Authored by Neetu Arnold via RealClearPolitics,

The 2024 election season featured an unprecedented number of Asian Americans, from Vivek Ramaswamy’s rise in the Republican primary to soon-to-be second lady Usha Vance, to the Democratic candidate herself, Kamala Harris. Just a few years ago, this would have been a cause for celebration on the political left: Asian Americans have reliably voted for Democrats for decades. But the election results revealed that racial and ethnic minorities are not as loyal to the Democratic Party as previously believed. Much like Hispanics, Asian American voters made a major shift to the right.

Nationally, 2020 and 2024 exit polls from the Washington Post show a 9-point shift to the Republicans in the presidential race among Asian American voters relative to 2020. In some states, such as Nevada and Texas, the polls suggest that Trump won the Asian American vote outright. The NBC News exit poll found a 5-point shift to the right nationally among Asian Americans relative to 2020. And in their survey of Asian American voters prior to the election, Asian Americans Advancing Justice saw a 7-point shift away from the Democrats relative to 2020.

Exit polls are far from perfect measures of voting behavior, though. A spokesperson for APIAVote, a group that focuses on encouraging Asian American political engagement, pointed out when asked for comment that the exit polls may not be a “representative sample of the Asian American electorate.” For instance, the exit polls were not conducted in any Asian languages, which would preclude some Asian American voters with poor English skills from participating.

My analysis of precinct-level voting data in four major urban areas shows that the exit polls may actually be understating the degree to which Asian Americans shifted to the right. Using census data, I identified majority-Asian precincts in these areas and compared the Republican margin of victory (or loss) between the 2024 and 2020 elections. The results are much more stark: Majority-Asian precincts in New York City, for instance, saw a rightward shift of 31 percentage points. Precincts in Dallas and Fort Bend counties in Texas both saw rightward shifts between 17 and 20 points. And precincts in Chicago saw a 23-point shift to the right.

If the rightward shift among Asian American voters is real and significant, what is behind it?

When asked, neither APIAVote nor Asian Americans Advancing Justice were able to provide an explanation. But several Republican-leaning Asian American voters I spoke with were not surprised by the shift.

“I had so many [South] Asians, who are registered Democrats, let me know specifically that they voted for TRUMP this year,” South Asian Coalition Chairwoman for New Jersey’s Republican Party Priti Pandya-Patel said. “I believe most were always ‘closet Republicans’ and now they are starting to come out.”

The economy

The voters I spoke with repeatedly mentioned a few key reasons why they and others they knew voted for Trump this election. The first was a dissatisfaction with the Democrats’ handling of the economy, particularly inflation.

“Many of us expressed discontent towards Biden’s energy policies that skyrocketed the costs of grocery prices and gas prices,” Nevada voter Lisa Noeth said. “Las Vegas specifically is like an island in the middle of the desert, the increase of fuel costs trickled down to the pockets of consumers at the grocery stores with goods being transported from California to Las Vegas.”

Rudy Pamintuan, chief of staff for Nevada’s lieutenant governor, said inflation was tough on Asian American entrepreneurs. “Many households had to take an extra part-time job to make ends meet.”

The data backs up Noeth and Pamintuan’s perceptions. John Yang, president and executive director of Asian Americans Advancing Justice, said economic-related concerns, healthcare, and housing costs were some of the top issues the organization found in its 2024 survey of Asian Americans. And a July AAPI Data survey indicated that Asian Americans thought Republicans had a slight edge on handling inflation over Democrats.

Public safety

While voters across all racial and ethnic lines felt the impacts of inflation, Asian Americans grew dissatisfied with poor Democratic leadership on crime and safety in major cities. As disorder grew after the pandemic, Asian Americans soured on Democrats as they watched their quality of life decrease. Asra Nomani, author of “Woke Army,” said many Asian Americans felt “unprotected amid rising violence and harassment.”

In New York City, a 2023 survey found substantial portions of Asian Americans adopted some kind of “avoidance behavior” to deal with crime – 48% avoided going out late at night, and 41% avoided taking public transportation. Meanwhile, Democrat-run city governments have taken more relaxed approach to handling crime, even spending thousands of dollars to protect criminals by humanizing them as “justice-impacted individuals.”

“You only understand what you signed up for after they [Democrats] win and you have to put up with crime and squalor,” Pennsylvania voter Teesta Dasgupta said.

Asian Americans increasingly oppose soft-on-crime policies. The majority of Asian Americans in California supported the passage of Proposition 36, which imposes harsher penalties for certain types of crimes. A disproportionate Asian American voter base also recalled former San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin, who infamously declined to prosecute the murder of an elderly Thai immigrant as a hate crime and instead chalked it up to a “temper tantrum” of the perpetrator.

‘Wrong side of brown’

Asian American voters also told me that they were turned off by the Democrats’ racial equity policies. The Democratic Party heavily leaned into racial equity following George Floyd’s death and the riots that followed in 2020. Democrats made bold promises to reduce racial disparities in economic and other outcomes, arguing that current racial disparities are the result of decades of systemic discrimination that must be addressed. However, race-conscious policies like affirmative action often ended up pitting Asian Americans against other minority groups. For many Asian Americans, they end up on the “wrong side of brown,” as Nomani puts it.

Noeth told me that Asian American parents were “fed up” with affirmative action policies in school admissions. Sue Ghosh Stricklett, a former Trump administration appointee, said the Harvard affirmative action case and the removal of merit-based admissions at Thomas Jefferson High School in Virginia both “ignited passionate activism” among Asian American parents. In Fairfax County, Virginia, Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology changed its merit-based admissions policy in a bid to “decrease the representation of Asian Americans” in favor of other racial minorities.

“The injustice of being labeled as ‘privileged,’ ‘selfish,’ ‘cheaters,’ ‘overrepresented,’ ‘white adjacent,’ and ‘resource hoarders’ hurt very deeply,” Nomani, who is also a parent of a Thomas Jefferson graduate, said. It led to “political mobilization and a reconsideration of long-standing political loyalties.”

Is this a permanent shift?

According to the Asian Americans I spoke with, many factors will determine if the momentum remains.

Kenny Xu, author of “An Inconvenient Minority,” believes the growth to the right is limited.

“There is a definite ceiling in Asian American rightward support due to their highly educated demographics, and the tendency of highly educated people to vote Left.”

Dasgupta believes growth is dependent on messaging.

“If Dems move to the center, Asian Americans stay where they are right now but if the allegiance to gender ideology and soft on crime remains then they [Asian Americans] will move right.”

Pamintuan says engagement with Asian American voters “could make a difference between winning or losing” in tight races, particularly at the local level.

Time will tell if Asian Americans will fully shift right. But an alliance is emerging. And both Democrats and Republicans should pay attention.

Neetu Arnold is a Paulson Policy Analyst at the Manhattan Institute and a Young Voices contributor. Follow her on X @neetu_arnold

If you’re trying to implement green energy solutions in Asia, chances are you’re going to need to rely on China one way or another. 

Southeast Asia’s demand for renewable energy is rising, driven by tech manufacturing and data center growth, according to Nikkei. Solarvest, the region’s leading renewable energy provider, plans to capitalize on this boom by increasing imports from China, according to a local manager.

That manager told Nikkei: “We aim to invest more in the next couple of years. Buying equipment and components from Chinese suppliers, who have mastered the supply chain and solar tech, gives us the best opportunity to generate green energy with a price that is low enough to compete against fossil fuels.”

Through its Belt and Road Initiative, Beijing has extended its influence over power infrastructure in countries like Malaysia, Thailand, and Pakistan. However, the U.S. has criticized China for subsidizing manufacturers and underpricing goods, leading to tariffs and trade barriers.

The Nikkei report says that despite U.S. opposition, China maintains an edge with economies of scale and growing climate urgency. Solar energy, seen as the most accessible renewable source, attracted $500 billion in investment in 2024, surpassing all other energy types, according to the International Energy Agency.

Offshore wind projects take over eight years to complete, while solar plants can be built in under two, making solar a faster choice for companies transitioning to renewables, industry leaders told Nikkei.

This urgency is especially pronounced in emerging Asian economies like Malaysia and Thailand, which rely on fossil fuels but aim to attract tech giants like Apple and Google, committed to 100% renewable energy through the RE100 initiative.

China dominates the global solar energy market, housing leading players like Longi Green Energy, Tongwei, and Jinko Solar, as well as the top three inverter makers: Huawei, Sungrow, and Ginlong.

