Missing journalist's father responds to reports he was ‘executed'
CNN's Erin Burnett talks with Marc Trice, the father of missing journalist Austin Tice, about reports that his son was 'executed' in Syria.
02:32 - Source: CNN
Vertical Top News 11 videos
Missing journalist's father responds to reports he was 'executed'
CNN's Erin Burnett talks with Marc Trice, the father of missing journalist Austin Tice, about reports that his son was 'executed' in Syria.
02:32 - Source: CNN
Trump's sons announce mobile phone company
Trump Mobile, a wireless service created by the Trump Organization, aims to rival US carrier companies like AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile. The Trump Organization, run by President Donald Trump's eldest sons Eric and Donald Jr., announced the business and launched a new gold smartphone for pre-order.
01:09 - Source: CNN
Ex-Israeli Defense Minister's message to Trump
Benny Gantz, Chairman of Israel's National Unity Party, and the former Minister of Defense speaks to CNN's Anderson Cooper following Israel's attack on Iran.
01:08 - Source: CNN
Minnesota suspect went to 4 state lawmaker homes night of shootings
The suspect in the killing of a Minnesota lawmaker and her husband in addition to the shooting of another lawmaker and his wife also visited two more politicians' homes, according to authorities.
02:08 - Source: CNN
Trump slams G7 for kicking out Russia
President Donald Trump kicked off his visit to the G7 summit in Canada by criticizing nations for kicking out Russia eleven years ago.
00:36 - Source: CNN
Iranian state television says it was attacked by Israel
The studio complex of Iran's state news channel IRINN was struck by Israel on Monday, according to the country's state news agency. A loud explosion was heard while an anchor was presenting live on air, according to a live feed.
00:19 - Source: CNN
The biggest moments from Karen Read murder trial closing arguments
The jury is deliberating the fate of Karen Read in the murder trial of her Boston Police Officer boyfriend, John O'Keefe. CNN's Jean Casarez shares the biggest moments from closing arguments of the trial.
02:18 - Source: CNN
Juror dismissed in Sean 'Diddy' Combs' criminal trial
The judge in the Sean 'Diddy' Combs trial has dismissed juror No. 6 over the juror's inconsistent disclosures about where he lives and with whom. Juror No. 6 will be replaced by the first alternate juror.
01:44 - Source: CNN
CNN sees crater from Iranian strike
Emergency teams in Tel Aviv, Israel, have been responding to the damage caused by Iran's latest ballistic missile strike on the city. CNN's Nic Robertson reports from a large crater in the center where nearby residents have been forced to evacuate their homes.
00:33 - Source: CNN
Scene outside assassinated state representative's home
CNN's Whitney Wild is outside the home of Minnesota State Representative Melissa Hortman, who was shot and killed in a "politically motivated assassination" along with her husband early Saturday morning. Police are still searching for the suspect.
00:41 - Source: CNN
Shooting at Salt Lake City 'No Kings' march
Officers responded to gunshots at a 'No Kings' march in Salt Lake City, Utah and took three people into custody in relation to the incident. One person was transferred to the hospital with life-threatening injuries. Salt Lake City police said the motive for the shooting was under investigation.
00:26 - Source: CNN
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 minutes ago
- Yahoo
A pause on higher tariffs for China is due to expire Tuesday. Here's what to know.
