Archive by Author

Hillicon Valley — Sandberg stepping down

The longtime COO of Facebook, now Meta, Sheryl Sandberg said she will be stepping down from the company. She will leave in the fall but will remain on the company’s board of directors.  

In other news, the head of the U.S. Cyber Command, Gen. Paul Nakasone, confirmed for the first time that the U.S. had conducted offensive cyber operations in support of Ukraine

This is Hillicon Valley, detailing all you need to know about tech and cyber news from Capitol Hill to Silicon Valley. Send tips to The Hill’s Rebecca Klar, Chris Mills Rodrigo and Ines Kagubare. Someone forward you this newsletter? Subscribe here.

Longtime Facebook COO leaving in fall 

Meta Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg is stepping down after 14 years with the company, she announced Wednesday.  

She will continue to serve on the company’s board of directors. 

“When I took this job in 2008, I hoped I would be in this role for five years. Fourteen years later, it is time for me to write the next chapter of my life. I am not entirely sure what the future will bring – I have learned no one ever is. But I know it will include focusing more on my foundation and philanthropic work, which is more important to me than ever given how critical this moment is for women,” Sandberg wrote in a post on Facebook, which is owned by Meta. 

She will leave the company “this fall,” she said. 

Next up: Sandberg will be replaced as COO by Javier Olivan, the company’s chief growth officer, but his role will differ from the work Sandberg did for the company, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg said in a post.  

“Looking forward, I don’t plan to replace Sheryl’s role in our existing structure. I’m not sure that would be possible since she’s a superstar who defined the COO role in her own unique way. But even if it were possible, I think Meta has reached the point where it makes sense for our product and business groups to be more closely integrated, rather than having all the business and operations functions organized separately from our products,” he said. 

Read more here.  

US launched offensive cyber operations  

U.S. Cyber Command Director Gen. Paul Nakasone confirmed for the first time that the U.S. had conducted offensive cyber operations in support of Ukraine. 

“We’ve conducted a series of operations across the full spectrum; offensive, defensive, [and] information operations,” Nakasone said in an interview Wednesday with Sky News, a British television news channel.  

Although the general did not provide specifics, he said the operations were lawful and conducted with civilian oversight of the military. 

Nakasone previously said his agency deployed a “hunt forward” team in December to help Ukraine shore up its cyber defenses and networks against active threats. But his latest remarks appear to be the first time that a U.S. official said publicly that the U.S. has been involved in offensive cyber operations in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. 

Read more here. 

AMAZON RAMPS UP ANTITRUST CRITICISM  

Amazon is ramping up criticism of a key antitrust bill that aims to rein in the e-commerce giant’s power, in part by trying to distance itself from the other tech giants targeted by the proposed legislation.  

Amazon’s vice president of public policy Brian Huseman published a blog post Wednesday slamming the bipartisan American Innovation and Choice Online Act, co-sponsored by Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), in the company’s most extensive and direct criticism of the legislation.  

Huseman said Amazon’s consumer business targeted by the legislation is more like retailers such as Walmart, Target and Costco than it is akin to that of Apple, Facebook or Google.  

“Applying the same broad, vague, and undefined language to all of these different market segments to regulate what are in fact very different companies would cause serious and damaging unintended consequences for American consumers and small businesses the bills purport to protect,” Huseman wrote. 

The response: “Who do you trust? The largest online retailer in America with a demonstrated record of stiffing small businesses and lying about this bill’s impact, or small businesses themselves?,” a Klobuchar spokesperson said in a statement.   

“We’ll take the side of small business and consumers – not the side of big tech monopolists.” 

Read more here.  

FBI intercepted hack against hospital  

FBI Director Christopher Wray said his agency thwarted a cyberattack last summer that aimed to disrupt the network of the Boston Children’s Hospital. 

Wray said hackers sponsored by the Iranian government were behind the attack, calling it “one of the most despicable cyberattacks” he’s ever seen.  

“We got a report from one of our intelligence partners indicating Boston Children’s was about to be targeted,” Wray said. “And, understanding the urgency of the situation, the cyber squad in our Boston field office raced to notify the hospital.” 

He added that FBI agents were able to provide the hospital with the information it needed to identify and mitigate the threats. 

Read more here.  

AGENCIES SEIZE DOMAIN NAMES 

Federal authorities have seized the internet domain names of numerous websites amid an investigation into the sale of stolen personal information online and cyberattacks for hire. 

In a Department of Justice (DOJ) statement on Wednesday, authorities said that the websites — including weleakinfo.to, ipstress.in and ovh-booter.com — were seized in a coordinated effort with the National Police Corps of the Netherlands and the Federal Police of Belgium 

According to court documents, authorities said that weleakinfo.to had obtained more than 10,000 data breaches containing 7 billion indexed records, which included names, email addresses, usernames, phone numbers and passwords for various online accounts. 

