Latest news with #NationalDefenseAuthorizationAct
Yahoo
a day ago
- Business
- Yahoo
The Commerce Department recalled funding for 6 manufacturing tech hubs. What happens next?
This story was originally published on Manufacturing Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily Manufacturing Dive newsletter. Six U.S. technology and manufacturing hubs that were previously approved for a total of $210 million in federal grants must now reapply for the funding after Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick decided to revamp a Biden-era investment program last month. On May 16, Lutnick issued a statement criticizing the prior administration's selection of six applicants for Tech Hubs Program funding earlier this year, calling the process 'rushed, opaque, and unfair.' As a result, he said another competition is in the works this summer, with plans to announce the winners in January 2026. Doug Merrill, regional innovation officer for the Vermont Gallium Nitride Tech Hub — one of the hubs that recently lost $23 million in funding for semiconductor development and workforce training — said in a statement that the hub is 'eager to re-apply' as it moves forward with support from other members and partners. The funding reversal is part of a larger trend by the Trump Administration to cut Biden-era programs, including tens of millions of dollars in National Science Foundation grants and recent efforts to slash billions in climate-related funds. In January, the Biden Administration approved grants to six university- or nonprofit-led applicants ranging between $22 million and $48 million as an investment to advance technology important to U.S. economic and national security. The funds came from the fiscal year 2025 National Defense Authorization Act and were in addition to a separate round of grants totaling $504 million in July 2024 for projects recognized as 'tech hubs.' However, Lutnick said the selection process and approval for the six projects were done with funds that were not available yet. 'At my direction, the Commerce Department is revamping the Tech Hubs program to prioritize national security, project quality, benefit to the taxpayer, and a fair process,' Lutnick said in a statement. 'To be clear, this decision is not an indictment of the work that the previously selected Tech Hubs are doing,' he added. 'They can compete for funding alongside all other prospective applicants.' The tech hubs that were approved for and then denied funding include: American Aerospace Materials Manufacturing Center (Washington, Idaho): $48 million Birmingham Biotechnology Hub (Alabama): $44 million Corvallis Microfluidics Tech Hub (Oregon): $45 million Critical Minerals and Materials for Advanced Energy (CM2AE) Tech Hub (Missouri): $29 million Forest Bioproducts Advanced Manufacturing Tech Hub (Maine): $22 million Vermont Gallium Nitride Tech Hub (Vermont): $23 million Lawmakers who previously celebrated the investments as a way to support American manufacturing and supply chain innovation were disappointed by Lutnick's decision to withhold previous awards from the Biden Administration. Washington Sen. Maria Cantwell, whose state had won $48 million to support the American Aerospace Materials Manufacturing Center, called the loss of funding an 'unnecessary delay' in the race to reestablish the U.S. as a global leader in aerospace component production. 'This is causing us chaos and uncertainty in a race against world competitors to build high rate manufactured composites likely to determine which country wins the aerospace future,' Cantwell said in a statement May 16. Despite the reversal of funds, the affected tech hubs are moving forward as planned with help from other supporters. 'Our vast consortium is proud to have the support of our legislators and the communities across Washington and Idaho as we move forward,' the AAMMC said in a public statement May 19. Additionally, The Vermont Gallium Nitride Tech Hub, led by the University of Vermont and chip maker GlobalFoundries, looks forward to reapplying for funding. 'Vermont's Tech Hub continues to move forward full steam ahead, having attracted $3.9 million in funding and sixty members and partners to date,' Merrill said in a statement. 'The interest that our partners have demonstrated make us confident that the scope and mission we will propose in the next funding round will be well aligned with our nation's technology priorities and will be highly competitive in the next round of project selection,' he added. Recommended Reading US to investigate semiconductor imports Sign in to access your portfolio
Tom's Guide
5 days ago
- Business
- Tom's Guide
DJI Romo robot vacuum packaging spotted in new leak
