Home Blog Page 206

A Congressional Outsider Becomes the Establishment Pick for Oakland Mayor

0


When former Representative Barbara Lee announced that she would run for mayor of Oakland, Calif., many considered her victory to be a sure thing.

After all, Ms. Lee had represented the city for more than a quarter-century in Congress and in the State Legislature before that. She gained national fame as a progressive lawmaker who was the only member of Congress to reject the use of force after the Sept. 11 attacks, reasoning that it gave the president too much war authority.

To Ms. Lee’s supporters, her return home was seen as a worthy bookend to her career, with a chance to rescue her hometown from its doldrums and political decay. Oakland, a city of 436,000 residents across the bay from San Francisco, has suffered mightily since the pandemic as it has faced soaring crime rates, the departure of its last major sports team and a yawning budget deficit.

The city had a sudden vacancy at the top because voters ousted Mayor Sheng Thao in November, a sign of their frustrations with the city’s direction and with a dark legal cloud over Ms. Thao.

But Ms. Lee, 78, is no longer considered a shoo-in to win Tuesday’s election.

Loren Taylor, a former Oakland City Council member, has gained traction with voters as a moderate candidate who has pledged to fix potholes, reduce crime and shorten 911 response times.

Ms. Lee is still considered the heavy favorite in the field of 10 candidates. But Mr. Taylor, 47, recently surpassed her in fund-raising and landed the endorsement of the editorial board at The San Francisco Chronicle. “Oakland is broken,” Mr. Taylor often says on the campaign trail, a message that has resonated with some voters.

Mr. Taylor’s momentum serves as the latest indication that residents in the liberal San Francisco Bay Area are giving greater emphasis on quality-of-life concerns than before.

Voters in November ousted Pamela Price, the progressive district attorney in Oakland and surrounding Alameda County, who had sought reductions in criminal sentencing. In San Francisco, voters last year elected a business-friendly moderate, Daniel Lurie, as their new mayor. The City Council in nearby Fremont, Calif., this year tried to make it a crime to help people living on the streets.

Mr. Taylor described himself a “pragmatic progressive.”

“We have to focus on results, and we can’t just be resting on ideological sort of values, regardless of the impact on people’s lives,” he said. “I think that’s where, frankly, the far left progressive movement has gone astray.”

Just over a year ago, Ms. Lee was campaigning to replace Dianne Feinstein in the Senate, which was the reason she did not run for a 14th full term in the House. In that race, she trailed in fund-raising and endorsements but drew support from progressives for her willingness to buck the establishment. She finished a distant fourth.

Back in Oakland, Ms. Lee has had a role reversal: She is now the establishment candidate.

Over the past three months, Ms. Lee has secured a diverse slate of endorsements from high-profile groups and leaders, including the Oakland Chamber of Commerce; labor unions; state legislators; four former Oakland mayors; and seven of the eight members of the Oakland City Council. Jim Ross, a political consultant in Oakland who is not involved in the race, called it “the most impressive group of endorsements” in a California mayor’s race that he could recall.

Much of her plan in the first 100 days doesn’t prescribe solutions but calls for collaboration. She wants to bring together police and business leaders. She hopes to convene C.E.O.s. She wants to appoint a task force of good government experts to modernize city government.

“Because I have a history of bringing different sides of views and issues together to find common ground, that is exactly what I will do as mayor,” she said.

In Oakland, Ms. Lee and Mr. Taylor do not have material differences in their stated values, and they seem to agree on what the city’s biggest problems are. If there is a contrast, it is that Mr. Taylor has more eye-catching specifics.

He has called for bringing city employees back to the office four days a week. He wants to publicize how long each building permit has been delayed through a “shot clock.”

Mr. Taylor’s recent traction seems to have come from his positioning as a pragmatist who could usher in a new generation of Democrats, as well as change a city in disarray.

“Under any normal circumstances, the people of Oakland would be throwing rose petals at Barbara Lee’s feet, but these aren’t normal times,” said Dan Schnur, a political analyst who teaches at the University of California, Berkeley. “The level of resentment and anger is off the charts.”

Though San Francisco has drawn the most national attention since the pandemic for its property crimes, fentanyl deaths and store closures, Oakland has suffered far more. Long regarded as a less expensive, gritty alternative to San Francisco, the city has lost population along with its optimism in recent years.

In November, voters ousted Ms. Thao less than two years after she took office. While the city’s woes made her vulnerable, an F.B.I. raid on her home last summer as part of a corruption investigation made political survival difficult. Then in January, Ms. Thao was indicted on federal charges of conspiracy and bribery.

The political fallout has persisted even after her departure. City documents that were under investigation by the F.B.I. included one note written by Ms. Thao’s chief of staff that referred to Black people as “tokens” that could be used to ward off the recall threat last year, The San Francisco Chronicle reported this month. Soon after the revelation, the aide, Leigh Hanson, was fired from the same chief of staff role she was performing for the interim mayor.

Whoever wins Tuesday’s election will finish out Ms. Thao’s term through the end of 2026.

Mr. Taylor, who narrowly lost a mayoral race in 2022 to Ms. Thao, has positioned himself as a challenger who will bring the kind of shake-up that Oakland needs by navigating the city bureaucracy and politics with expertise from years on the City Council.

“I’ve been on the ground working through our most difficult challenges with the community, whereas Congresswoman Lee has been in Washington, D.C., for the past 30 years,” he said.

But Ms. Lee said her congressional experience would be an advantage as mayor, vowing to fight to get the city the resources it needs from her connections. “It’s important to have a mayor who’s going to fight for whatever there is left with the federal government,” she said.

When pressed about the competitive nature of the race, Ms. Lee directed the conversation toward what she would do rather than address Mr. Taylor specifically. She thought Oakland residents were still more aligned with her than her opponent’s moderate approach.

Ms. Lee said that she thinks her goals — investing more in public safety, reducing poverty, building more affordable housing — remain in line with voters here.

“In Oakland,” she said, “we have Oakland values.”

But there are factors also working against Ms. Lee. In a special election such as this one, fewer voters turn out, and they tend to skew more moderate.

Voters in Oakland are divided. Some say the city needs the stability of a longtime member of Congress like Ms. Lee after the recent turmoil at City Hall. Others believe that Mr. Taylor, as the change candidate, would set the city on a better path.

Whitney Johnson, a dentist who has lived in Oakland for decades, said he was primarily concerned with crime. At night, he walks in the middle of his street instead of on the sidewalk, he said, so he can avoid being cornered by someone who might mug him.

Holding a cup of coffee and walking his dog through the city’s charming Rockridge neighborhood Thursday, he pointed to shop after shop where he had seen storefronts shattered or cars parked with their windows smashed.

He said he admired Ms. Lee’s record in Congress, but planned to vote for Mr. Taylor for one simple reason: “He’s different.”

David Moore, 62, said he cast his mail-in vote last week for Ms. Lee because she’s a trusted voice. He said that he doesn’t know if any mayor will have the power to change Oakland’s problems, but he hopes Ms. Lee can guide the city with an experienced hand.

Mr. Moore had one suggestion for Ms. Lee, should she win.

“Don’t have the F.B.I. come after you,” he said.



Source link

Top 5 phrases TV broadcasters shouldn’t say while covering the Masters

0


The Athletic has live coverage from Round 3 of The Masters.

Golf Channel TV analyst Brandel Chamblee was on a Barstool Sports’ golf podcast earlier this week, and there is a fascinating clip where Chamblee reviews the words or phrases that TV broadcasters are given guidance on not to utter when covering the Masters. They are replaced with more hifalutin expressions that are more on-brand for the event and its organizers at Augusta National.

Here’s the clip:

It goes without saying (and isn’t that unreasonable) that an event like the Masters won’t ever let announcers name-check other event sponsors (it’s never “Valero Texas Open,” it’s just “Texas Open.)

Here are the five I found most interesting, ranked in order of how overly self-serious they seem:

Can’t say: “Fan”
Can say: “Patron”

As Chamblee says, there is a concern that “fan” is shorthand for “fanatical.”

Can’t say: “Rough”
Can say: “Second cut.”

For a tournament defined on TV by the dulcet tones of Jim Nantz, I get it — the concept of “rough” doesn’t exist at a country club — sorry, it’s always “golf club” — like Augusta National.

Can’t say: “Sand trap”
Can say: “Bunker”

Again, the notion of anything at Augusta National being a “trap” does not fit at all with its finely manicured image.

Can’t say: “Driving range”
Can say: “Tournament practice facility”

“Rough?” “Trap?” I can at least see the outline of negative connotations ascribed to the event. And while the range is certainly there for more than just driving, this feels on-brand but unnecessary.

Can’t say: “Back nine”
Can say: “Second nine”

It’s not that I mind one over the other, but “back nine” is such a standard part of golf vernacular that it feels like Augusta National is just trying to make a point about how much they can get TV announcers to bend.

I asked colleague Richard Deitsch if there is any kind of formal policy. He said an industry source (given anonymity because, after all, this is a story about what you’re not supposed to say) told him that there is no written sheet given to broadcasters, but producers and on-air talent know what Augusta National’s expectations are about how things will be described.

(Photo of Dottie Pepper: David Cannon / Getty Images)





Source link

A Devastating Trade Spat With China Shows Few Signs of Abating

0


President Trump’s rapidly escalating trade war with China has resulted in eye-watering tariffs on products exchanged between the countries and scrambled prospects for many global businesses that depend on the trade. And there is no end in sight.

The Trump administration has been waiting for the Chinese leader, Xi Jinping, to call Mr. Trump personally, but Beijing appears wary of putting Mr. Xi in an unpredictable and potentially embarrassing situation with the U.S. president.

With the two governments at an impasse, businesses that rely on sourcing products from China — varying from hardware stores to toymakers — have been thrown into turmoil. The triple-digit tariff rates have forced many to halt shipments entirely.

Mr. Trump has rapidly ratcheted up tariffs on Chinese products, from 54 percent on April 2 to 145 percent just one week later. The Chinese government has argued that the actions are unfair and closely matched his moves, raising its tariffs on American goods to 125 percent on Friday.

But on Friday night, the administration created a significant carve out to its tariffs on China when it exempted some electronics, including smartphones, laptops and televisions. Those products will still be subject to other tariffs that Mr. Trump has put in place, like a 20 percent fee he added to Chinese goods in response to the country’s role in the fentanyl trade.

Mr. Trump has said he would like to speak with Mr. Xi, but he has stopped short of requesting a phone call, believing that it is the Chinese government’s turn to ask for such a call, according to people familiar with the matter. Trump officials say that dozens of countries have reached out to the administration about negotiations since the levies were imposed. China did not, and instead responded with harsh words and tariffs of its own.

Across the Trump administration, some officials are concerned that the trade war could soon escalate into a national security crisis, potentially causing the Chinese to move up plans for a military invasion of Taiwan.

The Pentagon is assessing the impact of China potentially cutting off rare earth exports to the United States and possibly blocking certain critical components used in U.S. weapons systems, according to a person with knowledge of the preparations. The aim is to fully ascertain what harm the Chinese could inflict on America’s ability to produce and maintain certain weapons and ammunition.

Mr. Trump continues to express optimism, saying that he has always gotten along with Mr. Xi and that “something positive” will come out of the relationship. But analysts have suggested that the situation may already have spiraled out of control.

Julian Evans-Pritchard, the head of China economics for the research firm Capital Economics, said the fact that the Chinese authorities had repeatedly matched U.S. tariff hikes suggested that they were in no rush to negotiate.

“A partial rollback of tariffs still seems likely at some point,” he said. “But it is hard to envisage a meaningful reset in the U.S.-China relationship.”

At a briefing on Friday, Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, declined to say whether the countries were in communication.

“I’m not going to comment on communications that are happening, or may not be happening, or either way, we’ll leave it to our national security team to get these discussions underway,” she said. She said the president was optimistic, and that he had “made it very clear he’s open to a deal with China.”

Speaking last week at the White House, Mr. Trump said that “China wants to make a deal. They just don’t know how quite to go about it.” He added that the Chinese were “proud people.”

Mr. Trump’s moves have taken tariffs to a level far past what would be prohibitive for trade, creating crises for many American businesses that depend on imports from China.

Rick Woldenberg, who runs Learning Resources, an Illinois-based maker of educational toys, said the latest tariffs had already forced him to pause some shipments from China. He called the rates that Mr. Trump had imposed “a joke” and said that even concessions from his suppliers could not make a dent in the fees he would owe to the U.S. government.