Read more here. 

AMBER ALERTS REACH INSTAGRAM 

Instagram users will begin seeing AMBER alerts for missing children in their area, the company announced Wednesday.  

The feature is rolling out first in the U.S. and 24 other countries, with plans to expand the feature to more countries going forward.  

The alerts will include details about the child, such as a photo, description, location of the abduction and any other available information that can be provided, Facebook’s director of trust and safety Emily Vacher said in a blog post. 

Read more here.  

BITS & PIECES

An op-ed to chew on: It’s Biden v. inflation — and Biden’s losing  

Lighter click: gets the best of us  

Notable links from around the web: 

The Next Battleground for Gig Worker Labor Laws: Massachusetts (The New York Times / Kellen Browning) 

Tech giants made a home in Ghana. Now they’re quiet on its anti-LGBTQ+ bill. (Protocol / Kwasi Gyamfi Asiedu) 

One more thing: Back to the office at Tesla 

Tesla CEO Elon Musk sent an email Tuesday ordering the company’s employees to return to the office at least 40 hours per week, according to Electrek. 

Electrek reported that Musk’s email states anyone who wishes to continue to work remotely must work in an office at least 40 hours weekly or “depart” Tesla. 

The email has the subject line “Remote work is no longer acceptable” and is signed by Musk. 

Musk did not immediately return a request for comment by The Hill through a Tesla spokesperson. 

Read more here.  

That’s it for today, thanks for reading. Check out The Hill’s Technology and Cybersecurity pages for the latest news and coverage. We’ll see you tomorrow.

VIEW FULL VERSION

Source: TEST FEED1

Five takeaways from the Amber Heard and Johnny Depp trial 

After six weeks, a jury of seven people issued a verdict on the defamation trial between Johnny Depp and ex-wife Amber Heard. Here are a handful of takeaways from the polarizing trial, which overtook social media conversations and raised questions about the power of celebrity and the future of the #MeToo movement.  

Heard loses to Depp in defamation trial  

After a slightly delayed verdict reading, the jury sided completely with Depp and found Heard guilty of having defamed her ex-husband by claiming he had committed domestic violence in a 2018 Washington Post Op-ed.  

The jury then awarded Depp $10 million in compensatory damages and $5 million in punitive damages in the suit against Heard. The “Aquaman” star also received an award of $2 million in damages in her countersuit against Depp.  

Outside of the courthouse in Fairfax, Va., Depp fans, some of whom were dressed in pirate costumes, cheered the trial verdict and Depp’s legal team as they exited the courthouse. “Our judicial system is predicated on each person’s right to have his or her case heard. And we were honored, truly honored to assist Mr. Depp in ensuring that his case was fairly considered throughout the trial,” said Ben Chew, one of Depp’s attorneys, after the verdict.  

 “We are also most pleased that the trial has resonated for so many people in the public who value truth and justice. Now that the jury has reached its conclusive verdict, it’s time to turn the page and look to the future.” 

Depp’s win against Heard is a blow to the #MeToo movement  

In Heard’s 2018 op-ed, the actor speaks about the backlash she experienced after speaking out against sexual harassment and sexual abuse stating that two years earlier she had become “a public figure representing domestic abuse” and eventually felt the “full force of our culture’s wrath for women who speak out.” A year before the article was published, Heard was married to Depp, and although she does not mention the “Pirates of the Caribbean” actor in the piece at all, Depp decided to sue her for $50 million claiming the piece defamed him, costing him work.  

Depp is not the first high-profile man to file a defamation suit against a former partner alleging abuse. Marilyn Manson sued his former fiancé Evan Rachel Wood for defamation in March just before the release of an HBO documentary about the actress’s sexual and physical abuse allegations.  

America is changing faster than ever! Add Changing America to your Facebook or Twitter feed to stay on top of the news.

Shortly after the trial began, it seemed that in the court of public opinion Depp was already the winner of the defamation trial after waves of tweets, memes and TikTok videos questioning Heard’s credibility began to circulate online. On TikTok, #justiceforJohnnyDepp has 19 billion views while #justiceforamberheard only has just over 69 million views.  

Some experts fear that the backlash Heard has faced throughout the entire trial and the overwhelming victory for Depp, will discourage some victims of intimate partner violence from coming forward in the future. 

“The disappointment I feel today is beyond words. I’m heartbroken that the mountain of evidence still was not enough to stand up to the disproportionate power, influence, and sway of my ex-husband,” Heard said in a statement after the verdict was delivered.  