DJI may be known for making many of the best drones, but the company could soon enter a new market with a rumored robot vacuum, one that allegedly features an integrated mop. This week, China-based leaker OsitaLV tweeted a picture that appears to show several boxes of the DJI Romo vacuum cleaner on a pallet. This suggests that this is a real product that will be available soon. I'm sure this thing has no NFZ! 29, 2025 As of this writing, DJI has yet to actually announce the Romo or plans for a robot vacuum cleaner. However, there have been several leaks about the vacuum which is supposed to combine a vacuum and a mop. The rumored robot first popped in a November of 2024 in a leaked photo of the vacuum from behind some glass and faraway. More recently, an alleged image of the DJI Romo app popped up on Reddit. According to that post, the app has smart features similar to the best robot vacuums. These including mapping, AI cleaning, and schedule timing. They added that the vacuum is supposed to have six depth of field sensors meant for obstacle avoidance. DJI is more known for making the best drones but has made other robots including the educational RoboMaster S1. Get instant access to breaking news, the hottest reviews, great deals and helpful tips. The question we have is will the Romo be available outside of China or Europe? Right now, the company is under threat in the U.S. thanks to bans passed by the US House of Representatives. However, the drone ban was not included in the recent National Defense Authorization Act passed by the Senate recently. DJI's official blog notes that its products are not banned in the U.S. at this time. Currently, any bans affecting DJI are mostly focused on its drones. Presumably, robot vacuums would not be be affected since its action cams like the Mavic 4 Pro also seem to be safe from any ban, though there was some uncertainty when the drone first went on sale. On the other hand, President Trump's tariffs and trade war with China could interrupt any shipments to the United States. As of this writing, the high tariff rates are on pause. Plus, just this week a panel of judges ruled that Trump's tariffs were illegal and needed to be done through Congress. It's a breath of fresh air for DJI and fans of its products. However, as mentioned, DJI has not officially announced the Romo. For now, we don't know when or if the robot vacuum will launch in the United States or at all.
Yahoo
27-05-2025
- General
- Yahoo
The Supreme Court just rejected a religion case. At least 2 of the justices aren't happy about it
The Supreme Court on Tuesday announced it won't hear a closely tracked religious freedom clash out of Arizona and revealed that at least two of the court's nine justices aren't pleased with the decision. Justice Neil Gorsuch dissented to the denial of certiorari in the case about mining on sacred land, calling it 'a grave mistake.' His dissent was joined by Justice Clarence Thomas. Justice Samuel Alito may also have objected to the denial, but he took no part in its consideration. The Supreme Court's rejection of the case means that a lower court ruling against a group of Native Americans fighting to block a mining project will remain in place. In his dissent, Gorsuch criticized his colleagues for underrating the significance of the religious freedom questions that were raised. 'Just imagine if the government sought to demolish a historic cathedral on so questionable a chain of legal reasoning. I have no doubt that we would find that case worth our time. Faced with the government's plan to destroy an ancient site of tribal worship, we owe the Apaches no less,' he wrote. Apache Stronghold v. United States centers on a proposed mining project in the Oak Flat area of Arizona, which is located about 70 miles east of Phoenix. The Western Apaches use Oak Flat for a variety of sacred ceremonies, including a coming-of-age ritual for young women, as Gorsuch pointed out in his dissent. In recognition of these ceremonies, the federal government protected portions of Oak Flat from mining for more than a century after taking control of it during 19th century wars. But then in 2014, Congress cleared the way for the land to be transferred to a private mining company by passing a version of the National Defense Authorization Act that had a last-minute rider about Oak Flat added on. In 2021, the federal government published an Environmental Impact Statement on Oak Flat, signaling that mining was soon to begin in the area. That's when Apache Stronghold filed a federal religious freedom lawsuit to seek to block the land transfer and mining project. The group argued that destroying Oak Flat would violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The act, which is also known as RFRA, prohibits the federal government from substantially burdening a sincere expression of faith unless there is no better way to fulfill a compelling government goal. Apache Stronghold argued that the mining project would destroy the Western Apaches' 'spiritual lifeblood,' Gorsuch wrote. While Apache Stronghold's lawsuit delayed the mining project, it didn't succeed in securing long-term protections for Oak Flat. The group lost at the district and circuit court level, where judges said mining does not represent a substantial burden under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. In September, the group asked the Supreme Court to overturn those decisions and rule that religious freedom law protects against mining on sacred land. 