News
Biden and McCarthy to meet on Monday as debt ceiling talks resume
HIROSHIMA, Japan, May 21 (Reuters) – U.S. President Joe Biden and House Republican Speaker Kevin McCarthy will meet to discuss the debt ceiling on Monday, after the two leaders held a phone call on Sunday as the president flew back to Washington that both sides described as positive.
McCarthy, speaking to reporters at the U.S. Capitol following the call, said there were positive discussions on solving the crisis and that staff-level talks were set to resume later on Sunday.
Asked if he was more hopeful after talking to the president, McCarthy said: “Our teams are talking today and we’re setting (sic) to have a meeting tomorrow. That’s better than it was earlier. So, yes.”
A White House official confirmed Monday’s meeting but offered no specific time.
Biden, who arrived back at the White House late on Sunday evening after his trip to Japan, said the call with McCarthy had gone well. “It went well,” Biden said. “We’ll talk tomorrow.”
Staff members from both sides reconvened at McCarthy’s office in the Capitol on Sunday evening for talks that lasted about two-and-a-half hours.
Senior White House advisor Steve Ricchetti told reporters as he left the meeting, “We’ll keep working tonight.”
Biden, before leaving Japan following the G7 summit earlier on Sunday, said he would be willing to cut spending together with tax adjustments to reach a deal but the latest offer from Republicans was “unacceptable.”
Less than two weeks remain until June 1, when the Treasury Department has warned that the federal government could be unable to pay all its debts, a deadline U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen reaffirmed on Sunday. A failure to lift the debt ceiling would trigger a default that would cause chaos in financial markets and spike interest rates.
McCarthy’s comments on Sunday appeared more positive than the increasingly heated rhetoric in recent days, as both sides reverted to calling the other’s position extremist and talks stalled.
“Much of what they’ve already proposed is simply, quite frankly, unacceptable,” Biden told a news conference in Hiroshima. “It’s time for Republicans to accept that there is no bipartisan deal to be made solely, solely on their partisan terms. They have to move as well.”
The president later tweeted that he would not agree to a deal that protected “Big Oil” subsidies and “wealthy tax cheats” while putting healthcare and food assistance at risk for millions of Americans.
He also suggested some Republican lawmakers were willing to see the U.S. default on its debt so that the disastrous results would prevent Biden, a Democrat, from winning re-election in 2024.
After Sunday’s call, McCarthy said while there was still no final deal, there was an understanding to get negotiators on both sides back together before the two leaders met: “There’s no agreement. We’re still apart.”
“What I’m looking at are where our differences are and how could we solve those, and I felt that part was productive,” he told reporters.
Meanwhile, concerns about default are weighing on markets as an increase in the government’s self-imposed borrowing limit is needed regularly to cover costs of spending and tax cuts previously approved by lawmakers.
On Friday, the United States was forced to pay record-high interest rates in a recent debt offer.
SPENDING CUTS
McCarthy said Republicans backed an increase in the defense budget while cutting overall spending, and that debt ceiling talks have not included discussions about tax cuts passed under former President Donald Trump.
A source familiar with the negotiations said the Biden administration had proposed keeping non-defense discretionary spending flat for the next year.
Biden ahead of the call stressed that he was open to making spending cuts and said he was not concerned they would lead to a recession, but he could not agree to Republicans’ current demands.
The Republican-led House last month passed legislation that would cut a wide swath of government spending by 8% next year. Democrats say that would force average cuts of at least 22% on programs like education and law enforcement, a figure top Republicans have not disputed.
Republicans hold a slim majority in the House and Biden’s fellow Democrats have narrow control of the Senate, so no deal can pass without bipartisan support. But time is running short as Monday’s meeting will take place with just 10 days left to hammer out a deal before hitting Treasury’s deadline.
McCarthy has said he will give House lawmakers 72 hours to review an agreement before bringing it up for a vote.
The last time the nation has come this close to default was in 2011, also with a Democratic president and Senate with a Republican-led House.
Congress eventually averted default, but the economy endured heavy shocks, including the first-ever downgrade of the United States’ top-tier credit rating and a major stock sell-off.
Reporting by Trevor Hunnicutt; Editing by Simon Cameron-Moore
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
News
Shipbuilder Fincantieri strikes underwater defence deal
Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free
Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.
Italy’s Fincantieri has acquired the submarine unit of defence group Leonardo in a deal valuing the asset at up to €415mn, as Europe’s largest shipbuilder seeks to build up its military business.
