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

Indian-American Lawmakers Criticize Senate Passage of GOP Budget Bill

July 3, 2025 Staff ReporterHealth, USA 0

Indian American lawmakers have expressed strong disapproval following the U.S. Senate’s passage of a Republican-led budget proposal that aims to significantly alter federal spending, including deep cuts to healthcare and social safety net programs while increasing funds for military and immigration enforcement.

On July 1, the U.S. Senate passed a controversial budget package that has stirred significant opposition from Indian American members of Congress. The proposal, led by Republicans, has come under fire for significant cuts to federal healthcare programs and social safety net initiatives while allocating more resources to military and immigration enforcement.

Representative Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL) criticized the Senate bill’s journey through Congress, stating, “The House Republican version of the Trump budget was already a disaster for the American people. The Senate somehow made it even worse.”

Representative Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) described the Senate’s amendments to the budget as “selfish, cruel and expensive,” particularly criticizing the healthcare provisions. She noted, “Senate Republicans just voted to cut healthcare for millions of Americans to pay for a tax break for the rich. Americans will die so that billionaires can get a tax cut.”

Other lawmakers, including Representative Suhas Subramanyam (D-VA), weigh in on the matter, asserting that the current bill compounds the shortcomings of the original proposal. “Old version: slashed Medicaid, cut clean energy, exploded the debt. New version: slashes more Medicaid, cuts more clean energy, raises the debt even more,” said Subramanyam. He also emphasized that “Nearly 17 million Americans are projected to lose their health insurance because of the Trump Administration’s Big Ugly Bill.”

Representative Shri Thanedar (D-MI) warned of the severe implications for food security and health coverage, stating, “This bill will take food off the table of 2 million Americans and take away access to healthcare from 16 million more,” continuing, “All to give billionaires yet another tax cut. I’m heading to DC right now to vote HELL NO on this Big Ugly bill in the House.”

Echoing this sentiment, Representative Ami Bera (D-CA) underscored that Democrats are in solidarity against the bill. “House Democrats stand united against this harmful bill that will strip at least 16 million Americans of their health care. We must defeat this,” he stated.

The Senate vote was narrowly split at 51-50, with Vice President JD Vance casting the tie-breaking vote after three Republicans—Thom Tillis of North Carolina, Susan Collins of Maine, and Rand Paul of Kentucky—sided with all 47 Democrats in opposing the bill.

Next, the budget bill will be reviewed by the House of Representatives, where Republicans maintain a slim majority of 220-212, making the outcome uncertain. House Democrats are anticipated to stand unanimously against the measure.

Stepping up efforts for its enactment by the Fourth of July, President Trump is expected to take a prominent role in convincing House Republicans to pass the bill.

According to New India Abroad

Source: Original article

Tina Shah Announces Congressional Run in New Jersey’s 7th District

July 3, 2025 Staff ReporterNation, Politics 0

Dr. Tina Shah, a physician and former White House advisor, has announced her candidacy for Congress, aiming to reform healthcare and challenge Rep. Tom Kean Jr. in New Jersey’s 7th District.

Dr. Tina Shah, a prominent intensive care physician of Indian origin from Westfield, New Jersey, officially launched her congressional campaign on July 1. The Democrat is targeting a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, representing New Jersey’s 7th District, which is currently held by Republican Rep. Tom Kean Jr. Shah’s campaign focuses on healthcare reform, leveraging her extensive medical background and expertise.

Shah is no stranger to the political landscape, having served as a White House advisor. Her candidacy is set against the backdrop of a district that tilted towards President Joe Biden in 2020 but supported Donald Trump in the subsequent 2024 election cycle. This swing district presents both challenges and opportunities for Shah as she seeks to unseat an incumbent preparing for a third term.

A native of New Jersey, Shah boasts impressive credentials in the medical field. She is triple board-certified in internal medicine, pulmonology, and critical care. Her professional work is centered at RWJ Barnabas Health, where she continues to influence patient care and healthcare policy. Shah has gained national recognition as a healthcare expert, often appearing on television to provide insight into various public health issues.

The 7th District race promises to be closely watched as Shah campaigns on a platform of healthcare reform, highlighting her plans to address systemic issues within the current medical system. Her expertise and experience are expected to be central themes of her campaign as she aims to resonate with voters concerned about healthcare accessibility and quality.

According to New India Abroad, Shah’s announcement sets the stage for a competitive electoral contest in New Jersey, bringing healthcare to the forefront of the political conversation.

Source: Original article

Trump’s Birthright Citizenship View Contradicts Historical Facts

July 1, 2025 Staff ReporterNews, Politics, USA 0

The Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, long interpreted to grant birthright citizenship to immigrant children born in the U.S., has become a focal point of debate following President Donald Trump’s remarks questioning its applicability.

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” This opening line of the Fourteenth Amendment has been traditionally understood by legal scholars as conferring citizenship on anyone born on U.S. soil, including the children of immigrants. However, President Donald Trump recently challenged this interpretation, claiming the amendment was intended only for descendants of enslaved individuals.

During a press conference celebrating a Supreme Court decision that partly allows the administration to push forward with ending birthright citizenship, Trump asserted, “This had to do with the babies of slaves.” While the ruling addressed lower courts’ limits to block the policy nationwide, Trump’s larger legal goal faces further challenges. He insists the framers of the amendment never intended it to apply to immigrant children.

The Fourteenth Amendment, indeed, was primarily drafted to secure rights for formerly enslaved people, as the post-Civil War era saw ex-Confederate states enacting laws severely restricting the freedoms of newly freed Black Americans. The Black Codes, as they were known, effectively sought to maintain slavery in all but name through restrictive regulations on labor, property ownership, and other civil rights.

To counteract these abuses, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866 over President Andrew Johnson’s veto, granting rights and citizenship to Black residents in the South. Recognizing these protections might not endure under changing political climates, lawmakers sought to enshrine them constitutionally in the Fourteenth Amendment.

Trump’s objections rest on two points: an interpretation of the amendment’s phrasing around jurisdiction and a belief that it was never intended to cover immigrant children. Critics of Trump’s perspective point to the framers’ intentions as evidence against his claims.

Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan, who drafted the amendment’s language, articulated its purpose was to declare that every person born in the U.S. was a citizen. He clarified, however, that the provision did not apply to children of foreign diplomats, indicating that other immigrant groups were included.

This understanding is further illustrated during Senate debates. Senator Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania expressed fears that the amendment would lead to demographic upheaval by granting citizenship to immigrant children. His concerns, voiced during discussions, were especially focused on the Roma community in Pennsylvania and Chinese immigrants in California. However, Senator John Conness of California defended the amendment, stating it would rightfully include children of Chinese immigrants.

Though Cowan’s apprehensions highlighted racial and ethnic biases of the time, the broader consensus among the amendment’s supporters, both then and in judicial interpretations such as the 1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark decision, was that birthright citizenship was meant for all born on U.S. soil, regardless of parental nationality.

The Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark upheld that individuals born in the U.S. to immigrant parents were citizens, setting a crucial precedent that remains today. Despite Trump’s stance, the recent court decision did not directly support his interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Rather, it addressed procedural aspects, limiting lower courts from issuing broad injunctions, effectively opening pathways to potentially uneven application across states.

Trump’s reading challenges the way millions of American families of European descent historically acquired citizenship. While current debates center on Asian or other non-European immigrant communities, European immigrants benefited from broad interpretations of existing laws. The framers focused then on the citizenship eligibility of Asian immigrants, not Europeans, under the original 1790 Naturalization Act provisions.

If Trump’s interpretation prevailed, the American identity and citizenship path for many with immigrant ancestors would be in question. The historical record, however, underscores a longstanding recognition of birthright citizenship as foundational to America’s national identity, bridging diverse origins under one citizenry.

Legal experts assert that the history is clear: the Fourteenth Amendment’s birthright citizenship clause was intended to be inclusive. Originalism, a judicial philosophy favored by conservatives, emphasizes interpreting the Constitution as understood at its inception, and within this framework, the historical context affirms the broader application of the citizenship clause.

For now, as legal battles continue, the understanding established since 1868 – that birthright citizenship applies to all born in the U.S. – remains valid, although its future is potentially at the mercy of ongoing legal interpretations and political intentions.

Source: Original article

Powell: Fed Rates Unchanged This Year Due to Tariffs

July 1, 2025 Staff ReporterBusiness, Cover, Economy, Finance/Economy 0

The Federal Reserve would likely have lowered interest rates this year if not for significant policy changes by President Donald Trump, Chair Jerome Powell stated Tuesday.

In a central banking forum in Sintra, Portugal, Jerome Powell, Chair of the Federal Reserve, indicated that the Fed might have reduced interest rates this year had it not been for the substantial policy shifts implemented by President Donald Trump. When questioned about the possibility of rate cuts, Powell remarked, “I do think that’s right.”

So far this year, the Federal Reserve has refrained from lowering interest rates. Central bankers anticipate that Trump’s tariffs will impact the U.S. economy, prompting them to take a cautious approach, opting to monitor how these changes affect the economic landscape before making any decisions on rate adjustments.

This cautious stance, however, has drawn criticism from President Trump, who has persistently criticized Powell’s decision not to reduce rates. Trump has called Powell derogatory names such as a “numbskull” and a “moron” for maintaining higher interest rates compared to other countries.

In a handwritten note shared on his social media platform on Monday, Trump lambasted Powell, alleging that the Fed’s policies have financially harmed the United States. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed that this note was delivered to the Fed on the same day.

The sentiment to cut rates is shared, albeit to a lesser extent, by others within the Fed. Two officials — Michelle Bowman, Fed Vice Chair for Supervision, and Fed Governor Christopher Waller — have opined that a rate cut could be considered as early as July. However, unlike Trump, they have refrained from advocating dramatic cuts, emphasizing that any decision should be contingent on economic conditions, specifically the severity of tariff-induced inflation.

Despite some internal support for rate adjustment, the likelihood of a rate cut in July remains slim, as indicated by futures data which estimate an 81% probability of rates holding steady at the Fed’s July 29-30 meeting, compared to a 19% chance of a quarter-point rate cut.

Powell, during his panel in Sintra, acknowledged that a majority of Fed officials foresee the necessity of reducing rates later this year, depending on inflation trends and labor market developments. He stated, “A solid majority of (Fed officials) do expect that it will become appropriate later this year to begin to reduce rates again.”

When asked about the possibility of a July rate cut, Powell refrained from giving a definitive answer, noting that he “can’t say” but would not dismiss any meeting from consideration.

European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde, who was also on the Sintra panel, expressed support for Powell’s data-driven approach to policymaking and commended him for his apolitical stance. She affirmed that Powell “epitomizes the standard of a courageous central banker.”

Powell has refrained from responding to President Trump’s public barbs and reiterated his commitment to his responsibilities, stating, “I’m very focused on just doing my job.” Lagarde, when asked how she would respond to criticisms akin to those from Trump, supported Powell’s stance, suggesting, “I think we would (all) do exactly the same thing as our colleague, Jay Powell, does.”

Following Lagarde’s comment, attendees at the conference offered applause in support. Powell reiterated the Fed’s mission to maintain macroeconomic stability, emphasizing the need for a non-partisan approach, stating, “We don’t take sides. We don’t play one side against the other. We stay out of issues that are really not our bailiwick.”

Source: Original article

Senate Approves Trump Agenda Bill After Extended Voting Session

July 1, 2025July 8, 2025 Staff ReporterElection, Politics, Security 0

The Senate has narrowly passed President Donald Trump’s domestic agenda bill, which now moves to the House of Representatives for further approval.

The Senate passed President Donald Trump’s ambitious legislative package on a knife-edge vote of 50-50, with Vice President JD Vance casting the decisive vote. This megabill represents a core component of Trump’s domestic agenda and has set the stage for a significant legislative battle as it heads to the House of Representatives.

Republican leaders in the Senate managed to secure enough votes after intense negotiations with key holdouts in their ranks. However, the next hurdle appears imminent, with GOP leaders in the House now facing a high-stakes effort to ensure the bill reaches the president’s desk by July 4.

While visiting a makeshift detention facility called “Alligator Alcatraz” in Florida, President Trump confidently predicted the bill’s successful passage in the House. He also downplayed concerns related to potential impacts on American health care coverage, which have been a point of contention among critics of the bill.

This extensive bill outlines significant tax reductions and boosts in funding for national security, all of which will be offset by the most considerable cuts to the federal safety net seen in decades. As Washington gears up for another legislative showdown, the focus now turns to the House as lawmakers evaluate the sweeping changes proposed within this multi-trillion-dollar plan.

According to CNN, the bill’s advancement symbolizes a pivotal moment in Trump’s tenure, potentially reshaping the nation’s fiscal landscape if fully enacted.

Source: Original article

Justice Department to Focus on Revoking Naturalized Citizenship

July 1, 2025July 8, 2025 Staff ReporterConflict, Immigration 0

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is intensifying efforts to revoke the citizenship of naturalized Americans who have committed crimes, aligning with the Trump administration’s broader immigration policies.

The recent initiative by the DOJ emphasizes denaturalization, focusing on individuals involved in activities categorized under “war crimes,” “extrajudicial killings,” “human rights abuses,” and those posing ongoing threats, including terrorism. The directive is part of a memo, urging the DOJ’s Civil Division to prioritize these cases to the full extent permitted by law and supported by evidence.

This development marks a significant escalation in the Trump administration’s immigration agenda, which seeks to target not just undocumented immigrants but also lawful permanent residents and naturalized citizens.

Naturalization is the process by which U.S. citizenship is granted to a lawful permanent resident, following criteria set by Congress in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). According to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), there were 24.5 million naturalized citizens in the U.S. in 2022, accounting for 53% of the immigrant population, based on data analyzed by the Migration Policy Institute.

The path to naturalization is rigorous, requiring individuals to be lawful permanent residents for a minimum of five years—exceptions are made for spouses of U.S. citizens and U.S. military members—and to possess proficiency in English as well as an understanding of U.S. history and government.

The shift towards increased denaturalization began under the Obama administration, as noted by Cassandra Burke Robertson, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University. The rise was due in part to improved digital tools for identifying cases of naturalization fraud. The trend has accelerated under the Trump administration, which has been actively pursuing denaturalization at unprecedented levels.

Statistics from the DOJ indicate at least 305 denaturalization cases were filed between 1990 and 2017, with the number surging during Trump’s first term. From January 2017 to August 2018, USCIS reviewed approximately 2,500 cases for possible denaturalization, referring over 110 cases to the DOJ for prosecution.

The recent memo from Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate includes denaturalization among the top five priorities for the DOJ’s Civil Division. Denaturalization is pursued in instances where individuals have allegedly obtained citizenship fraudulently by concealment of material facts or willful misrepresentation.

Concerns over the constitutional aspects of these efforts have been voiced, with Robertson arguing that civil litigation to strip citizenship may violate due process under the 14th Amendment. The DOJ’s approach allows for the potential use of denaturalization as a tool against free speech, targeting individuals and institutions for allegations ranging from antisemitism to criticism of U.S. foreign policy.

The DOJ has already denaturalized individuals in cases involving serious criminal convictions. One case involved the revocation of citizenship from a person convicted of collecting and distributing child sexual abuse material.

This DOJ initiative reflects a broader strategy by the Trump administration to leverage immigration policy as a means to address national security and public safety concerns, often amidst debate over the balance between enforcement and civil liberties.

Source: Original article

Tehran Refutes Trump’s Statements on Nuclear Negotiations Progress

July 1, 2025 Staff ReporterWorld, Politics 0

Despite U.S. President Donald Trump hinting at a possible revival of nuclear negotiations with Iran, Tehran has categorically denied any such agreement. Iranian officials say recent U.S. and Israeli airstrikes have only deepened mistrust, making future diplomacy even more unlikely.

Following nearly two weeks of intense conflict that pushed the Middle East to the edge of wider war, Washington and Tehran are now offering starkly different narratives. While Trump suggested on June 25 that nuclear talks could resume as early as next week, Iran’s leadership rejected the claim outright, citing recent military attacks on its nuclear sites as a major obstacle.

“I want to state clearly that no agreement, meeting, or conversation has been made to start new negotiations,” Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on state television on June 26.

U.S.-Israel Strikes Seen as Major Setback

Araghchi argued that recent U.S. and Israeli military operations have significantly undermined the chances of any diplomatic breakthrough.

“The next negotiations won’t be easier for the Americans. Lives have been lost. You can’t simply move past that and make a deal,” he warned.

Iran Holds Firm on Nuclear Position

Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei echoed that sentiment, stating that Iran’s nuclear stance remains unchanged despite what he described as the use of “naked force” against a sovereign nation.

“We’ve shown that pressure, threats, and even outright military aggression will not force Iran to give up its rights,” he told IRNA, the state-run news agency.

Accusations of U.S. Bad Faith

Baghaei also accused Washington of negotiating in bad faith, claiming the U.S. had no serious intent to reach an agreement even before the latest escalation.

“All signs indicate the Americans were never sincere. The proposed talks in Oman before the Israeli attacks prove that,” he said, adding that Iran’s engagement only served to expose “the hypocrisy and lies” of its counterparts.

No Trust, No Talks

On the matter of trust, Baghaei was blunt: “We never trusted the United States. Some say recent events have eroded trust, but there was none to begin with.”

