Trump’s H-1B Visa Comments Divide Conservatives and MAGA Supporters

Donald Trump’s recent comments on the H-1B visa program have sparked intense debate among conservatives and MAGA supporters, highlighting divisions over immigration and labor policies.

President Donald Trump’s recent remarks regarding the H-1B visa program have reignited discussions across social media platforms. Many users are expressing the belief that the United States possesses sufficient talent to rely on its own workforce, rather than depending on foreign professionals. This debate raises questions about whether easing visa restrictions aligns with Trump’s long-standing “America First” philosophy.

One user on X stated, “America landed on the moon 20 years before the H-1B program even existed. Don’t give me this nonsense about America not having enough ‘talent.’ Abolish the H-1B program and invest in American youth, not foreigners.” This sentiment was echoed by another user who shared data emphasizing the contributions of foreign talent to American achievements, stating, “You mean the Moon landing was designed by a German, guided by Australians & Spaniards, & coded by Indians & immigrant engineers? America’s been powered by foreign talent long before H-1Bs existed.”

The user went on to list notable figures who contributed to the Apollo program, including Joe Mehta, an Indian engineer who worked on SIMCOM code, and Wernher von Braun, a German engineer who played a key role in developing the Saturn V rocket. This exchange quickly garnered thousands of reactions, revealing a significant divide over the United States’ reliance on global talent.

While some users argued for a focus on nurturing domestic skilled professionals, others pointed out that many of the country’s landmark achievements, from space exploration to the tech boom in Silicon Valley, have been built through international collaboration. The debate highlights how Trump’s comments have reignited broader questions about the balance between protecting domestic jobs and maintaining America’s status as a destination for global expertise.

In the midst of this debate, conservative commentator Ben Shapiro defended the H-1B visa program, arguing that it is essential for maintaining America’s technological edge. In a post on X, he pointed to gaps in U.S. education, particularly in STEM fields, and cited figures like Elon Musk, Sundar Pichai, and Satya Nadella as examples of how immigrant talent drives innovation and keeps high-tech jobs within the country.

Shapiro’s remarks, however, drew sharp backlash from the MAGA wing of the conservative movement, which accused him of prioritizing corporate interests over American workers. Supporters of the H-1B program contended that such initiatives are crucial for economic growth and global competitiveness. This division reflects a growing rift within conservative circles as Trump signals potential reforms to skilled immigration.

One user countered Shapiro’s defense, questioning the high-skilled nature of immigration by asking, “If the immigration is so high-skilled, why are their nations of origin (India and China) not desperate to retain it? Wouldn’t they surpass America as the global superpower if they were such a reservoir of entrepreneurship and expertise?”

Another user, Daniel Di Martino, shared data indicating that Indians in the U.S. have one of the lowest crime rates of any demographic group, far below that of non-Hispanic whites. This statistic was part of a broader discussion about the contributions of immigrants to American society.

Reflecting on the backlash against Shapiro, one user remarked, “All the H-1B Visa program does is circumvent the desperate need for educational reform in America.” Some users defended the program, arguing that Shapiro’s points about H-1B visas are valid, but suggested that many people simply do not understand the complexities involved.

The ongoing back-and-forth has laid bare a growing divide within conservative ranks regarding the future of America’s immigration and labor policies. On one side are those who view the H-1B program as detrimental to U.S. workers by suppressing wages and outsourcing opportunities. On the other side are conservatives who argue that restricting skilled immigration could stifle innovation, drive companies overseas, and weaken America’s leadership in technology.

This widening rift reflects a deeper ideological struggle between economic nationalism and global competitiveness, an issue that is likely to intensify as Trump’s stance on H-1B visas continues to evolve.

Source: Original article

Transgender Air Force Members File Lawsuit Over Lost Retirement Benefits

Seventeen transgender Air Force members have filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration after losing promised retirement benefits due to a ban on their military service.

Seventeen transgender Air Force members have initiated legal action against the federal government, claiming they were unjustly deprived of up to $2 million in retirement benefits following their discharge under the Trump administration’s transgender ban.

