Latest news with #ICA
The Hill
8 hours ago
- Business
- The Hill
White House mulling a rare tool to block spending without Congress: What to know
Trump administration officials are weighing a controversial maneuver aimed at allowing them to block federal funding previously authorized by Congress without lawmakers' approval. White House budget chief Russell Vought said earlier this month that the gambit, known as 'pocket rescissions,' is one of the options on the table for the administration as it continues its quest to reduce federal spending. But even some Republicans are uneasy about the idea and uncertain about its legality. Here are a few things to know about the idea. What are pocket rescissions? While Congress has rescinded some federal funding over the years using legislative vehicles like the annual government spending bills, the president also has the powers to initiate a special process to yank back previously allocated funds – but lawmakers' approval is still required to approve the rescission. Earlier this month, Trump became the first president in decades to successfully claw back funds via the process, with Republicans in Congress rescinding about $9 billion in funding for foreign aid and public broadcasting. The Impoundment Control Act (ICA) lays out rules governing that process and allows the administration to temporarily withhold funding for 45 days while Congress considers the request. If Congress opts not to approve the request, the funds must be released. A pocket rescission would see the president send the same type of request to Congress, but do so within 45 days of the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30. The targeted funds could then essentially be held until the clock runs out and they expire. 'And then the money evaporates at the end of the fiscal year,' Vought, the head of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), said. The OMB director also argued recently at an event that a 'pocket rescission is no different than a normal rescission, except for the timing of when it occurs.' How do they work? Experts say the plan could allow the administration to reduce funding available to agencies without Congress' approval. 'The budget authority has lapsed, and you can never obligate it,' Bobby Kogan, a former Senate budget aide and senior director of federal budget policy at the left-leaning Center for American Progress, said in an interview. Kogan offered an example of a program that was given until the end of fiscal year 2025 to spend $10 billion, but the administration was able to withhold some of the funding later in the year under the special process. 'It is, of course, illegal to let a whole bunch of it lapse on purpose,' he argued. 'It's an illegal impoundment, but even if you did that, too late, you're out of luck, right? If you go past Sept. 30, then that money just lapses.' At the same time, in such a scenario, Kogan noted the program could see new funding allocated as part of a stopgap passed by the end of Congress to keep the government open. In such cases, Congress usually decides to keep funding at the same levels to buy time for a larger deal to hash out and approve new government funding plans. But Kogan added that while a stopgap could give the program 'another $10 billion to play with,' it still 'lost the money in 2025 that [it was] supposed to get.' Is it legal? Some experts have described the move as 'an illegal impoundment,' while others have referred to it as a 'loophole' in current budget law. In an interview, Richard Stern, a former congressional staffer and director of the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said there's consensus in the legal community that the maneuver is legal, but noted 'there's been very, very few court cases adjudicating this.' He added, 'the entire process is only a half century old.' 'I think what the left is looking at, and other people are looking at, is that they think that, you know, there's open ground to fight to contest in the courts,' he said. But he also argued, 'If you're administering a program and you think there's fraud, the administration has the right to track that down and prevent fraud, which can involve holding the money for a minute while you're doing that.' Vought has viewed pocket rescissions as 'one of the executive tools' that are 'on the table' as it looks to cut some federal spending. But he added last week that the administration hasn't yet 'made a determination to use it in part, because we're making progress during the normal course of business with Congress.' Democrats and other critics have described the maneuver as illegal and argue the intent of the ICA is clear. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) also said in 2018 that the ICA 'does not permit the withholding of funds through their date of expiration.' 'The law doesn't say, 'Oh, you can only send up a special message in the first nine months of the year,'' Kogan said, adding, 'It doesn't say that because they were imagining that a president would send stuff up early in the year.' But he said the administration's interpretation of the law 'undermines the entire intent of the law.' 'It is a method through which [the administration] would get to impound funds against congressional intent,' Kogan said, arguing the proposed pocket rescissions strategy could be used to block funds even if Congress objects at the end of the fiscal year. 'The answer period full stop is that pocket rescissions are illegal impoundments,' he said. What can Congress do? In the event the administration does move to withhold funds through pocket rescissions in the weeks ahead, experts have noted Congress can decide to provide new funding to targeted programs as part of a government funding bill or a continuing resolution, also known as a stopgap, to keep the government open past September. But experts say further action would likely be needed to restore funding to programs lost by way of pocket rescissions. At the same time, lawmakers on both sides have raised questions about the legality of the maneuver, which even one House GOP spending cardinal went as far as to argue was 'unconstitutional.' Other experts have also argued the tactic would threaten Congress' 'power of the purse.' 'If Congress cares about its power of the purse, it needs to find ways to actually assert itself and control the flow of spending, and not just let the Office of Management and Budget decide what's actually going to get spent, and it seems like that might require joining this fight in a fairly open confrontation,' said Philip Wallach, a senior fellow focused on the 'separation of powers' at the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute (AEI). 'I'm sure a lot of them are trying to de-escalate this and work things out behind the scenes before it kind of comes to that,' he said. 'But I think if we see, many tens of billions of dollars worth of pocket rescissions, that would be hard to avoid an open conflict if appropriators want to retain any relevance at all.'
