Latest news with #Economic
Yahoo
a day ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Republican bill would name the DC Metro the ‘Trump Train,' as part of a ridiculous pattern
After Donald Trump lost his re-election bid in 2020 and exited the White House, his Republican allies on Capitol Hill continued to look for ways to venerate him. Rep. Greg Steube of Florida, for example, introduced legislation that would've renamed the immediate waters surrounding the United States, labeling them the 'Donald John Trump Exclusive Economic Zone.' Now that the president has returned to power, Steube is still thinking along similar lines, though as The Hill reported, the GOP congressman now has found something new he wants to rename. Rep. Greg Steube (R-Fla.) introduced a bill Thursday to rename the Washington, D.C., subway system after President Trump and his MAGA slogan. The Make Autorail Great Again Act would withhold federal funding to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, known as WMATA, until it rebrands as the Washington Metropolitan Authority for Greater Access, or WMAGA — a similar acronym to the Make America Great Again slogan — and renames the Metrorail the Trump Train. The legislation — which, incidentally, is quite real and not something I made up to make members of Congress appear foolish — has not yet picked up any co-sponsors, though if recent history is any guide, that will soon change. The proposal joins a growing list of related Republican measures that are currently pending on Capitol Hill: There's a bill that would create a $250 bill, and its Republican authors also want to feature Trump's face. (Existing federal law prohibits any living person from being depicted on U.S. currency, but the bill would create a one-time exception to the prohibition.) There's a similar bill that would put Trump's face on $100 bills, replacing Benjamin Franklin. There's a bill to make Trump's birthday a federal holiday. There's a bill to carve Trump's face into Mount Rushmore. There's a bill to rename Dulles Airport after Trump. What's more, this list doesn't include kindred efforts from the incumbent president's sycophantic allies, including measures to nominate Trump for a Nobel Peace Prize and to allow Trump to seek a third term. Rutgers University historian David Greenberg recently told Politico that there have been 'huge cults of personality' around former presidents, 'but even allowing for that on its own terms, [the spate of Trump-themed legislation is] pretty crazy.' The point isn't that any of these proposals are likely to pass. They're not. The point is that these measures are unlike anything in the American tradition, reinforcing a fundamentally unhealthy trend in Republican politics. As The New York Times recently summarized, 'A competition of sorts has broken out for whom the Republican base will see as the most pro-Trump member.' From the article: The rush of flattering legislation, some of which even the lawmakers concede is unlikely to pass, stands apart from merely carrying out Mr. Trump's agenda. ... 'It shows the power that Donald Trump has within the Republican Party these days, and that Republican members want to stay on his good side,' said Sean M. Theriault, government professor at the University of Texas at Austin. 'A lot of these people are in really safe districts, but they're also thinking about what their next step is. And so if they have designs on being in the Senate or running for governor or even a position in the administration, then there's no better way to get on his good side than to do these over-the-top moves toward him.' That was published before most of the aforementioned bills were introduced. I'm reminded anew of something Filipe Campante, a professor at Johns Hopkins University, said about these efforts: 'The reason why this is bad is the very fact that it's transparently ridiculous: It shows how this is becoming a Kim Jong-Un-style cult of personality, where the sycophants try to outdo one another in their groveling to get the attention of Dear Leader.' That competition, alas, is apparently intensifying. This post updates our related earlier coverage. This article was originally published on
The Wire
3 days ago
- Business
- The Wire
Trump's Drive for Ocean Bed Mining Threatens Law of the Sea
