Category: ESTA News

U.S. FCC Completely Bans Chinese Testing Laboratories from Certification of U.S. Electronic Products

FCC Chairperson: “82% of Last Year’s Certification Exams Conducted in China… Risk of Intellectual Property Theft”

Under the new regulations, electronic devices such as smartphones, cameras, and computers must be tested by an FCC-approved testing laboratory within the U.S. or by a testing laboratory within a reciprocal economic zone to be used or sold in the United States.

The new regulations are scheduled to take effect starting in December 2028.

The FCC explained that currently, less than 4% of all electronic devices are being tested in U.S. laboratories, attributing this to the fact that the United States has abandoned the principle of reciprocity in trade over the past few decades.

FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr pointed out that 82% of devices that applied for FCC certification last year were tested at laboratories in China, stating, “These laboratories are key gateways into U.S. telecommunications infrastructure, and thanks to their privileged status, they can access sensitive confidential information about electronic products months before the devices are released to the market.”

He added, “Equipment with weak security could enter the U.S. market, disrupt communication networks, or steal intellectual property.”

Reuters explained that this regulation is a follow-up to the “bad laboratory” regulations adopted by the FCC last May. At the time, the regulations prohibited entities posing a national security threat, such as foreign hostile nations, from owning or controlling laboratories.

In line with the Donald Trump administration’s stance on strengthening national security, the FCC has been raising the level of regulation to prevent Chinese technology products from entering critical high-tech infrastructure sectors, such as advanced robots, power inverters, and wireless routers.

Last October, the FCC moved to revoke the U.S. operating license of Hong Kong telecommunications operator HKT, and in December of the same year, it banned the import of new Chinese drones. Last March, it also blocked the import of new Chinese consumer router models.

In addition, to protect critical infrastructure, it is restricting the activities of Chinese companies within the United States by compiling a “Covered List” of firms deemed a threat to national security and including several Chinese companies on the list.

The FCC added Chinese telecommunications equipment companies, including Huawei and ZTE, to this list in 2021 and banned the sale of their telecommunications equipment in the United States starting the following year.

Meanwhile, the FCC announced that it will vote on a proposal to strengthen the requirements for VoIP providers to be directly assigned U.S. phone numbers at its meeting on the 19th of next month.

Reuters explained that the new regulations include provisions preventing China-based carriers such as China Mobile, China Telecom, and China Unicom from directly accessing U.S. phone numbers for reasons of national security.

The Department of Justice is raising the level of pressure day after day by launching a criminal investigation into the “non-citizen voting allegations” that the Donald Trump administration has been claiming, while also issuing formal subpoenas to officials.

According to records obtained by the NYT, the U.S. Department of Justice issued federal grand jury subpoenas to at least two Los Angeles (LA) election officials, requiring them to appear in court on the morning of November 4, the day after the midterm elections.

A grand jury subpoena is a legal procedure in which the Ministry of Justice requests testimony or the submission of relevant materials during a criminal investigation.

The Department of Justice reportedly requested the court appearance of officials, along with materials regarding internal communication records of California’s election authorities, methods for identifying illegal foreign votes, and measures to prevent non-citizen votes from being counted.

The New York Times reported, citing sources, that federal marshals went to the official’s home to deliver a summons again, even though the official had already received the summons at his office.

In a statement on the day, Dean Logan, Director of the Los Angeles County Voter Registration Office, condemned the Department of Justice’s issuance of subpoenas as “intimidation” and stated, “Election officials are acting in accordance with state and federal laws.”

The Department of Justice has recently been continuing to pressure state authorities in California, the most populous region in the U.S., claiming that many illegal voters are registered on the state’s voter rolls.

In a letter sent last week to local election officials, the Department of Justice notified them that failure to cooperate in identifying suspected non-citizens on voter rolls and separating their ballots could result in a “significant level of federal investigation.”

Bill Essale, the chief federal attorney in Los Angeles, also said, “Any election official who handles these ballots knowing they belong to non-citizens will expose themselves to legal risk.”

The Department of Justice also filed a preliminary injunction with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, asking that 20,000 mail-in ballots suspected of being from non-citizens in California not be counted.

