reject

Oct. 17 (UPI) — The University of Pennsylvania and the University of Southern California have rejected the Trump administration’s offer of priority access to federal funds in exchange for adopting government-mandated reforms.

With the rejections of Penn and USC on Thursday, four of the nine universities the Department of Education asked to sign on to its 10-part “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education” have so far declined.

In a letter addressed to the Penn community on Thursday, the school’s president, Larry Jameson, informed the Department of Education that Penn “respectfully” declined to sign the compact.

“At Penn, we are committed to merit-based achievement and accountability. The long-standing partnerships between American higher education and the federal government has greatly benefited society and our nation. Shared goals and investment in talent and ideas will turn possibility into progress,” Jameson said.

Beong-Soo Kim, interim president at USC, also told his community Thursday that they had informed the Department of Education that they wouldn’t be signing the compact.

Included in the statement was the letter he sent to Education Secretary Linda McMahon, which said that while they will not sign on to the compact, it raises issues “worthy of a broader national conversation to which USC would be eager to contribute its insights and expertise.”

“We are concerned that even though the compact would be voluntary, tying research benefits to it would, over time, undermine the same values of free inquiry and academic excellence that the compact seeks to promote.”

Since returning to the White House in January, President Donald Trump has targeted dozens of universities, particularly so-called elite institutions, with executive orders, lawsuits, reallocations of resources and threats over a range of allegations, from anti-Semitism to the adoption of diversity, equity and inclusion policies.

Critics have accused Trump of trying to coerce schools under threat of stringent punishments — from losing their accreditation to paying hefty fines sometimes in excess of $1 billion — to adopt his far-right policies.

The compact announced Oct. 1 demands reforms to hiring practices and student grading and includes a pledge to prohibit transgender women from using women’s changing rooms.

It also requires the creation of a “vibrant marketplace of ideas,” a tuition freeze for five years and a cap on international enrollment, among other reforms.

After Penn announced its decision, the state’s governor, Josh Shapiro, commended the school for maintaining its independence “in the face of the Trump administration’s attempts to dictate what private colleges and universities teach and use the long arm of the federal government to censor ideas with which they disagree.”

“The Trump administration’s dangerous demands would limit freedom of speech, the freedom to learn and the freedom to engage in constructive debate and dialogue on campuses across the country,” he said in a statement.

“I am in full support of the university’s decision and appreciate the leadership and courage demonstrated by President Jameson and Board Chair [Ramanan] Raghavendran.”

Brown University refused to sign the compact on Wednesday and MIT late last week.

WASHINGTON — Senate Democrats are poised for the 10th time Thursday to reject a stopgap spending bill that would reopen the government, insisting they won’t back away from demands that Congress take up healthcare benefits.

The repetition of votes on the funding bill has become a daily drumbeat in Congress, underscoring how intractable the situation has become. It has been at times the only item on the agenda for the Senate floor, while House Republicans have left Washington altogether. The standoff has lasted over two weeks, leaving hundreds of thousands of federal workers furloughed, even more without a guaranteed payday and Congress essentially paralyzed.

“Every day that goes by, there are more and more Americans who are getting smaller and smaller paychecks,” said Senate Majority Leader John Thune, adding that there have been thousands of flight delays across the country as well.

Thune, a South Dakota Republican, again and again has tried to pressure Democrats to break from their strategy of voting against the stopgap funding bill. It hasn’t worked. And while some bipartisan talks have been ongoing about potential compromises on healthcare, they haven’t produced any meaningful progress toward reopening the government. Thune has also offered to hold a later vote on extending subsidies for health plans offered under Affordable Care Act marketplaces, but said he would not “guarantee a result or an outcome.”

Democrats say they won’t budge until they get a guarantee on extending the tax credits for the health plans. They warn that millions of Americans who buy their own health insurance — such as small business owners, farmers and contractors — will see large increases when premium prices go out in the coming weeks. Looking ahead to a Nov. 1 deadline in most states, they think voters will demand that Republicans enter into serious negotiations.

“The ACA crisis is looming over everyone’s head, and yet Republicans seem ready to let people’s premiums spike,” said Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer in a floor speech.

Still, Thune was also trying a different tack Thursday with a vote to proceed to appropriations bills — a move that could grease the Senate’s gears into some action or just deepen the divide between the two parties.

A deadline for subsidies on health plans

Democrats have rallied around their priorities on healthcare as they hold out against voting for a Republican bill that would reopen the government. Yet they also warn that the time to strike a deal to prevent large increases for many health plans is drawing short.

When they controlled Congress during the pandemic, Democrats boosted subsidies for Affordable Care Act health plans. It pushed enrollment under President Obama’s signature healthcare law to new levels and drove the rate of uninsured people to a historic low. Nearly 24 million people currently get their health insurance from subsidized marketplaces, according to healthcare research nonprofit KFF.

Democrats — and some Republicans — are worried that many of those people will forgo insurance if the price rises dramatically. While the tax credits don’t expire until next year, health insurers will soon send out notices of the price increases. In most states, they go out Nov. 1.

Sen. Patty Murray, the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, said she has heard from “families who are absolutely panicking about their premiums that are doubling.”

“They are small business owners who are having to think about abandoning the job they love to get employer-sponsored healthcare elsewhere or just forgoing coverage altogether,” she added.

Murray also said that if many people decide to leave their health plan, it could have an effect across medical insurance because the pool of people under health plans will shrink. That could result in higher prices across the board, she said.

Some Republicans have acknowledged that the expiration of the tax credits could be a problem and floated potential compromises to address it, but there is hardly a consensus among the GOP.

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) this week called the COVID-era subsidies a “boondoggle,” adding that “when you subsidize the healthcare system and you pay insurance companies more, the prices increase.”

President Trump has said he would “like to see a deal done for great healthcare,” but has not meaningfully weighed in on the debate. And Thune has insisted that Democrats first vote to reopen the government before entering any negotiations on healthcare.

If Congress were to engage in negotiations on significant changes to healthcare, it would likely take weeks, if not longer, to work out a compromise.

Votes on appropriations bills

Meanwhile, Senate Republicans are setting up a vote Thursday to proceed to a bill to fund the Defense Department and several other areas of government. This would turn the Senate to Thune’s priority of working through spending bills and potentially pave the way to paying salaries for troops, though the House would eventually need to come back to Washington to vote for a final bill negotiated between the two chambers.

It could also put a crack in Democrats’ resolve. Thune said Thursday, “If they want to stop the defense bill, I don’t think it’s very good optics for them.”

It wasn’t clear whether Democrats would give the support needed to advance the bills. They discussed the idea at their luncheon Wednesday and emerged saying they wanted to review the Republican proposal and make sure it included appropriations that are priorities for them.

While the votes will not bring the Senate any closer to an immediate fix for the government shutdown, it could at least turn their attention to issues where there is some bipartisan agreement.

Still, there was a growing sense on Capitol Hill that an end to the stasis is nowhere in sight.

“So many of you have asked all of us, how will it end?” said House Speaker Johnson. “We have no idea.”

Groves and Jalonick write for the Associated Press.

Spain argues NATO funding should address real threats, not arbitrary targets, amidst Trump’s tariff retaliation plans.

The European Commission and Spain’s government have dismissed US President Donald Trump’s latest threat to impose higher tariffs on Madrid over its refusal to meet his proposed NATO target for defence spending.

Trump said on Tuesday that he was “very unhappy” with Spain for being the only NATO member to reject the new spending objective of 5 percent of economic output, adding that he was considering punishing the Mediterranean country.

“I was thinking of giving them trade punishment through tariffs because of what they did, and I think I may do that,” Trump added. He had previously suggested making Spain “pay twice as much” in trade talks.

Trade policy falls under the remit of Brussels, and the European Commission would “respond appropriately, as we always do, to any measures taken against one or more of our member states”, commission spokesperson Olof Gill said in a press briefing on Wednesday.

The trade deal between the European Union and the United States signed in July was the right platform to address any issues, Gill added.

“The defence spending debate is not about increasing spending for the sake of increasing it, but about responding to real threats,” Spain’s Economy and Trade Ministry said in a statement.

