Connect with us

Published

on

Representative Jim Jordan may or may not break down the last few Republican holdouts who blocked his election as House speaker yesterday. But the fact that about 90 percent of the House GOP conference voted to place him in the chambers top job marks an ominous milestone in the Republican Partys reconfiguration since Donald Trumps emergence as its central figure.

The preponderant majority of House Republicans backing Jordan is attempting to elevate someone who not only defended former President Trumps efforts to subvert the 2020 presidential election but participated in them more extensively than any other member of Congress, according to the bipartisan committee that investigated the January 6 insurrection. As former Republican Representative Liz Cheney, who was the vice chair of that committee, said earlier this month: Jim Jordan knew more about what Donald Trump had planned for January 6 than any other member of the House of Representatives.

Read: Jim Jordan could have a long fight ahead

Jordans rise, like Trumps own commanding lead in the 2024 GOP presidential race, provides more evidence that for the first time since the Civil War, the dominant faction in one of Americas two major parties is no longer committed to the principles of democracy as the U.S. has known them. That means the nation now faces the possibility of sustained threats to the tradition of free and fair elections, with Trumps own antidemocratic tendencies not only tolerated but amplified by his allies across the party.

Ian Bassin, the executive director of the bipartisan group Protect Democracy, told me that the American constitutional system is not built to withstand a demagogue capturing an entire political party and installing his loyalists in key positions in the other branches of government. That dynamic, he told me, would likely mean our 247-year-old republic wont live to celebrate 250. And yet, he continued, those developments are precisely what were witnessing play out before our eyes.

Sarah Longwell, the founder of the anti-Trump Republican Accountability Project, told me that whether or not Jordan steamrolls the last holdouts, his strength in the race reflects the position inside the party of the forces allied with Trump. Even if he doesnt make it, because the majorities are so slim, you cant argue that Jim Jordan doesnt represent the median Republican today, she told me.

Longwell said House Republicans have sent an especially clear signal by predominantly rallying around Jordan, who actively enlisted in Trumps efforts to overturn the 2020 election, so soon after they exiled Cheney, who denounced them and then was soundly defeated in a GOP primary last year. Nominating Jim Jordan to be speaker is not them acquiescing to antidemocratic forces; it is them fully embracing antidemocratic forces, she said. The contrast between Jim Jordan potentially ascending to speaker and Liz Cheney, who is out of the Republican Party and excommunicated, could not be a starker statement of what the party stands for.

In one sense, Jordans advance to the brink of the speakership only extends the pattern that has played out within the GOP since Trump became a national candidate in 2015. Each time the party has had an opportunity to distance itself from Trump, it has roared past the exit ramp and reaffirmed its commitment. At each moment of crisis for him, the handful of Republicans who condemned his behavior were swamped by his fervid supporters until resistance in the party crumbled.

Even against that backdrop, the breadth of Republican support for Jordan as speaker is still a striking statement. As the January 6 committees final report showed, Jordan participated in virtually every element of Trumps campaign to subvert the 2020 result. Jordan spoke at Stop the Steal rallies, spread baseless conspiracy theories through television appearances and social media, urged Trump not to concede, demanded congressional investigations into nonexistent election fraud, and participated in multiple White House strategy sessions on how to pressure Vice President Mike Pence to reject the results.

Given that record, undermining the election is too soft a language to describe Jordans activities in 2020, Jena Griswold, Colorados Democratic secretary of state, told me. He was involved in every step to try to destroy American democracy and the peaceful transfer of the presidency. If Jordan wins the position, she said, you could no longer count on the speaker of the House to defend the United States Constitution.

Jordan didnt stop his service to Trump once he left office. Since the GOP won control of the House last year, Jordan has used his role as chair of the House Judiciary Committee to launch investigations into each of the prosecutors who have indicted Trump on criminal charges (local district attorneys in Manhattan and Fulton County, Georgia, as well as federal Special Counsel Jack Smith). Fani Willis, the Fulton County district attorney, has described Jordans demand for information as an effort to obstruct a Georgia criminal proceeding that is flagrantly at odds with the Constitution.

The willingness of most GOP House members to embrace Jordan as speaker, even as he offers such unconditional support to Trump, sends the same message about the partys balance of power as the former presidents own dominant position in the 2024 Republican race. Though some Republican voters clearly remain resistant to nominating Trump again, his support in national surveys usually exceeds the total vote for all of his rivals combined.

Equally telling is that rather than criticizing Trumps attempts to overturn the 2020 election, almost all of his rivals have echoed his claim that the indictments hes facing over his actions are unfair and politically motivated. In the same vein, hardly any of the Republican members resisting Jordan have even remotely suggested that his role in Trumps attempts to subvert the election is a legitimate reason to oppose him. That silence from Jordans critics speaks loudly to the reluctance in all corners of the GOP to cross Trump.

If Jordan becomes speaker, it would really mean the complete and total takeover of the party by Trump, former Republican Representative Charlie Dent, now the executive director of the Aspen Institutes congressional program, told me. Because he is the closest thing Trump has to a wingman in Congress.

All of this crystallizes the growing tendency at every level of the GOP, encompassing voters and activists as well as donors and elected officials, to normalize and whitewash Trumps effort to overturn the 2020 election. In an Economist/YouGov national poll earlier this year, fully three-fifths of Trump 2020 voters said those who stormed the Capitol on January 6 were participating in legitimate political discourse, and only about one-fifth said they were part of a violent insurrection. Only about one-fifth of Trump 2020 voters thought he bore a significant share of responsibility for the January 6 attack; more than seven in 10 thought he carried little or no responsibility.

That sentiment has solidified in the GOP partly because of a self-reinforcing cycle, Longwell believes. Because most Republican voters do not believe that Trump acted inappropriately after 2020, she said, candidates cant win a primary by denouncing him, but because so few elected officials criticize his actions, the more normal elements of the party become convinced its not an issue or its not worth objecting to.

The flip side is that for the minority of House Republicans in highly competitive districts18 in seats that voted for President Joe Biden in 2020 and another 15 or so in districts that only narrowly preferred TrumpJordan could be a heavy burden to carry as speaker. Everyone is worried about their primary opponents, but in this case ameliorating the primary pressures by endorsing Jordan could spell political death in the general election in a competitive district, Dent told me. Even so, 12 of the 18 House Republicans in districts that Biden carried voted for Jordan onhis first ballot as a measure of their reluctance to challenge the partys MAGA forces.

The instinct for self-preservation among a handful of Republican members combined with ongoing resentment at the role of the far right in ousting Kevin McCarthy might be enough to keep Jordan just below the majority he needs for election as speaker; many Republicans expect him to fail again in a second vote scheduled for this morning. Yet even if Jordan falls short, its his ascent that captures the shift in the partys balance of power toward Trumps MAGA movement.

Bassin, of Protect Democracy, points to a disturbing analogy for what is happening in the GOP as Trump surges and Jordan climbs. When you look at the historical case studies to determine which countries survive autocratic challenges and which succumb to them, Bassin told me, a key determinant is whether the countrys mainstream parties unite with their traditional opponents to block the extremists from power.

Philip Wallach: Newt Gingrichs degraded legacy

Over the years, he said, that kind of alliance has mobilized against autocratic movements in countries including the Czech Republic, France, Finland, and, most recently, Poland, where the center-right joined with its opponents on the left to topple the antidemocratic Law and Justice party. The chilling counterexample, Bassin noted, is that during the period between World War I and World War II, center-right parties in Germany and Italy chose a different course. Rather than directly opposing the emerging fascist movements in each country, they opted instead to try to ride the energy of [the] far-right extremists to power, thinking that once there, they could easily sideline [their] leaders.

That was, of course, a historic miscalculation that led to the destruction of democracy in each country. But, Bassin said, right now, terrifyingly, the American Republican Party is following the German and Italian path. The belligerent Jordan may face just enough personal and ideological opposition to stop him, but whether or not he becomes speaker, his rise captures the currents carrying the Trump-era GOP ever further from Americas democratic traditions.

Continue Reading

Technology

The U.S. makes it harder for TSMC, SK Hynix and Samsung to produce chips in China

Published

on

By

The U.S. makes it harder for TSMC, SK Hynix and Samsung to produce chips in China

A 300mm wafer on display at the booth of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company during the 2023 World Semiconductor Conference at Nanjing International Expo Center on July 19, 2023, in Nanjing, China.

Vcg | Visual China Group | Getty Images

The U.S. has revoked a waiver that allowed Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. to export key chipmaking equipment and technology to its manufacturing plant in Nanjing, China, as Washington continues to ramp up efforts to limit Beijing’s semiconductor advancement.

The change will remove a fast-track export privilege known as validated end user (VEU) status, effective Dec. 31, TSMC confirmed to CNBC on Wednesday.

The world’s largest contract chipmaker had received the exemption soon after the Commerce Department launched its initial restrictions on the sale of U.S.-origin chipmaking tools in 2022.

Under the new policy, shipments of chipmaking tools with American origins to TSMC’s manufacturing facilities in Nanjing, China, will require U.S. export licenses.

“While we are evaluating the situation and taking appropriate measures, including communicating with the US government, we remain fully committed to ensuring the uninterrupted operation of TSMC Nanjing,” the company said. 

South Korean memory chipmakers SK Hynix and Samsung also had their VEU privileges revoked on Friday, according to a statement on the Federal Register. Both companies run China-based memory chip facilities.

At the same time, the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security said in a statement that it was closing the VEU “Biden-era loophole” for all foreign semiconductor manufacturers.

It added that it intends to grant export license applications to allow former VEU participants to operate their existing manufacturing facilities in China, but not to expand capacity or upgrade technology in China. 

Jeffrey Kessler, under secretary of commerce for industry and security, stated that the Trump administration is “committed to closing export control loopholes — particularly those that put U.S. companies at a competitive disadvantage. Today’s decision is an important step towards fulfilling this commitment.”

According to Brady Wang, associate director at Counterpoint Research, the policy changes “reflect Washington’s broader push to tighten control over semiconductor equipment and technology exports to China, strengthening U.S. power over chip production in China,” he said.  

TSMC operates two manufacturing sites in China, one in Shanghai and Nanjing, with the latter facility more advanced. To power its fabrication plants, the company uses hardware from several U.S. chip equipment suppliers, including Applied Materials and  KLA Corp.

However, according to Wang, as TSMC’s Nanjing fab contributes less than 3% of TSMC’s total revenue and represents a minor share of its global capacity, the financial impact on the company “should be minor.”

Renewed crackdown? 

The recent VEU reversals may come as a surprise to some, as they follow the Trump administration’s announcement that it would ease controls on the export of some American artificial intelligence chips. 

Last month, the U.S. said Nvidia and AMD would be allowed to resume exports of some of their previously banned made-for-China AI chips, and signaled that the policy could be expanded.

Prior to that, the administration had also struck down the Biden-era AI diffusion rule, a move that could’ve seen the expansion of export controls on advanced AI chips.

The rollbacks of advanced chip restrictions have been posed by U.S. officials as a way for the U.S. to maintain the supremacy of the AI technology stack globally, including in China. 

However, the removal of the VEU exemptions shows that the same logic is unlikely to be applied to memory and chipmaking technologies. 

According to Ray Wang, research director for semiconductors, supply chain and emerging technology at Futurum Group, the policies show that Washington remains committed to preventing China from boosting its local chip production capacity and cultivating its local know-how and talent. 

“Zooming out, another underlying goal may be to constrain companies’ ability to expand their supply chain footprint in China—particularly in strategic sectors such as semiconductors, which the administration is keen to prevent,” he said. 

Conversely, the Trump administration has been working to attract more of the semiconductor supply chain to the shores of the U.S. through tariff threats.

This year, TSMC, SK Hynix and Samsung have committed new investments into their American manufacturing plans. 

On Monday, shares of SK Hynix and Samsung fell on the VEU news. However, shares of TSMC traded flat on Wednesday after news of its VEU reversal.

Continue Reading

Business

Cost of long term UK government borrowing hits fresh 27-year high

Published

on

By

Cost of long term UK government borrowing hits fresh 27-year high

After hitting the highest level this century on Tuesday, the cost of long term UK government borrowing has now hit a fresh 27-year high.

The interest rate demanded by investors on the state’s long-dated borrowing (30-year bonds) rose to just below 5.75%, surpassing the 5.72% peak reached on Tuesday, pushing it to a high not seen since May 1998.

 

It comes as the government auctioned off these long-term loans on Tuesday and was forced to pay a premium to do so.

Issuing bonds is a routine way states raise money.

Money blog: Sainsbury’s criticised for trialling ‘spying’ technology

As well as meaning the state has to pay more to borrow money, high interest rates on debt can signify reduced investor confidence in the ability of the UK to pay back these loans.

As the trading session continued, the interest rates on long-term government bonds, known as gilt yields, fell back to just above 5.66%, not enough to erase two days of rises.

The benchmark for state borrowing costs, the interest rate on 10-year bonds, also saw rises. The yield rose above 4.8% for the first time since January, before slightly falling back

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Why did UK debt just get more expensive?

The spiked borrowing cost also continued to cause a weakening in the pound.

After an initial fall to a month-long low against the dollar, one pound again buys $1.34.