“I’m even more disappointed with what this verdict means for other women. It is a setback. It sets back the clock to a time when a woman who spoke up and spoke out could be publicly shamed and humiliated. It sets back the idea that violence against women is to be taken seriously. I believe Johnny’s attorneys succeeded in getting the jury to overlook the key issue of Freedom of Speech and ignore evidence that was so conclusive that we won in the UK. I’m sad I lost this case. But I am sadder still that I seem to have lost a right I thought I had as an American – to speak freely and openly.” 

The Depp-Heard case doesn’t stand for all such cases 

Even though Depp was victorious, women who have suffered abuse from a partner, particularly a powerful one, should not be deterred from speaking out against the behavior, experts say. “I think if I were advising a woman thinking about filing a complaint against a powerful man who has abused her I would not let this case stand in the way of doing that,” University of Michigan Law School Professor Barbara McQuade told NBC. “Every case is decided on its own facts.”  

Those that have been following the trial were shocked by the verdict 

Despite the barrage of social media support for Depp, many expected Heard to not be found guilty of defaming her ex-husband, especially after detailing some of the alleged acts of abuse. But many took to social media to express their shock at the verdict shortly after the trial was over.  

“I’m in shock,” wrote one twitter user. “There’s no question Depp was abusive. Maybe Heard was too, I don’t know, but neither he nor this trial is something to be celebrated.”  

 
The trial said something about the power that comes with being a male celebrity 

Some of the claims of abuse by Depp were gruesome. During the trial Heard alleged that Depp sexually abused her with a liquor bottle, sexually assaulted her while looking for his cocaine and threatened to kill her during a physical assault. But despite that, Depp was still able to garner public support from fans that had followed his decades long career with hundreds of fans standing outside of the courthouse during the duration of the trial. “It does show to the star power of Hollywood,” McQuade also told NBC. “He is a major movie star and I think there are people who are willing to overlook any mistake because they love his onscreen persona of Captain Jack Sparrow.”  

READ MORE STORIES FROM CHANGING AMERICA

ENTIRE POLICE DEPARTMENT RESIGNS IN MISSOURI

UN CALLS FOR US, OTHERS TO END ‘IMPUNITY’ FOR POLICE VIOLENCE AGAINST BLACK PEOPLE

RACIAL CONTROVERSY ERUPTS AROUND ROYALS AT BUCKINGHAM PALACE

PRINCIPAL ESCORTED OUT OF HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION AFTER DELIVERING FIERY SPEECH

Source: TEST FEED1

On the Money — US firms still desperate for workers

Job openings are down from record highs—but not by much. We’ll also look at President Biden’s relationship with the Federal Reserve and a dire warning from a big bank CEO. 

But first, former students of a certain college are on track for some debt relief. 

Welcome to On The Money, your nightly guide to everything affecting your bills, bank account and bottom line. For The Hill, we’re Sylvan Lane, Aris Folley and Karl Evers-Hillstrom. Someone forward you this newsletter? Subscribe here.

US job openings hold at near-record highs 

Job openings remained at near record highs, according to a report released Wednesday from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

• U.S. job openings decreased slightly to 11.4 million on the last business day in April, according to the Job Openings and Labor Turnover report.  
• About 4.4 million Americans quit their jobs in April, most of which likely did so for better opportunities or compensation. 
• New hires were little changed at 6.6 million, and job separations remained around 6 million. 

The context: Economists say that one of the core drivers of inflation, in addition to supply chain disruptions caused by the coronavirus pandemic, is an exceedingly high demand for employment, what’s sometimes called a “tight labor market.” 

High demand for workers pushes up wages and is good news for job seekers. But it also keeps prices high, with industries paying higher overhead to produce their goods. 

Toby explains here. 

BIDEN’S BIG BET 

Biden hedges inflation backlash with focus on Fed 

President Biden’s relationship with the Federal Reserve has come under the spotlight as the White House touts the central bank’s leadership of the fight against inflation.  

Biden met with Fed Chair Jerome Powell at the White House on Tuesday as the administration touts its efforts to curb rising prices. The meeting came one day after the White House laid out a plan for fighting inflation focused on allowing the Fed to act without interference from the administration. 

• While Biden did not specifically mention the Fed’s ongoing series of interest rate hikes, the president appeared to send an unmistakable message of support for the central bank’s attempts to slow price growth. 
• Experts say that Biden’s emphasis on the Fed’s independence is meant to signal he is serious about fighting inflation even if it means a politically inconvenient slowdown in job gains and economic growth before the midterm elections. 

But by summoning the Fed chair to prove his mettle on inflation, Biden is following in the footsteps of his predecessors with a careful political hedge: using the bully pulpit to boost pressure on the Fed while deflecting political consequences from the White House. 

