Judge Strikes Federal Rule Requiring Employers to Accommodate Employee Abortions
A federal rule that required employers to give workers time off and other accommodations for abortions is illegal, a judge ruled on May 21.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) went beyond a law crafted by Congress—the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA)—when it
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
3 hours ago
- Axios
Exclusive: HHS watchdog finds more than $16B in health savings
The Department of Health and Human Services' watchdog identified more than $16 billion in overpayments, fraudulent billings and possible cost savings in health programs over a half year spanning the Biden and Trump administrations, including more than $3.5 billion to be returned to the government. Why it matters: The semiannual summary, first shared publicly to Axios, comes as the Trump administration says it's prioritizing government efficiency and rooting out waste, fraud and abuse. It reflects growing concern over federal payments to Medicare Advantage plans, along with enforcement actions like McKinsey agreeing to pay $650 million to settle charges that its advice caused Purdue Pharma to submit fraudulent claims stemming from the opioid crisis. The report was sent to Congress late Friday. By the numbers: The HHS Office of Inspector General identified $16.6 billion in real and potential savings from October 2024 through March of this year. The office's investigations identified $3.5 billion in funds due back to the federal government, and its audits found another $451 million that the government will recoup. More than $12 billion in potential cost savings were identified if HHS makes recommended policy changes. The office issued 165 recommendations over the six months. In one example, OIG found that Medicare could have saved $7.7 billion if it lowered payments for swing beds at critical access hospitals so that they match skilled nursing facilities. The change would require action from Congress, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services said it didn't agree with the recommendation. Nearly 400 civil actions, including settlements, resulted from OIG's work during the period. OIG says its work returned $11 to the federal government for each $1 invested in its office. "Whether it's us, whether it's [the Government Accountability Office], whether it's DOGE, whether it's state auditors, there's always a need for program integrity and oversight," said John Hagg, assistant inspector general in the IG's office of audit services. Zoom in: OIG over the six months covered in the report continued its investigations that raise concerns over improper payments in Medicare Advantage. OIG found that many patient diagnoses reported by privately run Medicare plans were supported only through health risk assessments. That allowed plans to be paid more to care for sicker, more expensive patients without enough supporting documentation, raising questions about their validity, per OIG. OIG recommended that Medicare further restrict plans' abilities to get higher payments based on diagnoses reported only on in-home health risk assessments in order to save an estimated $4.2 billion for Medicare. The office plans to do more work on Medicare Advantage in the near future, Melicia Seay, assistant inspector general in the office of evaluation and inspection, told Axios. "There's a lot of areas in terms of Medicare Advantage that we're exploring, whether it is the payment policy related to the program, the service delivery, quality of care," she said. Catch up quick: President Trump in January abruptly fired several agency inspectors general, including longtime HHS watchdog Christi Grimm. He claimed that"some were not doing their job."
Forbes
5 hours ago
- Forbes
Congress Cracks Down On U.S. Universities' Ties To China
(Photo by) Getty Images Scrutiny of China's role in American universities is intensifying on Capitol Hill and fast becoming one of the most aggressive and sustained bipartisan oversight campaigns in Washington. While attention has predictably focused on recent actions by the executive branch such as the Trump Administration's efforts to preclude foreign students from enrolling at Harvard University, or its pause on new student visa interviews, Congressional scrutiny on the nexus between American colleges and China predates those actions and is already far-reaching. Over the past several years, Congress has laid the groundwork for a broader, more structural crackdown on how U.S. universities interact with Chinese institutions, researchers and students. That work is now entering a more public and punitive phase. For years, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have raised concerns about China exploiting the openness of U.S. universities to advance its military and technological ambitions. As far back as 2019, Senate hearings and reports warned that Chinese government-linked entities were using academic partnerships to facilitate technology transfers and undermine research integrity. Lawmakers are continuing to sound the alarm. 'Our technological landscape has evolved rapidly during the last quarter century,' says Congressman Derek Tran (D-CA), the son of Vietnamese refugees who currently serves on the House Armed Services Committee. 