WASHINGTON: Three of Beijing’s outposts on contested South China Sea reefs are close to being ready for the deployment of military assets including mobile missile launchers, a US think tank reported Thursday.
Analizing satellite photographs, the Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative said Beijing’s Fiery Cross Reef base in the Spratly Islands now has 12 hardened shelters, four more than seen in February, with retractable roofs that can house missile launchers.
At Fiery Cross, Subi and Mischief Reef bases, China has expanded its communications and radar arrays with multiple radar towers on each.
And new construction of “very large underground structures, four at each reef, is underway, which AMTI said a likely designed to house munitions and other essential goods.
“Major construction of military and dual-use infrastructure on the ‘Big 3’ ... is wrapping up, with the naval, air, radar and defensive facilities that AMTI has tracked for nearly two years largely complete,” the group said.
“Beijing can now deploy military assets, including combat aircraft and mobile missile launchers to the Spratly Islands at any time.”
AMTI, part of the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank in Washington, said the air bases on the three islands, and a fourth on Woody Island in the Paracel Islands, allow Chinese military aircraft to operate over almost the entirety of the South China Sea.
In December AMTI reported that large anti-aircraft guns and other defense systems had been installed ont he islands.
China claims nearly all of the South China Sea despite partial counter-claims from Taiwan, the Philippines, Brunei, Malaysia and Vietnam.
But the United States has warned it against militarizing the region or threatening international sea lanes.
“We oppose China’s artificial island construction and their militarization that features in international waters,” US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said in Sydney in early June.
Beijing’s South China Sea outposts nearly set for missile deployment: report
Beijing’s South China Sea outposts nearly set for missile deployment: report
Biden issues preemptive pardons for family and Trump targets Cheney, Milley, Fauci
- Biden’s last pardons included his siblings — James Biden, Frank Biden and Valerie Biden Owens — as well as their spouses, John Owens and Sara Biden
WASHINGTON: Outgoing President Joe Biden issued preemptive pardons on Monday for several of his immediate family members and people that incoming President Donald Trump has targeted for retaliation, including Republican former lawmaker Liz Cheney and Mark Milley, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
The pardons, issued in Biden’s last hours as president, cover the select committee that investigated the Jan. 6, 2021, storming of the US Capitol by Trump supporters, as well as all lawmakers, including Cheney, who served on the congressional committee and police officers who testified before it. They also covered Anthony Fauci, who served as White House chief medical adviser during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Just before he handed over the office to Trump on Monday, Biden also pardoned five members of his family, saying he wanted to protect them from politically motivated investigations.
He also commuted the life sentence imposed on Native American activist Leonard Peltier, over the objections of his own law enforcement officials including his FBI director. Peltier will serve the remainder of his sentence in home confinement.
Trump, who was sworn in as president at noon, has repeatedly called for the prosecution of his perceived enemies since winning the White House in November.
Biden praised public servants as the “lifeblood of our democracy.” Without mentioning Trump, he expressed alarm that some of them were subjected to threats and intimidation for doing their job.
“These public servants have served our nation with honor and distinction and do not deserve to be the targets of unjustified and politically motivated prosecutions,” Biden said in a statement.
Biden’s last pardons included his siblings — James Biden, Frank Biden and Valerie Biden Owens — as well as their spouses, John Owens and Sara Biden.
“My family has been subjected to unrelenting attacks and threats, motivated solely by a desire to hurt me — the worst kind of partisan politics,” Biden said. “Unfortunately, I have no reason to believe these attacks will end.”
Speaking at the Capitol after his swearing-in, Trump questioned Biden’s pardons of Cheney and Milley, referring to “pardons of people that were very, very guilty of very bad crimes, like the unselect committee of political thugs.”
“I think it was unfortunate that he did that,” Trump said of Biden’s last-minute pardons of his family members.
In December, Biden pardoned his son Hunter after repeatedly saying he would not. Hunter is a recovering drug addict who became a target of Republicans and pleaded guilty to tax violations and was convicted on firearms-related charges.
Biden commuted the life sentence imposed Peltier, 80, who has been imprisoned for nearly five decades for the 1975 killings of two FBI agents. The move came over long-time FBI opposition.
Former FBI director Christopher Wray sent Biden a letter on Jan. 10 expressing his “vehement and steadfast opposition” to the commutation of Peltier’s sentence. “Granting Peltier any relief from his conviction or sentence is wholly unjustified and would be an affront to the rule of law,” Wray said.
