Connect with us

Published

on

A bipartisan group of lawmakers support limiting the ability of American citizens to invest in Chinese companies. A small group of Republicans, meanwhile, is advocating a more measured approach.

On November 20, over 40 U.S. lawmakersincluding Sens. Marco Rubio (RFla.), Debbie Stabenow (DMich.), and Angus King (IMaine)signed a letter to the ranking members of both the House and Senate Armed Services Committees.

“We are deeply concerned,” the letter read, “about the potential national security threats posed by outbound capital flows and knowledge transfer to the United States’ adversaries,” namely China. “There is strong bipartisan consensus in both the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives that Congress must act to address the national security threat posed by these outbound investments.”

To that end, the signers hoped the 2024 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)the annual must-pass legislation that funds the various components of the national security apparatus, from paying soldiers to maintaining the nuclear stockpilewould include a provision that addressed their concerns.

The Senate passed its version of the NDAA in July, though it seems unlikely the House will pass the same version untouched. The Senate bill included Amendment 931, which the chamber accepted by a 916 vote. Under the terms of the amendment, any U.S. citizen or company investing in sectors like semiconductors, satellites, or artificial intelligence in a “country of concern” (like China) would have to provide written notification of the transaction to the Secretary of the Treasury at least two weeks in advance.

The bipartisan letter asked that the NDAA include language that addresses outbound investments in China “and ideally strengthen the language.” It mentioned Amendment 931 as well as Executive Order 14105, issued by President Joe Biden in August, which declared “a national emergency to deal with this threat”that threat being the “advancement by countries of concern in sensitive technologies and products critical for the military, intelligence, surveillance, or cyber-enabled capabilities.”

The bipartisan letter noted, seemingly positively, that the executive order “goes beyond notification to consider prohibition of investment in some sectors.”

While the Treasury Department’s Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) reviews investments made in the U.S. by foreign nationals, Biden’s executive order wants regulations going in the other direction, to potentially limit Americans’ investments in foreign countries. As Reason’s Eric Boehm reported at the time, “There are only two other countriesSouth Korea and Taiwanthat have outbound investment screening systems.”

At the congressional level, the proposal is currently being held up by Rep. Patrick McHenry (RN.C.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee who briefly served as House Speaker Pro Tempore in October. As Bloomberg reported this week, “McHenry, who has long opposed broad investment restrictions in favor of an approach that targets individual companies,” is “effectively blocking” the measure’s inclusion in the House’s version of the NDAA.

In a September 27 letter to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, McHenry expressed relief that the “scope” of Biden’s executive order was “less broad than some had anticipated” but nevertheless felt the administration’s policy was “arbitrary, relies on baseless assumptions, and in certain places is incoherent.”

“If we oppose China’s state-run economy, we want more private investment not less,” McHenry wrote. “Of those private investors, we want more of them to be Americans not fewer.”

McHenry has a point. “We should be targeting specific companies rather than imposing blanket restrictions,” says Clark Packard, a research fellow at the Cato Institute’s Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies.

“Broadly speaking, I don’t think Americans should be investing in companies that make equipment used to surveil and further repress Uyghurs,” Packard added, pointing to an April Axios report that said cameras made by Chinese-owned surveillance firm Hikvision have been used to surveil Uyghurs, the Muslim minority population that has been subjected to a campaign of authoritarian repression by the Chinese government.

Outright bans on investment would be a bridge too far, even for a country like China with such a dismal human rights record, and could even backfire. Rep. Andy Barr (RKy.), who serves with McHenry on the House Financial Services Committee, tweeted that the proposed regulations “would inadvertently bolster [Chinese President] Xi Jinping’s goal to block American influence in the Chinese market.” Barr added, “It’s crucial we find the right balance in safeguarding American influence and intelligence without creating unnecessary bureaucracy. ”

Last week, Ian Allen at Just Security wrote that the proposed rules could also lead other nations, including allies and trading partners, to adopt restrictions of their own, in turn. “Overly restrictive measures risk impediments to global technological advancement, blowback for domestic industries, and high administrative costs (which are projected to reach $10 million simply to start the program),” Allen warns.

Besides, there is reason to suspect that a more measured approach is warranted. “Foreign direct investment in China turned negative during the 3rd quarter of 2023 for the first time on record,” Packard added. “In other words, more capital flowed out of China than into China in the 3rd quarter of 2023. Likewise, between 2014 and 2020, foreign direct investment from G7 countries into China fell by about half.” Industrialized nations are turning their backs on an increasingly illiberal China.

Just like targeted sanctions, Congress can designate certain companies that are particularly objectionable to be off-limits, while allowing Americans the freedom to otherwise use their money as they see fit. On the other hand, an all-encompassing ban as has been proposed by members of both major parties would be too aggressive and could even risk escalating tensions with the world’s second-largest economy.