The court dismissed the request for an injunction, stating, “The administration’s demand to suspend the counting of 20,000 votes at once causes chaos in the ongoing election and undermines the value of American citizens’ votes.”

As medical expenses and health insurance premiums skyrocket in the United States, the cost of employee health insurance that companies must bear is snowballing.

Companies are taking measures to reduce the burden of premium increases, such as raising employee contributions and expanding deductibles; however, this burden is being passed on entirely to workers, putting pressure on household finances.

In particular, while the average annual premium for workplace-provided family health insurance exceeded $28,000 this year, the amount directly borne by employees averaged $7,471 per year. Even those enrolled in company-provided health insurance face a situation where hundreds of dollars are deducted from their monthly salaries for premiums, and they must also bear the cost of medical treatment separately.

According to a report by the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) on the 22nd citing the latest survey results from the non-profit healthcare policy research institute Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF), employer-provided family health insurance premiums rose 5% this year compared to the previous year, surpassing an annual average of $28,000.

In contrast, the premiums paid by employees surged by 9% from last year to $7,471. This represents an annual increase of $621, meaning that an average of approximately $623 is being deducted from employees’ salaries each month for health insurance.

The fact that the increase in employee contributions is higher than the rise in total health insurance costs implies that companies are shifting a greater burden of rising medical expenses onto their employees.

The problem is that the situation is highly likely to worsen next year.

According to a survey conducted by global HR and insurance consulting firm Marsh on over 1,800 U.S. companies, health insurance costs per employee are projected to rise by an average of 8.2% by 2027. This is the highest growth rate since 2003.

If companies do not take cost-cutting measures, such as changing insurance products or reducing coverage, the expected rate of increase will reach an average of 11%. Considering that the expected cost growth rate for this year was 6.7%, the burden of health insurance on companies is growing increasingly heavier.

Many companies are changing their insurance products, primarily because it is difficult to keep up with the rapid rise in medical costs. As hospital treatment and inpatient fees continue to rise, medical expenditures for insurance companies are surging due to the increased use of expensive drugs, such as cancer and obesity treatments.

According to a KFF survey, the average annual premium contribution for employees enrolled in family health insurance at small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) with 10 to 99 employees reached $9,687. In contrast, the average burden for employees at companies with 200 or more employees was $6,840, indicating that SME employees pay $2,847 more annually.

SME employees directly bear an average of 37% of total family insurance premiums, whereas the burden rate for large enterprise employees was only 25%. Furthermore, the survey found that 32% of SME employees were enrolled in insurance plans where they directly pay more than half of the family health insurance premiums. This figure was merely 6% for large enterprise employees. Under these circumstances, companies are facing the difficult choice of controlling costs while maintaining employee benefits.

A Marsh survey revealed that 59% of companies plan to implement cost-cutting measures, such as restructuring insurance plans, to reduce health insurance costs next year. Approximately two-thirds of large enterprises are expected to increase the proportion of premiums borne by their employees.

In addition to raising insurance premiums, measures such as increasing deductibles, raising out-of-pocket expenses for medical treatment, reducing insurance networks, and restricting coverage for certain expensive medications are being discussed as means to cut costs.

However, there are concerns that these measures will increase the costs workers bear when using medical services, potentially leading them to postpone or forgo necessary medical treatment.

Experts advise that workers approaching the enrolment period for workplace health insurance next year should carefully compare not only premiums but also deductibles, copays, and maximum annual out-of-pocket expenses.

In particular, they should be aware that while choosing a high-cost insurance product with low premiums can save money for those who rarely visit hospitals, it could actually increase overall medical expenses for families with chronic illnesses or those requiring regular treatment.

A lawsuit filed against the Trump administration by a permanent resident over delays in processing a citizenship application is drawing attention.

Meng Ju Liu, a Taiwanese national and permanent resident residing in Ohio, filed a lawsuit on the 15th in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, citing delays in processing her citizenship application and requesting court intervention.

According to the complaint, Liu, who obtained permanent residency in 2002, submitted her citizenship application (N-400) to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) on April 25 of last year, but raised the issue that she had not even been notified of a citizenship interview schedule for approximately 18 months.

