Category: Politics

Senate Republicans Continue Dispute with TSA on Facial Recognition Bill

Staff ReporterPolitics, Technology 0

Senate Republicans accuse the TSA of orchestrating lobbying efforts to derail legislation limiting the use of facial scanning technology at airports.

Senate Republicans are alleging that the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) played a pivotal role in undermining a bipartisan bill aimed at restricting the use of facial recognition technology in airport security. This accusation arises from a recent setback in advancing the legislation, which was shelved from consideration by the Senate Commerce Committee due to intense lobbying efforts.

Commerce Committee Chair Ted Cruz was forced to postpone the bill, which sought to impose limitations on airport security screening technologies. While the travel industry’s overt lobbying efforts created uncertainties among committee members, Republicans supporting the bill claim the TSA, bolstered by its political appointees, secretly orchestrated a campaign against the measure.

Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), co-sponsor of the bill, expressed his frustration, likening the TSA’s opposition to diligent sabotage. “They’re working like an ugly stripper to kill this bill, which tells me we’re doing the right thing,” Kennedy remarked.

A senior GOP aide described the agency’s lobbying fingerprints as detrimental to the bill’s progress and suggested that this could negatively impact Ha Nguyen McNeill, the acting head of the TSA, especially as President Donald Trump is expected to nominate her for permanent administrator. The issue also highlights a potential discord within the administration, with DHS Secretary Kristi Noem reportedly not opposing the legislation.

The proposed bill mandates the TSA to inform passengers about their option to opt out of facial recognition screenings and to implement safeguards on storing biometric data. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), the bill’s primary advocate, has compared the TSA’s growing use of facial recognition with systems used by authoritarian governments like China, raising concerns over privacy violations.

Merkley attempted to incorporate these provisions in last year’s FAA reauthorization, but faced fierce opposition from various travel industry stakeholders. They argued that such measures would allow bad actors to evade security checks and extend wait times at airports. Ryan Propis, vice president of security at the U.S. Travel Association, noted the lack of transparency and hearings which were initially promised.

Despite public industry opposition, some lawmakers assert that the TSA’s behind-the-scenes maneuvers were instrumental in the bill’s withdrawal. Cruz affirmed these suspicions, saying, “undoubtedly,” when asked if he believed the TSA itself was expressing concerns about the legislation.

The debate also involves technology companies benefiting from sophisticated biometric systems, now employing AI algorithms for identity verification. Associations representing these industries, including the Security Industry Association and the International Biometrics and Identity Association, sent correspondence to chair Cruz, opposing the bill on the grounds that it contradicted the administration’s goals of reducing personnel through technological advancements.

President Trump’s administration has emphasized cost-cutting measures in federal agencies, advocating for technological integration such as artificial intelligence as a more efficient alternative. During a May House appropriations meeting, McNeill spotlighted the TSA’s ongoing adoption of state-of-the-art screening technologies as a crucial investment.

Despite the recent delay in committee proceedings, Cruz and other committee members remain optimistic about reconciling differences, expressing confidence that the bill will advance in forthcoming sessions. Cruz stated, “I think the bill will get marked up, and it’s going to pass.”

According to Politico, the episode sheds light on the tension between agency endeavors to embrace new technologies and legislative oversight focused on privacy concerns.

Putin and Netanyahu Challenge Trump on Global Stage

Staff ReporterCover, Politics, World 0

President Trump is facing increasing challenges from Russian President Vladimir Putin and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, complicating his foreign policy efforts as both leaders remain steadfast in their controversial actions.

President Donald Trump finds himself mired in complex relations with two longstanding and sometimes contentious partners: Russian President Vladimir Putin and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Both leaders have added layers of difficulty to Trump’s global strategy, primarily due to their continued aggressive actions against Ukraine and Palestinians, respectively, and their reluctance to alter course.

The most pronounced shift in Trump’s attitude is toward Putin, who has ignored Trump’s calls to end the conflict in Ukraine, which began with Russia’s invasion in February 2022. Trump recently announced the deployment of two nuclear submarines to unspecified regions, a move prompted by what he described as “highly provocative statements” from Moscow. This escalation follows his tightening deadline for a ceasefire, mentioned during a trip to Scotland, from an indeterminate time frame to “10 or 12 days.”

However, Moscow appeared dismissive, with a Kremlin spokesperson declaring that Russia had developed “a certain immunity” to such threats. This scenario marks a significant departure from the atmosphere in February, when Trump and Vice President Vance criticized Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in the Oval Office for alleged ingratitude towards American aid.

Trump’s rhetoric has shifted, distancing from earlier comments suggesting Ukraine’s culpability for the war. In recent months, Trump expressed frustration with Putin, noting that seemingly cordial interactions often preceded aggressive Russian actions against Ukraine.

“We get a lot of bulls‑‑‑ thrown at us by Putin, if you want to know the truth,” Trump remarked in early July. “He’s very nice all the time, but it turns out to be meaningless.”

One underlying reason for Trump’s frustration could be the political quagmire Putin’s steadfastness creates for his administration, especially after Trump pledged during his campaign that he could resolve the conflict within 24 hours—a promise that remains unfulfilled.

Despite his frustrations, Trump seems unlikely to abandon his long-held skepticism about U.S. support for Ukraine, creating a political stalemate where the war neither ends nor sees dramatic U.S.-backed progress for Ukraine.

Similar complexities arise in Trump’s dealings with Netanyahu, though the specifics differ. While Trump has historically maintained a strong pro-Israel stance, evident in his first-term decisions like moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem and crafting a highly pro-Israel peace plan, his relationship with Netanyahu has been more volatile.

The tension heightened after Netanyahu recognized former President Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 election, leading Trump to criticize Netanyahu for allegedly retreating from a joint operation with the U.S. to kill Qassem Soleimani, the head of Iran’s Quds Force, in January 2020.

“Bibi Netanyahu let us down,” Trump commented in late 2023.

While Trump continues to push pro-Israel policies in his second term, his tone varies significantly. He has both encouraged and seemed indifferent to Israeli ceasefires, and most recently, he countered Netanyahu’s denial of starvation in Gaza, citing footage suggesting children in Gaza appeared hungry.

In a recent move, Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff and U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee visited a Gaza aid distribution center run by the controversial Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, to “help craft a plan to deliver food and medical aid to the people of Gaza,” highlighting a nuanced approach amidst broader support concerns for Israel from the U.S. right.

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s comments branding Israeli actions in Gaza as “genocide,” alongside critical opinions from influential conservative figures like Tucker Carlson, Theo Von, and Joe Rogan, indicate a shift within Trump’s base that could influence future Middle East policies.

Netanyahu, meanwhile, remains focused on broader war goals, including hostage release and “total victory.” His coalition’s hard-line stance and personal legal challenges, such as delaying his corruption trial, further complicate U.S.-Israel diplomatic dynamics.

While Trump holds leverage through significant U.S. aid to Israel, whether he will apply pressure is uncertain. For now, interactions with both Putin and Netanyahu suggest continued entanglements that challenge Trump’s foreign policy ambitions.

Source: Original article

Texas Democrats Leave State to Block GOP Redistricting Maps

Staff ReporterConflict, Politics 0

Texas House Democrats have left the state in a strategic move to block Republicans from passing new House maps that would favor the GOP with additional seats in future elections.

On Sunday, a group of Texas House Democrats departed the state, a calculated effort to prevent Republicans from advancing redistricting plans that would potentially allow the GOP to secure five more seats ahead of the 2026 elections.

By leaving, the Democrats are denying the Republican majority a quorum— the minimum number of lawmakers needed to conduct official legislative business. This maneuver echoes a similar tactic employed by Texas Democrats during mid-cycle redistricting attempts by the GOP in 2003. This time, many of the Democratic legislators have traveled to states led by their party, including Illinois, New York, and Massachusetts.

“We’re not here to have fun. We’re not here because this is easy, and we did not make a decision to come here today lightly,” Texas House Democratic Caucus Chair Gene Wu stated at a press conference in Illinois, where he was joined by members of his delegation and Governor J.B. Pritzker.

The strategy has garnered national support. The Democratic National Committee (DNC) expressed its backing, with Chair Ken Martin asserting in a statement, “We will fight alongside them to stop this anti-democratic assault.” He further promised a collective effort against the GOP’s House majority once this particular fight is concluded.

This strategic move to break quorum is a clear indication of the lengths to which the party is willing to go to oppose the current redistricting proposal before the close of the 30-day special session. The proposed new House lines, having advanced through the Texas House Select Committee on Congressional Redistricting, are pending a vote before the full Texas House.

The Democrats face limited options given the Republican majority in both chambers and the governor’s mansion. This tactic of breaking quorum comes with potential repercussions for the more than 50 lawmakers who have left the state— each could face a $500 daily penalty and possibly arrest.

Texas House Speaker Dustin Burrows announced on X (formerly Twitter) that the House will convene without their missing members, declaring that “all options will be on the table” if a quorum is not present. In another post on X, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton called for the arrest of the Democrats, stating, “Democrats in the Texas House who try and run away like cowards should be found, arrested, and brought back to the Capitol immediately.”

Meanwhile, Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker assured protection for the Texas Democrats who sought refuge in his state, underscoring their adherence to legal norms and their correct moral stance in this matter.

The backdrop to these dramatic developments is a broader, national context of redistricting strategies. Texas Republicans are redrawing their House map amidst a shifting political landscape as former President Trump eyes new opportunities ahead of potentially challenging elections for the GOP. Typically, redistricting occurs once every ten years following the U.S. Census; however, mid-decade alterations can occur, generally as a result of legal disputes over existing maps.

The proposed redistricting in Texas, which affects areas such as Dallas-Fort Worth, Austin, Houston, and the Rio Grande Valley, has triggered similar contemplations in other states. For instance, California’s Governor Gavin Newsom is considering revising his state’s maps, possibly via a ballot measure or through legislative means. Blue states like New York, Illinois, and New Jersey have also shown openness to revisiting their boundaries, while GOP-led states such as Florida may follow suit before 2026.

This heightened focus on redistricting amid upcoming elections has injected additional complexity and uncertainty into an already intense electoral cycle. It raises numerous uncertainties about candidate districts and may influence primary dates and filing deadlines.

According to The Hill, these strategic moves underscore the continuing and contentious political battle surrounding district lines nationwide.

Source: Original article

Bihar Voter Rolls Show High Deletion Rates in Key Areas

Staff ReporterPolitics, Nation 0

The Election Commission of India has flagged approximately 6.5 million voters in Bihar for potential removal from electoral rolls, posing significant disenfranchisement risks that could impact key battleground districts.

The Election Commission of India (ECI) has released data indicating that around 6.5 million voters in Bihar face potential disenfranchisement, representing an average risk of 8.3% across the state. This revelation comes amid concerns about the impact on upcoming elections in the region.

Fifteen of Bihar’s 38 districts have disenfranchisement risks higher than the state average, significantly affecting Gopalganj, Purnia, and Kishanganj, which top the list with risks of 15.1%, 12.07%, and 11.82%, respectively. These districts not only face greater risks but also highlight systemic threats targeting opposition strongholds, such as the Mahagathbandhan (MGB) areas and specific NDA territories.

The stakes are particularly high as Bihar’s key battlegrounds, such as Samastipur, Vaishali, and Muzaffarpur, exceed the statewide disenfranchisement risk, each with over 8%. The 2020 Assembly elections, where marginal victories were pivotal for the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) as the largest party, underscore the importance of these minimal vote differentials.

A deeper analysis reveals that districts like Saran, Bhojpur, and Siwan, recognized MGB bastions, now face high-risk disenfranchisement levels. Similar concerns resonate in urban strongholds such as Patna and in the Magadh region, where electoral victories heavily rely on consolidated voter bases.

Another crucial observation points to three distinct ‘risk’ regions: the Migration belt (Gopalganj, Saran, Siwan) affecting the RJD’s support, urban centers such as Bhagalpur and Patna affecting migrant and Dalit communities, and the Seemanchal-Mithilanchal arc (Purnia, Kishanganj, Madhubani) where minority votes critical to MGB and AIMIM are at stake.

ECI’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR), initiated on June 25, has been at the heart of these controversies. Opposition parties have voiced long-standing concerns about marginalized voters lacking the documents demanded by ECI. The Supreme Court has intervened to assure oversight against ‘mass deletions’ following legal petitions driven by these fears.

The data confirms concentrated disenfranchisement in specific political regions, aligning with The Wire’s previous Vulnerability Index. This index suggested that voter roll revisions disproportionately affect areas struggling with poverty and minority issues, forecasting potential political consequences that could realign Bihar’s electoral landscape.

Districts are categorized into tiers based on their disenfranchisement risks: Tier 1 with critical risk (above 10%), Tier 2 with high risk (8-10%), and Tier 3 with moderate risk (under 8%), each posing unique threats to electoral stability.

Particularly affected are regions with high out-migration, such as Gopalganj and Saran, impacting registered voters absent due to employment outside Bihar. This scenario underlines a significant threat to the RJD’s traditional voter bank.

The situation in urban centers is equally alarming, where economic pressures on migrant workers, renters, and informal workers lacking permanent residency documentation exacerbate disenfranchisement risks, as seen in Bhagalpur and Patna.

The Seemanchal-Mithilanchal arc findings confirm that intersections of poverty and minority status significantly heighten disenfranchisement risks, which undermines political support crucial to opposition parties like MGB and AIMIM.

Conversely, areas such as Araria, Paschim Champaran, and Darbhanga show lower-than-predicted disenfranchisement, although ADR percentages still indicate potential political shifts.

Overall, the potential removal of millions from electoral rolls could disrupt Bihar’s political power balance, adversely affecting opposition strongholds in favor of the ruling alliance. The migration belt, urban centers, and minority areas bear the brunt, amplifying concerns about the ECI process serving as a political tool rather than a neutral administrative procedure, a topic of intense debate as Bihar’s elections loom.

This administrative exercise appears poised to influence the redistribution of electoral power, potentially reshaping Bihar’s political terrain by favoring the current ruling coalition’s interests, according to The Wire.

Modi Faces Challenges from Trump’s Tariffs and Remarks

Staff ReporterPolitics, Cover, Diplomacy 0

U.S. President Donald Trump’s introduction of steep tariffs on India, alongside his criticisms of its economy and overtures to Pakistan, have placed Prime Minister Narendra Modi in a challenging political position.

Recent developments in international trade and diplomacy have significantly impacted India’s political landscape, focusing attention on Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Trump’s recent tariffs on Indian goods, coupled with his unfavorable remarks about India’s economy, have posed distinct challenges for Modi, separate from the broader national implications.

Modi, who has worked hard to present himself as a global statesman with close ties to influential world leaders, particularly in the United States, finds this carefully cultivated image under threat. The tariffs and Trump’s public criticism undermine Modi’s portrayal as a leader who can safeguard Indian interests on the global stage. Additionally, China’s persistent pressure without concessions adds to Modi’s burden, weakening his political image at home where foreign visits have been a tool to project his influence.

Opposition parties in India have seized on Trump’s critique of the Indian economy, labeling it “dead,” to challenge Modi’s economic strategies and foreign relations efforts. They argue that Modi’s previous support for Trump has backfired, leaving India diplomatically sidelined and economically vulnerable. This view is amplified by Modi’s recent omission of Trump’s name in a Lok Sabha speech, despite opposition leader Rahul Gandhi’s challenge to address the issue. This omission is used by political adversaries to portray Modi as reluctant to oppose the U.S. president, providing further fuel for criticism at a time when intra-party challenges are also emerging, particularly concerning the election of a new BJP president.

The economic repercussions of the U.S. tariffs are considerable. They pose risks to India’s export competitiveness, investor confidence, and Modi’s ambitious plans to attract global manufacturing to India. Affected sectors include labor-intensive industries like textiles, jewelry, and electronics, which may experience significant job losses. These developments threaten Modi’s narrative of transforming India into a global economic powerhouse, possibly endangering his vision of lifting India to the status of the world’s fourth-largest economy. Further complications could arise if the U.S. imposes penalties related to India’s policy towards Russia, potentially leading to higher energy prices and increased fiscal deficits.

Trump’s actions regarding Pakistan further complicate the situation for Modi. By equating India and Pakistan, Trump undermines Modi’s efforts to position India as a dominant regional power juxtaposed with its neighbors. This perceived American tilt towards Pakistan disrupts the nationalist rhetoric that is central to Modi’s support base, which values India’s independent global stature.

The sudden imposition of tariffs by Trump, notably higher than those encountered by other Asian economies, signals a disregard for prior diplomatic engagements, including Modi’s attempts to maintain amicable relations with the U.S. This abrupt policy shift leaves New Delhi with limited options, potentially requiring difficult concessions that could further negatively impact the economy.

As Modi grapples with these international challenges, his long-standing governance comes under scrutiny, with nowhere to deflect responsibility for the economic downturn. The situation marks a pivotal moment in Modi’s tenure, as foundational aspects of his political strength and domestic appeal are directly confronted by external forces.

Ultimately, Trump’s current diplomatic stance affects not only India but also directly challenges Modi’s political leadership and brand, presenting significant hurdles in his eleventh year in office, according to The Wire.

Cardinal Zuppi Urges End to War for Peace

Staff ReporterPolitics, Religion 0

In a powerful event at St. Peter’s Square, 40,000 young Italians gathered for the Jubilee of Youth, where Cardinals Matteo Zuppi and Pierbattista Pizzaballa emphasized peace and unity.

Some 40,000 young Italians convened in St. Peter’s Square for the “You Are Peter” Jubilee event dedicated to peacemaking. The participants engaged with messages from Cardinal Matteo Zuppi, President of the Italian Bishops’ Conference, and Cardinal Pierbattista Pizzaballa, the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem.

As evening descended, the event included music, Scripture readings, and moving faith testimonies, all underlining the Church’s spiritual solidarity with those experiencing conflict. Cardinal Zuppi began with an embrace for the attendees, expressing the Church’s joy and trust in the vibrancy and sincerity of their lives.

During his homily, Cardinal Zuppi cited a message from Cardinal Pizzaballa and a passage from the Gospel of Matthew, stressing the urgent need for humanity to end wars. He evoked the “mad crosses” of warfare, condemning weaponry that annihilates life, including the sacred spaces of hospitals. The Church, he lamented, stands under these crosses, bearing witness to immense suffering while committing to peace.

Zuppi referenced Pope Leo XIII’s call for peace that is both “unarmed and disarming,” urging, “Let us disarm our hearts, so we can disarm the hearts and hands of a violent world—to heal its wounds and prevent new conflicts!” His address warned against the normalization of enmity and the existential threat posed by nuclear weapons.

In a videomessage from Jerusalem, Cardinal Pizzaballa addressed the severe famine gripping Gaza, noting faith’s role amidst enduring devastation. He acknowledged the reality of pain but called for consolation and comfort in response. The Patriarch highlighted those in Gaza and Israel who serve as “bearers of light,” opting for unity over isolation.

Pizzaballa commended the charities, religious figures, and volunteers—representing diverse faiths—who are striving to restore hope. These efforts, he noted, embody the spirit of Jubilee, illustrating resilience in regions marked by conflict. “We need to look to them,” he advised, preparing for the reconstruction of physical and social structures.

Both Cardinals emphasized that the Church must actively engage in these challenges through persistent dialogue and, when necessary, difficult conversations, echoing the missions of the Apostles. Like Peter receiving the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, believers are called to be architects of trust and opportunity.

The event underscored a shared vision for peace, challenging participants to contribute towards a world where unity and compassion triumph over division and strife.

Source: Original article

Shah Rukh Khan Wins First National Award After 33 Years

Staff ReporterCover, Election, Film 0

Shah Rukh Khan has been awarded his first National Film Award for Best Actor, marking a long-awaited milestone in his distinguished career.

After an illustrious career spanning over 33 years, Bollywood icon Shah Rukh Khan has received his first National Film Award for his role in Jawan. The recognition is seen as a significant milestone for the actor, who is affectionately known as the “King of Bollywood.” This award comes on the heels of a storied journey marked by numerous acclaimed and commercially successful films.

The 71st National Film Awards, announced today, honored Shah Rukh with the Best Actor award for his powerful performance in Jawan. Despite his long list of achievements across both critically lauded and blockbuster movies, this marks his first National Award. Many in the industry and among his fanbase view this achievement as long overdue.

Shah Rukh Khan began his film career in 1992 with Deewana and swiftly ascended to become one of India’s most celebrated and bankable actors. Over the years, he has starred in films such as Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge, Swades, Chak De! India, and My Name Is Khan, each earning critical acclaim.

Despite being a fan favorite, Shah Rukh often found the prestigious National Film Award just out of his reach. In 2004, his performance as Mohan Bhargava, a NASA engineer reconnecting with his roots in Swades, was highly praised but overshadowed by Saif Ali Khan’s win for Hum Tum.

His role in Chak De! India as Kabir Khan, a hockey coach on a redemption path, led to the film winning a National Award, yet Shah Rukh himself was once again passed over for Best Actor, a title which went to Hrithik Roshan for Dhoom 2 in 2007.

In 2010, Shah Rukh delivered a powerful performance in My Name Is Khan, portraying Rizwan Khan, a man with Asperger’s Syndrome navigating a complex global backdrop. While it won international accolades, Amitabh Bachchan took the National Award for Best Actor that year for his role in Paa.

Finally receiving this recognition after years of near misses, Shah Rukh Khan’s fans and critics alike believe the award confirms his status not only as a beloved superstar but also as one of the finest actors working in Indian cinema today.

Beyond this recent accolade, Shah Rukh Khan’s contributions to cinema have been recognized with numerous prestigious honors. He is a recipient of the Padma Shri, one of India’s highest civilian awards, and has been awarded two of France’s distinguished titles, the Ordre des Arts et des Lettres and the Legion of Honour.

His journey to receiving a National Award underscores a career marked by persistence, outstanding performances, and a profound impact on audiences worldwide, cementing his legacy in the annals of Indian film history.

According to Hindustan Times.

Source: Original article

Birthright Citizenship and the U.S. Constitution

Staff ReporterCover, Politics, U.S. 0

On his first day in office, President Trump issued an executive order challenging the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of birthright citizenship, sparking a series of legal battles across the United States.

President Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship via executive order marked the start of numerous legal challenges, as state attorneys general, civil rights organizations, and immigrant groups swiftly filed lawsuits. This debate centers on the interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

The longstanding interpretation of this amendment has consistently affirmed a wide-ranging grant of citizenship. Highlighting this understanding, the Supreme Court’s 1898 ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark confirmed that the 14th Amendment guarantees birthright citizenship to all U.S.-born individuals, including those born to non-citizen parents. Notably, exceptions are rare, applying to cases such as children born to foreign diplomats.

Executive Order 14160, signed by Trump, seeks to deny citizenship to children born in the United States to mothers present unlawfully or temporarily and to fathers who are neither U.S. citizens nor lawful permanent residents. This would exclude the children of undocumented immigrants and those holding temporary visas, such as student or work visas, from being recognized as U.S. citizens.

The order directs federal agencies to withhold documents confirming citizenship for these children, implying a denial of passports and social security numbers, while potentially still receiving birth certificates.

The 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, ratified in 1868, was designed to settle debates surrounding citizenship eligibility decisively. Prior to this, the legal stance on citizenship was largely ambiguous, particularly regarding non-white persons born in the U.S. Early legal interpretations generally held that U.S.-born individuals were citizens, but this did not necessarily extend to enslaved or free Black persons, who faced significant legal vulnerabilities.

In the landmark Dred Scott v. Sandford case of 1857, the Supreme Court infamously ruled that Black people could not be U.S. citizens. This controversial decision was later rebuked by Republicans post-Civil War, leading to the inclusion of an unequivocal citizenship guarantee within the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause.

Congressional debate records reveal that the 14th Amendment’s inclusive citizenship guarantee was always intended to cover children of immigrants, regardless of parental legal status. During the 1866 discussions, Senator Jacob Howard clarified that the clause reflected existing national and natural law, affirming the citizenship of all born within U.S. borders. Despite concerns voiced by some lawmakers, Senator John Conness supported the inclusive nature of the language, emphasizing equal civil rights for all native-born individuals.

The Supreme Court reiterated this interpretation in Wong Kim Ark, dismissing claims against citizenship for U.S.-born children of non-citizens.

If implemented, Trump’s executive order could cause widespread issues, potentially rendering hundreds of thousands of children stateless, stripping them of essential rights and protections associated with citizenship. Stateless individuals lack access to crucial services and rights, including healthcare, education, and travel, and might face deportation to unfamiliar countries.

Additionally, the order risks creating severe bureaucratic challenges, as government entities would lose the reliability of birth certificates for citizenship verification, leading to increased potential for discriminatory practices.

Following numerous lawsuits disputing the order’s constitutionality, several federal district courts issued temporary blocks. The matter escalated to the Supreme Court in Trump v. CASA, where a divided court decided that universal preliminary injunctions are unlawful unless necessary to protect claimants’ rights. This decision led to further deliberations by lower courts without addressing the executive order’s constitutional validity.

While the Supreme Court’s recent decision allows for the potential enforcement of the order, recent lower court rulings have affirmed extensive blocks on its implementation. Despite the current legal ambiguity, many legal experts assert that the order is clearly unconstitutional, anticipating a future Supreme Court decision on the matter.

The question of birthright citizenship remains a contentious topic, with ongoing legal proceedings likely to shape this critical aspect of American citizenship law.

Source: Original article

Trump Proposes Revoking Birthright Citizenship in New Plan

Staff ReporterElection, Immigration, Politics 0

The Supreme Court recently allowed the federal government to develop plans to revoke birthright citizenship for children of certain immigrants, potentially leading to significant changes in U.S. citizenship policy.

In a move that raises fundamental questions about constitutional rights in the United States, the Supreme Court has enabled the Trump administration to begin formulating plans to end birthright citizenship for some children of immigrants. This policy shift targets approximately 150,000 babies born each year who have traditionally been granted automatic citizenship under the 14th Amendment since 1868.

Following the Supreme Court’s decision in June, an immigration agency unveiled the initial phase of its strategy to enforce this dramatic alteration in citizenship policy. This proposal includes the possibility of revoking citizenship from the children of immigrants without permanent legal status, as well as those whose parents are lawful residents, including visa holders, Dreamers, and asylum-seekers.

The plan suggests that there will be a federal review process of parents’ legal status, possibly taking place in hospitals shortly after childbirth. This approach could profoundly affect the lives of children born in the U.S., who might face deportation to countries they have never visited, leaving them in a state of statelessness.

This development follows a series of federal court decisions that initially blocked the administration’s efforts to change birthright citizenship. The courts previously deemed the executive order as unconstitutional. However, the Supreme Court’s recent ruling has shifted the legal landscape, allowing the government to pursue these plans further.

The implications of this policy are far-reaching, influencing the lives of many children born on American soil and challenging longstanding interpretations of the 14th Amendment. The proposed changes have sparked widespread debate over the nature of citizenship and constitutional rights in the United States.

The details of the implementation plan, released in a bureaucratic memo, have drawn significant attention due to their potential impact on the nation’s immigration and citizenship framework. The memo’s language suggests a deliberate intention to impose these changes, despite the complex legal and human rights issues involved.

According to Slate, this policy could lead many individuals, raised and living their entire lives in the U.S., to face removal to countries with which they have no connection, or to a future in legal uncertainty.

Source: Original article

DOJ to Prioritize Revoking Citizenship Cases

Staff ReporterElection, Immigration 0

The Justice Department has intensified its focus on denaturalization, aiming to strip U.S. citizenship from naturalized citizens involved in certain criminal activities, according to a recent memo directing attorneys to prioritize such cases.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) is placing a strong emphasis on denaturalization efforts, targeting naturalized Americans who have committed certain crimes, as per a June 11 memo. The initiative grants U.S. attorneys broader discretion in pursuing these cases and is aimed at individuals who were not born in the United States. According to 2023 data, there are nearly 25 million immigrants who hold naturalized citizenship.

One recent example of this policy in action is the case of Elliott Duke, a military veteran originally from the United Kingdom. Duke, who uses they/them pronouns, has had their citizenship revoked after being convicted of distributing child sexual abuse material, an activity they admitted to engaging in before becoming a U.S. citizen.

Denaturalization, a tactic that saw significant use during the McCarthy era and more recently under former Presidents Obama and Trump, is employed to remove citizenship from individuals who may have lied about criminal backgrounds or affiliations with illegal organizations on their applications. The current directive from Assistant Attorney General Brett A. Shumate indicates that such proceedings will be a top priority for the DOJ’s Civil Division.

“The Civil Division shall prioritize and maximally pursue denaturalization proceedings in all cases permitted by law and supported by the evidence,” Shumate noted in the memo.

This focus on denaturalization marks the latest step by the Trump administration to transform the U.S. immigration system fundamentally. Other actions have included attempts to end birthright citizenship and reduce refugee admissions.

Legal experts have voiced significant constitutional concerns regarding the potential implications for the families of naturalized citizens. According to Cassandra Robertson, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University, civil litigation for denaturalization raises issues of due process violations, as those involved are not entitled to government-provided legal representation, and the burden of proof is lower than in criminal cases.

Critics argue that this could lead to a “second class of U.S. citizens,” with those naturalized at greater risk of losing their citizenship. Sameera Hafiz from the Immigrant Legal Resource Center expressed shock at the administration’s expansion plans for denaturalization.

However, Hans von Spakovsky of the Heritage Foundation supports the measures, stating that the privilege of U.S. citizenship should be revoked from those who engage in serious criminal behavior.

The DOJ memo outlines expanded criteria for denaturalization, including national security violations and fraud crimes like those involving the Paycheck Protection Program or Medicare. Additionally, U.S. attorneys have been granted “wide discretion” in pursuing other cases deemed important by the Civil Division, leading to concerns about the government’s broad authority in these matters.

Steve Lubet, professor emeritus at Northwestern University, highlighted the vagueness of these categories and their potential overreach. He also raised concerns about the ripple effects on families, particularly children whose citizenship derives from a parent facing denaturalization.

The case of Elliott Duke illustrates the potential consequences for those caught in denaturalization proceedings. Duke, who was convicted of offenses before completing the naturalization process, is now effectively stateless and unable to challenge the legal decision without difficulty.

The push toward denaturalization parallels actions taken during the McCarthy era, characterized by intense scrutiny and removal of citizenship from thousands, until a 1967 Supreme Court ruling curtailed such practices. Recent technological advances under the Obama administration facilitated the identification of potential denaturalization cases, leading to an uptick in these actions during Trump’s first term.

Despite concerns about expanding the criteria for denaturalization, experts like Robertson question the scope of cases that actually warrant such action. She suggests that intensified enforcement might target individuals with minimal infractions, aligning with broader trends in immigration enforcement under the current administration.

Source: Original article

Trump Imposes Tariffs on India; New Delhi Delays Deal

Staff ReporterBusiness, Economy, Politics 0

U.S. President Donald Trump announced 25% tariffs on imports from India amid ongoing negotiations for a bilateral trade deal, but India remains resolute against making concessions that could harm its domestic agricultural sector.

The United States has targeted India with 25% tariffs on its exports, along with an unspecified penalty, as a trade agreement remains elusive. Despite this pressure, India has not hastily moved towards a deal, unlike countries such as Japan, which recently reached agreements with the U.S. covering market access for American autos and agricultural products.

The reluctance from India stems from a desire to protect its agricultural sector from increased U.S. imports, to safeguard the interests of its local farmers who represent a significant portion of the electorate. Recently, in the trade deal with the United Kingdom signed last week, India successfully shielded its crucial agricultural sectors from tariff concessions, setting a precedent for its negotiations with the U.S.

Carlos Casanova, a senior economist at UBP, commented on the steadfast approach by India, explaining that exports to the U.S. form a relatively small portion of India’s economy. Thus, the country is cautious about opening its agricultural sector to U.S. companies. Official U.S. data from 2024 confirms that goods imports from India amounted to $87.4 billion.

India’s Commerce and Industry Minister, Piyush Goyal, emphasized India’s cautious stance regarding its agricultural sector in a recent interview. He indicated that protecting the interest of farmers and micro, small, and medium enterprises is a priority. Goyal reiterated that New Delhi is not bound by deadlines when negotiating trade agreements and would only pursue a deal that aligns with national interests. He expressed confidence in securing a beneficial agreement by October-November 2025.

In discussion with CNBC, Jayant Dasgupta, former ambassador of India to the World Trade Organization, stated that India’s red lines, particularly concerning agriculture, genetically modified foods, and dairy, are firmly drawn, suggesting limited room for concessions.

Meanwhile, Harsha Vardhan Agarwal, president of the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce & Industry, expressed hope that the recent U.S. tariffs would be a temporary measure, anticipating the finalization of a long-term trade agreement soon.

Analysts have noted strategic reasons for Washington to expedite an agreement with India, underscoring the importance of maintaining a strong bilateral partnership in shaping the Indo-Pacific region. Harsh V. Pant of the Observer Research Foundation highlighted the U.S.’s interest in not alienating India during these negotiations.

This ongoing negotiation showcases the delicate balancing act of international trade agreements, wherein countries must weigh domestic concerns against international diplomatic goals.

Source: Original article

Kamala Harris Rules Out California Governor Run

Staff ReporterElection, Politics, U.S. 0

Former U.S. presidential candidate Kamala Harris has announced she will not run for governor of California, fueling speculation about her future political ambitions.

After an unsuccessful 2024 presidential campaign, Kamala Harris has dispelled rumors of her entering the California governor’s race. Harris, who previously served as a U.S. senator for California and worked as a prosecutor, made her announcement on social media, stating she would not seek the office in the upcoming election cycle.

“After deep reflection,” the former vice-president wrote in a statement, “I’ve decided that I will not run for Governor in this election.” She added that her role in public service will not include elected office “for now,” and promised to share more about her plans in the coming months.

This decision by Harris leaves open the possibility of another run for the White House in 2028, while removing a significant contender from the race to replace Governor Gavin Newsom. Newsom, a fellow Democrat and presumed to have his own presidential aspirations, cannot run for governor again as he is finishing his second and final term.

Harris’s announcement also seems to touch upon internal Democratic Party concerns about the party’s future direction after her loss to President Donald Trump in the recent presidential election. “As we look ahead, we must be willing to pursue change through new methods and fresh thinking—committed to our same values and principles, but not bound by the same playbook,” she stated.

The California gubernatorial primaries are scheduled for June 2026, with the general election set for November of the same year. The new governor will assume office in 2027. Given the Democratic dominance in California’s political landscape, whoever secures the party nomination is widely expected to win the governorship. The state has not had a Republican governor since Arnold Schwarzenegger left office in 2011.

California ranks as an economic powerhouse, often identified as the world’s fifth-largest economy. As the home of Silicon Valley, where major technology firms like Apple and Meta are headquartered, its governor wields substantial national influence through the state’s policies and regulations.

This latest move by Harris adds intrigue to California’s political scene and offers hints at her continued prominence in the national political arena, according to BBC News.

Source: Original article

Top Trump Allies Prepare for Potential Supreme Court Vacancy

Staff ReporterPolitics, USA 0

White House officials and conservative legal circles are preparing for a potential Supreme Court vacancy during President Donald Trump’s second term, with an eye towards nominees in the mold of Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas.

In anticipation of any potential vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court, White House officials and a network of conservative lawyers are organizing to ensure President Donald Trump can promptly nominate a justice who aligns with the current conservative majority.

These discussions are at a preliminary stage and are focused on selecting a nominee similar to Justices Samuel Alito, 75, and Clarence Thomas, 77. Both justices are known for their conservative jurisprudence and expansive view on Presidential powers. Trump allies are circulating shortlists to decide who might reliably uphold conservative values during a potentially lengthy tenure on the bench.

“We are looking for people in the mold of Alito, Clarence Thomas, and the late Justice Antonin Scalia,” stated a White House official knowledgeable about the process. However, the official added that preparing for a vacancy at this stage is still “premature.”

