s police and fire departments:

    Rockport


    This page requires Javascript.

    Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.

    kAmkDEC@?8m%F6D52J[ }@G] ck^DEC@?8mk^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8m`idb 2]>]ik^DEC@?8m p 3F:=5:?8 @? qC@25H2J H2D 4964<65 2?5 D64FC65]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8m|@?52J[ }@G] bk^DEC@?8mk^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8mdi`a A]>]ik^DEC@?8m p >65:42= 6>6C86?4J 2>3F=2?46 EC2?DA@CE H2D 4@?5F4E65 7C@> qC@25H2J]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8mciaa A]>]ik^DEC@?8m }2E:@?2= vC:5 H2D ?@E:7:65 @7 2 C6A@CE @7 5@H?65 H:C6D @? !=62D2?E $EC66E]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8m`_i_b 2]>]ik^DEC@?8m p A@=:46 H6==?6DD 4964< H2D 4@?5F4E65 @? |2:? $EC66E]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8mgibd 2]>]ik^DEC@?8m p7E6C 2 >65:42= 2=2C> H2D C6A@CE65 @? rFCE:D $EC66E[ >65:42= 2>3F=2?46 D6CG:46 H2D C67FD65]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8mu:C6 2=2C>Dk^DEC@?8m C6A@CE65 23@FE 2 A@DD:3=6 3CFD9 7:C6 2E {@?8 q6249 2E eiaf 2]>] 2?5 @? $@FE9 $EC66E 2E gi_e 2]>] H6C6 =2E6C 56E6C>:?65 E@ 36 72=D6]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8m“k^DEC@?8m%92E H2D 2 72=D6 2=2C>[” 7:C6 r9:67 |2C< (@?D@? D2:5 @7 E96 {@?8 q6249 2=2C>] “(6 D62C4965 E96 2C62 2?5 4@F=5?’E 7:?5 2?JE9:?8]”k^Am

    k9bm|2?496DE6C3JE96$62k^9bm

    kAmkDEC@?8m|@?52J[ }@G] bk^DEC@?8mk^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8m`_ibg A]>]ik^DEC@?8m p C6BF6DE C6=2E65 E@ 2 FE:=:EJ H2D >256 @? #2J>@?5 $EC66E]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8m`iab A]>]ik^DEC@?8m {@DE 2?5 7@F?5 AC@A6CEJ H2D C6A@CE65 @? r6?EC2= $EC66E]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8m`_ibg 2]>]ik^DEC@?8m p H6=72C6 4964< H2D 4@?5F4E65 @? }6HA@CE !2C< #@25]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8m`_i_d 2]>]ik^DEC@?8m p 4@>A=2:?E 23@FE ?@:D6 @? r6?EC2= $EC66E H2D =@5865]k^Am

    k9bmv=@F46DE6Ck^9bm

    kAmkDEC@?8muC:52J[ ~4E] ack^DEC@?8mk^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8mhi_g A]>]k^DEC@?8mi p A6CD@? C6A@CE65=J >@2?:?8 @FED:56 27E6C J6==:?8 @? $2C86?E $EC66E 4@F=5 ?@E 36 =@42E65]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8mgi_e A]>]k^DEC@?8mi p =:7E 2DD:DE @? u=F>6 #@25 H2D C676CC65 E@ E96 u:C6 s6A2CE>6?E]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8meia` A]>]k^DEC@?8mi $6CG:46D H6C6 C6?56C65 7@C 2 C6A@CE @7 >@E@CG69:4=6 E967E @? |2:? $EC66E]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8mdicc A]>]k^DEC@?8mi p 7:C6 2=2C> 24E:G2E:@? @? #@86CD $EC66E H2D C676CC65 E@ E96 u:C6 s6A2CE>6?E]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8mdibb A]>]k^DEC@?8mi p C6A@CE @7 E9C62ED @? |2A=6H@@5 pG6?F6 H2D F?7@F?565]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8mciaf A]>]k^DEC@?8mi }@ 24E:@? H2D C6BF:C65 7@C 2 C6A@CE @7 2 5:D23=65 G69:4=6 @? #@FE6 `ag ?@CE93@F?5]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8mbi`b A]>]k^DEC@?8mi p C6A@CE @7 2? :?42A24:E2E65 A6CD@? @? $49@@= w@FD6 2?5 v=@F46DE6C rC@DD:?8 C@25D H2D C676CC65 E@ 2?@E96C 286?4J]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8mbi`_ A]>]k^DEC@?8mi $6CG:46D H6C6 C6?56C65 7@C 2 C6A@CE @7 2 5:DEFC32?46 @? ‘6E6C2?D (2J]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8mbi_h A]>]k^DEC@?8mi p C6A@CE @7 2 5@H?65 H:C6 2E r2AE] y@6 2?5 $@?D u:D9 r@] 2E hd t2DE |2:? $E] H2D C676CC65 E@ 2?@E96C 286?4J] ‘6C:K@? H2D ?@E:7:65 @7 2 =@H92?8:?8 H:C6]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8maibg A]>]k^DEC@?8mi }@ 24E:@? H2D C6BF:C65 7@C 2 C6A@CE @7 2 DFDA:4:@FD G69:4=6 @? (2D9:?8E@? $EC66E]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8m“id_ 2]>]k^DEC@?8mi !6246 H2D C6DE@C65 27E6C 2 C6A@CE @7 5CF8 24E:G:EJ @? *@F?8D #@25] !@=:46 7@F?5 2 H@>2? 2C8F:?8 H:E9 2?@E96C A2CEJ 😕 2 %@J@E2 r2>CJ @G6C >@?6J]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8mhibg 2]>]k^DEC@?8mi !6246 H2D C6DE@C65 27E6C 2 C6A@CE @7 2 5:DEFC32?46 2E u@DE6C’D $96== @? t2DE6C? pG6?F6]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8mhi_a 2]>]k^DEC@?8mi $6CG:46 H2D >256 7@C 2 C6A@CE @7 563C:D 😕 E96 C@25H2J @? p] !:2EE p?5C6H qC:586]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8mfib` 2]>]k^DEC@?8mi $6CG:46D H6C6 C6?56C65 7@C 2 C6A@CE @7 2 A2C<:?8 4@>A=2:?E @? rC@DD $EC66E]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8mfiah 2]>]k^DEC@?8mi p c`J62C@=5 v=@F46DE6C C6D:56?E H2D 2CC6DE65 @? 2 492C86 @7 2DD2F=E 2?5 32EE6CJ @? 2? :?E:>2E6 A2CE?6C 27E6C 2 C6A@CE @7 2 5:DEFC32?46 @? xGJ r@FCE]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8meid` 2]>]k^DEC@?8mi $6CG:46D H6C6 C6?56C65 7@C 2 ;FG6?:=6 >2EE6C @? !6C<:?D $EC66E]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8meibg 2]>]k^DEC@?8mi !2C<:?8 6?7@C46>6?E H2D C6BF6DE65 2E u:CDE q2AE:DE r9FC49 @? v=@F46DE6C pG6?F6]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8m%9FCD52J[ ~4E] abk^DEC@?8mk^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8m`_iab A]>]k^DEC@?8mi p DFDA:4:@FD G69:4=6 C6A@CE65 (2D9:?8E@? $EC66E 4@F=5 ?@E 36 =@42E65]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8m`_i`b A]>]k^DEC@?8mi p 42==6C C6A@CE65 2 42C3@? >@?@I:56 2=2C> 24E:G2E:@? @? (966=6C $EC66E] %96 u:C6 s6A2CE>6?E H2D ?@E:7:65]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8mhidg A]>]k^DEC@?8mi !6246 H2D C6DE@C65 27E6C 2 C6A@CE @7 D@>6@?6 J6==:?8 @? w2C3@C {@@A 2E giac A]> 2?5 2 ?@:D6 4@>A=:2?E @? (2C?6C $EC66E 2E hidg A]>]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8mei_c A]>]k^DEC@?8mi }@ 24E:@? H2D C6BF:C65 7@C 2 C6A@CE @7 2 5:DEFC32?46 @? #2:=C@25 pG6?F6 2?5 $49@@= $EC66E]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8mdiae A]>]k^DEC@?8mi $6CG:46D H6C6 C6?56C65 7@C 2 C6A@CE @7 =@:E6C:?8 2E E96 u:EK w6?CJ {2?6 w@FD6 @? w2C3@C {@@A]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8mci_g A]>]k^DEC@?8mi $6CG:46D H6C6 C6?56C65 7@C 2 C6A@CE @7 EH@ A6@A=6 =@4<65 😕 2 DE@C6 @? |2:? $EC66E]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8m`icb A]>]k^DEC@?8mi $6CG:46D H6C6 C6?56C65 7@C 2 C6A@CE @7 563C:D 😕 E96 C@25H2J 367@C6 tI:E db @? #@FE6 `ag D@FE93@F?5]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8mrC2D96D H:E9 AC@A6CEJ 52>286 @?=Jk^DEC@?8mi ~?6 @? vC2?E r:C4=6 2E fid_ 2]>] H2D F?56C :?G6DE:82E:@?[ H9:=6 D6CG:46D H6C6 AC@G:565 7@C C6A@CED 2E t2DE |2:? $EC66E 2?5 !2C<6C r@FCE 2E ` A]>] 2?5 2E E96 C@E2CJ @? v=@F46DE6C rC@DD:?8 #@25 2E `i`c A]>]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8m`aica A]>]k^DEC@?8mi $6CG:46D H6C6 C6?56C65 7@C 2 C6A@CE @7 92C2DD>6?E E2<6? 2E E96 !@=:46 s6A2CE>6?E @? |2:? $EC66E]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8m`_i_d 2]>]k^DEC@?8mi %96 u:C6 s6A2CE>6?E H2D 2DD:DE65 H:E9 2 42== 7C@> E96 v=@F46DE6C u2>:=J w62=E9 r6?E6C @? (2D9:?8E@? $EC66E]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8mgid_ 2]>]k^DEC@?8mi p >2? H2D 2CC6DE65 @? 2? 24E:G6 H2CC2?E 😕 E96 !@A=2C !2C< 2C62 27E6C 2? @77:46C @? A2EC@=[ 2H2C6 @7 E96 H2CC2?E[ D2H 9:> C:5:?8 2 3:4J4=6 E96C6] !@=:46 AFE E96 >2?’D 3:4J4=6 2E 9:D >@E96C’D 2A2CE>6?E] w6 H2D 2CC6DE65 H:E9@FE :?4:56?E 2?5 6G6?EF2==J EC2?D76CC65 E@ 4@FCE 4FDE@5J]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8m`i`f 2]>]k^DEC@?8mi p A6CD@? 😕 4FDE@5J H2D E2<6? E@ p55:D@? v:=36CE w@DA:E2= @? (2D9:?8E@? $EC66E]k^Am

