hbet63 (BPT) - Tech gifts are consistently some of the most popular presents to give and receive during the holidays. In fact, according to the annual Consumer Technology Holiday Purchase Patterns report , a record 233 million U.S. adults (89%) will buy tech products during the 2024 holiday season. But with so many devices out there, it can be hard to decide on the perfect option for the loved one on your list. A tablet like the new Fire HD 8 from Amazon offers the versatility of an all-in-one device, with access to streaming, gaming, video chatting, reading or writing all at your fingertips. Fire HD 8 also features a vibrant 8-inch HD display and lightweight, portable design, for high-quality entertainment on the go. Plus, Fire HD 8 comes with three new AI features that can help you get the most out of your tablet experience. Check them out below and learn how they can help you with daily tasks this holiday season and beyond. 1. Meet your personal writing assistant Do you struggle with writing a heartfelt message or finessing a tricky email? Fear not! Writing Assist is here to help. Writing Assist works as part of your Fire tablet's device keyboard and compatible apps, including email, Word documents and social media. In just a few taps, you can transform your writing from good to great. Try Writing Assist's pre-set styles to turn a simple email into a professionally written note. Or, you can ask Writing Assist for grammar suggestions to make your writing more concise, or elaborate on your ideas. You can even "emojify" your writing to add more fun and personality. 2. Learn more in less time Say goodbye to scrolling through pages of information. The new Webpage Summaries feature allows you to learn pertinent information as quickly as possible. Available on the Silk browser on Fire tablets, Webpage Summaries provides quick insights on web articles. In a matter of seconds, this feature will distill the key points in an article or on a webpage into a clear, concise summary of what you need to know. 3. Get creative with your device wallpaper With Wallpaper Creator, you can easily add a touch of creative flair and customization to your tablet's home screen. You can choose from one of the curated prompts to get started on creating a unique background. Or, if you're ready to let your imagination run wild, type a description of what you'd like to see. For example, you can ask for an image of a tiger swimming underwater or a watercolor-style image of a desert landscape in space. Wallpaper Creator will then turn your vision into a reality, delivering a high-resolution image that you can use as your tablet's wallpaper. Celebrate an AI-powered holiday season Writing Assist, Webpage Summaries, and Wallpaper Creator are now available on Amazon's new Fire HD 8 and other compatible Fire tablet devices, including the latest Fire HD 10 and Fire Max 11 tablets. To learn more, or to order a new Fire tablet this gift-giving season, visit Amazon.com .

Scottie Scheffler goes on a run of birdies in the Bahamas and leads by 2Researchers launch “moonshot” to cure blindness through eye transplants

When state senators gather in Lincoln next month for the start of the 109th Nebraska Legislature, nearly two-thirds of those lawmakers will have two years of experience or less in the Capitol. Thirteen senators will be forced out next year due to term limits, while four others either chose not to seek reelection or lost their race this fall. In their place will be 16 newly minted senators, along with once and future Sen. Dan Quick of Grand Island, who returns to the Legislature after a four-year break. But the transition will come with a cost. The outgoing lawmakers will take with them a combined 127 years of experience. The remaining senators will have a combined 131 years of experience. On an individual basis, the average time tenure of a Nebraska state senator will drop from 4.6 years to 2.6 years. Leadership will also be affected, with the Legislature losing the chairpersons of 8 of its 14 standing committees, as well as the leaders of four special committees beginning in January. Speaker John Arch, who will begin his seventh year in 2025 representing La Vista, said watching legislative skill and know-how walk out of the Capitol every two years has become one of the only constants in the nation's only unicameral. “It’s the reality of term limits,” Arch said. To stem the loss of institutional knowledge, as well as ease the transition of new senators, Arch and other lawmakers and legislative staff have sought to expand and deepen the orientation process, relying on former members to bring the "freshmen" up to speed. Call it senator school. Before Thanksgiving, the incoming state senators convened at the Capitol for several days of seminars and hands-on practice that gave them a peek at what they can expect when the gavel strikes at 10 a.m. on Jan. 8. "There's so many different pieces a new senator has to learn," Arch said. "They have to learn the process, which is unique, but also policy, politics, and the people." The