Latest news with #PatrickSemansky
CTV News
28-05-2025
- Business
- CTV News
Google, Competition Bureau battle over possible constitutional challenge in case
The Google app on an iPad in Baltimore is seen on March 19, 2018. THE CANADIAN PRESS/AP, Patrick Semansky TORONTO — Canada's competition watchdog says it will fight a constitutional challenge from Google in a case alleging the tech giant abused its dominant position in the online advertising market. New filings made in the case say the Competition Bureau will ask the Competition Tribunal to strike Google's proposed motion to proceed with a constitutional challenge because the commissioner feels it is premature and without merit. Constitutional challenges question acts that could violate someone's rights or freedoms and often end up being precedent-setting. Google's challenge takes aim at the monetary penalty the bureau is asking the tech company pay, if it is found to have abused its dominant position in online advertising. The company says the penalty could wind up costing it billions, dwarfing the profits it generates in Canada and amounting to a total that is disproportionate to the allegations Google is facing. It argues the penalties would also breach the company's entitlements under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, necessitating a constitutional challenge. This report by The Canadian Press was first published May 28, 2025. Tara Deschamps, The Canadian Press
Newsweek
28-05-2025
- Business
- Newsweek
Judge Hands DOGE Major Win Over Accessing Sensitive Treasury Data
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. A federal judge has granted Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) conditional access to sensitive U.S. Treasury Department systems, relaxing an earlier ban. The decision followed ongoing litigation brought by 19 Democratic state attorneys general who challenged DOGE's access over privacy and legality concerns. Under the court's new order, DOGE staff may review payment records and confidential financial information once designated employees complete federal training and submit financial disclosures. Newsweek has contacted DOGE and the Treasury Department for comment outside of regular working hours. A federal judge has granted Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency conditional access to sensitive U.S. Treasury Department systems. A federal judge has granted Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency conditional access to sensitive U.S. Treasury Department systems. Patrick Semansky/Evan Vucci/AP Why It Matters The ruling marks a significant step for the White House's cost-cutting and modernization agenda, as DOGE is tasked with eliminating perceived wasteful federal spending. However, the move has reignited debates over privacy, data security and how much authority the executive branch can exert over sensitive personal data belonging to millions of Americans. What To Know Judge Jeannette Vargas ruled in a written opinion on Tuesday that certain DOGE employees would be permitted access to Treasury payment and data systems after completing required employee security training and financial disclosure filings. Once those conditions are met, the Treasury's DOGE team members will be able to review payment systems and records that include personally identifiable information. The ruling grants increased access to Treasury DOGE team leader Tom Krause, along with DOGE members Linda Whitridge, Samuel Corcos, and Todd Newnam. Another DOGE member Ryan Wunderly had already been granted access in April. The ruling represents a relaxation of a strict ban imposed months earlier, which had barred DOGE members from the systems due to privacy concerns. New York Attorney General Letitia James and 18 other Democratic attorneys general led the legal challenge, warning that allowing DOGE access to payment and data records risked exposure of personal information, such as Social Security and bank account numbers. The attorneys general also argued that such access could unlawfully allow for interference with congressional spending directives and violate the separation of powers. DOGE, which the Trump administration created in January via an executive order, has sought to cut government waste across multiple federal agencies, including the departments of the Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services. What People Are Saying New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a statement on February 7: "President Trump does not have the power to give away Americans' private information to anyone he chooses, and he cannot cut federal payments approved by Congress. Musk and DOGE have no authority to access Americans' private information and some of our country's most sensitive data." Connecticut Attorney General William Tong said in February: "This is the largest data breach in American history. DOGE is an unlawfully constituted band of renegade tech bros combing through confidential records, sensitive data and critical payment systems. What could go wrong? They have been given access to re-write code and delete files, and have vowed to use this access to dismantle the federal programs and services. We have no idea what they are doing with this information, and whether the world's richest man is using this information to further enrich himself and his companies. We are suing to protect the functioning of our government and the security of every single American's private data." What Happens Next The outcome of the case may set precedents around the balance between government efficiency initiatives and federal privacy protections.
Newsweek
19-05-2025
- Business
- Newsweek
White House Warns up to 9 Million Americans Could Lose Health Coverage
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. The White House released a memo on Saturday estimating that between 8.2 and 9.2 million Americans could lose their health insurance if the proposed budget reconciliation bill fails to pass. The analysis, titled "Health Insurance Opportunity Cost if 2025 Proposed Budget Reconciliation Bill Does Not Pass," was produced by the Council of Economic Advisers and warned that, should the budget not be brought into action, the country could enter a "major recession." Newsweek has contacted the White House via email for comment. Why It Matters The White House's memo comes as the debate in Congress over the House Republicans' health care and budget agenda has intensified. Many in the health care industry have been warning that the proposed budget could lead to millions of people being pushed off the Medicaid program, however, in the memo, the White House is arguing the opposite—that the budget would save millions from losing their health insurance. File photo: a view of the White House. File photo: a view of the White House. Patrick Semansky/AP What To Know The memo projected a dramatic rise in the uninsured population if the legislation known as the 2025 Reconciliation Bill stalls in Congress amid economic downturn concerns. The White House Council of Economic Advisers memo assumed a baseline of roughly 27 million uninsured Americans in 2025. It estimated that, without the budget bill and in the event of a recession, the number of uninsured people could climb to approximately 36 million, approaching the 50 million uninsured before the 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA) was implemented. The Council of Economic Advisers projected that the expiration of the 2017 Trump tax cuts, set for 2026, could trigger a recession, and in turn lead to a 4 percent decrease in GDP over the course of two years. The memo estimated unemployment could rise by four percentage points, potentially leading to 6.5 million job losses. Noting that 60 percent of these jobs provided employer-sponsored health insurance, the memo reported that approximately 3.9 million people could then lose coverage. The memo anticipated a 15 percent drop in health care coverage among the 22 million people enrolled in individual or marketplace plans, amounting to another 3.3 million losing coverage. An additional 500,000 to 1 million people could lose coverage through Medicaid or ACA-subsidized plans, the memo shared. While the White House's projections focused on implications if the budget bill fails, opponents have voiced concerns about what would happen if the bill passes. Republicans argue that it is a necessary step to rein in federal spending and reduce the deficit, however, critics say the cuts disproportionately affect low- and middle-income Americans who rely on ACA subsidies to maintain health coverage. The potential scaling back of the ACA, as well as other policies, in the plan is expected to see more than 13 million lose Medicaid coverage by 2034, according to research by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). What People Are Saying The White House, wrote in a memo: "Let's assume that expiration of the 2017 Trump tax cuts in 2026 and other shocks trigger a moderate to severe recession. Such a recession will be driven by higher tax rates which will result in a reduction in economic activity that will lead to significant unemployment. This in turn will strain state finances and likely lead to reductions in generosity of benefits including Medicaid for states providing greater benefits than the average Affordable Care Act Medicaid expansion state. Based on our assumptions, we estimate a net increase in uninsured of potentially 8.2 to 9.2 million people if the 2025 Proposed Budget Reconciliation Bill does not pass." Representative Don Bacon (R-Neb.) said, according to The Hill: "I like work requirements. People that are able-bodied, mentally healthy and all that should be working if you're working age. Able-bodied people still get Medicaid, but you should be looking for work, trying to improve your skills or working. And I think most Americans want that." Democratic Representatives Frank Pallone and Richard Neal and Senator Ron Wyden, said: "Cold, hard math paints a grim picture— the Republicans' long pursued golden goose of dismantling and undermining the ACA means millions of Americans will see their premiums skyrocket and their care reduced or outright stolen. By not extending the improvements to the Premium Tax Credits, by using reconciliation to codify cruel new rules that will make it harder for people to get care, Trump and Republicans are opening the floodgates for the biggest theft of health coverage we have ever seen. The nonpartisan CBO is now telling us that 5.7 million stand to lose their care if Republicans get their way on the ACA, with the number rising when you factor in their cruel Medicaid cuts and additional legislative changes." They added: "Through their budget, their vision is for a poorer, sicker America. If they choose to not extend these credits, they are choosing to rip health care from millions. The horrific consequences will lie squarely at their feet." What Happens Next The House is expected to vote on the budget bill before the Memorial Day deadline set by Republican Speaker Mike Johnson. Further projections of insurance coverage losses will depend on congressional action, economic performance, and whether the bill's tax cuts and social program reductions become law. Advocacy groups and Senate Republicans continue to debate the proposed changes.
