GENIUS Act Enables Stablecoin Adoption via Mastercard

July 24, 2025 Staff ReporterTechnology, Cover, Finance 0

Mastercard stands poised to play a pivotal role in the burgeoning stablecoin ecosystem following the passage of the GENIUS Act, which ushers in a new era of regulatory clarity for digital assets with significant potential for global adoption.

On July 18, President Donald Trump signed the GENIUS Act into law, providing a regulatory framework for stablecoins. This development closely followed Mastercard’s announcement regarding its future role in the regulated cryptocurrency space. Mastercard views the legislation as the start of “a new era of regulatory clarity and confidence in digital assets,” according to a company article titled “Stablecoins are taking center stage,” authored by Jesse McWaters, Executive Vice President and Head of Global Policy at Mastercard.

McWaters emphasizes the importance of regulatory frameworks in other regions, such as Europe’s Markets in Crypto Assets (MiCA), and similar legislation in Hong Kong, Singapore, and the United Arab Emirates. These measures create a secure environment for digital assets, bolster trust, and stimulate innovation that yields real-world benefits. According to McWaters, stablecoins already enhance the financial experiences of content creators and gig workers by offering a quicker and cheaper remittance method compared to traditional payment tools. Still, he notes that stablecoins must be integrated within a trusted system, a role he believes Mastercard is well-suited to fulfill.

Highlighting Mastercard’s history of involvement in pioneering technologies, McWaters suggests the company has long been preparing for the time when stablecoins assume a central role. Mastercard aims to establish a compliance-first ecosystem that allows stablecoins to scale safely, seamlessly integrating them into the global financial system without losing the unique advantages of cryptocurrencies, such as flexibility and convenience. Key projects like the Mastercard Multi-Token Network and Mastercard Crypto Credential are instrumental in this vision, and the company’s global partnerships are poised to support a smooth user experience.

McWaters cites recent favorable crypto regulations in several countries as a gateway to an innovative future, a path that Mastercard is eager to pursue. To make cryptocurrencies as user-friendly as traditional currency, Mastercard is developing solutions such as the Mastercard Crypto Credential. This human-readable credential aims to simplify user experiences by replacing complex blockchain addresses with easily manageable credentials, specifically targeting crypto exchanges and everyday users to facilitate smoother interactions.

Another significant Mastercard initiative is the Multi-Token Network, a business-to-business platform designed to facilitate crypto transactions between financial institutions and companies, reflecting the ongoing trend of tokenizing assets. This platform is available 24/7 for both financial institutions and application providers, providing constant access to crypto transactions.

Mastercard’s collaboration with MoonPay, a platform specializing in crypto on- and off-ramps, aims to integrate Mastercard-branded cards with crypto wallets. This partnership, which was announced in May and involved a brainstorming session earlier in the month, will allow cardholders to use stablecoins at locations accepting Mastercard. The objective is to fundamentally transform payments and the very nature of money itself, a move referred to by MoonPay CEO Ivan Soto-Wright as “backwards compatibility,” as it extends the use of crypto beyond its initial applications.

Regarding regulations, Mastercard acknowledges the various legislative efforts around the world, including the American GENIUS Act, European MiCA, Singaporean Payment Services Act, UAE’s Law No. (4) of 2022, and Hong Kong’s drafted ASPIRe legislation. These regulations support the legal use of stablecoins, mitigating the constraints of restrictive securities laws while implementing protective measures to combat money laundering and other illicit activities. It appears that Mastercard was awaiting federal-level crypto adoption in the U.S. before expanding its crypto acceptance aggressively.

However, the GENIUS Act has not been universally well-received in the U.S. Some Democrats argue that while the legislation includes certain protections, it lacks mechanisms to prevent the misuse of cryptocurrencies by top officials for corrupt purposes. Nevertheless, Mastercard appears determined not to let such concerns impede their progress toward mass adoption of digital assets.

Court Again Blocks Trump Birthright Citizenship Order Nationwide

July 24, 2025 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.

Immigration Alerts Green Card Holders With New Warning

July 24, 2025 Staff ReporterImmigration, U.S., Visa 0

S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has issued a stern reminder to green card holders to always carry their proof of immigration status to avoid potential legal repercussions.

Lawful permanent residents in the United States are being reminded by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to keep their alien registration documentation with them at all times. The advisory emphasizes that failure to produce such documentation when stopped by federal law enforcement could result in misdemeanor charges and fines, according to a recent message by CBP posted on a social media platform.

This reminder is particularly pertinent in light of former President Donald Trump’s directive aimed at removing millions of migrants living without legal status. The Trump administration has upheld the stance that individuals residing unlawfully in the U.S. are considered criminals. Additionally, there have been instances where individuals with legal residency status, including green card holders, have been detained during Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations. Newsweek has documented numerous cases involving green card holders and applicants being caught in such raids.

The importance of carrying proper documentation is underscored by the Office of Homeland Security Statistics, which estimated that around 12.8 million lawful permanent residents were residing in the United States as of January 1, 2024. The legal requirement for noncitizens to carry registration documents is not new and originates from Section 264(e) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. This statute classifies the failure to carry these documents as a federal misdemeanor.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has noted that lawful permanent residents who disregard this legal requirement could risk losing their immigration status and face potential removal from the country. Those detained by federal law enforcement have the right to remain silent and request legal representation. While it is mandatory to carry proof of status, individuals are not obligated to answer questions without a lawyer present.

In recent developments, USCIS has introduced a new $1,050 fee for certain applications that were previously free when filed as part of a green card case being adjudicated by an immigration court. This fee applies to Form I-131, which is used to request travel documents like advance parole, and Form I-765, the application for employment authorization. The implementation of this fee poses an added financial burden on individuals navigating the immigration court system while seeking lawful permanent residency.

Customs and Border Protection has reiterated its guidance through social media, emphasizing, “Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him. Failing to do so can lead to a misdemeanor and fines if you are stopped by federal law enforcement. If you are a non-citizen, please follow the laws of the United States of America.”

Justice Department Informs Trump of Name in Epstein Files

July 24, 2025 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

July 23, 2025 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

July 23, 2025 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

US Withdraws from UNESCO Again Under Trump’s Leadership

July 22, 2025 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.

July 22, 2025 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

July 22, 2025 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

July 22, 2025July 22, 2025 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.

Coinbase CEO: Stablecoin Bill Marks Financial Shift in America

July 22, 2025 Staff ReporterTechnology, Finance/Economy 0

Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong asserts that the enactment of a stablecoin bill heralds a new financial era in the United States.

On July 18, President Donald Trump signed the GENIUS Act into law, marking a pivotal moment aimed at bolstering the U.S. dollar’s status as a reserve currency and positioning the United States as a leader in the realm of digital assets. This new legislation establishes a regulatory framework for stablecoins—cryptocurrencies pegged to the U.S. dollar—requiring each token to be fully backed by liquid assets like cash or short-term U.S. Treasuries.

In a recent interview with CNBC, Brian Armstrong emphasized the transformative potential of the law, suggesting it enables the United States to efficiently facilitate global money transfers. “This stablecoin bill passing into law is really a financial revolution for America,” Armstrong stated. “It means crypto can finally start updating the financial system, especially for our payments, which are running on these creaky old systems that are decades old. Now, every payment in our economy can be fast, cheap and global – under one second, one cent, anywhere in the world.”

Armstrong anticipates that blue-chip companies will increasingly adopt stablecoin payments to minimize transaction costs now that the legal landscape is clearer.

“Now that we have clear legislation, we’re going to see the Fortune 500 really start to adopt stablecoins,” Armstrong remarked. “We’ve started to see this a little bit already even with the news that this was going to pass in the near future. Coinbase just launched an integration with Shopify, for instance, and we’ve seen announcements from Walmart and Amazon. Almost every Fortune 500 company is now coming in and starting to look at stablecoin payments.”

He highlighted this development as a significant growth opportunity, noting its potential to expand the total addressable market for Coinbase. “This is a big opportunity for us,” Armstrong said. “And we think that we can provide these wallets and payment APIs for the whole financial system and every company, eventually.”

According to Daily Hodl, the inception of the GENIUS Act could signify the dawn of a new era where digital assets play a central role in the U.S. financial ecosystem.

Harvard Claims Government First Amendment Breach; Trump Sees Contract Issue

July 22, 2025 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.

Trump Administration Closes EPA’s Scientific Research Division

July 21, 2025 Staff ReporterCover, Environment, Nation 0

The Trump administration is planning significant changes to the Environmental Protection Agency, including the closure of its scientific research arm, as part of a broader federal downsizing effort.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has announced plans to close its Office of Research and Development, the department tasked with providing critical expertise for environmental policies and regulations. This move is part of the Trump administration’s larger effort to downsize the federal government.

The Office of Research and Development plays a pivotal role in analyzing dangers related to toxic chemicals, climate change, smog, wildfires, indoor air pollutants, water contamination, watershed destruction, and drinking water safety. The office is also responsible for managing grant programs that support research at universities and private companies.

“Under President Trump’s leadership, EPA has taken a close look at our operations to ensure the agency is better equipped than ever to deliver on our core mission of protecting human health and the environment while powering the great American comeback,” stated EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin. He announced the plan on Friday, emphasizing that “this reduction in force will ensure we can better fulfill that mission while being responsible stewards of your hard-earned tax dollars.”

The downsizing, which forms part of a broader strategy to reduce the EPA’s workforce by 23%, is estimated to save approximately $748.8 million. The savings, according to the agency, will be reallocated to enhance “laboratory functions and hundreds of scientific, technical, bioinformatic, and information technology experts” within the EPA’s air, water, and chemical offices. These offices are home to thousands of scientists and engineers employed by the EPA.

Alongside these changes, the EPA also announced plans to establish a new “Office of Applied Science and Environmental Solutions”. The new office aims to prioritize research and science prominently in rulemaking processes and provide technical assistance to states.

While no layoffs have occurred yet, the EPA confirmed that some employees are being reassigned, and job cuts may be the next step. “That is the next step in the process,” the EPA commented in a statement to NPR.

The proposed changes have been met with strong criticism from several quarters. Democratic Rep. Zoe Lofgren of California, ranking member on the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, denounced the planned cuts. “Administrator Zeldin has finally confirmed what he has denied for months and months — the destruction of the Office of Research and Development,” she said. Lofgren argued that the Trump administration is dismissing dedicated scientists while appointing political figures whose roles are to mislead Congress and the public. “The obliteration of ORD will have generational impacts on Americans’ health and safety. This is a travesty.”

Kyla Bennett, director of science policy for the nonprofit Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), also voiced concerns. Bennett argued that eliminating the ORD will severely impair the EPA’s research capabilities and hinder its ability to utilize studies from other scientists. “This [reduction in force], together with the slashing of travel and training budgets, will leave EPA flying blind and unable to use the best available science. These short-sighted cuts will ultimately affect every American, and it is despicable,” she stated.

In contrast, the American Chemistry Council, representing chemical manufacturers, backed the EPA’s decision to review its resources. The council stressed the importance of ensuring taxpayer money is utilized efficiently and effectively to meet the agency’s legal obligations. “If necessary, that includes shifting resources from certain offices,” the organization commented.

The implications of the EPA’s restructuring remain to be fully understood, but the debate highlights significant divisions over the administration’s approach to environmental research and regulatory functions.

Source: Original article

Trump Supports Gabbard on Obama Prosecution, Criticizes Alleged Election Fraud

July 20, 2025 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

July 20, 2025 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?”

Ohio House Speaker Backs Vivek Ramaswamy for Governor Election

July 20, 2025 Staff ReporterUSA, Politics 0

Ohio House Speaker Matt Huffman has endorsed Republican gubernatorial candidate Vivek Ramaswamy, bolstering his status as the frontrunner in the 2026 Ohio governor’s race.

Ramaswamy, a biotech entrepreneur and former Republican presidential candidate, has secured a significant endorsement from Matt Huffman, the Speaker of the Ohio House of Representatives. This endorsement marks a crucial moment in his campaign as Huffman is the latest in a line of high-ranking Republicans to support Ramaswamy.

Huffman, who serves Lima and Allen County, announced his endorsement after carefully considering Ramaswamy’s plans for Ohio. In a public statement, he praised Ramaswamy’s vision, stating, “I have concluded that Ramaswamy will be a governor who will make bold plans and certainly have the courage to execute on those plans.”

Reflecting on his own legislative background, Huffman stressed the pivotal role governors play in implementing long-term reforms. He referred to a pivotal moment in his career during a 2012 school choice conference by the Milton Friedman Institute. He recalled insights shared by former Indiana Superintendent of Education Tony Bennett, who stated that lasting policy change is often driven by governors—a view Huffman has seen validated during his 16-year tenure in the Ohio General Assembly.

Huffman lauded Ramaswamy’s focus on individual liberty and economic freedom, emphasizing the candidate’s resolve to challenge existing systems. This endorsement is a key component in Ramaswamy’s campaign, which has been gathering impressive momentum.

On July 1, Ramaswamy’s campaign announced a first-quarter fundraising total of $9.7 million since its launch in late February. This figure sets a record as the largest first-quarter fundraising achievement for a gubernatorial candidate in Ohio history, and notably, it excludes any personal contributions from Ramaswamy, highlighting robust grassroots backing.

Ramaswamy has also garnered endorsements from prominent Republican figures, among them President Donald Trump, U.S. Senator JD Vance, Donald Trump Jr., the Ohio Republican Party’s State Central Committee, and all Republican members of Ohio’s congressional delegation.

Since February, Ramaswamy’s campaign has hosted over 50 events across the state, including 36 fundraisers supporting the GOP. These initiatives have accumulated substantial funds to aid other Republican candidates and strengthen party infrastructure.

Ramaswamy aims to succeed Governor Mike DeWine, who is unable to seek re-election due to term limits. On the Democratic side, former Ohio Health Director Amy Acton has announced her candidacy. In contrast, Republican Attorney General Dave Yost withdrew from the race in May, shortly after the Ohio GOP officially endorsed Ramaswamy.

According to New India Abroad, the endorsement from Ohio House Speaker Matt Huffman adds significant weight to Ramaswamy’s gubernatorial bid, further cementing his frontrunner status in the race.

GOPIO Webinar on Immigration Upheavals and Indian Diaspora Challenges highlighted for advocacy and future impact

July 20, 2025July 20, 2025 Ajay GhoshImmigration, Diaspora 0

(New York, NY: July 18, 2025)

GOPIO’s inaugural Webinar receives wonderful response;

Immigration Upheavals and Indian Diaspora Challenges highlighted for advocacy and future impact

The Global Organization of People of Indian Origin (GOPIO) inaugurated its new international webinar series on July 12, 2025, with a compelling session titled “Indian Diaspora and Immigration Upheavals – Path Forward.” The webinar started with a welcome by Webinar Series chair Sunil Vuppala, who is also GOPIO’s Associate Secretary. Chief Guest was Lord Bhikhu Parekh, a member of the House of Lords in London. The event gathered leading immigration attorneys, policymakers, and community thought leaders to examine the shifting landscape of immigration policy across the US, Canada, and the UK.

Moderated by renowned thinker and researcher Dr. Maya Chadda, Professor Emeritus at William Paterson University and a permanent member of the Council of Foreign Relations, the webinar tackled pressing issues faced by Indian students and immigrants—ranging from visa backlogs and restrictive reforms to evolving international student work policies in the USA, Canada and UK.

GOPIO’s Founder and Chairman Dr. Thomas Abraham, framed the initiative with a clear message: “Our goal is to create a global platform that not only informs but equips the Indian diaspora to navigate complex immigration landscapes with clarity and purpose. Through these webinars, GOPIO remains a catalyst for connection, advocacy, and community resilience.”

GOPIO President Prakash Shah, emphasized the series’ vital role in responding to community needs and said, “This series is more than information—it’s a lifeline. We are committed to amplifying the concerns of our communities across borders and shaping a proactive response to immigration challenges with expert insights and collaborative solutions. In addition, we want to galvanize the Indian Diaspora for a greater contribution to reshape the future of global migration.”

Featured Experts and Insights

Lord Bhikhu C. Parekh – Member of the House of Lords of the United Kingdom, is a renowned political philosopher and speaker emeritus. He opened the webinar with remarks reflecting on the diaspora’s historical resilience despite the many challenges faced in the early years and more recent times. Lord Parekh added “Migration out of India had been quite common, in pre-Aristotelian times in 3th and 4^th Century BC, people usually moved from Gujarat to various parts of Greece, Rome and South-East Asia. Then it remained static and picked up again, when slavery was abolished and it was replaced by indentured labourers scattered across 42 countries.”

David Nachman, Esq. – New Jersey-based immigration attorney and founder of NPZ Law Group, highlighted “Enforcement priorities under the proposed Big Beautiful Bill and shared the immigration matters under various categories to be considered by the present and future diaspora members planning an immigration to US not only from India but also from Australia, UK, Europe to rejoin their extended family.”

Stephanie Dy, Esq. – Chicago based Parikh Law Group Immigration attorney specializing in high- skilled visas, explained stricter H-1B and L-1 vetting protocols. “She covered the effect of the Trump Administration’s immigration policies on the visa categories used by the Diaspora, specifically the Student and Employment visas and highlighted that any change in immigration policy is seismic and significant and impacts the diaspora especially as during 2024 the US India Mission broke records for 2^nd year in a row with record over 1 million non-immigrant visas issued.”

Shaima Ammal, London based Solicitor and Advocate. “She shared post-pandemic reforms reducing low-skilled migration from India and recent changes in the policies has led to primary focus on border security and stopping illegal immigration with focus shifting towards allowing those that can contribute to the economy with English language are encouraged and how this will be implemented is to be seen.”

Dr. Sudhir Shah, Mumbai based Immigration Specialist – Provided insights into EB-5, L-1, and family-based visa options for Indian nationals. “He focused on the current visa requirements and encouraged those applying for visas, do it with honesty and preparing yourself for the visa application then you will be definitely granted the visa.”

Gaganjot Kaur – Toronto based Immigration expert, discussed ripple effects of U.S. border security measures on Canadian student policy. “She shared the policies has led to focus on international students that includes additional vetting, financial stability, education field as areas being considered along with a cap of 5% being introduced. She added that the investor visa option is still open in Canada.”

GOPIO Immigration Issues Webinar Organizers, Chief Guest, Moderator and Panellists: First Row: Prakash Shah, Dr. Thomas Abraham, Gaganjot Mundra; Second Row: Prof. Maya Chadda, Dr. Sudhir Shah, David Nachman; Thord Row: Lord Bhikhu Parekh, Sid Jain, Shaima Ammal; Fourth Row: Stephanie Dy, Raj Punjabi and Kumu Gupta

The session started with a tribute to Michael Phulwani, a renowned Indian American immigration attorney & immigration pioneer, with touching remarks from President Shah and Attorney David Nachman recounting shared legal journeys and cultural insights from India.

Key Action Items and Initiatives

Encourage HR teams to implement visa tracking systems and sponsor risk policies
Request Immigration lawyers provide timely guidance on new regulations and higher denial trends
Counsel International students to comply with work hour limits and timely OPT applications
GOPIO to host monthly webinar series covering technology, youth leadership, and healthcare investment
Next webinar on AI and Technology set for August 9, 2025
Plans launched for international symposium on AI, quantum computing, and tech innovations in early 2026
Efforts underway to establish GOPIO chapters in Boston, Nashville, South Jersey and Pune through local WhatsApp network. Those interested to join may contact Sid Jain at +1 201 889 8888 or email at siddharth@aaaumom.com.
Advocacy for India-USA bilateral facilitation to ease and enable investment-based visasGOPIO General Secretary Sid Jain gave the concluding remarks and vote of thanks to all in attendance. The event concluded with calls for collaboration, education, and ongoing dialogue among Diaspora communities.**GOPIO logo is a trademark registered under the US and India Patent and Trademark Office.
For more info on GOPIO International Monthly Programs, contact Sunil Vuppula +1 (732) 331-3084 or Rohit Vyas GOPIO Global Media Council Chair at 732-319-0972 or send an email to gopio@optonline.net.

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

July 19, 2025 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

Trump Administration Evaluates New H-1B Visa Issuance Method

July 19, 2025 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

Trump Sues WSJ for Libel Over Epstein Birthday Letters Report

July 19, 2025 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

Trump Sues Murdoch for $10 Billion Over Epstein Letter Story

July 19, 2025 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

July 18, 2025 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.

USISPF Appoints Taranjit Sandhu as Board Advisor and Institute Chair

July 18, 2025 Staff ReporterDiplomacy, USA 0

The US-India Strategic Partnership Forum (USISPF) has appointed Taranjit Singh Sandhu, a veteran Indian diplomat, as an advisor to the board and chairman of its geopolitical institute.

The US-India Strategic Partnership Forum (USISPF) has announced the appointment of Taranjit Singh Sandhu, a seasoned Indian diplomat, to the roles of board advisor and chairman of its geopolitical institute. Sandhu brings nearly four decades of diplomatic experience to the position, previously serving as India’s ambassador to the United States.

During his extensive career, Sandhu played a significant role in bolstering U.S.-India relations. His new role will see him guide USISPF’s strategic initiatives, particularly focusing on major geopolitical projects such as the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC), the Quad (Indo-Pacific Quadrilateral Dialogue), and the I2U2 group, which includes India, Israel, the U.S., and the UAE.

