Latest news with #foreigninfluence
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Former top Hochul aide's unearthed family connections to Chinese Communist Party raises alarm bells
A former senior aide to Gov. Kathy Hochul reportedly has deep ties to the Chinese Communist Party — sparking concern over foreign influence in US politics as she now serves as chief of staff to New York City mayoral candidate Scott Stringer. Elaine Fan, who is also known as Fan Xiaojiang, is the daughter of a former Chinese journalist who held senior roles in the CCP's Central Propaganda Department and served as editor for state-run media outlets, including China Press, a Fox News Digital investigation revealed. Her late grandfather, Fan Changjiang, also held influential positions with the CCP after joining in 1939. 'Her grandfather was one of the more prominent propagandists of the CCP's struggles from the 1930s onwards, while her father worked for a range of party publications managed under the central propaganda department in Beijing,' said Arran Hope, editor-in-chief of The Jamestown Foundation, a think-tank in Washington, DC. 'This included a stint in the United States, where her daughter now works as chief of staff to mayoral candidate Scott Stringer, following a stint as a reporter for another party outlet here. Fan has not distanced herself from her family legacy, quite the opposition.' He told Fox News Digital that Fan has delivered speeches on behalf of the party, including one in 2017 at a journalism school in the People's Republic of China named after her grandfather. 'To have somebody whom PRC diplomats clearly view favorably in such a senior role in New York politics should be cause for concern,' Hope added. Fan, who hails from Beijing, served as Hochul's director of Asian affairs between October 2021 and November 2023, according to her LinkedIn profile. She also worked in Stringer's Big Apple comptroller's office and spent nearly a decade reporting for Ming Pao Daily News, a Chinese-language newspaper. Since she started working for Stringer's long-shot mayoral campaign in August, she has banked more than $120,000, according to campaign finance filings. Stringer did not immediately respond to The Post's request for comment, while Hochul's office had no comment. The latest revelation comes a year after Linda Sun, a high-ranking aide, who also served under the Democratic governor's administration, was charged with acting as a foreign agent for China in exchange for millions in kickbacks and lavish perks. Sun, 41, who also worked for disgraced former Gov. Andrew Cuomo and current Big Apple mayoral front-runner, was arrested with her husband, Christopher Hu, in September 2024 and indicted for laundering and splurging their corrupt gains on a flashy $4 million Long Island mansion, a $2 million second home in a Honolulu high-rise and luxury cars. Sun was accused by the feds of using her position under both governors to turn the Albany office into a virtual mouthpiece for the People's Republic of China and the CCP.
CBC
23-05-2025
- Politics
- CBC
Canadians were promised a foreign agent registry — so where is it?
When Parliament passed a sweeping national security bill last June, the Liberal government promised to establish a foreign influence transparency registry to convict proxies trying to meddle in Canadian politics. But nearly a year later, it remains unclear how soon the office will be up and running "I think it's a huge vulnerability that needs to be addressed and needs to be fixed," said Dennis Molinaro, a former national security analyst with the federal government who now teaches at Ontario Tech University. "It sends a message to adversaries that maybe we're not all that serious about putting it in place and about national security." During last year's spring sitting of Parliament, and in a notable moment of consensus, the opposition parties agreed to help expedite the passage of what was then Bill C-70, the countering foreign interference bill. Commissioner yet to be appointed A core part of the bill would require those acting on behalf of foreign states to register with the federal government within 14 days of entering an agreement. Similar foreign agent registries are already in place in the U.S. and Australia and have led to police crackdowns. The Liberals had been toying with the idea of introducing a registry since at least 2021. Those caught violating the rules of the proposed new foreign influence transparency registry could risk millions of dollars in financial penalties and prison time. Diplomats would be exempt under international law. The registry would be overseen by an independent foreign influence transparency commissioner, who has yet to be appointed. A spokesperson for the Public Safety department said there are still several steps needed before the registry is fully implemented. "Officials are working to ensure that the proper steps are taken to develop the necessary regulations, and to set up the office, including the appointment of the commissioner, while also building the IT infrastructure for a best-in-class registry," said Max Watson. The department did not follow up when asked if there was a timeline for when the office would be up and running. Before the bill received royal assent last June, officials had said it could "take up to a year." They also said they hoped to have it in place before the next election, which didn't happen. The government's website now only says the coming into force date will be determined on advice from cabinet. Molinaro doesn't buy the department's explanation for why the registry isn't operational yet. "I mean, we're talking about a government that has a lot of resources at its disposal, so it's a question of, how seriously do you take it?" he said. "And [if] you want to send a strong message to the adversaries of Canada that we take foreign interference and foreign threats to our democratic institutions and transnational repression seriously, well then you develop the resources and you make it happen in a timely manner, and they're not doing that." Conservatives call out 'performative gestures' Advocate Gloria Fung, convenor of the Canadian Coalition for a Foreign Influence Transparency Registry, said the registry isn't a panacea but rather a starting point, especially for those in diaspora communities who are the direct victims of harassment from foreign actors in Canada. "We cannot afford to wait further," she said, pointing to substantiated reports of foreign interference during both the Liberal leadership campaign and the recent federal election. "I hope Prime Minister Carney can do better." Fung was hoping to see the the office in place and working before the federal election. With that opportunity gone, she's now hoping to meet with Carney and new Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree to stress the urgency of getting the job done. "If we do not take concrete action it's going to get worse up to a point of no return," Fung said. The push to set up the registry and pass other foreign interference measures followed months of reports that China and other countries meddled in the past two federal elections. A public inquiry investigated the allegations and determined foreign actors likely did attempt to sway voters, but found those efforts did not affect which political party formed government in 2019 and 2021. A spokesperson for the Opposition Conservatives called the delay "more of the same from the Liberals." "Nearly a year after becoming law, they have failed to act on big promises to bring in a registry and reverted back to their old ways of performative gestures that go nowhere," said the party's director of communications Sarah Fisher. "Conservatives repeatedly called on the Liberals to implement a foreign influence registry to expose hostile foreign actors on Canadian soil. Instead of protecting Canadians and diaspora communities, the Liberals blocked, delayed, and obstructed a foreign influence registry at every turn." NDP MP Heather McPherson said she recognizes the House of Commons was prorogued earlier this year and the country was sent into an election, but called it deeply concerning to hear the government doesn't seem to have even the "bones in place" for a registry. "Canadians are justly worried about foreign interference," she said, adding the Liberals seem in "no rush" to follow through on their promises. McPherson said as far as she knows, the government hasn't yet consulted with the other parties ahead of picking a commissioner, which the act stipulates. Registry has its critics The registry has its critics, too. When the bill was still making its way through Parliament, some of the country's top research universities — known as U15 Canada — warned a registry could spur an unintended "chilling effect" on international partnerships. "The registry's reporting requirements could significantly harm relationships with international peers and mean that Canada misses out on the opportunity to co-operate on cutting-edge research and access world-leading expertise with peer nations," said the group in its submission to a House of Commons committee last year. Bill C-70 brought in other measures to ward off foreign interference, including updates to the Criminal Code to make foreign interference a criminal offence and the necessary legal amendments needed to allow the Canadian Security Intelligence Service to disclose relevant intelligence to universities, businesses, provinces and municipalities.
Yahoo
18-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump the Grifter
In the years before the Constitution was written, two of the most famous figures of the American Revolution were caught up in controversy over fears of undue foreign influence caused by their receipt of opulent gifts from European kings. One was a gold snuff box encrusted with 408 diamonds that King Louis XVI of France gave to Benjamin Franklin. The other was a horse, given to John Jay by the King of Spain. Both of these gifts were publicly reported to the new Confederation Congress, and despite vocal public objection, both men kept the gifts. The controversies were still ripe in the minds of American leaders when they soon went to draft a new constitution. They worried that large and valuable gifts might inappropriately influence American officials in their dealings with foreign states—that a snuff box or a horse could psychologically warm a person to another country, distorting his ability to put America's interests first. To prevent that distortion, the drafters made anti-corruption provisions a cornerstone of the new constitution. Indeed, if the frequency of their attention to a particular issue is a measure of how significant their concern was, then few issues were as alarming to them as corruption, which the original Constitution explicitly addresses in four separate instances—plus a fifth that was later added. President Donald Trump's instinct for self-enrichment is a horrific exemplar of what the Founders hoped to prevent: a president profiting from public office. Trump's ventures—intending to accept the gift of a Qatari jet, profiting from the sale of a self-referential cryptocurrency, auctioning off a chance to have