“We’re doing our part to develop the necessary capabilities and contribute to the collective defence of our allies.”

Spain has more than doubled nominal defence spending from 0.98 percent of gross domestic product in 2017 to 2 percent this year, equivalent to about 32.7bn euros ($38bn).

Defence Minister Margarita Robles said allies weren’t discussing the 5 percent target for 2035 in Wednesday’s meeting because they were prioritising the present situation in Ukraine, but wouldn’t completely rule out a shift in Spain’s position.

Targeted tariffs by the US against individual EU member states are rare, but there are precedents, said Ignacio Garcia Bercero, a senior fellow at the Brussels-based economic think tank Bruegel.

In 1999, the US hit the EU with 100 percent punitive tariffs on products such as chocolate, pork, onions and truffles in retaliation for an EU import ban on hormone-treated beef. But those tariffs excluded Britain, which at the time was still a member of the trade bloc.

The US could impose anti-dumping penalties on European products that are mostly produced in Spain, said Juan Carlos Martinez Lazaro, professor at Madrid’s IE business school.

In 2018, Washington imposed a combination of duties of more than 30 percent on Spanish black table olives at the request of Californian olive growers. Spain’s share of the US market plummeted from 49 percent in 2017 to 19 percent in 2024.

Another option would be moving the naval and air bases the US has in southern Spain to Morocco – an idea floated by former Trump official Robert Greenway – which would damage the local economies through the loss of thousands of indirect jobs.

Oct. 14 (UPI) — News organizations on Tuesday broadly rejected new rules from the Pentagon demanding journalists only report approved information or risk losing their press credentials.

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth unveiled the new rules last month requiring journalists to sign a pledge stating they would neither access nor report any information that had not been signed off by the Pentagon – even if it was unclassified. The Department of Defense threatened to revoke the press credentials of journalists, barring them from accessing facilities, if they refused to sign.

Press organizations immediately blasted the rules, calling them an affront to the First Amendment and independent reporting on the military and national security. Now, many national media outlets have refused the ultimatum.

ABC News, CBS News, CNN, FOX News Media and NBC News issued a joint statement indicating declined to agree to the new requirements.

“The policy is without precedent and threatens core journalistic protections,” the outlets said in the statement. “We will continue to cover the U.S. military as each of our organizations has done for many decades, upholding the principles of a free and independent press.”

Hegseth has had a contentious relationship with the media, blaming the press after he came under scrutiny for sharing sensitive military information on the Signal app. The former Fox News personality has previously issued a series of rules restricting press activities within the Pentagon to prevent inadvertent leaks.

The Pentagon Press Association also issued a statement Tuesday saying the latest rule contradicted Hegseth’s pledge to improve transparency at the department. The association called it an “entirely one-sided move” that would cut the public off from reporting on issues of sexual assault in the military, conflicts of interest, corruption, as well as the well-being of service members.

“The Pentagon certainly has the right to make its own policies, within the constraints of the law,” the association said. “There is no need or justification, however, for it to require reporters to affirm their understanding of vague, likely unconstitutional policies as a precondition to reporting from Pentagon facilities.”

Hegseth on Tuesday downplayed the rules, writing on X that the “Pentagon now has same rules as every U.S military installation.”

Other outlets that refused to sign the pledge include The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Atlantic.

Hegseth responded on X with an emoji waving goodbye.

WASHINGTON — An extraordinary new policy from the Defense Department that equates basic reporting methods to criminal activity has prompted a revolt among Pentagon journalists that could leave the nation’s largest agency and the world’s largest military without a press corps.

The new policy, from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, is a dramatic departure from historic standards at the department, which previously required credentialed reporters to sign a simple, single-page document laying out safety protocols.

Replacing that document is a 21-page agreement that warns reporters against “soliciting” information, including unclassified material, without the Pentagon’s official authorization, characterizing individuals who do so as a “security risk.”

The policy would force journalists and media organizations to refrain from publishing any material that is not approved by the military — a clear violation of 1st Amendment protections to free speech, lawyers for media outlets said.

Major news organizations including the New York Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal, as well as right-leaning outlets such as Newsmax and the Washington Times, have refused to sign the document, with only one far-right outlet — the cable channel One American News — agreeing to do so.

The Los Angeles Times also will not agree to the policy, said Terry Tang, the paper’s executive editor.

In a rare joint statement, ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox News and NBC said that the policy “is without precedent and threatens core journalistic protections.”

“We will continue to cover the U.S. military as each of our organizations has done for many decades, upholding the principles of a free and independent press,” the news outlets said.

But Hegseth, who has aggressively pursued leaks and sources of unfavorable news stories since the start of his turbulent tenure as secretary, has doubled down in recent days, posting emojis on social media waving goodbye as media organizations have issued statements condemning the policy. Journalists were given a deadline of 2 p.m. PDT on Tuesday to either sign the document or relinquish their credentials.

It is unclear whether it will be viable for the Pentagon to maintain the policy, leaving the secretary without a traveling press corps to highlight his official duties or public events. And it is also uncertain whether President Trump approves of the extreme measure.

At a White House event Tuesday, Hegseth said that the policy was “common sense” and that he was “proud” of it. He said credentials should not be given to reporters who will try to get officials “to break the law by giving them classified information.”

Asked last month whether the Pentagon should control what reporters gather and write, Trump said “no.”

“I don’t think so,” Trump said, adding: “Nothing stops reporters.”

But Trump said Tuesday that he understands why Hegseth is pushing for the new policy.

“I think he finds the press to be very destructive in terms of world peace and maybe security for our nation,” Trump said. “The press is very dishonest.”

The widespread revolt has generated a show of solidarity from the White House and State Department correspondents associations, which characterized the Pentagon policy in a joint statement Monday as an attack on freedom of the press.

“Access inside the Pentagon has never been about convenience to reporters,” the statement reads. “The public has a right to know how the government is conducting the people’s business. Unfettered reporting on the U.S. military and its civilian leadership provides a service to those in uniform, veterans, their families and all Americans.”

Beyond the restrictions on media outlets, the Pentagon has taken a series of steps this year to try and identify officials who are deemed disloyal or who provide information to reporters.

In April, the Pentagon dismissed three top officials after an investigation into potential leaks related to military operational plans. That same month, Hegseth’s team began subjecting officials to random polygraph tests, a practice that was temporarily halted after the White House intervened, according to the Washington Post.

Then, in October, the Pentagon drafted plans to renew the use of polygraphs and to require thousands of personnel to sign strict nondisclosure agreements that would “prohibit the release of non-public information without approval or through a defined process.” The nondisclosure agreements include language that is similar to what reporters are being asked to sign by Tuesday.

Notably, many of Hegseth’s plans to target leaks have been leaked to news outlets, probably contributing to the Defense secretary’s suspicion about whom he can trust.

The timing of his efforts are also noteworthy, as they gained traction after he personally shared sensitive details about forthcoming strikes in Yemen in a private Signal group chat that mistakenly included a reporter from the Atlantic. Hegseth also shared information about the attacks in a separate Signal chat that included his wife, a former Fox News producer who is not a Defense Department employee.

Hegseth denied that any classified information was shared in the chat. Yet the situation led to an internal review of whether the disclosures were in violation of Defense Department policies.

The Pentagon has taken an even more aggressive approach to restricting reporters’ access than the White House, which months ago took control over press operations from the White House Correspondents Assn. — an independent group that had organized the White House press corps for decades.

Still, the White House has refrained from implementing changes to the briefing room seating chart, evicting outlets from workspaces within the White House complex or revoking press passes, after facing a legal challenge over an attempt to bar one major outlet — the Associated Press — from covering some presidential events at the beginning of Trump’s second term.

Trump, meanwhile, has continued to single out individual outlets he dislikes. On Tuesday, for example, the president refused to take questions from ABC News because he said he did not like how a news anchor had treated Vice President JD Vance.

“You’re ABC Fake News,” Trump said at a public appearance in the White House. “I don’t take questions from ABC Fake News!”