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Supreme Court’s conservatives face a test of their own in judging Trump’s tariffs

    [ad_1]

    The Supreme Court’s conservatives face a test of their own making this week as they decide whether President Trump had the legal authority to impose tariffs on imports from nations across the globe.

    At issue are import taxes that are paid by American businesses and consumers.

    Small-business owners had sued, including a maker of “learning toys” in Illinois and a New York importer of wines and spirits. They said Trump’s ever-changing tariffs had severely disrupted their businesses, and they won rulings declaring the president had exceeded his authority.

    On Wednesday, the justices will hear their first major challenge to Trump’s claims of unilateral executive power. And the outcome is likely to turn on three doctrines that have been championed by the court’s conservatives.

    First, they say the Constitution should be interpreted based on its original meaning. Its opening words say: “All legislative powers … shall be vested” in Congress, and the elected representatives “shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposes and excises.”

    Second, they believe the laws passed by Congress should be interpreted based on their words. They call this “textualism,” which rejects a more liberal and open-ended approach that included the general purpose of the law.

    Trump and his lawyers say his sweeping “Liberation Day” tariffs were authorized by the International Economic Emergency Powers Act, or IEEPA.

    That 1977 law says the president may declare a national emergency to “deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat” involving national security, foreign policy or the economy of the United States. Faced with such an emergency, he may “investigate, block … or regulate” the “importation or exportation” of any property.

    Trump said the nation’s “persistent” balance of payments deficit over five decades was such an “unusual and extraordinary threat.”

    In the past, the law has been used to impose sanctions or freeze the assets of Iran, Syria and North Korea or groups of terrorists. It does not use the words “tariffs” or “duties,” and it had not been used for tariffs prior to this year.

    The third doctrine arose with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and is called the “major questions” doctrine.

    He and the five other conservatives said they were skeptical of far-reaching and costly regulations issued by the Obama and Biden administrations involving matters such as climate change, student loan forgiveness or mandatory COVID-19 vaccinations for 84 million Americans.

    Congress makes the laws, not federal regulators, they said in West Virginia vs. Environmental Protection Agency in 2022.

    And unless there is a “clear congressional authorization,” Roberts said the court will not uphold assertions of “extravagant statutory power over the national economy.”

    Now all three doctrines are before the justices, since the lower courts relied on them in ruling against Trump.

    No one disputes that the president could impose sweeping worldwide tariffs if he had sought and won approval from the Republican-controlled Congress. However, he insisted the power was his alone.

    In a social media post, Trump called the case on tariffs “one of the most important in the History of the Country. If a President is not allowed to use Tariffs, we will be at a major disadvantage against all other Countries throughout the World, especially the ‘Majors.’ In a true sense, we would be defenseless! Tariffs have brought us Great Wealth and National Security in the nine months that I have had the Honor to serve as President.”

    Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer, his top courtroom attorney, argues that tariffs involve foreign affairs and national security. And if so, the court should defer to the president.

    “IEEPA authorizes the imposition of regulatory tariffs on foreign imports to deal with foreign threats — which crucially differ from domestic taxation,” he wrote last month.

    For the same reason, “the major questions doctrine … does not apply here,” he said. It is limited to domestic matters, not foreign affairs, he argued.

    Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh has sounded the same note in the past.

    Sauer will also seek to persuade the court that the word “regulate” imports includes imposing tariffs.

    The challengers are supported by prominent conservatives, including Stanford law professor Michael McConnell.

    In 2001, he and John Roberts were nominated for a federal appeals court at the same time by President George W. Bush, and he later served with now-Justice Neil M. Gorsuch on the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver.

    He is the lead counsel for one group of small-business owners.

    “This case is what the American Revolution was all about. A tax wasn’t legitimate unless it was imposed by the people’s representatives,” McConnell said. “The president has no power to impose taxes on American citizens without Congress.”

    His brief argues that Trump is claiming a power unlike any in American history.

    “Until the 1900s, Congress exercised its tariff power directly, and every delegation since has been explicit and strictly limited,” he wrote in Trump vs. V.O.S. Selections. “Here, the government contends that the President may impose tariffs on the American people whenever he wants, at any rate he wants, for any countries and products he wants, for as long as he wants — simply by declaring longstanding U.S. trade deficits a national ‘emergency’ and an ‘unusual and extraordinary threat,’ declarations the government tells us are unreviewable. The president can even change his mind tomorrow and back again the day after that.”

    He said the “major questions” doctrine fully applies here.

    Two years ago, he noted the court called Biden’s proposed student loan forgiveness “staggering by any measure” because it could cost more than $430 billion. By comparison, he said, the Tax Foundation estimated that Trump’s tariffs will impose $1.7 trillion in new taxes on Americans by 2035.