dinner with him—all reflect his disregard for the Founders' concern. Two of the Constitution's efforts to restrict conflicts of interest are direct and distinct prohibitions on profiteering by the president. One of these (in Article II, Section 1) was an absolute ban on domestic gifts to the president: Aside from compensation for his service, 'he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.' Emolument, a word first recorded in the 15th century, signifies a 'profit or gain arising from station, office, or employment.' That is, making money off one's position by, say, selling favors to fellow citizens (for example, the opportunity to dine with the president) is expressly prohibited. [Yair Rosenberg: The darker design behind Trump's $400 million plane] The second prohibition (in Article I, Section 9) was conditional. Presidents may not 'accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State' without Congress's consent. In other words, the answer to the offer of a personal gift (such as the use of an airplane either during or after presidential service) is a constitutionally required 'no,' unless Congress affirmatively authorizes it. Rejecting a gift is not 'stupid,' as Trump suggested—it's required by the law of the land, and for good reason. In addition to these direct limitations on presidential conduct, also notable is that the impeachment clause (Article II, Section 4), which generally authorizes impeachment for 'high crimes and misdemeanors' names two (and only two) crimes specifically as grounds for impeachment: treason and bribery—receipt of a gift in exchange for an official act. Not all gifts are bribes, but some are, and those would be grounds for removal from office. Beyond these three instances, the Constitution twice addresses the problem of possible profiteering by other federal officials, namely members of Congress: in Article I, Section 6 and in the Twenty-Seventh Amendment (which restricts Congress's ability to increase its own pay, and which was originally proposed in 1789). What animated the Founders' fear of conflicts of interest? An understanding of human nature and a respect for history. First they recognized that influence could be readily purchased from unprincipled leaders. As Alexander Hamilton put it in 'Federalist No. 22': 'One of the weak sides of republics, among their numerous advantages, is that they afford too easy an inlet to foreign corruption.' Commenting on human nature, he went on to explain: 'In republics, persons elevated from the mass of the community, by the suffrages of their fellow-citizens, to stations of great preeminence and power, may find compensations for betraying their trust, which to any but minds animated and guided by superior virtue, may appear to exceed the proportion of interest they have in the common stock, and to over-balance the obligations of duty.' In short, Hamilton argued, the average citizen might (unless he or she was a person of 'superior virtue') put their own financial interests above their duty to the country. [Jonathan Lemire and Russell Berman: The MAGA-world rift over Trump's Qatari jet] The requirement of congressional consent for foreign gifts persists today. When I served as a minor official at the Department of Homeland Security 20 years ago (I was the acting assistant secretary for international affairs and routinely interacted with foreign officials), any ceremonial gifts above a de minimis limit that foreign officials gave me as part of my official duties were, as constitutionally required, turned over to the department for receipt, processing, and storage. Congressional consent to keep a few small gifts was authorized by the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act. Trump's proposed acceptance of the Qatari jet, which he plans to use after he leaves office, stems from his view that Qatar is a country 'we have successfully defended for many years' with a 'special royal family.' This sort of conflict of interest is precisely what the Founders feared. Americans cannot know now whether Qatari security continues to be in America's best interests or only in Trump's desire to please his 'special' friends. That doubt is exactly why the Framers adopted a formal practice of requiring the notice and consent of Congress before foreign gifts may be accepted. An unfortunate flaw in the Founders' design was that they anticipated ready compliance with the prohibition on gift receipt. I think they could have barely imagined a president accepting a personal gift without congressional consent despite the express words of the constitutional text. Nor could they have readily imagined a president soliciting personal benefits to himself or his family as a condition of access to and influence on his decision making. Perhaps even more to the point, in the absence of such compliance, the Framers no doubt anticipated aggressive congressional oversight to enforce the obligations of consent, buttressed by the ultimate remedy of impeachment to compel compliance. And they might even have anticipated enforcement of the anti-emolument provisions in the courts. But Congress today is supine—this, perhaps more than anything, is what they could not possibly have imagined. And when, in the first Trump administration, emoluments cases were brought in the courts, they were delayed until after Trump left office and ultimately dismissed, leaving open questions of standing and substantive scope. All of which puts the nation in an exceedingly uncomfortable place. The emoluments clauses were integral to how the Founders sought to constrain human nature, fearful as they were of self-interest triumphing over constitutional duty. But today, faced with a president who seemingly has no concern for constitutional limitations, the carefully crafted restrictions of the Constitution appear to be unenforceable; the courts are ineffective, and Congress doesn't seem to care. The Framers, one suspects, would weep. Article originally published at The Atlantic
New York Times
18-05-2025
- Business
- New York Times
American Graft Didn't Start With Trump
President Trump's trip to the Persian Gulf, which just ended, could be fairly described as dual-purpose. On the first day, he visited Saudi Arabia, where the Trump Organization — now in the hands of two of his sons — is engaged in a number of business deals. In the fog of public outrage over this (and especially about things like Mr. Trump's plans to accept the gift of a Qatari jet), we have forgotten that two things can be simultaneously true: that the kind of pay-to-play schemes emerging between the Trump administration and foreign patrons are far more brazen than anything else we've seen in American history and that Mr. Trump did not emerge in a vacuum. Any one of the new foreign deals, the memecoins and secretive crypto fund-raisers, the open attempts to court investments from kleptocratic regimes and oligarchs abroad — all while Mr. Trump's children and in-laws travel around the world, pocketing new foreign clients — would have been, under previous administrations, a scandal of its own. Mr. Trump might have single-handedly replaced things like Teapot Dome as shorthand for presidential corruption, but he and his family are merely surfing on a wave of previous administrations and officials who spent years looking the other way when it came to how foreign regimes and foreign oligarchs target, manipulate and directly bankroll American politics and policymakers. Take how the broader Trump family has cavorted around the globe, unearthing all manner of inventive ways to profit from its patriarch's return to office. There is the new Executive Branch club, peddling direct access to the administration for only half a million dollars. There is a new Trump family cryptocurrency business, which just inked a multibillion-dollar deal with a fund backed by Abu Dhabi. There are any number of deals directed to and through Mr. Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner, in addition to multimillion-dollar investments with Mr. Kushner's firm from numerous autocrats. Time and again, the Trump family has acted as if there were not only no concern to be had about potentially signing deals with kleptocratic clients but also no price to be paid for such dealing. Are they wrong? It was only a few months ago that President Joe Biden, in one of his final acts of office, issued a blanket pardon to his son Hunter Biden — who, while his father was vice president, likewise spent years traveling the world trading on his last name. Even after Hunter Biden apparently lobbied American officials to aid at least one foreign client — a clear violation of U.S. foreign lobbying laws — he paid no legal price, making a mockery of his father's campaign pledge to crack down on the practice. Why would the Trump children behave any differently? It's no secret that foreign governments view the Trump Organization as a means to influence Mr. Trump. This was the case throughout the president's first term. Now foreign governments are even more explicit, with regimes — especially with the threat of tariffs now looming — openly expediting the process for new Trump Organization investments in their countries, all as a means of succoring Mr. Trump. This is hardly the first time foreign dictatorships have funded American politicians' pet projects in the hopes of currying favor. It was not long ago that the most popular nexus between foreign regimes and American political leaders was the Clinton Foundation. For years, it accepted millions of dollars linked to some of the most rapacious regimes extant, including those of Saudi Arabia and Qatar, in addition to a number of Russian, Kazakh and other oligarchs. Could these regimes have been interested in the 'simple belief that everyone deserves a chance to succeed,' as the Clinton Foundation pledged? Sure, theoretically. But that hardly explains why, by the early 2020s — when Hillary Clinton was no longer near the center of American politics — donations to the foundation cratered, falling some 90 percent from their highs when she was a secretary of state and a perennial presidential candidate. As Sarah Chayes, one of the United States' leading anticorruption researchers, wrote in 2020, the Clinton Foundation was hardly an anodyne nonprofit but instead resembled 'the U.S. versions of the 'charities' run by corrupt ruling families from Honduras to Uzbekistan.' I do not mean to mitigate the grand corruption that Mr. Trump has now injected directly into the White House. Or to take away from the fact that in his second term he has decimated the United States' counterkleptocracy powers, from kneecapping the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act — America's bedrock antibribery statute, on the books for decades — to dissolving all of the task forces dedicated to clamping down on foreign corruption to even announcing that the country's new shell company registration requirements will simply not be enforced. In just a few months he has single-handedly dismantled many of the key weapons the country maintained in the fight against illicit finance and, in the process, imploded the nation's reputation as a global leader in the fight against dirty money. But we're fooling ourselves if we think that reputation was well deserved. American politicians have been for sale for far longer than Mr. Trump has been around and in far more ways than he and his family have so far pioneered. It's a phenomenon that is hardly limited to one party or to one branch of government. (See, for instance, the recent conviction of Bob Menendez, the former Democratic senator convicted of secretly serving at the behest of the Egyptian dictatorship.) Nor is it just leading politicos. Cast around Washington, and you're guaranteed to hit plenty of other institutes and organizations on the take. Think tanks sucking in tens of millions of dollars from kleptocracies. Universities accepting hundreds of millions more. Politicians on both sides of the aisle leaving office and soon flipping into foreign lobbyists, year after year. As one headline from nearly a decade ago read, the best way to make money from these regimes was simple: 'Want to Be a 'Foreign Agent'? Serve in Congress First.' Thankfully, there are tools at hand to beat back some of these realities. In the short term, Congress must take the lead and do things like pass languishing legislation that would prevent former politicians from serving as foreign lobbyists, as well as shutter a loophole that allows foreign regimes to funnel funds to American politicians via lobbying firms — a practice that remains, somewhat shockingly, perfectly legal. While these regimes are technically barred from donating to politicians, the American lobbyists they hire can donate directly to the politicians themselves, including to the same lawmakers they're lobbying for foreign clients. Legislators should also build on similar legislation to target the family members of administration higher-ups; not only must children and in-laws of future presidents be prevented from foreign lobbying work, but they must also be barred from any new foreign deals or investments, period. This legislation could have thwarted much (though not necessarily all) of the Trump family's financial arrangements with foreign patrons. We know that foreign regimes view progeny as little more than vectors of influencing the American presidency. They should be treated as such. In the longer term, a new administration will be left to pick up the pieces. Here, there is a bit of good news. In his efforts to hack apart the few tools that kept foreign corruption of the office of the presidency and the country at bay, Mr. Trump has opted for shortcuts, relying on executive orders and announcements of nonenforcement rather than going through the legislative legwork of formal repeal. As such, things like the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and the shell company registry are still on the books and are simply waiting for a future administration to enforce them. The blueprints for all of the counterkleptocracy task forces that Mr. Trump impaled are still here; a future administration should reinstate all of them, making sure they are fully funded and staffed. And, of course, should any former presidents be found to have illegally used their office to enrich themselves or their companies, future administrations should not hesitate in prosecuting them, regardless of any political cost. All of that is in the future, though.
Yahoo
13-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Leavitt Says Trump Immune to Bribes Despite $400M Jumbo Jet Gift
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt is not worried that President Donald Trump could be enticed to give Qatar something in return after its $400 million 'flying palace' gift. Fox & Friends host Brian Kilmeade pressed Leavitt on concerns that the massive Boeing 747-8 jumbo jet Qatar gifted the president amounted to a quid pro quo. 'Do you worry that if they give us something like this, they want something in return?' Kilmeade asked. 'Absolutely not,' Leavitt said. 'Because they know President Trump and they know he only works with the interests of the American public in mind.' The Department of Justice insisted on Sunday that the $400 million jet did not violate the Constitution's Emoluments Clause, which prohibits government officials from accepting foreign gifts without congressional approval, and Leavitt claimed on Monday the plane's 'donation' was 'done in full compliance with the law.' Still, the news spurred anger from Democrats and even Trump's own supporters. Far-right conspiracy theorist Laura Loomer said the decision to accept the plane would be a 'stain' on the Trump administration, and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said the plane amounted to 'premium foreign influence with extra legroom.' Trump defended the decision to accept the plane, which officials told ABC News would be given to the Defense Department and later be donated to the Trump Presidential Library just before he leaves office. 'So the fact that the Defense Department is getting a GIFT, FREE OF CHARGE, of a 747 aircraft to replace the 40 year old Air Force One, temporarily, in a very public and transparent transaction, so bothers the Crooked Democrats that they insist we pay, TOP DOLLAR, for the plane,' Trump wrote on Truth Social. 'Anybody can do that! The Dems are World Class Losers!!!' Trump also blasted ABC News reporter Rachel Scott after she asked Trump on Monday whether the gift could be seen as improper, saying the network should be 'embarrassed' that she asked the question. 'It's a gift to the Department of Defense, and you should know better,' Trump said. 'Cause you have embarrassed enough, and so has your network. Your network is a disaster, ABC is a disaster.'
