Milei eyes legislative win to push second wave of reforms
Milei hopes the vote will strengthen his party, La Libertad Avanza, which holds limited representation in Congress. He aims to win control of the Senate with allies, unseat the Peronist-Kirchnerist bloc and push his reform agenda through quickly.
Recent polls show Milei's party leading voter preferences by a wide margin, polling between 37% and 43%. The left-leaning coalition Unión por la Patria trails with support between 30% and 33%, while other parties lag far behind.
If Milei wins big in October, he plans to launch a broader reform program targeting Argentina's government, judiciary and public security system.
On fiscal policy, Milei says he wants to cut consolidated public spending to no more than 25% of GDP by 2027. "The national government, provinces and municipalities will all have to do their part," he said.
The administration plans to eliminate 90% of national taxes, keeping only six, in a bid to dismantle Argentina's complex tax system and shrink the state bureaucracy.
Milei has pledged to give Argentines "greater economic freedom," including lifting price controls and opening up foreign trade.
On security, the government wants to lower the age of criminal responsibility, raise penalties under the penal code and pass a national security law. The measure would expand powers for the state, intelligence services and law enforcement to combat crime.
The proposed justice reform seeks to address the country's public safety crisis by curbing what the government sees as excessive political influence over the judiciary.
Milei has said he will nominate candidates this year to fill all vacancies in the federal justice system. That includes top judgeships, federal courts, prosecutors and public defenders -- positions that account for about 40% of Argentina's federal bench.
On the economic front, the government plans to end controls on foreign currency transactions, expand deregulation, downsize overlapping agencies and speed up privatizations. Officials have not ruled out including Aerolíneas Argentinas.
On immigration, Milei wants to tighten citizenship rules, restrict free access to public healthcare -- particularly along the Bolivian border -- and limit enrollment of foreign students in national universities. He also aims to authorize expedited deportation procedures.
In labor policy, the government aims to curb union power. The plan would require 75% of normal operations to continue during strikes in essential services such as healthcare, education, security and telecommunications. For sectors deemed critically important -- including food production, banking, exports and construction -- a minimum service level of 50% would be required.
Milei's first reform package included deep fiscal austerity, cutting public investment, halting money printing by the Central Bank, closing state agencies and laying off about 43,000 public employees.
The government also launched privatization efforts for eight state-owned companies.
The measures triggered a drop in consumption and wages, affecting employment and private sector output.
Still, the administration points to falling inflation -- down to 1.5% in May -- along with rising imports and exports, climbing stock values for Argentine companies and a new agreement with the International Monetary Fund as key achievements.
Copyright 2025 UPI News Corporation. All Rights Reserved.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
10 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Court Lets Trump Block Billions of Dollars in Foreign Aid
(Bloomberg) -- The Trump administration can cut billions of dollars in foreign assistance funds approved by Congress for this year, a US appeals court ruled. Sunseeking Germans Face Swiss Backlash Over Alpine Holiday Congestion To Head Off Severe Storm Surges, Nova Scotia Invests in 'Living Shorelines' New York Warns of $34 Billion Budget Hole, Biggest Since 2009 Crisis Five Years After Black Lives Matter, Brussels' Colonial Statues Remain For Homeless Cyclists, Bikes Bring an Escape From the Streets In a 2-1 decision on Wednesday, the appellate panel reversed a Washington federal judge who found that US officials were violating the Constitution's separation of powers principles by failing to authorize the money to be paid in line with what the legislative branch directed. The ruling is a significant win for President Donald Trump's efforts to dissolve the US Agency for International Development and broadly withhold funding from programs that have fallen out of favor with his administration, regardless of how Congress exercised its authority over spending. Trump's critics have assailed what they've described as a far-reaching power grab by the executive branch. The nonprofits and business that sued could ask all of the active judges on the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit to reconsider the three-member panel's decision. If the panel's decision stands, it wasn't immediately clear how much it would affect other lawsuits contesting a range of Trump administration funding freezes and cuts besides foreign aid. Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson wrote in the majority opinion that the challengers lacked valid legal grounds to sue over the Trump administration's decision to withhold the funds, also known as impoundment. The US Comptroller General — who leads an accountability arm of Congress — could sue under a specific law related to impoundment decisions, Henderson wrote, but the challengers couldn't bring a 'freestanding' constitutional claim or claim violations of a different law related to agency actions. Henderson, appointed by former President George H.W. Bush, was joined by Judge Greg Katsas, a Trump appointee. The court didn't reach the core question of whether the administration's unilateral decision to refuse to spend money appropriated by Congress is constitutional. Judge Florence Pan, nominated by former President Joe Biden, dissented, writing that her colleagues had turned 'a blind eye to the 'serious implications' of this case for the rule of law and the very structure of our government.' White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said