Connect with us

Politics

J. Bennett Johnston, Who Helped Shape U.S. Energy Policy, Dies at 92

Published

on

J. Bennett Johnston, Who Helped Shape U.S. Energy Policy, Dies at 92

J. Bennett Johnston Jr., a Louisiana Democrat and four-term United States senator who helped shape America’s energy and science policies in an era of rising concerns over the perils of nuclear power and the nation’s dependence on foreign oil, died on Tuesday in Arlington, Va. He was 92.

His death was confirmed by his son J. Bennett Johnston III.

One of a new breed of polished Southern Democrats that included Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, Mr. Johnston served in the Senate from 1972 to 1997, a tenure that included Middle East conflicts that threatened American oil imports, and nuclear licensing and safety changes in the aftermath of the nation’s worst nuclear accident, the partial reactor meltdown at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania in 1979.

A target of environmentalists’ wrath, he favored more nuclear power plants, although public safety concerns limited new construction for decades. But he won fights to sharply expand oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, the major offshore petroleum-producing area for the United States, and sponsored laws to let coastal states share federal revenue from offshore drilling.

As chairman or a ranking member of the energy and natural resources committee from 1973 to 1996, he was involved in virtually all Senate energy legislation, from rewriting the nuclear licensing provisions of federal law to developing synthetic fuels and deregulating oil and natural gas prices to spur production. It was a delicate balancing act for a senator from a state with ferociously competing energy interests.

Advertisement

In a state also renowned for flamboyant politicians like Huey and Earl Long and corrupt rogues like former Gov. Edwin W. Edwards, Mr. Johnston was a notable exception — a quiet intellectual with finely honed political judgments who grasped the technical intricacies of energy exploration and production and could also lucidly discuss astrophysics, subatomic particles and tennis serves.

A trim, athletic man with receding hair, Mr. Johnston — an inveterate apple muncher who was said to be the Senate’s most avid tennis player in his 50s — was an approachable, friendly man, responsive to questions and easy to talk to or negotiate with.

His voting was not based on loyalties. Colleagues said he switched sides according to his views on the merits of proposed legislation. He advocated higher gas-mileage standards for auto manufacturers, but opposed President Ronald Reagan’s strategic defense initiative — a plan to use weapons in space to protect America from nuclear attack — calling it ill-conceived and too costly.

On international policy, he often sided with liberals in support of the United Nations and foreign aid. But he joined conservatives in opposing abortion and most gun-control measures, and championed a 1981 bill to limit busing for racial integration in public schools to five miles or 15 minutes. The measure died in the House of Representatives.

In Senate fights over candidates for the Supreme Court, Mr. Johnston helped lead a 1987 rejection of Robert H. Bork as President Reagan’s nominee, but broke with his party in 1991 to support confirmation of President George H.W. Bush’s nominee, Clarence Thomas.

Advertisement

In 1988, with Democrats in control of the Senate and Robert F. Byrd of West Virginia stepping down as their leader after a decade, Mr. Johnston and Senator Daniel K. Inouye of Hawaii ran for majority leader, the Senate’s most powerful post. Both lost to Senator George J. Mitchell of Maine.

Mr. Johnston’s support for higher education landed $110 million for five national research centers at universities in Louisiana. He crusaded for years for billions for the Superconducting Super Collider, a pure research particle accelerator, in Texas, to search for fleeting subatomic structures. “It was lynched by the know-nothings,” he said when the project was canceled in 1993.

“I’m interested in understanding where the universe came from and where it’s going,” Mr. Johnston told Physics Today magazine in 1996. “I’m interested in the Higgs boson, which high-energy physicists hope to find if it exists at all, and, like them, I also hope the search produces surprises.” (In 2012, scientists announced that they had discovered a new subatomic particle that appeared to be the Higgs boson.)

John Bennett Johnston Jr., who rarely used his first name, was born in Shreveport, La., on June 10, 1932, to John Bennett Johnston Sr., a lawyer, and the former Wilma Lyon. He graduated from Shreveport schools and attended the United States Military Academy at West Point and Washington and Lee University before graduating from law school at Louisiana State University in 1956.

He married Mary Gunn the same year. They had four children: J. Bennett Johnston III, Hunter Johnston, Mary Johnston Norriss and Sally Roemer.

Advertisement

In the Army from 1956 to 1959, he became a first lieutenant with the Judge Advocate General’s Corps in Germany. After practicing law in Shreveport for several years, he began his political career in 1964 with election to the Louisiana House of Representatives. In 1968 he won a four-year term in the State Senate.

In a state dominated by Democrats, with nominations tantamount to election, Mr. Johnston in 1971 ran for governor, but narrowly lost the nomination to Representative Edwin Edwards, who then won the first of his four terms as governor. Mr. Edwards later went to jail for eight years for bribery and extortion. In 1972, Mr. Johnston contested the renomination of United States Senator Allen J. Ellender, who had held his seat since 1936 as a protégé of the assassinated Senator Huey P. Long.

But Mr. Ellender died during the campaign. Mr. Edwards named his own wife to the seat pending a special election, and Mr. Johnston won the nomination and the general election. He was re-elected in 1978 and again in 1984 against token opposition, despite a landslide for President Reagan that hurt other Democrats.

Mr. Johnston’s last campaign, in 1990, was his toughest — against David Duke, a former Ku Klux Klan leader who had become a popular state legislator. Even by Louisiana’s baroque political standards, the race was strange: a powerful three-term Democratic incumbent overshadowed by a political neophyte who had not sponsored a single bill in the Louisiana Legislature.

Mr. Duke dominated the campaign with appeals to white resentment over affirmative action and welfare programs, and allusions to his racially charged agenda. But his candidacy and his past associations with white supremacy groups were widely condemned, and Mr. Johnston won a fourth term.

Advertisement

When that term ended in January 1997, Mr. Johnston, who lived in McLean, Va., retired from politics and founded Johnston & Associates, a Washington a lobbying firm that later went out of business.

Mr. Johnston’s son said that he is survived by his wife, his four children and 10 grandchildren.

Yan Zhuang contributed reporting.

Politics

Trump Was Flattering, Xi Was Resolute. The Difference Spoke Volumes.

Published

on

Trump Was Flattering, Xi Was Resolute. The Difference Spoke Volumes.

For President Trump, the first day of his visit to Beijing was all about the personal relationship between him and Xi Jinping, the Chinese leader.

“You’re a great leader,” he told his host, whom he has often said he admires for his “powerful” control over a nation of 1.4 billion people. “I say it to everybody.”

Mr. Xi, unsurprisingly, spent little time on flattery. Once the 21-gun salute and precision-marching by units of the People’s Liberation Army were finished, the disciplined Chinese leader plunged right away into setting boundaries for the two country’s relations. The red line was Taiwan, he said, making it abundantly clear that Mr. Trump’s effort at rapprochement could crash on takeoff if he interferes with China’s long-term effort to take control of the self-governing island.

“The U.S. must handle the Taiwan issue with utmost caution,” he said according to a readout from Xinhua, China’s official news agency. The warning came just minutes into his public remarks in the Great Hall of the People, the center of power for the People’s Republic starting just a decade into Mao’s revolution. For Mr. Xi, it was all about setting boundaries, from the start.

The moment seemed to capture the new equilibrium between the two adversaries. Mr. Xi arrived highly scripted, leaving no doubt that for all of China’s problems — deflation, depopulation, the bursting of the real estate bubble — the moment when China acts as a peer superpower had arrived.

Advertisement

At every turn, at least has he began his two-day trip to China, Mr. Trump sounded conciliatory, the exact opposite of his portrayals of China in public appearances back home, where during his presidential campaigns he has talked about the country as a job-stealer and national security threat. Mr. Xi, while smiling and welcoming to Mr. Trump, was quietly more confrontational — especially on Taiwan, where he delivered an unequivocal warning.

