Latest news with #Nixon-era
The Hill
22-07-2025
- Business
- The Hill
Tariffs won't stop China if it wins the energy race
China is the centerpiece of the Trump administration's tariff strategy. Beijing, the administration insists, is ' by far the biggest abuser in history ' when it comes to trade offenses. Tariffs, they claim, will level the playing field and reassert American dominance. But the playing field is already shifting beneath our feet. While President Trump is busy slapping tariffs on steel and copper, China is racing ahead in something far more powerful: cheap, clean energy. No amount of tariffs will stop China if it wins the energy race. In late February 2025, Chinese geologists announced the discovery of vast deposits of thorium, an element so energy-rich that a single golf-ball-sized lump can power a person's lifetime energy needs. With enough reserves to fuel the country for 60,000 years, China is now sitting on what could be the most transformative energy breakthrough of the century. Unlike the U.S., which sat on this potential for decades, China is sprinting ahead. Chinese scientists recently achieved a historic first: refueling a molten salt reactor running on thorium without interrupting energy production. Thorium's advantages are staggering. It is three to four times more abundant than its nuclear counterpart, uranium, and can theoretically yield up to 200 times more energy. It's cleaner, too, producing far less long-lived radioactive waste and generating zero greenhouse gases during operation. China is building the world's first commercial thorium molten salt reactor, slated to go online by 2029. It's a bold move that underscores China's ambition to lead the world in cheap energy and ultimately explosive economic growth, not through trade wars but by out-innovating the West. And here's the kicker: They're doing it on the back of U.S. research. The use of thorium in fueling nuclear reactors was first discovered by American chemist Glenn Seaborg in the 1940s. From there, the Tennessee-based Oak Ridge National Laboratory ran a successful demonstration of the molten salt reactor in the 1960s, proving the technology's safety and potential. But instead of championing the innovation, the project was axed. The Nixon-era government, driven by Cold War priorities, preferred uranium-based reactors that produced weapons-grade plutonium. Thorium didn't serve military aims, so the research was defunded, its champions removed, and the program shut down. Regulatory and funding priorities shifted decisively against thorium. Billions were poured into the Clinch River Breeder Reactor — a uranium-based failure — while thorium research was sidelined. By the 1970s, thorium research and development had essentially been abandoned. Even existing thorium stockpiles were targeted; the Department of Energy under the George W. Bush administration slated them for destruction by dilution, short-circuiting their scientific promise. Most thorium research in North America now happens in Canada, while in the 'land of the free' our scientists are still shackled by regulatory inertia. The U.S. government makes it illegal to experiment at the relevant scale to conduct thorium research with radioactive material. The government also uses a linear no-threshold radioactive exposure model for limiting human exposure. These extreme criteria are unscientific and harmful to the advancement of science. And while the U.S. buries its lead under layers of bureaucracy and bias, our allies and rivals picked up the pieces. Now China has leapt ahead. If China fully harnesses this potential, tariffs won't make a dent in their economic trajectory. While the Trump administration is busy slapping taxes on aluminum and auto parts, President Xi Jinping could be preparing to export cheap, clean and practically limitless energy. That's the kind of strategic advantage that propels countries to economic excellence, not a marginal trade war win. The U.S. is not entirely asleep. Gov. Kathy Hochul's (D) announcement of a zero-emission nuclear facility in New York is a modest sign of life. So is the growing interest in small modular reactors. Hopefully it's not too little, too late. It's time to stop trying to suppress the success of other countries and start unleashing our own potential. The government cannot predict what the future of innovation holds. Instead of targeting foreign progress with trade penalties, the administration needs to unleash American scientists and entrepreneurs to build the future here. That means deregulating advanced energy technologies, funding high-risk research, and getting Washington's foot off the innovation brakes. In the 20th century, we built the bomb. In the 21st, let's lead the world again.
Politico
10-07-2025
- Politics
- Politico
Trump's U-turn on White House secrecy could reshape how future presidents get advice
But the courts concluded that the Jan. 6 attack was so momentous, and Congress' need for Trump's records so great, that executive privilege would have yielded even if Trump were the sitting president at the time. Still, the Jan. 6 committee did not get all the testimony it wanted from Trump's advisers. Stephen Miller refused to discuss 'any conversations that he had with President Trump,' saying Trump had not waived executive privilege to permit him to testify. David Warrington, who at the time was an attorney representing Trump's former White House personnel director, emphasized that Biden's waiver of privilege was 'pretty specific' and 'not a broad waiver.' Miller is now Trump's deputy chief of staff, and Warrington is Trump's White House counsel. Even witnesses willing to cooperate with the committee — like Mike Pence's aides Marc Short and Greg Jacob, as well as Trump's former White House counsel Pat Cipollone — refused to discuss direct conversations with Trump they said could potentially be covered by claims of executive privilege. 'We have an instruction from President Trump not to respond to questions that may implicate the privilege,' Short's attorney Emmet Flood told the Jan. 6 panel. Trump's effort, as a former president, to assert privilege over his White House records and testimony by former aides set up an unprecedented clash — no sitting president had ever diverged from the privilege claims of his predecessors. It raised unresolved questions about the degree to which former presidents retain any ability to assert privilege at all. Although the Nixon-era Supreme Court said they do, the justices also emphasized that only the incumbent president is charged with the stewardship of the executive branch and would virtually always prevail in a dispute with his predecessor. Biden's hands-off approach Trump's effort to stymie the Jan. 6 panel's probe stands in contrast to Biden, who allies say has made no effort, so far, to instruct witnesses on how to approach the investigation into his cognitive health. The Oversight Committee has not specifically articulated the scope of its investigation, but Comer said in a subpoena letter to O'Connor, Biden's White House physician, that the panel is exploring legislation related to 'oversight of presidents' fitness to serve.' Republicans are also looking into making potential changes to the 25th Amendment, which gives Congress a role in determining whether a president is no longer fit to hold office — something House Democrats proposed during their probe of Trump's actions preceding the Jan. 6 attack.