Continue Reading

US

YouTuber Jake Paul beats Mike Tyson as boos heard during controversial fight

Published

on

By

YouTuber Jake Paul beats Mike Tyson as boos heard during controversial fight

YouTuber-turned-boxer Jake Paul has defeated one of the greatest-ever fighters, former heavyweight world champion Mike Tyson, who is more than twice his age.

Paul, 27, won the bout via a unanimous points decision at the AT&T Stadium in Arlington, Texas – home of the Dallas Cowboys and the biggest NFL stadium in the US.

The fight was already controversial but then arguably failed to live up to the hype. Boos were heard from the crowd in the final two rounds, after a perceived lack of action.

Afterwards, the pair heaped praise on each other. Paul said: “This man is an icon and it’s just an honour to be able to fight him. And he’s obviously the toughest, baddest man on the planet.”

Tyson, 58, described Paul as a “good fighter” but dismissed the suggestion he was out to prove something.

“I didn’t prove nothing to anybody, only to myself,” he said.

Jake Paul lands a left to Mike Tyson during their heavyweight boxing match, Friday, Nov. 15, 2024, in Arlington, Texas. (AP Photo/Julio Cortez)
Image:
Jake Paul defeated Mike Tyson on points. Pic: AP

Boxing careers compared

More on Jake Paul

This was not Paul’s first professional fight. The American YouTube star made his debut in 2020, and his most high-profile clash was last year against Tyson Fury’s brother Tommy Fury, which he lost by a split decision.

The so-called “Problem Child” has since defeated former UFC contender Nate Diaz, professional boxer Andre August, former Gold Gloves champion Ryan Bourland and most recently MMA fighter Mike Perry.

In contrast, “Iron Mike” Tyson was ranked among the best heavyweight boxers of all time.

During his career, he knocked out 44 opponents – retiring from professional boxing in 2005 after defeat against Kevin McBride.

He returned to the ring in 2020 for a bout against fellow boxing icon Roy Jones, which ended in an unofficial draw.

Mike Tyson, left, fights Jake Paul during their heavyweight boxing match, Friday, Nov. 15, 2024, in Arlington, Texas. (AP Photo/Julio Cortez)
Image:
Mike Tyson struggled at times against Jake Paul, 31 years his junior. Pic: AP

‘Someone’s getting put to sleep’

Earlier this week, Paul said he believed the bout would not go the distance. “No, someone’s getting put to sleep,” he said. “It’s going to be a war, and we’re both heavy hitters. It’s not going the full 16 minutes.”

Tyson said: “I’ve been through so many ups and downs since my last fight with Kevin McBride.

“I’ve been in rehab. I’ve been in prison, been locked up. Never in a million years did I believe I’d be doing this.”

Several states would not allow the bout to go ahead, and the Texas Athletic Commission only agreed to the fight if there were changes, due to Tyson’s age.

It limited the contest to eight rounds lasting a maximum of two minutes instead of three. Both boxers were also required to wear heavier gloves, designed to lessen the force of punches.

The fight was initially scheduled for 20 July, but was postponed when Tyson suffered an ulcer flareup.

Taylor defends title

Katie Taylor, center, celebrates after defeating Amanda Serrano during their undisputed super lightweight title bout, Friday, Nov. 15, 2024, in Arlington, Texas. (AP Photo/Julio Cortez)
Image:
Katie Taylor celebrates after defeating Amanda Serrano in Texas. Pic: AP

Meanwhile, among the undercard fights, Irish boxer Katie Taylor successfully defended her super lightweight world title against Puerto Rico’s Amanda Serrano.

But it was tight. Taylor claimed the rematch 95-94 for all three judges in an epic battle.

The bout came two and a half years after the pair fought at Madison Square Garden, which Taylor won on a split decision.

Bout suffered from buffering

Earlier in the evening thousands of Netflix users in the US reported problems with the coverage, with some posting on social media about buffering.

At one point, more than 98,000 people had reported issues according to Downdetector, which tracks outages.

Continue Reading

US

Matt Gaetz: Speaker Mike Johnson will request report into Trump’s attorney general pick is kept secret

Published

on

By

Matt Gaetz: Speaker Mike Johnson will request report into Trump's attorney general pick is kept secret

US House Speaker Mike Johnson has said he will “strongly request” a report into allegations of sex trafficking against Matt Gaetz, who is the president-elect’s choice of attorney general, should not be released.

Mr Johnson said he was against publishing the House Ethics Committee report on Mr Gaetz, 42, who if approved by the Senate will become the nation’s top prosecutor once Donald Trump is sworn in as president on 20 January.

That’s despite Mr Gaetz having previously faced a nearly three-year Justice Department investigation into sex trafficking allegations involving a 17-year-old girl. He denies the allegations and has not faced criminal charges.