The agreement, under which Fincantieri will pay Leonardo €300mn and an additional amount of up to €115mn depending on certain targets being met this year, was announced on Thursday evening along with Fincantieri’s latest capital raise of up to €400mn. The funding round, backed by state investor Cassa Depositi e Prestiti, will finance the group’s acquisition.
Fincantieri’s purchase of Tuscany-based Wass, which makes underwater missiles and sonars, will strengthen the state-controlled company’s defence and security operations. The company manufactures both cruise and military vessels as well as submarines, and aims to expand its underwater business.
It comes at a time when governments are seeking to protect critical underwater infrastructure assets such as telecommunication cables and energy pipelines from rogue actors.
The war in Ukraine and the 2022 Nord Stream pipeline sabotage incident have highlighted the importance of underwater security. With more underwater drones being used in the Black Sea, the conflict has underlined the importance of underwater defences.
Italy’s government is also seeking to streamline its underwater security systems, establishing a national research centre to foster business opportunities in the sector.
Leonardo, under chief executive Roberto Cingolani, has been divesting non-core assets and eyeing acquisitions. The company, which is also controlled by the government, has been looking to strengthen partnerships with other defence contractors across Europe and focus on its technology platform.
Fincantieri and Leonardo also have a joint venture, called Orizzonte Sistemi Navali, which manufactures warship systems.
In its new business plan presented last year, the Italian shipbuilder identified the underwater security business as a key growth pillar. The defence sector accounts for one-fourth of its €7.6bn revenues.
In its presentation, Fincantieri estimated the global underwater sector, including defence, telecommunications, energy and oil and gas, to be worth up to €400bn — with defence playing a leading role — by 2030. Shares in the company have rallied almost a third since its release.
In February, Fincantieri completed the acquisition of Remazel Engineering, a company based north of Milan that specialises in designing and supplying highly complex topside equipment. The group now plans to boost growth through further acquisitions which Thursday’s capital increase will help fund, said people familiar with the plans.
After years of losses in the hundreds of millions, Fincantieri reported a net loss of €53mn in 2023, a significant improvement compared to the previous year’s losses of €324mn. Chief executive Pierroberto Folgiero, who has been at the helm since mid-2022, said the results were “the fruit of financial discipline and solid operational performance of military and civil ship building”.
Shares in Fincantieri closed down 7.5 per cent on Thursday over concerns about the size of the recapitalisation reported earlier on Thursday by Italian media.
News
3 children killed in apparent murder-suicide after mom let ex-partner take them to get food, police say
Three children, aged 9 to 13, were killed in what police believe is a murder-suicide after their mother agreed to let an ex-partner take them to get something to eat, officials in Georgia said.
A police officer patrolling Lucky Shoals Park in Norcross, about 20 miles northeast of Atlanta, discovered the bodies of three children and an adult male shortly after 1 a.m. Wednesday inside a vehicle parked on a walking trail.
The children were identified by Gwinnett County Police as Arianny Rodriguez, 13, Chadal Rodriguez, 11, and Carlos Rodriguez, 9.
The suspect was identified as Jose Plasencia, 56, who was previously in a relationship with the children’s mother.
Police said the mother was at the hospital because another one of her children had an unrelated injury. Plasencia was the father of the injured child, police said, and had met the mother and children at the hospital.
“After some time the mother agreed to let the three children go with the suspect to grab a bite to eat while she remained at the hospital,” police said in a statement on Facebook.
Gwinnett County Police Sgt. Michele Pihera called the incident a tragedy.
“Our officers are going to step aside and … do the job to the fullest and make sure that they investigate this as if it were any other homicide. And try to, at least, bring some conclusion to the families who may be involved,” Pihera told NBC affiliate WXIA-TV of Atlanta.
News
The Major Supreme Court Cases of 2024
No Supreme Court term in recent memory has featured so many cases with the potential to transform American society.
The consequential cases, with decisions arriving by late June or early July, include three affecting former President Donald J. Trump, two on abortion, two on guns, three on the First Amendment rights of social media companies and three on the administrative state.
In recent years, some of the court’s biggest decisions have been out of step with public opinion. Researchers at Harvard, Stanford and the University of Texas conducted a survey in March to help explore whether that gap persists.
Trump’s Ballot Eligibility
Where does the public stand?
Think Trump is eligible to run in 2024 | Think Trump is not eligible |
Immunity for Former Presidents
Where does the public stand?
Think former presidents are not immune from criminal prosecution for actions they took while president | Think former presidents are immune |
Obstruction Charges for Jan. 6 Assault
Where does the public stand?
Think the events at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, were criminal | Think the events were not criminal |
Abortion Pills
Is there a major precedent involved?
Are there recent rulings on the subject?
The case will determine whether access to the drug, which is used in the majority of abortions in the United States, will be sharply curtailed.
Where does the public stand?
Think the F.D.A.’s approval of mifepristone should not be revoked | Think the approval should be revoked |
Emergency Abortion Care
The Supreme Court will decide whether a federal law that requires emergency rooms to provide stabilizing care to all patients overrides a state law, in Idaho, that imposes a near-total ban on abortion.
Is there a major precedent involved?
Are there recent rulings on the subject?
It is the first time the Supreme Court is considering a state law criminalizing abortion since it overturned Roe v. Wade. The decision may affect more than a dozen states that have passed near-total bans on abortion.
Where does the public stand?
Think Idaho hospitals must provide abortions in medical emergencies | Think they are not allowed |
Second Amendment Rights of Domestic Abusers
Is there a major precedent involved?
Are there recent rulings on the subject?
Lower courts have struck down federal laws prohibiting people who have been convicted of felonies or who use drugs from owning guns.
The court may start to clear up the confusion it created in the Bruen decision, in the first major test of its expansion of gun rights. The standard it announced has left lower courts in turmoil as they struggle to hunt down references to obscure or since-forgotten regulations.
Where does the public stand?
Think barring domestic abusers from possessing firearms does not violate their Second Amendment rights | Think it violates their rights |
Restrictions on the Homeless
City of Grants Pass v. Johnson
The Supreme Court will decide whether ordinances in Oregon aimed at preventing homeless people from sleeping and camping outside violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.
Is there a major precedent involved?
Are there recent rulings on the subject?
The case could have major ramifications on how far cities across the country can go to clear homeless people from streets and other public spaces.
Where does the public stand?
Think banning homeless people from camping outside even when local shelters are full violates the Constitution | Think it does not violate the Constitution |
Social Media Platforms’ First Amendment Rights
Moody v. NetChoice; NetChoice v. Paxton
The laws’ supporters argue that the measures are needed to combat perceived censorship of conservative views on issues like the coronavirus pandemic and claims of election fraud. Critics of the laws say the First Amendment prevents the government from telling private companies whether and how to disseminate speech.
Is there a major precedent involved?
In 1980, in Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, the court said a state constitutional provision that required private shopping centers to allow expressive activities on their property did not violate the centers’ First Amendment rights.
Are there recent rulings on the subject?
The cases arrive garbed in politics, as they concern laws aimed at protecting conservative speech. But the larger question the cases present transcends ideology. It is whether tech platforms have free speech rights to make editorial judgments.
Where does the public stand?
Think states cannot prevent social media companies from censoring speech | Think states should be able to prevent censoring |
Disinformation on Social Media
Is there a major precedent involved?
Are there recent rulings on the subject?
The Supreme Court is also considering a case that raises similar issues, National Rifle Association v. Vullo, about whether a state official in New York violated the First Amendment by encouraging companies to stop doing business with the National Rifle Association.
The case is a major test of the role of the First Amendment in the internet era, requiring the court to consider when government efforts to limit the spread of misinformation amount to censorship of constitutionally protected speech.
Where does the public stand?
Think federal officials urging private companies to block or remove users violates the First Amendment | Think it does not violate the First Amendment |
N.R.A. and the First Amendment
National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo
The Supreme Court will decide whether a New York State official violated the First Amendment by trying to persuade companies not to do business with the National Rifle Association after the school shooting in Parkland, Fla.
Is there a major precedent involved?
Are there recent rulings on the subject?
The case is one of two that will determine when government advocacy edges into violating free speech rights. The other, Murthy v. Missouri, concerns the Biden administration’s dealings with social media companies.
The case centers on when persuasion by government officials crosses into coercion.
Where does the public stand?
Think the state regulator’s behavior violates the N.R.A.’s First Amendment rights | Think it does not violate the N.R.A.’s rights |
Opioids Settlement
Harrington v. Purdue Pharma
Is there a major precedent involved?
