Stocks Slip Ahead of Data; Senate Pulls All-Nighter on Trump Tax Bill
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump slams Elon Musk as megabill drops AI protections and hits snags in Senate
President Trump slammed Elon Musk's subsidies, and Republican senators struck down a plan to shield artificial intelligence from state regulations. These two middle-of-the-night developments on Tuesday reinforced a growing schism between Trump and Silicon Valley supporters over his "big, beautiful bill." The first development came at 12:44 a.m. ET, when Trump responded to Tesla (TSLA) CEO Musk's ongoing critiques of the package, focusing on the government grants that Musk's companies receive. "Without subsidies, Elon would probably have to close up shop and head back home to South Africa," wrote the president in a Truth Social post, adding, "perhaps we should have DOGE take a good, hard, look at this?" The president was referring to the government efficiency group that Musk ran until recently. The president's missive came after Trump's signature legislation underwent key changes in recent days that set off many in the tech industry, Musk most of all, with new measures to tax green energy companies and further support for fossil fuels, as well as a growing price tag. The divide between many in Silicon Valley and the "big, beautiful bill" has been evident for over a month. It appeared set to deepen further when, a few hours later, a closely watched artificial intelligence provision was stripped from the bill itself. This plan, which had many Silicon Valley supporters, was meant to shield the quickly growing AI industry from state and local regulations. But the idea now appears to be dead after Sen. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee turned against a compromise plan Monday evening and stripped it from the bill. It wasn't close in the end, with the Senate voting 99-1 to adopt Blackburn's subsequent amendment in a count that wrapped up a little after 4:00 a.m. ET. Trump's overall package also appears to be teetering Tuesday morning after a series of overnight developments saw two key Republican senators — Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine — uncommitted to vote yes. Those two senators could join two Republicans already committed to voting no, which would be enough to sink the package. The drama between the president and the world's richest man has been up and down for weeks, but it escalated Monday afternoon when Musk offered new electoral threats against Republicans. Musk had already amplified Democrats' critiques and talked about the need for a new political party. He offered a striking promise Monday afternoon that lawmakers who vote for the bill "will lose their primary next year if it is the last thing I do on this Earth." Musk, of course, was the biggest donor during the 2024 campaign, spending at least $288 million, most of which was offered in support of Trump. Trump reiterated his critiques of Musk Tuesday morning, speaking to reporters and saying of Musk's objection to losing EV subsidies, "Elon can lose a lot more than that." The president also called the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) a "monster that might have to go back and eat Elon." And when asked by a reporter if he would consider deporting Musk, he demurred: "We'll have to take a look." What is unclear for the days ahead is how much the Trump-Musk fight will impact the actual chances of the bill's passage, with Senate amendment votes ongoing. Musk is clearly focused on a debate likely coming later this week, when the House is set to take up the amended measure if it passes. The House is where a vocal bloc of fiscal conservatives — who often vote as part of the "Freedom Caucus" — warily supported a previous version of the bill, saying a previous smaller price tag was too big. Musk even tagged some of these House Republican lawmakers in some of his latest posts, which continued throughout the night with dozens of messages. Musk also responded to Trump's comments about his subsidies by saying his companies like Tesla and SpaceX ( would be fine and that oil and gas subsidies should be removed as well. The back-and-forth over AI also came to a head overnight after the House passed a plan in May that included a complete ban on state regulations of AI for a decade. The little-noticed measure gained wider attention in the weeks that followed, with many of Trump's most loyal supporters opposing it. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene even admitted that she hadn't been aware of the provision when she voted yes. The Georgia lawmaker then announced her opposition and plans to vote no if this "violation of state rights" stayed in the bill. Trump himself doesn't appear to have taken a position on the measure, but it had the backing of his Silicon Valley-aligned aides, most notably the vocal support of AI and crypto czar (and longtime venture capitalist) David Sacks. But Republican opposition grew, and Sen. Blackburn of Tennessee became a leading voice of opposition in the Senate. She entered into negotiations over the issue and appeared to have found a compromise in recent days around the idea that instead of a decade-long ban, the provision would be amended to be a "temporary pause" of five years. States would be strongly discouraged from regulating AI, as lawmakers linked it to access to millions of dollars in AI infrastructure and deployment funding. But even that wasn't enough. Blackburn renounced the compromise, said a moratorium "could allow Big Tech to continue to exploit kids, creators, and conservatives," and teamed with a top Democrat to strike the provision entirely. Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders (a former Trump press secretary) congratulated Blackburn on the move in a post the senator quickly reposted. "This is how you take on big tech!" Sanders wrote. This story has been updated with additional developments. Ben Werschkul is a Washington correspondent for Yahoo Finance. Click here for political news related to business and money policies that will shape tomorrow's stock prices Sign in to access your portfolio
