Elections

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Chris Krebs, Ex-Leader of Cybersecurity Agency, Is Under Investigation, Trump Officials Say

      by

      The disclosure came three weeks after President Trump directed the Justice Department to investigate the former agency leader, Chris Krebs, in an act of score settling.Trump administration officials said on Thursday that Chris Krebs, who debunked President Trump’s lies about the 2020 election as head of the federal cybersecurity agency, lost his membership in an expedited customs program for travelers because he is facing a federal investigation.The officials declined to specify why Mr. Krebs was under investigation, nor did they indicate which agencies were conducting the inquiry. The disclosure came three weeks after Mr. Trump, in an act of score settling and intimidation, directed the Justice Department to investigate Mr. Krebs.“Chris Krebs is under active investigation by law enforcement agencies,” a spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security said in a statement. “That is a fact disqualifying him for global entry.”The department offered no further explanation about the inquiry into Mr. Krebs, who was appointed to lead the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency by Mr. Trump in 2018. Asked about the suspension of Mr. Krebs’s Global Entry travel program status, a White House official supplied a similar statement, offering no other details. The official did not respond to a follow-up question. It is unusual for a government law enforcement agency to confirm or deny an open investigation. Mr. Trump has cited comparable breaches of protocol in accusing law enforcement of trying to smear him during various investigations into his conduct.The Global Entry program, administered by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, a division of the Homeland Security Department, allows low-risk travelers who have passed a clearance process to avoid time-consuming screening procedures at airports.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Once Banished From Trump’s White House, Zelensky Has New Hope

      by

      In his zigzagging approach to ending the war in Ukraine, President Trump has shifted his frustration — for now — from Ukraine’s leader to Vladimir Putin.Feb. 28 was one of the darkest days for Ukraine since Russia’s invasion three years earlier. An Oval Office visit by President Volodymyr Zelensky meant to win favor with President Trump turned into a televised shouting match, prompting Mr. Trump to banish his guest from the White House without even serving him a planned lunch.Mr. Trump was already a deep skeptic of U.S. support for Ukraine. But after the disastrous meeting with Mr. Zelensky, he accelerated his diplomacy with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, drafting a peace plan to end the war in Ukraine that offered major concessions to Moscow. Ukraine’s supporters were in panic.But there is new hope in Kyiv.A day after the Trump administration announced an economic deal with Ukraine that gives the United States a stake in its future mineral revenues, analysts say the country’s prospects look brighter than they have in months.“These are very good signs that something might be shifting,” said Alina Polyakova, the president and chief executive of the Center for European Policy Analysis.“It does seem like there’s change from the previous approach” by the Trump administration, she said, calling the minerals deal “a win-win for both sides” that Ukraine negotiated “very savvily.”Mr. Trump and Mr. Zelensky also appeared to have a friendly meeting on Saturday at the Vatican, as Mr. Trump has grown increasingly frustrated with Mr. Putin’s demands in the separate talks to settle the war.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 163 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      When Taxpayers Fund Shows Like ‘Blue Bloods’ and ‘S.N.L.,’ Does It Pay Off?

      by

      Gov. Kathy Hochul of New York has proposed an increase in the film tax credit to stay competitive with New Jersey and other states.New Yorkers — and residents of many other states — have paid more for entertainment in recent years than just their Netflix or Hulu subscriptions.Each New York household has also contributed about $16 in taxes, on average, toward producing the drama series “Billions” since 2017. Over that period, each household has also paid roughly $14.50 in production incentives for “Saturday Night Live” and $4.60 for “The Irishman,” among many other shows and movies.Add it all up, and New York has spent more than $5.5 billion in incentives since 2017, the earliest year for which data is readily available. Now, as a new state budget agreement nears, Gov. Kathy Hochul has said she wants to add $100 million in credits for independent productions that would bring total film subsidies to $800 million a year, almost double the amount from 2022.Other states also pay out tens or hundreds of millions each year in a bidding war for Hollywood productions, under the theory that these tax credits spur the economy. One question for voters and lawmakers is whether a state recoups more than its investment in these movies and shows — or gets back only pennies on the dollar.New York has one of the largest tax credit programs and makes most of its data public, so we totaled its spending to see which productions benefited the most. More