The case is the first time the Supreme Court will address whether a bankruptcy plan can be structured to give civil legal immunity to a third party, without the consent of all potential claimholders. The legal maneuver under scrutiny has become increasingly popular in bankruptcy settlements.
Are there recent rulings on the subject?
Approving the deal would funnel money toward states and others who have waited for years for some kind of settlement. Yet the Sacklers would be largely absolved from future opioid-related claims. More broadly, the case may have implications for similar agreements insulating a third party from liability.
Where does the public stand?
Think the Sackler family should not keep immunity from future lawsuits | Think family should keep immunity |
Racial Gerrymandering
Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the N.A.A.C.P.
Is there a major precedent involved?
Yes. A series of Supreme Court decisions say that making race the predominant factor in drawing voting districts violates the Constitution.
Are there recent rulings on the subject?
The Alabama case was governed by the Voting Rights Act, the landmark civil rights statute, and the one from South Carolina by the Constitution’s equal protection clause.
The case concerns a constitutional puzzle: how to distinguish the roles of race and partisanship in drawing voting maps when Black voters overwhelmingly favor Democrats. The difference matters because the Supreme Court has said that only racial gerrymandering may be challenged in federal court under the Constitution.
Where does the public stand?
Think these changes to the districts are unconstitutional | Think they are constitutional |
Power of Federal Agencies
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo; Relentless v. Department of Commerce
Is there a major precedent involved?
Yes. Chevron is one of the most cited cases in American law.
Are there recent rulings on the subject?
“The question is less whether this court should overrule Chevron,” Paul D. Clement, one of the lawyers for the challengers, told the justices, “and more whether it should let lower courts and citizens in on the news.”
Overturning the decision could threaten regulations on the environment, health care, consumer safety, nuclear energy, government benefit programs and guns. It would also shift power from agencies to Congress and to judges.
Where does the public stand?
Courts should defer to administrative agencies when laws are unclear | Courts should not defer to agencies |
Agency Funding
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America
Is there a major precedent involved?
There is no precedent squarely on point.
Are there recent rulings on the subject?
A ruling against the bureau, created as part of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act after the financial crisis, could cast doubt on every regulation and enforcement action it took in the dozen years of its existence. That includes agency rules — and punishments against companies that flout them — involving mortgages, credit cards, consumer loans and banking.
Where does the public stand?
Think this agency funding structure is unconstitutional | Think it is constitutional |
Administrative Courts
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy
Is there a major precedent involved?
Are there recent rulings on the subject?
A ruling against the S.E.C. would not only require it to file cases in federal court but could also imperil administrative tribunals at many other agencies, including the Federal Trade Commission, the Internal Revenue Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Social Security Administration and the National Labor Relations Board.
Where does the public stand?
Think federal agencies bringing actions in administrative proceedings rather than in federal courts is not constitutional | Think it is constitutional |
Cross-State Air Pollution
Ohio v. Environmental Protection Agency
Is there a major precedent involved?
Are there recent rulings on the subject?
Prevailing winds carry emissions of nitrogen oxide toward Eastern states with fewer industrial sites. The pollutant causes smog and is linked to asthma, lung disease and premature death.
Bump Stocks for Guns
Is there a major precedent involved?
Are there recent rulings on the subject?
The case involves how to interpret a federal law that banned machine guns, the National Firearms Act of 1934. The definition was broadened by the Gun Control Act of 1968 to include parts that can be used to convert a weapon into a machine gun. At issue is whether bump stocks fall within those definitions. Federal appeals courts have split on the issue.
A decision could do away with one of the few efforts at gun control that gained political traction after the Las Vegas massacre in 2017. More broadly, a ruling could help clarify the scope of the power of federal agencies.
-
World1 week ago
Strack-Zimmermann blasts von der Leyen's defence policy
-
Politics1 week ago
Stefanik hits special counsel Jack Smith with ethics complaint, accuses him of election meddling
-
Politics1 week ago
The White House has a new curator. Donna Hayashi Smith is the first Asian American to hold the post
-
Politics1 week ago
Democratic mayor joins Kentucky GOP lawmakers to celebrate state funding for Louisville
-
World1 week ago
Turkish police arrest hundreds at Istanbul May Day protests
-
News1 week ago
Video: Police Arrest Columbia Protesters Occupying Hamilton Hall
-
Politics1 week ago
Newsom, state officials silent on anti-Israel protests at UCLA
-
News1 week ago
Police enter UCLA anti-war encampment; Arizona repeals Civil War-era abortion ban