Latest news with #Vance
The Hill
6 hours ago
- Politics
- The Hill
Marco Rubio declares war on the global censors
Winston Churchill once warned that 'appeasement is feeding the crocodile, hoping he will eat you last.' When it comes to the crocodile of censorship, history is strewn with defenders who later became digestives. Censorship produces an insatiable appetite for greater and greater speech limits, and today's censorship supporters often become tomorrow's censored subjects. This week, Secretary of State Marco Rubio stopped feeding the crocodile. On May 28, 2025, Rubio shocked many of our allies by issuing a new visa restriction policy that bars foreign nationals deemed 'responsible for censorship of protected expression' in the U.S. The new policy follows a major address by Vice President J.D. Vance in Munich challenging our European allies to end their systematic attacks on free speech. Vance declared, 'If you are running in fear of your own voters, there is nothing America can do for you. Nor, for that matter, is there anything that you can do for the American people that elected me and elected President Trump.' At the time, I called the speech 'Churchillian' in drawing a bright line for the free world. Rubio's action is no less impressive and even more impactful. Europe has faced no consequences for its aggressive efforts at transnational censorship. Indeed, this should not be a fight for the administration alone. Congress should explore reciprocal penalties for foreign governments targeting American companies or citizens for engaging in protected speech. After Vance spoke in Munich, I spoke in Berlin at the World Forum, where European leaders gathered in one of the most strikingly anti-free speech conferences I have attended. This year's forum embraced the slogan 'A New World Order with European Values.' That 'new world order' is based on an aggressive anti-free speech platform that has been enforced for years by the European Union. At the heart of this effort is the Digital Services Act, a draconian law that allows for sweeping censorship and speech prosecutions. Most importantly, it has been used by the EU to threaten American corporations for their failure to censor Americans and others on social media sites. After the World Forum, I returned home to warn that this is now an existential war over a right that defines us as a people —the very 'Indispensable Right' identified by Justice Louis Brandeis, which is essential for every other right in the Constitution. The irony was crushing. I wrote about how this nation has fought to protect our rights in world wars, yet many in Congress simply shrug or even support the effort as other countries move to make Americans censor other Americans. What was most unnerving about Berlin was how Americans have encouraged Europeans to target their fellow citizens. At the forum was Hillary Clinton who, after Elon Musk purchased Twitter on a pledge to dismantle its massive censorship system, called upon the EU to use the Digital Services Act to force him to resume censorship. Other Americans have appeared before the EU to call upon it to oppose the U.S. Nina Jankowicz, the former head of President Joe Biden's infamous Disinformation Governance Board, has recently returned to he EU to rally other nations to oppose what she described as 'the autocracy, the United States of America.' She warned that the Digital Services Act was under attack, and that the EU had to fight and beat the U.S.: 'Do not capitulate. Hold the line.' Former European Commissioner for Internal Markets and Services Thierry Breton even threatened Musk for interviewing Trump before our last presidential election. He told Musk that he was being 'monitored' in conducting any interview with now-President Trump. The EU is doubling down on these efforts, including threatening Musk with prosecution and massive confiscatory fines if he does not resume censoring users of X. The penalties are expected to exceed $1 billion. Other countries are following suit. Brazilian Supreme Court Judge Alexandre de Moraes shut down X in his entire country over Musk's refusal to remove political posts. These countries could remotely control speech within the U.S., forcing companies like X to meet the lowest common denominator set by the EU and anti-free speech groups. There are free speech concerns even in such measures designed to protect free speech. This policy should be confined to government officials, particularly EU officials, who are actively seeking to export European censorship systems worldwide. It should not extend to academics or individuals who are part of the growing anti-free speech movement. Free speech itself can counter those voices. These are the same voices that we have heard throughout history, often using the very same terms and claims to silence others. However, Rubio showed Europe that the U.S. would not simply stand by as European censors determined what Americans could say, read, or watch. As the EU threatens companies like X with billion-dollar fines, it is time for the U.S. to treat this as an attack on our citizens from abroad. Franklin Delano Roosevelt put it simply during World War II: 'No man can tame a tiger into a kitten by stroking it.' It is time to get serious about the European threat to free speech. And Rubio is doing just that — finally imposing real consequences for censorship. We are not going to defeat censors by yelling at them. Speech alone clearly does not impress them. Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and the author of 'The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.'