Learning Resources contracts with factories in Taiwan, India, Vietnam and other countries to make its products, but China is by far its biggest supplier, as it is for most toymakers. China accounted for two-thirds of all imports of toys and sporting goods to the United States last year.

Learning Resources employs about 500 people, most of them in the United States. It had planned to hire more this year to keep up with its fast-growing business, but has now abandoned some of those plans.

“We’re being asphyxiated by our very own government,” Mr. Woldenberg said.

Mr. Woldenberg said he paid about $2.3 million in tariffs and duties in 2024. This year, he would end up paying more than $100 million if sales somehow kept up with his projections from before the trade war. That’s more than he could pay if he cut every expense in the company other than base payroll.

At this point, Mr. Woldenberg said, the number hardly matters — beyond a certain level, the tariff is simply no longer something anyone in his business can afford to pay.

“He could raise it to 100 billion percent — it doesn’t matter,” he said. “It’s like a legal ban.”

Christophe Lavigne, the president of Highfield, which manufactures boats in China and the United States, said he expected to be subject to 198 percent tariffs on some of his imports, and that he has decided to simply stop his shipments for now.

He said his entire company, and the jobs of his employees and his dealers, was on the line. The pace of change was too fast and unpredictable, he added.

“We cannot adjust our production lines quickly enough,” he said. “Converting our entire supply chain in just two months is not feasible.”

Major multinational corporations have been in a better position to source products from countries besides China, but they too are reeling. Hobby Lobby, the crafting retailer, told vendors on Thursday that it was delaying shipments from China as a result of the escalating trade war, according to correspondence viewed by The New York Times.

The retailer told vendors that the back-and-forth tariffs had resulted in “a rapidly shifting and unpredictable landscape” and that it hoped diplomacy between the United States and China would “yield a more stable and balanced outcome.”

The implications of disrupting business with one of the country’s biggest trading partners have ricocheted through the economy. The dollar fell to a three-year low on Friday, while Treasury yields continued to swing. A measure of consumer sentiment also tumbled, indicating that Americans were becoming nervous about how higher tariffs might affect them.

Mr. Trump abruptly announced on Wednesday a 90-day pause on the “reciprocal” tariffs that he had unveiled the previous week on countries around the world, and which had gone into effect just hours earlier. But the threat of those tariffs, and of retaliation against U.S. exports, continues to hang over the global economy.

It remains to be seen if the United States and China might try to reach some agreement soon. People familiar with the conversations said that members of the White House National Security Council were in touch with counterparts at the Chinese Embassy, and that Cui Tiankai, the former Chinese ambassador, had held meetings in Washington and New York over the past several weeks to discuss the relationship. But there has been little sign of communication between higher-ranking officials in the Trump administration and the Chinese government.

Early in Mr. Trump’s first term, Mr. Xi flew to his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida to meet with Mr. Trump for hours, sharing what Mr. Trump later referred to as “the most beautiful piece of chocolate cake you’ve ever seen.” But that did not stop the countries from entering into a bruising trade war. And in his second term, Mr. Trump has been even more emboldened and unpredictable.

Mr. Trump has given few indications publicly of what he wants the Chinese to do. But Trump officials say the issues are well known. In an annual report released March 31, the Office of the United States Trade Representative detailed the trade barriers that U.S. businesses face when selling abroad, dedicating almost 50 of its nearly 400 pages to China.

In recent weeks, in addition to countering Mr. Trump’s tariff threats, China has added some U.S. companies to an unreliable entity list that essentially bars them from doing business in the country. It has also imposed licensing systems to restrict exports of rare earth elements, which are essential for electric cars and other products.

On Friday, as it announced its latest increase in tariffs on American products, the Chinese government said it would not raise the rate further because it was already so high that the number no longer made any difference.

China’s Ministry of Commerce said that the United States had used tariffs “for bullying and coercion” and had ultimately become “a laughingstock.”

“If the U.S. continues its tariff numbers game, China will ignore it,” it said.

China also ratcheted up pressure on U.S. companies as it issued new regulations on Friday that will subject semiconductors made by U.S. firms overseas to higher tariffs.

The move will put pressure on companies like Intel, Global Foundries and others that have U.S. chip factories. It may also encourage chip companies to shift manufacturing out of the United States to maintain access to the Chinese market, where the bulk of global electronics are made.

Shawn McCreesh, Maggie Haberman, Karen Weise, Tony Romm and Jonathan Swan contributed reporting.



Source link

‘There are no guarantees’: Scott Bessent won't rule out a recession

0




He also said he isn’t worried about stock market turbulence, following the worst week in the market in two years.



Source link

Trump Has Added Risk to the Surest Bet in Global Finance

0


There are not many certainties in the world of money, but this traditionally has been one of them: When life turns scary, people take refuge in American government bonds.

Investors buy U.S. Treasuries on the assumption that, come what may — financial panic, war, natural disaster — the federal government will endure and stand by its debts, making its bonds the closest thing to a covenant with the heavens.

Yet turmoil in bond markets last week revealed the extent to which President Trump has shaken faith in that basic proposition, challenging the previously unimpeachable solidity of U.S. government debt. His trade war — now focused intently on China — has raised the prospect of a worldwide economic downturn while damaging American credibility as a responsible steward of peace and prosperity.

“The whole world has decided that the U.S. government has no idea what it’s doing,” said Mark Blyth, a political economist at Brown University and co-author of the forthcoming book “Inflation: A Guide for Users and Losers.”

An erosion of faith in the governance of the world’s largest economy appears at least in part responsible for the sharp sell-off in the bond market in recent days. When large numbers of investors sell bonds at once, that forces the government to offer higher interest rates to entice others to buy its debt. And that tends to push up interest rates throughout the economy, increasing payments for mortgages, car loans and credit card balances.

Last week, the yield on the closely watched 10-year Treasury bond soared to roughly 4.5 percent from just below 4 percent — the most pronounced spike in nearly a quarter century. At the same time, the value of the American dollar has been falling, even as tariffs would normally be expected to push it up.

Other elements also go into the explanation for the bond sell-off. Hedge funds and other financial players have sold holdings as they exit a complex trade that seeks to profit from the gap between existing prices for bonds and bets on their future values. Speculators have been unloading bonds in response to losses from plunging stock markets, seeking to amass cash to stave off insolvency.

Some fear that China’s central bank, which commands $3 trillion in foreign exchange reserves, including $761 billion in U.S. Treasury debt, could be selling as a form of retaliation for American tariffs.

Given the many factors playing out at once, the sharp increase in yields for government bonds registers as something similar to when medical patients learn that their red blood cell count is down: There may be many reasons for the drop, but none of them are good.

One reason appears to be an effective downgrading of the American place in global finance, from a safe haven to a source of volatility and danger.

As Mr. Blyth put it, Treasury bills have devolved from so-called information invariant assets — rock-solid investments regardless of the news — to “risk assets” that are vulnerable to getting sold when fear seizes the market.

The Trump administration has championed tariffs in the name of bringing manufacturing jobs back to the United States, asserting that a short-term period of turbulence will be followed by long-term gains. But as most economists describe it, global trade is being sabotaged without a coherent strategy. And the chaotic way in which tariffs have been administered — frequently announced and then suspended — has undercut confidence in the American system.

For years, economists have worried about an abrupt drop in the willingness of foreigners to buy and hold United States government debt, yielding a sharp and destabilizing increase in American interest rates. By many indications, that moment may be unfolding.

“People feel nervous about lending us money,” said Justin Wolfers, an economist at the University of Michigan. “They are saying, ‘We’ve lost our faith in America and the American economy.’”

For Americans, that reassessment threatens to revoke a unique form of privilege. Because the United States has long served as the global economy’s safe harbor, the government has reliably found takers for its debt at lower rates of interest. That has pulled down the cost of mortgages, credit card balances and auto loans. And that has allowed American consumers to spend with relative abandon.

At the same time, foreigners buying dollar-denominated assets pushed up the value of the American currency, making products imported to the United States cheaper in dollar terms.

Critics have long argued that this model is both unsustainable and destructive. The flow of foreign money into dollar assets has permitted Americans to gorge on imports — a boon to consumers, retailers and financiers — while sacrificing domestic manufacturing jobs. Chinese companies have gained dominance in key industries, making Americans dependent on a faraway adversary for vital goods like basic medicines.

“The U.S. dollar’s role as the primary safe currency has made America the chief enabler of global economic distortions,” the economist Michael Pettis wrote last week in an opinion piece in The Financial Times.

But economists inclined to that view generally prescribe a gradual process of adjustment, with the government embracing so-called industrial policy to encourage the development of new industries. This thinking animated the Biden administration’s economic policy, which included some tariffs against Chinese industry to protect American companies while they gained time to achieve momentum in industries like clean energy technology.

Encouraging American industry requires investment, which itself demands predictability. Mr. Trump has warned companies that the only way to avoid his tariffs is to set up factories in the United States, while lifting trade protectionism to levels not seen in more than a century.

Even an abrupt decision from the White House to pause most tariffs on all trading partners except China failed to dislodge the sense that a new era is underway — one in which the United States must be viewed as a potential rogue actor.

That Mr. Trump does not bow to diplomatic decorum is hardly new. His Make America Great Again credo is centered on the notion that, as the world’s largest economy, the United States has the power to impose its will.

Yet the pullback in the bond market attests to shock at how far this principle has been extended. Mr. Trump has broken with eight decades of faith in the benefits of global trade: economic growth, lower-priced consumer goods and a reduced risk of war.

That the gains of trade have been spread unequally now amounts to a truism among economists. Anger over joblessness in industrial communities helped bring Mr. Trump to power, while altering the politics of trade. But many economists say the trade war is likely to further damage American industrial fortunes.

The tariffs threaten existing jobs at factories that depend on imported parts to make their products. The levies have been set at rates seemingly plucked at random, economists said.

“What the market really didn’t like was the random crazy math of the tariffs,” said Simon Johnson, a Nobel laureate economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “It seemed like they didn’t know what they were doing and didn’t care. It’s a whole new level of madness.”

The immediate consequence of higher interest rates on United States bonds is an increase in what the federal government must pay creditors to keep current on its debts. That cuts into funds available for other purposes, from building schools to maintaining bridges.

The broader effects are harder to predict, yet could metastasize into a recession. If households are forced to pay more for mortgages and credit card bills, they will presumably limit spending, threatening businesses large and small. Companies would then forgo hiring and expanding.

The chaos in the bond market is at once an indicator that investors see signs of this negative scenario already unfolding, and is itself a cause of future distress via higher borrowing rates.

For years, foreign holders of American bonds have sought to diversify into other storehouses for savings. Still, the dollar and U.S. government bonds have maintained their status as the ultimate repository.

Europe and its common currency, the euro, now seem enhanced as a part of the global financial realm still subject to adult supervision. But Germany’s staunch reluctance to issue debt has limited the availability of bonds for investors seeking another place to entrust savings.

That may now change, suggested Mr. Blyth, the Brown economist. “If the Europeans decide to issue a ‘sanity bond,’ the world might jump at it,” he said.

The Chinese government has long sought to elevate the place of its currency, the renminbi. But foreign investors hardly view China as a paragon of transparency or rule of law, limiting its utility as an alternative to the United States.

All of which leaves the world in a bewildering place. The old sanctuary no longer seems so safe. Yet no other place looks immediately capable of standing in.



Source link

What to Know About Trump’s Antitrust Efforts Against Tech Giants

0


The Trump administration isn’t letting up on the tech giants.

On Monday, the Federal Trade Commission will face off with Meta in court over claims that the social media giant snuffed out nascent competitors when it bought Instagram and WhatsApp. And on April 21, the Justice Department will argue that a federal judge should force Google to sell its Chrome web browser to limit the power of its search monopoly.

Both cases, which helped set into motion a new era of antitrust scrutiny, were filed during President Trump’s first term in office. They were advanced by the Biden administration, which also filed monopoly lawsuits against Amazon, Apple and Google’s ad technology business.

Investors in Silicon Valley and on Wall Street hoped that Mr. Trump might show technology companies more deference during his second term, as he promised to deregulate industries. Some legal experts think the administration could still take a lighter hand on blocking mergers and setting proactive regulations for tech.