    The case figures to be a major test of whether the Roberts court will put any legal limits on Trump’s powers as president.

    But the outcome will not be the final word on tariffs. Administration officials have said that if they lose, they will seek to impose them under other federal laws that involve national security.

    Still pending before the court is an emergency appeal testing the president’s power to send National Guard troops to American cities over the objection of the governor and local officials.

    Last week, the court asked for further briefs on the Militia Act of 1908, which says the president may call up the National Guard if he cannot “with the regular forces … execute the laws of the United States.”

    The government had assumed the regular forces were the police and federal agents, but a law professor said the regular forces in the original law referred to the military.

    The justices asked for a clarification from both sides by Nov. 17.

    [ad_2]

    David G. Savage

    Source link

  • China Blames Netherlands for Chip Supply Tensions Amid Nexperia Standoff

    [ad_1]

    HONG KONG (AP) — China’s Commerce Ministry said Tuesday that the Netherlands has caused “chaos” in the semiconductor supply chain that could threaten global auto production, even after Beijing allowed Nexperia’s Chinese unit to resume exports of its computer chips.

    China had blocked shipments of chips from Nexperia’s plant in the southern Chinese city of Dongguan in response to the Dutch government’s seizure of Nexperia in late September.

    The Netherlands cited national security concerns in taking control of the company, which is owned by the Chinese company Wingtech Technology. It also replaced Nexperia’s Chinese CEO Zhang Xuezheng with interim CEO Stefan Tilger.

    Nexperia’s Chinese unit said in late October that its Netherlands headquarters had suspended supplies of wafers used to make chips to its factory in China, raising concerns over its ability to deliver finished semiconductors used by many automakers.

    “That has created turmoil and chaos in the global semiconductor supply chain,” the Commerce Ministry said in a statement Tuesday. “The Netherlands should bear full responsibility for this.”

    The ministry accused the Netherlands of failing to help resolve the problem, saying it was “further escalating the semiconductor supply chain crisis.”

    In late 2024, the U.S. put Wingtech Technology, on its “entity list” that it deemed to be acting against the U.S.’s national security interests, subjecting it to export controls.

    In late September, the U.S. expanded the list to include Wingtech’s subsidiaries, including Nexperia, and the Netherlands then took control of the company.

    Global automakers including Ford Motor have warned that China’s export restrictions on Nexperia’s semiconductors could disrupt car manufacturing.

    Following U.S. President Donald Trump’s meeting with Chinese leader Xi Jinping in South Korea last week, the White House said China was moving to ease the export ban on Nexperia semiconductors as part of the latest trade truce between Washington and Beijing.

    The EU’s trade commissioner Maroš Šefčovič said in a post Monday on X that the Dutch government and China were closely coordinating and in “constructive engagement” regarding Nexperia.

    The Netherlands said last month it was willing to find a “constructive solution” with Chinese authorities to the Nexperia standoff after its economic affairs minister, Vincent Karremans, spoke by telephone with China’s commerce minister, Wang Wentao.

    Nexperia was acquired in 2018 by partially state-owned Wingtech for $3.6 billion.

    The Dutch ministry of economic affairs invoked its rarely used Goods Availability Act to effectively seize control of the company on Sept. 30. It said Nexperia’s governance “posed a threat to the continuity and safeguarding on Dutch and European soil of crucial technological knowledge and capabilities”.

    Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

    Photos You Should See – Oct. 2025

    [ad_2]

    Associated Press

    Source link

  • Trump’s Not Going to the Supreme Court Hearing on Tariffs. but His Treasury Secretary Will Be There

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump won’t be going in person to the Supreme Court hearing Wednesday that will determine the fate of the tariffs at the heart of his economic and foreign policy — but his treasury secretary says he will be there.

    “I’m actually going to go and sit the — hopefully in the front row and listen — have a ringside seat,” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said on Monday on Fox News Channel’s “Jesse Watters Primetime.”

    Trump had said he badly wanted to attend the arguments, but ruled out what would have been a highly unusual appearance, saying it would have been a distraction. “It’s not about me, it’s about our country,” he told reporters Sunday.

    On Monday, his top economic adviser said he would be there instead, signaling the importance of the case to the Trump administration. Asked whether his presence could be criticized as trying to intimidate the justices, Bessent told Fox: “They can say what they want. I am there to emphasize that this is an economic emergency.”

    Earlier this year, lower courts determined that the president did not have the power under IEEPA to set tariffs, but left them in place while the Supreme Court considered the issue.

    Bessent described the hearing as “a matter of national security.” But he has said there are contingencies in place. Last month, he told a group of reporters that in the event the court rules against the Trump administration, “there are lots of other authorities that we can operate under.”

    “Remember too,” he said, “we also have numerous trade deals in effect. So I don’t think that countries are going to back out of the trade deals,” he said.

    Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

    Photos You Should See – Oct. 2025

    [ad_2]

    Associated Press

    Source link

  • Police/Fire: Car fire on Washington Street extinguished

    [ad_1]

    Gloucester Police and Fire crews responded to a vehicle fire around 3:20 p.m. Thursday, Oct. 30, in the area of 91 Washington St.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Key figures at odds over collapse of China spy case

    [ad_1]

    Key figures involved in the failed criminal case against two men accused of spying for China have given conflicting accounts to a parliamentary committee about why the case collapsed.

    In September, prosecutors dropped charges against Christopher Cash and Christopher Berry, who had been charged under the Official Secrets Act. Both men deny wrongdoing.

    The director of public prosecutions, Stephen Parkinson, had said the case could not progress because the government’s deputy national security adviser, Matt Collins, was unwilling to classify China as an active threat to national security.

    However, Mr Collins told the committee he had been given legal advice that his evidence would be “enough”.

    He said he always knew the case would be “a challenge” but that he had been “trying to ensure that we could support a successful prosecution”.

    Mr Collins – who was set to be the government’s witness in the trial – added: “And so I was somewhat surprised when I was told on 3 September that the intention was to drop the case.”

    In contrast Tom Little KC – who would have been the lead prosecuting barrister in the case – said he would be “surprised” if Mr Collins had not realised the prosecution would collapse unless he offered further evidence.

    Earlier in the session, Mr Little had said Mr Collins had been clear he would not say that “China posed an active threat to national security at the material time”.

    “That was in answer to what I regard as the million dollar question in the case, and once he had said that the current prosecution for those charges was effectively unsustainable,” he added.

    He said the case was brought to “a crashing halt” when Mr Collins outlined the limits of what he would be wiling to say in court.

    Asked by the National Security Strategy Committee about the evidence he provided to prosecutors, Mr Collins said: “What I was able to say is that China poses a range of threats to our national security.

    “I was able to say that these include espionage threats, cyber threats, threats to our democratic institutions, threats to our economic security.

    “I would be able to say that these threats are very real and persistent, and the operational partners are dealing with them on a daily basis.”

    He added he believed the CPS was asking him to “use the generic term that China is a threat, or China is an active threat, which is not in line with government policy at the time”.

    Members of the committee pressed Mr Parkinson and Mr Little on why they felt Mr Collins had not provided enough evidence that China could be considered a threat.

    Labour peer Lord Paul Boateng noted that, in his evidence Mr Collins had said “China’s espionage operations threaten the UK’s economic prosperity and resilience, and the integrity of our democratic institutions”.

    He argued the phrase would be enough to indicate “we are dealing with an enemy”.

    Lord Mark Sedwill, a former national security adviser, suggested that if Mr Collins was only able to reflect the government view, the prosecution could have sought other witnesses who could have characterised China as a “threat to national security”.

    However, Mr Little said the limits of Mr Collins’ evidence would have derailed the case, regardless of what others said.

    Labour MP Dame Emily Thornberry asked why prosecutors could not have trusted a jury to conclude China could be deemed a threat.

    Mr Parkinson argued that, without the key evidence from Mr Collins, a judge would not have let the case go to trial.

    Mr Collins submitted his first witness statement in December 2023, after which prosecutors decided they had enough evidence to charge Mr Cash and Mr Berry under the Official Secrets Act 1911.

    However, Mr Parkinson said a ruling in a separate court case in 2024 changed the requirements of what evidence would be needed and so prosecutors asked Mr Collins to provide further witness statements, in the hope he would label China a “threat to national security”.

    In two further statements, Mr Collins detailed threats posed by China in cyberspace and to the UK’s democratic institutions but avoided labelling the country “a threat to national security”.

    The collapse of the case triggered a political row over who was to blame. The Conservatives have accused the Labour government of allowing the case to fail because it wanted to foster better relations with Beijing.

    However, the government said ministers had no role in providing evidence for the case and Mr Collins was giving evidence based on what Conservative government policy had been at the time.

    On Wednesday, the committee will hear evidence from Attorney General Lord Hermer and senior minister Darren Jones.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Hundreds of People With ‘Top Secret’ Clearance Exposed by House Democrats’ Website

    [ad_1]

    The sensitive personal details of more than 450 people holding “top secret” US government security clearances were left exposed online, new research seen by WIRED shows. The people’s details were included in a database of more than 7,000 individuals who have applied for jobs over the last two years with Democrats in the United States House of Representatives.

    While scanning for unsecured databases at the end of September, an ethical security researcher stumbled upon the exposed cache of data and discovered that it was part of a site called DomeWatch. The service is run by the House Democrats and includes videostreams of House floor sessions, calendars of congressional events, and updates on House votes. It also includes a job board and résumé bank.

    After the researcher attempted to notify the House of Representatives’ Office of the Chief Administrator on September 30, the database was secured within hours, and the researcher received a response that simply said, “Thanks for flagging.” It is unclear how long the data was exposed or if anyone else accessed the information while it was unsecured.

    The independent researcher, who asked to remain anonymous due to the sensitive nature of the findings, likened the exposed database to an internal “index” of people who may have applied for open roles. Résumés were not included, they say, but the database contained details typical of a job application process. The researcher found data including applicants’ short written biographies and fields indicating military service, security clearances, and languages spoken, along with details like names, phone numbers, and email addresses. Each individual was also assigned an internal ID.

    “Some people described in the data have spent 20 years on Capitol Hill,” the researcher tells WIRED, noting that the information went beyond a list of interns or junior staffers. This is what made the finding so concerning, the researcher says, because they fear that if the data had fallen into the wrong hands—perhaps those of a hostile state or malicious hackers—it could have been used to compromise government or military staffers who have access to potentially sensitive information. “From the perspective of a foreign adversary, that is a gold mine of who you want to target,” the security researcher says.

    WIRED reached out to the Office of the Chief Administrator and House Democrats for comment. Some staff members WIRED contacted were unavailable because they have been furloughed as a result of the ongoing US government shutdown.

    “Today, our office was informed that an outside vendor potentially exposed information stored in an internal site,” Joy Lee, spokesperson for House Democratic whip Katherine Clark, told WIRED in a statement on October 22. DomeWatch is under the purview of Clark’s office. “We immediately alerted the Office of the Chief Administration Officer, and a full investigation has been launched to identify and rectify any security vulnerabilities.” Lee added that the outside vendor is “an independent consultant who helps with the backend” of DomeWatch.

    [ad_2]

    Lily Hay Newman, Matt Burgess

    Source link

  • Russia Faces a Shrinking and Aging Population and Tries Restrictive Laws to Combat It

    [ad_1]

    In 1999, a year before he came to power, the number of babies born in Russia plunged to its lowest recorded level. In 2005, Putin said the demographic woes needed to be resolved by maintaining “social and economic stability.”

    In 2019, he said the problem still “haunted” the country.

    As recently as Thursday, he told a Kremlin demographic conference that increasing births was “crucial” for Russia.

    Putin has launched initiatives to encourage people to have more children — from free school meals for large families to awarding Soviet-style “hero-mother” medals to women with 10 or more children.

    “Many of our grandmothers and great-grandmothers had seven, eight, and even more children,” Putin said in 2023. “Let’s preserve and revive these wonderful traditions. Having many children and a large family must become the norm.”

    At first, births in Russia grew with its economic prosperity, from 1.21 million babies born in 1999 to 1.94 million in 2015.

    But those hard-won gains are crumbling against a backdrop of financial uncertainty, the war in Ukraine, an exodus of young men and opposition to immigration.

    Russia’s population has fallen from 147.6 million in 1990 — the year before the USSR collapsed — to 146.1 million this year, according to Russia’s Federal Statistics Service. Since the 2014 illegal annexation of Crimea, it has included the peninsula’s population of about 2 million, as well as births and deaths there, in its data.

    The population also is significantly older. In 1990, 21.1% was 55 or older, government data said. In 2024, that figure was 30%.

    Since the 2015 peak, the number of births has fallen annually, and deaths are now outpacing births. There were only 1.22 million live births last year — marginally above the 1999 low. Demographer Alexei Raksha reported the number of babies born in Russia in February 2025 was the lowest monthly figure in over two centuries.

    Officials believe such values are “a magic wand” for solving demographic problems, said Russian feminist scholar Sasha Talaver.

    In the government’s view, women might be financially independent, but they should be “willing and very excited to take up this additional work of reproduction in the name of patriotism and Russian strength,” she said.


    Harsh demographic history

    In Russia, as in much of the West, shrinking births are usually linked with economic turbulence. Young couples in cramped apartments, unable to buy their own homes or who fear for their jobs, usually have less confidence they can afford raising a child.

    But Russia is saddled with a harsh demographic history.

    About 27 million Soviet citizens died in World War II, diminishing the male population dramatically.

    As the country was beginning to recover, the Soviet Union collapsed, and births tumbled again.

    The number of Russian women in their 20s and early 30s is small, said Jenny Mathers of the University of Aberystwyth in Wales, leaving authorities “desperate to get as many babies as possible out of this much smaller number of women.”

    Although Russia has not said how many troops have been killed in Ukraine, Western estimates have put the dead in the hundreds of thousands. When the war began, many young Russians moved abroad — some for ideological reasons like escaping a crackdown on dissent or to avoid military service.

    “You’ve got a much-diminished pool of potential fathers in a diminished pool of potential mothers,” Mathers said. That is a particular problem for Putin, who has long linked population and national security, she said.

    Some family-friendly initiatives are popular, like cash certificates for parents that can go toward pensions, education or a subsidized mortgage.

    Others are controversial, such as one-time payments of about $1,200 for pregnant teenagers in some regions. Officials say these aim to support vulnerable mothers, but critics say they encourage such pregnancies.

    Still other programs seem mostly symbolic. Since 2022, Russia has created state holidays like Family, Love and Fidelity Day in July, and Pregnant Women’s Day -– celebrated on April 7 and Oct. 7.

    Last year, Russia’s fertility rate — the average number of children born per woman — was 1.4, state media reported. That’s well below the 2.1 replacement rate for the population, and slightly lower than the U.S. figure of 1.6 released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

    Some regions have laws making it illegal to “encourage abortions,” while national legislation in 2024 banned the promotion of “child-free propaganda.” The wording in such initiatives is often vague, leaving them open to interpretation, but the change was enough to prompt producers of a reality TV hit “16 and Pregnant” to change the show’s name to “Mommy at 16.”

    For many women, the measures make already sensitive conversations even more fraught. A 29-year-old woman who’s decided not to bear children told The Associated Press she sees a gynecologist at a private Moscow clinic, rather than a state one, to avoid intrusive questions.

    “Whether I plan to have children, whether I don’t plan to have children — I don’t get asked about that at all,” she said, speaking on condition of anonymity because she feared repercussions. It’s “a completely different story” at state-run clinics, she said.

    An increasing number of laws limit access to abortion. While the procedure remains legal and widely available, more private clinics no longer offer abortion services. New legislation has also curbed the sale of abortion-inducing pills, a move that also affects some emergency contraceptives.

    Women are encouraged to go to state clinics, where waits are longer and some sites refuse to do abortions on certain days. By the time patients have completed compulsory counseling and mandatory waiting periods of between 48 hours and a week, they risk surpassing the time frame for a legal abortion.

    Abortions have steadily decreased under these laws, although experts say the number of procedures already was falling. Still, there hasn’t been a corresponding increase in births, and activists believe restricting abortion will only harm the health of women and children.

    “The only thing you will get from this is illegal abortions. That means more deaths: more children’s deaths and more women’s deaths,” says Russian journalist and feminist activist Zalina Marshenkulova.

    She sees the new government limits as repression for repression’s sake. “They exist just to ban, to block any voice of freedom,” she told AP.

    Russia could increase its population by allowing more immigrants — something the Kremlin is unlikely to adopt.

    Russian officials have recently fomented anti-migrant sentiment, tracking their movements, clamping down on their employment and impeding their children’s rights to education. Central Asians who have traditionally traveled to Russia for work are looking elsewhere, hoping to avoid growing discrimination and economic uncertainty.

    While the war in Ukraine continues, Moscow can promise financial rewards for would-be parents but not the stability needed for gambling on the future.

    When people lack confidence about their prospects, it’s not a time for having children, Mathers said, adding: “An open-ended major war doesn’t really encourage people to think positively about the future.”

    The 29-year-old woman who chose not to have children agrees.

    “The happiest and healthiest child will only be born in a family with healthy, happy parents,” she said.

    Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

    Photos You Should See – Oct. 2025

    [ad_2]

    Associated Press

    Source link

  • DHS Wants a Fleet of AI-Powered Surveillance Trucks

    [ad_1]

    The US Department of Homeland Security is seeking to develop a new mobile surveillance platform that fuses artificial intelligence, radar, high-powered cameras, and wireless networking into a single system, according to federal contracting records reviewed by WIRED. The technology would mount on 4×4 vehicles capable of reaching remote areas and transforming into rolling, autonomous observation towers, extending the reach of border surveillance far beyond its current fixed sites.

    The proposed system surfaced Friday after US Customs and Border Protection quietly published a pre-solicitation notice for what it’s calling a Modular Mobile Surveillance System, or M2S2. The listing includes draft technical documents, data requirements, and design objectives.

    DHS did not respond to a request for comment.

    If M2S2 performs as described, border patrol agents could park their vehicles, raise a telescoping mast, and within minutes start detecting motion several miles away. The system would rely heavily on so-called computer vision, a kind of “artificial intelligence” that allows machines to interpret visual data frame by frame and detect shapes, heat signatures, and movement patterns. Such algorithms—previously developed for use in war drones—are trained on thousands if not millions of images to distinguish between people, animals, and vehicles.

    The development of M2S2 comes amid the Trump administration’s sweeping crackdown on undocumented immigrants across the US. As part of this push, which has sparked widespread protests and condemnation for the brutal tactics used by immigration authorities, Congress boosted DHS’s discretionary budget authority to roughly $65 billion. The GOP’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” allocates over $160 billion for immigration enforcement and border measures—most of it directed to DHS—with the funds scheduled to be distributed over multiple years. The administration has sought to increase DHS funding by roughly 65 percent, proposing the largest expansion in the agency’s history to fund new border enforcement, detention capacity, and immigration surveillance initiatives.

    According to documents reviewed by WIRED, locations of objects targeted by the system would be pinpointed on digital maps within 250 feet of their true location (with a stretch goal of around 50 feet) and transmit that data across an app called TAK—a government-built tactical mapping platform developed by the US Defense Department to help troops coordinate movements and avoid friendly fire.

    DHS envisions two modes of operation: one with an agent on site and another where the trucks sit mostly unattended. In the latter case, the vehicle’s onboard AI would conduct the surveillance and send remote operators alerts when it detects activity. Missions are to be logged start to finish, with video, maps, and sensor data retained for a minimum of 15 days, locked against deletion “under any circumstances.”

    [ad_2]

    Dell Cameron

    Source link

  • Police/Fire: Scooter-riding child struck by car, search on for driver

    [ad_1]

    ESSEX — The town’s police chief said a backpack cushioned its 11-year-old wearer when a car struck the electric scooter the child was riding. Now police are on the lookout for the driver.

    [ad_2]

    By Stephen Hagan | Staff Writer

    Source link

  • No, ICE (Probably) Didn’t Buy Guided Missile Warheads

    [ad_1]

    On September 19, US Immigration and Customs Enforcement made a $61,218 payment for “guided missile warheads and explosive components,” according to the Product and Service Code (PSC) included in the payment record on a federal contracting database.

    “This award provides multiple distraction devices to support law enforcement operations and ICE- Office of Firearms and Tactical Programs,” the record’s description section reads.

    The Substack Popular Information mentioned this payment in a Monday article, which focused on the fact that ICE spending in the “small arms, ordnance, and ordnance accessories manufacturing” product category increased by 700 percent between 2024 and 2025. (Spending increased by about 636 percent, per WIRED’s analysis of the same category and time periods Popular Information measured.) Word of the payment also circulated on Tuesday after a post on BlueSky by Democratic Wisconsin state senator Chris Larson went viral.

    It turns out, concern over ICE agents planning to use warheads is likely based on a mistake. Quantico Tactical, the company listed as the supplier of said warheads in the federal payment records, does not sell any explosive devices. (It sells a variety of firearms, switchblades, and weapon accessories.) David Hensley, founder and CEO of Quantico Tactical, told WIRED in an email that the PSC “appears to be an error.”

    “Quantico Tactical does not sell, and I suspect that CBP ICE does not purchase, ‘Guided Missile Warheads,’” Hensley said, referencing Customs and Border Protection. He added that the rest of the payment record appears to be correct.

    PSCs are assigned by a government agency’s contracting office, not the private contractor. Hensley declined to speculate on what the correct PSC for the payment may be. He also declined to clarify which “distraction devices” ICE purchased. However, ICE made two other payments to Quantico Tactical for “distraction devices” in September 2024 and August 2025.

    The descriptions for both payment records claim that they are for training programs run by ICE’s Office of Firearms and Tactical Programs (OFTP). Both payments records use the PSC for “chemical weapons and equipment,” which includes items like “flame throwers” and “smoke generators.”

    An ICE “Firearms and Use of Force” handbook from 2021 does not mention any approved use of flame throwers, but it does mention the use of “chemical munitions” such as smoke, pepper spray, and tear gas. (It notes that their use must be approved by the agency’s associate director and the OFTP.) Quantico Tactical does not list smoke bombs, pepper spray, or tear gas for sale on its website, though it does list accessories like smoke-resistant goggles and holders for mace, flash grenades, and smoke bombs. It’s unclear what ICE may have purchased.

    [ad_2]

    Caroline Haskins

    Source link

  • Police/Fire: 3 face fentanyl trafficking, other charges

    [ad_1]

    A Saturday morning traffic stop by a Gloucester Police sergeant resulted in the arrest of three people on charges of trafficking fentanyl, methamphetamine and cocaine, and the seizure of a hangun and more than 1,600 pills.

    Those arrested and the charges are:


    This page requires Javascript.

    Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.

    kAmw2=6J w2CE{23C:6[ b`[ @7 v=@F46DE6C[ 7:G6 4@F?ED @7 A@DD6DD:@? @7 2 r=2DD q DF3DE2?46[ EC277:4<:?8 😕 76?E2?J= @G6C `__ 8C2>D[ EC277:4<:?8 😕 >6E92>A96E2>:?6 @G6C a__ 8C2>D[ EC277:4<:?8 😕 4@42:?6 @G6C be 8C2>D[ 2?5 4@?DA:C24J E@ G:@=2E6 5CF8 =2HD]k^Am

    kAmt8=:D2C5 r6=2[ bf[ @7 !623@5J[ 5C:G:?8 F?56C E96 :?7=F6?46 @7 5CF8D[ E9C66 4@F?ED @7 A@DD6DD:@? @7 2 r=2DD q DF3DE2?46[ 42CCJ:?8 2 7:C62C> H:E9@FE 2 =:46?D6[ A@DD6DD:@? @7 2>>F?:E:@? H:E9@FE 2? 7:C62C>D :56?E:7:42E:@? 42C5[ 4@?DA:C24J E@ G:@=2E6 5CF8 =2HD[ EC277:4<:?8 😕 76?E2?J= @G6C be 8C2>D[ EC277:4<:?8 😕 >6E92>A96E2>:?6 @G6C a__ 8C2>D[ EC277:4<:?8 😕 4@42:?6 @G6C be 8C2>D[ 2?5 A@DD6DD:@? @7 2 r=2DD p DF3DE2?46]k^Am

    kAm!2F= u28F?56D[ b_[ @7 $2=6>[ ?:?6 4@F?ED A@DD6DD:@? @7 2 r=2DD q DF3DE2?46[ 42CCJ:?8 2 7:C62C> H:E9@FE 2 =:46?D6[ A@DD6DD:@? @7 2>>F?:E:@? H:E9@FE 2? 7:C62C>D :56?E:7:42E:@? 42C5[ EC277:4<:?8 😕 4@42:?6 @G6C be 8C2>D[ EC277:4<:?8 😕 >6E92>A96E2>:?6 @G6C a__ 8C2>D[ EC277:4<:?8 😕 76?E2?J= @G6C `__ 8C2>D 2?5 4@?DA:C24J E@ G:@=2E6 5CF8 =2HD]k^Am

    kAmp== E9C66 2C6 36:?8 96=5 H:E9@FE 32:= A6?5:?8 2CC2:8?>6?E |@?52J 😕 v=@F46DE6C s:DEC:4E r@FCE]k^Am

    kAmp44@C5:?8 E@ v=@F46DE6C !@=:46[ $8E] $62? r@??6CD[ A2EC@==:?8 E96 w2C@=5 pG6?F6 2C62[ D2H 2 5C:G6C 24E:?8 24E:?8 DFDA:4:@FD=J 2?5 DE@AA65 E96 G69:4=6 $2EFC52J 2C@F?5 f 2]>] sFC:?8 E92E DE@A E96 5C:G6C[ =2E6C :56?E:7:65 2D r6=2[ H2D 7@F?5 3J A@=:46 E@ 36 :>A2:C65 2?5 H2D E2<6? :?E@ 4FDE@5J]k^Am

    kAmsFC:?8 2 DF3D6BF6?E D62C49 @7 E96 G69:4=6 r6=2 H2D 5C:G:?8[ A@=:46 D2:5 E96J =@42E65 2 92?58F?[ `[eae AC6DD65 E23=6ED @7 >6E92>A96E2>:?6[ 2AAC@I:>2E6=J hf 8C2>D @7 4CJDE2= >6E92>A96E2>:?6[ 2AAC@I:>2E6=J `eg 8C2>D @7 76?E2?J=[ 2AAC@I:>2E6=J cc 8C2>D @7 4@42:?6[ 2 D42=6[ A:A6D[ 2?5 2AAC@I:>2E6=J Sc[___ 42D9]k^Am

    kAmr6=2’D A2DD6?86CD[ w2CE {23C:6 2?5 u28F?56D[ H6C6 E2<6? :?E@ 4FDE@5J 27E6C E96 D46?6 27E6C E96 G69:4=6 H2D D62C4965]k^Am

    kAm$8E] y@D6A9 q2=3@ 2?5 ~77:46CD y2C65 u@@E6[ !2EC:4< wF?E[ z2J=6? z@==6C 2?5 y2D@? “F:?? 2DD:DE65 2E E96 D46?6]k^Am

    kAm— %:>6D $E277k^Am

    kAmx? @E96C ?6HD E2<6? 7C@> E96 =@8D @7 r2A6 p??’D A@=:46 2?5 7:C6 56A2CE>6?EDik^Am

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Healey: Police cracking down on street ‘takeovers’

    [ad_1]

    BOSTON — Gov. Maura Healey is citing progress with the state’s efforts to crack down on street “takeovers” fueled on social media by drag racing enthusiasts.

    On Thursday, Healey announced that state and local enforcement officials have thwarted attempted car “meet ups” in the state over the past week through online investigations that resulted in arrests and hundreds of traffic citations.


    This page requires Javascript.

    Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.

    [ad_2]

    By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter

    Source link

  • ‘China spy fiasco’ and ‘Ban’ on Israeli fans a ‘national disgrace’

    [ad_1]

    'China spy fiasco' and 'Ban' on Israeli fans a 'national disgrace'

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • China and the US have long collaborated in ‘open research.’ Some say that must change

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — WASHINGTON (AP) — For many years, American and Chinese scholars worked shoulder to shoulder on cutting-edge technologies through open research, where findings are freely shared and accessible to all. But that openness, a long-standing practice celebrated for advancing knowledge, is raising alarms among some U.S. lawmakers.

    They are worried that China — now considered the most formidable challenger to American military dominance — is taking advantage of open research to catch up with the U.S. on military technology and even gain an edge. And they are calling for action.

    “For far too long, our adversaries have exploited American colleges and universities to advance their interests, while risking our national security and innovation,” said Sen. Tom Cotton, an Arkansas Republican and chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee. He has introduced legislation to put new restrictions on federally funded research collaboration with academics at several Chinese institutions that work with the Chinese military, as well as institutions in other countries deemed adversarial to U.S. interests.

    The House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party makes it a priority to protect American research, having accused Beijing of weaponizing open research by converting it into a “pipeline of foreign talent and military modernization.”

    The rising concerns on Capitol Hill threaten to unravel deep, two-generations-old academic ties between the countries even as the world’s two largest economies are moving away from each other through tariffs and trade barriers. The relationship has shifted from engagement to competition, if not outright enmity.

    “Foreign adversaries are increasingly exploiting the open and collaborative environment of U.S. academic institutions for their own gain,” said James Cangialosi, director of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center, which in August issued a bulletin urging universities to do more to protect research from foreign meddling.

    The House committee released three reports in September alone. They targeted, respectively, Pentagon-funded research involving military-linked Chinese scholars; joint U.S.-China institutes that train STEM talent for China; and visa policies that have brought military-linked Chinese students to Ph.D. programs at American universities. The reports recommend more legislation to protect U.S. research, tighter visa policies to vet Chinese students and scholars and an end to academic partnerships that could be exploited to boost China’s military powers.

    More than 500 U.S. universities and institutes have collaborated with Chinese military researchers in recent years, helping Beijing develop advanced technologies with military applications, such as anti-jamming communications and hypersonic vehicles, according to a report by the private U.S. intelligence group Strider Technologies.

    Despite efforts in recent years by the U.S. government to set up guardrails to prevent such collaboration from boosting China’s military capabilities, the practice is still prevalent, according to Strider, based in Salt Lake City, Utah.