Yahoo
16 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Bitcoin Price Prediction - What could affect BTC's future price?
Bitcoin price prediction remains neutral to bullish in the mid-term, with potential volatility driven by geopolitical adoption, regulatory changes, and key technical resistance levels. While institutional accumulation acts as a bullish catalyst, ongoing regulatory risks continue to temper upside momentum.- Geopolitical adoption as U.S./nation-states treat BTC as strategic reserves- Institutional demand (800K BTC held by public firms) vs. derivative market leverage risks- Regulatory forks: U.S. GENIUS Act progress vs. CFTC/SEC jurisdictional battles- Technical resistance near $111K ATH with mixed momentum signals-Supply squeeze: 75% of BTC unmoved for 6+ months U.S. strategic positioning: VP Vance's endorsement of BTC as a geopolitical tool against China could drive state-level accumulation. Bitcoin-backed bonds: NYC's proposed BitBonds (CoinMarketCap News) and state-level reserve bills in Texas/New Hampshire aim to deepen institutional exposure. Halving aftermath: Reduced miner sell pressure (post-April 2025 halving) coincides with ETF inflows ($250B AUM projected for 2025). Key levels: Immediate resistance at $111,970 (swing high), with Fibonacci extensions suggesting $113K (127.2%) and $121K (161.8%) as upside targets. Momentum divergence: MACD histogram at -427 signals short-term bearish pressure, but RSI 61.35 remains neutral. On-chain support: 74% of BTC held in illiquid wallets reduces sell-side liquidity. Bitcoin price prediction hinges on whether growing institutional inflows—evidenced by a 47% YTD increase in ETF AUM—can outweigh mounting regulatory headwinds, such as the CFTC's push for expanded oversight. The critical $111K–$113K resistance zone will shape near-term direction: a breakout could ignite FOMO-driven rallies, while a rejection may see Bitcoin retesting the 50-day SMA at $96,806. Will U.S. legislative moves toward a Bitcoin reserve strategy cement its role as "digital gold," or will regulatory fragmentation cap gains? Bitcoin price prediction remains tilted bullish as sentiment scores 65/100 on the Fear & Greed Index, supported by rising geopolitical adoption, institutional accumulation, and ongoing regulatory discussions. However, retail interest continues to lag behind recent price gains.- Geopolitical tool – U.S. politicians frame BTC as strategic against China.- Institutional demand – Public firms hold 800K BTC ($90B), ETFs hit $250B AUM.- Regulatory clash – CFTC/SEC jurisdiction debates intensify as Trump admin pushes pro-crypto policies. Bullish momentum stems from:- U.S. strategic adoption: VP JD Vance declared BTC a 'strategic asset' in U.S.-China rivalry at Bitcoin 2025, while Senator Lummis proposed a national BTC reserve mirroring gold holdings.- Institutional stacking: Public firms now hold 800K BTC ($90B), with MicroStrategy adding 200K BTC alone. Spot BTC ETFs hit $250B AUM, up 19% in May. Bearish undercurrents include:- Regulatory gaps: Ex-CFTC Chair Behnam warned of investor risks without CFTC cash-market authority.- Retail skepticism: Google searches for BTC hit 12-month lows despite prices near ATHs. X (Twitter): Dominated by ETF inflow updates, BTC-as-digital-gold narratives, and debates over the GENIUS Act's stablecoin rules. Telegram/Discord: Traders track funding rates (neutral at +0.0062%) and RSI (69), noting 'room to run' before overbought levels. Developer forums: Heated debates on Bitcoin Core's OP_RETURN limits, with critics fearing data spam and proponents pushing scalability. Bitcoin's narrative has shifted from 'risk asset' to 'geopolitical reserve,' buoyed by institutional accumulation and U.S. policy moves, though regulatory uncertainty and retail hesitation linger. Will retail FOMO ignite once BTC breaks $111K ATH, or will profit-taking by long-term holders cap gains? To get the latest update on Bitcoin, visit our . Content created: 30th May 2025Disclaimer: Content generated by CMC AI. CMC AI can make mistakes, please DYOR. Not financial advice. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
18 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
JD Vance botches defense of the MAGA 'brain drain' Trump has caused in academia