He cited the U.S.’s history of “breaking promises” as the foundation for Iran’s ongoing skepticism.

No Timeline for Talks

Despite international appeals for restraint and diplomacy, Tehran has made clear that no timeline exists for resuming nuclear negotiations. Iranian officials say any future dialogue will face far greater hurdles than in the past.

Justice Department Intensifies Denaturalization Drive, Raising Constitutional Concerns

July 1, 2025 Staff ReporterImmigration, Cover, USA 0

The Justice Department is increasingly focusing on stripping U.S. citizenship from certain naturalized Americans. According to a memo dated June 11, DOJ leadership is instructing attorneys to prioritize denaturalization in cases involving naturalized citizens who have committed specific crimes. The directive also grants U.S. attorneys more authority in deciding when to pursue such actions. This policy shift targets individuals not born in the United States, and as of 2023, nearly 25 million immigrants had obtained U.S. citizenship through naturalization.

The new emphasis on denaturalization has already produced results. On June 13, a judge revoked the citizenship of Elliott Duke, an American military veteran originally from the United Kingdom who uses they/them pronouns. Duke had been convicted of distributing child sexual abuse material, a crime they later admitted to committing even before becoming a U.S. citizen.

Historically, denaturalization was a prominent tool during the McCarthy era in the late 1940s and early 1950s. It was further utilized during the Obama administration and expanded under President Trump’s first term. The process has typically targeted individuals who concealed past crimes or affiliations with banned organizations—such as the Nazi Party or communist groups—on their citizenship applications.

In his memo, Assistant Attorney General Brett A. Shumate emphasized the importance of this effort: “The Civil Division shall prioritize and maximally pursue denaturalization proceedings in all cases permitted by law and supported by the evidence.”

This renewed focus aligns with the Trump administration’s broader effort to reshape the U.S. immigration system. President Trump has made immigration policy a central issue in his governance, seeking to end birthright citizenship and reduce refugee admissions. These moves reflect a fundamental redefinition of who is entitled to American citizenship.

However, constitutional scholars and immigration experts have expressed significant alarm about this denaturalization push. Cassandra Robertson, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University, noted that the DOJ’s reliance on civil litigation for denaturalization raises serious concerns. In civil court, those targeted do not have the right to government-appointed attorneys, the standard of proof is lower, and cases can be resolved more quickly.

Robertson warned, “Stripping Americans of citizenship through civil litigation violates due process and infringes on the rights guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.”

Still, the move has supporters. Hans von Spakovsky of the Heritage Foundation endorsed the initiative, stating, “I do not understand how anyone could possibly be opposed to the Justice Department taking such action to protect the nation from obvious predators, criminals, and terrorists.” Regarding concerns over legal representation, he added, “Nothing prevents that alien from hiring their own lawyer to represent them. They are not entitled to have the government — and thus the American taxpayer — pay for their lawyer.”

He further argued, “That is not a ‘due process’ violation since all immigration proceedings are civil matters and no individuals — including American citizens — are entitled to government-furnished lawyers in any type of civil matter.”

Neither the DOJ nor the Trump White House commented on the matter.

The June 11 memo significantly broadens the categories of offenses that could trigger denaturalization. These include crimes related to national security and fraud against individuals or the government, such as Paycheck Protection Program loan fraud or Medicaid and Medicare fraud.

Sameera Hafiz, policy director at the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, described the administration’s new approach as “very shocking and very concerning.” She stated, “It is kind of, in a way, trying to create a second class of U.S. citizens,” implying that naturalized citizens remain vulnerable to losing their status despite having followed legal processes.

Adding to these concerns, the memo grants federal attorneys the discretion to pursue denaturalization cases beyond the listed categories. “These categories do not limit the Civil Division from pursuing any particular case,” the memo reads, further noting that priorities may include “any other cases referred to the Civil Division that the Division determines to be sufficiently important to pursue.”

Steve Lubet, professor emeritus at Northwestern University’s Pritzker School of Law, found this language troubling. “Many of the categories are so vague as to be meaningless. It isn’t even clear that they relate to fraudulent procurement, as opposed to post-naturalization conduct,” he observed.

Von Spakovsky countered that the government is right to be uncompromising. “When we extend the opportunity for naturalization to aliens, we are granting them a great privilege — the privilege of becoming a U.S. citizen,” he said. “Anyone who has abused the privilege of the opportunity of becoming a U.S. citizen should have that citizenship revoked when they engage in such reprehensible behavior.”

Lubet also pointed out the broader implications for families, particularly children who derived citizenship through a naturalized parent. “People who thought they were safely American and had done nothing wrong can suddenly be at risk of losing citizenship,” he said.

The DOJ did not address questions about how children of denaturalized parents would be affected or what would happen if individuals were rendered stateless.

The case of Elliott Duke appears to be an early example of how the new denaturalization efforts might play out. Duke, who became a U.S. citizen in January 2013, was found to have started distributing child sexual abuse material while serving in Germany in 2012. Duke relinquished their U.K. citizenship to become an American. The DOJ filed the case in February in Louisiana, citing both the prior conviction and Duke’s failure to disclose criminal activity during the naturalization process.

During the legal proceedings, Duke struggled to secure representation and could not attend court in Louisiana. “My heart shattered when I read the lines [of the order]. My world broke apart,” Duke said.

Shumate, in a statement, warned, “If you commit serious crimes before you become a U.S. citizen and then lie about them during your naturalization process, the Justice Department will discover the truth and come after you.”

Laura Bingham, executive director of the Temple University Institute for Law Innovation and Technology, cautioned that the Duke case sets a worrying precedent. “Citizenship is not supposed to be something that you can continuously open up for some people, and you can’t for others,” she said.

Historically, denaturalization surged during the McCarthy era, with over 22,000 cases filed annually. “At the height of denaturalization, there were about 22,000 cases a year… It was huge,” Robertson recalled. However, a 1967 Supreme Court ruling curtailed the practice, citing its incompatibility with democratic values.

From that point until the Obama era, denaturalization became rare. The Obama administration revived it with initiatives like Operation Janus, which sought out potential naturalization fraud, especially linked to national security concerns.

Trump’s first term saw further expansion, with a preference for pursuing denaturalization through civil rather than criminal courts. Although Robertson questions how many cases will meet the criteria outlined in the recent memo, she fears the aggressive push may target individuals with minimal infractions. “It fits in with the other ways that we’ve seen immigration enforcement happening,” she said.

This recent policy shift marks a significant chapter in U.S. immigration enforcement, raising crucial questions about due process, equal protection, and the long-term security of naturalized citizenship.

US Embassy in India Emphasizes Strict Visa Screening and Social Media Disclosure as National Security Measure

July 1, 2025 Staff ReporterImmigration, Cover, USA 0

The United States Embassy in India has reiterated the stringent vetting procedures tied to its visa policies, describing each visa adjudication as a matter of national security. In a statement posted on the social media platform X, the embassy highlighted the requirement for all applicants to provide complete details of their social media presence over the last five years while applying for nonimmigrant visas.

“Visa applicants are required to list all social media usernames or handles of every platform they have used from the last 5 years on the DS-160 visa application form. Applicants certify that the information in their visa application is true and correct before they sign and submit,” stated the US Embassy in a recent post.

This disclosure requirement, according to the embassy, is an integral part of the broader national security screening process employed by the United States. Failing to comply with this requirement could have serious consequences. “Omitting social media information could lead to visa denial and ineligibility for future visas,” the post further warned.

This advisory is part of a broader campaign by the embassy to inform and caution visa applicants about the importance of accuracy and transparency in their applications. The embassy’s post included digital posters reiterating the security aspect of the visa process. One poster read, “Every U.S. visa adjudication is a national security decision,” and emphasized, “The United States requires visa applicants to provide social media identifiers on visa application forms. We use all available information in our visa screening and vetting.”

In a related update earlier this month, the embassy had urged applicants falling under F, M, or J non-immigrant visa categories to make their social media accounts public. This recommendation was made to aid US authorities in verifying applicants’ identities and establishing their admissibility under American law. These visa categories include F and M for students and J for exchange visitors.

The embassy elaborated that since 2019, the United States has mandated the disclosure of “social media identifiers” as part of both immigrant and non-immigrant visa applications. This long-standing requirement, according to the embassy, is vital to national security and helps immigration authorities thoroughly vet each applicant.

The embassy’s statements come amid a wider crackdown on immigration in the United States. Recently, the Trump administration intensified enforcement actions in Los Angeles, targeting immigration violations more aggressively. In light of this, the US Embassy in India has stepped up its communication, providing frequent updates on policy and legal expectations for visa applicants.

On June 24, the embassy issued another warning, stating that immigration law enforcement had been stepped up across the country. The message was unambiguous—those found violating immigration laws would face strict penalties, including detention, deportation, and permanent ineligibility for future visas.

Adding to this, the embassy’s statement noted, “The US had increased enforcement of immigration laws, and violators would face detention, deportation and permanent consequences for future visa eligibility.” The warning was not limited to overstays or misrepresentation; it also made it clear that illegal entry into the United States would result in jail time and removal from the country.

This was not the only caution issued during the month. On June 19, the embassy released another strongly worded statement reminding applicants that obtaining a US visa is not a guaranteed right but a discretionary privilege. It emphasized that screening and scrutiny continue even after a visa is issued. Authorities in the US reserve the right to revoke a visa if the holder is found in violation of any laws.

The embassy said, “A US visa was a privilege, not a right,” underscoring that post-issuance reviews are routine and can result in visa cancellation if necessary. It further added that involvement in illegal activities, including drug use or breaking US laws while in the country on a student or visitor visa, could severely impact one’s ability to receive future visas.

This line of messaging from the US Embassy in India has been consistent throughout the month. The campaign has included reminders that although the US continues to welcome legal travelers, any attempt to enter the country illegally or abuse the visa system will not be tolerated.

Reiterating this stance, the embassy made a significant statement on June 16, asserting that the United States “will not tolerate those who facilitate illegal and mass immigration to the US.” This message also revealed a policy shift: the US had introduced “new visa restrictions” aimed specifically at foreign government officials and individuals who violate immigration laws.

This multi-pronged approach by the US government reflects a broader tightening of immigration and visa processes, especially in the wake of mounting concerns around illegal immigration. With policies targeting both individual applicants and those facilitating unlawful entry, the US is sending a clear signal about the importance of legal compliance.

By highlighting these issues through multiple channels and on various dates, the US Embassy in India is working to ensure that prospective travelers are well aware of the rules and expectations. The detailed advisories, warnings about visa ineligibility, and emphasis on national security collectively serve to underline the gravity with which the US government views visa applications.

These measures not only aim to safeguard national interests but also serve as a deterrent for those considering bypassing legal immigration processes. By requiring disclosure of social media identifiers, encouraging transparency, and increasing legal enforcement, the United States is fortifying its immigration system against potential risks.

At the same time, the US government continues to stress that it welcomes legal immigration and supports those who abide by the rules. But any deviation from lawful practices will result in serious and lasting consequences.

The embassy’s message, repeated throughout June, is unambiguous: compliance with visa rules, honesty in the application process, and adherence to US laws are non-negotiable. The US authorities are equipped to detect discrepancies and enforce immigration laws without hesitation.

From urging public visibility of social media accounts to warning against drug use and law violations, the embassy has rolled out a series of reminders to leave no room for misunderstanding. These reminders serve both as guidance for sincere applicants and a deterrent for those contemplating any kind of misuse of the system.

Ultimately, the consistent tone and content of the embassy’s advisories reflect a strategic policy direction that prioritizes national security while maintaining opportunities for legal entry. Through transparency, accountability, and firm enforcement, the United States aims to maintain the integrity of its immigration system.

Waning Investor Optimism Dampens India’s Market Rally Amid Global Shifts

July 1, 2025 Staff ReporterEconomy, Global 0

India’s stock market, which had emerged as a safe harbor when U.S. President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariff hikes rattled global markets in April, is now witnessing a cooling of investor enthusiasm. The country’s relatively insulated $5.4 trillion equity market initially benefited from trade uncertainties elsewhere. However, with trade tensions easing and other Asian markets gaining traction, the motivation to hold India’s highly valued shares is diminishing.

Concerns about slowing earnings growth are taking the sheen off India’s market rally, especially as Chinese stocks listed in Hong Kong gain momentum and attract global capital. These developments come at a time when India’s markets offer limited exposure to the rapidly advancing artificial intelligence sector, making them less appealing to investors seeking growth in tech-related areas.

Together, these factors suggest Indian equities may be poised for a prolonged period of underperformance compared to their Asian counterparts. This comes after a robust four-year bull run that saw Indian shares reach record highs.

“This is not the year for India,” remarked Amol Gogate, an emerging markets fund manager at Carmignac in London. “Overall, 2025 is going to be tough as India doesn’t have a lot going for it compared with other markets such as China,” he added.

India had initially shown strong resilience to global disruptions triggered by Trump’s tariffs and was the first major economy to fully recover from the losses those policies inflicted. But in the rebound that followed the market dip in April, the MSCI India Index has lagged behind the broader Asian rally.

As the first half of 2025 comes to a close, India’s MSCI index has risen by 6.3 percent. That gain, however, falls short of the MSCI Asia Pacific Index, which has outpaced it by nearly six percentage points. Meanwhile, Chinese shares traded in Hong Kong have surged by 20 percent this year. Their ascent is largely attributed to progress in artificial intelligence and an influx of exciting new listings.

One of the major sticking points for investors looking at India is its steep valuations. The MSCI India Index currently trades at close to 23 times projected earnings, which makes it among the costliest stock markets globally. This figure is well above the five-year average of 21.5. Compounding the concern is India’s relatively modest earnings growth outlook, especially when compared to regional competitors like South Korea and Taiwan, according to Bloomberg data.

“We don’t have an overweight allocation to India and that’s mainly because of valuations,” said Jian Shi Cortesi, a fund manager at GAM Investment Management in Zurich. “We like the country for its longer-term potential but right now valuation is even more stretched than in the past,” she noted.

Despite the headwinds, some investors who focus on medium- to long-term horizons still find compelling reasons to stay optimistic about India’s prospects. The country remains the fastest-growing major economy and benefits from a robust domestic market, both of which continue to make its equity space attractive for certain players.

“We still believe in the long-term growth potential of India and usually take dips as buying opportunities for Indian stocks,” said Joohee An, chief investment officer at Mirae Asset Global Investments in Hong Kong.

Yet, recent foreign capital flows suggest that confidence is wavering. The sharp rally that took Indian markets to new highs in late September has raised alarms about stretched valuations. In response, global investors have reduced their stakes by almost $9 billion in 2025 alone. According to data compiled by Bloomberg, India is now on track to record its first consecutive year of foreign outflows since 1999.

Investor sentiment appears subdued across other financial instruments as well. The Indian rupee, for instance, has seen a minor decline against the U.S. dollar this quarter. This places it among only two Asian currencies to have weakened during the same period. In the bond market, foreign investors have pulled back significantly, reducing their holdings in Indian index-eligible debt securities by $3.4 billion since April.

“Earnings are performing in line with expectations but you need faster growth and positive profit revisions to justify continued expansion of valuation multiples,” said Alan Richardson, a senior portfolio manager at Samsung Asset Management Co. He added, “I am surprised the market even managed to recover so fast from the April lows on narratives with little change in fundamental growth.”

In essence, while India’s long-term economic narrative remains appealing, the immediate outlook has become less convincing for global investors. High valuations, tempered earnings expectations, and a lack of exposure to emerging themes like AI are diminishing its appeal relative to faster-growing or more attractively priced markets in Asia. The landscape for Indian equities in the second half of 2025 could well hinge on whether the economy can surprise investors with stronger growth or compelling sectoral developments.

Sanjyot Dunung Enters Illinois Congressional Race to Reclaim the American Dream with Pragmatic Leadership

June 29, 2025July 1, 2025 Ajay GhoshProfile, USA 0

Sanjyot Dunung, a Des Plaines-based entrepreneur, civic leader, and mother of three sons—including one serving in the military—has launched her campaign for Congress in Illinois’s 8th District. A Democrat and first-time candidate, Dunung is positioning herself as a commonsense alternative to career politicians, bringing with her decades of experience in business, education, and global policy. Her campaign is centered on restoring the American Dream through practical reforms, economic innovation, and deeply rooted community values.

“I’m a small business owner and proud mother of three sons, including one in the military,” Dunung announced in her campaign video. “In a time of real chaos and frustration with the status quo, I am the change candidate stepping up to fight for the American Dream and put people over politics.”

Born in India and immigrated to the US at age 6, raised in Des Plaines, Illinois, Dunung’s personal story is tightly woven into the community she now seeks to represent. Her family initially lived with friends until they could afford their own apartment, and her parents’ tireless work ethic inspired her own sense of responsibility. By age nine, she was babysitting; by ten, she had turned that into a weekend childcare business. “I was born in India, but I was made in America,” she stated. “This community gave me a chance.”

Her work ethic carried into her college years at Northwestern University, where she juggled studies with a daily paper route. As an adult, she balanced the demands of single motherhood, running a small business, and caring for her ailing parents. These life experiences have given her firsthand insight into the everyday struggles facing working families. “My life was Made in America. This campaign was Made in America. It could not have happened anywhere else,” she declared. “Now, I’m committed to making sure that the same American Dream is alive and well now, and for generations to come.”