In a statement about his appointment, Sandhu remarked, “I have had the opportunity to work on as well as follow the India-US story for over three decades. The relationship has evolved into a Comprehensive Global Strategic Partnership, underpinned by shared values and interests, matured in character, and nurtured by the vibrant people-to-people ties between the two countries.”

Under Sandhu’s leadership, U.S.-India relations achieved significant milestones, such as Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s 2023 state visit to the U.S., President Joe Biden’s participation in the G20 summit in New Delhi, and President Donald Trump’s visit to India in 2020. Sandhu’s earlier tenure in Washington as Deputy Chief of Mission involved crucial diplomatic engagements, including facilitating Modi’s noteworthy 2014 Madison Square Garden address.

Mukesh Aghi, the president of USISPF, praised Sandhu’s extensive experience and diplomatic acumen, describing him as “one of the brightest minds New Delhi has sent to Washington.” Aghi expressed enthusiasm about collaborating with Sandhu in his new capacity at USISPF, stating, “Having worked closely with Ambassador Sandhu during his diplomatic days, I am eager to engage with him in this new avatar, this time with his new USISPF hat.”

Sandhu is expected to enhance USISPF’s efforts in multilateral forums, contribute to supply chain resilience, support energy security initiatives, and foster deeper people-to-people connections. His leadership within the Forum is anticipated to further solidify the strategic ties between the U.S. and India, the world’s largest democracies.

Rupee Declines as US Inflation Concerns Elevate Dollar

July 18, 2025 Staff ReporterEconomy, Finance/Economy 0

The Indian rupee weakened slightly as U.S. inflation reports signaled rising costs due to tariffs, diminishing expectations for Federal Reserve rate cuts and boosting the dollar.

The Indian rupee closed at 85.94 per U.S. dollar on Wednesday, marking a decline of 0.1% from its previous close of 85.81. This move was influenced by the latest U.S. inflation data, which indicated that tariffs were starting to drive up prices, consequently weakening the likelihood of rate cuts by the Federal Reserve. This pushed U.S. Treasury yields higher and gave a lift to the dollar.

The dollar index stood at 98.5, close to the three-week high reached on Tuesday, while most Asian currencies traded flat to slightly lower. U.S. consumer prices showed the largest jump in five months in June, highlighting the impact of tariffs on certain goods.

According to the CME’s FedWatch tool, the probability of the Federal Reserve maintaining its current rate levels in September has increased to almost 50%, a significant rise from about 30% the previous week. This shift comes amid ongoing pressure from U.S. President Donald Trump, who has consistently criticized Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell for not reducing benchmark interest rates.

MUFG noted, “Building evidence of the pick-up in inflation from tariffs supports the Fed’s caution over resuming rate cuts in the near-term despite the barrage of criticism from the Trump administration.”

The stronger dollar pushed the rupee below the 86 mark during early trading on Wednesday. However, the rupee recovered as a surge of dollar selling interest emerged at this level, noted traders from a state-run bank. They also highlighted dollar sales by large custodian banks, typically indicating foreign portfolio inflows, as another factor bolstering the rupee.

In India’s stock markets, the BSE Sensex and the Nifty 50 indices closed slightly higher, despite declines seen in most regional markets.

Market participants are now focusing on upcoming U.S. wholesale inflation data and remarks from Federal Reserve policymakers for further indications on the future path of U.S. interest rates. Additionally, updates on U.S. trade negotiations remain in view, although market reactions to these have become more muted compared to earlier in the year.

Stablecoin bill clears House in key crypto victory

July 18, 2025July 18, 2025 Ajay GhoshTechnology, USA 0

The House passed a bill setting up a regulatory framework for payment stablecoins, sending it to President Trump’s desk and marking a major win for the industry.Lawmakers voted 308-122 on Thusday to pass the GENIUS Act following a tumultuous “crypto week” in the chamber that saw competing GOP factions bring the House floor to a standstill for two days.

A dozen Republicans voted against the measure, while 102 Democrats supported it.

The bill regulating dollar-backed digital tokens now heads to Trump’s desk, where he has indicated he is eager to sign it.

“For far too long, America’s digital assets industry has been stifled by ambiguous rules, confusing enforcement and the Biden administration’s anti-crypto crusade,” Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-Minn.) said at a press conference Thursday.

“But President Trump and this Congress are correcting course and unleashing America’s digital asset potential with historic, transformative legislation,” he continued.

“President Trump promised to make America the crypto capital of the world, and today, we delivered,” Emmer added.

The legislation’s future appeared in jeopardy less than 24 hours earlier.

A group of hardline Republicans tanked a procedural vote on a trio of crypto bills Tuesday, freezing the floor.

Trump struck a deal to secure their support the next day, but several holdouts remained Wednesday, as the House attempted once again to adopt a rule governing debate on the bills.

The agreement Trump reached with the hardliners also prompted new backlash from members of the House Financial Services Committee.

The deal sought to add provisions from the Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act, which aims to bar the Federal Reserve from issuing a central bank digital currency (CBDC), to a broader crypto framework called the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act. Both measures passed the House as well Thursday.

After hours of deliberation Wednesday — during which the rule vote remained open and the number of “no” votes from hardliners continued to grow — GOP leadership reached a deal to add the anti-CBDC provisions to the National Defense Authorization Act.

Including the provisions in the must-pass legislation would put them on track to reach Trump’s desk, assuming they don’t get stripped out of the bill as it weaves its way through Congress later this year.

The agreement convinced most of the remaining holdouts to switch their “no” votes on the rule to “yes,” allowing it to pass after more than nine hours.

It easily surpassed the previous record for longest vote in the chamber, which the House set just two weeks earlier during consideration of the GOP’s “big, beautiful bill.”

Fed Reports Businesses Passing Tariff Costs to Consumers

July 18, 2025 Staff ReporterCover, Economy 0

Businesses are transferring increased input costs due to tariffs onto consumers, resulting in higher prices, according to the Federal Reserve’s latest report.

The Federal Reserve’s recently released “Beige Book,” an anecdotal survey of domestic economic conditions, has highlighted a widespread trend wherein businesses across various sectors are raising prices to counter the additional costs imposed by tariffs. This trend was reported across all 12 of the Fed’s regional districts, reflecting a national impact.

“Many firms passed on at least a portion of cost increases to consumers through price hikes or surcharges,” noted the Beige Book. Companies that opted not to pass these costs on to consumers encountered narrowed profit margins, as consumer price sensitivity continues to grow.

The Labor Department reported an increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) in June, partially attributed to these tariffs, with the annual rise reaching 2.7% up from 2.4% in May and 2.3% in April. This increase aligns with economists’ predictions, who anticipated that the inflationary pressures from tariffs would become visible as summer progressed and as prior inventories cleared.

Fitch Ratings has cited the aggregate U.S. tariff rate at 14.1%, marking the highest rate in decades. This figure encompasses President Trump’s 10% general tariff, along with specific tariffs targeting China and certain individual goods. However, the country-specific “reciprocal” tariffs are currently on hold amid ongoing trade negotiations, and will remain paused until August 1.

Import prices recorded a modest increase of 0.1% in June, according to the Labor Department, yet they are down 0.2% compared to the previous year due to lower energy prices. This outcome fell short of economists’ expectations. Fuel import prices decreased by 0.7% in June, following a significant 5% drop in May, as tensions in the Middle East influenced global energy markets. West Texas Intermediate crude oil witnessed a decline of over 10% this month.

Excluding fuel and food imports, core import prices saw a moderate rise of 0.2% in June, following a smaller 0.1% increase in May.

Adding to the economic dynamics, the U.S. dollar has depreciated by approximately 9% since the start of the year, a trend exacerbated by the ongoing trade war initiated by President Trump. Economists suggest that this decline in the dollar’s value could further exacerbate inflation.

Michael Pearce, deputy chief U.S. economist at Oxford Economics, commented to Reuters, “Since the Trump administration began imposing tariffs, the dollar has depreciated, which could lead to a larger pass-through from tariffs to consumer prices.” He underscored the potential for a weaker dollar to amplify the likelihood of firms transferring a more significant share of tariff costs to consumers.

Government Prioritizes Energy Security in Response to NATO

July 18, 2025 Staff ReporterEnergy, World 0

In response to NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte’s warning about the potential imposition of secondary sanctions on countries trading with Russia, India’s Ministry of External Affairs emphasized the nation’s priority on securing energy needs while cautioning against double standards.

In a direct counter to NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte’s recent comments, India has stressed the importance of fulfilling its energy requirements, cautioning against what it perceives as “double standards.” Rutte suggested that countries like India, China, and Brazil could face severe consequences through secondary sanctions if they choose to continue business dealings with Russia.

Rutte’s remarks, delivered after his meeting with U.S. senators, suggested that the leaders of these nations should reconsider their trade with Russia. He intimated that continuing to buy Russian oil and gas could result in significant repercussions for their economies if Russia does not engage seriously in peace negotiations regarding the war in Ukraine.

Responding to these assertions, on Thursday, Randhir Jaiswal, spokesperson for India’s Ministry of External Affairs, stressed India’s commitment to securing its energy needs based on available global market conditions. “Securing the energy needs of our people is understandably an overriding priority for us,” Jaiswal stated. He further urged caution against the application of double standards in international responses to energy trade.

In tandem with these diplomatic statements, India’s Petroleum Minister Hardeep Singh Puri expressed confidence in India’s energy supply chain. Speaking at New Delhi’s UrjaVarta 2025 event, Puri emphasized that India does not perceive an immediate threat of oil disruption due to its diversified sources of supply. “I don’t feel any pressure,” he stated, underscoring that India’s expanded crude sourcing from around 40 countries ensures it can adapt if disruptions occur.

India has strategically diversified its oil imports over the years, which now largely include Russian crude. Russian oil accounts for about 40 percent of India’s imports, up from less than 2 percent prior to the conflict in Ukraine, mainly due to competitive pricing and the availability of discounted oil. Despite Western sanctions, Russian oil remains free from direct bans, though it is subject to a price cap of $60 per barrel, limiting Western participation in its sale if this cap is exceeded.

Jaiswal and Puri’s statements reflect India’s pragmatic approach to navigating international pressures while maintaining national energy security. With India meeting approximately 88 percent of its crude oil needs through imports, it must juggle geopolitical and economic factors in its energy policy decisions.

The broader conversation about potential tariffs related to India’s import of Russian oil introduces further complexities. The Trump administration during its tenure exhibited unpredictability regarding trade tariffs, making sweeping announcements, then pausing for negotiations. However, the current stance of the U.S. on imposing such tariffs could potentially push India to revert to its traditional suppliers from the West Asian region, thus potentially increasing the import costs.

While the geopolitical dynamics continue to evolve, India remains focused on ensuring its energy security amid external pressures. Whether secondary sanctions will be levied remains uncertain, but India’s stance is clear in maintaining its energy autonomy as it closely monitors global market conditions and diplomatic developments, according to The Indian Express.

Coca-Cola Disputes Trump’s Sugar Claim, Supports Corn Syrup Safety

July 18, 2025 Staff ReporterBusiness, Health 0

The Coca-Cola Company has disputed former President Donald Trump’s assertion that it would replace high-fructose corn syrup with cane sugar in its U.S. beverages.

The Coca-Cola Company has publicly refuted a claim made by Donald Trump regarding a potential switch from high-fructose corn syrup to cane sugar in their U.S. beverages. Trump, in a post on Truth Social, stated that he had discussions with Coca-Cola executives and that the company had agreed to use “REAL Cane Sugar” in their products. He expressed his gratitude toward Coca-Cola’s decision-makers, suggesting that the change would be beneficial.

Initially, the beverage giant responded with a polite statement acknowledging the former president’s enthusiasm. Coca-Cola expressed interest in exploring new offerings within their product line but did not confirm any shift to cane sugar. By Thursday, however, the company released a more comprehensive statement defending the use of high-fructose corn syrup, which has been a subject of debate and concern over its links to obesity.

In its statement, Coca-Cola clarified that high-fructose corn syrup, despite its long name, is merely a corn-derived sweetener. The company emphasized its safety, noting that HFCS contains calories similar to table sugar and is metabolized similarly in the body. Furthermore, Coca-Cola referenced the American Medical Association (AMA), which has indicated that HFCS is no more culpable for obesity than table sugar or other full-calorie sweeteners. Coca-Cola assured consumers that its products do not contain harmful substances.

The American Medical Association in 2023 declared that there is insufficient evidence to specifically limit high-fructose corn syrup use in the food supply or necessitate warning labels on products containing HFCS. According to a report by The Guardian, Trump has been known for his preference for Diet Coke, including the installation of a button in the Oval Office to summon a butler with a can. Interestingly, Diet Coke is sweetened with aspartame, an artificial low-calorie sweetener, rather than corn syrup or cane sugar.

This development follows repeated discussions and controversies surrounding sugar alternatives in food and beverage products in the United States, with varying opinions among experts and consumers about their health implications.

According to The Guardian, Coca-Cola’s continued defense of high-fructose corn syrup highlights the company’s commitment to maintaining its current formulation at least for now with a focus on addressing public health concerns through accurate information.

Trump Presidency News on July 17, 2025

July 18, 2025July 18, 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.

Larry Ellison Becomes Second Richest After Oracle AI Investments

July 18, 2025 Staff ReporterBusiness, Technology 0

Oracle founder Larry Ellison, at 80, has surpassed Mark Zuckerberg to become the world’s second-richest person, with a net worth climbing to $251 billion following Oracle’s strong earnings and strategic investments in AI infrastructure.

At the age of 80, Larry Ellison has surpassed Mark Zuckerberg, becoming the world’s second-richest person. Ellison’s net worth now sits at $251 billion, bolstered by a dramatic increase of nearly $60 billion in 2025 alone, as reported by the Bloomberg Billionaires Index.

Ellison’s financial ascent is largely attributed to his substantial 40% stake in Oracle, the database company he founded in 1977. Oracle’s value has surged by 41% so far this year, with substantial gains seen in recent weeks.

The soaring stock value comes amid a favorable market landscape for artificial intelligence investments, a sector in which Ellison has been heavily involved. The tech industry has benefited from policies under Trump’s second presidency that favor AI stocks. For instance, Nvidia’s CEO Jensen Huang, similar to Ellison, has seen significant growth in wealth, partially due to the government’s approval for his company to ship advanced microchips to China.

Ellison prominently aligned himself with President Trump during the unveiling of Stargate, a major initiative aimed at strengthening the U.S. position in AI development. This ambitious project plans to invest $500 billion into AI infrastructure over the coming four years, with Oracle, SoftBank, OpenAI, and MGX serving as initial equity founders. Oracle and OpenAI are also pivotal technology collaborators alongside companies like Arm, Microsoft, and Nvidia.

Recent increases in Oracle’s value are linked to the company’s robust performance and heightened commitment to AI investments. Oracle recently announced impressive year-end results, reporting Q4 revenues of $15.9 billion, marking an 11% increase, while remaining performance obligations rose by 41% to $138 billion.

Continuing its AI focus, Oracle has committed an additional $3 billion to expand cloud services and AI infrastructure in Germany and the Netherlands. Despite the positive investor response to Oracle’s moves, some analysts urge caution regarding future projections for the company.

A report from Goldman Sachs following Oracle’s fiscal results adopted a ‘neutral’ stance, with analysts noting Oracle’s strong Oracle Cloud Infrastructure demand momentum. Nonetheless, they warned of potential risks, suggesting that the company might overcommit to low-margin, capital-intensive training cycles that could impact its future free cash flow generation.

Trump Administration Shares Medicaid Data with ICE

July 17, 2025 Staff ReporterCrime, Immigration 0

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials are now authorized to access the personal data of 79 million Medicaid enrollees to locate individuals living illegally in the United States, as per a recently signed agreement between the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

In a bold move by the Trump administration, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials will gain access to extensive personal data from the nation’s Medicaid program to identify immigrants residing illegally within the U.S. This agreement, unveiled by The Associated Press, is part of an ongoing crackdown on illegal immigration.

The agreement, signed Monday, outlines that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will utilize Medicaid enrollee data to trace the locations of undocumented immigrants. This unprecedented sharing of personal health data with deportation authorities marks a significant escalation in the Trump administration’s efforts to bolster immigration enforcement.

While the agreement was not publicly announced, it has sparked considerable debate regarding the legality and ethics of such data sharing. Some lawmakers and officials within the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) have expressed concerns, highlighting potential violations of privacy.

The shared information will include names, home addresses, birth dates, racial and ethnic data, and Social Security numbers, which ICE will access through a controlled database from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday to Friday, until September 9. ICE officials are prohibited from downloading the data but are afforded access for a limited period.

Tricia McLaughlin, the assistant secretary at the DHS, stated in an email that the initiative aims to ensure Medicaid benefits are not wrongfully extended to undocumented aliens. However, specific details on whether the DHS has accessed this data remain unclear.

The sensitive nature of the data sharing has been met with resistance and skepticism, especially since federal law mandates that all states provide emergency Medicaid services for life-saving situations, regardless of the patient’s citizenship status. The potential ramifications could deter individuals from seeking necessary medical attention, fearing repercussions from ICE.

Hannah Katch, who served as a CMS adviser during the Biden administration, criticized the agreement, emphasizing that CMS historically did not share personally identifiable information outside the agency except for investigations related to waste, fraud, or abuse.

Last month, the Trump administration pursued access to detailed Medicaid enrollee data from seven states where lawfully present but non-citizen immigrants could enroll in full Medicaid programs. Those states, namely California, New York, Washington, Oregon, Illinois, Minnesota, and Colorado, all led by Democratic governors, have resisted this federal push. These states committed not to charge the federal government for coverage related to these immigrants, and have expressed concerns over privacy violations.

This controversy has led to lawsuits from 20 states alleging breaches of health privacy laws, challenging the CMS’s decision to comply with DHS data access requests. Internal communications at CMS reveal hesitation regarding the data exchange amid ongoing litigation, with discussions about seeking a delay from the White House.

Political opposition has been vocal. Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff and other members of Congress have directly addressed DHS and HHS officials, asserting that the data transfer constitutes a substantial infringement on privacy rights and could dissuade citizens from seeking essential healthcare services.

Despite criticisms, HHS officials maintain that their actions are lawful and comply with regulations, emphasizing that the initiative seeks to ensure that Medicaid benefits are properly allocated. Spokesman Andrew Nixon reiterated this position while responding to the ongoing legal challenges.

Source: Original article

Rural Impact Feared From Trump NPR, PBS Funding Cuts

July 17, 2025 Staff ReporterMedia, U.S. 0

Public media stations across the United States are facing potential financial turmoil following the Senate’s approval of a bill eliminating federal funding for PBS and NPR.

Public television stations will confront difficult decisions in the coming weeks and months, PBS CEO Paula Kerger announced Thursday, following the Senate’s late-night approval of a bill rescinding all federal funding for PBS and NPR.

The impact could see radio and TV stations laying off staff and cutting back on programming, potentially reaching fewer people with popular shows like “Daniel Tiger’s Neighborhood.” The longstanding financial system underpinning iconic figures such as Big Bird from “Sesame Street” is being dismantled.

Pending expected approval from the House, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting’s budget will be eliminated for the first time since its inception in 1967, marking a sharp transition from black-and-white television to today’s digital age without federal support.

This development signifies a significant triumph for President Trump, who has vocally criticized PBS and NPR newscasts for perceived bias. It also marks a feared shift for local stations dependent on taxpayer funding.

The precise repercussions remain uncertain, as alternate funders might mitigate some of the financial shortfall. However, public media executives caution that some smaller broadcasters could be driven off the air over time.

Advocates voice concerns that the entire noncommercial media framework will diminish without taxpayer support, leading to fewer original productions and reduced local news coverage.

“These cuts will significantly impact all of our stations, but will be especially devastating to smaller stations and those serving large rural areas,” Kerger stated, emphasizing the stations’ role in delivering unique local programming and emergency alerts.

Senators Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins, the only Republicans to oppose the budget rescission, valued public media’s educational and emergency services, despite critiquing certain NPR programming biases.

Most Republicans promoted the argument that the system is outdated in the era of streaming services, highlighting concerns of bias.

David Bozell, president of the Media Research Center, expressed enthusiasm for the “historic rollback” via an online post, celebrating the milestone against federal funding.

In contrast, public media officials assert that critics mischaracterize station content. NPR, for instance, presented a neutral report on the funding cut on “Morning Edition,” distancing its management from the news coverage of their own financial predicament.

NPR CEO Katherine Maher highlighted the network’s reliance by nearly 75% of Americans for news and alerts, characterizing NPR as a “lifeline.”

America’s Public Television Stations, a representative body, conveyed early Thursday that the funding rescission disregards public sentiment and congressional actions that had already designated funding for the fiscal year.

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, founded in 1967, traditionally received bipartisan support in light of its educational, instructional, and cultural contributions, producing beloved programs like “Sesame Street” and “Antiques Roadshow.” Despite conservative attempts to curtail funding, previous efforts were largely ignored by Congress, even with Republican presidents proposing cuts.

However, President Trump has decisively advanced these endeavors, prioritizing the rollback before the planned funding for October could be delivered.

Trump proudly declared the change last month, noting that despite longstanding promises, it took his administration to actualize such cuts.

With nearly $1.1 billion intended for the next two years now slated to dry up this fall, some local stations are already adjusting.

WNYC in New York announced CEO LaFontaine Oliver’s transition to an executive chair role aimed at developing new funding avenues. Meanwhile, San Francisco’s KQED laid off around 15% of its staff, citing financial instabilities.

Despite these challenges, PBS CEO Kerger affirmed a commitment to continuing to uphold essential services to the American public.

