Connect with us

The Dictatorship

Suspect charged with attempted murder after fire at PA Governor’s residence

Published

on

Suspect charged with attempted murder after fire at PA Governor’s residence
  • Trump urging FCC Chair to punish CBS to the max is ‘right out the authoritarian playbook’: Cook

    04:30

  • Should people ‘stop freaking out’ about Trump’s tariffs? Here’s why one economist thinks so

    06:23

  • Now Playing

  • UP NEXT

    Federal workers allegedly fear Musk’s DOGE is spying on them, report finds

    04:52

  • China ‘already’ making moves to ‘delink themselves’ from U.S. amid Trump’s trade war

    11:33

  • Why Trump’s tariffs will have ‘profound effect’ on consumer spending and American businesses

    11:49

  • ‘We’re taking back the canal’: Hegseth says U.S. partnering with Panama

    04:11

  • Trump’s global trade war hurting ‘Americans first… China second’: Economist

    08:36

  • Global pharma shares plunge over Trump tariff threat

    03:46

  • Support for Trump wavers in swing states as markets react to tariffs

    03:20

  • How long will Trump’s tariffs last? ‘Skeptical’ admin and other countries can resolve quickly

    11:48

  • ‘Moral shame’: Why Trump’s second term is ‘making the globe a playground for gangsters’

    07:29

  • ‘Great deal of consternation’ in GOP over Trump’s tariff chaos

    09:53

  • Chief Justice John Roberts pauses judge’s order requiring midnight return of Maryland man accidentally deported to El Salvador

    00:51

  • Trump is ‘destroying’ U.S. national security ‘piece by piece’: Rieckhoff

    04:58

  • Trump is ‘messing around with people’s lives while he’s out golfing’: Sen. Klobuchar

    07:06

  • Are Trump’s tariffs a ‘before and after’ moment for global trade?

    07:39

  • Whoever thinks they’re an economist in the WH should ‘resign in disgrace’: Expert slams tariffs

    11:10

  • ‘Pepto Bismol moment’ for the markets: Sen. Markey blasts Trump tariffs’ amid recession fears

    03:50

  • Rep. Clyburn says Americans starting to see Trump admin is ‘danger’ to democracy

    06:32

  • Trump urging FCC Chair to punish CBS to the max is ‘right out the authoritarian playbook’: Cook

    04:30

  • Should people ‘stop freaking out’ about Trump’s tariffs? Here’s why one economist thinks so

    06:23

  • Now Playing

    Suspect charged with attempted murder after fire at PA Governor’s residence

    02:40

  • UP NEXT

    Federal workers allegedly fear Musk’s DOGE is spying on them, report finds

    04:52

  • China ‘already’ making moves to ‘delink themselves’ from U.S. amid Trump’s trade war

    11:33

  • Why Trump’s tariffs will have ‘profound effect’ on consumer spending and American businesses

    11:49

Read More

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Dictatorship

Powell plans to stay on at Fed after his term as chair ends, citing legal actions by administration

Published

on

Powell plans to stay on at Fed after his term as chair ends, citing legal actions by administration

WASHINGTON (AP) — Jerome Powell said Wednesday he plans to remain on the board of the Federal Reserve after his term as chair ends next month “for a period of time, to be determined,” saying the “unprecedented” legal attacks by the Trump administration have put the independence of the nation’s central bank at risk.

“I worry these attacks are battering this institution and putting at risk the things that really matter to the public,” Powell said in remarks at a press conference after the Fed announced its decision to keep its benchmark interest rate unchanged.

Powell’s decision to stay — the first time a Fed chair will remain on the board as a governor since 1948 — denies President Donald Trump a chance to fill a seat on the central bank’s seven-member governing board with his own appointee. The Senate Banking Committee earlier approved Powell’s successor as chair, Trump appointee Kevin Warshon a party-line vote. Powell will continue as a Fed governor, possibly until January 2028. Warsh, if confirmed, will take a seat currently held by Stephen Miran, a previous Trump appointee, whose term ended in January.

Powell’s move could make it a bit harder for Warsh to engineer the rate cuts that Trump has demanded, and Warsh advocated for last year, economists say.

