Connect with us

Washington, D.C

US to push for quicker action in reducing reliance on China for rare earths

Published

on

US to push for quicker action in reducing reliance on China for rare earths


  • US Treasury’s Bessent said frustrated with lack of urgency
  • G7 plus India, South Korea, Australia and Mexico to attend
  • China dominates critical minerals production

WASHINGTON, Jan 11 (Reuters) – U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent will urge Group of Seven nations and others to step up their efforts to reduce reliance on critical minerals from China when he hosts a dozen top finance officials on Monday, a senior U.S. official said.

The meeting, which kicks off with a dinner on Sunday evening, will include finance ministers or cabinet ministers from the G7 advanced economies, the European Union, Australia, India, South Korea and Mexico, said the official who was not authorized to speak publicly.

Sign up here.

Together, the grouping accounts for 60% of global demand for critical minerals.

Advertisement

“Urgency is the theme of the day. It’s a very big undertaking. There’s a lot of different angles, a lot of different countries involved and we really just need to move faster,” the official said.

Bessent on Friday told Reuters that he had been pressing for a separate meeting on the issue since a G7 leaders summit in Canada in June, where he delivered a rare earths presentation to gathered heads of state from the U.S., Britain, Japan, Canada, Germany, France, Italy and the European Union.

Leaders agreed to an action plan at the summit to secure their supply chains and boost their economies, but Bessent has grown frustrated about the lack of urgency demonstrated by attendees, the official said.

Aside from Japan, which took action after China abruptly cut off its critical minerals supplies in 2010, G7 members remain heavily dependent on critical minerals from China, which has threatened to impose strict export controls.

China dominates the critical minerals supply chain, refining between 47% and 87% of copper, lithium, cobalt, graphite and rare earths, according to the International Energy Agency. These minerals are used in defense technologies, semiconductors, renewable energy components, batteries and refining processes.

The U.S. is expected to issue a statement after the meeting, but no specific joint action is likely, the official added.

Advertisement

US URGES OTHERS TO FOLLOW ITS LEAD

“The United States is in the posture of calling everyone together, showing leadership, sharing what we have in mind going forward,” said the official. “We’re ready to move with those who feel a similar level of urgency … and others can join as they come to the realization of how serious this is.”

The official gave no details on what further steps were planned by the Trump administration, which is pushing forward to boost domestic production and reduce reliance on China through agreements with Australia, Ukraine and other producers.

The U.S. signed an agreement with Australia in October aimed at countering China’s dominance in critical minerals that includes an $8.5 billion project pipeline. The deal leverages Australia’s proposed strategic reserve, which will supply metals like rare earths and lithium that are vulnerable to disruption.

The official said there had been progress, but more work was needed. “It’s not solved,” they added.

Canberra has said it has subsequently received interest from Europe, Japan, South Korea and Singapore.

Monday’s meeting comes days after reports that China had begun restricting exports to Japanese companies of rare earths and powerful magnets containing them, as well as banning exports of dual-use items to the Japanese military.

The meeting was planned well before that action, U.S. officials said. China was still living up to its commitments to purchase U.S. soybeans and ship critical minerals to U.S. firms.

Advertisement

Reporting by Andrea Shalal; Editing by Michael Perry

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles., opens new tab



Source link

Washington, D.C

Fact Check Team: Iran conflict revives Washington fight over who can authorize US force

Published

on

Fact Check Team: Iran conflict revives Washington fight over who can authorize US force


As the war in Iran intensifies across the Middle East, a constitutional battle is unfolding in Washington over a fundamental question: Who has the authority to declare war, Congress or the president?

The debate focuses on the War Powers Resolution, a 1973 law designed to prevent years-long military conflicts without congressional approval. Lawmakers passed the measure in the aftermath of the Vietnam War to reclaim authority they believed had drifted too far toward the executive branch.

What Is the War Powers Resolution?

The War Powers Resolution was intended to put limits on a president’s ability to send U.S. troops into combat without Congress signing off.

Advertisement

Under the law, a president can deploy forces into hostilities only if Congress has formally declared war, passed a specific authorization for the use of military force, or the U.S. has been attacked.

The resolution also sets strict deadlines.

The president must notify Congress within 48 hours of introducing U.S. forces into hostilities. From there, a 60-day clock begins. If Congress does not approve the military action within that time, troops must be withdrawn — though the law allows an additional 30-day wind-down period.