Menu हिंदी తెలుగు اردو Home Politics Economy World Security Law Science Society Culture Editor's Pick Opinion Support independent journalism. Donate Now World Trump's Drive for Ocean Bed Mining Threatens Law of the Sea Agence France-Presse 13 minutes ago US President Donald Trump's move to sidestep global regulations and begin pushing for seabed mining in international waters could pose a wider threat of competing countries claiming sovereignty over the ocean, experts say. US President Donald Trump signed an executive order in April to expand permitting for deep-sea mining in both domestic and international waters using an obscure 1980 US law. Photo: AFP Real journalism holds power accountable Since 2015, The Wire has done just that. But we can continue only with your support. Contribute now US President Donald Trump's move to sidestep global regulations and begin pushing for seabed mining in international waters could pose a wider threat of competing countries claiming sovereignty over the ocean, experts say. Trump last month signed an executive order to accelerate the permit-granting process for deep-sea mining in domestic and international waters, citing an obscure 1980 US law. And the Canadian deep-sea mining frontrunner The Metals Company has already filed an application in the United States to conduct commercial mining on the high seas – bypassing the International Seabed Authority (ISA). This is the body entrusted by a United Nations convention with managing the ocean floor outside of national jurisdictions. Ocean law is largely guided by that accord – the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), first signed in 1982 to prevent 'a competitive scramble for sovereign rights over the land underlying the world's seas and oceans,' according to Maltese diplomat Arvid Pardo, the convention's forebearer. The United States never ratified the convention, which took effect in 1994, though it has applied many of its clauses. Coalter Lathrop, an attorney at the US law firm Sovereign Geographic, told AFP that the United States is 'a huge beneficiary of the parallel set of customary international law rules' despite not being a party to UNCLOS. For instance, the United States has one of the largest Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) which gives states sovereignty over maritime areas up to 200 nautical miles (370 kilometers) from their coastline — protecting them from foreign fishing boats, among other extractive industries. If the US enjoys the benefits of ocean law, Lathrop argues, 'but then you disregard the other part of the package deal – that the seabed and its minerals in areas beyond national jurisdiction are the common heritage of humankind – that is going to be destabilising, to say the least, for the general legal order of the oceans.' 'US unilateral permitting could lead to the disintegration of a system that has been carefully curated and created by the United States, largely for its own benefit,' he added. 'Unraveled' The US and Canadian moves sparked an international outcry from ISA member states, including China, whose foreign ministry spokesman warned it violates international law. ISA secretary general Leticia Carvalho expressed similar concern, saying that 'any unilateral action… sets a dangerous precedent that could destabilise the entire system of global ocean governance.' The Metals Company does maintain contracts with ISA members like Japan – where it has a partnership with smelting company Pamco. And experts note such ISA member states could invoke their obligation to UNCLOS to enforce maritime law on The Metals Company via these proxies, even if it ultimately receives a permit from the Trump administration. Guy Standing, an economist at the University of London, told AFP: 'It's the most dangerous thing he's done so far,' referring to Trump. If marine laws 'were to come sort of unraveled,' Standing said, 'you could have a carve up in different parts of the world, with Russia, China and America carving up the Arctic.' However, not all scholars in the field are in agreement. James Kraska, a professor of international maritime law at US Naval War College, said 'it's naive to think the United States has that kind of influence.' 'I just disagree with the people that are saying that it's somehow a legal obligation to comply with a treaty that you never joined,' he told AFP. 'I just can't see any way that it's unlawful. I understand that there's sort of political opposition to it, but I would just distinguish between politics and the law.' Make a contribution to Independent Journalism Related News Violent Pakistan Storms Trigger Floods, Landslides Killing At Least 10 Thermal Injustice: 20,000 Indians Died in Heatwaves In 20 Years – Caste a Key Factor Semicolons are Becoming Rare; Their Disappearance Must be Resisted US Targets Indian Travel Agents with Visa Bans as Part of Immigration Policy India and China: Two Contrasting Models of Dealing With Trump's US Trump Admin Pauses New Student Visas as it Mulls More Social Media Vetting A Nation Is Known By the Enemy It Keeps As US Steps Back From Tariff War With China, What You Need to Know Another Round, No Results: India–US Carrier Talks Remain Stuck in Symbolism About Us Contact Us Support Us © Copyright. All Rights Reserved.
The Sun
3 days ago
- Business
- The Sun
Trump's drive for ocean bed mining threatens law of the sea
UNITED NATIONS: US President Donald Trump's move to sidestep global regulations and begin pushing for seabed mining in international waters could pose a wider threat of competing countries claiming sovereignty over the ocean, experts say. Trump last month signed an executive order to accelerate the permit-granting process for deep-sea mining in domestic and international waters, citing an obscure 1980 US law. And the Canadian deep-sea mining frontrunner The Metals Company has already filed an application in the United States to conduct commercial mining on the high seas -- bypassing the International Seabed Authority (ISA). This is the body entrusted by a United Nations convention with managing the ocean floor outside of national jurisdictions. Ocean law is largely guided by that accord -- the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), first signed in 1982 to prevent 'a competitive scramble for sovereign rights over the land underlying the world's seas and oceans,' according to Maltese diplomat Arvid Pardo, the convention's forebearer. The United States never ratified the convention, which took effect in 1994, though it has applied many of its clauses. Coalter Lathrop, an attorney at the US law firm Sovereign Geographic, told AFP that the United States is 'a huge beneficiary of the parallel set of customary international law rules' despite not being a party to UNCLOS. For instance, the United States has one of the largest Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) which gives states sovereignty over maritime areas up to 200 nautical miles (370 kilometers) from their coastline -- protecting them from foreign fishing boats, among other extractive industries. If the US enjoys the benefits of ocean law, Lathrop argues, 'but then you disregard the other part of the package deal -- that the seabed and its minerals in areas beyond national jurisdiction are the common heritage of humankind -- that is going to be destabilizing, to say the least, for the general legal order of the oceans.' 'US unilateral permitting could lead to the disintegration of a system that has been carefully curated and created by the United States, largely for its own benefit,' he added. 'Unraveled' The US and Canadian moves sparked an international outcry from ISA member states, including China, whose foreign ministry spokesman warned it violates international law. ISA secretary general Leticia Carvalho expressed similar concern, saying that 'any unilateral action... sets a dangerous precedent that could destabilize the entire system of global ocean governance.' The Metals Company does maintain contracts with ISA members like Japan -- where it has a partnership with smelting company Pamco. And experts note such ISA member states could invoke their obligation to UNCLOS to enforce maritime law on The Metals Company via these proxies, even if it ultimately receives a permit from the Trump administration. Guy Standing, an economist at the University of London, told AFP: 'It's the most dangerous thing he's done so far,' referring to Trump. If marine laws 'were to come sort of unraveled,' Standing said, 'you could have a carve up in different parts of the world, with Russia, China and America carving up the Arctic.' However, not all scholars in the field are in agreement. James Kraska, a professor of international maritime law at US Naval War College, said 'it's naive to think the United States has that kind of influence.' 'I just disagree with the people that are saying that it's somehow a legal obligation to comply with a treaty that you never joined,' he told AFP. 'I just can't see any way that it's unlawful. I understand that there's sort of political opposition to it, but I would just distinguish between politics and the law.'
The Sun
3 days ago
- Business
- The Sun
Trump's Seabed Mining Push Alarms Ocean Law Experts
UNITED NATIONS: US President Donald Trump's move to sidestep global regulations and begin pushing for seabed mining in international waters could pose a wider threat of competing countries claiming sovereignty over the ocean, experts say. Trump last month signed an executive order to accelerate the permit-granting process for deep-sea mining in domestic and international waters, citing an obscure 1980 US law. And the Canadian deep-sea mining frontrunner The Metals Company has already filed an application in the United States to conduct commercial mining on the high seas -- bypassing the International Seabed Authority (ISA). This is the body entrusted by a United Nations convention with managing the ocean floor outside of national jurisdictions. Ocean law is largely guided by that accord -- the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), first signed in 1982 to prevent 'a competitive scramble for sovereign rights over the land underlying the world's seas and oceans,' according to Maltese diplomat Arvid Pardo, the convention's forebearer. The United States never ratified the convention, which took effect in 1994, though it has applied many of its clauses. Coalter Lathrop, an attorney at the US law firm Sovereign Geographic, told AFP that the United States is 'a huge beneficiary of the parallel set of customary international law rules' despite not being a party to UNCLOS. For instance, the United States has one of the largest Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) which gives states sovereignty over maritime areas up to 200 nautical miles (370 kilometers) from their coastline -- protecting them from foreign fishing boats, among other extractive industries. If the US enjoys the benefits of ocean law, Lathrop argues, 'but then you disregard the other part of the package deal -- that the seabed and its minerals in areas beyond national jurisdiction are the common heritage of humankind -- that is going to be destabilizing, to say the least, for the general legal order of the oceans.' 'US unilateral permitting could lead to the disintegration of a system that has been carefully curated and created by the United States, largely for its own benefit,' he added. 'Unraveled' The US and Canadian moves sparked an international outcry from ISA member states, including China, whose foreign ministry spokesman warned it violates international law. ISA secretary general Leticia Carvalho expressed similar concern, saying that 'any unilateral action... sets a dangerous precedent that could destabilize the entire system of global ocean governance.' The Metals Company does maintain contracts with ISA members like Japan -- where it has a partnership with smelting company Pamco. And experts note such ISA member states could invoke their obligation to UNCLOS to enforce maritime law on The Metals Company via these proxies, even if it ultimately receives a permit from the Trump administration. Guy Standing, an economist at the University of London, told AFP: 'It's the most dangerous thing he's done so far,' referring to Trump. If marine laws 'were to come sort of unraveled,' Standing said, 'you could have a carve up in different parts of the world, with Russia, China and America carving up the Arctic.' However, not all scholars in the field are in agreement. James Kraska, a professor of international maritime law at US Naval War College, said 'it's naive to think the United States has that kind of influence.' 'I just disagree with the people that are saying that it's somehow a legal obligation to comply with a treaty that you never joined,' he told AFP. 'I just can't see any way that it's unlawful. I understand that there's sort of political opposition to it, but I would just distinguish between politics and the law.'
NDTV
3 days ago
- Business
- NDTV
Trump's Seabed Mining Push Raises Threats Over Global Ocean Laws
US President Donald Trump's move to sidestep global regulations and begin pushing for seabed mining in international waters could pose a wider threat of competing countries claiming sovereignty over the ocean, experts say. Trump last month signed an executive order to accelerate the permit-granting process for deep-sea mining in domestic and international waters, citing an obscure 1980 US law. And the Canadian deep-sea mining frontrunner The Metals Company has already filed an application in the United States to conduct commercial mining on the high seas -- bypassing the International Seabed Authority (ISA). This is the body entrusted by a United Nations convention with managing the ocean floor outside of national jurisdictions. Ocean law is largely guided by that accord -- the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), first signed in 1982 to prevent "a competitive scramble for sovereign rights over the land underlying the world's seas and oceans," according to Maltese diplomat Arvid Pardo, the convention's forebearer. The United States never ratified the convention, which took effect in 1994, though it has applied many of its clauses. Coalter Lathrop, an attorney at the US law firm Sovereign Geographic, told AFP that the United States is "a huge beneficiary of the parallel set of customary international law rules" despite not being a party to UNCLOS. For instance, the United States has one of the largest Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) which gives states sovereignty over maritime areas up to 200 nautical miles (370 kilometers) from their coastline -- protecting them from foreign fishing boats, among other extractive industries. If the US enjoys the benefits of ocean law, Lathrop argues, "but then you disregard the other part of the package deal -- that the seabed and its minerals in areas beyond national jurisdiction are the common heritage of humankind -- that is going to be destabilizing, to say the least, for the general legal order of the oceans." "US unilateral permitting could lead to the disintegration of a system that has been carefully curated and created by the United States, largely for its own benefit," he added. 'Unraveled' The US and Canadian moves sparked an international outcry from ISA member states, including China, whose foreign ministry spokesman warned it violates international law. ISA secretary general Leticia Carvalho expressed similar concern, saying that "any unilateral action... sets a dangerous precedent that could destabilize the entire system of global ocean governance." The Metals Company does maintain contracts with ISA members like Japan -- where it has a partnership with smelting company Pamco. And experts note such ISA member states could invoke their obligation to UNCLOS to enforce maritime law on The Metals Company via these proxies, even if it ultimately receives a permit from the Trump administration. Guy Standing, an economist at the University of London, told AFP: "It's the most dangerous thing he's done so far," referring to Trump. If marine laws "were to come sort of unraveled," Standing said, "you could have a carve up in different parts of the world, with Russia, China and America carving up the Arctic." However, not all scholars in the field are in agreement. James Kraska, a professor of international maritime law at US Naval War College, said "it's naive to think the United States has that kind of influence." "I just disagree with the people that are saying that it's somehow a legal obligation to comply with a treaty that you never joined," he told AFP. "I just can't see any way that it's unlawful. I understand that there's sort of political opposition to it, but I would just distinguish between politics and the law." (Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)