Source: Original article

Trust in US Dollar’s Global Supremacy Diminishing

July 17, 2025 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

India’s Tactical Diplomacy Faces Criticism Over Strategic Power

July 17, 2025 M A HossainOpinion 0

The recent BRICS summit highlighted a significant shift away from Western dominance, advocating for multipolarity and international fairness in global governance.

In geopolitics, the interplay between symbolism and substance is often crucial, as evidenced by the recent BRICS summit in Brazil. While much of the Western media downplayed the event as merely another conference among emerging economies, the joint declaration issued by the BRICS bloc suggests a more profound global change: the gradual erosion of Western hegemony and the emergence of a multipolar world order.

The BRICS declaration emphasized that multipolarity is now a geopolitical reality rather than a mere aspiration. For decades, the global system has been shaped by the neoliberal values of the “Washington Consensus,” often acting as a veneer for neocolonial pursuits. However, this consensus is now fraying, with the BRICS countries—Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa—and their new partners, including Indonesia, rising as key players in this transformation.

One notable aspect of the BRICS declaration was its firm support for Palestinian statehood, advocating for the 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as the capital. The bloc called for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire in Gaza, the withdrawal of Israeli forces, the release of hostages, and the unimpeded delivery of humanitarian aid. This stance challenges Western double standards regarding conflict resolution and international law.

The difference is stark. When Russia invaded Ukraine, Western nations quickly expressed outrage, imposed sanctions, and provided military aid. In contrast, the response to Israel’s actions in Gaza, which have resulted in mass civilian casualties, is often subdued or non-existent. BRICS has highlighted this inconsistency, calling for universal adherence to international law and respect for human dignity, transcending political alliances.

The call for Palestinian self-determination echoes the spirit of the 1955 Bandung Conference, where post-colonial nations asserted their right to forge their own paths free from imperial control. In reviving this sentiment, BRICS is not creating a new path but reawakening an essential dialogue that the world needs to revisit.

Another significant point from the summit was BRICS’s condemnation of U.S. protectionism and unilateral economic measures that circumvent the United Nations and destabilize global markets. By criticizing tariffs, non-tariff barriers, and “green protectionism,” the bloc draws attention to the selective application of rules that have historically advantaged developed nations.

The West has historically advocated for free trade, yet has practiced protectionism when it suited its interests. The United States, once a leading proponent of open markets, has in recent years used tariffs as a geopolitical tool, from the trade war with China initiated during the Trump administration to the Biden administration’s restrictive policies designed under the guise of national security and environmental protection.

The call from BRICS for WTO reform, including the restoration of its dispute settlement mechanisms, underscores a shared frustration among developing nations that the current system often benefits the powerful at the expense of the vulnerable. This sentiment extends beyond economic grievances, representing a rallying cry for equitable trade practices.

BRICS also addressed the issue of state sovereignty, by demanding that Israel withdraw from occupied Syrian territories and condemning terrorist activities in the region. This highlights a broader theme of defending state sovereignty, in contrast to the trail of instability left by Western interventions from Iraq to Libya, often justified under democratization or humanitarian concerns. BRICS intends to offer an alternative narrative that prioritizes sovereignty and dialogue over military interference.

The recent easing of unilateral sanctions on Syria, welcomed by BRICS, reflects a growing acknowledgment that such punitive measures often harm civilian populations more than the targeted regimes. This perspective aligns with recognizing the failures of past Western interventions and the need for more balanced approaches.

The summit addressed the ongoing conflict in Ukraine by condemning Ukrainian attacks on Russian civilian infrastructure. While this view may be controversial from a Western perspective, it represents the bloc’s commitment to opposing violence against non-combatants, irrespective of the perpetrators involved. Whereas the West tends to focus solely on Russian aggression, BRICS seeks a more comprehensive outlook, advocating for consistency in applying international law.

From a geopolitical standpoint, the BRICS expansion to include nations like Indonesia, Belarus, Bolivia, Kazakhstan, and others marks a pivotal shift in global power dynamics. This expansion is not an anti-Western stance but a strategic move by countries aiming to broaden their options in an increasingly polarized international environment. Smaller nations, especially in Southeast Asia, are engaging more with BRICS to diversify their economic and diplomatic relationships, a concept Fareed Zakaria once termed “nonalignment 2.0.”

The economic initiatives by BRICS, such as the New Development Bank and the Contingent Reserve Arrangement, provide viable alternatives to the IMF and the World Bank. These institutions, while ostensibly neutral, have historically aligned with Western geopolitical interests. By offering financial and infrastructural support without the typical political conditions, BRICS is assisting Global South countries in reclaiming control over their development paths.

While BRICS is gaining influence, it does face internal challenges. Disputes such as those in the South China Sea, a history of tension between India and China, and the varied political systems of its member states pose potential hurdles to unity. Nonetheless, the bloc’s capacity to prioritize shared objectives over differences should not be underestimated.

Ultimately, the recent BRICS summit represents more than a mere economic gathering; it symbolizes a shift in global agency from a few dominant powers to a collective of nations asserting their sovereignty. The time when the world order was dictated exclusively by Western capitals is concluding. The BRICS declaration—addressing Palestine, global trade, and sovereignty—signifies the arrival of an era fraught with choices, where power is more evenly distributed across the globe.

According to South Asia Monitor, this evolving landscape presents both opportunities and challenges for the BRICS countries and their international counterparts.

Source: Original article

Democratic Senators Question Trump’s New Citizenship Data System

July 17, 2025 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

Obama Couple Responds to Recent Divorce Rumors

July 17, 2025 Staff ReporterUSA 0

Former President Barack Obama and former First Lady Michelle Obama have humorously dismissed persistent divorce rumors during a podcast appearance, emphasizing the strength of their decades-long marriage.

In a recent episode of the podcast “IMO,” hosted by Michelle Obama’s brother, Craig Robinson, the Obamas together addressed the speculative rumors about their marriage that have circulated over the past year.

As the episode centered around the topic of raising young men, the conversation began with lighthearted comments about the rumors. Robinson greeted Barack Obama by jokingly asking, “Wait, you guys like each other?” to which Michelle Obama humorously replied, “Oh yeah, the rumor mill.”

Playing along, Barack Obama added, “She took me back. It was touch and go for a while.” Continuing the playful banter, Robinson remarked on the couple being in the same room, prompting his sister to comment, “I know, ’cause when we aren’t, folks think we’re divorced.”

Speculation about the former first couple’s relationship began earlier this year when Barack Obama attended several public events without his wife, including the funeral for former President Jimmy Carter and the second inauguration of President Donald Trump.

In response to the gossip, Michelle Obama has clarified her absence from certain events, noting her newfound freedom to make personal choices after her daughters became adults and her husband’s departure from public office.

During an earlier episode of the same podcast series, aired on July 9, Michelle Obama expressed, “This stage in life for me is the first time that I have been completely free.”

On the recent “IMO” episode, she further assured listeners that her marriage remains strong. “There hasn’t been one moment in our marriage where I thought about quittin’ my man. And we’ve had some really hard times,” Michelle Obama shared. “We have had a lot of fun times, a lot of adventures, and I have become a better person because of the man I’m married to.”

Barack and Michelle Obama celebrated their marriage in Chicago in 1992. Their enduring partnership was highlighted this past Valentine’s Day when Barack Obama shared a heartfelt message on Instagram, posting a photo of them together. “Thirty-two years together and you still take my breath away,” he captioned the image.

Michelle Obama echoed the sentiment on her social media, sharing the same photo and stating, “If there’s one person I can always count on, it’s you, @BarackObama. You’re my rock. Always have been. Always will be.”

Such affirmations from the couple continue to counter the unfounded rumors, demonstrating the steadfast bond they maintain despite public speculation.

Source: Original article

BITCOIN RECORD-BREAKING SURGE

July 16, 2025 Dr. Mathew JoysTechnology, Money 0

The cryptocurrency world is buzzing with excitement as a record-breaking rally kicks off, ignited by Donald Trump’s groundbreaking “Liberation Day” announcement on April 2nd. This bold move has disrupted traditional markets, prompting investors and institutions to flock to alternative assets like bitcoin as a safeguard against the mounting macroeconomic chaos.

Bitcoin, the heavyweight champion of cryptocurrencies, continues its meteoric rise, reaching an astonishing price of $1,22,490 (around Rs 1,05,32,778) just on Monday! Since December, this digital dynamo has skyrocketed by an eye-popping 30%, sending waves of exhilaration through the market.

But what’s fueling this explosive growth? It’s the highly anticipated ‘crypto week’ in the US! Congress is gearing up to debate the legalization of cryptocurrencies, with President Trump already laying the groundwork to make cryptocurrencies official. The atmosphere is electric!

As Bitcoin skyrockets, it has propelled its mysterious creator, Satoshi Nakamoto, into the ranks of the world’s wealthiest, now standing as the twelfth richest person on the planet! With a staggering net worth of $134 billion, Nakamoto is just behind Dell Technologies CEO Michael Dell’s $137 billion and ahead of the legendary Bill Gates at $124 billion. Believe it or not, Nakamoto is sitting on a treasure trove of 1.1 million Bitcoins!

While Bitcoin is not recognized as legal tender in India (meaning it cannot be used for direct payments), individuals are legally permitted to buy, sell, and hold cryptocurrencies like Bitcoiin, indeed.

The excitement doesn’t stop there! Industry leaders are feeling bullish about what lies ahead. A recent survey of crypto analysts suggests an average price prediction of $145,167 for bitcoin by the end of 2025. Buckle up— the future of cryptocurrency is looking brighter than ever!

Let’s ride this wave of excitement!

India Misses Tariff Deal, Signals Potential Future Agreement

July 16, 2025 Staff ReporterEconomy, Diplomacy 0

President Donald Trump sent out new tariff rate letters last week to over two dozen countries, but notably omitted India, Taiwan, and Switzerland, signaling potential trade agreements may soon be formalized with these nations.

President Donald Trump recently dispatched letters to over 24 countries, detailing their new tariff rates and categorizing them as “trade deals.” However, India, Taiwan, and Switzerland, which did not receive any letters, are believed to be nearing potential agreements, with announcements possibly coming in the next few weeks.

Trump has previously hinted that an agreement with India is on the horizon, although specifics are still being finalized. Former officials familiar with U.S.-India trade relations interpret the absence of a letter as positive, suggesting that receiving one could have offended the Indian government, potentially disrupting a nearly concluded agreement between the two nations.

According to Mark Linscott, a former negotiator for the U.S. Trade Representative’s Office, “The letters are pretty aggressive and direct.” He explained that India might perceive such a letter as disrespectful unless it recognized the progress made in negotiations, thus derailing talks.

On Tuesday, Trump reiterated the possibility of a deal with India, assuring reporters that “we’re going to have access into India.” Despite this, the Indian embassy in Washington chose not to comment.

India’s trade delegation, led by Rajesh Agrawal, chief negotiator and special secretary in the Department of Commerce, arrived in Washington on Monday, rekindling hopes of an imminent trade deal. India stands as the largest U.S. trading partner among the nations subjected to Trump’s reciprocal tariffs but not served a letter. The European Union, South Korea, Japan, Canada, and Mexico, among others, have received threats of tariffs between 25 and 35 percent effective August 1.

This intense round of trade negotiations occurs amid sensitive economic conditions in the U.S. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Tuesday that the Consumer Price Index rose by 2.7% in June over the previous year, up from 2.4% in May, raising concerns that Trump’s higher tariffs might be inflating prices. This scenario has fueled worry among economists and the business community that trade uncertainties are adversely impacting the broader economy.

Alongside the impending August 1 deadline for instituting substantial tariffs on a multitude of countries, Trump is also contemplating additional tariffs unrelated to prior discussions, potentially complicating ongoing trade talks.

Trump has expressed dissatisfaction with the group of emerging market nations known as BRICS, which includes India. The president is considering a 50 percent tariff on Brazil due to the bloc’s recent initiatives to distance from the dollar as the global standard. He has also threatened a 10 percent tariff on all BRICS countries and even a 100 percent tariff on nations purchasing oil and gas from Russia amid the ongoing war in Ukraine. Notably, India is the second-largest importer of fossil fuels from Russia.

The initial agreement expected between India and the United States is seen as the first stage of a more all-encompassing trade deal anticipated by fall. In Trump’s administration, no deal is deemed complete until the president officially confirms it, as indicated by his last-minute intervention in a recent agreement made with Vietnam.

Lisa Curtis, former deputy assistant to the president and senior director for South and Central Asia on the National Security Council, remarked, “This is Trump. Until everything is signed, sealed, and delivered, there’s going to be a certain amount of nervousness.”

An unnamed White House official disclosed that currently, no additional tariff letters are being prepared, although they noted the situation remains “fluid.”

India began trade talks with the U.S. in February when Trump unveiled his ambitious global trade restructuring agenda. Despite the president’s ongoing discussions about mediating peace between India and Pakistan earlier this year complicating relations, the hope is still alive for a deal that Prime Minister Narendra Modi can present domestically.

In a previous administration, Trump nearly finalized a bilateral trade agreement with India akin to those negotiated with Japan and South Korea. However, the deal fell apart over disagreements on agricultural disputes and other contentious issues. Linscott noted, “India has put a heck of a lot on the table, particularly with respect to tariffs.”

Similar to India, Taiwan and Switzerland, which also conduct significant trade with the U.S. and didn’t receive letters, are in negotiations aimed at evading high “reciprocal” tariffs and those affecting vital sectors like Taiwan’s semiconductor and Switzerland’s pharmaceutical industries. Both countries have made substantial foreign investments in the U.S., including Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company’s $165 billion investment in semiconductor production in Arizona.

Notably, a list of 36 nations not receiving letters includes smaller countries with limited U.S. trade but still facing enormous tariff hikes. Trump previously lowered the steepest tariff rates for countries like Cambodia and Laos, but it’s uncertain if he will extend similar reductions to nations like Madagascar (47 percent), Mauritius (40 percent), or Lesotho, which currently faces a 50 percent tariff, the same punitive rate expected for Brazil.

An official from Paraguay expressed “relief” that the country hadn’t received a letter, though they couldn’t ascertain why their nation was spared while others were not. “There is no pattern still,” remarked the official. “All those countries have been involved in trade talks and controversies with the USA.”

The official lamented, “It is bad for everyone. We worked hard for so many years to have a trading system predictable and rules based,” emphasizing that the current situation reflects the opposite.

For countries like India not receiving letters, reaching substantive agreements seems more plausible.

Trump’s Disapproval Rating Reaches Record High Second Term

July 16, 2025 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 Expresses Disappointment with Putin in BBC Interview

July 16, 2025 Staff ReporterDiplomacy, USA 0

In a recent phone interview with the BBC, President Donald Trump expressed his disappointment with Russian leader Vladimir Putin while outlining plans to send weapons to Ukraine and warning of severe tariffs if a ceasefire is not reached within 50 days.

President Donald Trump, in a recent conversation with the BBC, expressed a spectrum of views on international relations, particularly concerning Russian President Vladimir Putin and the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. Despite voicing disappointment with Putin, Trump insisted he remained open to diplomatic efforts, hours after unveiling plans to send arms to Ukraine and threatening Russia with significant tariffs if no ceasefire is reached in 50 days.

When asked about his trust in the Russian leader, Trump stated, “I trust almost nobody,” indicating a cautious stance. This sentiment was shared following his discussions with NATO chief Mark Rutte at the White House, during which Trump outlined frustration over missed opportunities to resolve the conflict in Ukraine, a situation he hoped to negotiate with Russia. “I’m disappointed in him, but I’m not done with him. But I’m disappointed in him,” Trump reiterated.

Pressed on potential strategies to halt the violence, Trump suggested ongoing efforts, stating, “We’re working at it, Gary,” and described a dynamic where perceived progress towards peace could be abruptly halted by aggressive actions from Russia, such as missile strikes on Kyiv.

The conflict has seen increased drone and missile assaults on Ukrainian cities, contributing to high civilian casualties since Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022. While Putin has advocated for peace, claiming threats from Kyiv, NATO, and Western nations must first be addressed, Trump’s administration remains aligned with NATO’s strategic objectives. Formerly critical of the alliance, Trump has since acknowledged its evolving importance as member countries commit to increasing defense spending.

Discussing NATO, Trump highlighted, “It’s now becoming the opposite of [obsolete] because the alliance was paying their own bills,” and praised the agreement to boost defense spending to 5% of economic output, a feat he described as “amazing” and previously deemed implausible.

Turning to relations with the United Kingdom, Trump spoke warmly of his personal and professional connections, attributing his fondness to successful trade deals and describing a “special bond” with the nation. He also offered candid remarks on Brexit’s aftermath, noting that while the UK had been slow to capitalize on it, progress was being made. Trump shared his intention to visit the UK again in September.

On his domestic agenda, Trump’s administration reportedly achieved declines in illegal border crossings at the US-Mexico border. The focus has now shifted to identifying, detaining, and deporting migrants in the country illegally. Trump declined to specify success metrics for deportations but emphasized the expulsion of criminals as a priority. Notably, a controversial deportation agreement involved transporting gang members to El Salvador.

In his reflection on legal challenges to administration policies, Trump underscored a series of appellate victories after initial setbacks in lower courts, describing some judges as “radical left lunatics.” His administration achieved successes, such as a Supreme Court ruling permitting migrant deportations to third countries.

Financially, Trump lauded the expansive tax reforms enacted during his tenure, including extending cuts from his first term and introducing new breaks and Medicaid cuts. He claimed, “We have the largest tax cuts in history.”

Asked about his legacy, Trump optimistically remarked, “Saving America,” and argued that the nation had been revitalized under his leadership. “I think America is now a great country, and it was a dead country one year ago,” he concluded.

U.S. Introduces Visa Integrity Fee for Non-Immigrants

July 16, 2025 Staff ReporterImmigration, U.S., Visa 0

The newly enacted “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” introduces a $250 “visa integrity fee” for most non-immigrant U.S. visas, significantly increasing costs for applicants.

The U.S. has established a $250 “visa integrity fee” for non-immigrant visa applicants as part of the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” otherwise known as H.R.-1. This fee will come into effect in fiscal 2026 and applies to most categories of non-immigrant visas, including B-1/B-2 for tourism and business, F and M for students, H-1B for workers, and J for exchange visitors.

According to Fragomen, a U.S.-based immigration firm, President Donald Trump signed H.R.-1 into law on July 4. The legislation also involves additional non-waivable travel surcharges, such as a $24 I-94 fee, a $13 Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) fee for Visa Waiver Program travelers, and a $30 Electronic Visa Update System (EVUS) fee for certain Chinese nationals with 10-year B-1/B-2 visas.

These changes mean that a B-1/B-2 visa for Indian nationals, currently costing about $185, could see its cost rise to approximately $472 when factoring in the $250 integrity fee, $24 I-94 fee, and $13 ESTA fee. The total cost of a B-1/B-2 visa for Indian nationals may increase to nearly two-and-a-half times the current amount due to the new surcharges.

The law allows for future fee increases through regulation, which advocates claim will enhance compliance and reduce visa overstays. The initial $250 fee set for fiscal 2025 could be higher if adjusted by the Department of Homeland Security. From 2026 onward, the fee will be indexed to inflation, rising annually according to changes in the Consumer Price Index.

Additional fee increases include a $1,000 charge for asylum applications and parolees, a $500 fee for Temporary Protected Status, a $100 annual charge for asylum seekers with pending cases, and a $1,500 fee for adjusting to lawful permanent resident status.

Diplomatic applicants categorized under A and G are exempt from this fee. The legislation stipulates in 14 instances that the fee “shall not be waived or reduced.”

The possibility of a refund exists for applicants who comply with visa conditions, though it requires submitting documentation such as timely departure records or proof of status adjustment. Refunds will not happen automatically; the Secretary of Homeland Security may provide reimbursement after the visa’s validity period expires if compliance can be demonstrated. Otherwise, the fee is to be transferred to the U.S. Treasury’s general fund.

Additionally, the U.S. is considering a significant change to its visa policy by imposing fixed stays for F, J, and I visa holders, a move that could impact over 420,000 Indian students. In June, the U.S. Embassy in India mandated that Indian applicants for F, M, or J student visas must set their social media accounts to ‘public’ before their visa interviews.

These developments underscore the evolving landscape for non-immigrant visas in the U.S., driven by efforts to ensure integrity and compliance, though they present potential financial and procedural hurdles for applicants worldwide.

Source: Original article

Rupee Hits Two-Week Low Amid Corporate Dollar Bids

July 16, 2025 Staff ReporterEconomy 0

The Indian rupee fell to a two-week low against the U.S. dollar, driven by corporate dollar demand and equity outflows amid uncertainties over U.S. trade policies.

The Indian rupee weakened past the 86 per U.S. dollar mark on Monday, reaching its lowest level in over two weeks. This decline is attributed to significant corporate dollar demand and equity-related outflows, traders reported, coinciding with uncertainties surrounding U.S. trade policies.

The rupee closed at 85.9850 against the U.S. dollar, marking a 0.2% decrease from its previous close at 85.80 on Friday. Earlier in the session, the currency dipped to 86.0475, its weakest point since June 25. Traders pointed to dollar demand from a major Indian conglomerate and other companies, alongside anticipated outflows from Indian equities, as key factors exerting pressure on the rupee.

India’s benchmark equity indices, the BSE Sensex and Nifty 50, both experienced a 0.3% decline, contrasting with the positive movements seen across most regional equities.

