Flint completes replacement of lead pipes, ending a decade-long crisis
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Stock market today: Dow, S&P 500, Nasdaq futures hold steady as Wall Street braces for July inflation report
US stock futures wavered around the flatline as Wall Street braced for July's inflation report and President Trump revealed his pick to head the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Futures attached to the Dow Jones Industrial Average (YM=F), the benchmark S&P 500 (ES=F), and the tech-heavy Nasdaq 100 (NQ=F) held steady. After the bell on Monday, Trump announced that he nominated E.J. Antoni, chief economist at the conservative Heritage Foundation, to lead the BLS. "E.J. will ensure that the Numbers released are HONEST and ACCURATE," the president said on Truth Social. Trump fired Erika McEntarfer as commissioner of the BLS earlier this month following the release of the July jobs report, which contained "larger than normal" revisions to data and revealed fewer jobs than previously thought had been added to the economy. Trump said, without providing evidence, that McEntarfer had been acting politically and her numbers "were wrong." Trump also met with Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan Monday evening, which boosted its stock in after-hours trading. Last week, the president called for Tan to resign, but after Monday's meeting he indicated his cabinet would continue discussions with the CEO, without specifying the topics under consideration. During day trading, stocks slumped even as Trump granted another 90-day pause on the most punishing tariffs on China as the two countries work toward a trade deal. Read more: The latest on Trump's tariffs Wall Street is preparing for the release of July's Consumer Price Index (CPI) report on Tuesday morning. Analysts expect it to show that prices increased as Trump's tariffs kicked in. A hot inflation report could put the Federal Reserve in a tight spot as it navigates rising prices amid recent signs of a weakening labor market. In the background, anticipation over the possibility of a September interest rate cut continues to grow. Investors will get two more pulse checks on the state of the economy later this week, with the release of the Producer Price Index on Thursday and retail sales data on Friday. 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
3 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Analysis-Trump's unusual Nvidia deal raises new corporate and national security risks, lawmakers and experts say
By Karen Freifeld, Arsheeya Bajwa and Alexandra Alper (Reuters) -U.S. President Donald Trump upended decades of U.S. national security policy, creating an entirely new category of corporate risk, when he made a deal with Nvidia to give the U.S. government a cut of its sales in exchange for resuming exports of banned AI chips to China. Historically, the U.S. government made decisions to control the export of sensitive technologies on national security grounds. Those decisions were viewed as non-negotiable; if a technology was controlled, companies could not buy their way around those controls, no matter how lucrative the foregone foreign sales. On Monday, Trump raised the prospect of ending that era, saying he would allow Nvidia to sell its H20 chips to China in exchange for the U.S. government receiving a 15% cut of the company's sales of some advanced chips in that country. He made a similar deal with Nvidia's smaller rival AMD. He also told reporters he was open to allowing Nvidia to sell a scaled-down version of its current flagship Blackwell chips to China. Months earlier, his own administration had banned the sale of H20 chips to China, reversing the decision in July as part of what the government said were negotiations on rare earths. The latest move drew condemnation from U.S. lawmakers in both parties who warned that it risked creating a pay-for-play framework for the sale of sensitive technologies to U.S. adversaries, a concern echoed by analysts and legal experts. "Export controls are a frontline defense in protecting our national security, and we should not set a precedent that incentivizes the government to grant licenses to sell China technology that will enhance its AI capabilities," said U.S. Representative John Moolenaar, a Michigan Republican who chairs the House Select Committee on China. Representative Raja Krishnamoorthi of Illinois, the ranking Democrat on the same committee, said that "by putting a price on our security concerns, we signal to China and our allies that American national security principles are negotiable for the right fee." To be sure, the Trump administration has said the national security risks of resuming H20 sales are minimal because the chip was sold widely in China. U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick last month described the H20 as Nvidia's "fourth-best chip" in an interview with CNBC. He said it was in U.S. interests for Chinese firms to keep using American technology. LEGAL? But the deal is extremely rare for the U.S. and marks Trump's latest intervention in corporate decision-making, after pressuring executives to invest in American manufacturing and demanding the resignation of Intel's CEO, Lip-Bu Tan, over his ties to Chinese companies. It is unclear whether Trump's move is legal. The U.S. Constitution prohibits Congress from levying taxes and duties on articles exported from any state. Trade lawyer Jeremy Iloulian said it is hard to tell if this would be considered an "export tax" or some other form of payment without knowing more about the agreement. "Up until today, there has never been a consideration of how much companies need to pay to receive an export license," Iloulian said. Added Kyle Handley, a professor at the University of California San Diego School of Global Policy and Strategy: "It sure looks like an export tax to me ... they can call it whatever they want. It really looks a lot like the government is skimming a little bit off the top." When asked if Nvidia had agreed to pay 15% of revenue to the U.S., a company spokesperson said, "We follow rules the U.S. government sets for our participation in worldwide markets." "While we haven't shipped H20 to China for months, we hope export control rules will let America compete in China and worldwide," the spokesperson added. A spokesperson for AMD said the U.S. approved its applications to export some AI processors to China but did not directly address the revenue-sharing agreement and said the company's business adheres to all U.S. export controls. 