Despite efforts by the U.S. and India to localize production, China is projected to maintain over 80% of global photovoltaic manufacturing capacity by 2030, with its solar products costing 20-30% less than competitors, according to the IEA.

Analysts attribute China’s edge to its economic scale, advanced technology, and cost efficiency. Even as countries impose trade barriers to curb dependence on Chinese products, demand for China’s affordable solar solutions remains strong globally.

Companies like Foxconn highlight that Chinese solar energy rivals fossil fuels in cost, driving its adoption worldwide, particularly in markets eager to expand renewable energy capacity.

China’s dominance in solar wasn’t always guaranteed. In the 2000s, Japanese and Taiwanese firms led the photovoltaic industry, but China’s massive scale and government subsidies allowed it to outpace competitors.

Now, China controls over 90% of the solar supply chain, from polysilicon production to module manufacturing.

Indian billionaire Gautam Adani has been indicted in New York for ‘massive fraud’ and a ‘multi-billion dollar’ bribery scheme, according to multiple reports Wednesday afternoon. 

According to NBC, Gautam Adani and others are accused of paying over $250 million in bribes to Indian officials to secure solar energy contracts expected to yield $2 billion in profits over 20 years. Prosecutors allege Adani personally met with officials as part of the scheme.

Adani, his nephew Sagar Adani, and Vneet Jaain, both Adani Green Energy executives, also face wire and securities fraud charges for misleading U.S. investors and lenders to obtain funding, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Brooklyn stated.

U.S. Attorney Breon Peace commented: “The defendants orchestrated an elaborate scheme to bribe Indian government officials to secure contracts worth billions of dollars and Gautam S. Adani, Sagar R. Adani and Vneet S. Jaain lied about the bribery scheme as they sought to raise capital from U.S. and international investors.”

A DOJ press release reads: “These offenses were allegedly committed by senior executives and directors to obtain and finance massive state energy supply contracts through corruption and fraud at the expense of U.S. investors.  The Criminal Division will continue to aggressively prosecute corrupt, deceptive, and obstructive conduct that violates U.S. law, no matter where in the world it occurs.” 

“Gautam S. Adani and seven other business executives allegedly bribed the Indian government to finance lucrative contracts designed to benefit their businesses. Adani and other defendants also defrauded investors by raising capital on the basis of false statements about bribery and corruption, while still other defendants allegedly attempted to conceal the bribery conspiracy by obstructing the government’s investigation,” stated FBI Assistant Director in Charge Dennehy.  “The FBI maintains its steadfast mission to expose all corrupt agreements, especially with international governments, and protect investors from related harm.”

The indictment also charges former Azure Power executives Ranjit Gupta and Rupash Agarwal, along with three ex-employees of Canadian investor Caisse de Dépôt et Placement du Québec, with conspiring to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act as part of Adani’s bribery scheme.

U.S. short seller Hindenburg Research issued a report in early 2023 claiming Adani Group conducted a “brazen stock manipulation and accounting fraud scheme over the course of decades.” Hindenburg called Adani Group “the largest con in corporate history”. 

“Today we reveal the findings of our 2-year investigation, presenting evidence that the INR 17.8 trillion (US $218 billion) Indian conglomerate Adani Group has engaged in a brazen stock manipulation and accounting fraud scheme over the course of decades,” the report said in 2023. 

Adani “has amassed a net worth of roughly $120 billion, adding over $100 billion in the past 3 years largely through stock price appreciation in the group’s 7 key listed companies, which have spiked an average of 819% in that period,” the report said. 

Bloomberg provided a quick snapshot of Hindenburg’s main allegations at the time, many of which haven’t even been addressed in this indictment (yet?):

• Identified 38 Mauritius shell entities controlled by Adani’s brother, Vinod Adani, or his close associates plus entities controlled by him in other tax havens.
• The offshore shell network seems to be used for earnings manipulation
• Adani Group has previously been the focus of 4 major government investigations relating to allegations of fraud
• Adani Enterprises and Adani Total Gas Ltd. appear to be audited by a tiny firm, with no current website, only 4 partners and 11 employees which has audited just one other listed firm
• The auditor “hardly seems capable of complex audit work” when Adani Enterprises alone has 156 subsidiaries and many more joint ventures.

