Latest news with #Republican-led
Yahoo
15 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Labor Dept. drops Biden-era ESG fiduciary rule
This story was originally published on ESG Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily ESG Dive newsletter. The Department of Labor informed the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Wednesday that it will abandon the Biden administration's rule allowing pension plan fiduciaries to consider ESG factors and other 'collateral benefits' in tiebreaker situations, according to court documents. A lawyer with the Department of Justice's civil division appellate staff said in a letter that 'the Department has determined that it will engage in a new rulemaking on the subject of the challenged rule.' The new rulemaking process will be included in the Trump administration's spring regulatory agenda, according to the May 28 letter. The Biden administration's rule was challenged by a coalition of 26 Republican-led states, though had thus far held up in the face of litigation. The Labor Department asked for a temporary pause in the legal proceedings last month as it weighed rescinding the rule. A judge granted a 30-day pause, directing the agency to provide an update on what further actions it planned to take, with Wednesday's filing representing the government's response. The Biden administration's Labor Department finalized the rule, 'Prudence and Loyalty in Selecting Plan Investments and Exercising Shareholder Rights,' in 2022, and it has been in effect since January 2023. At the time, the agency said the rule overturned guidance from the first Trump administration which had a 'chilling effect' on fiduciaries. The rule allowed retirement plan fiduciaries to consider ESG and other collateral benefits to break a tie when two or more investments 'equally serve' the financial interests of the plan and it would be imprudent to invest in both or all options. The Republican-led states leading the lawsuit have argued that the rule runs afoul of the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. However, a federal district court judge has twice ruled that the rule was permissible. Texas Northern District Court Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk first dismissed the lawsuit in September 2023, though that ruling relied on the now-overturned Chevron doctrine. After hearing arguments in the case, the Fifth Circuit later remanded the case back to Kacsmaryk for a ruling in light of that change. Kacsmaryk again ruled that the rule does not violate ERISA in February. While the planned timeline for a new rule proposal will be unknown until the administration releases its regulatory agenda, the May 28 court filing said the Department of Labor 'intends to move through the rulemaking process as expeditiously as possible.' Recommended Reading State of the Labor Dept. ESG rule in a post-Chevron landscape Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
17 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
In Bizarre Rant, Trump Rips ‘Sleazebag' Leonard Leo Over Legal Setback On Tariffs
WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump late Thursday bizarrely tore into a prominent figure of the conservative legal movement, Leonard Leo, and blamed him for a federal court ruling that briefly blocked most of his tariffs. Trump leaned heavily on Leo, a former leader of the conservative Federal Society, in his first term in office for picking people for lifetime federal judgeships. Trump essentially farmed out his judicial selection process to Leo, who handpicked most of the president's appeals court and Supreme Court nominees. That list included judges Trump eventually picked to sit on the U.S. Court of International Trade — judges who ruled Thursday that he didn't have unilateral authority to impose tariffs on most countries — a huge setback to Trump's international economic policy. The president responded by lashing out at Leo for recommending he nominate those judges at all, years ago. (The full court later weighed in and reversed that decision.) 'I was new to Washington, and it was suggested that I use The Federalist Society as a recommending source on Judges,' Trump said in a rambling post on social media. 'I did so, openly and freely, but then realized that they were under the thumb of a real 'sleazebag' named Leonard Leo, a bad person who, in his own way, probably hates America, and obviously has his own separate ambitions.' The president said Leo 'openly brags how he controls Judges, and even Justices of the United States Supreme Court.' 'I hope that is not so, and don't believe it is!' he continued. 'In any event, Leo left The Federalist Society to do his own 'thing.'' Leo responded with a conciliatory statement in the New York Post, saying he is 'grateful' that Trump transformed the courts in his first term. 'The Federal Judiciary is better than it's ever been in modern history, and that will be President Trump's most important legacy,' he said. Their spat reflects a growing divide between Trump and the conservative legal community that was so central to his judicial nominees in his first term. Trump doesn't have nearly as many vacant court seats to fill this time around, which means there's been less energy being poured into nominating judges. But the bigger issue is that Trump is more unhinged in his second term, flouting laws and brazenly attacking judges who rule against him. He's been pushing the limits of executive power to a breaking point, and with the Republican-led Congress doing nothing to keep him in check, it's fallen on the nation's courts to field endless lawsuits against the administration. The reality for Trump is that he is losing a lot more in court that he's winning. One analysis found that his administration has lost a whopping 96% of rulings in federal district courts so far this month. It's left Trump fuming, as heseems to believe judges should rule in his favor every time. Leo is simply the latest target of his fury amid his legal setbacks. 'Leonard Leo and the Federalist Society have spent decades installing judges to do their bidding from the bench. But anything short of 100% loyalty is unacceptable to Donald Trump, so it's no surprise that he's lashing out,' Meagan Hatcher-Mays of United for Democracy, a coalition of pro-democracy organizations, said in a statement. 'Trump thinks there's no limit to what he is able to get away with, because most of the time, there's not,' she said. The president's attacks on Leo and The Federalist Society could get interesting, though. Leo has helped pick all of the current conservative Supreme Court justices, arguably making him more powerful than any one of them. He is at the center of a massive web of sketchy, dark-monied groups aligned with a staunchly anti-abortion, anti-LGBTQ+, anti-voting rights agenda. A far-right member of the Roman Catholic Church, his goal is to impose a broader cultural war against a 'progressive Ku Klux Klan' and 'vile and immoral current-day barbarians, secularists and bigots.' Leo is managing more than $1.6 billion, which he has been using to expand The Federalist Society model beyond the courts, and into culture and politics. In other words, Leo has been playing the long game and Trump, in his first term, was always a pawn for Leo's broader ambitions. The conservative legal activist was here before Trump was in the White House, and he will be here after he is gone. In his meandering social post, the president said The Federalist Society let him down with its recommendations for judicial nominees in his first term. 'I am so disappointed in The Federalist Society because of the bad advice they gave me on numerous Judicial Nominations. This is something that cannot be forgotten!' he said. 'With all of that being said, I am very proud of many of our picks, but very disappointed in others. They always must do what's right for the Country!'
Yahoo
18 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
New poll suggests high concern about NH housing, but mixed appetite for zoning reform
The poll, released Thursday, asked respondents whether they support legislation that would require cities and towns to relax their zoning policies to make it easier to build a home. (Getty Images) Granite Staters continue to overwhelmingly cite the scarcity of affordable housing as the most pressing concern, a new poll from the University of New Hampshire suggests. Faced with a range of options that included taxes, education, jobs, and cost of living, 36% of respondents to the poll said housing is 'the most important problem facing New Hampshire' — far and away the biggest share. The next highest category was taxes; 10% of respondents chose that as the most important issue. But when it comes to the most likely legislative approach to address the housing shortfall this year, residents are more divided. The poll, released Thursday, asked respondents whether they support legislation that would require cities and towns to relax their zoning policies to make it easier to build a home. Thirty-eight percent supported that legislation — 15% strongly — but 40% opposed it. Of those that were against it, 18% were strongly opposed. The response comes as the Republican-led Legislature has passed a pair of bills that would bar municipalities from making certain zoning restrictions; both bills are making their way to Gov. Kelly Ayotte's desk. House Bill 631 would require municipalities to allow multi-family developments in commercial zones, such as shopping areas. And House Bill 577 would allow homeowners to build a detached accessory dwelling unit by right and expand the size limitations to do so. The issue of housing scarcity dominated both Democratic and Republican campaign platforms in 2024, and lawmakers in both parties have found common ground in legislation that would forcibly remove local zoning barriers to housing. Some groups, such as the New Hampshire Municipal Association, are opposed to those bills, arguing that cities and towns should be able to craft their own zoning codes and should react to the housing shortage with approaches supported by their residents. Republican lawmakers have shown less support this year for devoting state resources to encourage more development; the House-passed budget would eliminate the Housing Champion Program, a 2023 effort to give special grants and state support to towns that voluntarily changed their zoning codes to be more friendly to housing. House and Senate lawmakers have also blocked efforts to increase the amount of money going to the state's affordable housing fund, which is currently allocated $5 million of state tax revenues per year. The May 29 UNH poll was released three months after a poll conducted by YouGov on behalf of Housing Action New Hampshire, a housing advocacy group, appeared to show more support for zoning changes. In that poll, conducted March 3 to 10, more than 75% of respondents supported policies to 'allow more homes near business and shopping districts,' allow 'flexibility for paved parking areas,' 'allow homes on slightly smaller lots,' and 'make it easier to build accessory dwelling units.' The Housing Action poll also found that 54% of respondents said building more homes is more important for New Hampshire than protecting the character of neighborhoods from change, compared to 35% who said the opposite and 11% who were not sure. The Housing Action poll worded its questions differently than the UNH poll; the former poll asked about legislation that would 'allow' homeowners to build certain structures, while the latter poll asked about legislation that would 'require' cities and towns to change their zoning codes to achieve that. 'Granite Staters are about evenly divided on this issue,' states the UNH survey report.