new senators heard from predecessors like Sens. Steve Lathrop of Omaha, Mark Kolterman of Seward and Matt Williams of Gothenburg, who along with former Clerk Patrick O'Donnell spoke about the Legislature as an institution and co-equal branch of government. Along with other senators, including former Omaha Sen. Sara Howard and Sen. Dan Hughes of Venango, Williams said he also gave incoming senators an overview of "the nuts and bolts" of the day-to-day job. Williams said that included setting expectations, giving advice on how to help constituents and build constructive relationships with lobbyists, as well as hiring staff. There were many questions asked, he said. "They are not a bashful group, which is good," Williams said of the new class. The incoming class also heard from former Lincoln Sen. Dave Landis, who lectured on the importance of negotiation within the uniquely nonpartisan institution, and Frank Daley, the former head of the Nebraska Accountability and Disclosure Commission, about the rules senators must abide by with lobbyists and others. The freshman senators also had the chance to meet the leaders of different legislative divisions, including Fiscal Analyst Keisha Patent, who analyzes the impact of each bill on the state's budget, and Revisor of Statutes Marcia McClurg, who oversees bill drafting. The orientation also included mock committee hearings, which gave the incoming lawmakers a chance to hear a bill being introduced, question testifiers and practice advancing legislation to the floor. And, they also practiced a floor debate, the procedure by which senators are called to speak, how to introduce floor amendments and other actions in line with the oft-referred-to Rules of the Legislature. During that exercise, former Sen. Laura Ebke of Crete played the role of a lobbyist, who are hired to represent various interest groups and who pass notes to senators via the sergeant-at-arms asking to speak with them in the Rotunda. Ebke, whose role was to acclimate senators to engaging with the lobby, said she also answered some practical questions from the newbies. "One of the senators came up and asked: Is there a restroom?" she said. "We also wanted to help them with the logistics of finding things in the Capitol." New senators who participated in the exercise said they found it worthwhile, adding it will help smooth some of the transition of moving into the Capitol next month. Sen.-elect Jason Prokop, a registered Democrat who will replace the term-limited Sen. Anna Wishart representing southwest Lincoln, said sitting behind the dais or standing on the floor helped him better understand the legislative process. "It's different when you're there versus watching it on Nebraska Public Media," Prokop said. Another incoming lawmaker, Sen.-elect Dan Lonowski, a registered Republican who won election to District 33 in Hastings and the surrounding area, called the exercise "much-needed." "It was entirely worth it," Lonowski said. "We talked about writing bills, the committee hearing process, and took a spot on the floor to learn about when to speak and how to speak." Lonowski and Prokop both said the orientation also gave them a chance to meet the senators in their class — the lawmakers they'll be serving alongside for the next four years, and possibly beyond. Brandon Metzler, the clerk of the Legislature, said orientation for new senators has been around since about 1980, when O'Donnell and other legislative staff began working to "professionalize" Nebraska's lawmaking branch. The orientation has taken on increased importance in the term limits era, however, as the turnover among both elected officials and their staff has increased. Instead of calling new senators to Lincoln shortly after the election and once more in December, Metzler said the decision was made to immerse the senators over several days in preparation for the upcoming session. "There's a lot that hits you," Metzler said. "We try to repeat stuff the best we can and give them that experience, so when they are actually doing it, they have that 'aha' moment." Former lawmakers said the expanded orientation will serve new senators — as well as the Legislature itself — well. Ebke, a Republican turned Libertarian, said the program will help senators move away from campaign mode to governance mode, putting an eye on enacting policy that benefits all Nebraskans. "My comment to most of the senators was just because you disagree with someone on one bill doesn't mean you won't need their vote on the next bill," Ebke said. "It's important to follow the process. Fight as hard as you want on the bill you're on but in an appropriate way, and be prepared to join forces with your previous enemy, if you will, on the next one." Williams, a registered Republican who along with others often exhibited an independent streak in the Legislature, said he encouraged incoming senators to set aside partisanship and think about "doing the right thing for Nebraska." There will still be disagreements, Williams added, but senators should work