Germany scraps funding for sea rescues of migrants
By Thomas Escritt
BERLIN (Reuters) -Germany is cutting financial support for charities that rescue migrants at risk of drowning in the Mediterranean, saying it will redirect resources to addressing conditions in source countries that spur people to leave.
For decades, migrants driven by war and poverty have made perilous crossings to reach Europe's southern borders, with thousands estimated to die every year in their bid to reach a continent grown increasingly hostile to migration.
"Germany is committed to being humane and will help where people suffer but I don't think it's the foreign office's job to finance this kind of sea rescue," Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul told a news conference.
"We need to be active where the need is greatest," he added, mentioning the humanitarian emergency in war-shattered Sudan.
Under the previous left-leaning government, Germany began paying around 2 million euros ($2.34 million) annually to non-governmental organisations carrying out rescues of migrant-laden boats in trouble at sea.
For them, it has been a key source of funds: Germany's Sea-Eye, which said rescue charities have saved 175,000 lives since 2015, received around 10% of its total income of around 3.2 million euros from the German government.
Chancellor Friedrich Merz's conservatives won February's national election after a campaign promising to curb irregular migration, which some voters in Europe's largest economy see as being out of control.
Even though the overall numbers have been falling for several years, many Germans blame migration-related fears for the rise of the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD), now the second largest party in parliament.
Many experts say that migration levels are mainly driven by economic and humanitarian emergencies in the source countries, with the official cold shoulder in destination countries having had little impact in deterring migrants.
Despite this, German officials suggest that sea rescues only incentivise people to risk the sometimes deadly crossings.
"The (government) support made possible extra missions and very concretely saved lives," said Gorden Isler, Sea-Eye's chairperson. "We might now have to stay in harbour despite emergencies."
The opposition Greens, who controlled the foreign office when the subsidies were introduced, criticised the move.
"This will exacerbate the humanitarian crisis and deepen human suffering," said joint floor leader Britta Hasselmann.
($1 = 0.8547 euros)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 minutes ago
- Yahoo
At odds over Trump's tax bill, some Senate Republicans turn on chamber's referee
By Bo Erickson and David Morgan WASHINGTON (Reuters) -Struggling to agree on a path forward for President Donald Trump's sweeping tax-cut and spending bill, some U.S. Senate Republicans on Thursday turned their anger on the referee charged with ensuring that lawmakers follow their own rules. That pushback came in response to Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough's ruling that some Medicaid policies Republicans are trying to include in the bill do not align with the special budget process the party is using to bypass the chamber's regular vote threshold, which requires 60 of the 100 senators to agree on legislation. "THE SENATE PARLIAMENTARIAN SHOULD BE FIRED ASAP,' Republican Senator Tommy Tuberville posted online, "This is a perfect example of why Americans hate THE SWAMP." Tuberville, a first-term senator who is running for Alabama governor, and Senator Roger Marshall of Kansas joined a vocal group of House of Representatives Republicans calling for the ouster of MacDonough, the first woman to hold this role since it was formalized in 1935. Theirs is a minority view. Republican Senate Majority Leader John Thune for months has said his party will abide by the parliamentarian's guidance. MacDonough's office did not respond to a request for comment. This is not the first time members of the current Republican congressional majority have attempted to ignore Congress's nonpartisan arbiters. A growing number of Republican senators have ignored the cost estimates of the bill from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, which estimated a price tag with interest costs around $3 trillion. The bill's hefty cost has exposed divides within the party, with some hardline deficit hawks demanding deep cuts to social programs including Medicaid to try to limit the bill's cost, and others warning that those cuts could imperil their narrow majorities in the 2026 midterm elections. MacDonough, a former lawyer, joined the Senate parliamentarian's office in 1999, serving as the head parliamentarian for the last 13 years. MacDonough's critics have dismissed her as "unelected," but it was Congress more than 50 years ago that established the parliamentarian as the referee for the special process known as "budget reconciliation" that bypasses the normal Senate filibuster rule. BYPASSING THE PARTISAN DIVIDE Republicans are pursuing this route -- which they relied on to pass Trump's tax cuts in 2017 during his first term -- because of their narrow majorities in both chambers. Democrats also used the process to pass legislation under President Joe Biden. Some Republicans suggested that MacDonough's ruling had political motives, noting that she was appointed by a Democratic majority leader in 2012. In this position, the parliamentarian is not weighing the merits of the policies, but rather if they fit into the budget reconciliation rules and precedent. MacDonough in 2021 blocked Democratic efforts to pass minimum wage and immigration provisions in the special budget process. This is not the first time this year the parliamentarian has weighed in on the Republicans' tax and budget bill, but the Medicaid and healthcare provisions that she advised on Thursday were seen as opportunities for Republicans to save money in the package that is forecast to add to the nation's $36.2 trillion in debt. Other Senate Republicans are standing by the process and MacDonough. 'I consider the parliamentarian to be a straight shooter. So I don't think there's anything more than it not meeting the standard,' Senator Thom Tillis, a North Carolina Republican, told reporters. 'Nah, never overrule the parliamentarian," Senator John Kennedy, a Louisiana Republican, told reporters on Thursday. Senate Republicans are allowed to tweak these provisions to try to fit the specific budget process precedents and rules, or they could abandon these provisions entirely. Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon, the budget committee's top Democrat, pledged his party will continue "to make the case against every provision in this Big, Beautiful Betrayal of a bill that violates Senate rules and hurts families and workers." Firing a Senate parliamentarian is not without precedent. In 2001 during President George W. Bush's administration, Senate Republican leaders with an evenly divided chamber dismissed the parliamentarian after rulings on the party's budget and tax legislation regarding natural disaster funding.