“It probably means it will take Warsh a little bit longer to build the consensus he is trying to build,” said David Seif, chief economist for developed markets at Nomura, an investment bank.

AP AUDIO: Powell plans to remain on Fed board, cites legal actions by Trump administration

AP Washington correspondent Sagar Meghani reports the Federal Reserve is again leaving its key interest rate unchanged — but chairman Jerome Powell made bigger news.

U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro said on X Friday that her office was ending its probe into the Fed’s extensive building renovations because the Fed’s inspector general would scrutinize them instead. But she added that her office could reopen the investigation if “the facts warrant doing so.” And Pirro had said previously that she would appeal a court ruling that threw out subpoenas her office had issued.

Powell said Wednesday he had been assured by the Justice Department that the appeal wouldn’t result in a reopening of the probe unless a separate investigation by the Fed’s inspector general finds evidence of criminal activity.

Apparently, that didn’t bring Powell the closure he felt is needed.

“I’m waiting for the investigation to be well and truly over with finality and transparency,” he said. “I’m waiting for that and I will leave when I think it appropriate to do so.”

The Fed Wednesday left its benchmark interest rate unchanged for the third straight meeting but signaled it could still cut rates in the coming months, moves that attracted the most dissents since October 1992. Three officials dissented in favor of removing the reference to a future cut, while a fourth, Miran, dissented in favor of an immediate rate cut.

The dissents underscore the level of division on the Fed’s 12-member rate-setting committee ahead of the end of Powell’s term as chair on May 15.

“Developments in the Middle East are contributing to a high level of uncertainty about the economic outlook,” the Fed said in a statement after its two-day meeting. “Inflation is elevated, in part reflecting the recent increase in global energy prices.”

Trump responded to Powell’s decision late Wednesday on his social media website: “Jerome ‘Too Late’ Powell wants to stay at the Fed because he can’t get a job anywhere else — Nobody wants him,” Trump posted, using his nickname for the Fed chair.

Warsh has promised “regime change” at the central bank and may make sweeping changes to its economic models, communications strategies, and balance sheet. He has argued in favor of rate cuts, as Trump has demanded, but he will likely find it harder to implement them with inflation topping 3%, above the Fed’s target of 2%.

When asked if he believed Warsh would stand up to political pressure from Trump, Powell answered, “He testified very strongly at his hearingand I take him at his word.”

The three officials who dissented against hinting that the Fed may reduce borrowing costs were Beth Hammackpresident of the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland; Neel Kashkari, president of the Minneapolis Fed; and Lorie Logan, president of the Dallas Fed. The regional Fed bank presidents have historically been more likely to dissent, while the Washington-based governors more often support the chair.

The dissents could renew tension between the Trump administration and the bank presidents, who White House officials have previously criticized.

Beth Ann Bovino, chief economist at US Bank, said the dissents demonstrated that Fed policymakers are “very independent” and will likely be on hold for months longer. She has forecast a rate cut in December but now isn’t sure. Wall Street investors on average don’t expect a reduction until well into next year, according to futures pricing.

Powell’s decision to stay on could worsen tensions with the Trump administration and would create what some analysts refer to as a “two Popes” scenario, with a chair and former chair both on the Fed’s board. In that case, divisions among policymakers could increase, if some decided to follow Powell’s lead rather than Warsh’s.

Powell dismissed the notion that his staying on could cause dissension, saying, “My intention is not to interfere,” later adding that, “I’m not looking to be a high profile dissident or anything like that.”

Still, Powell said he remained concerned about the Fed’s independence from the White House, which he said is essential to its ability to set rates to benefit the public, rather than in response to political pressure. When the Fed raises or cuts its short-term rate, over time it affects the cost of mortgages, auto loans, and business borrowing.

Fed independence remains “at risk,” he said. “We’re having to resort to the courts to enforce our … ability to make monetary policy without political considerations. We’ve had to do that and we’ve been successful so far, but that’s not over, none of that has concluded yet.”

The unusual situation comes while the economic picture remains unusually murky, putting the Fed in a difficult spot. Inflation has jumped to 3.3%a two-year high, as the war has sharply raised gas prices. That makes it harder for the central bank to reduce rates. The Fed typically leaves rates unchanged, or even raises them, if inflation is worsening.