Mr Gaetz has also never worked as a prosecutor and has only worked in law for a few years at a local level.

He stepped down from Congress after Mr Trump announced him as his attorney general pick.

His resignation brought the investigation by the House Ethics Committee to an end – two days before it had been expected to release its report into the trafficking claims.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Why is Matt Gaetz a controversial pick?

House Speaker Mr Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, said of the probe: “I’m going to strongly request that the Ethics Committee not issue the report, because that is not the way we do things in the House.”

Politicians of both parties on the Senate Judiciary Committee have said they want to see the report on Mr Gaetz, as part of a Senate confirmation process for cabinet nominees that would start next year with public hearings.

Democrats have described the MAGA loyalist as “a gonzo agent of chaos” and his appointment a “red alert moment for our democracy”, while some Republican senators have also raised doubts about his suitability for the role.

Read more:
Trump hands out top jobs: Who is in, who is out?
RFK Jr chosen as Donald Trump’s health secretary

Mr Johnson said he planned to urge House Ethics Committee chairman Michael Guest not to provide the report to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“The rules of the House have always been that a former member is beyond the jurisdiction of the Ethics Committee,” said Mr Johnson, who returned on Friday morning from meeting Mr Trump at the president-elect’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida.

“I think it’s a terrible breach of protocol and tradition and the spirit of the rule,” he added. “I think that would be a terrible precedent to set.”

Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp

Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News

Tap here

Mr Johnson had said on Wednesday that as Speaker he could not be involved in deciding whether or not to release the report.

Continue Reading

US

Malcolm X family brings $100m lawsuit against FBI, CIA and NYPD over ‘conspiracy to assassinate’ civil rights leader

Published

on

By

Malcolm X family brings 0m lawsuit against FBI, CIA and NYPD over 'conspiracy to assassinate' civil rights leader

A $100m (£79m) lawsuit has been brought against the CIA, FBI and New York Police Department (NYPD) who are accused of being involved in the 1965 assassination of civil rights leader Malcolm X.

The case, which has been filed in a federal court in Manhattan, New York, alleges that the agencies were aware of the assassination, they were involved in the plot and failed to stop the killing.

The legal action has been brought by Malcolm X’s three daughters along with his estate.

The NYPD and CIA have not yet responded to the claims while the FBI said it was “standard practice” not to comment on litigation.

Nicholas Biase, a spokesperson for the US Department of Justice, which is also included in the lawsuit, declined to respond.

Attorney Ben Crump and legal team speak alongside daughter of the late killed civil rights leader Malcolm X, Ilyasah Shabazz, during a news conference to announce a lawsuit against government agencies and the New York City Police Department (NYPD) for the alleged assassination and concealment of evidence surrounding Malcolm X’s murder in New York City, U.S., November, 15, 2024. REUTERS/Shannon Stapleton
Image:
Attorney Ben Crump with Malcolm X’s family on Friday. Pic: Reuters

Malcolm X was 39 when he was shot dead on 21 February 1965 on stage by three gunmen as he prepared to speak at the Audubon Ballroom in Manhattan.

At a news conference in New York on Friday, to announce the details of the lawsuit, attorney Benjamin Crump said: “The government fingerprints are all over the assassination of Malcolm X.

“We believe we have the evidence to prove it.”

For decades, questions have arisen over who was behind his murder.

Malcolm X rose to prominence as the national spokesman of the Nation of Islam, an African-American Muslim group which supported black separatism.

He broke away from the group in 1964 and moderated some of his earlier views on racial separation, which angered Nation of Islam members and resulted in death threats.

Three men were convicted of his murder but two of them were cleared in 2021 after investigators took a fresh look at the case. They concluded some evidence was shaky and authorities had held back some information.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Malcolm X’s family speaking in February 2023 when the plans for the lawsuit were initially announced

In the lawsuit, which began its process in 2023, it is alleged the NYPD coordinated with federal law enforcement agencies to arrest the activist’s security guards days before the assassination.

It also claims police were intentionally removed from inside the ballroom where Malcolm X was killed and that federal agencies had personnel, including undercover agents, at the site but failed to protect him.

Read more from Sky News:
Watch Israeli missile strike Beirut flats
Could Bluesky pose risk to Elon Musk’s X?

The lawsuit goes on to allege a “corrupt, unlawful, and unconstitutional” relationship between law enforcement and “ruthless killers… which was actively concealed, condoned, protected, and facilitated by government agents”.

Referring to Malcolm X’s family, the lawsuit states: “They did not know who murdered Malcolm X, why he was murdered, the level of NYPD, FBI and CIA orchestration, the identity of the governmental agents who conspired to ensure his demise, or who fraudulently covered up their role.”

Continue Reading

Trending