on the areas where they can build consensus, which he said would engender confidence in the Legislature and its work. "It sets a tone for the state because that's what people will see," he said. Get local news delivered to your inbox!A sudden infusion of $30 million into Donald Trump's nascent cryptocurrency venture from a Chinese billionaire sued by the Securities and Exchange Commission for allegedly defrauding investors could potentially deliver an eight-figure payday to a company associated with the president-elect. The investment has sparked new concerns about Trump's ability to potentially profit from foreign investors, and his positions on cryptocurrency following a presidential campaign in which he vowed to make the United States "the crypto capital of the planet." Justin Sun -- a cryptocurrency billionaire famous in part for his purchase of a $6 million banana art piece last month -- announced his $30 million investment in the Trump-backed World Liberty Financial last week, making him the company's largest investor. MORE: Trump's new crypto venture is light on details, heavy on potential ethics landmines The influx of cash also triggered a provision that allows an entity affiliated with Trump to receive 75% of the company's net revenue, based on the terms outlined in a recent company filing. DT Marks DEFI LLC, a company affiliated with Trump, stands to profit more than $15 million following Sun's investment, renewing concerns about the potential influence on Trump's cryptocurrency positions and the future of the SEC lawsuit against Sun and his companies for allegedly violating securities laws. Sun and his companies have denied wrongdoing. "It's hard to have more influence when you're talking about money in politics than someone who just directly gave you eight figures," said Jordan Libowitz, a vice president at the progressive watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. The investment comes as Trump recently announced a series of pro-crypto nominees for his administration, including veteran regulator and cryptocurrency advocate Paul Atkins to lead the Securities and Exchange Commission, and Silicon Valley venture capitalist David Sachs to be White House AI and crypto czar . Trump has denied all allegations that he has profited from the presidency. "President Trump removed himself from his multi-billion-dollar real estate empire to run for office and forewent his government salary," Trump-Vance transition spokesperson Karoline Leavitt said in a statement to ABC News. "Unlike most politicians, President Trump didn't get into politics for profit -- he's fighting because he loves the people of this country and wants to make America great again." World Liberty Financial and Justin Sun did not respond to requests for comment. 'We have to be No. 1' Despite once calling cryptocurrency a "scam," Trump threw his support in September behind World Liberty Financial, a decentralized finance platform that could eventually be a marketplace for borrowing and lending various cryptocurrencies. "We have to be No. 1," Trump said at the announcement, regarding the United States' position in the crypto market. "I think AI is really important, but I think crypto is one of those things we have to do," World Liberty Financial makes money, at this time, through the sale of tokens, which gives investors a say in the company's governance; however, the tokens don't offer a share of the company's revenue and can't be resold. Trump is not an officer or employee of the company, but DT Marks DEFI LLC receives a bulk of World Liberty Financial's revenue if the venture is a success, leading some ethics experts to raise concerns that the company could be a vehicle for directing funds to Trump. "To call it an ethical problem is to understate how fundamentally corrupt it is," said Robert Weissman, the co-president of consumer advocacy group Public Citizen. "They've set up a way for people to funnel money to Donald Trump, and now it's happening." Two months after its launch, the company failed to make much traction in the cryptocurrency space after it faced criticism about its ambiguous business plan beyond its association with Trump. According to James Butterfill, the head of research at asset management company CoinShares, the company's early marketing materials offered little more than "buzzwords." The weak launch also suggested its founders and the Trumps would make little to no money from the venture. Because World Liberty Financial had made less than $30 million in revenue prior to Sun's investment, all of the money raised by the company would be held in a reserve to cover operating expenses while the Trumps would make nothing, according to terms in the company's so-called " gold paper ." MORE: Trump announces new role for his administration, names PayPal co-founder 'White House AI and crypto czar' Enter Justin Sun, the eclectic cryptocurrency billionaire who -- prior to spending millions on a banana duct-taped to a wall -- attracted headlines for spending more than half a million dollars on an NTF of a pet rock , and $4.5 million for a lunch with Warren Buffet. His $30 million investment through Tron -- the popular cryptocurrency he founded in 2017 -- made him the largest investor in the project and fueled resurgence of interest in the once-struggling platform. "The U.S. is becoming the blockchain hub, and Bitcoin owes it to @realDonaldTrump!" Sun wrote on X announcing his investment. 'You'd want to run away' Last year the SEC sued Sun and his companies with securities fraud for allegedly manipulating the value of a cryptocurrency and paying celebrities including Lindsey Lohan, Ne-Yo, and Jake Paul to promote the assets without disclosing they had been paid. Sun and his companies have denied wrongdoing, and the celebrities have settled the case without admitting or denying the allegations. Tron and other cryptocurrencies have also faced criticism for allegedly enabling criminals to make financial transactions undetected, with a report from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime calling Tron "a preferred choice for crypto money launderers in East and Southeast." Tron's leadership called the report's allegation "inaccurate" and said it "supports the UN's stance against malicious actors in the blockchain space." After his $30 million investment, World Liberty Financial named Sun an adviser, saying that his "insights and experience will be instrumental" to the company's growth. Weissman told ABC News he was concerned about the arrangement. "It's exactly the sort of figure that you'd want to run away from if you were starting a business, and instead they're embracing it," Weissman said of World Liberty Financial and Sun. MORE: Is it too late to buy bitcoin after it hit $100,000? Experts weigh in. The investment could prove to be lucrative for Sun, given Trump's association with the project and the number of cryptocurrencies that have rallied following the election. On Thursday, shares of the leading cryptocurrency bitcoin surpassed $100,000 for the first time. "With a lot of crypto, having good PR or a good kind of voice helps a lot to get something noticed, and there's no better time for World Liberty Financial," Butterfill said. "The lines between the private endeavor that this is and the public connections that Trump has are quite blurred, and the kind of people running World Liberty Financial will probably play on that a little bit." Trump's name and likeness are seen throughout World Liberty Financial's website and marketing materials, and Trump himself is listed as the company's "chief crypto advocate," though the firm discloses that neither Trump nor his family members are officers of the company. According to the company, World Liberty Financial is "inspired" by Trump and hopes to introduce the platform "to a broader audience that may have previously been unfamiliar or hesitant to engage with decentralized assets and cryptocurrency." "They're trying to take advantage of President-elect Trump's popularity and the fact that he just won an election, and see if they can get this business up and running and off the ground," said Scott Amey, general counsel at the watchdog Project on Government Oversight. 'Money in the future president's hands' Though Sun and Trump have never met, several ethics experts ABC News spoke with also raised concerns that the investment -- and Trump's possible profit from it -- could influence Trump's policy toward cryptocurrencies, including whether the Securities and Exchange Commission continues to pursue the aggressive litigation brought under the Biden administration. "If you face charges from the SEC, it's a pretty good investment to put money in the future president's hands in order to influence who might end up making those decisions at the SEC," said Libowitz. MORE: Trump has made millions hawking merchandise. Now he could face conflicts of interest Steve Witkoff, Trump's longtime friend who, along with his sons, is a co-founder of World Liberty Financial, told ABC's "Good Morning America" in September that Trump's foray into crypto would not pose a conflict because he would likely place his assets into a trust -- as Trump did during his first administration when he placed his assets into a revocable trust controlled by his sons and a business associate. But that arrangement would not fully remedy the concerns about conflicts stemming from Trump's crypto venture, according to multiple experts. Trump is still able to broadly understand the state of his assets, he can still profit from them, and he has the authority to regain control of the assets -- all of which limit the trust's effectiveness in preventing conflicts, several experts said. "Absent divesting and stepping away from these investments totally, he still stands to profit from them," said Amey.Billionaires have seen their combined wealth shoot up 121 percent over the past decade to $14 trillion, Swiss bank UBS said Thursday, with tech billionaires' coffers filling the fastest. Switzerland's biggest bank, which is among the world's largest wealth managers, said the number of dollar billionaires increased from 1,757 to 2,682 over the past 10 years, peaking in 2021 with 2,686. The 10th edition of UBS's annual Billionaire Ambitions report, which tracks the wealth of the world's richest people, found that billionaires have comfortably outperformed global equity markets over the past decade. The report documents "the growth and investment of great wealth, as well as how it's being preserved for future generations and used to have a positive effect on society", said Benjamin Cavalli, head of strategic clients at UBS global wealth management. Between 2015 and 2024, total billionaire wealth increased by 121 percent from $6.3 trillion to $14.0 trillion -- while the MSCI AC World Index of global equities rose 73 percent. The wealth of tech billionaires increased the fastest, followed by that of industrialists. Worldwide, tech billionaires' wealth tripled from $788.9 billion in 2015 to $2.4 trillion in 2024. "In earlier years, the new billionaires commercialised e-commerce, social media and digital payments; more recently they engineered the generative AI boom, while also developing cyber-security, fintech, 3D printing and robotics," UBS said. The report found that since 2020, the global growth trend had slowed due to declines among China's billionaires. From 2015 to 2020, billionaire wealth grew globally at an annual rate of 10 percent, but growth has plunged to one percent since 2020. Chinese billionaire wealth more than doubled from 2015 to 2020, rising from $887.3 billion to $2.1 trillion, but has since fallen back to $1.8 trillion. However, North American billionaire wealth has risen 58.5 percent to $6.1 trillion since 2020, "led by industrials and tech billionaires". Meanwhile billionaires are relocating more frequently, with 176 having moved country since 2020, with Switzerland, the United Arab Emirates, Singapore and the United States being popular destinations. In 2024, some 268 people became billionaires for the first time, with 60 percent of them entrepreneurs. "The year's new billionaires were mainly self-made," said UBS. The report said U.S. billionaires accrued the greatest gains in 2024, reinforcing the country's place as the world's main centre for billionaire entrepreneurs. Their wealth rose 27.6 percent to $5.8 trillion, or more than 40 percent of billionaire wealth worldwide. Billionaires' wealth from mainland China and Hong Kong fell 16.8 percent to $1.8 trillion, with the number of billionaires dropping from 588 to 501. Indian billionaires' wealth increased 42.1 percent to $905.6 billion, while their number grew from 153 to 185. Western Europe’s total billionaire wealth rose 16.0 percent to $2.7 trillion -- partly due to a 24 percent increase in Swiss billionaires. UAE billionaires' aggregate wealth rose 39.5 percent to $138.7 billion. UBS said billionaires faced an "uncertain world" over the next 10 years, due to high geopolitical tensions, trade barriers and governments with mounting spending requirements. Billionaires will therefore need to rely on their previous distinctive traits: "smart risk-taking, business focus and determination". "Risk-taking billionaires are likely to be at the forefront of creating two technology-related industries of the future already taking shape: generative AI and renewables/electrification," UBS predicted. And more flexible wealth planning will be needed as billionaire families move country and spread around the world. The heirs and philanthropic causes of baby boom billionaires are set to inherit an estimated $6.3 trillion over the next 15 years, UBS said.

Scottie Scheffler goes on a run of birdies in the Bahamas and leads by 2The University of Michigan has ditched its controversial diversity hiring rules, following a vote by board members. , the university had required staff to discuss how they would advance diversity when applying for jobs, promotion and tenure. It was viewed by critics as a way to evade the ban in place on affirmative action. “As we pursue this challenging and complex work, we will continuously refine our approach” to DEI, said Laurie McCauley, the university provost, following the ruling. The University of Michigan, which has been labelled “the wokest university in America” for , has spent more than $250 million on inclusivity initiatives since 2016. Ms McCauley announced the decision following from an eight-member faculty working group, which examined the use of DEI statements across multiple universities and surveyed nearly 2,000 faculty members. Commissioned in June, the review found that “diversity statements have the potential to limit viewpoints and reduce diversity of thought among faculty members”. It added that most faculty members surveyed believed diversity statements “put pressure on faculty to express specific positions on moral, political or social issues”. John D Sailer, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, called Michigan’s decision a “watershed moment”. He told The New York Times: “It will represent a milestone in the movement to roll back this misguided practice: a clear victory for academic freedom.” The about-turn comes as the university’s regents consider a broader overhaul of its sweeping DEI programmes. The statements have proliferated in recent years in states such as Michigan and California, where hiring based on racial preferences is prohibited. Despite laws banning affirmative action, there have been multiple reports of job applicants being eliminated from consideration based solely on their diversity statements. According to The Chronicle of Higher Education, at least nine states have banned diversity statements, with universities in Missouri, Ohio and Wisconsin putting an end to the practice last year. Harvard’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have also ditched the statements. The University of Michigan was previously a pioneer in promoting the use of DEI statements, having devised a scoring system to assess them that was used by colleges across the country. One of the university’s diversity programmes required candidates to state how they would advance diversity through research into “race, gender, diversity, equity and inclusion,” “significant academic achievement in the face of barriers” or “commitment to allyhood through learning about structural inequities”, according to The New York Times. In October, it emerged that the university had warned that , in guidance to prevent the influence of colonial “power structures” on visitors. A strategy document for the university’s botanical gardens and arboretum warned against using the traditional combination of an English name and Latin name on plaques next to its plants, amid concerns they could erase “other forms of knowing”.WASHINGTON — The incoming Trump administration's plan to slash federal spending would have to overcome decades of court decisions and likely face a Supreme Court showdown, experts say, a legal headwind highlighted by President-elect Donald Trump’s choice of deputy director for the Office of Management and Budget. Trump and allies, including OMB director pick Russ Vought and external advisers Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, have argued the president can unilaterally choose not to spend funds appropriated by Congress — a process known as impoundment. A 1974 law called the Impoundment Control Act mandates that presidents spend funds appropriated by Congress. A report published by the Vought-led Center for Renewing America argued that the appropriations clause only put a “ceiling” on federal funding and said the 1974 law was an “unprecedented break” with the nation’s history. The report said that “for much of the Nation’s history, such a congressional power was so beyond the realm of constitutional permissibility that it was almost never even asserted.” Musk and Ramaswamy, tapped to lead the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, argued in a Wall Street Journal op-ed that the 1974 law is unconstitutional and “we believe the current Supreme Court would likely side with him on this question.” And Trump in a campaign video last year said he intends to use the “long-recognized impoundment power to squeeze the bloated federal bureaucracy for massive savings.” For decades courts have ruled that presidents cannot ignore Congress’ power to appropriate funds and decide on their own not to spend them, experts said. Nicholas Bagley, a law professor at the University of Michigan, said that Supreme Court decisions dating back as far as 1838 underline the president’s inability to unilaterally refuse to spend the money Congress appropriated. “It’s difficult for me to emphasize, without me sounding like a crazy person, how outlandish this is,” Bagley said. William Ford, a policy advocate at the advocacy group Protect Democracy, said that presidents have routinely lost court battles over efforts to withhold funding since the passage of the Impoundment Control Act. “And so what Trump and his team are now contemplating doing is completely out of step with what every other president has done since 1974. It’s out of step with what they did during their first term. Their extreme arguments, in our view, don’t hold water,” Ford said. William Galston, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, said that an effort to cut programs entirely to reach the savings Musk and others have discussed — around $2 trillion — would run straight into the Supreme Court. “The impoundment that he and his senior aides have been talking about is flatly against the law and the only way he can proceed legally is to overturn the law,” Galston said. Upholding that sort of decision would be “declaring open season on the other branches of government, especially Congress,” Galston said. “We’re talking about an entirely different constitutional order if the president can treat the Congress’ power of the purse as an advisory opinion.” Forcing spending Advocates, the Government Accountability Office, and members of Congress have pushed presidents to continue spending money on programs they may disagree with. That includes Rep. Dan Bishop, Trump’s choice for OMB deputy director. He was one of dozens of Republicans who argued the Biden administration violated the Impoundment Control Act through decisions that slow-walked construction of a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border. Bishop signed onto letters to the GAO urging the agency to find that Biden’s actions violated that law, co-sponsored a resolution to censure President Joe Biden for not doing so and co-sponsored legislation mandating the administration spend the funds. Earlier this year, the GAO found that the Biden administration’s delays were “programmatic” and not impoundments in violation of the law, the agency said in a statement. Rather than unilateral decisions to withhold funds, the delays were meant to deal with concerns about the impact on local communities and the environment from the construction. Bishop also signed onto an amicus brief opposing Biden’s effort to cancel student loans for millions of borrowers, which doesn’t explicitly mention the Impoundment Control Act but argues a president shouldn’t be able to use an interpretation of a law to step on congressional control on spending. The brief argued that the Biden administration should not be allowed to make such an major decision without a clear statement from Congress, and doing otherwise would risk “significant conflict between the legislative and executive branches” of government over one of Congress’ core powers. Ford said the GAO is one of numerous entities that could sue or take other actions to force Trump’s hand. Texas and Missouri have sued the Biden administration to force it to spend funds on the border wall. In the first Trump administration, numerous organizations and local governments successfully sued to reinstate Department of Health and Human Services grants that HHS tried to cancel. “There are a ton of other people who can and would get into court to fight this,” Ford said. Under Democratic control, the House itself took the first Trump administration to court over spending issues in 2019. Although the suit did not explicitly involve the 1974 law, the House argued that Trump violated the Appropriations Clause of the Constitution and usurped Congress’ spending power when he moved more than $8 billion in other funds for use in border wall construction. The House even won an appellate court ruling in its favor before the Supreme Court tossed the case after the Biden administration stopped using the money for wall construction. Defund by delay A straight refusal to spend funds appropriated by Congress could get the incoming Trump administration slapped by the courts, but Bagley said other ways of delaying spending could have more effect. Congress has passed thousands of laws placing various restrictions on government decisions, Bagley said, allowing for numerous potential roadblocks to federal spending. “If the president said ‘I have to abide by these various rules before I take any federal action that may impact spending,’ it is a lot harder to get that kind of anti-impoundment declaration off the ground in that context,” Bagley said. “It would be harder for the courts to engage with and enforce. It doesn’t mean that these checks won’t work at all.” Outgoing Senate Budget Chairman Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., called impoundment “a pretty old battleline for the House and Senate, entirely apart from political parties.” “I think he’s going to run into a lot of pushback,” Whitehouse said. ©2024 CQ-Roll Call, Inc., All Rights Reserved. Visit cqrollcall.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Top TVCA job to be axed amid ‘restructure’ as Chief Executive Julie Gilhespie set to retireWASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden faces a stark choice as he contemplates broad preemptive pardons to protect aides and allies from potential retribution by Donald Trump: Does he hew to the institutional norms he’s spent decades defending or flex the powers of the presidency in untested ways? The deliberations so far are largely at the level of White House lawyers. But the president has discussed the topic with senior aides, according to two people familiar with the matter who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive subject. No decisions have been made, the people said, and it is possible Biden opts to do nothing at all. Biden is taking the idea seriously and has been thinking about it for as much as six months — before the presidential election — but has been concerned about the precedent it would set, according to another person familiar with the president’s discussions who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity. Pardons are historically afforded to those accused of specific crimes –- and usually to those who have already been convicted of an offense — but Biden’s team is considering issuing them for some who have not even been investigated, let alone charged. RELATED COVERAGE NYC’s mayor warms to Trump and doesn’t rule out becoming a Republican Ex-police officer denies leaking confidential information to Proud Boys leader Mother of Austin Tice, journalist missing in Syria, says new information proves her son is alive The president could, if he chooses, issue blanket pardons to specific people whom Trump and his allies have threatened to punish. Or he could pardon a broad class of people — not unlike pardons issued to those convicted of federal marijuana offenses or those ensnared in the “don’t ask, don’t tell” military policies. Either way, he’d be using the powers of the presidency in a new way. Some worry that Trump and his allies, who have talked of enemies lists and exacting “retribution,” could launch investigations that would be reputationally and financially costly for targeted people even if they don’t result in prosecutions. The door has already been opened, given that Biden has extended a broad pardon to his son, Hunter , who was convicted and pleaded guilty in tax and gun cases. Biden explained that decision by saying he believed the prosecution of his son had been poisoned by politics. White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said Friday that Biden plans additional pardons before leaving office though she would not elaborate on the process. She repeatedly referenced “changing factors” that motivated the president to pardon his son despite promising he wouldn’t. She said Republicans have continued to try to see Hunter Biden investigated for an array of alleged offenses, a rationale that could support additional pardons for Biden aides and allies. It was two weeks ago that one of the president’s closest allies in Congress, Rep, Jim Clyburn of South Carolina, encouraged Biden to pardon his son Hunter. The morning after that conversation, Clyburn told Biden’s staff that he believed the president should also pardon those being targeted by Trump. “I was very forceful in my discussions with him about what I thought he ought to do regarding his son,” Clyburn said Friday. “But I also told them that I thought he ought to go even further, because all the noise about Jack Smith and Liz Cheney and Doctor Fauci and all of that.” Special Counsel Jack Smith has been investigating Trump for his efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election and for accusations he hoarded classified documents at his home. Liz Cheney, a conservative Republican , was the vice chairwoman of the congressional committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol insurrection and campaigned for Vice President Kamala Harris. Fauci, an infectious disease expert, was instrumental in the government’s response to the coronavirus. All have raised the ire of Trump. Clyburn said he told Biden’s team, only half jokingly, that because the Supreme Court has already said that the president has certain immunities, “let’s give that same immunity to Jack Smith for carrying out his duties and to, Doctor Fauci, Liz Cheney, they were carrying out their duties.” Among those mentioned publicly for possible presidential pardons, there are different sentiments on whether pardons would even be wanted. Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi supported the president’s move to pardon his son, but has been silent on the speculation that Biden is considering additional pardons for her or others. A top Pelosi ally, Rep. Adam Schiff, the Democratic congressman who led Trump’s first impeachment, has panned the idea of pardoning Biden’s allies. He says “the courts are strong enough to withstand” the worst of Trump’s threats. “I don’t think a preemptive pardon makes sense,” the incoming senator told NPR recently. “I would urge the president not to do that. I think it would seem defensive and unnecessary,” Schiff said. Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin, who was the lead manager on Trump’s second impeachment, on the charge of inciting the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the Capitol, said members of Congress already are protected by the speech and debate clause in the Constitution, which protects them prosecution for participating in their legislative duties. Raskin said figures like Mark Milley, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and John Kelly , Trump’s former White House chief of staff, would similarly be protected by the First Amendment. But Raskin said the question is, “Should they go through the criminal investigation and prosecution for not doing anything wrong? I think that’s why this whole issue has erupted.” Raksin added that with Trump promising to pardon hundreds of people who assaulted police officers on Jan. 6th, “I can hardly fault President Biden for exploring the use of the pardon to protect people from a fraudulent and unjust prosecution.” House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries said he’s had no conversations with the White House regarding any preemptive pardons for current or former members of Congress. ___ Associated Press Writers Kevin Freking and Lolita C. Baldor contributed to this report.How Singapore's first express feeder bus will benefit residents at route's extreme ends