'Congress must ensure that our national security and oversight responsibilities keep pace with the innovation produced by our universities and Capitol Hill must remain laser-focused on confronting these national security challenges.' Congress is now going further and faster than it has in the past toward this end. Lawmakers are now wielding bipartisan power, drafting sweeping legislation and conducting relentless oversight to curb China's growing academic foothold. Congress is no longer merely issuing warnings but formulating and implementing policy. From reforms to Section 117 of the Higher Education Act, to proposed new powers for CFIUS, legislators are crafting an expansive web of legislative constraints designed to significantly curb Chinese influence across the U.S. higher education landscape. This shift is most visible in mounting congressional pressure on U.S. universities to sever academic ties with Chinese institutions. Once framed as benign, these partnerships are increasingly cast as potential vectors for foreign influence or technology transfers. In early 2025, House Select Committee on China Chairman John Moolenaar (R-MI) and House Education Committee Chairman Tim Walberg (R-MI) deployed letters to Eastern Michigan University (EMU), Oakland University and the University of Detroit Mercy urging them to terminate partnerships with Chinese universities. EMU responded by ending its engineering teaching programs with Guangxi University and Beibu Gulf University, noting that while these programs did not involve research or technology transfer, the university prioritized national security concerns. Oakland University similarly announced the discontinuation of programs with three Chinese institutions. The University of Detroit Mercy indicated it is in the process of dissolving its partnerships, emphasizing that the programs were solely for undergraduate teaching without any research components. Similarly, Duke University has come under congressional scrutiny for its joint venture with Wuhan University known as Duke Kunshan University (DKU). Lawmakers expressed concerns that the partnership could facilitate access to sensitive U.S. technologies by the Chinese government, and urged Duke to reevaluate its partnership with DKU. Beyond these institutional arrangements, Congress has sought detailed information about Chinese nationals studying at elite U.S. universities. In March 2025, the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party requested data from institutions including Stanford University seeking information on Chinese students' academic backgrounds, research affiliations and funding sources. The committee cited concerns that Chinese students in STEM programs might be part of a systematic effort by the Chinese government to acquire sensitive technologies. Harvard University is facing similar scrutiny, with lawmakers demanding explanations for its collaborations with Chinese entities linked to military and sanctioned organizations. The inquiry focuses on potential dual-use research and partnerships that could inadvertently support China's military advancements. Congressional scrutiny of Harvard University comes at a time when the Trump Administration is aggressively focusing on that elite institution and has announced it will 'aggressively revoke' visas for Chinese students with connections to the Chinese Communist Party or studying in 'critical fields.' The measure has prompted some lawmakers to call for a more nuanced approach. 'We should not have a blanket ban on Chinese and international students coming to the United States,' says Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA), who represents Silicon Valley in Congress and serves on the House Select Committee on China. 'It will hurt our leadership in the world and is not consistent with our values.' Congress has proposed several legislative measures aimed at increasing transparency and reducing foreign influence in U.S. higher education. The Defending Education Transparency and Ending Rogue Regimes Engaging in Nefarious Transactions (DETERRENT) Act seeks to amend Section 117 of the Higher Education Act by lowering the reporting threshold for foreign gifts and contracts from $250,000 to $50,000 and to any gift or contract from countries of concern, including China. The act also proposes prohibiting contracts with certain foreign entities and requiring disclosures of foreign investments within university endowments. Additionally, the House has advanced legislation that would restrict Department of Homeland Security funding to U.S. universities maintaining relationships with specific Chinese institutions, particularly those tied to China's military or intelligence services. These legislative efforts underscore a growing bipartisan commitment to safeguarding U.S. academic institutions from potential foreign exploitation, signaling a significant shift in the landscape of international academic collaboration. The consensus on China's influence is one of the few bipartisan constants in an otherwise fractured political landscape. American universities should expect more hearings, more target letters, more proposals and ultimately more laws. Congress has made clear that academic openness cannot come at the expense of national security. As the scope of scrutiny widens, American universities will have to strike a new balance—one that safeguards their missions while addressing mounting concerns on Capitol Hill.