Dunung is the founder and CEO of Atma Global, an EdTech company that creates learning solutions for businesses and public institutions. She has authored 17 books, including textbooks on international business and a young adult novel titled “Maddie & Sayara.” Her career has been defined by building—companies, jobs, ideas—and by solving real-world problems with creativity and collaboration.

“I’m running to protect Social Security and Medicare for the next generation, honor our commitment to military families and veterans, ensure healthcare is affordable and accessible, fight for reproductive freedoms, invest in educational opportunities from universal Pre-K to vocational training, harness the American entrepreneurial spirit, and make homeownership and retirement achievable, not aspirational,” she said.

Her campaign reflects her deep concerns of what she sees as ineffective governance. “This administration promised to fix the economy, but instead, it’s breaking promises and tearing down opportunities that make the American Dream possible,” she emphasized. For Dunung, this campaign isn’t just about policy—it’s about practicality. She wants the government to function more efficiently and dynamically for 21st-century needs without cutting the essential programs families rely on.

She brings a wide array of experience to her candidacy. Dunung serves on the Board of Directors of the National Small Business Association, the Truman Center for National Policy, and the American Leadership Project. She was also a member of President Joe Biden’s Foreign Policy Working Group focused on international trade, where she worked to strengthen U.S. small business exports and expand fair trade relationships.

Dunung’s economic views are grounded in her business acumen and policy experience. She has been critical of past and current administrations for their approaches to trade and manufacturing. “The Trump administration asked the right questions—how do we make trade fairer and how do we revitalize manufacturing—but their solutions were all wrong,” she said. “We don’t need to crash the economy in order to fix it. We don’t need to just arbitrarily levy tariffs and hostile policies on countries that are our friends and allies.”

She also took issue with what she sees as the current administration’s abandonment of strategic industrial policies, citing the CHIPS Act under Biden as an important but neglected investment. “You can’t just say you want manufacturing; you have to invest in both learning—from K through 12 to vocational training—and help businesses of all sizes to be able to do that,” she explained.

Dunung is especially focused on workforce development. She wants to ensure that as manufacturing evolves, Americans are equipped to meet new demands. “What might have taken 20 people once to do a manufacturing process now may take five, but those five need to be highly skilled at an AI-driven manufacturing process,” she said. “We need to rethink the training and education to make sure that we give everybody a fair chance at good-paying jobs for the future.”

Her views on immigration also align with her broader economic vision. “We have a declining birth rate. It’s 1.6, and we need to replenish at 2.2,” she said. “We need the immigration system to be fair, transparent, and legal. But our secret sauce as a country is immigrants. We bring work ethic, know-how, and South Asian immigrants fuel technology. We need to champion them.”

As part of her early campaign momentum, Dunung has earned notable endorsements and media recognition. She was recently endorsed by ASPIRE PAC, the political arm of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus. “Sanjyot Dunung is committed to building a future that is more affordable, safer, and healthier for all Americans,” said ASPIRE PAC Chair Rep. Marilyn Strickland. “She understands the issues that matter to our communities—from lowering costs to protecting our democracy—and is focused on commonsense solutions that will help working families get ahead.”

Dunung responded, “As a proud Asian American, I am honored to receive ASPIRE PAC’s endorsement. My experiences as an Indian-born, American-made small business owner, single mom, and civic leader inform everything I do.”

She has also been highlighted by Roll Call, which described her as “the candidate for commonsense change across parties,” a recognition she says validates her ability to win a five-way race in a district she knows intimately. Additionally, she was featured in the Northwestern University newspaper as a local alumna running for office, underscoring her strong educational and community ties.

Dunung joins a growing list of candidates competing for the seat soon to be vacated by Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, who is running for the U.S. Senate. Other Democratic candidates include Cook County Commissioner Kevin Morrison, Hanover Park Trustee Yasmeen Bankole, and brand executive Christ Kallas. Business owner Mark Rice, a Republican, has also filed to run.

Despite the crowded field, Dunung believes her unique blend of business, policy, and lived experience makes her stand out. “I’m not beholden to special interests. I’m really about being focused on results,” she said. “Everybody talks about needing change, but they want responsible, methodical change. We can improve how the government works. We can get efficiencies. We can get rid of waste. But the way to do it is not with a chainsaw and not overnight by crashing agencies.”

She emphasizes the importance of community-based leadership. “I grew up in this community. I graduated from high school, went to Northwestern. During the last 10 years, I’ve been taking care of my aging parents,” she said. “I’ve walked the talk and I’ve lived the experience that for many people is their daily life.”

Dunung also recognizes the significance of representation in government. “We only have six South Asians in Congress, and only one is a woman. We need to do better. And we can only do better together as a community,” she said. “People from the South Asian community need to get involved to understand how to support folks who align with their views and their values.”

With the Democratic primary set for March 17, 2026, and the general election scheduled for November 3, 2026, Dunung is campaigning hard across the district, which includes areas of Cook, DuPage, and Kane Counties, as well as cities like St. Charles and Geneva. The district also includes St. Charles, South Barrington Schaumburg, and Des Plaines, among others. As she connects with voters on the campaign trail, her message remains clear and consistent: responsible government, inclusive opportunity, and long-term investment in people. “We need to lean on the things that have always made America great: freedom, opportunity…and each other,” she said. “By thinking anew and not being afraid to listen and work with anyone, regardless of party, we can get it done for America.”

Dunung’s candidacy is not just a campaign—it’s a story of determination, resilience, and community-driven leadership. For voters in Illinois’s 8th District, she offers a vision rooted in reality and guided by purpose.

To know more about Sanjyot Dunung and support her camdidacy, please visit:
www.SanjyotForCongress.com. Support: https://secure.actblue.com/donate/sml.rol

Trump’s Sweeping Agenda Bill Clears Initial Senate Hurdle Amid GOP Fractures

June 29, 2025July 1, 2025 Staff ReporterUSA 0

A sweeping legislative package reflecting former President Donald Trump’s policy vision narrowly advanced in the Senate, overcoming internal Republican dissent and late-night wrangling. Despite opposition from key GOP senators over Medicaid cuts and debt concerns, the bill gained enough support to move forward, setting the stage for intense debate and a possible July 4 final vote.

In a dramatic turn of events on Capitol Hill, Senate Republicans narrowly pushed forward a massive legislative package championed by former President Donald Trump, despite public resistance from members within their own ranks. The 1,000-page bill — a centerpiece of Trump’s revived domestic agenda — cleared its first procedural vote late Saturday, overcoming internal turbulence and a tense standoff that tested GOP unity.

Two Republican senators, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Thom Tillis of North Carolina, broke ranks and opposed the measure. Paul voiced sharp objections to the bill’s proposed $5 trillion debt ceiling hike, while Tillis cited a projected $38.9 billion cut to Medicaid funds in his home state, warning of devastating consequences for hospitals and rural communities.

The measure, which includes $160 billion for border security, $150 billion in defense spending, and sweeping tax reforms, teetered on the edge of collapse as GOP leaders scrambled to secure votes. The drama unfolded in real time on the Senate floor, where Senate Minority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.), flanked by top Republicans, anxiously awaited key votes from skeptical colleagues.

Senators Mike Lee, Rick Scott, and Cynthia Lummis eventually cast their votes in favor after closed-door negotiations, with Senator Ron Johnson switching from “no” to “yes” under mounting pressure. Their support came after Vice President J.D. Vance and party leaders engaged in last-minute talks behind closed doors, culminating in a late-night walk to the chamber that clinched the advancement.

One of the most contentious points came earlier in the week when the Senate parliamentarian struck down a key Medicaid tax provision for violating the Byrd Rule. Republican leaders hastily rewrote the section to comply with Senate rules. Another flashpoint emerged just hours before the vote, when freshman Senator Tim Sheehy (R-Mont.) threatened to oppose the bill over a clause requiring the sale of public lands. Party leaders diffused the crisis by promising him a vote on an amendment to remove the language.

Despite these efforts, criticism from both sides of the aisle remains fierce. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) lambasted Republicans for dropping a nearly 1,000-page substitute amendment late Friday, leaving senators little time for review. He accused the GOP of hiding the bill’s true fiscal impact, stating, “They’re afraid to show how badly this will increase the deficit.”

Schumer cited a preliminary Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimate indicating the legislation would slash Medicaid by $930 billion, a far deeper cut than the House-passed version. “It’s worse on health care, worse on SNAP, worse on the deficit,” he declared, vowing resistance.

Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine), often a pivotal swing vote, offered tentative support for moving the bill forward but made clear she’s not yet on board for final passage. “There are positive changes, but I still want to see further revisions,” she told reporters, adding that she plans to propose several amendments.

Outside the chamber, the proposal also drew backlash from high-profile figures like Elon Musk, who denounced the bill as a backward-looking handout. “It’s full of giveaways to fossil fuel industries and will kill millions of jobs,” Musk posted on X, formerly Twitter.

In a procedural twist, Schumer warned that if the bill proceeded, he would invoke a time-consuming tactic to have the entire bill read aloud on the Senate floor — a move that could delay debate for up to 12 hours and test the stamina of both clerks and lawmakers ahead of a lengthy series of amendment votes, colloquially known as vote-a-rama.

With a July 4 deadline set by President Trump for final passage, the legislation now heads into what promises to be a grueling final stretch. While Thune celebrated the initial advancement as a “once-in-a-generation opportunity,” deep divisions within the GOP and fierce Democratic resistance signal that the road ahead will be anything but smooth.

Schumer Plans Procedural Block to Delay GOP’s Megabill Passage

June 29, 2025 Staff ReporterUSA, Politics 0

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York has informed fellow Democrats that he intends to enforce a full reading of the 1,000-page Republican megabill on the Senate floor as a procedural counter to Republican efforts. This strategy, to be enacted after the Republicans vote to proceed with the legislation, is expected to consume roughly 12 hours and potentially delay President Trump’s legislative timeline by at least half a day.

According to a Democratic insider with knowledge of the internal floor strategy, Schumer has instructed members of his caucus to be ready for the lengthy procedural maneuver. His objective is to compel Senate clerks to read aloud the entirety of the bill, a rarely used Senate tactic that can significantly slow down legislative action. The reading would likely stretch through Saturday night and into early Sunday morning, disrupting Senate Republicans’ timeline and forcing staff and senators to endure a prolonged overnight session.

The Senate’s Republican leadership had been bracing for this move, anticipating Schumer might use it as a form of protest. Schumer’s action aligns with broader Democratic resistance to the Republican-led bill, which encompasses sweeping tax cuts and government spending initiatives. The bill is a key component of President Trump’s agenda, and Senate Republicans have been scrambling to pass it before the July 4 deadline set by the president himself.

Originally, GOP leaders had planned to hold a procedural vote on Saturday afternoon to move the bill forward. That vote was to be followed by as many as 20 hours of formal debate. After debate time expired, the Senate would begin a “vote-a-rama” — a marathon session in which senators can offer an unlimited number of amendments, each requiring a vote.

However, Schumer’s procedural move has now shifted that anticipated timeline. With the full reading of the bill expected to last approximately 12 hours, the vote-a-rama is likely to begin much later than planned, potentially in the early hours of Sunday or even later.

There is also uncertainty about whether the Republicans will push clerks to begin reading the bill immediately and continue late into the night, or allow for some pause to give Senate staff time to rest. That decision could affect not only the comfort of Senate staffers but also the pace at which Republicans can push the bill through the chamber.

At the core of this dramatic Senate standoff is President Trump’s aggressive timeline. The administration and GOP leaders want the bill passed quickly to secure a legislative victory before the Independence Day holiday. Schumer’s procedural tactic, while not capable of stopping the bill outright, is meant to spotlight Democratic concerns about the content of the legislation and the rushed manner in which Republicans are pushing it forward.

While Schumer’s strategy is creating logistical hurdles for Republicans, it is not the only obstacle in their path. The vote margin is razor-thin, and GOP leaders are confronting internal dissent within their own ranks. The Senate Republican majority is slim, and they can only afford to lose three votes on any given measure if all Democrats are opposed.

Currently, three Republican senators — Rand Paul of Kentucky, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, and Thom Tillis of North Carolina — have indicated that they will vote “no” on advancing the bill. Their opposition adds to the suspense surrounding whether the legislation will ultimately move forward.

Senator Schumer’s procedural move is not without precedent. While rarely used, forcing the full reading of a bill is a legitimate tool available to any senator and can be used to slow down the legislative process, especially when a party is seeking more time for scrutiny or public awareness. In this case, the Democrats argue that the Republican bill is being rushed through without adequate discussion or consideration.

The size and scope of the bill — a sprawling legislative package that touches on both tax policy and government spending — make it particularly consequential. Democrats contend that such a large and impactful bill deserves a more deliberate and transparent legislative process. By compelling a reading of every line, Schumer is emphasizing his party’s position that the bill merits far more debate than it has received.

A source close to Democratic leadership summed up the mood within the caucus, saying that the goal is “to make it absolutely clear to the American people that this bill is being rammed through without proper vetting.” The source added that Schumer’s tactic was meant to “draw attention to the sheer size and recklessness of the legislation.”

Republicans, meanwhile, have expressed frustration with the delay. They view Schumer’s maneuver as a political stunt designed to obstruct rather than contribute to the process. However, they are aware that this is one of the few procedural levers Democrats can still pull in a chamber where they lack the majority.

For GOP leaders, the clock is now a significant factor. With the July 4 deadline looming and resistance within their own party, any delay — even one lasting just 12 hours — increases the pressure on their legislative strategy. The timing of the vote-a-rama, already a grueling process under normal conditions, is now more unpredictable than ever.

Whether Republicans will respond to Schumer’s tactic by immediately pushing through the reading overnight or pausing to regroup remains unclear. Either approach carries risks. An overnight reading could strain staff and senators alike, while a pause might give Democrats more time to mobilize public opposition or sway wavering Republicans.

Ultimately, Schumer’s move is a high-profile signal of Democratic dissatisfaction with both the substance and the speed of the Republican bill. While it may not be enough to kill the legislation, it underscores the increasingly acrimonious environment in the Senate as both parties clash over priorities and procedures.

In the coming hours, all eyes will be on the Senate floor — not just to see if the clerks begin their long reading, but also to gauge whether the Republican majority can hold together. With just three Republican senators needed to block the bill, and three already publicly opposed, the outcome remains on a knife’s edge.

As one Democratic source put it, “This is about more than just reading a bill. It’s about standing up for transparency, accountability, and the rights of the minority party.”

Bezos and Sanchez’s Venice Wedding Sparks Protests, Praise, and Debate

June 29, 2025 Staff ReporterCommunity, Tourism 0

The extravagant wedding celebrations of Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and television presenter Lauren Sanchez concluded on Saturday evening in Venice with a grand gala. While the festivities were in full swing, not everyone in the city was in a celebratory mood. As celebrity guests prepared to board water taxis from their upscale accommodations, a group of Venetians and activists gathered to protest the high-profile event.

These protesters voiced a range of concerns. Some were residents frustrated by the consequences of mass tourism in their fragile city, while others were activists raising alarms about capitalism and climate change. On Saturday, hundreds took to the streets, displaying a large banner from the iconic Rialto Bridge that read “no space for Bezos” and igniting colorful flares. Although they initially planned to disrupt the event by jumping into canals with inflatable crocodiles and blocking the passage of wedding attendees, those plans were eventually scrapped.

Despite the demonstrations, Bezos remained unbothered. When spotted entering the renowned Harry’s Bar for lunch, he blew kisses at the cameras in response to a local journalist’s question about the protests.

City officials downplayed the protests. Venice’s deputy mayor described the demonstrators as “narcissists” and emphasized that events like the Bezos-Sanchez wedding represent the kind of upscale tourism the city wants to attract. Simone Venturini, who serves as the city’s economic development councillor, expressed optimism that this high-profile wedding would inspire more couples to choose Venice for their nuptials. “We are not Iran. The city cannot say who can or who cannot get married. We have no moral police going around,” he told the BBC while standing along the Grand Canal, where gondolas floated by filled with tourists.

Although the activists didn’t succeed in halting the ceremony, they claimed one small victory. For security reasons, the final evening’s event was relocated from a more central location to the Arsenale, a venue that’s easier to secure.

Some Venetians and climate activists say the real issue goes beyond just one lavish wedding. “I think the main problem is that Venice is becoming like an amusement park,” said Paola, a member of the Extinction Rebellion group. She took particular offense at the arrival of many wedding guests by private jet. “Of course, mass tourism is eating the city alive, but the fact that billionaires can come here and use the city as their amusement park is an enormous problem.”

The Italian press enthusiastically covered what they dubbed the “wedding of the year.” The city was abuzz with sightings of A-list celebrities like Leonardo DiCaprio and Kim Kardashian. Reports mentioned elaborate feasts featuring local delicacies such as cod prepared in the regional style. Photographs of Sanchez in her white lace Dolce & Gabbana gown, reportedly inspired by a 1950s Sophia Loren look, filled media outlets.

Contrary to some early concerns, the wedding didn’t paralyze the city. Celebrities like Ivanka Trump and Bill Gates were seen exploring art galleries, and Bezos and Sanchez were photographed at multiple scenic locations. Yet the chances of a tourist running into a real celebrity were slim. Most were more likely to meet a Bezos impersonator who had traveled from Germany just to pose for photos.