But so far, Mr. Trump’s appointees have promised to continue much of the scrutiny of the biggest tech companies, despite the industry’s hopes.

“I think that they may not have fully focused on how much the first Trump presidency had to do with setting in motion this re-examination of tech,” said Bill Kovacic, a former F.T.C. chairman.

Here’s what to know.

Mr. Trump appointed Andrew Ferguson as chair of the F.T.C., which enforces antitrust and consumer protection laws. Mr. Ferguson, a lawyer who spent much of his career working for powerful Republican senators, has said he wants to increase scrutiny of the ways that social media companies decide to take posts down. Conservatives have complained for years that platforms like Facebook and YouTube disproportionately censor right-leaning viewpoints.

“I will throw every resource the agency has at prosecuting the cases against Big Tech that we’ve got going,” Mr. Ferguson said in an appearance on the Bloomberg podcast “Odd Lots” this year.

The new leader of the Justice Department’s antitrust division, Gail Slater, a veteran tech and media lawyer, worked in the White House during Mr. Trump’s first term. She has also pledged to enforce antitrust laws aggressively.

“It’s now a bipartisan issue, and there’s a consensus around the need for robust antitrust enforcement,” Ms. Slater said at an event hosted this month by Y Combinator, the Silicon Valley start-up accelerator, which has pushed for more antitrust scrutiny of the tech giants.

Five government cases accuse tech companies of maintaining illegal monopolies, and all are moving through the courts. The companies deny the allegations.

  • The F.T.C. sued Meta in 2020, arguing that its acquisitions of Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014 violated the law by using what regulators call a “buy or bury” strategy to eliminate its nascent rivals. The trial is expected to last into July and feature testimony from high-profile figures including Meta’s chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg.

  • The Justice Department sued Google in 2020 over claims that it had a monopoly in online search. A federal judge ruled for the government last year and will convene a roughly three-week hearing on how to address Google’s monopoly. The government has suggested that the company sell Chrome, among other measures. Google has proposed fewer restrictions and has said it plans to appeal.

  • The Justice Department accused Google in 2023 of illegally dominating the advertising technology business. A federal judge heard arguments in that case last year, and a ruling is expected soon.

  • The F.T.C. accused Amazon in a 2023 lawsuit of squeezing small merchants that use its marketplace to sell to consumers. A federal judge rejected Amazon’s attempt to dismiss the case last year. It is scheduled to go to trial next year.

  • The Justice Department sued Apple last year over claims that the company’s interwoven ecosystem of technology makes it hard for consumers to ditch their iPhones and iPads. Apple has asked a federal judge to dismiss the lawsuit.

The Biden administration tried and failed to block numerous tech deals, including Meta’s purchase of a small virtual reality start-up, Within. The push to stop acquisitions outraged investors who back small companies that want to cash out by being acquired by a tech giant.

Mr. Trump’s appointees say they want to get out of the way of acquisitions that don’t present a competitive problem. Ms. Slater has expressed an openness to companies’ proposing settlements — such as selling off similar assets — which can help resolve concerns about deals.

In late January, the Justice Department sued to block the business software company Hewlett Packard Enterprise from buying Juniper Networks, a networking firm, for $14 billion. It was the first lawsuit to challenge a tech deal in Mr. Trump’s second term.

During the first Trump administration, the Justice Department unsuccessfully challenged AT&T’s purchase of Time Warner.

Last year, the Justice Department and the F.T.C. agreed to divide up responsibility for investigating whether the biggest players in artificial intelligence were violating antitrust laws. The Justice Department started investigating Nvidia, while the F.T.C. took Microsoft and its partner, OpenAI.

It is unclear whether those investigations will result in lawsuits. The Trump administration has promised to clear the way for American companies to develop A.I., including rescinding a Biden-era executive order that put guardrails on the use of the technology.

The administration has solicited the industry’s input on how best to move forward with policy around the technology, an opening that companies and investors took to lobby for fewer rules.

“I think it is extremely important that we protect competition in the A.I. space, but I think it is equally important that the government not race to regulate A.I.,” Mr. Ferguson said on Bloomberg TV in March.



Source link

How Should You Invest in 529 College Savings Plans During Market Swings?

0


Investing in choppy markets, especially with an unpredictable president at the helm, can be distressing. It can be even more so if you are relying on these investments to pay for something as important as your child’s college tuition, and you need the money in the foreseeable future.

Plenty of busy parents found themselves in this position last week, reminded by the recent market plunge that college enrollment was creeping up on them, and some may not have dialed back their risky stock positions, or at least not enough.

But situations like this serve as another reminder: Market uncertainty is a constant, and yet it is part of the game we are forced to play to finance our future selves’ needs and wants. Markets periodically plunge because of global financial crises, pandemics, technology bubbles, and when the president of the United States seemingly pushes it over the edge with his index finger, which is essentially what happened after President Trump announced an aggressive tariff plan that sparked a trade war.

When Mr. Trump noticed on Wednesday that U.S. government bond markets were trembling, or getting “yippy,” as he called it, he paused most of his so-called reciprocal tariffs.

The markets rejoiced, sending the S&P 500 soaring up 9.5 percent, before sliding nearly 3.5 percent on Thursday and recovering 1.8 percent on Friday, with one measure of volatility reaching levels last seen during the pandemic-induced sell-off in 2020. The S&P 500 has sunk 12.9 percent since Feb. 19, when it reached an all time closing high. Nobody knows what comes next, or how this movie ends.

If you have money in a 529 college savings plan — or in another type of investment account — now is the time to reassess whether your mix of stocks and bonds are appropriate for your time frame and your stomach for risk.

If you cannot afford to lose a particular pot of money, and you need it soon, it is time to develop an exit strategy. For everyone else, you have the luxury of time to come up with a better long-term plan.

If you need the money in less than a year, it shouldn’t be in stocks, period. Some financial planners said they’d even swallow some losses now (by moving money into cash, even if your investments are lower), but there are several other things you might consider as well.

“I’d suggest looking at whether they have other resources to cover the first year — like cash flow, gifts, or student aid — while they give investments some time to recover,” said Daniel Milks, a financial planner in Greenville, S. C.

If you borrow more than you anticipated during the first year to avoid touching your investments, keep in mind that you can use up to $10,000 of money inside a 529 to pay off federal and many private student loans early (per beneficiary over their lifetime). Another idea: Temporarily pause or reduce savings to pay more tuition directly.