New York Times
29 minutes ago
- New York Times
FIFA urged to use ‘influence' over President Trump's ‘abusive' immigration policy ahead of World Cup
FIFA president Gianni Infantino has received a letter signed by over 90 civil society groups, the majority of which are based in the United States, expressing 'deep concern' about immigration policies and enforcement measures in the U.S. and their potential impact on the World Cup in 2026. The letter urges FIFA to use its 'influence' to call on the administration of President Donald Trump to guarantee the fundamental rights of the millions of football fans who will seek to attend the World Cup next summer. The groups reference Infantino's 'high-profile engagements' in the White House and his recent trip to Saudi Arabia and Qatar, when he accompanied President Trump at an investment summit as evidence of his proximity to the U.S. President. Advertisement The letter asks FIFA to leverage its position to 'publicly' urge President Trump to reverse policies and practices that the groups say pose risks to both foreign tournament attendees and migrant communities living within the U.S. The letter goes on to warn that if FIFA continues to remain silent, then 'the FIFA brand will be used as a public relations tool to whitewash the reputation of an increasingly authoritarian government.' The letter says: 'We call on FIFA to use its influence to encourage the U.S. government to guarantee the fundamental rights of the millions of foreign visitors and fans who seek entry to the U.S. to attend the tournaments, and those of the constitutional rights of the many immigrants who already live, work, and contribute meaningfully to the cities selected to host them.' The letter, which has been seen by The Athletic, is co-signed by groups including Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and NAACP, an American civil rights organization founded in 1909, as well as the 105-year-old American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Civil society groups and unions based in New York, Florida, Georgia, California, Texas, Massachusetts, Missouri, Pennsylvania, all states which will host World Cup fixtures, have signed the letter. The letter was co-ordinated by the British advocacy group Fair Square, in collaboration with several of the signatories. It was sent to FIFA on the morning of July 1, addressed to Infantino and copying in senior officials including Carlos Cordeiro, the former U.S. Soccer president who now serves as an advisor to Infantino. The letter was also copied into the FIFA COO Kevin Lamour, its World Cup COO Heimo Schirgi, as well as its director of government relations Alex Sopko and chief strategy officer Amy Hopfinger. The letter also copied in Matthew Mullen, the FIFA Head of Human Rights specifically for the World Cup, in 2026, which will be co-hosted by the U.S., Canada and Mexico. Advertisement Minky Worden, the director of global initiatives at Human Rights Watch, told The Athletic this type of intervention is 'very uncommon in the context of any U.S. mega-sporting event', which underlines the concern felt by the signatories about the current climate in the U.S. The letter points to the series of executive orders and policy changes implemented by President Trump since his inauguration in 2025. The administration argues these orders are in the interests of national security and public safety. In their letter, however, the rights groups say they are concerned for the projected 2.6 million visitors projected to attend the World Cup in 2026. The letter says: 'Increased immigration enforcement actions, abusive Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations, and broader border restrictions have also contributed to widespread fear and uncertainty. Several foreign governments have already issued travel advisories to its citizens, warning of risks of being denied entry or detained and deported when traveling to the U.S.' There has been evidence of reduced inbound travel to the U.S., with Republican congressman Darin LaHood last week expressing concern about a 40 per cent reduction in travel to the U.S. from Canada amid a trade war, while he added that tourism in Las Vegas, New York and Florida is down. The letter points to the imposition of travel bans by the Trump administration against nationals from twelve countries, which threatens to exclude Iranian football fans from the World Cup, as their team has already qualified for the tournament, as well as partial restrictions on seven more nations including Venezuela, who are in contention to qualify. The groups also reference reporting from the New York Times, which claimed that 36 more countries, many of which are African, could