Latest news with #TheHeritageFoundation
Yahoo
a day ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Jamie Metzl and Steven Yates on China, national security threats
(NewsNation) — A Chinese scientist was arrested for allegedly trying to smuggle a dangerous fungus into the country. Author Jamie Metzl and Steven Yates with conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation say China is not taken as a serious threat by the U.S. and it should be. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Channel 4
29-05-2025
- Politics
- Channel 4
What did Musk achieve and was there anything in it for him?
This is the time of the year that, in centuries gone by, politicians used to get out of town to escape the unpleasant humid conditions. Perhaps unsurprising, then, that Elon Musk, the world's richest man, is escaping the White House. The president has never made a secret of his disdain for the current state of Washington DC and those who dwell there. In his winning election campaign , he pledged to 'dismantle the deep state and reclaim our democracy from Washington corruption, once and for all!' The people he holds responsible for that corruption? Not just political opponents, but federal workers – the 'bureaucrats'. Just days into the presidency, it was a message Mr Musk – clad in a baseball hat and with young son in tow – reiterated in the Oval Office, standing beside a seated president. 'We have this unelected fourth unconstitutional branch of government, which is the bureaucracy. Which has, in a lot of ways, currently, more power than any elected representative. It's just something we gotta, we gotta fix.' It is talk like that which has conservatives like Mike Gonzalez, senior fellow at The Heritage Foundation, excited. For him, letting DOGE loose on federal bureaucracy is a correction nine decades in the making. 'All this noise that Mr Trump is generating… there is something happening under that noise.' Now, rather than elected politicians, he believes, it is unelected bureaucrats who exercise power. 'That's not the way the system set up by the founders was supposed to work. There's a huge democratic deficit that should worry all of us.' Of course, the side-effect of Mr Musk's chainsaw has been to make the many thousands of federal workers who live and work in Washington worried again. Civil servants are facing a reckoning with political power. For Mr Gonzalez, it's overdue: 'I can feel bad for the people who are being, in some cases, unceremoniously fired, who thought they were going to be there for life, who all of a sudden have to find another job. But as an American and a taxpayer and somebody who wants the country to succeed, I can be definitely very happy that we're finally doing something about this.' And Elon Musk has been clear: 'The people voted for major government reform.' If you're wondering why so many Americans voted for Trump's promise to unleash Elon Musk on the federal government, Haywood Talcove has some thoughts. He's a former law enforcement official, now involved in tackling fraud and waste as chief executive officer for the government division of LexisNexis Risk Solutions. Like Mr Gonzalez, he's worried about the US government's massive deficit – well over a trillion dollars. 'When your own government agency, the Government Accounting Office, is saying to you that you have $521 billion in improper payments, you've got a problem and there's an opportunity to get better. Some people argue they don't like his tactics. On the other hand, we are facing a financial issue unlike anything that we've ever seen. Like, you can't continue to borrow a trillion dollars every 100 days.' 'The fraud rate in the private sector in the United States is around 3%. The fraud rate in the public sector in the U.S. is at 20%.' 'What DOGE is trying to do is stop the criminals from stealing, right?' Of course, the Department of Government Efficiency isn't the first attempt at tackling waste and bureaucracy in the federal government. Some in Washington DC noted the irony in developing a department with 'efficiency' in the title when many of the functions DOGE is supposed to be carrying out were already being carried out by other federal workers. Robert Storch was one of those federal workers. Until recently, he was inspector general at the US Department of Defense. 'One of the things we developed following the Watergate scandal and some other corruption scandals in the 1970s were a series of measures to ensure integrity in government,' he explains. Inspectors general were introduced in all government departments and agencies, with powers to inspect and audit. 'I believe the total amount saved by inspectors general exceeds a hundred billion dollars every year. I think the return on investment for the American taxpayer is approximately 26 dollars for every dollar that's spent on IGs.' Mr Storch's counterpart at the Department of the Interior, Mark Greenblatt, a man twice appointed by President Trump, greeted news of Mr Musk's arrival in Washington with some relish. 'When the president first started talking about the Department of Government Efficiency, which we call DOGE here, Elon Musk was being bandied about and there was all this sort of hubbub. I was actually excited.' 'I said, well, these are going to be good allies for us in the fight against waste, fraud and abuse. This is a good thing for us and for America. But their mission has turned out to be very, very different.' Different because, despite saving the taxpayer huge amounts of money, President Trump fired Rob Storch, Mark Greenblatt, and at least 15 of their counterparts at other agencies. 'It seems like for DOGE it's not improving government efficiency,' says Mr Greenblatt in the sunshine outside his old office. 'It's just cutting government, which is a different goal' A number of those fired by Mr Trump, including Mr Storch, are now taking legal action against the government, concerned their removal was illegal. Whether DOGE has improved efficiency or not, the act of cutting government seems to have been hard enough for Elon Musk. His claims about the amount of money that can be saved have changed over time. In October 2024, he told voters at Madison Square Garden that 'we can do at least two trillion'. By February this year, at cabinet, he told the room 'we can actually find a trillion dollars in savings'. By 30th April, with his exit from the White House nearing, he said so far US$160 billion of savings had been identified. Mr Musk has always maintained that DOGE's progress is clear for taxpayers to see. 'All of our actions are maximally transparent,' he said in the Oval Office in April. 'I don't know of a case where an organisation has been as transparent as the DOGE organisation.' Not everyone in Trumpworld agrees. In an interview with Semafor, the former Trump confidant Steve Bannon called for a forensic accounting of the savings: 'We need to know exactly what he found because we went from $2 trillion a year to $1 trillion a year to $150 billion next year with nothing this year. None of this makes sense…' Kedric Payne, of the Washington-based government watchdog group, the Campaign Legal Center, says that with Mr Musk's government role, 'there seems to be a long list of financial conflicts of interest, but no mechanism that is working right now to stop that problem'. 'The legal system that we have in place to govern against conflicts was one of the many ethical reforms that took place in the wake of the Watergate scandal in the 1970s,' explains Don Fox, the former acting head of the US Office of Government Ethics. 'Is the system itself adequate to deal with potential conflicts of interest and prevent them? I think it is. But it takes effort on the part of the government officials involved, and it takes a certain amount of goodwill and norms of behaviour, which the Trump administration, in both its first iteration and in the first 90 plus days of this administration, tends to ignore. So my confidence level that the system is working in the case of Mr Musk and his associates is quite low.' Mike Gonzalez, of the Heritage Foundation, speaking before Mr Musk announced his departure, expressed confidence that the Tesla and SpaceX CEO was acting to mitigate potential conflicts of interest: 'There was a meeting to discuss China. And because Elon Musk does have some manufacturing in China, he did not attend the meeting. And I think that's fine.' But with such privileged access and power, could the world's richest man really disentangle his business interests? Musk's supporters say he's a patriot not a profiteer. After all, despite money-can't-buy advertising from his boss, the performance of his car maker Tesla has its shareholders worried. But for Don Fox, the dual role as government cost-cutter-in-chief and corporate CEO was always deeply problematic: 'If he were honouring both the letter and the spirit of the law, then he would recuse himself from any official activities that in any way could benefit his professional interests, whether it's Starlink, whether it's Tesla, or whether it's SpaceX. So while he's serving, that's a tremendous concern.' One of those concerned is Evan Feinman. Until recently he ran a multi-billion dollar project to provide broadband to some of America's most rural communities, including places where people voted in their droves for the president. The Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment programme, he explains, 'is the largest broadband infrastructure programme ever created by the federal government. It was set up to deliver an affordable, reliable, high-speed internet connection to every single American home and business.' It was mandated by law to 'to get fibre connections to as many homes and businesses as possible'. The Trump administration expressed concern about the speed of the programme's rollout, so Mr Feinman had a plan ready to adapt it to make it more to the liking of his new boss. He was surprised by what happened next. 