US Congress Republicans seek $27bn for Golden Dome defence system in Trump tax bill
The measure, which will be in addition to the approved $886bn (R16.7-trillion) national security budget for 2025, would also fund the building of 14 warships and lift homeland security spending. It will be part of Trump's sweeping tax cuts bill, which will cut taxes by about $5-trillion (R94.5-trillion) and add about $5.7-trillion (R107.7-trillion) to the federal government's debt over the next decade.
The measure, details of which have not been previously reported, was designed to address the military's most pressing needs, Republican senator Roger Wicker, chair of the Senate armed services committee, told Reuters in an interview.
He said it was focused on supercharging key areas such as naval shipbuilding, missile defence and space sensing and strengthening the country's military presence, particularly in the Indo-Pacific, part of a broader strategy to prevent conflict.
'Strength, particularly in the Indo-Pacific, will make China less eager to break the status quo, which has led to a vast global prosperity among people who've never had it before. This is part of a plan to prevent war,' Wicker said.
Republican leaders of the House and Senate armed services committees hammered out the legislation that will be unveiled as soon as Friday night.
The $27bn investment in Golden Dome will fund the building of more missile interceptors and the purchase of terminal high altitude area defence (Thaad) antiballistic missile batteries, according to the congressional aide. Thaad is made by Lockheed Martin.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The South African
19 minutes ago
- The South African
How South Africa's fruit industry plans to deal with US trade tariffs
Earlier this month The South African reported on how American president Donald Trump, who had previously backed South African farmers, is now imposing tariffs that will affect their livelihoods. A 30% tariff on key exports, including citrus, wine, sugar cane, and beef, will take effect on 1 August. This will all but end the duty-free access South Africa enjoyed under the Africa Growth and Opportunities Act (AGOA). While citrus exports may avoid major disruption this season, sectors like table grapes and stonefruit are facing a more immediate challenge. With their peak export seasons fast approaching, producers need to act swiftly to mitigate potential losses. South African fruit growers are hoping that late US talks might ease the trade tensions. In the meantime, exporters are being urged to diversify. 'We have to do everything we can to retain our position in the UK and Europe,' said Alwyn Dippenaar, Chairman of the South African Table Grape Industry. According to Fruitnet , markets in Asia and the Middle East are now also high on the radar. Despite recent difficulties in China for South African grape growers, renewed trade cooperation could offer a lifeline. China's move to expand free trade to 53 African countries, including South Africa, may provide much-needed relief and improved competitiveness for local fruit exporters. India, another key market, is also in focus. As such, a senior Indian delegation is expected to visit South Africa soon to fast-track a potential trade agreement. High import tariffs in India have so far hindered some product categories. In response, the local industry is rolling out awareness campaigns for South African apples, pears, citrus, and avocados in the sub-continent. A new campaign led by South African citrus growers meanwhile aims to reposition grapefruit as a vibrant summer fruit in Europe. Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 1. Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp, Facebook, X and Bluesky for the latest news.
Daily Maverick
an hour ago
- Daily Maverick
US Justice Department's hardened efforts to denaturalise citizens is likely to violate constitutional rights
An aggressive new directive has millions of Americans who became legal citizens through the naturalisation process living in fear of having their citizenship revoked. The Trump administration wants to take away citizenship from naturalised Americans on a massive scale. Although a recent US Justice Department memo prioritises national security cases, it directs employees to 'maximally pursue denaturalisation proceedings in all cases permitted by law and supported by the evidence' across 10 broad priority categories. Denaturalisation is different from deportation, which removes non-citizens from the country. With civil denaturalisation, the government files a lawsuit to strip people's US citizenship after they have become citizens, turning them back into non-citizens who can then be deported. The government can only do this in specific situations. It must prove someone ' illegally procured ' citizenship by not meeting the requirements, or that they lied or hid important facts during the citizenship process. The Trump administration's 'maximal enforcement' approach means pursuing any case where evidence might support taking away citizenship, regardless of priority level or strength of evidence. As our earlier research documented, this has already led to cases like that of Baljinder Singh, whose citizenship was revoked based on a name discrepancy that could easily have resulted from a translator's error rather than intentional fraud. A brief history For most of American history, taking away citizenship has been rare. But it increased dramatically in the 1940s and 1950s during the Red Scare period characterised by intense suspicion of communism. The US government targeted people it thought were communists or Nazi supporters. Between 1907 and 1967, more than 22,000 Americans lost their citizenship this way. Everything changed in 1967 when the Supreme Court decided Afroyim v Rusk. The court said the government usually cannot take away citizenship without the person's consent. It left open only cases involving fraud during the citizenship process. After this decision, denaturalisation became extremely rare. From 1968 to 2013, fewer than 150 people lost their citizenship. They were mostly war criminals who had hidden their past. How the process works In criminal lawsuits, defendants get free lawyers if they can't afford one. They get jury trials. The government must prove guilt 'beyond a reasonable doubt' – the highest standard of proof. But in most denaturalisation cases, the government files a civil suit, in which none of these protections exists. People facing denaturalisation get no free lawyer, meaning poor defendants often face the government alone. There's no jury trial – just a judge deciding whether someone deserves to remain American. The burden of proof is lower – 'clear and convincing evidence' instead of 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. Most important, there's no time limit, so the government can go back decades to build cases. As law professors who study citizenship, we believe this system violates basic constitutional rights. The Supreme Court has called citizenship a fundamental right. Chief Justice Earl Warren in 1958 described it as the ' right to have rights.' In our reading of the law, taking away such a fundamental right through civil procedures that lack basic constitutional protection – no right to counsel for those who can't afford it, no jury trial and a lower burden of proof – seems to violate the due process of law required by the constitution. The bigger problem is what citizenship-stripping policy does to democracy. When the government can strip citizenship from naturalised Americans for decades-old conduct through civil procedures with minimal due process protection – pursuing cases based on evidence that might not meet criminal standards – it undermines the security and permanence that citizenship is supposed to provide. This creates a system where naturalised citizens face vulnerability that can last their entire lives, potentially chilling their full participation in American democracy. The Justice Department memo establishes 10 priority categories for denaturalisation cases. They range from national security threats and war crimes to various forms of fraud, financial crimes and, most importantly, any other cases it deems 'sufficiently important to pursue'. This 'maximal enforcement' approach means pursuing not just clear cases of fraud, but also any case where evidence might support taking away citizenship, no matter how weak or old the evidence is. This creates fear throughout immigrant communities. About 20 million naturalised Americans now must worry that any mistake in their decades-old immigration paperwork could cost them their citizenship. A two-tier system This policy effectively creates two different types of American citizens. Native-born Americans never have to worry about losing their citizenship, no matter what they do. But naturalised Americans face vulnerability that can last their entire lives. This has already happened. A woman who became a naturalised citizen in 2007 helped her boss with paperwork that was later used in fraud. She cooperated with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, was characterised by prosecutors as only a 'minimal participant', completed her sentence and still faced losing her citizenship decades later because she didn't report the crime on her citizenship application – even though she hadn't been charged at the time. The Justice Department's directive to 'maximally pursue' cases across 10 broad categories – combined with the first Trump administration's efforts to review more than 700,000 naturalisation files – represents an unprecedented expansion of denaturalisation efforts. The policy will almost certainly face legal challenges on constitutional grounds, but the damage may already be done. When naturalised citizens fear that their status could be revoked, it undermines the security and permanence that citizenship is supposed to provide. The Supreme Court, in Afroyim v Rusk, was focused on protecting existing citizens from losing their citizenship. The constitutional principle behind that decision – that citizenship is a fundamental right that can't be arbitrarily taken away by whoever happens to be in power – applies equally to how the government handles denaturalisation cases today. The Trump administration's directive, combined with court procedures that lack basic constitutional protections, risks creating a system that the Afroyim v Rusk decision sought to prevent – one where, as the Supreme Court said: 'A group of citizens temporarily in office can deprive another group of citizens of their citizenship.' DM First published by The Conversation. Cassandra Burke Robertson is professor of law and director of the Center for Professional Ethics at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio. Irina D Manta is professor of law and director of the Center for Intellectual Property Law at Hofstra University in Long Island, New York. This story first appeared in our weekly Daily Maverick 168 newspaper, which is available countrywide for R35.
TimesLIVE
an hour ago
- TimesLIVE
Kremlin says Putin is ready to discuss peace in Ukraine but wants to achieve goals
Russian President Vladimir Putin is ready to move towards a peace settlement for Ukraine but Moscow's main objective is to achieve its goals, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov told state television in a clip published on Sunday. Peskov said that the world was now accustomed to US President Donald Trump's sometimes 'harsh' rhetoric but pointed out that Trump had also underscored in comments on Russia that he would continue to search for a peace deal. 'President Putin has repeatedly spoken of his desire to bring the Ukrainian settlement to a peaceful conclusion as soon as possible. This is a long process, it requires effort, and it is not easy,' Peskov said told state television reporter Pavel Zarubin. 'The main thing for us is to achieve our goals. Our goals are clear,' Peskov said. On Monday, Trump announced a tougher stance on Russia, pledging a new wave of military aid to Ukraine, including Patriot missile defence systems. He also gave Russia a 50-day deadline to agree to a ceasefire or face additional sanctions.
