Former US ambassador to Ukraine who resigned in protest launches run for Congress in Michigan
The longtime diplomat, who previously held high-ranking State Department roles in other former Soviet and Eastern European countries, is casting herself as a public servant as she runs in next year's midterm elections, when her Democrats hope to win control of the House.
'My next mission: to fight for what's right here at home,' she said.
Trump picked Brink to be the country's ambassador to Slovakia in 2019 and Biden tapped her to be ambassador to Ukraine shortly after Russia invaded the country in 2022. She resigned in April, saying in an op-ed published in the Detroit Free Press that Trump continues to pressure Ukraine and not Russia.
'Appeasing a dictator never has and never will achieve lasting peace,' she said in a video announcing her candidacy. 'And it's just not who we are.'
Having worked as a diplomat under five presidents, Brink said that if elected, she would take on 'extremists' and powerful influences such as Elon Musk. She criticized Republicans for cutting government funding and programs.
Brink, who grew up in Grand Rapids, is running in the 7th District, which covers a swath of southern and central Michigan that includes the capital, Lansing, and is one of the state's most competitive.
Last year, Army veteran Tom Barrett flipped the district for Republicans, delivering a key win for the party as it kept its House majority. He defeated Democrat Curtis Hill by almost four percentage points in the open race.
The seat was previously held by centrist Democrat Elissa Slotkin, a former CIA analyst who successfully ran for U.S. Senate in 2024.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
9 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump debanking order will have limited impact on crypto, experts say
Last week, US President Donald Trump issued an executive order directing bank regulators to rescind guidance that could lead to 'politicised or unlawful debanking.' Crypto businesses, and even some prominent conservatives — including the president himself — have alleged they were denied or lost access to bank accounts at the behest of politically-motivated, Biden-era regulators. But last week's executive order, entitled, 'Guaranteeing Fair Banking for All Americans,' won't do much for crypto businesses that fear they've been locked out of the traditional financial system, according to experts who spoke to DL News. That's because the order does little to root out 'reputation risk.' The term refers to regulators' ability to dissuade banks from engaging supposedly controversial customers, such as pornographers, firearms manufacturers, payday lenders, and crypto companies. Critics of the practice say that banks should only consider objective criteria, such as a customer's financial risk, when deciding whether to offer someone a checking account. Guidance documents and manuals 'This is going to make people happy who have been asking for it, but it's not clear how much good it's going to do them,' Dru Stevenson, a professor at South Texas College of Law Houston, told DL News. The executive order directs bank regulators to remove the use of reputation risk 'or equivalent concepts' that could result in 'politicized or unlawful debanking' from their 'guidance documents, manuals, and other materials.' But it isn't clear that examples of debanking were motivated by politics, according to Stevenson. 'It's not clear to me that they couldn't still allow for reputational risk that would apply to, say, an AI company, because that's not exactly a political issue or something that's unlawful,' he said. And reputation risk can have a downstream effect on banks' profits. 'If you have risk averse investors at one of the gigantic pension funds, or mutual funds, and they find out that Wachovia has gone gung ho about crypto, that might be a reason for them to switch to a more conservative bank,' Stevenson said. Moreover, banks were always free to ignore guidance documents and manuals according to Stevenson. As such, removing references to reputation risk from such documents will likely have little practical effect. 'If you're an agency, you can't go into court and say, 'This person violated our guidance document,'' he said. 'You have to show that they violated the statute or that they violated a codified regulation that went through notice and comment rulemaking.' Management reports Julie Hill, the dean of the University of Wyoming's law school, noted that Trump-appointed bank regulators have already said they will stop using reputation risk. While the regulators have new leadership, they are largely staffed by the same people who served under the Biden administration, Hill added. And reputation risk isn't the only tool regulators can use to pressure banks to reject certain customers. Anti-money laundering laws are one reason banks often reject customers, according to Hill. 'The vast, vast majority of suspicious activity reports don't lead to any sort of follow up, let alone any sort of enforcement,' she told DL News. Moreover, banks are not allowed to tell customers that their account was flagged for suspicious activity. 'We have a situation where banks had to file one or more SARs, and they decided it's just not worth it, we should debank, because we don't want our regulators upset with us, and it's getting expensive to file all these SARs.' Another tool at regulators' disposal: management reports. 'If a regulator suggests to a bank, 'We think this is risky, maybe you want to stop doing it' [but] it's not really that risky, banks might do it anyway,' Hill said, 'because their management rating will get downgraded and then that impacts all sorts of things, including their capital requirements.' Those ratings are also secret, according to Hill. 'Anytime you see a really broad authority with very little limit, and then also a lot of secrecy or lack of transparency about how regulators or banks implement that, you're likely to set up claims for debanking,' she said. Banks' responsibility The executive order also directs the regulators to identify financial institutions that had any 'past or current, formal or informal, policies or practices that require, encourage, or otherwise influence … politicized or unlawful debanking.' Finding examples of politically-motivated debanking could be straightforward if the orders came from federal regulators, according to Hill. 'It's a much harder thing if what you think happened is the banks, for whatever reason, just decided to debank people for political reasons, unconnected with risk or profit or whatever,' she said. 'There's a real question about how we think regulators are going to figure that out and whether we think there's any duty on the bank to voluntarily disclose it.' Whatever the effect of the executive order, both professors agreed that a new administration could reinstate the use of reputation risk unilaterally. 'It kind of highlights how unsticky changes made by the executive branch are when it comes to discretionary enforcement,' Hill said. 'This is one of those things that can change from administration to administration.' Stevenson agreed. 'If we ever get to have other presidents, the next president can just do another executive order and put it all back, like, overnight,' Stevenson said. Aleks Gilbert is DL News' New York-based DeFi correspondent. You can contact him at aleks@ Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
9 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Exclusive-US pharma tariffs likely weeks away as Trump plans for Alaska, sources say
By Maggie Fick, Andrea Shalal and Dave Graham WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The announcement by President Donald Trump's administration of the results of a probe into pharmaceutical imports and new sector-specific U.S. tariffs likely remains weeks away, four official and industry sources said, later than initially promised as he focuses on other matters. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick had said in April when the review of whether reliance on foreign drug production threatens U.S. national security was launched that he anticipated that it would conclude between mid-May and mid-June. Global pharmaceutical companies are bracing for the outcome of the investigation, which will usher in sector-specific tariffs that Trump has said could start small and eventually rise to 250%. The Republican president said as recently as last week that his plan relies on phased-in tariffs, giving drugmakers time to increase manufacturing in the United States as he pushes to alter what he says are global trade distortions in many industries. One government official in Europe and a source with knowledge of the White House process, as well as two sources at European drug firms familiar with the process, told Reuters that the report and tariffs announcement was not imminent and likely weeks away. These sources spoke on condition of anonymity. A White House spokesperson, asked about media reporting indicating that the results of the probe could be several weeks away, cautioned that such reports were pure speculation unless confirmed by the White House. The spokesperson declined to give further details about the timing of the pharma probe or one involving semiconductors. The investigation is examining pharmaceutical imports ranging from finished prescription drugs to active pharmaceutical ingredients, called APIs, and other raw materials, with the results to be disclosed in a Commerce Department report. Lutnick said last month the tariff plan that will be based on the report would be completed by the end of July. Lutnick then said on July 29 it would be two more weeks. The investigation was launched under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. While the investigation is ongoing, the pharmaceutical sector has been exempted from the sweeping tariffs imposed by the Trump administration. The United States has reached bilateral trade deals with the UK, Japan, South Korea and the European Union that promised more favorable terms for their pharma exports than those expected to be levied on the sector globally. A European government official said that an announcement before the end of August appears unlikely but cautioned that the timeline could shift depending on other developments. A source at a European drugmaker said the Trump administration is focused on the U.S.-Russia summit in Alaska on Friday and therefore no announcement is expected this week. The source familiar with the White House process said that announcement is unlikely to come this week given other priorities. That source and one other source said that they expect the Trump administration to announce the results of its national security investigation into semiconductors first, followed by the pharma announcement, putting it a few weeks away. The Section 232 provision authorizes the president to adjust imports - including imposing tariffs - if a category of goods is being imported into the United States in quantities that "threaten or impair the national security." Medical goods historically have been spared from trade wars due to the potential harm to patient access, and drugmakers have said tariffs could undercut other health policy goals outlined by the Trump administration, including lowering drug prices. U.S. tariffs on imported pharmaceutical products would mark the latest in a series of sectoral tariffs announced by the administration, following metals and cars, that some economists have predicted will drive up costs for American consumers.
Boston Globe
10 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Why autocracy is rising in America, and how to stop it before it's too late
These two examples are but a sample of the laser-focused and ever-intensifying Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up 'This is about how do you dismantle democracy, in real time, in plain sight,' Stacey Abrams, voting rights activist and former Georgia state legislator, said in an Advertisement It can all feel overwhelming, as if it is too much coming at us too fast to wrap our arms around, let alone fight. But that isn't true. There are things we all can do to push back against and mitigate the autocratic turn our nation has taken. But first, we have to be clear about how and why authoritarianism can so easily take over a democracy like America's. Advertisement It's not just the Supreme Court's continued targeting of the Voting Rights Act or the flagrant partisan gerrymandering to keep increasingly purple states like Texas bright red. Democracy is dying by a thousand cuts, though many feel more like machete wounds. They include Then there's the plan, straight out of Project 2025, to There is also the federal And so much more. Ask yourself: If Republicans were so confident that their policies were popular, why would they be working so hard to rig the electoral system to hold onto power? They give their own game away. But they couldn't do it unless a significant portion of Americans (far short of a majority) were willing to go along with it. I'm often shocked at the willingness of so many Americans to watch our democratic guardrails crumble with barely an 'oh, hum.' But Abrams raised an important point: The way autocrats win over supporters is by telling them the lie that democracy cannot give the people what they need, and that they should embrace an alternative. That was exactly how Rodrigo Duterte rose to power in the Philippines and Viktor Orbán in Hungary. And now it's happening here. Advertisement Republicans have been successful in making their supporters think, as Abrams said, that 'it's this community of people [Democrats] who are the reason you don't have anything, and so we will let you [Republicans] oppress an entire population if it justifies our convenience and guarantees us what we need.' Add a healthy dose of fear-mongering (the entire basis of the Trump administration's militarized attack on immigrants and cities like Washington, D.C.) and otherwise sensible people's tolerance for democratic backsliding skyrockets. But there is reason for hope: We are not without power to push back in real, meaningful ways. 'We need your investment,' Abrams said. 'This is not just about money. It's about time, talent, and treasure.' Give money to pro-democracy causes and candidates if you have it to spare, but that's not the only way. Contact advocacy organizations — from immigrant support groups to organizations dedicated to keeping elections free and fair — and ask what they need. Often it isn't just money but also volunteer time and effort. Contacting members of Congress is useful, but so is showing up at your local town council and school board meetings and demanding they fight against local-level autocracy like book banning and conservative takeovers of school curricula. Talk to your neighbors, your family, and your friends about how much we have to lose if we don't take action. 'We've got to show up and show that democracy can still deliver, even if it's being delivered by individuals,' Abrams said. 'Your church, your organization, your Girl Scout troop, whatever coalition you have, has to step into the gap.' It was a wonderful reminder to me that we are not powerless. I want to remind you of that, too. Advertisement Kimberly Atkins Stohr is a columnist for the Globe. She may be reached at