Business Recorder
19 hours ago
- Politics
- Business Recorder
Ukraine keeps Russia guessing over participation in June 2 peace talks
KYIV: Ukraine on Friday resisted pressure from Moscow and Washington to commit itself to attending another round of peace talks with Russia on June 2, saying it first needed to see the proposals Russian negotiators plan to bring. U.S. President Donald Trump has urged Moscow and Kyiv to work together on a deal to end their three-year-old war, and Russia has proposed a further round of face-to-face talks with Ukrainian officials next week in Istanbul. Kyiv has said it is committed to the search for peace, but that it was waiting for a memorandum from the Russian side setting out their proposals. 'For a meeting to be meaningful, its agenda must be clear, and the negotiations must be properly prepared,' Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy wrote on X after hosting Turkey's foreign minister for talks in Kyiv. Trump says Russia, Ukraine agree to immediate ceasefire talks, Kremlin offers no timeframe 'Unfortunately, Russia is doing everything it can to ensure that the next potential meeting brings no results,' he said, citing the lack of a document from Russia. Some Republicans in the U.S. Congress and White House advisers have urged Trump to finally embrace new sanctions on Russia to put pressure Moscow. Influential Republican Senator Lindsey Graham said on a visit to Kyiv on Friday the Republican-led U.S. Senate is expected to move ahead with a bill on sanctions against Russia next week. Graham, who met Zelenskiy in Kyiv, told a news briefing he had talked with Trump before his trip and the U.S. president expects concrete actions now from Moscow. Graham accused Putin of trying to drag out the peace process and said he doubts the Istanbul meeting will amount to more than a 'Russian charade.' The war, the biggest on the European continent since World War Two, began when Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Expectations for the talks are modest because the positions staked out so far by the two sides are far apart and work between them has yet to begin in earnest on narrowing the gap. Nevertheless, both Kyiv and Moscow are keen to demonstrate to Trump that they are on board with his efforts to end the conflict. Kyiv is seeking more U.S. military aid, while Moscow hopes he will ease economic sanctions on Russia. In Moscow, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said the Russian delegation would be travelling to Istanbul and ready for talks with Ukraine on Monday morning. 'At the moment, everyone is focused on the direct Russia-Ukraine negotiations. A list of conditions for a temporary truce is being developed,' Peskov told reporters. No more nato enlargement? Reuters reported earlier this week that Putin's conditions for ending the war in Ukraine include a demand that Western leaders pledge in writing to stop enlarging NATO eastwards. Trump's envoy to Ukraine, Keith Kellogg, said earlier on Friday that Russia's concern over the eastward enlargement of NATO was fair and the United States did not want to see Ukraine in the U.S.-led military alliance. Commenting on Kellogg's statement, Peskov said: 'We are pleased that these explanations by the president are understood, including in Washington.' Turkey's government hosted a previous round of Ukraine-Russia talks in Istanbul on May 16 - which ended with no breakthrough - and has again offered its services as a mediator. Trump to speak to Putin on end to war in Ukraine as Europeans demand ceasefire Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan told reporters in Kyiv: 'As long as (the sides) remain at the negotiating table, progress can surely be seen.' If the talks go ahead in Istanbul, the next step would be to try to host a meeting between Trump, Russian President Vladimir Putin, and Ukraine's Zelenskiy, he added. But Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha, who appeared alongside Fidan at a news conference, said Kyiv needed to see the Russian proposals in advance for the talks to be 'substantive and meaningful.' Sybiha did not spell out what Kyiv would do if it did not receive the Russian document, or set out a deadline for receiving it. 'We want to end this war this year, and we are interested in establishing a truce, whether it is for 30 days, or for 50 days, or for 100 days,' he said. Russia's ambassador to the United Nations, Vassily Nebenzia, told the U.N. Security Council on Friday that Moscow was ready to consider a ceasefire provided that Western states stopped arming Ukraine and that Kyiv stopped mobilising troops. Moscow has said its delegation at the Istanbul talks will be led by Vladimir Medinsky, a Kremlin aide who led the Russian team at the previous round of talks.