TAIPEI, Taiwan (AP) — A 90-day pause on imposing higher tariffs on China is due to expire on Tuesday and it is unclear if it will be extended. After the most recent round of China-U.S. trade talks, held late last month in Stockholm, Chinese and U.S. officials said they expected the deadline to be extended for another 90 days. The U.S. side said the decision was up to President Donald Trump. So far there has been no formal announcement about whether he will endorse an extension or push ahead with the higher tariffs. The uncertainty has left businesses in limbo and a decision to raise the import duties could jolt world markets. SILENCE FROM WASHINGTON AND BEIJING Trump has repeatedly shifted deadlines and tariff rates, and neither side has indicated what it plans for Tuesday. Extending the Aug. 12 deadline for reaching a trade agreement with China would forestall earlier threats of tariffs of up to 245%. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Trump was deciding about another 90-day delay to allow time to work out details of an agreement setting tariffs on most products at 50%, including extra import duties related to illicit trade in the powerful opiate fentanyl. Higher tariffs are aimed at offsetting the huge, chronic U.S. trade deficit with China, which hit a 21-year low in July as the threat of tariffs bit into Chinese exports. It's not unusual for the U.S. to give hints on where talks stand, but it's rare for China to make announcements until major decisions are set. CHINA RESISTED CUTTING AN EARLY BARGAIN Prohibitively high tariffs on Chinese exports to the United States would put huge pressure on Beijing at a time when the Chinese economy, the world's second largest, is still recovering from a prolonged downturn in its property market. Lingering effects of the COVID-19 pandemic have left around 200 million of its workers reliant on 'gig work,' crimping the job market. Higher import taxes on small parcels from China have also hurt smaller factories and layoffs have accelerated, But the U.S. relies heavily on imports from China for all sorts of products, from household goods and clothing to wind turbines, basic computer chips, electric vehicle batteries and the rare earths needed to make them. That gives Beijing some powerful leverage in the negotiations with Washington. Even with higher tariffs, China remains competitive for many products. And its leaders are aware that the U.S. economy is only just beginning to feel the effects of higher prices from Trump's broad tariff hikes. For now, imports from China are subject to a 10% baseline tariff and a 20% extra tariff related to the fentanyl issue. Some products are taxed at higher rates. U.S. exports to China are subject to tariffs of around 30%. Before the two sides called a truce, Trump had threatened to impose 245% import duties on Chinese goods. China retaliated by saying it would hike its tariff on U.S. products to 125%. MUCH IS AT STAKE A trade war between the world's two largest economies has ramifications across the global economy, affecting industrial supply chains, demand for commodities like copper and oil and geopolitical issues such as the war in Ukraine. After a phone call with Chinese leader Xi Jinping in June, Trump said he hoped to meet with Xi later this year. That's an incentive for striking a deal with Beijing. If the two sides fail to keep their truce, trade tensions could escalate and tariffs might rise to even higher levels, inflicting still more pain on both economies and rattling world markets. Businesses would refrain from making investment commitments and hiring, while inflation would surge higher. Companies are in an 'extended wait-and-see mode,' Oxford Economics said in a recent report. Christopher Bodeen, The Associated Press Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
Yahoo
3 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump escalates crime rhetoric ahead of Washington crackdown announcement
By Nandita Bose WASHINGTON (Reuters) -President Donald Trump has spent days escalating his rhetoric on crime in Washington, calling the U.S. capital "totally out of control" and ordering a federal law enforcement surge ahead of a Monday press conference to outline a sweeping crackdown. On Sunday, Trump wrote on Truth Social, "The Homeless have to move out, IMMEDIATELY. We will give you places to stay, but FAR from the Capital. The Criminals, you don't have to move out. We're going to put you in jail where you belong." The Democratic mayor of Washington, Muriel Bowser, pushed back on Trump's claims, saying the city is "not experiencing a crime spike" and highlighting that violent crime has fallen to a 30-year low. Trump called Bowser "a good person who has tried" but said she's been given many chances while crime numbers continue to worsen. Violent crime fell 26% in the first seven months of 2025 and overall crime dropped 7%, according to the city's police department. But gun violence remains an issue. In 2023, Washington had the third-highest gun homicide rate among U.S. cities with populations over 500,000, according to gun control advocacy group Everytown for Gun Safety. Over the past week, Trump has intensified his messaging, demanding the swift eviction of homeless residents and vowing to jail offenders. He has raised the prospect of stripping the city of its local autonomy and signaled a possible full federal takeover. The Trump administration is also preparing to deploy hundreds of National Guard troops to Washington, a U.S. official told Reuters, a controversial tactic that Trump used recently in Los Angeles to respond to immigration protests over the objections of local officials. Trump has not made a final decision, the official said, adding that the number of troops and the role they would play are still being determined. The District of Columbia, established in 1790, operates under the Home Rule Act, which gives Congress ultimate authority but allows residents to elect a mayor and city council. Trump said last week that lawyers are examining how to overturn the law, a move that would likely require Congress to revoke it and him to sign off. Trump has cited a recent assault on a federal staffer and viral videos of youth crime to argue the nation's capital is in crisis. His response marks a renewed focus on crime as a political priority and grounds for increased federal intervention, which could challenge Washington's autonomy and reshape the balance of local and federal power. The president's order last week to deploy more federal law enforcement also marks a major escalation. Officers from over a dozen agencies, including the FBI, ICE, DEA, and ATF, have already spread across the city. A White House official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said multiple arrests were made on Friday, with over 450 federal officers deployed throughout the city on Saturday. The official added the deployment targets "high-traffic tourist areas and known hotspots," with officers "highly visible," referencing criticism of previous immigration crackdowns involving masked agents and unmarked vehicles. The White House has not clarified what legal authority Trump would use to evict people from Washington, where he only controls federal land and buildings. Since the 1980s, Trump has used crime, especially youth crime in cities, as a political tool. His 1989 call for the death penalty in the Central Park jogger case, involving five Black and Latino teens later exonerated, remains one of the most controversial moments of his public life. Trump is expected to outline further details during a press conference at 10 a.m. (1400 GMT) Monday at the White House.
Forbes
6 minutes ago
- Forbes
The Behavioral Economics Battle Lurking In EPA's Endangerment Finding Repeal
The EPA's 2009 Endangerment Finding was the agency's formal determination that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare. Ever since, it has served as the legal foundation for EPA climate regulations. Without this finding, EPA lacks Clean Air Act authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. The Trump administration's EPA has now proposed to repeal the Endangerment Finding, along with the agency's greenhouse gas standards for light, medium, and heavy-duty vehicles that depend on it. In the agency's announcement, EPA justifies the repeal by citing the severe economic burdens of its existing rules, including over $1 trillion in compliance costs. As the agency moves to dismantle the Endangerment Finding, another battleground has opened up that has received less attention. That fight is about whether regulators should trust consumers' preferences or instead attempt to 'correct' them. The outcome of this debate could swing the measured benefits of climate rules by trillions of dollars. The Role of Regulatory Impact Analysis Because repealing the Endangerment Finding would also remove the legal basis for existing greenhouse gas standards for cars and trucks, EPA is required under longstanding executive orders to analyze the economic effects of that policy change. This requires the agency to tally the costs avoided and the benefits forgone from the action. To comply with these requirements, agencies prepare a regulatory impact analysis (RIA) whenever a rule or policy change is expected to have an annual economic effect of $100 million or more. RIA is a framework for identifying the expected consequences of a regulation, quantifying them where possible, and monetizing them when the data and methods allow. In the case of the Endangerment Finding repeal, that means examining how vehicle technology, fuel use, air pollution, and consumer welfare would differ with and without the greenhouse gas standards, and then converting any differences into dollar terms. In its draft RIA for the repeal action, EPA's core engineering-model estimate finds the repeal would yield net costs of roughly $260 billion (at a 3% discount rate, over the years 2027 to 2055). This traditional government approach counts fuel savings as a benefit to consumers, making the repeal appear costly since those savings would be lost. However, Appendix B of the RIA includes an alternative 'revealed preference' analysis that estimates net benefits of the repeal ranging from $3.05 trillion to $8.18 trillion. This set of estimates assumes that if consumers aren't voluntarily choosing more fuel-efficient vehicles, then forcing them to do so through regulations actually harms them. Any estimated savings, in that case, were pure fiction. By extension, so were many of the benefits of regulation. The Assumption of Revealed Preference Cost-benefit analysis aims to tally up the monetized social gains and losses from a policy. An economist adds up the 'private benefits' to particular individuals to arrive at a cumulative "social benefit" estimate for society as a whole. 'Revealed preference' is a concept central to this endeavor. By examining what people buy and how much they are willing to pay for different items and features, economists can estimate dollar values for different types of benefits and costs. This approach assumes that the observed willingness to pay of an individual reflects the value of a benefit to that person. This method has a major advantage in that it respects people's choices and doesn't involve analysts judging whether people's choices are good or bad; they merely accept that the choice made was what the individual preferred. The downside of this approach is that people don't always make decisions that accord with their own interests, or that of society. Fuel Savings Violate Revealed Preference For years, agencies writing fuel economy and energy efficiency rules have counted fuel and energy savings as a benefit of those rulemakings. When a consumer buys a more fuel-efficient car or appliance, they save money on gas or their utility bill. The government counts that as a significant benefit of a regulatory action phasing out less-efficient devices. This approach is valid if consumers genuinely underappreciate those savings when they buy a car or appliance. But if they already weigh fuel economy and energy efficiency against other attributes of a product before making a purchase, the savings are not a windfall benefit of the rulemaking. They're the flip side of losing other features the consumers value more. Appendix B of EPA's regulatory analysis relies on exactly that logic. If a consumer picks a gas-powered truck knowing it'll burn more fuel, they've made a trade they prefer. Forcing them into an EV to 'save' fuel costs is a net loss to them. Yet for many years, the government has treated this as a benefit. Behavioral Economics and the "Energy Efficiency Gap" Economists use the term 'energy efficiency gap' to