in a statement that the appeals court 'has affirmed what we already knew – President Trump has the executive authority to execute his own foreign policy, which includes ensuring that all foreign assistance aligns with the America First agenda.' A lead attorney for the grant recipients did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The two consolidated cases before the appeals court only deal with money that Congress approved for the 2024 fiscal year, which ends on Sept. 30. Grantees are poised to lose access to funds if they haven't yet been approved to be spent by federal officials — a precursor to actual payouts — or unless a court order is in place. The administration lost one of its few battles before the US Supreme Court earlier this year in the foreign aid fight. In March, a majority of justices refused to immediately stop US District Judge Amir Ali's injunction taking effect while the legal fight went forward. Since then, however, the challengers have filed complaints with Ali that the administration is failing to obligate or pay out the funds. They've rebuffed the government's position that the delay is part of a legitimate effort to 'evaluate the appropriate next steps' and accused officials of angling to use a novel tactic to go around Congress in order to cut appropriated money. The Trump administration has dramatically scaled back the US government's humanitarian work overseas, slashing spending and personnel and merging the USAID into the State Department. The challengers say the foreign aid freeze has created a global crisis, and that the money is critical for malaria prevention, to address child malnutrition and provide postnatal care for newborns. The groups argued that the president and agency leaders couldn't defy Congress' spending mandates and didn't have discretion to decide that only some, let alone none, of the money appropriated by lawmakers should be paid. The president can ask Congress to withdraw appropriations but can't do it on his own, the challengers argued. The Justice Department argued Ali's order was an 'improper judicial intrusion into matters left to the political branches' and that the judge wrongly interfered in the 'particularly sensitive area of foreign relations.' The government also said that the Impoundment Control Act, which restricts the president from overruling Congress' spending decisions, wasn't a law that the nonprofits and business could sue to enforce. The challengers countered that Ali's order blocking the funding freeze was rooted in their constitutional separation-of-powers claim, not the impoundment law. The cases are Global Health Council v. Trump, 25-5097, and AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition v. US Department of State, 25-5098, US Court of Appeals, DC Circuit. (Updated with White House comment.) Bessent on Tariffs, Deficits and Embracing Trump's Economic Plan Why It's Actually a Good Time to Buy a House, According to a Zillow Economist Dubai's Housing Boom Is Stoking Fears of Another Crash The Social Media Trend Machine Is Spitting Out Weirder and Weirder Results Americans Are Getting Priced Out of Homeownership at Record Rates ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. 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
USA Today
12 minutes ago
- USA Today
Dean Cain defends new role with ICE, says he's being 'pilloried and attacked'
Dean Cain is hitting back at those criticizing his recent decision to join the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The "Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman" star, in an appearance on "Piers Morgan Uncensored" on Aug. 11, said his decision to join the agency stemmed from wanting to support ICE officers. "I'm 59 years old and I've joined ICE," Cain said on the show. "Go ahead and denigrate my career. But what I'm doing is I'm standing up for the men and women of ICE. I'm a sworn deputy sheriff. I'm a reserve police officer. I have been for almost a decade now." Cain went on to defend ICE officers, saying they are being "vilified," "attacked" and "doxed" for "trying to their job" that the "American people hired them for" and the "Congress wrote laws for." "They're doing it very, very well," Cain said, appreciating ICE agents. Cain '100% proud' to stand with ICE agents The actor said the criticism started when he did a recruitment video for ICE, prompting some to think he had "actually joined" the agency. He then spoke with ICE officials and decided to officially join the agency and be sworn in. "I'm 100% proud to stand with our agents of ICE," Cain said on the show. "I love these people. They're wonderful men and women and husbands and fathers of every ethnicity, every race, every background." Cain also took a dig at John Oliver, who on a recent show had blasted the former's decision to join the federal immigration enforcement agency, which has come under scrutiny for aggressively deporting tens of thousands of undocumented immigrants in President Donald Trump's second term. "I'll happily take the jibes of John Oliver," Cain remarked. "I'm being pilloried and attacked for joining up with a law a federal law enforcement agency. (It) is insane. I did it to protect Americans and to protect our men and women of ICE." Untrained former actor? When political strategist Tim Miller, the show's other guest, asked Cain if he knows what rights an individual has if he shows up "at the door of someone's home as an ICE agent," Cain responded by saying he's "not an ICE agent yet" and is yet to undergo training. "So yeah, you're an untrained former actor," Miller said in response. "I'm a former actor," Cain said. "I'm a former professional football player, too. So, want to run down your resume? I mean, it's so stupid." "Denigrating somebody because they're doing this because of what they used to do or what they do or whether they're an actor or a writer or a newscaster is ridiculous. It's an ad hominem attack," Cain asserted, reminding viewers again of his law enforcement background. Saman Shafiq is a trending news reporter for USA TODAY. Reach her at sshafiq@ and follow her on X and Instagram @saman_shafiq7.