CBS News
16 hours ago
- Politics
- CBS News
CIA Director Ratcliffe "strongly supports" Gabbard declassification of sensitive documents, agency says
CIA Director John Ratcliffe "strongly supports the public release" this week of highly sensitive documents by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, according to a CIA spokesperson, who said Ratcliffe "initiated" the declassification process after he took the helm at the agency this year. Gabbard's office publicly released a report drafted in 2017 by Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee on Russian activity during the 2016 election, sparking concerns about risks to sensitive sources and methods. She said Wednesday that the document contained additional evidence that Obama administration officials "manufactured" a narrative about Russia's actions that was designed to undercut President Trump. Gabbard also declassified a swath of documents related to the 2016 election last Friday. "CIA Director Ratcliffe strongly supports the public release of HPSCI's report, which was the result of a process initiated by CIA and led by DNI Gabbard," the CIA spokesperson said, using an abbreviation for the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. "This effort reflects Director Ratcliffe's continued commitment to elevating the truth and bringing transparency to the American people and would not have been possible without his directive to return it to the committee," the spokesperson added. The House report, which the committee's Republican staff finalized in December 2017 but updated through 2020, was so highly classified that it was stored at CIA headquarters before Ratcliffe sent it back to the House panel and ultimately toward public release, CBS News has learned. The committee made it available to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, or ODNI, according to an ODNI official with knowledge of the declassification process. Gabbard would normally have been required to consult with the intelligence agencies that had contributed sensitive information to the report before declassifying it, but Mr. Trump — who made the decision to declassify the document with relatively few redactions — was not under the same obligations, the official said. The report was written in large part by then-committee staffer Kash Patel, now the FBI director, according to one current and one former official. It contained discussions about raw intelligence from a CIA source the agency had recruited in Russia, and questioned whether analysts had sufficiently taken into account the source's motivations, proximity to Putin or potential bias towards Mr. Trump. The CIA source's information helped inform the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment, or ICA, which concluded in part that Russian President Vladimir Putin and the Russian government aspired to help then-candidate Donald Trump's election chances by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him. The U.S. exfiltrated a CIA asset from Russia in 2017, CBS News previously confirmed. That judgment within the ICA has vexed Mr. Trump for years and has been a key focus of Gabbard's recent declassifications. Gabbard has claimed the documents released by her office reveal a "treasonous conspiracy" by Obama-era officials to undermine Mr. Trump during his first term by alleging Russian efforts to help him win in 2016. Gabbard says she has forwarded the records to the Justice Department as part of a criminal referral. Obama's spokesperson Patrick Rodenbush called Gabbard's accusations "bizarre" and "ridiculous" earlier this week. The ICA's judgement about Russian actions in 2016 was also the focus of a recent CIA internal review under Ratcliffe. Released earlier this month, that review contained far fewer of the sensitive details included in the House Republicans' report and said the judgment on Putin's preference for Trump should have been issued with moderate rather than high confidence. But it said it did not dispute the "quality and credibility" of the information. The top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Mark Warner, called the release of the House committee's report by Gabbard "desperate and irresponsible." He said it put highly sensitive sources at risk and could disincentivize potential spies from working for the U.S. government. "Tell me how you're going to recruit somebody to, in one of our adversarial nations, maybe work with us, if that information is carelessly thrown around," Warner said to reporters on Wednesday. Ratcliffe, who previously served on the House Intelligence Committee as a congressman from Texas, has said one of his primary objectives as CIA director would be to reinvigorate intelligence collection from human sources. Current and former national security officials have said intelligence provided by human sources, known as HUMINT, has dropped off in recent years, as surveillance technologies have become more sophisticated and ubiquitous. Human sources — especially those with proximity to world leaders in adversarial countries like Russia, China and North Korea — are especially prized and especially rare, given how risky, if not life-threatening, it can be for them to provide information to a foreign intelligence agency. Information provided by human sources typically remains classified for decades, often up to 75 years, according to government classification rules. At his Senate confirmation hearing in January, Ratcliffe said the recruitment of human spies by the CIA is "not where it needs to be." "I do want to spend time looking at that," he said. The CIA has recently released recruitment videos in multiple languages with the aim of enticing potential human sources in Iran, China and Russia to come He and James LaPorta contributed to this report.