describe the puzzling difference between the level of energy efficiency that appears cost-effective in theory and the lower level people actually choose in real life. For example, engineering calculations might show that spending $1,000 on better insulation, more efficient appliances, or a higher-MPG vehicle would pay for itself in a few years through lower utility or fuel bills. Yet, many consumers routinely forgo those investments. What explains the gap? One interpretation is that buyers are making biased, short-sighted decisions. This is the classic territory of "behavioral economics," a field focused on how real-world decisions often deviate from the assumptions of rational, optimizing behavior found in economists' models. Cognitive biases like hyperbolic discounting (placing too much weight on present rewards relative to future ones) or inattention (failing to notice or process fuel cost information) could lead people to under-invest in efficiency and leave money on the table. This perspective justifies counting the full value of 'missed' fuel savings as a regulatory benefit to the consumer, because the regulation is correcting their mistake. But there's another possibility, which is that the gap isn't a sign of bias at all, but instead a reflection of genuine trade-offs. A consumer might choose the lower-MPG car because they care more about acceleration, cargo space, style, or any number of attributes that are not captured in the fuel-savings calculations. An analyst who misinterprets the gap as a bias, when in fact the choice was based on a rational calculation, could force consumers into a less-preferred option and make them worse off. What's at Stake Separating bias from legitimate preferences is exceedingly difficult, and some would argue impossible. From the outside, the decision looks the same whether it's the product of error or preference. If we can't reliably distinguish between bias and preference, then the case for 'correcting' consumer choices becomes more about paternalism than empiricism. The stakes in this debate go beyond the Endangerment Finding. In many energy-efficiency rulemakings, 80 to 90 percent of the total monetized benefits come from the government's calculations of consumers' avoided energy costs. Environmental benefits to Americans are often in the low single-digit percentages. This means the overwhelming majority of the official benefit calculation hinges on the assumption that regulators can improve consumer welfare by steering people toward more efficient—and more expensive—products, even when buyers themselves would freely choose otherwise if left to decide on their own. This leaves economists in a quandary. Do they assume that observed market behavior is the best available measure of welfare, even if it sometimes reflects mistakes? Or do they override those choices based on models of what they think people should want if they made careful choices using all the available information? Or do they seek a middle ground, acknowledging that their models are often accurate but may also ignore important context-specific trade-offs? The answer to these questions determines whether a regulation's calculated benefits can be trusted. Private vs. Social Benefits Another complication relates to the difference between private and social benefits. Even when consumers make perfectly rational choices, what is in the interests of an individual doesn't always benefit society as a whole. When one person's gain imposes external costs on others, this can reduce, or even reverse, the net benefit for society. One obvious group affected by our purchasing decisions is future generations. It is easy to imagine future people might prefer that today's consumers forgo some luxuries in favor of greater savings and investment, which would improve living standards in the long run. But those intergenerational considerations are typically not reflected in market prices or, similarly, in economists' measures of revealed preference. In the context of energy and fuel economy, a dollar saved at the pump can be invested elsewhere in the economy, compounding to boost growth and future welfare. The enjoyment from a car feature like more horsepower or a panoramic sunroof can't be reinvested in the same way. So while a consumer may be better off paying more for those amenities, future generations probably will not be. From society's perspective, fuel and energy savings likely do represent social benefits for this reason, even when they don't compensate for their drawbacks from an individual's standpoint. A Rulemaking Worth Watching EPA's Endangerment Finding RIA pushes this debate forward by putting the revealed preference framework front-and-center, challenging the government's conventional inclusion of full lifetime fuel savings as a benefit. Whether that approach gains traction will matter well beyond this rulemaking. It's a core issue for how government evaluates climate and energy efficiency regulations generally. And it's another reason to watch closely how this already-high-stakes rulemaking unfolds.