New York Times
14-04-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
Expelled From the Navy: 381 Banned Books
Measles Vaccines Work Slashing the E.P.A. A Cost to Farmers Leaders, Rise Up Image Credit... AP Photo/Patrick Semansky To the Editor: Re 'Angelou's 'Caged Bird' Is Out, but Hitler's 'Mein Kampf' Stays; 381 Books Are Banned From Naval Academy' (front page, April 12): My grandfather was Fleet Adm. Chester W. Nimitz. The United States Naval Academy's library was named in his honor in 1973. My family was proud to attend the dedication. He would be appalled by the removal of books by authors like Maya Angelou from its shelves — as am I and are his great-grandchildren and great-great-grandchildren. He was a humble, honorable, intelligent and supportive leader who was honored and loved by everyone he came into contact with. We are all ashamed to hear that books such as 'Mein Kampf' have been left on the shelves while others were removed. Thank you to The New York Times for featuring this story! Sarah Nimitz Smith Boston To the Editor: Kudos to The Times for reporting that the U.S. Naval Academy has banned and removed 381 books from its library, clearly demonstrating ideological censorship in promotion of the Trump administration's assault on diversity, equity and inclusion policies. One of the first steps a totalitarian regime takes is to control what citizens may read and what information is available to them from print and electronic media. State control of information is nothing more than propaganda. Should George Orwell's novel '1984' be renamed '2025'? Robert D. Greenberg Bethesda, Md. To the Editor: If President Trump's censorship team did not sweep up Ray Bradbury's novel 'Fahrenheit 451' when it raided the Naval Academy's library (it apparently did not), it had better get back there before some innocent academy student finds the book and learns how censorship, book banning and book burning poison democracy and freedom. Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times. Thank you for your patience while we verify access. Already a subscriber? Log in. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Boston Globe
10-04-2025
- Politics
- Boston Globe
Eisenhower's warning echoes in today's Naval Academy book ban
Advertisement At the center of the sort of liberal arts education Annapolis provides — along with offering a course called Ship Hydrostatics and another called Stability and Port and Harbor Engineering — is the process of expanding students' horizons and minds, not restricting them. An entrance to the US Naval Academy campus in Annapolis, Md. Patrick Semansky/Associated Press Removing books about the Holocaust and the Black experience in the United States strikes at the heart of the academy's Advertisement Maya Angelou's autobiography, 'I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings,' will be inaccessible on the academy's library shelves. Indeed, one of Annapolis's most accomplished graduates was a prodigious author and poet. He was Jimmy Carter, and he celebrated Angelou's work and appointed her to the National Commission on the Observance of International Women's Year. And how seriously is the nation's security endangered by the presence on a tucked-away library shelf of the great former Globe writer Wil Haygood's 'Colorization: One Hundred Years of Black Films in a White World'? The absurdity of removing books about race and diversity from the Naval Academy comes into sharp focus by extrapolating the notion into other institutions of higher education. Boston College and College of the Holy Cross aren't likely to remove books about Judaism, or indeed the Old Testament. Brandeis University isn't about to strip books about Christianity from its library. Swarthmore College boasts about celebrating its Quaker roots, affirming that they 'anchor and inform' how its students learn and work. Its course catalogue includes a course on the hot and cold wars of the 20th century. Perhaps the defense secretary ought to examine a speech by one of the great graduates of West Point. He traveled to Hanover, N.H., in the spring of 1953, a time, like our own, of great ferment in higher education and with the winds of intolerance, stoked by Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin, swirling on colleges campuses. And there, one of the 59 members of the US Military Academy class of 1915 — known as the class that stars fell onto —who would become a general, gave a remarkable commencement address. Advertisement l 'Don't join the book burners. Don't think you are going to conceal faults by concealing evidence that they ever existed. Don't be afraid to go in your library and read every book, as long as that document does not offend our own ideas of decency. That should be the only censorship. 'How will we defeat communism unless we know what it is, and what it teaches, and why does it have such an appeal for men, why are so many people swearing allegiance to it? It is almost a religion, albeit one of the nether regions. 'And we have got to fight it with something better, not try to conceal the thinking of our own people. They are part of America. And even if they think ideas that are contrary to ours, their right to say them, their right to record them, and their right to have them at places where they are accessible to others is unquestioned, or it isn't America. ' Words to live by, in 1953 and 2025.