Transportation and tourism in the city remained mostly unaffected. Water taxis and gondolas were still available for hire, and there were no large groups of frustrated tourists unable to enjoy Venice’s charms. Some streets were temporarily closed near key wedding events, but overall disruption was minimal. Most of the “No Space for Bezos” signs had been torn down, and the few bits of remaining graffiti were being quickly removed. Attempts to project protest slogans onto buildings were swiftly halted by local police. Even the protest march planned for Saturday night had received official approval.

Still, many locals are deeply concerned about the increasing commercialization of their hometown. In Venice, fears that the city is becoming a playground for tourists at the expense of residents are well-founded. At the city’s main railway station, authorities now randomly check visitors for mandatory day passes—a new measure intended to reduce crowding.

A few minutes away, in a picturesque square, longtime resident Roberto Zanon shared his painful story. At 77, he’s being evicted from the home he’s lived in his entire life. His landlord sold the property to out-of-town developers, and he’s finding it impossible to secure a new place in Venice. “One, two, three doors – those are locals, but the rest is all for tourism now,” he said, pointing to the neighboring buildings. “There are fewer and fewer Venetians here,” he added, visibly heartbroken. “There is no purpose any more. You lose your friends. You lose piece of your heart. But sadly this situation is unstoppable.”

Yet Roberto doesn’t blame Bezos for choosing Venice as a wedding destination. Having worked in tourism himself, he described it as “an honour” to have such prominent guests in the city. “I find it positive,” he said.

Other Venetians shared similar views. In a souvenir shop selling magnets and t-shirts, a local woman named Leda welcomed the arrival of Bezos and his guests. She bluntly remarked, “I think there should be more people like Bezos here. Right now we get trash tourism and Venice doesn’t deserve that.” Leda explained that she once owned a shop selling high-quality Italian goods, but had to close it due to dwindling demand. “It’s low-cost, hit-and-run tourism,” she said. “People take 20 euro flights, come here and don’t spend a thing. That’s not what Venice needs.”

As the grand wedding comes to a close, what will remain behind in Venice? Deputy Mayor Venturini confirmed that Bezos donated approximately three million euros to organizations dedicated to preserving the city’s delicate infrastructure. While that gesture was welcomed by some, others viewed it as insignificant in the broader context of Bezos’s wealth. “It’s around three euros for a normal person, if you put in proportion to Bezos’s wealth,” argued Lorenzo, another member of Extinction Rebellion. “It’s a very low amount of money.”

In the end, the Bezos-Sanchez wedding highlighted the ongoing divide in Venice: between those who see high-end tourism as a lifeline for the local economy and those who believe it accelerates the city’s cultural and demographic decline. While the wedding brought global attention, luxury, and donations, it also reignited long-standing debates over who Venice truly belongs to—and who gets to shape its future.

Trump Wins 2024 Election with Broader Coalition and First Popular Vote Victory

June 28, 2025July 1, 2025 Staff ReporterUSA 0

In his third bid for the presidency, Donald Trump clinched a decisive victory over Kamala Harris in the 2024 election. Not only did he secure 312 Electoral College votes, but for the first time, he also won the national popular vote, defeating Harris by 1.5 percentage points. His success was fueled by a more diverse voter coalition compared to his earlier campaigns, as outlined in a new Pew Research Center study examining the 2024 electorate.

Among Latino voters, Trump made significant inroads, narrowing the gap considerably. While Joe Biden had defeated him among Hispanics by a wide margin in 2020 (61% to 36%), the 2024 figures were much closer, with Harris winning 51% and Trump securing 48%. This nearly even split suggests Trump made notable progress with this key demographic.

Black voter support for Trump also increased substantially. In 2020, he received just 8% of the Black vote. By 2024, that figure had climbed to 15%. Although Harris maintained majority support among Black Americans, the shift toward Trump signals an important change in voting behavior.

Asian American voters showed similar trends. While Harris earned the support of 57% of Asian voters, Trump won 40%. In comparison, Biden had captured 70% of the Asian vote in 2020, with Trump garnering only 30%. The narrowed margin in 2024 indicates Trump’s growing appeal among this group as well.

According to Pew, these shifts were mainly due to changes in voter turnout between 2020 and 2024 rather than widespread switching of party loyalty. Most voters stuck with the party they supported in the previous election. However, Trump gained from increased turnout among his 2020 supporters and an edge among new voters who did not participate in the 2020 election. This new voter group was significantly more diverse than those who voted in both years.

Despite Trump’s improved performance among various groups, many of the entrenched voting patterns that have characterized American politics for decades persisted. One of the most prominent was the divide in educational attainment. Trump continued to dominate among voters without a four-year college degree, widening his advantage to 14 percentage points (56% to 42%), double the margin he achieved in 2016. In contrast, Harris outperformed Trump among college-educated voters, winning 57% to his 41%. However, her lead was smaller than Biden’s margin in 2020.

The urban-rural divide also deepened. Trump captured rural voters by a massive 40-point margin, with 69% of rural residents backing him compared to just 29% for Harris. Meanwhile, voters in urban areas largely supported Harris, with 65% favoring her and 33% choosing Trump.

Religion continued to influence voter behavior. Pew found that nearly two-thirds of Americans who attend religious services at least monthly (64%) voted for Trump. In contrast, Harris was favored by 56% of those who attend services less frequently, while 43% of that group chose Trump.

Voter retention and turnout differences also played a critical role in Trump’s win. A larger portion of Trump’s 2020 supporters (89%) turned out again in 2024, compared to 85% of Biden’s 2020 voters. Additionally, among those who didn’t vote in 2020 but did in 2024, 54% supported Trump, while 42% voted for Harris.

Between the two elections, voter loyalty held steady for most. “About 85% of those who backed Trump in 2020 did so again in 2024,” Pew reported. Only 11% of his previous supporters did not vote in 2024, and 4% switched sides or supported another candidate. Harris retained the backing of 79% of Biden’s 2020 voters, but a slightly higher 15% of them didn’t vote, and 6% either chose Trump or someone else.

New and returning voters – those who had been eligible in 2020 but didn’t vote – also leaned toward Trump when they participated in 2024. Among this group, which includes those who were too young to vote in 2020, 14% voted for Trump and 12% for Harris. This indicates a modest advantage for Trump among first-time or returning voters.

Overall, voting behavior between 2020 and 2024 showed both consistency and change. About 75% of eligible adults repeated their 2020 behavior – either voting for the same party or sitting out both elections. The remaining quarter changed course by switching party allegiance, voting in 2024 after not voting in 2020, or abstaining in 2024 after voting in the previous election.

Despite the high stakes, Harris might not have gained significantly from a broader turnout. When Pew asked nonvoters how they would have voted, responses were nearly even: 44% said they would have backed Trump, while 40% said Harris. This contrasts with 2020, when nonvoters showed a clear preference for Biden over Trump (46% to 35%).

This suggests that even with full voter participation in 2024, the final result likely wouldn’t have changed much. Pew noted that in 2020, a full turnout would likely have increased Biden’s margin of victory, unlike in 2024 when the nonvoter pool leaned more evenly between both parties. “Democrats have held an edge among nonvoters in prior elections dating back to at least the 1960s,” Pew stated, “though there is some evidence this advantage had declined in recent elections.”

Among naturalized citizens – immigrants who have become U.S. citizens – support was nearly split. Harris won 51% of their votes, while Trump captured 47%. This marked a significant shift from 2020, when Biden had led this group by 21 points (59% to 38%). In the 2024 electorate, naturalized citizens accounted for 9% of all voters.

Trump also gained ground with male voters, especially younger men. Men overall favored Trump by a 12-point margin (55% to 43%), a notable increase from 2020 when the gender divide was narrower. Among men under 50, the race was nearly even in 2024, with 49% supporting Trump and 48% backing Harris. In 2020, this group had favored Biden by 10 points (53% to 43%).

Despite historically high voter engagement in recent elections, many Americans remain disengaged. The 2024 turnout rate stood at 64%, the second-highest since 1960, trailing only the 2020 turnout. Still, about 26% of eligible voters had no record of voting in any of the last three national elections. These nonparticipants were disproportionately younger and less likely to have college degrees than consistent voters.

Another notable development was the growth in early in-person voting. In 2024, 32% of voters cast their ballots in person before Election Day, up from 27% in 2020. Meanwhile, 34% voted in person on Election Day itself.

Pew’s analysis paints a complex picture of the 2024 election: while traditional voting patterns held firm in many areas, Trump’s outreach to more diverse demographics, combined with targeted voter turnout strategies, enabled him to secure a broader coalition and his first-ever win in the national popular vote.

India Turns Crisis into Opportunity by Boosting Defense Amid Middle East Conflict

June 28, 2025July 1, 2025 Staff ReporterEconomy, Nation 0

India’s economy faced a precarious situation over the past week as geopolitical tensions between Israel and Iran threatened to escalate further. The nation stood at the edge of a potential economic crisis, but rather than being dragged into turmoil, India found a strategic opportunity in the unfolding events to enhance its domestic defense sector.

The conflict, which had global ramifications, culminated in a ceasefire agreement on Wednesday. This truce followed a U.S.-led bombing campaign that, according to President Donald Trump, eliminated Iran’s nuclear capabilities. The ceasefire brought some relief to global markets, leading to a drop in oil prices that had surged amid the conflict. With this development, India narrowly avoided a potential economic disaster, but the situation underscored the country’s dependence on foreign oil and its vulnerability to external shocks.

Although India stopped purchasing Iranian oil some time ago, it still relies heavily on oil transported through the Strait of Hormuz. Approximately 40% of its crude oil imports pass through this narrow and strategically crucial maritime route. Any disruption here would have resulted in significant economic consequences.

According to a report from SBI Research, every $10 increase in global crude oil prices could push up consumer price inflation in India by as much as 35 basis points and reduce GDP growth by 30 basis points. Madan Sabnavis, the chief economist at Bank of Baroda, emphasized the implications of such a price surge. While he noted that a 10% rise in oil prices might be manageable, he warned, “A sustained price above $100 per barrel can have a major impact.”

India also faces a complex diplomatic situation. On one hand, it has strategic investments in Iran, including the Chabahar port project which is managed by Indian companies. On the other, it shares a close defense relationship with Israel. This dual engagement presents a challenge as India seeks to maintain strong ties with both nations amid ongoing tensions.

The scale of India’s defense ties with Israel is significant. According to a March 2024 report by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, India is Israel’s largest arms buyer, accounting for 34% of its total defense exports. In return, Israel contributes 13% of India’s arms imports.

This dependency on foreign arms was starkly visible during India’s recent military action dubbed “Operation Sindoor,” launched in retaliation to an April militant attack in Jammu and Kashmir. The operation combined older Russian equipment with modern Israeli systems like the Heron drones and Spyder and Barak-8 missile systems. Analysts at investment bank Jefferies highlighted this operation as evidence of India’s ongoing reliance on imported military technology.

India’s traditional defense partner, Russia, has become an increasingly unreliable supplier. Following the invasion of Ukraine, Russian military production has shifted toward meeting its own wartime needs, resulting in delays for countries like India. Furthermore, there are questions about the effectiveness of Russian military hardware. For example, equipment such as the T-90S tanks—widely used by the Indian Army—has reportedly not performed well in Ukraine, according to defense analysts.

In light of these developments, India recognizes the urgent need to pivot toward a more self-reliant defense strategy. However, making this transition won’t be easy or quick. Bernstein Research notes that as of 2023, about 90% of India’s armored vehicles and 70% of its combat aircraft were of Russian origin. Diversifying and localizing such a significant portion of defense infrastructure will take considerable time and resources.

Still, global developments are pushing India and other nations in the same direction. Anna Mulholland, head of emerging market equities research at Pictet Asset Management, observed, “I think undoubtedly the situation will have increased the desire and conviction that all the countries have to increase their defence spending, which was initiated because of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.” She added, “The Middle East turmoil, while not new, will surely have increased people’s resolve and commitment to those increased defence budgets that have been spoken about.”

India is attempting to transform this crisis into a strategic opening for its domestic defense industry. JPMorgan analysts described the current geopolitical climate as a “pivotal moment for widespread recognition of BEL’s capabilities.” BEL, or Bharat Electronics Limited, is a state-owned company that has seen its stock price rise roughly 38% this year.

Atul Tiwari, an executive director at JPMorgan, commented in a June 23 client note, “A steady stream of orders, elevated geopolitical risks both in India and globally, and strong medium-term growth prospects … with healthy [return on equity] should continue to lead to outperformance, in our view.”

One of the most prominent signs of India’s commitment to defense self-sufficiency is “Project Kusha,” a domestically developed alternative to the Russian S-400 air defense system. BEL plays a central role in this initiative. Tiwari added that the program “is expected to contribute significantly to the company’s long-term order book once contracts are finalized.”

India is not only investing in defense for its own needs but also aims to become a global exporter in this sector. According to Jefferies, the country is targeting a doubling of its defense exports to nearly $6 billion annually by the end of this decade.

Meanwhile, in the financial sector, the tentative ceasefire between Iran and Israel brought temporary relief. Dhiraj Nim of ANZ stated that although the spike in global oil prices poses risks for the Indian rupee, the truce “has helped stabilize investor sentiment and improved near-term outlook for the currency.”

Economists like Frederic Neumann of HSBC and Tim Seymour of Seymour Asset Management believe that emerging markets, particularly Korea, India, and Vietnam, remain undervalued and present attractive investment opportunities.

In other developments, Proseus, a major tech investor, projected that India will soon produce a $100 billion technology company. Proseus has backed major Indian tech firms like PayU and Meesho, further indicating growing investor confidence in the country’s innovation potential.

However, not all economic indicators are uniformly positive. The Reserve Bank of India reported that while manufacturing and services remained strong in May, there was a notable slowdown in urban consumption demand.

India’s aviation sector also made headlines. Air India, now owned by Tata Sons, received a capital injection of 9,588 crore rupees (around $1.1 million) from Tata and Singapore Airlines during the 2024-25 fiscal year. The airline is also grappling with the aftermath of a tragic air crash on June 12.

In the stock market, the Nifty 50 index climbed to a record high of 25,549 points as investor sentiment improved following the de-escalation of Middle East tensions. The index rose more than 2% over the past week and is up over 7% for the year. Meanwhile, the yield on India’s 10-year government bond declined by 3 basis points from the previous week, now trading at 6.27%.

As India weathers another round of global instability, its ability to adapt and seize opportunities—especially in the defense sector—signals a significant shift in economic and strategic thinking.

Supreme Court Backs Trump in Narrowing Blocks on Birthright Citizenship Ban

June 28, 2025June 29, 2025 Staff ReporterImmigration, USA 0

In a significant ruling on Friday, June 27, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with President Donald Trump by allowing the administration to limit nationwide judicial orders that had been preventing the enforcement of his controversial policy to end automatic citizenship for U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants and foreign visitors. This decision marks a crucial moment in Trump’s broader efforts to impose more restrictive immigration rules.

The 6-3 decision, with the court’s liberal justices in dissent, now returns the case to the lower courts. These courts are tasked with determining how this ruling should be applied in practice. While the Supreme Court did not directly address whether the birthright citizenship ban itself is constitutional, the judgment nonetheless clears a procedural hurdle for Trump’s policy to potentially advance further.

The Trump administration’s request to the high court did not focus on a definitive ruling about the legality of denying citizenship to children born in the U.S. under these circumstances. Instead, the administration argued that lower courts had overstepped their authority by issuing universal injunctions, which blocked the policy from taking effect across the entire country during ongoing litigation.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, challenged the legitimacy of these broad, nationwide court orders. She argued that such actions go beyond the judicial powers granted by Congress. “Some say that the universal injunction ‘give[s] the Judiciary a powerful tool to check the Executive Branch,’” she wrote. “But federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them. When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too.”

This reasoning reflects the court’s growing discomfort with the expansive power lower courts have used in recent years to block major federal policies nationwide. Justices and legal scholars have increasingly scrutinized the use of nationwide injunctions, particularly in cases involving contentious policies from both Democratic and Republican administrations.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a liberal member of the court, issued a strongly worded dissent. Speaking directly from the bench, she expressed profound opposition to the ruling, describing it as a judicial failure with severe consequences. She stated that the decision was a “travesty” and warned that it would “cause chaos for the families of all affected children.”

The court’s ruling was among six released on the final day of its current term, highlighting the importance and urgency of the decisions being made. The ruling stops short of validating Trump’s executive order but does reduce the ability of lower courts to impose sweeping national blocks while the legality of such orders is being debated.

The use of nationwide injunctions has long sparked criticism from both Democratic and Republican leaders. These types of judicial orders, which halt the implementation of policies across the country, are intended to prevent potential harm while lawsuits proceed. However, critics argue they give disproportionate influence to individual judges and undermine the democratic process.

The broader issue underlying this legal battle is whether Trump has the authority to eliminate birthright citizenship for certain groups of U.S.-born children. The executive order signed by Trump on his return to office aims to deny citizenship to those born on American soil if neither parent is a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident.

Trump’s policy is part of a sweeping immigration agenda that seeks to reduce both legal and illegal immigration. His administration has previously moved to ban travelers from over a dozen nations, accelerate deportations—particularly of individuals suspected of gang affiliation from countries like Venezuela—limit refugee admissions, and strip legal protections from over half a million migrants residing in the U.S.

