US warships sail in vicinity of disputed shoal where Chinese ships collided
The presence of the US ship in the area prompted China's military to accuse the US Navy of violating it's territorial sovereignty, but the US Navy said it had the right to be there.
'USS Higgins (DDG 76) asserted navigational rights and freedoms in the South China Sea near Scarborough Reef, consistent with international law,' US Navy 7th Fleet spokesperson Lt. Sarah Merrill said in a statement to CNN.
China, the Philippines and Taiwan all claim sovereignty over Scarborough Shoal, which is about 140 miles (222 kilometers) west of the main Philippine island of Luzon and within the Philippines exclusive economic zone.
But China has effectively controlled the uninhabited shoal since 2012 by maintaining an almost constant coast guard presence in nearby waters, according to the Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative.
China and Taiwan each require advance notification of passage within the territorial waters of the reef, in violation of international laws guaranteeing the right of 'innocent passage' by foreign warships, Merrill said. The Philippines does not impose this requirement, she added.
Merrill denied an earlier claim by China's Southern Theater Command that it 'organized its forces to track, monitor, warn and expel' the US warship as it 'violated China's territorial sovereignty.'
'China's statement about this mission is false,' Merrill said.
'The United States is defending its right to fly, sail and operate wherever international law allows, as USS Higgins did here. Nothing China says otherwise will deter us,' Merrill said.
According to the Philippine Coast Guard, the USS Higgins wasn't the only US warship in the vicinity of Scarborough Shoal on Wednesday.
The littoral combat ship USS Cincinnati was also nearby, spokesperson Jay Tarriela said in a statement on X.
Merrill would only confirm to CNN that the Cincinnati was operating in the South China Sea.
Wednesday's FONOP was the first near Scarborough Shoal in more than six years, according to Collin Koh, a research fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS) in Singapore, who keeps a database of US Freedom of Navigation operations.
It was also just the second FONOP in 2025, after one in the Spratly Islands in May.
The US performed two FONOPs in the South China Sea in 2024 after executing five in 2023, according to Koh's database.
China says such missions by the US threaten its sovereignty and peace and stability in the South China Sea.
Tensions around Scarborough Shoal, home to rich fishing grounds, have been increasing as Beijing becomes more assertive in claiming of sovereignty over much of the South China Sea and Manila pushes back, embarking independent journalists on Philippine Coast Guard missions to document what it calls Chinese aggression.
Wednesday's US Navy operation came two days after a Chinese navy guided-missile destroyer and coast guard ship collided near the shoal while chasing a Philippine Coast Guard vessel.
The collision caused heavy damage to the bow of the China Coast Guard ship.
In a state-run Global Times report late Wednesday, Chinese experts placed the blame for Monday's incident on the Philippines and, indirectly, its defense treaty ally, the US.
The Philippine Coast Guard vessel made repeated dangerous maneuvers in front of the Chinese Coast Guard ship, the Global Times report said, without mentioning the presence of the Chinese destroyer.
The media outlet reported that Chinese experts had said the 'Philippine ship's maneuvers severely compromised the navigational safety of the Chinese vessel, and seriously violated the most basic principles and rules of maritime navigational safety.'
The report was accompanied by a 26-second video clip, which allegedly shows reckless action by the Philippine vessel, though did not show the moment of the collision between the Chinese ships.
'The full responsibility for the resulting damages lies with the Philippine side, and all losses should be entirely borne by the Philippine vessel that provoked and caused the incident at sea,' the report said in possible reference to the collision, which China has not specifically admitted.
Carl Schuster, a former US Navy captain, reviewed the Global Times video for CNN and said the Chinese ship, being the overtaking ship, would be responsible for signaling its intentions to the Philippine vessel.
'There is no evidence they did so and the Philippine Coast Guard vessel is under no obligation to heave to,' or give way, Schuster said.
The Global Times article quoted Yang Xiao, an expert on maritime issues at the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations, who pointed the finger of blame at the US military for training its Philippine ally in gray-zone tactics, actions below the level of open warfare but employing more than diplomacy or negotiations.
Yang said the tactics violate 'internationally accepted norms of maritime law enforcement' and 'could lead to serious miscalculations and heightened risks of conflict at sea.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Google Finds Workaround for Lobbying That Omits Big Bosses
(Bloomberg) -- It was the end of 2018, and Google's leaders were tired of being Number One. For the second year in a row, federal records showed the search giant had spent more than any other individual company on lobbying in Washington. Executives in Mountain View were sick of seeing that mentioned in the press, according to a former Google employee who asked not to be identified discussing private conversations. The US-Canadian Road Safety Gap Is Getting Wider Sunseeking Germans Face Swiss Backlash Over Alpine Holiday Congestion To Head Off Severe Storm Surges, Nova Scotia Invests in 'Living Shorelines' Five Years After Black Lives Matter, Brussels' Colonial Statues Remain For Homeless Cyclists, Bikes Bring an Escape From the Streets Then Google apparently found a workaround. A new analysis of federal lobbying data by the nonprofit Tech Transparency Project shows that Google and its parent company, Alphabet Inc., used an internal reorganization to exclude the value of lobbying by its senior executives from disclosures. The move helped keep Google off the top of the lobbying charts even as it maintained a robust network of advocates pushing its interests in the capital, during federal challenges to its dominance in search and advertising and the beginnings of artificial intelligence regulation. The findings, which were confirmed by a Bloomberg analysis of lobbying records, show that the effect of the accounting change was to lower the amount that Google reported spending to influence the federal government, likely by millions of dollars. The reorganization 'has allowed the company to shield a significant portion of its lobbying expenditures from public view,' the Tech Transparency Project said in its report. A Google spokesperson, José Castañeda, disputed the report and said the company has followed all relevant disclosure laws. 'These are inaccurate claims about a technical change that simply brought us in line with how many other companies report their lobbying activities,' he said. 'Our lobbying expenditures began decreasing in 2018, after we restructured our government affairs team and cut spending on consultants.' Internal Reshuffle Starting in 2019, Google began cutting ties with some of its external lobbying firms, a move it acknowledged publicly as part of an overhaul of its Washington operations. But the shuffling of external lobbying firms doesn't explain the whole of the decline in Google's reported lobbying expenses, which fell from more than $22 million in 2018 to $8.9 million in the Covid-disrupted year of 2020, and have subsequently remained well below pre-pandemic levels. There's been another, quieter change: in early 2020, Google moved its in-house lobbyists into a new subsidiary, called Google Client Services LLC. It's that unit which now files spending disclosures for Google's lobbying activities. The reorganization meant that the parent companies Google and Alphabet no longer directly employed any lobbyists – defined under federal disclosure law as people spending at least 20% of their time on influencing Congress or the executive branch. Companies that file lobbying disclosure reports are supposed to also account for the time that other senior executives — those who don't meet the 20% threshold – devote to lobbying, according to legal experts and the compliance guide for the Lobbying Disclosure Act published by Congressional leaders. That generally involves prorating their annual compensation to account for the days they spend influencing the government. But since Google moved lobbyists into the Google Client Services subsidiary, the parent company no longer meets the threshold for filing disclosures under the Lobbying Disclosure Act, according to the TTP analysis. That means Google no longer reports the lobbying expenses of high-ranking managers who aren't part of the Client Services unit — like Chief Executive Officer Sundar Pichai and chief legal officer Kent Walker — to the public, as it once did. As a result, in 2020 Google dropped out of the top 20 in corporate lobbying expenses for the first time in nearly a decade, the TTP analysis found. While Google's reported annual spending has since edged back up again, it hasn't come close to the No.1 slot in the company lobbying rankings that it used to occupy. For the past five years, that position has alternated between two other tech giants: Meta Platforms Inc. and Inc. Antitrust Challenge There's been plenty going on in Washington over the period that was crucial for Google's business. For one thing, the company — like many peers — is betting heavily on AI, a field where decisions in the US capital will shape the commercial landscape. Google has also been under assault from antitrust authorities over its dominance in search and digital advertising. The company has maintained in those lawsuits that its success is down to consumer choice and superior innovation, rather than a result of its power to shape laws and regulations. Publicity around its lobbying spending has the potential to undercut such arguments and alienate regulators. When executives are as highly paid as many in Silicon Valley, the prorated amounts can add up to millions — even for just a few days' worth of lobbying. Google reported total compensation for Pichai of more than $225 million in 2022, thanks to grants of stock. His total compensation was $10.7 million in 2024. Walker's total compensation was more than $30 million last year, the company reported. Some say the new structure Google is employing flouts the spirit of the federal disclosure law – if not the letter itself. 'This is just too cute by half,' said William Luneburg, a professor emeritus at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, and the co-editor of the manual for lobbying compliance published by the American Bar Association. 'On the face of it, it's wrong,' he said. 'They have to report all of their expenses, which would include the time of officers and directors and other employees that spend their time engaging in lobbying activity.' 'We always comply with disclosure laws and any suggestion of improper reporting is false,' said Castañeda, the Google spokesperson. TTP said it examined lobbying disclosures of several other companies that filed reports via a similar subsidiary model, but didn't find any that had used the structure to remove executive lobbying from their disclosures. --With assistance from Davey Alba and Sarah Frier. (Updates to add attribution in second paragraph) Americans Are Getting Priced Out of Homeownership at Record Rates Dubai's Housing Boom Is Stoking Fears of Another Crash 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 The Electric Pickup Truck Boom Turned Into a Big Bust ©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
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Defending Trump's Orders Leaves DOJ Lawyers Showing Strain, Seeking Delays
(Bloomberg) -- Mass departures from the US Justice Department and a rising flood of lawsuits are squeezing government lawyers defending administration policies, with signs of strain spilling into court. The department's public court filings, along with interviews with current and former attorneys reveal challenges facing the government as it fights hundreds of cases against President Donald Trump's agenda. In deadline extension requests since January, lawyers have taken the unusual step of publicly acknowledging to judges that they are overextended and having trouble keeping up with the workload. The US-Canadian Road Safety Gap Is Getting Wider Sunseeking Germans Face Swiss Backlash Over Alpine Holiday Congestion To Head Off Severe Storm Surges, Nova Scotia Invests in 'Living Shorelines' Five Years After Black Lives Matter, Brussels' Colonial Statues Remain For Homeless Cyclists, Bikes Bring an Escape From the Streets The department has handled more than 450 court challenges — an unprecedented number for a new administration. In roughly one out of every seven cases, at least one of the government's lawyers was reassigned, left the department or withdrew without stating their reasons, according to a Bloomberg News review of the filings. In the Federal Programs Branch, which plays a lead role defending executive branch policies, more than half of the hundred-plus lawyers have left, according to a current Justice Department lawyer who requested anonymity to discuss internal dynamics. Those have included litigators involved in cases about Trump's ban on transgender military servicemembers, the work of the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, and termination of federal grants. Government lawyers have withdrawn in more than 30 of the cases challenging Trump's immigration policies since January, according to the data compiled by Bloomberg. That includes departures from the teams defending Trump's efforts to cancel birthright citizenship, stop the flow of refugees into the US, and use of a wartime powers law to send alleged Venezuelan gang members to a Salvadoran prison. Requests by lawyers for deadline extensions filed on public court dockets offer a rare window into the upheaval in offices tasked with trying to keep Trump's policies intact in the face of the departures and the deluge of lawsuits. One attorney focused on immigration cases cited the difficulties in 'balancing competing litigation obligations' following the departures of 'multiple' colleagues. A lawyer in a different office alluded to problems keeping up with a 'substantial current workload.' An assistant US attorney in Washington put it more bluntly, saying his office is 'overwhelmed' by the 'continued surge' of cases. Justice Department spokesperson Natalie Baldassarre said in a statement that, 'our attorneys in the Federal Programs Branch and elsewhere across the Civil Division are working tirelessly to fight the unprecedented number of lawsuits filed against the President's executive orders, policies, and actions. The Department has defeated many of these lawsuits all the way up to the Supreme Court and will continue to defend the President's agenda to keep Americans safe.' Hundreds of Justice Department lawyers have resigned or been removed since Trump took office, an exodus that's coincided with a rapidly rising caseload. Attorney General Pam Bondi has ousted dozens of lawyers deemed at odds with Trump's agenda, including prosecutors who handled Jan. 6 cases and now-defunct criminal probes of Trump. And many attorneys have departed voluntarily. During a Feb. 28 hearing in a fight over Trump shuttering the US Agency for International Development, a Federal Programs Branch lawyer cited his office's understaffing and fast-moving caseload when the judge questioned why the government hadn't offered more evidence. The lawyer said they hadn't had a break since the inauguration and that he and his colleagues were 'working day and night.' The current Justice Department attorney said that a number of longtime Programs Branch lawyers had left because the job had simply become untenable, pointing to the workload, lack of resources, the administration's persistent attacks on federal employees, and policy changes like getting rid of remote work and DOGE's demands for weekly emails about how they spent their time. For others, the nature of the work was a factor, said Stacey Young, an 18-year veteran of the Justice Department who left in January and founded a network of alumni called Justice Connection. 'They were asked to take positions they believed were illegal or unethical, including in the Civil Division,' she said. 'This number is considerably higher than most people realize.' In the Office of Immigration Litigation, a specialized division once home to more than 300 lawyers, the government litigators coordinate with local US attorney offices to defend against a swath of actions, from individual deportation orders to sweeping executive orders. The immigration litigation office's district court section is at capacity, said one former attorney, who requested anonymity to discuss internal dynamics. The office has also lost people with valuable expertise, the former attorney added. David McConnell resigned as director of the immigration office's appeals division in February after more than 30 years at the Justice Department. He said in a written statement to Bloomberg that he left because of his 'abrupt reassignment' to a Trump administration task force focused on so-called sanctuary cities. 'I feel badly for leaving people behind, particularly at a time when they are being asked to handle a tremendous workload and make challenging and new arguments without the same level of institutional support or knowledge that I and others who have since left the office had traditionally provided,' McConnell said. Another public flashpoint came in April, when Erez Reuveni, a DOJ attorney known for defending immigration policies during Trump's first term, was suspended – and eventually dismissed – after he admitted that the government had sent Kilmar Abrego Garcia to a prison in El Salvador by mistake. Reuveni later submitted a whistleblower complaint accusing senior administration officials of scheming to defy court orders and withhold information from a judge. The Justice Department has denied the allegations. Justice Connection's Young said the sequence of events leading to Reuveni's firing sent a chilling message: even some attorneys with a history of defending Trump's hard-line immigration policies were vulnerable to internal purges. 'Attorneys in the civil division know that Erez Reuveni was fired because he refused to violate his duty of candor to the court, and many are rightly concerned that they could be next,' Young said. To deal with the workload, the immigration litigation office has increasingly delegated a significant portion of new cases to lawyers in US attorney offices around the country, at least some of whom don't have the same amount of expertise handling immigration policy challenges with national consequences, according to a former trial attorney in that section. The same is true for the Federal Program Branch, with a larger proportion of cases going to US attorney offices that Main Justice lawyers would normally keep or at least lead, the current Justice Department lawyer said. Civil Division leadership is working to recruit more lawyers, the current attorney said, but new hires aren't bringing the same level of expertise and years of government experience to make up for what the litigating offices have lost. (Updates with DOJ comment in eighth paragraph.) Americans Are Getting Priced Out of Homeownership at Record Rates Dubai's Housing Boom Is Stoking Fears of Another Crash 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 The Electric Pickup Truck Boom Turned Into a Big Bust ©2025 Bloomberg L.P.
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
US and Philippines discuss more missile system deployments as tensions rise in South China Sea
Philippines US Missiles MANILA, Philippines (AP) — The United States is discussing the possible deployment of more missile launchers to the Philippines to strengthen deterrence against aggression in the disputed South China Sea and other Asian security hotspots, but no final decision has been reached by both sides, Manila's ambassador to Washington said Thursday. The U.S. military delivered a mid-range missile system called the Typhon, a land-based weapon that can fire the Standard Missile-6 and the Tomahawk Land Attack Missile, to the northern Philippines as part of joint combat exercises in April last year. That was followed by the transport by the U.S. military of an anti-ship missile launcher in April this year to the northernmost Philippine province of Batanes, just a sea border away from Taiwan. Beijing strongly protested the installation of the U.S. missile systems, saying they were aimed at containing China's rise and warning that these would threaten regional stability. China has asked the Philippines to withdraw the missile launchers from its territory, but officials led by President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. had rejected the demand. Ambassador Jose Manuel Romualdez said without elaborating that the possible deployment by the U.S. of more Navy Marine Expeditionary Ship Interdiction System or NMESIS missile launchers "was being discussed for consideration by both sides.' The anti-ship missile systems could be installed along Philippine coastal regions facing the South China Sea and outlying regions to beef up deterrence against aggression, he said. 'This is part of the strong U.S. and Philippines defense partnership,' Romualdez told The Associated Press. Romualdez spoke on the sidelines of a trade and investment conference in Manila, where he and Philippine Foreign Secretary Theresa Lazaro encouraged major U.S. companies to invest in a wide array of industries — from energy and telecommunications to infrastructure and navy shipbuilding — in the Philippines, the oldest treaty ally of the U.S. in Asia. 'When U.S. companies invest here, it's not just about returns on capital — it's about returns on alliance,' Romualdez told U.S. business executives at the conference. 'A stronger Philippine economy means a more capable and reliable defense partner for the United States.' 'At a time when America is diversifying supply chains and rethinking global strategy, we are a natural choice – and a strategic necessity,' Romualdez said. 'I ask you to carry this message to the Trump administration: `Every U.S. dollar invested in the Philippines strengthens America's position in the Indo-Pacific.'' U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth flew to Manila in March in his first visit to Asia and said the Trump administration would work with allies to ramp up deterrence against threats across the world, including China's increasingly aggressive actions in the South China Sea. The U.S. was not gearing up for war, Hegseth said then, but underscored that peace would be won 'through strength.' China claims virtually the entire South China Sea. The Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and Taiwan also have overlapping claims to the resource-rich and busy waters, but confrontations have spiked between Chinese and Philippine coast guard and naval forces in recent years. On Wednesday, the U.S. briefly deployed two warships in what it called a 'freedom of navigation' operation off the disputed Scarborough Shoal in the South China Sea where two Chinese navy and coast guard ships collided earlier in the week while trying to drive away a smaller Philippine coast guard vessel. The high-seas accident sparked alarm among Asian and Western countries. 'Freedom of navigation is essential for the trillions of dollars worth of commerce that passes through these waters,' the U.S. ambassador to the Philippines, MaryKay Carlson, told reporters on the sidelines of the Manila investment conference. 'It's about commerce. It's about lives and livelihoods.'
