House Republicans push Labor to unwind mine dust rule
In a letter to the Department of Labor on Tuesday, seven GOP lawmakers, including Chair Tim Walberg (R-Mich.). argued the 2024 rule places 'unwarranted and costly obligations' on the mining industry and fails to account for other measures to keep workers safe on the job.
'Simply put, the Biden-Harris administration's actions failed to enhance worker safety when it limited protections for miners and imposed hundreds of millions of dollars in costs,' the letter states. 'DOL should consider initiating a new rulemaking to prevent serious economic hardship.'
Advertisement
The Mine Safety and Health Administration rule lowers the maximum exposure level for respirable crystalline silica to 50 micrograms per cubic meter of air over the course of an eight-hour shift, down from the previous level of 100 micrograms.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Retribution will come if Kamala Harris discusses Joe Biden's cognitive decline, according to a journalist.
Allies of Joe Biden will leak unflattering, 'Palinesque' stories about Kamala Harris' tenure as vice president if she discusses his cognitive decline, according to a journalist. Mark Halperin, a veteran political reporter who founded the digital news network 2WAY, broke the news during the Friday episode of his show The Morning Meeting. 'I will tell you, and this has never been reported, barely at all,' he began. 'If the Biden people decide that Kamala is coming after Joe Biden, wait till you hear the Palinesque stories about how much they tried to help her be prepared to be vice president and be in a position to run. And how much they decided, 'Not happening. She's not up to this.''
The Hill
23 minutes ago
- The Hill
Court reaffirms ruling limiting Trump's asylum ban at US, Mexico border
A three-judge panel in the U.S. Court of Appeals on Friday reaffirmed the ruling limiting President Trump's asylum ban at the U.S.-Mexico border, blocking the president's Day 1 order. Shortly after taking office, Trump issued a proclamation seeking to end asylum for all migrants besides those who entered the U.S. at ports of entry, contending the change was needed to address the 'invasion' at the border with Mexico. The American Civil Liberties Union sued the administration on behalf of nonprofits in early February. Last month, a U.S. District Court Judge, Randolph Moss, an appointee of former President Obama, blocked Trump's ban, saying the administration violated the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). A panel of judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit – Patricia Millett, Cornelia Pillard and Gregory G. Katsas – issued an administrative pause on Moss' early July ruling. Moss argued that the president overstepped his authority in severely limiting asylum for those migrants fleeing danger and persecution. The D.C. circuit panel lifted its stay on Moss' decision. The three-judge panel narrowed the extent of the district judge's decision, permitting the U.S. government to keep utilizing Trump's order to forbid migrants from participating in the asylum system. 'The President secured the border in record time at an unprecedented level by using every available legal tool provided by Congress. A rogue district judge took those tools away, threatening the safety and security of Americans and ignoring a Supreme Court decision issued only days earlier admonishing district courts for granting nationwide injunctions,' Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin told CBS News. 'The Trump Administration is committed to restoring integrity to our immigration system and to our justice system,' McLaughlin added.
Los Angeles Times
23 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Trump's tariffs leave a lot of losers, from Laos to Brazil. And there were no real winners
WASHINGTON — President Trump's tariff onslaught this week left a lot of losers — from small, poor countries such as Laos and Algeria to wealthy U.S. trading partners such as Canada and Switzerland. They're now facing especially hefty export taxes — tariffs — on the products they export to the U.S. starting Thursday. The closest thing to winners may be the countries that succumbed to Trump's demands — and avoided even more pain. But it's unclear whether anyone will be able to claim victory in the long run — even the United States, the intended beneficiary of Trump's protectionist policies. 'In many respects, everybody's a loser here,'' said Barry Appleton, co-director of the Center for International Law at the New York Law School. Barely six months after he returned to the White House, Trump has demolished the old global economic order. Gone is one built on agreed-upon rules. In its place is a system in which Trump himself sets the rules, using America's enormous economic power to punish countries that won't agree to one-sided trade deals and extracting huge concessions from the ones that do. 'The biggest winner is Trump,' said Alan Wolff, a former U.S. trade official and deputy director-general at the World Trade Organization. 