Some argue the law was crafted to prevent “never-ending wars.” While others say presidents from both parties have routinely stretched and sidestepped its requirements.

WASHINGTON, DC – JANUARY 14: Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) visits with Senate pages in the basement of the U.S. Capitol Police ahead of a vote on January 14, 2026 in Washington, DC. Republicans voted to block a Venezuela war powers resolution after receiving assurances from President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio of no U.S. forces remaining in Venezuela and pledges for congressional involvement in major future operations. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Advertisement

What Does the Constitution Say?

The War Powers Resolution is rooted directly in the U.S. Constitution.

Article I, Section 8 gives Congress — not the president — the power “to declare War.”

Article II, Section 2 names the president as Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy.

In simple terms, Congress decides whether the country goes to war. The president directs the military once it is engaged.

Advertisement

The framers intentionally split that authority. Their goal was to avoid concentrating too much war-making power in one person — likely a reaction to the monarchy they had just broken away from.

But how that balance plays out in real time is often a legal and political fight. At times, disputes over war powers have reached the courts, though Congress and the executive branch frequently resolve them through political pressure rather than judicial rulings.

A Pattern of Stretching the War Powers Resolution

Essentially, every president since 1973 has pushed the boundaries of the War Powers Resolution rather than fully complying with its original intent. As the Council on Foreign Relations explains, the resolution was designed to “provide presidents with the leeway to respond to attacks or other emergencies” but also to **require termination of combat after 60 to 90 days unless Congress authorizes continuation.”

For example:

Advertisement
  • Ronald Reagan ordered the U.S. invasion of Grenada in 1983 without prior congressional authorization, later reporting to Congress in a manner “consistent with” the resolution.
  • Bill Clinton directed the 1999 NATO air campaign in Kosovo after congressional authorization efforts failed, continuing U.S. engagement beyond the WPR’s typical 60-day reporting window.
  • Barack Obama oversaw U.S. participation in the 2011 Libya campaign, arguing that limited strikes did not trigger the full force of the WPR’s time limits.

In more recent years, Donald Trump’s administration has once again brought these issues to the forefront.

War Powers Arguments from the White House

The Trump administration’s principal legal rationale has centered on two points:

Short-term strikes or limited military actions do not always trigger the full 60-day clock under the War Powers Resolution, especially when described as defensive, limited in scope, or tied to national security emergencies rather than prolonged hostilities. In some cases, the White House relies on prior Authorizations for Use of Military Force (AUMFs) or other statutory authorities rather than seeking new congressional approval.

Current Public Opinion on Iran Strikes

Public opinion reflects significant skepticism about the current U.S. military engagement with Iran. A recent Reuters/Ipsos poll found that just 27% of Americans support the recent U.S. and allied strikes on Iran, while 43% disapprove and 29% remain uncertain.

Advertisement

Another national poll conducted by SSRS for CNN found that nearly 60% of U.S. citizens disapprove of the military actions, and a similar share said that President Trump should seek Congressional authorization for further action.

Beyond polling, internal deliberations in Congress have already begun. Both Democratic and Republican lawmakers have pushed for votes on war powers resolutions that would seek to limit or require authorization for further military action against Iran. Past attempts to pass similar restraints have failed, reflecting deep partisan divisions and the complexities of enforcing the War Powers Resolution.



Source link

Continue Reading

Washington, D.C

Students at Southeast charter school outperformed 75% of DC on citywide math test – WTOP News

Published

on

Students at Southeast charter school outperformed 75% of DC on citywide math test – WTOP News


Two years ago, leaders at Center City Public Charter School’s Congress Heights campus made a decision to offer more advanced math classes to some of their oldest students.

This page contains a video which is being blocked by your ad blocker.
In order to view the video you must disable your ad blocker.

Students at Southeast charter school outperformed 75% of DC on citywide math test

Two years ago, leaders at Center City Public Charter School’s Congress Heights campus in D.C. decided to offer more advanced math classes to some of their oldest students.

Advertisement

The choice was complicated, and some educators wondered whether the kids would be ready.

To prepare for the possible change, Principal Niya White and her team visited high schools, both nearby and farther away, to see how algebra was being taught.

In some classrooms, White would see former students sleeping in the back. They were bored or had already finished their work.

For White, that made the choice clear — in order to set students up for success, they needed to expand their offerings so kids felt challenged and engaged by the time they reached high school.

“I’m born and raised here,” White said. “I was given the option of whether to leave Southeast D.C., leave D.C., go off to do things and come back. There are a lot of folks and a lot of students or a lot of families that don’t ever get that option. They’ve got to have it.”

Advertisement

Now, the Southeast D.C. campus is offering pre-algebra to seventh graders and algebra to eighth graders. In the 2024-25 school year, 70% of eighth graders at the school either met or exceeded expectations on the citywide standardized math test.

Education news outlet The 74 first reported that’s a stronger mark than the 64% of eighth graders who met or exceeded expectations in Ward 3. Only one-fourth of all D.C. students did the same.

Jessi Mericola, who teaches seventh and eighth grade math, was one of the educators who considered whether students were ready to make such a significant leap.

Initially, half of the rising eighth graders did an accelerated seventh grade curriculum, and then attended summer school to finish the curriculum so they could take algebra in eighth grade.

This year, for the first time, all of seventh grade is being accelerated so next year, “all of our students will be doing algebra,” Mericola said.

Advertisement

“We found that if we tell them they’re ready for it, they believe you, and they want to meet that expectation,” Mericola said.

Each class has about 20 students, with the largest in the school at 26, she said. Classes are divided into sections. There’s an individual review on a recently learned concept, a small group review on something from earlier in the year and then a full group lesson.

Mericola co-teaches with a colleague, and even if a student is struggling to grasp an idea, “we come back and reteach things from before that maybe you missed it the first time, but you catch it the second time; and if you miss it the second time, you catch it the third time.”

It’s an approach, White said, comes from avoiding the assumption that “we can’t move a child forward because of something or one of the things they haven’t mastered yet.”

Eighth grader Kennedy Morse said math was a struggle before she got to the Congress Heights campus, but now, it’s become one of her strongest subjects.

Advertisement

She’s gained confidence from tutoring help and being able to ask questions without judgment.

“It was really shocking for me to be on a higher level,” Morse said. “It was hard. It was hard at first.”

Leonard White had a similar experience.

“I’m actually glad that they can believe in me to do the harder work in these classes,” White said.

While getting access to more advanced math classes at a younger age could help students take more rigorous courses in high school and college, Principal White said with any change, the focus is helping “show them all the possibilities and help them make the choice for themselves, versus it being forced upon them.”

Advertisement

Get breaking news and daily headlines delivered to your email inbox by signing up here.

© 2026 WTOP. All Rights Reserved. This website is not intended for users located within the European Economic Area.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Washington, D.C

Washington Commanders to pay DC $1M to resolve lawsuit over abusive workplace culture – WTOP News

Published

on

Washington Commanders to pay DC M to resolve lawsuit over abusive workplace culture – WTOP News


Brian Schwalb, the District’s attorney general praised the new ownership for rectifying the Commanders’ internal issues.

The former owners of the Washington Commanders will pay the District of Columbia $1 million to resolve a 2022 lawsuit that alleged the NFL franchise misled its fans regarding the team’s toxic and abusive workplace culture in order to protect the its brand.

Dan Snyder still owned the team at the time, and as D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb announced the settlement Monday, he praised the new owners for rectifying internal issues, including accusations of rampant sexual assault and harassment.

“The Commanders’ current owners have commendably opened a new chapter in the team’s history, committing to ensure all employees are protected from abuse and treated with dignity,” Schwalb said. “I want to thank the victims for coming forward to tell their stories — without their bravery, none of this would have come to light.”

Advertisement

A group led by Josh Harris purchased the Commanders in 2023 from Snyder, who had faced pressure to sell the team after a series of scandals and decades of perceivable mediocrity on the field.

Since then, new ownership has strengthened the team’s human resources department and implemented an anti-harassment policy and an investigation protocol for complaints of misconduct, Schwalb’s office said in a news release.

Under the agreement, the team will maintain those reforms, along with paying $1 million to D.C.

The NFL separately fined Snyder $60 million in 2023 after its own investigation concluded that he personally engaged in multiple forms of misconduct, including sexual harassment.

D.C.’s suit accused Snyder and the team of misleading the public about what they knew regarding the hostile work environment and Snyder’s role in creating it.

Advertisement

The Commanders and Snyder deny all the allegations and are not admitting wrongdoing by reaching a resolution, according to the terms of the settlement.

Get breaking news and daily headlines delivered to your email inbox by signing up here.

© 2026 WTOP. All Rights Reserved. This website is not intended for users located within the European Economic Area.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending