Florida AG proposes ‘Alligator Alcatraz' detention center
Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier, a Republican, says the state is proposing a new detention center on a parcel of land owned by Miami-Dade County. The land is situated in the middle of the Everglades, surrounded by alligators and pythons, leaving detainees with 'nowhere to run, nowhere to hide.' Read more: https://www.newsnationnow.com/us-news/immigration/florida-alligator-alcatraz/
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
26 minutes ago
- Forbes
Crisis Averted—But What Was The Section 899 Revenge Tax Proposal?
WASHINGTON, DC - APRIL 23: U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent delivers remarks during the ... More International Finance Institute Global Outlook Forum at the Willard InterContinental Washington on April 23, 2025 in Washington, DC. The forum is being held alongside the 2025 spring meetings of the World Bank Group (WBG) and International Monetary Fund (IMF). (Photo by) There are myriad ways to express displeasure with international tax policy: you can file a complaint at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), leverage a charm offensive, or, if you're looking for a quick fix, you can slap a retaliatory tax on foreign investors, spook the market, and call it a day. The Trump administration opted for the latter—albeit briefly—with the seemingly now-defunct Section 899 provision, branded by some as the 'revenge tax.' This provision, tucked into the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, levied a targeted tax meant to punish countries that impose 'discriminatory' taxes on American firms – particularly tech giants. Now however, after some handshakes and a flurry of posts on social media, it seems the revenge tax has been scrapped. Quietly scuttled, its political usefulness exhausted—for now. What Was the Section 899 'Revenge Tax?' At its core, Section 899 was a legislative jab aimed squarely at America's trading partners. Buried in the GOP's sweeping policy bill, the provision would have authorized the U.S. to impose punitive taxes on companies headquartered in countries that were, in the view of the Trump administration, treating American firms unfairly. The sweeping new section of the tax code would have been titled 'Enforcement of Remedies Against Unfair Foreign Taxes'—not exactly a subtle start. Section 899 didn't go after governments that it felt had treated U.S. firms unfairly, but instead targeted people and businesses with ties to 'discriminatory foreign countries.' That included foreign individuals, corporations not majority-owned by U.S. persons, private foundations and trusts, and just about any other foreign partnership or structure that Treasury didn't like the looks of. The goal was clear: foreign investors from offending jurisdictions were going to be made to feel real economic pain. The core mechanism was an annual ratcheting-up of tax rates by 5% on the U.S. income of 'applicable persons' – everything from dividends and royalties to capital gains and even real estate sales. Exceptions were few – the legislation even explicitly overrode Section 892, which exempts sovereign wealth funds from taxation. The triggering mechanism for the tax was any broadly-defined 'unfair foreign tax,' which included the Undertaxed Profits Rule from OECD's Pillar 2, Digital Services Taxes (DSTs), and any other tax Treasury later deemed discriminatory or deliberately burdensome to U.S. persons. In sum, it would have been sweeping. If passed, Section 899 would have been a weaponization of the tax code into a tool of transparent foreign policy enforcement. It would have marked a sea change in international tax policy, shifting tax rates away from economics and towards the punishment of deemed foreign policy sins. What Prompted this 'Revenge?' Likely the most salient policy shift that triggered this revenge tax was the OECD's Pillar 2. Championed by the Biden administration, Pillar 2 aims to impose a 15% global minimum tax on the profits of multinationals—regardless of where they are headquartered or what markets they serve. On paper, it was intended to end the race to the bottom of low-tax jurisdictions; in practice, it creates a complex web of policies and enforcement rules that can allow foreign governments to tax U.S. companies in situations where the U.S. does not. The Undertaxed Profits Rule allows other countries to claim the ability to tax if a company's home jurisdiction does not sufficiently tax its own domestic entities. Think of it as a foreign state saying, well, if you aren't going to tax your companies at 15%, we'll gladly make up the difference for you. To the Trump administration, this was unacceptable—a path to the European Union skimming revenue from American companies. The final straw was likely the imposition of DSTs—levies aimed at the revenue of tech giants like Meta and Google, often imposed by European countries that have grown tired of waiting for the U.S. to sign on to Pillar 2. Of course, countries considering and ultimately passing DSTs were merely exercising their right to tax American companies selling into their markets—but that is neither here nor there. Why Section 899 Was a Problem—And Why It Died For all its bluster, Section 899 had one main flaw: it was bad policy masquerading as tough politics. From the moment the bill hit the docket, or more accurately folks found it swimming around in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, alarms went off across the market. As it turns out, foreign investment doesn't like uncertainty. Section 899 would have injected a lot of uncertainty into the foreign investment market. The tax hikes weren't automatic, and there was no schedule that could be consulted by any one individual state; they turned on vague determinations like what was and wasn't an 'unfair tax.' Treasury could label a state a discriminatory foreign country based on opaque criteria and ramp up rates immediately—all without Congress lifting a finger. As is to be expected, trade groups warned of chilling effects on capital markets. Foreign governments viewed it as a backdoor sanctions regime. So it died – not with a bang, but with a post. Scott Bessent publicly called for the provision's removal, citing diplomatic progress. The death of the Revenge Tax doesn't mean this particular international tax skirmish is over, however, only that the battle was paused temporarily in favor of diplomacy. If global talks stall, or DSTs raise their heads again, no one should be surprised if a future Congress pulls out this playbook again.
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Nate Morris announces run for Sen. Mitch McConnell's seat
A Kentucky businessman is throwing his name into the Republican field of candidates to replace Sen. Mitch McConnell, who is retiring at the end of his current term. Nate Morris, chairman and chief executive officer of Morris Industries, announced June 26 on Donald Trump Jr.'s podcast show, "Triggered with Don Jr.," he will make a bid for the U.S. Senate. "I think it's time to take out the trash in Washington, D.C., and bring someone new, somebody from the outside, somebody that's not a career politician and most importantly, someone that's only beholden to the people, not to McConnell cronies and the people that have been occupying this seat through McConnell over the last 40 years," Morris said. Morris, who has never served in public office but has been involved in Kentucky politics, runs a privately held conglomerate in Lexington. According to its website, the company "reimagines the industrial economy while leveraging the power of business to solve some of America's biggest challenges, including the environment and national security." Morris has also worked with Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul, with POLITICO calling Morris "a door-opener for Paul with big-money GOP donors." He touted his background as a ninth-generation Kentuckian, saying he and his family have been "fighting and scrapping for everything we have." "Like most Kentuckians, 19 of my family members worked at an auto plant, and I've been able to live the American dream because of how great this country is," Morris said. Morris has taken jabs at McConnell in the past, including in a recent social media post where he criticized the senator for voting against the confirmation of Pete Hegseth as U.S. secretary of defense. He was critical of McConnell during his campaign announcement, saying that McConnell's legacy will be known in Kentucky and around the country as someone who was "sabotaging Trump's agenda." "I look at Mitch McConnell as the final boss for (Trump) to defeat, and I think he's going to do it right here in Kentucky and elect an America First candidate to carry on his legacy in the Bluegrass state," Morris said. Morris joins current U.S. Rep. Andy Barr and former Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron who have previously announced they will run in the GOP primary election for McConnell's seat. McConnell had announced in February that he will not seek reelection in 2026. He joined the U.S. Senate in 1984 and served as the GOP's leader in the chamber from 2007-24 before giving up the position to Sen. John Thune of South Dakota. His time as Senate leader is the longest by a member of any party in history. Cameron wasted no time and shared he would be running minutes after McConnell said he wouldn't seek reelection. Barr, who has represented Kentucky's Sixth Congressional District since 2013, announced he would also run for the Senate seat. On the Democratic side, state Rep. Pamela Stevenson launched her campaign in April. She has represented House District 43 in Frankfort since 2021 and has a background as a colonel in the U.S. Air Force. The primaries are set to take place on May 19, 2026, before the general election later that year on Nov. 3. Reach reporter Hannah Pinski at hpinski@ or follow her on X, formerly known as Twitter, at @hannahpinski. This article originally appeared on Louisville Courier Journal: Nate Morris announces bid for Mitch McConnell's Senate seat
The Hill
27 minutes ago
- The Hill
SCOTUS delivers gut punch to Planned Parenthood
The Big Story In a ruling made along ideological lines, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that Medicaid beneficiaries don't have the right to sue to obtain care from a provider of their choice, paving the way for South Carolina to block Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid funds. © AP The law says 'any individual' insured through Medicaid 'may obtain' care from any qualified and willing provider. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the majority that Medicaid recipients do not have the right to sue to enforce that provision. Medicaid is prohibited from paying for almost all abortions, but states want to cut government funding for other services Planned Parenthood provides. The suit, supported by the Trump administration, was brought by South Carolina. South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster (R) praised the ruling Thursday, saying, 'Seven years ago, we took a stand to protect the sanctity of life and defend South Carolina's authority and values — and today, we are finally victorious.' The ruling has implications for other states, at a time when red states across the country are looking for ways to deprive Planned Parenthood of funding. Nationally, the Trump administration is withholding federal family planning grants from nine Planned Parenthood affiliates. Texas, Arkansas and Missouri already block Planned Parenthood from seeing Medicaid patients, and the organization has said it expected many other Republican-led states to do the same if the Supreme Court sided with South Carolina. 'Today, the Supreme Court once again sided with politicians who believe they know better than you, who want to block you from seeing your trusted health care provider and making your own health care decisions,' Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said in a statement. 'And the consequences are not theoretical in South Carolina or other states with hostile legislatures. Patients need access to birth control, cancer screenings, STI testing and treatment, and more.' Roughly 72 million low-income Americans receive health insurance through Medicaid, according to the most recent enrollment numbers. And more than 1.3 million South Carolinians — or 20 percent of the state — are enrolled in the program, according to the health policy nonprofit KFF. 'As extremists in every branch of our government are targeting Planned Parenthood and attempting to strip millions of Americans of the care their health centers provide, this is nothing more than a politically-motivated green light to anti-abortion politicians,' Reproductive Freedom Caucus co-chairs Reps. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) and Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) said in a statement. Welcome to The Hill's Health Care newsletter, we're Nathaniel Weixel, Joseph Choi and Alejandra O'Connell-Domenech — every week we follow the latest moves on how Washington impacts your health. Did someone forward you this newsletter? Subscribe here. Essential Reads How policy will be impacting the health care sector this week and beyond: How Medicaid ruling could blow up Senate GOP's plans on Trump 'big, beautiful bill' Senate Republicans were dealt a significant blow Thursday when Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough advised that major pieces of the GOP megabill's Medicaid policy can't pass with a simple majority. Much of the savings in the bill come from Medicaid cuts, and the ruling impacts several of the largest and most controversial ones, including a plan to slash states' use of health care provider taxes as well as several … Reproductive rights groups fear SCOTUS ruling will inspire anti-abortion politicians Reproductive rights advocates are reeling from Thursday's Supreme Court ruling in favor of South Carolina in a legal case to block Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood, which they fear will give other states the green light to do the same. 'Today's decision is a grave injustice that strikes at the very bedrock of American freedom and promises to send South Carolina deeper into a health care crises,' said Paige Johnson, … Vaccine panel backs RFK Jr. in opposing thimerosal, a flu shot preservative The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), recently remade by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., voted Thursday in favor of only recommending flu shots that don't contain the mercury-based preservative thimerosal. The ACIP, which provides guidance to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), voted on four draft recommendations, three of which had to do with recommending … In Other News Branch out with a different read from The Hill: Senate referee rejects key Medicaid cuts in Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough has rejected key Medicaid provisions in the Senate GOP megabill, a ruling that appears to strike a major blow to Republicans' strategy for cutting federal spending. The Senate's referee rejected a plan to cap states' use of health care provider taxes to collect more federal Medicaid funding, a proposal that would have generated hundreds of billions of dollars in savings … Around the Nation Local and state headlines on health care: What We're Reading Health news we've flagged from other outlets: What Others are Reading Most read stories on The Hill right now: Hegseth slams Fox reporter at press conference: 'You've been about the worst' Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth attacked Jennifer Griffin, his former colleague at Fox News and a longtime member of the Pentagon press corps, amid … Read more GOP senator calls for Senate parliamentarian to be fired after ruling against Medicaid cuts Alabama Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R) on Thursday called for Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) to fire Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough 'ASAP,' … Read more What People Think Opinions related to health submitted to The Hill: Thank you for signing up! Subscribe to more newsletters here