Published on
08/10/2025 – 18:10 GMT+2

ADVERTISEMENT

It’s a narrow win — but a win nonetheless — for the opponents of the controversial trade agreement reached with the Mercosur countries in December 2024.

A show of hands from European lawmakers on Wednesday saw 269 of them reject a paragraph of a resolution on the EU’s political strategy for Latin America that welcomed the conclusion of the Mercosur agreement — offering a preview of the showdown taking shape in the European Parliament over the controversial trade deal.

The Strasbourg vote was decided by just 10 votes, as 259 other MEPs voted in favour, reflecting a divided hemicycle over this controversial agreement.

“The European Parliament is once again expressing its scepticism about the trade agreement with Mercosur,” French MEP Pascal Canfin (Renew) wrote in a post on LinkedIn.

“The political signal is very clear: there are more MEPs who have profound doubts about the merits of this agreement than MEPs who want it adopted immediately.”

The European Commission, which had been at the helm during more than twenty years of negotiations for this agreement, submitted it for ratification to the Council and for its consent to the European Parliament on 3 September.

However, it remains uncertain whether the final step for the EU to conclude the agreement will proceed smoothly.

The deal, which liberalises trade between Mercosur countries — Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay — and the EU, reduces tariffs on many products, including some agricultural goods, raising concerns among European farmers about facing unfair competition from Latin American producers.

‘We will continue fighting’

In the Parliament, a group of lawmakers is preparing to submit a resolution to their colleagues calling for the EU Court of Justice to be seized to suspend the deal’s approval.

Opponents of the agreement also fear that Mercosur countries will not comply with European phytosanitary and environmental standards.

The agreement “abandons agriculture and livestock, harms the environment, fuels deforestation, rolls out the red carpet for extractive multinationals,” Spanish MEP Irene Montero (The Left), who prompted the vote on Wednesday, told Euronews.

“We will continue fighting to ensure that this agreement is not ratified and to stop the danger it poses to the environment and our primary sector.”

Supporters of the deal argue, on the other hand, that this text — which creates a free trade area of 700 million people — is necessary in the new global trade context to face Chinese competition in Mercosur countries and diversify trading partners, especially as the US is raising tariff barriers around its market.

The part of the resolution that was rejected welcomed the conclusion of the deal’s negotiations, highlighting “the fact that the agreement would be a real game changer for the relationship between the two regions.”

The deal “would be the largest trade agreement ever signed by the EU in terms of population, covering more than 700 million citizens, and the most significant in terms of its economic impact,” the resolution emphasised.

The resolution also stressed the “geopolitical value” of the deal, “as an essential tool for advancing the EU’s strategic interests in the current international context.”

The plenary vote on the Mercosur agreement itself has not yet been scheduled. A source familiar with the matter told Euronews that the European Parliament’s administration hopes it will be on the MEPs’ agenda by the end of the year.

The County Championship is to remain a two-division structure of 14 matches per team after a vote rejected proposed changes.

Eighteen first-class counties were asked to choose between the status quo and a new system of a 12-team top flight, six in the bottom tier, with each team playing 13 matches.

The ballot returned a result on Tuesday, one day before the final round of this season’s County Championship matches begin.

A majority of 12 counties were required to vote for change in order to push through the reform, a figure that was not met.

The result of the vote means the County Championship retains its current structure of 10 teams in Division One and eight in Division Two, with two teams promoted and relegated between each.

It brings to an end a lengthy examination of the domestic schedule, conducted by the counties.

A revamp of the Twenty20 Blast, cutting the number of group games from 14 to 12 and bringing finals day earlier in the season, was agreed in August.

However, differing opinions among the counties about the way forward for the Championship have resulted in retaining the current set-up.

A number of proposals were put forward, including reducing the number of first-class matches to 12, a number favoured by the Professional Cricketers’ Association (PCA).

When it became clear the shift from 14 to 12 was dead in the water, the 12-team top flight with a 13-match structure was proposed.

The idea involved the 12 teams being split into two groups of six, playing each other twice for an initial 10 games. At that point, the two groups would be split in half to create two further groups of six that would play for the Championship and relegation places.