Vice President JD Vance showed some mind-numbing ignorance in a recent attempt to downplay reports that his administration has caused a 'brain drain' — or an exodus of expertise leaving the United States' scientific fields — by suspending research grants and targeting student visa programs. Reputable voices in academia have highlighted the Trump administration-fueled crisis and its potential to inflict lasting damage on the future of American science. But in an interview Thursday with the right-wing outlet Newsmax, Vance waved off those concerns with some jingoism and what appears to be thinly veiled racial bigotry: First of all, I've heard a lot of the criticisms, the fear that we're going to have a brain drain. If you go back to the '50s and '60s, the American space program, the program that was the first to put a human being on the surface of the moon, was built by American citizens — some German and Jewish scientists who had come over during World War II, but mostly by American citizens who had built an incredible space program with American talent. This idea that American citizens don't have the talent to do great things, that you have to import a foreign class of servants and professors to do these things, I just reject it. I just think we should invest in our own people. We can do a lot of good. Vance, who previously delivered a speech framing universities as 'the enemy' in American society, went on to suggest that U.S. colleges may not be producing 'good science' because, according to him, many schools discriminate against white and Asian people. This was an especially ironic claim given it's his administration that is currently threatening to pull student visas from thousands of Chinese students. But let's sit with his 'why can't Americans do this' question for a moment, shall we? Because it sounds patriotic — but it's fundamentally idiotic. For one: Vance's comments were surprisingly dismissive of contributions from the more than 1,500 German scientists, some of them Nazis, brought to the United States as part of an operation known as 'Project Paperclip' (the vice president isn't exactly known for giving accurate lessons on American history). But to be clear: There's an illustrious history of immigrant scientists coming to the United States and making tremendous contributions to the American way of life. But aside from that, Trump's crackdown on science is also causing American scientists and aspiring scientists — the ones Vance claims to care about — to reconsider their career path. The Boston Globe highlighted that trend in a recent report sourced from more than two dozen young scientists, who said they're considering going abroad to find jobs or, potentially, abandoning scientific research entirely due to the Trump administration's actions. Per the report: Across New England and the country, thousands of budding scientists have awoken to a stark new reality, one they never could have imagined just six months ago. Funding for laboratories that focus on everything from the genetic causes of aging to cancer is drying up. Jobs in biomedicine are vanishing. Medical schools are rescinding offers of admission and once-thriving scientific internship programs are shutting down for lack of money. In university hallways, cafes, and cafeterias, from Cambridge to Providence, students are commiserating and strategizing over their increasingly precarious futures. And other nations see opportunity in the United States pursuing an anti-science agenda under Donald Trump. As I wrote in a recent Tuesday Tech Drop, foreign science organizations are licking their chops at the chance to poach American scientists who may be looking to take their expertise elsewhere. All of this highlights the ignorance in Vance's idea that American science will chug along undeterred as Trump's administration cracks down on academic freedom. The notion that American scientists will be eager to work in an increasingly repressive environment — one in which their research can be irreparably quashed and their foreign-born colleagues can be unceremoniously booted from the country —seems utterly detached from reality. This article was originally published on
Observer
20 hours ago
- Politics
- Observer
I'm normally a mild guy. Here's what's pushed me over the edge
When I was a baby pundit, my mentor, Bill Buckley, told me to write about whatever made me angriest that week. I don't often do that, mostly because I don't get angry that much — it's not how I'm wired. But this week, I'm going with Bill's advice. On Monday afternoon, I was communing with my phone when I came across a Memorial Day essay that Notre Dame political scientist Patrick Deneen wrote in 2009. In that essay, Deneen argued that soldiers aren't motivated to risk their lives in combat by their ideals. He wrote, 'They die not for abstractions — ideas, ideals, natural right, the American way of life, rights, or even their fellow citizens — so much as they are willing to brave all for the men and women of their unit.' This may seem like a strange thing to get angry about. After all, fighting for your buddies is a noble thing to do. But Deneen is the Lawrence Welk of postliberalism, the populariser of the closest thing the Trump administration has to a guiding philosophy. He's a central figure in the national conservatism movement, the place where a lot of Donald Trump acolytes cut their teeth. In fact, in his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, JD Vance used his precious time to make a point similar to Deneen's. Vance said, 'People will not fight for abstractions, but they will fight for their home.' Elite snobbery has a tendency to set me off, and here are two guys with advanced