In his complaint, he pointed out that the processing time for citizenship applications in the Cincinnati area, as disclosed by USCIS, is 9.5 months, with 80% of all applications being processed within this period. However, he claimed that his application has not been processed for nearly 18 months and that he has received no explanation regarding the reason for the delay.

Last May, USCIS notified Liu that biometric data, such as previously collected fingerprints, could be reused, meaning a separate collection procedure was not required.

Furthermore, it is reported that as of May 2 of this year, no significant progress updates were provided other than a notice stating that the application was still being processed.

While Liu acknowledges the necessity of criminal background checks and national security-related identity verification for citizenship applicants, he maintains that the federal government has violated its obligation to process applications within a reasonable timeframe.

For this reason, he requested the court to order the federal government to complete the identity and security checks within 30 days and, if the applicant passes the screening, finalize the citizenship acquisition process within another 30 days. The key issue in this lawsuit is expected to be how long the federal government can delay a decision on a citizenship application.

Current federal law stipulates that if a review result is not released within 120 days of the citizenship interview, the applicant may request intervention from the federal court. However, as there is no separate, clear statutory deadline for the stage prior to the interview, the court’s decision is drawing attention.

“From being born in a rural Chinese village to earning two doctorates and rising to a position designing U.S. federal health policy, the force that changed my life was ‘education.’ I will shape the future of Howard County education so that our children can fully unleash their potential in the best possible environment.” Dr. Lanlan Xu, a U.S. federal government policy expert, has thrown her hat into the ring for the Howard County Board of Education election to be held on November 3. Dr. Xu, a parent of two children attending Howard County public schools, served as the inaugural chair of the Howard County Asian Pacific Islander Commission (AAPI) and has worked closely with the local community, including the Asian community, for the past 12 years. One of Dr. Xu’s key pledges is to “expand the hiring of Asian teachers and administrative staff.” Dr. Shi pointed out that while Asians make up 23.7% of the total student population in Howard County, they account for only 5% of teachers and 2% of administrative staff. He emphasized that to resolve this severe imbalance, he would significantly increase opportunities for the recruitment, training, and promotion of Asian teachers.

Furthermore, as a first-generation immigrant who deeply understands the hardships faced by immigrant families, he proposed measures to strengthen communication with Korean and immigrant parents. Dr. Shi stated, “I will definitely implement the expansion of multilingual translation and interpretation services, including Korean; provide opportunities for parental involvement in schools; and establish clear reporting procedures and responsible follow-up measures regarding school violence and racial discrimination.” He added, “The history of Korean immigration and the contributions of the AAPI must be actively reflected in the regular history and social studies curriculum.” Dr. Shi appealed for the support of Korean voters, saying, “As a first-generation immigrant parent, I deeply empathize with the Korean community’s strong passion for education and dedication to the local community. Your valuable vote can make education in Howard County even stronger.”

The so-called “Trump Account,” a long-term investment program for children, is being expanded to allow for automatic

account opening without the need for a separate application from parents or guardians. As a result, it is expected that more than 60 million children under the age of 18 who had not previously enrolled will open new accounts. According to the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), the U.S. Treasury Department has switched the enrollment method for Trump Accounts from an application-based system to an automatic system.

The Treasury Department expects that this measure will enable children from families where parents are unfamiliar with financial products or find it difficult to manage separate application procedures to build long-term assets. The Trump Account was introduced through the Working Family Reduction Act, enacted on July 4 of last year.

It is a new type of Individual Retirement Account (IRA) targeting eligible children under the age of 18, designed to allow them to invest over the long term starting at a young age to accumulate assets upon reaching adulthood. Previously, parents or guardians had to apply in person to open accounts, but going forward, the accounts will be created automatically, laying the foundation for children to benefit from the effects of long-term compound interest.

However, the $1,000 seed money provided by the government is not disbursed automatically. U.S. citizens born between 2025 and 2028 who possess a valid Social Security Number (SSN) are eligible for the government’s $1,000 support, but to receive it, a qualified person, such as a parent or guardian, must apply separately.

The legal battle surrounding the “rent freeze” measure for New York City rent-stabilized apartments, set to take effect on October 1, is intensifying and reaching a critical turning point. With a New York State court ordering the submission of New York City Hall’s internal communication records, attention is on edge as the possibility has been raised that the rent freeze decision itself could be invalidated depending on the trial outcome. On the 16th, Judge Brendan Lantry of the New York State Court in Manhattan ordered the submission of all written communication records exchanged between the Office of the Mayor and the Rent Stabilization Guidelines (RGB) between January 1 and June 26 of this year in a lawsuit filed by the New York City Apartment Owners Association against the City of New York.

This order by the court represents a sudden acceptance of the plaintiffs’ request for evidence submission and is considered by the legal community to be a highly unusual measure. In the order, Judge Lantry stated, “Although this is not a standard procedure, this information is absolutely necessary to determine whether the RGB’s decision was arbitrary, whether there was an abuse of discretion, or whether there were violations of due process.” Previously, in June, the RGB decided to set the rent increase rate for one- and two-year renewals at 0% for approximately one million rent-stabilized apartments in New York City. This rent freeze measure was a key campaign promise of New York City Mayor Zoran Mamdani and was successfully implemented as a top priority upon taking office. However, the Landlords’ Association has filed a lawsuit to overturn the decision, claiming that the Rent-Stabilizing Apartment Group (RGB), which should have been legally independent, operated difunctionally due to undue political pressure and intervention from Mayor Mamdani’s office.

Some view this state court order as more than just a procedural step; they see it as a key variable that could change the course of the main lawsuit. This is because if the submitted communication records prove undue external pressure or evidence of prior collusion by the Mayor’s office, an unprecedented situation could unfold where the rent freeze measure, scheduled to take effect on October 1, is officially nullified by the court. Randy Mastro, the plaintiffs’ legal representative, pointed out, “This state court order lends weight to the plaintiffs’ claim that the rent freeze on Rent Stabilizing Apartment Groups was a predetermined decision,” adding, “The parties involved must now prove for themselves that there was no external pressure from Mayor Mamdani, the founder, regarding this decision.” On the other hand, the New York City government maintains that this order to submit is merely a standard administrative procedure and that there are no issues with the legal validity of the rent freeze plan.

A city government spokesperson expressed confidence in winning the lawsuit, stating, “Our administration is confident that the committee’s decision was made fairly in accordance with lawful procedures.” However, as the housing cost burden for approximately one million tenant households and the livelihoods of landlords are directly linked, New York residents are focusing their attention on the repercussions of the internal City Hall message to be revealed and the court’s final ruling, which will determine the future direction of New York City’s real estate policy.

On the night of the 8th, ahead of the 25th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks—the worst terrorist disaster in U.S. history—two beams of “Tribute in Light,” symbolizing the former World Trade Center (WTC) Twin Towers, are vigorously rising toward the night sky over Manhattan, New York.

 

This installation, which commemorates the victims of 9/11 and symbolizes New York’s indomitable spirit, holds special significance this year marking the 25th anniversary. Although a quarter of a century has passed since the attacks on September 11, 2001, claimed nearly 3,000 lives, the wounds and memories of that day remain deeply ingrained. 60-character version

A federal court has put the brakes on the executive order pushed by President Donald Trump to restrict birth tourism. With the executive order failing to clear the court even after a renewed attempt following the Supreme Court’s ruling of unconstitutionality, the legal battle over birthright citizenship is expected to intensify once again. On the 2nd, Judge Deborah Boardman of the Maryland U.S. Court granted a preliminary injunction filed by immigrant rights groups against the Trump administration to suspend the enforcement of the executive order restricting birth tourism.

The executive order that was halted this time was a revised plan issued with a narrowed scope after the Supreme Court previously ruled that the push to abolish birthright citizenship was unconstitutional. The core of the plan was to restrict the automatic granting of citizenship to specific cases, such as entry for the purpose of birth tourism or acquiring citizenship through commercial transactions. However, the court determined that this too lacked a constitutional basis.