be added to the list. Advertisement The letter warns that 'spectators from other countries remain subject to invasive and burdensome vetting procedures and the possibility of being denied travel authorization or entry due to their political or religious views.' The groups also point to concerns about the alleged 'cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment' within U.S. immigration detention facilities. The letter says that the success of a World Cup depends not only on infrastructure and logistics, but also the 'spirit of openness and safety extended to all who participate and attend'. Infantino insisted at the FIFA Congress in May that the world is welcome in America, saying in Paraguay: 'Of course, the players, of course, everyone involved, all of us, but definitely also all the fans.' The U.S. vice-president J.D. Vance said in May: 'Of course everyone is welcome to come and see this wonderful event. We want them to come, we want them to celebrate, we want them to watch the games. 'But when the time is up we want them to go home, otherwise they will have to talk to Secretary Noem,' he continued, referring to Kristi Noem, the Secretary of Homeland Security. The letter argues that FIFA, in accordance with its own Human Rights Policy, has a 'responsibility to act.' The letter says: 'The policy specifically identifies that 'providing for the safety and security of people who are attending or are otherwise involved in or affected by FIFA's events may impact certain fundamental human rights, such as freedom of movement, expression and assembly' as one of FIFA's five salient human rights risks.' It continues: 'People of all nationalities should be able to travel to the United States without fear of arbitrary denial of entry, arbitrary detention, or deportation without due process, and people in the United States should be able to exercise their right to freedom of expression without fear of arbitrary detention and deportation, and migrant communities should not live in perpetual fear of CBP and ICE raids.' The CBP provoked alarm before this summer's FIFA Club World Cup when it posted on Facebook that its agents would be 'suited and booted ready to provide security for the first round of games.' The Athletic revealed that the post was removed after direct contact from senior personnel at FIFA expressing concerns, but it is not clear as to the extent to which FIFA's outreach impacted the decision. NBC Miami reported that ICE confirmed that they would be present at games as part of the security operation, while also including a reminder that non-American citizens should carry proof of their legal status. Attendances for the Club World Cup have been mixed, with some matches close to full and some leaving tens of thousands of seats empty. Advertisement FIFA, which has been approached for comment about the letter to Infantino, has faced numerous questions over its commitment to human rights after holding its previous two men's World Cups in Qatar and Russia, while the 2034 edition will be held in Saudi Arabia. Eleven leading human rights organisations have previously criticised a 39-page document published by the world football governing body FIFA by the Saudi arm of the global law firm Clifford Chance. The groups claimed it represented a 'flawed' assessment of Saudi Arabia as the country bid to host the World Cup. FIFA is currently hiring for a Head of Human Rights & Anti-Discrimination, according to a job posting on its webpage. The posting says the applicant must have 10 years experience as a human rights executive, must demonstrate high ethical standards and personal integrity, and have experience working with marginalized and vulnerable people. Among the key tasks will be to ensure the active and transparent communication of FIFA's human rights work.
Forbes
29 minutes ago
- Forbes
China + Trump's Abraham Accords Remake Middle Eastern Energy
The signing of the Abraham Accords during the first term of President Donald Trump marked a turning ... More point in America's Middle Eastern Policy as well as regional prospects. U.S. President Donald Trump's teasing about the possibility of more countries joining the Abraham Accords is one of the most important and least appreciated developments from the US-Israeli-Iranian war. While Cassandras prophesied destabilization of the Middle East, the expansion of the accords would lead to a less radical and more stable political environment and increased energy availability worldwide. There may be a welcome change in the global balance of power, as China and Russia recognize that the United States is not is a fitting result, since Iran supported the October 7th, 2023 Hamas attack on Israel to derail the Abraham Accords, more specifically, to prevent Saudi Arabia from coming on board. The Abraham Accords, the first Trump administration's most significant foreign policy accomplishments, sought to normalize relations between Israel and various Muslim-majority states. In doing so, it was hoped that outside influence and economic ties could slowly unravel the Gordian Knot that is Israeli-Palestinian relations and cool tensions. Iran's disruption of this process was both ideological and strategic, in escalation of its hegemonic ambitions and its 'ring of fire' strategy, designed to surround and attack Israel through numerous proxies, an approach which would be threatened by Trump's one believes a broken clock tells time twice a day, or the result was due to great strategic insight, Trump seems to have succeeded in his 'splendid little war'. Iran's nuclear and military capacity has been reduced, its network of proxies largely smashed, the friendly Assad regime in Syria gone, a quagmire resulting from regime change in Tehran avoided. The global economy dodged recession because the Strait of Hormuz was not closed, possibly with the assistance of China. America's position, both geopolitically and in the energy sector, has been strengthened following the strikes on Iran, to wit Brent oil prices hovering at a healthy $67 a barrel at the time of this writing. While doubts about the success of attacks against Iran's nuclear capabilities persist, and confusion about the feasibility of Iran's nuclear ambitions endures, there is less doubt about the results for Iran's patrons and Accords ExpandThe expansion of the Abraham Accords is the most likely immediate result of Iran's humiliation, and it heralds the erosion of Iranian power. One obvious candidate for expansion, in both my estimation and per the Israeli media, is Azerbaijan, a majority Shi'a Muslim secular state that already has an exemplary relationship with Israel, making it the perfect antithesis to Iran. Should Azerbaijan join the Accords, the European energy market would be the most significant immediate beneficiary, since Azeri energy could flow westwards without its existing cooperation with Israel acting as a Iran, being unable to confront Israel and the U.S., is picking a fight with Azerbaijan, spreading deepfakes and threats to 'retaliate' for Baku's alleged assistance to Jerusalem during the war. Azerbaijan's ascension to the Abraham Accords will prevent Iran from aggressive moves towards its independent neighbor, thus actively denying Tehran's strife to control the energy-rich Caucasus are other promising candidates for the Abraham Accords. Syria, assuming it opts to join, would serve as a dramatic example of a nation's ability to exit the Axis of Evil camp and embark on a path toward development. It would be a powerful way for Syria's President Ahmed al-Shaara to demonstrate that his claims of being a changed man in charge of a changing country are not simply rhetoric. Doing so would also allow the economic development of Syria's underutilized energy resources. It must be noted that Azerbaijan played an active role in facilitating talks between Turkey and Israel over the regime change in Asian states, including Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan, which, like Azerbaijan, are largely secular majority Muslim countries with good relations with Israel, could also make excellent additions. They are, by and large, energy-exporting states dependent on commodity revenues. Hooking them into an emerging geoeconomic framework under the auspices of the Abraham Accords could economically help reinforce these states against encroaching Russian and Chinese influence, while simultaneously boosting development and ties to the amicable relations between Iran and China are paradoxically increasingly strained as the ... More relationship deepens. China's Pivot & The Abraham AccordsIn Tehran's hour of need, the 'Axis of Upheaval' folded under American pressure. Russia, bogged down in Ukraine, refused to act. Beijing could have credibly supported Iran in defense of its strategic partnership. Instead, China opted for low energy prices amid fears that further escalation would damage its economy. Now, in the aftermath of Trump's victory and China's difficult decision, the Middle East is in flux, and Beijing has both hard choices and opportunities ahead of abandonment of Iran at the first inconvenience isn't a total loss. While this action may convince some that China is a paper tiger, for others, especially Iran's Arab rivals, it is seen as a sign of prudence. China is far more reliant on Arab states for energy than it is on Iran. Furthermore, Beijing's only hope of expanding engagement with the Middle East now lies with the Arab states; and the Arab states, which are increasingly likely to join the Abraham Accords, are the key for China to normalize contacts with the region and sidestep Iranian aspirants to the accords, China already has close relations with Central Asian states and expressed an interest in investing in Syria. In Azerbaijan, China maintains a pragmatic, growing strategic partnership rooted in energy, infrastructure, and regional connectivity. Thus, China may even find strategic utility in supporting the Accords, not just for its Middle Eastern objectives, but also to mitigate against the controversies concerning Beijing's repression of the Muslim Uyghurs in China's Xinjiang Abraham Accords now transcend mere peacekeeping in the Middle East. They may become a coalition of nations with which the United States can reliably deal. Within this framework, Israel is a capstone asset. Still, also a litmus test: a Muslim country's ability to maintain harmonious relations with Israel is seen as indicative of its potential for constructive engagement with America. This strategic vision positions the Abraham Accords as a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy, leveraging Israel's role to foster a network of allied states, thereby enhancing American influence and energy security on the global stage. Ironically, this strategic vision is more recognized in Beijing and Tehran than in Washington, D.C.