“It’s interdependence. The president and the White House always need someone to blame. The Fed is a natural target for blame,” said Sarah Binder, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and co-author of “The Myth of Independence: How Congress Governs the Federal Reserve.” 

Sylvan has more here 

Read more: In shift, White House starts to talk up economy

JAMIE’S WARNING 

JPMorgan Chase CEO warns of economic hurricane: ‘You better brace yourself’ 

The chief executive at JPMorgan Chase offered a grim financial outlook on Wednesday, warning of an economic “hurricane” and advising those listening that “you better brace yourself.” 

“It’s a hurricane. Right now, it’s kind of sunny, things are doing fine. Everyone thinks the Fed can handle this,” Jamie Dimon said during a financial conference. 

“That hurricane is right out there down the road, coming our way. We just don’t know if it’s a minor one or Superstorm Sandy or Andrew or something like that, and you better brace yourself,” he added. 

The JPMorgan Chase chief executive spotlighted two issues he was concerned about: How the Russia-Ukraine war is affecting rising prices for fuel and food, and the Fed’s efforts to raise interest rates and reduce its balance sheet to tackle inflation. 

Caroline Vakil has it all here. 

TOKEN INTO CUSTODY

Former NFT marketplace manager accused of insider trading 

The Justice Department on Wednesday indicted a former manager of a prominent NFT marketplace on charges related to insider trading. 

Nathaniel Chastain, former product manager for NFT marketplace OpenSea, was arrested in New York and charged with one count each of wire fraud and money laundering, the Justice Department announced Wednesday. He was arrested in New York by the FBI. 

In an indictment unsealed Wednesday in the Southern District of New York, the Justice Department accused Chastain of using confidential information gained through his job at OpenSea to buy and sell NFTs for a profit. 

• NFTs, or non-fungible tokens, are digital files — often images or art — tracked and verified as unique on a blockchain, the distributed ledger system used to run cryptocurrencies. 
• OpenSea emerged as one of the most popular marketplaces for NFTs, and Chastain amassed more than 30,000 followers on Twitter touting the platform’s success and helping users navigate the market. 
• From June to September 2021, Chastain allegedly used advance knowledge of which NFTs OpenSea would feature on its website to purchase those tokens before they were spotlighted by the platform.  
• He then sold the featured NFTs by OpenSea at anywhere from two to five times the price he paid for the tokens, according to the indictment. 

Sylvan has the latest here.

Good to Know

Meta Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg is stepping down after 14 years with the company, she announced Wednesday. She will continue to serve on the company’s board of directors. 

Here’s what else we have our eye on: 

• United Airlines is planning to invest $100 million to expand its training center in Denver, Colo., as part of a broader push to enlarge its workforce and hire more pilots and airline staff. 
• Tesla CEO Elon Musk sent an email Tuesday ordering the company’s employees to return to the office at least 40 hours per week, according to Electrek. 
• Amazon is ramping up criticism of a key antitrust bill that aims to rein in the e-commerce giant’s power, in part by trying to distance itself from the other tech giants targeted by the proposed legislation.  

That’s it for today. Thanks for reading and check out The Hill’s Finance page for the latest news and coverage. We’ll see you tomorrow. 

VIEW FULL VERSION HERE

Source: TEST FEED1

Five things to know about the Texas social media law

Texas’s law that restricts social media platforms’ ability to remove users or violative content was temporarily blocked by the Supreme Court Tuesday, but it’s not the end of the road for the case that may wind up back before the justices. 

The ongoing challenge to the Texas law, and to a similar measure in Florida, is providing a test for how First Amendment protections should be applied in the internet age.

Here are five things to know about the law and the Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling. 

How could the law keep companies from moderating content?

Texas’s law, HB20, forbids social media companies with more than 50 million monthly users from banning Texas-based users over their political views. Gov. Greg Abbott (R) signed it in September, after it passed in the Republican-controlled legislature. The state Republicans branded it as an anti-censorship law, reflecting growing GOP accusations that mainstream platforms are removing content and users with an anti-conservative bias. 

But critics of the Texas law — including tech industry groups and a broad coalition of civil society groups — say in practice it would lead to a more dangerous internet environment by interfering with platforms’ ability to remove content that violates platform policies such as pro-terrorist content, animal abuse, pornography and hate speech.

“The heart of the law, which is this must-carry provision that would prohibit the platforms from taking down content, that part of the law will be very problematic for the free speech not only of the platforms, but also of users because it would mean that you would have users subjected to all kinds of content that nobody wants to see no matter what political stripe they have,” said Scott Wilkens, senior staff attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. 

Experts also say the law would open the floodgates for lawsuits from users accusing tech platforms of taking action against them based on their political views. 

NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA), tech groups that count industry giants such as Facebook, Amazon and Google among their members, challenged the law on the basis that it violates the First Amendment rights of the private companies to moderate content in line with their own policies. 

How did the case reach the Supreme Court and how did the justices vote? 

The tech groups challenging the Texas law had a mixed record in the lower courts. 

In December, a federal judge handed a win to the tech groups by temporarily blocking the Texas law from being enforced. In a 30-page opinion issuing a preliminary injunction, U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman found that the tech groups were likely to ultimately win on the merits.

“In this case, content moderation and curation will benefit users and the public by reducing harmful content and providing a safe, useful service,” wrote Pitman, an Obama appointee. “Here, an injunction will serve, not be adverse to, the public interest.”

But last month a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit halted that ruling without explanation, prompting the tech groups to file an emergency request to the Supreme Court.

The justices’ brief order Tuesday reversing the 5th Circuit came from a five-member majority comprising two of the court’s three liberal members: Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. They were joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and fellow conservatives Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

Liberal Justice Elena Kagan indicated that she would have denied the tech groups’ request, but provided no rationale. Notably, Kagan did not join a dissenting opinion endorsed by the court’s three most conservative members.

In a dissent penned by Justice Samuel Alito and joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, the hardline conservatives made clear their view that the Supreme Court should have left intact the 5th Circuit’s ruling. 

Although the dissenters stopped short of making explicit their views on the merits of the underlying legal issues, some court watchers believe the most conservative justices appear inclined to side with Texas if the case returns to the Supreme Court.

What happens next in the legal challenge?

The case now returns to the 5th Circuit, which will weigh the merits of Texas’s appeal. If the deeply conservative 5th Circuit ultimately sides with Texas — as some experts believe it will — the tech groups would be expected to file a formal appeal to the Supreme Court.

In this scenario, the justices would be highly likely to take up the case, perhaps as soon as the court’s next term that begins in October. If the 5th Circuit sides with Texas, its ruling would clash with a decision by the Atlanta-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, which just last month ruled in favor of the tech groups by finding that a similar Florida law was likely unconstitutional, teeing up what’s known as a “circuit split.” 

The Supreme Court is often inclined to grant review in cases of circuit splits in order to provide a nationally uniform interpretation of federal law. Such clarity would be especially important in the area of online platforms, experts said, where a patchwork of different rules across the country would be unworkable.

“When you have a circuit split about something like the internet, … I think that really increases the chances that the Supreme Court will hold arguments and issue a normal opinion, not on the shadow docket, where they determine, ‘Okay, what are the First Amendment principles that we apply when the government tries to restrict the ability of private online platforms to monitoring?’” said Jeff Kosseff, a professor of cybersecurity law at the U.S. Naval Academy.

“You can’t have different internet in the 5th Circuit and the 11th Circuit. That’s not a viable way to operate platforms,” he added. “You do need to have an understanding of what the rules are.”

What does the ruling signal for the future of the law?

The Supreme Court’s order Tuesday revealed little about how the court might rule if the case winds up on its docket next term. Neither the five-justice majority nor Kagan offered any explanation of their views, and it’s possible their votes turned entirely on procedural, rather than substantive, considerations.

The key votes may ultimately come down to Kavanaugh and Barrett, according to Kosseff, of the U.S. Naval Academy, who said tech companies may be heartened that the pair voted in their favor. 

“I think that it’s at least a good sign for the tech companies that you had Kavanaugh and Barrett voting on their side,” he said, but cautioned: “I think that it’s hard to read too much into how the justices would vote in such a case based on this ruling.”

Even the three hardline conservative justices who wrote in dissent stopped short of clearly telegraphing their views on the merits of the Texas law, though some experts say it’s likely they would rule in favor of states seeking to tighten regulations.

Among the dissenters, Texas is almost certain to find a sympathetic audience in Thomas, who last year wrote a solo opinion expressing concerns about the highly concentrated power of Big Tech. In this unrelated case, Thomas entertained an argument that is now central to Texas’s defense against the ongoing challenge to HB20.

“There is a fair argument that some digital platforms are sufficiently akin to common carriers or places of accommodation to be regulated in this manner,” Thomas wrote in his solo opinion. 

Texas’s legal position hinges on this very argument — that social media platforms should be seen as common carriers, essentially passive channels of communication, rather than being treated as akin to newspapers. Under law, common carriers enjoy fewer constitutional protections, if any. 

Critics of the Texas law have argued the position is weak, because the platforms have not acted as common carriers in the past, and that they should be treated more like newspapers that are making editorial decisions about what content to host.

Alito, for his part, wrote in his dissent Tuesday that it is “not at all obvious how our existing precedents, which predate the age of the internet, should apply to large social media companies.” 