Online Citizen
16 hours ago
- Health
- Online Citizen
ICA provisional data shows 314 suicide deaths in 2024, sharpest rise among adults aged 30 to 39
Singapore reported a total of 314 suicide deaths in 2024, according to provisional figures released in July by the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA). The data shows that suicide remains the leading cause of death among young people aged 10 to 29 for the sixth consecutive year. The number of suicides in 2024 is slightly lower than the previously reported 322 cases for 2023. However, the ICA has since finalised the figure for 2023 to 434 suicide deaths. This represents a sharp 34.8 per cent increase from earlier provisional estimates. Men continue to make up majority of cases In 2024, 64.3 per cent of the suicide deaths—equivalent to 202 individuals—were male. This trend is consistent with previous years. The suicide rate in Singapore currently stands at 5.91 deaths per 100,000 residents, based on the ICA's provisional report. Among the different age groups, adults aged 30 to 39 experienced the steepest rise in suicide deaths. In 2023, 43 individuals in this age group died by suicide. This number increased to 75 in 2024. Complex pressures in adult life stage cited The Samaritans of Singapore (SOS) issued a statement on 18 July addressing the concerning rise in suicides among those aged 30 to 39. The organisation noted that individuals in this life stage often grapple with intense pressures, including family obligations, employment instability, and mental health struggles. These issues were commonly identified among individuals who reached out to the SOS via its 24-hour hotline and CareText services. Janil Puthucheary, Singapore's Senior Minister of State for Education and patron of the SOS, emphasised the need for ongoing commitment to suicide prevention. 'We are determined to keep striving to reduce the number of suicides. Each represents an individual and a family struggling with a tragedy,' he said. He also acknowledged the importance of community support and collaboration with volunteers and partner organisations. 'We will continue to do our best working with our volunteers and partners, collaborate with and equip them to serve individuals and families who are trying to cope with a crisis,' he added. Organisation pledges ongoing suicide prevention efforts SOS chief executive Gasper Tan stated that the data reinforces the importance of their mission. 'The number of suicide deaths reported is a reminder that our work is far from over, especially among adults aged 30 to 39,' he said. He urged for more societal investment in compassion and community. 'We must continue to invest in building a compassionate and connected society where no one has to struggle alone,' he added. As part of its ongoing suicide prevention strategies, the SOS has trained over 6,000 individuals under its Be A Samaritan programme since its 2022 launch. The initiative teaches participants how to identify signs of distress, respond empathetically, and connect those in need with available community resources. In November 2024, the organisation launched a youth-focused version called Be A Samaritan Junior. This programme targets individuals aged 13 to 16 and is designed to help them recognise signs of emotional distress in their peers and encourage early intervention. In 2024, the SOS provided in-person counselling and support groups to 1,112 individuals. These included those experiencing suicidal thoughts or having survived suicide attempts, as well as individuals mourning the loss of loved ones to suicide. The numbers reflect an ongoing demand for mental health services and underscore the continued relevance of community outreach. Call for revised historical data to ensure accurate suicide trend analysis Ngiam Shih Tung, President of Singapore human rights organisation MARUAH, highlighted in a Facebook post that the final number of suicide deaths for 2023 saw a significant increase. He noted that this large jump also occurred in other unexpected deaths, such as accidents, due to delays in investigations. While acknowledging that such adjustments are expected, he suggested this indicates earlier years may have significantly under-reported suicide and accidental deaths. He commended ICA for now reporting updated causes of death but emphasised the need for revised data for years prior to 2023. This, he argued, is essential for accurate analysis and understanding of suicide trends. If you or someone you know is struggling with thoughts of suicide, please seek help immediately. In Singapore, you can contact the Samaritans of Singapore (SOS) at 1-767 or text 9151 1767 for support. You're not alone, and help is available.