Fox News
40 minutes ago
- Fox News
Trump admin ends contracts with publishing giant Springer Nature amid bias, China concerns
The Trump administration has stopped key funding for Springer Nature, the retraction-plagued, controversial publishing behemoth of more than 3,000 scientific and medical journals. Springer Nature publications have long earned subscription revenue from academic and government institutions, but the Trump administration has terminated one key contract and allowed three others to expire, a Trump administration official told Fox News Digital. National Institutes of Health (NIH) and cancer research pacts were deemed "mission essential" and therefore will remain intact, Fox News Digital has learned. The Trump administration has cracked down on organizations with perceived political bias, business practices that the president believes misuse U.S. taxpayer dollars and foreign control. The German-owned Springer Nature was forced to issue 2,923 retractions in 2024, according to Retraction Watch. The publishing giant has also been accused of significantly downplaying the COVID lab-leak theory and censoring content to appease the Chinese government. It also has a "peer review" process that critics believe is dominated by woke groupthink. The brand's popular "Nature Medicine" journal was cited frequently in a 2023 congressional report from the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic titled, "The Proximal Origin of a Cover-up." Nature Medicine republished in March 2020 a report from a month earlier in Virological titled "The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2" that concluded the virus was "not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus." "This is one of the single most impactful and influential scientific papers in history, and it expressed conclusions that were not based on sound science nor in fact, but instead on assumptions," the congressional report's executive summary stated. The Select Subcommittee report even suggested former NIAID director Dr. Anthony Fauci pushed for the publication of the entry that sought to dispel the Wuhan lab-leak theory. Fauci has denied any role in the article and said while he favored the natural-origin theory for the virus, he always had an open mind about the lab leak. In 2017, Springer Nature was "caught blocking access to academic research in China," CNN reported at the time. A spokesperson for Springer Nature brushed off concerns when asked for comment about the Trump administration terminating a contract and allowing others to expire. "We are proud of our track record in communicating U.S. research to the rest of the world for over a century and continue to have good relationships with U.S. federal agencies," a spokesperson for Springer Nature told Fox News Digital. "We don't comment on individual contracts, but across our global business there is no material change to our customers or their spend," the spokesperson continued. "We remain confident about the strength of the service we provide." Springer Nature did not immediately respond to follow-up questions about political bias, allegedly appeasing China, or use of taxpayer funds. The funding termination was first reported by Axios. Axios also reported that the Justice Department formally sent a letter asking a Springer publication about "its editorial practices and accusing the publishing house of acting as a partisan in scientific debates, as well as wrongfully advocating for positions," citing a source with knowledge of the matter. Springer Nature also publishes Scientific American, which endorsed then-Vice President Kamala Harris ahead of the 2024 presidential election. It was only the second time in 179 years that the publication endorsed a candidate for president. "Before making this endorsement, we evaluated Harris's record as a U.S. senator and as vice president under Joe Biden, as well as policy proposals she's made as a presidential candidate. Her opponent, Donald Trump, who was president from 2017 to 2021, also has a record—a disastrous one," Scientific American editors wrote. Springer Nature also practices diversity, equity, and including (DEI) policies, according to its website. The company's website has a "diversity commitment" section that details the publisher's commitment to "promoting practices that support diversity and inclusion in science communication and publishing." "As a guiding principle, we aim to foster equity, diversity and inclusion within our internal practices and in published content, embody these values in all our editorial activities and to support and promote these values in the research community," the website states. Springer Nature lists its priorities as increasing gender diversity among commissioned authors, and peer reviewer population and editorial board members, while promising to maintain a "no men-only" policy at its conferences. Nature magazine also has "a language sensitivity guide," billed as a "resource of appropriate language to use when writing about topics such as ethnicity, race, gender, sexuality, disability and health" to ensure "appropriately diverse representation" in its pages. "We are currently developing our commitment on other aspects of diversity, prioritizing ethnic and racial diversity," the website states. At the height of the George Floyd protests in June 2020, the company committed to ending "anti-Black practices in research." The following month it published an editorial recognizing "the existence of systemic racism in medicine" and calling for it to stop. Along the way, Springer Nature issued 2,923 retractions in 2024, according to Retraction Watch. Springer Nature noted that the majority were from articles published before 2023. "61.5% (1797 articles) of retractions were for papers published before January 2023 as part of our commitment to cleaning up the academic record. 38.5% (1126) of retractions were for articles published after January 2023," it stated. It also published 482,000 articles in 2024, so there were many that checked out, and Retraction Watch co-founder Ivan Oransky doesn't believe the correction issue is as alarming as it seems. "Springer Nature, like all major scientific publishers, has had to retract thousands of papers over the past several years because paper mills and other bad actors have taken advantage of poor quality control," Oransky told Fox News Digital. Springer Nature retracted articles for "compromised peer review process," "inappropriate or irrelevant references," and "citation behavior" that resulted in the publisher no longer having "confidence in the results and conclusions" that were published. Last year, Springer Nature found itself in the news when Laura Helmuth, the top editor at its "Scientific American" journal, referred to Americans who voted for Trump as the "meanest, dumbest, most bigoted" group and "f---ing fascists." As Trump pulled ahead on Election Day, Helmuth repeatedly attacked the candidate's supporters on Bluesky, a social media platform that is popular with liberals. "Solidarity to everybody whose meanest, dumbest, most bigoted high-school classmates are celebrating early results because f--- them to the moon and back," Helmuth wrote, while another post said, "I apologize to younger voters that my Gen X is so full of f---ing fascists." Helmuth eventually apologized and deleted the comments. She resigned a few days later.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Republicans dangle reprieve from tax retaliation as Trump bill heads toward votes
By David Morgan WASHINGTON (Reuters) -A tax proposal that would enable U.S. President Donald Trump to retaliate against countries that impose taxes he considers unfair could be removed from a sweeping budget bill, if an international deal can be struck before it passes, top White House and congressional Republicans said on Wednesday. The proposal, known as Section 899, is currently part of Trump's tax-cut and spending bill, which Republicans hope to enact as early as Saturday so the president can sign it into law before the July 4 U.S. Independence Day holiday. House of Representatives Ways and Means Committee Chair Jason Smith told Reuters that the provision could be removed from the legislation if other countries and the European Union agree to suspend taxes such as the "Pillar Two" global minimum corporate tax. "If there's an agreement before the bill's passed, I'd see it to come out. But until the European Union treats U.S. businesses fairly, it will be in the bill," Smith said in an interview. White House economic adviser Kevin Hassett made similar remarks about Section 899, saying: "Maybe it doesn't have to be in the bill if they pull those things back ahead of the vote." Hassett specifically cited Pillar Two and digital service taxes, which impact large U.S. technology companies like Amazon and Alphabet. "We don't like those things, and we've got a tax response, a tax retaliation, a reciprocal retaliation in the bill," he said in an interview with the Fox Business Network. "And so, we're in negotiations over tax issues," Hassett added. Section 899 would need to pass muster with the Senate parliamentarian, a nonpartisan referee of budgetary rules that Republicans must satisfy to fast-track the bill and pass it without support from Democrats. To be included in the legislation, each provision must have a direct and substantial impact on the federal budget. One lobbying source familiar with the negotiations said Section 899 could be disqualified from Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act as a negotiating tool that would not necessarily be implemented. The provision would impose a progressive tax burden of up to 20% on foreign investors' U.S. income, raising concerns on Wall Street about the attractiveness of U.S. investments. Lawmakers have done little to address Wall Street's concerns, despite calls for clarifying language and leeway for the Treasury to exempt countries in negotiations with the Trump administration. The Senate version of the provision would take effect in 2027, one year later than an earlier House version. Senate Republican leaders are aiming to pass the Trump bill as soon as Saturday, and Hassett said the White House would expect the House to vote on full passage later in the day. Trump plans to promote the bill at a White House event on Thursday that will feature truck drivers, firefighters, ranchers and other workers who stand to benefit from its passage, according to a White House official. 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
