“The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) was unable to reach a consensus on Japan’s Nippon Steel’s $15 billion acquisition of U.S. Steel. The very committee that is responsible for safeguarding the U.S. from compromising foreign investments doesn’t recommend blocking the merger”
…
“CFIUS’s inability to recommend blocking the merger on national security grounds is not surprising: Japan is not an enemy of the U.S., but a close ally. The U.S. has been formally allied with Japan since the signing of the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty in 1951. In April, Biden and former Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida issued a joint statement celebrating “a new era” of bilateral security cooperation and announcing “several new strategic initiatives to strengthen our defense and security cooperation [and] bolster economic security.”
A section of the joint statement details the two countries’ commitment to economic cooperation under the U.S.-Japan Competitiveness and Resilience (CoRe) Partnership, which the Biden administration announced in April 2021 to advance cooperation “on sensitive supply chains…and on the promotion and protection of critical technologies.” The statement also celebrates mutual investment, pointing to Microsoft’s $2.9 billion investment in AI and cloud infrastructure in Japan and Toyota’s $8 billion battery production investment in North Carolina—a mere 1 percent of Japan’s $800 billion in foreign direct investment in the U.S.
If mutual investment in critical industries like semiconductors and batteries doesn’t compromise national security, the burden of proof is on those opposing Japanese investment in American steel production to explain why it does. CFIUS could not meet this burden and refrained from issuing a recommendation accordingly.”
“The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians have a land trust, the Qualla Boundary, which straddles parts of Swain and Jackson counties in the Smoky Mountains, in the western part of the state. In the mid-1990s, they greatly expanded the gambling facilities on the Boundary to include a large casino. Some of the profits from the casino are ploughed back into the tribal community in the form of community services –roads and sewers, hospitals and clinics, gymnasia and schools. But some of the money goes straight back to the individual tribal members in the form of a payment every six months, the amount dependent on the profits from the casino. The “per cap”, as it is called, goes to everyone, young or old, healthy or sick, working or unemployed, law-abiding or not, as long as they are members of the tribe. (Money for children goes into a bank account for them until they graduate high school or reach age 21, whichever comes first.) In recent years the amount of the supplement has been around $4,000 a year.”
…
“In 1993 my Duke University colleagues and I began a study of the mental health care needs of 1,420 randomly selected children living in the 11 western-most counties of North Carolina. We were especially interested in the American Indian community, because it provided strong access to mental health care. So we ensured that a quarter of the study sample were American Indian children – 350 of them.”
…
“All of the American Indian children in the study, but none of the children in the surrounding counties, lived in families that had received a considerable boost in income.”
…
“Four years after the casino opened, Indian children had fewer behavioral and emotional problems than did neighboring children. Moreover, the effect continued into adulthood. At age 30, one in five of the American Indians had mental health or drug problems, compared with one in three of those in surrounding communities. The Indians had less depression, anxiety and alcohol dependence. The payments had no effect on extremely severe but rare mental illnesses like schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. But those who had received the supplement had better overall health and fewer economic problems. The younger the participants were when their families started getting the casino payments, the stronger the effects on adult mental health.”
…
“some individuals spent their extra money foolishly, on drugs and drink, just as was true outside the reservation. Most people used their income supplement wisely, however, and there was no evidence that people worked fewer hours. And, of course, it is much cheaper to give people a check than to administer all the complex means tests that go with government welfare programs such as Supplementary Security Income benefits.”
“America needs minerals like copper and silver to make things. Even President Joe Biden made a speech saying America will need 400-600 percent more such minerals to make “solar panels, wind turbines, and so much more!”
An iPhone alone requires aluminum, iron, lithium, gold, copper.
But when investors dare try to dig up such minerals in America, the NRDC objects and uses political connections to stop them.
Twenty years ago, entrepreneurs tried to open a mine in Alaska. Before they even got the application in, the Environment Protection Agency (EPA) vetoed it.
Why? Because groups like the NRDC say the mine “would be a catastrophic threat to the wildlife and…fragile ecosystem.”
They get their way because when Democrats run the EPA, they not only support NRDC’s positions, they even hire NRDC employees.
The next Republican administration removed the EPA’s veto. The Army Corps of Engineers then studied the mine and concluded that it wasn’t an environmental threat.
So, is Pebble a bustling mine today? No.
Democrats got elected and vetoed it again.
Physicist Mark Mills wonders why anyone would try to open a mine in America today. “Why in the world would you put millions, maybe billions of dollars at risk, spending those decades to get a permit, knowing there’s a very good chance they’ll just cancel a permit? How in the world do you build mines in America knowing that that’s the landscape you have?”
Well, you don’t.
America now ranks second to last in the time it takes to develop a new mine—roughly 29 years. Only Zambia is worse.
“You start applying for permits,” says Mills, “You’re going to be waiting not months, not years, but decades!”
Waiting while the NRDC sues and runs frightening anti-mine ads, saying nature will be “destroyed by a 2,000-foot gaping hole in the ground!”
Mills points out their deceit. Today’s mines disturb “a tiny infinitesimal pinprick in the landscape” and we do need to disturb the landscape a little, because “we need metals and materials and minerals to build everything that exists to make society possible!”
I confronted NRDC spokesman Bob Deans, saying the NRDC killing mines also kills people’s opportunity. He responded that “clean” energy creates jobs.
“We created 50,000 new jobs in this country, putting up wind turbines, solar panels, building the next generation of energy efficient cars. This is where the future is!”
“But also, you need copper and gold,” I point out.
“That’s right,” says Deans, “And we have to weigh those risks.”
But the NRDC doesn’t weigh the risks. They just oppose American mines.”
“The law defined the term “controlled by a foreign adversary” to include not only companies owned wholly by Chinese entities but also one in which a citizen of an adversarial nation “directly or indirectly own[s] at least a 20 percent stake.” In other words, even if the overwhelming majority of a company’s shares were owned by Americans, it could be banned or forced to divest so long as the remaining shares were held by Chinese, Russian, or Iranian citizens.
In order to continue operating within the United States, the only recourse would be to sell TikTok to an American company by January 19, 2025—Joe Biden’s last full day in office.
TikTok and ByteDance sued, asking courts to declare the law unconstitutional. “For the first time in history, Congress has enacted a law that subjects a single, named speech platform to a permanent, nationwide ban,” the lawsuit argued. Lawmakers’ “speculative concerns fall far short of what is required when First Amendment rights are at stake.”
The plaintiffs claimed that the law’s restrictions were subject to strict scrutiny—the highest standard of review that a court can apply to an action, reserved for potential burdens on fundamental constitutional rights. “The Act represents a content- and viewpoint-based restriction on protected speech,” the lawsuit said, and the law’s divest-or-be-banned provision constitutes “an unlawful prior restraint.”
…
“a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled against the plaintiffs, finding “the Government’s justifications are compelling” and that it did not violate the First Amendment for the state to single out one company for disfavored treatment.
“We conclude the portions of the Act the petitioners have standing to challenge, that is the provisions concerning TikTok and its related entities, survive constitutional scrutiny,” Senior Judge Douglas Ginsburg wrote for the majority. “We therefore deny the petitions.”
Ginsburg notes that while the law does require “heightened scrutiny,” it satisfies the requirements of strict scrutiny because of how narrowly tailored it was: “The Act was the culmination of extensive, bipartisan action by the Congress and by successive presidents. It was carefully crafted to deal only with control by a foreign adversary, and it was part of a broader effort to counter a well-substantiated national security threat posed by the PRC.”
In fact, that “national security threat” was not very “well-substantiated” at all—but the court didn’t seem to mind.
“TikTok contends the Government’s content-manipulation rationale is speculative and based upon factual errors,” Ginsburg wrote, referring to lawmakers’ concerns that Beijing could manipulate content on TikTok to promote Chinese propaganda. “TikTok fails, however, to grapple fully with the Government’s submissions. On the one hand, the Government acknowledges that it lacks specific intelligence that shows the PRC has in the past or is now coercing TikTok into manipulating content in the United States.” But “the Government is aware ‘that ByteDance and TikTok Global have taken action in response to PRC demands to censor content outside of China'” and “‘have a demonstrated history of manipulating the content on their platforms, including at the direction of the PRC.'”
…
“It may be that the PRC has not yet done so in the United States or, as the Government suggests, the Government’s lack of evidence to that effect may simply reflect limitations on its ability to monitor TikTok,” Ginsburg shrugs. “In any event, the Government reasonably predicts that TikTok ‘would try to comply if the PRC asked for specific actions to be taken to manipulate content for censorship, propaganda, or other malign purposes’ in the United States.”
The court’s decision is yet another instance where vague claims of “national security” trump individuals’ First Amendment rights. Claiming that Congress has the authority to force a company to sell one of its holdings—not through an established power like antitrust, but simply because they don’t like how it could be used in the future—is not only a weak justification; it is a plainly unconstitutional one.”
“A Russian court on Monday denied relief to a U.S. citizen serving 12 years in a penal colony for treason in connection with a $51.80 donation she made, while in the U.S., to a pro-Ukraine charity.
Ksenia Karelina, who is also a Russian citizen, was arrested in January during a trip to visit her 90-year-old grandmother and other family members in Yekaterinburg, Russia. She immigrated to the U.S. in 2012 and became a citizen in 2021.
Trouble for Karelina, 33, began shortly after landing in Russia, where the Federal Security Service (FSB) flagged her after learning she had a U.S. passport. The agency interrogated her, took her cell phone—on which the FSB discovered her 2022 donation to Razom, a charity dedicated to “actively contributing to the establishment of a secure, prosperous, and democratic Ukraine”—and ultimately arrested her for “petty hooliganism,” which was later ratcheted up to treason. Her prosecution is part of a larger Russian crackdown on alleged treason that is unprecedented even by the country’s illiberal standards.”