Meanwhile, European stocks also suffered losses, and the euro showed slight weakness against the dollar following U.S. President Donald Trump’s weekend threat to impose a 30% tariff on imports from the region, exacerbating the ongoing trade conflict.

In the U.S., equity futures were similarly affected, with the S&P 500 futures dropping by 0.3%. Analysts from ING suggested that these moves have not been more substantial because investors view these threats as a negotiation tactic by Washington to coax a deal from the other side.

India remains among the few major U.S. trading partners yet to receive a tariff notice. Further negotiations between Indian and U.S. officials are anticipated, focusing on areas of contention such as auto components, steel, and agricultural products.

Amit Pabari, managing director at FX advisory firm CR Forex, commented on the situation, noting that prospects for the rupee to strengthen are limited. He expects resistance for the rupee around the 85.40-85.50 levels.

Attention is now directed toward India’s consumer inflation data, expected later in the day. A Reuters poll of 50 economists suggests that inflation figures, buoyed by moderate food prices and a high base effect, have likely eased to a six-year low of 2.50% in June.

Indian-Americans Abandon Green Cards Within Six Years: US Report

July 16, 2025 Staff ReporterImmigration, India 0

Indians are expeditiously transitioning from green card holders to U.S. citizens, completing the process in just under six years on average.

Recent data from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) indicates that Indian nationals are rapidly advancing through the naturalization process, becoming U.S. citizens in an average of 5.9 years, significantly quicker than peers from other countries. This figure sits comfortably below the national average of 7.5 years for obtaining U.S. citizenship after acquiring a green card.

In comparison, Mexican nationals, who represent the largest group in terms of overall naturalizations, face a wait period of nearly 11 years. While they lead in sheer numbers, Indians are swiftly progressing through the citizenship process. The USCIS stipulates that to become a U.S. citizen, an individual must have been a permanent resident for at least five years, or three years in cases where the residency is marriage-based.

The path to citizenship is relatively direct for many non-resident Indians (NRIs). After five years of permanent residency, candidates are eligible to take the English and civics test required for naturalization. The success rate for first-time test-takers is notably high, with nearly 90 percent passing on their initial attempt.

Interestingly, this trend is not limited to any particular demographic within the Indian community in the United States. The median age for NRIs obtaining citizenship is 42, and women constitute about 55 percent of the applicants. While the stereotype of tech workers dominates the narrative, this data suggests a broader cross-section of the Indian diaspora is pursuing citizenship.

The drive towards acquiring U.S. citizenship is spurred by several factors, including visa uncertainties and the complexities surrounding H-1B visas, which have been exacerbated by political climates, particularly under the Trump administration. For many, U.S. citizenship represents more than just legal security; it offers the freedom to change jobs without visa constraints and removes the looming threat of deportation.

Ultimately, for Indians, the American dream transcends the attainment of a green card. With the assurance that only an American passport can provide, citizenship is seen as the ultimate goal, offering unparalleled safety and stability.

Trump Confronts Crisis Amid Epstein Conspiracy Theories

July 16, 2025 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.

Trump Administration to Omit Climate Reports from NASA Website

July 15, 2025 Staff ReporterClimate, Politics 0

The Trump administration’s decision to stop making key climate assessments easily accessible online is raising concerns about transparency and the public’s right to information.

The Trump administration has once again restricted access to crucial scientific reports detailing the country’s climate change risks by making it more challenging for the public to locate and access these assessments. Following the recent blackout of official government websites hosting the national climate assessments, NASA announced this week that it will not fulfill its earlier promise to host the reports on its platform, leaving climate data less accessible to the public.

These authoritative and peer-reviewed national climate assessments are vital for informing state and local governments, as well as the general public, about the impacts of a warming climate on their localities and offer guidelines on how to adapt. Although the White House had initially indicated that NASA would take over hosting duties in alignment with a 1990 law requiring these reports, that plan has now been retracted.

According to NASA Press Secretary Bethany Stevens, the space agency will no longer display the climate assessments or related data. Stevens stated in an email that NASA met its obligations by delivering the reports to Congress but has no further legal responsibility to host the information.

Earlier in July, NASA had assured the public that all previous reports would remain accessible through its website, thus maintaining continuity in reporting. However, this assurance has since been nullified.

Texas Tech climate scientist and past national climate assessment co-author, Katharine Hayhoe, emphasized the importance of these documents, stating, “This document was written for the American people, paid for by the taxpayers, and it contains vital information we need to keep ourselves safe in a changing climate.”

Despite the government’s decision, past reports remain available at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s library, and interactive versions of the latest report can still be accessed online.

The administration’s maneuver has been criticized as a deliberate attempt to hide essential climate data, with former Obama White House science adviser John Holdren calling it a classic example of misdirection. He accused the Trump administration of trying to suppress or bury critical scientific information regarding climate change.

Holdren highlighted the importance of these reports to government bodies and the general public, as they are crafted to help individuals understand the current and future impacts of climate change on their lives and environments. Holdren further accused the administration of taking away a valuable resource that helps citizens prepare for and mitigate climate-related challenges.

The 2023 climate assessment revealed significant adverse effects of climate change on the security, health, and livelihoods of people across the United States, with minority groups and Native American communities facing greater risks.

According to Associated Press, this step by the Trump administration to retract essential climate information poses a threat to public awareness and informed decision-making in addressing the ongoing and future consequences of climate change.

Source: Original article

US Imposes 17% Duty on Mexican Tomatoes to Aid Domestic Production

July 15, 2025 Staff ReporterNation USA, World 0

The U.S. government has imposed a 17% duty on most fresh Mexican tomatoes, a move expected to raise prices for American consumers but boost the domestic tomato industry.

The new import tax comes after negotiations between the United States and Mexico failed to reach an agreement to prevent the tariff. Proponents of the duty argue it will revitalise the U.S. tomato industry, which has seen a steady decline over the years. Currently, Mexico supplies approximately 70% of tomatoes consumed in the U.S., a significant increase from 30% two decades ago, according to the Florida Tomato Exchange.

Robert Guenther, executive vice president of the trade group, hailed the imposition of the duty as “an enormous victory for American tomato farmers and American agriculture.” He believes the measure will secure jobs and promote the cultivation of tomatoes within the U.S.

Opponents of the tariff, however, claim it will lead to higher prices for U.S. consumers. Marcelo Ebrard, Mexico’s Economic Secretary, reiterated the Mexican government’s intent to seek a suspension of the tariff. Ebrard warned that the duty would negatively affect American consumers’ wallets and labelled it unfair both to Mexican producers and the American industry.

Additionally, he argued that the success of Mexican tomato imports in the U.S. is due to the quality of the produce rather than any unfair trade practices.

Differing cultivation methods between the two countries could further impact the market. Mexican greenhouses focus on vine-ripened tomatoes, while Florida growers typically harvest green tomatoes from fields.

Tim Richards, a professor of agribusiness at Arizona State University, suggested that U.S. retail prices for tomatoes could increase by approximately 8.5% due to the 17% duty. In areas heavily reliant on Mexican tomatoes, the price increase may reach nearly 10%, according to Jacob Jensen, a trade policy analyst at the American Action Forum. Other parts of the U.S. could see smaller price hikes closer to 6%.

Lance Jungmeyer, president of the Fresh Produce Association of the Americas, expressed concern over these price increases. “As an industry, we are saddened that American consumers will have to pay more for a reduced selection of the tomatoes they prefer,” he said, referring to popular varieties such as tomatoes on the vine, grape tomatoes, and Romas.

The duty is part of a long-term U.S. complaint regarding Mexican tomato exports and is separate from the broader 30% base tariff on products from Mexico and the European Union announced by President Donald Trump.

This development follows the Commerce Department’s announcement in April that it would withdraw from the Tomato Suspension Agreement, a 2019 pact with Mexico designed to address allegations of dumping—selling tomatoes at artificially low prices. Although the agreement was subject to regular reviews, it had consistently helped avoid imposing duties in the past.

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick stated that withdrawing from the agreement aligns with the Trump administration’s trade policies. “For far too long, our farmers have been crushed by unfair trade practices that undercut pricing on produce like tomatoes. That ends today,” Lutnick said.

Several organizations, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Restaurant Association, had urged the Commerce Department to maintain the agreement. Both Texas Governor Greg Abbott, a Republican, and Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs, a Democrat, also advocated for retaining the agreement. In a letter to Lutnick, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce warned that withdrawing from the deal could lead to retaliatory measures against other U.S. products, complicating an already challenging trade environment.

The letter noted that U.S. companies employ 50,000 workers and generate $8.3 billion in economic benefits by moving tomatoes from Mexico into U.S. communities, highlighting the significant impact the tariff could have on both businesses and consumers.

Source: Original article

Trump Aims to Dismantle Education Department Post-Supreme Court Ruling

July 15, 2025 Staff ReporterEducation, Governance 0

Following a Supreme Court decision, Education Secretary Linda McMahon will move forward with plans to dismantle the Department of Education by reallocating its functions to other federal agencies, as part of the Trump administration’s broader goal.

Education Secretary Linda McMahon is set to advance the Trump administration’s plan to dismantle the Department of Education. This follows a U.S. Supreme Court ruling allowing the administration to proceed with plans to dissolve nearly 1,400 positions and distribute the department’s responsibilities among other federal entities.

The Supreme Court’s decision on Monday effectively lifted a lower court order that had stopped the layoffs and questioned the legality of President Donald Trump’s initiative to outsource the Education Department’s functions. With this judicial backing, Trump and McMahon are poised to continue with the department’s dismantling, an effort Trump promoted during his presidential campaign.

President Trump highlighted the strategic shift on Truth Social, stating, “The Federal Government has been running our Education System into the ground, but we are going to turn it all around by giving the Power back to the PEOPLE.” He expressed gratitude to the Supreme Court for their decision.

While acknowledging that only Congress has the authority to fully dissolve the Education Department, Trump and McMahon have noted that its primary roles could be redistributed across various federal entities. One critical decision involves the management of the federal student loan portfolio, which comprises $1.6 trillion and impacts nearly 43 million borrowers.

In March, Trump suggested the Small Business Administration could oversee federal student loans. However, a court filing in June indicated the Treasury Department is expected to assume this responsibility. The Education Department had been in discussions with Treasury regarding a contract, which were paused due to court intervention, and are now expected to resume.

Already, nine Education Department employees have been reassigned to Treasury under a separate agreement, according to court documents. Additionally, an arrangement has been made to outsource the management of several workforce training and adult education grant programs to the Department of Labor, with $2.6 billion allocated to Labor to manage these grants distributed to states and educational institutions.

The agreement posits that combining educational and workforce training programs across the departments of Education and Labor would establish a more coordinated federal approach, potentially streamlining processes and resources.

Further collaboration is anticipated with other federal agencies. McMahon, during her Senate confirmation hearing, suggested that the Department of Health and Human Services could oversee enforcement of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Similarly, she proposed civil rights responsibilities, including enforcement, could be migrated to the Department of Justice.

Democracy Forward, representing plaintiffs in the ongoing legal challenge, has stated its commitment to “pursue every legal option” to advocate for children’s education rights. The group’s federal lawsuit continues, but the Supreme Court’s interim decision allows the Education Department to downsize in the interim.

“No court in the nation — not even the Supreme Court — has found that what the administration is doing is lawful,” said Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, in a statement.

The decision to reduce the number of employees is a continuation of Trump’s campaign pledge to dismantle the agency. In March, he instructed it to be downsized “to the maximum extent appropriate and permitted by law.” McMahon had initiated significant reductions, resulting in approximately 1,400 layoffs.

The American Federation of Government Employees Local 252, which represents some department staff, noted that affected employees have been on paid leave since March. These employees were protected from termination by the lower court order, though they had not resumed work. Without intervention, these layoffs would have taken effect in early June.

Melanie Storey, president and CEO of the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators, indicated that eliminating department staff has already caused operational issues, particularly in student loan services. She reported delays and technical difficulties, including extended outages on the StudentAid.gov platform, noting a deterioration in communication with the department post-layoffs.

“It is concerning that the Court is allowing the Trump administration to continue with its planned reduction in force, given what we know about the early impact of those cuts on delivering much-needed financial assistance to students seeking a postsecondary education,” Storey said.

The reduction in the department’s workforce could impair the federal government’s capacity to enforce civil rights laws, affecting minorities, girls, students with disabilities, LGBTQ+ students, and students of color, according to Gaylynn Burroughs, vice president at the National Women’s Law Center. Staff from the Office of Civil Rights, now reduced, were responsible for managing thousands of cases.

“Without enough staff and resources, students will face more barriers to educational opportunity and have fewer places to turn to when their rights are violated,” Burroughs said in a statement. “This is part of a coordinated plan by the Trump administration to dismantle the federal government and roll back hard-won civil rights protections.”

The Associated Press’ education coverage receives financial support from several private foundations, though AP maintains sole responsibility for its content.

Source: Original article

Democrats Prepare for 2028 Presidential Race in Key States

July 15, 2025 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

July 15, 2025 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

July 15, 2025 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

Proposed High-Speed Train to Connect NYC and Los Angeles

July 15, 2025 Staff ReporterTechnology, Travel, World 0

A high-speed rail line proposed by Ameristar Rail aims to connect Los Angeles to New York City by May 2026, just in time for the FIFA World Cup.

A proposed high-speed rail project, named “The Transcontinental Chief,” seeks to link Los Angeles to New York City within 72 hours, potentially transforming cross-country travel in the United States. The ambitious plan, proposed to both Amtrak and President Trump, is spearheaded by Delaware-based Ameristar Rail. It aims to utilize existing rail infrastructure rather than undertaking an expensive new public project.

The project intends to leverage tracks owned by Amtrak and other regional rail lines, including routes through major urban centers such as Kansas City, Chicago, and Philadelphia. This innovative approach is designed to sidestep the significant costs associated with constructing new tracks, allowing for a more efficient implementation timeline.

Ameristar Rail plans to fund the venture through private investors, effectively eliminating the need for taxpayer money. The rail service would accommodate both passengers and vehicles, drawing inspiration from Europe’s truck transport trains model. Ameristar Rail’s chief operating officer, Scott Spencer, emphasized the project’s potential in a letter to Amtrak.

According to Spencer, this partnership with the private sector could rejuvenate Amtrak’s long-distance offerings, which have historically been unprofitable, and help enter a new era of rail travel benefitting business ventures and the public. The timing aligns with America’s 250th birthday celebrations in 2026, adding a patriotic dimension to the endeavor.

Projected to commence on May 10, 2026, which coincides with National Train Day, the service is intended to efficiently transport tourists visiting North America for the FIFA World Cup. The tournament will be hosted across the continent, with the finals set at MetLife Stadium in New Jersey.

A significant feature of the proposal is its reliance on private funding, circumventing the need for new congressional legislation or increased federal expenditure. The operation is contingent on securing agreements with host rail operators such as BNSF, Norfolk Southern, and New Jersey Transit, which would facilitate the rail line’s use of existing tracks.

Despite its promising attributes, The Transcontinental Chief proposal has yet to receive an official response from Amtrak, indicating ongoing deliberations or negotiations may be necessary to advance the project from proposal to reality. As discussions continue, the potential for such a transformative infrastructure project remains an intriguing prospect for the future of American rail travel.

The original report of this proposal was highlighted by Newsweek, indicating its significance among proposals presented to the federal administration and transportation authorities.

Source: Original article

Trump Proposes Russia Tariffs Alongside New Ukraine Weapons Plan

July 15, 2025 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

July 15, 2025 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

Nvidia CEO Urges US to Onshore Technology Manufacturing

July 13, 2025 Staff ReporterTechnology, Economy 0

Jensen Huang, CEO of Nvidia, advocates for re-industrializing technology manufacturing in the U.S., emphasizing its economic and societal benefits.

During a recent interview with CNN’s Fareed Zakaria, Jensen Huang, the CEO of Nvidia, expressed strong support for re-industrializing the United States’ technology manufacturing sector. Based out of Santa Clara, California, Nvidia is a dominant player in the artificial intelligence (AI) chip market. According to Huang, the country should focus on revitalizing its manufacturing sector, which he believes is currently underdeveloped.

Huang highlighted the value of manufacturing skills in contributing to both economic growth and societal stability. “That passion, the skill, the craft of making things; the ability to make things is valuable for economic growth — it’s value for a stable society with people who can create a wonderful life and a wonderful career without having to get a PhD in physics,” Huang explained.

In recent years, the U.S. government has implemented various measures to rejuvenate domestic manufacturing. These have included significant tariffs aimed at invigorating the nation’s declining manufacturing industries, particularly in the automotive and energy sectors, and enhancing technology investments. In April, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt stated, “President Trump has made it clear America cannot rely on China to manufacture critical technologies such as semiconductors, chips, smartphones, and laptops” following a temporary tariff pause on certain electronics.

Huang emphasized the strategic significance of onshoring manufacturing, suggesting that it would alleviate pressure on Taiwan, home to the world’s largest semiconductor manufacturer, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC). In March, former President Trump announced that TSMC would invest a minimum of $100 billion in U.S.-based manufacturing.

Huang remarked, “Having a rich ecosystem of industries and manufacturing so that we could, on the one hand, make the United States better but also reduce our dependency — sole dependency — on other countries, is a smart move.”

The growing investment in AI, which has spurred a notable technology boom, has raised discussions about its impact on the labor market. A report from the World Economic Forum in January indicated that 41% of employers plan to downsize their workforce by 2030 due to AI-driven automation.

Nvidia, which briefly achieved a market value of $4 trillion, has developed technologies that support data centers essential for the AI models and cloud services of companies like Microsoft, Amazon, and Google. “Everybody’s jobs will be affected. Some jobs will be lost. Many jobs will be created and what I hope is that the productivity gains that we see in all the industries will lift society,” Huang noted.

Huang also discussed the company’s internal use of AI, emphasizing its importance: “Every software engineer and chip designer at Nvidia uses AI, and I encourage it to the point of mandating it.”

The discussion extended to the ethical concerns surrounding AI, particularly with generative response platforms such as Elon Musk’s Grok and OpenAI’s ChatGPT, which have encountered various controversies. Grok faced criticism after Musk’s xAI altered the chatbot, allowing it to produce more “politically incorrect” responses, including content deemed antisemitic.

xAI released a statement on Saturday attributing Grok’s behavior to outdated code susceptible to user input on X, including extremist content. The code has since been rectified. Huang commented on the incident, describing Grok as “younger” but praised Musk’s advancements within 18 months. “Of course there’s the fine tuning, there’s the guardrailing, and that just takes time to polish,” he stated.

Concerns also arise around AI’s potential for “hallucinations,” where the technology generates incorrect information. Despite these risks, Huang maintains that these fears stem from a lack of understanding of AI’s interconnected systems designed for safety. He asserted that global standards and practices are crucial for maintaining security.

“It will be overwhelmingly positive. Some harm will be done. The world has to jump on top of it when it happens, but it will be overwhelmingly, incredibly powerful,” he remarked.

Huang further explored the role of AI in healthcare, suggesting that AI models could revolutionize drug discovery by learning about proteins and chemicals. This process, more complex than language modeling due to the extensive data involved, could lead to breakthroughs in disease understanding and treatment.

“Not only will we accelerate the discovery of drugs, we’ll improve our understanding of disease. But over time, we’re going to have virtual assistant researchers and scientists to help us essentially cure all disease,” Huang predicted. “I think that day is coming.”

Moreover, real-world applications of AI are expanding. Current generative models, like Google’s Veo 3, can create videos and Huang anticipates the development of robots capable of physical tasks, a process involving vision-language-action models distinct from large-language models.

“The technology exists today. It works today,” Huang asserted, anticipating widespread technological adoption in “three to five years.”

This profound transition underscores Huang’s perspective on enhancing U.S. manufacturing and the transformative potential of AI across various industries, both of which are poised to redefine economic and societal frameworks.

US-India Trade Talks Aim to Reduce Tariffs Below 20%

July 12, 2025July 16, 2025 Staff ReporterBusiness, Economy 0

The United States is pursuing an interim trade agreement with India that could lower proposed tariffs to below 20%, which may position India favorably compared to other nations in the region.

The United States is in the process of negotiating an interim trade deal with India, which may significantly reduce proposed tariffs to less than 20%, according to individuals familiar with the ongoing discussions. This development stands to elevate India’s status against its regional counterparts.

Unlike many other nations that have recently received tariff demand letters, India does not anticipate such a demand and expects that the trade arrangement will be formally announced through a statement. The interim deal would provide a framework for continued negotiations, offering New Delhi the opportunity to address unresolved issues before a broader agreement is potentially reached in the fall.

The anticipated statement is expected to set a baseline tariff under 20%, a reduction from the initially proposed 26%. However, the language within the statement is likely to allow for further negotiation of the rate as part of the final agreement. The precise timing of this interim deal remains uncertain.

If finalized, India would join a select group of trading partners that have secured agreements with the Trump administration. In contrast, numerous trading partners have been unsettled by recent announcements of tariffs as high as 50%, ahead of an August 1 deadline.

The Indian Ministry of Commerce and Industry, along with the White House and the Commerce Department, did not immediately respond to requests for comment regarding this potential agreement.

New Delhi aims to secure terms more favorable than those in the recent agreement reached between the United States and Vietnam, which saw import duties set at 20%. Vietnam, surprised by this rate, is still attempting to renegotiate. Besides Vietnam, the UK is the only nation with which President Trump has announced a trade deal.

