Texas pushes back against foreign land grab with 'strongest bill in the nation' against China, Iran, Russia

Texas pushes back against foreign land grab with 'strongest bill in the nation' against China, Iran, Russia

Texas lawmakersare charging ahead with what they call the nation's strongest legislative effort yet to block hostile foreign powers from purchasing land in the Lone Star State. Championed by Republican state Rep. Cole Hefner and state Sen. Lois Kolkhorst, Senate Bill 17 (SB17) is designed to stop governments and entities tied to countries like China,Iran, North Korea and Russia from gaining a foothold on Texas soil. In an exclusive interview with Fox News Digital, Hefner described SB17 as "model legislation" aimed at shutting down land purchases that pose a national security threat. "This bill is about actions and affiliations, not race, not nationality," Hefner said. "If you're acting on behalf of a hostile foreign adversary, we're going to take that land back." Texas Law Gets Tough On Public, Private Drone Use The bill is in direct response to real-world events. Read On The Fox News App Hefner cited the 2021 case of a retired Chinese general acquiring over 140,000 acres near Laughlin Air Force Base. "We've [also] seen the attempt of foreign actors or hostile foreign adversaries to buy land close to food processing plants," Hefner said. "And it's just something that we have found the more we dig into it, the more we find that there's a lot of things we don't know and a lot of vulnerabilities that are out there." The bill prohibits entities and individuals affiliated with governments designated as national security threats, based on the U.S. Director of National Intelligence's annual assessments, frompurchasing real estateif those purchases pose risks to public health or safety. The law empowers the state's attorney general to investigate, block and even reverse such land deals through court-ordered receivership. Texas Lawmakers Considering Bill To Ban Gender Changes On Birth Certificates Under SB17, "real property" includes agricultural, commercial, industrial, and residential land as well as mines, minerals, and timber. The law includes key exemptions for U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, and property intended as a personal homestead. "The strong points of our bill is that it can apply to anyone if we can prove they're acting as an agent," said Hefner. "So even if they're from a friendly country, but they're actually on behalf of a foreign adversary, then they will be subject to the bill." The bill gives the attorney general investigative powers, and authority to appoint receivers to manage or sell properties acquired in violation of the law. Hefner pushed back hard on critics who claim the bill is xenophobic. "This has nothing to do with skin color or ethnicity," he said. "It's about protecting Texans and Americans from foreign espionage and influence." He also stressed that SB17 should not be seen as a partisan move. "It shouldn't be a partisan issue. This is about national security. This is about keeping our citizens safe," said Hefner. "It'snot about Republicanor Democrat, it's not liberal or conservative. It is just taking care of our people. "And I believe that's the, you know, the number one responsibility of the government is to make sure that people can live free and safe in their state." SB17 is set to take effect Sept. 1. Hefner said he hopes the legislation sparks a nationwide effort. "We need to wake up," he said. "This is about securing the homeland, not playing politics."Fox News Digital's Nick Butler contributed to this report. Original article source:Texas pushes back against foreign land grab with 'strongest bill in the nation' against China, Iran, Russia

byVS personal

in

May 09, 2025

Texas pushes back against foreign land grab with 'strongest bill in the nation' against China, Iran, Russia

Texas pushes back against foreign land grab with 'strongest bill in the nation' against China, Iran, Russia Texas lawmakersare charg...

Read More

First U.S.-China meeting amidst trade war unlikely to yield major changes, economists say

First U.S.-China meeting amidst trade war unlikely to yield major changes, economists say

(The Center Square) – The U.S. is set to meet with China for the first time in the trade war begun just over a month ago, and while it could lead to real negotiations down the road, many observers see it as a preliminary meeting. President Donald Trump raised tariffs with many of America's trading partners, including China, on April 2, causing many countries to reach out to the U.S. to negotiate trade deals, according to the administration (though the White House has only shared the framework details of one deal made with the United Kingdom). But China chose to raise its tariffs in response, sparking a trade war that has resulted in a 145% tariff on Chinese imports to the U.S. and a 125% tariff on American goods imported to China. Trump has said he has been talking with Chinese President Xi Jinping, but neither country had released any details about those conversations, and China denied they happened. Several economists The Center Square spoke to weren't optimistic that the meeting would yield big results. "By all accounts that we can locate, it appears that it's a meeting to talk about a meeting," said director of education and senior research fellow at the American Institute for Economic Research, Ryan Yonk."Which isn't a big surprise. That's how these things tend to begin, where behind the scenes, there is movement likely on both sides… to begin to talk about how will they actually set up a way to have more formal discussions.'" Alex Durante, a senior economist at the Tax Foundation who previously worked for the Federal Reserve Board and the Council of Economic Advisers, agreed. "I think it's possible that maybe both sides reach some kind of agreement and tariffs maybe on certain kinds of goods are lowered or removed, but I'm a bit skeptical that we're going to get something very remarkable," Durante told The Center Square. Part of the skepticism is due to an episode of déjà vu – the first Trump administration also had specific aspirations for U.S.-China trade relations which largely never materialized. Trump also raised tariffs on China then to establish a better trade relationship. China, as it has now, responded in kind. In January 2020, the Trump administration signed the 'Phase One' trade agreement, which included commitments from China to increase U.S. imports by $200 billion and strengthen protections on intellectual property. But China ultimately fell short of its purchasing commitments, partly due to the pandemic. Trump had also sought to further address non-tariff barriers such as forced technology transfer and state subsidies, but those deeper issues remained unresolved. "They never got to some of the real issues – that is, the problems of the state capitalism characteristics that really hamper trade and investment with not just the United States but others – the kinds of things about technology transfer, about subsidies, about favoritism to state-owned companies," said Claude Barfield, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a former consultant to the office of the U.S. Trade Representative. Some of these issues were spoken about in a congressional hearingearlier this yearthat focused on the Chinese Communist Party's influence on American investment. China reportedly pressures companies to share proprietary technology to gain access to the Chinese market, and it employs other business practices in its international deals that don't comply with World Trade Organization regulations. More skepticism comes from the fact that both sides have invested far more than merely economics in the outcome of their negotiations. "You [have] two regimes that are unlikely to make decisions on pure economic outcomes, as much as we think they should," Yonk told The Center Square. China has undergone a marked real estate crisis and faces other economic challenges, and the U.S. is adjusting to new economic policies under the Trump administration, the after-effects of a jarring inflationary period and the looming question of a recession. "There's been massive capital investment [in China] that really hasn't panned out in the way they expected," Yonk said. "In large part, China had messaged their legitimacy by what they could deliver economically. When that changed, there was a pivot to more Chinese nationalism as the justification, which means it's no longer about just getting an economic deal that's going to work for China, there's also now a much more nationalistic question that's on the table about respect and sort of world influence." Barfield also described economic problems in both countries. Xi has "internal issues," Barfield said, while Trump, elected for his economic policies, faces pressures at home. "Has he done things to help him on the issues that got him elected?" Barfield remarked to The Center Square. "Certainly, throwing tariffs all around the world isn't going to help. We don't know yet, but it may not end up in inflation over the whole U.S. economy rather than just sort of price hikes in different sectors, but it's something he and his people are now worried about." The administration has acknowledged the existing rates are unsustainable, but it's unclear which side will make concessions first. "I think it's a bit of a pick 'em [whether] one side or the other gives in first, and I actually think we're not likely to see evidence that one side or the other did. I think both sides will claim the other did and the question will be, can the other side accept that narrative and still go forward with some sort of trade deal. I think it's gonna be a long road to a trade deal with China that is really sort of substantial and far-reaching," Yonk said. Trump did post to Truth Social on Friday, saying a lowered 80% tariff on China "seems right" but that it was up to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, but this was after saying earlier in the week that the U.S. would not lower tariffs on China to prompt concessions from the Chinese. "I think the best outcome would be sort of a cooling off period, if they agree to actually have discussions after Saturday," Yonk said.

byVS personal

in

May 09, 2025

First U.S.-China meeting amidst trade war unlikely to yield major changes, economists say

First U.S.-China meeting amidst trade war unlikely to yield major changes, economists say (The Center Square) – The U.S. is set to meet with...

Read More

Judge pauses Trump's effort to reduce the size of the federal government

Judge pauses Trump's effort to reduce the size of the federal government

A federal judge in California on Friday temporarily blocked plans for reductions-in-force and reorganization at 21 departments and agencies across the federal government, a significant setback as the Trump administration works to downsize. "The President has the authority to seek changes to executive branch agencies, but he must do so in lawful ways and, in the case of large-scale reorganizations, with the cooperation of the legislative branch," Judge Susan Illston wrote in her order after hearing arguments on the issue earlier in the day. "Many presidents have sought this cooperation before; many iterations of Congress have provided it. Nothing prevents the President from requesting this cooperation—as he did in his prior term of office. Indeed, the Court holds the President likely must request Congressional cooperation to order the changes he seeks, and thus issues a temporary restraining order to pause large-scale reductions in force in the meantime," she wrote. The temporary restraining order, in effect for two weeks, puts the president's "Department of Government Efficiency" Workforce Optimization Initiative on hold for 21 departments and agencies. The order also includes memos issued to the same effect by the Office of Personnel Management and DOGE. Illston, appointed by President Bill Clinton, said she believes there's no statute that gives the Office of Personnel Management, the Office of Management and Budget, or DOGE the authority to direct other federal agencies to engage in large-scale terminations, restructuring, or elimination of itself. "Such action is far outside the bounds of any authority that Congress vested in OPM or OMB, and, as noted, DOGE has no statutory authority whatsoever," she wrote. While thousands of federal employees working in departments and agencies across the country have been RIF'ed since Trump took office in January, the Trump administration has not made an exact number of affected employees available. The departments and agencies blocked from instituting reductions-in-force or reorganizations include DOGE, the Office of Management and Budget, the Office of Personnel Management, and the Departments of Housing and Urban Development, Interior and Transportation. The Trump administration argued the lawsuit, filed April 28, lacked timeliness because theExecutive Orderwas issued nearly three months ago. In similar cases around the country, the administration has argued lawsuits filed immediately after Executive Orders were issued are premature. "Defendants cannot have it both ways," Judge Illston wrote. "The Court finds that plaintiffs reasonably waited to gather what information they could about the harm they may suffer from the Executive Order, the OMB/OPM Memorandum, and the ARRPs (Agency RIF and Reorganization Plans)." "The Trump administration's unlawful attempt to reorganize the federal government has thrown agencies into chaos, disrupting critical services provided across our nation," the coalition of non-profits, unions, and local governments said in a statement Friday. "Each of us represents communities deeply invested in the efficiency of the federal government — laying off federal employees and reorganizing government functions haphazardly does not achieve that. We are gratified by the court's decision today to pause these harmful actions while our case proceeds." Illston is scheduled to hear further arguments in this case on May 22. The White House did not immediately respond to request for comment.

byVS personal

in

May 09, 2025

Judge pauses Trump's effort to reduce the size of the federal government

Judge pauses Trump's effort to reduce the size of the federal government A federal judge in California on Friday temporarily blocked pla...

Read More

Nuclear neighbors India and Pakistan are a step closer to war. Here’s a timeline of how it happened

Nuclear neighbors India and Pakistan are a step closer to war. Here's a timeline of how it happened

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) —A gun massacre of touristson April 22 haspushed India and Pakistana step closer to war, marking the biggest breakdown in relations since 2019. Conflict between India and Pakistan is not rare, with the two countries having periodically engaged in wars, clashes and skirmishessince gaining independencefrom British India in 1947. What's different about this escalation isthe frequency and intensityof strikes and retaliation. Although the U.S. had said it would not step in, it is now offering assistance in "starting constructive talks" between India and Pakistan to avoid future conflicts. But calls for restraint from the international community have yet to make an impact. Here's a timeline of how the latest conflict has unfolded: April 22 Gunmen shoot and kill at least 26 touristsat a Pahalgam resortin Indian-controlled Kashmir, a major shift in a regional conflict that has largely spared civilians. The unidentified gunmen also wound 17 other people. A group called Kashmir Resistance, which India accuses Pakistan of backing, claims the attack. Survivors tell The Associated Pressthat gunmen asked people if they were Hindu and then opened fire. April 23 Indiadowngrades diplomatic ties, closes the only functional land border crossing, and suspends a crucial water-sharing treaty that has survived two wars and a major border skirmish between the two countries. India launches a manhunt for the Pahalgam assailants. Pakistan denies involvement with the attack. April 24 India and Pakistan cancel visasfor each other's nationals, setting a deadline for them to leave. In retaliation, Pakistan shuts its airspace for all Indian-owned or Indian-operated airlines, and suspends all trade with India, including to and from any third country. Government ministers on both sides hint the dispute could escalate to military action. April 25 India saysits troops exchangedfire with Pakistani soldiers at the Line of Control, the de facto border dividing the disputed Kashmir region. Pakistan warns it could suspend an agreement that established the Line of Control, in what would be a major and worrying step. The United Nations urges both sides to "exercise maximum restraint." April 26 Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif vows his government will respond"with full force and might"to Indian attempts to stop or divert the flow of water. Iran offers mediation, while Trump says he expects them to work out their differences. "There's great tension between Pakistan and India, but there always has been," he tells reporters aboard Air Force One. April 30 Authorities in Indian-controlled Kashmirtemporarily close dozensof resorts in the scenic Himalayan region after the deadly attack on tourists. Troops from both countries exchange fire over the Line of Control for a fifth consecutive night. Pakistan's Information Minister Attaullah Tarar says his government has"credible intelligence"that India intends to carry out military action against Pakistan in the next 24 to 36 hours. May 1 U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubiocalls senior officials in India and Pakistan in an effort to defuse the crisis. U.S. State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce says Rubio in his call with India expressed sorrow over the killings in Pahalgam and reaffirmed the U.S.'s "commitment to cooperation with India against terrorism." Pakistan says Rubio emphasized the need for both sides to "continue working together for peace and stability" in South Asia. May 3 Pakistan test-firesa ballistic missile with a range of 450 kilometers (about 280 miles).Missiles are not firedtoward the border area with India; they are normally fired into the Arabian Sea or the deserts of the southwest Balochistan province. India suspends the exchange of all mail from Pakistan through air and surface routes and bans the direct and indirect import of goods from its neighbor. It also bars Pakistani-flagged ships from entering its ports and prohibits Indian-flagged vessels from visiting Pakistani ports. May 7 India fires missiles on Pakistan, which calls the strikes an "act of war" and vows to avenge those who died in the pre-dawn attack. The missiles kill 31 people, including women and children, in Pakistan-administered Kashmir and the country's Punjab province. Thestrikes targetedat least nine sites "where terrorist attacks against India have been planned," says India's Defense Ministry. Pakistan claims it downed several Indian fighter jets. May 8 India fires attack drones into Pakistan, killing at least two civilians, the Pakistani military says. India, meanwhile, accuses its neighbor of attempting its own attack and acknowledges targeting its archrival's air defense system. India evacuatesthousands of people from villagesnear the highly militarized frontier in the Kashmir region. Flights remainsuspended at over two dozen airportsacross northern and western regions of India. Pakistan's Punjab province announces the immediate closure of all schools and other educational institutions. May 9 Indiasuspends its biggest domestic cricket tournamentfor a week following the escalating military tensions with Pakistan. Pakistan initially says it willmove its own domestic T20 tournamentto the United Arab Emirates because of the crisis, but then says it will only postpone matches. Several northern and western Indian states shut schools and other educational institutions. U.S. Vice President JD Vance says a potential war between India and Pakistan would be "none of our business." India's army says drones have been sighted in 26 locations across many areas in Indian states bordering Pakistan and Indian-controlled Kashmir, including the main city of Srinagar. The drones were tracked and engaged, it adds. The Group of Seven nations, or G7, urge "maximum restraint" from both India and Pakistan, warning that further military escalation poses a serious threat to regional stability. May 10 Pakistansays India has fired missilesat air bases inside the country and that retaliatory strikes are underway.The Indian missilestargeted Nur Khan air base in the garrison city of Rawalpindi, near the capital Islamabad, Murid air base in Chakwal city, and Rafiqui air base in the Jhang district of eastern Punjab province, according to the Pakistani army's chief spokesperson. Pakistan says it has fired missiles at Indian military positions. Residents in Indian-controlled Kashmir report hearing loud explosions at multiple places in the region, including Srinagar, Jammu, and the garrison town of Udhampur.

byVS personal

in

May 09, 2025

Nuclear neighbors India and Pakistan are a step closer to war. Here’s a timeline of how it happened

Nuclear neighbors India and Pakistan are a step closer to war. Here's a timeline of how it happened ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) —A gun mass...

Read More

US top diplomat Rubio speaks with Pakistan army chief, urges de-escalation

US top diplomat Rubio speaks with Pakistan army chief, urges de-escalation

(Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio spoke with Pakistan's Army Chief General Asim Munir on Friday and urged both Pakistan and India to find ways to de-escalate, a U.S. Department Of State spokesperson said. Rubio also offered U.S. assistance in starting constructive talks in order to avoid future conflicts, the spokesperson said. Pakistan said it launched a military operation against India early on Saturday, targeting multiple bases including a missile storage site in northern India as the neighbours extended their worst fighting in nearly three decades. (Reporting by Mrinmay Dey in Bengaluru; Editing by Edmund Klamann)

byVS personal

in

May 09, 2025

US top diplomat Rubio speaks with Pakistan army chief, urges de-escalation

US top diplomat Rubio speaks with Pakistan army chief, urges de-escalation (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio spoke with Pakist...

Read More