Fox News
a day ago
- Politics
- Fox News
GREGG JARRETT: Newly declassified documents destroy Russian collusion hoax
Lies and lying people comprise the sorry epitaph of Barack Obama's presidency. The Big Lie was that then-candidate Donald Trump colluded with Russia to rig the 2016 presidential election. It derived from a phony dossier commissioned and financed by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that Obama's national security team happily peddled to destroy his successor. It begat an even bigger whopper that "Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump" and "aspired to help" his election chances. This notorious deceit was inserted in the official Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) that was ordered by Obama himself and conjured up by his CIA Director John Brennan. None of it was true. The bogus dossier was exploited to justify the ICA. Conversely, the ICA was used to legitimize the dossier. The circular faux verification was a clever ruse. And it worked splendidly. When both documents were leaked to the gullible Trump-hating media, journalists adopted them without question as sacred gospel from the Holy Book of Obama. The Russia hoax took off like a rocket. It crash-landed on Wednesday, July 23, when Tulsi Gabbard, the director of National Intelligence, accused Obama, Brennan and others of engineering the false intelligence. "They knew it would promote this contrived narrative that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to help President Trump win, selling it to the American people as though it were true. It wasn't," she added. Newly declassified documents show that a December 8, 2016, draft of Obama's Presidential Daily Briefing (PDB) debunked the notion of Russian electoral meddling to help Trump. But wait … that was problematic because it did not conform to the preferred narrative of Trump-Russia collusion. So, FBI Director James Comey and his cohorts reportedly scuttled it. That way, Trump, as president-elect, could not be briefed on its contents. The next day Obama convened a highly confidential meeting at the White House. The president ordered his intelligence cronies to expedite a new ICA that would reverse the PDB's conclusion and energize the collusion fiction. With his marching orders in hand, Brennan immediately went to work on it. His challenge was devising a way to contort the known evidence and contradict the consensus of nearly everyone else in the intelligence community. No problem. CIA experts on Russia who strenuously objected were sidelined and silenced. Brennan ignored their warning that there was no direct evidence that Russian President Vladimir Putin wanted to elect Trump. Other intel agencies that typically contribute to the assessment were deliberately excluded to stifle dissent. Evidence shows that Brennan then selected a handful of sycophants — with only one principal drafter — to craft the entire ICA that bore little resemblance to the truth and established facts. On January 6, 2017, the rushed-to-completion ICA was produced. It offered a remarkable transformation from the earlier PDB: "Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-Elect Trump's election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him." (Page 7 of ICA) The head-spinning about-face of intel conclusions was an immaculate conception of corrupt handicraft that belongs in the Intelligence Hall of Shame. Although Brennan denied it, numerous delusions drawn from the fake dossier were placed in the formal intelligence assessment to give it the sustenance that it otherwise lacked. Armed with both fallacious documents, Comey then met with Trump later that day in a devious but misbegotten scheme to entrap him. It failed miserably because the newly elected president had no idea what the FBI director was talking about. Obama's dirty fingerprints were all over the cooked-up intelligence claiming that Moscow helped Trump in some grand collusion conspiracy. On Wednesday, Gabbard held a news conference to lift the veil of secrecy and malevolence. She leveled the following broadside: "President Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey and others, including their mouthpieces in the media, knowingly lied as they repeated the contrived narrative that was created in this January 2017 intelligence community assessment with high confidence, as though it were fact." Mincing no words, Gabbard accused Brennan of lying about his use of the dossier even though he knew it was a discredited and politically manufactured document. "He directed senior CIA officials to use it anyway," she said. Other intel agencies that typically contribute to the assessment were deliberately excluded to stifle dissent. As "irrefutable proof," she unlocked the 2020 report of the House Intelligence Committee that had never before been seen publicly, thanks to the machinations of then-Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., who buried it as classified in a limited-access vault at CIA headquarters. The report outlined in detail the events that I summarized above. It was easy to do so because many of them are contained in the book I wrote six years ago, "Witch Hunt:" "John Brennan was instrumental in proliferating the dossier. But even before the Clinton campaign and Democrats funded Christopher Steele's project to smear Trump with the collusion hoax, the seeds of the collusion narrative were germinated by none other than Brennan." (Pages 66-67) I recounted how Brennan boasted to the House Intel Committee in May of 2017 that he had been the first to alert the FBI about collusion. "As he exerted uncommon pressure on the FBI to pursue a counterintelligence probe on Trump, he resolved to help spread the false allegations to Congress and the media. He politicized phony intelligence and instigated the fraudulent case against Clinton's opponent." (Page 68) The Russians never had "Kompromat" (compromising material) on Trump, as the dossier falsely accused. But they apparently did have it on Hillary. And that proved quite a stunner on Wednesday. The heretofore hidden House Intelligence report reveals how Russian intelligence "possessed DNC communications that in 2016 Clinton was suffering from 'intensified psycho-emotional problems, including uncontrolled fits