Sunday, June 8, 2025
Home Blog Page 7

Fraud in California community colleges triggers call for Trump investigation

Illustrtion

Following CalMatters reporting, California’s Republican representatives are calling for the U.S. Department of Education and Attorney General Pam Bondi to investigate how California’s community colleges are handling financial aid fraud

by Adam Echelman

Nine Republican U.S. representatives are calling on U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon and U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi to investigate financial aid fraud at California’s community colleges. In a separate letter sent Wednesday, state Assemblymember Blanca Rubio, a West Covina Democrat, asked the state to conduct its own audit on the matter.

This rare moment of bipartisan concern comes after CalMatters reported that fake community college students have stolen more than $10 million in federal financial aid and more than $3 million in state aid in the last 12 months.

In their April 11 letter to Bondi and McMahon, which cites CalMatters’ reporting, California’s Republican representatives say that investigating fraud at California’s community colleges should be part of President Donald Trump’s ongoing efforts to “curb wasteful federal spending.”

The California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office has “not been contacted by the U.S. Department of Education or the U.S. Attorney General about an investigation,” said Chris Ferguson, one of the office’s executive vice chancellors, in an email to CalMatters Thursday.

Assemblymember Rubio’s letter calls for a state audit that would examine the scope of fraud and the efforts to prevent it. State legislators will decide this June whether to pursue that audit, which could take years to complete.

California community colleges have been struggling to address fake students and financial aid fraud for years. Last spring, CalMatters reported that scammers continued to evade detection and that community colleges reported giving away over $5 million in federal funds and over $1.5 million in state and local aid. Earlier this month, CalMatters found the problem is only getting worse.

“Allowing this rise in fraud to go unaddressed is negligent on the Community College system, as these bad actors take away opportunities from real students in impacted courses such as accounting, nursing, etc,” wrote the California Republican representatives in their letter.

While students, faculty and community college administrators in California agree that it’s a serious and growing problem, they question whether an investigation or an audit will lead to a better solution.

Fraud is “a legitimate concern,” said Larry Galizio, president of the Community College League of California, which represents the interests of the state’s 73 community college districts — but the letter to the education department and the attorney general is “disingenuous” and “just flat wrong” in claiming that it’s gone unaddressed.

California has allocated more than $150 million since 2022 to improve cybersecurity at its community colleges.

“Blaming the victim and then cutting resources to the very entities that are trying to combat the fraud is not a policy approach that’s going to be effective,” Galizio said.

Overwhelmed with the number of fake students in their classes, “some of our faculty members feel like they’ve been screaming into the void,” said Stephanie Goldman, executive director of the faculty association of California Community Colleges. She said the federal scrutiny is particularly ironic, given that the Trump administration has dismantled the U.S. Department of Education and hampered its ability to investigate fraud.

Representative Young Kim — who flipped her Orange County district in 2020 — led the effort to write the congressional letter. Her spokesperson, Callie Strock, refused to respond directly to criticisms when CalMatters asked about them. She said Kim is still learning about the issue and that “California has a long history of abusing taxpayer dollars.”

Top priority: getting money to students in need

Since Trump’s inauguration in January, the federal government has regularly criticized California’s colleges and universities. The U.S. Department of Justice is investigating Stanford, UC Berkeley, UCLA, and UC Irvine for allegedly discriminating against students in the name of “diversity, equity and inclusion” — even though affirmative action has been illegal in California since 1996. The administration is also going after numerous UC campuses, as well as Sacramento State and Santa Monica College, for allegedly allowing “antisemitic harassment and discrimination.”

California is fighting back by working with other states to file numerous lawsuits, such as one that attempts to stop the Trump administration from cancelling federal grants and another to prevent the dismantling of the U.S. Department of Education.

But in this instance, the call to investigate California’s higher education system for fraud stems from California’s elected representatives, not from Trump or his cabinet. Kim’s spokesperson did not clarify whether officials from the Trump administration would actually pursue an investigation.

For Ivan Hernandez, a student at Diablo Valley College in Pleasant Hill, fraud is a low priority. Hernandez is the president of the community college students’ association, and while he said he suspects that some of the students in his online courses are fake — or at least are using AI to submit assignments — he’s more concerned with homelessness and food insecurity, which affect as many as half of California’s roughly 2 million community college students.

Financial aid is supposed to pay for tuition, but low-income community college students pay little or no tuition in California, so the money goes directly into their pockets to offset the state’s high cost of housing and food. Most students who attend California’s community colleges are low-income and work a part- or full-time job.

Ferguson, with the state chancellor’s office, said “it’s crucial to emphasize” that many fraudulent students are stopped before they can enroll. “For the nanoscopic number of criminals that did get past the application stage and moved to the enrollment stage, an even smaller number was able to breach the financial aid stage,” he said.

“Financial aid fraud in the California Community Colleges system is extremely low relative to the billions of dollars of state and federal aid disbursed — about 0.21 percent in FY 2023-24. That means 99.8 percent of financial aid was disbursed to real students in our system.”

spot_img

New US tariff scheme gives Mexico’s auto industry ‘an additional comparative advantage,’ says Sheinbaum

President Sheinbaum had a brief call with U.S. President Trump on Thursday morning. (POTUS/X, Claudia Sheinbaum/X) -- La presidenta Sheinbaum tuvo una breve conversación telefónica con el presidente estadounidense Trump la mañana del jueves.

by Mexico News Daily

In a concession to automakers in the United States, U.S. President Donald Trump on Tuesday signed two executive orders to relax his auto tariffs, a move that President Claudia Sheinbaum said gives Mexico “an additional comparative advantage.”

The modifications to the 25 percent tariffs on imported vehicles and auto parts came just over one month after Trump first announced them. The U.S. tariff on imported vehicles took effect on April 3, while the tariff on certain auto parts is set to take effect on May 3.

The United States’ justification for the duties is that imports of automobiles and certain auto parts pose a threat to the national security of the U.S.

During a speech in Michigan on Tuesday to mark 100 days since he began his second term as U.S. president, Trump said he was giving automakers in the U.S. “a little bit of a break.”

“They took in parts from all over the world. I don’t want that. I want them to make their parts here. But I gave them a little bit of time,” he said.

“… It’s called a little flexibility. … We give them a little time before we slaughter them if they don’t do this,” Trump said.

U.S. content in vehicles assembled in Mexico is exempt from the 25 percent tariff, lowering the effective duty on vehicles made in Mexico. Trump’s April 29 executive orders don’t change that situation.

Trump offers a partial reimbursement of tariffs on auto parts 

According to a White House fact sheet, the United States will now offer an “offset to a portion of tariffs for automobile parts used in U.S.-assembled vehicles equal to 3.75 percent of the Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Price (MSRP).”

That offset is retroactive, applying from April 3 of this year and until April 30, 2026.

For a year after that — May 1, 2026 to April 30, 2027 — the offset will be 2.5 percent of the MSRP of a vehicle.

“These percentages reflect the duty that would be owed when a 25 percent duty is applied to 15 percent of the value of a U.S.-assembled automobile in the first year, and to 10 percent of the value of a U.S.-assembled automobile in the second year,” the White House said.

“All other automobile imports will still be subject to the 25 percent tariff,” it added.

“… Legislation, pre-existing trade agreements like the USMCA, revisions to the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement, and subsequent negotiations have not sufficiently mitigated the threat to national security posed by imports of automobiles and certain automobile parts,” the White House said.

No offset on auto parts tariffs will apply after April 30, 2027, at which time the Trump administration expects (or hopes) that vehicle manufactures in the United States will be sourcing more (or all) parts from within the U.S., even though “automakers and suppliers say two years is not enough time for them to reorganize their manufacturing operations,” according to The New York Times.

The U.S. content in parts made in Mexico is exempt from the 25 percent duty, per Trump’s announcement last month, while the White House said at the time that “USMCA-compliant automobile parts will remain tariff-free until the Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), establishes a process to apply tariffs to their non-U.S. content.”

The New York Times reported that the latest rules “leave in place an exemption for parts imported from Canada and Mexico that comply with a treaty [the USMCA] that Mr. Trump negotiated during his first term.”

It wasn’t clear whether non-U.S. content in Mexican auto parts would be subject to the 25 percent tariff — with the offsets — at a later date, as originally announced, but the White House indicated that it wouldn’t be taxed anytime soon.

“If a manufacturer builds a car in the U.S. that has 85 percent U.S. or USMCA content, the manufacturer effectively will not owe tariffs on that vehicle’s production for the first year,” the White House said in its fact sheet.

“If a manufacturer builds a car in the U.S. that is 50 percent U.S. or USMCA content and 50 percent imported from elsewhere, then instead of paying the tariff on the full 50 percent of the imported car parts, the manufacturer effectively only pays on 35 percent for the first year,” it said.

At her Wednesday morning press conference, President Sheinbaum acknowledged that the United States government originally said that only U.S. content in vehicles and parts made in Mexico would be exempt from U.S. tariffs.

“With the document that was signed yesterday, it is recognized [that the exemption] is not just for the part made in the United States, but in the three [USMCA] countries,” she said.

However, the exemptions only apply to vehicles made in the United States, meaning that vehicles made in Mexico will still be subject to the U.S. tariff, although the rate is lower than the full 25 percent because U.S. content in those vehicles is not taxed.

Apparently referring to the tariff exemption for USMCA-compliant Mexican parts, Sheinbaum said that “once again there is recognition of the value” of the USMCA.

Steel and aluminum tariffs won’t apply to vehicle and parts imports 

In his executive order, Trump outlined rules pertaining to the “non-stacking of tariff measures.”

In effect, different tariffs imposed by the United States government for different reasons won’t apply to the same product in most cases (although some Chinese goods will still be subject to multiple tariffs, for example).

“I have now determined that, to the extent these tariffs apply to the same article, these tariffs should not all have a cumulative effect (or ‘stack’ on top of one another) because the rate of duty resulting from such stacking exceeds what is necessary to achieve the intended policy goals,” Trump said.

Consequently, importers in the United States will be exempt from paying 25 percent steel and aluminum tariffs on vehicles and auto parts they bring into the country.

The New York Times reported that the executive order said that “carmakers paying a 25 percent tariff to bring in cars and car parts would not be subject to tariffs that Mr. Trump had placed on steel and aluminum imports from Canada and Mexico.”

Trump imposed 25 percent tariffs on all imports from Mexico in March in order to pressure the Mexican government to do more to stop the flow of migrants and fentanyl to the U.S.

However, he lifted the duties on goods that comply with the USMCA two days later.

The Times reported that “products that are subject to the tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico will no longer be subject to tariffs on steel and aluminum.”

It also said that “the rules do not appear to protect automakers from tariffs on steel and aluminum that their suppliers pay and pass on.”

“… Even with the concessions announced Tuesday,” the Times reported, the Trump “administration policies will add thousands of dollars to car prices and endanger the financial health of automakers and their suppliers, analysts said.”

Referring to the United States’ decision to not stack one tariff on top of another, Sheinbaum highlighted on Wednesday that “there was a recognition” from the U.S. government that “you can’t charge double” duties for the same product.

She noted that tariffs on vehicles exported to the U.S. “in reality weren’t 25 percent … but rather 50 percent,” given that the vehicle itself and the steel and aluminum in it were both subject to duties.

Sheinbaum said that her government is still carefully analyzing the modifications Trump has made to his auto tariffs, and noted that Mexico was given a “comparative advantage” over other countries in March because U.S. content in Mexican (and Canadian) vehicles wasn’t subject to the 25 percent tariff that was uniformly imposed on vehicles imported from other countries.

“With what was published yesterday, there is an additional comparative advantage, so it’s something that is even more beneficial for our country,” she said.

“Obviously, we’re still seeking greater benefits and greater clarity in order to be able to know what the advantages [for Mexico] are that were published yesterday,” Sheinbaum said.

Mexico is a major exporter of vehicles and auto parts to the United States. Mexico’s total auto sector exports were worth $193.9 billion last year, or 31.4 percent of Mexico’s total export revenue. Most of that revenue came from exports to the United States.

With reports from Reforma, The New York Times, Reuters and CNBC 

spot_img

Why are the globalists so opposed to Trump’s efforts to make peace in Ukraine?

The narrative over Ukraine reveals not only how hard the war economy will fight to rescue its system from peace, but also how the hardest sell these days is hard reality

by Frank Wright

(LifeSiteNews) — The Trump administration’s moves toward peace in Ukraine – and elsewhere – have attracted widespread criticism from within and without the globalist establishment.

As the U.S. government now threatens to “walk away” from Ukraine if its seven-point peace plan is rejected, a new battle line is being drawn between permanent war and propaganda – and the urgent reality demanding radical change from the globalist business as usual.

Trump has proposed an immediate ceasefire, no NATO membership for Ukraine, and for Russia to keep the territories it has taken during the war – with the U.S. to recognize Crimea as Russian. The proposal for peace has been met with outrage, and even accusations of betrayal. Yet the peace deal appears to be a simple recognition of reality. What’s the problem?

Dan Davis’ deep dive into Ukraine

In his deep dive of April 23, Dan Davis helps to explain why reality is so controversial and the mention of peace akin to treason. He joins German journalist and academic Patrik Baab to show how the pro-war faction in the U.S. and Europe have fought their own line in the media for well over a decade.

Davis, whose appointment to a National Intelligence post was recently sabotaged by another war faction – that of the Israel lobby – has learned the personal consequences of contradicting the globalist war narrative. So has Baab – who was fired from his academic post in 2022 for the crime of journalism.

Baab had traveled to Donbass to research a now published book he discusses with Davis. Titled On Both Sides of the Front, it informs his discussion of the “NATO-backed Maidan coup” in 2014 and the media campaign which has sold this war to Westerners as yet another defence of democracy abroad – as in Iraq. According to Foreign Policy, Ukraine is a magical democracy which “still functions without elections.”

Having arrived at the time of the Russian-backed elections in Donetsk and Lugansk regions, Baab was accused on his return to Germany of having “legitimized” the votes and was dismissed and smeared in the German press.

Both Davis and Raab give important context to U.S. threats to “walk away” from Ukraine if a peace deal is not settled, showing the reason why “two different stories” are so often told “about the same events.”

Reality vs. fantasy, or life and death

In Western politics and media, one side is invested in the war and the other is not. This can also be seen as the factions of fantasy versus reality.

The globalist faction has told us the Russians were losing, that Putin was dying, that there would be “total victory” for Ukraine and no negotiations until Putin was toppled. Zelensky issued a decree forbidding negotiations with Russia.

EU Chief Commissioner Ursula von der Leyen famously claimed in 2022 that Russia was cannibalizing “refrigerators and washing machines” to harvest microchips for its war machine, with the UK defense minister saying in early 2023 that Russian soldiers had been reduced to fighting with shovels. In the media, Ukraine’s victory was only a matter of time – which was money. Yours.

To keep this money flowing, the Western audience whose taxes provide it must be convinced there is good reason to keep sending it to Zelensky, who cannot pay it back.

U.S./NATO started the war

As Baab explains, the reason why the global faction arranged this war was nothing to do with Ukraine – the objective was to collapse and balkanize Russia. This would give the globalist British state and its pro-war EU partners a new lease of geopolitical life, as well as shoring up their crippled economies with command of Russia’s near limitless natural resources.

A global war industry

Former U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken ran WestExec – a profitable war business consultancy, one of many which monetized forever war through influence peddling.

Former under-secretary of state Victoria Nuland, who managed the 2014 coup in Ukraine, has her own family business of war. It is called “the Kagan-industrial complex” after her husband arch-neocon Robert Kagan and his brother Frederick – whose ISW urges escalation in the talking points it supplies to pro-war outlets in the mainstream media. This network runs public relations for the wars its members start. Nice work if you can get it.

Russia has won

This is the reality behind the slogans of “Slava Ukraini” and the framing of the war as the defense – and inevitable triumph – of “democracy.” This fantasy narrative is now collapsing. Why?

In reality, Russia has won the war. As Baab points out, “Putin won the war. That means the West has to meet Putin’s proposals.”

This reality is a problem for the Western media which has sold every disastrous war of the last century as a win and a sacrifice in the defense of democracy. It is also a problem for the liberal-global elite, whose political capital is invested in the defeat of Russia.

U.S. will ‘walk away’ if no deal

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio – together with Vice President JD Vance – have said that if Trump’s seven-point plan is not accepted the U.S. will “walk away” from Ukraine – as retired Colonel Douglas Macgregor has consistently said they should.

Neither Rubio nor chief negotiator Steve Witkoff attended the London conference on April 23, at which Zelensky predictably rejected Trump’s seven-point peace deal.

Col. Macgregor told Judge Andrew Napolitano it was clear “Zelensky is not going to agree” to the proposed deal.

Why? It is based on reality. Macgregor agrees that the U.S. should walk away – reminding viewers “this war would never have happened had we not mightily supported this regime we helped into power in 2014.”

Why did the U.S. do that? “To attack Russia,” Macgregor says, “because the whole idea was to build up a Ukrainian battering ram and hurl it at Russia. Crazy.”

A frustrated and uncharacteristically alarmed Macgregor asks, “Why are we even involved?”

He suggests “the best President Trump can do is say ‘It’s over. I never wanted this. It’s not my war. I’m suspending all aid, I’m pulling out.’”

The former Trump adviser adds, “Well, he didn’t do that. What’s next? I’m not sure.”

“Whatever happens, we look ridiculous. Again.”

Macgregor adds that “at least we have had the sense to walk away. What’s important is to normalize relations with Moscow,” explaining that Zelensky’s claims to Crimea and the Russian regions now absorbed into Russia are “nonsense.”

Trump: recognizing reality?

The Trump administration has offered to recognize Crimea as Russian – as has been historically and actually the case. Trump himself has accused Zelensky of sabotaging the peace deal, as the unelected leader of Ukraine refuses this and other concessions made unavoidable by the fact that Russia has won the war.

“The situation for Ukraine is dire – He can have Peace or, he can fight for another three years before losing the whole Country. I have nothing to do with Russia, but have much to do with wanting to save, on average, five thousand Russian and Ukrainian soldiers a week, who are dying for no reason whatsoever.”

Trump laid the blame squarely on Zelensky – saying his impossible demands would simply prolong the killing, as well as resulting in total defeat.

“The statement made by Zelenskyy today will do nothing but prolong the ‘killing field,’ and nobody wants that! We are very close to a deal, but the man with ‘no cards to play’ should now, finally, GET IT DONE.”

In 2014, Crimeans voted “overwhelmingly” to secede from Ukraine and rejoin Russia. The territory was gifted to the Ukrainian Soviet Republic by Nikitia Khrushchev in 1954, though its population remained predominantly ethnic Russian.

Trump’s aim, as Alastair Crooke has pointed out, is far bigger than merely ending this war. The overall goal here is a reset of the global order – away from the death cult model of forever war, and toward stabilization and trade abroad to power national renewal at home. As Crooke notes, Trump “is ringed by a resolute domestic enemy front in the form of an ‘industrial concern’ infused with Deep State ideology, centered primarily on preserving U.S. global power (rather than on mending of the economy).”

Surrender to Russia?

Reports in the globalist media of a total surrender to Russia are overblown:

Trump countered the narrative of “concessions” to Russia with the stark riposte that Russia’s choice not to “take all of Ukraine” was a significant concession in itself.

As Alex Christoforou of The Duran noted, Trump’s position on Crimea presented the EU with a “choice,” which the globalist Financial Times says was “forced” upon the pro-war bloc.

Russians propose alliance with U.S.

So what do the Russians think?

A remarkable response from the Russians shows some of their perspective. On April 16, the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) published a call for Washington and Moscow to unite against the EU – and to thwart the moves of the British state to escalate and prolong the war.

According to RT, the statement said, “The US and Russia are natural allies against ‘Eurofascism’ and the tyrannical tendencies prevalent in Western European countries.”

From its beginning, the EU has tended to be a totalitarian entity, ruled over by unelected, globalist-minded bureaucrats and elites determined to crush the unique cultures and sovereignty of its member states. Many have warned that that it was created to be the springboard for a New World Order tyranny.

The SVR sounded an optimistic note, suggesting Russian and U.S. officials are working together to secure peace.

“The agency said that ‘foreign expert circles’ are hopeful that Russia and the US will work together to prevent ‘a new global conflict’ and confront ‘possible provocations both from Ukraine and from the “maddened Europeans” traditionally urged on by Great Britain.’”

As Davis and Baab discussed, neither Steve Witkoff nor Marco Rubio attended the recent London conference on Ukraine – which Macgregor said was pointless due to Zelensky’s refusal to accept reality.

British state vs. Trump peace deal

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has joined the EU in “contradicting” Trump, according to the Daily Telegraph. Starmer says the unelected Zelensky must have a say in any deal – and Zelensky is of course saying no.

The Daily Telegraph blasted Trump’s seven-point peace plan as “surrender, capitulation, betrayal, appeasement,” saying “Trump’s deal” to secure peace “would plunge the world into war” by “rewarding aggression” and “overturning [the] rules-based order.”

War is the rule of the ‘rules-based order’

It was the “rules-based order” which expanded NATO in the 1990s, against George Kennan’s 1997 warning of this “fateful error” – which would provoke war with Russia.

Kennan predicted that moving NATO’s borders 300 miles eastward would make conflict with Russia inevitable, describing it as “the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era.”

This was no error. The collapse and plunder of Russia and its absorption into the global empire appears to have been the intention all along.

War has been the rule on which the rules-based order is based, as independent journalists have reported for years. This is why it is no surprise to hear the remnants of that order in Europe and in Britain demonize any attempts at peace – as treason.

British state determined to prolong war

The British state is determined to escalate and prolong the war. GrayZone journalist Kit Klarenberg has documented the consistent efforts of the UK Deep State to do so and returned this week with a report detailing how a secret government unit has been directing military operations in Ukraine and in Russia – supporting a strategy of continuing the war even after any ceasefire.

Does Trump have a plan?

Despite Colonel Macgregor’s complaint that he sees “no grand strategy” in the Trump administration, it is clear that the old one is dissolving. As the Trump administration’s peace proposals show, the one which will replace it relies on securing normalized relations – and trade – with Russia, instead of a perpetual march to world war trailered in Western media as inevitable.

The Trump administration has invited howls of outrage for its “surrender” to Russia in pursuing direct negotiations to end the war in Ukraine, as well as over its secret talks from before day one with Iran to avert a major conflict planned by another war faction: the Israel lobby.

The move away from the economic model of the liberal global system is a move away from an economic model of permanent war. This forever war model is waged against your Christian civilization at home in the mass media and the culture it transmits, as much as its business model bombs nations abroad.

Significant interests are being mobilized to prevent this move. Trump needs a win on the domestic front in this perilous moment of the detransition from globalism. The U.S. can no longer afford these foreign commitments – it is facing financial, moral, and diplomatic bankruptcy as the fantasy project of world domination hits real life limits.

The narrative over Ukraine reveals not only how hard the war economy will fight to rescue its system from peace, but also how the hardest sell these days is hard reality.

Independent voices like Davis, Macgregor, and that of The GrayZone show some of the terms and conditions of the devil’s bargain we are so often sold in the mainstream media. The Trump grand strategy appears to be a return to reality, to the value of life and the God-given natural order of our formerly Christian civilization. The devil is not only in the details revealed by the likes of Davis – his legions are fighting to defend the business model of death we are sold as “liberal democracy.”

Vance says he is “optimistic” that a deal will be made. If peace breaks out, the howling in the media will show you whose side they are on, and whose work they wish to do in the world.

spot_img

US adds Mexico to priority watch list of IP offenders

by the El Reportero‘s wire services

Mexico has been named a priority offender on a U.S. government watch list of nations that don’t do enough to protect intellectual property rights.

The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) announced Tuesday that it regards its southern neighbor as among the worst offenders of intellectual property (IP) rights, moving Mexico from its Watch List to its Priority Watch List.

There are only seven other countries on the Priority Watch List: China, Chile, Argentina, India, Indonesia, Russia and Venezuela. Eighteen countries are on the Watch List.

The USTR prepares these watch lists annually from analyses of more than 100 trading partners, scrutinizing deficiencies and violations of IP rights.

In its Special 301 report on IP protection and enforcement, the USTR cited “long-standing and significant IP concerns that have not been resolved, many of which relate to Mexico’s implementation of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA).”

The USTR downgraded Mexico for its failure to effectively investigate and prosecute trademark counterfeiting and copyright piracy protection of pharmaceutical-related IP, pre-established damages for copyright infringement and trademark counterfeiting, as well as plant variety protection.

“Our trading partners must address the concerns identified in the Special 301 Report and stop those stealing the intellectual property of hard-working businesses and individuals,” said U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer upon releasing the report.

Countries deemed to be supporting an unfair IP playing field could be subject to trade enforcement action.

Additionally, by being on the Priority Watch List, Mexico is risking a poor report card ahead of next year’s review of the USMCA.

Mexico is eager for a positive review of the trade agreement as it sends over three-quarters of its exports to the U.S.

It won’t be easy.

Mexico had been on the USTR Watch List for several years, Reuters reported. In July 2024, the Wilson Center, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank, wrote that “Mexico isn’t living up to some of its obligations under USMCA, notably on intellectual property rights.”

While Sheinbaum’s predecessor did pursue “significant legislative reforms,” shortcomings — including the lack of implementing regulations — “create uncertainty for the creative and innovative sectors looking to protect and enforce IP in Mexico,” the Wilson Center observed.

When the USMCA went into effect on July 1, 2020, Mexico was required to implement an effective patent enforcement system to ensure that patent-infringing generic medicines were not favored with marketing authorizations prior to the expiration of patents.

Nearly five years later, Mexico has neither issued implementing regulations nor complied with its patent enforcement commitments.

Mexico only this year came into compliance with USMCA obligations on “patent term restoration” (PTR) and “regulatory data protection” (RDP).

With reports from Reuters and Wilson Center

spot_img

Request for Qualifications-Proposals

The Peralta Community College District (PCCD) is calling for sealed qualification /proposal packages from qualified firms to provide Profes­sional Services Consulting Pool (RQF-P No. 24-25/17) for Measure G Bond Program Projects to be delivered electronically (via Planet Bids) District Current Solicitations | Planet Bids, by 2pm, May 23, 2025.

The Peralta Community College District is seeking qualified persons, firms, partnerships, corporations, associations, or professional organizations to provide professional services for selected projects across the District’s four campuses under the District’s Measure G Bond Program.

Copies of the proposal documents may be obtained by clicking on the following link:

District Current Solicitations | Planet Bids or, by contacting the Purchas­ing Department, 333 East 8th Street, Oakland, California, 94606, Phone (510) 466-7255, Office Hours: 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

Publication Dates: April 25, 2025 and May 2, 2025

Governing Codes:

GC 53068

EC 81641

El Reportero

spot_img

REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS FOR ON-CALL STRATEGIC COMMUNICATIONS, MEDIA AND COMMUNITY RELATIONS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (RFQ 24/25-06)

Notice is hereby given that the San Francisco Coun­ty Transportation Authority is requesting statements of qualifications from interested firms for On-Call Strate­gic Communications, Media and Community Relations Professional Services. The full request for qualifications is posted on the Transportation Authority’s website, www.sfcta.org/contracting. Statements of qualifications are due by Friday, May 23, 2025, at 2:00 p.m. El Reportero

spot_img

Rent vs. own in today’s economy: Is now the best time to buy?

Sponsored by JPMorganChase

Homeownership has been long associated with the American Dream, yet the economic climate of recent years has left some potential homebuyers on edge. Many potential homeowners have put their dream of buying a home on pause – or even abandoned it altogether.

If you’re thinking of buying a home but aren’t sure if it makes sense for you right now, consider these pros and cons of renting versus buying:

Pros of renting

  • Renting is a short-term commitment. You can sign a lease and have the flexibility to move somewhere else after the lease is over.
  • Maintenance and repairs are typically handled by the landlord, saving you time and money. Additionally, taxes and other local expenses are also often covered by the landlord.
  • If you live in a city with high property taxes, renting may be more affordable, helping to reduce the costs of your monthly payments.
  • Move in costs may be less, often including a security deposit and/or first and last month’s rent vs. saving for a down payment and closing costs.

Cons of renting

  • Your landlord or management company may increase the rent upon lease renewal.
  • Renting may offer less stability. Besides the possibility of higher prices, your landlord could sell the property or change other lease terms during renewal.
  • There’s an overall lack of control. For example, repairs are on someone else’s timeline and you can’t make major alterations without permission.
  • Paying your monthly rent doesn’t contribute to building equity, which means it can’t be used as a long-term wealth building strategy or as a way to tap into your assets for a cash need.

Pros of buying

  • You can build equity by making consistent payments on your mortgage. Your equity may be a potentially valuable appreciating investment and can be used for a cash-out refinance or a HELOC, which lets you borrow against the equity you’ve built up. Homeowners often use this cash for home renovations or to pay off higher-interest debt.
  • Fixed mortgage rate options provide more predictability and stability for monthly payments, unlike rent which may be increased with renewal.
  • Qualifying homeowners might be eligible for mortgage tax benefits.
  • Homeowners are free to alter, decorate and renovate without landlord approval.
  • Your home value may appreciate with time, offering a potential profit when you sell your home. You might also be able to rent out your property for extra cash flow.
  • If you live in a city with low property taxes but high rent, buying might be more affordable in the long term.

Cons of buying

  • Homebuying typically comes with significant upfront costs and fees, such as a down payment, closing costs, loan applications and more.
  • You have to pay for all maintenance and repairs.
  • Building equity takes time, requiring a longer commitment to see a potential for significant returns.
  • Your home’s market value can fluctuate for reasons beyond your control, such as interest rates, economic factors, and other market conditions.
  • Homeowners have to pay for property taxes and home insurance, adding to the costs of homeownership. Your property may also have condo or homeowners’ association fees.

Making your decision

There are many things to consider when deciding to rent or buy a home, including how much you can afford, the length of time you plan to live there and how much responsibility you’re ready to take on. You’ll want to  look into the current real estate prices and interest rates in your area to see if you can afford to buy a home now.

The bottom line is that the question of renting or owning is really a lifestyle choice.  If you’re ready to stay in one location and have the financial stability to handle property ownership and home maintenance, consider setting a goal to buy a home. If you still crave flexibility or plan to move soon, renting may be your ideal solution. There are also a variety of local resources that can help you assess what makes the most sense for your personal circumstances, such as meeting with a local mortgage professional that can help you navigate the market as well as make suggestions based on your financial picture.

Your unique financial situation, goals and aspirations can help you make the best decision – for you.

Visit chase.com/afford to learn more about homeownership and what resources are available.

For informational/educational purposes only: Views and strategies described on this article or provided via links may not be appropriate for everyone and are not intended as specific advice/recommendation for any business. Information has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but JPMorgan Chase & Co. or its affiliates and/or subsidiaries do not warrant its completeness or accuracy. The material is not intended to provide legal, tax, or financial advice or to indicate the availability or suitability of any JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. product or service. You should carefully consider your needs and objectives before making any decisions and consult the appropriate professional(s). Outlooks and past performance are not guarantees of future results. JPMorgan Chase & Co. and its affiliates are not responsible for, and do not provide or endorse third party products, services, or other content.

Deposit products provided JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. Member FDIC. Equal Opportunity Lender.

 © 2025 JPMorgan Chase & Co.

spot_img

Chinese-owned farms press for repeal of CA animal welfare law

The United States is the third-largest pork producer in the world and already exports around one-third of the pork it produces domestically. -- Estados Unidos es el tercer mayor productor de carne de cerdo del mundo y ya exporta alrededor de un tercio de la carne de cerdo que produce a nivel nacional. (Chayakorn/Adobe Stock)

By Seth Millstein for Sentient

Via California News Service

The largest pork producer in America is owned by a Chinese company, and a lot of people don’t like that. Critics of the corporate acquisition that took place in 2013 argued that Smithfield Foods’ Chinese ownership was a national security threat. Now, a political action committee is building on that sentiment — warning that Congress is being lobbied by Smithfield and other pork industry groups to slip language into the Farm Bill to gut the animal welfare protections of California’s Proposition 12. If successful, the PAC argues, this Smithfield-supported reversal of Prop 12 could multiply the threat to national security even more. But there are other major problems with the company that long predate any Chinese involvement.

“I hope that everyone will really wake up and realize what a tremendous threat it is right now in 2025 for us,” Marty Irby, the head of Competitive Markets Action, a political action committee devoted to defeating the EATS Act, tells Sentient. Proposed in 2023, the EATS Act contains language that pork industry trade groups are urging Congress to include in the Farm Bill. “It’s very serious, and it’s not something to take lightly,” says Irby, who has previously been a lobbyist for the Humane Society Legislative Fund.

But does Smithfield’s Chinese ownership really pose a threat to everyday Americans? Let’s jump in.

Smithfield’s Chinese ownership, explained

Founded in Virginia in 1936 as a meatpacking company, Smithfield Foods steadily grew over the decades to become one of the biggest meat producers in the country. But in 2013, WH Group, formerly known as Shuanghui International Holding Limited, one of China’s largest meat producers, purchased Smithfield outright for $4.7 billion.

It was the largest-ever Chinese acquisition of an American company, and was highly controversial in America. The central concern among critics has remained largely the same in the years since: that giving China control over such a huge chunk of America’s pork supply represented a threat to American food security.

But what exactly does it mean to say that “China owns Smithfield?” Does the Chinese government itself run the company, as many critics have alleged, or is it just private citizens and businesspeople?

The answer isn’t straightforward. On the one hand, WH Group is a private company that’s traded on the Hong Kong stock exchange. Smithfield CEO Larry Pope testified to Congress in 2013 that WH Group was not managed or run by the Chinese government, and Smithfield itself is still managed by American executives.

But according to a 2015 investigation by the Center for Investigative Reporting (CIR), WH Group does not operate independently from the Chinese government — at least, not entirely.

To begin with, the state-owned Bank of China facilitated the Smithfield purchase by giving WH Group a $4 billion loan. And although the company operates with a large degree of autonomy, it’s still required to adhere to the general goals outlined in the Chinese government’s five-year plan, and is expected to follow any directives it receives from the government to that effect.

To be sure, this isn’t specific to WH Group. The Chinese government is closely involved with all of its domestic industries, and regularly plays an active role in the running of private enterprises. The real question, at least insofar as Smithfield goes, is what this means for Americans — and Americans’ food supply.

Why do people object to Chinese ownership of Smithfield?

While Smithfield’s Chinese ownership has drawn controversy for a number of reasons, most criticism focuses on two topics: national security and American workers.

National Security

After purchasing Smithfield in 2013, WH Group owned one-in-four pigs raised in the U.S., according to a 2015 report. Many fear that giving a foreign company this much control over America’s food supply poses a national security risk, as it could imperil Americans’ access to domestically produced food.

“If we get into some sort of world disaster, or a situation where there’s [food] scarcity — it could even be another COVID-19 — where do you think China’s going to send their pork? They’re going to send it back to China,” Irby says. “I think that’s very detrimental to our own population, as far as having the affordable food that we need to put on the table out there in times of crisis.”

At least one agricultural economist disagrees, however. “Chinese ownership of agricultural land does not threaten our ability to produce food,” agricultural economist David Ortega wrote in an op-ed at The Hill in 2024. “Food insecurity arises in our country not because of production deficits, but because of issues of affordability and access facing consumers.”

The U.S. is the third-largest pork producer in the world, and already exports around one-third of the pork it produces domestically. In an emergency situation, the federal government could simply put a temporary ban on pork exports, which would immediately increase the domestic supply of pork for Americans.

American workers

Irby also argues that American farmers suffer due to Smithfield’s Chinese ownership, as the company’s profits no longer flow to Americans.

“We have American-owned companies and American producers that are out there that are struggling,” Irby says. “You’re seeing Smithfield and China now making the profits, and the American family farmer breaking even.”

There’s no question that small farms in America have been on the decline for some time now. The agricultural sector is highly concentrated, with the bulk of the profits going to a handful of large producers, and this trend has worsened over time.

Over the last 30 years, the farmer’s share of each retail dollar spent on their products has fallen by 20 percent, according to government data, and many operators of small- and medium-sized farms now earn less than $10,000 a year just from their operations — a figure that’s even lower when taking into account household expenses and debt obligations.

Family farmers have been feeling the economic squeeze for decades now, in other words, due to factors that long predate China’s purchase of Smithfield. The number of hog farms in the U.S. has been steadily declining since at least the 1990s, and so have hog farmers’ profits.

Smithfield Foods, Animal Welfare and Proposition 12

While it hasn’t drawn quite as much attention, China’s ownership of Smithfield Foods has also raised concern for the welfare of the animals under the company’s control.

Although America doesn’t have particularly strong animal protection laws, the parameters of meat production in the U.S. have been restrained, albeit to a small degree, by California’s Proposition 12, which banned the extreme confinement of certain livestock (including pigs) and, crucially, prohibits the in-state sale of meat products that were produced using extreme confinement measures, even if raised in other states or countries outside the U.S.

Because California is such an enormous market, that second part of the law has resulted in meat producers across the country (and beyond) modifying their production standards to give pigs and other animals more space.

China, on the other hand, doesn’t have any livestock protections at all. There’s no requirement that animals be stunned, anesthetized or rendered unconscious before they’re slaughtered, let alone given enough room to live comfortably. Pigs raised for meat in China are crammed into enormous high-rise buildings, sometimes referred to as “hog hotels,” in which tens of thousands of pigs languish at any given time.

“Those animals are in duress,” Irby says of the pigs raised in Chinese slaughterhouses and other facilities that aren’t Proposition 12-compliant. “We believe that farmers should be able to raise a pig in an open pasture, or at the very least, have enough room for the pig to stand up and turn around,” says Irby. The sentiment does not appear to be shared by industrial pork operations, either in the U.S. or China.

Although Smithfield Foods is owned by a Chinese company, it still has to comply with Proposition 12’s regulations, as the meat it produces is sold in California.

That’s where the language of the EATS Act comes into play. If passed or, more likely, if its language is included in the next Farm Bill, the move would overturn Proposition 12, as well as over 1,000 other state and local laws that regulate animal husbandry.

The real enemies: Pollution and price fixing

Although Smithfield’s Chinese ownership has stirred up a good amount of controversy, there are some other glaring problems with the company that have nothing to do with China, and which have received comparatively little press coverage.

Smithfield’s pollution

Hog farms are responsible for a range of environmental impacts. They pollute the water, release greenhouse gases and stink up the air.

Smithfield is no different, and has been especially prolific in this regard. In 2022, a report by the Socially Responsible Agriculture Project revealed that 21 of the company’s pig farms in Missouri had spilled over 7 million gallons of waste into surrounding communities over the preceding three decades. That same year, a Smithfield farm in the state was fined $18,000 for spilling 300,000 gallons of manure into nearby creeks.

The company has lost several multi-million dollar lawsuits relating to the degradation of air quality and living conditions in the communities around its farms. In 2018 and 2019, it was fined for water pollution violations at one of its South Dakota facilities, and according to estimates by the Institute for Agricultural and Trade Policy, the company emits around 30 million metric tons of CO2 every year.

Price-fixing

Smithfield Foods has also been accused of — and paid the price for — price-fixing on more than one occasion.

In 2023, the company agreed to pay $75 million in settlements after a group of purchasers accused it of artificially restricting its supply of pork in order to inflate prices. This was unrelated to the $42 million settlement the company paid the year before to restaurants and caterers, who also accused the company of price-fixing to boost its profits.

It’s worth noting that the purchasers in question accused Smithfield of engaging in this market manipulation since 2009 — long before China had anything to do with the company. The terms of the settlement did not require Smithfield to acknowledge any fault, however.

This intersects with the broader issue of monopolization in the meat industry, and the related issue of consolidation, in which large agricultural conglomerates like Smithfield either acquire smaller farms or put them out of business, resulting in less competition and more concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the largest agricultural companies.

“If they gain more market share, it’s just going to enable them to basically drive up the prices and demand what price they want,” Irby says. “We’ve seen it in so many other areas: The larger share of the market that a company owns, the more that they’re going to go in and drive up the price, because they can.”

The bottom line

As the largest-ever acquisition of an American business by a Chinese business, WH Group’s purchase of Smithfield Foods was undoubtedly a landmark moment in American business and agriculture.

The company’s foreign ownership has made it a lightning rod for criticism. Smithfield has been credibly accused of price-fixing on several occasions, and has paid millions and millions of dollars as a result. But most of the company’s practices are standard for an industrial meat conglomerate, regardless of whether it is owned by a Chinese firm or not.

spot_img

Celebrate Nicaraguan Culture

by Magdy Zara

With the goal of preserving and disseminating Nicaraguan culture, a festival has been organized for the Nicaraguan diaspora and the broader San José community.

These types of events aim to preserve culture, create spaces for Nicaraguans to connect with each other and their culture, and help more people learn about and appreciate the richness of Nicaraguan culture.

This day will feature the participation of the following groups: Chavalos: Danzas por Nicaragua and Danzas Folklóricas Guardabarranco. The orchestras will include Don Joaco, Los Ruiseñores, Wito el Menor, the La Nica SF Philharmonic Band, Tropical Fusion, Manolo Tiempo Libre, and many more.

In addition to live music, you can expect games, prizes, Nicaraguan food, entertainment, and much more.

The chosen venue for this festival is Discovery Meadow Park, located at 180 Woz Way, San José. It will take place on April 27th, from 10:30 a.m. to 6 p.m.

Tickets range from $25-$35 and can be reserved through

https://culturafestivals.ticketspice.com/cultura

Mariachi Herencia de México Launches New Tour

To promote their new album, “Nuestra Cosa Latina,” Grammy-nominated Mariachi Herencia de México launches their New Generation Tour.

If you want to experience the future of traditional Mexican music, don’t miss the opportunity to attend this masterful concert by Mariachi Herencia de México, which will present an unforgettable evening of culture and passion.

The historical tradition of mariachi music has its roots in cities like Guadalajara and Mexico City, so as the genre’s influence spread, it reached Chicago and gave rise to Mariachi Herencia de México.

The two-time Latin GRAMMY-nominated group has already released five albums that have topped the charts.

This concert will be next Sunday, May 4, starting at 7 p.m., at the Carriage House Theatre in Montalvo, located at 15400 Montalvo Rd., Saratoga.

Ticket prices range from $88 to $93.

2025 Capital Region SBA Awards Gala

The California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce Foundation concludes National Small Business Week with the 2025 Capital Region SBA Awards Gala.

Small business owners, policymakers, and stakeholders are invited to participate in this event and support the thousands of small businesses that create jobs, stimulate innovation, and help drive economic growth in this region.

For more than 60 years, the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) has celebrated National Small Business Week (NSBW), an opportunity the SBA uses to recognize the efforts, ingenuity, and dedication of America’s small businesses and entrepreneurs, and celebrate their contributions to the economy.

The SBA Sacramento District Office and the California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce Foundation are inviting regional business leaders to celebrate the resilience, innovation, and economic power of small businesses and innovative startups in the Capitol Region at the 2025 SBA Capital Region Awards Gala.

The event is next Friday, May 9, from 6 to 9 p.m. at the Kimpton Swayer Hotel, located at 3410 Westover Street, McClellan.

spot_img

The Art of Holy Week: Brushstrokes narrating the Passion in Latin America and the United States

by the El Reportero staff

From the colonial centuries to current community expressions, art has been a powerful tool for representing the spirituality of Holy Week in Latin America and the United States. Paintings, murals, and visual representations have captured the drama, faith, and cultural identity of this sacred period, transforming it into a visual spectacle that transcends creeds and borders.

In Latin America, the tradition of painting scenes from the Passion of Christ has deep roots in Spanish influence. Artists from the colonial period, such as those from Cusco and Quito, created works full of drama and symbolism, where the suffering of Jesus merges with local elements. The robes of the figures are dyed with indigenous colors, mountains replace Golgotha, and dark-skinned faces humanize divinity.

In Mexico, Holy Week paintings in regions like Taxco and San Luis Potosí depict weeping Virgins, bloodied Christs, and processions that seem to emerge from the canvas with an almost baroque intensity. This style has influenced contemporary artists such as Francisco Toledo and Carmen Parra, who reinterpret these icons in a modern way.

In Central America and the Caribbean, sacred art has been interwoven with popular expressions. In Guatemala, for example, the colored sawdust carpets that cover the streets during processions become ephemeral works full of symbolism. Many visual artists have begun to capture these scenes in their paintings, preserving their beauty beyond the moment.

Meanwhile, in the United States, especially in Latino communities like those in California, Texas, and New York, Holy Week has found an expressive channel in muralism and community painting. In neighborhoods like San Francisco’s Mission District, murals by Chicano and Central American artists depict scenes of the crucifixion or the Stations of the Cross accompanied by messages of resistance, justice, and hope.

Artists like Ester Hernández and Yolanda López have used symbols of the Catholic faith to denounce social inequalities, merging the suffering of Christ with the struggle of migrants and indigenous peoples. Thus, the Passion is reinterpreted as a metaphor for modern sacrifice.

There has also been a growing production of digital art and contemporary photography that reinterprets Holy Week rites. Young Latino artists in the U.S. combine religious imagery with urban aesthetics, graffiti, and digital art to connect with new generations.

Holy Week, then, is not only experienced in churches and streets: it is also painted, drawn, recorded, and digitized. Art transforms it into memory, reflection, and a cultural bridge between the ancestral and the modern, between the South and the North, between intimate faith and collective expression.

spot_img
1...678...632Page 7 of 632

SELECTIONS

POPULAR TICKETS

POPULAR CATEGORY

ABOUT US

Welcome to our Marvin J. Ramirez website! We are an innovative newspaper located in the heart of San Francisco. With a relentless passion for telling powerful stories, we inform our community with truthful news, insightful analysis, and compelling reporting.

Contacto: lreportero@aol.com

FOLLOW US

© Copyright 2023. AMAYCOM.NET. All rights reserved.