The Republican Party maintains control of the Senate, which must confirm the President’s court nominees. This majority enabled Trump to successfully appoint three justices—Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett—recognized within conservative legal communities during his first term.

Trump’s advisors aim to facilitate a seamless confirmation process, steering clear of the contentious hearings that marked Kavanaugh’s appointment in 2018. Concern is also growing among conservatives over Barrett’s occasional alignment with liberal judges, prompting a desire for a firmly conservative nominee.

“There’s a lot of anger at Amy Coney Barrett from the MAGA movement,” remarked Benjamin Wittes, editor-in-chief of Lawfare and a Brookings Institution senior fellow, suggesting that Trump’s next nominee might diverge from his prior selections. Trump retains the final decision on the nominee, with key roles played by Attorney General Pam Bondi, Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, White House Counsel David Warrington, and Deputy White House Counsel for nominations, Steve Kenny.

Mike Davis, a conservative lawyer and prominent Trump advocate, is poised to play a significant role in the vetting process. “Justice Thomas and Justice Alito are irreplaceable and I hope they do not retire anytime soon,” Davis told TIME. He confirmed that he has submitted a shortlist of “bold and fearless” nominees and plans to “play an outside supporting role” alongside the White House team.

Potential nominees currently being considered include Andrew Oldham, a Texas-based 5th Circuit Judge, and Neomi Rao from the District of Columbia Circuit Court. Oldham, who previously worked as general counsel for Texas Governor Greg Abbott, clerked for Justice Alito, while Rao, who clerked for Justice Thomas, would make history as the first Asian-American Supreme Court Justice and only the seventh woman to hold such a position.

Other names in the conversation include Aileen Cannon, James Ho, Raymond M. Kethledge, and Amul R. Thapar, all respected legal minds within conservative circles. Additionally, John Malcolm, from the Heritage Foundation, advocates for the inclusion of Senator Mike Lee of Utah, highlighting his textualist and originalist credentials despite his non-judicial role.

Throughout his second term, Trump has strengthened the conservative bloc in the Supreme Court, using his influence to affect U.S. public policy and consolidate presidential power. His administration hopes the upcoming judicial appointments will further this agenda. Previously relying on recommendations from groups like The Federalist Society, Trump might seek nominees demonstrating personal loyalty, according to Wittes. Such a direction raises concerns about prioritizing allegiance over established jurisprudence principles.

The groundwork laid now aims to secure a future justice capable of steering judicial outcomes in line with conservative and executive branch ideals, aligning with Trump’s broader political objectives.

India Sees Increase in Attacks on Christians and Churches

Staff ReporterPolitics, Politics, Religion 0

An alarming increase in attacks on Christians and their worship places has overshadowed recent months in India, as far-right Hindu groups intensify efforts to curtail religious conversions.

The frequency and intensity of attacks against Christians in India have surged, with more than 300 incidents recorded in the first nine months of the year, according to human rights groups. This troubling trend extends from the northern reaches of Uttarakhand to the southern state of Karnataka, contributing to a growing atmosphere of fear and unrest among the Christian community.

Amidst these developments, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s meeting with Pope Francis in October has only underscored the sharp contrast between efforts at religious diplomacy and the harsh realities on the ground in India. Simultaneously, Mohan Bhagwat, head of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS)—the ideological wing of Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)—stoked tensions with speeches warning against demographic changes due to alleged conversions and illegal immigration.

In late October, violent incidents targeting Christians unfolded following Bhagwat’s remarks. In Madhya Pradesh, BJP legislator Rameshwar Sharma incited communal tension by promoting a vision of an India free of Muslims and Christians. Meanwhile, members of Bajrang Dal, a far-right Hindu group, disrupted Christian prayer meetings in Karnataka, accusing participants of converting Hindus.

These actions are symptomatic of a broader pattern of hostility. For instance, a massive crowd, reportedly led by right-wing elements, ransacked a church in Uttarakhand, further victimizing its congregants. There, Pearl Lance, the pastor’s daughter, suffered physical and verbal abuse. The local police, accused of responding tardily, later filed charges against key victims of the attack, alleging forced conversions and inciting disharmony.

In Chhattisgarh, dubbed a “new laboratory” for anti-Christian sentiment, Hindu nationalist leaders have organized rallies opposing religious conversions. During one such event in Surguja, Parmatmanand Maharaj, a prominent Hindu leader, openly called for violence against Christians, advocating for a “stop, warn, kill” approach. Despite the incendiary nature of these calls, local police have yet to file any official complaints.

The narrative of anti-Christian aggression is mirrored in other states. In Karnataka, government-backed surveys on religious conversions have further exacerbated tensions, prompting fears among Christians. William Michaels of the United Christian Front notes an escalation in incidents over recent years, attributing it to these government measures.

Political discourse around these incidents often exposes underlying tensions. BJP officials, like Dharamlal Kaushik in Chhattisgarh, deflect accusations of stoking hatred by criticizing the opposition Congress party for purportedly exploiting minority voting blocs.

Apoorvanand, a scholar at Delhi University, emphasizes that the “normalization” of such violence is cause for significant concern. With attacks on Christians increasingly becoming public spectacles, he warns that these acts are intended as a display of power and control over minority communities.

This pattern suggests a strategic shift in focus among right-wing groups in India from Muslims to Christians. While these aggressive campaigns against religious minorities are not novel, experts note their increasing visibility and spectacle, indicating a solidifying agenda of religious intolerance.

These developments reveal a complicated intersection of politics, religion, and societal tensions, posing challenges for a country that is both richly diverse and deeply divided.

According to Al Jazeera, the data highlights a pressing issue that continues to develop as religious freedoms face ongoing threats from extremist factions.

Trump’s Trade War Victory Faces New Challenges

Staff ReporterEconomy, Politics 0

President Donald Trump has defied expectations by navigating a complex trade war landscape, achieving a temporary trade victory that has raised America’s customs revenue without triggering significant fallout or global retaliation, although challenges remain on the horizon.

The economic downturn many anticipated from President Donald Trump’s aggressive trade policies has yet to materialize. Contrary to predictions, the United States has managed to increase customs revenue through higher import tariffs, while keeping inflation reasonably low. Meanwhile, trading partners have mostly absorbed the higher tariffs, avoiding significant retaliation, offering Trump what some see as a trade war victory, albeit potentially short-lived.

Recent agreements with various international partners have resulted in increased tariffs on foreign goods entering the United States while maintaining minimal or zero tariffs on American exports. Some nations have opened markets previously inaccessible to U.S. goods, pledged investments in the United States, and removed what the Trump administration views as barriers to trade, like digital services taxes.

However, there are signs that Trump’s early success may not endure. In Europe, dissatisfaction is brewing. Following a last-minute agreement to meet Trump’s trade deal deadline, several European leaders expressed discontent. French Prime Minister François Bayrou described the situation as a “dark day,” while Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban criticized Trump’s approach. Bernd Lange, head of the European Parliament’s trade committee, said the resulting framework is “not satisfactory.” The European Union must resolve key issues to avoid unraveling the fragile trade ceasefire.

On the northern front, U.S.-Canada trade talks have stalled. Although Canada has backed down on the digital services tax criticized by Trump, the president continues to threaten increased tariffs on Canadian products like lumber. While the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) keeps many Canadian goods tariff-free, it doesn’t cover all imports. Potential tariff hikes on Canadian goods could impact American consumers. Notably, this dispute highlights uncertainties in the recent de-escalation of the trade war; despite having negotiated the current trade agreement during his first term, Trump retains the power to reintroduce tariffs.

Negotiations with China remain precarious as well. The anticipated next round of talks aims to continue suspending the historically high tariffs imposed by both countries. However, progress beyond this pause remains uncertain. The U.S. administration has voiced frustration over China’s perceived delays in fulfilling previous commitments and has sought decreased regulatory barriers on technology shipments. While China desires more access to critical semiconductors, the U.S. seeks increased availability of rare earth magnets. The administration has criticized China’s slow progress, arguing the failure to meet prior agreements hampers critical electronics production. Despite Trump’s softened rhetoric in recent months, U.S.-China trade relations teeter on a precarious edge.

A pivotal decision regarding the legality of Trump’s tariffs looms. On Thursday, a court hearing will determine whether most of Trump’s tariffs are lawful under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. A federal court previously ruled that Trump exceeded his authority by levying tariffs on these grounds. The appeals court has temporarily halted the ruling, with a final decision pending. If the court rules against Trump, he may resort to alternative methods to impose tariffs, though this could limit his latitude without Congressional approval, potentially allowing for only brief, low-rate tariffs.

The U.S. economy shows mixed signals amidst these global trade tensions. Though robust, as indicated by strong retail sales, a healthy labor market, and rising consumer confidence, potential inflation effects warrant caution. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported a slow increase in prices for some tariff-affected goods, a developing trend in categories such as clothing, appliances, and electronics. Major retailers like Walmart and consumer goods firms like Procter & Gamble have acknowledged upcoming price hikes due to tariffs. Automobile giants GM, Volkswagen, and Stellantis each reported at least $1 billion in tariff-related costs last quarter.

While economists expect inflation to rise in the coming months, reminiscent of recent inflationary nostalgia, projections fall short of anticipating a severe crisis. As these tariffs settle in, price shocks reminiscent of spiked inflation rates in recent years are not anticipated, although consumers remain cautious due to past economic pressures.

French PM Criticizes EU-US Trade Deal as Submission

Staff ReporterBusiness, Politics 0

France has criticized a recent trade agreement between the European Union and the United States, labeling it a “dark day” for Europe and suggesting it reflects a submission to U.S. interests.

PARIS — A new trade deal framework between the United States and the European Union has sparked controversy, with France branding the agreement as disadvantageous for Europe. French Prime Minister Francois Bayrou described the deal as a “dark day” for the continent, arguing that it indicated a capitulation to U.S. President Donald Trump. The accord introduces a 15% tariff on EU goods while not immediately affecting U.S. imports with reciprocal European tariffs.

Bayrou’s strong reaction underscores ongoing discontent in France, which had consistently urged tougher EU negotiations with the Trump administration. France’s stance markedly differed from the more measured approaches of Germany and Italy, which preferred a conciliatory strategy.

“It is a dark day when an alliance of free peoples, brought together to affirm their common values and to defend their common interests, resigns itself to submission,” Bayrou wrote on the social media platform X, referring to the “von der Leyen-Trump deal.”

Despite receiving criticism from the French government, the deal has been met with a more subdued response from Berlin and Rome. The varied reactions highlight the differing economic priorities within the EU. Whereas France has been vocal in its opposition, President Emmanuel Macron has remained silent since the agreement was signed by Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.

While French ministers acknowledged some positive aspects of the deal — such as exemptions in the spirits and aerospace sectors — they maintain that it is fundamentally imbalanced. European Affairs Minister Benjamin Haddad voiced dissatisfaction and called for the EU to utilize its anti-coercion instrument, a mechanism designed for non-tariff retaliation.

Trade Minister Laurent Saint-Martin further criticized the EU’s negotiation tactics, suggesting that the bloc should have been more assertive in addressing what he saw as an aggressive maneuver by Trump. “Donald Trump only understands force,” Saint-Martin said on France Inter radio. “It would have been better to respond by showing our capacity to retaliate earlier. And the deal could have probably looked different,” he added.

Macron had previously advocated for a tit-for-tat response to any U.S. tariffs, favoring equivalent measures on American imports, particularly in the services sector where the U.S. runs a surplus with the EU.

The discord within Europe was further evident as the softer stance promoted by German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni prevailed. Their countries’ greater dependence on U.S. exports likely influenced their preference for a diplomatic approach.

The trade deal remains a contentious subject, reflecting broader complexities in transatlantic relations. As the EU navigates its collective economic interests, the agreement’s implications will likely continue to stir debate among member states.

Source: Original article

Redistricting May Impact Future US House Elections

Staff ReporterElection, Politics 0

Texas Republicans are considering breaking with traditional redistricting timelines to gain additional congressional seats ahead of the midterm elections, potentially influencing similar moves in other states.

The Texas Legislature is facing a pivotal decision as President Trump has called for the creation of new congressional districts that could enhance Republican representation in time for the upcoming midterm elections. Texas currently holds 38 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, with Republicans occupying 25 and Democrats 12, while one seat remains vacant following the death of a Democrat.

The redistricting process, traditionally following the decennial U.S. Census or a court ruling, is at the heart of this politically strategic move. Doug Spencer, Rothgerber Jr. Chair in Constitutional Law at the University of Colorado, noted increased efforts by political actors to challenge traditional boundaries and reconfigure political landscapes.

The potential trial of new mid-decade redistricting rules in Texas has prompted other states to watch closely, assessing whether to adopt similar strategies. The rules guiding redistricting remain variable, with each state possessing its own laws and regulations. Political leaders are keenly gauging public and legal tolerance for such initiatives.

The regular decennial redistricting cycle leverages population data from the U.S. Census Bureau to allocate the 435 House seats among the states, a process called reapportionment. States establish their district lines based on how their population has changed relative to others. Some states employ independent commissions to delineate political boundaries, whereas others leave the task to legislative bodies, which sometimes results in judicial challenges under the Voting Rights Act if the maps are deemed unfair.

Though often contentious, there are no federal restrictions against drawing new districts mid-decade to bolster the ruling party’s congressional clout. “The laws about redistricting just say you have to redistrict after every census,” Spencer pointed out, noting that some state legislatures have interpreted this as an opportunity for additional redistricting outside the usual timeline.

Among the states considering such moves, California Governor Gavin Newsom has expressed readiness to counteract Republican initiatives in Texas by enhancing Democratic representation, although constitutional requirements for independent commissions might complicate such efforts.

Texas is no stranger to redistricting complexities, having faced similar situations in the past. After the 2000 census, a federal court stepped in to draw the congressional map when the state legislature failed to agree. That move, driven by then U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, eventually led to Republicans gaining five additional seats.

The legality of politically motivated redistricting, often labeled gerrymandering, was brought to light in a landmark 2019 Supreme Court decision. It ruled that federal courts should refrain from adjudicating partisan gerrymandering disputes, though it left room for litigation on the basis of racial discrimination under the Voting Rights Act.

The prospect of Texas setting a precedent for mid-cycle redistricting has reverberated across the nation. Democratic Representative Suzan DelBene has signaled that Democratic-led states might reassess their maps if Texas proceeds. New York and other Democratic strongholds could face similar decisions, though they must contend with their own legislative constraints against gerrymandering.

On the Republican front, states like Ohio and Florida, led by Gov. Ron DeSantis, are weighing early redistricting options to optimize their political leverage before future elections. Ohio is mandated by law to redraw its maps by the mid-2026 election cycle, providing a natural opportunity to reconsider its district lines.

As the redistricting narrative unfolds, all eyes remain on Texas and its legislative decisions, which could herald a ripple effect across the political landscape in the United States.

Source: Original article

Pope Leo Meets Russian Orthodox Leader to Discuss Ukraine War

Staff ReporterPolitics, Religion 0

Pope Leo met with Metropolitan Anthony from the Russian Orthodox Church to discuss the war in Ukraine and Orthodox-Catholic dialogue amidst ongoing global conflicts.

Pope Leo held a meeting with Metropolitan Anthony on Saturday, a prominent official within the Russian Orthodox Church, at the Vatican. This gathering marked a potential diplomatic move to mend the strained relations between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, exacerbated by Russia’s military actions in Ukraine.

The Vatican reported that Pope Leo engaged with Anthony, who is the chairman of the Department of External Church Relations, along with five other high-ranking clerics during this morning audience.

In a statement from the Russian Orthodox Church, it was noted that the discussion covered various topics related to the state of Orthodox-Catholic dialogue. The conversation also addressed international conflicts, with particular focus on the situations in Ukraine and the Middle East.

Since his papacy began in May, Pope Leo has frequently called for peace in international disputes. This month, he expressed to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy the Vatican’s willingness to serve as a host for peace talks between Russia and Ukraine. Despite this offer, Russian officials have expressed skepticism about the Vatican’s suitability as a negotiation venue, citing its geographical position within NATO-aligned Italy, which has supported Ukraine.

Patriarch Kirill, the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, has been a vocal supporter of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. During the meeting, Kirill’s congratulations were delivered to Pope Leo regarding his election. In response, the Vatican affirmed that Pope Leo expressed his appreciation for the greetings from Patriarch Kirill and emphasized the significance of advancing relations with the Russian Orthodox Church.

Source: Original article

Ben-Gvir Criticizes Increased Gaza Aid, Claims He Was Excluded

Staff ReporterPolitics 0

Israel’s decision to increase humanitarian aid to Gaza has been criticized by far-right national security minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, who claims it is a “surrender to Hamas” and asserts he was not included in the relevant discussions.

Israel’s move to boost humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip has sparked controversy among its political leaders. Itamar Ben-Gvir, Israel’s far-right national security minister, vehemently denounced the decision, describing it as capitulation to Hamas and expressing frustration over being excluded from the deliberations.

Ben-Gvir conveyed his discontent through a social media post on Saturday night, revealing that he was informed by a source in the Prime Minister’s Office that a security consultation occurred during Shabbat—a day of rest and ritual observance for many Jews—without his involvement.

“On Saturday night, I was informed by a source in the Prime Minister’s Office that during Shabbat a security consultation took place without me,” Ben-Gvir wrote, emphasizing his readiness to participate in important security discussions even on the holy day.

Israel’s military had announced earlier that they would open corridors to allow humanitarian aid into Gaza and pause military operations in specific areas, responding to international criticisms over civilians suffering in the region.

Ben-Gvir, known for his hardline stance, has consistently argued for continuing military actions in Gaza and stands strongly against any ceasefires with Hamas. He referred to the latest decision to aid Gaza as a “surrender” that he believes jeopardizes the safety of Israeli soldiers and hinders efforts to recover hostages.

“The only way to win the war and bring back the hostages is to completely stop the ‘humanitarian’ aid, conquer the entire strip, and encourage voluntary migration,” Ben-Gvir stated, outlining his approach.

The backdrop to this situation involves Israel’s imposition of an 11-week blockade on all aid into the area starting in March, which was only lifted in late May through efforts by the US- and Israel-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF). This blockade resulted in dire consequences, with more than 1,000 Palestinians reported dead in attempts to access aid, as noted by the United Nations. Aid organizations continue to warn about the spread of “mass starvation” in the region.

The decision to increase aid remains a contentious point among leaders, reflecting the complex dynamics at play in the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas, and highlighting the challenges in balancing military objectives with humanitarian needs.

Source: Original article

UK-India Trade Deal to Boost Bilateral Trade by $34 Billion

Staff ReporterPolitics, Cover, Economy 0

The United Kingdom and India have inked a historic free trade agreement projected to bolster their bilateral trade by over $34 billion annually, significantly boosting both economies.

The free trade agreement (FTA), signed on Thursday in the presence of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, aims to enhance economic collaboration between the world’s fifth and sixth largest economies by reducing tariffs and expanding market access.

The finalized trade pact, which took three years of intense negotiations, addresses crucial issues like visas, tariff reductions, and tax breaks. The urgency to complete the agreement accelerated as global trade scenarios shifted with U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariff policies stirring global markets.

Once fully implemented, the agreement is expected to raise the bilateral trade by £25.5 billion annually by 2040. In 2024, the trade in goods and services between the two nations stood at over £40 billion.

This deal, hailed as a significant achievement by both leaders, promises to provide expansive benefits such as boosting wages, raising living standards, and lowering consumer prices, according to Starmer. Modi praised the agreement as a “blueprint for shared prosperity,” emphasizing the increased access to the UK market for Indian goods such as textiles, jewelry, agricultural products, and engineering items.

The terms of the agreement allow for the elimination or reduction of tariffs on 92% of UK goods exported to India, while up to 99% of Indian goods shipped to Britain will benefit from tariff exemptions. This development is a crucial strategic win for India’s trade position, enhancing market access for sectors previously burdened by high tariffs and regulatory hurdles.

According to Dhiraj Nim, an economist at ANZ Bank, the agreement reflects a strategic triumph for New Delhi’s trade diplomacy, offering Indian goods significant advantages. The UK government anticipates a reduction in the weighted average tariffs on its exports to India from 15% to 3%. However, the agreement awaits ratification by both countries’ parliaments, expected to take several months.

Beyond tariff reductions, the pact includes provisions exempting Indian temporary workers in the UK from paying social security contributions for three years, potentially increasing India’s talent presence in the UK.

The FTA’s impact extends across multiple sectors. For instance, tariffs on UK scotch and gin will be halved from 150% to 75%, eventually dropping to 40% over a decade. Similarly, tariffs on brandy and rum will be initially cut to 110% and further reduced to 75%. The automotive industry will see duties decline to 10% within five years under a quota system, down from the current rates of up to 110%.

Before this agreement, UK goods faced an average duty of 14.6% in India, while Indian goods attracted a 4.2% duty rate, as estimated by Samiran Chakraborty, a Citi Bank economist. This trade pact is among the first signed by India with a developed economy, highlighting the UK’s role in 3% of India’s total goods trade last year, primarily machinery and equipment, followed by textiles and footwear.

Benefiting significant Indian sectors like textiles, gems, and jewelry, the deal is poised to support employment and promote industrial growth in India, noted Nim. As market access improves, India’s trade surplus with the UK could widen over time, though easing UK export barriers might help narrow this gap in the future.

“It is hard to say exactly which direction the surplus would go,” Nim stated, though a rise in overall trade volume is certain.

For both countries, the agreement offers leverage in ongoing negotiations with other trading partners, including the U.S., analysts suggest. Alicia Garcia Herrero, chief economist at Natixis Bank, noted this deal enhances both nations’ positions compared to the U.S.

As London continues to work out the details of its trade pact with the U.S. following an agreement in May, a potential meeting between Starmer and Trump is anticipated during the U.S. President’s personal visit to Scotland.

Economically, the deal is expected to contribute an additional £4.8 billion ($6.5 billion) each year to the UK’s economic output, which was £2.85 trillion in 2024. Modi views this agreement as a strategic opportunity to propel India’s trade discussions with other developed nations, aiming to position India as a competitive and viable trade partner.

As Sameep Shastri, vice president of the BRICS Chamber of Commerce and Industry, articulated on CNBC’s Inside India, the UK agreement signals India’s readiness to engage on equitable trade terms with Western powers, strengthening its global trade voice.

Meanwhile, India is rushing to finalize a trade deal with Washington before August 1 to avoid increased U.S. tariffs scheduled to rise to 26%.

Republicans Divided on Obamacare Tax Breaks Extension Amid Cost Concerns

Staff ReporterHealth, Politics 0

Republican leaders face internal conflict as they navigate calls to extend Affordable Care Act funding to avoid potential insurance premium hikes, while conservative party members push for its expiration.

Republican leaders are confronting a challenging dilemma as they are pressured to extend funding for the Affordable Care Act (ACA), commonly known as “Obamacare,” which is set to expire at the end of this year. The debate over the future of these subsidies has highlighted divisions within the party, as some members advocate for their extension to prevent insurance premium increases and the possibility of millions of Americans losing health coverage.

Despite these calls for action, many conservative Republicans remain staunchly opposed to continuing the subsidies. They argue that allowing them to expire aligns with fiscal responsibility and an ideological opposition to the ACA itself. The premium tax credits in question currently cost over $30 billion annually, a figure that was initially adopted as part of pandemic-related relief measures.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has projected that if the funding is allowed to expire, approximately 5 million Americans could lose their insurance coverage by 2034. This potential outcome weighs heavily on some Republican lawmakers who are wary of the political repercussions that could unfold if millions of constituents are affected negatively.

Rep. Jason Smith, R-Mo., who chairs the House Ways and Means Committee, indicated that discussions on how to address the ACA subsidies are ongoing within the party. “A lot of people” are engaged in conversations about the subsidies, Smith noted, although he refrained from taking a definitive stance on the issue.

Smith acknowledged the complexity of the situation, stating, “There’s some interest to do something. There’s some interest to do nothing. So it’s threading that needle.” This comment underscores the delicate balance Republicans must strike between responding to fiscal concerns and addressing potential political fallout from their base and general electorate.

As the year progresses, the Republican Party must decide whether to uphold its traditional opposition to the ACA by allowing subsidies to lapse, or to consider the pragmatic implications of such a move, including potential backlash at the polls in future elections.

According to NBC News, the internal conflict within the GOP over extending the ACA funding reflects broader tensions in balancing ideological principles with the demands of governance.

UN Staff Union Declares No Confidence in Secretary-General

Staff ReporterCover, Election, Politics 0

The UN Staff Union in Geneva has unanimously declared a vote of no confidence in the Secretary-General and the UN80 restructuring plan, citing concerns over transparency, job cuts, and organizational direction.

The United Nations is facing a growing internal backlash against its ambitious UN80 restructuring initiative. Staff unions are rallying against the plan, which has now sparked a vote of no confidence targeting UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and Under-Secretary-General Guy Ryder, the leader of the restructuring process.

On July 24, an Extraordinary General Assembly meeting held by the Staff Union Council in Geneva culminated in the adoption of a critical motion. Attended by nearly 600 staff members—well above the quorum of 200—the meeting’s participants unanimously expressed grave concerns over the UN80 plan, voicing distrust in the leadership charged with its roll-out.

UN Deputy Spokesperson Farhan Haq responded cautiously, reaffirming the organization’s commitment to engaging with staff representatives. “We remain committed, as we have been from the beginning of the UN80 Initiative, to consultation with staff representatives and engagement with them through the procedures in place for this purpose,” Haq stated. He further urged a collective approach to mitigate negative impacts and navigate the challenging reforms ahead for a more effective United Nations.

A memo from Laura Johnson, Executive Secretary, and Ian Richards, President of the Staff Union in Geneva, presented multiple reasons for the disenchantment. One major point of contention is the lack of vision and evaluation in the UN80 initiative, which critics claim has been hastily conducted. Staff unions also criticize budget proposals for 2026, which suggest cutting 20 percent of posts without evidence of crisis resolution, while contrasting this with other organizations maintaining zero-growth budgets.

The union’s memo also denounces the reinforcement of a top-heavy UN structure. Most job cuts are expected at junior levels, with no reductions at the Under-Secretaries-General level. Additionally, allegations have surfaced that Secretary-General Guterres has extended some USG contracts beyond his mandate, promoting personnel selectively while limiting others to a year to avoid indemnities during separations.

Additional apprehension stems from the decentralization proposal, which could increase long-term costs, and the indictment of staff for organizational failures, which may partially result from the UN’s dwindling visibility in peace and security matters.

The UNOG Staff Union intends to deliver the motion and its underlying concerns to the Secretary-General and subsequently to UN Member States. Staff members are also encouraged to voice their grievances through a survey conducted by the Coordination Committee for International Staff Unions and Associations (CCISUA), active until July 27, as well as direct correspondence with union representatives.

Simultaneously, the UN80 Initiative is progressing under the oversight of Guy Ryder, with a Task Force exploring three primary areas: enhancing efficiencies and improvements, mandate reviews mandated by Member States, and a strategic review of deeper, structural organizational changes. Secretary-General Guterres underscores the initiative’s broader implications, stressing that UN budgets impact lives across the globe.

The initiative’s core objectives focus on improved efficiency and effectiveness by streamlining operations and reducing costs while better aligning the UN’s operations with its mandates. Ongoing structural reforms may consolidate departments and agencies, aiming for a strategic realignment of the UN’s programs to current necessities and priorities.

The discontent among staff highlights the challenges of implementing organizational change in a complex, globally-distributed workforce, as internal opposition and the drive for reform continue to shape the trajectory of the UN80 initiative.

Source: Original article

Trump’s Stance Changes on Prosecuting Former Presidents

Staff ReporterCover, Election, Governance 0

As President Donald Trump and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard seek to pacify their base over the Jeffrey Epstein files, they propose the idea of charging former President Barack Obama with treason for allegedly undermining Trump’s first presidency.

The suggestion by Trump and Gabbard involves allegations that Obama orchestrated false intelligence regarding Russian interference in the 2016 election to weaken Trump before assuming office. Despite the audacious claim, the primary challenge is the lack of evidence against Obama or other officials. Furthermore, even substantial evidence might clash with legal immunity afforded to former presidents.

Gabbard’s narrative suggests Obama engineered intelligence about Russian interference during the 2016 election to damage Trump. However, such claims are based on dubious interpretations and misleading information. Moreover, significant intelligence findings have been repeatedly validated, even by Republicans like Trump’s Secretary of State Marco Rubio in a crucial 2020 Senate report.

Besides evidentiary challenges, there’s the issue of whether Obama would be immune from prosecution—a situation paradoxically shaped by Trump himself. In 2024, Trump championed the notion that presidents should have extensive immunity from criminal charges, a stance upheld by the Supreme Court, potentially shielding Obama from any prosecution attempt.

Despite suggestions from Trump and Gabbard that Obama could face charges, Trump’s own legal team had previously argued against such actions, emphasizing the vital need for presidential immunity. Trump’s former personal lawyer, D. John Sauer, told the Supreme Court that without immunity from criminal prosecution, the presidency would be incapacitated.

Sauer went as far as positing that a president could make extreme decisions, like ordering the assassination of political opponents, without facing charges since such actions would fall under official presidential duties.

While the Supreme Court didn’t endorse this extreme interpretation, it did reinforce presidential immunity. This raises the question of whether such immunity would apply to Obama.

The Court concluded actions taken under a president’s core executive powers are immune. Furthermore, presidents possess presumed immunity for acts within their official responsibilities, which are not patently beyond their authority. However, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. established a high threshold for instances in which immunity wouldn’t apply.

The ruling’s implications are still debated, especially concerning Trump’s alleged actions related to the January 6 Capitol riot. Although these cases never reached trial after Trump’s election, prosecutors and judges continue to reassess valid evidence and charges.

Harvard law professor Richard Lazarus noted, “Assuming this nonsense is true, if Obama were acting in his official capacity in merely communicating with his intelligence folks about Russian interference, clear immunity.” But if Obama’s actions were personal, aiming to support Clinton’s campaign, immunity might not be so apparent.

Comparatively, it would be simpler for Obama to argue that the actions in question encompassed official duties, unlike Trump’s attempts to contest election results, which fall outside a president’s established role, typically managed by states.

In the eyes of Trump’s and Gabbard’s accusations, Obama was involved in creating intelligence reports. However, seeking intelligence falls under a president’s core responsibilities. Even if not, such actions remain within the “outer perimeter” of official duties, where overcoming immunity is challenging.

UCLA law professor Rick Hasen noted “Communicating with intelligence officials would seem to fall into the scope of official duties.” Yet, theoretical charges would face a major hurdle due to the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United States, precluding the use of official acts as criminal evidence.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, during a press briefing, repeatedly deferred on whether immunity applied to Obama. “I’ll leave that to the Department of Justice,” she remarked.

Overall, while the situation appears academic, it remains highly speculative that Trump and his Justice Department would pursue prosecuting Obama. Historically, Trump’s claims often dissipate. However, media coverage, more focused on Obama allegations than the Epstein files, indicates a potential temporary diversion strategy.

This juxtaposition is striking. Trump’s legal position argued for comprehensive presidential immunity as essential for executive functions. Yet, he suggests abandoning those standards for his predecessor’s more official-seeming actions.

According to Trump’s legal rationale, Obama could arguably have taken far more drastic actions than adjusting intelligence reports, potentially without consequence.

Source: Original article

Trump Signs Order Easing Homeless Removal Policies

Staff ReporterElection, Nation, Politics 0

President Donald Trump has signed an executive order aimed at facilitating the removal of homeless individuals from public areas, redirecting federal resources to relocate them to rehabilitation and substance misuse facilities.

President Donald Trump took a significant step in addressing homelessness by signing an executive order that empowers local authorities to more easily remove homeless individuals from public spaces. The order, signed on Thursday, directs Attorney General Pam Bondi to overturn legal precedents and nullify consent decrees that restrict local governments’ ability to relocate homeless persons.

The executive order also mandates the redirection of federal resources to transport affected individuals to rehabilitation and substance misuse facilities. Additionally, it instructs Bondi to collaborate with Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Housing and Urban Development Secretary Scott Turner, and Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy. The aim is to expedite federal funding to states and municipalities that actively tackle “open illicit drug use, urban camping and loitering, and urban squatting,” while also monitoring sex offenders’ locations.

On Friday, President Trump described the order as a reasonable solution to the country’s homelessness crisis. “Right outside, there were some tents, and they’re getting rid of them right now,” Trump said to a reporter on the White House South Lawn. “We can’t have it—when leaders come to see me to make a trade deal for billions and billions and even trillions of dollars, and they come in and there’s tents outside of the White House. It doesn’t sound nice.”

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt stated that the executive order was a demonstration of Trump’s commitment to “end homelessness across America.” She added that by removing “vagrant criminals” from the streets and reallocating resources towards substance abuse programs, the Trump Administration aims to foster safer communities and assist individuals struggling with addiction or mental health issues.

However, the order has faced significant criticism from advocates for the homeless community. Donald Whitehead, executive director of the National Coalition for the Homeless, argued that the order will worsen homelessness. “These executive orders ignore decades of evidence-based housing and support services in practice,” said Whitehead in a press release. “They represent a punitive approach that has consistently failed to resolve homelessness and instead exacerbates the challenges faced by vulnerable individuals.”

The National Homelessness Law Center also condemned the order, stating that it “deprives people of their basic rights and makes it harder to solve homelessness.” According to the center, the directive will increase police presence and institutionalization in response to homelessness, further expanding the number of people living in tents, cars, and on the streets.

The executive order follows a Supreme Court decision last month in favor of an Oregon city, allowing it to ticket homeless individuals for sleeping outside. The ruling dismissed arguments that such “anti-camping” ordinances violate the Constitution’s ban on “cruel and unusual” punishment. The case had been closely monitored by city and state officials grappling with a surge in homelessness and the emergence of encampments under bridges and in urban parks nationwide.

Homelessness in the United States reached record levels last year, largely due to insufficient affordable housing, an influx of migrants seeking refuge, and natural disasters that displaced many people from their homes, according to the Department of Housing and Urban Development. In 2024, over 770,000 people experienced homelessness, marking an 18% increase from 2023. This was the largest annual rise since HUD began gathering data in 2007, excluding the change from 2021 to 2022, when a full count was not conducted due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

During his campaign for president, Trump frequently highlighted the homelessness crisis, describing it as a destructive force on American cities. In a September campaign rally in North Carolina, he vowed that “the homeless encampments will be gone” and emphasized the need to address the issue.

Source: Original article

Poll Shows Growing Disapproval of Trump Among Independents

Staff ReporterEditorial/Opinion, Election, Politics 0

President Donald Trump’s approval rating among independent voters has dropped sharply in a recent Gallup poll, raising concerns for Republican leaders ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

President Donald Trump faces declining approval ratings among independent voters, according to a new Gallup survey. The dip in support is primarily attributed to dissatisfaction with his handling of key issues such as the federal budget, the economy, and immigration.

The July Gallup poll reveals that Trump’s job approval rating has fallen to 37 percent among all American adults, marking the lowest point of his second term. Among self-identified independents, his approval rating stands at 29 percent, reflecting a 17-point decline from January, equaling his lowest rating with this group since taking office.

Notably, 64 percent of independents expressed an unfavorable view of Trump’s job performance. In contrast, the sentiment among party lines shows stark differences—only 7 percent of Republicans shared this unfavorable view, whereas 97 percent of Democrats reported unfavorable opinions.

The survey was conducted shortly after the passing of Trump’s megabill by Congress, with 73 percent of independents disapproving of his management of the federal budget. Similarly, 65 percent of all adults surveyed disapproved of his budgetary handling, an increase from the 52 percent recorded in March of this year.

This decline in independent support signals potential challenges for Republican leaders as they strive to hold onto their narrow control of the House and Senate in the upcoming 2026 midterms. Trump has consistently struggled to achieve more than 40 percent approval from independents on crucial issues central to his 2024 campaign strategy.

Despite emphasizing economic fortification, 68 percent of independents disapprove of Trump’s handling of the economy. Overall disapproval among adults rose to 61 percent, continuing a trend from previous months: 54 percent in February and 59 percent in March.

Immigration remains a polarizing issue despite being a central part of Trump’s agenda, which he frames as vital to national security and economic stability. The poll indicates that only 30 percent of independents approve of Trump’s immigration policies. Disapproval among all adults reached 60 percent, up from 51 percent in February.

Democrats overwhelmingly disapprove of Trump’s management across major issues. Approval from Democrats is notably low, with only 2 percent approving his economic policies and 3 percent supporting his budget management. Just 4 percent approve of his immigration strategies.

Conversely, Trump continues to receive strong backing from Republicans, with 89 percent approving of his presidency. Specifically, 84 percent support his handling of the economy, 81 percent endorse his management of the federal budget, and 88 percent approve of his immigration policies.

The Gallup poll surveyed 1,002 adults via telephone from July 7-21, 2025, with a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4 percentage points. The margin of error is larger for subgroups.

According to Politico.

Source: Original article

Court Again Blocks Trump Birthright Citizenship Order Nationwide

Staff ReporterPolitics, USA 0

A second court has ruled that former President Donald Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship cannot be enforced nationwide, following a Supreme Court decision that limits nationwide injunctions.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, upheld a nationwide injunction against former President Donald Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship. The court’s ruling allows four Democratic-led states to receive a nationwide injunction, arguing that a more limited injunction would not provide the necessary relief.

U.S. Circuit Judge Ronald Gould, appointed by former President Bill Clinton, wrote for the majority, emphasizing that residents of the states involved may give birth in other states, and people affected by the executive order from other states are likely to move to these states. Judge Michael Hawkins, also a Clinton appointee, joined Gould in the decision.

However, U.S. Circuit Judge Patrick Bumatay, appointed by Trump, dissented, arguing that the states lacked the legal standing to bring forth the case. Bumatay stressed the importance of adhering to jurisdictional limits and cautioned against engaging in issues that fall outside the court’s purview.

The court’s decision arrives in the wake of a recent Supreme Court ruling that restricts federal judges from issuing nationwide injunctions that extend beyond the parties involved in a case. In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court maintained that while such injunctions are generally curtailed, pathways remain open for plaintiffs to secure nationwide relief under certain conditions. These include the ability of individuals to file class action lawsuits and states to obtain universal injunctions if needed for complete relief.

Since the Supreme Court ruling, plaintiffs have pursued both these avenues to challenge Trump’s order, which sought to deny citizenship to anyone born in the U.S. who does not have at least one parent with permanent legal status. Every court that has examined the legality of the order so far has deemed it unconstitutional.

This recent decision marks the second time Trump’s order has been blocked nationwide following the Supreme Court’s ruling. Previously, a federal judge in New Hampshire granted the American Civil Liberties Union’s request to certify a nationwide class of unborn children, effectively barring the administration from enforcing the order against them.

The 9th Circuit’s case was initiated by Democratic attorneys general from Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon. The majority opinion from the panel stated that only implementing the injunction regionally would continue to impose burdens on these states. According to Gould, to accommodate the executive order, these states would need to revamp their systems for verifying eligibility for Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and Title IV-E services. Thus, they would face irreparable harm under a geographically limited injunction similar to not having an injunction at all.

According to The Hill, the judiciary continues to play a crucial role in determining the limits of executive orders, especially those affecting fundamental rights such as citizenship.

Justice Department Informs Trump of Name in Epstein Files

Staff ReporterPolitics, USA 0

Attorney General Pam Bondi reportedly informed President Donald Trump that his name, along with those of other high-profile individuals, appeared in files related to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, intensifying scrutiny on the Trump administration following demands to release Epstein-related documents.

Attorney General Pam Bondi reportedly informed President Donald Trump in May that his name appeared multiple times in files related to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, according to a report by the Wall Street Journal. The briefing, part of the Justice Department’s re-examination of the case, is said to have included details about other “high-profile figures” mentioned in the files, although no evidence of a so-called client list was found.

Following the revelation, the White House dismissed the report as “fake news,” while a White House official later clarified to Reuters that the administration did not deny Trump’s name appeared in some files. The official further noted that Bondi had previously shared related materials with conservative influencers earlier in the year.

Trump’s relationship with Epstein dates back to the 1990s and early 2000s, as records indicate Trump’s presence on flight logs for Epstein’s private plane and his family’s entries in Epstein’s contact book. Much of this information emerged during the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s former associate, who was sentenced to 20 years in prison for child sex trafficking and other crimes. During Maxwell’s trial, Epstein’s pilot testified that Trump flew on Epstein’s plane multiple times, though Trump has denied those claims.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) is facing criticism for withholding Epstein records, particularly after the Trump administration reversed a campaign promise to publicize Epstein-related files. The DOJ recently concluded there was no further reason to continue investigating the case, a decision that drew ire from Trump supporters eager for more information about individuals connected to Epstein.

Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche have stated that nothing in the files necessitated further investigation or prosecution, and they filed a motion to unseal underlying grand jury transcripts. “As part of our routine briefing, we made the President aware of the findings,” they added in a joint statement.

The Wall Street Journal reported that during a White House meeting, Bondi and her deputy informed Trump that his name, along with those of numerous other notable individuals, appeared in the files. Epstein died by suicide in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges. In 2008, he had pleaded guilty to a prostitution charge in Florida, serving 13 months in jail.

Recently, under mounting pressure, Trump instructed the DOJ to request the release of sealed grand jury transcripts related to Epstein. However, U.S. District Judge Robin Rosenberg denied one such request, citing a lack of exceptions for unsealing the documents. The transcripts in question originate from federal investigations conducted in 2005 and 2007, with the DOJ also seeking documents related to indictments against Epstein and Maxwell filed in Manhattan federal court.

An earlier report by the Wall Street Journal alleged that Trump once sent Epstein a birthday note in 2003, concluding with, “Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret.” In response, Trump has sued the journal and its owner, Rupert Murdoch, claiming the note is fabricated.

Trump and his supporters have fueled conspiracy theories surrounding Epstein, which resonate with many in his political base. This skepticism towards official explanations is unusual, as Trump typically enjoys staunch loyalty from his followers.

Epstein’s death was officially ruled a suicide by the New York City chief medical examiner, although his connections with the elite have sparked speculation about potential foul play. The DOJ reiterated this month that Epstein died by suicide. Concerns about Epstein continue to challenge Trump and the Republican Party, with U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson recently adjourning a session early to avoid debates over releasing Epstein documents.

Amid the Epstein controversy, Trump attempts to pivot to other topics, unfoundedly alleging that former President Barack Obama had worked against his 2016 campaign—claims Obama’s office has dismissed as “ridiculous.”

Tulsi Gabbard’s White House Briefing: 5 Key Takeaways

Staff ReporterPolitics, USA 0

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard held a rare press briefing at the White House to discuss new allegations against Obama administration officials regarding intelligence handling of Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard addressed reporters at the White House on Wednesday, shortly after the release of a batch of documents accusing the Obama administration of misleading the public about intelligence findings related to Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

Gabbard made an uncommon appearance in the briefing room, indicating the White House’s intent to highlight these claims further. Her presence coincided with the release of a previously classified report from the House Intelligence Committee, originally drafted in 2017 and published in 2020.

“This report demonstrates that Putin withheld leaking compromising information on Hillary Clinton before the election, intending to release it afterward to weaken an anticipated Clinton presidency,” Gabbard stated during the briefing.

The report criticized the CIA for not adhering to standard analytic procedures, asserting that the conclusion about Putin’s actions favoring then-candidate Trump was based on minimal and unclear evidence. Gabbard emphasized the report’s implications for former President Obama, former CIA Director John Brennan, former FBI Director James Comey, and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.

However, critics quickly dismissed the report as inconsistent with both the intelligence community’s findings and a bipartisan 2020 Senate Intelligence Committee report. These sources concluded that Russia actively worked to interfere in the 2016 election with a preference for Trump.

Senator Mark Warner (D-Va.), the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, described the released document as partisan and insignificant. “Releasing this so-called report is just another reckless act by a Director of National Intelligence intent on pleasing Donald Trump, risking classified sources, betraying allies, and politicizing entrusted intelligence,” Warner stated.

During the briefing, Gabbard repeatedly mentioned Obama, suggesting that the 44th president may have been directly involved in misleading the public regarding the intelligence findings. “We have referred and will continue to refer these documents to the Department of Justice and the FBI to investigate their criminal implications,” Gabbard commented.

She asserted, “The evidence we have found and released points directly to President Obama leading the crafting of this intelligence assessment, supported by multiple pieces of evidence and intelligence.”

The previous day, Trump accused Obama of treason, prompting a rare response from Obama’s spokesperson, Patrick Rodenbush, who called Trump’s claims “outrageous,” highlighting them as distractions.

The report does not change established conclusions that Russia attempted to influence the 2016 election without manipulating votes. These facts were reaffirmed in a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report from 2020, then chaired by Senator Marco Rubio.

When questioned about potential legal consequences for Obama, Gabbard and White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt avoided direct responses, deferring to the Department of Justice. Gabbard remarked, “I’m leaving the criminal charges to the DOJ. I’m not a lawyer,” while Leavitt stressed accountability for those responsible for wrongdoing.

Questions were also raised about relations with Rubio, a key ally of Trump. Leavitt sidestepped allegations questioning Rubio’s previous stance on Russia’s election interference.

In response to whether Gabbard’s actions might be political or meant to regain favor with Trump after recent criticism, Leavitt noted, “The only people questioning the director’s sincerity are those sowing distrust among the president’s Cabinet.”

Despite Gabbard’s frequent comments about ridding the intelligence community of politicization, her briefing incited questions about whether her disclosures themselves were politically motivated.

Addressing those concerns, Gabbard stated it was “disrespectful to the American people” to imply malicious intent, reiterating the importance of transparency in releasing the documents.

Gabbard summarized one of the significant findings from the release, citing that Russian President Vladimir Putin’s primary objective was to undermine confidence in the U.S. democratic process, rather than express a preference for a particular candidate.

According to The Hill, these developments add another layer of complexity to ongoing discussions and historical assessments of Russian interference in American electoral processes.

Obama Responds to Trump’s Call for Prosecution

Staff ReporterCover, Politics, USA 0

In an unusual move, former President Barack Obama has publicly refuted allegations by Donald Trump that he attempted to orchestrate a coup following Trump’s 2016 election victory.

Barack Obama has stepped forward to confront accusations made by Donald Trump, who claimed that the former president orchestrated a coup against him after the 2016 presidential election. Obama’s office issued a rare and emphatic statement dismissing Trump’s allegations as “outrageous” and “a weak attempt at distraction.”

The statement was released after Trump alleged that Obama was guilty of treason for purportedly leading an effort to fabricate evidence of Russian interference in the election. This accusation was part of Trump’s comments during a meeting at the White House with Ferdinand Marcos Jr., the president of the Philippines and son of the country’s former autocratic leader.

“Out of respect for the office of the presidency, our office does not normally dignify the constant nonsense and misinformation flowing out of this White House with a response,” the statement from Obama’s office read. “But these claims are outrageous enough to merit one. These bizarre allegations are ridiculous and a weak attempt at distraction.”

The controversy escalated following an 11-page document released by Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence. The document claimed there was a “treasonous conspiracy” among Obama-era national security officials, and recommended their prosecution.

Obama’s office responded by highlighting the conclusions of several intelligence assessments that found Russia did influence the 2016 election, but did not manipulate vote tallies. The findings, originally supported by a 2020 report from the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee led by then-Chairman Marco Rubio, maintained that Russia’s interference aimed to damage Hillary Clinton’s campaign, not alter voting results.

The Gabbard report suggested otherwise, claiming that Obama’s administration had coerced intelligence agencies to modify their conclusions. The report conflated different issues in an attempt to undermine the intelligence community’s assessment, made public in 2017, which indicated Russian efforts to help Trump while harming Clinton.

During the White House meeting, Trump accused Obama as the leader of this supposed conspiracy, implicating other officials such as James Comey, the former FBI director, and James Clapper, the former director of national intelligence. He described the alleged actions as treasonous and accused Obama of attempting to “steal” and “obfuscate” the election.

Trump also mentioned that Gabbard had assured him that more documents would soon be available. However, critics have pointed out that the report misrepresented crucial aspects of the assessments and failed to alter the core finding that Russia intervened in the election.

A former CIA analyst, Fulton Armstrong, criticized Gabbard’s report, stating that it was crafted to reach a predetermined conclusion. Armstrong described the document as sloppy and manipulative, dismissing references to so-called “deep state officials” as amateurish and weakening the report’s credibility.

Assertions of Russian interference were further corroborated by special counsel Robert Mueller’s 2019 report and the bipartisan Senate intelligence committee’s report led by Marco Rubio the following year. Despite this, Gabbard’s document attempted to discredit these findings through misleading comparisons and conclusions.

According to The Guardian, the document used language that confused confidence levels with probability in intelligence assessments to present a one-sided narrative intended to support its claims.

Source: Original article

Zelenskyy Signs Controversial Bill, Sparking Protests in Ukraine

Staff ReporterConflict, Politics 0

Thousands protested in Ukraine against President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s decision to sign a new law that weakens key anti-corruption agencies, as critics warn it could undermine Ukraine’s EU aspirations and international aid.

KYIV, Ukraine — Thousands took to the streets in Kyiv and other Ukrainian cities on Tuesday, calling for President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to reject a new law that critics argue undermines the country’s anti-corruption infrastructure. This significant public gathering serves as the first major protest against the government in over three years of conflict.

The Ukrainian parliament has approved legislation imposing tighter controls over two major anti-corruption bodies—specifically the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO). Critics warn that this move could severely limit the agencies’ independence, granting President Zelenskyy’s administration increased influence over criminal investigations. Late Tuesday, the president signed the legislation into law, according to a statement on the parliament’s website.

Efforts to combat deep-rooted corruption are central to Ukraine’s ambitions to join the European Union and secure billions in Western aid. The law’s enactment has sparked public indignation, with some Ukrainians considering it a more severe moral setback than the recurring missile and drone attacks from Russia.

Under the new law, the prosecutor general will acquire expanded authority over inquiries managed by NABU and SAPO. “In effect, if this bill becomes law, the head of SAPO will become a nominal figure, while NABU will lose its independence and turn into a subdivision of the prosecutor general’s office,” the agencies stated in a joint announcement on Telegram.

Marta Kos, the EU’s Enlargement Commissioner, expressed her concerns on X, formerly known as Twitter, referring to the legislative vote as “a serious step back.” She emphasized, “Independent bodies like NABU & SAPO are essential for Ukraine’s EU path. Rule of Law remains in the very center of EU accession negotiations.”

Though protests have occurred throughout the ongoing war, they predominantly focused on issues such as recovering prisoners of war or missing individuals. Yet, protests remain a deeply embedded method of public opposition in Ukraine, where two prior revolutions successfully galvanized the public.

Ihor Lachenkov, an activist and blogger with over 1.5 million followers, rallied supporters through social media channels, urging participation in the protest. “Corruption is a problem in any country, and it must always be fought,” he declared. Lachenkov argued, “Ukraine has far fewer resources than Russia in this war. If we misuse them, or worse, allow them to end up in the pockets of thieves, our chances of victory diminish. All our resources must go toward the fight.”

The Ukrainian branch of Transparency International condemned the parliament’s decision, describing it as an impediment to one of Ukraine’s most key reforms since its 2014 Revolution of Dignity. The organization further warned that this development could erode trust with global partners and called on Zelenskyy to veto the law, cautioning that his signature would make him complicit with the Rada in “dismantling Ukraine’s anti-corruption infrastructure.”

Protesters brandished signs inscribed with messages like “Veto the law,” “Protect the anti-corruption system, protect Ukraine’s future,” and simply “We are against it.”

The war-ravaged protestors expressed palpable anger and frustration, with some asserting that Ukraine’s leadership prioritizes personal loyalty over the anti-corruption battle. “Those who swore to protect the laws and the Constitution have instead chosen to shield their inner circle, even at the expense of Ukrainian democracy,” stated veteran Oleh Symoroz, who spoke from a wheelchair after losing both legs in 2022.

Symoroz added, “Instead of setting an example of zero tolerance for corruption, the president is using his power to take control of criminal cases involving his allies.”

Meanwhile, on Monday, Ukraine’s domestic security agency detained two NABU officials on suspicions of Russian affiliations and conducted searches on other agency employees concerning separate allegations.

Zelenskyy’s office has not issued a comment on the matter thus far. Notably, last week, the president initiated a reshuffle of his wartime Cabinet, a move seen by many as an effort to concentrate power within his inner circle.

Source: Original article

“Tanvi—The Great” Among Top Disability-Themed Movies

Staff ReporterCinema, Politics 0

‘Tanvi—The Great’ joins the ranks of India’s best films about individuals with disabilities, blending sensitive storytelling with compelling performances to advocate for understanding and inclusivity.

Anupam Kher’s latest film, Tanvi—The Great, adds another feather to the cap of Indian cinema dedicated to portraying the lives of individuals with disabilities. This film, a blend of sensitivity and powerful storytelling, is directed by Kher himself and inspired by his real-life autistic niece, Tanvi. The film has been well-received, joining a distinguished lineup of notable films such as Koshish, Iqbal, Black, Barfi!, and Hichki. These films highlight the importance of representation and understanding, particularly in a society that still grapples with ignorance and stereotypes regarding disabilities.

Set against the backdrop of Delhi and Lansdowne in Uttarakhand, the story revolves around Tanvi, portrayed by Shubhangi Dutt, a student from Kher’s acting institute, An Actor Prepares. Dutt’s portrayal of Tanvi has been lauded for its authenticity and insight, stemming from the guidance she received to “observe her soul” rather than mimic her real-life counterpart. Her performance is noted for its depth, capturing every nuance with precision.

The narrative follows Tanvi, the autistic daughter of Vidya Raina, played by Pallavi Agnihotri. Vidya’s husband, Captain Samar Raina (Karan Tacker), was killed in action while pursuing his dream of hoisting the Tricolor at Siachen, the world’s highest battleground. When Vidya must attend an autism convention in New York, the responsibility of caring for Tanvi falls to Samar’s grandfather, Col. Pratap Raina, portrayed by Anupam Kher. Initially hesitant and overwhelmed, Pratap gradually learns to understand and connect with Tanvi, affirming Vidya’s belief that he would eventually be won over by her unique charm.

Tanvi’s journey is one of discovery and determination as she befriends her music teacher, Raza Saab (Boman Irani), and Brigadier Joshi (Jackie Shroff). In her exploration, she uncovers her late father’s unfulfilled dream and resolves to make it her own ambition to hoist the Tricolor at Siachen. The film poignantly portrays her struggles, especially since the Indian Army does not enlist individuals with autism, presenting a significant obstacle to her goal.

Despite her grandfather’s rational objections, Tanvi undertakes military training and participates in the selection interview, marking a pivotal moment in her story. The film crescendos in suspense, leading to a climax that, while slightly utopian in execution and expanded in length, delivers an inspiring message that underscores hope and resilience.

The performances from the ensemble cast, including Jackie Shroff, Pallavi Joshi, Boman Irani, M. Nassar, Arvind Swami, and others, contribute significantly to the film’s impact. The heartfelt script and remarkable dialogues by Kher, Ankur Suman, and Abhishek Dixit resonate emotionally without resorting to melodrama. The production values are stellar, although some critique arises from the underuse of the film’s music by M.M. Keeravani and the poignant lyrics of Kausar Munir. Nevertheless, the evocative background score complements the narrative beautifully.

Anupam Kher’s direction reflects his passion for storytelling and advocacy for inclusivity, drawing attention to the broader societal need for empathy and support for individuals with disabilities. His dedication to crafting a meaningful cinematic experience is evident, cementing Tanvi—The Great as a significant contribution to the genre.

Source: Original article

US Withdraws from UNESCO Again Under Trump’s Leadership

Staff ReporterCover, Election, Politics 0

President Donald Trump has announced the United States will withdraw from UNESCO, the U.N. cultural and education agency, repeating a decision he made during his first term.

President Donald Trump has announced that the United States will exit the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) at the end of 2025, marking the second time he has taken such a step. The decision echoes his actions during his first term, which were later reversed by former President Joe Biden.

The White House explained the departure as part of the Trump administration’s “America first” foreign policy, expressing skepticism toward multilateral organizations such as the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, and NATO. White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly criticized UNESCO for supporting “woke” and “divisive” cultural causes that clash with what she termed “commonsense policies” favored by American voters.

The State Department further accused UNESCO of promoting a “globalist, ideological agenda” that is inconsistent with the Trump administration’s foreign policy. A significant point of contention was UNESCO’s 2011 decision to admit the Palestinians as a member state, which the U.S. deemed problematic and contributing to anti-Israel sentiment.

UNESCO Director-General Audrey Azoulay expressed regret over the U.S. decision but noted the organization was prepared for the possibility. She emphasized that UNESCO had diversified its funding sources, with the U.S. providing only about 8% of its budget.

French President Emmanuel Macron reaffirmed strong support for UNESCO, calling it a “universal protector” of world heritage, while condemning the U.S. decision as a blow to multilateralism.

UNESCO officials indicated that the U.S. withdrawal is expected to have a limited impact on U.S.-funded programs. However, Israel welcomed Washington’s move, with U.N. ambassador Danny Danon criticizing UNESCO for perceived biases against Israel. Israel’s Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar thanked the U.S. for its “moral support and leadership” in addressing what he described as the politicization and singling out of Israel within U.N. agencies.

Conversely, U.S. Senator Jeanne Shaheen, a senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, labeled Trump’s decision as “short-sighted” and warned it could bolster China’s influence, which grew within UNESCO after Trump’s initial withdrawal.

Azoulay asserted that the issues cited by the U.S. for its withdrawal were outdated and failed to recognize UNESCO’s efforts in promoting Holocaust education and countering antisemitism. She described the organization as a rare forum for multilateralism focused on consensus and action.

UNESCO, established after World War II to foster peace through international cooperation in education, science, and culture, is renowned for designating World Heritage Sites. In the U.S., designated sites include the Grand Canyon and the Statue of Liberty, among others. The agency highlights 1,248 global locations of “outstanding universal value.”

The U.S. has had a complex history with UNESCO, having first withdrawn in 1984 under President Ronald Reagan amid accusations of financial mismanagement and anti-U.S. bias. The U.S. rejoined in 2003 under President George W. Bush, though funding was halted in 2011 following UNESCO’s vote to grant full membership to the Palestinians. Trump’s first term saw another withdrawal in 2017 over accusations of anti-Israeli bias, a decision reversed by Biden in 2023.

Source: Original article

Trump Administration Releases FBI Files on Martin Luther King Jr.

Staff ReporterPolitics, USA 0

President Donald Trump’s administration has released extensive FBI files on Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassination, despite opposition from his family and the civil rights group he led.

In a move met with significant opposition, President Donald Trump’s administration has unveiled a comprehensive collection of FBI surveillance documents connected to the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. This release occurred despite objections from King’s family and the civil rights organization he once led until his death in 1968.

The files, which were initially sealed following a 1977 court order, consist of more than 240,000 pages. They had been held in the National Archives and Records Administration. King’s surviving family members, including his children, Martin III and Bernice, were informed of the administration’s decision and are currently reviewing the materials. However, several family members have publicly voiced their disapproval.

In a statement reported by the BBC, Martin III and Bernice King condemned any misuse of these documents that might undermine their father’s legacy. They acknowledged the captivating public interest surrounding their father’s case but emphasized the deeply personal nature of the matter. The siblings urged that the files should be considered within their full historical context.

Martin Luther King Jr., a Baptist minister and Nobel laureate, was assassinated in Memphis on April 4, 1968, at the age of 39. James Earl Ray pleaded guilty to King’s murder but later recanted his confession. King’s family has long dealt with the profound personal grief and the impact of his untimely death on their lives.

The statement from Martin III and Bernice King further detailed the continuing impact of their father’s death, describing it as an intensely personal grief and a devastating loss that affected his wife, children, and even the granddaughter he never met. They requested that those engaging with the released files do so with empathy, restraint, and respect for the family’s ongoing mourning. At the time of King’s assassination, Bernice was five years old, and Martin III was ten.

While the release of these documents satisfies a longstanding curiosity, it raises questions about privacy and historical integrity as society revisits the circumstances surrounding one of America’s most pivotal figures.

According to Indian Express, these developments have reignited discussions about Martin Luther King Jr.’s legacy and the perennial quest for truth and justice regarding his tragic death.

Trump Hosted Party with Epstein as Sole Guest: New York Times

Staff ReporterPolitics, Editorial, Opinion, USA 0

Former President Donald Trump once hosted a party at Mar-a-Lago where Jeffrey Epstein was the only other guest among a group of young women, according to a recent report by the New York Times.

For nearly 15 years, Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein were known to socialize together at exclusive gatherings in Manhattan and Palm Beach, Florida. Their association, however, ended before Epstein’s first arrest. The New York Times article titled “Inside the Long Friendship Between Trump and Epstein,” by Alan Feuer and Matthew Goldstein, delves into this relationship through various anecdotes and interviews.

A particularly noteworthy story from the report describes an event hosted by Trump at his Mar-a-Lago estate. The occasion was a “calendar girl competition” party where, according to the article, Epstein was the only other guest invited alongside the young women. George Houraney, a businessman from Florida who arranged the event, is cited in the report as being taken aback by the exclusive guest list.

“I said, ‘Donald, this is supposed to be a party with V.I.P.s,” recounted Houraney, during a 2019 interview with The New York Times. “You’re telling me it’s you and Epstein?”

The report further reveals allegations that surfaced from the night of the party. Jill Harth, who was Mr. Houraney’s girlfriend and business partner at the time, accused Trump of sexual misconduct on that evening. In a lawsuit, Harth claimed that Trump forcibly took her into a bedroom, kissed her against her will, fondled her, and restrained her from leaving. She also alleged that a 22-year-old contestant later confided in her that Trump unexpectedly entered her bed that same night.

The anecdotal recount of this event and its implications come amid ongoing scrutiny of both Trump’s and Epstein’s past conduct. While allegations and lawsuits surrounding them have been part of public discussion for several years, new insights and testimonies continue to emerge, painting a fuller picture of their interactions and the controversies followed by both men.

According to The New York Times, this party at Mar-a-Lago marks just one element of the complex relationship between the former president and the late financier, adding another layer to the broader narrative of their shared history.

CBO: GOP Bill Adds $3.4T Deficit, 10M Lose Insurance

Staff ReporterPolitics, Cover, Economy 0

President Donald Trump’s megabill, signed on July 4, is projected to increase the federal deficit by $3.4 trillion and result in 10 million people losing health insurance over the next decade, according to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report.

The CBO released its final analysis on Monday, detailing the impact of the newly enacted legislation on the national debt and U.S. households. The structure of the bill, primarily a permanent extension of the 2017 tax cuts, is expected to significantly reduce incoming federal revenue while contributing to a marked increase in the deficit. The bill was a key legislative achievement for President Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress.

The primary driver of the mounting deficit is the GOP’s decision to maintain the tax cuts from Trump’s first term, which the Senate Finance Committee projects will decrease tax revenue by approximately $4.5 trillion. This figure also incorporates additional GOP-backed tax cuts that were introduced during the Senate floor debates.

The CBO’s report indicates that while the legislation will cut more than $1 trillion in federal healthcare spending—with the majority of cuts targeting Medicaid—the savings will not offset the costs of the package. The anticipated increase in the deficit highlights the imbalance between the package’s financial outflow and the savings from health expenditure reductions.

Additionally, the CBO predicts that 10 million people will lose their health insurance as a result of these legislative changes. This estimation marks a slight improvement from prior figures, which predicted that 11.8 million people would lose coverage. The updated numbers reflect the removal of a previous policy that would have caused an estimated 1.4 million undocumented immigrants to lose health insurance.

The CBO also provided additional insights into the bill’s impact on agricultural policies. Negotiations spearheaded by Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska led to a softening of initial requirements that would have compelled states to bear more costs related to SNAP, a key U.S. food assistance program. These modifications, along with cuts to federal agriculture spending, are projected to result in $120 billion in savings over the coming decade.

The bill initially contained provisions aimed at penalizing states that offer healthcare to undocumented immigrants, despite federal prohibitions on Medicaid coverage for this demographic. However, due to objections from the Senate parliamentarian, a controversial element that would have withdrawn funding from states that expanded Medicaid under the Democrats’ 2010 health law was removed from the final version.

In an alternate analysis requested by Senate Republicans, the CBO used a new accounting method that does not factor in the cost of permanently extending the 2017 tax cuts. Under this method, the projected increase in the federal deficit is limited to $366 billion. Republicans argue that utilizing traditional accounting methods presents a bias against maintaining existing tax rates, which they perceive as amounting to tax increases if not extended.

This controversial legislative package continues to be a subject of intense debate, with significant political and financial implications for the country, as outlined in the comprehensive report from the Congressional Budget Office.

Harvard Claims Government First Amendment Breach; Trump Sees Contract Issue

Staff ReporterPolitics, Education 0

Harvard University and the Trump administration returned to court for a pivotal hearing on a suspended $2 billion federal research funding, amid accusations of anti-Semitism on campus.

Harvard University found itself back in court on Monday, contesting a decision by the Trump administration to freeze over $2 billion in federal research funds. This marks a significant legal challenge rooted in broader issues of academic freedom, federal oversight, and allegations of anti-Semitism on college campuses.

U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs presided over the hearing, where she listened to arguments from both Harvard and the Trump administration. This legal dispute, which has drawn national attention, is seen as a key test of the administration’s policies on educational institutions and their handling of anti-Semitism.

The freeze on Harvard’s funding was prompted by accusations that the university failed to address anti-Semitic incidents following the October 2023 Hamas attacks on Israel. Harvard’s counsel, Steven Lehotsky, argued that the administration’s actions constituted a “blatant and unrepentant violation” of the First Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, describing the funding cut as “arbitrary and capricious.”

Lehotsky warned that the freeze would severely impact long-standing research initiatives, dismantle labs, and threaten academic careers. He emphasized that the university is taking concrete measures to address these concerns, such as reforming the use of campus spaces for protests, revising disciplinary protocols, and enhancing anti-Semitism awareness and training.

On the other hand, Michael Velchik, representing the Trump administration, framed the legal battle as a contractual issue. He contended that the federal government has the authority to withdraw funding if it no longer aligns with its priorities, citing a January executive order from President Donald Trump on anti-Semitism.

During the proceedings, Judge Burroughs expressed skepticism about the administration’s rationale, questioning Velchik on whether cutting off funding to vital research projects genuinely combats anti-Semitism. She remarked that the action could harm both American and Jewish interests by disrupting crucial research.

Velchik defended the administration’s stance, asserting that the funding cuts were justified as combating anti-Semitism is a legitimate objective. He reiterated that the government remains committed to fostering an inclusive environment for Jewish students and faculty at Harvard.

Harvard maintains that its penalized research, which includes significant contributions to cancer prevention and neurodegenerative disease studies, bears no relation to the allegations of anti-Semitism. The university highlighted a Defense Department official’s warning about the national security risks posed by terminating a $12 million biological threat research grant.

Amid the courtroom exchanges, the broader implications of the case loomed large, with Burroughs questioning whether the administration’s approach constituted impermissible suppression of speech.

Discussions between Harvard and the administration have been ongoing, with the university urging for an expedited resolution by September 2025. However, the negotiations appear to have hit roadblocks, especially after a letter found the university in “violent violation” of the Civil Rights Act and a subsequent Department of Homeland Security probe into Harvard’s adherence to immigration laws.

Judge Burroughs has yet to issue a decision, stating her intention to deliver a timely opinion. Meanwhile, President Trump preemptively criticized the judge on social media, suggesting that an appeal is a likely next step for the administration should the ruling not be in its favor.

The ramifications of this legal battle extend beyond Harvard, as the administration also engages with other institutions like Columbia University, hinting at potential settlements involving significant financial amounts.

Monday’s proceedings underscored the tensions between the need to address discrimination and the administration’s interpretation of its policy priorities, leaving academic and legal communities closely watching the outcome.

New U.S. Driving License Rule for Seniors in 2025

Staff ReporterPolitics, U.S. 0

In August 2025, a new federal law requiring drivers over the age of 70 in the U.S. to undergo stricter evaluation for license renewal will take effect, aiming to enhance road safety while respecting personal freedoms.

Starting August 2025, new federal regulations will impact how older drivers in the United States renew their driver’s licenses. This law, focusing on those aged 70 and above, is part of a broader effort to improve road safety by addressing changes related to aging, such as reaction time, memory, and eyesight.

With nearly 50 million senior citizens in the United States currently holding driver’s licenses, and more expected in the coming years, updating the driving assessment standards for this demographic is increasingly seen as necessary.

The increase in the number of senior drivers has prompted the introduction of these new rules. Many older adults depend on driving for maintaining their independence, including tasks like grocery shopping, attending medical appointments, and social visits. However, aging can bring about changes that might affect driving abilities, even if seniors themselves feel relatively unaffected.

Under the new requirement, older drivers will face different schedules and testing mandates depending on their age, but no one’s license will be revoked solely based on age. Instead, the focus is on evaluating actual driving ability.

Every individual aged 70 and above will now need to undergo a vision test at each license renewal. This test must be done while wearing any corrective lenses like glasses or contacts if required.

Cognitive testing may also be necessary if there are noticeable signs of memory issues or slowed thinking, which could indicate early stages of Alzheimer’s or similar conditions. This step is not automatic but will be prompted by either a doctor’s recommendation or if signs are noted by the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV).

A noteworthy change is the introduction of an annual behind-the-wheel test for drivers starting at age 87. This is not intended to be intimidating but serves to ensure that seniors can still safely manage driving.

Concerned family members or doctors can notify the DMV about any worries regarding a senior’s driving skills. Such a report would not result immediately in license revocation but could prompt a re-evaluation of the driver in question.

The law, although federal, will be implemented slightly differently in each state. Thus, preparation for these changes is crucial. Seniors are advised to schedule an eye exam two to three months prior to their renewal date, keep all medical documents updated, and consider attending a defensive driving course. Completing such a course might even allow some seniors to bypass the road test in specific states.

In cases where safety concerns arise, the DMV may issue restricted licenses instead of a full one, with possible limitations like daytime-only driving, avoidance of freeways, or restriction to a certain area around the home. These measures still allow seniors access to essential locations such as grocery stores, healthcare facilities, and visits with family and friends.

For those who might no longer feel comfortable driving, there are alternative transportations options available. These include discounted ride-share services like Uber and Lyft, free or reduced public transit passes, senior shuttle services, volunteer driver programs, especially in rural areas, and home delivery services for necessities.

The core objective of this legislative measure is not to penalize older drivers; rather, it seeks to ensure the safety of all road users by verifying that seniors remain capable of driving safely. As such, it encourages seniors to drive as long as it remains safe, with regular checks in place to assess continuing fitness to drive.

For those approaching the age of 70, early preparation is advisable to avoid last-minute rushes prompted by DMV notifications. Scheduling a vision test, consulting with healthcare providers, and becoming familiar with the specific regulations applicable in one’s state are proactive steps recommended to facilitate continued driving.

Source: Original article

Transit CEO Resigns Due to Green Card Issue

Staff ReporterImmigration, Politics 0

The CEO of the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) has stepped down due to complications in obtaining a green card, despite his Canadian citizenship and long-term plans with the organization.

Collie Greenwood, who was serving as the CEO and general manager of MARTA, resigned after his Employment Authorization Document expired in June. This document had allowed him to work legally in the United States despite not yet having secured a green card.

Greenwood, a Canadian citizen, has navigated U.S. immigration challenges, which can delay green cards for months or even years. In Greenwood’s case, the process left him unable to continue in his position, prompting him to take early retirement as announced in a MARTA board release last Thursday.

