Connect with us

International

US Supreme Court significantly reduces power of government bureaucracy

Published

5 minute read

From The Center Square

Lawmakers put federal agencies on notice after end to Chevron deference

A coalition of lawmakers are putting federal agencies on notice after the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that overturned ā€œChevron deferenceā€ and as a result, significantly limited their power.

House Oversight Chair James Comer, R-Ky., has helped lead the effort, but the relevant committee chairs with oversight of the federal government, have signed on to similarĀ letters.

ā€œThis long-needed reversal should stem the vast tide of federal agenciesā€™ overreach,ā€ Comer said in his letters to the federal government. ā€œGiven the Biden administrationā€™s track record, however, I am compelled to underscore the implications of Loper Bright and remind you of the limitations it has set on your authority.ā€

The push comes on the heels of the Supreme Court overturning part of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and thereby putting an end to ā€œChevron deference,ā€ a previous legal policy that gave broad license to federal bureaucrats to interpret and enforce laws passed by Congress as they saw fit.

In that vein, House lawmakers held a hearing Wednesday for oversight of the Environmental Protection Agency, the first in what is likely a new era of EPA oversight after the major Supreme Court ruling.

President Joe Bidenā€™s EPA has pushed out a few particularly aggressive regulations that have drawn pushback.

Among those are WOTUS, an Obama-era rule that classified even tiny bodies of water as under federal jurisdiction.

More recently, the EPAā€™s tailpipe emissions standards are under fire, mainly because they will likely force a nationwide transition from gas to hybrid or electric vehicles in just a few years.

ā€œEPAā€™s largest regulations, such as the tailpipe emissions rules for light-, medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, have been estimated to cost nearly $900 billion to implement,ā€ Comer said at the hearing Wednesday. ā€œThose rules require automakers to completely redesign their operations to produce more electric vehicles ā€“ regardless of what consumers are demanding in the actual marketplace.ā€

Now, that era has likely come to an end.

ā€œThe Supreme Court decision has put policy making back into the hands of the Congress where it belongs, and unelected bureaucrats can no longer weaponize their authority to enact their own personal agenda,ā€ Daniel Turner, executive director of the energy workers advocacy group, Power the Future, told The Center Square. ā€œIndustry for decades has been chocked by ever-changing regulations with penalties and fines and even criminal prosecution, all whims of the bureaucrat in charge. The American people are sick and tired of big government, and agencies like the EPA are back under the purview of the Congress and not some green billionaire whose think tank feeds the Administratorā€™s team with propaganda and lies.”

But the EPA is just one of many agencies facing a Congressional effort to undo years of federal rulemaking.

Comer noted that he has also joined lawmakers in sending letters to an array of agencies that face a similar review, including:

  • AmeriCorps
  • Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
  • Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
  • Council on Environmental Quality
  • Department of Agriculture
  • Department of Commerce
  • Department of Education
  • Department of Energy
  • Department of the Interior
  • Department of Health and Human Services
  • Department of Homeland Security
  • Department of Labor
  • Department of State
  • Department of Transportation
  • Department of the Treasury
  • Department of Veterans Affairs
  • Environmental Protection Agency
  • Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
  • Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
  • National Credit Union Administration
  • National Labor Relations Board
  • Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
  • Office of the United States Trade Representative
  • Securities and Exchange Commission
  • Small Business Administration
  • Social Security Administration

D.C. Bureau Reporter

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

2025 Federal Election

Hong Kong-Canadian Groups Demand PM Carney Drop Liberal Candidate Over ā€œBountyā€ Remark Supporting CCP Repression

Published on

Sam Cooper

Thirteen Hong Kong-Canadian organizations are calling on Prime Minister Mark Carneyā€™s Liberal Party to immediately revoke the candidacy of MP Paul Chiang, alleging he ā€œmay have violated Canadian lawsā€ after making explosive remarks that appeared to endorse a Chinese Communist Party bounty targeting a Toronto-area Conservative candidate.

The controversy centers on Chiangā€™s comments during a January meeting with Chinese-language media in Toronto, where the Markhamā€“Unionville Liberal incumbent said, ā€œIf you can take him to the Chinese Consulate General in Toronto, you can get the million-dollar reward,ā€ referring to Joe Tay, the Conservative candidate in Don Valley North who is wanted by Hong Kong authoritiesĀ for running a pro-democracy YouTube channel in Canada.

The response from Mark Carneyā€™s Liberals appears increasingly conflicted, especially in light of remarks made last year by the partyā€™s top foreign affairs official concerning Chinese transnational repression targeting Hong Kong immigrants in Canada.

Foreign Minister MĆ©lanie Joly issued a warning in December, stating: ā€œThis attempt by Hong Kong authorities to conduct transnational repression abroad, including by issuing threats, intimidation or coercion against Canadians or those in Canada, will not be tolerated.ā€

Tay had remained silent since the revelations broke Friday. But on Sunday evening, he made his first public statement in a post on X.

ā€œThis is the most challenging time in our lifetime, and we must give it everything weā€™ve got to protect this place we call home. A fourth term for the Liberals is not an option,ā€ Tay wrote.

About the same time, Paul Chiang posted his own statement on social media, offering a direct apology to Tay.

ā€œToday, I spoke with Joseph Tay, the Conservative candidate for Don Valley North, to personally apologize for the comments that I made this past January. It was a terrible lapse of judgement. I recognize the severity of the statement and I am deeply disappointed in myself. As a 28-year police veteran, I have always strived to treat people with respect and dignity. In this case, I failed to meet that standard. I know better and it will never happen again.ā€

Despite the apology, a Carney campaign spokesperson told reporters Sunday that the party would not remove Chiang from the ballot.

Now, leading Hong Kong Canadian advocacy groups are intensifying pressure, saying Chiangā€™s comments amount to a tacit endorsement of Beijingā€™s foreign repression network ā€” a growing concern for Canadian authorities, especially after Ottawaā€™s diplomatic expulsion of a Chinese official last year over threats to MP Michael Chongā€™s family.

ā€œThe integrity of Canadaā€™s democratic elections has been damaged,ā€ the groups wrote in a joint statement. ā€œPaul Chiangā€™s actions may have violated Canadian laws, including the Foreign Interference and Security of Information Act and the Canada Elections Act.ā€

Meanwhile, as the chorus of political condemnation grew beyond criticism from Conservative Party leaders, NDP MP Jenny Kwan ā€” herself a victim of targeted Chinese interference, according to testimony at the Hogue Commission ā€” stood with NDP leader Jagmeet Singh and several candidates in Vancouver and addressed the Chiang scandal directly.

ā€œHe is a police officer, and he ought to know that when the CCP [Chinese Communist Party] went out and put a bounty on anybody, including Canadians, that cannot be acceptable. That is intimidation at its worst,ā€ Kwan said.

ā€œAnd yet, he played right into it. He advocated for people to bring [Tay] to the Chinese consulate to collect the bounty. In what universe is this normal?ā€

Kwan added the remarks are especially damaging while Canada is facing ā€œactive, sophisticated foreign interference activities targeting Canadaā€™s democratic institutions.ā€

The Hong Kong Canadian groups described Chiangā€™s apology as ā€œinsincereā€ and ā€œa tactic to downplay the seriousness of his outrageous comments.ā€ They argue that any politician ā€œtruly sympathetic to oppressed Hongkongersā€ would never suggest delivering a Canadian citizen to a hostile foreign governmentā€™s diplomatic outpost.

ā€œChiangā€™s remarks legitimize foreign interference and potentially threaten Tayā€™s safety,ā€ the statement reads. ā€œThis is not just about an offhand comment ā€” itā€™s about whether our elected officials are willing to stand up to transnational repression or not.ā€

The joint release also cites findings from a national survey showing that 85.4% of Hongkonger-Canadian respondents are deeply concerned about transnational repression and infiltration in Canada, while 40.9% reported reducing public political engagement due to safety fears.

ā€œChiangā€™s remarks exemplify how foreign interference continues to cast a shadow over Hong Kong immigrantsā€™ lives in Canada,ā€ the groups said, emphasizing that more than 60% of respondents are alarmed by Canadaā€™s handling of relations with China, particularly the influence of Chinese diplomatic institutions operating within Canadian borders.

ā€œThe Liberal Party must send a clear message that intimidation or threats against political candidates will not be tolerated,ā€ the statement continues. ā€œCanadians ā€” particularly those who fled authoritarian regimes ā€” deserve a democracy free from foreign interference.ā€

The BureauĀ has contacted the Liberal Party for further comment. This is a developing story. More to follow.

The Bureau is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Support a public interest startup.

We break international stories and this requires elite expertise, time and legal costs.

Continue Reading

Censorship Industrial Complex

Welcome to Britain, Where Critical WhatsApp Messages Are a Police Matter

Published on

logo

By

ā€œIt was just unfathomable to me that things had escalated to this degree,ā€

ā€œWeā€™d never used abusive or threatening language, even in private.ā€

Youā€™d think that in Britain, the worst thing that could happen to you after sending a few critical WhatsApp messages would be a passive-aggressive reply or, at most, a snooty whisper campaign. What you probably wouldnā€™t expect is to have six police officers show up on your doorstep like theyā€™re hunting down a cartel. But thatā€™s precisely what happened to Maxie Allen and Rosalind Levine ā€” two parents whose great offense was asking some mildly inconvenient questions about how their daughterā€™s school planned to replace its retiring principal.
This is not an episode of Black Mirror. This is Borehamwood, Hertfordshire, 2025. And the parents in questionā€”Maxie Allen, a Times Radio producer, and Rosalind Levine, 46, a mother of twoā€”had the gall to inquire, via WhatsApp no less, whether Cowley Hill Primary School was being entirely above board in appointing a new principal.
What happened next should make everyone in Britain pause and consider just how overreaching their government has become. Because in the time it takes to send a meme about the schoolā€™s bake sale, you too could be staring down the barrel of a ā€œmalicious communicationsā€ charge.
The trouble started in May, shortly after the school’s principal retired. Instead of the usual round of polite emails, clumsy PowerPoints, and dreary Q&A sessions, there was… silence. Maxie Allen, who had once served as a school governorā€”so presumably knows his way around a budget meetingā€”asked the unthinkable: when was the recruitment process going to be opened up?
A fair question, right? Not in Borehamwood, apparently. The school responded not with answers, but with a sort of preemptive nuclear strike.
Jackie Spriggs, the chair of governors, issued a public warning about ā€œinflammatory and defamatoryā€ social media posts and hinted at disciplinary action for those who dared to cause ā€œdisharmony.ā€ One imagines this word being uttered in the tone of a Bond villain stroking a white cat.
Parents Allen and Levine were questioned by police over their WhatsApp messages.
For the crime of ā€œcasting aspersions,ā€ Allen and Levine were promptly banned from the school premises. That meant no parentsā€™ evening, no Christmas concert, no chance to speak face-to-face about the specific needs of their daughter Sascha, whoā€”just to add to the bleakness of it allā€”has epilepsy and is registered disabled.
So what do you do when the school shuts its doors in your face? You send emails. Lots of them. You try to get answers. And if that fails, you mightā€”just mightā€”vent a little on WhatsApp.
But apparently, that was enough to earn the label of harassers. Not in the figurative, overly sensitive, ā€œKarenā€™s upset againā€ sense. No, this was the actual, legal, possibly-prison kind of harassment.
Then came January 29. Rosalind was at home sorting toys for charityā€”presumably a heinous act in todayā€™s climateā€”when she opened the door to what can only be described as a low-budget reboot of Line of Duty. Six officers. Two cars. A van. All to arrest two middle-aged parents whose biggest vice appears to be stubborn curiosity.
ā€œI saw six police officers standing there,ā€ she said. ā€œMy first thought was that Sascha was dead.ā€
Instead, it was the prelude to an 11-hour ordeal in a police cell. Eleven hours. Thatā€™s enough time to commit actual crimes, be tried, be sentenced, and still get home in time for MasterChef.
Allen called the experience ā€œdystopian,ā€ and, for once, the word isnā€™t hyperbole. ā€œIt was just unfathomable to me that things had escalated to this degree,ā€ he said. ā€œWe’d never used abusive or threatening language, even in private.ā€
Worse still, they were never even told which communications were being investigated. Itā€™s like being detained by police for ā€œvibes.ā€
One of the many delightful ironies here is that the school accused them of causing a ā€œnuisance on school property,ā€ despite the fact that neither of them had set foot on said property in six months.
Now, in the schoolā€™s defenseā€”such as it isā€”they claim they went to the police because the sheer volume of correspondence and social media posts had become ā€œupsetting.ā€ Which raises an important question: when did being ā€œupsettingā€ become a police matter?
What weā€™re witnessing is not a breakdown in communication, but a full-blown bureaucratic tantrum. Instead of engaging with concerned parents, Cowley Hillā€™s leadership took the nuclear option: drag them out in cuffs and let the police deal with it.
Hertfordshire Constabulary, apparently mistaking Borehamwood for Basra, decided this was a perfectly normal use of resources. ā€œThe number of officers was necessary,ā€ said a spokesman, ā€œto secure electronic devices and care for children at the address.ā€
Right. Nothing says ā€œchildcareā€ like watching your mom get led away in handcuffs while your toddler hides in the corner, traumatized.
After five weeksā€”five weeks of real police time, in a country where burglaries are basically a form of inheritance transferā€”the whole thing was quietly dropped. Insufficient evidence. No charges. Not even a slap on the wrist.
So here we are. A story about a couple who dared to question how a public school was run, and ended up locked in a cell, banned from the school play, and smeared with criminal accusations for trying to advocate for their disabled child.
This is Britain in 2025. A place where public institutions behave like paranoid cults and the police are deployed like private security firms for anyone with a bruised ego. All while the rest of the population is left wondering how many other WhatsApp groups are one message away from a dawn raid.
Because if this is what happens when you ask a few inconvenient questions, whatā€™s next? Fingerprinting people for liking the wrong Facebook post? Tactical units sent in for sarcastic TripAdvisor reviews?
Itā€™s a warning. Ask the wrong question, speak out of turn, and you too may get a visit from half the local police force.
Continue Reading

Trending

X