What is happening in other states?

Florida passed a similar law last year that is also being challenged by NetChoice and the CCIA, the same plaintiffs as in the Texas case. In a ruling last week, the Atlanta-based 11th Circuit affirmed a lower court’s finding that major provisions of the Florida law, including a requirement that companies carry speech and content that violates their policies, were likely unconstitutional.  

The opinion of the three-judge panel was written by Trump-appointed Judge Kevin Newsom, a well-respected jurist in conservative Federalist Society circles. 

But the appellate court also reinstated other parts of the law, including a provision that would require social media platforms to allow deplatformed users to access their own data stored on the platform’s servers for at least 60 days. 

Lawmakers in other states are following Texas and Florida in seeking to restrict Big Tech. Georgia’s state Senate earlier this year passed a bill similar to those now being challenged, and Alaska, Ohio and Tennessee are proceeding with their own similar proposals. 

“What the courts do with the Florida and the Texas laws is likely to influence what happens to the similar laws that are enacted and in other states,” Wilkens said. 

Source: TEST FEED1

Biden doubles down on support for Ukraine, but shows limits

President Biden is once again ramping up U.S. support for Ukraine, vowing to send more advanced weapons to Kyiv with the express goal of helping the Ukrainians defeat the Russians. 

But the president is still exercising caution, reinforcing that his administration is not seeking a hot-war with Moscow or trying to depose Russian President Vladimir Putin, and issuing dire warnings against the prospect of a nuclear confrontation. 

Significantly, the new $700 million package the U.S. is readying for Ukraine for the first time contains High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems, but says they are configured to limit their range to strike only Russian forces in Ukraine and not inside Russia.

“The Ukrainians have given us assurances that they will not use these systems against targets on Russian territory,” Secretary of State Antony Blinken said on Wednesday, alongside NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg.

“And it is Russia, again, that chose to launch this aggression,” Blinken said. “They can end it at any time, and we will avoid any concerns about miscalculations or escalation.”

Biden made the decision to send Ukraine advanced rocket systems despite the risk that such a move would further amplify tensions with Moscow. 

Experts say that the new systems, which can reach targets up to 50 miles away, will be significant in assisting the Ukrainians push back on the Russian offensive as long as they are delivered quickly. 

Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky said in an interview Tuesday that “we’re not planning to attack Russia,” but called for the delivery of rocket systems “with the effective range of fire of over 100 kilometers [62 miles].”

“I know some of the people in the United States are saying, or people in the White House are saying, we might be using them to attack Russia: Look, we’re not planning to attack Russia,” he said in an interview with Newsmax. 

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters Wednesday that the U.S. is “deliberately pouring oil on the fire” in response to the weapons-delivery announcement. 

Biden laid out his Ukraine strategy in a New York Times op-ed published Tuesday evening, which doubled down on U.S. support for Kyiv while also underscoring the limits to U.S. involvement in the conflict.

Biden reiterated that the U.S. would not put troops on the ground in Ukraine – something the American public does not support – and said the U.S. is not trying “to prolong the war just to inflict pain on Russia.” 

And the president addressed concern over a nuclear war with Russia. 

“​​We currently see no indication that Russia has intent to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine, though Russia’s occasional rhetoric to rattle the nuclear saber is itself dangerous and extremely irresponsible,” he wrote. “Let me be clear: Any use of nuclear weapons in this conflict on any scale would be completely unacceptable to us as well as the rest of the world and would entail severe consequences.”

Angela Stent, an expert in U.S. and European relations with Russia, said Biden’s op-ed seemed designed to demonstrate explicit public support for Ukraine while also removing any ambiguity about U.S. involvement in the war. 

“On the one hand, this is something new, we’re sending them these rocket systems, though he made clear we are not sending them rockets that would reach deep into Russian territory,” Stent said. “On the other hand, he’s making it pretty clear there are limits to what the U.S. is going to do.”

Some Ukrainian officials took issue with Biden’s blunt restrictions on Ukrainian military forces’ use of U.S. weapons.

“Some political signals that President Biden gives in his [New York Times] article have already been interpreted by Putin as a sign of insecurity about a wider conflict with Russia,” tweeted Anton Gerashchenko, adviser to the Minister of Internal Affairs of Ukraine.

“This can enhance Russia’s aggression against Ukraine even more.” 

The announcement came as Russia’s war in Ukraine closed in on its 100th day. While the Ukrainians have surprised the globe with their resilience and dealt the Russians some substantial losses over the course of three months, Moscow’s forces have also gained control of key areas, like the city of Mariupol. 