Greenwood joined MARTA in 2019 as chief of bus operations and urban planning before ascending to CEO in January 2022. Over his 35-year career, he began as a bus driver and worked his way through the ranks, illustrating his deep commitment to public transportation.

Despite the expiration of his work permit on June 18, Greenwood remains legally in the United States as he awaits the delivery of his green card. MARTA’s board acknowledged this and expressed regret over the situation, as Greenwood could not attend their recent meeting due to his pending immigration status.

Jennifer Ide, MARTA Board Chair, expressed sadness over the circumstances, emphasizing the complex nature of immigration issues in the United States. She praised Greenwood’s decision, stating it was a personal choice for the welfare of his family.

Ide also highlighted Greenwood’s contributions, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic and the transition after losing a previous general manager. Under Greenwood’s guidance, MARTA has become well-prepared to support Atlanta in hosting significant international events, including the upcoming FIFA World Cup games in 2026.

In his statement during the MARTA press release, Greenwood expressed gratitude for his time at the organization. He underscored his and his wife’s decision to retire as an opportunity to focus on family and friends.

Atlanta City Council President Doug Shipman commented on social media about the transition, suggesting that MARTA’s new leadership search presents a chance for a significant operational and strategic refresh. He called on the board to actively involve key stakeholders in redefining MARTA’s priorities and scale of change needed.

In the interim, Rhonda Allen, MARTA’s chief customer experience officer, has been appointed as acting general manager and CEO, ensuring continuity as the board searches for Greenwood’s permanent replacement.

MARTA, which plays a critical role in Atlanta’s public transit infrastructure, faces challenges typical of large transit systems but remains crucial in connecting the city, especially as it gears up for future event hosting responsibilities.

Trump Supports Gabbard on Obama Prosecution, Criticizes Alleged Election Fraud

Staff ReporterPolitics, Cover 0

In a July 2025 social media post, former President Donald Trump endorsed Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard’s push for prosecution of former President Barack Obama and key officials for allegedly orchestrating election fraud during the 2016 presidential campaign.

Former President Donald Trump, using his platform on Truth Social, reiterated his claims on July 19, 2025, that former President Barack Obama and his associates were involved in a “treasonous conspiracy” aimed at undermining his 2016 election victory. Trump praised Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard for her role in exposing alleged election fraud and encouraged her to continue pushing for criminal charges against Obama and top officials.

Gabbard released a 114-page declassified report on July 18, detailing accusations against members of Obama’s national security team, including James Clapper, John Brennan, James Comey, and Susan Rice. She alleged that these individuals manipulated intelligence to falsely suggest that Russian interference had favored Trump in the election.

The report cites documents such as a December 7, 2016, memo stating that no cyberattacks altered the election outcome. Gabbard claims that a White House meeting held on December 9, 2016, resulted in a January 2017 intelligence report that wrongly attributed Trump’s victory to Russian interference, subsequently leading to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.

The report and its conclusions, however, face significant counterarguments. Previous investigations, including a 2020 bipartisan report by the Senate Intelligence Committee, identified “irrefutable evidence” of Russia’s attempts to support Trump, without any indication of fabricated intelligence. Mueller’s 2019 report also described Russia’s interference as “sweeping and systematic,” yet found no evidence of collusion by Trump’s campaign.

Democratic leaders have dismissed Gabbard’s allegations as lacking in foundation. Senator Mark Warner, a senior member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, noted that the 2017 intelligence community assessment was the outcome of a comprehensive three-year investigation. Representative Jim Himes, a Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, labeled the claims of treason as “baseless” due to the absence of credible investigative support.

Furthermore, a review conducted by CIA Director John Ratcliffe maintained the intelligence community’s assessment of Russia’s pro-Trump actions, even while criticizing some methods used in 2017. Gabbard’s expertise in intelligence has also been called into question amid criticism of her report.

The timing of these allegations coincides with increasing scrutiny on the White House regarding its management of Jeffrey Epstein’s files. On July 18, Trump directed Attorney General Pamela Bondi to unseal grand jury testimony tied to Epstein, amid pressure from his political base for a supposed “client list,” which the Department of Justice claims does not exist. Critics argue that Gabbard’s election fraud allegations are intended to divert attention from the Epstein controversy, which includes resurfaced images of Trump with Epstein from the 1990s and a recent report by the Wall Street Journal suggesting a suggestive 2003 letter from Trump.

The release of Gabbard’s report shortly after the Wall Street Journal’s story has prompted speculation that the administration is aiming to redirect public and media focus from the Epstein-related issues to past political disputes.

Democrats’ Poll Standing at Trump’s Six-Month Mark

Staff ReporterCover, Election, Politics 0

Recent polls provide a complex picture for Democrats as they face challenges in regaining voter trust following a significant loss to President Trump in the last election.

Despite recent notable election victories, Democrats have struggled to distance themselves from the Republican Party as they look toward the upcoming midterms. Data experts suggest that while the party’s position has somewhat improved since Trump began his second term, much work remains to convince the American public and regain control of the House.

“You can’t just be on the attack. You can’t beat something with nothing,” said Democratic pollster Celinda Lake. “We have to show and tell what we would do, but I think that we’re on the precipice of a big opportunity, and I hope we take advantage of it.”

After losing ground when Trump swept all seven battleground states and the GOP gained control of Congress, Democrats are focusing on rebuilding. However, data on the party’s standing remains less than encouraging halfway through Trump’s first year back in office.

The Democratic Party continues to experience historically low favorability ratings. According to a YouGov average, the party’s favorability was over 20 points underwater as of late May. A CNN poll released recently found only 28% of surveyed Americans view the party favorably, a low not seen since CNN began the poll in 1992. While the Republican Party’s ratings aren’t much better, they haven’t reached the same depths.

A poll conducted by the Democratic super PAC Unite the Country revealed that voters perceive the party as “out of touch,” “woke,” and “weak.” An AP-NORC poll found a divide among party members, with just a third of Democrats optimistic about the party’s future, down from 57% last July.

Survey results highlight widespread frustration with Democratic leaders and a belief that they are not effectively countering the Trump administration. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) is a particular focus, with mid-to-upper 20s approval ratings during Trump’s second term, though his net favorability has recently improved slightly.

Scott Tranter, director of data science for Decision Desk HQ (DDHQ), noted that Democrats are struggling to form a coherent message and lack a clear “rallying cry.” Some Democrats have drawn attention, either through confrontations with Trump officials or visits to detention centers like “Alligator Alcatraz” in Florida, but Schumer is still seen as lacking the gravitas of a strong party leader.

One ongoing trend is the absence of a defined Democratic Party leader following the 2024 election defeat. A March CNN poll found that 30% of Democrats couldn’t name a leader reflecting the party’s core values, with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) receiving the most support at only 10%. Former Vice President Kamala Harris was supported by 9%, and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) by 8%.

An Emerson College poll shows a wide split among Democrats about preferred 2028 presidential contenders, with the leading candidate only garnering 16% support. Tranter indicated that such disarray is typical after a major election loss, comparing the situation to the post-loss transformations of Democrats in 2005 and Republicans in 2013.

“Coming out of Kerry, the Democrats were also in the wilderness,” he said. “And so I think that the takeaway is that every time something like this happens, each party goes through its transformation. I think we’re still pretty early on [in] it.”

Yet, there’s a silver lining for the Democrats in the data. Trump’s approval and favorability ratings remain underwater, which provides Democrats a potential opening. Democrats also hold a small lead in DDHQ’s generic congressional ballot average as of early March, a margin that continues to hover at a few points.

The same CNN poll that highlighted the Democrats’ low favorability also showed party members are more motivated to vote in the next year’s midterms. A Republican pollster Fabrizio Ward’s survey found Republicans trailing in the generic ballot across 28 battleground House districts. Moreover, Democrats are hopeful that opposing Trump’s recent “big beautiful bill” may provide the needed boost for their base before the midterms.

Ryan O’Donnell, interim executive director at Data for Progress, noted Trump’s focus on unpopular policies potentially benefits Democrats going into the midterms. However, he warned that Democrats also must listen to voter concerns and propose real solutions to improve quality of life and affordability.

Lake emphasized the lack of a clear leader could become an asset, with a crowded field in 2028 showcasing what the Democratic alternative to Trump could look like. However, finding and establishing a few strong leaders has been slow, and she doubts this will be “fixed” before the 2026 midterms. She encourages the party to present a unified voice with a strong economic message addressing who they will fight for.

Finally, a partnered poll between Lake’s firm and the Democratic donor network Way to Win surveyed those who voted for President Biden in 2020 but abstained in 2024. The findings showed these voters leaned Democratic if the midterms were held today and felt discontent about Medicaid cuts and stagnant living costs.

Jenifer Fernandez Ancona, the co-founder and vice president of Way to Win, stated that these concerns offer the party a clear opening. With respondents expressing regret over not voting, particularly regarding child aid program cuts and escalating living costs, Ancona urged the party to leverage this data to build an opposition narrative.

“The table has been set,” Fernandez Ancona said. “The question is, will we be able to take advantage of it? Will we really lean in? Will we not shy away from actually going on offense about this bill? It’s all about, can we seize the opportunity?”

Brazil’s Lula Criticizes Trump’s Global Leadership as Tensions Rise

Staff ReporterDiplomacy, Politics 0

Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva sharply rebuked former U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariff threats, emphasizing that Trump is the leader of the United States, not an “emperor of the world.”

Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva responded assertively to former U.S. President Donald Trump’s recent tariff threats, underscoring the independence of Brazil’s judiciary and asserting that Brazil will not tolerate imposition from other nations.

Last week, Trump announced a possible imposition of 50% tariffs on Brazilian goods starting August 1, through a post on his social media platform, Truth Social. He linked these potential tariffs to what he characterized as a “witch hunt” trial against Jair Bolsonaro, Brazil’s former far-right president and a political ally of Trump.

Bolsonaro is currently facing trial in Brazil over allegations that he attempted to overthrow Lula following Lula’s victory in the 2022 presidential election. If found guilty, Bolsonaro could face a prison sentence exceeding 40 years for his alleged role in orchestrating a coup.

In an exclusive interview with CNN’s Christiane Amanpour, Lula criticized Trump’s actions as a departure from diplomatic norms, asserting, “The judiciary branch of power in Brazil is independent. The president of the Republic has no influence whatsoever.” He clarified that Bolsonaro is on trial for his actions, not personal vendettas, stating, “He is being judged by the acts he tried to organize a coup d’état.”

Bolsonaro has consistently denied any wrongdoing.

On Friday, Trump reiterated his support for Bolsonaro by posting a letter on Truth Social, suggesting that the ex-president of Brazil is a victim of an “unjust system.” He stated his intent to monitor the situation closely.

Lula went further by suggesting that if Trump had committed comparable actions to those of the January 6 Capitol insurrection on Brazilian soil, he would likely be facing trial. “If Trump was Brazilian and if he did what happened at Capitol Hill, he’d also be on trial in Brazil,” Lula remarked, reflecting on potential constitutional violations.

Expressing his disappointment, Lula shared that he initially believed Trump’s social media announcement to be fabricated, describing the situation as “very unpleasant.” He explained, “I thought it was fake news.”

In response to the threat, Brazil has declared its willingness to impose reciprocal tariffs should Trump carry out his plans, marking a significant opposition to Trump’s tariff initiatives.

Lula stated, “Brazil is to take care of Brazil and take care of the Brazilian people, and not to take care of the interests of others.” He emphasized Brazil’s stance on negotiation, declaring, “We accept negotiation and not imposition.”

This conflict surfaces in the context of the U.S. having a $6.8 billion trade surplus with Brazil last year. American exports to Brazil include prominent sectors such as aircraft, fuels, industrial machinery, and electrical equipment. A 50% Brazilian tariff in retaliation would severely impact these industries.

Despite the tensions, Lula remains open to diplomatic solutions and is hopeful for a resolution through dialogue. “The best thing in the world is for us to sit around a table and talk,” he expressed. Lula encouraged Trump to consider negotiations seriously, aiming for a reformed relationship beneficial to both nations.

Meanwhile, the U.S. government has escalated the situation by initiating an investigation into Brazil’s trading practices. This investigation will cover areas such as digital trade, electronic payment services, and intellectual property protection to determine if these practices are “unreasonable or discriminatory” and restrict American commerce.

According to the United States Trade Representative, the investigation will also evaluate issues regarding ethanol market access and illegal deforestation.

Source: Original article

Congress Approves Cuts to Public Media and Foreign Aid

Staff ReporterNation, Politics, Women 0

In a decisive move, Congress has approved a bill slashing approximately $9 billion in foreign aid and public broadcasting funds in alignment with Republican efforts to secure budget cuts initiated by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

Congress has ratified a bill that reduces around $9 billion in funding directed towards foreign aid and public broadcasting, as part of the Republican push to cement budget reductions led by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

The legislative package comprises approximately $8 billion in cuts targeted at the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and other foreign assistance programs. It also incorporates over $1 billion in reductions from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), which financially supports entities like NPR and PBS.

NPR and PBS, two prominent public broadcasters, are particularly concerned about the ramifications of the funding cuts. The bill retracts over $1 billion in advance appropriations allocated for CPB for the fiscal years 2026 and 2027.

Several Republicans have argued that such reductions are overdue, citing perceived political biases in NPR and PBS as underlying justification. Nonetheless, fears persist regarding the potential impact on smaller and rural stations that rely heavily on this funding.

During the last fiscal period, NPR received over $13 million from CPB as reported by grants and allocations data, while PBS received upwards of $70 million. Notably, about 1% of NPR’s operational budget and roughly 15% of PBS’s budget are sourced directly from federal funding.

The fiscal landscape for public media appears to be on shaky ground. Critics warn of an impending fiscal “cliff” when the cuts take effect in October, coinciding with the onset of fiscal year 2026. According to warnings from Rep. Rosa Delauro (D-Conn.), these financial constraints threaten essential services in rural communities that rely on public broadcasting for critical information and educational content.

CPB President Patricia Harrison expressed grave concerns, explaining that numerous local public radio and television stations might face closure. Harrison also noted the potential loss of national and local emergency alerts, which are crucial for public safety.

These worries resonate across party lines, as voiced by Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska). Klobuchar highlighted the cuts’ potential to cripple rural radio stations, which serve as community lifelines during emergencies. Murkowski reiterated this sentiment, citing her personal experience with public broadcasts during emergency situations like earthquakes and tsunami warnings.

On the other hand, some Republican lawmakers, like Rep. Mark Alford (R-Mo.), advocate for the cuts by pointing out the ubiquity of modern communication tools like smartphones which, they argue, lessen the necessity for publicly funded broadcasting services.

In addition to changes in public media funding, the bill includes substantial reductions in USAID and other foreign aid sectors, initially aiming for $8.3 billion in cuts. However, concessions were made to exempt the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), a program with bipartisan support originally launched in 2003 under President George W. Bush.

Despite widespread Republican approval for the bill, some voices from within the party, notably Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins (R-Maine), have manifested reservations. Collins criticized the insufficient information regarding the targeted accounts’ program impacts, especially concerning the proposed $2.5 billion cut to the Development Assistance account.

The bill represents just the initial step in broader Republican ambitions. A continued push for funding reductions is anticipated, as White House budget chief Russell Vought hinted at further rescission proposals in the near future. The White House has framed the rescissions tool as a strategic method to streamline budget cuts through a GOP-centric legislative process.

The timing of these strategies remains critical, with the government facing a Sept. 30 deadline to avert a potential shutdown. Legislative negotiations are ongoing, with both congressional chambers yet to finalize their respective budget proposals, raising the possibility of short-term funding measures to prevent disruptions.

As fiscal negotiations unfold, the path forward remains fraught with political and logistical challenges. While Republicans urge adherence to DOGE-endorsed fiscal policies, others, including senior Republican Senator Murkowski, caution against capitulating to White House directives that sideline traditional legislative processes.

Source: Original article

Trump Administration Evaluates New H-1B Visa Issuance Method

Staff ReporterImmigration, Politics, Visa 0

The Trump administration is exploring a potential overhaul of the H-1B visa lottery system by introducing a weighted selection process.

The Trump administration has revealed plans to potentially change the way H-1B visas are administered, particularly by introducing a “weighted selection process.” In a recent submission to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) indicated it is considering alterations for the capped part of the H-1B system.

The H-1B visa program, which grants 85,000 visas annually, has become a battleground for supporters and opponents. President Donald Trump’s supporters are advocating for more stringent immigration controls, while prominent figures like Elon Musk, along with the president, continue to back the initiative. This visa is a critical pathway for tech companies to hire highly skilled foreign professionals, a point of contention for those who believe it displaces American workers.

Details regarding the potential weighted selection process remain sparse, according to the DHS filing. Nonetheless, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has been mentioned as a responsible entity for implementing these potential changes. Traditionally, H-1B visas are distributed through a lottery system, which aims to provide an equal chance for all applicants. Yet, large corporations such as Amazon, Meta, and Microsoft are able to submit more applications, disproportionately securing more visas.

Earlier this year, the Institute for Progress, an independent think tank focusing on innovation policy, proposed removing the lottery system. They reasoned that assessing applications based on criteria like seniority or salary could enhance the program’s economic value significantly. Doing so would, according to the think tank, allocate visas to the most qualified temporary immigrants.

Connor O’Brien, an Economic Innovation Group researcher, expressed support for rethinking the H-1B allocation system by emphasizing, “The details of the rule and how it is implemented will matter a lot. But eliminating the H-1B lottery in favor of a system that prioritizes higher earners first is a no-brainer.”

As of now, no specific timeline has been announced for these changes. It’s also unlikely that next year’s H-1B applicants will be affected, given that the current year’s quota is already filled.

Source: Original article

Mohanlal Steps Down; Boban, Vijayaraghavan Lead 2025 AMMA Election

Staff ReporterElection, Film, Leadership 0

The Association of Malayalam Movie Artists (AMMA) is set to undergo a significant leadership transition as superstar Mohanlal steps down as president, with Kunchacko Boban and Vijayaraghavan emerging as frontrunners for the position.

The AMMA, which represents actors in the Malayalam film industry, is preparing for a pivotal leadership change with current president Mohanlal announcing he will not seek re-election. This decision has ignited excitement and speculation within the industry as new candidates emerge. The upcoming elections are scheduled for August 15, 2025, with preparations already underway.

Nominations for the election, which began on July 17, will decide 17 key positions, including six officer roles and eleven executive committee seats. The opening of the nomination window has generated significant interest, with at least five members collecting nomination forms on the first day and over 30 members expected to compete for various posts.

With Mohanlal stepping aside, the focus has turned to two prominent actors: Kunchacko Boban, representing the younger generation of actors, and veteran Vijayaraghavan, who has considerable support from senior artists. Sources close to AMMA suggest that should Vijayaraghavan officially declare his candidacy, he may secure an uncontested victory, given the respect he commands among peers.

The post of general secretary has also attracted interest, with actor Baburaj preparing to file his nomination. Rumors suggest that actress Shwetha Menon, a former AMMA officeholder and seen as a formidable female candidate, may also join the race, although her participation remains unconfirmed. Many are keenly observing whether she will officially enter the contest.

Several well-known figures, including former executive members such as Tovino Thomas, Tini Tom, Vinu Mohan, Kalabhavan Shajohn, Jayan Cherthala, and Suresh Krishna, are expected to contest in the elections. Their involvement indicates active engagement from both senior and younger actors in shaping AMMA’s future leadership.

Candidates wishing to contest in the election have until July 24 to submit their nominations. As voting day approaches, the coming weeks are anticipated to reveal more contenders. This election is expected to herald a new era for AMMA, bringing fresh direction and energy, as all eyes focus on who will succeed Mohanlal as president.

In his final acting endeavor before stepping down, Mohanlal was featured in the crime thriller ‘Thudarum,’ directed by Tharun Moorthy. He portrayed Shanmugham “Benz,” a challenging role met with acclaim for its compelling narrative and strong performances, including Mohanlal’s own.

Source: Original article

Trump Sues WSJ for Libel Over Epstein Birthday Letters Report

Staff ReporterCover, Law/Legal, Politics 0

President Donald Trump has initiated a $20 billion libel lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal over reports he allegedly gifted Jeffrey Epstein a note bearing his name and an image of a naked woman.

President Donald Trump has launched legal action against the Wall Street Journal and its reporters, seeking at least $20 billion in damages. The lawsuit, filed in a Miami federal court, accuses the publication of failing to adhere to journalistic standards in a story about a collection of letters allegedly gifted to Jeffrey Epstein, which included a note purportedly from Trump featuring an outline of a naked woman. Trump firmly denies authorship of the letter.

The 18-page lawsuit describes the Wall Street Journal’s alleged lapses, highlighting that the publication did not produce the drawing or the letter in their report, claiming their absence because “no authentic letter or drawing exists,” according to Trump’s attorney.

Trump expressed his intention to initiate legal proceedings promptly after the Journal’s article surfaced on Thursday, naming reporters Khadeeja Safdar and Joe Palazzolo as defendants. Trump also singled out Rupert Murdoch, owner of News Corp, during a Truth Social post, suggesting Murdoch had assured Trump he would manage the situation.

In response, Dow Jones, the Journal’s parent company, released a statement expressing confidence in the report’s accuracy and pledging to defend against the lawsuit vigorously.

Scrutiny has intensified lately concerning Trump’s past association with Epstein, the deceased convicted sex offender who died in a Manhattan jail in 2019 awaiting trial for federal sex trafficking charges. Amid his 2024 campaign, Trump spoke about potentially releasing more files on Epstein, responding to right-wing voices demanding further transparency around Epstein’s controversial case.

A Justice Department memo published earlier this month dismissed the existence of any “client list” maintained by Epstein implicating influential men in illegal activities. However, the absence of such a list has disappointed many of Trump’s supporters, creating a rift within his MAGA base.

The president’s relationship with media mogul Rupert Murdoch, who also owns Fox News, has been characterized by fluctuating dynamics over the years. Trump has repeatedly been a focal point in Murdoch’s media outlets, including Fox News, which prominently features Trump’s daughter-in-law, Lara Trump.

Facing ongoing legal battles with media entities, Trump seems undeterred, continuing to challenge stories he deems defamatory. Legal scholars note his presidency is one of the rare administrations seeing direct lawsuits from the president against media organizations.

First Amendment attorney Ted Boutrous mentioned that it is notably uncommon for a sitting president to sue a reporter or publication for defamation, emphasizing that the presidential “bully pulpit” often suffices in addressing grievances over alleged misrepresentations.

In 2024, Trump initiated legal actions against multiple media outlets during his reelection campaign. A notable instance involved ABC and claims from George Stephanopoulos regarding a jury’s findings in E. Jean Carroll’s case. ABC’s parent company, Disney, settled with Trump, setting a precedent for future settlements linked to Trump’s presidential library funding.

Trump recently withdrew a lawsuit against CBS News related to a “60 Minutes” segment, with Paramount agreeing to a payment as part of the settlement. Further settlements with Meta and X highlight Trump’s sustained focus on countering adversarial coverage.

Carl Tobias, a University of Richmond law professor, points to Trump’s approach as a tactical maneuver designed to instill caution among media outlets in their coverage of Trump and government matters, citing ongoing litigation as efforts that challenge First Amendment freedoms.

Following the lawsuit’s filing, Trump noted on Truth Social his anticipation of Murdoch and his associates undergoing extensive depositions and testimonies as part of the proceedings.

Source: Original article

Social Security Retirement Age Adjusts, Impacting U.S. Beneficiaries

Staff ReporterPolitics, USA 0

The increase in Social Security’s full retirement age highlights the importance of strategic planning for those approaching retirement.

For many Americans, the notion of retirement is closely tied to reaching a specific age, traditionally 65. However, with gradual adjustments in the full retirement age (FRA) for Social Security benefits, those born in 1959 will start to see these changes manifest in 2025. At that time, their FRA will be 66 years and 10 months, reflecting the culmination of a gradual shift implemented over decades.

Understanding how these changes impact retirement plans is essential for maximizing Social Security benefits. The 1983 Social Security Amendments set forth a plan to incrementally increase the FRA from 65 to 67. As part of this implementation, individuals born in 1959 will need to wait until they are 66 years and 10 months to reach their full retirement age. Meanwhile, those born in 1960 or later will see an FRA of 67. As a result, people anticipating a retirement age of 66 years and 8 months—such as those born in 1958—will now need to delay their plans by an additional two months.

For those considering early retirement, choosing to collect benefits at age 62 leads to a considerable monthly benefit reduction—29% for the 1959 cohort, increasing to 30% for those born in 1960 or later. On the flip side, delaying benefits beyond the FRA can lead to an annual increase of up to 8%, reaching a total enhancement of 32% if benefits are postponed until age 70.

Individuals who wish to retire before reaching their FRA can adopt several strategies to bridge the gap without the need for full-time work. These include negotiating a phased retirement, where a three- or four-day workweek can aid in covering essential costs without eroding retirement savings. Maintaining a financial cushion through a high-yield savings or money-market account with 18-24 months’ worth of living expenses can also provide stability during this period.

Additional income can be generated by monetizing unused space in the home or driveway, such as through long-term room rentals, which can yield $700–$1,000 monthly, or driveway parking for urban dwellers, which can earn between $150 and $300. Alternatively, part-time positions at national retailers like Costco, Home Depot, and Trader Joe’s come with medical benefits and can offer both income and health insurance while awaiting full retirement benefits.

For early retirees, applying tax-smart strategies can prove beneficial. Withdrawing from taxable brokerage accounts first is advised to avoid penalties and to allow retirement accounts like IRAs or 401(k)s to continue accruing value. Additionally, Roth IRA contributions (excluding earnings) can be withdrawn at any age without facing taxes or penalties.

Maintaining a low Modified Adjusted Gross Income can help individuals qualify for subsidies under the Affordable Care Act, offering significant savings on health insurance premiums until age 65, when Medicare eligibility begins. Side income from activities such as online tutoring, pet sitting, or crafting can further supplement retirement income without the need for a full-time commitment.

As discussions among lawmakers continue regarding potential further increases to the FRA to ages 68 or 69, it is imperative to anticipate these possibilities with a flexible retirement plan. Building a cash reserve, securing part-time income opportunities, and employing tax-efficient withdrawal strategies will offer a buffer against potential future changes in the Social Security system.

While the change in the retirement age from 65 to 67 is nearly complete, careful planning remains crucial amidst the complexities of modern retirement. Even though the increase in the retirement age might seem minor, establishing a robust retirement plan can help ensure that retirement is a personal choice rather than a requirement defined by Social Security.

Source: Original article

Trump Sues Murdoch for $10 Billion Over Epstein Letter Story

Staff ReporterPolitics, USA 0

President Donald Trump has filed a $10 billion defamation lawsuit against Rupert Murdoch and The Wall Street Journal, claiming the publication falsely reported he sent a bawdy letter to Jeffrey Epstein.

President Donald Trump took legal action on Friday against media tycoon Rupert Murdoch, following the publication of an article in The Wall Street Journal alleging that Trump sent a provocative letter to Jeffrey Epstein for his 50th birthday. Trump, who has strongly denied penning the letter, is demanding damages amounting to no less than $10 billion in his defamation lawsuit.

The lawsuit, filed in the Southern District of Florida’s federal court, names as defendants Murdoch, News Corp’s CEO Robert Thomson, The Wall Street Journal publisher Dow Jones & Co., and the two reporters behind the article published on Thursday evening.

A spokesperson for Dow Jones responded with a statement to CNBC, asserting their confidence in the robustness and accuracy of their reporting and expressing an intent to vigorously contest the lawsuit.

This legal move aligns with mounting pressure on Trump to persuade the Justice Department to disclose its investigative files about Epstein, who committed suicide in August 2019 while facing federal child sex trafficking charges.

The contested article stated that the alleged letter from Trump to Epstein was among documentation reviewed by criminal investigators in the process of building cases against Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, a convicted accomplice said to have solicited the letter from Trump.

Trump took to his social media platform, Truth Social, to announce the lawsuit against everyone involved in publishing what he described as a “false, malicious, defamatory, fake news ‘article'” in what he referred to as a “useless rag” of a newspaper.

The lawsuit alleges that reporters Khadeeja Safdar and Joseph Palazzolo co-authored an article incorrectly accusing Trump of creating a card featuring salacious language within a hand-drawn image of a naked woman. It further claims that the letter included offensive depictions allegedly signed by Trump, constituting significant journalistic and ethical oversights.

In the same post on Truth Social, Trump expressed anticipation at the prospect of having Rupert Murdoch testify, describing the forthcoming event as potentially “an interesting experience.”

Source: Original article

Trump Uses Office to Boost Family Business Profits

Staff ReporterPolitics, Business 0

President Donald Trump’s second term has been marked by leveraging the power of his office for unprecedented personal gain, drawing scrutiny over perceived conflicts of interest.

In a stark departure from the promises of his first term, President Donald Trump has increasingly entwined his political role with his business interests during his second term, resulting in significant financial gains for the Trump family businesses. From investments in cryptocurrency to international development deals, the Trump Organization has seen an unprecedented influx of wealth since Trump’s election, amassed from varied sources, including foreign governments and billionaires.

James Thurber, an emeritus professor at American University specializing in political corruption, noted the abnormal nature of these developments, emphasizing that Trump appears to prioritize personal wealth over public interest. The scale of the Trump Organization’s income during his second term surpasses that of the first, with sprawling ambitions stretching from virtual currencies to global development projects.

A notable shift in the Trump family’s business operations involves cryptocurrencies, where they have reportedly garnered substantial returns. A conservative estimate pegs one of Trump’s crypto ventures at generating at least $320 million since January, while another secured a $2 billion investment from a foreign sovereign wealth fund.

Trump’s family members have been active internationally as well, pursuing new development opportunities in the Middle East and working on a Mediterranean island resort in partnership with Albania’s government. First lady Melania Trump, too, has cashed in, securing a $40 million documentary deal with Amazon, a company whose founder was a frequent target of Trump’s criticisms.

The Trump administration’s intertwining of presidential duties with business interests has drawn criticism for apparent conflicts of interest. However, little consequence is expected, as a Republican-controlled Congress and a Supreme Court with a conservative majority have created an environment where Trump is unlikely to face serious repercussions. Notably, Congress has relaxed oversight mechanisms that previously held presidents accountable for such conflicts.

In some cases, Trump’s own allies have cautioned against certain actions, but these warnings have largely gone unheeded. For instance, Trump accepted a $400 million airplane from the Qatari government, announcing it would be added to his presidential library after leaving office. Such moves have led critics, like Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley, to label the situation as highly corrupt.

Since the scandal surrounding President Richard Nixon, most presidents have taken measures to distance themselves from financial conflicts. However, Trump deviates from this precedent, having handed control of his business empire to his children rather than placing it in a blind trust. This arrangement leaves his financial dealings closely tied to his presidency.

Trump’s foray into cryptocurrencies highlights a significant conflict of interest, as he once criticized them but has since promoted crypto ventures he and his family stand to benefit from. His administration’s efforts to relax industry oversight raise questions about whether his policies are influenced by personal profit rather than national interest.

The Trump Organization has not provided comments regarding its cryptocurrency activities, and White House statements claim that Trump’s legislative actions in the crypto sector aim to position the U.S. as a global leader in digital finance, rather than self-driven financial motives.

Trump’s burgeoning crypto ventures—managed by his sons and associates—underscore the potential for financial gain. For instance, his meme coin, $Trump, earned substantial fees after initial elections. Transparent conflict issues remain as industry insiders reportedly promised financial backing for Trump’s campaign.

The administration’s recent crypto policies, such as the prohibition of certain cryptocurrencies by Congress members, were sought by the industry and have benefited Trump’s business connections. High-profile foreign investors linked to questionable dealings have also surfaced, including Justin Sun, whose investments in Trump’s crypto projects correlate with potential legal indulgences.

Amid these controversies, Trump continues to host events that enhance the allure of his brand, such as a dinner for top crypto investors. Such strategies amplify concerns among experts who equate Trump’s monetization of the presidency with sidestepping traditional political finance laws.

While other political figures have adhered to stringent regulations on campaign contributions, Trump’s incorporation of cryptocurrency appears to bypass these legal frameworks, raising alarms among legal professionals.

According to The Associated Press, Trump’s ventures represent a significant departure from previous presidential norms, suggesting an evolving landscape where digital assets redefine political finance dynamics.

Trump Presidency News on July 17, 2025

Staff ReporterPolitics, Cover 0

House Republican leaders are working to expedite the passage of President Donald Trump’s proposed $9 billion federal funding cuts amid negotiations with party members pushing for a vote on a Jeffrey Epstein-related measure.

In efforts to secure enough support, House Republican leaders are gearing up for an extended session as they seek to advance a $9 billion package of federal funding cuts championed by President Donald Trump. The legislative push follows a day marked by intense discussions with GOP members who are advocating for a vote on a measure related to Jeffrey Epstein.

Simultaneously, a report from the Wall Street Journal has surfaced concerning a controversial letter allegedly linked to President Trump. The report highlighted a collection of letters given to Epstein on his 50th birthday in 2003, among which was a note purportedly bearing Trump’s name alongside an outline of a naked woman. In response, President Trump has denied authoring the letter and expressed intentions to file a lawsuit against the publication.

Adding to the developments surrounding the president, the White House has provided an update on Trump’s health. Recently, medical examinations were conducted on him due to swelling observed in his legs. According to his doctor, the diagnosis is chronic venous insufficiency, a condition prevalent among older individuals. The examination ruled out severe complications such as heart failure, arterial disease, or other significant illnesses.

The health update aims to allay concerns regarding the president’s well-being, as the administration simultaneously manages its legislative aims and addresses emerging issues tied to Trump’s long-standing affiliations and public controversies.

This article information is attributed to the Wall Street Journal, as well as the latest communications from the White House.

California Physician Jasmeet Bains Announces Congressional Bid

Staff ReporterNation, Politics 0

Jasmeet Bains, an Indian American physician and California Assemblymember, has announced her candidacy for Congress in California’s 22nd district, seeking to unseat Republican incumbent David Valadao.

Jasmeet Bains, noted for being the first Sikh American elected to the California state legislature, declared her Congressional campaign on July 16. Representing California’s 35th Assembly District since 2022, Bains has garnered attention as one of the most moderate Democrats in the chamber, with her work primarily concentrated on improving rural healthcare access, emergency response, and workforce development.

Bains emphasizes her identity as a physician rather than a career politician and cites her frontline experience as pivotal in understanding the challenges faced by Valley residents. She expressed her congressional bid as a response to the unmet needs of the community, particularly in holding their elected officials accountable. “I’m running for Congress because we deserve better than broken promises and backroom deals, and our communities are tired of getting left behind,” Bains stated in her announcement video. “We deserve a representative who will actually show up and stand up for the Valley.”

Her campaign centers on criticizing incumbent David Valadao’s political decisions, notably his support for the House GOP’s federal budget proposal, which Bains argues would negatively impact healthcare and food assistance programs crucial to the district. Bains accused Valadao of prioritizing political donors and D.C. insiders over the district’s constituents. She highlighted his vote that might reduce Medi-Cal funding—a crucial source of affordable healthcare in the community—and criticized potential increases in prescription drug prices and cuts to food assistance programs. “That’s not leadership—that’s betrayal,” Bains said of Valadao’s actions.

Jasmeet Bains was born in Delano to Punjabi Sikh immigrants and grew up working at her father’s auto dealership in Taft, California. Her personal experiences during the Great Recession, particularly related to the collapse of local healthcare services, motivated her to pursue a career in medicine. Bains holds a Bachelor of Science in biology from the Illinois Institute of Technology and a Doctor of Medicine from the American University of Antigua.

Before stepping into the political arena, Bains served as a resident physician at Clinica Sierra Vista and later practiced at Omni Family Health. Her medical expertise was further amplified by her work with the California Emergency Medical Services Authority, and she held an appointment to the California Healthcare Workforce Policy Commission by former Governor Jerry Brown in 2017.

Bains underscores her commitment to her roots and professional background as the foundation of her congressional bid. “Caring for patients in rural communities, deploying to treat firefighters at wildfires—I’m there when people need me most,” she remarked, identifying these experiences as critical inspirations for her decision to run for Congress.

The outcome of this race could signify a notable shift in California’s 22nd district representation, as Bains brings a blend of local understanding and professional acumen to her Congressional campaign, seeking to focus on healthcare, economic stability, and community resilience.

Source: Original article

US-India Summit Hosted on Capitol Hill Highlights Strategic Partnership

Staff ReporterNation USA, Politics 0

The Foundation for India and Indian Diaspora Studies (FIIDS) hosted an event on the U.S. Capitol that highlighted the strengthening strategic partnerships and diaspora engagement between the United States and India.

The Foundation for India and Indian Diaspora Studies (FIIDS) organized the U.S.-India Summit and Capitol Hill Legislative Day on July 15, 2025, at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C. This significant event aimed to highlight the deepening ties between the two nations, gathering U.S. and Indian American lawmakers alongside other influential figures.

Throughout the day, nearly 150 delegates from over 20 states interacted with more than 120 elected officials. The discussions covered various policy areas, including the U.S.-India partnership, the Quad and I2U2 alliances, trade, security, and investment opportunities, as well as immigration reform, counterterrorism, and religious tolerance.

India’s Ambassador to the United States, Vinay Kwatra, lauded FIIDS for its role in strengthening bilateral ties. He highlighted the Indian diaspora’s role as a ‘living bridge’ connecting both societies and economies. Ambassador Kwatra also commended Congressman Shri Thanedar for his support of U.S.-India relations.

Rep. Shri Thanedar (MI-13) underscored the importance of political engagement within the Indian American community. He encouraged deeper civic participation to enhance the community’s influence, asserting that Indian Americans still lack the political power they deserve. He stressed the crucial role immigrants play in maintaining America’s innovation leadership.

FIIDS President Khanderao Kand clarified the summit’s purpose, emphasizing that the meetings with lawmakers were substantive. Delegates discussed critical issues such as artificial intelligence, quantum computing, Indo-Pacific security, and comprehensive immigration reforms, including the reintroduction of the EAGLE Act.

Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi (IL-8) highlighted the expanding dimensions of the U.S.-India relationship, describing it as ‘stronger, deeper, and wider’ across trade, security, and people-to-people connections. He noted the impressive growth in bilateral trade, which increased from $20 billion in 2000 to over $200 billion today, and affirmed the relationship’s bipartisan support.

Congressman Ro Khanna (CA-17) emphasized the significance of sustained political engagement to develop influence over time. He praised Kand and FIIDS for advancing shared causes and recalled the Congressional Caucus on India and Indian Americans’ firm support for India’s right to self-defense following the Pahalgam attacks.

Congressman Suhas Subramanyam (VA-10) stressed the need to empower the next generation of Indian Americans. He commended FIIDS for encouraging young individuals to connect with their cultural roots while engaging in American civic life. He also mentioned the existence of a policy program for Indian American students.

Congressman Andy Barr (KY-6) reaffirmed his commitment to advancing U.S.-India strategic cooperation within the Quad framework. He humorously suggested replacing Scotch whisky with Kentucky bourbon in trade deals with India, pairing well with Indian spicy cuisine.

Congressman Sanford Bishop from Georgia’s second district highlighted the influence of India’s independence struggle on the U.S. Civil Rights Movement and emphasized Georgia’s economic ties with India.

Congresswoman Judy Chu (CA-28), a member of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, addressed challenges facing the Indian American community, such as visa delays and restrictions on international students. She vowed to advocate for increased educational opportunities and visa reforms.

Congressman Robert P. Bresnahan (PA-8) discussed his work on emerging technologies and collaboration with Indian entrepreneurs in agriculture. He expressed support for ongoing innovation within U.S.-India relations.

Congressman Randy Fine (FL-6), the first Republican Jewish member elected from his district, shared his connection to India and spotlighted shared values between Indian and Jewish communities. He advocated for legal immigration reforms and reinforced strong U.S.-India ties.

Congressman Jimmy Panetta (CA-19) acknowledged the vibrant Indian American community in his district and emphasized the bilateral relationship’s significance to national, economic, and domestic security. He also called for increased visa allocations and comprehensive immigration reform.

Congressman Jonathan Jackson (IL-1) recognized the parallels between Indian and American civil rights histories, acknowledging the impact of Mahatma Gandhi’s Satyagraha movement on the American Civil Rights Movement.

Other attendees, including Congressmen Mark Harris (NC-8), David Taylor (OH-2), Nate Moron (TX-1), and several other legislators, voiced their support for the U.S.-India partnership. Narasimha Koppula of FIIDS concluded the event by delivering the vote of thanks.

Source: Original article

India-U.S. Relations Based on Reality, Not Posturing: Expert

Staff ReporterNation USA, Politics 0

India-U.S. relations are rooted in substantial engagement and strategic cooperation, not merely political rhetoric, according to Priyam Gandhi-Mody of the Vishwamitra Research Foundation Bharat.

Founder and Director of the Vishwamitra Research Foundation (VRF) Bharat, Priyam Gandhi-Mody, highlighted the depth of the India-U.S. relationship, noting that despite the appearance of political posturing, the partnership is strongly anchored in reality. She emphasized that the substantial engagement between the two nations is evidenced by an annual trade volume of $200 billion.

“The reality is that India and the United States are engaged in $200 billion dollars of trade annually,” Gandhi-Mody pointed out, underscoring that both countries view each other as strategically significant. While the surface-level posturing may differ, the core conversations are addressed with utmost seriousness, she explained. Gandhi-Mody expressed her belief that the U.S.-India relationship holds promising potential for contributing positively to global affairs.

During a recent visit to the United States, Gandhi-Mody worked to bolster relationships with key partners in line with VRF’s mission. Her itinerary included strategic discussions in Washington D.C., New York, and San Francisco, focusing on trade corridors and emerging technologies, which align with the Mumbai-based think tank’s geo-economic aspirations.

At the India–Middle East–Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC) Summit in Mumbai, Gandhi-Mody described IMEC as a “game changer.” She explained that IMEC is about reviving ancient trade routes, reconnecting distant regions for economic upliftment along its entire route. She emphasized the corridor’s role in rekindling historical connections aimed at common economic development.

Further aligning the interests of India and the U.S., she discussed the need for cooperation in initiatives like IMEC and the U.S.-India TRUST initiative, which targets technology collaboration. Gandhi-Mody advocated for increased engagements and trust-building measures between the private sectors and governments of both nations.

She also touched upon the I2U2 alliance, consisting of India, Israel, the UAE, and the U.S., which is exploring new technological domains such as responsible artificial intelligence, space exploration, deep-sea research, and sustainability. Gandhi-Mody remains optimistic that these collaborative efforts will solidify over time.

In a recent opinion piece, she critiqued Congress Parliamentary Party Chairperson Sonia Gandhi’s remarks on India’s foreign policy, labeling them “ill-informed.” Gandhi-Mody argued that foreign policy decisions should prioritize national interest over passion, suggesting that some suggested policies could have led to unfavorable outcomes. She articulated that India’s “strategic silence” underscores its growing standing on the global stage, allowing the country to act decisively when its voice and actions are impactful.

Gandhi-Mody highlighted India’s ongoing diplomatic engagements with countries involved in global conflicts, such as Russia, Ukraine, Israel, and Iran. She emphasized the importance of maintaining communication channels to protect Indian nationals abroad and ensure supply chain stability.

India’s economic ascent was another focal point for Gandhi-Mody, who noted its position as the fourth-largest economy. She stressed the country’s focus on domestic growth and avoiding international conflicts, reaffirming India’s trajectory towards becoming a developed nation by 2047.

Reflecting on Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s statement to Russian President Vladimir Putin, she stated, “This is not an era of war,” but an era of growth, asserting, “When India grows, we take the world along.”

According to South Asian Herald, Gandhi-Mody’s insights paint a picture of a strong, cooperative India-U.S. relationship that transcends apparent political moves.

Source: Original article

Trust in US Dollar’s Global Supremacy Diminishing

Staff ReporterCover, Economy, Politics 0

Global de-dollarization is not a threat to stability but rather a rebalancing of global monetary dynamics as countries reject an economic system historically tilted in Washington’s favor.

For over eighty years, the U.S. dollar has held the position of the world’s leading reserve currency, established at the 1944 Bretton Woods Conference and reinforced by the United States’ postwar industrial prowess and military influence.

Today, this dominance is increasingly being challenged from various fronts worldwide—from African revolutionary initiatives to economic recalibrations within Europe, and from the collective counteractions of BRICS nations to the geopolitical complexities involving Ukraine and Israel.

The erosion of global trust in Washington’s leadership of the international financial order has hastened a long-anticipated shift toward a multi-polar monetary structure.

The BRICS economic alliance, consisting of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, and recently expanded to include Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Argentina, Ethiopia, Iran, and the United Arab Emirates, is spearheading this de-dollarization trend. Now surpassing the G7 in purchasing power parity (PPP), BRICS is increasingly pushing for a reformed global financial system.

Nations within this bloc have begun trading in their own currencies, reducing reliance on the U.S. dollar. For example, India and Russia conduct oil transactions in rupees and rubles, while China and Brazil have developed processes for settling trade in yuan and Brazilian reals. Russia’s exclusion from the SWIFT financial system following its invasion of Ukraine has expedited this transition.

Economist Jeffrey Sachs has criticized the United States for using the dollar as a geopolitical tool through financial sanctions and trade restrictions. In response, countries in the global south are vigorously pursuing economic autonomy.

A quiet yet significant movement is unfolding in Africa, especially across the Sahel region. Influential leaders, such as Ibrahim Traoré of Burkina Faso, have declared intentions to abandon the CFA franc, a currency historically linked to French control and the euro. Traoré has emerged as a prominent voice in the call for economic self-governance, proposing the establishment of a pan-African currency to serve as a symbol of decolonization.

The proposed unified African currency, supported by countries like Mali, Niger, and Guinea, represents more than monetary policy; it signals a decades-long economic revolution. The West African bloc ECOWAS is actively discussing the long-overdue “Eco” currency as a challenge to U.S. and European monetary dominance.

African intellectuals and economists, including Kenyan professor PLO Lumumba, argue that political independence must coincide with economic sovereignty. This transformation is as much about identity and dignity as it is about financial transactions.

Recent calls in Italy and Germany to retrieve parts of their gold reserves from the United States highlight the underlying global uncertainty. Previously, the Bundesbank demonstrated its skepticism by recalling gold during the Obama administration. The potential for a second Trump presidency and his aggressive policies have further catalyzed these precautionary measures.

As the U.S. faces mounting national debt exceeding $36 trillion and annual interest payments surpassing $1 trillion, its reliance on the dollar’s reserve status to finance deficits is increasingly questioned. Unlike other nations, the U.S.’s monetary policy allows it to print dollars freely, maintaining an economic equilibrium others do not share.

Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz has repeatedly cautioned against the continuous exploitation of this “exorbitant privilege,” which seems unsustainable. Emerging economies bear the brunt of inflationary pressures resulting from U.S. monetary practices, enduring economic volatility not of their own making.

Ongoing military expenditures in Ukraine and Israel undermine confidence in American fiscal responsibility and the dollar’s stability. These conflicts, supported through deficit financing, amplify doubts about the sustainability of U.S. financial practices.

Despite this, over 58% of global reserves remain dollar-denominated, and nearly 90% of currency exchanges involve the dollar, underscoring its entrenched global presence. However, the strength of any currency fundamentally relies on trust, which appears to be waning. A shift toward a multi-currency global economy with regional financial systems is increasingly plausible.

The critical issue is not if but when the dollar will relinquish its supremacy. As former President Donald Trump proposes steep tariffs on BRICS nations, the path forward for the U.S. depends on whether it will embrace financial modernization or hold onto privileges that the world may soon leave behind.

Initially, the dollar’s dominance was built on U.S. moral authority and industrial strength, but the contemporary landscape has evolved post-COVID and post-colonization. Nations worldwide are redefining economic sovereignty, critiquing a financial system long perceived as biased toward Washington.

In 2025, the persistent conflict involving the Palestinian people has exacerbated global discontent, further tarnishing the U.S.’s moral standing. The de-dollarization movement represents a recalibration of global economic power, not a threat. The global south is no longer petitioning for change; it is materializing it. Continued U.S. intransigence risks forfeiting both its currency leadership and international influence.

As Sachs noted, reliance on force is unsustainable for global leadership. The global community is realigning, each nation asserting its place in the evolving financial landscape.

Source: Original article

Turkey’s Anti-India Policy Affects BRICS Membership Prospects

Staff ReporterPolitics 0

Amid a backdrop of geopolitical tensions, Turkey’s pursuit of BRICS membership appears thwarted, suggesting India’s opposition may have played a crucial role.

Turkey’s ambition to join BRICS, a prominent intergovernmental organization that includes 10 member countries, among them India, seems to have reached an impasse amid strained relations between Turkey and India, primarily due to Turkey’s support for Pakistan in recent conflicts.

Turkey’s government has expressed a strong interest in becoming part of BRICS, claiming last year to have been offered partner country status by the group. The nation viewed joining BRICS as a strategic move to balance its relations between the Eastern and Western worlds. In 2024, Ankara made an official bid to be the first NATO country admitted to the BRICS economic bloc.

As the latest BRICS summit unfolded in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Turkey’s aspirations appeared to falter. Speculations suggest that India’s opposition could be a significant factor influencing Turkey’s stalled membership. The bloc’s criteria require unanimous consent from existing members for new countries to join.

Although Turkey was represented at the summit by its Minister of Foreign Affairs, Hakan Fidan, there was no official disclosure of Turkey’s standing regarding membership or partnership following the meetings. While BRICS welcomed countries such as Belarus, Bolivia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Cuba as partner countries, no formal statement was issued about Turkey’s position.

According to Turkish media outlet Turkiye Gazetezi, India’s reservations were a decisive element in Turkey’s BRICS membership bid. The report indicated that India’s cautious approach was partly due to Turkey’s NATO membership and differing stances on certain regional issues.

Sources with knowledge of the matter informed Middle East Eye that both China and India had reservations about Turkey’s full membership in BRICS last year, creating a roadblock for Ankara. A Brazilian diplomat commented, “Turkey is Nato,” noting that several countries had concerns about how Turkey’s membership would align with the bloc’s dynamics. The diplomat also highlighted that India was the principal opponent of Turkey’s accession.

Speculations regarding India’s opposition to Turkey’s entry as a BRICS partner country have surfaced before; these claims were initially reported in a German daily. However, Ankara dismissed the allegations against its entry applications in previous discussions.

Source: Original article

Democratic Senators Question Trump’s New Citizenship Data System

Staff ReporterElection, Politics, World 0

Three Democratic U.S. senators have expressed concerns over a citizenship data system developed under the Trump administration, warning it could disenfranchise eligible voters.

Three Democratic U.S. senators are calling attention to a searchable citizenship data system developed during the Trump administration, raising concerns that its use could lead to the wrongful disenfranchisement of eligible voters.

The tool, detailed first by NPR, is enabled by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and is used to verify the citizenship status of individuals listed on state voter rolls when provided with a Social Security number, name, and date of birth.

Developed by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the system connects federal immigration databases with Social Security Administration data. This integration allows state and county election officials to verify the citizenship status of not only foreign-born naturalized citizens but native U.S. citizens for the first time.

The rapid advancement and linking of government data sets under the Trump administration have raised questions about potential governmental use of shared voter roll data. Legal and privacy experts, speaking with NPR recently, expressed alarm over the new data system, which upgrades the existing USCIS platform known as the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE). They criticized its quick rollout without the transparency or public notices typically required by federal privacy laws.

Senators Alex Padilla of California, Gary Peters of Michigan, and Jeff Merkley of Oregon underscored these points in a letter addressed to DHS Secretary Kristi Noem. They emphasized the need for public transparency and assurances that citizens’ rights, including privacy, are adequately protected.

“Unfortunately, DHS has not issued any of the routine and required documentation about the program’s operations and safeguards or any public notice or notice to Congress,” the senators wrote.

They also questioned the tool’s accuracy and potential for mistakenly flagging eligible citizens as ineligible to vote.

In the build-up to the 2024 election, former President Trump and his allies disseminated unsubstantiated claims that Democrats allowed migrants to enter the country to illegally vote and manipulate election outcomes. However, this narrative lacks evidence, with state audits indicating that noncitizen voting instances are rare and often occur due to noncitizens erroneously believing that they are permitted to vote in federal elections.

Despite the lack of evidence for widespread noncitizen voting, Republicans at different government levels have continued to advocate for additional verification processes to prevent such occurrences.

In a March 25 executive order on voting, Trump instructed DHS to offer states “access to appropriate systems” at no cost for verifying voter citizenship and directed the attorney general to prioritize prosecuting noncitizens who register or vote.

USCIS spokesperson Matthew Tragesser described the SAVE system upgrades as a “game changer” for eliminating benefit and voter fraud among the alien population.

DHS did not immediately respond to requests for comments on the senators’ letter.

The department has divulged little information about the tool publicly, although a DHS staff member privately presented it to the Election Integrity Network, a group aligned with Trump known for promoting misleading election fraud narratives. This presentation drew the senators’ attention.

The senators voiced their grave concern over DHS sharing information with the Election Integrity Network—an organization founded by Cleta Mitchell, a lawyer who sought to overturn the 2020 election results—while keeping lawmakers and the public in the dark.

Their letter urged USCIS to brief the Senate committees on Rules and Administration, and Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, providing all materials shared with the Election Integrity Network.

Additionally, the senators requested Secretary Noem address several questions, such as whether public notice was provided before launching the data system, how the tool’s accuracy was tested, how personal data is safeguarded, and if the federal agency will retain voter roll data.

Source: Original article

US Outlines Steps to Address Syria Violence After Israeli Strikes

Staff ReporterConflict, Politics 0

Israel launched strikes on Syria’s defense ministry in Damascus and military targets in southern regions as sectarian violence flared in Suweida, signaling an intensifying situation involving Druze militias and Bedouin tribes.

Israel’s military action against Syrian government targets extended into a third day on Wednesday, amid escalating sectarian violence in Suweida, a predominantly Druze province. This comes after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu expressed support for Druze communities, saying Israel is “working to save our Druze brothers.”

The intensifying conflict has resulted in more than 350 deaths since violent clashes erupted in the region between Druze militias and Bedouin tribes on Sunday. The fighting prompted the Syrian military to begin withdrawing its forces from Suweida late Wednesday, following talks mediated by the United States aimed at de-escalating the conflict.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced on social media platform X that specific steps had been agreed upon to end the violence, an assertion supported by the Syrian state news agency Sana, which confirmed the troop withdrawal as part of an agreement with local religious leaders.

Despite the purported ceasefire efforts, Israel has not commented on these developments. Instead, earlier strikes beginning Monday targeted Syrian security forces and their weapons, deployed to Suweida following the ousting of President Bashar al-Assad by Sunni Islamist rebels in December.

Sectarian tensions have intensified over the past eight months, aggravated by an incident in May that saw clashes between Druze, government forces, and allied militants result in numerous fatalities. The Druze minority, an offshoot of Shia Islam, harbors suspicions toward Interim Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa, fueling their fear over repeated outbreaks of violence.

Israel’s latest involvement appears to be driven by its commitment to protecting the Druze population, which has historical ties to Israel and the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights. Following crossed-border incursions by Druze individuals on Wednesday, Israeli troops resorted to tear gas to dissuade further crossings. Netanyahu called on Israeli citizens among them to return home and allow the military to address the situation.

Israel’s intensified air campaign aimed to compel a swift Syrian military withdrawal from Suweida. Defence Minister Israel Katz indicated on X that military warnings in Damascus had concluded, pledging continued operations against forces attacking the Druze until their complete withdrawal is achieved. Reports also noted the destruction of armoured vehicles and military infrastructure in southern Syria.

Syria’s foreign ministry condemned the Israeli strikes, which it claimed targeted civilian facilities and government institutions in Damascus and Suweida, accusing Israel of inciting chaos and violating international laws. These reports were corroborated by the UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, highlighting severe humanitarian conditions in Suweida, including shortages of essential supplies and destruction of medical facilities.

Eyewitness accounts described widespread panic and violence, with hospitals overwhelmed by hundreds of casualties. Local testimonies to the BBC relayed harrowing accounts of sniper attacks and residential looting, contributing to the escalating death toll.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported that sectarian hostilities between Bedouin tribes and Druze militias allegedly began over an abduction incident last Friday. The violence swiftly engulfed Suweida, spreading to surrounding areas as Druze fighters seized a Bedouin-occupied neighborhood, leading to intensified tribal clashes.

Intervention by Syrian government forces, criticized for their conduct, appears to have exacerbated tensions within these communities. Reports accuse them of destructive activities and the humiliation of local leaders, further escalating an already volatile situation.

The broader geopolitical context includes Israel’s longstanding position on President Sharaa’s government and affiliated groups like Hayat Tahrir al-Sham. Despite past military interventions in Syria targeting such entities, the current situation underscores the complex and evolving dynamics in the region.

Source: Original article

Trump’s Disapproval Rating Reaches Record High Second Term

Staff ReporterPolitics, USA 0

President Donald Trump’s disapproval rating has reached the highest level of his second term, according to a recent Economist/YouGov poll.

President Donald Trump’s disapproval rating has hit a new peak since the start of his second term, as reported by the latest Economist/YouGov poll conducted over the weekend. The survey indicates that 55 percent of Americans disapprove of Trump’s performance in office, while 41 percent express approval. This marks a slight change from the previous week, where the figures stood at 53 percent disapproval and 42 percent approval. The pattern had remained the same in the week before that.

At the beginning of his second term, Trump had an approval rating of 49 percent, while 43 percent of respondents expressed disapproval. The most recent statistic of 55 percent disapproval represents the highest disapproval rating during this term. A decline in support has been noteworthy since Trump assumed office, largely attributed to dwindling approval among Democrats and independents.

In a survey carried out late in January, Trump’s approval rating among Democrats was recorded at 12 percent. This figure has now fallen to merely 3 percent. Independents have shown a similar trend, with 41 percent approving of Trump’s job performance at the onset of his second term, a figure that has since decreased to 29 percent. The Republican base, however, shows consistent support, with an approval rating that has barely fluctuated. When Trump began his term, 94 percent of Republicans approved his handling of the presidency, compared to 92 percent in the current survey.

The Economist/YouGov survey also differentiates between self-identified MAGA Republicans and Republicans who do not align with the MAGA movement, identifying each group as making up half of the Republican survey respondents. Among MAGA Republicans, Trump’s approval rating remains exceptionally high, consistently hovering around 98 percent. By contrast, Republicans unaffiliated with the MAGA movement exhibited an initial approval rate of 90 percent at the start of Trump’s term. This figure dipped to 70 percent by mid-April but has rebounded to 85 percent in the latest poll.

This latest survey included 1,680 U.S. adults and was conducted between July 11 and 14. The poll has a margin of error of 3.4 percentage points, according to The Economist/YouGov.

Trump Confronts Crisis Amid Epstein Conspiracy Theories

Staff ReporterPolitics, Cover 0

President Donald Trump’s efforts to downplay the controversy surrounding the Jeffrey Epstein investigation have failed to quell the demands for transparency from his supporters.

President Donald Trump faces increased pressure from supporters demanding the release of documents related to Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking investigation. His attempts to minimize the issue and call off his supporters have done little to halt the uproar, a situation of his own making after years of promoting conspiracy theories.

The Justice Department and FBI recently announced that no Epstein client list existed, leaving many of Trump’s supporters feeling disillusioned and demanding further transparency. Trump responded by defending Attorney General Pam Bondi while criticizing reporters for inquiries about the documents.

While speaking to reporters during a flight back to Washington, D.C., Trump labeled the Epstein case as “pretty boring,” stating, “I don’t understand why the Jeffrey Epstein case would be of interest to anybody.” Yet, his downplay of the situation contrasts with the significant interest in these documents among his followers.

Over the weekend, Trump attempted to redirect the focus away from Epstein. He urged his supporters on his Truth Social platform to shift attention toward investigating Democrats and criminals rather than dwelling on Epstein-related documents. However, right-wing figures such as Laura Loomer and Jack Posobiec continue to push for comprehensive disclosure of the files.

This political crisis underscores a broader challenge for Trump, who, throughout his political career, has cultivated a base attentive to conspiratorial narratives. Now in power, he faces the consequences of these narratives. Matt Dallek, a political scientist at George Washington University, noted, “The faulty assumption Trump and others make is they can peddle conspiracy theories without any blowback.”

Despite the Justice Department and FBI’s assertion that no client list exists, past statements by administration officials suggested otherwise, fueling conspiracy theories. Bondi had previously alluded to the existence of such documents but later clarified she was referring to Epstein’s case file in general.

Experts like Josephine Lukito from the University of Texas at Austin, caution that more transparency won’t necessarily alter the beliefs of those entrenched in conspiracy theories, as they often dismiss contradictory evidence.

The Epstein controversy presents an acute dilemma for the Trump administration. Trump and his allies in the administration, including FBI figures like Director Kash Patel, have historically allied themselves with such narratives, gaining significant political traction through them. But as the case revolves around tangible crimes by Epstein, additional transparency may either restore or undermine trust among Trump’s core supporters.

This issue extends beyond just political consequences. It highlights administrative challenges and inter-agency discord. There have been reports of intense discussions between Bondi and FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino concerning their roles in handling the Epstein files. Laura Loomer claimed that Bongino is considering resignation amid this discord, highlighting the strain within Trump’s administration.

The Epstein case could prove costly for Trump’s broader political ambitions, according to critics like Steve Bannon, who warned that mishandling the situation might erode support from the MAGA movement. Some Democrats also suggest that Trump’s reluctance to release the files may be tied to the potential implications for himself or his close associates.

As the calls for transparency continue to resonate throughout political circles, the situation exemplifies the broader stakes of governance amid political theater. Trump finds himself at a crossroads where the maintenance of his political base competes with the imperatives of government transparency and accountability.

According to AP News, this controversy serves as a reminder of the intricate dynamics between political narratives and the expectations of truth among the electorate.

Times Square Ad Targets Mamdani for Ramawamy Campaign

Staff ReporterConflict, Election, Politics 0

A Times Square billboard has stirred controversy by urging New Yorkers to flee Zohran Mamdani’s “socialist tyranny” for the conservative policies of Ohio gubernatorial candidate Vivek Ramaswamy.

A new advertisement in New York City’s Times Square is sparking political debate, urging residents to consider escaping what it describes as Zohran Mamdani’s “socialist tyranny” and relocating to Ohio. The billboard, which debuted on July 14, has attracted attention for its bold messaging in one of the city’s most prominent tourist locations.

The controversial ad was funded by “Vivek Super PAC — Victors, not Victims,” a group backing Vivek Ramaswamy’s campaign for governor of Ohio. Ramaswamy, a biotech entrepreneur and political newcomer, is being positioned as a conservative alternative to Mamdani, a 33-year-old Democratic Socialist who recently won the Democratic primary for mayor of New York City.

According to the New York Post, the $50,000 billboard campaign paints Mamdani as a “radical socialist” and presents a stark choice between Ramaswamy’s conservative vision and Mamdani’s progressive policies. Both Indian-origin politicians are emerging as influential figures in their respective party lines.

Vivek Ramaswamy gained recognition during the 2024 presidential primaries and made history by achieving the largest first-quarter fundraising total for any gubernatorial candidate in Ohio, raising $9.7 million without including any personal contributions.

Meanwhile, Zohran Mamdani, currently a state assemblymember, has built his mayoral campaign on grassroots support, focusing on tenant advocacy and proposing systemic reforms in policing and housing. His campaign has garnered endorsements from several prominent Democratic politicians, including Senator Bernie Sanders and Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal, as he aims to become the first Muslim and South Asian mayor of New York City.

Source: Original article

India Condemns Attack on Toronto Rath Yatra Procession

Staff ReporterElection, Politics, USA 0

India has strongly condemned the egg attack on the Rath Yatra procession in Toronto and urged Canada to uphold religious safety and accountability.

India has called upon Canadian authorities to ensure accountability and safeguard the religious freedom of all communities following an attack on the 53rd annual Rath Yatra in Toronto on July 11.

The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) spokesperson, Randhir Jaiswal, described the incident as “despicable” and “regrettable,” asserting that it detracts from the festival’s core values of unity, inclusivity, and social harmony. “We have strongly taken up the matter with Canadian authorities to hold the perpetrators of the act accountable. We hope the Canadian Government will take necessary action to protect the religious rights of people,” Jaiswal stated.

The incident unfolded in downtown Toronto, where thousands of devotees had congregated to participate in the Rath Yatra, a religious procession organized by the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON). Despite the attack, consisting of unknown individuals reportedly throwing eggs at the procession, the event continued amid shock and astonishment among the gathered participants.

The act has sparked significant response from both political and community leaders in India. Former Odisha Chief Minister and Biju Janata Dal (BJD) president, Naveen Patnaik, expressed his deep concern regarding the incident, urging the Ministry of External Affairs to formally protest. “Such incidents not only grievously hurt the sentiments of Lord Jagannatha’s devotees worldwide but also cause deep anguish to the people of Odisha, for whom this festival holds profound emotional and cultural significance,” Patnaik asserted.

He further emphasized the need for the Odisha Government to treat the matter seriously and consult with the Ministry of External Affairs to ensure a strong protest is lodged with Canadian authorities, should the media reports prove accurate.

In addition to calls for action, the event highlights ongoing concerns over religious freedoms and safety for minority communities abroad. The Rath Yatra, revered as an essential cultural and spiritual event by the Hindu community, emphasizes communal inclusivity, a principle believed to be threatened by the attack.

According to New India Abroad, the Canadian government has been approached to address and rectify the situation, ensuring the respect and protection of religious rights internationally.

Source: Original article

Democrats Prepare for 2028 Presidential Race in Key States

Staff ReporterElection, Politics, U.S. 0

The race for the 2028 Democratic presidential nomination is heating up unusually early, with multiple prospects already engaging with key primary states like South Carolina, New Hampshire, and Iowa.

With the first presidential primary votes still over two and a half years away, Democratic hopefuls are actively positioning themselves for a possible 2028 nomination. Over a span of ten days in July, at least three potential Democratic candidates are scheduled to visit South Carolina, underscoring the increasing importance of the Palmetto State in presidential politics.

California Governor Gavin Newsom made headlines during his recent two-day tour in South Carolina when he was referred to as a presidential candidate — despite his assertion that his visit was aimed at strengthening the Democratic Party ahead of the 2026 midterms. Audience members responded to his speech with shouts of “2028!”

Meanwhile, Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear, who has openly acknowledged consideration of a 2028 presidential bid, is set to focus his South Carolina visit this week on engaging union members and celebrating the state’s Black community. His remarks are expected to implicitly contrast with Newsom on cultural issues.

California Congressman Ro Khanna, known for his alignment with the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, will also target Black voters during his upcoming visit to South Carolina, alongside the son of a civil rights leader.

The excitement in South Carolina is mirrored by increased activity in other early-primary states. Former Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel is reportedly having private discussions with influential South Carolinians, including Rep. Jim Clyburn, about a potential presidential run.

Such early maneuvers are fueled by the Democratic Party’s push to redefine its strategy following its loss of the White House and Congress in 2024. Republicans, unable to benefit from incumbency since former President Donald Trump is constitutionally barred from a third term, provide Democrats with an opportunity for a fresh start in the 2028 elections.

Analysts foresee as many as 30 prominent Democrats potentially entering the 2028 primary, a number reminiscent of the overcrowded 2020 field. Democratic figures like Rep. Jasmine Crockett of Texas emphasize the necessity of visibility and a new wave of leadership.

Beshear’s visit to South Carolina will mark the start of his political engagements in the state. He plans to address union workers and reach out to Black voters in areas that have staunchly supported Trump in the past. His speech is expected to highlight the necessity of claiming the political center and rebuilding trust in the Democratic brand.

Beyond their planned speeches, Newsom and Beshear represent two disparate approaches within the Democratic Party, each striving to influence policy direction and voter allegiance. Newsom has previously critiqued the party for overemphasizing “woke” agendas, while Beshear’s governance in Kentucky includes policies like recognizing Juneteenth as a state holiday and promoting diversity through executive orders.

Khanna, who is scheduled to hold town-hall meetings in South Carolina, frames his comparatively lower profile as a virtue in the crowded Democratic field. He noted the absence of a “status quo person” as beneficial for the party, describing this as a time for openness and innovation.

While some potential candidates like Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro and Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer are negotiating political priorities and avoiding early-state travel for now, others, such as Maryland Governor Wes Moore and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, have already started engaging with South Carolina Democrats. Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, who ran in 2020, hosted a town hall in Iowa earlier this year.

Even as contenders like these seek to make their mark, others like Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar are focused on forthcoming elections, with Klobuchar notably campaigning in New Hampshire to support local Democratic candidates.

Voters in New Hampshire and South Carolina are eager for the campaign season to begin, some seeing it as an opportunity to rejuvenate local Democratic efforts. According to Jane Lescynski, a worker at a New Hampshire facility, the early activity indicates a promising lead-up to the next presidential election.

Jody Gaulin, chair of a predominantly Republican South Carolina county, expressed hope that such visits could invigorate the local Democratic scene. With early speculation building excitement, states like South Carolina and New Hampshire are poised to play crucial roles in shaping the future of the Democratic Party.

Source: Original article

USPS Adjusts Stamp Prices: Key Details to Know

Staff ReporterNation, Politics, Women 0

The United States Postal Service (USPS) has once again increased the price of stamps, adding to a series of recent hikes as the agency struggles with substantial financial losses.

Americans will now pay more to mail a letter, as the cost of stamps rose effective July 13. The price increase has long been anticipated, with discussions dating back to April, indicating the USPS’s need to address its financial challenges.

The agency has reportedly lost over $100 billion since 2007, including $9.5 billion in the fiscal year ending September 30, 2024. These financial struggles have put pressure on the USPS, which has faced calls for privatization and scrutiny from the former administration of President Donald Trump. Currently, the USPS is in search of a new permanent leader after the resignation of Postmaster General Louis DeJoy in March.

The USPS has not yet commented on the recent changes, despite efforts by Newsweek to obtain a statement.

The latest rate hike impacts millions of Americans who depend on the USPS for personal and business correspondence. Serving nearly 169 million addresses, the USPS handles a larger volume of mail and packages than any postal service worldwide.

Unfortunately, this is not the first increase that customers have had to endure. The USPS has already raised rates several times since 2020, sparking public backlash. The recent hike marks the seventh increase since then, with a previous rise occurring in January 2025 and now another this week.

According to the USPS website, the agency continues to be the leading mail carrier in the United States, despite its ongoing financial tribulations.

Source: Original article

Andrew Cuomo Announces NYC Mayoral Run Against Zohran Mamdani

Staff ReporterElection, Nation USA, Politics 0

Former Governor Andrew Cuomo announced he plans to run for New York City mayor as a third-party candidate, setting up a competitive showdown against Democratic nominee Zohran Mamdani and other contenders.

Andrew Cuomo, who previously served as New York’s governor, declared his intention to continue his pursuit of the New York City mayoral position as a third-party candidate. His announcement follows a defeat to Zohran Mamdani in the recent Democratic primary, setting the stage for a competitive general election later this year.

“I’m in it to win it,” Cuomo emphasized in a social media post, underscoring his commitment to the campaign.

Cuomo, who resigned from his gubernatorial position in 2021 amid multiple sexual harassment accusations, was long seen as a prominent figure in the Democratic primary due to his extensive political experience and connections within the party’s establishment.

Mamdani, a 33-year-old state assemblyman, had significant late-campaign momentum, promoting a progressive agenda focused on leading the city in a new direction, which resonated with voters.