    • 88 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Federal Report Denounces Gender Treatments for Adolescents

      by

      The H.H.S. review may set the stage for additional restrictions on gender-affirming care. Critics described it as an ideological statement.Federal health officials published a report on Thursday declaring that the use of hormonal and surgical treatments in young people with gender dysphoria lacked scientific evidence and expressing concern about long-term harms, a stark reversal from previous agency recommendations and the advice of top U.S. medical groups.The report instead prioritized the role of psychotherapy, a divisive intervention to treat gender dysphoria that many advocates and physicians have equated with so-called conversion therapy.Other parts of the review seemed to call into question the very notion that some people have a gender identity that does not align with their sex at birth.In January, President Trump signed an executive order titled “Protecting Children From Chemical and Surgical Mutilation” giving the Department of Health and Human Services 90 days to produce a report on the best practices for treating young people who say their gender does not align with their birth sex.But the order made it clear that the administration had already reached its own conclusion about gender transition treatments for minors, characterizing the “blatant harm done to children” as a “stain on our nation’s history.”The 400-page report took a more sober tone but reached a similar conclusion. In a remarkable departure from the standard for medical evidence reviews, the authors were not identified pending a post-publication review process that would begin in “the coming days.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 175 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      GM Cuts Profit Forecast by 20% and Says Auto Tariffs Will Cost It Billions

      by

      General Motors now expects to earn a lot less than it did before President Trump imposed 25% tariffs on imported cars and auto parts.General Motors cut its profit forecast for 2025 on Thursday by more than 20 percent and said that the Trump administration’s tariffs would increase its costs by $4 billion to $5 billion this year.In a conference call with analysts, G.M. executives said the company now expects to make $8.2 billion to $10.1 billion this year, down from a previous forecast of $11.2 billion to $12.5 billion.“G.M.’s business is fundamentally strong as we adapt to the new trade policy environment,” the company’s chief executive, Mary T. Barra, said.In April, President Trump imposed tariffs of 25 percent on imported vehicles and will begin imposing the same duty on imported auto parts on Saturday. On Tuesday the president modified how the tariffs are applied to give automakers some relief, including partial reimbursement for tariffs on imported parts for two years.Ms. Barra said G.M. hopes to offset about 30 percent of the impact of the tariffs by increasing production in U.S. plants, cutting costs, and working with suppliers to raise their domestic production of parts and components.G.M. had previously said it was increasing pickup truck production at a plant near Fort Wayne, Ind., which will reduce the number of vehicles it imports from Canada and Mexico. Ms. Barra said output at the Fort Wayne factory would increase by about 50,000 trucks this year.She also said G.M. now plans to make more battery modules in its U.S. plants to raise the portion of domestic content in its electric vehicles.About $2 billion in tariff-related cost increases will come from vehicles that are made in Canada, Mexico and South Korea and sold in the United States.Analysts have predicted that the tariffs will add thousands of dollars to the cost of new cars and trucks, and some or all of that would be passed on to consumers. In the call, G.M.’s chief financial officer, Paul Jacobson, said the company now expects new vehicle prices to rise 0.5 percent to 1 percent this year, he added. Previously, the company had forecast that pricing would fall by 1 percent to 1.5 percent.Other automakers are also planning to produce more vehicles in the United States. Mercedes-Benz said Thursday that it would build a new vehicle at an Alabama factory as part of what the German carmaker called a “deepening commitment” to manufacturing in the United States.While the company did not mention tariffs, Mercedes and other carmakers have been at pains in recent weeks to emphasize how many cars they already build in the United States and their plans to make more. Mercedes did not provide details about the car, except to say that it would be a new design tailored to the U.S. market and begin production in 2027.The company’s factory near Tuscaloosa, Ala., primarily assembles luxury sport utility vehicles, including electric models, for sale in the United States and export to other markets.Jack Ewing More