'After the confirmation of Secretary of Commerce, Howard Lutnick, we received instruction that we were to rewrite the programme rules, which rewrite is still occurring, to increase the amount of satellite usage and decrease the amount of fibreoptic connectivity. 'There isn't enough capacity in satellite networks to connect every American who needs a connection today… You decrease the availability of those satellites for the places that truly rely on satellite, for whom there is no other option. 'A fibre optic network costs more upfront, but then costs very little to operate and delivers extraordinarily high speeds, both download and upload speeds, well in excess of what households need today, but likely able to accommodate what future needs those locations are going to have… satellites by and large offer just above the minimum standards for what is a broadband connection today.' The Trump administration decided to replace Evan Feinman, but his departing email to staff was highly critical of Secretary Lutnick's action. 'The practical outcome of the changes that the new administration has pushed forward will be that more people will get worse connections and more money will be pushed toward Elon Musk's Starlink programme.' 'I will leave it to the government ethics experts to say whether or not something illegal has happened or something officially improper has happened. The standard I've always used in my professional conduct is the appearance of impropriety. And this certainly appears improper.' Channel 4 News approached the US Department of Commerce for comment, but did not receive a response. Democrats have been raising concerns about Musk's team's involvement in another department. The fatal crash of American Airlines Flight 5342 has put the Federal Aviation Administration under pressure like never before and focused attention on the United States' ageing air traffic control infrastructure. DOGE wrongly fired 132 staff despite a shortage of air traffic controllers, and they've recently been forced to reinstate them. But Elon Musk wasn't just interested in personnel. He criticised FAA contracts with the company Verizon to overhaul air traffic control systems. On his X social media platform he espoused his Starlink system as a potential replacement for the existing, elderly system. Kedric Payne, of the Campaign Legal Center, is one of those with concerns: 'It appears that Elon Musk has improperly been involved in the business transactions between the Federal Aviation Administration and his company Starlink,' he alleges. Starlink staff are already testing kit on FAA property, to the alarm of some air traffic controllers and concern of ethics campaigners. Though the FAA told Channel 4 News the tests are at non-safety-critical sites. Mr Payne says: 'Those types of comments followed by the immediate change in the policy with the FAA to use Starlink suggest that he was involved in that decision to profit his own company.' Channel 4 News approached Elon Musk, Starlink and the White House for comment, but did not receive a response. When Tesla's profits slumped 71% in the first three months of the year, it was clear Elon Musk would have to choose between government or business. He promised investors in the electric car firm that the amount of time he would spend with DOGE would 'drop significantly'. And while he dismissed reports he could leave the White House altogether as 'fake news', he now appears to have confirmed them. Elon Musk's feed on X has played down suggestions of a rift with the president. But, when asked by reporters about Mr Musk's criticism of the Republicans' 'big, beautiful' tax and spending Bill on Wednesday 28th March, the president defended the bill and failed to mention Musk by name. America voted for change in Washington. And it's clear there is waste, fraud and abuse waiting to be tackled. Elon Musk is optimistic DOGE will 'strengthen and continue' as 'way of life throughout the government'. But with its figurehead now gone, billions short of his initial savings target, supporters will wonder: if the world's richest man can't fix Washington, who can? Producer: Matthew Cundall Picture Editor: Manos Koutsavakis Cameras: Ben Martin, Dickon Mager What Donald Trump and Elon Musk's alliance is really about Elon Musk v Donald Trump – who has the real power? Team Trump in 'civil war' as Musk falls out with hardline Republican base
Miami Herald
28-05-2025
- Health
- Miami Herald
Target, Walmart offer controversial birth control product