'Oak Flat is our Mt. Sinai — the most sacred place where generations of Apache have come to connect with our Creator, our faith, and our land,' explained Wendsler Nosie Sr. of Apache Stronghold in a press release at the time. Several religious organizations, as well as Utah Sen. Mike Lee, filed Supreme Court briefs in support of Apache Stronghold in recent months. In his dissent, Gorsuch criticized the Supreme Court for allowing the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling against Apache Stronghold to stand. He said that, at the very least, it hinged upon a controversial interpretation of how to apply the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in disputes involving government property and, at worst, it treated Native Americans much worse than Americans who are part of other, better-known faiths. 'Before allowing the government to destroy the Apaches' sacred site, this Court should at least have troubled itself to hear their case,' Gorsuch wrote. As is typical, the justices who voted against hearing Apache Stronghold v. United States did not explain their decision to the public. As a result of Tuesday's announcement, the federal government is free to move forward with its planned land transfer. In April, the Trump administration announced that it may release the final Environmental Impact Statement on Oak Flat as soon as next month.
E&E News
27-05-2025
- Business
- E&E News
Supreme Court rejects bid to stop Arizona copper mine
The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a request from some members of the San Carlos Apache Tribe to block a massive proposed copper mine that they say will destroy a holy site in Arizona known as Oak Flat. A majority of the court denied the petition, but in a dissent joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Neil Gorsuch said he would have granted the petition. Justice Samuel Alito recused himself from considering the case. Gorsuch in his dissent called the decision a 'grave mistake' and said the case 'meets every one of the standards we usually apply when assessing petitions for certiorari: The decision below is highly doubtful as a matter of law, it takes a view of the law at odds with those expressed by other federal courts of appeals, and it is vitally important. Before allowing the government to destroy the Apaches' sacred site, this Court should at least have troubled itself to hear their case.' Advertisement Apache Stronghold had called on the Supreme Court to block the project, arguing it would violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which protects their right to worship at the sacred site. The group, alongside the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, had warned the Resolution Copper mine would transform holy land into a 2-mile-wide and 1,100-foot-deep crater. The site — known as Oak Flat, or Chi'chil Biłdagoteel in Apache — consists of a vast grove of Emory oaks sacred to the tribe, where some go to pray, hold ceremonies and collect acorns for cooking. It's now part of the Tonto National Forest about 60 miles east of Phoenix, where the Forest Service currently has a campground. Resolution Copper, a joint venture between Rio Tinto and BHP, has countered that the campground would remain open and accessible for decades, and argued that the case is about the government's right to use national land to pursue national interests — a settled authority that the Supreme Court and other benches have consistently reaffirmed. The Trump administration has said it intends to complete an environmental impact statement for the mine. Once it's released, the land exchange that accelerates Resolution Copper must happen within 60 days. The land swap would allow the federal government to transfer thousands of acres of public land in Arizona, including the Oak Flat site, to the mining company, advancing construction of the copper mine. The deal was originally included in the 2014 National Defense Authorization Act and championed by the late Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona. Attorneys for Apache Stronghold brought their challenge to the Supreme Court after the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to reconsider the case last year. The appeals court in a 6-5 ruling affirmed a lower court's denial of Apache Stronghold's request for a preliminary injunction against the government's transfer of the land to Resolution Copper.