The Hill
12 minutes ago
- The Hill
The corporate tax-break spree meets federal austerity. Here's what states should do.
Chasing the next big things in manufacturing and tech, states and localities have given out special corporate tax breaks at record levels over the past several years. But federal austerity is about to force a long-overdue reckoning upon this form of corporate welfare. In 2022, the U.S. set an all-time record for individual factories receiving state and local subsidies of more than $1 billion each. That year, eight factories were given an average of $2 billion each. Engorged by five federal stimulus bills totaling $6.5 trillion, states and localities squandered some of their COVID-19 windfalls, enacting or expanding subsidies to industries such as data centers and movie production that are guaranteed economic losers. Others lavished subsidies on factories already gold-plated by Uncle Sam, such as electric-veh i cle battery plants in Tennessee, Kansas and Georgia, and microchip fabrication facilities in Ohio, New York and Texas. More states have enacted sales and use tax exemptions for d a ta centers, the capital-intensive server farms that threaten to drive up consumer electricity prices while creating very few permanent jobs. States such as Virginia and Texas are already losing $1 billion per year that way. In some states, data centers get local property tax abatements as well. Amazon Web Services has received two such awards totaling more than $5 billion. States such as Illinois have enacted new incentive programs by which workers will effectively pay their personal state income taxes to their employers — terrible policy that fuels structural deficits. Some states have enacted 'lard on' giveaways on top of the federal opportunity zone program — trickle-down economics by census tract. But now comes a winter of austerity. Trump and the Republican Congress are implementing deep cuts to scores of federal programs for education, job creation, small businesses, affordable housing, infrastructure, agriculture and workforce training. The full damage of the fiscal 2026 federal budget is not yet apparent, but state and local leaders will be forced to protect public services by taking a cold, hard look at all the ill-advised tax breaks they have on their books. Thanks to a new reporting rule, taxpayers will be able to help politicians find the money. The Governmental Accounting Standards Board's Statement No. 77 on Tax Abatement Disclosures requires most states and local governments, including independent school districts, to report each year how much revenue they lose to such tax-break programs. With seven years of abatement-loss data visible now, we can see some big losers and scary trends. Among those most harmed will be urban school districts; places with a lot of data centers; states such as Michigan that are still paying out tax credits for programs they long ago discontinued; and states such as Georgia, with its uncapped television and film production giveaway. But these places also have the most to gain from reform. Here is what to save and what to fix. Do sustain investments that benefit the most employers, such as infrastructure, K-14, workforce development and small business development. Don't subsidize industries that don't need aid, especially those that cost far more in tax revenue than they generate. Topping that list are data centers and television and film production. Never enact — in fact, repeal — any incentive that effectively means workers pay their state personal income taxes to their employers. Repeal any 'lard on' tax break you may have enacted on opportunity zones, and decouple your state income tax code from the federal definition of adjusted gross income to protect your revenue from the opportunity zones' capital gains exclusions. Amend your state enabling legislation for property tax abatements and tax increment financing to take the school share of the property tax off the table. For every other affected taxing body (such as transit agencies or fire districts), give them full autonomous control over their share of the property taxes (or other revenues) that might be abated or TIF-diverted. These safeguards will help the U.S. economy weather the coming federal austerity. Plus, they will reduce the risk inherent in economic development spending by curbing the 'too many eggs in too few baskets' problem of mega-deals.