At the same time, hiring has ground almost to a halt, leaving those without jobs frustrated by the difficulty of finding new ones. Typically, the Fed cuts rates when the job market is weak, to spur more spending and job gains.

But layoffs also remain low, as employers appear to be following a “ low-hire, low-fire ” strategy. Many Fed officials have suggested that as long as the unemployment rate is low, the central bank doesn’t need to cut rates to spur more spending and hiring. Unemployment declined to 4.3% in March, from 4.4%.

___

AP Writer Alex Veiga contributed to this report.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

King Charles III highlights US-UK bond during busy day of diplomacy with Trump and Congress

Published

on

King Charles III highlights US-UK bond during busy day of diplomacy with Trump and Congress

WASHINGTON (AP) — King Charles III marked the 250th anniversary of American independence from Britain with gratitude that the two countries united to build “one of the most consequential alliances in human history” while urging “that we ignore the clarion calls to become ever more inward-looking.”

Speaking Tuesday to a joint session of the U.S. CongressCharles repeatedly highlighted the historical and cultural ties that he said have cemented an enduring bond between the United States and the United Kingdom. But even as he spoke in unifying, optimistic terms, he delivered a series of nuanced warnings encouraging leaders in the U.S. to remain collaborative and engaged in global affairs.

He said the alliance between the U.S. and the U.K., tested anew by President Donald Trump’s war in Iran, “cannot rest on past achievements.” Charles urged “unyielding resolve” in backing Ukraine against Russia and heralded the NATO alliance that Trump has consistently undermined.

The king praised religious pluralism and interfaith dialogue in terms that are rare in Trump’s Washington. As the White House rolls back regulations aimed at denting climate change, the king encouraged those in power to “reflect on our shared responsibility to safeguard nature, our most precious and irreplaceable asset.”

At one point, Charles traced the notion of checks and balances on executive power to the Magna Carta, the foundational legal document sealed by King John in 1215. Trump told The New York Times earlier this year that he was constrained only by “my own morality.”

And acknowledging a scandal that has roiled politics in both the U.S. and U.K., Charles subtly alluded to the victims of Jeffrey Epsteinthe convicted sex offender with ties to British officials, including the king’s brother, Andrew.

King celebrates independence and focuses on repairing a frayed relationship

Charles is on a four-day visit to the U.S. intended to both celebrate American independence and to repair the country’s fraying relationship with the U.K. He hardly arrived in Washington as an oppositional figure to Trump. Joined by Queen CamillaCharles had a warm greeting with the president and first lady Melania Trump at the White House earlier Tuesday.

In his welcome remarks, Trump also highlighted the shared history between the two countries.

“American patriots today can sing, ’My country, ’tis of thee, sweet land of liberty,’ only because our colonial ancestors first sang, ‘God save the king,’” Trump said.

The leaders met privately in the Oval Office for a meeting Trump later described as “really good,” adding that Charles is a “fantastic person.”

Trump hosted the royal couple for a jovial state dinner later Tuesday in the East Room of the White House. About 130 guests were seated at two long tables that were decorated with low floral arrangements. The guests included tech leaders such as outgoing Apple CEO Tim Cook and Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, along with conservative Supreme Court justices and several Fox News journalists and hosts.

Charles and Camilla will continue their U.S. tour this week with stops in New York City and Virginia.

During his roughly 20-minute speech to Congress, the king, who is expressly apolitical, never directly criticized Trump. Still, the contrast was apparent at times and some British commentators described his speech as more political than they had expected.

Just two months earlier, Trump stood at the same lectern and chided Democrats for not standing during part of his State of the Union address. The king, for his part, elicited multiple standing ovations from Democrats and Republicans who listened with rapt attention.

Charles is just the second British monarch to address a joint session of Congress. His mother, Queen Elizabeth IIdelivered a similar speech in 1991 highlighting the historic ties between both countries and the importance of their democratic values.

Charles acknowledges a ‘more volatile and more dangerous’ world

While the king paid tribute to those remarks, he acknowledged that today’s environment is “more volatile and more dangerous than the world to which my late mother spoke.”

Many of the lawmakers in the room were at Saturday’s White House Correspondents’ Dinner, which was disrupted by a shooting that authorities have described as an attempted assassination against Trump.

“Let me say with unshakeable resolve,” Charles said. “Such acts of violence will never succeed.”

Meanwhile, Trump’s up-and-down relationship with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has taken a particularly sour turn over the past several months as the Republican president has sought to rally international support for the war in Iran. Trump criticized Starmer, who has largely resisted his overtures, by saying, “This is not Winston Churchill that we’re dealing with.”

Trump has also imposed tariffs on the U.K. and warned of additional levies despite a Supreme Court ruling earlier this year that has made such unilateral moves more challenging. Trump threatened just last week to slap a “big tariff” on the U.K. if it doesn’t scrap a digital services tax on U.S. technology companies.

Trump has more broadly challenged the traditional trans-Atlantic alliance with efforts to annex Greenland and threats to walk away from NATO. He has repeatedly imposed tariffs on and taunted Canadaa member of the British Commonwealth.

Ahead of his speech, the king had faced some calls on Capitol Hill to meet with Epstein’s victims while he is in the U.S. He didn’t make a direct mention of the convicted sex offender, but did reference the “collective strength” in the U.S. and the U.K. to “support victims of some of the ills that, so tragically, exist in both our societies today.”

If Charles offered low-key criticism of Trump, the president didn’t seem to mind. He said later that the king “made a great speech.”

“I was very jealous,” he said.

___

Associated Press writers Stephen Groves and Aamer Madhani in Washington and Danica Kirka in London contributed to this report.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

The Supreme Court has all but killed the law that helped kill Jim Crow

Published

on

ByStacey Abrams

The Supreme Court’s decision in Louisiana v. Callais is a direct hit to the heart of the Voting Rights Act and to the fragile promise that every American’s vote should carry equal weight. The VRA ended Jim Crow. Full stop. With this decision, it’s open season — once again — on Black and brown voters at the ballot box.

In 2023, the Supreme Court instructed Alabama to finally draw fair maps to create two majority-Black constitutional districts to allow Black citizens a shot at equal representation. Today, that same Supreme Court ruled that Louisiana’s two majority-Black congressional districts are unconstitutional — and in doing so, gutted Section 2 of the VRA, opening the door to racial gerrymanders across the South and Southwest.

It’s open season — once again — on Black and brown voters at the ballot box.

Let’s first understand what the VRA is. After the Civil War, the 13th Amendment banned slavery (mostly). The 14th Amendment granted birthright citizenship (for now). And the 15th Amendment barred the federal government and the states from denying the right to vote based on race, color and servitude (in theory). But until the fairly recent year of 1965, the 15th Amendment was routinely ignored by Southern states using the legal mechanism of Jim Crow.

Poll taxes, literacy tests and language restrictions were the most visible tools of voter suppression. However, Black voters who successfully navigated those hurdles still faced the ignominy of not having a real choice. Hostile political regimes drew the boundaries of voting lines and districts to make it impossible for Black and brown voters to elect anyone who represented their interests. Enter the Voting Rights Act.

Section 2 of that act made it illegal to design districts to dilute or block racial communities from finding common cause. It also required a corrective action: When populations routinely boxed out of meaningful participation hit a certain threshold, political districts should reflect their growing power. Thus, political leaders couldn’t use maps as weapons to permanently silence the voices of people of color.

The John Roberts Court has now declared that racism in American politics is no more. Despite the recent behavior in Texas and North CarolinaWednesday’s cruel Callais decision pretends that Jim Crow is a bygone era and not this week’s news. Section 2 represented the core protection against racially discriminatory redistricting, but now the court has dramatically narrowed one of the last meaningful tools marginalized communities had to challenge maps designed to erase their political existence. For decades, Section 2 gave Black voters in the South and brown voters in the Southwest access to the courts to remedy harm. There was something those voters could do when, for example, state legislatures split Black neighborhoods across districts or packed Latinos into as few seats as possible to minimize their broader influence. Section 2 was not a perfect safeguard but it worked, and it instituted accountability.

Now, thanks to Roberts, who has made a career of dismantling the Voting Rights Actand the rest of the Supreme Court’s conservative members, that accountability is gone.