Sometimes the best solution is the simplest — the one that reduces complexity and decision-making and puts things on autopilot. Sure, there may be more precise investing strategies, but there’s a perfectly fine one called a target-date fund.

If you have a big tuition bill coming up in September and you were in an appropriate and well-managed fund like this, after these past two weeks of bluster and insane volatility, your portfolio is down just 0.35 percentage points. No lost sleep over that.

Target-date funds — whose mix of investments gradually get more conservative as a college enrollment date approaches — can be helpful for people who want a hands-off approach. But that means you’ll need to do a bit of work upfront to analyze the funds, or hire someone to help you out (a fiduciary, always).

Many 529 college savings plans provide these funds on their investment menu, but they’re not all created equally. Funds from different providers that have the same enrollment date can have different mixes of investments, and some may be riskier because they have more aggressive stock allocations.

Don’t forget to consider the type of bond and cash investments it holds, too. Bonds typically serve as a ballast when stocks drop, but they are not impervious to all shocks, as we saw this week.

You’ll also need to understand how the fund evolves over the years as you approach the enrollment date. How quickly does it change? What does it look like when college is just five or three years away? Would you be comfortable with that mix, at that point in time, if the market dropped 30 percent? And how does that compare with similar funds? What are the costs? (Stick with low-cost index funds, which simply track the performance of large swaths of the market and do not try to beat it).

CJ Stermetz, a financial planer and founder of EquityFTW, a firm in San Jose, Calif., said that the funds work especially well in times like these, because parents don’t have to worry. They know their college money is being whisked into safer investments as time marches on.
Indeed, the target enrollment date funds are similar to those targeting a retirement date, but the former sheds stocks more quickly given the compressed time frame: The funds generally start with 95 percent in stocks and five percent in bonds but then shift about 5 percentage points of the stocks into bonds each year, Mr. Stermetz explained. If you were buying a Vanguard fund for a newborn now, with a enrollment date of 2043, that’s where you’d start. It was down about 6.5 percent year-to-date, as of Thursday’s market close.

But by the time college is three years away (like Vanguard’s 2028/2029 fund), there’s about 25 percent in stocks, 54 percent in bonds and another 20 in cash equivalents. That fund was down just 1.06 year-to-date as of Thursday.

Once college is just a year or two out (2026/2027), 19 percent of investments are in stocks, 47 percent in bonds and 34 percent in cash equivalents, while the target enrollment for the 2024/2025 academic year has just 15 percent in stocks. That’s down 0.35 percent as of Thursday.

“This may not be ‘optimal,’ in the sense that it’s a one-size fits all product, but most parents are fine with that since it means it’s one less thing they have to think about,” Mr. Stermetz added.

Keep in mind that if a fund’s enrollment date that aligns with your child’s feels too aggressive, you can choose one for an older child; it will have less invested in stocks.

If you cannot afford to lose any money, Eric Maldonado, a financial planner in San Luis Obispo, Calif., suggests another approach:When your child is in high school, put the cost of the corresponding year of college into cash or money market funds. For example, if your child is a freshman in high school, put your freshman college tuition in cash, and so on.

“Whatever your mix of strategies, the key is to shift your mind-set as college nears,” said Mallon FitzPatrick, head of wealth planning at Robertson Stephens. “At some point, the goal isn’t to grow the money anymore. It’s to make sure it’s there when you need it.”

Have specific questions? Write to me at tsbernard@nytimes.com and my colleagues and I can answer them in upcoming newsletters.



Source link

How Brexit, a Startling Act of Economic Self-Harm, Foreshadowed Trump’s Tariffs

0


Britain has watched President Trump’s tariffs with a mix of shock, fascination and queasy recognition. The country, after all, embarked on a similar experiment in economic isolationism when it voted to leave the European Union in 2016. Nearly nine years after the Brexit referendum, it is still reckoning with the costs.

The lessons of that experience are suddenly relevant again as Mr. Trump uses a similar playbook to erect walls around the United States. Critics once described Brexit as the greatest act of economic self-harm by a Western country in the post-World War II era. It may now be getting a run for its money across the Atlantic.

Even Mr. Trump’s abrupt reversal last week of some of his tariffs, in the face of a bond-market revolt, recalled Britain, where Liz Truss, a short-lived prime minister, was forced to retreat from radical tax cuts that frightened the markets. Her misbegotten experiment was the culmination of a cycle of extreme policies set off by Britain’s decision to forsake the world’s largest trading bloc.

“In a way, some of the worst legacies of Brexit are still ahead,” said Mark Malloch Brown, a British diplomat who served as deputy secretary-general of the United Nations. Britain, he said, now faces a hard choice between rebuilding trade ties with Europe or preserving them with Mr. Trump’s America.

“The fundamental issue remains the breach with our biggest trading partner,” Mr. Malloch Brown said, adding, “If the U.K. ends up in the arms of Europe because neither of them can work with the U.S. anymore, that’s only half a victory.”

Mr. Trump was a full-throated champion of Brexit in 2016, drawing explicit parallels between it and the political movement he was marshaling. He initially imposed lower tariffs on Britain than the European Union, which some cast as a reward for Britain’s decision to leave.

Brexit’s drag on the British economy is no longer much debated, though its effects have been at times hard to disentangle from subsequent shocks delivered by the coronavirus pandemic, the war in Ukraine and, now, Mr. Trump’s tariffs.

The government’s Office of Budget Responsibility estimates that Britain’s overall trade volume is about 15 percent lower than it would have been had it remained in the European Union. Long-term productivity is 4 percent lower than it would have been because of trade barriers with Europe.

Productivity was lagging even before Brexit, but the rupture with Europe compounded the problem by sowing uncertainty, which chilled private investment. The years between the referendum and Britain’s formal departure at the end of January 2020 were paralyzed by debate over the terms of its exit.

By the middle of 2022, investment in Britain was 11 percent lower than it would have been without Brexit, based on a model by John Springford, who used a basket of comparable economies to stand in for a non-Brexit Britain. Trade in goods was 7 percent lower and gross domestic product 5.5 percent lower, according to Mr. Springford, a fellow at the Center for European Reform, a think tank in London.

Mr. Trump has kicked off even more volatility by imposing, redoubling and then pausing various tariffs. His actions, of course, affect dozens of countries, most dramatically the United States and China. Already, there are predictions of recession and a new bout of inflation.

Brexit and its aftermath had multiple second-order effects, both economic and political. Ms. Truss’s plan for debt-funded tax cuts, which were driven by a desire to jump-start Britain’s torpid economy, instead triggered a sell-off of British government bonds as investors recoiled from her proposals.

A similar sell-off of American bonds began last week, with far-reaching implications for the United States. Rising bond yields put pressure on governments because it means they must pay more to borrow funds. Sell-offs are also destabilizing because they signal deeper anxiety about a country’s creditworthiness.

In Britain’s case, fears of a credit crisis forced Ms. Truss to shelve the tax cuts, and she soon lost her job. While that calmed the markets, it left a residue of doubt among investors about Britain. Mortgage rates remained elevated for months, reflecting what one analyst unkindly labeled a “moron premium.”

This skittishness among investors has constrained Britain’s chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Reeves, from taking bolder measures to recharge the economy. Prime Minister Keir Starmer last week ruled out relaxing the government’s self-imposed fiscal constraints, citing the blowback to Ms. Truss’s free-market experiment.

“I would argue that the reason we have such a small-c conservative chancellor is due to the experience we had with Truss,” Mr. Malloch Brown said. “It is directly related to not wanting to prompt the Truss effect again.”

Unlike Britain, the United States still has the world’s default currency in the dollar, and until last week, Treasuries remained a haven for investors. But economists predict that both will be subjected to greater pressure under Mr. Trump.

“Confidence has been shaken, the bond vigilantes are more alert,” said Richard Portes, a professor of economics at London Business School. “People are now much more sensitive to policy inconsistency and policy irresponsibility.”

Brexit also diminished Britain’s influence on the diplomatic stage, something it has only recently begun to recoup with Mr. Starmer’s efforts to act as a bridge between Europe and the United States.

Mr. Trump’s retreat from America’s role as a security umbrella for NATO has driven Britain closer to Europe. But Britons still wrestle with the legacy of Brexit. A defense pact with the European Union, for instance, is being held up by France’s demand that Britain make concessions on fishing rights — an old chestnut from Brexit negotiations.

The longest-lasting effect of Brexit, analysts say, may have been on politics. The years of bitter debate divided and radicalized the Conservative Party, which governed from 2010 to 2024 with a patchwork of policies on immigration and trade that reflected the unwieldy coalition behind Brexit.

Some Brexiteers pushed a vision of Britain as a low-tax, lightly regulated, free-trading nation — Singapore-on-Thames, in their catchphrase. Others wanted a stronger state role in the economy to protect workers in the left-behind hinterland from open borders and the ravages of the global economy.

These contradictions resulted in policies that often seemed at odds with the message of Brexit. Britain, for example, experienced a record surge of net migration in the years after it left the European Union. The difference was that more of these immigrants were from South Asia and Africa, and fewer from Central and Southern Europe.

Brexit’s backers sold the project as a magic bullet that would solve the problems caused by a globalizing economy — not unlike Mr. Trump’s claims that tariffs would be a boon to the public purse and a remedy for the inequities of global trade. In neither case, experts said, does such a panacea exist.

“The truth is, Brexit did not correct any of the problems caused by deindustrialization,” said Tony Travers, a professor of politics at the London School of Economics. “If anything, Brexit made them worse.”

Frustrations over the economy and immigration were among the reasons that voters swept out the Conservatives in favor of Mr. Starmer’s Labour Party last year. But his government has kept grappling with these issues, as well as with the bruised aftermath of Britain’s divorce from Europe.

Mr. Trump’s MAGA coalition has some of the same ideological fault lines as the Brexiteers, pitting economic nationalists like Stephen K. Bannon against globalists like Elon Musk. That has led analysts to wonder if post-Trump politics in the United States will look a lot like post-Brexit politics in Britain.

“Brexit caused profound damage to the Conservative Party,” Professor Travers said. “It has been rendered unelectable because it is riven by factions. Will the Republican Party be similarly factionalized after Trump?”



Source link

Trump and Some of His Cabinet Members Attend U.F.C. Fight in Miami

0


President Trump, some of his cabinet members and his adviser Elon Musk sat ringside in Miami late Saturday night at the Ultimate Fighting Championship event — a spectacle of violence, throbbing music and cheering crowds that the president has long admired.

It’s the second U.F.C. event that Mr. Trump has attended since he was elected for a second time in November, and the first of his presidency. Unlike World Wrestling Entertainment events, U.F.C. matches aren’t staged.

Mr. Trump has been a fan of U.F.C. fights for years. He attended one in late 2019 in New York City during his first presidency. And he brought the chief executive of U.F.C., Dana White, onstage to speak during his victory speech on election night in 2024.

But the scene on Saturday was emblematic of a president who is increasingly emboldened, brazen and encouraging of displays of force to carry out his agenda, particularly on immigration and crime.

Mr. Trump and two of his older children walked into the Kaseya Center to the booming sounds of the Kid Rock song “American Bad Ass” and to sustained, thunderous applause from the crowd. He sat next to Mr. Musk, who had brought one of his 14 children. They sat with the F.B.I. director, Kash Patel; Secretary of State Marco Rubio, a former senator from Florida; the director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard; and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his wife, the actress Cheryl Hines. Also in the Trump entourage was Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas.

When Mr. Trump first arrived, he tried to shake Mr. Kennedy’s hand; Mr. Kennedy was looking in the other direction. Mr. Trump then walked past the outstretched hand of Ms. Hines, moving his gaze past her entirely despite appearing to see her.

Ms. Hines held up her hand in confusion and looked at her husband. Mr. Kennedy brought Ms. Hines over to say hello to Mr. Trump a few moments later, and they spoke cordially, but the apparent snub had already ricocheted across social media.

After the first two fights, the winners scaled the octagonal fence around the ring and opened their arms to the crowd like gladiators. Mr. Trump pointed at them and smiled approvingly. Mr. Musk reposted on X, the social media site he owns, video of a brutal punch thrown by the California-born Dominick Reyes against Nikita Krylov, a Ukrainian fighter, that quickly ended their bout, the first of the night that Mr. Trump witnessed.

Mr. Reyes posed for photos with Mr. Trump outside the ring after his victory.

Since his first Republican presidential campaign in 2016, Mr. Trump has incorporated some of the pageantry of wrestling and U.F.C. into his rallies, from playlists to dramatic stage entrances. Mr. Trump’s 2024 campaign made expansive use of his decades of hosting professional wrestling events and U.F.C. events as a casino owner, and the adoration many of the fans have for him.

Saturday night was a glimpse into the cultural and pro-Trump ecosystem that helped vault Mr. Trump back into office. Joe Rogan, the wildly popular Texas-based podcaster who conducted an hourslong interview with Mr. Trump at the end of the 2024 campaign, sat near Mr. Trump.

Flying aboard Air Force One for a brief flight from Palm Beach, Fla., to Miami before the fight, Mr. Trump connected attending a fight to a week of trade fights that sent financial markets spiraling.

“So we’re going to the fight,” Mr. Trump said. “We have lots of fights going around the world, and I think we have a lot of good news coming soon about some of those fights, and we’ll see how it goes. But it’s been a it’s been an interesting weekend. I think we have some pretty good news coming on some of the conflicts.”



Source link

The Masters 2025: Rory McIlroy on verge of career Grand Slam but old nemesis Bryson DeChambeau stands in his way | Golf News

0


If Rory McIlroy is to clinch the career Grand Slam on Sunday at The Masters, he is probably going to have to hold off the man he couldn’t at last year’s US Open.

The Northern Irishman led at Pinehurst last June with four holes remaining but went on to bogey three of the those, missing extremely short putts at 16 and 18.

That allowed Bryson DeChambeau to nip in and take the trophy, earning him a second major after the 2020 US Open and ensuring McIlroy’s long wait for a fifth would extend.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Rory McIlroy moved a step closer to the elusive Grand Slam with a third-round 66 at Augusta earning him a two-shot lead ahead of the final round

It is now close to 11 years since McIlroy last recorded victory at one of the game’s four biggest events but that barren run may be about to end with the one title he truly craves.

The world No 2 will take a two-stroke lead into the final round of The Masters at Augusta National, with DeChambeau his closet challenger after the American holed an outstanding long-range birdie at 18 to conclude an absorbing Saturday.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Bryson DeChambeau made three birdies in the closing four holes to pull within two shots of leader Rory McIlroy at The Masters and set-up an intriguing final day at Augusta.

‘It’s Rory’s time to win The Masters’

Patrons at the venue and those watching on TV are poised for an intense battle but Sky Sports’ Dame Laura Davies and Rich Beem are backing McIlroy to triumph and become the sixth player in history to win all four men’s majors at least once.

Davies said: “I will stick with Rory but it’s going to be a titanic battle. You just have to think he has served his time and this could be the Grand Slam.”

Career Grand Slam
Image:
Career Grand Slam

Beem added: “It’s Rory’s time. He has learnt so much about himself and it is going to be his stage. He is more prepared to win by far than the 10 previous attempts [at the Grand Slam] and I think he will get it done. But he is going to be taken to task all day by Bryson.”

Despite Beem tipping McIlroy, he does think what transpired at the US Open last summer could have a bearing at Augusta National.

“I think it’s a big plus for Bryson, for sure. He will know it and Rory will know it in the back of his mind. I think Rory will have a healthy conversation with his psychologist about it.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Rory McIlroy extended his lead at the top of the leaderboard at The Masters with a sensational eagle on the par-five 15th hole at Augusta during the third round.

“Hopefully we see a fight to the bitter end and the toughest gladiator wins but I know Bryson will have the edge on the first tee with the little mind games.”

The Pinehurst capitulation was not McIlroy’s first taste of Grand Slam heartache.

Back in 2011, he led The Masters by four shots after three rounds only to shoot 80 a day later and finish in a share of 15th place. What should have been his first major title remains the only one he is yet to win, the millstone hanging around his neck.

Rory McIlroy's major record since his 2014 PGA Championship victory
Image:
Rory McIlroy’s major record since his 2014 PGA Championship victory

That pressure will be there again on Sunday but he now seems to have the mental fortitude to deal with that, aided by sports psychologist Bob Rotella, the fact he has already won twice on the PGA Tour this year, at The Players and Pebble Beach Pro-Am, and the wealth of experience, good and bad, he has garnered over the years.

‘Situations like this the reason I get up’

Playing with someone as talented and boisterous on the course as DeChambeau is something McIlroy says will inspire him.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Speaking to Sky Sports after this third round 66 at Augusta, Rory McIlroy suggested that he’s not going to shy away from the challenge of Bryson DeChambeau as he attempts to win The Masters and complete a career Grand Slam.

“I won’t shy away from it. Situations like this the reason I get up, work hard and try to do the right things.

“If I didn’t want this moment I wouldn’t be doing those things. These are the pairings I want to be in and I’m excited for that.”

Davies added: “The fact Rory hasn’t won this yet will hurt and spur him on. You have to learn from those mistakes.

Rory McIIlroy's past 54 hole leads in majors
Image:
Rory McIIlroy’s past 54 hole leads in majors

“You learn more from those than victories. He has put himself in the perfect position – but it is not over yet. And it’s not just the top two either.”

Davies is right that it’s not just the top two – 2018 Masters winner Patrick Reed is six shots back and still in the hunt, while defending champion Scottie Scheffler is still within striking distance seven strokes off the pace – but it feels like just the top two.

McIlroy vs DeChambeau. One man trying to clinch the Grand Slam, the other trying to dash that plan. Will it be the 2024 US Open all over again or is this, finally, Rory’s crowning glory?

Bryson DeChambeau, The Masters 2025
Image:
Will DeChembeau spoil Rory McIlroy’s Grand Slam bid in Sunday?

When is The Masters live on Sky Sports?

Sky Sports Golf is showing record hours of live coverage from The Masters this year, with a special build-up show live from 3pm over the weekend ahead of full coverage starting at 5pm.

Sky Sports+ on Sky Q and Sky Glass will provide plenty of bonus feeds and allow you to follow players’ progress through various parts of Augusta’s famous layout, including Amen Corner and more.

Watch the final round of The Masters live from 3pm, Sunday, Sky Sports Golf. Get Sky Sports or stream with no contract on NOW.



Source link