Connect with us

Finance

A new blueprint for financing community development – Part III

Published

on

A new blueprint for financing community development – Part III

Hegseth, a Fox News host who served in the Army National Guard, was named by President-elect Donald Trump on November 12 as his pick for defense secretary. Since then, Hegseth has been the subject of a number of allegations of sexual misconduct, alcohol abuse and financial mismanagement. The most recent spate of news stories have detailed allegations, which Hegseth has denied, related to excessive alcohol consumption and appear to be the main topic of concern on Capitol Hill.

“It’s just been very troubling to see how unconcerned many members of Congress are with men who are accused of sexual assault,” said Rep. Veronica Escobar of Texas, a member of the House Armed Services Committee. While the House does not vote to confirm Cabinet nominees, Hegseth met with Republican House members on Wednesday to shore up support.

“The issue that apparently, I heard, came up in his meetings was his alleged alcohol abuse,” she said. “But I guess his abuse of women doesn’t seem to bother as many folks.”

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Credible allegations of impropriety have often been cause for withdrawal or disqualification. Hegseth is one of a number of Trump’s Cabinet-level nominees who face accusations of sexual misconduct.

Advertisement

In 2020, Hegseth paid a confidential settlement to a woman who filed a police report accusing him of raping her in 2017 at a Republican women’s conference in Monterey, California. No charges were filed against Hegseth in connection with the encounter, which he and his lawyer maintain was consensual. The New Yorker and other outlets have reported on additional allegations that Hegseth mismanaged funds and abused alcohol while leading two veteran-focused nonprofits, and that his colleagues at Fox News witnessed him drinking to excess while he was a weekend co-host at “Fox and Friends.” Hegseth has strenuously denied those claims, including in an op-ed published in the Wall Street Journal, and told Megyn Kelly in an interview on her SiriusXM show that he wouldn’t drink alcohol as defense secretary.

Representatives for Fox News and the Trump transition did not immediately return requests for comment. Several of Hegseth’s current and former Fox News colleagues, including current “Fox & Friends Weekends” co-host Will Cain, have spoken up in his defense.

“The press is peddling anonymous story after anonymous story, all meant to smear me and tear me down. It’s a textbook manufactured media takedown,” Hegseth wrote in the Journal. “They provide no evidence, no names, and they ignore the legions of people who speak on my behalf. They need to create a bogeyman, because they believe I threaten their institutional insanity. That is the only thing they are right about.”

Democratic women serving on the House and Senate Armed Services Committees argued that Hegseth getting confirmed would not only undercut years-long bipartisan efforts in Congress to address sexual assault and abuse in the military but also the armed services’ efforts to recruit more women.

“This is very concerning,” said Escobar, a Democrat. “We have been trying to address recruitment for a long time, and women are a key component of that. This is the last thing we needed, and it is my hope that those members of the Senate who are committed to these reforms and who know how important women are in the military will have very candid conversations with him, and he will drop out.”

Advertisement

Nearly 1 in 4 women in the military report having experienced sexual assault and more than half report harassment, according to a 2016 analysis of articles published in the peer-reviewed journal Trauma, Violence and Abuse. The vast majority of incidents go unreported, according to the RAND Corporation, which provides research to the U.S. Armed Forces. In 2018 alone, about 6,000 sexual assaults were reported to the Department of Defense, but surveys suggested more than 20,000 service members were sexually assaulted. And amid a broader military recruitment crisis, a 2020 government study found that women were leaving the military at higher rates than men and citing sexual assault as a major factor.

Michelle Simpson Tuegel, a Texas-based lawyer who does not practice in the military justice system but has represented survivors in several high-profile sex abuse cases, said Hegseth’s nomination marks “a scary moment” for women service members.

“I get calls every year from women who have faced sexual assault and sexual harassment in the military, I’ve represented people on the bases when I used to do criminal defense,” Tuegel said. “There’s a lot of violence on our military bases.”

Reports of sexual assault in the military have risen by an estimated 25 percent since 2018, according to the military’s own data, which include both anonymous surveys and formal reports.

Military justice reform advocates have gained ground in recent years, particularly in regards to how military sexual assault and harassment investigations are handled. After the end of World War II, one Supreme Court ruling — known as the Feres doctrine — barred service members from suing the government over any injuries incurred while on active duty. Though typically applied to cases of medical malpractice, this ruling had expanded to include sexual assault allegations. However, the high-profile murder in 2020 of Vanessa Guillén, a soldier who was sexually harassed by a supervisor and violently murdered while stationed at Fort Hood, Texas, acted as a catalyst for reform. Guillén’s death led to major changes in the National Defense Authorization Act, guaranteeing that certain crimes like sexual assault and domestic violence would be prosecuted outside the chain of command.

Advertisement

Democratic Sen. Tammy Duckworth of Illinois, a veteran, called it “insane” that Trump would nominate someone like Hegseth after the “decades” of efforts within the Armed Services.

“There are simply too many reasons proving that Pete Hegseth is not the right person to lead our military men and women, and he will not have my vote,” she said in a statement to The 19th. “Republicans confirming him to this position wouldn’t just be an insult to our men and women in uniform—it would be dangerous for our national security and military readiness.”

Rep. Mikie Sherrill of New Jersey was a student at the Naval Academy 30 years ago as part of the first class of women eligible for combat ships. She served for nearly a decade, including a stint in London when she worked for a Navy fleet commander overseeing the deployment of troops to Iraq, at a time when she said the culture was not great for women.

When young women interested in the service academies come to her office, Sherrill said, “they’re not interested in going into a force as second-class citizens, and they’re not interested in being given special treatment.”

“What they want is the challenge that all people that go into our military service want. What they want to do is to serve the public, to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and to make sure that people here can sleep at night,” said Sherrill, who is also running for governor of New Jersey. “And so, why you would ever put someone in charge that didn’t respect that, that didn’t respect the service of about 20 percent of our armed forces, is shocking to me.”

Advertisement

The implications stretch beyond the ranks of the Armed Forces, said Democratic Rep. Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania, who served in the Air Force and Air Force Reserve. Changes that enabled women like her, Sherrill and others to serve in the military put them on the path to public service in Congress, she said.

“They served because we made some real reforms that mattered in how women are able to serve and what kind of roles they’re able to serve in,” Houlahan said. “And I think it’s not a coincidence that you then see those people, decades later, showing up in places like Congress, because they’ve had equal opportunity.”

The U.S. Senate vets and confirms the president’s nominees to Cabinet posts and other high-level positions. In some ways, Hegseth’s nomination and the scandal surrounding it are not new. The first time a new president’s initial Cabinet nominee was rejected was in 1989 when the Senate failed to confirm John Tower, former President George H.W. Bush’s pick for defense secretary, after he was accused of being an alcoholic womanizer.

Then Sen. Sam Nunn, a Democrat and Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman at the time, led the charge against Tower’s nomination on the grounds that his character was unfit for the position.

“The committee is also concerned about the personal example the secretary of defense must set for efforts of the Department of Defense to end discrimination toward, and any sexual harassment of, women. … Mr. President, leadership must be established from the top down,” Nunn said during the 1989 Senate debate.

Advertisement

Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III, who was appointed by President Joe Biden, has made it a priority of his tenure to combat sexual assault in the military, establishing a commission early on to make recommendations to the military. Meanwhile, Hegseth has signaled a different set of values and priorities when it comes to women and people of color. He wrote a book arguing that military standards have been lowered for women, that “America’s white sons and daughters” are walking away from the military because of ideology that is too “effeminate” and that diversity, inclusion and equity efforts are bad for national security.

“I’m straight up just saying we shouldn’t have women in combat roles,” Hegseth said in November during a podcast interview. “It hasn’t made us more effective. It hasn’t made us more lethal. It has made fighting more complicated.”

On Wednesday, Hegseth mounted another lobbying blitz on Capitol Hill, meeting with several key Republican senators. GOP Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa, an Army veteran and a sexual assault survivor herself who has been outspoken against sexual assault in the military, posted on X that she had a “frank and thorough” conversation with Hegseth.

His mother, Penelope Hegseth, is also doing a media tour on behalf of her son after The New York Times reported on an email she sent him in 2018, in the midst of his contentious divorce from his second wife, excoriating Hegseth as an “abuser of women.” It is against military law to commit adultery, which could result in dishonorable discharge. Penelope Hegseth, who said she since apologized for and disavowed the contents of the email, took to Fox News with her hopes that lawmakers, “especially our female senators,” to “not listen to the media and that you will listen to Pete.”

Houlahan said she’s using the influence she has as a woman veteran in Congress to register her concerns with her colleagues in the Senate about Hegseth’s nomination.

Advertisement

“To the degree I can, I’m trying to have conversations, and directly have conversations with my Senate companions, to do my best to explain that I am really worried about this,” she said. “And I’m hoping that me being really worried is an indicator, a canary in the coal mine, of other people who are worried about it, who don’t have the voice that I have.”

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Finance

Bank Regulation and Risks to Financial Stability | The Regulatory Review

Published

on

Bank Regulation and Risks to Financial Stability | The Regulatory Review

Scholars examine bank and cryptocurrency regulation and assess potential risks to financial stability and resilience.

Federal banking regulators recently proposed rules to implement the Basel III Endgame framework. Global banking regulators developed the Basel III framework after the 2008 financial crisis to strengthen bank regulation, supervision, and risk management through a set of international standards. The final set of rules to implement the framework has been dubbed “Basel III Endgame.”

Although regulators originally planned to finalize and implement the Basel III accord by the beginning of 2023, countries have repeatedly delayed implementation while tailoring the framework to national interests and as banks and policymakers around the world increasingly embrace a more deregulatory approach.

The updated proposal follows a 2023 proposal from the Biden Administration that drew criticism for threatening to impose burdensome capital requirements on U.S. banks that could reduce lending and credit availability. Regulators argued that strengthening risk-based capital requirements for large banks would promote financial stability and resilience, but critics contended that the proposal could instead restrict banks’ lending capacity and push lending and traditional bank activity into more lightly regulated shadow banking sectors, such as private credit.

The latest proposal departs significantly from the 2023 proposal and would reduce the regulatory burden on large banks. The banking industry has applauded the recent deregulatory push, but critics warn that this approach risks weakening bank regulatory infrastructure only a few years after several major bank failures revealed ongoing gaps in bank supervision. Silicon Valley Bank’s collapse in 2023 marked the third-largest bank failure in U.S. history and required major emergency intervention. Although U.S. bank regulators largely contained the fallout and prevented contagion risks, the episode highlighted ongoing systemic risks to financial stability.

Advertisement

Debate over U.S. banking regulation also coincides with financial innovation and the rise of cryptocurrency, which have upended traditional financial services. The proposal comes less than a year after Congress passed the GENIUS Act, which established a baseline framework for stablecoin issuance. The GENIUS Act represented a significant regulatory breakthrough in a rapidly developing industry but left open many questions about its implementation and the future of cryptocurrency and stablecoin regulation. Federal regulators recently proposed rules to begin implementing the GENIUS Act framework, which will take effect in January 2027.

In this week’s seminar, scholars explore and offer competing views on current risks to the banking system and financial stability and identify potential regulatory vulnerabilities, including new payment systems tied to cryptocurrency.

  • In a National Bureau of Economic Research working paper, Stephen Cecchetti and co-authors advocate implementation of the Basel III Endgame standards and higher U.S. capital requirements for large banks. They argue that criticisms of the 2023 proposed regulations are not supported by data and that heightened capital requirements do not reduce bank lending. The authors warn that failure to align U.S. regulations with the international Basel III standards could start a deregulatory race to the bottom that would undermine global banking stability.
  • In an article in the University of Illinois Law Review, American University Washington College of Law Professor Hilary Allen explains that financial stability risks can arise from often-overlooked sources beyond the traditional banking sector, such as venture capital. Using the venture capital industry as a case study, Allen contends that speculative sectors such as cryptocurrency can pose risks when regulatory oversight is weak. She argues that effective banking regulation of emerging risks requires a more proactive, systemwide approach, including increased monitoring of risks arising from venture capital investment and more aggressive securities law enforcement against cryptocurrency activities.
  • In a Stanford Law Review article that predates the GENIUS Act, Gabriel Rauterberg and Jeffrey Zhang argue that shadow banking, including stablecoin issuance, should fall under securities regulators’ oversight. Shadow banking covers a broad range of activities that resemble banking but fall outside the traditionally narrow bank regulatory perimeter and lack banking regulation. As a result, shadow banking receives significantly less regulatory oversight, creating vulnerability and instability in the financial system. The authors contend that many shadow banking activities fall within securities law’s purview and that securities regulation should promote systemic stability by working with traditional bank regulation.
  • Financial regulation has not kept pace with the financial system’s rapid changes, University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School Assistant Professor of Finance Yao Zeng asserts in the International Monetary Fund’s Finance & Development quarterly publication. Zeng frames stablecoins as innovative in form but economically familiar in function and financial vulnerability. He argues that although stablecoins promise faster, cheaper, and more accessible payments, their bank-like economic functions and lack of protections such as deposit insurance and lender-of-last-resort support create familiar risks to financial stability. Zeng proposes that regulation should depend more on function than label: if stablecoins perform bank-like monetary functions, they should provide similar safeguards.
  • In a Delaware Journal of Corporate Law article, Arthur E. Wilmarth argues that the GENIUS Act institutionalizes nonbank stablecoin issuance, a practice that carries severe economic risks and lacks offsetting benefits. Wilmarth contends that nonbank stablecoin issuance undermines traditional banking and allows nonbank entities, such as tech firms, to perform bank-like functions without proper regulatory safeguards. He argues that the resulting ecosystem carries significant risks for financial stability and maintains that stablecoin issuance should be limited to FDIC-insured banks to ensure that adequate protections safeguard depositors’ money.
  • In a recent article in the Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Roanoke College’s Zane Mullins addresses common critiques of stablecoins and pushes back against the view that stablecoins pose risks to the financial system. Mullins proposes a narrow stablecoin framework that would allow stablecoin issuers to settle payments with common central bank reserves. He argues that this framework would mitigate credit and liquidity risk by giving all stablecoin issuers similar access to a common settlement medium. Mullins contends that the framework would also address interoperability concerns, promote a level playing field among issuers, and mitigate counterparty risk.
Continue Reading

Finance

Evoke Entertainment Closes $35 Million Production Financing Facility Backed By Major Private Credit Fund

Published

on

Evoke Entertainment Closes  Million Production Financing Facility Backed By Major Private Credit Fund

EXCLUSIVE: Evoke Entertainment has closed a senior secured production financing facility of up to $35 million backed by a multi-billion-dollar private credit fund.

While we verified the deal with the lender, they spoke with Deadline on the condition of anonymity, per company policy. The revolving production facility is designed to support Evoke’s expanding slate of independent features, television movies, streaming films, and series — significantly increasing the company’s already high-volume production output across major studios, networks, and streaming platforms.

More from Deadline

Structured around contracted revenue streams, distribution agreements, tax incentives, and the value of Evoke’s existing library and historical production performance, the facility provides the company with flexible, scalable production financing across multiple genres and platforms. Evoke’s lender comes to the partnership with extensive experience in structured finance, asset-backed lending, and entertainment-related investments.

The deal was spearheaded by Evoke Entertainment CEO Stan Spry, who told us, “This financing marks a transformative moment for Evoke. The backing of a major institutional private credit partner gives us the ability to substantially scale our production operations while continuing to focus on commercially driven, cost-efficient content for the global marketplace.”

Advertisement

The first projects to be financed under Evoke’s facility include a large slate of TV and streaming movies including a Christmas film for Hallmark, a survival thriller for Lifetime, alongside the independent feature films Suburban KingsHomesick, and Bali Hai.

Founded in 2011, and formerly known as Cartel Entertainment, Evoke Entertainment is a full-service management, production, and finance company that produces more than 20 films and series annually across major platforms including Netflix, Hallmark, Lifetime, Tubi, NBC/Peacock, AMC, and Great American Media. Notable past projects include Creepshow (AMC), Day of the Dead (Syfy), Twelve Forever (Netflix), and the upcoming Breaking Bear for Tubi, to name a few.

Best of Deadline

Sign up for Deadline’s Newsletter. For the latest news, follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Finance

Livestock Methane in India: Aligning Livelihoods, Systems, and Finance – CPI

Published

on

Livestock Methane in India: Aligning Livelihoods, Systems, and Finance – CPI

Background

India is home to the world’s largest livestock population of 536.76 million, which produces 25% of the world’s milk1. This increase in livestock population leads to increased methane emissions, primarily from enteric fermentation and manure management. As a result, livestock contributes to 58% (BUR 4, 2020) of India’s agricultural methane footprint. However, unlike crop-based emissions, livestock methane is diffuse, biologically driven, and more complex to measure and manage, making it less visible within existing climate finance frameworks.

Current research and policy discussions indicate that while technical mitigation solutions exist through feed improvements and manure management, evidence of their effectiveness in maintaining dairy productivity, animal health, and protecting farmers’ incomes is scattered. This leads to heightened risk perceptions among dairy producers when considering methane mitigation measures. Furthermore, even where the evidence is compelling, the fragmentation of dairy producers precludes their aggregation. Additionally, there is a lack of robust, affordable, and scalable monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) systems at the grassroots level. These barriers prevent the development of a clear, scalable, and financeable pipeline of livestock methane abatement in India.

The Government of India has actively supported dairy development and livestock health through various schemes and programs introduced by the Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying. At the same time, livestock systems in India are deeply embedded within rural livelihoods and socio-economic structures, making the sector a critical component of rural resilience. Consequently, interventions must be context-aware and farmer-centric, with a strong focus on livelihood security and alignment with local values and practices.

With this background, CPI is organizing a roundtable to explore how livestock methane can transition from a technically understood challenge to actionable opportunities on the ground, including both animal feed and manure management. The forum would bring together dairy producer organizations, nodal agencies, think tanks, ecosystem enablers, and financial institutions. It will deliberate upon possible projectized solutions and accompanying financing mechanisms that could be scaled up to address the twin objectives of methane abatement and farmers’ income security.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending