Latest news with #ChrisCoons
South China Morning Post
5 days ago
- Business
- South China Morning Post
US Senate committee passes measures on Taiwan, mainland China's overseas military growth
The US Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved a slate of China-focused measures on Thursday, including bipartisan bills to counter Beijing's overseas military expansion and bolster Taiwan's role in global finance while advancing the nomination of a former ambassador to lead US diplomacy in East Asia. The Counter Act of 2025, co-authored by Senators Chris Coons, Democrat of Delaware, and Pete Ricketts, Republican of Nebraska, calls on the US government to develop a strategy to respond to the People's Republic of China's efforts to establish military bases overseas. The bill states that 'the PRC is likely pursuing access to additional military facilities to support naval, air, and ground forces projection in many countries'. It was co-sponsored by Senators Tim Kaine, Democrat of Virginia; John Cornyn, Republican of Texas; and Elissa Slotkin, Democrat of Michigan. If passed, the legislation would require the director of national intelligence to submit a classified assessment of risks posed by Chinese bases overseas, and instruct the State and Defense departments to identify at least five locations that pose the 'greatest potential risks'. It would also establish an inter-agency task force and require quadrennial reviews to maintain a 'proactive posture rather than a reactive posture'. In May, Coons said that China was using the placement of new bases in strategically important countries to expand its military and economic power.
South China Morning Post
5 days ago
- Business
- South China Morning Post
US Senate committee passes measures on Taiwan and China's overseas military growth
The US Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved a slate of China-focused measures on Thursday, including bipartisan bills to counter Beijing's overseas military expansion and bolster Taiwan's role in global finance while advancing the nomination of a former ambassador to lead US diplomacy in East Asia. Advertisement The Counter Act of 2025, co-authored by Senators Chris Coons, Democrat of Delaware, and Pete Ricketts, Republican of Nebraska, calls on the US government to develop a strategy to respond to the People's Republic of China's efforts to establish military bases overseas. The bill states that 'the PRC is likely pursuing access to additional military facilities to support naval, air, and ground forces projection in many countries'. It was co-sponsored by Senators Tim Kaine, Democrat of Virginia; John Cornyn, Republican of Texas; and Elissa Slotkin, Democrat of Michigan. If passed, the legislation would require the director of national intelligence to submit a classified assessment of risks posed by Chinese bases overseas, and instruct the State and Defense departments to identify at least five locations that pose the 'greatest potential risks'. It would also establish an interagency task force and require quadrennial reviews to maintain a 'proactive posture rather than a reactive posture'. Advertisement In May, Coons said that China was using the placement of new bases in strategically important countries to expand its military and economic power.
CNN
03-06-2025
- Business
- CNN
Sen. Coons: ‘President Trump's bill certainly is big, but it's not beautiful'
Democratic Sen. Chris Coons slams President Trump's tax bill as it makes its way through the Senate and talks with CNN's Wolf Blitzer about why Republicans are still more trusted to handle the economy.
Fox News
30-05-2025
- Business
- Fox News
Credibility Crisis: Wall Street Journal report on Biden 'slipping' was smeared by media
Nearly a year before books about Joe Biden's cognitive decline made headlines, The Wall Street Journal was viciously attacked for its own bombshell reporting at a time when very few in the legacy media dared to broach the subject. In early June 2024, the Journal published a story titled, "Behind Closed Doors, Biden Shows Signs of Slipping," a months-long investigation by reporters Annie Linskey and Siobhan Hughes involving more than 45 sources who were either directly involved or briefed on meetings with Biden, who they said "appears slower now, someone who has both good moments and bad ones." The report, which dropped just weeks before Biden's disastrous debate performance, was swiftly met with disdain and indignation, not just by the Biden White House, but by its allies in the media as well. Jake Tapper, the CNN anchor who co-authored "Original Sin," the new Biden bombshell book, framed his coverage of the Journal's report at the time on the White House's aggressive response to the "false claims" made by the paper and repeatedly told viewers the report was "mostly based on observations of Republicans." He had on top Biden surrogate Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., who defended the president and attempted to discredit the reporting as agenda-driven. It wasn't until after the debate (which Tapper notably co-moderated) that he invited the two Wall Street Journal reporters who authored the report to discuss it on his program. Several CNN anchors stressed that the Journal's story heavily relied on Republican criticism of Biden and called out former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, who gave the only on-the-record statement, for appearing to flip-flop on Biden's sharpness in previous comments, something that was later explained as a tactical PR move at the time for McCarthy to bolster cooperation with the Biden White House. CNN's Boris Sanchez grilled Hughes over Democratic allegations that her story was "slanted," a question that would be unfathomable to a journalist covering Donald Trump. Oliver Darcy, CNN's then-media reporter, erupted at the Journal, insisting its reporting "suffers from glaring problems," lecturing the paper it "owes its readers — and the public — better." "It is difficult to imagine that the newspaper, or any outlet, would run a similar story declaring that Trump is 'slipping' behind the scenes based on the word of top Democratic figures — despite the fact that the Democratic leadership has demonstrated a much stronger relationship with the truth in recent years than their Republican counterparts," Darcy wrote. "More broadly speaking, The Journal's piece pointed to a continued problem roiling the news media as it covers the 2024 election. Trump is permitted to fall asleep in court and make nonsensical public statements on a routine basis without any serious questions raised about his mental acuity," the ex-CNN pundit continued. "Meanwhile, Biden is judged on an entirely different standard." MSNBC's "Morning Joe" co-host Joe Scarborough declared the report a "Trump hit piece on Biden" as his co-host spouse Mika Brzezinski ridiculed the Republican sourcing. "Why didn't they just ask Marjorie Taylor Greene to weigh in? And Lauren Boebert?" Brzezinski sarcastically asked. "Deadline: White House" host Nicolle Wallace knocked the "highly-criticized" report that "faced blowback" from Democrats and sounded the alarm on how local TV stations owned by Sinclair Broadcasting Group were covering it, suggesting it was a "right-wing disinformation operation." Wallace's then-MSNBC colleague Joy Reid raised a similar panic about Sinclair's coverage of The Journal while swiping the paper's "dubious" and "highly problematic" report and suggesting it was "conservative propaganda." She argued that it's actually Donald Trump, not Biden, who should face scrutiny over mental acuity. CNN's Brian Stelter, then a Vanity Fair correspondent who appeared on Reid's program as a guest, told the MSNBC host that The Journal's report "had a lot of flaws" and appeared to agree with Reid's assertion that it's Trump who should be more scrutinized, knocking how the media "obsesses" over Biden's age. The New York Times elevated the criticism of CBS late-night host Stephen Colbert, who summarized The Journal's reporting as "old news." Liberal writer Brian Beutler complained on X the piece was an "egregious hit job." Jennifer Rubin, at the time a prominent columnist for The Washington Post, slammed the "shoddy front-page Wall Street Journal article," saying it was "essentially the promotion of a right-wing meme." "The Journal's faceplant should lead to a much larger discussion: to what extent and in what way age matters to the performance of the chief executive. Frankly, it has nothing to do with the sort of factors Biden's critics obsess over (e.g., verbal slips, how fast he moves)," Rubin told readers. "Does he misspeak? Does he physically stumble? Focusing on such relatively superficial subjects has come to define political journalism." "A president's gait, verbal tics and minor recall errors have virtually nothing to do with the job of being president. The White House occupant is not a "Jeopardy!" contestant, a stand-up comic, a talk-show host or guest; the president is the head of the executive branch and commander in chief," she later wrote. Left-wing advocacy group Media Matters For America scoffed at the Wall Street Journal's "comically weak" report. "Republicans and their right-wing media propagandists have spent the last four years smearing President Joe Biden as mentally infirm. That argument keeps exploding in their faces when Biden appears before a national audience in debates and speeches, but the president's mental acuity is a frequent subject of media attention, and polls show voters are concerned about Biden's age," Media Matters wrote. "The Journal is perhaps the most credulous of the major newspapers when it comes to the GOP's campaign to convince the public that Biden's stammer and occasional verbal stumbles indicate he has dementia." The journalism non-profit Poynter Institute attempted to tackle the question of whether the Journal's report was "fair or foul." "Is it a fairly reported story on a pertinent topic? Or is it a pointed piece based pretty much on quotes and opinions from those who don't want to see Biden elected to a second term? I'd go with the latter — considering the money quote is from McCarthy, another key anecdote was reported by current Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson, and other tales suggesting Biden's decline are flimsy, at best," Poynter Institute's Tom Jones ruled. Little did the media know that The Wall Street Journal only scratched the surface of Biden's cognitive decline, which was on full display at the presidential debate and led to his dramatic ousting from the 2024 race. The Journal stood by its report since it was published and its editor-in-chief Emma Tucker said she felt "very much" vindicated following the debate. "The reporters took a lot of grief for covering a story that needed to be covered and that no other main stream publishers were willing to touch. I am very proud of them," Tucker told Semafor. Now Democrats and members of the media have been speaking more candidly about Biden since he left office. Some in the media are even singing the praises of the two Wall Street Journal reporters who were once the target of vitriol from their peers in the press. "I remember when people worked hard to try to discredit these excellent reporters' groundbreaking reporting on Biden's decline. And now everyone agrees they were right all along," CBS News reporter Jan Crawford wrote on X. "Kudos to [Annie Linskey] [Siobhane Hughes] and the @WSJ for never wavering." Crawford continued, "And shame on the @PulitzerPrizes for failing to properly honor the most courageous and deeply sourced original reporting of the past year (or years)." "I said it last year before the election, and I'll say it again, the journalism you did was vital, and the smear campaign by Democrats against you two is disgraceful," Tapper told The Journal reporters on his CNN program earlier this month. "You're heroic," Tapper told them.
The Intercept
24-05-2025
- Politics
- The Intercept
GOP Budget Would Make It Even Harder to Hold Trump Administration in Contempt
Democrats in the Senate are preparing to fight an attempt by Republicans to limit federal courts' authority to block abuses of power by the Trump administration. The looming showdown over the judiciary's power to issue contempt orders stems from a single sentence tucked into the thousand-page budget bill, which passed the House of Representatives by a single vote on Thursday. 'This is a slap in the face to the concept of separation of powers,' said a spokesman for Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.). If enacted, the provision — found on page 544 out of 1,082 — would restrict how federal judges can hold government officials or other litigants in contempt if they defy court-issued injunctions and restraining orders. Contempt is the primary enforcement mechanism available to courts, and in cases around the country judges have weighed whether to issue contempt findings against President Donald Trump's deputies. In April, one judge found there was probable cause for contempt after the administration transported dozens of Venezuelan men to a notorious prison in El Salvador despite an order temporarily blocking such deportations — a ruling that's paused while a federal appellate court considers the issue. Contempt is also on the table against White House officials in the fight to return Kilmar Abrego Garcia from El Salvador, and just this week another judge floated possible contempt charges over deportation flights to South Sudan. Frustrated at such judges' gall and the proliferation of injunctions against the Trump administration's actions on everything from immigration to transgender rights to federal staffing, Republicans now hope to use the budget bill to curb judicial power. The provision passed by the House would prohibit judges from enforcing contempt orders unless they also require the litigants that sought the injunction in the first place to put up a security bond. Essentially this means requiring plaintiffs — whether individuals like Abrego Garcia or the unions, civil liberties advocates and watchdog groups that have filed suits challenging broader policies — to put down money in case an injunction is later found to be 'wrongful.' 'Republicans are once again seeking to twist the rules to avoid accountability and advance their overtly political interests by attempting to shut down federal courts' enforcement mechanism.' 'It would make no sense to require the plaintiffs in these suits to pay bonds to be able to have access to the federal courts,' explained Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of U.C. Berkeley School of Law, 'and insisting on it would immunize unconstitutional government conduct from judicial review.' The relevant federal rule about security bonds and injunctions is generally relaxed when the lawsuit alleges illegal conduct by the government. As written, the provision would be retroactive, which Chemerinsky warned would mean 'hundreds and hundreds of court orders – in cases ranging from antitrust to protection of private tax information, to safeguarding the social security administration, to school desegregation to police reform – would be rendered unenforceable.' Chemerinsky considers the provision in the budget bill fundamentally 'anti-democratic' and also 'unconstitutional as violating separation of powers.' Before the bill went to the House floor, Democrats tried to take the provision out, but the Rules Committee voted along party lines to keep it. Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee see the contempt provision as mere pretense to dilute judges' authority, and they vowed to fight to remove it from the budget bill. 'As written, it would authorize outright defiance of every single injunction in effect across the country – not just nationwide injunctions against the Trump administration,' Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) said in an emailed statement. 'Republicans are once again seeking to twist the rules to avoid accountability and advance their overtly political interests by attempting to shut down federal courts' enforcement mechanism,' said Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) in an emailed statement. 'This move is a disingenuous and dangerous effort to shield the Trump administration from legal challenges and consequences by attempting to make court orders unenforceable,' wrote Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) by email. 'I'll fight against this Republican power grab bent on destroying our democracy.' Like many provisions in the bill sent to the Senate this week, the contempt restriction has no apparent link to fiscal matters, which makes it vulnerable to procedural challenge. Under the so-called 'Byrd rule,' named for the late Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, Congress cannot use the budget reconciliation mechanism to legislate about matters that are 'extraneous' to the budget. The contempt provision 'clearly violates the Byrd rule,' Whitehouse wrote in his statement, and a Democratic committee aide similarly told The Intercept that there was a plan in the works 'to challenge the provision as a violation of the Byrd rule.' 'This is about telling courts what to do, not about the budget,' said Bobby Kogan, senior director for federal budget policy at the Center for American Progress, who has studied reconciliation and the Byrd rule, which is applied by the Senate's parliamentarian. 'Very unlikely to make it past Byrd.' A spokesman for Republican Chuck Grassley of Iowa, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, implicitly conceded that the provision faces significant parliamentary hurdles in its current form. 'Chairman Grassley is considering approaches to address universal injunctions through reconciliation that comply with the Senate's Byrd rule,' Grassley's press secretary, David Bader, wrote in an email to The Intercept on Friday.
