logo
ENع
#

Latest news with #HouseSelectCommittee

China Hawk Blames Beijing for Trump Visa Bans, Urges Reset
China Hawk Blames Beijing for Trump Visa Bans, Urges Reset

Bloomberg

time4 days ago

  • Business
  • Bloomberg

China Hawk Blames Beijing for Trump Visa Bans, Urges Reset

One of Washington's most vocal China critics defended the Trump administration's plan to revoke visas for Chinese students and called for a reset in bilateral ties, citing national security concerns. John Moolenaar, chairman of the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, accused the Chinese government of manipulating its students overseas, including pressuring them into espionage, in an interview with Bloomberg TV on Thursday.

Steve Bannon Suffers Legal Setback
Steve Bannon Suffers Legal Setback

Newsweek

time6 days ago

  • Politics
  • Newsweek

Steve Bannon Suffers Legal Setback

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Former White House adviser Steve Bannon has suffered a legal setback after the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals denied his request to consider vacating his contempt of Congress conviction. Bannon began a four-month prison sentence on July 1, 2024, after he was found guilty in 2022 of two counts of contempt of Congress for failing to respond to a subpoena issued by the House Select Committee investigating the January 6 riot at the Capitol. He was released in October. Newsweek has contacted Bannon's legal team via email outside of regular office hours. Steve Bannon at the 2025 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in National Harbor, Maryland, U.S., on Friday, February 21, 2025. Steve Bannon at the 2025 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in National Harbor, Maryland, U.S., on Friday, February 21, 2025. Annabelle Gordon/CNP/picture-alliance/dpa/AP Images Why It Matters After President Donald Trump's decided to pardon or commute the sentences of nearly 1,600 January 6 Capitol rioters, Bannon was looking to expunge his record. What To Know Bannon, who was an adviser to President Trump in the first year of his first term, was charged with contempt of Congress after failing to appear for a deposition and refusing to produce documents that were requested by the House Select Committee. Bannon appealed the charges several times. The Supreme Court denied his request to stave off his sentence, resulting in him serving his prison sentence in full in 2024. His request for the D.C. Circuit Court to vacate his charges stems from his argument that his refusal to comply with his subpoena was not done "willfully," and that he only defied the subpoena at the request of his legal representation who warned that complying would result in exposing privileged information. He also argued that Congress would have been more harsh on him if he had appeared but refused to answer questions, instead of failing to appear at all. Five circuit court judges did not agree with this argument, with Judge Brad Garcia writing: "As Bannon sees it, then, a conviction for failing to appear at all would require a showing of bad faith, but a conviction for appearing and refusing to answer relevant questions would not. I am skeptical that Congress intended to enact such a scheme. Imagine a witness who genuinely believed his lawyer's advice that a privilege justified refusing to testify on subjects listed in a subpoena. "On Bannon's reading, that witness could not be convicted if he declined to appear before a congressional committee altogether. Yet he could be convicted if he appeared but declined to answer specific questions based on the same advice. That construction makes little sense." The dissenting judges argued that Bannon's interpretation of "willfully" is an important legal question, and said that Bannon was protecting documents from the White House covered by executive privilege—the ability for someone within the executive branch to withhold confidential information from Congress—when refusing the subpoena. Bannon has already been pardoned by Trump in the last days of his first term in 2021 over the former's fraud charges, for which he was awaiting trial. He was set to go to court over allegedly defrauding donors for Trump's 2016 "We Build the Wall" campaign. The 2021 presidential pardon only covered his federal charges. In February 2025, Bannon pleaded guilty to his New York State charge of defrauding donors who gave money toward building a wall at the U.S.-Mexico border. Bannon was found to have diverted hundreds of thousands of dollars from donors to associates. Bannon's plea deal resulted in him avoiding jail time. Steve Bannon pleads guilty to a fraud charge related to the 'We Build the Wall" scheme, Tuesday, Feb. 11, 2025, at the state court in New York. Steve Bannon pleads guilty to a fraud charge related to the 'We Build the Wall" scheme, Tuesday, Feb. 11, 2025, at the state court in New York. Curtis Means/Pool Photo via AP What People Are Saying DC Circuit Judge Brad Garcia's concurring remarks: "Bannon has not tenably explained why Congress would pass a law that encourages less-cooperative conduct. His reading is especially perplexing given that the purpose of the contempt-of-Congress statute is to facilitate congressional arguments support the long-settled interpretation of "willfully" in this statute. And Bannon's reading is not necessary to give that term meaning. Those considerations further support our denial of rehearing en banc." DC Circuit Judge Neomi Rao for the dissent: "Stephen Bannon, a former advisor to President Donald Trump, invoked executive privilege and refused to comply with a legislative subpoena seeking information about the events of January 6. He was convicted of criminal contempt of Congress and imprisoned. A panel of this court affirmed Bannon's convictions. I would grant rehearing en banc because Bannon's petition raises questions of exceptional importance." What Happens Next Bannon has served his time in prison for these charges and will not be serving time for his separate guilty plea from earlier in 2025.

Trump Is Coming for Chinese Students. Who Will Protect Them?
Trump Is Coming for Chinese Students. Who Will Protect Them?

The Intercept

time22-05-2025

  • Politics
  • The Intercept

Trump Is Coming for Chinese Students. Who Will Protect Them?

Six universities received letters from Congress in March asking them to turn over information on programs where Chinese students participate and work. Now, academic workers speaking through their unions are demanding that their schools reject calls to turn over information on the students and faculty. The demand for information on Chinese students is part of a growing attack by the Trump administration and its Republican allies on Capitol Hill against universities in the U.S. The congressional focus on Chinese students in particular comes against the backdrop of rising of Sinophobia and racism against Chinese Americans under the guise of criticism of the Chinese government, said a scholar who focuses on science and technology in U.S.–China relationships. 'This issue has been weaponized by the national security establishment in the U.S. — an issue of civil liberties is being treated through the means and lens of a great power rivalry and the means and lens of national security,' said Yangyang Chen, a fellow at the Paul Tsai China Center at Yale Law School. 'That is being further used to victimize the members of the same community in the name of protecting them.' The letters demanding information about the Chinese students came from the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, chaired by Rep. John Moolenaar, R-Mich. Describing the student visa program as a 'Trojan horse for Beijing,' the committee called on the universities to provide information on all the schools that Chinese students at their institution previously attended; sources of tuition funding; what kind of research Chinese students are conducting; a list of programs that include Chinese participants and their sources of funding; and a list of labs and research initiatives where Chinese students work. The committee also requested a country-by-country breakdown of applicants, admittances, and enrollees at each university. The letters were sent to Carnegie Mellon University, Purdue University, Stanford University, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, University of Maryland, and the University of Southern California. Universities have said that the letters did not request information on individuals but rather on aggregate statistics. Some schools have issued statements that they would act in accordance with privacy protections for students. (The House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party did not respond to a request for comment.) Chen, the Yale scholar, said, 'This is an infringement of the Chinese students and scholars' civil liberties.' Read Our Complete Coverage While many universities — especially well-heeled elite institutions — have faced criticisms for failing to aid their international students, pushback against powerful forces in Washington continues to grow. In the case of the Chinese students, academic workers are hoping universities will show fortitude in staving off congressional Republicans. On Wednesday, a coalition of 21 academic worker unions signed an open letter to executives and trustees at their schools raising concerns about the risks facing Chinese students and demanding that schools refuse to provide any information on Chinese students, faculty, or post-doctoral scholars to the House committee. 'Complying with these letters' requests would not only contribute to demonizing Chinese nationals, but also set a dangerous precedent for victimizing any group arbitrarily labeled as a threat,' they wrote. 'At a time when the Trump administration is targeting international faculty, students, and academic workers, standing fast to strong principles of fairness, due process and academic freedom is more important than ever.' 'Blaming China has become a bipartisan strategy.' 'These letters are part of a broader escalation of anti-Chinese sentiment that has intensified with rising U.S.-China tensions,' said Valentina Dallona, political director for the nonprofit Justice Is Global, which helped organize the letter. 'As U.S. policymakers grapple with what may be the end of the neoliberal order and the shifting balance of global power, blaming China has become a bipartisan strategy. This scapegoating not only fuels discrimination but also jeopardizes international research partnerships that are crucial for addressing global challenges.' Schools have so far complied with the requests, according to statements from universities in response to inquiries from The Intercept and accounts from graduate students. The University of Southern California downplayed the implications of the request, said Daniel Delgado, a historian at the school and member of a graduate student union organized under the auspices of the United Auto Workers. The school implied that the information requested in the letter is typical or publicly available, Delgado said. 'That doesn't address the core problem, which is the targeting of Chinese students and use of this war-mongering to create fear and to target Chinese international workers,' he said. 'That's what I think they're trying to basically ignore by downplaying the significance of this information request.' The University of Maryland has not told students if the school will voluntarily provide information to government entities looking to target individuals, said Rose Ying, a graduate student at Maryland and an organizer with the university's graduate student union. Maryland administrators have said they won't work with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement unless they have a judicial warrant — which is signed by a judge based on probable cause indicating a crime, whereas administrative warrants are issued by ICE itself without a judge's review. 'But we are trying to get them to talk about information requests more broadly,' she said. 'If this committee comes back and says, 'Hey, we actually want a list of individuals' — would they give over that information?' A spokesperson for the University of Maryland said they turned over information in accordance with federal and state law by the deadline of April 25. In a statement to The Intercept, university spokesperson Katie Lawson said, 'It is our understanding that the request did not seek personally identifiable information.' A spokesperson for Carnegie Mellon said the school had responded to the committee's inquiry but did not answer questions about what kind of data it turned over. In a March statement, Stanford said the committee had requested aggregate information not specific to individuals. 'Stanford will continue working to support our students and also to fulfill our legal obligations in protecting individual student privacy,' the university said, noting that it would 'assure the security and integrity of the research environment.' In response to questions, Stanford University spokesperson Luisa Rapport pointed to the March statement and said the school had responded to the committee's letter and would continue to 'work cooperatively' with them. A spokesperson for USC said the school was complying with the congressional request. 'We are cooperating with the select committee's inquiries,' the spokesperson said in a statement to The Intercept, 'and are following all applicable privacy laws and other legal protections, as we do for all matters.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store