The gap spoke directly to the new level of confidence and authority Mr. Xi has adapted in his public speech, despite his challenges with the domestic economy, as he watches the United States plunge into conflict with Iran, another Middle East confrontation with no easy exit.

The Chinese president designed the day meticulously, down to a visit to the Temple of Heaven, the Ming dynasty complex not far from the Forbidden City. As Mr. Trump sat in the 13th-century wonder, he got a history lesson from the Chinese leader, tailored to echo the modern era.

At his toast at a televised State Banquet on Thursday night, Mr. Trump came with a lesson of his own, describing links between China and the United States that went back to the Empress of China, the ship that took a 14-month journey in 1783 to open trade and bring the first American diplomats to what was then known as Canton, now called Guangzhou.

“We’ve gotten along when there were difficulties, we worked it out,” Mr. Trump said. But even then he cast relations in personal terms, making clear that the huge divisions between the two countries had to be solved by two strong leaders.

Advertisement

“I would call you, and you would call me whenever we had a problem, people don’t know, whenever we had a problem,” he said. “We worked that out very quickly, and we’re going to have a fantastic future together.”

For his part, Mr. Xi returned to his mantra: to keep from turning competition into conflict, the two nations must keep from falling into the “Thucydides Trap.”

(The trap, popularized by the Harvard professor Graham Allison in his book “Destined for War: Can America and China Escape the Thucydides’s Trap,” comes when a rising power challenges a status-quo power, often leading to war. “It was the rise of Athens and the fear that rise engendered in Sparta,” the ancient Greek historian Thucydides wrote, “that made war inevitable”.)

Mr. Xi proposed a familiar solution: ban talk of competition between the No. 1 and No. 2 economic superpowers — a regular staple of the Biden White House — and focus on “stability,’’ a governing characteristic rarely associated with Mr. Trump.

“The common interests between China and the United State outweigh our differences,” Mr. Xi said, according to state media. “Stability in China-U.S. relations is a boon to the world.”

Advertisement

But unlike Mr. Trump, he explored the alternative scenario.

“If handled poorly, the two countries will collide or even clash, putting the entire U.S.-China relationship in an extremely dangerous situation,” he said, a clear reference to Taiwan, according to the readout.

If much of this sounds familiar, it was. Mr. Xi has go-to homilies, part of his philosopher-king approach to ruling over China. And in this summit he invented one new one: He said he agreed with Mr. Trump on “a new vision of building a constructive China-US relationship of strategic stability.”

As Rush Doshi, a China scholar at Georgetown University noted, that sounded like an effort “to lock in a ‘truce’ favorable to them, and they want to do so beyond Trump, with this post-trade war détente setting the base line.”

Future disputes over China’s excess manufacturing capacity or rebuilding American military capability in the Indo-Pacific could be declared “a violation of this frame,” he wrote on X.

Advertisement

The contrast with Mr. Trump’s style — where summits are first and foremost for instant “deals,’’ usually ones he can boast will provide jobs or sales — is often jarring. Mr. Trump, for example, brought a group of business executives, whose presence he said was intended to show “respect” for China while seeking market access.

It had a 1990s ring to it, the days when Bill Clinton and George W. Bush brought business leaders to explore the promise of the Chinese market, often for the first time. But Mr. Trump’s delegation came with decades of experience, much of it bitter. Some of them were survivors of the battles over intellectual property theft and sharp restrictions intended to favor local Chinese industry.

Mr. Xi did not bring an equivalent group. There were no executives from BYD, the huge Chinese carmaker trying to figure out how to do business in the United States, or DeepSeek, the innovative artificial intelligence firm at the heart of the battle with A.I. firms in the United States.