While any woman will tell you that birth control is a hassle when it comes to remembering to take your pill on time, for those of us not ready or interested in having a child, it's irreplaceable. While birth control has been around since the FDA approved the pill in 1960, the topic is a fraught one in today's America, where many voices believe it should not be available or used at all. Don't miss the move: Subscribe to TheStreet's free daily newsletter Project 2025, the much-discussed political initiative authored by The Heritage Foundation and designed for a second term of President Donald Trump, contains a detailed agenda on abortion, designed to prevent it to the greatest extent possible. One thing the plan focuses on is eliminating the sales of mifepristone, a medication used to terminate early pregnancies. The plan also aims to dismantle U.S. abortion access, restrict the use of federal funds for abortion care and coverage, and dismantle the abortion protections provided under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), forcing abortion doctors to choose between saving a patient's life or being faced with criminal charges. Related: How This Doctor Started Her Own Birth Control Delivery Business In short, should Project 2025 graduate from roadmap to reality, American women in need of an abortion may find themselves in an even more difficult situation than the current one. Since the 2022 rollback of Roe v. Wade, 11 states have made abortion illegal, including Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Tennessee. Emergency contraception deserts, as they're called, are popping up all over America, and misinformation about abortion care continues to worsen in the current political climate. But women's health advocates are actively working on a plan that makes access to the morning-after pill easier for those who need it. As thousands of drugstore locations continue to shutter due to rising costs, increased competition and shrinking reimbursement rates, they've become an unreliable place to find a morning-after pill if you're looking for one. Cadence OTC, an Oakland-based company that makes an emergency contraception pill, has focused on getting its product in a new location to make it even more accessible: convenience stores. To accomplish this, the company forged a partnership with Lil' Drug Store Products, which is the U.S. supplier of health products to convenience stores. So far, 11,000 locations across 48 states carry the product, which can be purchased over the counter and does not require a prescription. Related: Levi Strauss Calls Abortion Access a 'Critical Business Issue.' Here's Why. "Urgent health care products are a logical expansion space for C-stores, and the profit margins are generally higher than [for] food and soft drinks," Cadence told UPI in an interview. "Ninety percent of C-stores already carry condoms, so it makes sense to offer female contraceptives as well." Plan B, another morning-after pill that uses levonorgestrel to prevent pregnancy after unprotected sex, can also be found at a variety of retailers, including Walmart, Target, Rite Aid, Walgreens, and CVS Pharmacy. Ever since the 2022 ruling of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization that allowed states to enact local abortion bans, a rise in misinformation has left many women in need of abortion care confused and unsure of what to do. There's a growing confusion around the differences among levonorgestrel, mifepristone, and misoprostol, with many people believing that all three induce medical abortions. The morning-after pill uses levonorgestrel, which is a synthetic hormone that prevents the release of the egg that would normally lead to pregnancy. Half of women between the ages of 18-49 either believe the morning-after pill is illegal in their state or are "unsure," according to a 2023 poll from health policy research organization KFF. The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.
Yahoo
24-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump and the far right don't fight antisemitism. They exploit it
Antisemitism is increasing on university campuses — and throughout the world. But let's be clear: Donald Trump and the right wing are not fighting antisemitism. They are exploiting it. And they are deliberately doing so, using Jewish people as pawns in a broader war on education. On Oct. 7, 2024 the one-year anniversary of the brutal attack by Hamas on the Israeli population, the far-right 501(c)(3) nonprofit The Heritage Foundation published 'Project Esther: A National Strategy to Combat Antisemitism.' Don't be misled by the title. The real strategy is to falsely connect U.S. universities to what the report calls the 'Hamas Support Network.' The Trump administration has justified its blatant attack on higher education by these allegations of alliance with Hamas, the terrorist organization committed to the total destruction of the state of Israel. On social media, Fox News and, most disturbing, in hearings of the House Committee on Education and Labor, the right wing has promoted this conspiracy theory, implying that all those speaking out against Benjamin Netanyahu's Israeli government are in league