degrees telling us that regular soldiers never fight partly out of some sense of moral purpose, some commitment to a larger cause — the men who froze at Valley Forge, the men who stormed the beaches at Normandy and Guadalcanal. But that's not what really made me angry. It was that these little statements point to the moral rot at the core of Trumpism, which every day disgraces our country, which we are proud of and love. Trumpism can be seen as a giant attempt to amputate the highest aspirations of the human spirit and to reduce us to our most primitive, atavistic tendencies. Before I explain what I mean, let me first make the obvious point that Deneen's and Vance's assertions that soldiers never fight for ideals is just plain wrong. Of course warriors fight for their comrades. And of course there are some wars such as Vietnam and Iraq, where Vance served, where the moral causes are unclear or discredited. But when the moral stakes are made clear, most soldiers are absolutely motivated in part by ideals — even in the heat of combat. For his book 'For Cause and Comrades: Why Men Fought in the Civil War,' the great historian James M McPherson read about 25,000 letters and 249 diaries from soldiers who fought in that war. Their missives were filled with griping about conditions, about the horrors of war — they had no need in their private writings to sugarcoat things. But of the 1,076 soldiers whose writings form the basis of his book, McPherson found that 68 per cent of the Union soldiers and 66 per cent of the Confederate soldiers explicitly cited 'patriotic motivations' (as they interpreted them) as one reason they went into combat. Other soldiers were probably also motivated by their ideals, but they found it too obvious to mention. 'Sick as I am of this war and bloodshed as much oh how much I want to be home with my dear wife and children,' a Pennsylvania officer wrote, 'every day I have a more religious feeling, that this war is a crusade for the good of mankind.' An Indiana man wrote, 'This is not a war for dollars and cents, nor is it a war for territory — but it is to decide whether we are to be a free people — and if the Union is dissolved I very much fear that we will not have a republican form of government very long.' People who are more theologically advanced than I have a name for that kind of dehumanisation: spiritual warfare. All of us humans have within us a capacity for selfishness and a capacity for generosity. Spiritual warfare is an attempt to unleash the forces of darkness and to simultaneously extinguish the better angels of our nature. Trump and Vance aren't just promoting policies; they're trying to degrade America's moral character to a level more closely resembling their own. Years ago, I used to slightly know both Deneen and Vance. Vance has been in my home. We've gone out for drinks and coffee. Until Inauguration Day, I harbored him no ill will. Even today, I've found I have no trouble simultaneously opposing Trump policies and maintaining friendship and love for friends and family who are Trump supporters. In my experience, a vast majority of people who support Trump do so for legitimate or at least defensible reasons. But over the past four months, a small cabal at the top of the administration — including Trump, Vance, Miller and Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought — have brought a series of moral degradations to the nation those Union soldiers fought and died for: the betrayal of Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Ukraine, the cruel destruction of so many scientists' life projects, the ruination of PEPFAR. According to the HIV Modeling Consortium's PEPFAR Impact Tracker, the cuts to that programme alone have already resulted in nearly 55,000 adult deaths and nearly 6,000 dead children. We're only four months in. Moral contempt is an unattractive emotion, which can slide into arrogance and pride, which I will try to struggle against. In the meantime, it provoked this column from a mild-mannered guy on a beautiful spring day. — The New York Times. David Brooks Brooks is a book author and political and cultural commentator
CNBC
21 hours ago
- Business
- CNBC
Stablecoins stole the show at Bitcoin 2025 — here's what the major players said