The order to end birthright citizenship sparked immediate legal backlash. Twenty-two states and numerous immigrant advocacy organizations filed lawsuits, arguing that the move conflicts with the U.S. Constitution and previous rulings from the courts.

Central to the argument is the interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified after the Civil War. This amendment established citizenship rights for formerly enslaved individuals and stated that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens. This clause was designed to overrule the Supreme Court’s infamous Dred Scott v. Sandford decision, which had denied Black Americans the right to citizenship.

Trump and his supporters contend that the children of undocumented immigrants and temporary visitors are not truly “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States because their parents lack legal status. Based on this interpretation, they believe these children do not qualify for automatic citizenship.

However, this view is strongly opposed by most constitutional experts, legal scholars, and immigration advocates. They argue that Trump’s interpretation would require a dramatic re-reading of the 14th Amendment and goes against long-standing legal precedent. In particular, they point to the Supreme Court’s 1898 ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which upheld that a child born in the United States to immigrant parents—who were not citizens—was nonetheless an American citizen. Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco to parents who were subjects of the Chinese Emperor, yet the court affirmed his citizenship under the 14th Amendment.

This precedent forms a central pillar in the opposition’s legal challenge. Critics argue that excluding certain children born in the U.S. from citizenship sets a dangerous precedent and opens the door to broader exclusions based on ancestry or parentage.

The high court’s latest decision does not determine whether Trump’s executive order will ultimately stand. Instead, it allows the policy to be more easily implemented by lifting the universal injunctions that had previously blocked it across the country. This procedural win makes it harder for opponents to prevent enforcement of the order while they continue their legal fight.

Moving forward, the legal battle over birthright citizenship is likely to return to the lower courts, where judges will weigh constitutional arguments in greater detail. Given the Supreme Court’s reluctance to address the constitutional question directly in this instance, it remains to be seen how and when the justices might eventually rule on the core issue of whether children born on U.S. soil to undocumented parents can be denied citizenship.

For now, Trump and his supporters have scored a procedural victory that may allow the policy to take effect in parts of the country—unless lower courts find other grounds to block it. However, the controversy is far from over, and with lawsuits continuing to unfold across multiple jurisdictions, the future of birthright citizenship in America remains uncertain.

Supreme Court Ruling Alters Presidential Powers and Judicial Oversight Dynamics

June 28, 2025 Staff ReporterOpinion, USA 0

The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on a case tied to birthright citizenship, delivered on Friday, extends its implications well beyond President Donald Trump. This significant decision reshapes the boundaries of presidential power and judicial checks, granting expanded authority not only to Trump but to future occupants of the Oval Office.

The decision’s core impact is the curbing of the judiciary’s ability to impose nationwide blocks on presidential actions. The ruling weakens the longstanding role of lower federal courts in restraining the executive branch. Whether this development is seen as a victory or a threat largely depends on political perspective. Currently, Republicans view it as a success, while Democrats express concern. These reactions will likely reverse should a Democrat hold the presidency in the future.

Importantly, the court did not directly address whether Trump’s proposal to redefine birthright citizenship is constitutional. Trump has long championed the idea of ending automatic citizenship for children born on U.S. soil to non-citizen parents. This effort, which immigration hardliners frame as a fight against “anchor babies,” aims to prevent individuals from gaining citizenship through birth when their parents are in the country unlawfully. Supporters argue it would close a loophole that shields unauthorized immigrants from deportation by virtue of their citizen children.

However, critics assert that Trump’s position violates the Fourteenth Amendment, which declares, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” They argue that even undocumented immigrants fall under U.S. jurisdiction while residing in the country, and thus their children should be granted citizenship.

While the debate over birthright citizenship remains unresolved, lower courts have consistently ruled against the Trump administration on the matter. Those decisions have been appealed, and the issue may return to the Supreme Court in the near future. But Friday’s ruling focused not on birthright citizenship itself, but rather on the authority of district courts to issue what are known as “universal injunctions.”

The court, in a 6-3 decision, ruled that district courts can no longer enforce such nationwide injunctions that prevent implementation of federal actions beyond the immediate parties involved in a lawsuit. This majority consisted of the Court’s six conservative justices, three of whom were nominated by Trump during his first term, effectively outvoting the three liberal justices.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, stated, “A universal injunction can be justified only as an exercise of equitable authority, yet Congress has granted federal courts no such power.” She expressed concern that allowing judges to issue such broad blocks could lead to an imbalance of power, warning against what she described as an “imperial judiciary” that could overstep its constitutional limits. In contrast, she cautioned against those who, like Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, might try to limit presidential power by overly empowering the courts.

This decision favors not only the current president but future presidents as well, empowering them to act without immediate fear of blanket judicial halts. Yet it also opens the door to potential legal confusion, where executive orders might be enforced in some states and blocked in others—at least until the Supreme Court provides a definitive ruling.

President Trump, reacting swiftly to the ruling, made a brief appearance in the White House briefing room. He declared the ruling to be “a monumental victory for the constitution, the separation of powers and the rule of law.” For Trump and his allies, the decision represents a crucial win in the ongoing clash between the executive branch and the judiciary. Figures like Stephen Miller have frequently condemned judicial decisions that countered Trump-era policies, accusing judges of orchestrating a “judicial coup.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored the main dissent, delivering a passionate rebuttal to the majority’s logic. She declared, “No right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates,” and added, “Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship. Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law-abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship.” Her dissent emphasized the dangers of granting unchecked power to the executive branch, suggesting that it could undermine rights previously assumed to be protected.

Sotomayor also challenged the Trump administration’s underlying motive in shifting focus to injunctions, arguing it was a diversion due to the administration’s inability to succeed on the core legal issue. She wrote, “Trump had an impossible task in light of the Constitution’s text, history, this Court’s precedents, federal law, and Executive Branch practice.”

Unlike her conservative peers, Sotomayor chose to grapple directly with the constitutionality of altering birthright citizenship. She suggested that the administration’s maneuvering around universal injunctions was an attempt to circumvent the likely defeat of its limited interpretation of citizenship rights.

Interestingly, even among the majority, some expressed concern about the ruling’s practical consequences. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, though aligned with the conservative majority, flagged the complexities of implementing such a fragmented legal framework across the country. He noted that during the period when various legal challenges are playing out, it is problematic to have a “patchwork scheme” where a federal statute or executive order may be enforceable in some states but not in others.

Kavanaugh warned, “There often (perhaps not always, but often) should be a nationally uniform answer on whether a major new federal statute, rule, or executive order can be enforced throughout the United States during the several-year interim period until its legality is finally decided on the merits.” He added, “It is not especially workable or sustainable or desirable to have a patchwork scheme, potentially for several years, in which a major new federal statute or executive action of that kind applies to some people or organizations in certain States or regions, but not to others.”

These concerns underscore the broader implications of the ruling. While it strengthens the hand of the president and limits judicial overreach, it could also introduce significant legal inconsistency and uncertainty throughout the country. As such, it reflects one of the most far-reaching recalibrations of the balance of power between the executive and judicial branches in recent memory.

The birthright citizenship issue remains unresolved and contentious, but this Supreme Court decision is likely to shape presidential authority and legal challenges for years to come. Whether it leads to greater efficiency or increased constitutional friction will depend on how both current and future leaders wield the power this ruling has now affirmed.

US Strikes on Iran’s Nuclear Sites Caused Limited Damage, Say Intelligence Assessments

June 25, 2025June 27, 2025 Staff ReporterGlobal, USA 0

Recent United States military strikes on three of Iran’s nuclear facilities did not achieve their goal of fully dismantling the country’s nuclear program, according to a preliminary intelligence evaluation. The report, described by seven individuals familiar with its findings, indicates that while damage was done, the effect of the strikes is estimated to have delayed Iran’s progress by only a few months.

The evaluation was produced by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), which serves as the Pentagon’s intelligence branch. It relied on battle damage assessments carried out by US Central Command following the strikes. According to one source, the analysis remains ongoing and may evolve as more intelligence is gathered. However, the early conclusions contradict assertions made by President Donald Trump and his administration regarding the effectiveness of the attacks.

President Trump has claimed that the strikes “completely and totally obliterated” Iran’s nuclear enrichment infrastructure. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth echoed this sentiment, saying, “Iran’s nuclear ambitions have been obliterated.” Yet, two individuals briefed on the assessment stated that Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium was not destroyed. One of them added that the centrifuges “are largely intact.” Another source mentioned that the enriched uranium may have been removed from the targeted sites before the strikes occurred.

“So the (DIA) assessment is that the US set them back maybe a few months, tops,” said one of the sources.

Despite acknowledging the existence of the assessment, the White House firmly disagreed with its conclusions. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement to CNN, “This alleged assessment is flat-out wrong and was classified as ‘top secret’ but was still leaked to CNN by an anonymous, low-level loser in the intelligence community. The leaking of this alleged assessment is a clear attempt to demean President Trump, and discredit the brave fighter pilots who conducted a perfectly executed mission to obliterate Iran’s nuclear program. Everyone knows what happens when you drop fourteen 30,000 pound bombs perfectly on their targets: total obliteration.”

While attending the NATO summit in the Netherlands, Trump dismissed CNN’s report in a Truth Social post, calling the operation “one of the most successful military strikes in history,” and claiming, “The nuclear sites in Iran are completely destroyed!”

Hegseth, also at the summit, clarified on Wednesday that the assessment was “a top secret report; it was preliminary; it was low confidence.” He suggested that the leak was politically motivated and said the FBI was investigating to identify the source of the leak.

The Pentagon continues to describe the strikes as an “overwhelming success.” Nonetheless, sources familiar with the matter emphasized that it is still early for a definitive analysis of the strikes’ effects. Intelligence gathering is ongoing, including within Iran itself.

Leading up to the US action, Israel had already been targeting Iranian nuclear sites. However, Israeli officials indicated they required US-deployed bunker buster bombs to complete the mission. American B-2 bombers dropped over a dozen such bombs on the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant and the Natanz Enrichment Complex. Yet, the bombs did not entirely destroy the centrifuges or the enriched uranium, according to the sources. The DIA concluded that damage was largely limited to aboveground facilities, including power infrastructure and buildings used in uranium metal conversion for potential weapons.

The Israeli evaluation also indicated that Fordow suffered less damage than initially anticipated. However, Israeli officials believe the combined strikes from both nations delayed Iran’s nuclear program by two years. They note that this delay assumes Iran can rebuild without interference—something Israel vows to prevent. It’s important to note that Israeli officials had already estimated a two-year delay before the US operation took place.

Hegseth reaffirmed the administration’s stance in a statement to CNN, saying, “Based on everything we have seen — and I’ve seen it all — our bombing campaign obliterated Iran’s ability to create nuclear weapons. Our massive bombs hit exactly the right spot at each target and worked perfectly. The impact of those bombs is buried under a mountain of rubble in Iran; so anyone who says the bombs were not devastating is just trying to undermine the President and the successful mission.”

On Tuesday, Trump reiterated his confidence in the strikes, stating, “I think it’s been completely demolished,” and “Those pilots hit their targets. Those targets were obliterated, and the pilots should be given credit.”

When asked about the potential for Iran to rebuild, Trump responded, “That place is under rock. That place is demolished.”

Despite these confident assertions, Trump acknowledged that current intelligence is “inconclusive” and said more information is expected from Israel. Speaking from the sidelines of the NATO summit in The Hague, he admitted, “The intelligence was very inconclusive. The intelligence says we don’t know. It could have been very severe.”

While the administration projects confidence, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dan Caine adopted a more cautious tone. He stated on Sunday that, given the ongoing nature of the damage assessment, it was “way too early” to determine whether Iran’s nuclear capabilities had been fully neutralized.

Republican Representative Michael McCaul, former chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, also struck a measured note. When asked by CNN, he declined to support Trump’s statement that Iran’s nuclear program had been “obliterated.” He explained, “I’ve been briefed on this plan in the past, and it was never meant to completely destroy the nuclear facilities, but rather cause significant damage. But it was always known to be a temporary setback.”

Weapons expert Jeffrey Lewis, a professor at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies, reviewed commercial satellite images of the strike zones. He concurred that Iran’s nuclear program had not been eradicated. “The ceasefire came without either Israel or the United States being able to destroy several key underground nuclear facilities, including near Natanz, Isfahan and Parchin,” Lewis said. He noted that Parchin, a nuclear complex near Tehran, remains capable of helping Iran quickly reestablish its program. “These facilities could serve as the basis for the rapid reconstitution of Iran’s nuclear program.”

Classified briefings scheduled for both the Senate and the House were postponed on Tuesday. Sources said the all-Senate briefing was rescheduled for Thursday, while the House briefing also faced delays, with no immediate explanation or revised date provided.

Representative Pat Ryan, a Democrat from New York, commented on X that “Trump just cancelled a classified House briefing on the Iran strikes with zero explanation. The real reason? He claims he destroyed ‘all nuclear facilities and capability;’ his team knows they can’t back up his bluster and BS.”

The capability of the US’ Massive Ordnance Penetrator bombs to effectively destroy Iran’s deeply buried nuclear sites has long been in question, particularly concerning the Fordow and Isfahan facilities. In fact, the US used Tomahawk missiles from a submarine against Isfahan, rather than deploying bunker buster bombs. One source explained this choice by noting that Isfahan’s lower levels are even deeper underground than Fordow’s and likely beyond the bomb’s reach.

Further complicating the picture, US officials believe Iran may possess undisclosed nuclear facilities that were not targeted and remain fully operational, according to two sources familiar with the intelligence.

Zohran Mamdani Secures Democratic Mayoral Nod, Defeats Cuomo in Stunning Primary Upset

June 25, 2025June 27, 2025 Staff ReporterUSA 0

Assemblymember Zohran Mamdani is poised to clinch the Democratic nomination for mayor after former Governor Andrew Cuomo conceded late Tuesday night following the initial round of ranked-choice voting. The early results sent shockwaves through the city’s political landscape as Mamdani, a 33-year-old Democratic socialist, pulled off an unexpected lead against the much older and more established Cuomo.

Mamdani’s campaign successfully energized younger voters and newcomers to the political process, establishing a robust ground operation that surpassed all competitors. Despite Cuomo’s significant name recognition and his campaign spending more than three times as much as Mamdani’s, the assemblyman surged ahead. With 95% of precincts reporting two hours after polls closed at 9 p.m., Mamdani was the first-choice candidate for 44% of voters, while Cuomo garnered 36%. City Comptroller Brad Lander followed with 11%.

Just after midnight, Mamdani took the stage at his election night celebration on a Long Island City rooftop brewery, where he received a hero’s welcome. “Today, eight months after launching this campaign with the vision of a city that every New Yorker could afford, we have won,” Mamdani declared. “I will be the mayor for every New Yorker, whether you voted for me, for Gov. Cuomo or felt too disillusioned by a long, broken political system to vote at all. I will fight for a city that works for you, that is affordable for you, that is safe for you.”

The ranked-choice system played in Mamdani’s favor, especially due to Lander’s public endorsement of him as a second-choice pick. This alignment meant Lander’s supporters were likely to boost Mamdani in subsequent tabulation rounds. “Together, we are sending Andrew Cuomo back to the suburbs,” Lander said at his own campaign event.

Although Cuomo conceded the primary, he and incumbent Mayor Eric Adams have already petitioned to appear on the general election ballot in November as independent candidates.

According to preliminary data, Mamdani led citywide with 43.5% of more than 990,800 votes cast across the five boroughs. Cuomo’s campaign headquarters at the Carpenters Union building on Manhattan’s west side saw a surprise appearance from the former governor. “I want to applaud the Assemblyman for a really smart and good and impactful campaign. Tonight was his night. He deserved it. He won,” Cuomo stated, accompanied by his daughters and son-in-law. He also shared that he had personally called Mamdani to congratulate him.

Mamdani began primary day with a 5:40 a.m. press conference in Astoria Park before heading to Jackson Heights to meet voters. “We are approaching the dawn of a new era in New York City,” he said that morning. “We are turning the page on the corrupt politics of the past that made this the most expensive city in the United States of America.”

As vote counts trickled in during the evening, Mamdani’s supporters gathered at the brewery to watch the results, while most of his volunteers were at various watch parties organized by allied groups. The mood was jubilant. “I am in a little bit of a state of disbelief,” said Gabbi Zutrau, a social media strategist for the campaign.

“It is such a historic moment for us as Muslims, as South Asians, as immigrants, as New Yorkers,” said Saman Waquad, president of the Muslim Democratic Club of New York. “The way Zohran has brought people together in this campaign has been so incredibly beautiful.”

Janos Marton, a former candidate for Manhattan district attorney who helped canvass for Mamdani, noted the campaign’s ability to energize diverse voter bases. “It was clear that he was bringing new people in — South Asians, Muslims, young people — and that was true on Staten Island, where I live, and I guess it was across the city too,” Marton remarked.

Other candidates trailed significantly behind. Former Comptroller Scott Stringer conceded shortly after polls closed, and City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams received just 4% of the vote. Several others — including Zellnor Myrie, Michael Blake, Whitney Tilson, Jessica Ramos, Paperboy Prince, and Selma Bartholomew — secured less than 1% each.

