Other voices: A gift to corrupt competitors

posted in: All news | 0

The White House claims American companies are losing business abroad because U.S. law prohibits them from paying bribes. That’s just one of the fictions underpinning its ill-advised decision to pause enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, a move that threatens to unravel decades of progress in global anti-corruption efforts.

The administration argues that the FCPA has been “stretched beyond proper bounds” and “abused in a manner that harms the interests of the United States.” One can argue about the wisdom or propriety of any particular corruption probe. But on balance, this sentiment gets things backward: The law is both good for business and for America’s broader global interests.

Whatever the short-term payoff for individuals or companies that pay bribes, when resources go to corruption instead of research, reward shortcuts instead of merit, and encourage rent-seeking rather than value creation, growth and innovation will suffer. Costs and distortions will proliferate as firms offload corruption expenses onto consumers.

When the FCPA was enacted in 1977, the U.S. stood mostly alone in banning such practices. In some countries, bribes were even tax-deductible. Thanks largely to U.S. influence — and pressure from businesses that stand to lose when the rules are unclear or unevenly applied — the law has become the global standard, with 46 countries signed up to a convention on anti-bribery. Yes, palms still get greased at times, but credible penalties and consistent enforcement act as strong deterrents to routine corruption.

It’s also false that the law has been applied unfairly to American companies. For one thing, the FCPA applies to any firm — foreign or domestic — that trades on U.S. exchanges or uses the American banking system. More than 40% of FCPA enforcement actions have been against foreign companies, as have nine of the 10 largest sanctions imposed. Even as a matter of pure self-interest, the benefit for U.S. companies of being able to appeal to such a law when asked to pay bribes isn’t one that should be abandoned lightly.

More to the point, simply pausing enforcement (for six months, the administration says) puts American businesses in a terrible position. Bribe-seekers may well be emboldened by the pause. Yet the law remains in effect, with a statute of limitations that lasts up to six years. Its accounting stipulations — enforced by the Securities and Exchange Commission — remain in place regardless, as do foreign anti-bribery laws. No responsible company would risk violating the FCPA under such conditions, and thus any theoretical benefits of this policy would accrue only to their less scrupulous competitors.

Longer-term, pausing or diluting the FCPA will simply encourage corruption and diminish American influence. As the U.S. retreats from enforcement, others will likely follow, and bribery may once again become the norm rather than the exception — to no one’s benefit except foreign kleptocrats.

That isn’t to say that the FCPA can’t be improved. Its compliance burden, in particular, is too burdensome: The average FCPA investigation takes more than three years to complete, during which companies often fork out millions in legal fees and investigative costs.

As for the administration’s claim that the law hinders U.S. competitiveness, again, there is an element of truth: As things stand, countries such as China and India have no meaningful foreign bribery laws, and Japan and South Korea don’t fare much better. But the logical response to such concerns isn’t a race to the bottom. The U.S. should instead insist that all Group of 20 nations sign up to the same standards and demand better enforcement.

— The Bloomberg Opinion Editorial Board

Suzanne Nossel: Remember when it was the right that got outraged over ‘banned words’?

posted in: All news | 0

Some of the fiercest blowback in recent years against “diversity, equity and inclusion” greeted Stanford University in 2022 when it launched the website of its Elimination of Harmful Language initiative. Back then, it was the right that was appalled by the efforts to limit language.

Developed by campus experts in technology and inclusion, the site labeled hundreds of words and phrases “harmful,” urging the use of alternatives. While the list included some terms widely considered offensive (such as “cripple” for disabled or “shemale” for transgender) it also cited a baffling array of anodyne terms — “immigrant,” “grandfather,” “Hispanic” and scores of others. The word “American” was cast out in favor of “U.S. citizen,” lest the former be construed to overlook the existence of the rest of the Americas. “Tribe” was rejected as “equating indigenous people with savages.” While the list was not official university policy, the message was clear: To be an upstanding Stanford citizen, these lines ought not be crossed.