In an interview with NBC News, President Trump mentioned contemplating blanket tariffs of 15% to 20% for most trading partners. Currently, the global baseline minimum levy affecting nearly all US trading partners stands at 10%.

Thus far, announced tariff rates for Asian nations range from 20% for both Vietnam and the Philippines to as high as 40% for Laos and Myanmar.

India was among the first countries to engage the White House in trade talks this year; however, tensions have surfaced in recent weeks. Although President Trump stated that an agreement with India is nearing completion, he simultaneously threatened additional tariffs due to India’s involvement in the BRICS group. A delegation of Indian negotiators is expected to travel to Washington soon to advance these talks.

India has already presented its best offer to the Trump administration and outlined the limits it is unwilling to cross during negotiations. However, the two countries remain entrenched in disputes over several key issues, including Washington’s request for India to open its market to genetically modified crops, which New Delhi has opposed on behalf of its farmers.

Some contentious topics, such as non-tariff barriers in the agricultural sector and regulatory processes within the pharmaceutical industry, continue to prevent the two nations from reaching a consensus, according to those familiar with the matter.

Source: Original article

Ackman Offers One-Word Advice on Stock Market Trends

July 12, 2025 Staff ReporterBusiness, Economy, Finance/Economy 0

Recent developments in the stock market have sparked significant discussions regarding its resilience amid economic uncertainties, punctuated by a succinct one-word advisory from veteran hedge fund manager Bill Ackman.

The stock market has experienced a robust rally since April 9, when President Donald Trump temporarily halted the majority of the reciprocal tariffs he announced earlier in the month. This decision came after markets had responded negatively to the initial tariff impositions on April 2, known as Liberation Day. The suspension of tariffs provided relief to an oversold market, driving a remarkable recovery that saw the S&P 500 gain approximately 25% within three months.

The rally in stocks is especially noteworthy given the backdrop of a potentially faltering U.S. economy. Concerns over rising unemployment and persistent inflation have fueled worries about stagflation or a possible recession. With the unemployment rate climbing from 3.4% to 4.1% over the past year and inflation pressures still being felt, the economic outlook remains challenging.

This environment typically poses a tough scenario for stocks, which generally thrive during periods of economic growth, supported by increased consumer and business spending. Despite these conditions, stocks have nearly recovered the losses incurred during a near-bear market earlier this year.

Opinions diverge on the market’s trajectory from here. Optimists, or bulls, argue that the earlier market declines sufficiently accounted for the economic risks, paving the way for sustained gains. In contrast, pessimists, or bears, caution that the current valuations are high, and the economy’s struggles could hinder further progress.

Bill Ackman, a prominent figure on Wall Street, added a brief yet impactful perspective to the conversation this week. With a personal net worth of $8.2 billion, Ackman ranks 413th on Bloomberg’s Billionaires Index and manages Pershing Square, a hedge fund with $18 billion under its management. His succinct message to investors is noteworthy, given his extensive experience in the financial sector.

Divergent views on the economic impact of tariffs persist. Some believe that tariffs could significantly burden consumers already dealing with financial constraints, leading to reduced economic activity. Others assert that the risks associated with tariffs are overstated and temporary.

Despite the unemployment rate being relatively low, there has been a significant increase in layoffs. According to data from Challenger, Gray, & Christmas, over 696,000 layoffs have been announced this year through May, marking an 80% rise from the previous year.

The increase in unemployment has occurred alongside the most aggressive pace of interest rate hikes by the Federal Reserve in its history. The Federal Reserve raised interest rates by a total of 5% over 2022 and 2023 to combat inflation, which successfully reduced the CPI inflation rate from 8% to below 3%.

However, as inflationary pressures stabilized, the Federal Reserve pivoted to rate cuts late last year, reducing the Fed Funds Rate by 1%. Despite this, concerns over inflation, exacerbated by tariffs, have prompted the Federal Reserve to maintain a cautious stance, leaving rates unchanged and adopting a wait-and-see approach.

This cautious approach has faced criticism from the White House. President Trump has expressed dissatisfaction with Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell for not cutting rates, which could mitigate some economic strains caused by tariffs. Despite this, Powell has maintained that patience is necessary for monetary policy decisions.

The Federal Reserve’s hesitancy coincides with projections of a slowing U.S. economy. The Fed and the World Bank anticipate that the GDP growth rate will slow from 2.8% last year to 1.4% this year. This slowdown exacerbates concerns about economic growth and limits potential government fiscal policy responses, given the substantial national deficit and debt levels.

The U.S. deficit exceeds $1.8 trillion, accounting for 6.4% of GDP, while total public debt is approximately 122% of GDP, a significant increase from 75% in 2008 during the Great Recession.

Despite these concerning indicators, the stock market seems to be focusing on potential positive outcomes, such as successful trade negotiations, retreating inflation expectations, and the belief that tariff-related risks are exaggerated, which might support corporate earnings growth.

Bill Ackman’s extensive experience, which dates back to the early 1990s, includes navigating major market events such as the Internet boom and bust, the Great Recession, and the COVID-19 pandemic. His insights are hence seen as valuable within the investment community.

According to TheStreet, his one-word message to investors on the current state of the stock market carries weight due to his substantial industry experience.

Source: Original article

U.S. Treasury Reports June Surplus Amid Rising Tariff Revenues

July 12, 2025 Staff ReporterBusiness, Finance/Economy 0

The U.S. Treasury Department reported an unexpected surplus of $27 billion in June, driven primarily by a significant increase in tariff receipts.

The U.S. government posted a surplus in June, driven by a rise in tariff collections, as reported by the Treasury Department on Friday.

Amid an overall increase in government spending throughout the year, the Treasury reported a $27 billion surplus for the month, contrasting sharply with a $316 billion deficit recorded in May.

Year-to-date, the fiscal deficit stands at $1.34 trillion, marking a 5% rise from the same period last year. However, after adjusting for the calendar, the deficit has slightly decreased by 1%. The fiscal year concludes on September 30, providing three more months for adjustments.

In June, the government’s receipts rose by 13% compared to the previous year, while expenditures decreased by 7%. Annually, receipts have experienced a 7% increase, with spending rising by 6%.

This occasion marks the first instance of a June surplus since 2017, during the initial term of President Donald Trump. The boost from tariffs has been a major factor in this development.

Customs duties reached approximately $27 billion in June, increasing from $23 billion in May and reflecting a 301% rise compared to June 2024. Annually, these collections have amounted to $113 billion, marking an 86% increase from the previous year.

In April, President Trump imposed a 10% tariff on imports, in addition to other select duties, and announced a series of reciprocal tariffs on various U.S. trading partners, which are still under negotiation.

The report highlights that the month’s results benefited from calendar adjustments, without which the deficit would have been $70 billion.

High Treasury yields continue to challenge federal finances, as net interest payments on the $36 trillion national debt totaled $84 billion in June, a slight decrease from May. However, these interest payments remain second only to Social Security in terms of government expenditure. So far this fiscal year, net interest has reached $749 billion, with total interest payments expected to hit $1.2 trillion by fiscal year-end.

President Trump has been urging the Federal Reserve to reduce short-term interest rates to alleviate the financial burdens of federal debt servicing. Nevertheless, market expectations indicate the central bank may not implement any rate cuts until September. Fed Chair Jerome Powell has expressed concerns over the possible inflationary effects of tariffs.

The Congressional Budget Office projects that Trump’s recently passed spending bill could increase the national debt by an additional $3.4 trillion over the next decade.

Source: Original article

Justice Department’s Citizenship Revocations May Violate Constitutional Rights

July 12, 2025July 16, 2025 Staff ReporterU.S., Visa 0

The Trump administration is intensifying efforts to strip citizenship from naturalized Americans, targeting cases across ten broad categories, according to a recent Justice Department directive.

The Justice Department’s recent memo signifies a substantial policy shift, as it urges the department to “maximally pursue denaturalization proceedings in all cases permitted by law and supported by evidence.” This move marks a distinct push to revoke citizenship on a massive scale, affecting naturalized Americans nationwide.

Denaturalization differs from deportation in that it involves a civil lawsuit that revokes a person’s U.S. citizenship, subsequently turning them back into noncitizens who can then face deportation. The government can pursue denaturalization if it can prove that an individual “illegally procured” their citizenship by failing to meet legal requirements or by committing fraud during the naturalization process.

The new directive promotes a “maximal enforcement” policy, effectively seeking denaturalization in any case where evidence supports such action, irrespective of the strength of the evidence or the priority level. This has led to instances like Baljinder Singh, whose citizenship was revoked after a name discrepancy, potentially the result of a translator’s error rather than fraudulent intent.

Historically, denaturalization was a rare occurrence until the 1940s and 1950s during the Red Scare, as suspicion of communism and Nazism prompted a surge in such cases. Between 1907 and 1967, over 22,000 Americans were denaturalized. However, the landmark Supreme Court case Afroyim v. Rusk in 1967 restricted the government from revoking citizenship without consent, except in cases involving fraud.

Since then, denaturalization was seldom pursued; from 1968 to 2013, under 150 individuals lost their citizenship, mainly due to concealed war crimes. The current approach stands in contrast with this history, sparking concerns among legal scholars about violations of constitutional rights.

In civil denaturalization cases, individuals lack access to free legal counsel, jury trials, and face a lower burden of proof—”clear and convincing evidence”—compared to criminal cases which require “beyond a reasonable doubt” proof. The absence of a statute of limitations allows the government to investigate cases irrespective of how long ago the alleged misconduct occurred.

The expansion of denaturalization has significant implications for democracy and societal security, as a core tenet of citizenship lies in its permanence. The fear that naturalized citizens might lose their status at any time undermines their full participation in American democracy.

The Justice Department’s directive outlines 10 categories for denaturalization, ranging from national security threats and war crimes to various frauds and financial crimes. This policy effectively creates two categories of American citizens: those born in the U.S., who face no risk of losing their citizenship, and naturalized citizens, who may remain vulnerable throughout their lives.

Individuals, such as a woman who became a naturalized citizen in 2007 and later faced potential denaturalization due to non-disclosure of a crime she was involved in unaware at her naturalization time, illustrate the precariousness of this policy. She cooperated with an FBI investigation and completed her legal sentence, yet decades later her citizenship was under scrutiny.

This intensified scrutiny could significantly impact approximately 20 million naturalized Americans, whose decades-old paperwork discrepancies might now threaten their citizenship status. The Justice Department’s move to “maximally pursue” denaturalization cases, alongside initiatives from the first Trump administration to re-evaluate over 700,000 naturalization files, represents a considerable escalation of efforts to rescind citizenship.

Constitutional challenges to this policy are anticipated, as they raise significant concerns about its alignment with the principles established in Afroyim v. Rusk, which underscored the inviolability of citizenship as a fundamental right.

As legal and academic critiques continue, the debate surrounding the policy’s implications unfolds, with broader consequences looming over the security and integrity of naturalized citizenship in America.

Source: Original article

Trump’s Bill Impact on Social Security Taxes Explained

July 11, 2025 Staff ReporterEconomy, Nation 0

The newly passed legislation includes a provision that offers a significant tax deduction for seniors, altering the landscape for tax obligations on Social Security benefits.

In the aftermath of Congress passing President Trump’s legislative package, many Americans received an intriguing email from the Social Security Administration. The email hailed the enactment of the new law and highlighted a provision that reportedly “eliminates federal income taxes on Social Security benefits for most beneficiaries.” However, according to experts, the email misrepresented the complexities of the legislation.

Although the legislation aligns with Trump’s campaign promise of “no tax on Social Security benefits,” it doesn’t provide a full tax exemption for Social Security benefits. Instead, the law introduces a new tax deduction specifically for individuals aged 65 and over. This is expected to reduce or eliminate the tax liabilities on Social Security benefits for a larger number of seniors.

Marc Goldwein, senior vice president at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, explained, “The legislation that passed does make it so some people won’t pay taxes on their benefits because it increases their standard deduction.”

The newly introduced senior deduction is set at $6,000 annually for those aged 65 or older.

The controversial email, which carried the subject line “Social Security Applauds Passage of Legislation Providing Historic Tax Relief for Seniors,” marked a rare political outreach by the agency, as noted by experts.

Howard Gleckman, a senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, criticized the email for being misleading. He stated, “The email included a number of assertions that simply are either not true or overstated, confusing recipients.”

One of the misleading points, according to Gleckman, was the implication that the bill had fundamentally altered the taxation of Social Security benefits. In reality, these benefits are still taxed similarly to other income, and the legislation does not change this.

The email further claimed that the bill “ensures that nearly 90% of Social Security beneficiaries will no longer pay federal income taxes on their benefits.” While this aligns with estimates from the White House Council of Economic Advisers—indicating that 88% of older Social Security recipients may avoid taxation on their benefits—Gleckman pointed out that nearly two-thirds of these beneficiaries already avoid such taxes due to their lower income levels.

The Social Security Administration did not respond to NPR’s request for comments on these critiques. However, the agency eventually issued a correction online, clarifying the details about the new $6,000 deduction for seniors.

Howard Gleckman highlighted that the added deduction will be most beneficial to middle- and upper-middle-class seniors. Those with incomes ranging between $80,000 and $130,000 stand to gain the most, with an average tax cut of about $1,100.

Lower-income seniors are not expected to experience much of a change, as they generally earn too little to be liable for taxes. On the other hand, those with higher income—individuals earning over $175,000 or couples with incomes exceeding $250,000—would not be eligible for this new deduction.

Despite the apparent benefits, Gleckman expressed concerns regarding the financial health of Social Security. “Taxes paid on Social Security benefits contribute directly to the trust funds for Social Security and Medicare Part A. Cutting these taxes risks accelerating the insolvency of these trust funds,” he explained.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget projects that this move could advance the timeline for trust fund insolvency to late 2032. Unless Congress enacts further changes, this could necessitate a 24% cut in Social Security benefits.

The email quoted Social Security Administration Commissioner Frank Bisignano, stating that the legislation “reaffirms President Trump’s promise to protect Social Security and helps ensure that seniors can better enjoy the retirement they’ve earned.” Nonetheless, easing the tax burden now may undermine the long-term sustainability of the Social Security system.

Supreme Court to Decide on Birthright Citizenship Issue

July 11, 2025 Staff ReporterImmigration, Nation 0

The legal battle over President Donald Trump’s executive order aiming to restrict birthright citizenship could soon return to the U.S. Supreme Court after a federal judge blocked the order’s implementation nationwide.

A judge in New Hampshire on Thursday issued a preliminary injunction against President Donald Trump’s executive order that sought to end birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to parents without legal status. This decision halts the enforcement of the order across the country.

Judge Joseph LaPlante, appointed by former President George W. Bush, granted a preliminary injunction and certified a class-action lawsuit regarding all children potentially impacted by the order. This ruling arrives shortly after the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. CASA, which limited judges’ ability to issue nationwide injunctions but did not resolve the constitutionality of Trump’s order itself.

The concept of birthright citizenship is rooted in the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which grants American citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil, including children born to undocumented immigrants.

In his order, Judge LaPlante expressed little hesitation in determining that an injunction was necessary. “Respondents’ arguments about irreparable harm remain unconvincing to the court,” LaPlante wrote, highlighting the constitutional concerns surrounding the rapid implementation of such a policy. He stated that acting without legislation and national debate could cause irreparable harm to thousands who would otherwise be entitled to citizenship.

Renowned immigration law expert Stephen Yale-Loehr told Newsweek that while the injunction is a critical step, it is a preliminary finding that allows the case to proceed as a class action. He noted that it does not resolve the essential questions concerning the executive order itself, emphasizing that a final decision might not reach the Supreme Court until next year.

In a statement made on the Bloomberg Law podcast, Jonathan Adler, a constitutional law professor at William & Mary Law School, speculated that the Trump administration will likely challenge the class certification of the case. He suggested that the matter may end up before the Supreme Court, anticipating that five justices might be ready to rule on the order’s merits.

Cody Wofsy, the deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigrant’s Rights Project, described the ruling as a significant victory, asserting that it upholds the intended constitutional protection of citizenship for all children born in the U.S. He underscored the importance of preserving these citizenship rights against presidential overreach.

Conversely, White House spokesman Harrison Fields affirmed that the Trump administration plans to actively contest what he called the obstructive actions of district court judges undermining policy objectives set by President Trump.

Judge LaPlante’s decision includes a seven-day stay, allowing the government time to appeal the ruling. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court concluded its opinions for the 2024-25 term in late June, and the upcoming term will commence in October, with emergency order applications being considered at any point.

According to Newsweek, the legal trajectory related to this executive order remains unsettled as the battle over birthright citizenship persists.

US Imposes $250 Visa Fee for Tourists, Students from 2026

July 10, 2025July 16, 2025 Staff ReporterImmigration, Visa 0

Indian nationals traveling to the United States will face a significant increase in visa-related costs starting in 2026, as part of a broad immigration overhaul under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

Indian nationals traveling to the United States for tourism, education, or temporary work will soon face a significant increase in visa-related costs.

Beginning in 2026, a new $250 “Visa Integrity Fee” will be levied on most non-immigrant visa categories under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (H.R. 1), which was signed into law by U.S. President Donald Trump on July 4.

The surcharge will apply to B-1/B-2 tourist and business visas, F and M student visas, H-1B work visas, and J-1 exchange visas, among others. Only diplomatic visa classes (A and G) are exempt.

The fee will be collected by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) at the time of visa issuance and is framed as a refundable security deposit. To be eligible for a refund, travelers must comply with all visa conditions—such as departing the U.S. within five days of expiration or adjusting their immigration status legally—and submit the required documentation.

The $250 charge is in addition to existing costs. The current $185 Machine-Readable Visa (MRV) application fee remains unchanged, but applicants will also be required to pay a $24 I-94 surcharge for entry/exit tracking.

Those using the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) or Electronic Visa Update System (EVUS) will incur additional fees of $13 and $30, respectively. For Indian travelers, the total cost of obtaining a U.S. visa could rise to approximately $480, effectively doubling current expenses.

The new surcharge is part of a broader immigration overhaul under the One Big Beautiful Bill, which allocates $150 billion through 2029 for expanded immigration enforcement.

The legislation increases funding for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP), expands detention infrastructure, accelerates deportations, and limits asylum access. These measures will be partially funded through higher visa fees and a new 1 percent tax on foreign remittances, according to the Immigration Advocacy Project.

While the DHS maintains that the Visa Integrity Fee will promote compliance and deter overstays, critics argue that the fee disproportionately burdens applicants from countries like India, which sees high demand for U.S. visas. Education providers, technology employers, and travel industry representatives have warned that the increased financial burden may discourage students and skilled workers from choosing the U.S.

Estimates suggest that the new visa and related fees could generate $64 billion through 2034, contributing to federal tax and enforcement funding—but at a substantial cost to immigrant communities.

Source: Original article

India Sees 27% Decline in US Student Visas Since COVID

July 10, 2025 Staff ReporterImmigration, Visa 0

The issuance of student visas to Indian nationals for studying in the United States experienced a notable 27 percent decline between March and May this year, representing the slowest start to the visa season since the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The latest statistics from the U.S. State Department reveal that 9,906 F-1 visas were issued to Indian students during the referenced period. This marks a significant decrease from the 13,478 visas granted in the same months the previous year, and an even lower figure than the 10,894 visas issued in 2022, when international travel had only recently resumed.

The months from March to May typically witness a surge in visa processing as students gear up for the Fall semester, which generally commences in August or September. However, this year’s downturn coincides with a renewed immigration crackdown under the Trump administration, characterized by the introduction of more rigorous screening procedures for international students.

In late May, the U.S. State Department issued a directive halting new interview scheduling for F, M, and J visa applicants. This suspension of appointments, which lasted from May 27 to June 18, was a global measure as embassies were instructed to adhere to the newly implemented protocols.

The directive, endorsed by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, sought to enforce mandatory social media scrutiny. Visa applicants were required to disclose their social media profiles from the preceding five years, a mandate that has stirred concerns among prospective students about processing delays and potential backlogs.

The U.S. Embassy in New Delhi issued public advisories urging Indian visa applicants to comply with these new conditions. Meanwhile, the policy adjustments have led to visa cancellations across at least 32 states in the U.S. Reports indicate that some of these cancellations involved Indian students and were associated with involvement in pro-Palestinian protests or previous legal infractions, such as DUIs, although in several cases, the reasons for cancellation were not explicitly communicated.

In response to the augmented scrutiny, many students have taken proactive measures to sanitize their digital footprints. This includes removing sensitive posts, unfollowing accounts, and tightening privacy settings in an effort to mitigate the risk of visa rejection under the expanded vetting processes.

Despite the current slowdown, Indian students continue to represent the largest cohort of international students in the United States. According to Open Doors 2024, Indian students overtook their Chinese counterparts during the 2023–2024 academic year, becoming the top contributors to the foreign student population.

Nevertheless, the overall trend for 2024 has been one of decline. From January to September of the previous year, Indian students were granted 64,008 F-1 visas, a decrease from 103,000 in 2023 and 93,181 in 2022.

Source: Original article

Ex-White House Doctor Refuses to Testify in Biden Investigation

July 10, 2025 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

July 10, 2025 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

Trump Administration Subpoenas Harvard, Accreditation at Risk

July 10, 2025 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

Nvidia Hits $4 Trillion Market Cap, Surpassing Apple and Microsoft

July 10, 2025 Staff ReporterBusiness, Economy, Technology 0

Nvidia has made history as the first company to achieve a $4 trillion market capitalization, highlighting its substantial influence in the global financial arena.