In other races, incumbent Public Advocate Jumaane Williams defended his seat against Assemblymember Jenifer Rajkumar. Manhattan Borough President Mark Levine held a substantial lead in the comptroller race over Brooklyn Councilmember Justin Brannan, who conceded later that evening.

The results released Tuesday night reflect only ballots cast in person or those received and scanned by June 20. The Board of Elections will not release the full ranked-choice tabulation until at least July 1. Affidavit ballots and corrected absentee ballots returned by July 14 will also be included in the final tally, with certified results expected thereafter.

Mamdani’s upset victory over Cuomo marked a powerful rebuke of the political establishment. Cuomo had initially entered the race as a frontrunner, capitalizing on his extensive political résumé and asserting his experience as a counter to both the Trump administration and what he portrayed as city mismanagement. Despite not residing in New York City for decades, Cuomo adopted a “Rose Garden” strategy, keeping a low profile while letting his well-funded campaign and outside groups, including the $25 million-backed Fix the City PAC, dominate the media space with anti-Mamdani messaging.

Nevertheless, Mamdani prevailed. Currently serving his third term in the New York State Assembly, he drew support through viral social media content and a ground game driven by 50,000 volunteers who knocked on over a million doors across the five boroughs. His campaign promises included fare-free buses, rent freezes on stabilized units, and municipal grocery stores in underserved neighborhoods.

Mamdani and Lander co-endorsed one another to maximize the ranked-choice system’s potential, even appearing together on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert on the eve of the primary. Lander’s visibility grew after he was arrested by ICE officers while escorting immigrants from a routine court hearing.

The Working Families Party had backed a progressive slate topped by Mamdani and Lander. Adrienne Adams, their third endorsed candidate, addressed her supporters in Southeast Queens, saying: “We made people stand up and take note who this campaign was and why we were here and made people realize there really is somebody in this race that really does care about me.”

Elsewhere in the city, several borough-level contests saw decisive outcomes. In The Bronx, incumbent Borough President Vanessa Gibson fended off City Councilmember Rafael Salamanca. In Brooklyn, Borough President Antonio Reynoso retained his seat, defeating cannabis executive Khari Edwards. Manhattan’s borough presidency went to State Senator Brad Hoylman-Sigal, who beat Councilmember Keith Powers.

Manhattan and Brooklyn also held district attorney races. Incumbents Alvin Bragg and Eric Gonzalez won re-election easily. These contests, tied to the state judicial system, were not subject to ranked-choice voting.

All 51 City Council seats were up for election, many facing heated primary contests. In Brooklyn, Councilmember Shahana Hanif beat challenger Maya Kornberg, while Alexa Aviles triumphed over Ling Ye. In Manhattan, Chris Marte maintained a lead over Elizabeth Lewinsohn and Jess Coleman. In The Bronx, Councilmember Pierina Sanchez dominated former Councilman Fernando Cabrera.

Although the full results and ranked-choice redistribution won’t be finalized until July, the early data suggests that Zohran Mamdani has not only won the Democratic nomination but has also reshaped New York City’s political conversation heading into November’s general election.

Iran Strikes U.S. Base in Qatar in Retaliation for U.S. Attack on Nuclear Infrastructure

June 24, 2025June 25, 2025 Staff ReporterDiplomacy, Global 0

Iran launched a barrage of ballistic missiles at a major U.S. military base in Qatar on Monday, marking its initial retaliation for the recent American airstrike that targeted crucial parts of Iran’s underground nuclear program. This marked a sharp escalation in tensions following a surprise U.S. operation over the weekend.

According to early reports, Iran fired a minimum of six missiles at targets in Qatar. Eyewitnesses on the ground in Doha, the nation’s capital, reported hearing explosions, while video footage circulated online appeared to show air defense systems being activated to intercept the incoming projectiles. The assault occurred shortly after Qatari authorities closed the country’s airspace. This preemptive move came in the wake of warnings from both the U.S. and U.K. embassies in Doha advising their citizens to remain indoors and seek immediate shelter.

In addition to the attack on the U.S. base in Qatar, Iranian state-controlled media claimed that Iran was also targeting American military installations in Iraq. However, a U.S. defense official speaking to Reuters clarified that, despite Iran’s claims, only the base in Qatar had come under direct attack.

Officials in Washington, including President Donald Trump’s team, were closely observing Iran’s reaction from the Situation Room in the White House, a senior official confirmed.

The Qatari government responded quickly and firmly to the missile strike. A spokesperson from the Qatari Foreign Ministry said that the country’s air defense systems had successfully intercepted all of the missiles launched by Iran and that there were no reported injuries or deaths. “We consider this a flagrant violation of the sovereignty of the State of Qatar, its airspace, international law, and the United Nations Charter,” said Majed al-Ansari, the ministry’s spokesperson, in a statement posted on X. He added, “We affirm that Qatar reserves the right to respond directly in a manner equivalent with the nature and scale of this brazen aggression, in line with international law.”

Given the weekend’s attacks, the targeting of Qatar—particularly the al-Udeid air base—had been anticipated. Al-Udeid, which was constructed in the mid-1990s, has long served as a strategic hub for U.S. military operations in the region. It acts as the forward headquarters for the U.S. Central Command and has played a pivotal role in numerous American military campaigns in the Middle East over the past two decades.

Approximately 10,000 American personnel are stationed at al-Udeid. The base also supports operations for the Royal Air Force and the Qatari military. Notably, in preparation for the recent escalation, U.S. aircraft had been relocated from the base in the days leading up to America’s joint offensive with Israel targeting Iranian nuclear sites.

In a potentially significant revelation, The New York Times reported that Iran may have coordinated the retaliatory strikes with Qatar in advance to reduce the likelihood of casualties. This strategy, if confirmed, echoes Tehran’s approach five years ago following the American assassination of one of its top military leaders, General Qassem Soleimani. At that time, Iran also launched a limited missile response that caused damage but was carefully calibrated to avoid provoking a full-scale conflict.

Such a symbolic form of retaliation may serve multiple purposes for Iran. Domestically, it can help appease public pressure for a strong response against perceived American aggression. Internationally, it keeps the door open for a diplomatic resolution to the ongoing nuclear standoff. By choosing a path of controlled escalation, Iran appears to be balancing its need to project strength with the strategic imperative to avoid a broader war.

Market reactions suggest that investors and analysts alike do not view Iran’s latest actions as a step toward wider regional conflict. Prices for benchmark crude oil in both London and New York markets dropped significantly following news of the missile attacks. This suggests that traders interpreted the situation as a measured response rather than the beginning of a major military escalation in the Persian Gulf, which is a key global energy hub.

While no American or Qatari personnel were injured and the damage to infrastructure appears to be minimal, the political implications of the strike are considerable. Iran’s decision to strike a base that hosts not just U.S. forces but also serves as a vital operational center for allied militaries in the region sends a clear signal of its readiness to retaliate—even if in a symbolic manner.

For its part, the U.S. administration has yet to release an official statement detailing its intended course of action following Iran’s missile launch. However, given the calculated nature of the Iranian strike and the apparent lack of casualties, some analysts believe that Washington may choose to de-escalate rather than respond with further military force.

This recent exchange highlights the fragile balance that characterizes U.S.-Iran relations, particularly when it comes to issues surrounding Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Over the past several years, tensions have repeatedly flared following incidents that range from the dismantling of the Iran nuclear deal to direct attacks on military personnel and infrastructure. Monday’s events are just the latest chapter in this volatile narrative.

As the situation develops, regional players and global powers alike will be watching closely for signs of either further confrontation or the possibility of a return to the negotiating table. Iran’s calculated missile launch, devoid of fatalities and seemingly coordinated to limit escalation, may be designed to offer exactly that choice.

India Must Call for Peace: Congress Condemns Israel’s Strike on Iran and Urges Diplomatic Resolution

June 23, 2025June 24, 2025 Staff ReporterIndia 0

On June 13, 2025, a new chapter of geopolitical unrest unfolded when Israel launched a controversial and unlawful strike on Iran, blatantly violating Iranian sovereignty. This military act, which further deepens the instability of the West Asian region, has triggered global concern and condemnation, including from India’s principal opposition party, the Indian National Congress. The party denounced the targeted assassinations and bombings carried out on Iranian territory, calling it a dangerous provocation with severe consequences both regionally and globally.

The Congress party’s criticism places this strike within a larger pattern of Israel’s recent military campaigns, notably its forceful offensive in Gaza. According to the party, Israel continues to show blatant disregard for civilian life and regional stability. “These actions will only deepen instability and sow the seeds of further conflict,” the party warned, expressing concern over the ripple effects of escalating tensions.

What makes this development even more alarming is its timing. Diplomatic discussions between Iran and the United States had shown encouraging progress earlier in the year, with five rounds of negotiations already completed and a sixth scheduled for June. The hope for de-escalation was further reinforced when, in March 2025, U.S. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard testified before Congress, stating unequivocally that Iran was not pursuing nuclear weapons. Gabbard emphasized that Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, had not authorized the resumption of any nuclear weapons program since its suspension in 2003.

These diplomatic efforts now stand jeopardized due to the current Israeli administration’s preference for confrontation over dialogue. Under the leadership of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel has consistently undermined prospects for peace, while encouraging a culture of extremism. His government’s continued expansion of illegal settlements, alignment with far-right nationalist groups, and obstruction of the two-state solution have inflicted immense suffering on Palestinians and exacerbated regional unrest.

The Congress party did not hesitate to highlight Netanyahu’s historical role in derailing peace efforts. They pointed out that he played a role in stoking animosity that culminated in the 1995 assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, which effectively ended a promising peace initiative between Israelis and Palestinians.

In light of this track record, it is unsurprising to observers that Netanyahu’s response to tensions with Iran has taken the form of military escalation. However, what has particularly dismayed the Congress party is the apparent endorsement of this path by U.S. President Donald Trump. Once a vocal critic of America’s “endless wars” and the influence of the military-industrial complex, Trump now seems willing to tread the same course he once condemned. The party noted the irony that Trump, who frequently decried the false pretext of weapons of mass destruction used to justify the Iraq War, is now dismissing his own intelligence chief’s statements about Iran.

Trump’s assertion on June 17 that Iran was “very close” to acquiring nuclear weapons was met with concern. According to the Congress, such rhetoric is not only unsubstantiated but also reckless. “The world expects and needs leadership that is grounded in facts and driven by diplomacy, and not by force or falsehoods,” the party stressed.

Although Israel’s fears of a nuclear-armed Iran are not baseless, the Congress maintained that international standards must be applied consistently. “There can be no room for double standards,” it stated, pointing out that Israel is itself a nuclear weapons state with a history of military aggression. Iran, by contrast, remains a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and had, under the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), accepted strict limitations on its nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. The agreement was supported by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, Germany, and the European Union, and was verified by international monitors—until the U.S. unilaterally withdrew in 2018.

That decision, the Congress argues, undid years of meticulous diplomacy and once again imperiled a region already teetering on instability. India, too, has not escaped the consequences. The reimposed sanctions severely hampered India’s ability to develop key infrastructure projects with Iran, such as the International North-South Transport Corridor and the Chabahar Port, both seen as critical to India’s access to Central Asia and Afghanistan.

Beyond strategic calculations, Iran has been a long-standing friend of India, sharing deep civilizational ties and standing by New Delhi at pivotal moments. For instance, in 1994, Iran played a crucial role in blocking a resolution critical of India at the UN Commission on Human Rights concerning Kashmir. This support contrasts with the alignment of the former Imperial State of Iran, which leaned toward Pakistan during the 1965 and 1971 wars.

At the same time, India has developed robust strategic ties with Israel. This unique diplomatic position, according to the Congress, places India in an ideal spot to act as a mediator and peacebuilder. This is not merely a theoretical argument. With lakhs of Indian nationals living and working across West Asia, peace in the region is a matter of urgent national interest.

Despite this, Israel’s recent strikes have taken place under a veil of impunity, aided by near-blanket support from powerful Western nations. While the Congress party had earlier unequivocally condemned the brutal October 7, 2023, attacks by Hamas as “absolutely horrific and totally unacceptable,” they asserted that remaining silent in the face of Israel’s overwhelming and disproportionate retaliation would be morally indefensible. Over 55,000 Palestinians have reportedly been killed in these reprisals. “Entire families, neighbourhoods, and even hospitals have been obliterated,” they noted. Gaza, they warned, is teetering on the edge of famine, and its people continue to endure unimaginable suffering.

In this backdrop, the Congress sharply criticized the Indian government’s current position. They accused Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s administration of turning its back on India’s traditional commitment to a peaceful two-state solution, one which envisions a sovereign Palestinian state living in peace alongside Israel. According to the Congress, the Modi government’s silence on the destruction in Gaza and now on Israel’s strike against Iran is a worrying departure from India’s moral and diplomatic legacy. “This represents not just a loss of voice but also a surrender of values,” they cautioned.

Nevertheless, the Congress maintained that India could still play a constructive role. They called upon the Indian government to act with urgency, use every available diplomatic channel, and reassert its commitment to peace in West Asia. “It is still not too late. India must speak clearly, act responsibly, and use every diplomatic channel available to defuse tensions and promote a return to dialogue in West Asia,” the statement concluded.

US Updates Travel Advisories, Highlights Increased Caution for India and Dominican Republic

June 23, 2025 Staff ReporterGlobal, Travel 0

Over the past month, the U.S. State Department has revised several travel advisories affecting American citizens planning trips abroad. While some countries saw minimal adjustments, others—particularly India, Cuba, and the Dominican Republic—were subject to more specific and cautionary guidance, reflecting evolving global and regional developments under the current Trump administration.

Among the unchanged but updated countries is Switzerland, which retained its Level 1 travel rating—the safest classification on the State Department’s four-tier advisory scale. Minor changes were added for 2025, but no significant increase in risk was noted.

In contrast, the advisory levels for Cuba and the Dominican Republic were both raised, drawing distinct attention. The Dominican Republic, for instance, received a Level 2 rating accompanied by a more explicit warning about violent crime, despite the government’s efforts to enhance police presence in popular tourist areas. According to the June 18 advisory update, “Violent crime is a concern in the Dominican Republic despite more police presence in areas often visited by tourists.” The advisory also emphasized, “Do not display wealth and be wary of meeting individuals from online in secluded locations.”

India, another country that has drawn increased scrutiny, was also moved to a Level 2 rating as of June 16. This classification, labeled “exercise increased caution,” is the same level currently designated for several prominent European nations, including France and Italy. The Level 4 category, by contrast, is reserved for countries either actively at war or those without diplomatic ties to the United States.

The updated U.S. guidance for India flagged specific regions that American travelers should entirely avoid, particularly those areas where ongoing political or military tensions pose heightened risks. Among these is the northern region of Jammu and Kashmir, as well as the area along the eastern border with Pakistan. These warnings follow a series of hostile engagements between Indian and Pakistani forces, including a missile strike by India in early May on the Pakistani-controlled side of Kashmir. That military response was triggered by an April 22 attack that left 25 tourists dead in Indian-administered territory.

“Exercise increased caution in India due to crime and terrorism,” the updated advisory for India states. “Some areas have increased risk. Rape is one of the fastest-growing crimes in India. Violent crimes, including sexual assault, happen at tourist sites and other locations.”

Beyond the well-known conflict zones, other regions within India, such as Maharashtra and Telangana, have also been flagged for caution. These areas have occasionally experienced attacks targeting the Indian government, attributed to extremist factions operating in the country.

Further additions to the advisory include warnings related to the Indian government’s strict enforcement of immigration laws, especially for travelers entering the country from nearby nations such as Nepal and Pakistan—countries with which India has had tense relations. The U.S. State Department cautions that failing to comply with India’s entry requirements could have serious consequences.

“Violations of Indian immigration laws are taken very seriously,” the travel guidance warns. “India may imprison, fine, or deny entry to travelers without valid documents or the correct type of visa.”

Interestingly, this firm approach to immigration enforcement is mirrored in travel advisories issued by other countries about the United States itself. The Trump administration’s focus on restricting immigration and enforcing border regulations has led multiple foreign governments to issue their own stern warnings to citizens intending to visit the U.S.

Germany, for example, issued a notice through its Foreign Ministry in March 2025 outlining the legal risks associated with travel to the U.S. “A criminal conviction in the United States, false information regarding the purpose of stay, or even a slight overstay of the visa upon entry or exit can lead to arrest, detention, and deportation upon entry or exit,” the German advisory cautioned.

Similarly, the Canadian government has taken steps to inform its citizens about potential complications at U.S. borders. “Individual border agents often have significant discretion in making those determinations,” reads the Canadian government’s latest guidance. “U.S. authorities strictly enforce entry requirements. Expect scrutiny at ports of entry, including of electronic devices.”

These global travel advisory exchanges underscore a rising trend: countries are not only warning their citizens about conflict zones or crime in far-flung areas, but they are also providing detailed information about legal risks associated with immigration policy enforcement, even in countries historically considered safe travel destinations.

For the U.S., this more detailed advisory framework aims to help travelers make informed decisions about where they are going and what precautions they should take. Whether the risks are related to crime, terrorism, or complex immigration policies, the updated advisories reflect an increasingly interconnected world where political tensions, security issues, and border regulations all play a role in shaping how and where people move.

In the case of India, the U.S. has signaled that while much of the country remains relatively safe for travelers exercising basic precautions, certain regions are fraught with danger due to ongoing conflict and criminal activity. The explicit mention of sexual violence, including rape, as a growing problem reflects the serious safety concerns that have been the subject of international attention in recent years.