The US Constitution gives a president broad pardon powers for federal offenses. While pardons are typically given to people who have been prosecuted, they can cover conduct that has not resulted in legal proceedings.
Trump in December backed a call for the FBI to investigate Cheney over her role in leading Congress’ probe of the Jan. 6 assault.
Cheney and Democratic Representative Bennie Thompson, the committee’s vice chairs, expressed gratitude to Biden for recognizing the threats and harassment they and their families have endured.
“We have been pardoned today not for breaking the law but for upholding it,” they said in a statement.
Fauci often clashed with Trump during the pandemic, and Trump’s supporters have continued to attack the former senior health official.
Fauci told Reuters the White House had reached out about the issue a month ago and he had not sought the pardon. “I appreciate the president reaching out and trying to protect me from baseless accusations,” Fauci said. “I’ve done nothing wrong and this is no admission of any guilt.”
Milley, who was Trump’s top military adviser between 2019 and early 2021, said in a statement he was “deeply grateful” for Biden’s pardon.
‘EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES’
Trump’s rivalry with Milley ran deep.
In the aftermath of the Jan. 6 attack, Milley called Beijing to reassure China of US stability. Trump, in a social media post, described the phone call as “an act so egregious that, in times gone by, the punishment would have been DEATH.”
Some of Trump’s supporters, seeing Milley as disloyal, demanded he be called back to active duty and tried for treason.
Milley took a veiled jab at Trump during his 2023 retirement speech, saying US troops take an oath to the US Constitution and not a “wannabe dictator.”
Trump later in the day lashed out at him with a series of insults, calling Milley “slow moving and thinking” and a “moron.”
Milley was quoted in the book “War” by Bob Woodward, published last year, calling Trump “fascist to the core.” Trump’s allies have targeted him for perceived disloyalty to Trump.
Reuters reported in November that the Trump transition team was drawing up a list of military officers to be fired, citing perceived connections to Milley.
Pete Hegseth, Trump’s pick to lead the Pentagon, repeatedly lashed out at Milley in his latest book, using profanities.
Biden praised both Milley and Fauci as longtime dedicated public servants who have defended democracy and saved lives. He said the select committee established to investigate the Jan. 6 attack had fulfilled its mission with integrity.
Without identifying the individuals, he pardoned all members of Congress who served on the panel, their staff and the US Capitol and Washington, D.C., police officers who testified before the committee.
Biden said that those pardoned had done nothing wrong, but that simply being investigated or prosecuted could harm reputations and finances.
“I believe in the rule of law, and I am optimistic that the strength of our legal institutions will ultimately prevail over politics,” he said. “But these are exceptional circumstances, and I cannot in good conscience do nothing.”
A look at false and misleading claims Trump made during his inaugural address
- The average price of basic consumer goods has seen major spikes in recent years. For example, a dozen large eggs went from a low of $1.33 in August 2020 to $4.82 in January 2023
WASHINGTON: In his first address after being sworn in on Monday, President Donald Trump repeated several false and misleading statements that he made during his campaign. They included claims about immigration, the economy, electric vehicles and the Panama Canal. Here’s a look at the facts.
Trump repeats unfounded claim about immigrants
CLAIM: Trump, a Republican, said that the US government “fails to protect our magnificent, law-abiding American citizens but provides sanctuary and protection for dangerous criminals, many from prisons and mental institutions that have illegally entered our country from all over the world.”
THE FACTS: There is no evidence other countries are sending their criminals or mentally ill across the border.
Trump frequently brought up this claim during his most recent campaign.
Inflation did not reach record highs under Biden
CLAIM: “I will direct all members of my Cabinet to marshal the vast powers at their disposal to defeat what was record inflation and rapidly bring down costs and prices.”
THE FACTS: Inflation peaked at 9.1 percent in June 2022 after rising steadily in the first 17 months of Democrat Joe Biden’s presidency from a low of 0.1 percent in May 2020. The most recent data shows that as of December it had fallen to 2.9 percent.
Other historical periods have seen higher inflation, such as a more than 14 percent rate in 1980, according to the Federal Reserve.
The average price of basic consumer goods has seen major spikes in recent years. For example, a dozen large eggs went from a low of $1.33 in August 2020 to $4.82 in January 2023. They decreased in price to $2.07 in September 2023 but are currently on the rise again, at $4.15 as of December, partly attributable to a lingering outbreak of bird flu coinciding with high demand during the holiday baking season.