AU Financial Review
03-07-2025
- Business
- AU Financial Review
Magic math got Trump's bill through, but it won't make debt vanish
Washington | The national debt clock has been ticking away in New York since 1989 as a dynamic reminder of how much the United States has on its collective credit card bill. But on the streets of Washington DC, a more personal reminder has popped up. The Peter G. Peterson Foundation, named for the late Nixon-era commerce secretary and former investment banker and private equity titan, is running bus shelter billboards that portray the debt per person. On Thursday (Friday AEST), when Republicans passed Donald Trump's major tax cut and spending bill, the figure sat at $US106,110 ($161,590).
CNBC
24-06-2025
- Politics
- CNBC
House Speaker Johnson argues the War Powers Act is unconstitutional
House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., argued Tuesday that the War Powers Act, a Nixon-era law limiting the president's power to unilaterally wage war, is unconstitutional, and vowed that a pending resolution to bar U.S. military action in Iran under that law will not pass the House. Johnson told reporters that President Donald Trump's decision to order strikes on Iranian nuclear targets over the weekend was "clearly" within his powers under Article II of the U.S. Constitution. Many constitutional scholars believe that the law known as the War Powers Resolution violates Article II, Johnson said, adding, "I think that's right." The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, which it has not done with respect to the current conflict in the Middle East between Iran and Israel. But the legislative branch has not formally exercised that power since World War II. The Constitution also makes the president the commander in chief of the nation's armed forces, giving him significant sway over the use of the military. Previous presidents have taken military action without first seeking congressional approval, and some experts say neither Congress nor the courts are likely to do much to rein in Trump in response to the recent strikes. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying the armed forces in any case where war has not formally been declared. Under the law, the military use must end within 60 days unless Congress declares war or grants an extension. Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., alongside Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna of California, last week introduced a War Powers resolution that would bar the U.S. military from "unauthorized hostilities" in Iran. More than a dozen House Democrats have cosponsored the resolution, and Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., has put forward a similar measure in the Senate. The resolution is "privileged," which could allow it to quickly come to a House vote despite Johnson's opposition. But Massie said Monday evening that he would not advance his resolution if the Iran-Israel ceasefire holds, Politico reported. Trump has lashed out at Massie repeatedly over his opposition to the massive tax-and-spending bill that the president is pushing Republican lawmakers to quickly pass. Massie was one of a small handful of Republicans to vote against the bill when it came to the House floor last month. On Tuesday morning, Trump in a Truth Social post called Massie a "Third Rate Congressman" and a "LOSER." Johnson told the press in Tuesday's remarks that he has asked Massie if his resolution was a "moot point" in light of Trump's ceasefire announcement. Massie had replied, "yeah, it probably is," according to Johnson. So "we may not have to act" on the resolution, the speaker said. "I hope we don't, because I think it would be a terrible look, and it will not pass the House because it's inappropriate and it's not a proper use of the law anyway."
Yahoo
10-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Meet the judge overseeing the Trump National Guard case: Justice Breyer's brother
Gov. Gavin Newsom's lawsuit against President Donald Trump over the deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles is in the hands of a federal judge who is the younger brother of retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, a former Watergate prosecutor nominated to the bench by Bill Clinton in 1997, was assigned to Newsom's case Tuesday, a day after California officials sued to reverse Trump's order. California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in San Francisco, citing the presence of his and other state offices in that city as justification for the choice of venue. Breyer is one of 13 judges in that courthouse and was assigned the case through a random process overseen by the court clerk. Breyer, who attended Harvard before getting his law degree from the University of California, Berkeley, was confirmed by unanimous consent in the Senate and has served as a judge in the San Francisco-based federal court since. Notably, Trump himself nominated Breyer in 2018 for a second term on the U.S. Sentencing Commission. Breyer, 83, will decide whether Trump had the legal authority to federalize 4,000 California National Guard troops amid street protests over the administration's immigration raids in Los Angeles. Newsom argues that the move was unlawful because Trump bypassed a requirement to coordinate with the governor's office and called up the troops over Newsom's objection. In a 2023 appearance at the Supreme Court alongside his brother, Breyer recalled that he was a local prosecutor during unrest in the Bay Area in the 1960s and 1970s but pressed on with his day-to-day work. 'I was an assistant district attorney. There were riots in San Francisco, over Vietnam over at San Francisco State, close it down,' Charles Breyer said. 'You did your task, which didn't mean that you weren't aware of what was going on or not sensitive to what was going on or tried to understand what was going on, but it meant you had a task.' In 2008, at a public talk alongside other former Watergate figures, Breyer said the Nixon-era scandal proved the value of the Constitution — and in particular, the First Amendment protections for those who 'speak out against the government.' 'We were told from Day One, why are you doing this? You're tearing down the presidency. You're making it very difficult for the president of the United States to discharge his obligations,' Breyer recalled. 'And our answer really was that the Constitution was set up … to allow an examination of the way our government operates. And that's what happened.'