There were other discordant notes, heard just beneath the noise of the clinking glasses and optimistic toasts. In contrast to the Chinese readout, the American account, released by the White House, talked about cracking down on fentanyl precursors, a long-running issue with China, and buying American agricultural goods. It did not mention Taiwan, or China’s restrictions on rare earths, or its rapid nuclear weapons buildup.

The White House also described the United States and China as aligned on the need to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, and keep it free of Iranian tolls. All that was true, but ignored the deeper complication: despite American entreaties, China is unlikely to deploy whatever influence it has with the Iranians for free. What the price might be is unclear.

Advertisement

The real test of how these two men debate their differences might come on Friday morning, when Mr. Trump is scheduled for much smaller meetings with Mr. Xi. It is the kind of session he likes best: leader to leader. And once he leaves Chinese airspace, he seems likely to present his preferred version of those talks.

The Chinese government will likely be more circumspect.

Continue Reading

Politics

Jordan grills Soros-backed DA Descano in heated spat over soft-on-crime policy: ‘This is almost laughable’

Published

on

Jordan grills Soros-backed DA Descano in heated spat over soft-on-crime policy: ‘This is almost laughable’

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, tussled with high-profile Soros-backed Fairfax Commonwealth’s Attorney Stephen Descano over soft-on-crime policies that critics said let illegal immigrant criminals back on the street.

Descano was seated two spots away from Cheryl Minter, mother of Stephanie Minter, who was allegedly murdered by Sierra Leone national Abdul Jalloh at a bus stop not far from George Washington’s Mount Vernon.

Minter’s case, following several similar incidents and the failure by Descano or fellow witness Fairfax County Sheriff Stacey Ann Kincaid to honor ICE detainers, spurred lawmakers to haul them across the river to testify about the rapidly deteriorating safety of what the prosecutor called one of America’s safest counties.

Jordan began by pressing Kincaid on why she “let” illegal immigrant suspect Marvin Morales-Ortiz out of her jail: “Because the guy beside you wouldn’t prosecute him, right?”

Advertisement

HOUSE PANEL SUMMONS SOROS-BACKED FAIRFAX PROSECUTOR OVER RELEASES TIED TO VIOLENT ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT CASES

Fairfax County Commonwealth’s Attorney Steve Descano speaks at an event in Fairfax County, Va. (Sarah Voisin/Getty Images)

“You’d have to talk to him,” Kincaid replied, adding a judge later ordered his release, before bristling at Jordan’s follow-up question about law enforcement morale in Fairfax.

Jordan then turned to Descano, questioning changes to language on his website about considering immigration consequences in charging decisions.

Descano said the excerpt was part of a “campaign” statement and not an actual law enforcement policy, leading Jordan to incredulously ask whether people should believe his campaign statements will translate into policies upon election.

Advertisement

“That’s not what I’m saying,” Descano countered.

“This is almost laughable,” said Jordan. “This is your policy. You said it right here. You told the voters, if you elect me, I will take into account immigration consequences when making, charging and pleading [decisions].”

Descano’s exchange with next Republican to ask questions, Rep. Jeff Van Drew of South Jersey, also quickly escalated into near-shouting.

WAVE OF ALLEGED MIGRANT MURDERS IGNITES FURY ACROSS US AS OFFICIALS WARN OF MORE CARNAGE, CRACKDOWN NEEDED

Van Drew criticized sanctuary policies, including in his home Garden State, and told Minter that his own condolences could not do justice to what happened to her daughter in Descano’s territory.

Advertisement

He called the conditions in sanctuary jurisdictions “bizarro world” and asked the prosecutor if communities are safer when illegal immigrant criminals are deported or when they are released.

“Well, sir, that’s not –” Descano began before Van Drew cut him off. “Yes or no – I’m asking the questions.”