A gallon of whole milk rose to a high of $4.22 in November 2022, up from $2.25 at the start of Biden’s term. As of December, it was at $4.10.
Gasoline fell as low as $1.77 a gallon under Trump. But that price dip happened during coronavirus pandemic lockdowns when few people were driving. The low prices were due to a global health crisis, not Trump’s policies.
Under Biden, gasoline rose to a high of $5.06 in June 2022. It has since been on a downward trend, at $3.15 as of December.
Promise of an External Revenue Service to collect tariffs
CLAIM: Promising to establish an External Revenue Service to collect “all tariffs, duties, and revenues,” Trump said, “It will be massive amounts of money pouring into our Treasury, coming from foreign sources.”
THE FACTS: Nearly all economists point out that American consumers will pay at least part, if not most, of the cost of the tariffs. Some exporters overseas may accept lower profits to offset some of the cost of the duties, and the dollar will likely rise in value compared with the currencies of the countries facing tariffs, which could also offset some of the impact.
But the tariffs won’t have the desired impact of spurring more production in the US unless they make foreign-made products more expensive for US consumers.
In addition, many of Trump’s supporters, and even some of his appointees, argue that he intends to use tariffs primarily as a bargaining tool to extract concessions from other countries. Yet if an External Revenue Service is established, it certainly suggests Trump is expecting to impose and collect many duties.
Calls for revocation of EV mandate that doesn’t exist
CLAIM: “We will revoke the electric vehicle mandate, saving the auto industry and keeping my sacred pledge to our great American autoworkers.”
THE FACTS: It’s misleading to claim that such a mandate exists. In April 2023, the Environmental Protection Agency announced strict limits on greenhouse gas emissions from passenger vehicles. The agency says these limits could be met if 67 percent of new-vehicle sales are electric by 2032.
And yet, the new rule would not require automakers to boost electric vehicle sales directly. It sets emissions limits and allows automakers to choose how to meet them.
In 2019, Kamala Harris co-sponsored a bill as a US senator called the Zero-Emission Vehicles Act that would have required 100 percent of new passenger vehicles sold to be zero-emission by 2040. The bill, which stalled in committee, did not ban ownership of vehicles that produce emissions.
China does not operate the Panama Canal
CLAIM: Discussing his desire for the US to take back the Panama Canal: “American ships are being severely overcharged and not treated fairly in any way, shape or form, and that includes the United States Navy. And, above all, China is operating the Panama Canal.”
THE FACTS: Officials in Panama have denied Trump’s claims that China is operating the canal and that the US is being overcharged. Ricaurte Vásquez, administrator of the canal, said in an interview with The Associated Press that “there’s no discrimination in the fees.”
“The price rules are uniform for absolutely all those who transit the canal and clearly defined,” he said.
He also said China was not operating the canal. He noted Chinese companies operating in the ports on either end of the canal were part of a Hong Kong consortium that won a bidding process in 1997. He added that US and Taiwanese companies are operating other ports along the canal as well.
Vásquez stressed that the canal can’t give special treatment to US-flagged ships because of a neutrality treaty. He said requests for exceptions are routinely rejected, because the process is clear and there mustn’t be arbitrary variations. The only exception in the neutrality treaty is for American warships, which receive expedited passage.
Trump, complaining about rising charges for ships transiting the canal, has refused to rule out the use of military force to seize control of the canal.
The United States built the canal in the early 1900s as it looked for ways to facilitate the transit of commercial and military vessels between its coasts. Washington relinquished control of the waterway to Panama on Dec. 31, 1999, under a treaty signed in 1977 by President Jimmy Carter, a Democrat.
Melania Trump brings steely fashion game back to Washington
- American first ladies don’t get much of a voice — but their sartorial choices are broadcast to the world and scrutinized for subtext and statements
WASHINGTON: Where in the world is Melania Trump? Back in Washington in a sharply tailored outfit that exudes international woman of mystery as her husband once again becomes president of the United States.
Wearing a long navy coat and matching wide-brimmed hat — which shielded her eyes in most photos and hindered her commander-in-chief husband’s attempts to give her a peck before his swearing-in — Melania’s fit drew snark on social media and a flurry of comparisons to a 1980s video game character.
“Where in the world is Carmen Sandiego?” quipped the Internet, referring to the franchise that spun off into a popular 1990s geography game show for kids, and featured a criminal mastermind dressed in a long, carmine trench coat and eye-obscuring fedora.
Melania Trump’s coat and skirt were silk wool Adam Lippes, an independent American designer based in New York, an ensemble paired with an ivory blouse tightly wrapped at the Slovenian-born former model’s neck.
“The tradition of the presidential inauguration embodies the beauty of American democracy and today we had the honor to dress our first lady, Mrs. Melania Trump,” said Lippes in a statement that emphasized American manufacturing over political ideology.
“Mrs. Trump’s outfit was created by some of America’s finest craftsmen and I take great pride in showing such work to the world.”
The hat was by New York milliner Eric Javits.
“She cut the figure of a mafia widow or high-ranking member of an obscure religious order, and a bit of ‘My Fair Lady,’ wrote Rachel Tashjian, style critic for The Washington Post.
American first ladies don’t get much of a voice — but their sartorial choices are broadcast to the world and scrutinized for subtext and statements.
The late Rosalynn Carter, for example, drew strong reactions by wearing a dress she had already worn — gasp! — when her husband Jimmy was inaugurated in 1977.
The point was to show empathy for the economic struggles of Americans — but sometimes what the people really want is aspirational glamor.
In recent years first ladies have routinely turned to independent designers for inaugural events: in 2021, Jill Biden wore a sparkling blue coat-and-dress combo by Markarian, a small brand in New York.
Michelle Obama made waves in 2009 in a lemon-colored outfit by Isabel Toledo, wearing Thom Browne at her husband’s second swearing-in. She wore gowns by Jason Wu to both series of inaugural balls.
Melania Trump, for her part, channeled Jackie Kennedy to kick off her first turn in the White House, wearing Ralph Lauren — a heritage-brand favorite on both sides of the political aisle — to the daytime events in 2017.
She swapped her powder-blue cashmere dress and matching asymmetrical bolero jacket with opera gloves for a silk crepe gown by Herve Pierre that year, both looks that signaled a sense of buoyancy as she began her new role as a political wife.
Her shadowy-chic 2025 look marks a sharp departure as she enters tenure two.
“For her second round as first lady, the fashion game — the tool she brandishes most often and most forcefully, even if the public sometimes struggles to divine her sartorial messages — is likely to be one of steely, precise armor, of clothes with brash and exacting tailoring,” wrote the Post’s Tashjian.
“For the past year, she has worn a wardrobe of mostly black, but this does not seem intended to make her disappear into the background.”
UK to hold inquiry after teenager admits murdering three girls in Southport
- Despite finding Al-Qaeda manual, police had said the incident was not being treated as terrorism-related, and his motive remains unknown
- In the wake of the murders, large disturbances broke out in Southport after false reports spread on social media that the suspect was a radical migrant
LONDON/LIVERPOOL: A British teenager unexpectedly pleaded guilty on Monday to murdering three young girls at a Taylor Swift-themed dance event last July, while the government said it would hold an inquiry into the atrocity which was followed by nationwide rioting.
Axel Rudakubana, 18, surprised the judge, prosecutors and police by admitting he had carried out the killings in the northern English town of Southport, making the trial that was about to start at Liverpool Crown Court unnecessary.
He also pleaded guilty to 10 charges of attempted murder relating to the attack, as well as to producing the deadly poison ricin and possessing an Al-Qaeda training manual.
Hours later, the government announced there would be a public inquiry, with Prime Minister Keir Starmer saying it was “a moment of trauma for the nation when there are grave questions to answer as to how the state failed in its ultimate duty to protect these young girls.”
Rudakubana had previously been referred to Prevent, a counter-radicalization scheme, three times, but no action had been taken and he had also been in contact with the police, the courts, and mental health services, the government said.
“It is clear that this was a young man with a sickening and sustained interest in death and violence,” said Ursula Doyle from the Crown Prosecution Service. “He has shown no signs of remorse.”
Rudakubana, who was 17 at the time of the incident, initially refused to speak when asked to confirm his name, as he had at all previous hearings, which meant that “not guilty” pleas had been entered on his behalf in December.
But after consulting with his lawyer, he admitted murdering Bebe King, 6, Elsie Dot Stancombe, 7, and Alice Dasilva Aguiar, 9, who were at the summer vacation event.
Doyle said he had carried out a “meticulously planned rampage” as innocent children enjoyed a carefree dance workshop and made friendship bracelets.
Judge Julian Goose said he would sentence Rudakubana on Thursday and that a life sentence was inevitable.
Anti-immigrant riots sparked across Britain
Rudakubana, who was born in Britain, was arrested shortly after the attack in the quiet seaside town north of Liverpool. Despite finding the Al-Qaeda manual, police had said the incident was not being treated as terrorism-related, and his motive remains unknown.
In the wake of the murders, large disturbances broke out in Southport after false reports spread on social media that the suspect was a radical migrant.
The unrest spread across Britain with attacks on mosques and hotels housing asylum seekers. Starmer blamed far-right thuggery and more than 1,500 people were arrested.
The Guardian newspaper reported that Rudakubana, the son of devout Christians who had moved to Britain from Rwanda, had been referred to Prevent over concerns that he was looking at online material about US school massacres and past terrorist attacks. But he was not judged to be a terrorism risk, the paper said.
The interior minister Yvette Cooper said an inquiry was needed so families of the victims “can get answers about how this terrible attack could take place and about why this happened to their children.”
Trump says to declare national emergency, use military at Mexico border
- Donald Trump: ‘First, I will declare a national emergency at our southern border’
- Trump: ‘I will send troops to the southern border to repel the disastrous invasion of our country’
WASHINGTON: Donald Trump said Monday that he will issue a raft of executive orders aimed at reshaping how the United States deals with citizenship and immigration.
The 47th president will set to work almost immediately with a series of presidential decrees intended to drastically reduce the number of migrants entering the country.
“First, I will declare a national emergency at our southern border,” Trump said minutes after his inauguration.
“All illegal entry will immediately be halted, and we will begin the process of returning millions and millions of criminal aliens back to the places from which they came.
“I will send troops to the southern border to repel the disastrous invasion of our country,” he said.
Trump, who campaigned on a platform of clamping down on migration and whose policies are popular with people who fret over changing demographics, also intends to put an end to the centuries-old practice of granting citizenship automatically to anyone born in the United States.
“We’re going to end asylum,” White House deputy press secretary Anna Kelly told reporters, and create “an immediate removal process without possibility of asylum. We are then going to end birthright citizenship.”
The notion of birthright citizenship is enshrined in the US Constitution, which grants anyone born on US soil the right to an American passport.
Kelly said the actions Trump takes would “clarify” the 14th Amendment — the clause that addresses birthright citizenship.
“Federal government will not recognize automatic birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens born in the United States,” she said.
The first effects of Trump’s hard-line stance on immigration became apparent minutes after Trump’s inauguration when an app unveiled under president Joe Biden to help process migrants went offline.
“Effective January 20, 2025, the functionalities of CBP One that previously allowed undocumented aliens to submit advance information and schedule appointments at eight southwest border ports of entry is no longer available, and existing appointments have been canceled,” said a notice on the landing page.
US media reported 30,000 people had appointments scheduled.
Kelly said the administration would also reinstate the “Remain in Mexico” policy that prevailed under the last Trump administration.
Under that rule, people who apply to enter the United States at the Mexican border were not allowed to enter the country until their application had been decided.
Kelly said Trump would seek to use the death penalty against non-citizens who commit capital crimes, such as murder.
“This is about national security. This is about public safety, and this is about the victims of some of the most violent, abusive criminals we’ve seen enter our country in our lifetime, and it ends today,” she said.
Many of Trump’s executive actions taken during his first term were rescinded under Biden, including one using so-called Title 42, which was implemented during the Covid pandemic preventing almost all entry to the country on public health grounds.
The changes under Biden led to an influx of people crossing into the United States and images of thousands of people packing the border area.
Trump frequently invoked dark imagery about how illegal migration was “poisoning the blood” of the nation, words that were seized upon by opponents as reminiscent of Nazi Germany.
While US presidents enjoy a range of powers, they are not unlimited. Analysts say any effort to alter birthright citizenship will be fraught.
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, said the 14th Amendment was “crystal clear” in granting citizenship to anyone born in the United States with the exception of children of foreign diplomats.
“We have had birthright citizenship for centuries, and a president cannot take it away with an executive order,” he told AFP. “We expect rapid court challenges.”
Reichlin-Malik said all sides of the immigration debate recognized that the laws needed reform, but presidential orders were unlikely to achieve lasting change.
Cris Ramon, immigration senior policy adviser at civil rights group UnidosUS, said the administration was “using a ‘throw spaghetti at the wall’ approach.”
“We don’t care whether this is legal or not,” he said of the apparent attitude. “We’re just simply going to do it and see if it survives the courts.”