Nvidia has reached a historic milestone, becoming the first company to reach a market valuation of $4 trillion. This achievement underscores its dominant role in the global financial sector.

The chipmaker’s shares experienced a 2.8 percent rise to $164.42 on Wednesday, driven by the unwavering demand for artificial intelligence technologies and Nvidia’s strategic leadership in the AI hardware market. This surge has solidified Nvidia’s position on Wall Street as the most valuable company, surpassing long-standing industry giants Apple and Microsoft. Currently, Apple and Microsoft are the only other U.S. companies with valuations exceeding $3 trillion.

Nvidia first attained a $1 trillion market valuation in June 2023, and since then, the company’s growth trajectory has surpassed that of every other mega-cap stock. In a little over a year, its market value has more than tripled, achieving this milestone at a faster pace than Apple and Microsoft, which are currently valued at $3.01 trillion and $3.75 trillion respectively.

The company’s rebound has been remarkable, with its shares increasing by approximately 74 percent from their lowest point in April. This recovery follows a period of market instability triggered by U.S. President Donald Trump’s renewed tariff conflicts. During this time, investors were concerned about a potential slowdown in AI investments, particularly due to emerging competition from China’s DeepSeek. However, recent optimism surrounding new trade agreements has improved market sentiment, driving the S&P 500 to an unprecedented high.

Currently, Nvidia holds a 7.3 percent weighting on the S&P 500, the highest of any company, surpassing both Apple and Microsoft, which account for around 7 percent and 6 percent, respectively, according to Indian Express.

Source: Original article

Immigration Officials Warn Green Card Holders of New Risks

July 9, 2025 Staff ReporterImmigration, U.S., Visa 0

Green card holders in the United States have been cautioned that their legal status could be at risk if they have a criminal record and violate immigration laws.

Federal authorities have issued a warning to green card holders, noting that the U.S. government has the power to revoke legal residency for those who break and abuse national laws. A statement from Customs and Border Protection (CBP) emphasized that lawful permanent residents arriving at U.S. ports of entry with previous criminal convictions could face detention before removal proceedings.

The advisory comes amid heightened immigration enforcement under the Trump administration, which has vowed to deport millions of undocumented immigrants as part of a stringent deportation strategy. The administration has labeled anyone present in the country illegally as a “criminal.”

In addition to focusing on undocumented individuals, the government’s rigorous operations have also subjected immigrants with valid visas and green cards to detention. Various reports have highlighted numerous instances of green card holders being ensnared in immigration raids.

Reports from the Office of Homeland Security Statistics estimate that 12.8 million lawful permanent residents, or green card holders, were living in the United States as of January 1, 2024. The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has stated that lawful permanent residents who breach immigration laws could lose their status and face deportation procedures.

Amelia Wilson, an assistant professor at the Elisabeth Haub School of Law and director of the Immigration Justice Clinic, underscored that there are defined legal protections in place to prevent abrupt revocation of a green card holder’s status. “The law contained within the Immigration and Nationality Act is clear,” Wilson explained to Newsweek. “The Department of Homeland Security cannot unilaterally ‘revoke’ a permanent resident’s status. There is a process the agency must follow, including serving the individual with a ‘Notice of Intent to Rescind,’ at which time that individual is entitled to a hearing before an immigration judge.”

Under the Trump administration, agencies such as CBP, USCIS, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) have embarked on comprehensive social media campaigns. These campaigns encourage undocumented immigrants to self-deport, highlight criminal arrests, and maintain a significantly larger online presence than in previous administrations.

The administration is also taking action to revoke visas of foreign students allegedly involved in pro-Hamas activities, demonstrating, and distributing flyers on college campuses. This move is part of a broader executive order aimed at combating antisemitism and targeting supporters of extremist groups. The expanded crackdown includes immigration enforcement against pro-Palestinian activists holding green cards.

Several high-profile detentions have occurred, such as the case of Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian activist and Columbia graduate student, who was arrested at his university-owned apartment.

Wilson pointed out that during these proceedings, it falls upon the government to prove by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence that a permanent resident should lose their status. “At that point, it is the immigration judge—and only the immigration judge—who can effectively strip an individual of their green card,” Wilson added.

Public officials have echoed similar sentiments about enforcement. Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated on social media: “We will be revoking the visas and/or green cards of Hamas supporters in America so they can be deported.” In another statement, USCIS noted that “Green cards and visas will be revoked if an alien breaks the law, supports terrorism, overstays their permitted visit time, performs illegal work, or anything else that violates the terms on which we granted them this privilege or compromises the safety of our fellow Americans.” Additionally, CBP reminded green card holders that having a criminal history does not constitute exemplary behavior for lawful permanent residents, emphasizing that possessing a green card is a privilege, not a right.

Source: Original article

Trump Announces Tariffs on Copper and Pharmaceutical Imports

July 9, 2025July 9, 2025 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

July 9, 2025 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.

Dow Jones Drops as China Issues Tariff Warning to US

July 9, 2025 Staff ReporterBusiness, Finance/Economy, Global 0

The Dow Jones is expected to open lower on Tuesday after China issued a warning regarding U.S. tariffs, amid ongoing international trade tensions.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) is poised to start the trading session on a downward trend following a stern message from China to the Trump administration. On the previous day, President Trump dispatched letters detailing new tariff rates to representatives from 14 countries.

The People’s Daily, an official newspaper of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), emphasized that “dialogue and cooperation are the only correct path” in response to the tariff announcements. The newspaper criticized President Trump’s tariff policies, describing them as “bullying.”

In its statement, the People’s Daily warned that China would take retaliatory measures against any countries that exclude China from their supply chains while negotiating deals with the United States. “China firmly opposes any side striking a deal that sacrifices Chinese interests in exchange for tariff concessions,” the newspaper asserted.

President Trump has vowed to impose higher tariffs on countries that engage in transshipment—a method of circumventing tariffs on Chinese goods by passing them through intermediary countries. This strategic move aims to address tariff evasion concerns and tighten trade controls.

The Dow Jones ETF, indicated by the ticker DIA, reflected the market sentiment, showing a decline of 0.10% at the time of writing after experiencing a 0.91% drop on Monday.

This development underscores the ongoing complexities of global trade relations, with significant implications for international markets and supply chain dynamics.

According to TipRanks, these events continue to shape the economic discourse and market movements on a global scale.

U.S. Visa Rule May Impact 420,000 Indian Students

July 9, 2025 Staff ReporterEducation, Immigration 0

The proposed U.S. student visa rule under review could impose fixed stays on F, J, and I visas, potentially affecting over 420,000 Indian students as they face increased uncertainty and costs.

The United States is contemplating a significant change to its student visa policy that may impact more than 420,000 Indian students. Under a proposed rule from the Department of Homeland Security, currently being reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget, the U.S. would impose fixed stays for holders of F, J, and I visas—encompassing students, exchange visitors, and foreign media professionals.

If implemented, this rule would replace the current “duration of status” policy, which allows students to stay as long as they remain enrolled full-time. Instead, students would confront fixed expiration dates on their visas. This adjustment would necessitate periodic applications for extensions, potentially causing delays and additional costs, according to Rajiv Khanna, managing attorney at Immigration.com. Khanna noted that the average extension request could take months, adding to the challenges faced by international students.

The change poses a particular concern for Indian students, who are the largest group of international students in the U.S. In 2024, over 420,000 Indian nationals were enrolled in American universities, per U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement data. The rule could disrupt individual academic journeys and strain the broader educational partnership between India and the U.S.

A similar proposal was introduced in 2020 under the Trump administration but did not advance. Its potential revival signals a move towards stricter visa policies, raising apprehensions among stakeholders. Critics warn that it could alter how “unlawful presence” is determined; currently, it commences only after a formal finding by immigration authorities. Under the new proposal, any overstay, intentional or not, could trigger it immediately.

Universities and colleges in the U.S. have opposed the change, arguing that it stems from exaggerated concerns about visa overstays. In 2023, the overstay rate for F, M, and J visas was 3.6 percent. There is also uncertainty about the rule’s implementation. If the DHS issues it as an interim final rule, it could come into effect immediately, bypassing public comment, and leaving institutions and students little time to adapt.

While the final rule hasn’t been published in the Federal Register, the policy’s direction highlights a shift in how the U.S. views international student flexibility, potentially affecting the attractiveness of U.S. education.

The impending change compounds anxiety for Indian students awaiting F-1 visa interview slots for the upcoming fall 2025 academic session. Frustrations have mounted among student communities, as evidenced by a widely shared Reddit post expressing worries about the unavailability of F-1 visa slots in India. The delay has left many students, who face August start dates, in a dilemma as they remain unable to secure required interviews at U.S. consulates in India.

Further complicating matters, in June, the U.S. Embassy in India specified that Indian applicants for F, M, or J student visas need to make their social media accounts public before attending their visa interviews.

According to The Times of India, these developments reflect the broader policy reassessment by the U.S., which may reshape the global perception and desirability of American higher education for international students.

Goldman Appoints Ex-UK Prime Minister Sunak as Adviser

July 9, 2025 Staff ReporterBusiness, Profile 0

Former UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has rejoined Goldman Sachs Group Inc. as a senior adviser, bringing his extensive experience back to the Wall Street bank nearly two decades after leaving his analyst role and a year after stepping down as Prime Minister.

Rishi Sunak, who led the United Kingdom as Prime Minister from October 2022 until July 2024, has signed on as a senior adviser with Goldman Sachs. In this new capacity, he will collaborate with leaders across the New York-based financial institution to provide clients worldwide with counsel on a diverse range of subjects, including macroeconomic issues and geopolitical dynamics, according to a statement from Goldman Sachs Chief Executive Officer David Solomon.

Sunak’s political career faced challenges, including guiding the Conservative Party to a significant defeat in the last general election. Despite this setback, Sunak continues to represent the Richmond and Northallerton constituency in northern England as a Member of Parliament. He previously committed to serving as an MP for the full term of the next Parliament, irrespective of the election results. Sunak’s successor as Prime Minister, Labour’s Keir Starmer, has the prerogative to call the next general election as late as mid-2029.

Sunak’s association with Goldman Sachs traces back to his early career, when he first joined as a summer intern in investment banking in 2000. Following his internship, he worked as an analyst from 2001 to 2004. His career trajectory took a new path afterward as he co-founded an investment firm that focused on working with companies on an international scale.

Beyond his professional achievements, Sunak and his wife, Akshata Murty, are noted for their wealth, with Murty being one of the wealthiest former residents of 10 Downing Street. Murty’s significant financial stake in Infosys Ltd., a software company established by her father, has contributed to this financial standing, with her wealth estimated to be over $700 million by the Bloomberg Billionaires Index.

Goldman Sachs, often colloquially referred to as “Government Sachs” due to its many connections with prominent government officials, has a history of hiring influential figures such as Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, Italy’s Mario Draghi, and former US Treasury Secretaries Henry Paulson and Steve Mnuchin.

Sunak’s transition to Goldman aligns with a broader trend seen among major Wall Street firms, which are increasingly bringing on board former politicians to enhance their clients’ geopolitical advisement. In similar moves, Citigroup has enlisted Donald Trump’s former trade representative Robert Lighthizer, and investment bank Centerview Partners brought in Trump’s former chief of staff Reince Priebus.

Prior to his premiership, Sunak served as Chancellor of the Exchequer from February 2020 to July 2022. His political career began as a Member of Parliament in 2015, after holding roles such as Chief Secretary to the Treasury and Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Ministry of Housing, Communities, and Local Government.

According to News India Times, Sunak’s return to Goldman Sachs as an adviser underscores his enduring influence in both financial and political spheres.

US Tariffs Delayed to August 1 Amid Trade Negotiations

July 8, 2025 Staff ReporterDiplomacy, Economy 0

U.S. President Donald Trump has postponed the implementation of country-specific tariffs to August 1 to allow time for continued trade negotiations with several countries, including India.

Originally set for July 9, the tariffs have been delayed, as announced by Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick. He stated that President Trump is currently establishing the rates and securing agreements regarding the tariffs, aimed at various nations.

President Trump expressed optimism about the negotiations, suggesting that he expects deals with most countries to be concluded by July 9. The process involves sending notification letters to trading partners about potential tariff hikes, slated to begin on Monday and continue into Tuesday. Trump emphasized the straightforwardness of the current approach, likening it to an ultimatum of sorts: to conduct business with the United States, countries must comply with specific tariff demands.

President Trump initially proposed a base tariff of 10 percent in April, with some tariffs potentially increasing to 50 percent, affecting multiple U.S. trading partners. To date, finalized trade agreements have been reached with the United Kingdom and Vietnam, with additional negotiations reported as ongoing.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent highlighted the urgency, indicating President Trump’s strategy to prompt swift resolutions. Bessent mentioned that letters would be sent to some trading partners, warning that failure to advance negotiations would result in tariffs reverting to April 2 levels by August 1. He anticipates this tactic will expedite the finalization of several trade agreements.

An Indian delegation, led by chief negotiator Rajesh Agrawal, has recently returned from talks in Washington. Despite extensive discussions, the U.S. and India have yet to finalize a comprehensive agreement. One of the major sticking points remains the U.S. demands concerning agricultural and dairy products.

In a broader context, President Trump announced an additional 10 percent tariff on countries that align themselves with BRICS anti-American policies, a move likely to impact several nations’ trade strategies with the United States.

According to IANS, these developments add pressure on U.S. trade partners to reach agreements that align with the new American trade policies.

IRS Permits Churches to Endorse Candidates Without Tax Penalty

July 8, 2025 Staff ReporterReligion, USA 0

The IRS has signaled that churches can endorse political candidates without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status, challenging a long-standing interpretation of the U.S. tax code’s Johnson Amendment.

The Internal Revenue Service announced in a federal court filing that churches are entitled to endorse political candidates during services without forfeiting their tax-exempt status. This decision marks a significant shift from a 70-year-old interpretation of the U.S. tax code, specifically the Johnson Amendment, which historically prohibited certain non-profit organizations, including churches, from engaging in such endorsements.

The IRS’s filing stated that communications from a house of worship to its congregation during religious services, when conducted through customary channels, do not violate the Johnson Amendment. The agency clarified that when a church discusses electoral politics from a religious perspective during services, it does not amount to participation or intervention in a political campaign, as understood within the usual meaning of these terms.

This move could lead to significant changes in how churches and religious organizations interact with political campaigns and candidates. The filing was part of a legal settlement effort in a U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, involving the IRS, the National Religious Broadcasters group, Sand Springs Church in Athens, Texas, and First Baptist Church Waksom in Waksom, Texas. The parties involved in the lawsuit argued that the Johnson Amendment infringed upon their First Amendment rights to free speech and religious expression.

President Donald Trump has previously advocated for the repeal of the Johnson Amendment, aligning with arguments presented by these religious groups. The IRS’s recent position indicates a considerable deviation from its past interpretations of the tax code concerning church involvement in political endorsements.

The lawsuit resulted in a joint motion to settle through a consent judgment, which, if approved, would prevent the IRS from enforcing the Johnson Amendment against the suing churches. However, at the time of the filing, the district court had not yet issued a ruling on the motion.

According to CNCB, these developments could influence similar cases and may lead to broader implications for the intersection of religious freedom and political expression within U.S. tax law.

Golden Visas: Costs in UAE, US, New Zealand, More

July 8, 2025 Staff ReporterImmigration, Global 0

The United Arab Emirates has introduced a nomination-based Golden Visa for Indians, distinct from traditional investment-driven residency programs.

The United Arab Emirates (UAE) government is launching a new Golden Visa specifically targeting Indian nationals, shifting the process from a traditional investment-based model to a nomination-based system.

India and Bangladesh have been selected as the initial countries to test this nomination-based visa system. The UAE has appointed the Rayad Group consultancy to oversee the introduction of this visa in India.

Golden Visas have become an attractive option for high-net-worth individuals (HNWIs) seeking to relocate overseas either immediately or for future retirement plans. These visas grant the right to live, work, study, and access healthcare in the host country.

Various countries offer the Golden Visa under different programs, tailored mainly to affluent foreigners willing to invest in the host country’s economy or meet certain conditions. Here’s a look at five such countries and the costs associated with obtaining their Golden Visas:

United Arab Emirates: The UAE’s new nomination-based Golden Visa for Indians allows for pre-approval from the applicant’s home country without requiring a visit to Dubai. This lifetime visa comes with a fee of AED 100,000, approximately ₹23.30 lakh.

United States: During his presidency, Donald Trump announced the Trump Gold Card Golden Visa aimed at wealthy individuals who invest in the United States in exchange for permanent residency.

New Zealand: The Active Investor Plus Visa, launched in September 2022, permits beneficiaries to live, work, and study indefinitely in New Zealand, subject to investment and residency requirements. The minimum investment begins at NZD 5 million.

Canada: Known as the Canada Start-Up Visa Program, this plan offers permanent residency to entrepreneurs and investors willing to set up businesses in Canada. The cost ranges from $215,000 to $275,000, depending on the start-up venture.

Singapore: The Singapore Global Investor Program targets entrepreneurs, business owners, and managers intending to establish businesses in the country. Successful applicants can secure permanent residence within 9 to 12 months, with an investment starting at SGD 10 million and potentially reaching SGD 50 million, based on business size.

These Golden Visa programs provide various pathways for individuals seeking permanent residence options outside their home countries by leveraging economic contributions or specific qualifications, according to LiveMint.

Green Card Holders Affected by Trump’s Immigration Bill

July 8, 2025July 16, 2025 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

July 8, 2025 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 Raise Concerns Over Job Cuts Impact on Forecasts

July 7, 2025 Staff ReporterGovernance, Nation 0

Staffing cuts at the National Weather Service (NWS) are under scrutiny after deadly flooding in Texas, with at least 80 fatalities highlighting concerns about reduced forecasts and weather warnings.

The National Weather Service has come under intense criticism following numerous deaths resulting from torrential rains and flash flooding in the Texas Hill Country. Local officials voiced dissatisfaction with the weather forecasts provided, although comments largely stopped short of directly linking the perceived inadequacies to cuts in staffing imposed under President Donald Trump’s administration.

In the wake of the disaster, which reportedly claimed the lives of over two dozen girls and counselors at a Guadalupe River summer camp, Democrats have not hesitated to connect the staffing reductions at the NWS to the tragic events. Despite this critique, current and former NWS officials defended the agency’s actions, citing urgent flash flood warnings dispatched early Friday morning before the river’s abrupt rise.

Brian LaMarre, former meteorologist-in-charge at the NWS forecast office in Tampa, Florida, noted, “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.” LaMarre emphasized the significant urgency reflected in the early warnings issued by the service.

Nevertheless, concerns have arisen regarding the level of coordination and communication between the NWS and local officials during the incident. The Trump administration’s cuts have resulted in down-sizing by at least 20% at nearly half of the 122 NWS field offices across the country and a reduction in round-the-clock staffing at several offices. Furthermore, early retirements were encouraged among experienced forecasters and senior managers, leading to gaps in crucial positions.

The budget for the NWS’s parent agency has also been targeted, with proposals to slash funding by 27% and eliminate federal research centers devoted to weather, climate, and oceanic studies.

The situation is particularly concerning at the NWS office responsible for the afflicted area, Austin/San Antonio. Six out of 27 positions there remain vacant. These include a key managerial role essential for issuing weather warnings and coordinating with emergency management officials, left unfilled following an early retirement after 17 years of service.

As the situation continues to unfold, Senator Chuck Schumer and other Democrats have pressed for a detailed inquiry into the potential impact of staffing shortages on the tragic loss of life during the floods in Texas.

President Trump has countered claims that these job eliminations hampered the NWS’s ability to forecast weather accurately, stating, “The raging waters were a thing that happened in seconds. No one expected it. Nobody saw it.”

Source: Original article

Musk Plans New Political Party After Trump Tax Dispute

July 7, 2025July 16, 2025 Staff ReporterPolitics 0

Elon Musk announced the formation of the America Party following a split with President Donald Trump over the president’s new tax cuts law, marking a potential shift in the political landscape.

BRIDGEWATER, N.J. — Elon Musk has made good on a previous declaration to establish a new political party, revealing the launch of the America Party in response to President Donald Trump’s recently enacted tax cuts law. This move comes as Musk distances himself from Trump, with whom he previously had close political ties.

Musk’s departure from the Republican president’s support was initiated by dissatisfaction with the tax legislation, which Trump signed on Friday. The bill’s approval by Congress prompted Musk to threaten the creation of the “America Party,” expressing his concern about excessive government spending.

“When it comes to bankrupting our country with waste & graft, we live in a one-party system, not a democracy,” Musk stated on X, the social media platform he owns. “Today, the America Party is formed to give you back your freedom.”

On Sunday, as Musk prepared to leave his New Jersey residence for a return to Washington, Trump addressed the media regarding Musk’s new party, dismissing the idea as “ridiculous.” Trump highlighted the Republican Party’s significant achievements, while also suggesting that third parties historically introduce confusion.

While new political parties are not uncommon in the U.S., they often struggle to draw substantial support away from the major Republican and Democratic parties. However, Musk, being the world’s richest individual, has the potential to influence the 2026 congressional elections if he chooses to allocate substantial financial resources to the America Party. Musk has previously invested at least $250 million backing Trump in the 2024 election.

The renewed discord with Trump could have significant ramifications for Musk, as several of his business enterprises, including Tesla, benefit from substantial government contracts. The lack of clarity regarding the formal establishment of the America Party remains, as spokespeople for Musk and his political action committee, America PAC, have not commented.