LAS VEGAS — At the world's largest bitcoin conference this week on the Vegas Strip, the most consequential story wasn't about bitcoin. Stablecoins, the dollar-pegged digital tokens now driving a full-scale financial and political shift in Washington, stole the show. The momentum behind stablecoin legislation and crypto market reform is accelerating — and it's attracting a new kind of donor, investor, and voter. That shift took center stage at Bitcoin 2025 in Las Vegas. Vice President JD Vance became the first sitting U.S. vice president to address the bitcoin community on Wednesday, delivering a full-throated endorsement of crypto. "I think it's wrong, actually, to call this just a conference," Vance told a crowd of 35,000. "This is a movement. And I'm proud to stand with you." "In this administration, we do not think that stablecoins threaten the integrity of the U.S. dollar. Quite the opposite," said Vance. "We view them as a force multiplier of our economic might." Stablecoins are designed to have a stable value against a non-crypto asset, usually the U.S. dollar. "We're streamlining payment rails for ensuring U.S. dollar global dominance for decades to come," Bo Hines, a White House official heading up the president's Digital Assets Council, told CNBC on the sidelines of Bitcoin 2025. He added that stablecoin integration into the U.S. financial system could unlock trillions of dollars in global demand for American debt. Those ambitions hinge on the passage of the GENIUS Act, a Senate bill that would establish the first comprehensive regulatory framework for stablecoin issuers. Sen. Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyo., told the Bitcoin 2025 crowd that the bill would move to a cloture vote on Monday after weeks of negotiations with Democrats. "We think we have a final deal," Lummis said. "If we can get this passed, this will be the first piece of digital asset legislation to pass the U.S. Senate." On the House side, Republicans are racing to match that pace. House Majority Whip Tom Emmer, R-Minn., praised Sen. Bill Hagerty, R-Tenn., for pushing a "calcified" Senate to act at record speed and said the House is determined to get both the stablecoin and broader market structure bills on President Donald Trump's desk before the August recess. "The president promised this," Emmer said. "We want it done now." Rep. Bryan Steil, R-Wisc., who chairs the House Subcommittee on Digital Assets, is leading efforts to advance companion legislation and expects the bill to reach the Financial Services Committee by July. "Stablecoin issuers will be purchasing U.S. Treasuries at a period of time where that is incredibly essential," Steil told CNBC in Vegas. "It enshrines the U.S. dollar in our dominant role as the world's reserve currency." Tether — the largest stablecoin issuer in the world — now ranks among the top buyers of U.S. Treasuries globally. Steil dismissed Democratic efforts to propose an amendment banning government officials from profiting off stablecoin ventures. The Trump family has ties to World Liberty Financial and its newly-launched stablecoin USD1. Kraken CEO Dave Ripley, who has been advising lawmakers behind the scenes, called the legislation essential to bringing financial institutions — including consumer brokers and major banks — into the digital asset ecosystem. But he cautioned that key provisions, including whether yield on stablecoins can be shared with users and how government officials may participate in the market, are still being debated. "Crypto is all about individuals," he said. "Let's bring the value to them." Tether CEO Paolo Ardoino said commodity trading firms will be "the biggest driver" of stablecoin adoption in the next five years. He is already preparing for the next wave of competition as mainstream financial players begin launching their own digital dollars on the blockchain. Ardoino, whose company controls more than 60% of the stablecoin market, emphasized that traditional financial firms entering the stablecoin space will be constrained by their reliance on high-fee customers. "All the traditional financial firms will create stablecoins that will be offered to their existing customers," he told CNBC. According to The Wall Street Journal, major banks including JPMorgan, Bank of America and Citi are in early talks to issue a unified digital dollar to compete with Tether. Tether, by contrast, is targeting the global majority excluded from banking. "Many of our competitors say, 'Oh, Tether is serving this niche of the unbanked,'" he said. "Half of the population of the world should not be called a niche." That global reach is one reason policymakers in Washington are moving fast. Under Trump's newly appointed regulatory team, momentum has shifted decisively. The Securities and Exchange Commission, which has been long viewed as the industry's top adversary, has begun dismantling its enforcement-first framework, clearing the way for greater institutional participation in crypto. SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce said the change was long overdue. "For many years now, I've been complaining about the fact that the commission has not taken proactive steps to provide clarity, and now finally, we're at a place where we can do that," she said. Robinhood CEO Vlad Tenev, who has been meeting privately with the SEC, says tokenization — not just of dollars, but of public and private markets — is now within reach, even without new legislation. "We've actually been engaging with the SEC crypto task force as well as the administration," he told CNBC. "And it's our belief, actually, that we don't even need congressional action to make tokenization real. The SEC can just do it."