Korea Herald
24-05-2025
- Politics
- Korea Herald
USFK dismisses troop downsizing report
No discussions yet with Washington over partial withdrawal of US troops: Seoul The United States Forces Korea on Friday dismissed a report saying Washington is mulling the possibility of a partial withdrawal of the strong 28,500 troops stationed here. "The US remains firmly committed to the defense of the ROK and we look forward to working with the incoming government officials to maintain and strengthen our iron clad alliance," the USFK said in a statement. "Reports that the Department of Defense will reduce US troops in the Republic of Korea are not true.' ROK is an abbreviation for Republic of Korea, which is South Korea's official name. The statement followed a report early Friday from The Wall Street Journal, which claimed that the Donald Trump administration is weighing the option of pulling out some 4,500 troops, or around 15 percent of the USFK, and moving them to other locations in the Indo-Pacific region, including Guam, which is an American island territory. The report added to security concerns in South Korea amid volatilities stemming from North Korea's advancing nuclear weapons program. Addressing the report, South Korea's Ministry of National Defense said in the morning that no discussions had recently been held with the US government over the issue of withdrawal of USFK. 'There were no discussions held between South Korea and the US over the issue of withdrawal of USFK,' the ministry said. "The USFK, as the core strength of the South Korea-US alliance, has contributed to the peace and stability of the Korean Peninsula and in the region by maintaining a firm combined defense posture and deterring North Korea's invasion and provocation, alongside our military," the ministry added. "We will continue to cooperate with the US side to advance in such a direction.' The WSJ report is aligned with a separate report from The Washington Post earlier this year that the second Trump administration plans to 'reorient' the US military to prioritize deterring China's seizure of Taiwan and shoring up homeland defense. It cited secret internal guidance distributed throughout the Pentagon in mid-March. An official at Seoul's Foreign Ministry, declining to be named, echoed the Defense Ministry's statement, saying that the USFK has been 'the backbone and the symbol of the South Korea-US alliance, while deterring threats from North Korea and contributing to the peace and security in the region.' The official highlighted the 'negative views' expressed by US Indo-Pacific Command Commander Adm. Samuel Paparo Jr. and USFK Commander Gen. Xavier Brunson about potentially scaling back the US troops deployed here. 'Recently, the US Indo-Pacific Command commander and the USFK commander have stressed the importance of the role of the USFK and expressed negative views on a possible withdrawal or reduction,' the official explained. 'The US' National Defense Authorization Act has also consistently included the part which calls for the maintenance of the current USFK troop strength.' The report, which came as South Korea heads into a snap presidential election on June 3, triggered by former President Yoon Suk Yeol's impeachment and removal from office, prompted reactions from the political sphere. People Power Party presidential candidate Kim Moon-soo on Thursday expressed concerns about front-runner and rival Democratic Party of Korea candidate Lee Jae-myung's past remark that labeled the USFK as 'an occupying force.' 'Candidate Lee Jae-myung in the past, undermined the USFK by calling them an occupying force and labeling the combined military exercises among South Korea, US and Japan as an extreme pro-Japanese act,' Kim wrote on Facebook in the afternoon. Kim claimed that 'worries have been spreading' across the country that the USFK's withdrawal could materialize if Lee is elected president. 'Candidate Lee Jae-myung should apologize for his past remarks (calling the USFK) an occupying force and clearly reveal his stance toward the South Korea-US alliance.' Minor conservative New Reform Party candidate Lee Jun-seok told the press that South Korea should 'be confident' in dealing with the US regarding the issues of the USFK, after attending a memorial service for late President Roh Moo-hyun in the southeastern rural village of Bongha, South Gyeongsang Province, in the morning. 'The USFK is stationed here due to the US' strategic understanding -- South Korea must come up with the best outcome for our people by strengthening our own defense capabilities on one side and convincing the US that we can cooperate for the benefit of the US' security,' he added. Lee has yet to release a statement on the matter, but Cho Seung-rae, the Democratic Party's chief spokesperson, highlighted the role of the USFK in protecting 'the peace in the Northeast Asia and the Indo-Pacific region' and 'deterring North Korea threats.' 'It's a topic that should be calmly discussed (between Seoul and Washington) based on the value we share in our alliance,' Cho told reporters after attending the same morning memorial service. 'From the perspective of the South Korea-US alliance, the role of the USFK, which deters threats from North Korea and contributes to the peace in Northeast Asia and the Indo-Pacific region, is clear. And I believe that both the ruling and the opposition parties' thoughts and South Korea's and the US' perspectives on the matter are not different.'