    The report identified nearly 2,500 publications produced in collaboration between U.S. entities and Chinese military-affiliated research institutes in 2024 on STEM research, which includes physics, engineering, material science, computer science, biology, medicine and geology. While the number peaked at more than 3,500 in 2019, before some new restrictive measures came into effect, the level of collaboration remains high, the report said.

    This collaboration not only facilitates “potential illicit knowledge transfer,” but supports China’s “state-directed efforts to recruit top international talent, often to the detriment of U.S. national interests,” the report said.

    Foreign countries can exploit American research by stealing secrets for use in military and commercial settings, by poaching talented researchers for foreign companies and universities and by recruiting students and researchers as potential spies, authorities say.

    Fostering a climate of robust academic research takes funding and long-term support. Stealing the fruits of that labor, however, can be as easy as hacking into a university network, hiring away researchers or coopting the research itself. That’s why, authorities say, it’s so tempting for American adversaries looking to take advantage of U.S. institutions and research.

    The most recent threat assessment report from the Department of Homeland Security highlights concerns that American adversaries — and China specifically — seek to illicitly acquire U.S. technology. Authorities say China aims to steal military and computing technology that might give the U.S. an advantage, as well as the latest commercial innovations.

    Abigail Coplin, assistant professor of sociology and science, technology and society at Vassar College, said there are already guardrails for federally funded research to protect classified information and anything deemed sensitive.

    She also said open research goes both ways, benefiting the U.S. as well, and restrictions could be counterproductive by driving away talents.

    “American national security interests and economic competitiveness would be better served by continuing — if not increasing — research funding than they are by implementing costly research restrictions,” Coplin said.

    Arnie Bellini, a tech entrepreneur and investor, also said efforts to protect U.S. research risk stifling progress if they go too far and prevent U.S. colleges or startups from sharing information about new and emerging technology. Keeping up with China will also require big investments in efforts to protect innovation, said Bellini, who recently donated $40 million to establish a new cybersecurity and AI research college at the University of South Florida.

    Bellini said it’s imperative to encourage research and development without giving secrets away to America’s enemies. “In the U.S., it is a reality now that our digital borders are under siege — and businesses of every size are right to be concerned,” Bellini said.

    According to Department of Justice figures, about 80% of all economic espionage cases prosecuted in the U.S. involve alleged acts that would benefit China.

    Some members of Congress have pushed to reinstate a Department of Justice program created during the first Trump administration that sought to investigate Chinese intellectual espionage. The so-called “ ChinaInitiative ” ended in 2022 after critics said it failed to address the problem even as it perpetrated racist stereotypes about Asian American academics.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Topsfield Fair resumes after bomb scare, 1 in custody

    [ad_1]

    TOPSFIELD — The Topsfield Fair reopened Sunday morning after some tense moments with an emotionally disturbed person who said he had a bomb.

    About 7:20 a.m., fair officials were told of a “potential threat to the fairgrounds.”


    This page requires Javascript.

    Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.

    kAm}F>6C@FD 286?4:6D C6DA@?565 2?5 DH6AE E96 72:C’D =@42E:@? @? #@FE6 `]k^Am

    kAm“p >F=E: 286?4J C6DA@?D6 7@==@H65 @FC D276EJ AC@E@4@=D 2?5 27E6C 2 4@>A=6E6 DH66A @7 E96 8C@F?5D E96 72:C8C@F?5D H2D 566>65 D276 2?5 H:== 36 @A6? 2E hib_ 2]>][” 72:C @C82?:K6CD D2:5 😕 2 ?6HD C6=62D6 $F?52J >@C?:?8]k^Am

    kAm%96 E9C62ED 282:?DE E96 72:C8C@F?5D 2==6865=J :?G@=G65 2? 6>@E:@?2==J F?DE23=6 A6CD@?[ 244@C5:?8 E@ 2 DE2E6>6?E C6=62D65 3J |2DD249FD6EED $E2E6 !@=:46]k^Am

    kAmp “36 @? E96 =@@<@FE” 2=6CE H2D :DDF65 23@FE E96 A6CD@? $F?52J >@C?:?8]k^Am

    kAm~?46 😕 4FDE@5J[ E96 A6CD@? D2:5 96 925 2 3@>3 😕 9:D G69:4=6[ DE2E6 A@=:46 D2:5]k^Am

    kAm!@=:46 4=@D65 #@FE6 ` E@ 2==@H $E2E6 !@=:46 q@>3 $BF25 E649?:4:2?D 2=C625J 2DD:8?65 E@ E96 72:C E@ :?G6DE:82E6 E96 E9C62E]k^Am

    kAm%C@@A6CD 56E6C>:?65 E96 G69:4=6 H2D D276[ 2==@H:?8 E96 C@25 E@ C6@A6? 2E 23@FE gid_ 2]>]k^Am

    kAm“%96 $E2E6 !@=:46 H@F=5 =:<6 E@ C6>:?5 6G6CJ@?6 E@ C6A@CE 2?J DFDA:4:@FD 24E:G:EJ 2E 2 =2C86 6G6?E =:<6 E96 u2:C 3J 42==:?8 h“] x7 J@F D66 D@>6E9:?8[ D2J D@>6E9:?8[’” DE2E6 A@=:46 D2:5 😕 2 AC6A2C65 DE2E6>6?E]k^Am

    kAm%96 A6CD@? E2<6? :?E@ 4FDE@5J H2D ?@E :56?E:7:65 3J A@=:46]k^Am

    kAm%96 %@AD7:6=5 u2:C[ E96 ?2E:@?’D @=56DE 4@F?EJ 72:C[ @A6C2E6D ~4E] b`b 2E a_f q@DE@? $E] 😕 %@AD7:6=5] xE 4=@D6D |@?52J 2E g A]>]k^Am

    kAmu@==@H DE277 C6A@CE6C y:== w2C>24:?D<: @? %H:EE6C^) ot28=6%C:3y:== 2?5 %9C625D 2E ;:==J92C>2]k^Am

    [ad_2]

    By Jill Harmacinski jharmacinski@eagletribune.com

    Source link

  • Apple Took Down These ICE-Tracking Apps. The Developers Aren’t Giving Up

    [ad_1]

    Legal experts WIRED spoke with say that the ICE monitoring and documentation apps that Apple has removed from its App Store are clear examples of protected speech under the US Constitution’s First Amendment. “These apps are publishing constitutionally protected speech. They’re publishing truthful information about matters of public interest that people obtained just by witnessing public events,” says David Greene, a civil liberties director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

    This hasn’t stopped the Trump administration from attacking the developers behind these ICE-related apps. When ICEBlock first rose to a top spot in Apple’s App Store in April, the Trump administration responded by threatening to prosecute the developer. “We are looking at him,” Bondi said on Fox News of ICEBlock’s Aaron. “And he better watch out.”

    Neither the White House nor ICE immediately responded to requests for comment.

    Digital rights researchers say that the situation illustrates the dangers when key platforms and communication channels are centrally controlled—whether directly by governments or by other powerful entities like big tech companies. Regardless of what is officially available through the Google Play store, Android users can sideload apps of their choosing. But Apple’s ecosystem has always been a walled garden, an approach that the company has long touted for its security advantages, including the ability to screen more heavily for malicious apps.

    For years, a group of researchers and enthusiasts have tried to create “jailbreaks” for iPhones to essentially hack their own devices as a way around Apple’s closed ecosystem. Recently, though, jailbreaking has become less common. This is partly the result of advances in iPhone security, but partly related to the trend in recent years of attackers exploiting complex chains of vulnerabilities that could potentially be used for jailbreaking for malware instead, particularly mercenary spyware.