Notably, several political entities listed in the Federal Election Commission database appeared after Musk’s announcement on Saturday, including variations of “America Party” names or affiliations with Musk. However, many were not legitimate, with contact information appearing as unverifiable addresses.

Moreover, on Sunday morning, Musk engaged users on X, gathering insights on the America Party and indicating plans to participate in the 2026 midterm elections. Last month, Musk expressed intentions to challenge every congressional member who supported Trump’s tax legislation, criticizing it as a “disgusting abomination.”

His critique extended to the expanded federal deficit and criticized the Republican Party, which controls the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, for enlarging the government and national debt by five trillion dollars.

Musk’s decision to form a political party reflects a significant change from his stance in May when he indicated an intention to reduce political engagement as his tenure in the White House closed.

Scott Bessent, Treasury Secretary, and former Doge boss, acknowledged on CNN’s “State of the Union” that Musk’s principles resonated with some, but noted polling suggested Musk himself was not popular. “I imagine that those board of directors did not like this announcement yesterday and will be encouraging him to focus on his business activities, not his political activities,” Bessent remarked.

Source: Original article

Texas Floods Prompt Debate on Impact of Job Cuts in Forecasting

July 7, 2025July 16, 2025 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

BRICS Leaders Call for Global Reforms, Condemn Conflicts in Kashmir, Gaza, Iran

July 7, 2025 Staff ReporterWorld, Diplomacy 0

Leaders of the BRICS group have condemned recent attacks in Gaza and Iran, urged reforms of international institutions, and positioned the bloc as a bastion for multilateral diplomacy amid ongoing global conflicts and trade tensions.

The BRICS summit, held on July 6 in Rio de Janeiro, brought together leaders from Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, and other member countries to address pressing global issues. Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva cited the group’s roots in the Non-Aligned Movement, asserting BRICS’ potential to counterbalance a fragmented global order while expressing concerns over rising protectionism.

The BRICS coalition now spans over half of the global population and accounts for 40% of the world’s economic output. Since its inception in 2009 with Brazil, Russia, India, and China, the group has expanded to include South Africa, Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. This year’s summit marks the first participation of Indonesian leaders.

A notable absence at the summit was Chinese President Xi Jinping, who sent his premier in his place. Russian President Vladimir Putin participated virtually owing to an International Criminal Court arrest warrant. Nevertheless, the event saw the gathering of key leaders, including Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, at Rio’s Museum of Modern Art.

More than 30 nations have expressed interest in joining BRICS as full members or partners, signaling its growing influence. The summit emphasized the necessity for global institutional reforms to align with contemporary geopolitical realities. Lula accentuated the need for BRICS to spearhead these reforms by highlighting the need for changes in institutions like the United Nations Security Council and the International Monetary Fund.

In a joint statement, BRICS leaders condemned attacks on Iran’s civilian infrastructure and peaceful nuclear facilities, labeling them violations of international law. The statement also expressed grave concern for the situation in Gaza and condemned a terrorist attack in Kashmir, underscoring the bloc’s commitment to counter terrorism in all its manifestations.

The leaders stressed the imperative of a unified global response to terrorism, emphasizing that acts of terror should bear no association with religion, nationality, or ethnicity. The statement called for the United Nations to expedite a longstanding Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism and demanded action against all UN-designated terrorists and entities.

On economic matters, the joint statement warned against the impact of increasing tariffs on global trade, taking a subtle stand against the protectionist policies under U.S. President Donald Trump. BRICS supported Ethiopia and Iran’s potential candidacy for the World Trade Organization, advocating for the restoration of its dispute resolution mechanisms.

The summit also highlighted plans to establish a BRICS Multilateral Guarantees initiative under the New Development Bank, aiming to lower financing costs and boost investments in member countries. In discussions centered on artificial intelligence, the leaders stressed the necessity of safeguards against unauthorized AI use, calling for responsible data usage and compensation mechanisms.

In climate action dialogue, Brazil leveraged its role as host of the forthcoming United Nations climate summit to underscore the proactive stance of developing nations. Brazil, China, and the UAE have shown interest in funding the Tropical Forests Forever Facility, dedicated to preserving endangered forests globally.

The BRICS summit reaffirmed the bloc’s intention to act as a powerful voice for the Global South, urging comprehensive international reforms and strengthening multilateral initiatives in the face of global challenges.

Tesla CFO Taneja Appointed Treasurer of Musk’s Political Party

July 7, 2025July 16, 2025 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.

Trump’s Bill Reduces Remittance Tax for Indians to 1%

July 7, 2025July 16, 2025 Staff ReporterNation, Economy, USA 0

President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act has advanced in the Senate, featuring a reduced 1% tax on remittances, offering relief to Indian professionals and non-resident Indians (NRIs) in the U.S.

In a significant development for Indian professionals and non-resident Indians (NRIs) in the United States, President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act has managed to surmount a major hurdle in the Senate, now offering a considerably lowered remittance tax of 1%. This development is seen as a substantial relief from the originally proposed 5% tax rate, which had initially drawn widespread concern.

The updated draft of the bill now implements a mere 1% tax on remittances sent via cash, money orders, or cashier’s checks. This marks a substantial reduction from the 5% rate proposed in May, which was later downscaled to 3.5% in the House version of the bill. The reduced tax rate applies to remittance transfers not made through financial institutions or using a debit or credit card issued in the United States.

The initial draft of the bill passed by the House of Representatives in May caused alarm among many Indian professionals due to its high proposed tax, affecting non-U.S. citizens, including those on Green Cards and temporary visas like H-1B and H-2A. Remittances comprise a significant component of India’s foreign income, making the tax rate particularly relevant for Indian nationals residing abroad.

Data from the Migration Policy Institute, as cited by The Times of India, indicated that approximately 2.9 million Indians were living in the U.S. as of 2023, making them the second-largest foreign-born demographic in the country. Additionally, the World Bank reported in 2024 that India was the largest recipient of international remittances, accumulating $129 billion, with 28% of these remittances originating from the U.S.

In light of these statistics, the remittance policy is pivotal for states like Kerala, Uttar Pradesh, and Bihar, where remittances are a crucial financial lifeline for millions of households.

Despite the remittance tax relief, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act includes contentious elements such as a $150 billion increase in military spending, mass deportation measures, and funding for a border wall. To offset these expenses, the bill proposes substantial cuts to federal programs, including Medicaid and incentives for clean energy, inciting opposition from various political factions, including divisions within the Republican Party itself.

This policy proposal has led to public disagreements, notably between President Trump and Tesla CEO Elon Musk, who lashed out at the bill as “utterly insane,” cautioning that it would jeopardize millions of American jobs.

The flag-bearing piece of legislation narrowly passed a Senate vote by 51-49, pushing it forward for further Senate discussions. According to Al Jazeera, President Trump aims to see the bill enacted by Congress before the Fourth of July.

Source: Original article

US, India, Japan, Australia Collaborate on Critical Minerals Supply

July 6, 2025 Staff ReporterDiplomacy, Technology 0

The Quad nations have launched the Quad Critical Minerals Initiative to diversify supply chains, addressing concerns over China’s dominance in critical minerals impacting technologies such as electric vehicles, batteries, and semiconductors.

The Quad coalition, comprising the United States, India, Japan, and Australia, has introduced the Quad Critical Minerals Initiative to mitigate concerns regarding China’s influence on the vital supply of critical minerals. These minerals are essential for the manufacturing of modern technologies, including electric vehicles, batteries, and semiconductors.

The initiative was unveiled through a joint statement, emphasizing the need to collaborate on securing and diversifying global supply chains. Although the specifics of the plan were sparse, the underlying purpose is to diminish excessive dependence on China, which currently holds a dominant position in the global reserves of several essential minerals, including a substantial share of the world’s graphite crucial for electric vehicle batteries.

On Tuesday, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio welcomed the foreign ministers to Washington, marking a strategic shift towards Asia by the new Trump administration, which had previously concentrated on conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East and domestic issues like migration. Rubio highlighted the importance of the new initiative, expressing a desire for tangible progress in diversifying supply chains.

While the joint statement did not explicitly mention China, it underscored shared apprehensions about economic coercion and disruptions in supply chains. “Reliance on any one country for processing and refining critical minerals and derivative goods production exposes our industries to economic coercion, price manipulation, and supply chain disruptions,” the statement declared.

The ministers also conveyed their unease about escalating tensions in Asia, citing “serious concerns regarding dangerous and provocative actions” in the South China Sea and East China Sea that jeopardize regional peace and stability, without directly naming China. The foreign ministers from India and Japan affirmed the Quad’s goal of fostering a “free and open Indo-Pacific,” a diplomatic expression commonly interpreted as countering China’s increasing influence in the area.

Indian Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar stressed the importance of regional autonomy, emphasizing, “It is essential that nations of the Indo-Pacific have the freedom of choice, so essential to make right decisions on development and security.”

In addition to addressing China’s influence, the Quad ministers collectively addressed regional security matters. They condemned a recent deadly attack in Kashmir that primarily affected civilians, calling for the attackers and their supporters to face justice promptly.

The discussions also encompassed North Korea’s missile tests, with the joint statement criticizing Pyongyang’s actions as destabilizing and renewing the commitment to the “complete denuclearization” of North Korea. However, the statement omitted any reference to other global conflicts such as the war in Ukraine and tensions in Iran.

India and Japan’s diplomacy with Russia and Iran, respectively, may have contributed to these omissions. Notably, India maintains a historical relationship with Russia despite its invasion of Ukraine, while Japan continues diplomatic relations with Iran.

This meeting reflects a nuanced trajectory in U.S. foreign policy. Although initial expectations suggested the Trump administration might confront China more aggressively, President Trump has adopted a more measured approach, speaking respectfully about Chinese leader Xi Jinping and easing broader trade tensions between the two nations.

Nonetheless, the establishment of the Quad Critical Minerals Initiative signifies the beginning of strategic efforts to reduce reliance on China. President Trump is anticipated to visit India later this year for a Quad summit, where future alliance actions might be disclosed.

Source: Original article

Trump Employs Madman Theory to Influence Global Politics

July 6, 2025 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

US Dollar’s Poor Start: Impact on Consumers and Economy

July 6, 2025 Staff ReporterEconomy, Finance/Economy 0

The U.S. dollar is experiencing its worst start to the year in over 50 years, raising concerns about inflation, increasing prices for consumers, and impacting international travel.

The U.S. dollar is facing its most challenging start in more than five decades, with substantial ramifications for the economy and consumers. This year, the dollar has lost over 10% of its value against a basket of foreign currencies that are integral to U.S. trade relationships.

This decline is largely attributed to growing investor anxiety over the potential for inflation to devalue the currency. Contributory factors include a major spending bill passed by Congress, which could exacerbate the longstanding issue of U.S. debt, as well as President Donald Trump’s unpredictable trade policies and criticism of the Federal Reserve. These elements have collectively cast doubt on the stability of the U.S. economy and diminished the dollar’s reputation as a “safe haven” asset, analysts told ABC News.

The fundamentals of currency value, such as supply and demand, have turned against the U.S. dollar. Historically, the dollar has been resilient due to consistent demand rooted in the perceived strength and stability of the U.S. economy. During times of global economic or political instability, investors typically view the U.S. dollar as a secure asset, leading to increased demand. However, recent concerns about inflation and economic policy are driving this downward trend.

The inflation concerns, partly fueled by Trump’s tariff policies, suggest that importers might pass on increased costs to consumers, resulting in higher prices. Additionally, as U.S. debt continues to grow, the Treasury might issue bonds, which could contribute to inflation. If inflation erodes the value of U.S. Treasuries, central banks and investors may shift their assets away from U.S. holdings towards alternatives like gold or foreign currencies, noted Paolo Pasquariello, a finance professor at the University of Michigan.

As the dollar weakens, consumers are likely to face higher prices for imported goods. Importers would need to raise their prices because each dollar holds less purchasing power, explained Richard Michelfelder, a professor at Rutgers University. This situation could drive up the cost of everyday items, especially those purchased online from overseas.

Similarly, the depreciation of the dollar makes U.S. travel abroad more expensive. With decreased exchange rates, travelers will find their expenses increase as their dollars convert into fewer foreign currency units.

Despite the challenges, a weaker dollar does present some advantages. Lower relative costs for U.S. goods on international markets could boost exports as American products become more competitively priced for foreign buyers. This boost could positively impact employment in sectors such as automotive manufacturing and advanced technology.

Furthermore, the stronger foreign currencies relative to the dollar could attract more international tourists to the U.S., benefiting the hospitality sector and related industries.

While the U.S. dollar’s decline raises complex economic challenges, it also offers potential benefits across various sectors of the economy, according to ABC News.

The Luckiest Girl On The Planet
“My 21 Days of Hope: The story of my orange Indie cat who refused to be forgotten”

July 5, 2025July 15, 2025 Ancy JamesProfile, Profiles 0

Some bonds defy language. Some stories remind us that love isn’t always measured in words, but in relentless searches, sleepless nights, and a heart that simply refuses to give up.

In a world where we’re so often told to move on, to accept loss, and to let go, what happens when you choose to hold on, not to grief, but to the stubborn belief that what you love is still waiting for you? This is the story of Cookie, my 2.5-year-old orange indie ginger cat, who vanished one stormy evening from our second-floor Bengaluru home. It’s about what I learned in the 21 days we were apart. It’s a story of loyalty, resilience, and the invisible threads that tether us to the beings we call family, no matter how small or furred they may be.

The Disappearance

Cookie wasn’t just a pet. He was family. Rescued as a barely-weaned kitten during a monsoon night in our apartment’s parking lot, he had already proved himself a survivor. And so had I. Yet nothing prepared me for the hollow shock of realising he had slipped off our second-floor balcony during one of his regular zoomie episodes. The thought of him, with no outdoor experience, lost in the unforgiving downpour among unfamiliar streets, hostile feral cats, and relentless monsoon winds was unbearable.

The Search

As Joan Didion once wrote:

“Grief turns out to be a place none of us know until we reach it.”

The days that followed settled into a rhythm of dawn to dusk patrols. Armed with the rattle of his treat box and calling out his name, I combed our small community, skimming through each pathway, beneath cars, inside storerooms, near drainage pipes.

Friends, neighbours, and local businesses joined in. Early morning walkers. Night shift guards. WhatsApp groups buzzed with blurry orange cat sightings. Every alert made my heart race, and every false lead left a deeper scar.

Cookie had one peculiar trait, an ominous glaze in one eye, like a star trapped in amber, and tiny black freckles on his lips. Through these 21 days, our society’s hidden feline community also revealed itself.

Every ginger cat sighted gave me a fleeting moment of hope, only to be followed by frustration and heartache. There was a kind of grief I was feeling, a sort that felt like so many unfinished stories. Sharp, metallic, and desperate for any sliver of hope.

I was fast realising what a personal toll this search would take on me and the unique challenge of the upcoming days and weeks. Despite that, I was fierce in the belief that I still had time and I could bring upon a happy ending to this search with my sheer determination to get my little boy home.

People told me to stop. Some pointed out that cats forget their humans after a few days. WhatsApp admins asked me to take my “cat talk” offline, and an acquaintance even consulted a pet psychic who ominously declared that after five days, it was “too dark” to sense him anymore.

It was slowly dawning on me that my hope was uniquely keeping me focussed. It was very very personal. It sounded like the quiet voice that whispered to me ‘try again tomorrow’.

So, through all this, I continued. Quietly. Stubbornly.

I knew Cookie—his habits, his temperament, his resilience. I knew he wouldn’t leave us by choice. I believed he was waiting.

After all, some loves aren’t meant to be let go, only chased through rain-soaked nights and dark, scary heartworn streets. Some hearts are stitched together by the ones who wait for us in silence, in shadows, in storm-soaked corners of the world.

We don’t always find what we’re looking for, but sometimes love makes you search anyway, because to stop would be to betray the part of you still brave.

The Breaking Point and the Breakthrough

On Day 20 of my search, a neighbour, posted in our society’s WhatsApp group. He’d seen an orange cat blur near the car park at midnight. I noticed in his Profile picture that he had a French beard so similar to my husbands and that it must have momentarily confused our Cookie to reveal himself to him in the carpark, It rekindled my hope.

The next evening, a few ladies on their evening walk reported a limping ginger cat approaching them from under a car. One of the ladies I recall even had curly hair like I had at that time. Our little boy was desperately looking for me too. I rushed down and spoke with them. They told me he was scared so he hid again behind the cars but he looked exhausted, limping with a swollen leg and tired bloodshot eyes. I knew, without a doubt, it was him. They saw my Cookie.

That night, my search became even more intense. I called out to him, begging into the thick night air, drenched to my skin in the relentless monsoon. I searched until 4 a.m. The strength I showed that day was my reminder that grief is not always tears. Sometimes it’s the sound of your own name called into empty spaces, hoping to be heard.

It is then that moment arrived. I had just returned home to grab a quick bite before heading out again. My phone rang. To me the ringing tone sounded louder than usual. I picked up and the voice on the other side was our night guard, “Madam, one orange cat is here. I think it’s yours. He’s limping near the car park.” It was now 6:30 in the morning.

I ran as fast as I could to the car park, and there he was, behind the car park. Set of shining cat eyes connect with mine. My joy has no bounds. I smile my widest smile and shout out his name, my voice sounding almost like a crazed maniac. My boy had finally emerged.

The initial euphoria didn’t last for long, as in true indie male cat style, he bolted skittishly just to disappear behind the cars again. I saw his location this time. He was not going to win today’s game of “Hide and Seek.” This was it. I knew this was his way of letting me know he was alive.

I called our friend, also the President of the society, who promptly called his team to help me in the car park. “Mission Cookie” was officially coming to an end.

With help from neighbours, society managers and guards, we set up a makeshift football net covering around the car where he was last seen. After four hours of coaxing, some angry growls, hesitant peeks, the dehydrated, tired but still feisty shadow of my once-lively cat emerged. His wounds told stories I’ll never fully understand. He was terrified. I talked him down and continued soothing him with his favourite words and talk as the net started narrowing down on him.

He was safely pacified in that net blanket. He didn’t understand it then and kept hissing at the guards and our neighbours, always turning to look straight at me as if to confirm if he still needed to keep hissing or was he really safe.

Finally, it was time. He was now very close to returning home and I could see in his relaxed demeanour that he knew that he could now breathe easy.

As we opened our home’s front door, Cookie bolted out of the net blanket and ran straight under the safe confines of our living room sofa, where he stayed for a full 24 hours, too scared to let me near him. At least he was safe. His doctor reassured me over the phone, advising that Cookie would need time before trusting again and that we should let him just rest till the next day.

Our work was done for the day. That night, I collapsed on my bed with exhaustion and gratitude.

They say that not every miracle arrives with trumpets. Some crawl home, battered and broken, asking only to be held again.

Healing and Heart Lessons

The following morning, our boy had made brief, cautious trips to his food bowls. His frail body and a badly wounded leg were heartbreaking to witness. We managed to get him to his vet. Cookie needed daily drips, medical care, and rest. The vet, now one of my favourite people on this planet, was amazed he hadn’t succumbed to dehydration or infection in this 21 days. Cookie just was like a small baby, letting her take his X-rays and administer the IV and the various vaccines.

For five consecutive days, Cookie received IV drips and his leg wound was cleaned and dressed. My daughter stepped up to help him on his road to recovery. Frequent cuddle sessions, timely medicines, and gentle comforting even some play acting, making him a crown of fresh flowers. She took charge and showered him with attention and care even ensuring his visits to the vet were comfortable and stress free for him. Slowly but surely, our little survivor began to heal.

What The Numbers Say

According to a 2025 Pet Welfare India report, 80% of urban pet cats who go missing are never found. Studies also reveal that pet-human bonds are neurologically similar to those between mothers and children, with both species releasing oxytocin during interactions (University of Oregon, 2024). Behavioural psychologists note that resilience in grief situations is often fueled by a deep personal sense of connection, precisely what drove me to keep searching when logic told me to stop. I now understand better that the ones who leave holes in our world also leave threads to find them by . Invisible, stubborn, and stitched into our marrow.

Why I Didn’t Give Up

Friends often ask why I exhausted myself for 21 days over a cat. But what they don’t realise is, Cookie is not just a pet. He’s a survivor, like me. A thread of love in the tapestry of my 48-year-old life, too precious to be lost. A neighbour once joked, “I wish someone would look for me the way you did for your cat.” And honestly,don’t we all? Just hoping to be someone’s ‘worth searching for.’ To be remembered. To be someone’s Cookie. Who is to tell? maybe I wasn’t searching for my cat. Maybe I was searching for the piece of my heart that refused to give up on my little boy.

The Bigger Healing

As I bring this deeply personal saga to its end, I’ve realised that sometimes love isn’t about grand gestures. It’s about the hours spent beneath cars, in rain-drenched clothes, with nothing but faith rattling in your hand. The truth is, we all leave pieces of ourselves in the ones we love, and sometimes, it’s those pieces that find their way home. And every time I watch him now, safe and warm enjoying frequent cuddle sessions with my daughter, I’m reminded of what Rumi once wrote: “What you seek is seeking you.” In the end, what saved us both wasn’t the finding, but the refusing to stop looking for each other.

Final Thoughts

The bigger healing, I realised, was mine, a silent understanding between a cat who never gave up waiting and a woman who never stopped searching for him. As author Haruki Murakami wrote: “When you come out of the storm, you won’t be the same person who walked in.” Neither was I. Today, not a day goes by when I don’t look at him sleeping safely beside me and feel like “The Luckiest Girl On The Planet.”