with Hamas. Let me say immediately that I do not doubt that people who want Israel wiped off the map have infiltrated campus protests. That's why universities are requiring student and staff IDs for protesters and are having outsiders arrested for trespassing. But in the name of fighting antisemitism, what Trump and his allies are doing is adopting tactics that serve their goals: undermining democratic institutions, eroding the rule of law and turning Jews into scapegoats. The Trump administration in its outrageous and unjustified punishments of universities and colleges is actually supporting Hamas' antisemitic goals. Massive cuts in research funding at Harvard University and elsewhere do not protect Jews. In fact, these punitive actions put Jews in the crosshairs and increase hatred. Who wants the stoppage of grant funding on projects to cure Alzheimer's and cancer in the name of helping Jews? MAGA hypocrisy is rampant. On May 7, at the latest hearing of the House Committee on Education and Labor, Democratic Rep. Greg Casar of Texas asked Republican members of the committee: 'Do you condemn Trump's pardoning of the Jan. 6 felon who praised Hitler?' He went on to say that 'mindless support' of the Israeli government should not be the only stance to absolve anyone from accusations of antisemitism. Rep. Bobby Scott of Virginia, the ranking Democrat on the committee, criticized the hearings as partisan performances and called for enforcement of the provisions against antisemitism in Title VI. Ah, yes, Title VI, which sets forth legal actions to investigate campus antisemitism — and other violations of students' civil rights. How does the Trump/DOGE closing of seven of the 12 offices of the Department of Education Offices of Civil Rights, which were undertaking investigations of antisemitism, fit with the objective of rooting out acts of hatred? Were previous investigations adequate? Probably not. The current oversight was bound to be more serious and direct because — yes, I'll admit it — of the Trump administration's emphasis. But now those investigations have been undermined or sidelined. Instead we have draconian punishments in the massive withdrawal of scientific research funding — completely unrelated to the hatred of Jews. Due process and the rule of law have become optional. At the May 7 hearing, Democratic Rep. Suzanne Bonamici of Oregon said it was 'unconscionable to weaponize campus antisemitism, when the safety of Jews throughout history has always depended on the rule of law.' She called for an emphasis on a Jewish core value 'tikkun olam,' the Hebrew phrase meaning 'repairing the world,' a call to action for social justice. Education is a key tool in repairing the world. Throughout history, Jews have embraced the moniker 'People of the Book.' It's not only ironic, it's wrong, for universities to be attacked in the name of preventing antisemitism. Campuses can and should be the ideal setting for supporters of different views on Israel and Gaza to come together in safe spaces for structured, facilitated conversations. That is in fact going on at a number of campuses. Is that enough? No. Has antisemitism been a persistent problem in higher education? Yes. Should universities do more, much more, to facilitate discussion and insure the safety and free speech of all students? Yes. Do the Trumpian methods help? A resounding no. They make matters worse. Rather than making America great again, they have made America hate again. Hatred has never helped Jews. Book banning has always hurt Jews. Withdrawing funds from essential scientific research punishes everyone and makes Jews a target. As a former university president and a Jew, I have long been committed to the principles of academic freedom. Recently I joined more than 100 former college and university leaders in signing 'A Pledge to Our Democracy,' a call to action authored by the Champions of Higher Education, a PEN America initiative. The pledge unites us in defending the autonomy of educational institutions against rising authoritarian threats and underscores our collective responsibility to take action. Please don't be deluded by Trumpian false claims of protecting Jews on campus. The real bull's-eye is on education and on democracy itself. Autocracies prefer an uneducated populace. The Jewish community, in contrast, has always been the People of the Book, committed to repairing the world. To make the world and our democracy better rather than worse, we must unite to protect education and free speech, promoting human connection and understanding. Elaine Maimon is the author of Leading Academic Change: Vision, Strategy, Transformation . Her long career in higher education has encompassed top executive positions at the public universities Governors State University, University of Alaska Anchorage and Arizona State University West. She is the higher education columnist for The Philadelphia Citizen.