    “The closed ecosystem motivation sort of dwindled as Apple added capabilities that previously required a jailbreak—like wallpapers, tethering, better notifications, and private mode in Safari,” says longtime iOS security and jailbreak researcher Will Strafach. “But this situation with ICE apps highlights the issue with Apple being the arbiter and single point of failure.”

    Stanford’s Pfefferkorn warns that while US tech companies are not state-controlled, they have in her view become “happy handmaidens” when it comes to “repressing free speech and dissent.”

    “It’s especially disappointing,” Pfefferkorn says, “coming from the company that brought us the Think Different ad campaign, which invoked MLK, Gandhi, and Muhammad Ali—none of whom would likely be big fans of ICE today.”

    [ad_2]

    Reece Rogers, Lily Hay Newman

    Source link

  • The Constitution does not allow the president to unilaterally blow suspected drug smugglers to smithereens

    [ad_1]

    Somewhere off the coast of Venezuela, a speedboat with 11 people on board is blown to smithereens. Vice President J.D. Vance announces that “killing cartel members who poison our fellow citizens is the highest and best use of our military.”

    When challenged that killing citizens without due process is a war crime, the vice president responded that he “didn’t give a shit.”

    Sometimes in fits of anger, loud voices will say they don’t care about niceties such as due process—they just want to kill bad guys. For a brief moment, all of us may share that anger and may even embrace revenge or retribution.

    But over 20,000 people are murdered in the U.S. each year, and yet somehow we find a way to a dispassionate dispensation of justice that includes legal representation for the accused and jury trial. 

    Why? Because sometimes the accused is actually not guilty.

    As passions subside, a civilized people should ask: To be clear, the people bombed to smithereens were guilty, right?

    If anyone gave a you-know-what about justice, perhaps those in charge of deciding whom to kill might let us know their names, present proof of their guilt, and show evidence of their crimes.

    The administration has maintained that the people blown to smithereens were members of Tren de Aragua and therefore narcoterrorists.

    Certainly, then, if we know they belong to a particular gang, then someone must surely have known their names before they were blown to smithereens?

    At the very least, the government should explain how the gang came to be labelled as terrorists. U.S. law defines a terrorist as someone who uses “premeditated, politically motivated violence…against non-combatants.” Since the U.S. policy is now to blow people to smithereens if they are suspected of being in a terrorist gang, then maybe someone could take the time to explain the evidence of their terrorism?

    Critics of this whole terrorist labelling charade, such as Matthew Petti at Reason, explain that: “In practice, that means that a ‘terrorist’ is whoever the executive branch decides to label one.”

    While no law dictates such, once people are labelled as terrorists, they appear to no longer be eligible for any sort of due process.

    The blow-them-to-smithereens crowd, at this point, will loudly voice their opinion that people in international waters whom we label as terrorists deserve no due process. Vice President Vance asserts: “There are people who are bringing—literal terrorists—who are bringing deadly drugs into our country.”

    Which, of course, raises the questions:

    1. Who labelled them and with what evidence?
    2. What are their names, and what specifically shows their membership and guilt? 

    The blow-them-to-smithereens crowd also conveniently ignores the fact that death is generally not the penalty for drug smuggling.

    The mindless trolls that occupy much of the internet whine that such questions show weakness or commiseration with drug pushers who are killing our kids. A ludicrous assertion to most sentient humans, but one I fear requires a response.

    International law and norms have always granted due process to individuals on the high seas not actively involved in combat. U.S. maritime laws explain in detail the level of force and the escalation of force allowed in the interdiction of drugs.

    Hundreds of ships are stopped and searched. The blow-them-to-smithereens crowd might stop to ponder that a good percentage of the ships searched actually turn out not to be drug smugglers.

    Coast Guard statistics show that about one in four interdictions finds no drugs. So far, the administration has blown up four boats suspected of drug smuggling. Statistically speaking, there’s a good chance that one of these boats may not have had any drugs on board.

    If the U.S. policy is to blow all suspected ships to smithereens, should that policy really be extolled as “the highest and best use of our military?”

    Jake Romm puts the dilemma of whom to designate as a terrorist into sharp relief: “The hollowness and malleability of the term [terrorism] means that it can be applied to groups regardless of their actual conduct and regardless of their actual ideology. It admits only a circular definition…that a terrorist is someone who carries out terrorist acts, and a terrorist act is violence carried out by a terrorist. Conversely, if someone is killed, it is because they are a terrorist, because to be a terrorist means to be killable.”

    Few independent legal scholars argue the strikes are legal. Even John Yoo—a former deputy assistant attorney general under President George W. Bush, who infamously authored the Bush administration’s legal justification for “enhanced interrogation techniques”—has criticized the Trump administration’s justification for the strikes, saying: “There has to be a line between crime and war. We can’t just consider anything that harms the country to be a matter for the military. Because that could potentially include every crime.”

    Jon Duffy, a retired Navy Captain, eloquently summarizes our current moment: “A republic that allows its leaders to kill without law, to wage war without strategy, and to deploy troops without limit is a republic in deep peril. Congress will not stop it. The courts will not stop it. That leaves those sworn not to a man, but to the Constitution.”

    Congress must not allow the executive branch to become judge, jury, and executioner. President Thomas Jefferson understood the framers’ intention that the president defer to Congress on matters of offensive war. That’s why Jefferson, when faced with the belligerence of the Barbary pirates in 1801, recognized that he was “unauthorized by the Constitution, without the sanction of Congress, to go beyond the line of defense.”

    Jefferson wanted the authority to act offensively against the pirates, but he respected the intentional checks placed on the executive within the Constitution. Only after Congress passed an “Act for the Protection of Commerce and Seamen of the United States, against the Tripolitan Cruisers” in February 1802, did he order offensive naval operations. If the Trump administration wants to use military power, it should seek authorization from Congress. And Congress must have the courage as the people’s representatives to reassert its constitutional duty to decide matters of war and peace.

    This article is based on a speech Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.) gave on the Senate floor Wednesday while introducing a War Powers Act resolution, which he cosponsored. 

    [ad_2]

    Rand Paul

    Source link

  • UK Prosecutor Says a Spying Case Collapsed Because the Government Wouldn’t Call China a Threat

    [ad_1]

    Former parliamentary researcher Christopher Cash and academic Christopher Berry were charged in April 2024 with violating the Official Secrets Act by providing information or documents that could be “useful to an enemy” and “prejudicial to the safety or interests” of the U.K. between late 2021 and February 2023.

    But Director of Public Prosecutions Stephen Parkinson said the case collapsed because no one from the government was willing to testify “that at the time of the offense China represented a threat to national security.”

    “When this became apparent, the case could not proceed,” he wrote in a letter sent Tuesday to lawmakers on Parliament’s home affairs and justice committees.

    Under the Official Secrets Act, a statute from 1911, prosecutors would have had to show the defendants were acting for an “enemy.”

    The two men deny wrongdoing, and the Chinese Embassy has called the allegations fabricated and dismissed them as “malicious slander.”

    The case was dropped last month, weeks before the trial was due to begin, with prosecutors saying there was not enough evidence to proceed. The collapse of the case sparked allegations of political interference, which the government denies.

    British intelligence authorities have ratcheted up their warnings about Beijing’s covert activities in recent years. The government has called Beijing a strategic challenge, but not an enemy.

    Prime Minister Keir Starmer said that the government couldn’t provide the testimony prosecutors wanted because his predecessor, who was in office at the time of the alleged spying, had not designated China a threat.

    He said evidence had to rely on the assessment of the previous Conservative government, which called China an “epoch-defining challenge.”

    “You can’t prosecute someone two years later in relation to a designation that wasn’t in place at the time,” Starmer said.

    Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

    Photos You Should See – Sept. 2025

    [ad_2]

    Associated Press

    Source link