About the author:

Ancy James is a former television producer who, after a fulfilling 17-year career, chose to step away from the relentless pursuit of output and certainty in favour of retiring from corporate life at age 37 to a slower and more intentional life. In what she calls her act of quiet rebellion, her toddler’s health scare ensured she followed through on this decision and she traded deadlines and huge pay packets for meaningful quiet personal life. Now over 10 years later, She truly believes that our identity isn’t something we prove, it’s something we shape with the decisions we take daily for our loved ones. She now keeps herself busy as an internationally trained Cake Artist and Chef Trainer with a culinary diploma and runs a FSSAI approved business “Ancy’s Sugar Art Academy, in Bengaluru, India. She discovered marathon running in her journey to reversing her bone health diagnosis at age 42. When she is not customising cakes or running, she is busy reading books across the spectrum or spend hours pouring her heart out in these personal memoirs. Through her weekly personal memoirs, she shares raw, honest reflections on grief, resilience, motherhood, midlife reinvention, and the quiet beauty found in overlooked corners of everyday life. At 48, Ancy writes not to impress, but to connect, believing that vulnerability is the birthplace of both healing and growth. In a fast and AI driven world she believes these memoirs are an honest attempt to stay real and relevant as a female writer who is a 100 percent invested in her journey of “Becoming”.

Law Targeting Nazis May Strip Citizenship from More Americans

July 5, 2025 Staff ReporterUSA, Immigration 0

The U.S. Department of Justice, under the Trump administration, is looking to expand its denaturalization efforts, placing millions of naturalized citizens at potential risk of losing their citizenship.

The Justice Department (DOJ) has traditionally employed denaturalization powers to revoke citizenship from those who falsely obtained it or hid significant parts of their past, such as former Nazis. However, a recent memo indicates a potential broadening of this scope under the current Trump administration, raising concerns among legal experts.

According to the memo, attorneys are now instructed to focus their efforts on denaturalizing individuals who may pose a “potential danger to national security.” This marks a shift that aligns with the administration’s stringent immigration policies and could affect a significant number of naturalized citizens by risking their deportation.

The efforts prioritize individuals who have committed violent crimes or are associated with gangs, drug cartels, or have engaged in fraudulent activities. The memo, issued by the head of the DOJ’s Civil Division, outlines these priorities.

Experts and officials are voicing concerns that the broader initiative may instill fear among legal immigrants, especially those critical of the Trump administration. Cassandra Burke Robertson, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University, expressed concern about this potential politicization of citizenship, stating, “The politicization of citizenship rights is something that really worries me, I think it’s just flatly inconsistent with our democratic system.”

This current effort harkens back to a McCarthy-era statute initially used to identify Communists. Over the years, it has primarily targeted war criminals, marked by the establishment of a DOJ unit in 1979 which focused on deporting individuals affiliated with the Nazis.

More historic efforts included Operation Janus under the Obama administration, focusing on identity theft in obtaining citizenship. Trump had previously attempted to extend denaturalization by establishing a specialized office at the DOJ in 2020, which was later dismantled by the Biden administration.

On returning to power, Trump has aimed to remodel immigration enforcement broadly, enlisting agencies like the FBI and U.S. Marshals in deportation efforts and scrutinizing foreign student visas. The new directive does not revive the prior office; instead, it prompts the entire Civil Division to prioritize denaturalization “in all cases permitted by law,” as per the memo. This guidance suggests that U.S. attorneys across the nation should highlight cases potentially suitable for denaturalization proceedings.

During Trump’s first term, 102 denaturalization cases were filed, compared to the 24 cases filed under Biden, stated Chad Gilmartin, a DOJ spokesperson. In Trump’s second term, five cases have been filed in its initial five months.

The DOJ clarified, “Denaturalization proceedings will only be pursued as permitted by law and supported by evidence against individuals who illegally procured or misrepresented facts in the naturalization process.” However, several current and former DOJ officials expressed concern that the memo’s broad directives could be used to expel individuals based on vague allegations.

Robertson noted that the administration might seek out historical errors in the naturalization process of political opponents, including student activists. Irina Manta, a law professor at Hofstra University, suggested the policy change could stifle free speech due to fear among citizens, stating, “I regularly observe the fear firsthand.”

Adding to this concern, Trump has suggested deporting certain American citizens, although his seriousness remains ambiguous. He has implied that the administration should potentially examine removing individuals, like criticizing businessman Elon Musk, following a disagreement over policy.

In a formal step reflecting this stance, Congressman Andy Ogles recently requested Attorney General Pam Bondi to investigate whether Zohran Mamdani, a New York City mayoral candidate and naturalized citizen from Uganda, should be considered for denaturalization due to his political expressions in support of contentious figures.

The broader implications of these potential policy shifts remain provocative, with significant apprehension among legal professionals and immigrants distressed over what may follow, according to CNN.

Source: Original article

Trump Signs Significant Bill into Law

July 5, 2025July 5, 2025 Staff ReporterEconomy, USA 0

President Trump signed a comprehensive reconciliation package into law, incorporating tax cuts and Medicaid reductions, marking a major political achievement for his administration following extensive negotiations with Congressional Republicans.

President Trump finalized a significant legislative accomplishment on Friday by signing into law an expansive reconciliation package that includes extended tax cuts and phased-in reductions to Medicaid, culminating after months of challenging negotiations with Republicans on Capitol Hill.

The signing took place during a Fourth of July military family picnic at the White House. Trump had aimed to have the legislation ready by Independence Day, a goal that seemed uncertain just days before. “We made promises, and it’s really promises made, promises kept, and we’ve kept them,” Trump declared from the balcony overlooking the South Lawn. He added, “This is a triumph of democracy on the birthday of democracy. And I have to say, the people are happy.”

First Lady Melania Trump, various Cabinet officials, and numerous Republican lawmakers, including Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.), House Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-Minn.), and Rep. Jason Smith (R-Mo.), attended the ceremony. The event featured added spectacles such as a flyover by two B-2 bombers. These aircraft recently carried out strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities last month.

The Senate passed its version of the bill early Tuesday morning, with Vice President Vance casting the tie-breaking vote after three Republicans opposed it. The House approved the legislation without amendments on Thursday afternoon, following extended efforts to secure support from hesitant members during a procedural vote. The final House vote was close at 218-214, with two Republicans voting against it.

Friday’s bill signing capped off a series of favorable developments for Trump, including achievements in foreign policy, a strong jobs report, and historic low apprehension numbers at the southern border. “We’ve I think had probably the most successful almost six months as a president and the presidency,” Trump stated. “I think they’re saying it was the best six months, and I know for a fact they’re saying the last two weeks, there has never been anything like it as far as winning, winning, winning.”

The legislation incorporates key elements from Trump’s 2024 campaign platform. It extends the tax cuts originally enacted in 2017, which were due to expire later this year. It also eliminates certain taxes on tipped wages and raises the cap on state and local tax (SALT) deductions, a contentious issue during negotiations.

The bill allocates $150 billion for border wall funding, immigration enforcement, and deportations, alongside $150 billion in new defense spending for projects like shipbuilding and the “Golden Dome” missile defense initiative. It cuts green energy incentives while boosting domestic fossil fuel production. The legislation also increases the debt ceiling by $5 trillion, alleviating concerns about a potential federal default.

Democrats have criticized the bill for its cuts to low-income health and nutrition programs, arguing that these reductions offset tax cut revenue losses but also threaten health coverage for millions. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-Calif.) delivered an extensive speech opposing the bill, claiming it would harm working families. Trump dismissed Jeffries’ remarks and Democratic criticism as a “con job.”

Despite negative polling, White House officials have downplayed criticism, contending that public opinion will improve once Republicans adequately inform constituents about the bill’s benefits, according to The Hill.

House Approves Trump’s Tax Bill, Marking Second-Term Milestone

July 4, 2025July 4, 2025 Staff ReporterFinance/Economy, Cover 0

House Republicans successfully passed President Donald Trump’s significant tax cuts and spending reduction bill, heralding it as a landmark achievement for his second term, despite fierce opposition from Democrats.

In a closely contested vote, House Republicans pushed through President Donald Trump’s tax cuts and spending reductions bill with a slim 218-214 margin. The approval came just in time for the Fourth of July deadline, signaling a high-stakes victory for Trump’s administration as they compile a core policy initiative early in his second term.

The bill, widely seen as a key GOP victory, was finalized amidst controversy and political maneuvering. Two Republican lawmakers joined all Democrats in opposing the legislation. GOP leaders, in collaboration with Trump, worked tirelessly to quell internal dissent and secure the votes necessary for passage.

Celebrating the legislative success in Iowa at the start of events commemorating the nation’s approaching 250th anniversary, Trump expressed gratitude toward Republican lawmakers, disparaging Democrats for their resistance to what he described as a beneficial measure.

House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana echoed Trump’s sentiment, encouraging Republicans to unify behind the bill. The colossal document, nearing 900 pages, encapsulates multiple Republican priorities under one legislative package, now labeled colloquially as Trump’s “one big beautiful bill.”

The enactment preserves $4.5 trillion in tax cuts from 2017 and introduces new ones, favoring provisions such as deductions for workers’ tips and overtime, and a sizeable deduction for older adults with particular income qualifications. Furthermore, it pledges $350 billion towards national security, including advancement in Trump’s deportation policies and the development of a new defensive system, dubbed the “Golden Dome.”

However, to offset substantial tax revenue losses, the bill implements substantial reductions, slashing $1.2 trillion from Medicaid and food stamp funding, with stricter work requirements imposed on beneficiaries. The Congressional Budget Office warns of a $3.3 trillion deficit increase over the next decade, with 11.8 million individuals potentially losing health coverage.

The bill starkly contrasts with Democratic priorities and faced unified Democratic opposition. Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York mounted a record-breaking speech on the House floor, challenging the ramifications of Trump’s “big ugly bill.” His extensive address underscored Democrats’ concerns over social program cutbacks, painting the legislation as detrimental to vulnerable populations.

As Jeffries highlighted the human costs, Democrats collectively denounced the measure as regressive and harmful to working-class citizens. Jeffries’ heartfelt oration warned of life-threatening consequences due to Medicaid cuts and their broader impact on public welfare. Republican counterarguments focused on preventing imminent tax increases while reaffirming beliefs in economic growth and program efficacy through regulatory revisions.

The Senate approved the bill days prior, with Vice President JD Vance casting the tie-breaking vote. As tensions simmered on the House floor, Johnson and Trump’s team marshaled extensive resources to rally wavering Republicans, balancing concerns between moderates and conservatives within the party.

After the conclusion of the vote, jubilant Republicans celebrated, with Trump loyalists attributing personal political stakes to the passage of the bill. Critics warned that bucking Trump’s agenda could result in significant electoral consequences, illustrating the fierce political entanglements intertwined with the passage of the legislation.

The bill represents a profound challenge to former Democratic administrations’ accomplishments, notably scaling back healthcare expansions from the Affordable Care Act and relaxing green energy incentives earmarked in prior congressional terms. Democrats caution against severe social repercussions, particularly for those reliant on federal assistance programs.

In summary, proponents argue the legislation fosters economic sustainability and secures Trump’s fiscal legacy, while detractors emphasize its expansive social health costs. The ongoing debate underscores entrenched partisan divides, persistent ideological battles, and the complexity of bipartisan governance.

According to Associated Press

Source: Original article

India-US Interim Trade Deal Expected; Agriculture a Key Issue

July 4, 2025 Staff ReporterDiplomacy 0

An interim trade deal between India and the United States is expected to be finalized within the next two days, as negotiators work to overcome differences primarily surrounding agriculture and dairy sector access.

An interim trade agreement between India and the United States is anticipated to be finalized within the next 48 hours. This development comes just days before the July 9 deadline for President Donald Trump’s proposed reciprocal tariffs, according to sources familiar with the negotiations. The discussions are in their final stages, with India firmly maintaining its position against fully opening its agriculture and dairy sectors to the United States.

India is keen to secure greater access for its labor-intensive industries such as textiles, gems and jewelry, leather goods, plastics, and chemicals. This aspect of the negotiations reflects India’s effort to expand its presence in the U.S. market while safeguarding its own sensitive sectors.

The key sticking point involves the Trump administration’s insistence on wider access to India’s agricultural sector. Lead negotiator and special secretary Rajesh Agarwal has had to extend his stay in Washington as talks continue. India has resisted lowering tariffs on genetically modified crops such as corn, soybeans, rice, and wheat grown in the United States, and has also rejected the opening of its dairy sector, which supports over 80 million workers.

The reluctance to ease restrictions on agriculture is rooted in the politically sensitive nature of the sector in India, where fears of increased foreign competition could spark farmer protests. This resistance illustrates the complexities facing trade negotiators as they attempt to balance domestic political concerns with international trade objectives.

President Trump has previously accused India of being a significant abuser of tariffs and has threatened to impose a 26% duty on Indian imports under a set of reciprocal tariffs announced on April 2. While he suspended these tariffs for 90 days to provide time for negotiation, Trump has reiterated the need for a trade deal with reduced tariffs that enables open competition between the two nations.

“I think we are going to have a deal with India. And that is going to be a different kind of a deal,” Trump said, emphasizing that less restrictive trade policies would allow both countries to compete effectively. He called for India to open its markets to foreign competition, suggesting that an agreement on reduced tariffs could be reached soon.

The bilateral trade agreement (BTA) aims to significantly increase trade between the two countries, with a target of doubling its value to $500 billion by 2030. This ambitious goal was also highlighted during Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to the United States earlier this year.

As both sides work to finalize the terms of the trade pact, the outcome will be closely watched by industry stakeholders and policymakers in both countries, who hope to see a sustainable path forward for U.S.-India trade relations.

Source: Original article

House Approves Tax and Spending Bill, Benefiting Johnson and Trump

July 4, 2025 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

U.S. Economy: 147K Jobs Added in June, Exceeding Expectations

July 4, 2025 Staff ReporterEconomy, USA 0

The U.S. economy added 147,000 jobs in June while the unemployment rate held steady at 4.1 percent, surpassing economists’ expectations, according to the Labor Department.

The labor market continued its steady progress last month, outpacing economists’ predictions that called for 100,000 new jobs and a slight uptick in the unemployment rate to 4.3 percent. These numbers reflect the resilience of the U.S. economy, which has withstood challenges from President Trump’s extensive tariffs that have significantly raised import tax rates and fueled uncertainty about future trade relations.

Tensions over trade seemed to ease slightly as President Trump delayed or reduced some proposed tariffs initially set out in April. However, a deadline looms as the White House approaches a self-imposed cutoff on July 9 to negotiate agreements with nations affected by these tariffs. President Trump has maintained that he is prepared to re-impose significant tariffs, which could revive economic apprehension.

The June jobs report detailed sector-specific growth: the health sector saw an addition of 39,000 jobs, while social assistance jobs increased by 19,000. However, sectors such as oil and gas, construction, manufacturing, and mining saw little change, with manufacturing employment decreasing by 7,000 jobs for the month.

A notable rise in government employment contributed to the overall job growth, with 73,000 jobs added primarily at the state and local levels, while federal employment declined by 7,000 positions. Concurrently, the labor force experienced a decline of 130,000 individuals, with the workforce participation rate slightly decreasing to 62.3 percent from May’s 62.4 percent.

Amid these economic developments, the Federal Reserve has refrained from altering interest rates, holding off on cuts to evaluate the influence of tariffs and other macroeconomic factors on pricing. Inflation indicators show an upward trend with the consumer price index and the personal consumption expenditures price index recording annual increases of 2.4 percent and 2.3 percent, respectively.

There is anticipation among forecasters that the impact of tariffs on consumer prices will become more pronounced over the summer. However, uncertainties remain regarding how these import taxes will affect different points in the value chain, or if they will diminish product demand or be transferred to consumers.

President Trump has been vocal about his frustration towards the Federal Reserve’s reluctance to reduce rates, having sent a message to Fed Chair Jerome Powell urging significant rate cuts, citing substantial financial losses. Currently, U.S. inflation surpasses other regions, with the European Union achieving a 2 percent inflation rate in June, meeting the Fed’s target rate. Christine Lagarde, President of the European Central Bank, noted this accomplishment at an international conference, while Jerome Powell attributed the Fed’s static rate policy to the ongoing tariffs imposed by the White House.

According to The Hill, these economic dynamics continue to play a vital role in shaping both domestic and international financial landscapes.

Source: Original article

House Approves Tax and Spending Bill Backed by Johnson, Trump

July 4, 2025 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

July 4, 2025July 4, 2025 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

July 4, 2025 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

DHS Adds New Languages to CBP Home Mobile App to Support Voluntary Self-Deportation Under Project Homecoming

July 4, 2025 Staff ReporterImmigration, Technology 0

Chinese and Hindi added to the CBP Home Mobile App

WASHINGTON – The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced it is adding two new languages to the CBP Home Mobile App: Simplified Chinese and Hindi. This update dramatically expands the app’s accessibility to make it easier for millions of illegal aliens to voluntarily self-deport under President Trump’s Project Homecoming initiative.

With these new additions, even more illegal aliens can take control of their departure, avoid detention, and manage their return with dignity and order.

“There is ZERO excuse for you to stay in the United States if you are an illegal alien. The United States taxpayer is generously offering those in this country illegally $1,000 and a free flight home.” said DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin. “These new languages make it easier than ever for illegal aliens to do the right thing and self deport with dignity and order. Don’t make us come after you. If we do, you will be arrested, fined, deported, and never allowed to return. Download the CBP Home Mobile App and leave NOW.”

Through Project Homecoming, illegal aliens who self-deport using the CBP Home Mobile App benefit from several incentives, including:

Cost-free travel to their home country or another country where they have lawful status.
Forgiveness of civil fines for failure to depart after a final order or voluntary departure order.
A $1,000 exit bonus upon confirmed return, using the mobile app.
Preserve the potential opportunity to return to the United States the right, legal way.

CBP Home is available for free on any Apple or Android device via Apple’s App Store and Google Play, or directly from DHS.gov. For further information, visit DHS.gov/CBPhome.

Senate Passes Latest Version of Trump’s Bill

July 3, 2025 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

July 3, 2025July 8, 2025 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

GOP Leaders Work to Unite Party on Trump Megabill

July 3, 2025July 8, 2025 Staff ReporterUSA, Economy 0

Republican leaders in the House are urgently working to unite their party behind a substantial Senate bill aimed at enacting former President Donald Trump’s domestic agenda before the upcoming holiday weekend.

The effort is proving challenging, as both moderate and conservative Republicans have expressed concerns. Moderates are troubled by the expanded cuts to Medicaid — a change made in the Senate — while conservatives are alarmed by the increased deficit spending also introduced by the Senate. These divisions threaten the bill’s passage, as the GOP holds only a slim majority in the House, necessitating nearly unanimous support from the party.

Rep. Chip Roy of Texas, a member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, expressed skepticism about the bill: “If you look at the totality of this, I don’t believe this delivers what the president, what the administration, were working to deliver on,” he said, indicating ongoing efforts to manage deficit spending.

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson of Louisiana and other GOP leaders are racing against time to consolidate support for the bill. The legislation is critical to Trump’s second-term agenda, comprising sweeping tax cuts, a hardline stance on immigration, a shift away from green energy policies, and substantial reductions in federal health and nutrition programs.

House GOP members, from moderates to hard-liners, originally cautioned against a bill changed by the Senate that could be perceived as “worse.” They now face a difficult choice: abandon their initial stance to deliver a victory for Trump, or maintain their position and risk defeating the bill.

Echoing the internal struggle, a moderate House Republican remarked to The Hill, “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,” underscoring the challenge of their predicament.

Adding to the pressure, former President Trump is strongly advocating for the bill, warning House Republicans of potential primary challenges if they oppose the legislation he terms the “big, beautiful bill.” This is not an idle threat; Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, who opposed the House version, has been targeted by a MAGA-super PAC, and Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina faced backlash from Trump, leading to his announcement of retirement after the current term.

While Democrats cannot block the bill, they are underscoring its most controversial elements, like significant cuts to low-income health and nutrition programs — proposals aimed at funding the Republican tax cuts. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries criticized the bill, saying, “This bill won’t make life more affordable for the American people. It will make life more expensive.”

The timeline for passing the legislation adds another layer of complexity. Johnson and GOP leaders aim to meet a self-imposed deadline of July 4, requiring swift action from lawmakers.

Despite the tight timeline, there is skepticism about meeting this goal. Conservatives and moderates alike have voiced concerns about increased national debt and deficits, complicating efforts to consolidate support. Rep. Marlin Stutzman of Indiana stressed the need to ensure the bill is more fiscally responsible for future generations.

On Tuesday, the House Rules Committee held a meeting as the first step in the legislative process. Subsequent actions include convening the House to debate and vote on procedural rules before deciding on the legislation. However, progress is already facing hurdles; Rep. Andy Harris of Maryland, head of the Freedom Caucus, intends to vote against the procedural rule, jeopardizing the bill’s advancement.

Trump continues to push the bill, praising the Senate’s approval and urging the House to follow suit, highlighting its significance. A senior White House official stressed the urgency of passing the bill in its current form before July 4, dismissing any notion of conferencing the House and Senate versions.

As the deadline looms, the White House is intensifying efforts to rally support, with top officials engaged in outreach to ensure the bill’s passage.

Source: Original article

TheUNN Corporation

CONTACT US

Follow us

Subscribe to Newsletter