“You’re a human being. You’re sitting next to a woman who lost her daughter. Can you tell me if illegal criminals are removed from the country; if we’re safer,” Van Drew said, prompting a fiery response from Descano:

“To suggest I don’t care about what happens in my community…” he began before more crosstalk ensued.

“Dammit, answer my question,” Van Drew eventually fumed.

Advertisement

GRIEVING VIRGINIA MOTHER TELLS FAR-LEFT PROSECUTOR ‘DO YOUR JOB’ AFTER DAUGHTER STABBED TO DEATH

“Explain to the lady next to you (Cheryl Minter). Abdul Jalloh was charged in your county more than 40 times. Not four times. 40 times. Your office dropped the charges in almost every single case. That’s fact. We have it documented. We can look at it your own. Fairfax County Police Department wrote your office [in] May 2025 saying he had shown a, quote, ‘blatant disregard for human life and was a danger to the community’ and that if he wasn’t detained and deported, he would seriously hurt someone or kill someone,” Van Drew said.

“The very man went out and then killed someone. So the question is, couldn’t’ve we done better there?”

Another panelist also elicited occasional rifts with the lawmakers. Libertarian analyst David Bier of the Cato Institute often defended the idea of counties making their own decisions about whether to cooperate with federal law enforcement.

Part of Bier’s opening statement drew some eyebrows on X, as he appeared to suggest as much as 20% of Fairfax County’s population is deportable – when trying to argue against mass deportation.

Advertisement

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“The first step would be to give up on the mass deportation fantasy. About 1 in 5 Fairfax residents is someone who could be deported or who lives with them. It would destroy neighborhoods, rip Americans away from their spouses, parents, friends, families, customers, employees, employers, nurses, nannies, and teachers,” Bier said.

Bier also accused DHS of ignoring the Laken Riley Act and instead of “racially profiling Americans at Home Depot” and shooting people like Alex Pretti and Renee Good.

Continue Reading

Politics

Newsom offers early peek at rosy budget projections

Published

on

Newsom offers early peek at rosy budget projections

Hours before Gov. Gavin Newsom is expected to present his budget plan on Thursday, his office released new projections of a $16.5-billion state revenue windfall over three years and offered a rosy outlook on California’s fiscal position during his final year in office and the year after.

Newsom’s office provided few details about his plan to reduce spending or other adjustments that he would need to propose in combination with the increase in revenue to eliminate projected deficits from 2026-27 through 2027-28.

The unusual early look at his budget proposal comes as Newsom begins to wind down his time at the state Capitol and considers a run for president in 2028.

Two weeks ago, the Legislative Analyst’s Office issued an analysis of state spending that said California could not, in the long term, afford to pay for existing services and the new programs that Newsom and Democratic lawmakers have enacted since he took office in 2019. State spending has outpaced California’s strong revenue growth by about 10%, creating a perennial budget shortfall, defined as a structural deficit.

California’s spending problem threatens to define Newsom’s fiscal legacy and could provide ripe fodder for his critics. If projections of the unexpected tax windfall, which analysts attribute to stock market interest in artificial intelligence companies, bear out, the upswing could mark a lucky break for Newsom.

Advertisement

The governor has largely resisted adopting new across-the-board tax increases or sharply curtailing his expensive policy proposals in order to align state spending with revenue.

His budget proposal includes a call to increase taxes on corporations by limiting state tax credits to no more than $5 million, or 50% of a company’s tax liability, beginning in the tax year 2027. No estimates were offered to explain how much revenue the new cap would bring in to support the state budget.

The preview of his budget has several new spending proposals, including providing $300 million to help low-income Californians keep $0 monthly premiums on healthcare coverage through the Affordable Care Act in response to cuts by the federal government, as well as $100 million to help wildfire victims afford construction loans to rebuild their homes. Two days before Mother’s Day, Newsom also introduced a plan to provide 400 free diapers for every California newborn at select hospitals beginning this summer.

Newsom is expected to present his budget in more detail late Thursday morning in Sacramento.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending