creates

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department finalized a rule Monday that will pave the way for people who have been barred from owning firearms because of criminal convictions to apply to have their gun rights reinstated.

The process launched by newly confirmed Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche is a victory for 2nd Amendment advocates who have long pushed for nonviolent people with felony convictions to be given a pathway to regain their legal right to own firearms.

“The Second Amendment is not a second-class right, and the federal government should not permanently deprive Americans of a constitutional right without regard to whether they pose a danger to public safety,” Blanche said in a statement. The attorney general said the new process will protect “public safety while giving deserving Americans a real path to restoration.”

It’s the latest move by President Trump’s administration to ease firearms restrictions. The Justice Department moved earlier this year to roll back and modify a slate of gun regulations. Separately, the department recently decided against challenging a court ruling that struck down regulations on firearm suppressors and certain guns.

Federal law has long allowed people who have had their gun rights stripped because of felony convictions to petition the government for the ability to own firearms again, but Congress since 1992 has effectively barred the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives from processing applications.

The Trump administration’s rule aims to circumvent that by establishing a new application system using an online portal.

The Justice Department says restoration will be granted on a case-by-case basis, weighing a person’s record and reputation to determine whether they pose a likely threat to public safety. Officials say people who have been convicted of violent crimes, registered sex offenders, people living in the country illegally and others whom officials believe pose a danger to society will be denied “absent extraordinary circumstances.”

Richer writes for the Associated Press.

The clock is running down on the most consequential deadline the crypto sector has faced in Europe.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

From the start of July, the transitional window under the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) closes for good, and companies that have not secured authorisation must either stop serving European customers or wind down altogether.

MiCA is the EU’s first comprehensive law for the crypto industry, bringing exchanges, brokers and digital wallet providers under the kind of formal oversight that has long applied to banks and other financial firms.

It replaces a fragmented mix of national rules with a single rulebook spanning all 27 member states: a company licensed in one EU country earns a “passport” to operate across the bloc, but in return it must meet standards on how much capital it holds, how it is run, how it safeguards customers’ funds and how it prevents money laundering.

“What emerges is a genuine single market replacing the old patchwork of 27 national regimes,” Yamal Kalaf, co-founder of MiCAR Whitepapers Europe, which advises crypto businesses on MiCA authorisation, told Euronews.

Since the core rules took effect at the end of 2024, existing operators have been allowed to keep operating under older national registrations, but that concession was temporary.

Crypto firms need European licences but many are behind

The scale of the looming shake-out is striking.

According to the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), which confirmed in April that there would be no extension, only around 210 firms had obtained full authorisation by May, out of more than 1,200 that previously held national crypto registrations across the EU.

That points to a conversion rate of well under a fifth, leaving the vast majority of the old market without a licence as the cut-off arrives in a few days.

Speaking to Euronews, Roshan Dharia, CEO of distressed-investment firm Echo Base, explained that “the low conversion rate suggests that a meaningful portion of the market has concluded that obtaining and maintaining a MiCA licence is not economically viable within its current operating model.”

National regulators have warned that firms operating beyond the deadline without the new licence face enforcement action. France’s markets watchdog has also cautioned that continuing without authorisation could expose companies to criminal prosecution.

ESMA has told unlicensed providers to prepare orderly wind-downs, including transferring customer assets to authorised platforms or self-custody wallets, and to notify clients in advance so they can move funds safely.

“What we will see after 1 July is a smaller, more institutional market with real passporting. That is not a market in retreat. That is a market growing up,” Miguel Zapatero, Head Counsel at Crossmint, told Euronews.

Crossmint is a crypto infrastructure provider whose licensed rails let developers build wallets, custody and payment products.

A market reshaped around licensed rails

Plenty of familiar names have already cleared the bar.

Coinbase has been authorised in Ireland and Kraken in Ireland and Luxembourg. At the same time, the banking app Revolut secured its licence from Cyprus’s regulator late last year, allowing it to offer crypto services across the EU.

For these firms, the new rules promise a reward as unlicensed rivals retreat, the survivors stand to absorb their departing customers.

“MiCA is a genuine regulatory identity shift, not a registration exercise,” Gal Arad Cohen, partner at law firm S. Horowitz & Co, told Euronews.

The most prominent casualty so far may be Binance, the world’s largest crypto exchange.

According to Reuters, which cited two people familiar with the matter, Binance is set to lose permission to serve EU clients because its licence application to Greece’s market regulator, the Hellenic Capital Market Commission, is poised to be rejected.

Without approval in any member state, the exchange would be unable to operate across the bloc from July onwards.

Speaking to Euronews, Patrick Mollard, CEO at Fipto, a blockchain-based payments company for businesses, referred to the Binance case by stating that “scale earns you no shortcut to a licence, and that is precisely the point.”

Binance has pushed back, saying it has worked constructively with regulators for 18 months and believes its application met MiCA’s requirements. The company added that it understood the Greek authority had completed its review and found the filing compliant.

The company has promised a further update before 30 June.

The episode has also reputedly taken on a political dimension.

French crypto publication The Big Whale reported, citing unnamed sources, that ECB President Christine Lagarde had opposed Binance’s bid for a Greek MiCA licence.

Euronews could not independently verify the report, and neither the ECB nor the Greek government has publicly commented on the allegations.

The Big Whale also reported that Binance is exploring a potential MiCA application in France after the setback in Greece, a claim that neither Binance nor French regulators have publicly confirmed.

Binance did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Euronews.

A shake-out for smaller crypto firms

Beyond the biggest names, the deadline is expected to push smaller crypto apps and brokers towards licensed custody providers. Rather than building their own MiCA-compliant systems, many are likely to rely on authorised firms to hold customer assets.

“We will see consolidation and transfer of clients as the deadline will not be met by all currently operating entries,” Floortje Nagelkerke, partner at law firm Norton Rose Fulbright, explained to Euronews.

The result, analysts suggest, will be a smaller, more concentrated European market, with fewer players, higher barriers to entry and a clear advantage for those holding a licence, but stronger consumer protections.

“People who hold crypto in the EU after 1 July will, on balance, hold it on safer rails,” Miguel Zapatero, Head Counsel at Crossmint, concluded.

WASHINGTON — Ethnic war in Kosovo is provoking a kind of civil war inside the Republican Party.

In rapid fashion, the conflict in the Balkans is widening a fissure in the GOP over America’s role in the world. While Democrats mostly have supported President Clinton’s course, Republicans are being torn in diametrical directions as Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic’s forces systematically expel hundreds of thousands of ethnic Albanians from Kosovo.

On one side, a band of traditional GOP internationalists–led by Sen. John McCain of Arizona–is urging Clinton to escalate the campaign against Milosevic, even to the point of sending ground troops to drive the Serbian forces from Kosovo.

On the other side, an assertive group of conservative nationalists–led by presidential hopeful Patrick J. Buchanan, but extending into Congress–is arguing that the United States should bring its forces home now and leave the problem to the Europeans. “I think . . . we should tell our partners, ‘Look, we’ve expended, almost exhausted our resources. . . . Now on May 1st, we’re going to be out of there and then you take over from there,”’ Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.) argued Sunday.

This dispute marks the first real division in the Republican presidential campaign and, more importantly, a continued shift in the GOP’s center of gravity away from the internationalism that defined it through the Cold War.

Many in the GOP now appear increasingly drawn to an updated version of the old “fortress America” doctrine in which the United States increases its spending on defense but reduces its commitments abroad. Supporters describe this impulse as hard-headed nationalism. Critics, in both parties, deride it as isolationism.

“Republican foreign policy is now mired in pathetic incoherence,” the conservative Weekly Standard magazine said in an editorial last week.

In the first half of the century, the GOP was closely divided between internationalists and isolationists. When the Cold War dawned after World War II, that balance of power tilted toward the internationalists–whose victory was sealed by Dwight D. Eisenhower’s triumph over isolationist Sen. Robert A. Taft of Ohio for the GOP presidential nomination in 1952.

For nearly the next four decades, internationalists dedicated to containment of the Soviet Union held the upper hand in the GOP–even while isolationist sentiment in the Democratic Party grew after the Vietnam War.

A Role Reversal for Democrats, GOP

But the collapse of the Soviet Union eliminated the central rationale for engagement abroad among conservatives and has precipitated something of a role reversal between the parties during Clinton’s presidency. That process has reached a peak in the last few weeks with Republicans leading the opposition to U.S. involvement in Kosovo and Democrats (including many who opposed Vietnam) insisting on America’s obligation to ensure stability abroad.

When the Senate voted last month to authorize airstrikes in Kosovo, 70% of Senate Republicans voted no. Earlier, three-quarters of House Republicans voted against the use of American troops as part of an eventual North Atlantic Treaty Organization peace-keeping force in Kosovo. Virtually all Democrats in both chambers backed Clinton.

Those figures partly reflect Republican skepticism about Clinton’s ability to manage a military conflict and their sheer distrust of the president. But most analysts also see larger forces at work.

“It’s a complex fabric that’s giving us this situation here, from congressional feelings toward this president to the post Cold War fault lines,” said Marshall Wittmann, director of congressional relations at the conservative Heritage Foundation.

It is possible that tensions could sharpen among Democrats, too, if Clinton eventually asks for ground troops. But so far Democrats have offered little dissent from the president’s course.

On the other hand, the outbreak of fighting has widened the disagreement among Republicans. Overshadowed during congressional debates on Kosovo last month, internationalist Republicans have raised their voices since the bombings began.

Most ubiquitous has been McCain. Last week, McCain put off the formal announcement of his bid for the GOP presidential nomination in 2000, saying that it was inappropriate while NATO was at war in Kosovo. But he has been inescapable on television arguing for an escalation against Milosevic, including the use of ground troops if necessary.

“For us to rule out any capability we have to bring this war to a successful conclusion is a mistake,” McCain said.

Others in this camp include Republican Sens. Richard G. Lugar of Indiana and Charles Hagel of Nebraska, 1996 GOP presidential nominee Bob Dole and–more gingerly–Elizabeth Hanford Dole, who has not explicitly backed ground troops but said last week that “no options should be taken off the table.”

In a slightly different place are Republicans–led by former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger–who opposed the original decision to intervene in Kosovo but now say that NATO must do whatever it takes to defeat Milosevic to maintain its credibility.

Yet it remains unclear how much support these internationalists still command in the GOP.

Apart from McCain and Elizabeth Dole, the only other Republican contender who has accepted the possible use of ground troops is Texas Gov. George W. Bush–though his comments have been so tangled and conditional that the conservative Wall Street Journal editorial page labeled them “Clintonian.”

Half of the GOP contenders–including former Vice President Dan Quayle and Ohio Rep. John R. Kasich–have opposed the bombing mission from the outset.

On Sunday, Inhofe and Buchanan raised the ante by calling for Clinton to cut off the military action already underway. Jack Kemp, the GOP’s 1996 vice presidential nominee, last week also urged Clinton to call off the attack and reopen negotiations. Rep. Tom Campbell (R-San Jose), who has criticized the mission, plans to introduce a resolution shortly that would require an up or down vote in Congress on whether to end American involvement.

Republicans opposed to the Kosovo mission extend beyond isolationist figures like Buchanan toward leaders with previously unquestioned credentials as internationalists–like Kemp and Quayle. But the GOP case against involvement is resurfacing arguments that echo earlier generations of isolationist thinking on the right.

One line of thought revives pre-Cold War conservative skepticism about excessive U.S. involvement in Europe. Quayle and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) have argued over the last week that, if troops are required in Kosovo, European nations alone should provide them.

Most foreign policy analysts consider that an impractical prescription since the European governments have made clear that they will not commit troops unless the United States does.

Concerns About U.S. Military Deployments

A related line of Republican thinking on Kosovo echoes earlier “fortress America” thinking. This argument holds that Clinton has invested U.S. forces in too many conflicts–from Bosnia to Haiti to Kosovo–that do not truly threaten America’s vital interests.

By making so many deployments, these conservatives insist, Clinton is depleting the U.S. ability to respond to a true crisis–especially because they believe he has not provided enough funds for defense. As Kasich put it recently: “The United States has to maintain its strength and power so it can preserve stability in the world.”

Much like Clinton, the GOP internationalists think that argument is almost exactly backward. They argue that the United States cannot hold its position of world leadership if it walks away from a crisis of this magnitude.

The test of strength for these competing arguments could come in the weeks ahead if Clinton decides to seek congressional support for ground troops.