France's court of auditors estimates $6.8 billion public spending for 2024 Paris Olympics
PARIS (AP) — France's court of auditors provided Monday the first official estimate of public spending tied to the 2024 Paris Olympics, with the global public expenditure estimated at nearly six billion euros ($6.8 billion).
The Cour des Comptes said in its preliminary report, which was published ahead of the 2030 Winter Olympics also awarded to France, that the spending includes €2.77 billion for the event organization and €3.19 billion for infrastructure investments.
Paris 2024 organizers challenged the estimates in comments attached to the report. They notably said that some expenditures which predated the event and will continue afterward can't be attributed to Games. They also said that attributing major investments to the Olympics, despite being unrelated projects launched long before, is unjustified.
'Through its methodological choices, the Court has in fact declined to examine the only question that would meaningfully inform public debate: how much public money would have been saved if the Games had not been held in Paris?," said Tony Estanguet, the former head of the organizing committee.
"It is undeniable that this amount would be far less than the €6 billion currently cited by the court. The organizing committee, as it already stated during the contradictory procedure, estimates that this figure does not exceed €2 billion, while the expected economic benefits of the Games are said to represent three to five times that amount,' he added.
The Cour des Comptes insisted that its progress report is based on data available as of March 31, 2025, and does not claim to draw final conclusions.
'The report does not include, due to unavailable data, any analysis of the positive or negative effects of the Games on economic activity or tax revenues, nor an assessment of tax expenditures related to their organization,' the Cour said in a summary statement. "On this last point, the tax authorities informed the Court that no overall estimate is currently planned. This position is unsatisfactory, and the Court calls on the State to begin this evaluation without delay.'
___
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Vox
39 minutes ago
- Vox
The Supreme Court's ugly new decision about torture, explained
is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he focuses on the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the decline of liberal democracy in the United States. He received a JD from Duke University and is the author of two books on the Supreme Court. In a short, one-paragraph order, the Republican justices ruled on Monday evening that President Donald Trump may effectively nullify a federal law and an international treaty that is supposed to protect immigrants from torture. The Court's order in Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D. does not explain the GOP's justices' reasoning, although Justice Sonia Sotomayor responds to their silent decision in a 19-page dissent joined by her two Democratic colleagues. The Court's order is only temporary, and will permit Trump to send immigrants to countries where they may be tortured while the D.V.D. case is fully litigated. It is possible that one or more of the Court's Republicans could reverse course at a later date. But it is hard to know what arguments might persuade them to do so because the justices in the majority did not explain why they decided this case the way they did. SCOTUS, Explained Get the latest developments on the US Supreme Court from senior correspondent Ian Millhiser. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. Federal law requires that the United States shall not 'expel, extradite, or otherwise effect the involuntary return of any person to a country in which there are substantial grounds for believing the person would be in danger of being subjected to torture.' This statute implements a treaty, known as the Convention Against Torture, which the United States ratified over three decades ago. Trump's lawyers, however, claim that they uncovered a loophole that permits the Trump administration to bypass these laws, at least with respect to some immigrants. Typically, before a noncitizen may be removed from the United States, they are entitled to a hearing before an immigration judge. The immigration judge will inform the person facing deportation which countries they might be sent to, allowing the noncitizen to object to any countries where they fear they may be tortured. If the immigration judge determines that these objections are sufficiently serious to trigger the Convention Against Torture's protections, the judge may still issue an order permitting the immigrant to be deported — but not to the nation or nations the immigrant raised objections about. Related Trump asks the Supreme Court to neutralize the Convention Against Torture The D.V.D. case involves noncitizens who have already been through this process. In their case, an immigration judge determined that they may be deported, but not to specific countries. After the hearing process was complete, however, the Trump administration unexpectedly announced that it would deport the D.V.D. plaintiffs to other nations that were not previously under consideration. That means that no immigration judge has determined whether these immigrants may be sent to those particular nations, and the immigrants have not been given a meaningful opportunity to object to the new countries where they are about to be deported. Using this loophole, the Trump administration seeks to deport them without a new hearing. The Trump administration, moreover, appears to have intentionally selected countries where the noncitizens are likely to be unsafe. It wishes to deport many of these immigrants to South Sudan, for example, a country that was recently in a civil war, and where an uneasy peace appears to be collapsing. Others are slated for removal to Libya despite the fact that, according to Sotomayor's dissent, they 'would have landed in Tripoli in the midst of violence caused by opposition to their arrival.' The Trump administration, in other words, appears to have created a deadly trap for immigrants who fear torture in their home nations. These noncitizens may object to being sent home under the Convention Against Torture, and an immigration judge may even rule in their favor. But the Trump administration may still send them somewhere else even more dangerous.
