US Green Card Numbers to Increase Under New Proposal

Lawmakers have introduced the Dignity Act of 2025, a bipartisan proposal aiming to increase green card availability and enact comprehensive immigration reforms.

The Dignity Act of 2025, or H.R. 4393, has been presented in Congress as a new initiative to address ongoing issues within the U.S. immigration system. This proposed legislation seeks to enhance the availability of green cards to immigrants and includes a variety of reforms to address visa backlogs and the legal status of Dreamers while also implementing significant changes to border security and verification rules.

Introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives on July 15, 2025, by Representatives Maria Elvira Salazar, a Republican from Florida, and Veronica Escobar, a Democrat from Texas, the bill represents a rare bipartisan effort to tackle immigration reform. The Dignity Act proposes a multitude of border security measures and revisions aimed at expanding access to permanent residency.

The legislation outlines a pathway for those brought to the U.S. as minors and recipients of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) to adjust their status to that of lawful permanent residents. This transition would depend on meeting certain criteria, including graduating from college or a technical school, serving for three years in the U.S. military, or maintaining four years of consistent employment with a valid work permit.

Additionally, the act aims to expedite the legal visa process, targeting a reduction in visa backlogs to a maximum of 10 years. Those who have been waiting in employment or family-based visa backlogs for over a decade would have the option to pay a $20,000 fee for expedited processing. To further alleviate delays, the bill proposes to raise the per-country cap from 7 percent to 15 percent of the annual total for both employment-based and family-sponsored green cards. This increase is intended to ease country-specific bottlenecks that particularly affect applicants from India and China, who currently face extended wait times compared to other nationalities.

The latest figures indicate that approximately 1.17 million people obtained green cards in 2023, marking a 15.2 percent increase from the previous year due to modifications in pandemic restrictions and immigration policy. The majority of these green cards (64.6 percent) were family-sponsored, with employment-based categories accounting for 16.7 percent.

Florida Representative Maria Elvira Salazar emphasized the significance of the Dignity Act, remarking, “The Dignity Act is a revolutionary bill that offers the solution to our immigration crisis: secure the border, stop illegal immigration, and provide an earned opportunity for long-term immigrants to stay here and work. No amnesty. No handouts. No citizenship. Just accountability and a path to stability for our economy and our future.”

In terms of legislative progress, the Dignity Act of 2025 is currently under review by multiple House committees, including the Judiciary and Homeland Security, as it moves forward in the legislative process.

Source: Original article

Shah Rukh Khan Wins First National Award After 33 Years

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

Trump Proposes Revoking Birthright Citizenship in New Plan

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

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

Kamala Harris Rules Out California Governor Run

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

Redistricting May Impact Future US House Elections

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

UN Staff Union Declares No Confidence in Secretary-General

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

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

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

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

US Withdraws from UNESCO Again Under Trump’s Leadership

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

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

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?”

Mohanlal Steps Down; Boban, Vijayaraghavan Lead 2025 AMMA Election

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

Democratic Senators Question Trump’s New Citizenship Data System

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

Times Square Ad Targets Mamdani for Ramawamy Campaign

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

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

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

Andrew Cuomo Announces NYC Mayoral Run Against Zohran Mamdani

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

Cuomo Announces New York City Mayor Election Bid

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

Tharoor Leads Kerala Poll; Shailaja Among LDF Leaders

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.

Supreme Court Supports Trump’s Plan to Reshape Federal Government

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.

House Approves Tax and Spending Bill, Benefiting Johnson and Trump

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

Senate Approves Trump Agenda Bill After Extended Voting Session

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

Phase Four of 2024 Lok Sabha Elections: Key Battles and Controversies Unfold Across States

The fourth phase of the 2024 Lok Sabha election commenced today with voting underway for 96 seats across 10 states and union territories, alongside balloting for all 175 seats of the Andhra Pradesh Assembly and 28 of 147 in Odisha. As stated by the original article, “The Lok Sabha seats in play today are all 25 in Andhra Pradesh and 17 in Telangana, in addition to 13 in Uttar Pradesh, 11 in Maharashtra, eight each in Bengal and Madhya Pradesh, five in Bihar, four in Odisha and Jharkhand, and Jammu and Kashmir’s Srinagar.” With today’s voting, the Lok Sabha election 2024 marks its halfway point, having concluded polling for 381 of the Lower House’s 543 seats.

The electoral landscape features prominent figures, including Akhilesh Yadav of the Samajwadi Party vying from Kannauj and Mahua Moitra from the Trinamool Congress defending her Krishnanagar seat. Omar Abdullah, leader of the National Conference, stands from Srinagar, continuing the legacy of his father, Farooq Abdullah. The Congress’ Bengal chief, Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury, contests from Bahrampur against Trinamool’s Yusuf Pathan, a former Indian cricketer. Meanwhile, Dilip Ghosh of the BJP faces Kirti Azad, another ex-cricketer, in Bardhaman-Durgapur, reflecting the intense political dynamics in Bengal, where rivalries unfold amid the overarching narrative of the INDIA opposition bloc.

In Telangana, Asaduddin Owaisi of AIMIM faces BJP’s Madhavi Latha for the Hyderabad seat, continuing a long-standing political legacy. And in Andhra Pradesh, YS Sharmila, sister of Chief Minister Jagan Reddy, leads the Congress’ campaign from Kadapa, challenging her cousin, sitting MP YS Avinash Reddy. The BJP’s Giriraj Singh contests against Awadesh Kumar Rai in Begusarai, while Ajay Mishra Teni, also of the BJP, runs from UP’s Lakhimpur Kheri, a constituency that gained prominence during the 2021 farmers’ protest due to Teni’s son’s involvement in a controversial case.

In the 2019 elections, the BJP secured only 42 of the 96 seats up for grabs today, encountering challenges particularly in Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. The lead-up to this phase has been marked by controversies, with the Election Commission drawing attention for various issues, including notices to Mallikarjun Kharge and JP Nadda of the Congress and BJP respectively, following Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s comments on Muslims and wealth redistribution. The Election Commission also sent a notice to Kharge after his criticism of the commission’s credibility. Additionally, contentious remarks by Congress leader Sam Pitroda regarding inheritance taxes and racial diversity, along with the release of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal on bail, have contributed to the election narrative.

The voting process for the Lok Sabha elections of 2024 commenced today, encompassing 96 seats across various states and union territories, alongside elections for the Andhra Pradesh Assembly and a portion of seats in Odisha. This phase marks a significant milestone, with half of the Lok Sabha seats having completed the polling process. Notable contenders include Akhilesh Yadav from the Samajwadi Party, Mahua Moitra from the Trinamool Congress, and Omar Abdullah from the National Conference, each contesting from their respective strongholds. The electoral battleground in Bengal features intense rivalries, with key players from different political parties, including the Congress, BJP, and Trinamool, engaging in high-stakes contests. Telangana witnesses a high-profile clash between Asaduddin Owaisi of AIMIM and Madhavi Latha of the BJP for the Hyderabad seat. Meanwhile, in Andhra Pradesh, familial ties intertwine with political ambitions as YS Sharmila of the Congress challenges her cousin, sitting MP YS Avinash Reddy, in Kadapa. The BJP faces its own challenges, with Giriraj Singh contesting in Begusarai and Ajay Mishra Teni in Lakhimpur Kheri, amidst controversies surrounding the latter’s son. The BJP’s performance in the 2019 elections sets the backdrop for this phase, with the party striving to improve its standing in states like Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. Leading up to this phase, the Election Commission has been under scrutiny for various issues, including notices to key political figures and controversies surrounding remarks made by leaders from different parties.

-+=