It means sterling goes less far in dollars than before the latest peak in interest rates on government bonds. On Monday, sterling could buy $1.35.

Sterling dropped to equal €1.14 before easing up to €1.15. Just a few months earlier, a pound could buy €1.19 before Donald Trump’s April country-specific tariff announcements.

So why has this happened?

Government borrowing costs have been rising across the world amid a sell-off in bonds – which prompts investors to look for a higher return to hold them.

High inflation and national debts have increased concern about whether states can pay back the money.

Japan’s long-term borrowing cost hit a record high, while the yield on the US’s benchmark 10-year bond hit the 5% mark for the first time since July.

UK bond yields tend to follow the US.

Read more:
Prospective Thames Water rescuers make big promise

Hundreds of jobs at risk as retailer Bodycare braces for administration

Key to easing UK borrowing costs was the announcement of the date of the budget on Wednesday morning.

UK public finances had been a worry for markets as Chancellor Rachel Reeves struggles to stick to her fiscal rules to bring down the debt and balance the budget.

Disquiet around comparatively low growth in the UK economy also played a role.

Continue Reading

Business

Telegraph buyers take step towards £500m deal with Whitehall filing

Published

on

By

Telegraph buyers take step towards £500m deal with Whitehall filing

The American investors who have agreed to become the new owners of The Daily Telegraph have edged closer to gaining control of the newspaper by formally notifying the government of the deal.

Sky News understands that lawyers acting for RedBird Capital Partners, which will own a majority stake in the publisher if the deal is approved, submitted their detailed proposals to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) in the last few days.

The filing means that Lisa Nandy, the culture secretary, must decide whether to issue a new Public Interest Intervention Notice (PIIN) which would trigger further investigations into the takeover.

The notification by RedBird Capital’s lawyers should pave the way for the lifting of an interim enforcement order (IEO) imposed by Lucy Frazer, the then Conservative culture secretary, in December 2023, which prevented the acquirers from exerting any control over the Telegraph.

Insiders believe that the removal of the IEO will result in the DCMS issuing a new PIIN, which would prompt investigations by Ofcom and the Competition and Markets Authority into the £500m takeover.

A previous PIIN was issued in January 2024 when RedBird intended to buy the Telegraph titles in conjunction with Abu Dhabi state-controlled investor IMI.

Following a fraught legislative battle, IMI is now restricted to owning a maximum 15% stake in the newspapers – which it intends to acquire as part of the RedBird-led consortium.

Sky News has already revealed that Sir Leonard Blavatnik, owner of the DAZN sports streaming platform, and Daily Mail proprietor Lord Rothermere are preparing to buy minority stakes as part of the RedBird-led transaction.

Read more from Sky News:
Value of pound sinks
UK hit by toxic cocktail of market shifts

RedBird said in May that it was “in discussions with select UK-based minority investors with print media expertise and strong commitment to upholding the editorial values of the Telegraph”.

The Telegraph’s ownership has been in a state of limbo for nearly two-and-a-half years after its parent company was forced into insolvency by Lloyds Banking Group, which ran out of patience with the Barclay family, the newspaper’s long-standing owner.

RedBird IMI, a joint venture between the two firms, paid £600m in 2023 to acquire a call option that was intended to convert into ownership of the Telegraph newspapers and The Spectator magazine.

The Spectator was sold last year for £100m to Sir Paul Marshall, the hedge fund billionaire, who has installed Lord Gove, the former cabinet minister, as its editor.

In July, the House of Lords approved legislation that will allow IMI, which is controlled by Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the vice-president of the United Arab Emirates and ultimate owner of Manchester City Football Club, to hold a minority stake.

Other bidders had tried to gatecrash the Telegraph deal, with the field of rival contenders led by Dovid Efune, the owner of The New York Sun.

His key backer – the hedge fund founder Jeremy Hosking – recently told Sky News their bid was “ready to go” if the RedBird-led transaction fell apart.

Announcing its agreement to acquire the Telegraph titles in May, Gerry Cardinale, founder of RedBird Capital, said it marked the “start of a new era” for two of Britain’s most prominent newspapers.

Mr Cardinale said after the Lords vote: “With legislation now in place, we will move quickly and in the forthcoming days work with DCMS to progress to completion and implement new ownership for The Telegraph.”

Senior Telegraph executives and journalists are said to be frustrated at the pace of the process.

None of the parties involved in the Telegraph ownership situation would comment, while the DCMS declined to comment.

Continue Reading

Trending