In his recent statement, Cuomo criticized Mamdani, describing his campaign as one offering “slick slogans but no real solutions.”

“We need a city with lower rent, safer streets, where buying your first home is once again possible, where childcare won’t bankrupt you,” Cuomo stated, echoing the themes central to Mamdani’s campaign. “That’s the New York City we know, that’s the one that’s still possible. You haven’t given up on it, and you deserve a mayor with the experience and ideas to make it happen again — and the guts to take on anyone who stands in the way.”

Cuomo acknowledged feedback from supporters regarding his lack of visibility during the primary, committing to a more hands-on approach in the upcoming months.

“Every day I’m going to be hitting the streets, meeting you where you are, to hear the good and the bad, problems and solutions, because for the next few months it’s my responsibility to earn your vote. So let’s do this,” he asserted.

While Cuomo and his supporters had previously highlighted his experience opposing former President Donald Trump, this reference was less prominent in his most recent comments, which prioritized daily challenges like affordability, an issue central to Mamdani’s campaign success.

Mamdani quickly responded to Cuomo’s announcement with a critique aimed at both Cuomo and incumbent Mayor Eric Adams, who is also running on a third-party ticket for the upcoming election.

“While Andrew Cuomo and Eric Adams trip over each other to win the approval of billionaires in backrooms, our campaign remains focused on working New Yorkers and their clear desire for a different kind of politics,” Mamdani wrote.

Prior to Cuomo’s formal announcement, footage surfaced showing him filming campaign material on New York streets, prompting Mamdani to accuse him on social media of mimicking the Democratic nominee’s successful video-driven campaign strategy.

Though Cuomo has yet to detail his third-party run mechanics for November, he is expected to leverage the “Fight and Deliver” party line he established earlier this year, which provides an avenue for independent candidacy.

During the primary night concession speech, Cuomo acknowledged his opponent’s effective outreach and campaign strategy.

“Tonight was not our night. Tonight was Assemblyman Mamdani’s night, and he put together a great campaign, and he touched young people and inspired them and moved them and got them to come out and vote, and he really ran a highly impactful campaign. I called him. I congratulated him,” he said. “He deserved it, he won.”

Besides Mamdani and Adams, Cuomo will face independent candidate Jim Walden, a former prosecutor, and Curtis Sliwa, a well-known radio host and Republican nominee.

Cuomo’s critics have implied that his continued candidacy might offer constituents an alternative to Mamdani’s policies, which some view as excessively liberal despite the city’s strong Democratic leaning. Former Democratic Governor David Paterson has urged opponents to unite behind the candidate best positioned to challenge Mamdani in the general election.

Cuomo echoed Paterson’s sentiment in a letter to his supporters, stating, “All of us who love New York City must be united in running the strongest possible candidate against Zohran Mamdani in the November general election for mayor.”

Source: Original article

Trump Proposes Russia Tariffs Alongside New Ukraine Weapons Plan

Staff ReporterPolitics, USA 0

US President Donald Trump has announced the United States will send advanced weaponry to Ukraine through NATO allies and warned of imposing severe tariffs on Russia if a peace agreement isn’t reached within 50 days.

US President Donald Trump has declared a strategic enhancement in support of Ukraine amid its ongoing conflict with Russia. Following a meeting with NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte in Washington, Trump revealed plans to furnish Ukraine with top-tier military equipment to bolster its defense efforts.

The United States’ initiative involves extensive collaboration with NATO countries. Rutte affirmed the decision, highlighting that NATO nations will facilitate the supply of necessary weaponry to Ukraine, while Europeans are expected to cover the costs.

Among the defense capabilities to be supplied are European Patriot air defense systems, which play a crucial role in countering Russia’s targeted airstrikes. These systems will be replenished by US contributions over time, according to Trump.

Although specific details regarding the military aid were sparse, Trump underscored the value of the weaponry package, hinting at its rapid deployment and significant fiscal investment. “Top-of-the-line weapons,” he noted, would soon be on their way to the Ukrainian front lines.

NATO’s intensified support arrives as a strategic move, aiming to compel Russian President Vladimir Putin to engage more earnestly in peace negotiations. Rutte alluded to the heightened pressure this development places on Russia’s leadership, suggesting it might influence their approach towards diplomatic solutions.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky expressed gratitude towards Trump’s commitment to Ukraine. In a statement shared on social media, Zelensky emphasized their joint efforts to fortify Ukraine’s defenses and work diligently toward securing peace.

In addition to military assistance, Trump articulated a robust economic strategy: the imposition of 100% secondary tariffs on Russia’s trade allies should a peace accord remain elusive. These tariffs target any nation conducting business with Russia, afflicting countries like India if they continue purchasing Russian resources.

The tariff plan aims to significantly disrupt Russia’s economic stability. By targeting countries involved in energy trade with Russia, it seeks to stifle Moscow’s primary revenue streams derived from oil and gas exports, which constitute a substantial portion of its economic framework.

Despite the stern measures, the Moscow Stock Exchange witnessed a notable rise post-announcement. Observers attributed this reaction to previous teases by Trump of a potentially more severe proclamation regarding Russia.

This initiative marks Trump’s first significant military pledge to Ukraine since reassuming the presidency. His rhetoric during the briefing demonstrated a marked shift toward a more confrontational stance against Putin, implicitly placing some responsibility for the ongoing conflict on Kyiv.

While Trump remarked on his endeavors to negotiate with Putin, he expressed disillusionment over the lack of tangible progress. Communicating his frustrations, he mentioned repeated instances where positive discussions with Putin were contradicted by subsequent Russian military actions.

Recent ceasefire negotiations between Russia and Ukraine have yet to yield a sustainable resolution, with Moscow attributing delays to Ukraine. Nevertheless, dialogue continues, with US envoy Keith Kellogg engaged in talks with Zelensky in Kyiv.

Reactions from within Russia displayed skepticism toward Trump’s strategy. Pro-Kremlin figures labeled the tariff proposals as ineffective bluffs, suggesting limited direct impacts on Russian stability.

Conversely, Trump’s decision garnered commendation from unlikely quarters, including members of the Democratic Party. Senator Jeanne Shaheen, emphasizing the humanitarian impact of deploying Patriot missiles, advocated for continued US and allied support to encourage an end to the war.

The move was met with relief by some Ukrainians, who perceived it as a gradual alignment of European influence with US policy actions. This reflection underscored the perception that European diplomatic efforts have gradually swayed US leadership to provide critical support to Ukraine.

Source: Original article

Cuomo Announces New York City Mayor Election Bid

Staff ReporterElection, Politics 0

Andrew Cuomo has announced a long-shot independent bid for New York City mayor following his decisive loss to Zohran Mamdani in the Democratic primary.

After losing by 12 points to Zohran Mamdani in the Democratic mayoral primary, former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo declared his intention to run as an independent candidate in the general election. Cuomo made the announcement through a social media post featuring images of him engaging with New Yorkers on the street, seemingly echoing Mamdani’s popular campaign videos. The 67-year-old framed the race primarily as a contest between himself and Mamdani, a 33-year-old democratic socialist, omitting mention of incumbent Mayor Eric Adams, Republican Curtis Sliwa, and independent Jim Walden.

“The general election is in November and I am in it to win it,” Cuomo stated, criticizing Mamdani’s campaign for offering “slick slogans, but no real solutions.”

Cuomo’s independent run marks an attempt to reposition himself after his primary loss, when he was criticized for running a low-energy campaign and failing to engage voters directly. In contrast, Mamdani emphasized voter interaction, including a walk the length of Manhattan the night before the primary, which contributed to his success.

In the campaign video, Cuomo thanked supporters and apologized, emphasizing key issues such as affordability, which had been central to Mamdani’s campaign strategy. “We need a city with lower rents, safer streets, where buying your first home is once again possible, where child care won’t bankrupt you,” Cuomo said. He pledged to meet voters on the streets, suggesting a hands-on approach to campaigning this time around.

The video differed starkly from his formal 17-minute primary announcement in March, signaling a reset for Cuomo. Now, wearing more casual attire and in a shorter video, he presented his vision for New York City.

Cuomo faces the challenge of appealing to voters and donors without the institutional backing he had during the primary. His former campaign was criticized for not focusing adequately on voter turnout, a misstep he now aims to correct with a new campaign team and strategy.

Zohran Mamdani remained confident in his campaign following the primary win, stating, “I welcome everyone to this race, and I am as confident as I’ve been since three weeks ago on primary night.” He highlighted his focus on issues affecting working New Yorkers, contrasting himself with Cuomo and Adams.

Eric Adams, who did not participate in the Democratic primary due to his controversial ties with former President Donald Trump, and whose campaign focuses on blue-collar voters of color and Jewish New Yorkers, has criticized Cuomo’s continued presence in the race. Adams released a statement denouncing Cuomo’s attempt to regain footing, accusing him of undermining a Black elected official’s position.

The upcoming general election poses a significant challenge for Cuomo, as New York City is a predominantly Democratic city. Recent polls show Cuomo as a strong second to Mamdani, potentially benefiting from the vote split between Mamdani, Adams, and others. Nevertheless, key labor unions and critical supporters from the primary have yet to endorse his independent run.

While Cuomo has advocated for a united front against Mamdani, suggesting that the strongest candidate should lead the charge, it seems unlikely that his opponents will withdraw in his favor. Meanwhile, Adams has been meeting with donors who previously supported Cuomo, further complicating the dynamics of the upcoming election.

According to Politico, Cuomo’s previous supporters have acknowledged the difficulty of both men staying in the race, which could ultimately favor Mamdani.

Source: Original article

Eric Adams Cancels Appearance at Event Honoring Anti-Muslim Activist

Staff ReporterPolitics, Regional 0

New York City Mayor Eric Adams has withdrawn from a controversial event featuring Hindu nationalist activist Kajal Shingala, who is known for her speeches promoting violence against Muslims and boycotts of non-Hindu businesses.

Eric Adams, the mayor of New York City, was initially expected to be the guest of honor at an event in Queens that will feature Kajal Shingala, a prominent Hindu nationalist activist whose rhetoric often includes incitements to violence against Muslims. The event, a dinner at an Indian cultural center in Fresh Meadows, Queens, was organized by the Gujarati Samaj of New York. However, the mayor withdrew from the engagement following media inquiries.

Kajal Shingala, also known as Kajal Hindusthani online, has gained notoriety for her incendiary speeches advocating against Muslims and other religious minorities in India. Critics, including Raqib Hameed Naik, who runs an organization tracking hate speech in India, denounce her as a leading figure in promoting hate and violence through her oratory.

A statement from Adams’s spokesperson, Zachary Nosanchuk, clarified that while there were requests for the mayor’s attendance, Adams had no plans to attend, and it was never part of his public schedule.

The controversy heated up after it emerged that the event’s organizers, including Harshad Patel, president of the Gujarati Samaj of New York, publicly advertised Adams as a guest of honor through promotional materials and social media posts. Shingala, who has close to a million followers across various platforms, also shared the advertisement to her audience.

Nevertheless, Adams still plans to participate in a fundraising event organized by Patel, which is aimed at supporting his reelection bid. The mayor’s seat is being contested in an upcoming election, where Adams faces a significant challenge from state Assemblymember Zohran Mamdani. Mamdani, who secured the Democratic primary, might become the first Muslim mayor of New York City.

Supporters of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who have substantial connections with the Gujarati Hindus in the U.S., have criticized Mamdani ever since he labeled Modi a “war criminal” during a mayoral forum in New York City. Mamdani, himself having Gujarati Muslim heritage, criticized Modi’s involvement in the 2002 Gujarat riots.

Kajal Shingala’s presence in the U.S. is part of a wider speaking tour that has included states such as Texas and Georgia. Her speeches often return to consistent themes, notably advocating patronage of Hindu-owned businesses and avoiding transactions with Muslims. A particularly inflammatory example of her speech rhetoric surfaced during a 2024 address in India, where she made egregious and unfounded accusations against Muslims.

Additionally, Shingala promotes the debunked conspiracy theory known as “Love Jihad,” suggesting that Muslim men are conspiring to convert Hindu women through marriage. Such remarks have drawn strong criticism for inciting division and fear.

In response to the uproar surrounding Adams’s involvement, over two dozen groups from an interfaith coalition published an open letter condemning his initial association with the event.

This incident adds to a series of controversies linking Mayor Adams to sensitive topics in Indian politics. In the previous year, he distanced himself from a float in New York City’s India Day Parade that featured a model Hindu temple built on the ruins of a mosque destroyed amid communal violence.

According to New York Focus, Kajal Shingala has been accused of spreading hate speech, resulting in her arrest in India after her talks allegedly spurred inter-religious discord.

Sikh Tradition Returns to Capitol Hill for Political Solidarity

Staff ReporterCulture/Religion, Politics, U.S. 0

This evening on Capitol Hill, the Sikh tradition of langar will be shared to promote equality and challenge political rhetoric hostile to minorities.

On July 9, Capitol Hill will host the Sikh tradition known as langar, symbolizing equality and communal harmony, while addressing contemporary political tensions. Langar, a ceremonial communal meal, traces back to the 15th century when Guru Nanak, the founder of Sikhism, introduced it to eliminate caste divisions and foster community. This event represents a cultural statement at a time when political rhetoric in the U.S. has cast a shadow on minority and immigrant groups.

The Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund (SALDEF) spearheads this gathering, marking its ninth iteration. This year, the Langar on the Hill returns to an in-person format, managed by interns from SikhLEAD, SALDEF’s Washington, D.C., internship initiative. Their effort aims to highlight Sikh American presence amidst a climate that has been less than welcoming, with instances of anti-Sikh sentiments emerging from within political circles.

Kiran Kaur Gill, executive director of SALDEF, explains, “Everyone sits together, and they eat a meal together, which is served and prepared by volunteers. And I think it’s a really special way to show how we’re all connected.”

Simar Thind, a policy and programs associate at SALDEF, underscores langar’s essence as an “anti-segregation movement.” He emphasizes its role in community building, noting, “It’s a method of quiet resistance, resilience and community building. And more than anything, I think community building during this time is so necessary.”

This year’s langar event is particularly poignant due to rising anti-immigrant and anti-Sikh rhetoric. Recent political missteps include U.S. Rep. Mary Miller’s mistaken identity in a tweet, and Republican politician Harmeet Dhillon facing backlash over a religious prayer. Such incidents amplify the need for events like Langar on the Hill, which reaffirm Sikh values like sarbat da bhala, or welfare for all.

Gill emphasizes that this gathering symbolizes inclusivity, stating, “To be able to have this event on Capitol Hill and really take up space in a way where it’s inclusive of all communities I think really speaks to what so many of us believe we can strive for as a country.”

Interns like Jasleen Kaur play a pivotal role in organizing the event. Kaur’s journey to advocacy was sparked by a tragedy — the 2012 mass shooting at a gurdwara in Wisconsin. That moment motivated her to engage others in understanding Sikh values, blending her faith with public outreach.

Reminiscing about her roots in advocacy, she shared, “A lot of Sikhi is very focused on justice and living in this boundless optimism we call Chardi Kala, and just living for the sake of creating a better environment for all of humanity.”

Currently a political science student, Kaur aspires to a career in law and public service, hinting at a potential future on Capitol Hill. Her dedication reflects a broader Sikh American commitment to building a just and inclusive society.

Source: Original article

Pope Leo XIV Proposes Vatican for Ukraine Peace Talks

Staff ReporterConflict, Politics 0

Pope Leo XIV has offered to host peace talks at the Vatican following a meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy amid ongoing conflict in Ukraine.

VATICAN CITY — Amidst intensifying conflict in Ukraine, Pope Leo XIV met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on Wednesday at the pope’s summer residence in Castel Gandolfo, located south of Rome. The encounter focused on peacemaking efforts for the war-torn nation.

The Vatican released a statement following the meeting, noting the pope’s expression of sorrow for the victims and his continued prayers and support for the Ukrainian people. The statement emphasized the pope’s encouragement for endeavors aimed at the release of prisoners and the pursuit of shared solutions. It highlighted the “cordial” nature of the 30-minute conversation, stressing the urgent need for a just and lasting peace and underscoring dialogue as the preferred path to ending the conflict.

The meeting occurred during a significant escalation of hostilities. On May 25, Russia launched its largest drone and missile assault since the conflict began in February 2022. These attacks persisted into Wednesday, with Russia deploying over 700 drones targeting strategic locations in Ukraine. Meanwhile, U.S. mediation efforts have faltered, as no agreement has materialized to end the war.

Pope Leo reiterated his openness to hosting Russian and Ukrainian representatives at the Vatican to broker peace. Zelenskyy, while addressing Vatican journalists upon leaving Villa Barberini, expressed his country’s desire to conclude the war and their reliance on the Vatican and Pope Leo for a high-level meeting place conducive to peace negotiations.

Initially, Pope Leo XIV extended the offer to mediate peace talks shortly after his first meeting with Zelenskyy at the Vatican following the pope’s inauguration on May 18. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has supported this proposition and engaged in discussions with the Ukrainian leader.

However, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov disparaged the potential Vatican meeting as “vulgar,” arguing that it was inappropriate for a Catholic institution to host discussions between two predominantly Orthodox nations. Lavrov voiced his objections during a conference in Moscow on May 23.

President Zelenskyy expressed gratitude to the Vatican for its assistance in repatriating Ukrainian prisoners and children displaced by the war. In this mission, the pope appointed Cardinal Matteo Zuppi, head of the Italian bishops and an experienced negotiator, to lead the church’s efforts to reunite families and facilitate prisoner exchanges.

Before ascending to the papacy, Leo XIV had condemned the conflict in 2022 as a “true imperialist invasion,” accusing Russia of pursuing territorial conquest for power. He urged global leaders to more explicitly denounce the human rights violations occurring in Ukraine. Since becoming pope, Leo XIV has maintained a more diplomatic tone in his sermons and public appearances, persistently urging leaders to work toward a fair and enduring peace.

Source: Original article

Ex-White House Doctor Refuses to Testify in Biden Investigation

Staff ReporterLaw/Legal, Politics 0

Dr. Kevin O’Connor, former President Joe Biden’s longtime physician, has declined to testify in a Republican-led investigation into Biden’s health, citing physician-patient confidentiality and his Fifth Amendment rights.

Dr. Kevin O’Connor, who was former President Joe Biden’s physician throughout his presidency, has refused to testify in a Republican-led congressional inquiry regarding Biden’s health while in office. The deposition was scheduled before the House Committee on Oversight and Government to investigate what some Republicans label as “the cover-up of President Joe Biden’s cognitive decline.”

O’Connor declined to take the stand at the deposition scheduled for Wednesday, invoking physician-patient privilege and his Fifth Amendment rights. His legal team asserted that the decision was essential given “the unique circumstances of this deposition.”

Speculation about Biden’s health, particularly his cognitive state, persisted during his presidency. New reports following his departure from office claim that his staff may have concealed his health issues, a situation further complicated by Biden’s recent announcement of a cancer diagnosis. These developments have intensified calls for clarity from GOP lawmakers.

In a statement to the committee, O’Connor emphasized that participating in the investigation would contravene his professional duty to maintain confidentiality and could lead to the revocation of his medical license. “Dr. O’Connor will not violate his oath of confidentiality to any of his patients, including President Biden,” the statement read.

Chair of the committee, Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., criticized O’Connor for resorting to the Fifth Amendment, insisting that “the American people demand transparency.” He expressed intentions to gather further testimony from former Biden officials, such as ex-White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, and former senior advisers Anita Dunn and Michael Donilon. Interviews with Ronald Klain and Jeff Zients, who both served as Biden’s chief of staff at different times, have also been requested.

Despite criticism, O’Connor’s attorneys highlighted that President Trump had previously invoked his Fifth Amendment right in a 2022 deposition during a New York State Attorney General investigation. Trump had noted, “anyone in my position not taking the Fifth Amendment would be a fool, an absolute fool.”

Biden publicly addressed and refuted the claims of cognitive decline in the last year of his presidency during a May appearance on ABC’s The View.

Original article

Trump Delays Tariffs as Global Negotiations Intensify

Staff ReporterNews, Politics, USA 0

Despite promises of “90 deals in 90 days,” the Trump administration’s efforts to negotiate trade agreements have fallen short, with only a handful of deals likely by the initial deadline.

Donald Trump’s White House initially aimed to secure “90 deals in 90 days” following a temporary pause in implementing what the U.S. president termed “reciprocal” tariffs. However, this ambitious goal appears to be far from realization.

As the initial deadline of July 9 approaches, it’s clear that fewer than nine agreements will be completed. The original target has proven elusive, highlighting the complexities involved in trade negotiations. In a strategic move, the deadline has been extended from the previous Wednesday to August 1. Further extensions or delays remain possible as talks continue.

From the perspective of the United States, the focus is primarily on addressing trade imbalances with the 18 countries responsible for 95% of America’s trade deficit. Scott Bessent, the U.S. Treasury Secretary, emphasized the concentration on these significant trading partners as negotiations advance.

The correspondence being dispatched from the U.S. to its trading partners this week resembles earlier communications from the White House, specifically the “Liberation Day” blue board, which outlined similar concerns and objectives in trade dealings.

Essentially, the proposed tariff rates have remained consistent since they were first disclosed on April 2. The controversial calculation, initially presented as a measure of trade deficit size to indicate “the sum of all trade cheating,” persists in a similar form amid the ongoing discussions.

According to BBC News, the process illustrates the challenging dynamic of trade negotiations and the complexities of addressing longstanding trade imbalances.

Source: Original article

Indian-American Surgeon’s Memoir Returns to Bestseller List

Staff ReporterEducation, Politics, U.S. 0

The memoir of late Indian American neurosurgeon Paul Kalanithi has returned to The New York Times bestseller list, illustrating the lasting impact of his reflections on mortality and purpose.

When Breath Becomes Air, Paul Kalanithi’s poignant memoir, has once again captured the attention of readers, earning a spot on The New York Times bestseller list nearly a decade after its initial release. This resurgence highlights the enduring relevance of Kalanithi’s reflections on life, death, and meaning.

Published in 2016, When Breath Becomes Air was completed in the final months of Kalanithi’s life. The memoir offers a profound narrative of his journey from being a physician to becoming a patient, following his diagnosis with stage IV lung cancer at the age of 36.

Kalanithi, an accomplished neurosurgeon, faced the transition with an introspective lens, examining the confronting realities of his own mortality while grappling with what it means to live a meaningful life. His work resonates with readers for its heartfelt honesty and philosophical depth, making it a permanent fixture in literary discussions around illness and human existence.

The book’s initial success and its reappearance on bestseller lists underscore a universal contemplation of life’s finite nature and the quest for purpose amidst adversity. Through his writing, Kalanithi continues to inspire readers to reflect on their own lives and the impact they wish to leave behind.

When Breath Becomes Air remains a testament to Kalanithi’s legacy, touching the hearts and minds of those who read it, and affirming that the search for meaning is a journey shared by all.

The memoir’s renewed popularity is a testament to Kalanithi’s powerful storytelling and the universal themes that resonate with readers around the world, according to New India Abroad.

Source: Original article

Trump Administration Subpoenas Harvard, Accreditation at Risk

Staff ReporterGovernance, Nation USA, Politics 0

The Trump administration has intensified its conflict with Harvard University, warning that the prestigious institution might lose its accreditation due to allegations concerning foreign student programs and antisemitism on campus.

The Departments of Education and Health and Human Services released a joint statement on Tuesday indicating that Harvard’s accrediting agency had been alerted to possible violations of federal law by the university. These violations pertain to Harvard’s alleged failure to adequately address harassment claims against Jewish students. Such a loss of accreditation could have serious ramifications, including making it impossible for Harvard’s students to receive federal financial aid.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has expressed frustration with Harvard, posting on social media platform X that their attempts at resolving issues amicably have been thwarted by the university’s lack of cooperation. The DHS has now resolved to “do things the hard way.”

This escalation includes plans by the Department of Homeland Security to issue administrative subpoenas to Harvard. The university is accused of not providing necessary information related to its student visitor and exchange program certification.

Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin reiterated in the statement, “We tried to do things the easy way with Harvard. Now, through their refusal to cooperate, we have to do things the hard way.”

This development marks the latest in a series of initiatives by the Trump administration against elite universities. These institutions have been criticized by officials for reportedly promoting leftist ideologies and allegedly failing to safeguard Jewish students amid increasing campus tensions.

As of now, Harvard officials have not issued any public response to the recent actions taken against the university.

Source: Original article

Indian-Origin Leaders Prominent in Global Tech Firms

Staff ReporterPolitics, Technology, USA 0

From Google to Apple, Indian-origin leaders are at the helm of major global tech giants, showcasing their influence and inspiring innovation worldwide.

In the competitive realm of technology, Indian-origin leaders are making significant strides, heading some of the world’s most recognized companies. This impressive cohort includes Sundar Pichai of Google and Alphabet, Satya Nadella of Microsoft, Arvind Krishna of IBM, and several others, all of whom have distinguished themselves in their fields and continue to lead global innovation.

Sundar Pichai, originally from Madurai, Tamil Nadu, serves as the CEO of both Google and its parent company, Alphabet. Pichai is known for his leadership skills, often described through a framework he calls the 7E style, which focuses on ethics and excellence. Under his guidance, Google has advanced significantly in the fields of artificial intelligence and information organization.

At Microsoft, Satya Nadella holds the positions of chairman and CEO. Assuming these roles in 2014, Nadella has transformed the company’s culture and strategic direction. Prior to his rise at Microsoft, Nadella was on the board at Starbucks and led the company’s Online Services Division’s R&D efforts. His early life was spent in Hyderabad, Telangana.

Arvind Krishna, from the West Godavari district in Andhra Pradesh, has risen to the level of chairman, president, and CEO at IBM. He has dedicated over three decades to the tech giant and has been instrumental in pioneering blockchain technology. In 2016, Wired magazine recognized Krishna as one of 25 geniuses forming the future of business.

Adobe’s evolution into a creative software powerhouse is largely credited to its CEO, Shantanu Narayen. Born in Hyderabad, Telangana, Narayen has led Adobe through a successful period, bolstering its suite of products—most notably Photoshop and Acrobat. His innovative contributions also include holding five patents.

Thomas Kurian, a native of Pampady, Kerala, has been the CEO of Google Cloud since 2019. His leadership has been widely lauded, earning him the title of ‘Cloud Wars CEO of the Year for 2024’. His strategic direction has steered Google Cloud through competitive waters effectively.

Micron Technology’s CEO, Sanjay Mehrotra, has devoted his efforts to advancing computing architecture and artificial intelligence. Mehrotra, from Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh, is also the co-founder of SanDisk and is credited with more than 70 patents, underscoring his commitment to technological innovation.

Neal Mohan has been leading YouTube as its CEO since 2023. Born to an Indian family in the United States, Mohan has prioritized enhancing creator tools and ensuring platform safety, continuing the legacy of transformation at the video-sharing giant.

Newly at the forefront of Apple operations as COO is Sabih Khan. Hailing from Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh, Khan has been with Apple for three decades, climbing the ranks from his position as Senior Vice President of Operations. His journey is a testament to dedication and expertise within one of the world’s largest tech companies.

These luminaries not only lead some of the largest technological enterprises but also inspire countless individuals around the globe with their dedication and innovative approaches.

Source: Original article

Tharoor Leads Kerala Poll; Shailaja Among LDF Leaders

Staff ReporterElection, Politics 0

Shashi Tharoor has emerged as the most preferred candidate for the Chief Ministerial post in Kerala according to a pre-poll survey, despite existing tensions with the Congress high command.

Senior Congress leader and Thiruvananthapuram MP Shashi Tharoor has received significant backing from a recent pre-poll survey conducted by Mumbai-based VoteVibe, which places him as the leading candidate for the position of Kerala’s Chief Minister. The survey’s results, shared by Tharoor on his social media account, showed a strong preference for him among voters.

Tharoor wasted no time in sharing the survey findings on his social media platform, formerly known as Twitter, on Wednesday. The post, attributed to a supporter, was also tagged to key Congress figures, including Rahul Gandhi, K.C. Venugopal, Priyanka Gandhi, and the Leader of Opposition V.D. Satheesan. The message praised Tharoor as the best candidate for the chief ministerial position in the 2026 Kerala polls, particularly for the faction-ridden United Democratic Front (UDF) alliance.

Despite Tharoor’s strong showing in the survey, top Congress leaders in Kerala have thus far remained silent on the development. Sunny Joseph, the newly appointed president of the Kerala Pradesh Congress Committee (KPCC), attempted to temper the excitement, emphasizing that leadership decisions within the Congress are made only after election results and follow a set process.

Tharoor’s relationship with the Congress central leadership has been tense following his decision to contest the party’s presidential election against Mallikarjun Kharge. This strain was further highlighted when Tharoor’s name was initially omitted from the list of Congress leaders involved in the Union government’s Operation Sindoor outreach program. However, in a significant gesture, Prime Minister Narendra Modi later invited Tharoor to lead a delegation to the United States and other countries.

Upon his return, Tharoor acknowledged existing differences with the party leadership but expressed willingness to engage in dialogue if approached. A seasoned politician and a four-time Member of Parliament representing Thiruvananthapuram since 2009, Tharoor topped the VoteVibe pre-poll survey with 28.3% support among state’s voters. The survey also highlighted a leadership vacuum within the opposition UDF, with 27.1% of voters undecided on the alliance’s leadership.

Trump Announces Tariffs on Copper and Pharmaceutical Imports

Staff ReporterPolitics, Business, USA 0

President Donald Trump has announced a new 50% tariff on all copper imports into the United States, though the timeline for its implementation remains uncertain.

President Donald Trump declared on Tuesday that a 50% tariff will be imposed on all copper imported into the U.S., continuing his administration’s pattern of leveraging tariffs as a strategic tool. However, details regarding when this new tariff will take effect are not yet clear.

“Today we’re doing copper,” Trump stated during a Cabinet meeting, indicating his administration’s decision to set the tariff at 50%.

This initiative marks the fourth broad-based tariff imposition by Trump in his second term. Previously, the administration set tariffs of 25% on imported cars and car parts, alongside 50% tariffs on imported steel and aluminum.

The White House has not yet provided CNN with any information about the timeline for enacting the copper tariffs.

The decision to impose a copper tariff follows a Section 232 investigation initiated in February, leveraging a legal framework that authorizes the president to impose tariffs for national security reasons.

Copper is integral to the manufacturing of numerous goods, including electronics, machinery, and automobiles. Imposing tariffs on copper could potentially elevate the cost of these goods for American consumers. Last year, the United States imported $17 billion worth of copper, according to data from the U.S. Commerce Department. Chile emerged as the largest supplier, exporting $6 billion worth of copper to the U.S. in 2024.

Following Trump’s announcement, copper prices soared to unprecedented levels. Copper futures in New York spiked by as much as 15%, reaching a record high of $5.68 per pound.

“I’ve been surprised it’s taken this long to get the copper tariff,” Ed Mills, a Washington policy analyst at Raymond James, remarked to CNN.

This year, copper prices have surged by 38%, reflecting a tendency to stockpile the metal in anticipation of tariff hikes.

“A 50% increase will be a massive tax on consumers of copper,” commented Ole Hansen, head of commodity strategy at Saxo Bank. “Watch what Trump does, not what he says,” Hansen advised, suggesting that a staggered tariff approach might be adopted to mitigate its impact on consumers.

In addition, Trump announced impending 200% tariffs on pharmaceuticals, noting that these could be delayed to incentivize pharmaceutical companies to relocate their operations to the U.S.

Although the president had exempted pharmaceutical imports from tariffs during his first term, he has been vocal about implementing such measures, citing national security concerns. An investigation into pharmaceutical imports commenced in mid-April, potentially paving the way for these tariffs.

Trump argues that increasing domestic pharmaceutical production is crucial for reducing reliance on foreign medicine supplies. Several pharmaceutical companies have announced plans to expand their manufacturing capacities within the U.S., some of which were initiated prior to Trump’s second term beginning in January.

The announcement of possible pharmaceutical tariffs prompted a reaction from Australia’s Treasurer, Jim Chalmers, who stated that the country is “urgently seeking” more details about this development given its potential impact on billions of dollars in exports to the U.S.

Additionally, on Monday, Trump extended a pause on “reciprocal” tariffs until August 1. These tariffs, originally set to resume in April, were scheduled to restart at 12:01 a.m. ET on Wednesday. In the interim, Trump has been actively communicating with foreign leaders about potential new tariff rates, pending further negotiations.

This article has been updated to include additional context and recent developments, according to CNN.

Supreme Court Supports Trump’s Plan to Reshape Federal Government

Staff ReporterElection, Governance, Politics 0

The Supreme Court has endorsed President Donald Trump’s agenda to execute extensive layoffs and restructurings within federal agencies, countermanding a prior restriction established by a lower court.

The Supreme Court’s latest ruling grants President Donald Trump permission to carry out significant staff reductions and organizational changes in several federal agencies, overriding a lower court’s decision that required congressional approval for such actions. This development signifies another judicial victory for Trump, reinforcing his administration’s policies, including those concerning deportation and executive orders.

Issued through an unsigned order, the Supreme Court nullified lower court injunctions that blocked the administration’s general restructuring efforts rather than assessing individual agency plans for workforce reduction. Although the precise vote count was not disclosed, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, part of the court’s liberal contingent, voiced her dissent.

The case originated from an executive order signed by Trump in mid-February, initiating a sweeping downsizing of federal agencies, a commitment he made during his presidential campaign. In response, departments announced their intentions to lay off tens of thousands of employees.

Historically, lower courts have ruled that while the president can propose modifications, the executive branch cannot unilaterally dissolve federal departments or slash their personnel to the extent that they are unable to fulfill their mandated responsibilities.

“Considering the strong likelihood that the government’s argument—that the executive order and its associated memorandum are lawful—will prevail, we grant the application,” the Supreme Court’s brief noted. “We do not opine on the legality of agency-specific reduction-in-force and reorganization strategies crafted or sanctioned under the executive order and memorandum.”

The ruling left open the potential for future judicial scrutiny if it appears any reorganization plans might incapacitate an agency from meeting its legal duties.

The lawsuit challenging the executive order was initiated by a coalition of unions, nonprofit organizations, and local governments. This group labeled the litigation as the most extensive legal objection to the Trump administration’s workforce downsizing objectives.

In a statement, the coalition expressed grave concern: “Today’s decision represents a grave setback to our democratic values and threatens critical services that American citizens depend on, placing them in significant jeopardy. Reorganizing government functions and conducting mass layoffs without congressional consent remains unconstitutional.”

The coalition vowed to keep fighting the legal battle to “ensure essential public services that protect the American public remain intact.”

Reacting to the Supreme Court’s verdict, the White House heralded it as “a clear victory for the President and his administration,” denouncing judicial interventions perceived as impediments to achieving enhanced governmental efficiency. White House spokesperson Harrison Fields remarked, “This decision rebuffs attempts by leftist judges seeking to prevent the President from exercising his constitutionally granted executive powers.”

Justice Jackson criticized the court’s decision in her dissent, calling it “hubristic and senseless” and contending that lower courts are more adept at assessing the impact of such governmental changes.

“The case is fundamentally about whether the administration’s plans effectively usurp Congressional policymaking authority, which seems difficult to evaluate meaningfully after such changes occur,” Jackson wrote. “Yet surprisingly, this court has decided to intercede now, facilitating the President’s agenda prematurely.”

The ruling impacts planned workforce reductions across more than a dozen federal agencies, encompassing the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, Labor, Treasury, State, Health and Human Services, Veterans Affairs, and the Environmental Protection Agency.

Particularly notable proposed cuts include reducing positions by around 10,000 at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration, and the National Institutes of Health, as found in court records. Moreover, the Treasury Department’s plan involves decreasing Internal Revenue Service personnel by 40%. Initially, the Department of Veterans Affairs intended to cut 80,000 jobs, though that number has been adjusted down to 30,000 through specified workforce management strategies.

Some agency leaders indicated they had paused their reorganization efforts due to the lower court’s injunction. For instance, Andrew Nixon, a spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services, expressed intent to proceed with department transformation efforts aimed at improving public health.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, also of the court’s liberal faction, shared some agreement with the decision, acknowledging its limitations and ensuring existing legal constraints remain intact. Sotomayor noted that the executive order in question directs agencies to execute changes “consistent with applicable law.”

A previous ruling from a federal judge in California had halted comprehensive layoffs, and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals opted not to intervene, prompting the Trump administration to bring the case to the Supreme Court.

Judge Susan Illston of the U.S. District Court had earlier commented, “While presidents are entitled to set priorities for the executive branch and have them executed by agency heads, a president cannot initiate significant executive branch reorganization without Congressional partnership.”

The appeals court, with Judge William Fletcher writing the majority opinion, reiterated that historically, such types of organizational reforms have been subject to Congressional consent.

Green Card Holders Affected by Trump’s Immigration Bill

Staff ReporterHealth, Immigration, Politics 0

The One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB), signed into law by President Donald Trump, is set to significantly impact green card holders and legal immigrants by restricting access to some health benefits and imposing new taxes on overseas remittances.

President Donald Trump’s recently signed One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB) introduces measures that could heavily impact legally present immigrants, including those holding green cards, by changing how they access certain health benefits and imposing a new tax on money sent abroad.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the OBBB will lead to 11.8 million more Americans being uninsured by 2034 and will increase the federal deficit by almost $3.3 trillion over the next decade. This legislation could result in 1.3 million lawfully present immigrants losing their health insurance by 2034, according to the CBO. Trump signed the bill into law on July 4.

Under current U.S. policy, lawful permanent residents, refugees, survivors of domestic violence, and individuals on valid work or student visas can purchase insurance through the Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplace. Many of these groups qualify for federal tax credits that help reduce monthly insurance premiums, while others may be eligible for Medicaid or Medicare, based on income and other criteria.

The OBBB, however, intends to limit access to these benefits. It may prevent some lawfully present immigrants from benefiting from federal health insurance subsidies. Immigrants most affected could include low-income green card holders still within the five-year waiting period for Medicaid along with refugees and survivors of domestic violence, who may face a loss of subsidized health insurance.

If the bill is fully enacted, only green card holders, select individuals from Cuba and Haiti, and some Pacific Island communities would continue to receive federal benefits. Most immigrant groups, regardless of legal status, could lose access to affordable healthcare options.

Alex Nowrasteh, vice president for economic and social policy studies at the Cato Institute, commented on the bill, noting that immigrants consume fewer government-supplied health benefits compared to native-born Americans. Nowrasteh views the bill as a start to widen this gap, suggesting it could benefit taxpayers without adversely affecting the health of excluded non-citizens.

In addition to healthcare changes, the OBBB will introduce a 1 percent tax on remittances sent overseas, impacting millions of immigrant families who send financial support to relatives in their home countries. Supporters of the measure argue it could generate significant federal revenue, but critics point out it places a financial strain on low to middle-income workers reliant on these remittances to support their families abroad.

The legislation also allocates significant funds to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), including $45 billion to expand detention capacities to nearly 100,000 beds, $14 billion for transportation and deportations, and $8 billion for hiring 10,000 additional deportation officers.

Veronique de Rugy, a Senior Research Fellow with the Mercatus Center, highlighted the economic implications of the tax on remittances, explaining that it effectively reduces household income, potentially pushing families back into poverty and damaging local economies.

Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson, emphasized that the OBBB aims to protect vulnerable Americans by eliminating waste and fraud in Medicaid and fulfilling President Trump’s campaign promise to strengthen border security and deport criminal illegal aliens.

Conversely, John Slocum, Executive Director of Refugee Council USA, expressed concerns about the bill’s potential to reverse decades of bipartisan support for newcomer integration. He warned that refugees and immigrant families could face significant hardships, impacting their recovery and integration into U.S. communities.

The OBBB’s enactment might result in hundreds of thousands of lawfully present immigrants, including asylum seekers, trafficking survivors, and refugees, losing access to ACA marketplace coverage, with the elimination of subsidies that help make healthcare premiums more affordable.

Trump Bill Implementation Timeline: Key Aspects and Effects

Staff ReporterEconomy, Medicine, Politics 0

President Trump signed a tax cut and spending package, dubbed the “big, beautiful bill,” which enacts several sweeping fiscal changes, including permanent tax cuts, Medicaid reforms, and funding modifications for key federal programs.

In a celebratory move marking the Fourth of July, President Trump officially enacted a significant tax cut and spending bill into law. Promoted as the “big, beautiful bill,” the legislation aims to solidify previous tax cuts while making extensive modifications to federal funding, including Medicaid and food assistance programs, as well as education loans and energy incentives.

The newly signed law allocates increased funds for defense and the border wall, while making Trump’s earlier 2017 tax reductions permanent. However, these adjustments come with notable compensations: substantial cuts to Medicaid, food assistance programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), student loan structures, and initiatives promoting clean energy.

Healthcare coverage under Medicaid is particularly affected, with the Congressional Budget Office estimating that about 16 million Americans could lose their health insurance by 2034. This would result from cuts to Medicaid funding, as well as changes affecting the Affordable Care Act marketplace.

Among the controversial changes are new work requirements for Medicaid recipients. Adults aged 19 to 64 must work a minimum of 80 hours monthly to maintain Medicaid coverage, with exemptions granted for those with dependent children or specific medical conditions. While funding changes are postponed until 2028, these work requirements are slated to be implemented by December 31, 2026.

The SNAP program will also experience transformations in both funding and eligibility criteria. Starting in 2028, states with a payment error rate of 6 percent or more will need to partially fund SNAP, although those with the highest error rates can delay these contributions by two more years. Furthermore, the age threshold for work requirements is extended from 54 to 64, affecting most adults unless they have children under 14.

In terms of tax modifications, the legislation assures permanence for the 2017 tax cuts and introduces several significant updates. Residents of high-tax states like New York and California will benefit from increased deductions related to state and local taxes, lasting through 2028. Working-class individuals will encounter new provisions, such as tax-deductible tips under $25,000 and tax-deductible overtime pay up to $12,500, both aimed to conclude in 2028.

Additional tax adjustments include reforms to the child tax credit, now set at $2,200 per child with inflation adjustments beginning next year, and an increased deduction for Americans over 65, amounting to an extra $6,000 through 2028.

The bill also scales back initiatives from the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act targeting clean energy. Notable eliminations include electric vehicle tax credits commencing September 30 of this year and other energy-related tax incentives phased out starting next year. Further, the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, supporting local emissions projects, will be concluded, albeit existing contracts are expected to remain intact.

Educational finance sees restructuring with the replacement of Grad PLUS loans and repayment options like the SAVE Plan. The introduction of Repayment Assistance Plan options and standard repayment plans will limit borrowing to $100,000 for many graduate students and $200,000 for professional students. These changes, including adjustments to endowments-based tax rates on colleges, are to be enforced by July 2026.

In a statement on the sweeping implications of the new law, Republicans advocate the permanence of the tax cuts ahead of upcoming elections, viewing them as an appealing factor for voters. Meanwhile, Democrats and various advocacy groups voice concerns about the anticipated impacts on healthcare access and financial support for vulnerable populations.

The complexities of implementation timescales across different sectors, coupled with political and public reception, will likely shape the ensuing economic landscape in the lead-up to the 2026 midterm elections, according to The Hill.

Source: Original article

Texas Floods Prompt Debate on Impact of Job Cuts in Forecasting

Staff ReporterEnvironment, Nation, Politics 0

Following torrential rains and flash floods in Texas Hill Country, President Trump’s staffing cuts to the National Weather Service (NWS) are under scrutiny, with critics raising concerns about the impact on disaster preparedness and response.

The National Weather Service (NWS) is facing criticism in the wake of a catastrophic weather event that claimed the lives of at least 80 people in Texas, with a significant number being young girls and counselors at a summer camp along the Guadalupe River. Torrential downpours and sudden floodwaters ravaged the Texas Hill Country on Friday night, prompting questions about the adequacy of weather forecasting and warnings provided during the disaster.

The weather event has brought attention to staffing reductions within the NWS, with former federal officials and experts having previously warned that President Donald Trump’s significant cuts to the agency could jeopardize public safety. Despite these concerns, the majority of officials in the Republican-dominated state have refrained from directly attributing the tragic outcomes to the staffing cuts.

As the thunderstorms intensified Thursday night, five staff members were on duty at the NWS office responsible for the affected region—consistent with the number typically available during expected severe weather conditions. Defending the agency’s efforts, current and former NWS officials highlighted the timely issuance of urgent flash flood warnings, including a catastrophic flash flood warning issued before the river rose significantly.

“This was an exceptional service to come out first with the catastrophic flash flood warning and this shows the awareness of the meteorologists on shift at the NWS office,” stated Brian LaMarre, who retired in April as the meteorologist-in-charge at the NWS forecast office in Tampa, Florida. LaMarre noted the challenges in precisely predicting extreme weather but commended the urgent response provided by the meteorologists.

Despite the timely warnings, concerns remain about the level of coordination between the NWS and local officials during the night of the disaster. The Trump administration’s downsizing initiative has reduced staffing by at least 20% at nearly half of the 122 NWS field offices across the country, and several offices no longer maintain around-the-clock staff. In addition, numerous forecasters and senior managers were prompted to retire early.

The Trump administration has also proposed a 27% reduction in the budget for the NWS’s parent agency, potentially affecting research centers dedicated to weather, climate, and ocean studies. In the Austin/San Antonio office, which oversees the severely impacted Kerr County, six of 27 positions remain unfilled. This includes a pivotal management role responsible for coordinating emergency responses with local officials, left vacant following the former employee’s departure in April after mass retirement encouragements.

In response to the devastating incident, Democratic leaders have demanded clarity on the staffing changes. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer pressed the Trump administration for an investigation into the possible contribution of staffing shortages to the “catastrophic loss of life” in the area.

President Trump, addressing the situation, stated that the reduction in jobs did not impair weather forecasting capabilities. He described the sudden floods as an unforeseen event, stating, “The raging waters were a thing that happened in seconds. No one expected it. Nobody saw it.”

According to AP News, despite the debate over staffing and preparedness, the tragic events have highlighted the need for comprehensive review and potential restructuring to ensure effective warning and response mechanisms in future disasters.

Source: Original article

Indian Applicants Face US Visa Appointment Challenges Despite Consulate Interviews

Staff ReporterPolitics, Visa 0

Since the U.S. consulates in India resumed F-1 student visa interviews, applicants still face chaos, with scarce appointments and growing uncertainty threatening their educational plans.

Despite the resumption of F-1 student visa interviews at U.S. consulates in India on June 26, students continue to struggle with securing appointments, leading to significant anxiety and uncertainty.

As students prepare for the start of their courses in August, they face the challenge of obtaining visa appointments in a timely manner. The lack of available slots, coupled with the increase in 221(g) administrative processing notices, is jeopardizing their plans and investments.

LaunchEd co-founder Kajal Dave described the situation as “a mess,” pointing out that many students who have already paid tuition, booked flights, and found housing are unable to secure visa appointments. The financial implications are severe, with potential losses estimated to range between ₹12 and ₹35 lakh, covering tuition fees, housing deposits, and airfare if students cannot travel in time and their universities do not permit deferrals.

One student expressed their frustration and panic online, stating that visa slots in India have not been opened, leaving them feeling lost and hopeless as their course is set to begin on August 20.

Another student shared a similar concern, saying their university recommended deferring enrollment to the next fall due to these issues. The additional concern of receiving a 221(g) notice after securing an interview adds further uncertainty, as visa approvals remain on indefinite hold.

The U.S. Embassy website has recently cautioned that student or exchange visitor visa applicants without existing appointments may not be able to schedule an interview this summer, amplifying students’ worries.

This situation follows a month-long visa freeze from May 27 to June 26, hitting the peak student season and compounding broader systematic issues. According to a report by Business Standard, these challenges stem from a substantial backlog and an evolving adjudication policy, with increased scrutiny over digital footprints and social media causing further delays.

Currently, the wait time for appointments in India averages 45 to 60 days, with Kolkata experiencing the longest delays. As a result, many students are missing important university start dates.

Experts recommend that students facing these challenges can apply for emergency appointments through UStraveldocs or consult with their university’s Designated School Official (DSO) regarding deferral or temporary online study options. Ensuring that Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) and I-20 documents are up to date is also crucial if deferring is necessary.

The root of the current slot shortage combines the aforementioned visa freeze during a critical period and stricter visa vetting processes implemented in recent years. While students may request emergency appointments via the official UStraveldocs website, they must provide appropriate university documentation to support their application.

The U.S. Embassy has not confirmed if additional bulk slot openings will occur before the August 2025 intake, leaving students uncertain about future opportunities to secure their visas in time.

According to Business Standard

Source: Original article

Tesla CFO Taneja Appointed Treasurer of Musk’s Political Party

Staff ReporterPolitics, Business 0

Tesla CFO Vaibhav Taneja has been appointed as treasurer of the newly established America Party, founded by Elon Musk in response to recent political developments.

Tesla’s Chief Financial Officer Vaibhav Taneja, originally from India, has been named treasurer of Elon Musk’s America Party, according to documents filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC). This appointment comes as a part of Musk’s political initiative launched in early July following his disagreement with President Donald Trump over the ‘Big, Beautiful Bill’.

The FEC filing reveals that the headquarters of the America Party is located at 1 Rocker Road in Hawthorne, California. Taneja’s responsibilities within the party encompass the roles of both treasurer and custodian of records, with his Tesla-affiliated address appearing in the official paperwork, which has since been circulating on social media.

The inception of the America Party was officially announced by Musk shortly after Trump enacted the controversial bill. Reflecting Musk’s proactive approach to political engagement, he posted on the platform X, formerly known as Twitter, stating, “By a factor of 2 to 1, you want a new political party and you shall have it! Today, the America Party is formed to give you back your freedom.” As of now, Musk remains the party’s sole declared candidate.

In his new role as treasurer, Taneja will be in charge of the party’s financial oversight. His duties involve managing contributions, monitoring expenditures, and ensuring adherence to federal campaign finance regulations. This critical role requires him to maintain meticulous records of all financial transactions and prevent any illicit financial activities.

Vaibhav Taneja assumed the role of CFO at Tesla in August 2023, succeeding Zach Kirkhorn. Taneja possesses extensive expertise in corporate financial management, having joined Tesla in 2017 through its acquisition of SolarCity. Prior to becoming CFO, he served as Tesla’s Chief Accounting Officer and Corporate Controller.

Before his association with Tesla, Taneja had a noteworthy career at PricewaterhouseCoopers spanning nearly 17 years, where he provided consultancy services to major corporations regarding financial strategy and regulatory compliance.

His appointment as treasurer of the America Party highlights his significant experience and trusted position within Musk’s ventures, as he takes on a pivotal role in navigating the financial dimensions of this newly formed political entity.

Americans4Hindus Urges FBI Probe into ISKCON Utah Gunfire Incidents

Staff ReporterNation USA, Politics, Society 0

Americans4Hindus has expressed grave concern over recent gunfire incidents at the ISKCON Temple in Utah, which may be hate crimes targeting the Hindu community in the United States.

Americans4Hindus, an advocacy group, has raised alarms following nighttime gunfire occurrences at the ISKCON Temple in Utah. These incidents, suspected to be targeted attacks, underscore the vulnerability of Hindu places of worship and might be classified as hate crimes against the Hindu minority in the country.

In response to these unsettling events, the organization stands with the ISKCON community and commends the Utah County Sheriff’s Office. The local law enforcement agency has shown agility in dealing with the situation by increasing patrols to safeguard the temple and its worshippers.

Dr. Romesh Japra, the Founder and Chairman of Americans4Hindus, called for a comprehensive federal response. “Given the rising trend of temple vandalism and Hindu hate crimes—including acts of violence—we strongly urge the FBI to launch a thorough and transparent investigation. We call on FBI Director Kash Patel and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard to ensure that such heinous incidents receive the appropriate federal attention and action,” he declared.

This call to action is part of the organization’s broader commitment to upholding the civil and religious rights of Hindu Americans, making sure that their sacred spaces are protected and respected nationwide.

The advocacy group has been a vocal supporter of safeguarding minority religious rights, pointing out the crucial need for vigilance and appropriate measures to deter hate crimes.

The original source reporting these concerns is Americans4Hindus, a prominent voice in advocating for Hindu Americans’ rights and interests.

Source: Original article

Trump Employs Madman Theory to Influence Global Politics

Staff ReporterPolitics, Diplomacy 0

President Donald Trump’s unpredictable approach to foreign policy has become a hallmark of his administration, with implications for international relations and alliances.

In a recent statement, President Donald Trump indicated the possibility of military action against Iran, saying, “I may do it. I may not do it. Nobody knows what I’m going to do.” This remark underscores a notable aspect of Trump’s presidency: his unpredictability, which he has leveraged as a strategic asset.

The unpredictability approach, often referred to as the Madman Theory, seeks to portray a leader as capable of any action to extract concessions. As Trump has embraced this strategy, it has significantly impacted global politics and U.S. foreign relations.

The concentration of policy-making within Trump’s administration has been compared to that of former President Richard Nixon, according to Peter Trubowitz, a professor of international relations at the London School of Economics. “Trump’s character, preferences, and temperament make policy decisions more reliant on him,” Trubowitz explains, reflecting how the President’s personal traits shape policy outcomes.

This strategy has spanned Trump’s dealings with both allies and adversaries. For instance, Trump initially cozied up to Russian President Vladimir Putin while taking a more confrontational stance toward traditional allies. He has made provocative statements about Canada and suggested using military force against Greenland, altering the dynamics of trans-Atlantic alliances.

The implications of Trump’s approach have been profound. In Munich, Vice-President JD Vance declared that the U.S. would no longer guarantee European security—a stance that challenged decades-long commitments established through NATO. Former British Defence Secretary Ben Wallace has voiced skepticism about the future of these alliances, and Trump’s choices have raised fundamental questions about the credibility of America’s international commitments.

Leaked communications from Trump’s administration highlight the disdain for European allies, with U.S. Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth disparagingly referring to them as “freeloaders.” These attitudes have manifested in shifts in security dynamics, prompting countries to reevaluate their strategic relationships with the U.S.

Notably, Trump’s tactics have yielded some results. Recently, Britain’s Sir Keir Starmer announced an increase in defense spending, followed by similar commitments from other NATO members, reflecting a response to the pressure exerted by Trump’s unpredictability.

The unpredictable approach is not entirely new. President Nixon employed a similar tactic during the Vietnam War. He instructed his National Security Adviser, Henry Kissinger, to convey a sense of unpredictability to the North Vietnamese, hinting it would be wise to reach an agreement before matters escalated further. This is reminiscent of how Trump’s foreign policy is being perceived today.

Whether this strategy will continue to be effective, especially against adversaries, remains a subject of debate. Critics argue that instead of keeping opponents guessing, Trump’s unpredictability could make his actions more predictable as they are rooted in identifiable character traits.

The ongoing impact of Trump’s foreign policy doctrine on global alliances and world order remains significant and continues to evolve. As international relationships are subjected to sudden changes, the global community must constantly adapt to an unprecedented diplomatic environment.

Source: Original article

Catholic Church Opposes MAGA-Backed Bill, Calls It a Moral Failure

Staff ReporterImmigration, Opinion, Politics 0

The proposed legislation allocates billions toward aggressive immigration enforcement and cuts vital health and food assistance programs, drawing widespread condemnation from faith leaders across the United States.

A controversial legislative proposal is drawing significant criticism from religious leaders nationwide due to its heavy investment in aggressive immigration enforcement and proposed cuts to healthcare and food assistance. Faith leaders are voicing concerns over the ethical implications and potential social consequences of such a move.

The bill primarily focuses on allocating over $150 billion towards enforcing border policies and bolstering immigration crackdowns. This includes a dramatic increase in the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention budget, set to grow from $3.4 billion to $45 billion by 2029. Professor Donald Moynihan of the University of Michigan highlighted that the ICE budget would surpass the combined funding for all 50 federal prisons.

Critics argue that this immense funding could create a self-perpetuating deportation infrastructure, drawing parallels to the private prison system and military complex. As with military spending, increased funding could incentivize further crackdowns and family separations, leading to a cycle of enforcement.

The legislation also targets faith communities by removing places of worship from the Department of Homeland Security’s sensitive locations list, making it easier for ICE agents to conduct enforcement actions there. Consequently, many religious communities have reported declines in attendance, as the threat of enforcement deters families from practicing their faith.

Prominent Catholics, including Cardinal Robert McElroy and Bishop Jaime Soto, alongside leaders from Episcopalian, Jewish, Lutheran, Presbyterian, and Muslim communities, have signed a letter opposing the bill. They argue that the legislation’s focus on a border wall could drive migrants into remote regions, increasing the risk of deaths, harming the local environment, and forcing asylum-seekers to rely on human smugglers.

Religious leaders advocate for creating legal migration avenues and a legalization program for immigrants who have long contributed to the U.S. economy. They assert these alternatives would better serve immigrants and the nation than a mass deportation campaign.

The bill also proposes severe cuts to healthcare and food assistance, including slashing nearly $1 trillion from Medicaid. This reduction could jeopardize countless lives, leading to increased poverty, bankruptcies, and closures of vital healthcare facilities. Additionally, the bill aims to cut approximately $186 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) by 2034, raising concerns about food insecurity for millions.

According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the legislation would exacerbate income inequality by transferring wealth from the nation’s poorest citizens to the wealthiest. This aspect particularly troubles faith leaders, who emphasize the moral obligation to support the most vulnerable.

Archbishop Timothy P. Broglio, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, criticized the bill for offering tax breaks to some while undermining social safety nets through significant cuts to nutrition assistance and Medicaid. He noted the bill’s failure to protect families and children by exclusively focusing on enforcement rather than preserving access to legal protections.

Faith leaders argue the bill’s approach is a moral failure, urging lawmakers to find a better path forward. They call on senators to reconsider the provisions, emphasizing the need to protect human dignity and uphold the common good.

House Approves Tax and Spending Bill, Benefiting Johnson and Trump

Staff ReporterElection, News, Politics 0

House Republicans passed President Trump’s sweeping legislation on Thursday, marking a significant legislative victory as it now awaits the president’s signature.

In a vote that concluded with a narrow margin of 218-214, two Republican lawmakers joined all Democrats in opposing the bill, which has been touted by President Trump as his “big, beautiful bill.” The legislation now heads to Trump’s desk, where he is expected to sign it on July 4, meeting his self-imposed deadline for enacting the package.

The road to passage was not without its hurdles. The GOP leadership kept procedural votes open for several hours in an attempt to persuade undecided members to support the measure. President Trump played an active role in rallying support, while House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) delivered an extensive speech lasting 8 hours and 44 minutes in opposition to the legislation.

Despite these challenges, the passage of the bill represents a major triumph for both President Trump and House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), solidifying their legislative agenda amidst a closely divided Congress.

The vote saw Republican Representatives Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania break ranks with their party, ultimately voting against the bill.

Alongside his political endeavors, President Trump is scheduled to accompany First Lady Melania Trump in a meeting with former Israeli hostage Edan Alexander later on Thursday. Following this engagement, President Trump will travel to Iowa to deliver a speech at the state fairgrounds, signaling the commencement of the nation’s 250th-year celebrations.

The developments come as Trump maintains a significant presence on the political stage, with his legislative priorities playing a central role in shaping the current political landscape.

According to The Hill, the legislative journey of this bill has involved significant strategic maneuvering and political involvement from the highest levels of government.

Source: Original article

Jaishankar Discusses Quad, US-India Relations, and Political Unity

Staff ReporterPolitics, Global 0

India’s Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar highlighted the political pluralism and unity displayed by India’s All-Party delegations and provided insights into the progress of the Quad’s initiatives during a press conference in Washington, D.C.

India’s Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar emphasized the global advocacy efforts of seven All-Party delegations that followed Operation Sindoor, remarking on how these initiatives showcase India’s “political pluralism” and deliver a powerful “unified message.”

Speaking at a press conference on July 2, 2025, at the Willard Intercontinental in Washington, D.C., Jaishankar responded to a query from the South Asian Herald, highlighting the unity demonstrated by diverse political figures coming together on key issues. He noted, “When you have a set of people with a track record, with that diversity—you actually saw the political pluralism of India come together on an important issue and send a strong unified message.”

Joined by the Indian Ambassador to the United States, Vinay Kwatra, and Additional Secretary (Americas) Nagaraj Naidu, Jaishankar expressed personal admiration for the initiative, stating it demonstrated India’s national interest positively. “We very much value and appreciate what they did,” he said, emphasizing the importance of a wide-ranging delegation speaking with one voice on international platforms to convey national unity.

The project, comprising leaders across the political spectrum such as Shashi Tharoor, Supriya Sule, Ghulam Nabi Azad, Kanimozhi Karunanidhi, and several others alongside ruling party members like Ravi Shankar Prasad, and Jai Panda, reflected the initiative’s diverse nature. It also included those with foreign affairs experience, including Salman Khurshid and Anand Sharma.

In response to another inquiry regarding the progress of the Quad, Jaishankar described it as a “unique organization” without a formal legal framework but united by “commonality of purpose” and “convergence of interest.”

“There’s a universe of things remaining to be done,” he explained, discussing the evolving agenda shaped by changing global needs, with issues like undersea cables and critical minerals moving to the forefront of discussions.

Jaishankar shared insights from the recent Foreign Ministers’ meeting on July 1, noting it was more extensive compared to earlier meetings. During discussions, the Quad members agreed to strengthen strategic stability in the Indo-Pacific and delved into regional issues, notably those involving Israel, Iran, and U.S. regional engagement.

Specific initiatives announced include the Quad Critical Minerals Initiative, focusing on mineral recovery, an Indo-Pacific Logistics Network, the Quad-at-Sea Ship Observer Mission for enhanced Coast Guard cooperation, and a Maritime Legal Dialogue to be hosted online by India.

Additional efforts include an Expanded Indo-Pacific partnership on maritime domain awareness, a Maritime Initiative for Training in the Indo-Pacific workshop, a Ports of the Future Partnership conference, and a conference on undersea cables under the Quad Partnership on Cable Connectivity and Resilience.

Jaishankar emphasized the Quad’s focus on four key thematic areas: Maritime and Transnational Security; Economic Prosperity and Security; Critical and Emerging Technologies; and Humanitarian Assistance and Emergency Response.

Further illustrating the depth of India’s diplomatic engagements, he recounted bilateral discussions with Secretary of State Marco Rubio on wide-ranging issues such as trade, technology, defense, and energy. Additional meetings with Australia’s Foreign Minister Penny Wong, Japan’s Foreign Minister Iwaya Takeshi, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and Energy Secretary Chris Wright further underscored strong bilateral ties.

Responding to a question on the U.S.-India relationship’s foundation, Jaishankar underscored the partnership’s centrality by acknowledging India’s position as a leading global economy and its collaborative efforts in sectors like trade and technology.

He affirmed the Quad’s respect for ASEAN’s central role in regional matters, noting the group’s considerable focus on ASEAN. As the sole Global South nation in the Quad, India voices developing countries’ priorities and perspectives during discussions, which also include development projects in the Global South.

Looking ahead, India is preparing to host the next Quad Summit later this year and has shared preliminary proposals with other member countries, according to Jaishankar.

Source: Original article

House Approves Tax and Spending Bill Backed by Johnson, Trump

Staff ReporterPolitics, USA 0

House Republicans narrowly passed President Trump’s “big, beautiful bill,” with a final vote of 218-214, sending it to his desk for signing.

House Republicans successfully passed President Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” on Thursday, with a tight vote margin of 218-214. The bill now awaits Trump’s signature, which is expected to take place on the Fourth of July, meeting the deadline he had set for its arrival at his desk.

The legislation’s passage did not come without challenges. GOP leaders engaged in hours of procedural votes, striving to secure the necessary support. Among those opposing the bill were two Republican representatives, Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, who joined all Democrats in voting against it.

Trump was actively involved in the process, and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) delivered a substantial floor speech that lasted 8 hours and 44 minutes, criticizing the legislation.

The bill’s approval represents a significant triumph for both President Trump and Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-La.).

Beyond the legislative victory, President Trump plans to attend additional engagements. On Thursday, he will meet with former Israeli hostage Edan Alexander alongside First Lady Melania Trump. Following this meeting, he will travel to Iowa to commence the celebration of America’s 250th year with a speech at the state fairgrounds.

The original report of the bill’s passage was shared by The Hill.

Source: Original article

Project 2025 Groups Impact Supreme Court Decisions in 2023

Staff ReporterPolitics, Nation 0

Groups linked to the conservative Project 2025 were highly influential in this year’s Supreme Court decisions, with the majority of rulings favoring arguments aligned with their agenda.

During this Supreme Court term, organizations associated with Project 2025—a controversial conservative policy agenda created by the Heritage Foundation—played a significant role. These groups found favor in multiple pivotal cases, with the court siding with their perspectives more often than not. Nevertheless, setbacks did occur as the court also ruled against some cases directly linked to these organizations.

Project 2025 was primarily championed by the Heritage Foundation but included a network of over 100 conservative organizations on its advisory board. Designed ahead of the 2024 election, this agenda aimed to restructure the executive branch under a potential conservative president.

In a breakdown of the term’s Supreme Court cases, approximately 30 organizations tied to Project 2025 filed amicus briefs, engaging in a total of 12 critical cases decided between October 2024 and June. This analysis indicates that these groups were involved in four key cases through direct representation: Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond and Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, managed by Alliance Defending Freedom; Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, concerning the Affordable Care Act, managed by America First Legal; and FCC v. Consumers Research, involving challenges to regulations by the Texas Public Policy Foundation.

Beyond these, a variety of organizations, along with Project 2025-linked groups, submitted amicus briefs nearly 60 times in major court cases this term. The Supreme Court aligned with the interests of these groups in eight of the 12 major cases reviewed by Forbes. These decisions included allowing restrictions on transgender health care and Planned Parenthood funding, expanding religious tax exemptions, maintaining Texas’ age verification law, dismissing Mexico’s lawsuit against U.S. gun-makers, and upholding the federal TikTok ban.

However, the justices rejected cases concerning religious charter schools, the Affordable Care Act, the FCC, and federal rules on ghost guns, indicating limitations in Project 2025’s judicial influence.

Alliance Defending Freedom emerged as the group with the highest number of filings and a substantial Supreme Court presence. In addition to being a party in two cases, it also filed multiple amicus briefs and saw its members drafting briefs on behalf of other similarly aligned organizations.

The Heritage Foundation, the leading entity behind Project 2025, did not engage in any direct Supreme Court cases. Nevertheless, they expressed approval of several court rulings this term, particularly those affecting transgender healthcare, President Trump’s citizenship case, and decisions on educational content and Planned Parenthood funding.

Controversy surrounded Project 2025 as several groups listed as advisory board members distanced themselves, citing reasons that ranged from unintentional registration to political alignment discrepancies. Various organizations, such as Americans United for Life, withdrew their association citing nonpartisanship.

While Project 2025 maintains a primarily executive branch focus, its agenda aligns with certain Supreme Court decisions, especially around topics like gender-affirming care bans, parental rights in education, and opposition to Planned Parenthood funding. These overlaps highlight the broader conservative policy shifts that reflect the group’s proposed policies.

Project 2025’s origins trace back to a concerted effort for potential GOP governance, featuring a database of potential White House team members and a 900-page policy blueprint. The plan proposes comprehensive reforms across federal agencies to concentrate power in the presidency. Despite being disavowed by President Trump prior to the 2024 election, the overlap in personnel and policy between Trump’s second term and Project 2025’s proposals has continued, aligning with the organization’s vision as described by former project head Paul Dans.

According to Forbes, this year’s Supreme Court decisions have spotlighted Project 2025’s broader influence within conservative policy-making circles, illustrating a complex political ecosystem shaped by shared goals among right-leaning entities.

Source: Original article

House GOP Leaders Strive to Unite on Trump Megabill

Staff ReporterPolitics, USA 0

GOP leaders are racing to secure alignment within their ranks to pass a pivotal Senate bill that embodies former President Trump’s domestic agenda before the impending holiday weekend.

Republican leaders face significant challenges as they attempt to unify their caucus behind a substantial Senate bill aimed at implementing key aspects of former President Trump’s agenda, including substantial tax cuts, stricter immigration policies, a pivot from green energy initiatives, and significant reductions in federal health and nutrition programs.

The endeavor comes amid resistance from both moderate Republicans concerned about increased Medicaid cuts and conservatives alarmed by a rise in deficit spending, both measures exacerbated in the Senate’s version of the legislation. This discord poses a critical test for Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and other GOP leaders who are under pressure to pass the bill, which demands nearly unanimous support given the slim Republican majority in the House.

Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), a prominent member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, voiced skepticism about the bill’s ability to achieve the Trump administration’s objectives. “I know why they’re going to lobby for it, I know why the president’s going to push for it. They want to see it get done, and I get it,” Roy said, but he added, “But I think we have more work to do.”

Tensions are rising as House Republicans must decide between opposing a Senate-modified bill they originally supported or yielding to pressure for party unity and delivering Trump a legislative victory. Some, like a moderate House Republican, have expressed uncertainty about the best course of action. “Maybe I’ll get lucky and have a rough enough landing or something that I’m unable to make [it] to D.C. for a few weeks,” the member said to The Hill.

Former President Trump is actively lobbying Republicans to back the bill, with threats suggesting primary challenges against those who oppose what he calls the “big, beautiful bill.” Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), who opposed the House version in May, faces a MAGA-backed push to unseat him due to his expected dissent against the Senate bill.

Meanwhile, Democrats remain critical of the legislation, which includes significant cuts in low-income health and nutrition programs to fund tax reductions. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) highlighted the bill’s potential impact on constituents, questioning why Republicans, especially those in competitive districts, would support it.

With a self-imposed deadline to pass the bill by July 4, Speaker Johnson acknowledges the ambitious timeline. He stated, “We’ll see what happens in the next 24 hours,” also admitting discontent with the Senate’s modifications but recognizing the necessity to advance without alterations to avoid another Senate vote.

There are doubts regarding the House’s ability to meet this timeline, as expressed by Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-Ind.) on social media. Stutzman pointed out the Senate’s “unacceptable increases to the national debt and the deficit,” making House passage challenging.

The urgency is evident as the House Rules Committee convened to discuss the bill, marking the beginning of its progression through the House. If cleared, GOP leaders plan to move forward quickly, initiating debates and votes as early as Wednesday morning. However, initial steps face obstacles. Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.), aligned with the Freedom Caucus, announced opposition to the procedural rule necessary for advancing the bill, threatening a legislative standstill.

The margin is slim, with Republicans allowed only three defections if Democrats uniformly oppose the rule. Already, Harris and Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) have committed to voting against it.

Trump, undeterred, hailed the Senate’s passage and urged House Republicans to follow suit. “I thought the Senate was going to be tougher than the House. We got there. We got pretty much what we wanted,” he said, emphasizing the importance of passing the landmark bill.

A senior White House official, stressing urgency, called for the bill’s enactment in its present form by the July 4 deadline to allow Trump to sign it ceremonially on Independence Day. “The end of the road is here. The bill is finished. The bill needs to be sent to the president’s desk and it needs to be done … on or before July 4,” the official stated.

The administration is conducting an extensive effort to galvanize support, utilizing top officials, including Trump, his budget director, and heads of relevant departments, to coordinate the endeavor.

Source: Original article

Senate Passes Latest Version of Trump’s Bill

Staff ReporterEconomy, Politics, Women 0

Republicans are nearing the passage of a dramatic tax and spending cut bill, loaded with tax breaks, defense spending, and provisions aimed at President Trump’s border security agenda, while facing staunch Democratic opposition.

The Republican-led initiative, encompassing roughly 887 pages, is a comprehensive measure that includes significant elements of tax cuts, fiscal adjustments, and conservative policy objectives. This extensive legislation aims to solidify President Donald Trump’s vision for comprehensive fiscal reform by the Fourth of July, compelling vacationing lawmakers to expedite the process.

If unified, the Republicans, who control both the House and Senate, could push the bill past one final hurdle in the House. Notably, Vice President JD Vance broke a tie in the Senate to propel the measure forward, while prior House approval was narrowly secured.

The substance of the bill is as varied as it is vast, containing provisions from tax amendments to immigration policy enhancements, and defense allocations. Central to the Republicans’ stance is the prevention of a looming tax hike, which they argue will take effect when existing tax breaks expire at year’s end.

The proposed tax legislation promises approximately $4.5 trillion in deductions, seeking to enshrine current tax rates and introduce new tax advantages championed during Trump’s campaign. These incentives include tax exemptions on tips and overtime pay, deductible auto loan interest, and a $6,000 tax deduction for older adults with earning restrictions.

Additionally, the bill seeks to raise the child tax credit, albeit modestly, from $2,000 to $2,200, leaving some low-income families unable to reap full benefits. The cap on state and local deductions—integral to high-tax states—would see a temporary fourfold increase but is limited to five years, conflicting with the House’s ten-year preference.

The legislation’s expansive provisions extend beyond individual and business realms, allocating funds for an aggressive border security plan, military enhancements, and infrastructure projects. Approximately $350 billion is earmarked for border enforcement and national security, with Trump’s ambitious border wall and large-scale deportation efforts at its core.

Immigration policy changes propose new fees, increased personnel, and incentivized state cooperation, with funding streams partially derived from these new fees. In tandem, the defense sector would witness investments in shipbuilding, missile defense, and servicemember welfare.

Offsetting these tax reductions and expenditures demands fiscal cuts, predominantly targeting Medicaid and nutritional assistance programs. Proposed reforms include heightened work requirements for Medicaid recipients and a contentious co-payment model for services. Based on a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) forecast, these adjustments could deny coverage and benefits to millions, further intensifying political discourse.

The contentious proposal also disrupts green energy tax credits pivotal to renewable energy growth, prompting Democratic objections regarding potential economic repercussions and environmental impacts. These reversals mark significant departures from former President Biden’s environmental and healthcare legislative milestones.

Amid controversial frontal tax policy changes, the bill augments deductions for metallurgical coal, introduces a national children’s savings initiative, and outlines funds for a proposed National Garden of American Heroes. Higher-education financial structures and gun licensing protocols will also see adjustments, alongside increases in federal borrowing limits.

Late-stage negotiations brought modest revisions, including increased rural healthcare funding and revised tax impositions on renewable energy projects. The CBO projects that cumulative deficit levels would escalate by roughly $3.3 trillion over a decade. However, Senate Republicans dispute these estimates, employing an accounting method that excludes existing tax benefits from the tally, an approach heavily scrutinized by both Democrats and watchdog entities.

This legislative saga demonstrates deep-seated partisan divides and polarizing fiscal ideologies, encapsulating President Trump’s hallmark economic agendas amid long-standing debates on fiscal responsibility and social justice.

Source: Original article

Jaishankar Refutes Trump’s Ceasefire Claims

Staff ReporterPolitics, Diplomacy 0

External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar refuted U.S. President Donald Trump’s claims that trade pressure was used to coerce India and Pakistan into agreeing to a ceasefire.

External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar has provided a firsthand account to counter U.S. President Donald Trump’s assertions regarding a purported use of trade pressure to achieve a ceasefire between India and Pakistan. Jaishankar clarified that during crucial communications, no such linkage between trade and ceasefire was made as far as India was concerned.

Speaking in New York, Jaishankar recalled being present on May 9 when U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance spoke to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi via phone. “I can tell you that I was in the room when Vice President Vance spoke to Prime Minister Modi on the night of May 9, saying that the Pakistanis would launch a very massive assault on India,” he stated.

Jaishankar emphasized that India did not capitulate to any pressures and that Prime Minister Modi remained resolute despite threats from Pakistan. “We did not accept certain things,” he explained, “and the Prime Minister was impervious to what the Pakistanis were threatening to do.”

Jaishankar further elaborated that the Indian response was firm and immediate following Pakistan’s aggressive actions. “The Pakistanis did attack us massively that night, (and) we responded very quickly,” he recounted, providing a detailed sequence of events.

The sequence included a subsequent interaction with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, which Jaishankar discussed. “And the next morning, Mr. Rubio called me up and said the Pakistanis were ready to talk,” Jaishankar said, indicating a breakthrough in dialogues without mentioning any trade negotiations.

On the same day, Pakistan’s Director General of Military Operations, Major General Kashif Abdullah, directly contacted his Indian counterpart, Lieutenant General Rajiv Ghai, to propose a ceasefire. Jaishankar reaffirmed these details from his personal experience, stressing the absence of trade discussions in these engagements.

Trump reiterated claims of having leveraged trade to mediate a ceasefire during a news conference in The Hague. He stated, “I ended that with a series of phone calls on trade,” alleging that both countries were pushed towards a deal by withholding trade agreements.

Jaishankar, however, contested these assertions, underscoring that trade and diplomacy operated independently. “I think the trade people are doing what the trade people should be doing, which is negotiate with numbers and lines and products and do their tradeoffs,” he said, emphasizing a more structured and professional approach to trade negotiations.

Operation Sindoor was initiated by India targeting terrorist bases in Pakistan as a retaliation for the Pahalgam terrorist attack, which was claimed to be orchestrated by The Resistance Front, a group linked to Pakistan-supported Lashkar-e-Taiba, according to IANS.

Source: Original article

Zohran Mamdani’s Mayoral Win Inspires Over 6,000 Young Leaders

Staff ReporterPolitics, Youth 0

Zohran Mamdani’s victory in the Democratic primary for New York City Mayor has sparked an unprecedented wave of political engagement, with over 6,000 young Americans signing up to run for office through Run for Something within a week.

In the aftermath of Zohran Mamdani’s historic win, a significant political shift is underway. Mamdani, who recently secured a victory in the Democratic primary for New York City Mayor, has inspired a wave of political interest among young Americans. In just one week, more than 6,000 individuals have expressed their intention to run for office via the organization Run for Something, marking the largest surge of candidate interest since the group’s establishment in 2017.

Amanda Litman, co-founder and President of Run for Something, emphasized the broader implications of this development. “This isn’t just a moment—it’s a movement,” she stated. “Zohran’s victory wasn’t just a win for New York City — it was a clarion call to aspiring changemakers everywhere that our time to lead is now.” The fact that so many young people are eager to take steps toward leadership indicates a significant generational shift in American politics.

Mamdani’s campaign managed to strike a chord with voters, particularly the youth, due to its strong emphasis on key issues such as affordable housing, public safety, transportation, and the cost of living. His grassroots approach and genuine connection with the public, combined with his disregard for traditional political pathways, attracted the support of those who often felt alienated or disenchanted by the political process.

His unexpected triumph over a well-established incumbent has not only transformed New York City’s political landscape but is setting a precedent for a new wave of leaders determined to challenge entrenched powers across various levels of government.

In response to this surge of political enthusiasm, Run for Something is actively ramping up its efforts. The organization specializes in recruiting and supporting young, diverse progressives to pursue political careers. Many of the recent sign-ups have no previous experience in running for office, but with access to tailored resources, coaching, and training sessions, Run for Something aims to cultivate these burgeoning leaders’ capabilities to convert their passion into tangible political influence.

“This isn’t just about running,” Litman added. “It’s about building sustainable leadership pipelines in communities that have been historically shut out of the political process.” The structured programs offered by Run for Something include political education, campaign logistics, and mentorship to ensure new candidates are well-prepared for the road ahead.

This surge is part of a larger trend that has been building momentum since the 2024 presidential election. Major national issues, including the controversial federal budget compromise and significant layoffs of federal employees, have heightened the call for political change at local and state levels. Since 2024, over 55,000 individuals have reached out to Run for Something, showing more interest in running for office than the combined inquiries received during the organization’s first three years. As of now, their candidate pipeline exceeds 215,000 potential political aspirants nationwide.

The current wave of interest is not only noteworthy for its size but also for its diversity and deep roots in community service. Many of those considering candidacy come from sectors such as education, organizing, health care, and environmental justice. They are motivated not just by the desire to hold office, but by the ambition to redefine leadership.

As Zohran Mamdani gears up for an anticipated general election campaign, his influence continues to extend far beyond New York City. Far from waiting for permission, the new generation of leaders is actively seeking to secure their spots on the ballots, signaling a transformation in the political landscape.

According to India New England News, this movement is a significant signal of change in America’s political fabric.

Source: Original article

Tina Shah Announces Congressional Run in New Jersey’s 7th District

Staff ReporterNation, Politics 0

Dr. Tina Shah, a physician and former White House advisor, has announced her candidacy for Congress, aiming to reform healthcare and challenge Rep. Tom Kean Jr. in New Jersey’s 7th District.

Dr. Tina Shah, a prominent intensive care physician of Indian origin from Westfield, New Jersey, officially launched her congressional campaign on July 1. The Democrat is targeting a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, representing New Jersey’s 7th District, which is currently held by Republican Rep. Tom Kean Jr. Shah’s campaign focuses on healthcare reform, leveraging her extensive medical background and expertise.

Shah is no stranger to the political landscape, having served as a White House advisor. Her candidacy is set against the backdrop of a district that tilted towards President Joe Biden in 2020 but supported Donald Trump in the subsequent 2024 election cycle. This swing district presents both challenges and opportunities for Shah as she seeks to unseat an incumbent preparing for a third term.

A native of New Jersey, Shah boasts impressive credentials in the medical field. She is triple board-certified in internal medicine, pulmonology, and critical care. Her professional work is centered at RWJ Barnabas Health, where she continues to influence patient care and healthcare policy. Shah has gained national recognition as a healthcare expert, often appearing on television to provide insight into various public health issues.

The 7th District race promises to be closely watched as Shah campaigns on a platform of healthcare reform, highlighting her plans to address systemic issues within the current medical system. Her expertise and experience are expected to be central themes of her campaign as she aims to resonate with voters concerned about healthcare accessibility and quality.

According to New India Abroad, Shah’s announcement sets the stage for a competitive electoral contest in New Jersey, bringing healthcare to the forefront of the political conversation.

Source: Original article

Trump’s Birthright Citizenship View Contradicts Historical Facts

Staff ReporterNews, Politics, USA 0

The Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, long interpreted to grant birthright citizenship to immigrant children born in the U.S., has become a focal point of debate following President Donald Trump’s remarks questioning its applicability.

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” This opening line of the Fourteenth Amendment has been traditionally understood by legal scholars as conferring citizenship on anyone born on U.S. soil, including the children of immigrants. However, President Donald Trump recently challenged this interpretation, claiming the amendment was intended only for descendants of enslaved individuals.

During a press conference celebrating a Supreme Court decision that partly allows the administration to push forward with ending birthright citizenship, Trump asserted, “This had to do with the babies of slaves.” While the ruling addressed lower courts’ limits to block the policy nationwide, Trump’s larger legal goal faces further challenges. He insists the framers of the amendment never intended it to apply to immigrant children.

The Fourteenth Amendment, indeed, was primarily drafted to secure rights for formerly enslaved people, as the post-Civil War era saw ex-Confederate states enacting laws severely restricting the freedoms of newly freed Black Americans. The Black Codes, as they were known, effectively sought to maintain slavery in all but name through restrictive regulations on labor, property ownership, and other civil rights.

To counteract these abuses, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866 over President Andrew Johnson’s veto, granting rights and citizenship to Black residents in the South. Recognizing these protections might not endure under changing political climates, lawmakers sought to enshrine them constitutionally in the Fourteenth Amendment.

Trump’s objections rest on two points: an interpretation of the amendment’s phrasing around jurisdiction and a belief that it was never intended to cover immigrant children. Critics of Trump’s perspective point to the framers’ intentions as evidence against his claims.

Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan, who drafted the amendment’s language, articulated its purpose was to declare that every person born in the U.S. was a citizen. He clarified, however, that the provision did not apply to children of foreign diplomats, indicating that other immigrant groups were included.

This understanding is further illustrated during Senate debates. Senator Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania expressed fears that the amendment would lead to demographic upheaval by granting citizenship to immigrant children. His concerns, voiced during discussions, were especially focused on the Roma community in Pennsylvania and Chinese immigrants in California. However, Senator John Conness of California defended the amendment, stating it would rightfully include children of Chinese immigrants.

Though Cowan’s apprehensions highlighted racial and ethnic biases of the time, the broader consensus among the amendment’s supporters, both then and in judicial interpretations such as the 1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark decision, was that birthright citizenship was meant for all born on U.S. soil, regardless of parental nationality.

The Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark upheld that individuals born in the U.S. to immigrant parents were citizens, setting a crucial precedent that remains today. Despite Trump’s stance, the recent court decision did not directly support his interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Rather, it addressed procedural aspects, limiting lower courts from issuing broad injunctions, effectively opening pathways to potentially uneven application across states.

Trump’s reading challenges the way millions of American families of European descent historically acquired citizenship. While current debates center on Asian or other non-European immigrant communities, European immigrants benefited from broad interpretations of existing laws. The framers focused then on the citizenship eligibility of Asian immigrants, not Europeans, under the original 1790 Naturalization Act provisions.

If Trump’s interpretation prevailed, the American identity and citizenship path for many with immigrant ancestors would be in question. The historical record, however, underscores a longstanding recognition of birthright citizenship as foundational to America’s national identity, bridging diverse origins under one citizenry.

Legal experts assert that the history is clear: the Fourteenth Amendment’s birthright citizenship clause was intended to be inclusive. Originalism, a judicial philosophy favored by conservatives, emphasizes interpreting the Constitution as understood at its inception, and within this framework, the historical context affirms the broader application of the citizenship clause.

For now, as legal battles continue, the understanding established since 1868 – that birthright citizenship applies to all born in the U.S. – remains valid, although its future is potentially at the mercy of ongoing legal interpretations and political intentions.

Source: Original article

Senate Approves Trump Agenda Bill After Extended Voting Session

Staff ReporterElection, Politics, Security 0

The Senate has narrowly passed President Donald Trump’s domestic agenda bill, which now moves to the House of Representatives for further approval.

The Senate passed President Donald Trump’s ambitious legislative package on a knife-edge vote of 50-50, with Vice President JD Vance casting the decisive vote. This megabill represents a core component of Trump’s domestic agenda and has set the stage for a significant legislative battle as it heads to the House of Representatives.

Republican leaders in the Senate managed to secure enough votes after intense negotiations with key holdouts in their ranks. However, the next hurdle appears imminent, with GOP leaders in the House now facing a high-stakes effort to ensure the bill reaches the president’s desk by July 4.

While visiting a makeshift detention facility called “Alligator Alcatraz” in Florida, President Trump confidently predicted the bill’s successful passage in the House. He also downplayed concerns related to potential impacts on American health care coverage, which have been a point of contention among critics of the bill.

This extensive bill outlines significant tax reductions and boosts in funding for national security, all of which will be offset by the most considerable cuts to the federal safety net seen in decades. As Washington gears up for another legislative showdown, the focus now turns to the House as lawmakers evaluate the sweeping changes proposed within this multi-trillion-dollar plan.

According to CNN, the bill’s advancement symbolizes a pivotal moment in Trump’s tenure, potentially reshaping the nation’s fiscal landscape if fully enacted.

Source: Original article

GOP Divided Over Elon Musk’s Role in Trump’s Government Overhaul

Staff ReporterPolitics, USA 0

Republicans in Congress are split on Elon Musk’s prominent involvement in President Trump’s efforts to shrink the government. While some appreciate his outsider perspective, others are increasingly concerned about his high-profile role, particularly as he becomes a target of Democratic criticism.

Several GOP senators worry that Musk’s outspoken approach to cutting federal jobs—many of which are in their home states—sends the wrong message at a time when inflation remains a significant challenge, and many Americans struggle financially.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) has defended Musk’s role in reforming federal agencies, but other Republican senators have expressed frustration with the way it has been handled. They argue that the process has been “flawed,” particularly as Musk has shut down agencies and pressured employees to resign.

One GOP senator criticized Musk’s buyout offer, which provided more than seven months of severance, calling it “poorly executed.” They also took issue with his latest effort to reduce the federal workforce, saying it lacked proper consideration for how agencies would be affected.

“I think they’re just looking to reduce numbers—it’s not efficiency, it’s not output. It’s, ‘We just need bodies gone.’ And I don’t know that’s the metric that you use,” the senator said.

The senator was also upset by Musk’s call for a “wave of judicial impeachments” in response to federal judges blocking Trump’s executive orders.

“Wrong, wrong, wrong. Get him out of the White House. Get him out, the sooner the better,” the senator said. “Every day that he’s there, he seems more destructive.”

Polls indicate that Musk is unpopular with independent and moderate voters, who are crucial for Republican senators seeking reelection in battleground states.

An Economist/YouGov poll conducted from Feb. 9-11 among 1,595 adult citizens found that independents disapproved of Musk’s handling of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) by 18 points, with 31% approving and 49% disapproving. Among self-described moderates, 33% approved while 54% disapproved, a 21-point gap.

Another GOP senator expressed concern that Musk’s “Fork in the Road” buyout plan and subsequent workforce reductions were causing chaos. Federal workers, particularly those working remotely, have been calling Washington in a panic, unsure of what the changes mean for them.

“There’s a lot of concern among my constituents. The concern is, ‘Who is this guy?’ He’s a billionaire, which puts him in a certain category. ‘How does he have the authority if he’s not elected by anybody to do what he’s doing?’” the senator said, adding that their state has “a lot” of federal workers.

The senator also described widespread “confusion” over Musk’s buyout plan, noting that it was offered, then withdrawn, put on hold by a judge, reinstated, and now applies only to certain agencies.

Musk’s decision to dismantle the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has also raised concerns, particularly among farmers who rely on it for selling products used in global food assistance programs.

Another Republican senator noted that several Head Start programs in their state were shut down, while nonprofit organizations that depend on regular federal funding now face uncertainty.

A separate GOP senator was troubled by reports that Musk’s team had accessed the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), which serves 9 million enrolled veterans through more than 1,200 facilities. The VA has over 43,000 probationary employees, many of whom were alarmed when the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, now under Musk’s control, directed agencies to begin terminating recently hired workers.

Some Republicans have publicly criticized Musk’s prominent role.

Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Susan Collins (R-Maine) stated that Trump had given Musk too much authority.

“There’s no doubt that the president appears to have empowered Elon Musk to go far beyond what I think is appropriate,” she told reporters earlier this month.

Collins also questioned Trump’s decision to suspend enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act for 180 days. The law had previously resulted in penalties for two of Tesla’s suppliers.

“First of all, I don’t think the administration should be suspending laws. That’s the basic issue here,” she said.

She has also pushed back against Trump and Musk’s moves to freeze broad federal grants and loans and to reorganize federal agencies without notifying Congress.

Republican senators say Musk’s aggressive online presence has alarmed constituents who are already skeptical about his access to federal programs, the Treasury Department’s sensitive payment systems, and millions of Americans’ personal data.

Musk boasted on his social media platform X, “We spent the weekend feeding USAID into the woodchipper. Could have gone to some great parties. Did that instead.”

Speaking virtually at Dubai’s annual World Government Summit, Musk compared federal agencies to invasive weeds.

“I think we do need to delete entire agencies, as opposed to leave part of them behind. … It’s kind of like leaving a weed,” he said. “If you don’t remove the roots of the weed, then it’s easy for the weed to grow back.”

Musk’s actions have given Democrats ample material to argue that Trump has effectively handed over control of the government to someone with numerous conflicts of interest.

Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) have led a group of lawmakers calling for Musk, who holds a special government position, to publicly release his financial disclosures.

“Given the scale of your power to carry out sweeping administrative policies and your vast personal financial interests, the American people deserve to know how you stand to profit from your role in the Trump administration,” the senators wrote in a letter to Musk on Thursday.

They highlighted his access to the Treasury Department’s payment systems, which store Americans’ Medicare, Social Security, and student loan data—potentially violating the Privacy Act of 1974.

Additionally, they accused him of “illegally” attempting to dismantle USAID and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Despite criticism, some Republicans support Musk’s aggressive approach to reforming the federal bureaucracy.

Thune told Fox News’s “America’s Newsroom” that “people are very supportive, and we are, too,” of Musk’s efforts at DOGE.

“This is a scrub that’s long overdue. There are so many systems in our federal government that are antiquated,” he said. “You know, people operating in silos, bureaucracies built on top of bureaucracies.

“I’m delighted that it’s happening, and we want to do everything we can to be supportive,” he said.

Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) laughed when asked about Musk’s low approval ratings among moderates and independents.

“That’s funny, I’ve always thought of him as a bit of a moderate independent,” he said, though he acknowledged Musk’s “provocative” presence on social media.

“I think he fits right in with Donald Trump, certainly with the people that are glad to see a ball-breaker in there,” he said. “I’ve talked about the need for some guardrails if he’s getting too close to the areas he could benefit from. Even if it’s just for appearance’s sake.”

“Otherwise, most people I know are cheering him on,” he said.

HinduPACT’s HinduVote Initiative Launches New Website for Comprehensive Candidate Evaluation

Staff ReporterCommunity, Nation, Politics 0

Aims to Empower Hindu Voters Across the U.S. with In-Depth Insights into Candidates 

Oct 23, 2024 

Chicago, IL. – HinduPACT’s HinduVote, a voter and candidate education initiative of the World Hindu Council of America (VHPA), has launched a groundbreaking website to empower American Hindu voters with a multidimensional analysis of US House and Senate candidates from all political parties.  American Hindu vote ispoised to be a decisive factor in crucial battleground states during the 2024 elections.

HinduVote.Orgwebsite offers the following:

  • Candidate Relationships Diagram: Innovative pictorial representation of a candidate’s view on Hindu issues, caucus memberships, and political alliances.
  • Candidate Survey: Focus on issues outlined in the 2024 American Hindu Agenda and other significant matters.
  • Funding Sources and PAC Endorsements: Provides transparency into campaign financing.
  • Constituent Feedback: Insights from the community survey on candidate engagement.
  • Legislative Alignment with HinduPACT: Candidate position on specific resolutions and bills.

The HinduVote initiative is making waves among American Hindu voters. Educational material has already been distributed to a large number of temples at the Hindu Mandir Empowerment Council(HMEC) conference. The movement has gained momentum as several temples have joined it to raise awareness and create an enlightened and empowered democracy.

Deepa Karthik, Executive Director of the HinduVote, commented,

“Launching our new website is a milestone for Hindu voter education. It empowers our community to make informed choices and actively shape the political landscape.  The HinduVote initiative is not just about the Hindu community but about promoting fairness, transparency, and engagement for all Americans.”

“We hope that temples become hubs for community engagement, providing a space where civic participation is encouraged,” said Deepti Mahajan, Co-Convenor of HinduPACT.  She added, “By presenting a detailed, non-partisan view of candidates, we ensure that the Hindu vote is well-informed and impactful. This initiative will be pivotal in ensuring that the Hindu voices are heard and respected.”

Ajay Shah, President of VHPA and Co-Convenor of HinduPACT, emphasized, “Our focus is the American Hindu Agenda 2024.  The agenda addresses issues ranging from Hinduphobia and vandalism of Hindu temples to legal immigration and fairness in college admissions.  HinduVote.org website, a guide for temples and non-profit organizations, and a voter’s guide impress upon the citizens to participate in the electoral process and make an informed choice based on dharmic (righteous) principles.”

About HinduPACT:

The Hindu Policy Research and Advocacy Collective (HinduPACT) is an initiative of the World Hindu Council of America (VHPA) dedicated to the advocacy and policy research of issues concerning the American Hindu community.  HinduPACT promotes human rights, voter education, and policies affecting American Hindus, aiming for peace and understanding through informed policy initiatives and grassroots advocacy.

Contact HinduPACT:

 

Ajay Shah

President, World Hindu Council of America (VHPA).  Co-Convenor, HinduPACT

ajayshah@vhp-america.org

(858) 866-9661

 Deepti Mahajan
Co-Convenor HinduPACT andExecutive Director, CHINGARI
deepti.mahajan@hindupact.org		 Deepa Karthik

Executive Director, HinduVote
deepa.karthik@hindupact.org
HinduPACT is an initiative of the World Hindu Council of America (VHPA)

Address: 200 New Bond Street, Sugar Grove, IL 60554-9171
Web: hindupact.org
Facebook: HinduPACT

Twitter / X: @hindupact
Instagram: @hindupact
hindupact

 

Joe Biden Drops Out Of 2024 Presidential Race

Ajay GhoshNation USA, Politics, USA, World 0

President Biden announced on Sunday, July 21st that he is dropping out of the 2024 presidential race, a seismic event that will leave Democrats scrambling to select his replacement just weeks before their convention.
“While it has been my intention to seek reelection, I believe it is in the best interest of my party and the country for me to stand down and to focus solely on fulfilling my duties as president for my term,” Mr. Biden posted in a statement on social media.

The president’s historic withdrawal throws the 2024 race − already roiled by a shocking attempt on Trump’s life − into uncertain territory, with Vice President Kamala Harris seen as the Democrat best placed to take Biden’s place atop the party’s ticket.

Biden made the announcement from his home in Rehoboth Beach, Del., where he’s self-isolated since testing positive for COVID-19 Thursday night.

“It has been the greatest honor of my life to serve as your President,” Biden said in a written statement. ” Biden did not immediately endorse a successor. He said he would speak to the nation later this week to provide more detail about his decision.

It marks an extraordinary turn for Biden, who for three weeks remained defiant in the face of growing calls from Democratic lawmakers that he withdraw after a disastrous June 27 debate with Trump raised scrutiny over the president’s mental fitness.

Biden’s exit came after he received bleak warnings from Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Democratic House Leader Hakeem Jeffries that his candidacy could lead to massive losses for Democrats in the Senate and House.

More than 30 congressional Democrats called for Biden to bow out, and former President Barack Obama reportedly relayed similar fears to Democratic allies about Biden’s prospects of beating Trump. Democratic donors from Hollywood to Wall Street also came out against Biden continuing his reelection bid.

Former President Donald Trump, who was officially nominated by the Republican party on Thursday night, told CNN after the decision that Mr. Biden is the “worst president by far in the history of our country,” but he said that he thought if Vice President Kamala Harris is the nominee, she would be easier to beat than Mr. Biden.

Before winning the White House in 2020, Mr. Biden called himself a “bridge” to a new “generation of leaders,” causing many to wonder if he would only serve one term. In the aftermath of the debate, he explained that his thinking had changed, and the divisiveness in the country led him to believe only he could defeat Trump.

In the weeks since the debate, the president tried to push back, insisting in a series of public appearances and meetings with Democratic elected officials that he was committed to staying in the race. “I’m not going anywhere,” he vowed. But even longtime allies began to urge him to change course.

The pressure eventually became insurmountable, with top Democrats in Congress telling Mr. Biden that he should step aside and allow a replacement to face off against Trump in November.

The decision upends the 2024 election less than 110 days before Election Day, with Democratic National Committee members now tasked with choosing an alternative nominee to take on Trump, whose polling lead has swelled while Democrats have fought internally.

Vice President Harris is now the frontrunner to replace Biden as the Democratic nominee, but the party’s bench of Democratic governors could also be in the mix including Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan, Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania and Gavin Newsom of California.

Biden becomes the first incumbent president not to seek reelection since Lyndon B. Johnson who, in 1968 amid national unrest and turmoil within the Democratic Party over the Vietnam War, stunned the nation with his decision not to seek a second full term.

Final Phase of India’s General Election Begins Amid Intense Heatwave and Tight Security

Staff ReporterNation, Politics 0

The final phase of India’s general election commenced on June 1, 2024, amid severe heatwave conditions that pose additional challenges for voters and election officials alike. This critical stage of voting is pivotal for determining the country’s political future.

The election, one of the world’s largest democratic exercises, involves a complex and extensive process spanning multiple phases. On the final day, millions of Indians are heading to the polls in various regions, including major cities like Kolkata. Voter turnout, which has been a focal point throughout the election, is under scrutiny as authorities aim to ensure a smooth and efficient process despite the harsh weather conditions.

The election’s outcome is set to shape India’s political landscape significantly. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is seeking re-election, while opposition parties, including the Indian National Congress led by Rahul Gandhi, are striving to regain influence. The stakes are high, with key issues such as economic policy, national security, and social justice at the forefront of voters’ minds.

Security measures have been heightened across the country to ensure the safety and integrity of the election. Law enforcement agencies and security personnel are on high alert to prevent any disruptions or incidents of violence. Additionally, special provisions have been made to accommodate voters and polling staff affected by the extreme heatwave, with medical teams and cooling facilities deployed at polling stations.

The Election Commission of India has been working diligently to address logistical challenges and ensure that every eligible voter has the opportunity to cast their vote. Efforts include deploying additional voting machines, providing transportation for voters in remote areas, and implementing measures to expedite the voting process.

As the final phase of voting unfolds, political analysts and observers are closely monitoring developments. Exit polls and preliminary results will provide early indicators of the election’s outcome, though official results will take time to finalize. The election has garnered significant attention both domestically and internationally, with implications for India’s role on the global stage.

The concluding phase of India’s general election is underway, marked by intense heat and heightened security. The results will have far-reaching consequences for the nation’s political and social trajectory.

Rishi Sunak Announces Surprise July Election Amidst Global Uncertainty and Domestic Challenges

Staff ReporterNation, Politics 0

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak announced a surprise election for the United Kingdom to be held on July 4. Despite the Conservative Party not needing to call an election until January 2025, polling data since Sunak took office has consistently shown the party trailing by over 20%, a gap typically seen only in extremely unfavorable midterm periods. It appears that Sunak and his advisors decided to leverage the recent drop in the U.K.’s inflation rate to 2.3%, the lowest in three years, to gain political advantage. Additional factors likely influencing this decision include positive evaluations of Sunak’s handling of the post-COVID-19 economy and a legal victory that supports the government’s controversial immigration reform, which involves sending some asylum seekers to Rwanda for processing.

Despite widespread voter frustration after 14 uninterrupted years of Conservative governance, Sunak’s statement that this election comes at a time when the world is “more dangerous than it has been at any point since the end of the Cold War” holds considerable truth. The outcome of the prolonged Russian invasion of Ukraine could significantly impact Europe’s and the U.K.’s security landscape, raising critical issues regarding territorial sovereignty in the east and energy security, which in turn affect economic stability. Additionally, the ongoing turmoil in West Asia, marked by the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the potential for conflict with Iran, will undoubtedly influence regional stability and, by extension, impact the U.K.

Furthermore, even with the legal approval for the Rwanda immigration plan, the Sunak administration has struggled to manage small boat crossings effectively. Government data reveals that although there was a 33% decrease in such arrivals between 2022 and 2023, the number of boat crossings in 2024 has hit a record high. Between January 1 and May 21 of this year, over 9,800 people entered the U.K. via small boats. Sunak’s claim that the Labour Party is trying to make voters believe “this election is over before it’s even begun” might not be entirely unfounded, yet it prompts an examination of the sources of the opposition’s confidence.

The unexpected election announcement by Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has set the stage for the United Kingdom to vote on July 4. Although the Conservative Party was not mandated to call for an election until January 2025, polls have indicated a significant lead for the opposition since Sunak assumed office. These polls suggest a loss for the Conservative Party by over 20%, a deficit seen only in particularly adverse midterm scenarios. Sunak’s decision appears to be driven by the recent decrease in the U.K.’s inflation rate to 2.3%, the lowest in at least three years. This economic milestone, along with favorable reviews of his administration’s economic management post-COVID-19 and a legal victory on immigration reform, may have prompted the early election call.

However, polls reflect a general dissatisfaction after 14 years of Conservative rule. Sunak’s comment that the election comes at a time when the global situation is “more dangerous than it has been at any point since the end of the Cold War” is significant. The resolution of the Russian invasion of Ukraine could alter the security dynamics in Europe and the U.K., raising concerns about territorial integrity and energy security, which have broader implications for economic stability. Similarly, the ongoing crises in West Asia, including the humanitarian disaster in Gaza and the potential conflict with Iran, will have repercussions that extend to the U.K.

Despite the legal clearance for the Rwanda immigration plan, the Sunak government has struggled to curb small boat crossings effectively. Official statistics show a 33% drop in such crossings from 2022 to 2023, but the number of crossings in 2024 has surged to a record high. From January 1 to May 21, more than 9,800 people entered the U.K. via small boats. In light of this, Sunak’s assertion that the Labour Party wants voters to believe “this election is over before it’s even begun” might hold some truth. Nevertheless, it raises questions about the sources of the opposition’s apparent confidence.

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s surprise election announcement has set a July 4 date for the United Kingdom to go to the polls. Despite the Conservative Party having until January 2025 to call an election, polling data since Sunak took office has shown the party trailing by over 20%, a gap usually seen only in particularly unfavorable midterm periods. Sunak and his advisors likely seized on the recent drop in the U.K.’s inflation rate to 2.3%, the lowest in three years, to gain political capital. Other contributing factors may include positive reviews of Sunak’s economic management post-COVID-19 and a legal victory allowing the government to implement its controversial immigration reform, which involves sending some asylum seekers to Rwanda for processing.

Despite widespread voter frustration after 14 uninterrupted years of Conservative rule, Sunak’s statement that the election comes at a time when the world is “more dangerous than it has been at any point since the end of the Cold War” holds considerable merit. The outcome of the long-running Russian invasion of Ukraine could significantly impact Europe’s and the U.K.’s security landscape, raising critical issues regarding territorial sovereignty in the east and energy security, which in turn affect economic stability. Additionally, the ongoing turmoil in West Asia, marked by the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and potential conflict with Iran, will undoubtedly influence regional stability and, by extension, impact the U.K.

Furthermore, even with the legal approval for the Rwanda immigration plan, the Sunak administration has struggled to manage small boat crossings effectively. Government data reveals that although there was a 33% decrease in such arrivals between 2022 and 2023, the number of boat crossings in 2024 has hit a record high. Between January 1 and May 21 of this year, over 9,800 people entered the U.K. via small boats. Sunak’s claim that the Labour Party is trying to make voters believe “this election is over before it’s even begun” might not be entirely unfounded, yet it prompts an examination of the sources of the opposition’s confidence.

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s announcement of a surprise election on July 4 has created a new political dynamic in the United Kingdom. Despite the Conservative Party not needing to call an election until January 2025, polling data since Sunak took office has consistently shown the party trailing by over 20%, a gap typically seen only in extremely unfavorable midterm periods. Sunak’s decision appears to be driven by the recent decrease in the U.K.’s inflation rate to 2.3%, the lowest in at least three years. This economic milestone, along with favorable reviews of his administration’s economic management post-COVID-19 and a legal victory on immigration reform, may have prompted the early election call.

However, polls reflect a general dissatisfaction after 14 years of Conservative rule. Sunak’s comment that the election comes at a time when the global situation is “more dangerous than it has been at any point since the end of the Cold War” is significant. The resolution of the Russian invasion of Ukraine could alter the security dynamics in Europe and the U.K., raising concerns about territorial integrity and energy security, which have broader implications for economic stability. Similarly, the ongoing crises in West Asia, including the humanitarian disaster in Gaza and potential conflict with Iran, will have repercussions that extend to the U.K.

Despite the legal clearance for the Rwanda immigration plan, the Sunak government has struggled to curb small boat crossings effectively. Official statistics show a 33% drop in such crossings from 2022 to 2023, but the number of crossings in 2024 has surged to a record high. From January 1 to May 21, more than 9,800 people entered the U.K. via small boats. In light of this, Sunak’s assertion that the Labour Party wants voters to believe “this election is over before it’s even begun” might hold some truth. Nevertheless, it raises questions about the sources of the opposition’s apparent confidence.

-+=