Similarly, the Dominican Republic’s inclusion of warnings about displaying wealth or meeting unknown persons in secluded areas shows a responsiveness to patterns of criminal activity that may target tourists. These changes demonstrate how travel advisories are now offering more than just general safety tips—they are responding to specific events, local dynamics, and broader geopolitical shifts.

As the Trump administration continues to reshape aspects of U.S. foreign policy and immigration enforcement, it’s likely that both American advisories about other countries and foreign warnings about travel to the U.S. will keep evolving. For travelers, this means paying close attention to official notices before booking a flight—not only to understand the risks abroad, but also to navigate changing border requirements and legal expectations at home and overseas.

Trump Administration Fires Majority of Voice of America Journalists, Ending an Era of U.S.-Funded Global News

June 23, 2025 Staff ReporterMedia, USA 0

In a sweeping move that effectively ends most operations of the U.S.-funded international broadcaster Voice of America (VOA), the administration of President Donald Trump has fired hundreds of journalists, citing deep-rooted inefficiencies, waste, and political bias. The mass dismissals have wiped out nearly all remaining staff at the organization, marking the end of an 83-year-old institution that once stood as a beacon of American journalism abroad.

Established during World War II as a counter to Nazi propaganda, Voice of America has long functioned as a key tool of U.S. public diplomacy, offering independent news coverage in dozens of languages to countries with restricted or no press freedoms. But on Friday, the Trump-appointed leadership of VOA announced the termination of 639 employees, stating that the action was necessary to fulfill the administration’s promise to downsize the federal government.

“Today, we took decisive action to effectuate President Trump’s agenda to shrink the out-of-control federal bureaucracy,” said Kari Lake, who had been appointed by Trump to head VOA. Her announcement confirmed the mass firings, which followed months of internal uncertainty and political tensions.

Steve Herman, VOA’s chief national correspondent, described the sweeping staff cuts as “a historic act of self-sabotage.” For Herman and other veteran journalists within the organization, the decision dismantles an institution with a legacy of promoting press freedom and truth in places where such ideals are often under siege.

Among those terminated were members of the Persian-language service, a team that had recently been recalled to work after Israel launched strikes on Iran. However, their return to duty was short-lived. According to the Associated Press, several of the Persian reporters had stepped outside for a cigarette break on Friday when the termination notices were issued. Upon returning, they were denied re-entry to the building.

The scale of the dismissals has been staggering. Since March, over 1,400 employees — more than 85% of the agency’s staff — have lost their positions. Only 50 individuals are expected to remain on board across VOA, the Office of Cuba Broadcasting, and the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM), which oversees and funds VOA and other similar outlets.

The decision to eliminate most of VOA’s workforce aligns with a March directive issued by Trump ordering the maximum possible elimination of VOA and USAGM within the boundaries of the law. The presidential order marked the culmination of a long campaign by Trump and his allies to rein in federally funded media outlets, which they accused of harboring left-leaning biases and straying from their original missions.

A group of three VOA journalists who have been involved in ongoing litigation to prevent the network’s closure issued a joint statement responding to the latest wave of firings. “It spells the death of 83 years of independent journalism that upholds US ideals of democracy and freedom around the world,” they wrote. The statement reflects deep concern that the dismantling of VOA undermines a historic American commitment to supporting free expression across the globe.

VOA, along with related outlets such as Radio Free Europe and Radio Free Asia, has earned a reputation for providing reliable and independent news coverage in regions notorious for media suppression. Its reporters have operated in hostile environments like China, Russia, Cambodia, and North Korea, often at great personal risk, to bring credible journalism to audiences otherwise subjected to state propaganda.

Despite the international praise VOA has garnered over the years, critics within the U.S. have accused the agency of political bias. Dan Robinson, a former VOA correspondent, wrote in an opinion piece last year that the organization had turned into a “hubris-filled rogue operation often reflecting a leftist bias aligned with partisan national media.” This perception appears to have fueled support within conservative political circles for scaling back or completely defunding VOA and similar outlets.

Trump’s antagonism toward VOA fits into his broader narrative of opposition to U.S. media institutions. Throughout his presidency, Trump repeatedly criticized major media organizations, labeling them as “fake news” and encouraging his supporters to distrust mainstream journalism. He also pushed for defunding other federally supported public media, including National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), arguing that they too displayed political bias and no longer served the public interest.

While Trump’s efforts to cut public media funding faced resistance in Congress, his appointees were able to implement substantial administrative changes within USAGM. By replacing leadership and pushing forward with aggressive layoffs, the administration sought to reshape or dismantle media entities it viewed as adversarial or inefficient.

The closure of VOA’s core operations, however, is not without consequences. It marks a significant shift in how the United States engages in international broadcasting and public diplomacy. For decades, Voice of America has represented an American commitment to the free flow of information and the power of factual journalism in confronting authoritarian regimes. The agency’s motto, “A free press matters,” now hangs in stark contrast to the dismantling of its newsroom.

Kari Lake defended the decision, stating that the layoffs were an overdue response to internal dysfunction and mismanagement. The administration, she emphasized, aimed to “restore credibility and focus” to U.S. global media operations. However, critics view the mass firings not as a course correction, but as an ideological purge that sacrifices an essential democratic institution.

As the dust settles, the future of VOA remains deeply uncertain. With only a fraction of its workforce remaining and its global operations gutted, many fear that its ability to fulfill its original mission has been permanently compromised.

In a media landscape increasingly divided along political lines, the demise of a respected international broadcaster like VOA sends troubling signals about the United States’ commitment to defending press freedom, both at home and abroad. For the journalists who once worked there, and for the global audiences who depended on its coverage, the closures represent not just a bureaucratic change, but the end of an era.

Steve Herman’s words continue to resonate: the dismantling of VOA is indeed “a historic act of self-sabotage” — one that may not be easily reversed.

B-2 Bombers Moved to Guam as Trump Considers U.S. Involvement in Israel-Iran Conflict

June 23, 2025 Staff ReporterDiplomacy, World 0

U.S. Department of Defense officials have begun relocating B-2 bombers across the Pacific Ocean, a move that comes as President Donald Trump deliberates potential American intervention in the intensifying conflict between Israel and Iran. These developments were reported by Reuters, which noted that powerful “bunker buster bombs,” each weighing around 30,000 pounds, are being transported to the U.S. territory of Guam. This location could serve as a launch point if Trump decides to take military action against Iran.

The Department of Defense redirected inquiries from The Hill to the White House, which has yet to issue a formal response or provide further clarification regarding the deployment and the president’s current stance.

Recent flight data supports the growing speculation surrounding U.S. military movements. Several aircraft were seen departing from Travis Air Force Base, located in California. These flights included B-2 stealth bombers, departing shortly after Trump publicly announced a two-week deadline to determine whether the United States will intervene militarily in Iran. It’s worth noting that the U.S. Air Force possesses the capability to deactivate transponders on these aircraft, allowing their movements to remain untracked and covert when necessary.

Until recently, these strategic bombers were stationed in Missouri. Military analysts suggest that they may now be positioned for potential strikes against Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. One particular target of interest appears to be the Fordo nuclear enrichment facility, a hardened underground site that poses a significant challenge for conventional weaponry but could be vulnerable to the immense power of the bunker busters.

The Fordo site is Iran’s second major nuclear facility after the Natanz complex. Natanz was recently attacked by Israeli forces in a move that visibly escalated the ongoing hostilities between the two countries. According to reports, the strike caused considerable damage to the facility, marking another step in Israel’s broader objective of dismantling Iran’s nuclear weapons development program.

Just one day after the Natanz attack, Israel reported further military action. The Israeli government confirmed that it had launched a strike on a different Iranian nuclear site located in Isfahan. In addition to damaging critical infrastructure, Israeli forces also claimed to have eliminated two high-ranking Iranian commanders during the assault. This act further inflamed the tensions between the two nations.

Later on the same day, the Israeli Air Force targeted additional military infrastructure in southwestern Iran. These operations were detailed in a formal statement issued by the Israeli military. The statement emphasized the strategic nature of the attacks and pointed to Israel’s intention to continue targeting locations that may be connected to Iran’s weapons programs.

The strikes followed an aggressive move by Iran just hours earlier. According to the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), Iran had launched 40 drones during the night between Friday and Saturday. Israeli defense systems intercepted the drones before they could reach their targets, neutralizing the threat and avoiding significant damage.

An Israeli military official, speaking to the Associated Press on the condition of anonymity, explained the impact of Israel’s countermeasures: “We’ve been able to take out a large amount of their launchers, creating a bottleneck — we’re making it harder for them to fire toward Israel.” However, the official also offered a sobering assessment of Iran’s capabilities, adding, “Having said all that, I want to say the Iranian regime obviously still has capabilities.”

In addition to the strikes and drone interceptions, Israeli forces recently claimed to have killed several top Iranian commanders and nine engineers who were allegedly involved in Iran’s nuclear program. The targeting of these individuals is viewed as a direct effort to cripple Iran’s ability to make progress on its nuclear ambitions.

As the conflict intensifies, President Trump has taken a firm position. He declared that hostilities will persist until Iran agrees to a full surrender. “UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER” was the phrase he used to describe the only acceptable outcome from the United States’ perspective. His strong rhetoric underscores the gravity of the situation and hints at the scale of the response that may follow if Iran does not comply.

Despite the growing pressure, Iran’s leadership has vowed to continue its resistance. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei addressed the Iranian people through a message posted on X, formerly known as Twitter. In it, he urged the nation to stand strong in the face of adversity.

“I would like to tell our dear nation that if the enemy senses that you fear them, they won’t let go of you. Continue the very behavior that you have had up to this day; continue this behavior with strength,” Khamenei wrote.

His statement suggests that Iran is unlikely to capitulate, even in the face of growing international pressure and escalating military actions. The message was aimed at rallying national support and reinforcing the narrative of resilience against foreign intervention.

The current military posturing, including the movement of U.S. bombers and intensified Israeli strikes, points to a rapidly evolving situation in the Middle East. Trump’s decision in the coming weeks may have significant consequences not only for U.S.-Iran relations but also for the broader geopolitical stability of the region.

Analysts warn that any direct involvement by the United States could mark a turning point in the conflict, transforming it from a bilateral clash between Israel and Iran into a wider confrontation with global implications. The presence of U.S. bombers on Guam and the strategic nature of their potential deployment only adds weight to this possibility.

While Israel appears determined to neutralize what it sees as a growing nuclear threat, and Iran remains defiant in its response, the role of the United States remains the most critical variable. The next two weeks could be pivotal in determining whether diplomacy has any chance to prevail or if the world must brace for a larger military confrontation.

With President Trump’s deadline approaching, the eyes of the world are on Washington. The movement of B-2 bombers and the transportation of powerful bunker buster bombs to Guam are more than just logistical maneuvers; they are a clear signal that the United States is preparing for all possibilities — including war.

NATO Summit Trimmed and Tailored to Appease Trump as Rutte Aims for Unity Amid Deep Divisions

June 23, 2025 Staff ReporterDiplomacy, Global 0

NATO summits are typically designed to present a united front, with outcomes largely predetermined in advance. The upcoming summit at The Hague, orchestrated by newly appointed NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, is no exception. In fact, the event appears to be carefully planned to avoid any confrontations with NATO’s most influential member, the United States. The core item on the agenda is a pledge by European allies to increase their defence spending—precisely what President Donald Trump has long demanded.

While this commitment is expected to take center stage, it comes with a mix of compromises and vague concessions. However, even a carefully managed summit cannot entirely obscure the ongoing rifts between Trump and many European leaders over issues like trade, Russia, and the deepening Middle East conflict.

Donald Trump, with his “America First” doctrine, has never been particularly enthusiastic about multinational institutions. His skepticism extends to NATO itself. During his first term, he not only criticized the alliance but also questioned its very foundation: collective defence. At his inaugural NATO summit, he openly scolded European allies for underfunding their militaries and claimed they owed the U.S. “massive amounts of money.” On that front, Trump has maintained a consistent stance throughout his political career.

Mark Rutte, known for maintaining a positive relationship with Trump, has made considerable efforts to deliver a diplomatic victory for the U.S. president. The upcoming NATO gathering will take place over two days—Tuesday and Wednesday next week—at the World Forum in The Hague. But the main deliberations will be brief, lasting just three hours, and the concluding summit declaration will be reduced to a mere five paragraphs. This minimalism is reportedly a response to Trump’s preferences.

Trump will be joined by 31 other leaders from NATO’s member states, along with representatives from more than a dozen partner countries. In preparation, Dutch authorities have launched the most extensive security operation in the country’s history, with the event’s cost reaching €183.4 million ($210 million or £155 million), making it the most expensive NATO summit ever.

Some observers suggest the abbreviated schedule is tailored to Trump’s reported short attention span and aversion to lengthy meetings. However, beyond catering to Trump, the short agenda also serves a strategic purpose—it limits the range of topics and helps conceal internal divisions within the alliance.

Ed Arnold, a defense analyst from the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), commented on Trump’s dominant presence at such events: “Trump likes to be the star of the show,” adding that he will likely take credit for pressuring European countries to act on defense. While Trump isn’t the first American president to criticize NATO spending habits, he has arguably had greater success than his predecessors.

Former U.S. Ambassador to NATO, Kurt Volker, acknowledged the tension: “Some European governments do not like the way Trump’s gone about it,” referencing Trump’s call for nations to spend 5% of their GDP on defense. Presently, Europe contributes just 30% of NATO’s total military spending. Yet, according to Volker, many Europeans have come to realize, “we needed to do this, even if it’s unfortunate that it took such a kick in the pants.”

Indeed, some European countries are now pushing their defense budgets toward that 5% target. These include nations near Russia, such as Poland, Estonia, and Lithuania. But the pressure is not solely coming from Washington. The Russian invasion of Ukraine has fundamentally shifted the security outlook across Europe, demanding increased defense commitments.

Nevertheless, the reality is that many NATO members are unlikely to meet these lofty new spending goals. Some have still failed to achieve the 2% GDP target established over a decade ago. Rutte has proposed a compromise: raising core defense spending to 3.5% of GDP, supplemented by an additional 1.5% in related expenditures.

However, the definition of “defense-related expenditure” remains so ambiguous that critics worry it could be manipulated. Rutte has suggested that infrastructure investments—such as roads, bridges, and railways—could count toward this total. As RUSI’s Ed Arnold noted, this will almost certainly lead to more “creative accounting.”

Even if this new benchmark is endorsed, many nations may only offer symbolic compliance, without serious plans to meet it by 2032 or 2035. The timeline remains hazy. Spain’s prime minister has already condemned the target as “unreasonable and counterproductive.” Meanwhile, British Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer has avoided committing to a firm timeline for reaching 3% GDP spending. The current UK prime minister has only described it as an “ambition” for the next parliamentary term. Still, given the UK’s stated intent to place NATO at the center of its defense policy, Starmer may be compelled to support the new spending framework.

The danger lies in seeing the spending increase as just a political move, or simply yielding to U.S. demands. But NATO’s own internal defense strategies—particularly concerning potential aggression from Russia—are also a major motivator. Rutte himself has issued a stark warning: Russia could launch an attack on a NATO country within five years.

Though the full scope of NATO’s defense plans remains classified, Rutte has already indicated what is lacking. In a speech earlier this month, he said NATO requires “a 400% increase in its air and missile defences,” along with “thousands more armoured vehicles and tanks, and millions more artillery shells.”

Most member countries, including the UK, currently fall short of NATO’s capability targets. Consequently, Sweden has announced plans to double the size of its army, and Germany aims to expand its troop numbers by 60,000. NATO’s plans reportedly outline detailed procedures to defend the alliance’s eastern border in the event of a Russian invasion. General Christopher Donahue, head of the U.S. Army in Europe, recently highlighted the vulnerability of Polish and Lithuanian territory near the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad. He revealed, “we looked at our existing capabilities and realized very quickly they are not sufficient.”

Yet ironically, direct discussions about Russia and the war in Ukraine will be kept to a minimum at the summit. This reflects growing divergence between Europe and America on the issue. Kurt Volker observed, “Under Trump, the US does not see Ukrainian security as essential to European security but our European allies do.”

Trump has already eroded NATO unity by engaging with Vladimir Putin and suspending military aid to Ukraine. According to Ed Arnold, contentious subjects like Russia strategy have been deliberately excluded from the agenda to avoid provoking Trump.

Although Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has received an invitation to the summit dinner, he won’t be participating in the North Atlantic Council’s main discussions.

As Mark Rutte prepares to lead his first NATO summit, he likely hopes for a smooth and concise event. But given Trump’s fundamental disagreements with many of his allies—especially regarding Russia, NATO’s greatest strategic concern—the summit could still fall short of unity and coherence, despite efforts to the contrary.

US-Middle East Flight Suspensions Continue Amid Escalating Israel-Iran Conflict

June 23, 2025 Staff ReporterWorld, Travel 0

Several U.S. airlines have extended or imposed new suspensions on flights to and from the Middle East as the violent conflict between Israel and Iran continues to intensify.

United Airlines has announced a halt to its daily service between Newark Liberty International Airport in New Jersey and Dubai. The airline cited ongoing regional conflict as the reason for this move, though no timeline was offered for when these flights might resume. Currently, United operates its only flights to Dubai through Newark, underscoring the disruption’s significance.