Yahoo
21 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Expert: Economic downturn could trump impacts of GOP changes
BOSTON (SHNS) – Massachusetts could face billions in lost federal revenue and heightened economic risk under the second Trump administration, a budget expert warned lawmakers Thursday, but he emphasized that a broad economic downturn could deal the hardest blow. Testifying before the House Committee on Federal Funding, Policy and Accountability, Doug Howgate, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, laid out the scale of the state's dependence on federal money: about $25 billion each year. That includes about $14.4 billion in Medicaid funds, as well as transportation and water infrastructure funding, and billions more in federal grants administered through state agencies. 'One in every $4 you just voted to spend in the FY26 operating budget is directly from the federal government,' Howgate told lawmakers. 'To contextualize that, that's about one and a half times what we get from the sales tax — it's like ten times what we get from the Lottery. So just to put your mind around how much that matters, it's a big element of the state budget, second only on the revenue side to the income tax.' As has been previously reported, President Donald Trump has targeted or promised to come down on areas that Massachusetts, specifically, has a vested stake in — such as higher education and research funding where the Bay State has a nationally competitive advantage. In other cases, like Medicaid spending reductions, the president and Republican-led Congress's policies are likely to affect every state. Trump and Republicans in Congress say their shift in national policy will put the country on a prosperous path but the view from many at the State House, where Democrats rule, is far different. The U.S. House voted last week to cut the health insurance program by nearly $700 billion — which state officials have warned could put Massachusetts in jeopardy of losing more than $1 billion annually, with 250,000 residents at risk of losing coverage between MassHealth and subsidized policies at the Health Connector. Yet even with these policy dangers, Howgate warned that a possible economic downturn could hit the state budget even harder. 'A major change in the global economy, especially a downturn, can have a far greater impact, certainly on public finances, but also on any of the programs we're talking about, than a specific federal policy action,' he said. Howgate compared potential cuts to Medicaid revenue to the state revenue losses during the Great Recession. 'If you take the revenue loss of 2009 during the Great Recession and you just prorate that forward as state revenues have grown, that's a one-year revenue loss of $6 billion, and those revenue losses persisted for several years,' he said. 'The order of magnitude of a global recession usually far outstrips any of the specific policy things we're talking about.' Lawmakers pressed Howgate for insight into how the state could shore up revenue if both federal cuts and a downturn hit at once. 'If they succeed in cutting these programs, apart from reallocating part of the budget, there is a need for revenue, and I'm curious to what MTF's view is on ways we can raise revenue if those things do happen' said Rep. Erika Uyterhoeven of Somerville, pointing to the impact on Head Start, food assistance and Medicaid in her district, all of which the Trump administration has threatened to cut. Howgate responded by pointing to lessons from past crises. 'When we look at the last two economic downturns — the 2001 downturn and the 2008 downturn — what did we see from a state budget standpoint? You saw use of reserves, you saw increases in taxes, and you saw major cuts,' he said. Clarifying that it wasn't the official stance of MTF, Howgate added, 'If there was a major economic recession in Massachusetts that lasts years, those are the three things you're going to see on the table.' The state's $8 billion stabilization fund has dramatically grown over the last five years. Legislative leaders have been reluctant to tap into it even during the COVID-19 pandemic. Howgate advised the Legislature to focus on three strategies: closely track federal budget and tax legislation, prepare for the potential scale of an economic slowdown, and identify which state programs and sectors are most critical to protect. 'There's going to be so many demands on things that the federal government does that the state doesn't do, that making sure we're staying true to the core goals of what government does, I think, has to be front and center,' Howgate said. He also urged the state to play to its strengths — particularly higher education and research — which are under federal scrutiny but remain key to Massachusetts' economy. Finally, Howgate underscored that if Massachusetts is to weather this storm effectively, it will require coordinated planning among the House, Senate and administration. 'We can't be moving in three different directions,' he said. 'At the end of the day, so many of these are going to boil down to resource decisions.' The Senate has its own response effort to the second Trump administration, which they've dubbed Response 2025. The two branches appear to have procedural differences that are slowing down that work of that committee. Quentin Palfrey, Gov. Maura Healey's director of federal funding, also testified about ripple effects Massachusetts could face — including changes in how the state and municipalities apply for and administer federal funds. Rep. Mark Sylvia Palfrey of Fairhaven asked Palfrey if his office is actively tracking any changes to the federal application process for grants. 'Just to use as an example, if a municipality or county applies for a federal grant, and it's for infrastructure, and due to either an executive order from the federal government or some other policy edit, they're being directed to no longer refer to climate change as a justification for that infrastructure? Are you tracking any of those developments as part of your office?' 'The answer is absolutely yes,' Palfrey responded. '… It's a little bit of a difficult challenge, where, on the one hand, we want to be in close communication with our partners … and at the same time, we have to be very clear about the limitations that the state budget has to absorb some of these costs.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