In his ruling, Judge Boardman stated the reason for his decision, saying, “The Supreme Court’s precedent that a child born on U.S. territory is a U.S. citizen at birth, regardless of their parents’ immigration status, is clear,” and added, “Even if the administration changed the specific requirements to circumvent the Supreme Court ruling, it is highly likely to be unconstitutional.” The government countered that “the lawsuit itself is premature as the implementation guidelines for the executive order have not been finalized,” but the court rejected this argument, noting that “the legal uncertainty and harm to the parties would be severe merely by the issuance of the executive order.”

With this decision, the effect of the executive order has been immediately suspended, and enforcement will be completely halted until the outcome of the substantive lawsuit is determined. The Department of Justice immediately objected to the ruling and announced its intention to appeal. Consequently, the conflict between the executive and judicial branches over birthright citizenship is expected to be finally settled once again by the Supreme Court.

As the Labor Day holiday begins, attention is focusing on the scale and behavior of consumer spending. While consumer purchasing power is weakening due to high inflation, gasoline prices, and a slowdown in the job market, experience-oriented consumption, such as travel and dining out, remains strong. On the other hand, regarding product purchases, there is a growing trend of “selective consumption,” where consumers seek out heavily discounted items rather than simply opening their wallets indiscriminately. Analysis suggests that this year’s Labor Day spending can be summarized as a “polarization and restructuring of consumption” rather than a “consumption contraction.”

Although the National Retail Federation (NRF) does not separately release national spending figures for the Labor Day holiday, it projected that total retail sales in 2026 will reach $5.6 trillion, a 4.4% increase from last year. This figure is higher than the average annual growth rate of 3.6% over the past decade, excluding the COVID-19 pandemic period. The NRF analyzed that actual consumption remains more robust than expected, despite a lack of significant improvement in consumer sentiment. The NRF pointed out that this year’s consumption growth is not evenly distributed across all income brackets.

While high-income earners are driving a significant portion of the increase, low- and middle-income earners are appearing more cautious about spending due to the burden of rising prices. The most prominent sector in Labor Day spending is travel. According to the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), more than 17 million people are expected to pass through airport security checkpoints around this year’s Labor Day holiday. With a significant increase in air travelers, Labor Day is expected to be a major peak season for the airline industry again this year. Seattle, Orlando, Boston, Denver, and New York were found to be the most popular domestic destinations for this year’s Labor Day.

Internationally, Rome, Vancouver, London, Dublin, and Paris were cited as popular destinations. The problem, however, is the cost. According to AAA, the average price of a round-trip domestic flight ticket for this Labor Day is approximately $750, a 2% increase from last year. In particular, tickets to popular destinations such as Seattle, Orlando, and Boston averaged about $790, nearly 20% more expensive than last year. Domestic hotel reservation fees also rose by 9% compared to last year, while overseas hotel reservation fees increased by 12%.

On the other hand, cruise prices departing from the U.S. are about 4% lower than last year, raising the possibility that consumers seeking relatively cheaper travel options will flock to these destinations. Dining out is also a key sector of Labor Day spending. The National Restaurant Association (NRA) forecasts that revenue for the restaurant industry will reach approximately $1.55 trillion this year. This is significant because it represents not only an increase in nominal revenue but also a projected 1.3% rise in real revenue adjusted for inflation.

There is also a strong correlation between travel and dining out. In a NRA survey, 98% of domestic travelers this summer stated they plan to visit a restaurant during their trip. Visiting restaurants has emerged as the most preferred vacation activity among travelers, surpassing shopping, sightseeing, and beach activities. Furthermore, it was found that approximately 30% of U.S. restaurant revenue is generated by travelers and visitors. Labor Day is traditionally a time when major retailers concentrate on large-scale sales. This year, significant discount events are continuing, focusing on home appliances, electronics, furniture, clothing, mattresses, and kitchenware. Discounts of 30% to 70% on some major products are driving consumer purchases.

Many consumers are shifting their purchasing patterns, buying necessary items but waiting for discounted prices rather than paying the full price. The NRF analyzed that consumers this year are actively utilizing sales and price competitiveness despite economic pressure.