William Taylor, former ambassador to Ukraine and director of the Europe, Russia program at the U.S. Institute of Peace (USIP), said on Wednesday that the medium-range rocket launchers can begin to help Ukrainian’s push back against Russia’s bombardment in the south and east, but he added the conflict is “edging towards an uncomfortable stalemate.” 

“The Russians just have a lot of stuff. They’ve got a lot of artillery and they have a lot of ammunition and the Ukrainians don’t have as much artillery, and are short of ammunition” he said during a panel talk at the USIP. “It’s grim… Do they have enough? We won’t know until they win, and at which time we’ll say ‘yes.’”

The $700 million in weapons is the first drawdown of a potential $8 billion in military assistance the U.S. can provide out of the total $40 billion aid package passed by Congress last month.  

It’s unclear how quickly Biden will draw down from that amount. The U.S. delivered $3.9 billion in military assistance to Ukraine between February 24, the day Russia launched its invasion, and mid-May. 

Congress allocated the $40 billion package shortly before the previous aid package was used completely. The administration believes the assistance will be enough to sustain Ukraine through the current fiscal year, or through September, and it’s unclear if Biden will seek another tranche of assistance.

A third, billion-dollar aid package might face increased pushback from critical Republicans, especially in the lead up to the midterm elections. Fifty-seven House Republicans and 11 Republican Senators voted against the last package.

Some Republicans are criticizing Biden as failing to prioritize funding for the U.S. – to bring down inflation, cut rising gas prices and address supply chain issues — and have criticized the administration over unrelated issues like a baby formula shortage.

Ukraine’s ambassador to the U.S. Oksana Markarova told The Hill last month that it’s unclear how far the $40 billion will stretch for Ukraine’s needs. 

“How [long] it will last, nobody can tell you,” she said.

“What I can tell you is that we would like this war to stop as soon as possible… the faster we can get the multiple rocket systems, more artillery, more UAVs, everything that we have discussed with not only the U.S., but with more than 20 countries… we need as [many] weapons as we can get, in order to win faster.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Relief through student debt cancellation will help workers today

Mr. President: do you want to be the most pro-worker and pro-union president?

My advice is simple: cancel student debt.

Americans collectively owe $1.6 trillion in federal student loan debt, affecting nearly 43.4 million American workers. The student debt crisis is fueled by a cycle of suppressed wages, demand for higher credentials and rising costs in the pursuit of an education. 

As a union organizer and former chief workforce officer for the state of Michigan who spearheaded Michigan’s No Worker Left Behind program, I’ve seen firsthand what access to affordable education and job training can do to uplift workers and our economy. However, that opportunity ceases to exist in a system where growing student debt prevents workers from fully participating in our economy—buying homes, changing careers, even starting families.

Studies indicate that 60 percent of all jobs in the U.S. economy require postsecondary education and training beyond high school. Research from the Bureau of Labor Statistics suggests that a bachelor’s degree is typically required for entry in 169 occupations.

Thinking they were investing in their future, millions of U.S. workers have gone back to school or pursued a college degree. In 1960, roughly 7.7 percent of the U.S. population had graduated from college. Now more than 37.5 percent of U.S. workers aged 25 and above have at least a college degree.

But as students have graduated, they have entered a job market where wages are outpaced by tens-of-thousands in student loan debt. Over the past 40 years, wage growth for a typical worker was 23.1 percent, compared to a 169 percent increase in the cost of a college education in the U.S. In this world, investment in a higher education far too often is not paying off. Add to that that roughly 40 percent of workers with student debt were unable to finish their degree.

Wage growth for Black and Hispanic workers over the past 40 years also lagged behind wages for white workers, growing only 18.9 percent and 16.7 percent respectively.

Black workers are also more heavily impacted by the student debt crisis, owing an average of $25,000 more in student loan debt than white college graduates. Black women stand to benefit the most from debt cancellation, holding the highest average debt amount among all demographics.

This crisis extends beyond age or generation, with the fastest growing population of student debt carriers being Americans aged 65 years old and older.

Student debt cancellation isn’t just a “young person’s” issue as we so often hear. It’s an economic, workers’ rights, racial justice and gender equity issue spanning generations.

While we must have a full recalibration of our nation’s higher education policy to ensure college is once again affordable in the long term—and I’m proud to lead the America’s College Promise Act that will do just that and provide two years of free community college to every single American—immediate relief through student debt cancellation will help workers today.

This is relief people will feel immediately. It will lift millions of workers out of debt and give people across the country a pathway to financial stability to buy a house, change their career, get married and have kids. In the medium term, it will help grow the economy and empower workers by allowing them the freedom to compete for better jobs.

It is no longer a question of whether student debt should or can be cancelled. Poll after poll has indicated that Americans want student debt relief. And President Biden and the Department of Education have already exercised their authority to cancel student debt, cancelling roughly $17 billion for students defrauded by universities and beginning to fix a broken Public Loan Forgiveness Program.

It is now a question of when student debt will be cancelled.

For workers across the country, we must cancel student debt boldly. Cancelling $50,000 will make 76% of current borrows debt-free, transforming lives and delivering the biggest racial justice impact.

Means-testing student debt cancellation is also unnecessary and costly. The majority of federal loans are held by workers with no household wealth at all, with 97 percent of all student debt being held by people earning below $150,000. There is nothing to means test.

For families being crushed by higher costs as inflation soars, we must do it now.

Mr. President, the ball is in your court and this crisis can be solved with a stroke of a pen. The American people are counting on you.

Andy Levin represents Michigan’s 9th District. He is a member of the Education and Labor Committee.

Source: TEST FEED1

Watch: Canyon wall breaks off, falls into Lake Powell

Mila Carter was in northern Arizona boating with her husband on Lake Powell Memorial Day when she captured geology in action—a sizeable chunk of cliff wall breaking off.

The resulting, substantial splash might have been smaller had the rockfall happened in 1980, when Lake Powell was full.

The water level is now at its lowest since the 1960s, when completion of the Glen Canyon Dam on the Colorado River formed the lake.

A longstanding drought in the West has reduced Lake Powell, America’s second largest reservoir, to 24 percent of capacity.

See more in the video above.

Source: TEST FEED1

Pelosi says House will move on assault weapons ban

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Wednesday that House Democrats will soon consider legislation banning military-style “assault” weapons, marking the most aggressive response from Congress to date following last week’s shooting massacre at a Texas elementary school.

House Democratic leaders have already scheduled a vote next week on so-called “red flag” legislation, designed to keep weapons from potentially violent people. And the House Judiciary Committee is meeting in an emergency session on Thursday to markup a slate of eight additional anti-gun violence bills, including proposals to ban high-capacity magazines and raise the age for purchasing certain semi-automatic rifles.

Speaking at an anti-gun violence event in her home town of San Francisco, Pelosi added to that list, saying House Democrats will also be considering legislation designed to better warn the public of active shooter situations.

“And then, as we get through those, we will be having a hearing and marking up the assault weapon ban,” she added. “So we just are trying to hit it every possible way.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Biden not aware of infant formula crisis until April

President Biden on Wednesday said he was not personally aware of the severity of the infant formula shortage until early April, months into the shutdown of a manufacturing plant operated by Abbott Nutrition and subsequent recall of its products.

“I became aware of this problem sometime in early April, about how intense it was. We did everything in our power from that point on,” Biden said during a White House roundtable with formula manufacturers. 

“I don’t think anyone anticipated the impact of the shutdown of one facility,” Biden added.

Biden’s comments stand in contrast to administration officials, who have said repeatedly that the White House has been working around the clock since February to address the issue.

The president’s admission came minutes after executives from some of the leading manufacturers said they knew the shutdown would have a significant impact on formula availability.

“We were aware of the general impact that this would have,” said Robert Cleveland, a senior vice president at Reckitt, in response to a question from Biden about whether the company was surprised the Abbott closure had “this profound effect immediately.”

“We knew from the very beginning this would be a very serious event,” Cleveland said.

Cleveland said when he heard about the recall and shutdown, he immediately reached out to the company’s retail partners like Target and Walmart to help them order all the available inventory on hand and push stock from distribution centers to store shelves. 

“The very first thing we did when we heard about the Abbott recall was, we could foresee this would create a tremendous shortage. We significantly increased all our material orders,” said Murray Kessler, CEO of Perrigo, which makes store brand formula. 

Abbott was not represented at Wednesday’s event, and the company did not return a request for comment. The White House has not said why Abbott was not represented. 

A manufacturing plant in Michigan operated by Abbott Nutrition was shut down in mid-February following a Food and Drug Administration inspection that found unsanitary conditions and multiple strains of a bacteria that can be deadly to infants. 

At the same time, the company issued a nationwide recall for all brands of powdered formula that had been manufactured at the facility. 

Four infants have been hospitalized, and two died, after being infected with the bacteria. But the FDA has been unable to conclusively link the bacteria found in Abbott’s plant to the strains found in the sick babies.

Abbott is one of only four companies responsible for an estimated 90 percent of the U.S. formula market. When Abbott shut down its plant and recalled the formula made there, the effects cascaded down a supply chain that was already strained because of the coronavirus pandemic.

The FDA and Abbott are operating under a legal agreement to reopen Abbott’s facility as soon as it can meet the agency’s safety standards. An Abbott executive said that could happen this week, though there’s been no indication yet from regulators if that will happen.

Source: TEST FEED1