The Wall Street Journal editorial board excoriated the list as self-parody, saying “you used to have to get a graduate degree in the humanities to write something that stupid.” Conservative websites and podcasters had a field day, calling the site “Orwellian.” Stanford Professor Jay Bhattacharya, now President Donald Trump’s head of the National Institutes of Health, called the list “ham handed” and “crazy.” Amid the uproar, Stanford sheepishly pulled down the website, citing the university’s commitment to academic freedom.

Now the left is making a lot of the same critiques, noting that this time the dystopian directive comes from the top of the federal government. As part of its crusade to wrest America from the clutches of “wokeness,” the Trump administration is discouraging federal agencies, grantees and contractors from using a long list of ordinary words like “accessible,” “female,” “women,” “political” and “pollution.” These words have been scrubbed from government policy statements and websites; government affiliates are effectively on notice that their use could result in discipline or punishment.

Some of the words on the Stanford and Trump lists overlap, including variations of “Hispanic,” “victim,” “pronouns” and “transexual,” a vivid illustration of where the extremes of right and left tilt so far as to appear to converge. After ridiculing Stanford’s censorious overreach, a right-wing movement supposedly bent on freeing Americans from intrusive controls on speech is indulging in precisely the methods it excoriated.

Trump has made the war on woke a centerpiece of his early weeks in office. He has banned diversity, equity and inclusion policies, eliminated transgender protections, and targeted universities, law firms and government bodies accused of resisting such efforts. The MAGA movement’s disdain for DEI is grounded partly in concerns over sidelining of merit in favor of diversity, and on what it sees as the unfairness of using race or gender to advantage some at the expense of others.

But a second major critique of DEI focuses on the heavy-handed policing of ideas. While the Stanford list was particularly egregious, it is not the only such policy to exert pressure on open discourse. Some see the very adoption of institutional commitments to diversity, equity and inclusion as the imposition of a singular ideology in settings like the university that should be open to all perspectives, including critics of such policies. Arguments over the legitimacy of affirmative action, transgender participation in sports or immigration policy can be stifled when people fear being accused of racism or bigotry for voicing dissenting views.

Overreaching diversity strategies can not only suppress speech, but also compel it. When some universities began to require faculty job applicants to submit personal statements outlining how they support diversity, equity and inclusion, the policies were rightly criticized as signaling to candidates that there was only one right answer when it came to DEI: full-throated embrace.

That the ridiculed Stanford list of harmful words has now been met by an opposing list of disfavored terms reflects the MAGA movement’s conviction that the fire in the belly of diversity advocates can only be fought with more fire. Opponents are convinced that the dangerous entrenchment of DEI in educational institutions, media companies and workplaces must be stopped by any means necessary. To match the implicit censoriousness of the Stanford list and similar approaches never enshrined into law, the Trump administration is resorting to out-and-out censorship.

While the Stanford list, by offering alternate formulations with similar meanings, aimed to declare off-limits specific words rather than entire concepts or ideas, the Trump list does the opposite. Its entries are proxies for whole areas of scholarship, research and policymaking that are now verboten. By instilling fear in government officials, educators and scientists, the Trump administration not only chills speech but also impairs essential work in areas including gender and racial differences in medicine, violence against women and mental health.

At a time when Vice President JD Vance is lecturing Europe about its supposed betrayal of free speech values, the Trump administration has made clear its unwillingness to live by the openness it expects from, say, the German political system. If free speech is a casualty of MAGA’s war to protect free speech, so be it, apparently.

Stanford’s list and other taboos did not succeed in stamping out bias. After strides toward diversity and inclusion on campuses and at corporations, now comes a ferocious counterattack. The retort is fueled in part by the belief that a past commitment to diversity threatened free speech. Now some are rushing to voice opinions that they felt were once muzzled.

Back in 2022, when Stanford professor Bhattacharya was interviewed on Fox News about the university’s harmful language list, he brought up one of the oft-cited risks of declaring words and ideas forbidden, saying: “I see a list of words like that and I want to say those words. I can’t be the only one.”

He is certainly not the only one. And nor is Stanford’s list the only one sure to provoke that reaction. The current chilling of discussions of racial and gender equality may ultimately only make support for such causes hotter.