'He bet that he could get other countries to the table on the basis of threats, and he succeeded — dramatically.'' Everything goes back to what Trump calls 'Liberation Day'' — April 2 — when the president announced 'reciprocal'' taxes of up to 50% on imports from countries with which the United States ran trade deficits and 10% 'baseline'' taxes on almost everyone else. He invoked a 1977 law to declare the trade deficit a national emergency that justified his sweeping import taxes. That allowed him to bypass Congress, which traditionally has had authority over taxes, including tariffs — all of which is now being challenged in court. Trump retreated temporarily after April announcement triggered a rout in financial markets and suspended the reciprocal tariffs for 90 days to give countries a chance to negotiate. Eventually some of them did, acceding to Trump's demands to pay what four months ago would have seemed unthinkably high tariffs to maintain their ability to sell to the vast American market. The United Kingdom agreed to 10% tariffs on its exports to the United States — up from 1.3% before Trump amped up his trade war with the world. The U.S. demanded concessions even though it had run a trade surplus, not a deficit, with the U.K. for 19 straight years. The European Union and Japan accepted U.S. tariffs of 15%. Those are much higher than the low-single-digit rates they paid last year, but lower than the tariffs he was threatening — 30% on the EU and 25% on Japan. Also cutting deals with Trump and agreeing to hefty tariffs were Pakistan, South Korea, Vietnam, Indonesia and the Philippines. Even countries that saw their tariffs lowered from April without reaching a deal are still paying much higher tariffs than before Trump took office. Angola's tariff, for instance, dropped to 15% from 32% in April, but in 2022 it was less than 1.5%. And while the Trump administration cut Taiwan's tariff to 20% from 32% in April, the pain will still be felt by a U.S. ally that China claims as its territory. 'Twenty percent from the beginning has not been our goal. We hope that in further negotiations we will get a more beneficial and more reasonable tax rate,' Taiwan's President Lai Ching-te told reporters in Taipei on Friday. Trump also agreed to reduce the tariff on the tiny southern African kingdom of Lesotho to 15% from the 50% he'd announced in April, but the damage may already have been done there. Countries that didn't knuckle under — and those that found other ways to incur Trump's wrath — got hit harder. Even some of the poor were not spared. Laos' annual economic output comes to $2,100 per person and Algeria's $5,600 — versus America's $75,000. Nonetheless, Laos got rocked with a 40% tariff and Algeria with a 30% levy. Trump slammed Brazil with a 50% import tax largely because he didn't like the way it was treating former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, a close Trump ally who is facing trial for trying to overturn his electoral loss and inspiring a riot in the capital in 2023 — recalling Trump's role in the Jan. 6. insurrection two years earlier at the U.S. Capitol. Never mind that the U.S. has exported more to Brazil than it's imported every year since 2007. Trump's decision to plaster a 35% tariff on long-standing U.S. ally Canada was partly designed to threaten Ottawa for saying it would recognize a Palestinian state in light of the humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip. Trump is a staunch supporter of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Switzerland was clobbered with a 39% import tax — even higher than the 31% Trump announced on April 2. 'The Swiss probably wish that they had camped in Washington'' to make a deal, said Wolff, now a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. 'They're clearly not at all happy.'' Fortunes may change if Trump's tariffs are upended in court. Five American businesses and 12 states are suing the president, arguing that his April 2 tariffs exceeded his authority under the 1977 law. In May, the U.S. Court of International Trade, a specialized court in New York, agreed and blocked the tariffs, although the government was allowed to continue collecting them while its appeal wends its way through the legal system, and may end up at the Supreme Court. In a hearing Thursday, the judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit sounded skeptical about Trump's justifications for the tariffs. 'If [the tariffs] get struck down, then maybe Brazil's a winner and not a loser,'' Appleton said. Trump portrays his tariffs as a tax on foreign countries. But they are actually paid by import companies in the U.S. who typically pass along the cost to their customers via higher prices. True, tariffs can hurt other countries by forcing their exporters to cut prices and sacrifice profits — or risk losing market share in the United States. But economists at Goldman Sachs estimate that overseas exporters have absorbed just one-fifth of the rising costs from tariffs, while Americans and U.S. businesses have picked up the most of the tab. Walmart, Procter & Gamble, Ford, Best Buy, Adidas, Nike, Mattel and Stanley Black & Decker have all raised prices due to U.S. tariffs. 'This is a consumption tax, so it disproportionately affects those who have lower incomes,' Appleton said. 'Sneakers, knapsacks ... your appliances are going to go up. Your TV and electronics are going to go up. Your video game devices, consoles are going to up because none of those are made in America.'' Trump's trade war has pushed the average U.S. tariff from 2.5% at the start of 2025 to 18.3% now, the highest since 1934, according to the Budget Lab at Yale University. And that will impose a $2,400 cost on the average household, the lab estimates. 'The U.S. consumer's a big loser,″ Wolff said. Wiseman writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Christopher Rugaber contributed to this report.