    • 163 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      House Votes to Block California Plan to Ban New Gas-Powered Cars in 2035

      by

      Republicans, joined by a handful of Democrats, voted to eliminate California’s electric vehicle policy, which had been adopted by 11 other states.The House on Thursday voted to bar California from imposing its landmark ban on the sale of new gasoline-powered vehicles by 2035, the first step in an effort by the Republican majority to stop a state policy designed to accelerate the transition to electric vehicles.The 246-to-164 vote came a day after Republicans, joined by a few Democrats, voted to block California from requiring dealers in the state to sell an increasing percentage of zero-emission, medium and heavy-duty trucks over time. And, lawmakers also voted on Wednesday to stop a state effort to reduce California’s levels of smog.All three policies were implemented under permissions granted to California by the Biden administration. They pose an extraordinary challenge to California’s longstanding authority under the 1970 Clean Air Act to set pollution standards that are more strict than federal limits.And the legality of the congressional action is in dispute. Two authorities, the Senate parliamentarian and the Government Accountability Office, have ruled that Congress cannot revoke the waivers.California leaders condemned the actions and promised a battle.Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, called the move “lawless” and an attack on states’ rights. “Trump Republicans are hellbent on making California smoggy again,” Governor Newsom said in a statement.“Clean air didn’t used to be political,” he said, adding, “The only thing that’s changed is that big polluters and the right-wing propaganda machine have succeeded in buying off the Republican Party.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      How Google’s Antitrust Case Could Upend the A.I. Race

      by

      A federal judge issued a landmark ruling last year, saying that Google had become a monopolist in internet search. But in a hearing that began last week to figure out how to fix the problem, the emphasis has frequently landed on a different technology, artificial intelligence.In U.S. District Court in Washington last week, a Justice Department lawyer argued that Google could use its search monopoly to become the dominant player in A.I. Google executives disclosed internal discussions about expanding the reach of Gemini, the company’s A.I. chatbot. And executives at rival A.I. companies said that Google’s power was an obstacle to their success.On Wednesday, the first substantial question posed to Google’s chief executive, Sundar Pichai, after he took the stand was also about A.I. Throughout his 90-minute testimony, the subject came up more than two dozen times.“I think it’s one of the most dynamic moments in the industry,” said Mr. Pichai. “I’ve seen users’ home screens with, like, seven to nine applications of chatbots which they are trying and playing and training with.”An antitrust lawsuit about the past has effectively turned into a fight about the future, as the government and Google face off over proposed changes to the tech giant’s business that could shift the course of the A.I. race.For more than 20 years, Google’s search engine dominated the way people got answers online. Now the federal court is in essence grappling with whether the Silicon Valley giant will dominate the next era of how people get information on the internet, as consumers turn to a new crop of A.I. chatbots to answer questions, find solutions to their problems and learn about the world.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      A Tidal Wave of Change Is Headed for the U.S. Economy

      by

      When the Covid pandemic hit, factories in China shut down and global shipping traffic slowed. Within a matter of a few weeks, products began disappearing from U.S. store shelves and American firms that depend on foreign materials were going out of business.A similar trend is beginning to play out, but this time the catalyst is President Trump’s decision to raise tariffs on Chinese imports to a minimum of 145 percent, an amount so steep that much of the trade between the United States and China has ground to a halt. Fewer massive container ships have been plying the ocean between Chinese and American ports, and in the coming weeks, far fewer Chinese goods will arrive on American shores.While high tariffs on Chinese products have been in place since early April, the availability of Chinese products and the price that consumers pay for them has not changed that much. But some companies are now starting to raise their prices. And experts say that the effects will become more and more obvious in the coming weeks, as a tidal wave of change stemming from canceled orders in Chinese factories works its way around the world to the United States.The number of massive container ships carrying metal boxes of toys, furniture and other products departing China for the United States has plummeted by about a third this month.The reason consumers haven’t felt many of the effects yet is because it takes 20 to 40 days for a container ship to travel across the Pacific Ocean. It then takes another one to 10 days for Chinese goods to make their way by train or truck to various cities around the country, economists at Apollo Global Management wrote in a recent report. That means that the higher tariffs on China that went into effect at the beginning of April are just starting to result in a drop in the number of ships arriving at American ports, a trend that should intensify.By late May or early June, consumers could start to see some empty shelves, and layoffs could occur for retailers and logistics industries. The major effects on the U.S. economy of shutting down trade with China will start to become apparent in the summer of 2025, when the United States might slip into a recession, said Torsten Slok, an economist at Apollo.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More