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump tariffs face threat at Supreme Court — over rulings that blocked Biden
(Bloomberg) — A legal argument that the US Supreme Court used to foil Joe Biden on climate change and student debt now looms as a threat to President Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs. Billionaire Steve Cohen Wants NY to Expand Taxpayer-Backed Ferry Now With Colorful Blocks, Tirana's Pyramid Represents a Changing Albania Where the Wild Children's Museums Are The Economic Benefits of Paying Workers to Move NYC Congestion Toll Brings In $216 Million in First Four Months During Biden's presidency, the court's conservative majority ruled that federal agencies can't decide sweeping political and economic matters without clear congressional authorization. That blocked the Environmental Protection Agency from setting deep limits on power-plant pollution and the Education Department from slashing student loans for 40 million people. The concept — known as the 'major questions doctrine' — is now playing a central role in the case against Trump's unilateral imposition of worldwide import taxes. With Supreme Court review all but inevitable, the justices' willingness to employ the doctrine against Trump may determine the fate of his signature economic initiative. The US Court of International Trade cited the Biden-era rulings and the major questions doctrine when it ruled 3-0 last week that many of Trump's import taxes exceeded the authority Congress had given him. The challenged tariffs would total an estimated $1.4 trillion over the next decade, according to the nonpartisan Tax Foundation. Critics say the administration's tariffs would have an even bigger impact than the estimated $400 billion Biden student-loan package, which Chief Justice John Roberts described as having 'staggering' significance in his 2023 opinion invalidating the plan. 'If this is not a major question, then I don't know what is,' said Ilya Somin, a professor at George Mason University's Antonin Scalia Law School and one of the lawyers challenging the tariffs. 'We're talking about the biggest trade war since the Great Depression.' Until they were partly suspended, Trump's April 2 'Liberation Day' tariffs marked the biggest increase in import taxes pushed by the US since the 1930 Smoot-Hawley tariffs and took the US's average applied tariff rate to its highest level in more than a century. The prospect of that massive tax increase and the resulting economic shock roiled financial markets and prompted fears of imminent recessions in the US and other major global economies. The administration contends the major questions doctrine doesn't apply when Congress gives authority directly to the president, rather than to an administrative agency. The government also says the doctrine is inapt when the subject is national security and foreign affairs – policy areas where the president has long been recognized to have broad powers. 'No one doubts the significance of the challenged tariffs, but significance alone does not implicate the major questions doctrine, otherwise, it would apply to countless government actions, including every emergency statute,' the Justice Department said in a filing at the Court of International Trade. The legal clash centers on Trump's power under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which says the president may 'regulate' the 'importation' of property to address an emergency situation. The Court of International Trade said those words weren't clear enough to legally justify Trump's taxes given that the Constitution gives the tariff power to Congress. In addition to major questions, the panel also invoked the nondelegation doctrine, a related conservative-backed legal theory that says lawmakers can't give away their constitutional legislative and taxing powers. The two doctrines together 'provide useful tools for the court to interpret statutes so as to avoid constitutional problems,' the trade court said. 'These tools indicate that an unlimited delegation of tariff authority would constitute an improper abdication of legislative power to another branch of government.' The ruling is now on temporary hold while a federal appeals court considers whether to keep the tariffs in force as the legal fight continues. So far, the major questions doctrine has divided the Supreme Court cleanly along ideological lines. The six conservative justices were united when the court first used the phrase in a 2022 ruling that said the EPA overstepped its authority with an ambitious emissions-reduction program during Barack Obama's presidency. The majority said it was doing nothing new by subjecting the plan to extra-tough scrutiny. 'We 'typically greet' assertions of 'extravagant statutory power over the national economy' with 'skepticism,'' Roberts wrote, borrowing words from a 2014 ruling. Roberts said the court used similar reasoning, though without the 'major questions' label, when it blocked Biden's pandemic eviction moratorium and his vaccine-or-test mandate for workers. The court's liberals accused their conservative colleagues of creating a convenient exception to their usual laserlike focus on statutory text. 'The current court is textualist only when being so suits it,' Justice Elena Kagan said in dissent in the climate case. 'When that method would frustrate broader goals, special canons like the 'major questions doctrine' magically appear as get-out-of-text-free cards.' The sharp ideological divide masks a more subtle split among the court's conservatives about the purpose of the major questions doctrine. Justice Amy Coney Barrett has described it as a tool for ascertaining the most natural reading of a statute, while Justice Neil Gorsuch has cast it as a means of keeping Congress and the president in their proper constitutional lanes. The key question now is what the court will do with the major questions doctrine when it comes in the context of tariffs and a Republican president who appointed three of the justices. 'The court has not been at all transparent about the grounds on which it will invoke this doctrine,' said Ronald Levin, an administrative law professor at Washington University in St. Louis. 'It's left its options completely open.' —With assistance from Shawn Donnan. YouTube Is Swallowing TV Whole, and It's Coming for the Sitcom Millions of Americans Are Obsessed With This Japanese Barbecue Sauce How Coach Handbags Became a Gen Z Status Symbol Mark Zuckerberg Loves MAGA Now. Will MAGA Ever Love Him Back? Will Small Business Owners Knock Down Trump's Mighty Tariffs? ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Sign in to access your portfolio