'I think it's fair to say that everything now in this administration seems negotiable in ways that were not the case before," said Sarah Kreps, a professor at the Brooks School of Public Policy at Cornell University. "I don't think this is unique in that this will be the last kind of deal like this that we see.' 'SLIPPERY SLOPE' Equities analysts said the levy could hit margins at chipmakers and set a precedent for Washington to tax critical U.S. exports. "It feels like a slippery slope to us," said Bernstein analysts, who expect the deal to cut gross margins on the China-bound processors by 5 to 15 percentage points, shaving about a point from Nvidia and AMD's overall margins. "Naturally, not only chipmakers but also companies selling other strategic products to China will wonder if the remittance model could apply to their industries," said Hendi Susanto, a portfolio manager at Gabelli, which holds shares in Nvidia. "For sellers of strategic products to China, remittance could be a burden - or a lifeline to preserve market access to huge and growing opportunities in China," Susanto said. 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
What Is the Home Rule Act? The Law Trump Invoked in D.C. Takeover
Aerial photo of the Washington Memorial with the Capitol in the background in Washington, D.C., on September 26, 2003. Credit - Andy Dunaway—USAF/Getty Images To take control of the police force of Washington, D.C., President Donald Trump on Monday invoked part of the law that has given the nation's capital a greater degree of self-governance over the past five decades. Citing 'violent crime,' Trump declared a public safety emergency in D.C. and invoked section 740 of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act of 1973. The law 'is the result of the ongoing push by District residents for control of their own local affairs,' according to the Council of the District of Columbia. D.C. was previously directly governed by Congress—which the Constitution grants authority to 'exercise exclusive Legislation in all cases whatsoever' over the district—and federal appointees. The Home Rule Act allowed city residents to elect a mayor and council starting in the fall of 1974, though it maintained a congressional oversight over D.C. Congress reviews all legislation that the Council passes before it can be enacted into law, and maintains authority over the city's budget. D.C. still doesn't have a voting member of Congress. Section 740 of the law allows the President to take control of D.C.'s police force in 'conditions of an emergency nature'—with certain limitations. The President can federalize the city's law enforcement agency for a period of up to 30 days under the Act, after which point both chambers of Congress must enact into law a joint resolution to extend the emergency control. The Executive Order that Trump signed on Monday says that the federal government shall maintain control of the city's police force 'for the maximum period permitted under section 740 of the Home Rule Act.' Read More: Trump Threatens to Federalize D.C. After Beating of 'Big Balls' Trump threatened to federalize D.C., decrying crime in the city, after the reported assault of a Trump Administration staffer—though data show that violent crime in the city is down significantly. For the federal government to fully take control of the city's governance, the Home Rule Act would have to be suspended or repealed. Some GOP politicians have expressed support for federalizing D.C., a heavily Democratic city, and pushed to repeal the law. Democrats, meanwhile, slammed Trump's move on Monday. D.C.'s Democratic non-voting representative in Congress, Eleanor Holmes Norton, called it 'an historic assault on D.C. home rule' and 'a counterproductive, escalatory seizure of D.C.'s resources to use for purposes not supported by D.C. residents.' Norton and Democratic Sen. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland announced the same day that they plan to reintroduce legislation that would give the district full control over the D.C. National Guard and the city's police department when Congress convenes next month, saying those actions 'are needed more urgently than ever.' The bills, the lawmakers said, would repeal the section in the Home Rule Act that allows the President to federalize the city's police force. Norton and other Democratic lawmakers previously introduced similar legislation in 2021, soon after the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. In announcing her intention to introduce the legislation at the time, Norton said that the attack on the Capitol 'highlighted more starkly than ever the risk to local D.C. public safety from the president's control over the D.C. National Guard and ultimate authority over the D.C. police department,' adding that 'the mayor should not be reliant on the president to deploy the National Guard to protect public safety in D.C., and D.C. should never have to worry that a president will take over its police force and use it how he or she sees fit.' Contact us at letters@