Hindenburg’s report initially led to a $50 billion selloff in Adani’s corporate empire. Adani, in response, called Hindenburg’s short report “bogus” and threatened legal action. At the time, Adani Group’s legal team released a statement that said it was exploring legal action against Hindenburg for its “maliciously mischievous, unresearched” report.

Then, Dan McCrum, famous for helping unveil the fraud at Wirecard, followed up in late 2023 stating Adani “appears to have imported billions of dollars of coal at prices well above market value”.

Adani called McCrum’s article a “renewed attempt” by the paper to “rehash old and baseless allegations to tarnish the name and standing” of the company. At the time they denied any wrongdoing and said the story was based on an “old, baseless allegation”, and is “a clever recycling and selective misrepresentation of publicly available facts and information”.

“Adani is attacking journalist Dan McCrum at the Financial Times (FT) over an upcoming article,” Hindenburg’s Anderson wrote late last year after Adani’s press release. “The last company that tried that was Wirecard, later found to be the largest fraud in German history.”

Huge Israeli airstrikes rocked the outskirts of the central Syrian city of Palmyra on Wednesday, with regional reports saying the attacks were launched by Israeli jets utilizing US-controlled airspace over Al-Tanf military base in eastern Syria. 

“Israeli warplanes launched a number of missiles from the airspace of the [US] base in the Al-Tanf area on the Syrian–Iraqi–Jordanian border, in the far southeastern countryside of Homs, targeting the vicinity of the city of Palmyra,” Sputnik’s correspondent reported.

Israeli attacks on Palmyra are rare, if not unheard of, given how deep into central Syria and the eastern desert the town lies. Al-Tanf base is located a little over 200km from Palmyra. The border base has been occupied by US forces for many years now.

Syrian state SANA has cited a large casualty count, reporting at least 36 dead and over 50 wounded. SANA reports, “At approximately 1:30 p.m. today, the Israeli enemy launched an air attack from the direction of al-Tanf area, targeting a number of buildings in Palmyra City in the Syrian Desert, led to the martyrdom of 36 people, the injury of more than 50 others, and significant material damage to the buildings and the surrounding area.”

Palmyra before the war attracted tourists from across the globe as it is known for its ancient Roman ruins, and is a UNESCO World Heritage site.

The iconic ruins and temples were partially damaged when the remote outpost was overrun by the Islamic State terror group in 2015, and many Syrian Army personnel were killed trying to defend it.

Syrian government forces with the help of Russian aerial support were able to get Palmyra back from ISIS by March 2016.

Russia and Syria have long accused American forces based out of Al-Tanf of training terrorists and facilitating their movements, in order to keep up pressure on Damascus.

As for Israel, recent months have seen a clear uptick in air raids on Syria, but these strikes on Palmyra appear to be the single deadliest this year.

Israel typically describes its operations as targeting ‘Iranian assets’; however, the Syrian government is saying that many among its territorial defense units as well as civilians were killed.

Authored by Jeremy Portnoy via RealClearInvestigations,

Topline: A recent inspector general audit of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s travel expenses found a slew of waste and potential fraud, including nearly $50,000 in unallowed first-class flights between 2020 and 2023.

Key facts: Federal law requires most government employees to fly economy class, with exceptions made for medical or security concerns. To fly first class, employees must submit a written explanation and obtain approval from their supervisor.

Workers at the commission only had proper approval for four of the 19 first-class flights that auditors reviewed. In one instance, an employee paid $12,535 for first class when a $1,134 business-class ticket was available

Some of the first-class trips were approved by employees who had no authority to do so, according to the audit. Others had no justification.

The commission also failed to remove access to travel charge cards for 37 employees that no longer work for the government. Auditors did not find any former employees who used their charge cards, but said there was a “risk” it could have happened.

Federal law requires that charge cards have credit limits of $10,000 to minimize spending and financial risk. Auditors found three commission cards with limits of up to $20,000, with no written explanation for the increase.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s agency-wide credit limit for travel also may be “too high,” increasing the risk for fraud, auditors said. The commission spent an average of $358,190 on travel each month last year, but is technically allowed to spend $5 million in a single month. 

The audit found three transactions on charge cards totaling $9,593 that appeared to be for items unrelated to government business, though further review is needed to confirm the “potential misuse.”

In total, employees put 161,816 charges worth $27 million on their travel charge cards from 2020 to 2023. Almost half of the transactions came last year.

Federal law requires employees to take a refresher course on charge card spending at least every three years. The NRC made the training voluntary and did not track attendance, auditors found.

Search all federal, state and local government salaries and vendor spending with the AI search bot, Benjamin, at OpenTheBooks.com. 

Summary: It’s a bit worrying that the agency tasked with ensuring the safety of nuclear reactors can’t handle the simple process of booking a flight.

The #WasteOfTheDay is brought to you by the forensic auditors at OpenTheBooks.com

Authored by Jill McLaughlin via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

California Supreme Court ruled on Nov. 15 to toss out the state’s lawsuit against Huntington Beach’s voter ID law, but they expect the state attorney general to continue fighting it.

“Honestly, it’s a great victory for Huntington Beach, and as I’ve said, I think it’s a black eye to the state,” City Attorney Michael Gates told The Epoch Times on Nov. 18.

The state could refile the lawsuit within 20 days, but Gates confirmed on Monday that the city is “moving forward with the voter ID program.”

The state’s Supreme Court dismissed a lawsuit brought in April by Attorney General Rob Bonta and California Secretary of State Shirley Weber. The lawsuit alleged that the Huntington Beach law passed by voters in March requiring voter ID starting in 2026 violated state election law.

Bonta and Weber also said it conflicted with a state law introduced by former state Sen. Dave Min of Irvine that banned local governments from requiring voter identification in elections.

Min, who is expected to win a seat in the U.S. House to replace former Rep. Katie Porter, introduced the law in February after the state threatened legal action against the city. Gov. Gavin Newsom signed it into law Sept. 29.

Huntington Beach’s request for the court’s dismissal was granted after justices considered the case on Thursday.

“The Court finds that this matter is not ripe for adjudication, as … the City’s Charter is permissive and discretionary in character, and thus currently presents no conflict with state elections law,” the state Supreme Court justices wrote in the order.

The Orange County city, located on the coast about 40 miles south of Los Angeles, is home to about 192,000 residents.

Huntington Beach’s voter ID requirement was an amendment to the city’s charter that voters approved on March 5. The amendment defines voters as citizens of the United States, residents of Huntington Beach, and at least 18 years old.

It also states that if a conflict between the city’s charter and California’s election code arises, the city’s charter “shall prevail.”

The city’s charter serves as a city’s constitution, outlining the local government’s powers and responsibilities.

Bonta and Weber issued a joint letter to the Huntington Beach City Council in September 2023, urging it to reconsider the voter ID amendment and threatened to fight it before the measure was placed on the ballot.

“If the City moves forward and places it on the ballot, we stand ready to take appropriate action to ensure that voters’ rights are protected and state laws are enforced,” they wrote in the letter.

Although Bonta included the new state law in its arguments to the Supreme Court, the court didn’t see a conflict, according to the city attorney.

The California Constitution states charter cities have local jurisdiction over local elections, Gates said.

“We’re invoking our constitutional right.”

Huntington Beach became a charter city in 1937, according to the city. It decided to adopt a charter to ensure the state did not interfere with the city’s affairs or intrude on its oil revenue.

Bonta claimed in a statement issued Sunday about the decision that existing law prohibited cities from implementing voter ID. He claimed the court would eventually side with the state.

Bonta asserts in the state lawsuit that under existing state law and Min’s Senate Bill 1174, all local governments—including charter cities like Huntington Beach—are prohibited from implementing voter ID requirements and local laws that conflict with state laws governing a “statewide concern,” he said in the statement.

“Let me be clear: that has not changed. We disagree with the court’s decision that it is too early to bring our lawsuit and remain confident in the strength of our case.”

The decision allows the state to file an amended lawsuit within 20 days. Bonta’s office did not return a request for comment on Monday about whether he planned to refile it.

The city doesn’t plan to back down, according to a statement by Huntington Beach Mayor Gracey Van Der Mark posted on Facebook Friday.

“This is a great day for our City—we have not only successfully defended our City’s Voter ID law but also the rights of our residents from attacks by Governor Newsom and the State. We will not back down and will continue to fight for the City,” Van Der Mark stated.

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg pushed Tuesday to create a new constitutional creature: the layaway president.

It was once common for stores to hold expensive items that you really wanted but could not make the payment.

So they were tagged and kept on the shelf until you were ready to redeem your item.