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
The Republican attempt to discourage Trump lawsuits has hit a big obstacle
WASHINGTON (AP) — Republicans have hit a roadblock in an effort that could deter nonprofits, individuals and other potential litigants from filing lawsuits to block President Donald Trump over his executive actions. As Trump faces lawsuits nationwide, GOP lawmakers had sought to bar federal courts from issuing temporary restraining orders or preliminary injunctions against the federal government unless the plaintiffs post what in many cases would be a massive financial bond at the beginning of the case. The proposal was included in the Senate version of Trump's massive tax and immigration bill, but ran into trouble with the Senate parliamentarian, who said it violates the chamber's rules. It is now unlikely to be in the final package. Federal judges can already require plaintiffs to post security bonds, but such funds are commonly waived in public interest cases. The GOP proposal would make the payment of the financial bond a requirement before a judge could make a ruling, which critics said would have a chilling effect on potential litigants who wouldn't have the resources to comply. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer hailed the parliamentarian's ruling in a press statement and called the GOP effort 'nothing short of an assault on the system of checks and balances that has anchored the nation since it's founding.' 'But Senate Democrats stopped them cold,' Schumer said. Lawmakers are running scores of provisions by the Senate parliamentarian's office to ensure they fit with the chamber's rules for inclusion in a reconciliation bill. The recommendations from Elizabeth MacDonough will have a major impact on the final version of the legislation. On Friday, she determined that a proposal to shift some food stamps costs from the federal government to states would violate the chamber's rules. But some of the most difficult questions are still to come as Republicans hope to get a bill passed and on Trump's desk to be signed into law before July 4th. Republicans could still seek to include the judiciary provision in the bill, but it would likely be challenged and subject to a separate vote in which the provision would need 60 votes to remain. The parliamentarian's advice, while not binding, is generally followed by the Senate. Republicans and the White House have been highly critical of some of the court rulings blocking various Trump orders on immigration, education and voting. The courts have agreed to block the president in a number of cases, and the administration is seeking appeals as well. In April, the House voted to limit the scope of injunctive relief ordered by a district judge to those parties before the court, rather than applying the relief nationally. But that bill is unlikely to advance in the Senate since it would need 60 votes to advance. That's left Republicans looking for other avenues to blunt the court orders.
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
US strikes on Iran add to global travel disruptions and flight cancellations
NEW YORK (AP) — The U.S. entry into Israel's war with Iran has caused travel disruptions to pile up globally. Following unprecedented bombings ordered by President Donald Trump on three Iranian nuclear and military sites over the weekend, Iran on Monday launched a missile attack on U.S. forces at Qatar's Al Udeid Air Base. Qatar had closed its airspace just hours earlier, after both the U.S. and U.K. also urged their citizens to shelter in place there. The region has been on edge following the weekend strikes from the U.S. — and since Israel began the war with a surprise bombardment on Iran, which has responded with its own missile and drone strikes, earlier this month. As deadly attacks escalated between Israel and Iran over recent weeks, sections of airspace and airports throughout the region have temporarily closed. And airlines cancelled more flights in recent days, with some halting select routes through the middle of the week — particularly in Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, just across the Persian Gulf from Iran. Singapore Airlines, for example, canceled some flights to and from Dubai starting Sunday and through Wednesday, citing 'a security assessment of the geopolitical situation in the Middle East.' And British Airways has similarly suspended flights to and from Doha through Wednesday. 'Safety is always our highest priority,' British Airlines said in a statement confirming its cancellations to The Associated Press, adding that it 'will keep the situation under review.' Air India on Monday announced it was ceasing 'all operations to the region as well as to and from the East Coast of North America and Europe' immediately until further notice. The airline, which is still reeling from a plane crash that killed at least 270 people earlier this month, added that India-bound flights from North America were being diverted or re-routed away from closed airspaces. Air tracking data from FlightAware showed 705 cancellations worldwide as of Monday afternoon. Dubai International Airport topped the list with 75 cancellations in and out of the airport as of around 5 p.m. ET. And Air India had had the highest amount of cancellations among carriers, totaling 38 as of 5 p.m. ET. Such disruptions have snarled travel, particularly as central hubs in the Middle East often connect flights worldwide — but experts stress that these kind of airspace closures and flight diversions are critical to ensuring safety, especially if future escalation emerges suddenly. 'It is the responsibility of states, countries to ensure that their airspace is safe for passage of aircraft,' Hassan Shahidi, president and CEO of the Flight Safety Foundation. He added that on Monday 'the Qataris did the absolutely right thing to close their airspace because of the threat of conflict.' Beyond Qatari airspace, Flightradar24 reported that UAE airspace was also closed on Monday. After several hours of diversions, flights appeared to be landing and taking off in the country again. Monday marks the latest 'dramatic increase' in this kind of impact, said Ian Petchenik, director of communications at Flightradar24. And while the future is unknown, he added that it's important to remember airspace closures and flight cancellations reflect that 'airlines, air traffic controllers and flight crews are doing their best to keep everybody safe.' How long the war lasts and what, if any, future escalation comes next could carry more widespread implications. Beyond disrupting global flight networks farther down the road, Shahidi stresses that it's very difficult for people who may need or want to evacuate countries impacted by the war to do so without access to commercial flights. At the same time, he adds, it's critical that state authorities focus on keeping their skies safe — pointing to past tragedies of passenger flights that were shot down by strikes. That includes Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, which was shot down by Russian-backed forces while flying over Ukraine in 2014, killing 298 people. 'We are all praying and urging resolution to this conflict — and especially as it relates to protection of civilian air travel," Shahidi said. "We do not want to have an MH17, with innocent lives being lost in a missile strike ... We do not want to repeat that history.'