American Airlines also revealed a temporary suspension of its route from Philadelphia International Airport to Doha, Qatar. This suspension will remain in effect through June 22, according to a spokesperson from American Airlines who spoke with CBS News. The last flight to Doha before the suspension took off from Philadelphia early Thursday morning.

Delta Air Lines has similarly suspended its services, halting flights between New York’s John F. Kennedy International Airport and Tel Aviv, Israel. The airline said the pause will extend until at least August 31. Delta’s suspension follows escalating safety concerns related to the intensifying conflict in the region.

Air travel disruptions are not limited to U.S. carriers. International airlines have also taken action in response to the hostilities. Emirates, Etihad Airways, and Lufthansa are among the major carriers that have canceled some of their regional routes. According to aviation news website AviationA2Z, the Middle East’s volatile security landscape has forced many airlines to re-evaluate flight paths and schedules.

In Israel, Ben Gurion International Airport, the country’s main aviation hub, remains closed. On the other hand, U.S.-based carriers do not operate flights to Iran’s primary airport, Tehran Imam Khomeini International Airport. Still, flight activity across the broader region has seen a ripple effect.

These developments come in the wake of Israel launching a military campaign known as “Operation Rising Lion” against Iran. Israel has reportedly been targeting Iranian nuclear and military facilities since late last week. The Israeli government claims that intelligence assessments suggest Iran is approaching the development of nuclear weapons. In response, Iran has unleashed a series of retaliatory missile strikes against Israeli targets.

The hostilities have led to the closure of airspace over multiple countries in the region. As of now, airspace remains restricted above Israel, Jordan, Iran, and Iraq. The Israeli Ministry of Transportation confirmed that these closures will continue until further notice, underscoring the widespread nature of the disruption and the heightened level of caution.

On the political front, President Donald Trump has taken a forceful stance, calling for Iran’s “unconditional surrender.” According to senior intelligence and Defense Department sources who spoke with CBS News, Trump is currently deliberating whether the United States should carry out direct strikes on Iran and formally enter Israel’s ongoing military offensive.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt added further weight to this possibility, stating on Thursday that President Trump is expected to reach a decision within the next two weeks regarding potential U.S. military action. “The president will make a decision on whether to order a strike within the next two weeks,” Leavitt said.

Amid the intensifying military actions and regional instability, the U.S. government is also taking measures to protect its citizens in Israel. The U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem notified Americans on Thursday that plans are underway to facilitate the departure of private U.S. citizens from the country. Some individuals have already been evacuated using cruise ships.

Meanwhile, the State Department has escalated its travel warnings for the region. Israel is now under a Level 4 “Do Not Travel” advisory, citing the risk of “armed conflict, terrorism and civil unrest.” The advisory strongly discourages Americans from entering the country until further notice. Iran has also long been under the same highest-level travel warning. The State Department emphasized that U.S. citizens should not travel to Iran due to threats including “terrorism, civil unrest, kidnapping, arbitrary arrest of U.S. citizens and wrongful detention.”

This growing list of advisories highlights the increasingly hazardous nature of the region for travelers. Coupled with the broadening airline suspensions and airport closures, the current climate has made air travel in and out of the Middle East highly uncertain.

The conflict has clearly moved beyond bilateral tensions and now threatens to pull in broader international involvement. With the possibility of direct U.S. military engagement on the table and global airlines halting their services, the geopolitical stakes have risen dramatically.

Airline industry insiders note that such suspensions can have lasting operational and financial implications. While safety is the priority, re-routing flights, canceling schedules, and managing stranded passengers place considerable strain on carriers. Additionally, travelers with plans involving Middle Eastern destinations are being advised to stay updated through airline alerts and government travel notices.

In the background of these unfolding events, diplomatic efforts appear to be lagging. While public and private channels of communication may still be active between international actors, the public posture from key players—especially Israel and the United States—suggests that escalation, rather than de-escalation, is the more likely short-term outcome.

The air travel industry, often an early indicator of geopolitical risk, continues to adjust to the developing situation. With more than a dozen international airlines modifying their schedules or suspending flights altogether, the consequences of the Israel-Iran conflict are already being felt far beyond the battlefield.

While it remains unclear how long these disruptions will last, what is certain is the unpredictable and rapidly changing nature of the conflict. Travelers, airlines, and governments alike are watching closely, aware that conditions could evolve significantly in a matter of days—or even hours. The airspace closures, the military operations, and the possible entry of additional nations into the fray all contribute to a tense and precarious environment that shows no sign of stabilizing soon.

In the coming days, the world will be watching to see not only how the conflict on the ground unfolds, but also whether the skies above the Middle East can reopen safely and allow for the resumption of civilian air travel. Until then, passengers and airlines must prepare for ongoing disruption and uncertainty.

Justice Jackson Slams Supreme Court Ruling on Vehicle Emissions as Favoring Big Business

June 23, 2025 Staff ReporterEnvironment, Editorial 0

In a strongly worded dissent, Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson voiced serious concerns about the direction of the court in a ruling concerning vehicle emissions regulations. Her criticism came after the court delivered a 7-2 decision supporting fuel producers in their challenge to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) approval of California’s clean vehicle emissions standards. Jackson’s dissent suggested the decision bolsters the perception that the court caters to wealthy interests, undermining its credibility with the public.

Justice Jackson contended that the ruling implies the court shows favoritism in choosing which cases to consider and how it resolves them, often leaning toward those with deep pockets. “This case gives fodder to the unfortunate perception that moneyed interests enjoy an easier road to relief in this court than ordinary citizens,” she wrote. According to her, the legal standing granted to the producers in this case was based on a rationale “that the court has refused to apply in cases brought by less powerful plaintiffs.”

Although the practical consequences of the decision may be limited for now, Jackson warned of broader implications. She pointed out that the ruling could support future challenges by the fuel industry aimed at weakening the Clean Air Act. “The decision has little practical importance now, but in the future, it will no doubt aid future attempts by the fuel industry to attack the Clean Air Act,” she noted. Furthermore, she emphasized that the court’s decision might come with a long-term cost to its integrity. “Also, I worry that the fuel industry’s gain comes at a reputational cost for this court, which is already viewed by many as being overly sympathetic to corporate interests,” Jackson added.

Her concerns were heightened by the current political context, particularly the Trump administration’s actions to dismantle environmental protections championed by former President Joe Biden, including California’s electric vehicle mandates. Given this backdrop, Jackson argued the case was either moot or soon would be, raising questions about why the court took it up in the first place. “With the Trump administration reversing course on many of former President Joe Biden’s environmental policies… the case is most likely moot or soon will be,” she wrote, expressing confusion over the court’s decision to proceed.

The ruling highlights ongoing tensions surrounding the court’s ideological leanings. With a 6-3 conservative majority, the court has frequently been criticized for appearing overly receptive to the interests of large corporations. This decision adds to a pattern in which the court has shown skepticism toward broad governmental regulations and made it more difficult for consumers and employees to pursue class action lawsuits. Last year, the court overturned a longstanding precedent dating back four decades that had given federal agencies considerable authority in shaping regulations — a move cheered by business groups but criticized by advocates of government oversight.

Jackson didn’t mince words in her closing remarks, pointing to what she sees as the court’s reluctance to hear cases involving individuals who lack institutional power. “Simultaneous aversion to hearing cases involving the potential vindication of less powerful litigants — workers, criminal defendants, and the condemned, among others,” she said, highlighting a disparity in access to judicial relief.

In response to Jackson’s dissent, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who wrote the majority opinion, defended the court’s approach to determining legal standing. He rejected the suggestion that the court favors corporate interests. “A review of standing cases disproves that suggestion,” he wrote, noting that liberal justices have sometimes sided with the majority in standing disputes. Kavanaugh cited a ruling from the previous year where the court concluded that anti-abortion doctors lacked standing to sue over the abortion pill mifepristone, with liberal justices part of the majority in that decision.

Kavanaugh emphasized that entities targeted by regulatory actions should have the right to challenge those regulations. “The government may not target a business or industry through stringent and allegedly unlawful regulation, and then evade the resulting lawsuits by claiming that the targets of its regulation should be locked out of court as unaffected bystanders,” he stated.

Legal scholars have weighed in, including Jonathan Adler, a professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law. Adler, whom Justice Jackson referenced in her opinion, argued that her conclusions about the court’s biases are misplaced. He pointed out that no other justices, not even the two other liberals on the bench, joined her dissent. “I don’t think this case is an example of the court being inconsistent or somehow more favorable to moneyed interests than other sorts of interests,” Adler said in an interview. He added, “It’s not like the court has closed the door on environmental groups.”

Adler cautioned against reducing complex legal disputes to simple narratives of business versus public interest. “It can be very simplistic to classify cases as pro-business or anti-business simply because there can often be wealthy interests on both sides,” he said, pushing back against the notion that this ruling indicates systematic favoritism.

The roots of the dispute lie in the EPA’s authority under the federal Clean Air Act to issue nationwide vehicle emissions standards. Due to California’s longstanding leadership in environmental regulation, the Act allows the state to receive special waivers permitting it to implement its own, often stricter, emissions rules. This particular case revolved around a 2012 request from California for EPA approval of new regulations, not its more recent and controversial 2024 plan to phase out gasoline-powered cars by 2035, for which the state also sought a waiver.

In a parallel political development, the Republican-led Congress recently voted to overturn California’s waiver, underscoring the contentious nature of emissions policy and state-federal dynamics. While this legislative move might further limit the impact of the court’s decision, the symbolic significance of the ruling remains potent.

Justice Jackson’s dissent calls attention to broader concerns about perceived bias in the highest court and its willingness to take up cases involving powerful economic actors. While her critique stands alone, without support from other liberal justices, it amplifies ongoing public debate over the court’s impartiality and role in shaping regulatory policy. Her closing comments encapsulate a growing sentiment among court observers who worry that the balance of justice may be tipping in favor of those with financial influence: “This case gives fodder to the unfortunate perception that moneyed interests enjoy an easier road to relief in this court than ordinary citizens.”

Her dissent, though solitary, serves as a pointed reminder of the stakes involved when the judiciary wades into politically and economically charged territory — and the lasting impression such decisions can leave on public trust in the institution.

Pentagon Unveils Details of Stealth Bombing Campaign on Iranian Nuclear Sites, Hailing “Operation Midnight Hammer” as Historic

June 22, 2025June 23, 2025 Staff ReporterUSA, World 0

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The U.S. military’s overnight assault on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure has been described as the largest B-2 bomber mission ever conducted, delivering what defense officials say was crippling damage to key targets. In a rare public briefing on Sunday, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine disclosed fresh insights into the covert operation, officially named Operation Midnight Hammer.

“This was one of the most classified and intricately coordinated missions we’ve ever executed,” Gen. Caine told reporters at the Pentagon, referring to the U.S. strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. “Very few within Washington were even aware of the plan’s timing or operational scope.”

According to Caine, seven B-2 Spirit stealth bombers departed from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri under the cover of night, with a parallel group dispatched westward over the Pacific to create a diversion. The 18-hour eastward journey required multiple aerial refueling sessions as the aircraft flew across the Atlantic, through the Mediterranean, and into the Middle East.

Accompanied by fighter escorts and support planes, the strike package carried out what Caine described as a “precisely timed and synchronized maneuver” involving midair rendezvous and deception strategies. “This level of coordination was unprecedented,” he emphasized, presenting a map that detailed the aircraft’s flight path and timeline.

Deception and Precision: The Strike Timeline

At approximately 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Saturday, as the B-2s approached Iranian airspace, a U.S. Navy submarine launched over 24 Tomahawk cruise missiles toward the Isfahan complex. Meanwhile, fighter jets secured the airspace ahead, ensuring a clear path for the bombers.

At around 6:40 p.m. ET — 2:10 a.m. Sunday in Iran — the lead B-2 released two GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrators (MOPs), known colloquially as “bunker busters,” onto the Fordow facility. Over the next half hour, a total of 14 MOPs were dropped on Fordow and Natanz. The Tomahawks impacted Isfahan shortly afterward.

Caine confirmed that the operation went undetected by Iranian defenses. “No missiles were fired at our aircraft, and Iranian fighters never took off. Our element of surprise held throughout,” he stated.

In total, more than 125 U.S. aircraft contributed to the operation, including bombers, fighter jets, tankers, and surveillance units. Over 75 precision-guided munitions were deployed, resulting in what the Pentagon calls “extensive destruction.”

“Initial damage assessments indicate all three sites have suffered significant structural and functional losses,” said Caine, while noting that comprehensive evaluations are ongoing.

U.S. Forces on High Alert for Potential Iranian Response

Caine warned that any retaliation from Iran or its allied militias would be met with swift consequences. “Our readiness posture is elevated, and any misstep by Iran would be an ill-advised and dangerous move. We will defend our interests,” he said.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who stood beside Caine during the press conference, echoed the sentiment, describing the mission as an “overwhelming and calculated triumph.” He emphasized that the operation specifically avoided targeting Iranian personnel or civilian infrastructure.

“This was a mission with a singular purpose: to dismantle the core of Iran’s nuclear ambitions,” Hegseth said. “The president’s directive was clear and decisive, and our forces executed it flawlessly.”

Hegseth highlighted the historical scope of the mission, calling it the longest-range B-2 deployment since 2001 and the first use of the GBU-57 MOP in combat. “Our bombers struck and returned undetected,” he said. “This was a global demonstration of American stealth, strategy, and strength.”

Trump Applauds Operation, Warns of Escalation

President Donald Trump formally announced the airstrikes on Saturday evening and followed up with a televised address, flanked by Hegseth, Vice President J.D. Vance, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. He praised the military’s efforts, stating the targets were “completely and totally obliterated.”

Trump reiterated his commitment to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and warned of a broader campaign should Tehran refuse to engage in meaningful diplomacy.

“If Iran chooses not to make peace, we are prepared to dismantle remaining targets with speed and precision,” the president declared. “No military force on earth could have carried out what happened tonight. Not even close.”

As international observers assess the implications of the strike, questions loom over whether Iran will respond militarily or seek diplomatic offramps. Meanwhile, Washington stands firm, signaling that this mission was only the beginning if its demands remain unmet.

Trump Hails Strike on Iran Nuclear Sites, Warns of Future Military Action

June 21, 2025June 23, 2025 Staff ReporterUSA, World 0

In a nationally televised address on Saturday evening, President Donald Trump described the recent U.S. airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities as a “remarkable military achievement” and cautioned that additional operations could follow unless Tehran agrees to a peace deal on Washington’s terms.

Speaking from the Cross Hall of the White House, Trump stated that the objective of the operation was to dismantle Iran’s ability to enrich uranium and eliminate what he called the “nuclear threat from the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism.” Flanked by Vice President J.D. Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, the president declared the mission an overwhelming success.

“Tonight, I can inform the world that Iran’s major nuclear sites have been effectively neutralized,” Trump said, referring to strikes on the Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan facilities. According to Trump, those locations were “completely and totally obliterated” in coordinated U.S. attacks.

The announcement came just hours after Trump revealed the offensive via his Truth Social account. The airstrikes, carried out amid rising tensions in the region, mark a significant escalation in U.S. involvement in the conflict between Iran and Israel that has intensified over the past two weeks.

In a follow-up social media post, Trump issued a stern warning to Iran, stating that any form of retaliation would be met with overwhelming force. “This must end,” he wrote. “Either there is peace, or Iran will face consequences far more devastating than anything seen in recent days. Tonight’s strike targeted the hardest site. Others remain in our sights if peace talks fail.”

Trump offered no clear definition of what a “satisfactory” peace agreement with Iran would entail. He reiterated his longstanding position that Iran must not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons or continue uranium enrichment under any circumstances.

Citing reports from Fox News and The New York Times, officials confirmed that six precision “bunker-buster” bombs were deployed against the Fordow site, which lies deep underground in a fortified mountain facility. Defense Secretary Hegseth and Pentagon officials are expected to provide further details on the strikes at a briefing scheduled for Sunday morning.

During his remarks, Trump noted he had spoken with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu following the operation, emphasizing close coordination between the two allies. “We acted in unison,” he said. The White House also released images from the Situation Room showing top national security officials, including CIA Director John Ratcliffe, Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine, and White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, monitoring the mission alongside the president.

The strike follows Trump’s earlier suggestion that the U.S. would give Iran two weeks to pursue diplomatic channels before initiating military action. Despite that statement, the abrupt nature of the operation has stirred debate in Washington over executive war powers.

While Republican leaders largely backed the president’s decision, some lawmakers questioned its legality, citing the lack of congressional authorization. “This is unconstitutional,” posted Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) on X. Rep. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio) echoed the concern, saying, “Even if the decision proves strategically sound, its constitutional basis is highly questionable.”

The White House has not yet responded to inquiries regarding these constitutional concerns.

As global leaders and defense analysts continue to assess the ramifications of this strike, the world watches to see whether Iran will escalate the conflict or move toward a negotiated resolution.

U.S.-Israel Strikes Seen as Major Setback

Iran Holds Firm on Nuclear Position

Accusations of U.S. Bad Faith

No Trust, No Talks

No Timeline for Talks

TheUNN Corporation

CONTACT US

Follow us

Subscribe to Newsletter