of anger, aggression, and cheerfulness.' Clinton was placed on a daily regimen of 'heavy tranquilizers' and while afraid of losing, she remained 'obsessed with a thirst for power.'" Obama and Democrat Party bosses apparently knew all about Clinton's mental instability and found it "extraordinarily alarming." So much so, they worried it might have a "serious negative impact" on the November election. Unlike the dossier, those shocking discoveries were not just idle gossip. The committee reviewed reams of source material and obtained corroboration during some 20 interviews with FBI agents and intelligence officers. How did the Russians get their hands on the damaging material? The report explains that Putin ordered hacking operations on the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. It seems that since Putin believed Hillary would win the election, he held the "Kompromat" in his back pocket to use as potential blackmail for later use. His challenge was devising a way to contort the known evidence and contradict the consensus of nearly everyone else in the intelligence community. No problem. CIA experts on Russia who strenuously objected were sidelined and silenced. In sending a criminal referral for possible prosecution to the Justice Department, Gabbard stated, "The evidence that we have found and that we have released directly point to President Obama leading the manufacturing of this intelligence assessment." In response, the DOJ announced that it had formed a "strike force" to fully assess all the evidence and to investigate the next legal steps. Attorney General Pam Bondi vowed to "leave no stone unturned to deliver justice." Obama denies any wrongdoing. But he should thank Trump for winning the recent landmark Supreme Court decision that provides all presidents with immunity. Ironically, the former president can now hide behind its broad protections. However, no such shield extends to others involved. It is folly to predict at this stage what prosecutions, if any, the future may hold. But the stain of corruption is already embedded in the epitaph of Obama's presidency.
Time of India
a day ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Did Vladimir Putin prefer Hillary Clinton to Donald Trump in 2016? Declassified intelligence report makes startling claim
In a twist to the long-running Russiagate saga, newly declassified intelligence documents suggest that the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) may have misrepresented Russian President Vladimir Putin 's true preferences in the 2016 US election. Contrary to the widely accepted narrative that Russia aimed to boost Donald Trump 's chances, the reports show that key intelligence indicators suggesting Putin may have preferred Hillary Clinton were ignored or dismissed. The ICA's failure to explore alternative hypotheses has been called a "serious tradecraft mistake" with high-impact consequences, influencing top US government decisions across three branches. These revelations are shifting the focus of Russiagate from alleged collusion with Trump to overlooked intelligence about Clinton. Declassified reports: CIA ignored signs Putin may have wanted Clinton to win According to Finding #7 from the declassified oversight report, the ICA failed to perform a systematic evaluation of alternative explanations, a core requirement of intelligence tradecraft under ICD 203. Specifically, it dismissed the possibility that Putin did not care who won, or even had strategic reasons to prefer a Clinton presidency. The overlooked evidence suggests that: Putin might have viewed Clinton as a more vulnerable and predictable adversary, potentially easier to manipulate diplomatically. Russia held back more damaging kompromat on Clinton, suggesting a calculated move to retain leverage over a future Clinton administration, leverage that would not exist with Trump. The ICA authors' insistence on a 'single-track hypothesis' led them to ignore contrary intelligence and attempt to shape weak evidence to support the conclusion that Putin favored Trump. A 'high-impact' intelligence failure with political consequences The report criticizes the ICA's methodology, especially given its massive influence. The document was disseminated across 250 US officials, including members of the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches, and heavily influenced public opinion. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Understand The Importance Of Steam-Based Sterilization contentcuehub Search Now Undo Analysts argue that the ICA's failure to account for alternative theories misled US policymakers at a critical time. Furthermore: The ICA's narrow focus fueled years of partisan conflict and undermined public trust in democratic institutions. The claim that Putin 'aspired' to help Trump may have lacked solid grounding, while stronger evidence pointing to Clinton as the real strategic choice was sidelined. Intelligence insiders now admit the ICA 'glossed over' the possibility that Putin withheld pre-election operations for future use, particularly against Clinton. Revisiting the narrative, reconsidering the truth The recent declassification of intelligence documents has cast new light on the origins and direction of the Russiagate narrative. While Donald Trump faced years of scrutiny over alleged Russian ties, including investigations, public doubt, and political fallout, it now appears that some intelligence suggesting Vladimir Putin may have preferred Hillary Clinton was known but not given equal attention. If true, this raises difficult questions about the role of selective disclosure and political influence within intelligence channels. For Trump and his supporters, this serves as vindication, not just from the false collusion accusations, but from a broader establishment effort to delegitimize his presidency before it even began. The fact that this evidence was hidden until now suggests institutional bias at the highest levels. As the US enters another election cycle, the importance of transparency and trust in democratic institutions becomes even more urgent. Both sides of the political divide can agree that the public deserves a full accounting, not just of what happened, but of who decided what the American people were allowed to know.