For Bragg, that leaves Donald Trump tagged until 2029.

In a filing before Manhattan Justice Juan Merchan, Bragg suggested that the court should stay the pending criminal case and defer any sentencing “until after the end of defendant’s upcoming presidential term.”

That would allow a city prosecutor to put a leash on a sitting president for four years.

Trump would govern by the grace of this local judge and district attorney.

In the meantime, pundits and politicians could portray the president as free on a type of work release program.

The suggestion is appalling to most of the people in the country, including the majority of voters who voted for Trump.

Vice President Kamala Harris and Democrats ran on this and other cases in the election.

The result was arguably the largest jury decision in history.

That being said, I do not believe that the mere election of a president negates jury verdicts on 34 criminal counts.

But ample reasons exist to overturn those verdicts or to dismiss this case.

For example, after the verdict, the Supreme Court rendered its immunity decision barring the use of certain evidence against a president.

Some of the evidence used in the Manhattan case likely fell within one of the protected categories.

The prosecutors not only elicited testimony from Trump aides in the White House but then doubled down on the significance of that evidence in their closing arguments.

Merchan could declare that the court cannot rule out the impact of such testimony on the final verdict.

Even if Merchan, as expected, does not dismiss the case on the basis for the immunity decision, the trial was rife with reversible error.

This was a raw exercise of lawfare and Merchan did little to ensure fairness toward the defendant.

Yet none of those errors can be likely addressed until Merchan reaches final decisions on the motion to dismiss as well as the sentencing question.

While that will mean that Trump could, upon possible sentencing, formally become a convicted felon, the matter can then be finally pried out of the hands of Merchan and taken to higher courts for review.

The worst possible option is the one suggested by Bragg, who would adopt the popular persona of Trump’s turnkey.

The President would be seen by many as governing on a type of conditional status from one of the most politically compromised prosecutors in the country.

For Bragg and other Trump opponents, that may be far more satisfying than a sentencing now given the unlikelihood of any jail component.

After the years and millions spent on the case, it would be the ultimate buzz kill to have Trump sentenced to some fine or other non-carceral penalty.

Many Democrats want to have Trump govern with an asterisk of a “President pending sentencing.”

Instead, Trump would govern with the clock ticking toward a sentencing date.

It is a dangerous precedent. Such pending sentences can have a coercive impact on a president in dealing with given officials, including a state governor who might be willing to pardon a president.

Consider the effort of the governor of New York in restoring the lucrative state and local tax, or SALT, deductions.

There is no reason to believe that Trump would succumb to such leverage (and he has already indicated that he would consider the change).

However, any decision on policies like SALT would be the subject of speculation of whether a reduction in taxation was made in the hope of a reduction in incarceration.

Critics would suggest that New York is yanking on the leash to achieve policy advantages.

This is the same judge and prosecutor who gagged the leading candidate for the presidency in discussing aspects of the case in the months leading up to the election.

Now, they would allow him to govern pending their own suspended decisions on his future.

The Trump case was always a thrill kill for Bragg.

Under Bragg’s proposal, his supporters would prolong that thrill for four more years.

The cost, however, would be devastating for the country.

This country needs a president, not a president on layaway from the Manhattan District Attorney.

*  *  *

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”

Authored by Emel Akan via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

WASHINGTON—The Biden administration is urging Congress to allocate $100 billion in disaster relief to assist communities across the Southeast affected by the recent hurricanes Helene and Milton.

“With the Congress now back in session, I write to request urgently needed emergency funding to provide for an expeditious and meaningful Federal response to Hurricanes Helene and Milton and other natural disasters,” President Joe Biden said in a letter to Congress addressed to House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) on Nov. 18.

The administration on Nov. 18 submitted a funding request that included $40 billion for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), $24 billion for the Department of Agriculture, and $12 billion for the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

“The last time Congress passed a comprehensive disaster package was in December of 2022 as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023,” Shalanda Young, director of the Office of Management and Budget, told reporters during a call.

“Since then, numerous deadly storms and disasters have struck communities across the country. Those, of course, include hurricanes Milton and Helene.”

Biden is seeking funding for a total of 16 agencies, with additional allocations such as $8 billion for the Department of Transportation, $4 billion for the Environmental Protection Agency, $3 billion for the Department of Health and Human Services, and $2 billion for the Small Business Administration (SBA).

The request came after Johnson signaled that the House might delay appropriations bills until early 2025, when Republicans are set to control both Congress and the White House.

“We’re running out of clock; December 20 is the deadline,” Johnson told Shannon Bream on “Fox News Sunday” on Nov. 17. “We’re still hopeful we might be able to get that done, but if not, we will have a temporary measure. I think it would go into the first part of next year and allow us the necessary time to get this done.”

Young said the administration has already allocated funds for a range of other disasters, including the fires in Maui, tornadoes across the Midwest, the collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore, and severe storms in Alaska, Connecticut, Louisiana, New Mexico, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and other states.

“That is why we need comprehensive disaster relief in order to ensure that our communities can fully recover and rebuild,” she said.

The funding request also includes critical support for the SBA’s disaster loan program for small businesses, which has completely exhausted its funding, according to Young.

“Homeowners also use this funding as a critical source of rebuilding,” she said.

During the call, FEMA Administrator Deanne Criswell also emphasized the importance of the urgent funding, noting that “2024 has been a year of records.”

“For example, in 2023, we had 114 disaster declarations, and as of today, in 2024, we’ve had 172,” she said.

During a visit to Western North Carolina last month, Johnson pledged that Congress would take bipartisan action to support recovery efforts once cost assessments are completed.

When asked about a lawsuit against FEMA in Florida brought because emergency workers allegedly skipped houses with Trump signs in front, a senior administration official stated during a call on Nov. 18: “We’re not able at this time to comment on an open and active investigation. I can tell you that FEMA’s mission is to help people before, during, and after disasters.

“And our core values are fairness, respect, integrity, and compassion. And that is the ethos of the organization.”

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) is banning transgender individuals from bathrooms on the House side of the Capitol Complex regardless of their gender identity.

The move comes after the election of Rep-elect Sarah McBride (D-DE), who will become the first transgender member of Congress.

“All single-sex facilities in the Capitol and House Office Buildings (like restrooms, changing rooms, and locker rooms) are reserved only for individuals of that biological sex,” Johnson said of women with johnsons, adding “Like all policies, it’s enforceable. We have single-sex facilities for a reason. Women deserve women’s only spaces.”

“We’re not anti-anyone. We’re pro-woman. I think it’s an important policy for us to continue. It’s always been, I guess, an unwritten policy, but now it’s in writing,” Johnson continued.

The move comes after Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) introduced a resolution to ban transgender women from women’s bathrooms in the House.

As Axios notes, Mace pushed Johnson to include her measure, which charges the House sergeant-at-arms with enforcing the ban.

Biological men do not belong in private women’s spaces. Period. Full stop. End of story. pic.twitter.com/IhR7kExkBU

— Rep. Nancy Mace (@RepNancyMace) November 18, 2024

Meanwhile, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) told colleagues at a Tuesday closed-door GOP conference meeting that she might get into a “physical altercation” if she’s forced to share the bathroom with a trans woman.

In a Monday statement, McBride, a woman with a penis, said “This is a blatant attempt from far right-wing extremists to distract from the fact that they have no real solutions to what Americans are facing.”

lol what?

If anyone was hoping that today’s 20Y auction would be even remotely successful, they can not put those to bed: the just concluded sale of $16BN in 20Y paper was a disaster.

Pricing at a high yield of 4.680%, the auction tailed the When Issued 4.650% by 3.0bps. Not only was this the third tail in a row, it was the 2nd biggest tail on record.

The bid to cover was even worse: sliding from 2.59 to 2.34, the btc was the lowest going back all the way to August 2022.

The internals were perhaps the only silver lining to the auction: indirects took down  69.5%, up from 67.9%, below the six auction average of 71.6%. But while Indirect demand was ok, the Direct award plunged to just 7.9% from 17.6%, the lowest on record. This mean that Dealers had to step in big time and so they did, taking down 22.6%, up from 14.5% and the highest since May 2021.

In light of just how ugly the auction was, it is probably not a surprise that yields spiked after the result, with the 10Y rising 2bps from 4.39 to 4.41, and hammered risk assets.

Commenting on the auction, UBS said that it looks like the prior well-demanded 10y and 30y auctions were just fast money profit-taking on shorts, and that “real money hasn’t started to buy bonds.” Well, the real money better step in soon or it will get ugly fast.