We are rushing headlong into midterm elections, and that timing matters. The Supreme Court and those celebrating this decision know what they’ve done. Lines drawn on state maps determine who has a realistic chance to win seats in Congress and in state legislatures. Lines drawn on county and municipal maps determine who wins seats on school boards. Such lines can be drawn to guarantee voters of color are silenced before a single vote is cast. The consequences of this disastrous ruling are already reverberating across our country. Majority-Black districts could be dismantled or diluted. Latino districts in fast-growing areas could lose political muscle. Representatives championing the minority communities they represent will likely lose their seats. Congressional maps in closely divided states could be tilted further away from competitiveness.

Almost immediately, Florida redrew its federal legislative districts as lawmakers meet in special session. In Mississippi, the state where I grew up, the governor has called for a special session to make the state Supreme Court less racially representative. In Georgia, where I live, conservative candidates are calling for the Georgia Legislature to follow suit. Today’s decision will open a floodgate of redrawn political districts and retaliatory actions, a mere four years before the next U.S. Census will remind us of what we know to be true: The demographics of America are evolving. This ruling is an attempt to slow the pace of change, if not halt it altogether.

Once such horrible maps are in place, reversing them is extraordinarily difficult.

While Black voters are disproportionately at risk after Thursday’s ruling — they could lose up to 30% of the Congressional Black CaucusFair Fight Action and Black Voters Matter say —  it’s important to emphasize that every American who doesn’t share the ideology driving the erasure of Black voting strength is at risk.

When courts curtail the ability to challenge unfair maps, the ripple effects extend to Latino communities, Asian American neighborhoods, Native American enclaves, young voters, working-class districts and rural regions alike. The restoration of racial discrimination in voting makes it easier to take power from all of us. As devastating as Thursday’s ruling is, we saw it coming. Over 15 years, the VRA has been weakened several times. Shelby County v. Holder hollowed out Section 5. Rucho v. Common Cause allowed for partisan gerrymandering and Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee limited lawsuits against racially discriminatory voting laws.

The Voting Rights Act stood as a guard against abuse of power by a racial majority that had — and has — repeatedly failed to act fairly.

Today’s ruling on Louisiana v. Callais strikes even closer to the bone by narrowing the very mechanism communities use to fight discriminatory maps in court. These decisions have steadily built upon one another, eviscerating the protections mandated by the 15th Amendment and perhaps altering the country’s  memory of what the VRA attempted to fix. More than just a law protecting voting rights, the VRA stood as a guard against abuse of power by a racial majority that had — and has — repeatedly failed to act fairly.

This is how authoritarianism is imposed: through incremental decisions that remove democracy’s guardrails. We now find ourselves returning to the before-times. But instead of Alabama state police on the Edmund Pettus Bridge, we have state legislators with poison pens, drafting themselves into permanent power. In a democracy, the faith of the people is born of a belief that they can participate in its processes and benefit from its success. Authoritarians need only break that faith in order to hold on to power or expand it. And the Supreme Court has been hard at work to make it so.

But the Supreme Court is not the only actor in this story. Congress retains the authority to strengthen voting rights protections. State legislatures can adopt independent redistricting commissions or refuse to vote for racially discriminatory maps. Voters can reach out to elected officials at every level of government and demand that they publicly take a stand for voting rights. Civic organizations can mobilize communities to solve for voter suppression tactics even when the rules shift.

In Louisiana v. Callais, the Supreme Court lies to America by claiming a racial neutrality in our laws that every day under this regime proves false. Politicians opposed to full participation in democracy will rush to take advantage of this hat-tip to hatred, and the resulting political fights will destabilize our country months ahead of November’s midterm elections.

But the midterms are a way station on the road to saving America’s soul, and we must understand them — and this decision — as a call to action. We who believe in democracy must act with urgency and elect leaders of moral integrity.

The fight for a multiracial democracy is the central pillar of our national story. For 250 years, we have grappled with our choices and sometimes suffered the consequences. But we have always moved forward when people organized, persisted and refused to back down. That work must — and will — continue.

Stacey Abrams

Stacey Abrams, a New York Times bestselling author, is a former member of the Georgia House of Representatives, where she served as minority leader for seven years. She was the first Black woman to become the gubernatorial nominee for a major party in United States history.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending