Category Archives: News

worldwide news

China Mobile’s Bid to Offer US Phone Service Rejected

U.S. communications regulators are rejecting a Chinese telecom company’s application to provide service in the U.S. due to national-security risks amid an escalation in tensions between the two countries.

 

The Federal Communications Commission on Thursday voted unanimously, 5-0 across party lines, to reject China Mobile International USA Inc.’s long-ago filed application. The Commerce Department had recommended that denial last year.

 

The company, which the FCC says is ultimately owned by the Chinese government, applied in 2011 to provide international phone service in the U.S.

 

The Trump administration has been pushing against China in several ways. It has been pressuring allies to reject Chinese telecom equipment for their networks, citing security risks from Chinese telecom giant Huawei.

 

The U.S. and China are also in the middle of high-stakes trade talks.

 

 

China Mobile’s Bid to Offer US Phone Service Rejected

U.S. communications regulators are rejecting a Chinese telecom company’s application to provide service in the U.S. due to national-security risks amid an escalation in tensions between the two countries.

 

The Federal Communications Commission on Thursday voted unanimously, 5-0 across party lines, to reject China Mobile International USA Inc.’s long-ago filed application. The Commerce Department had recommended that denial last year.

 

The company, which the FCC says is ultimately owned by the Chinese government, applied in 2011 to provide international phone service in the U.S.

 

The Trump administration has been pushing against China in several ways. It has been pressuring allies to reject Chinese telecom equipment for their networks, citing security risks from Chinese telecom giant Huawei.

 

The U.S. and China are also in the middle of high-stakes trade talks.

 

 

Co-Founder Chris Hughes: Time to Break Up Facebook

Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes says it’s time to break up the social media behemoth.

He says in a New York Times opinion piece that CEO Mark Zuckerberg has allowed a relentless focus on growth to crush competitors and “sacrifice security and civility for clicks.”

Hughes says Facebook is a monopoly and should be forced to spin off WhatsApp and Instagram. He says future acquisitions should be banned for several years

Hughes roomed with Zuckerberg at Harvard and left Facebook in 2007 to campaign for Barack Obama.

He says he liquidated his Facebook shares in 2012, the year he became publisher of The New Republic.

Last year, Hughes published a book advocating a universal basic income. In 2017, Forbes put his net worth at more than $400 million.

Co-Founder Chris Hughes: Time to Break Up Facebook

Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes says it’s time to break up the social media behemoth.

He says in a New York Times opinion piece that CEO Mark Zuckerberg has allowed a relentless focus on growth to crush competitors and “sacrifice security and civility for clicks.”

Hughes says Facebook is a monopoly and should be forced to spin off WhatsApp and Instagram. He says future acquisitions should be banned for several years

Hughes roomed with Zuckerberg at Harvard and left Facebook in 2007 to campaign for Barack Obama.

He says he liquidated his Facebook shares in 2012, the year he became publisher of The New Republic.

Last year, Hughes published a book advocating a universal basic income. In 2017, Forbes put his net worth at more than $400 million.

Taxes Aren’t the Only Trouble for Trump

Reporting from The New York Times shows that between 1985 and 1994, President Donald Trump reported $1.2 billion in losses, allowing him not to pay income taxes during most of that period. While Democrats demand Trump’s tax returns, other battles are heating up. The White House is asserting executive privilege over special counsel Robert Mueller’s unredacted report, and Democrats are preparing to hold Trump’s attorney general in contempt. White House Correspondent Patsy Widakuswara has more.

Taxes Aren’t the Only Trouble for Trump

Reporting from The New York Times shows that between 1985 and 1994, President Donald Trump reported $1.2 billion in losses, allowing him not to pay income taxes during most of that period. While Democrats demand Trump’s tax returns, other battles are heating up. The White House is asserting executive privilege over special counsel Robert Mueller’s unredacted report, and Democrats are preparing to hold Trump’s attorney general in contempt. White House Correspondent Patsy Widakuswara has more.

Is 5G Chinese Technology a Threat to US National Security?

Earlier this month, officials from a group of 30 countries agreed to take a more coordinated approach to secure the next generation of fast mobile communication networks, known as 5G. The United States and others worry that technology companies located in countries with governments like China’s could be subject to state influence, making the networks insecure. Elizabeth Lee reports on the security concerns over 5G, and what it means to consumers.

Is 5G Chinese Technology a Threat to US National Security?

Earlier this month, officials from a group of 30 countries agreed to take a more coordinated approach to secure the next generation of fast mobile communication networks, known as 5G. The United States and others worry that technology companies located in countries with governments like China’s could be subject to state influence, making the networks insecure. Elizabeth Lee reports on the security concerns over 5G, and what it means to consumers.

US Lawmakers Praise Taiwan as Alternative to China

U.S. lawmakers used an event at the Capitol Wednesday afternoon to praise Taiwan as an ally and a healthy alternative to China.

Relations between Washington and Beijing have been strained because of a growing trade dispute, China’s unwillingness to democratize and the threat of the spread of its illiberal influence as it reaches more regions of the world.

Wednesday’s event marked the 40th anniversary of the enactment of the Taiwan Relations Act, which provides a framework for continuing bilateral ties after Washington established official diplomatic ties with Beijing in 1979.

​In praise of Taiwan

Some lawmakers used the occasion to praise relations between Washington and Taipei.

“We have to stick with the folks that are most like us and that we are most like, that is just how it has to be, and we should be unafraid to say it,” Congressman Scott Perry, a Republican who represents Pennsylvania, said.

“If we want to be leaders in the world and we do, we have to stick with our friends and our allies very closely and show the world who we believe in and where our allegiances lie,” Perry said. “We still want to trade with China, we still want to be good partners, however, we have a better partner.”

Perry told VOA that Taiwan is a natural partner and ally “especially compared to the government of China.” He quickly added that it is important to clarify that there’s a difference between the government of China and the people of China, “because there are many Chinese people who also agree with our values.”

Bipartisan, bicameral gathering

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi also attended the event, which she described as a “celebration of the relationship” between the United States and Taiwan.

Pelosi pointed to the congressional members who were present at the event as evidence of “bipartisan, bicameral expression and manifestation of support and recognition of the importance of the Taiwan Relations Act,” which she described as having fostered an “unshakable bond between the United States and Taiwan.”

She also spoke about how impressed she was with the “vitality of the country” on her visit to the island, adding, “I can’t wait to go back again … my understanding is, the best Chinese food in the world is in Taiwan!”

The event, co-hosted by Taiwan Causes in both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, drew more than two dozen senators and congressmen.

Humbled by US support

As the event concluded, Stanley Kao, Taiwan’s representative to the United States, told VOA that he was humbled by the broad show of support for Taiwan among U.S. lawmakers.

Kao said Taiwan will continue to uphold the values that endear it to the United States and other democracies around the world.

“We ourselves must zheng-qi,” he said, invoking the traditional Chinese phrase meaning “fight for and be worthy of one’s own breath.”

US Lawmakers Praise Taiwan as Alternative to China

U.S. lawmakers used an event at the Capitol Wednesday afternoon to praise Taiwan as an ally and a healthy alternative to China.

Relations between Washington and Beijing have been strained because of a growing trade dispute, China’s unwillingness to democratize and the threat of the spread of its illiberal influence as it reaches more regions of the world.

Wednesday’s event marked the 40th anniversary of the enactment of the Taiwan Relations Act, which provides a framework for continuing bilateral ties after Washington established official diplomatic ties with Beijing in 1979.

​In praise of Taiwan

Some lawmakers used the occasion to praise relations between Washington and Taipei.

“We have to stick with the folks that are most like us and that we are most like, that is just how it has to be, and we should be unafraid to say it,” Congressman Scott Perry, a Republican who represents Pennsylvania, said.

“If we want to be leaders in the world and we do, we have to stick with our friends and our allies very closely and show the world who we believe in and where our allegiances lie,” Perry said. “We still want to trade with China, we still want to be good partners, however, we have a better partner.”

Perry told VOA that Taiwan is a natural partner and ally “especially compared to the government of China.” He quickly added that it is important to clarify that there’s a difference between the government of China and the people of China, “because there are many Chinese people who also agree with our values.”

Bipartisan, bicameral gathering

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi also attended the event, which she described as a “celebration of the relationship” between the United States and Taiwan.

Pelosi pointed to the congressional members who were present at the event as evidence of “bipartisan, bicameral expression and manifestation of support and recognition of the importance of the Taiwan Relations Act,” which she described as having fostered an “unshakable bond between the United States and Taiwan.”

She also spoke about how impressed she was with the “vitality of the country” on her visit to the island, adding, “I can’t wait to go back again … my understanding is, the best Chinese food in the world is in Taiwan!”

The event, co-hosted by Taiwan Causes in both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, drew more than two dozen senators and congressmen.

Humbled by US support

As the event concluded, Stanley Kao, Taiwan’s representative to the United States, told VOA that he was humbled by the broad show of support for Taiwan among U.S. lawmakers.

Kao said Taiwan will continue to uphold the values that endear it to the United States and other democracies around the world.

“We ourselves must zheng-qi,” he said, invoking the traditional Chinese phrase meaning “fight for and be worthy of one’s own breath.”

AP Fact Check: Trump Brings Puerto Rico Fiction to Florida

President Donald Trump brought his enduring fiction about hurricane aid for Puerto Rico to a rally crowd in Florida Wednesday.

Pledging unstinting support for more hurricane recovery money for Floridians, he vastly exaggerated how much Puerto Rico has received.

Trump laced his speech in Panama City Beach with a recitation of falsehoods that never quit, touching on veterans’ health care, the economy, visas and more. 

A sampling:

Puerto Rico hurricane aid

TRUMP: “We gave to Puerto Rico $91 billion” — and that’s more, he said, than any U.S. state or entity has received for hurricane aid.

THE FACTS: His number is wrong, as is his assertion that the U.S. territory has set some record for federal disaster aid. Congress has so far distributed only about $11 billion for Puerto Rico, not $91 billion.

He’s stuck to his figure for some time. The White House has said the estimate includes about $50 billion in expected future disaster disbursements that could span decades, along with $41 billion approved.

That $50 billion in additional money is speculative. It is based on Puerto Rico’s eligibility for federal emergency disaster funds for years ahead, involving calamities that haven’t happened.

That money would require future appropriations by Congress.

Even if correct, $91 billion would not be the most ever provided for hurricane rebuilding efforts. Hurricane Katrina in 2005 cost the U.S government more than $120 billion, the bulk of it going to Louisiana.

​Economy and income levels

TRUMP, boasting that his economic record has delivered the “highest income ever in history for the different groups — highest income.”

THE FACTS: Not so. He did not achieve the best income numbers for all the racial groups. Both African Americans and Asian Americans had higher income before the Trump administration.

The median income last year for a black household was $40,258, according to the Census Bureau. That’s below a 2000 peak of $42,348 and also statistically no better than 2016, President Barack Obama’s last year in office.

Many economists view the continued economic growth since the middle of 2009, in Obama’s first term, as the primary explanation for recent hiring and income gains. More important, there are multiple signs that the racial wealth gap is now worsening even as unemployment rates have come down.

As for Asian Americans, the median income for a typical household last year was $81,331. It was $83,182 in 2016.

Visa lottery and ‘rough people’

TRUMP, claiming countries are taking advantage of the U.S. diversity visa lottery program: “They’re giving us some rough people.”

THE FACTS: A perpetual falsehood from the president. Countries don’t nominate their citizens for the program. They don’t get to select people they’d like to get rid of.

Foreigners apply for the visas on their own. Under the program, citizens of countries named by the U.S. can bid for visas if they have enough education or work experience in desired fields. Out of that pool of qualified applicants, the State Department randomly selects a much smaller pool of tentative winners. Not all winners will have visas approved because they still must compete for a smaller number of slots by getting their applications in quickly.

Those who are ultimately offered visas still need to go through background checks, like other immigrants.

​VA Choice

TRUMP, describing how veterans used to wait weeks and months for a VA appointment: “For the veterans, we passed VA Choice. … (Now) they immediately go outside, find a good local doctor, get themselves fixed up and we pay the bill.”

THE FACTS: No, veterans still must wait for weeks for a medical appointment.

While it’s true the VA recently announced plans to expand eligibility for veterans in the Veterans Choice program, it remains limited in part because of uncertain money and longer waits.

The program currently allows veterans to see doctors outside the VA system if they must wait more than 30 days for an appointment or drive more than 40 miles to a VA facility. Under new rules to take effect in June, veterans will have that option for a private doctor if their VA wait is only 20 days (28 for specialty care) or their drive is only 30 minutes.

But the expanded Choice eligibility may do little to provide immediate help.

That’s because veterans often must wait even longer for an appointment in the private sector. In 2018, 34 percent of all VA appointments were with outside physicians, down from 36 percent in 2017. Then-Secretary David Shulkin said VA care was “often 40 percent better in terms of wait times” compared with the private sector.

Choice came into effect after some veterans died while waiting months for appointments at the Phoenix VA medical center.

When VA Choice passed

TRUMP, on the Choice program: “That’s a great thing for our veterans. They’ve been trying to get it passed for 44 years. We got it passed.”

THE FACTS: He’s incorrect. Congress approved the private-sector Veterans Choice health program in 2014 and President Barack Obama signed it into law. Trump is expanding it.

Crowd sizes

TRUMP, on Democrat Beto O’Rourke’s crowd size at a Texas rally before he launched his presidential campaign: “He had like 502 people.”

THE FACTS: Trump sells short O’Rourke’s crowd, though it has grown in his mind since he claimed the Democrat only got 200-300 at his El Paso gathering in February. Trump had a rally there the same day.

O’Rourke’s march and rally drew thousands. Police did not give an estimate, but his crowd filled nearly all of a baseball field from the stage at the infield to the edge of outfield and was tightly packed.

Official: Executive Order Not Needed to Ban Huawei in US 5G Networks

A senior U.S. State Department official said there is no need for President Donald Trump to sign an executive order to explicitly ban Chinese telecommunication company Huawei from taking part in the buildout of the U.S. 5G networks.

The four largest U.S. telecom carriers — Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile and Sprint — have agreed not to use Huawei in any part of their 5G networks, said Ambassador Robert Strayer, deputy assistant secretary of state for cyber and international communications and information policy.

Strayer spoke with VOA about U.S. 5G policy and security concerns over Huawei. He also said the United States will only use trusted vendors, including South Korea’s Samsung, Sweden’s Ericsson and Finland’s Nokia, in the buildout of the U.S. 5G networks.

 

WATCH: Is 5G Chinese Technology a Threat to US National Security?

​The following is an edited excerpt of the interview:

VOA: VOA broadcasts to many countries in Africa and Asia. These are places eager to develop their economies with high-tech communications. What does the U.S. say to those countries, which are eager for 5G and see the most attractive equipment and financing packages for those networks are all Chinese? If countries resist the Huawei offer, how many years back does that set their 5G networks? What would be the alternatives?

Deputy Assistant Secretary Robert Strayer: All around the world, we’re all very excited to see the promise of 5G technology. It’s going to empower things like telemedicine, autonomous vehicles, autonomous manufacturing, and including autonomous transportation networks in general.

So it’s going to be very important that network be incredibly secure because of all the critical infrastructure that’s going to ride on top of it. We know that there are a number of vendors besides Chinese technology vendors that are providing the equipment, the underlying infrastructure for 5G networks.

Those include Samsung in South Korea, Ericsson in Sweden and Nokia in Finland. So we believe those are trusted vendors.

We have grave concerns about the Chinese vendors because they can be compelled by the National Intelligence Law in China as well as other laws in China to take actions that would not be in the interests of the citizens of other countries around the world. Those networks could be disrupted or their data could be taken and be used for purposes that would not be consistent with fundamental human rights in those countries.

VOA: But it’s going to be a difficult choice. China is offering a great deal, in some cases 0% interest loans, 20-year payment plans, and what are the alternative plans like? Is there an analogy that you have that can show how turning down that kind of offer for something like 5G is actually in their long-term interest?

Strayer: We think that there should be commercially reasonable terms applied to financing deals. There’s obviously private financing available from telecom companies, but there are also a number of multinational, multilateral development banks providing potential sources of financing for infrastructure deals around the world.

We don’t think that countries need to adhere to, be left with only the predatory lending terms that are often offered by the Chinese Development Bank and other financing mechanisms that the Chinese companies are offering. Zero percent interest for 20 years is not commercially reasonable. It comes with huge strings attached. In fact, many of these things aren’t even transparent enough for countries to know what they’re signing up to.

We’re encouraging countries to think carefully about how they will move into 5G, make sure that they’re applying and signing up to financing terms that are commercially reasonable and ones that they can pay back in the long term.

We know of stories, of course, of ports being used as collateral in some of these financing deals, so countries could lose access to their very critical infrastructure under the terms of some of these deals. So we think that while 5G has huge promise and we should move quickly to it, we’re not in any way slowing ourselves down by going with vendors that are more trustworthy, and under financing conditions that are probably concessionary but are not at the level of some of these deals that are in no way reasonable in any type of commercial sense.

VOA: If Washington is asking other countries to ban Huawei from their 5G networks, why hasn’t the U.S. done so? I mean, the president has not signed an executive order on a comprehensive ban on Huawei, not just in the government, but in the private sector as well. Is the U.S. credibility at stake? How certain are you that the U.S. will ban Huawei equipment from its 5G network?

Strayer: So in our view, we don’t need to have a legal mechanism to ban Huawei in our private sector networks. The four largest U.S. telecom carriers have already agreed that they will not use Huawei or ZTE in any part of their 5G networks and they’re not using it in their 4G networks. So we don’t think that we need a legal tool to force them to do so. In addition, last year in the National Defense Law that was enacted at the end of the year, the government was prohibited — our U.S. government is prohibited from using these high-risk vendors.

VOA: Chinese Vice Premier Liu He is coming to Washington this week for the latest round of trade negotiation with the U.S. There are allegations against Huawei for stealing U.S. intellectual property. How should Huawei and 5G be discussed in the bilateral trade talks? Could they be hurdles for the two nations to reach a deal?

Strayer: I just want to be very clear that everything we’re talking about with countries around the world is about a national security threat that we see facing now, and that we think could have significant economic implications for them as well.

We are not talking about this in the context of trade. And I would just mention, too, that the concerns we have about Huawei that are well-documented are related to corruption, related to the theft of intellectual property, and related to defying sanctions, and using basically money-laundering schemes, have raised great concern about that company itself, but they’re not part of our trade discussions.

VOA: Is the U.S. lagging China in developing 5G infrastructure?

Strayer: No. We think we’re leading the world. By the end of this year, we’ll have 90 trials rolled out across the United States. We’ve already seen them being rolled out by Verizon and AT&T. We think we are actually leading the world in this field and we’re using only vendors from those three countries I mentioned that are trusted vendors, not the ones in China.

VOA: Thank you for talking to VOA.

Strayer: Thank you.

Official: Executive Order Not Needed to Ban Huawei in US 5G Networks

A senior U.S. State Department official said there is no need for President Donald Trump to sign an executive order to explicitly ban Chinese telecommunication company Huawei from taking part in the buildout of the U.S. 5G networks.

The four largest U.S. telecom carriers — Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile and Sprint — have agreed not to use Huawei in any part of their 5G networks, said Ambassador Robert Strayer, deputy assistant secretary of state for cyber and international communications and information policy.

Strayer spoke with VOA about U.S. 5G policy and security concerns over Huawei. He also said the United States will only use trusted vendors, including South Korea’s Samsung, Sweden’s Ericsson and Finland’s Nokia, in the buildout of the U.S. 5G networks.

 

WATCH: Is 5G Chinese Technology a Threat to US National Security?

​The following is an edited excerpt of the interview:

VOA: VOA broadcasts to many countries in Africa and Asia. These are places eager to develop their economies with high-tech communications. What does the U.S. say to those countries, which are eager for 5G and see the most attractive equipment and financing packages for those networks are all Chinese? If countries resist the Huawei offer, how many years back does that set their 5G networks? What would be the alternatives?

Deputy Assistant Secretary Robert Strayer: All around the world, we’re all very excited to see the promise of 5G technology. It’s going to empower things like telemedicine, autonomous vehicles, autonomous manufacturing, and including autonomous transportation networks in general.

So it’s going to be very important that network be incredibly secure because of all the critical infrastructure that’s going to ride on top of it. We know that there are a number of vendors besides Chinese technology vendors that are providing the equipment, the underlying infrastructure for 5G networks.

Those include Samsung in South Korea, Ericsson in Sweden and Nokia in Finland. So we believe those are trusted vendors.

We have grave concerns about the Chinese vendors because they can be compelled by the National Intelligence Law in China as well as other laws in China to take actions that would not be in the interests of the citizens of other countries around the world. Those networks could be disrupted or their data could be taken and be used for purposes that would not be consistent with fundamental human rights in those countries.

VOA: But it’s going to be a difficult choice. China is offering a great deal, in some cases 0% interest loans, 20-year payment plans, and what are the alternative plans like? Is there an analogy that you have that can show how turning down that kind of offer for something like 5G is actually in their long-term interest?

Strayer: We think that there should be commercially reasonable terms applied to financing deals. There’s obviously private financing available from telecom companies, but there are also a number of multinational, multilateral development banks providing potential sources of financing for infrastructure deals around the world.

We don’t think that countries need to adhere to, be left with only the predatory lending terms that are often offered by the Chinese Development Bank and other financing mechanisms that the Chinese companies are offering. Zero percent interest for 20 years is not commercially reasonable. It comes with huge strings attached. In fact, many of these things aren’t even transparent enough for countries to know what they’re signing up to.

We’re encouraging countries to think carefully about how they will move into 5G, make sure that they’re applying and signing up to financing terms that are commercially reasonable and ones that they can pay back in the long term.

We know of stories, of course, of ports being used as collateral in some of these financing deals, so countries could lose access to their very critical infrastructure under the terms of some of these deals. So we think that while 5G has huge promise and we should move quickly to it, we’re not in any way slowing ourselves down by going with vendors that are more trustworthy, and under financing conditions that are probably concessionary but are not at the level of some of these deals that are in no way reasonable in any type of commercial sense.

VOA: If Washington is asking other countries to ban Huawei from their 5G networks, why hasn’t the U.S. done so? I mean, the president has not signed an executive order on a comprehensive ban on Huawei, not just in the government, but in the private sector as well. Is the U.S. credibility at stake? How certain are you that the U.S. will ban Huawei equipment from its 5G network?

Strayer: So in our view, we don’t need to have a legal mechanism to ban Huawei in our private sector networks. The four largest U.S. telecom carriers have already agreed that they will not use Huawei or ZTE in any part of their 5G networks and they’re not using it in their 4G networks. So we don’t think that we need a legal tool to force them to do so. In addition, last year in the National Defense Law that was enacted at the end of the year, the government was prohibited — our U.S. government is prohibited from using these high-risk vendors.

VOA: Chinese Vice Premier Liu He is coming to Washington this week for the latest round of trade negotiation with the U.S. There are allegations against Huawei for stealing U.S. intellectual property. How should Huawei and 5G be discussed in the bilateral trade talks? Could they be hurdles for the two nations to reach a deal?

Strayer: I just want to be very clear that everything we’re talking about with countries around the world is about a national security threat that we see facing now, and that we think could have significant economic implications for them as well.

We are not talking about this in the context of trade. And I would just mention, too, that the concerns we have about Huawei that are well-documented are related to corruption, related to the theft of intellectual property, and related to defying sanctions, and using basically money-laundering schemes, have raised great concern about that company itself, but they’re not part of our trade discussions.

VOA: Is the U.S. lagging China in developing 5G infrastructure?

Strayer: No. We think we’re leading the world. By the end of this year, we’ll have 90 trials rolled out across the United States. We’ve already seen them being rolled out by Verizon and AT&T. We think we are actually leading the world in this field and we’re using only vendors from those three countries I mentioned that are trusted vendors, not the ones in China.

VOA: Thank you for talking to VOA.

Strayer: Thank you.

US Indicts 2 Israeli Operators of Darkweb Gateway

U.S. law enforcement officials announced on Wednesday the indictment of two Israeli operators of a website that referred hundreds of thousands of users to underground internet marketplaces to purchase drugs, weapons and other illegal products.  

 

Tal Prihar, 37, an Israeli citizen living in Brazil, and Michael Phan, 34, who lives in Israel, were indicted by a federal grand jury in Western Pennsylvania with money laundering in connection with operating DeepDotWeb, a website that served as a gateway to the Darkweb, the internet’s dark underbelly where users can purchase and exchange illegal products.

 

Prihar was arrested by French authorities in Paris Monday and faces likely extradition to the U.S. Phan was arrested on Monday in Israel and faces charges there.  Prosecutors declined to say whether they’ll seek Phan’s extradition to the U.S.

 

The two Israeli nationals operated DeepDotWeb from 2013 to late last month when it was taken down by the FBI, collecting more than $15 million in commissions for directing users to various marketplaces such as the now defunct AlphaBay.

 

The users, in turn, purchases hundreds of millions of dollars worth of illegal drugs, firearms, malicious software, hacking tools, and stolen financial information and credit cards, according to prosecutors.

 

About 24 percent of all orders on AlphaBay, which was one of the largest Darkweb marketplaces before it was seized by the FBI in 2017, were associated with an account created through a referral link provided by DeepDotWeb.

 

Scott W. Brady, the U.S. attorney for Western Pennsylvania, said DeepDotWeb’s takedown represents a major blow to the Darknet economy.

 

“This is the single most significant law enforcement disruption of the Darknet to date,” Brady said at a press conference in Pittsburgh.  “While there have been successful prosecutions of various Darknet marketplaces, this prosecution is the first to attack the infrastructure supporting the Darknet itself.”

 

Darknet marketplaces operate on Tor, a computer network that facilitates anonymous communication and transactions over the internet.   Tor marketplaces can’t be found via a Google search. To access a marketplace, a user needs the site’s exact .onion url, a top level domain suffix designating an anonymous service reachable via the Tor network.

 

To address this problem, DeepDotWeb provided pages of hyperlinks to various marketplaces such as AlphaBay Market and Hansa Market, allowing users to navigate the marketplaces and collecting a commission each time a user made a purchase.

 

Trump Hails GM Plan to Invest $700 mn in Ohio, Sell Shuttered Plant

President Donald Trump said Wednesday U.S. automaker General Motors will invest $700 million in Ohio and create 450 jobs, selling one of its shuttered plants to a company that will produce electric trucks.

“GREAT NEWS FOR OHIO!” Trump tweeted.

Trump said he had talked to GM chief Mary Barra who told him of plans to sell the Lordstown, Ohio plant to Workhorse, a company that focuses on producing electric delivery vehicles.

In November, GM shuttered five U.S. plants, including auto assembly plants in Michigan and Ohio, as part of a 15 percent cut in its workforce worldwide — cutting around 14,000 employees — a move which drew Trump’s wrath on Twitter.

But in March, GM announced plans to invest $1.8 billion in U.S. operations creating 700 new jobs. About $300 million will be geared towards production of electric vehicles at the auto giant’s Orion plant in Michigan, creating 400 jobs, the company said in a statement.

“I have been working nicely with GM to get this done. Thank you to Mary B, your GREAT Governor, and Senator Rob Portman. With all the car companies coming back, and much more, THE USA IS BOOMING!” Trump said.

The U.S. president has repeatedly berated companies by name to pressure them into investing more or reversing decisions on job cuts.

 

 

 

Trump Hails GM Plan to Invest $700 mn in Ohio, Sell Shuttered Plant

President Donald Trump said Wednesday U.S. automaker General Motors will invest $700 million in Ohio and create 450 jobs, selling one of its shuttered plants to a company that will produce electric trucks.

“GREAT NEWS FOR OHIO!” Trump tweeted.

Trump said he had talked to GM chief Mary Barra who told him of plans to sell the Lordstown, Ohio plant to Workhorse, a company that focuses on producing electric delivery vehicles.

In November, GM shuttered five U.S. plants, including auto assembly plants in Michigan and Ohio, as part of a 15 percent cut in its workforce worldwide — cutting around 14,000 employees — a move which drew Trump’s wrath on Twitter.

But in March, GM announced plans to invest $1.8 billion in U.S. operations creating 700 new jobs. About $300 million will be geared towards production of electric vehicles at the auto giant’s Orion plant in Michigan, creating 400 jobs, the company said in a statement.

“I have been working nicely with GM to get this done. Thank you to Mary B, your GREAT Governor, and Senator Rob Portman. With all the car companies coming back, and much more, THE USA IS BOOMING!” Trump said.

The U.S. president has repeatedly berated companies by name to pressure them into investing more or reversing decisions on job cuts.

 

 

 

In the US, Death Is More Certain Than Taxes

In the U.S., there’s an old saying that there are only two things that are certain in life: death and taxes.

But as it turns out, death is way more certain than taxes in the United States.

Corporations and some wealthy individuals, including President Donald Trump, are able to legally avoid any federal taxation in some years by deducting business expenses such as capital investments, charitable donations, interest on their home loans, health care costs and numerous other write-offs from their corporate or personal income.

In a report late Tuesday, The New York Times said from 1985 to 1994, Trump lost more than $1 billion in his real estate business operations and paid no federal income taxes in eight of those 10 years.

Trump called the report inaccurate but did not dispute any specific facts. He said it was “sport” for developers to game the U.S. tax code so they did not have to pay taxes.

Unlike U.S. presidents for the past four decades, Trump has balked at releasing his tax returns, although opposition Democratic lawmakers in the House of Representatives are seeking, so far unsuccessfully, to get him to divulge his returns for the last six years. A court fight over the dispute is possible.

The independent Tax Policy Center estimates that in 2018, 44% of Americans paid no federal income tax under the country’s progressive sliding scale of taxation, where those making the most money, in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, pay a higher percentage tax than those with way less annual income.

Various provisions of the U.S. tax code, such as the standard deduction to reduce taxable income or such allowable itemized deductions as for making donations to charities or for expenses to operate a business from home, can sharply reduce income subject to federal taxation.

But even those individuals not subject to any federal taxation, however, likely have paid payroll taxes, payments to cover mandatory withholding from their paychecks to fund the government’s pension plan for older and retired workers, and health insurance for Americans over 65. About three-quarters of American households pay federal income taxes, the payroll taxes or both.

The median annual U.S. household income is $56,516, meaning half earn more, half less.

According to one recent survey of nearly 130,000 American consumers, the average American spends $10,489 each year in federal, state, and local income taxes, about 14% of the average survey respondent’s gross income.

In the corporate world, however, with the tax overhaul pushed to passage by Trump and Republican lawmakers in 2017 that cut the basic federal corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%, 60 of the biggest U.S. corporations avoided paying any taxes last year, according to the Washington-based Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.

The research group said these companies should have paid a collective $16.4 billion in federal income taxes, but instead, with various legal deductions from their income, received a net tax rebate of $4.3 billion.

It reported that among the 60 profitable U.S. corporations paying no federal income taxes last year were some of the country’s best known businesses, including General Motors, Amazon, Chevron, Netflix, Delta Air Lines, IBM, Goodyear Tire & Rubber, and Eli Lilly.

 

In the US, Death Is More Certain Than Taxes

In the U.S., there’s an old saying that there are only two things that are certain in life: death and taxes.

But as it turns out, death is way more certain than taxes in the United States.

Corporations and some wealthy individuals, including President Donald Trump, are able to legally avoid any federal taxation in some years by deducting business expenses such as capital investments, charitable donations, interest on their home loans, health care costs and numerous other write-offs from their corporate or personal income.

In a report late Tuesday, The New York Times said from 1985 to 1994, Trump lost more than $1 billion in his real estate business operations and paid no federal income taxes in eight of those 10 years.

Trump called the report inaccurate but did not dispute any specific facts. He said it was “sport” for developers to game the U.S. tax code so they did not have to pay taxes.

Unlike U.S. presidents for the past four decades, Trump has balked at releasing his tax returns, although opposition Democratic lawmakers in the House of Representatives are seeking, so far unsuccessfully, to get him to divulge his returns for the last six years. A court fight over the dispute is possible.

The independent Tax Policy Center estimates that in 2018, 44% of Americans paid no federal income tax under the country’s progressive sliding scale of taxation, where those making the most money, in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, pay a higher percentage tax than those with way less annual income.

Various provisions of the U.S. tax code, such as the standard deduction to reduce taxable income or such allowable itemized deductions as for making donations to charities or for expenses to operate a business from home, can sharply reduce income subject to federal taxation.

But even those individuals not subject to any federal taxation, however, likely have paid payroll taxes, payments to cover mandatory withholding from their paychecks to fund the government’s pension plan for older and retired workers, and health insurance for Americans over 65. About three-quarters of American households pay federal income taxes, the payroll taxes or both.

The median annual U.S. household income is $56,516, meaning half earn more, half less.

According to one recent survey of nearly 130,000 American consumers, the average American spends $10,489 each year in federal, state, and local income taxes, about 14% of the average survey respondent’s gross income.

In the corporate world, however, with the tax overhaul pushed to passage by Trump and Republican lawmakers in 2017 that cut the basic federal corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%, 60 of the biggest U.S. corporations avoided paying any taxes last year, according to the Washington-based Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.

The research group said these companies should have paid a collective $16.4 billion in federal income taxes, but instead, with various legal deductions from their income, received a net tax rebate of $4.3 billion.

It reported that among the 60 profitable U.S. corporations paying no federal income taxes last year were some of the country’s best known businesses, including General Motors, Amazon, Chevron, Netflix, Delta Air Lines, IBM, Goodyear Tire & Rubber, and Eli Lilly.

 

Trump Belittles Report He Lost More Than $1 Billion in 1980s and ’90s

U.S. President Donald Trump on Wednesday belittled a report that he lost more than $1 billion as a New York real estate mogul between 1985 and 1994, claiming it was “sport” for developers to write off such losses to legally avoid paying federal taxes.

In a pair of tweets, the president called the report in The New York Times “very old information … a highly inaccurate Fake News hit job!” but did not dispute that he avoided paying federal income taxes in eight of the 10 years in question.

“Real estate developers in the 1980’s & 1990’s, more than 30 years ago, were entitled to massive write offs and depreciation which would, if one was actively building, show losses and tax losses in almost all cases,” Trump said. “Much was non monetary. Sometimes considered “tax shelter,…” you would get it by building, or even buying. You always wanted to show losses for tax purposes….almost all real estate developers did – and often re-negotiate with banks, it was sport.”

As he ran for the presidency in 2016 and since assuming power, Trump has often portrayed himself as a successful entrepreneur worth billions of dollars. But unlike U.S. presidents for the last four decades, he has balked at voluntarily disclosing his personal federal income tax returns.

He wrote a best-selling book, “Trump: The Art of the Deal,” but the newspaper called his financial dealings three decades ago a “Decade in the Red,” and “The Art of Losing Money.”

The Times said that in the 10-year period in question Trump lost more money year after year than any other U.S. taxpayer. The newspaper did not use the actual returns for its report but instead used information provided by someone who had access to the documents.

The bulk of Trump’s losses during that period came from his core businesses, including hotels, casinos and retail space inside apartment buildings.

They also include failed investments in an airline, a professional football team and unfinished plans for real estate developments.

According to the Times, Trump was able to maintain a life of luxury all those years because most of his money came from banks and bond holders who invested in the Trump empire. Trump also relied on his father’s wealth, according to the report.

But it appears Trump did not break any federal laws because the U.S. tax code allows people to deduct substantial business losses from their income, cutting their tax bills to little or nothing.

One of the president’s lawyers, Charles Harder, told the newspaper that the tax information it used was “demonstrably false.”

“IRS (Internal Revenue Service) transcripts, particularly before the days of electronic filing, are notoriously inaccurate … would not be able to provide a reasonable picture of any taxpayer’s return,” he told the Times.

Opposition Democratic lawmakers in the House of Representatives are trying to get their hands on Trump’s tax returns from 2013 to 2018 as part of their investigation into the president’s foreign business deals.

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin has so far declined, saying the request has no “legitimate legislative purpose.”

Disclosure of Trump’s tax returns is one of several current legislative oversight disputes the majority bloc of House Democrats is waging with Trump and his administration. Several panels are seeking background information uncovered by special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Trump campaign links to Russia in 2016 and whether Trump, as president, obstructed justice by trying to thwart Mueller’s probe.

House Democrats are threatening to hold key Trump administration officials in contempt of Congress for failing to turn over information or to testify about their actions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Trump Belittles Report He Lost More Than $1 Billion in 1980s and ’90s

U.S. President Donald Trump on Wednesday belittled a report that he lost more than $1 billion as a New York real estate mogul between 1985 and 1994, claiming it was “sport” for developers to write off such losses to legally avoid paying federal taxes.

In a pair of tweets, the president called the report in The New York Times “very old information … a highly inaccurate Fake News hit job!” but did not dispute that he avoided paying federal income taxes in eight of the 10 years in question.

“Real estate developers in the 1980’s & 1990’s, more than 30 years ago, were entitled to massive write offs and depreciation which would, if one was actively building, show losses and tax losses in almost all cases,” Trump said. “Much was non monetary. Sometimes considered “tax shelter,…” you would get it by building, or even buying. You always wanted to show losses for tax purposes….almost all real estate developers did – and often re-negotiate with banks, it was sport.”

As he ran for the presidency in 2016 and since assuming power, Trump has often portrayed himself as a successful entrepreneur worth billions of dollars. But unlike U.S. presidents for the last four decades, he has balked at voluntarily disclosing his personal federal income tax returns.

He wrote a best-selling book, “Trump: The Art of the Deal,” but the newspaper called his financial dealings three decades ago a “Decade in the Red,” and “The Art of Losing Money.”

The Times said that in the 10-year period in question Trump lost more money year after year than any other U.S. taxpayer. The newspaper did not use the actual returns for its report but instead used information provided by someone who had access to the documents.

The bulk of Trump’s losses during that period came from his core businesses, including hotels, casinos and retail space inside apartment buildings.

They also include failed investments in an airline, a professional football team and unfinished plans for real estate developments.

According to the Times, Trump was able to maintain a life of luxury all those years because most of his money came from banks and bond holders who invested in the Trump empire. Trump also relied on his father’s wealth, according to the report.

But it appears Trump did not break any federal laws because the U.S. tax code allows people to deduct substantial business losses from their income, cutting their tax bills to little or nothing.

One of the president’s lawyers, Charles Harder, told the newspaper that the tax information it used was “demonstrably false.”

“IRS (Internal Revenue Service) transcripts, particularly before the days of electronic filing, are notoriously inaccurate … would not be able to provide a reasonable picture of any taxpayer’s return,” he told the Times.

Opposition Democratic lawmakers in the House of Representatives are trying to get their hands on Trump’s tax returns from 2013 to 2018 as part of their investigation into the president’s foreign business deals.

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin has so far declined, saying the request has no “legitimate legislative purpose.”

Disclosure of Trump’s tax returns is one of several current legislative oversight disputes the majority bloc of House Democrats is waging with Trump and his administration. Several panels are seeking background information uncovered by special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Trump campaign links to Russia in 2016 and whether Trump, as president, obstructed justice by trying to thwart Mueller’s probe.

House Democrats are threatening to hold key Trump administration officials in contempt of Congress for failing to turn over information or to testify about their actions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

House Committee to Vote to Hold Attorney General in Contempt

VOA’s White House correspondent Patsy Widakuswara contributed to this report.

The U.S. House Judiciary Committee was due to vote Wednesday on holding hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt of Congress over the Justice Department’s refusal to provide an unredacted copy of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report on his investigation of Russian election interference.

Before the vote was held, the White House said President Donald Trump has “no other option than to make a protective assertion of executive privilege” over the materials the committee asked for in its subpoena, due to what Press Secretary Sarah Sanders called a “blatant abuse of power” by committee chairman Rep. Jerrold Nadler.

“The American people see through Chairman Nadler’s desperate ploy to distract from the President’s historically successful agenda and our booming economy. Neither the White House nor Attorney General Barr will comply with Chairman Nadler’s unlawful and reckless demands,” Sanders said in a statement.

Committee leaders and Justice Department officials had met Tuesday to try to resolve their dispute, but the two sides each issued statements late in the day indicating they remained far apart.

The Justice Department’s positions came in the form of a letter to Nadler from Assistant Attorney General Stephen Boyd who accused Nadler’s committee of making “unreasonable demands” and provoking “an unnecessary conflict between our respective branches of government.”

Boyd said the Justice Department had acted within the law and regulations by offering a copy of the Mueller report “with as few redactions as possible,” but said committee leaders escalated the dispute by demanding all committee members be allowed to review that version, something he said would “risk violating court orders” in some ongoing cases.

Nadler in his statement said the White House had long ago waived its executive privilege over the materials requested in the subpoena, which include not only the full Mueller report but also the underlying documents from the investigation of Russia’s interference with the 2016 election, whether members of Trump’s campaign colluded with Russia, and whether the president obstructed justice.

If the Democrat-controlled Judiciary Committee approves the contempt citation for the attorney general, it would be taken up by the full House of Representatives. In theory, someone held in contempt could eventually be tried and, if convicted, face up to a year in prison. The Justice Department rarely pursues such referrals from Congress.

Nadler’s committee is also considering whether to hold Donald McGahn, the former White House counsel, in contempt of Congress if he refuses to testify before the committee later this month about the Mueller probe.

McGahn on Tuesday refused to comply with a subpoena for documents related to the investigation.  The White House had demanded he ignore the subpoena, and his lawyer said the documents were property of the White House and as such McGahn had no right to them.

Barr last month released a redacted copy of the Mueller report, with the prosecutor concluding neither Trump nor his campaign colluded with Russia, but reached no conclusion whether Trump, as president, obstructed justice during the 22-month investigation.  Barr decided the findings did not warrant obstruction charges against the president.

In an online statement under the name DOJ Alumni, more than 700 former federal prosecutors, so far, who worked in Republican and Democratic administrations said evidence Mueller uncovered would have resulted in obstruction charges against Trump, were it not for the long-standing Justice Department policy that a sitting president cannot be charged with a criminal offense.

U.S. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell says it is time for lawmakers to move on from the Russia investigation.

But top Democratic leaders immediately disputed McConnell. Senate Democratic leader Charles Schumer called McConnell’s remarks “an astounding bit of whitewashing,” while House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, “That’s just not a fact. The case is not closed.”

Waymo, Lyft Take on Uber with Rides in Self-Driving Car

Google’s self-driving car spinoff, Waymo, is teaming up with Lyft in Arizona to attempt to lure passengers away from ride-hailing market leader Uber.

The alliance announced Tuesday will allow anyone with the Lyft app in the Phoenix area to summon one of the 10 self-driving Waymo cars that will join the ride-hailing service by end of September.

Waymo’s robotic vehicles will still have a human behind the wheel to take control in case something goes awry with the technology. But their use in Lyft’s service could make more people feel comfortable about riding in self-driving cars.

Self-driving to a profit

Both Lyft and Uber consider self-driving cars to be one of the keys to turning a profit, something neither company has done so far. Meanwhile, Waymo has been slowly expanding its own ride-hailing service in the Phoenix area that so far has been confined to passengers who previously participated in free tests of its self-driving technology.

“We’re committed to continuously improving our customer experience, and our partnership with Lyft will also give our teams the opportunity to collect valuable feedback,” Waymo CEO John Krafcik wrote in a blog post.

Lyft President John Zimmer described the Waymo partnership as “phenomenal” in a Tuesday conference call. Uber didn’t respond to a request for comment.

The new threat to Uber is emerging as the San Francisco company pursues an initial public offering of stock that could raise $9 billion when the deal is completed later this week. Lyft raked in more than $2 billion in its own IPO in March, only to see its stock fall nearly 20% below its offering price amid concerns about its ability to make money, a challenge magnified by another loss of $1.1 billion during the first three months of the year.

Waymo invests in both

Waymo’s corporate parent, Alphabet Inc., is in line to be among the biggest winners in Uber’s IPO just as it was in the Lyft IPO. Alphabet owns a 5% stake in Uber that will be worth as much as $3.6 billion if Uber realizes its goal of selling its stock for as much as $50 per share. It also holds a 5% stake in Lyft that is currently worth $761 million.

Despite their financial ties, Waymo and Uber have had an acrimonious relationship since becoming entangled in a thorny case of alleged high-tech theft.

Waymo accused Uber of orchestrating a scheme to steal some of its autonomous driving technology. That came after Uber’s former CEO Travis Kalanick began to suspect Waymo was planning to use its self-driving cars in a rival ride-hailing service.

The two sides settled that dispute last year in a deal that required Uber to give Alphabet another bundle of stock that was worth $245 million at the time the truce was reached.

The agreement also requires Uber to submit to reviews by a software expert to ensure it isn’t misusing any of Waymo’s technology in its effort to build its own self-driving cars, a process that recently uncovered some potentially “problematic” issues, according to discloses made as part of Uber’s IPO. Uber warned the problems could require it to pay a licensing fee to Waymo or delay its efforts to introduce self-driving cars in its service.

Wall Street Slips as US-China Trade Fears Rise

U.S. stocks slid Tuesday as escalating trade tensions between the United States and China triggered global growth fears and drove investors away from riskier assets.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average posted its second-biggest daily percentage drop of the year, while the S&P 500 and Nasdaq registered their third-biggest percentage drops, even as the major indexes pared losses to end off their session lows.

U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said late Monday that China had backtracked from commitments made during trade negotiations. Those comments followed President Donald Trump’s unexpected statement Sunday that he would raise tariffs on $200 billion worth of Chinese goods to 25 percent from 10 percent.

Beijing said Tuesday that Chinese Vice Premier Liu He will visit the United States Thursday and Friday for trade talks. Additional tariffs are set to take effect Friday if a trade agreement is not reached by then.

Investor concerns

Monday’s comments from Lighthizer and Mnuchin raised concerns among some investors that trade talks between China and the United States could take much longer to resolve than previously thought.

“Week after week, we’ve heard there has been progress and that a deal would be reached,” said Kate Warne, investment strategist at Edward Jones in St. Louis. “Now the goalposts have moved. There’s been quite a shift in expectations.”

Investors expressed concern that additional tariffs, if imposed, could interrupt supply chains and hamper economic growth.

“The threat of tariffs has not been trotted out since the end of December,” said Kim Forrest, chief investment officer at Bokeh Capital Partners in Pittsburgh. “It could disrupt the symbiosis between (China and the United States).”

Stocks sensitive to trade 

Trade-sensitive industrial and technology stocks marked the biggest percentage declines among the S&P 500’s major sectors. All 11 sectors were in the red, with only utilities and energy falling less than 1%.

Shares of Boeing Co., the largest U.S. exporter to China, slipped 3.9%, and shares of Caterpillar Inc., another industrial stalwart sensitive to China, declined 2.3%.

Among technology stocks, Microsoft Inc. shares slid 2.1%, while Apple Inc. shares dropped 2.7%. Apple and Microsoft were the top two drags on the S&P 500.

The CBOE Volatility Index, a gauge of investor anxiety, spiked to its highest level in more than three months.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 473.39 points, or 1.79%, to 25,965.09, the S&P 500 lost 48.42 points, or 1.65%, to 2,884.05 and the Nasdaq Composite dropped 159.53 points, or 1.96%, to 7,963.76.

Bright spots

In a bright spot, American International Group Inc. shares jumped 6.8% after the insurer reported a quarterly profit that blew past expectations.

With earnings season now in its homestretch, first-quarter profits are now expected to rise 1.2%, a sharp improvement from the 2.3% decline expected at the start of the earnings season.

Of the 414 S&P companies that have reported earnings so far, about 75% have surpassed analysts’ estimates, according to Refinitiv data.

Conversely, Mylan NV shares tumbled 23.8%, the most among S&P 500 companies, after the drugmaker reported lower-than-expected quarterly revenue and failed to provide greater clarity on a potential revamp of the company’s strategy.

Declining issues outnumbered advancing ones on the NYSE by a 4.13-to-1 ratio; on Nasdaq, a 3.32-to-1 ratio favored decliners. The S&P 500 posted four new 52-week highs and seven new lows; the Nasdaq Composite recorded 44 new highs and 62 new lows.

Volume on U.S. exchanges was 7.8 billion shares, compared to the 6.71 billion average for the full session over the last 20 trading days.

Wall Street Slips as US-China Trade Fears Rise

U.S. stocks slid Tuesday as escalating trade tensions between the United States and China triggered global growth fears and drove investors away from riskier assets.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average posted its second-biggest daily percentage drop of the year, while the S&P 500 and Nasdaq registered their third-biggest percentage drops, even as the major indexes pared losses to end off their session lows.

U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said late Monday that China had backtracked from commitments made during trade negotiations. Those comments followed President Donald Trump’s unexpected statement Sunday that he would raise tariffs on $200 billion worth of Chinese goods to 25 percent from 10 percent.

Beijing said Tuesday that Chinese Vice Premier Liu He will visit the United States Thursday and Friday for trade talks. Additional tariffs are set to take effect Friday if a trade agreement is not reached by then.

Investor concerns

Monday’s comments from Lighthizer and Mnuchin raised concerns among some investors that trade talks between China and the United States could take much longer to resolve than previously thought.

“Week after week, we’ve heard there has been progress and that a deal would be reached,” said Kate Warne, investment strategist at Edward Jones in St. Louis. “Now the goalposts have moved. There’s been quite a shift in expectations.”

Investors expressed concern that additional tariffs, if imposed, could interrupt supply chains and hamper economic growth.

“The threat of tariffs has not been trotted out since the end of December,” said Kim Forrest, chief investment officer at Bokeh Capital Partners in Pittsburgh. “It could disrupt the symbiosis between (China and the United States).”

Stocks sensitive to trade 

Trade-sensitive industrial and technology stocks marked the biggest percentage declines among the S&P 500’s major sectors. All 11 sectors were in the red, with only utilities and energy falling less than 1%.

Shares of Boeing Co., the largest U.S. exporter to China, slipped 3.9%, and shares of Caterpillar Inc., another industrial stalwart sensitive to China, declined 2.3%.

Among technology stocks, Microsoft Inc. shares slid 2.1%, while Apple Inc. shares dropped 2.7%. Apple and Microsoft were the top two drags on the S&P 500.

The CBOE Volatility Index, a gauge of investor anxiety, spiked to its highest level in more than three months.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 473.39 points, or 1.79%, to 25,965.09, the S&P 500 lost 48.42 points, or 1.65%, to 2,884.05 and the Nasdaq Composite dropped 159.53 points, or 1.96%, to 7,963.76.

Bright spots

In a bright spot, American International Group Inc. shares jumped 6.8% after the insurer reported a quarterly profit that blew past expectations.

With earnings season now in its homestretch, first-quarter profits are now expected to rise 1.2%, a sharp improvement from the 2.3% decline expected at the start of the earnings season.

Of the 414 S&P companies that have reported earnings so far, about 75% have surpassed analysts’ estimates, according to Refinitiv data.

Conversely, Mylan NV shares tumbled 23.8%, the most among S&P 500 companies, after the drugmaker reported lower-than-expected quarterly revenue and failed to provide greater clarity on a potential revamp of the company’s strategy.

Declining issues outnumbered advancing ones on the NYSE by a 4.13-to-1 ratio; on Nasdaq, a 3.32-to-1 ratio favored decliners. The S&P 500 posted four new 52-week highs and seven new lows; the Nasdaq Composite recorded 44 new highs and 62 new lows.

Volume on U.S. exchanges was 7.8 billion shares, compared to the 6.71 billion average for the full session over the last 20 trading days.