Yahoo
22-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Opinion - 5 ways to restore America's defense industrial base without new spending
America's defense industrial base is unprepared to meet the wartime demands of the 21st century. The U.S. faces a shortfall in production capacity at a time when the global threat environment is more acute than at any point since World War II. To see the decay of our defense industrial base, one needs look no further than our inability to rapidly replenish munitions sent to Ukraine or the long timelines for naval construction and modernization. As noted in a recent report by The Heritage Foundation, decades of poor policymaking have led to underinvestment, regulatory drag, labor misalignment and market distortions, which have eroded the readiness of our defense industrial base. Absent structural reform, the defense industrial base is unlikely to become sustainably healthy. Yet there are clear ways to implement necessary reforms: via strategic grantmaking, procurement reform, workforce development, regulatory modernization and prudent tax policy. First, the U.S. should adopt output-based grants that promote stable, long-term industrial investments. The defense industrial base is unique in that it serves a single customer: the federal government. That makes production highly sensitive to annual appropriations. But because Congress funds most defense procurement year-by-year and varies order quantities significantly year-to-year, defense industrial base producers lack incentives to invest in new manufacturing capacity. Changing these incentives requires the Congress to provide a sustained demand signal; something it can do by adopting output-based grants that compensate manufacturers for maintaining latent capacity. Under this sort of system, the Department of Defense would issue grants covering any gap between the desired potential capacity and actual procurement. For example, if the Navy wanted to retain the ability to produce four submarines per year but only procured three, it would issue the manufacturer a grant covering the overhead for the fourth. By doing this, the department can smooth the demand curve, allowing for surge capacity without forcing the military and Congress to purchase weapons it doesn't think it needs. Second, the Department of Defense should shift from a primarily cost-plus to a primarily fixed-price contracting model. The current frequently-used cost-plus contracting model, where contractors are reimbursed for expenses plus profit margin, eliminates incentives to cut costs or innovate. Functionally, it's the complete opposite of a normal market transaction. In contrast, fixed-price contracting creates incentives for efficiency. When contractors can increase their profit by reducing costs, taxpayers benefit in the long run. Consumers expect competitive pricing and innovation in the private sector, and the Department of Defense should apply similar discipline in procurement by transitioning to fixed-price contracts, which reduce waste and improve outcomes. Of course, this requires grantmakers to give defined goals with a limited scope focused on incremental gains. Third, the government should reform regulatory processes currently facing the defense industrial base, such as the onerous National Environmental Policy Act, by modifying approval processes towards a presumption of approval. Like many other industries, the defense industrial base often waits for years for approval to expand production facilities. The National Environmental Policy Act is one of the roadblocks to approval, requiring duplicative reviews across multiple agencies. Fortunately, there's a practical remedy to this: Designate one agency or department as a shepherd that will guide industry through the rest of the permitting process. And if agencies don't respond within a certain timeframe, applications to expand facilities should be considered presumptively approved. By streamlining such regulatory reviews, the government can reduce red tape and shorten construction timelines for shipyards, missile factories and drone assembly lines — all without sacrificing safety or environmental standards. Fourth, state governments should implement a returned-value formula for higher education to alleviate workforce shortfalls. Like the broader manufacturing industry, defense manufacturers face a shortage of skilled workers. But rather than addressing the problem, federal education dollars continue to subsidize programs that, at best, fail to prepare graduates for the workforce, or, at worst, foster environments of antisemitism and ideological activism. Instead of continuing this flawed system, state governments should tie funding to outcomes via a returned-value formula like that used by the Texas State Technical College system, in which funding is based on students' post-graduation earnings. This model rewards institutions that align programs with industry needs. State efforts to scale such a system nationally, particularly in technical and trade education, would strengthen the talent pipeline for defense manufacturing, all while increasing accountability in higher education. Fifth, Congress should pass permanent full and immediate expensing for equipment, structures and domestic research and development. The current tax code penalizes capital-intensive sectors like manufacturing by taxing both the cost of equipment and the output that it produces. This double taxation distorts the market and discourages investment in productivity-enhancing technologies. By enacting expensing changes, though, Congress could eliminate bias against manufacturing, encourage capital investment and improve the competitiveness of U.S. defense firms. Doing this isn't a subsidy — rather, it's the implementation of a neutral tax policy that allows firms to deduct costs the year they are incurred (just as they do with labor expenses). To maintain peace, America must restore its defense industrial base to deter our adversaries. These five changes would put us on the road to achieving that and, notably, would be net cost-neutral or cost-saving. By restoring our defense industrial base, we won't just improve America's safety — we'll leverage America's unique comparative advantage in innovation and use our workforce in the most productive manner possible. Ultimately, this will create strong, stable jobs that will support a new American Golden Age of prosperity and security. Miles Pollard is an economic policy analyst in the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation. Jim Fein is a research assistant for National Security and European Affairs at Heritage. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