Suzanne Nossel is a member of Facebook’s Oversight Board and the author of “Dare to Speak: Defending Free Speech for All.” She wrote this column for the Los Angeles Times.

Judge says US government may have ‘acted in bad faith’ as he weighs contempt over deportation order

posted in: All news | 0

By LINDSAY WHITEHURST, MICHAEL KUNZELMAN and ALANNA DURKIN RICHER

WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge said Thursday that the Trump administration may have “acted in bad faith” by trying to rush Venezuelan migrants out of the country before a court could block their deportations to El Salvador.

Related Articles


Pentagon watchdog to review Hegseth’s use of Signal app to convey plans for Houthi strike


Trump’s tariffs aren’t strictly reciprocal. Here’s how he calculated them


These are the places affected by Trump’s tariffs


Trump’s tariff push is a race against time, and potential voter backlash


Trump’s changes to the federal government aren’t yet a clear political winner or loser: AP-NORC poll

U.S. District Judge Jeb Boasberg in Washington pressed a Justice Department lawyer to explain the government’s actions in a high-stakes court hearing to determine whether the administration ignored his orders to turn around planes that were carrying deportees to El Salvador.

The judge said he could issue a ruling as soon as next week on whether there are grounds to find anyone in contempt of court for defying the court order.

The case has become a flashpoint in a battle between the judiciary and the Trump administration amid mounting White House frustrations over court orders blocking key parts of the president’s sweeping agenda. Trump has called for the judge’s impeachment, while the Justice Department has argued the judge is overstepping his authority.

Boasberg ordered the administration last month not to deport anyone in its custody under the Alien Enemies Act, a 1798 wartime law Trump invoked over what he claimed was an invasion by the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. The judge also ordered that any planes with Venezuelan immigrants that were already in the air be returned to the United States. That did not happen.

Boasberg, who was appointed to the federal bench by Democratic President Barack Obama, said it appeared the administration had tried to get the deportees out of the country as quickly as possible before a court could step in. He told a Justice Department lawyer he suspects the government may have “acted in bad faith throughout that day.”

“If you really believed anything you did that day could survive a court challenge, I cannot believe you would have operated the way you did,” Boasberg said.

The Justice Department has said the administration didn’t violate the judge’s order, arguing it didn’t apply to planes that had already left U.S. airspace by the time his command came down. The Justice Department has noted that the judge’s written order said nothing about flights that had already left the U.S. and that the judge had no power to compel the president to return the planes anyway.

The Trump administration has refused to answer the judge’s questions about when the planes landed and who was on board, contending they are considered “state secrets.” The administration has said that providing the information to the judge, even if it’s not released publicly, would harm “diplomatic and national security concerns.”

The Trump administration is urging the Supreme Court for permission to resume deportations of Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador under the rarely used Alien Enemies Act. The Justice Department says federal courts shouldn’t interfere with sensitive diplomatic negotiations. It also claimed that migrants should make their case in a federal court in Texas, where they are being detained.

Jace Frederick: Paige Bueckers will ‘leave no stone unturned’

posted in: All news | 0

Paige Bueckers was 0 for 3 in state championship games in her varsity career heading into the Class 4A title bout in 2019. But there the then-junior was at 5 a.m. on the morning of Hopkins’ title tilt against Stillwater, puking.

Great.

One thing was for sure: it was not going to keep the guard off the floor. Months later, Bueckers recalled the power drinks and “gross” Gatorade gummy chews she forced down that day to ensure she was ready to play.

She led Hopkins to the state championship, and a weight was lifted that evening.

“Nobody was allowed to say I did all this and all that but haven’t won state yet,” Bueckers later said.

Fast forward six years, and Bueckers is in a familiar spot. She was the national player of the year as a freshman at UConn, and is a finalist for those honors again this season. Friday’s national semifinal against UCLA marks the Huskies’ third trip to the Final Four in Bueckers’ tenure. The two times they didn’t go were the season and a half the guard missed following a major knee injury.

Bueckers is a shoo-in to be the No. 1 overall pick in the upcoming WNBA Draft and has ascended to become one of the faces of the women’s game. All that’s left to do in her collegiate career? Win a national title.

That’s not to give any credence to the “rings culture” that suggests if you didn’t win the title, all was for naught. A lack of a trophy will do little to take away from Bueckers’ basketball legacy. Caitlin Clark didn’t win a title at Iowa after falling in the championship game of each of her final two collegiate campaigns.

But the reality is Bueckers wants that ring — who doesn’t? Particularly at UConn, a program that doesn’t bother to cut down nets after Elite 8 victories.

“I think before you even get here, you kind of know the pressures that exist by committing to UConn,” Bueckers told reporters on Monday. “So, by making that decision to want to come here and try to live up to that and be a part of a legendary program, it’s a decision you have to make even before you step on campus. And once you walk inside the practice facility, you see all the history, all the names, all the banners. It’s just motivation.

“Obviously there’s expectations here. And anything less than a national championship is really a disappointment. As players, that’s what you play for and what you want to live up to. And the expectations and the pressure, it’s a privilege.”

Brian Cosgriff, who coached Bueckers at Hopkins and is now the Minnetonka girls head coach, believes it’s “very important” to Bueckers to win a championship; not for her own resume, “But because she loves her coaches and teammates so much.”

“And she loves the community and the school,” Cosgriff said. “So, I think it’s very important for her. It’s just the same way it was at Hopkins.”

That yearn to win can be a hindrance on performance. When you want something so badly, it can become more difficult to attain, particularly in this era of social media stardom.

“I don’t think I’ve ever coached someone in this generation where they have to deal with this type of scrutiny and pressure that comes from the world that they live in. She’s the first one,” UConn coach Geno Auriemma told reporters. “So, for her to get all the attention she gets, have all the demands on her life, all the expectations in her life, and still be able to deliver, she — yeah — she’s very unique.”

Bueckers’ advice for anyone trying to block out the added noise of today’s world is to stay off social media and listen to “the right voices.” She works with a sports psychologist, which helps ease her nerves and focus on the now.

“I know a lot of things can happen during this time, a lot of pressures, the stakes, what you’re trying to accomplish, you can get caught up in that,” she said. “I know a huge emphasis for me was staying present, staying in the moment, standing firm in who we are as a team, who we want to be as individuals, and just not getting too caught up in anything else but trying to be present for the team, enjoy every moment.”

Bueckers is playing with a clear urgency at the moment, capping a remarkable career with a scintillating run through the tournament. The senior is averaging 35 points, four rebounds, four assists and four steals over UConn’s past three games, all while shooting 59% from the field and 62% from 3-point range.

Yet after the Huskies’ regional final win over USC, Auriemma sat at the press conference table, pointed at the guard’s four turnovers in the box score and asked, “What was that?”

“And she immediately went to the next column and she said, ‘Look, I got it back, I got four steals,’” Auriemma said. “Like that’s … her mentality is always, ‘This is what I did to help us win, I’m not worried about what the other stuff was.’”

“I saw that all throughout high school. She was going to do whatever it took for the team and the program to be successful,” Cosgriff said. “That hasn’t changed since she’s been out there. She’s a complete player, complete person. She’s just so passionate about trying to be the best possible player and person she can be, night in and night out.”

And, yeah, when there’s the most at stake, she might ramp even her consistent excellence up a notch or two. Expect the best version of Bueckers to take the floor in Tampa Bay this weekend.

“She’s going to take the charge, she’s going to make the big free throw, she’s going to make the big shot. She’s going to get the big rebound. She’s going to do whatever it takes in order for UConn and Geno Auriemma to be successful,” Cosgriff said.

“It does not matter what the skill or task is asked of her, she’s going to be doing that. She’s got two more games. She wants to go out there and leave it all on the table. She doesn’t want there to be any stone left unturned.”

Related Articles


Gophers seek naming-rights deal for Williams Arena as financial needs grow


WBIT: Gophers beat Belmont to win championship


Gophers men’s basketball welcomes two new players Wednesday


WBIT: Gophers take on Belmont for tournament title


How Gophers coach Niko Medved will go into the NCAA transfer portal