The plaintiffs, who served in the Air Force for periods ranging from 15 to 18 years, are seeking the retirement benefits that were previously guaranteed to them. The lawsuit was filed on Monday, following an announcement from the Air Force in August that transgender service members with 15 to 18 years of service would no longer be eligible for early retirement and associated benefits. This decision marked a significant reversal from earlier policies.

According to GLAD Law, one of the advocacy organizations involved in the lawsuit, the affected service members now face a substantial financial loss, which includes not only the potential loss of retirement benefits but also the elimination of health insurance coverage. The total financial impact could reach up to $2 million over the course of their lifetimes.

Michael Haley, a staff attorney with GLAD Law, described the revocation of early retirement benefits as indicative of “the general cruelty in attacking transgender people.” He noted that several plaintiffs had already received orders permitting their retirements, and some had begun the process of transitioning to civilian life.

Logan Ireland, a master sergeant in the Air Force with 15 years of service, including a deployment to Afghanistan, expressed his dismay at the situation. After his early retirement request was denied, he stated, “The military taught me to lead and fight, not retreat.” He emphasized that the removal of his retirement benefits sends a troubling message, suggesting that the values instilled in service members apply only in combat situations and not when they are in need of support.

This lawsuit is the latest in a series of legal challenges against policies implemented by the Trump administration that aim to exclude transgender individuals from military service. In May, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the enforcement of the transgender ban to proceed while legal challenges continue to unfold.

President Donald Trump and Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth have targeted transgender service members as part of broader efforts to eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives within the military. In addition to revoking retirement benefits, the Air Force announced in August that transgender members would no longer have the opportunity to present their cases before a board of peers regarding their right to continue serving. The Pentagon has also indicated that a similar policy will be applied across the military.

The implications of these policies extend beyond financial losses, affecting the lives and careers of those who have dedicated years of service to their country. As the legal battles continue, the future of transgender individuals in the military remains uncertain.

Source: Original article

Trump Signs Funding Bill to End 43-Day Government Shutdown

President Trump signed a significant funding bill on November 12, 2025, concluding a historic 43-day government shutdown that affected nearly three million federal workers and disrupted essential services nationwide.

On November 12, 2025, President Donald Trump signed a landmark government funding bill, officially ending the longest government shutdown in U.S. history, which lasted for 43 days. This political standoff left nearly 900,000 federal employees furloughed and forced an additional two million workers to operate without pay. The shutdown had widespread ramifications, affecting air travel, food assistance, and social services across the country. Food banks reported longer lines, while essential programs struggled to provide vital resources as many agencies reduced operations or were completely suspended.

The shutdown stemmed from Congress’s failure to pass appropriations legislation for the 2026 fiscal year, which began on October 1, 2025. A deep partisan divide emerged as members of the Senate and House struggled to reach consensus. Central to the impasse were disputes over extending enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies, which are crucial for lowering health care premiums for millions of Americans. Democrats refused to support any short-term spending measure unless these subsidies were protected, while Republicans maintained that health care funding should be addressed in separate policy discussions. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson accused Democrats of leveraging the American people in a high-stakes political game, further intensifying the partisan tensions surrounding the crisis.

Continuous discussions filled the halls of Congress, with lawmakers fiercely debating funding measures. The deadlock was eventually broken when eight senators crossed party lines to reach a compromise. This bipartisan agreement allowed the funding bill to pass first in the Senate and then in the House of Representatives by a narrow 222-209 vote margin. President Trump signed the bill into law in the Oval Office, marking the restoration of government operations.

The funding bill included critical provisions aimed at mitigating the damage caused by the shutdown. It rescinded the Trump administration’s decision to fire federal employees during the shutdown and guaranteed back pay as operations resumed. Additionally, protections against future layoffs were established through January, providing stability for federal workers and contractors. Key food assistance and agricultural programs received renewed funding, ensuring uninterrupted support for families reliant on these benefits until the end of the budget year.

Security measures were also addressed in the legislation, with $203.5 million allocated for lawmaker protection and an additional $28 million designated for the safety of Supreme Court justices. However, a controversial provision was added that allowed senators to pursue damages up to $500,000 if government investigators accessed electronic records without prior notification. This last-minute addition drew bipartisan criticism, including from Speaker Johnson, who expressed frustration over its inclusion.

The legislative stalemate primarily revolved around the fate of the expiring enhanced tax credits. Without congressional action, premiums for Affordable Care Act marketplace plans were projected to double, potentially leaving over two million Americans without health coverage. Republicans argued that pandemic-era enhancements should not continue, pointing to the expiration date set when the subsidies were enacted. Conversely, Democrats vowed to continue fighting for the extension, asserting that the debate was “just getting started.” While the passage of the funding bill provided immediate relief, it did not resolve the ongoing dispute over health care subsidies, with a further Senate vote promised by mid-December, though its success remained uncertain.

In the immediate aftermath of the shutdown, lawmakers expressed frustration over how the situation was handled and the hardships it inflicted on federal employees and everyday Americans. The interruption highlighted the deep ideological rifts within Washington, complicating the governing process. President Trump seized the opportunity to emphasize Republican priorities, urging voters to remember the shutdown in future elections. Meanwhile, Democratic leaders such as Hakeem Jeffries and Nancy Pelosi reaffirmed their commitment to expanding health care access, focusing on the affordability crisis that arose as premiums surged.

Despite the shutdown’s conclusion, uncertainty persists as Congress braces for future budget battles and health care negotiations. The compromise measure funds most government operations through January 30, 2026, but lasting solutions remain elusive. The events of the past 43 days serve as a stark reminder of the ongoing challenges in balancing legislative priorities, political interests, and the well-being of millions of Americans.

Source: Original article

Trump Signs Legislation to End Historic Government Shutdown

President Trump has signed legislation to end the longest government shutdown in U.S. history, providing funding through January 30 and addressing critical issues affecting federal workers and programs.

President Donald Trump has officially signed legislation that brings an end to the longest government shutdown in U.S. history, which lasted more than 40 days. The new funding measure will keep the government operational through January 30, 2025.

On Monday, Trump indicated that the government would soon reopen, as the effects of the shutdown became increasingly severe. Federal workers faced missed paychecks, and air travel was disrupted due to staffing shortages among air traffic controllers.

The legislation maintains government funding at the same levels for the fiscal year 2025, allowing additional time for lawmakers to negotiate a more comprehensive appropriations bill for fiscal year 2026. Importantly, the measure also secures funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which supports over 42 million Americans in purchasing groceries through a debit card system. This funding will continue through September.

In addition to reopening the government, the new measure reverses layoffs that the Trump administration had initiated earlier in October and ensures that employees will receive compensation for their time away from work.

The resolution comes after a prolonged stalemate between Senate Republicans and Democrats over a stopgap spending bill intended to fund the government through November 21. Following a funding lapse that began on October 1, the Senate passed the new legislation late Monday night with a 60-40 vote. Eight Democrats joined their Republican colleagues in supporting the measure.

The House of Representatives subsequently approved its version of the bill on Wednesday, facilitating the government’s reopening.

The shutdown’s fallout had reached critical levels, particularly at U.S. airports where air traffic controllers and Transportation Security Administration (TSA) officers were required to work without pay. Many of these workers began calling in sick or seeking additional employment, leading to further staffing shortages and flight delays.

The impasse between Republicans and Democrats stemmed from disagreements over healthcare provisions included in the funding measure. Trump and Republican leaders accused Democrats of attempting to extend healthcare benefits to illegal immigrants, citing a provision that would repeal parts of Trump’s tax and domestic policy bill, which had reduced Medicaid eligibility for non-U.S. citizens.

Democrats countered these claims, asserting that their goal was to permanently extend certain Affordable Care Act subsidies set to expire at the end of 2025. Although the stopgap spending bill signed by Trump does not extend these subsidies, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., has agreed to hold a vote in December on legislation to continue these credits.

However, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La., has not yet committed to supporting this arrangement in the House, leaving the future of healthcare funding uncertain.

As the government reopens, the focus will shift to addressing the underlying issues that led to the shutdown and ensuring that federal workers and essential services can operate without further disruptions.

Source: Original article

China Strengthens Ties with Venezuela as Maduro Regime Seeks Support

As U.S. tensions rise, China deepens its economic ties with Venezuela, presenting a challenge to American influence in the region amid military posturing by Washington.

As President Donald Trump emphasizes a “zero tolerance” policy towards narco-states in the Americas, China is significantly increasing its economic presence in Venezuela. This move poses a high-stakes gamble that could soon clash with U.S. interests.

U.S. defense officials confirmed last month that an aircraft carrier strike group has entered the Southern Command region, which encompasses the Caribbean and northern South America. This deployment aims to monitor narcotrafficking routes associated with Venezuela’s military leadership. The Pentagon stated that the USS Gerald R. Ford, which carries over 4,000 sailors and numerous tactical aircraft, is tasked with enhancing the U.S. capacity to detect, monitor, and disrupt illicit activities. The mission’s overarching goal is to degrade and dismantle transnational criminal organizations.

In response to the U.S. military buildup, reports indicate that Venezuelan officers are training for guerrilla-style defense against a potential U.S. strike, reflecting a growing sense of anxiety within Caracas.

Amid these tensions, China has announced a “zero-tariff” trade agreement with Venezuela during the Shanghai Expo 2025. Deputy Minister for Foreign Trade Coromoto Godoy revealed that the agreement encompasses approximately 400 tariff categories, eliminating duties on goods exchanged between the two nations. While the specifics of the implementation remain to be confirmed, the intent is clear: China is rapidly integrating itself into a Venezuelan economy that has faced extensive sanctions from Washington.

Gordon Chang, an expert on China’s global trade strategy, remarked, “This really looks like China is going to completely take over the Venezuelan economy. It’s going to decimate Venezuela’s local industry.” He noted that Venezuela primarily exports petroleum to China, with little else to offer. “Venezuelan manufacturing is not going to experience a renaissance anytime soon; it’s going the opposite direction,” he added.

Chang further suggested that Maduro’s pivot toward Beijing is driven by concerns over Trump’s administration. “Maduro probably doesn’t have a choice,” he stated. “He realizes he’s got a problem in the form of Donald J. Trump. There’s a U.S. aircraft carrier not far from his shores, and a lot of military assets bearing down on him. He needs a friend, and he’s desperate.” He cautioned that while the zero-tariff pact may provide temporary relief, it ultimately deepens Venezuela’s reliance on China.

From China’s perspective, the tariff-free agreement opens a strategic and commercial gateway into the Western Hemisphere as the U.S. intensifies its sanctions. The Council on Foreign Relations estimates that China has extended around $60 billion in loans to Venezuela over the past two decades, much of which has been repaid through oil shipments. This figure continues to be cited by both Chinese and Venezuelan officials as recently as 2025.

Isaias Medina III, an Edward Mason Fellow at Harvard University and a former Venezuelan diplomat, explained that China has leveraged substantial loans and established satellite positioning and surveillance facilities to secure strategic control over Venezuela’s natural resources and critical infrastructure. He pointed to the El Sombrero satellite ground station in Venezuela’s Guárico province as a joint project that enhances China’s intelligence capabilities in Latin America.

Medina emphasized that the new trade pact is part of a broader anti-Western alignment. “Under the banner of so-called ‘21st Century Socialism,’ initiated by Hugo Chávez and expanded by Nicolás Maduro, the nation has evolved into a forward operating base for regimes openly hostile to the United States and its allies,” he stated. He highlighted the presence of Iran, Russia, China, and Cuba in Venezuela, using the country as a platform for asymmetric warfare and ideological expansion throughout Latin America.

He noted that Russia’s military involvement includes over $12 billion in arms sales and ongoing defense cooperation, while Cuban military advisers remain embedded within Venezuelan security institutions. Additionally, Iran has utilized this environment to establish terrorist proxies such as Hezbollah and Hamas, turning Venezuela into both a financial hub and a logistical corridor for their operations.

Medina criticized the Maduro government for replacing statecraft with criminal enterprise, stating, “Grand corruption is not the exception; it is the system.” He also pointed out the catastrophic humanitarian toll, with over 30% of Venezuela’s population forcibly displaced and starvation weaponized as a tool of social control, which constitutes a war crime under international law.

Despite the severity of these issues, many United Nations member states continue to recognize and engage with the Maduro regime, perpetuating its impunity. Medina warned that the failure to confront this crisis decisively allows a coalition of adversaries, both state and non-state actors, to project power dangerously close to U.S. territory.

Currently, Washington’s sanctions campaign continues to limit Venezuela’s oil lifelines. In March 2025, reports indicated that U.S. threats to impose tariffs on nations purchasing Venezuelan crude temporarily disrupted shipments to China. Beijing dismissed these measures as “illegal extraterritorial actions” and pledged to maintain cooperation, although it has not clarified how it will implement the new tariff-free agreement.

Chang concluded that the fundamental reality remains unchanged: China lacks the military capacity to protect Caracas from U.S. intervention. “It can certainly launch a propaganda blitz,” he said, “but it can’t project military force in the region. It’s really up to what President Trump does.” Medina echoed this sentiment, stating that the stakes extend beyond economics, as Venezuela has become a nexus for organized crime, drug trafficking, money laundering, and human rights violations, urging a comprehensive Western response.

Source: Original article

Dinesh D’Souza Supports Trump Following Controversy Over H-1B Comments

President Donald Trump’s recent comments on H-1B visas have ignited controversy within his “Make America Great Again” base, prompting mixed reactions from supporters and critics alike.

President Donald Trump’s recent remarks regarding H-1B visas have sparked renewed debate within his “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) base. His comments suggest a potential softening of his previously hardline immigration stance.

During an interview with Fox News, Trump stated that the United States is open to “foreign talent” who can contribute to specialized sectors. This statement has been perceived by many supporters as a surprising departure from his earlier “America First” rhetoric.

When asked if reforming the H-1B visa program remains a priority, Trump responded affirmatively, emphasizing the need to attract skilled individuals. “I agree, but you also have to bring this talent,” he said. He acknowledged the importance of raising wages for American workers but argued that the country cannot rely solely on the long-term unemployed to fill advanced positions in critical industries such as manufacturing and defense.

Trump firmly rejected the notion that the U.S. has enough homegrown talent to meet its needs. “You don’t have certain talents… And people have to learn,” he stated. “You can’t take people off an unemployment line and say, I’m going to put you into a factory. We’re going to make missiles.”

The president’s comments quickly ignited backlash among his core supporters, many of whom took to social media to express their anger and disappointment. On X, several users accused Trump of abandoning the “America First” agenda and yielding to corporate interests by favoring foreign labor over American workers.

One user lamented, “Thanks for doing your job. It’s too bad POTUS turned his back on the American people and sold us out to foreigners and big corporations.” Another user pointed out, “Maybe POTUS doesn’t know we have engineers and techies who are on that unemployment line, or far underemployed because the companies who hire H-1Bs don’t advertise to Americans. Ignorance is not becoming in a president.”

Another supporter expressed deep disappointment, stating, “When a president loses faith in his own people, he forfeits the nation’s soul. To distrust your citizens while flooding the country with 600,000 students from a rival power isn’t leadership—it’s betrayal. A nation without trust cannot stand.”

Critics were vocal about their discontent, with one user describing Trump’s response as “horrific” and “insulting” to the hundreds of thousands of displaced workers in the tech industry. Another user remarked, “I don’t know who you are lady, but you just absolutely permanently destroyed what remained of the positive image that I, and many others, had of Trump. Thanks for revealing who he really is.”

In contrast, Indian American conservative commentator and longtime Trump supporter Dinesh D’Souza came to the president’s defense, urging fellow Republicans to look past the outrage. He dismissed the critics who accused Trump of betraying American workers, labeling their outrage as misplaced.

D’Souza challenged those who claimed the president had softened his stance on H-1B visas, arguing that such critics were contradicting themselves. “Many people: Our education system sucks! It’s all indoctrination, no real learning. Standards have plummeted. The same people: Is Trump seriously saying our graduates are not the best in the world and can do any job you can think of? Let’s at least get our stories straight,” he wrote on social media.

The ongoing debate over Trump’s comments on H-1B visas highlights the deep divisions within conservative circles regarding immigration policy. For Trump, the challenge lies in balancing his nationalist rhetoric with the economic realities of a globalized labor market, where innovation often relies on international talent.

As discussions continue, it remains to be seen how this episode will influence Trump’s standing among his supporters and the broader implications for immigration policy in the United States.

Source: Original article

President Donald Trump proposed $2000 checks to US Citizens

President Donald Trump shared exciting news on Nov. 9 about plans to give Americans outside the “high income” groups $2,000 each, funded from tariffs collected by his administration.

He expressed optimism on social media, saying, “We are taking in Trillions of Dollars and will soon begin paying down our ENORMOUS DEBT, $37 trillion. There’s been a record investment boom in the USA, with new plants and factories popping up everywhere. A bonus of at least $2000 per person (excluding those with high incomes!) will be paid to everyone.”

For this plan to move forward, it will need support from Congress. Back in July, Senator Josh Hawley introduced the American Worker Rebate Act, aiming to use tariff revenue to provide tax rebates of at least $600 for each adult and child, based on income.

According to the Treasury Department, in the first three quarters of 2025, the government collected $195 billion in customs duties — enough to give 97.5 million people a $2,000 check.

There were about 267 million adults living in the U.S. in 2024, according to 2020 Census estimates. Data from YouGov Profiles shows that roughly 18% of these adults earned more than $100,000 a year, which would mean they are not eligible for the dividend.

Currently, the average tariff rate for goods entering the U.S. stands at 18%, the highest since 1934, according to Yale’s Budget Lab. There’s ongoing debate about how much of these tariffs are passed on to consumers.

U.S. Investigates 175 Employers for H-1B Visa Fraud Allegations

The U.S. Department of Labor is investigating over 175 employers for potential H-1B visa fraud as part of its enforcement initiative, Project Firewall, aimed at protecting American jobs.

The United States Department of Labor has initiated a comprehensive investigation into more than 175 suspected cases of fraud within the H-1B visa program. This move underscores a determined effort to protect American jobs and ensure adherence to legal hiring practices. The investigations are part of “Project Firewall,” an enforcement initiative launched in September 2025, shortly after the introduction of a one-time $100,000 fee on H-1B visa applications by former President Donald Trump.

At the forefront of this initiative is Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer, who has personally authorized each investigation, marking an unprecedented approach for the department. In her remarks, she emphasized the importance of this crackdown, stating, “Rooting out fraud and abuse will guarantee that highly skilled jobs are prioritized for Americans first as we work to restore our nation’s economic strength.” The administration has reiterated its commitment to protecting the American workforce by holding employers accountable for any attempts to circumvent regulations and exploit foreign workers.

Project Firewall aims to address ongoing abuses within the H-1B visa process, ensuring that it serves both American talent and genuinely skilled foreign workers. Investigations have revealed several troubling patterns of misconduct. For instance, some employers have been found to pay highly qualified visa holders significantly less than the wages promised in official documents. This practice not only undermines job prospects for American professionals but also pressures U.S. workers with similar qualifications to accept lower pay to remain competitive.

Another concerning issue involves fraudulent Labor Condition Applications (LCA) submitted by employers. The LCA process requires employers to notify their existing American workforce before hiring H-1B, H-1B1, or E-3 visa holders. Reports indicate that some companies have listed fictitious or non-existent work locations on these forms, misled workers about their job assignments, and failed to promptly report employee terminations. This has resulted in inaccurate records with authorities being maintained for weeks or even months. Furthermore, there have been documented cases where salaries did not match those detailed in the applications, and some job postings appeared to be generic templates with little relation to actual job roles.

The exploitation of foreign workers extends beyond these discrepancies. Some individuals have been paid less than the rates specified in the LCAs and have been excluded from wage cycles while awaiting new projects, which constitutes a clear violation of federal policy. Such inconsistencies not only harm visa holders but also depress wages across the labor market, creating an uneven playing field for American employees.

If companies are found guilty of these violations, they may face several penalties, including the recovery of owed back wages, civil financial penalties, and suspension from participating in the H-1B visa program for a specified duration. The Department of Labor has committed to utilizing all available resources under Project Firewall to audit and enforce compliance. This effort is not only aimed at correcting past abuses but also at deterring future misconduct within the highly scrutinized H-1B visa sector.

Source: Original article

Bill to Prevent Government Shutdown Passes Key Hurdle in House

The House is poised to vote on a bipartisan bill aimed at ending the longest government shutdown in U.S. history, following its successful passage through a key committee.

The House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on Wednesday on a measure to end the ongoing government shutdown, which has now lasted for 42 days. This follows the bill’s successful advancement through the House Rules Committee earlier in the morning.

The bipartisan agreement to reopen the federal government received unanimous support from Republicans in the committee, while all Democrats opposed it. The bill is now set to move to the full House, where sources familiar with discussions among GOP leaders indicate that it is expected to pass with strong Republican backing.

Clearing the House Rules Committee is a significant milestone in the effort to end the shutdown, which has become the longest in U.S. history, surpassing previous records by about a week. The committee’s hearing, which began on Tuesday evening, lasted more than six hours, concluding shortly after 1 a.m. on Wednesday.

During the hearing, Democrats attempted to introduce amendments related to COVID-19-era enhanced subsidies for Obamacare, which are set to expire at the end of the year. However, these attempts were unsuccessful. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., made a notable appearance, advocating for his amendment to extend those subsidies for an additional three years.

The lengthy debate saw heated exchanges between members of both parties. Democrats accused Republicans of neglecting Americans’ healthcare needs and taking an extended “vacation” while their constituents suffered during the shutdown. In response, House Rules Committee Chairwoman Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., expressed her frustration, stating, “I am sick and tired of hearing you all say we had an eight-week vacation. I worked every day. I don’t know about you. I don’t want to hear another soul say that.”

Additionally, both Democrats and some Republicans criticized a provision in the funding bill that would allow GOP senators to sue the federal government for $500,000 over the alleged secret acquisition of their phone records during the investigation led by ex-Special Counsel Jack Smith. Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, voiced concerns about the perception of this provision, suggesting it could be seen as self-serving.

Following the committee’s approval, the bill will undergo a “rule vote” in the House, a procedural step that, if successful, will allow for further debate on the legislation. A final vote is anticipated later on Wednesday, potentially sending the bill to President Donald Trump for his signature.

President Trump has indicated his support for the legislation, stating in comments to reporters on Monday, “We’ll be opening up our country very quickly,” when asked about the deal.

The Senate had previously broken a weeks-long deadlock on Monday night, passing the legislation with a 60-40 vote. This included support from eight Democrats who joined Republicans in the effort to reopen the government.

As the shutdown continues, travel disruptions have been reported at U.S. airports, with air traffic controllers and Transportation Security Administration (TSA) officers working without pay since last month. Many of these employees have taken on second jobs to make ends meet, leading to staffing shortages and flight delays that threaten to impact the upcoming Thanksgiving holiday.

Millions of Americans who depend on federal food assistance programs are also facing uncertainty amid the ongoing partisan disputes over funding. The proposed bill aims to extend federal funding levels for fiscal year 2025 through January 30, allowing negotiators additional time to reach a longer-term agreement for fiscal year 2026.

Furthermore, the legislation would advance funding for several key departments, including the Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and military construction. These departments are part of a larger package of 12 individual bills that constitute Congress’ annual appropriations, collectively referred to as a “minibus.”

In a notable concession to Democrats, the deal would reverse federal layoffs that occurred during the Trump administration in October, ensuring that affected workers receive back pay for their time off. Additionally, a side deal reached in the Senate guarantees Senate Democrats a vote on legislation to extend the enhanced Obamacare subsidies, which are set to expire at the end of the year. However, Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., has not made a similar commitment for a vote in the House.

Source: Original article

New York Mayor Mamdani and London Mayor Khan Discuss Challenges in Podcast

New York City’s first Muslim mayor, Zohran Mamdani, and London’s Sadiq Khan share a faith and progressive vision, yet their political journeys highlight significant differences shaped by their unique cities.

New York City’s first Muslim mayor, Zohran Mamdani, has drawn considerable comparisons to London’s Muslim mayor, Sadiq Khan. While both leaders share a progressive outlook and a Muslim identity, their political journeys reveal important differences. Critics have suggested that New York under Mamdani might follow “the way of London,” but the distinct political and social dynamics of the two cities mean that the parallels extend only so far.

Sadiq Khan, who has served as London’s mayor since 2016, is a seasoned politician well-versed in the pressures of governing a global city under intense scrutiny. He has faced persistent criticism and racist attacks, including harsh condemnation from former U.S. President Donald Trump, who labeled him a “stone cold loser” and falsely accused him of wanting to impose Sharia law. Khan responded to these attacks by branding Trump as “racist, sexist, misogynistic, and Islamophobic.” Despite these challenges, Khan has successfully won three consecutive elections and has focused on improving transit, housing, and air quality in London.

In contrast, Zohran Mamdani, at 34, comes from a different background but shares Khan’s progressive vision. Born in Uganda to Indian immigrant parents and raised in the United States, Mamdani represents a new generation of grassroots activism and left-wing politics, heavily influenced by figures like Bernie Sanders. His campaign prioritized issues such as affordable housing, free childcare, and combating corruption. In his victory speech, Mamdani directly challenged Trump’s efforts to undermine his election, urging the city to reject divisiveness.

The BBC podcast titled “A Tale of Two Cities: London’s Lesson for New York’s First Muslim Mayor,” produced by Xandra Ellin, Valerio Esposito, and Cat Farnsworth, delves into these parallels in detail. The podcast features interviews with former BBC reporter Tim Donovan and Sadiq Khan himself, discussing the challenges of leading two of the world’s most diverse and dynamic metropolises. Khan emphasizes the importance of focusing on substantive policies rather than identity politics, a lesson that could prove beneficial for Mamdani as he navigates his new role.

Despite their shared religion and progressive values, Khan and Mamdani are confronted with unique political climates that will shape their leadership styles differently. Both have become targets of far-right rhetoric, yet their responses demonstrate resilience and a commitment to their cities. As Mamdani begins his tenure, the experiences of London offer valuable insights but also highlight that success will depend on navigating local challenges with strategy and coalition-building.

Source: Original article

Immigrants With Health Conditions Face Visa Denials Under New Guidance

Foreigners applying for U.S. visas may face rejection due to certain medical conditions, including diabetes and obesity, under new guidance from the Trump administration.

Foreign nationals seeking visas to reside in the United States may be denied entry if they have specific medical conditions, such as diabetes or obesity, according to a directive issued by the Trump administration. This guidance, released in a cable sent to embassy and consular officials, has raised concerns among immigration advocates and health experts.

The directive instructs visa officers to consider a broader range of health-related factors when evaluating applicants. This includes assessing the likelihood that an applicant might become a “public charge,” meaning they could potentially rely on government resources due to their health issues or age. The new criteria represent a significant expansion of the health considerations that have traditionally been part of the visa application process.

Historically, visa applicants have undergone health screenings for communicable diseases, such as tuberculosis, and have been required to provide vaccination histories. However, experts argue that the latest guidelines give visa officers increased discretion to deny applications based on a wider array of medical conditions. This change is seen as part of the Trump administration’s broader efforts to limit immigration and enforce stricter policies regarding those living in the U.S. without authorization.

The cable emphasizes that visa officers must consider an applicant’s health status, stating, “You must consider an applicant’s health.” It lists several medical conditions, including cardiovascular diseases, respiratory diseases, cancers, diabetes, metabolic diseases, neurological diseases, and mental health conditions, as factors that could lead to significant healthcare costs.

With approximately 10% of the global population affected by diabetes and cardiovascular diseases being the leading cause of death worldwide, the implications of this guidance could be far-reaching. The directive also highlights obesity as a condition that can lead to other health issues, such as asthma and high blood pressure, further complicating the assessment of potential immigrants.

The cable encourages visa officers to evaluate whether applicants have the financial means to cover their medical expenses without relying on U.S. government assistance. It raises questions about whether applicants can afford long-term care throughout their expected lifespans without seeking public cash assistance or institutionalization at government expense.

This new directive appears to conflict with the Foreign Affairs Manual, which outlines that visa officers should not reject applications based on hypothetical scenarios. Charles Wheeler, a senior attorney for the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, expressed concern over the potential for bias in these assessments, noting that visa officers are not medically trained and should not be making predictions about future medical emergencies or costs.

The guidance also requires visa officers to consider the health of an applicant’s family members, including children or elderly parents. Questions posed in the cable include whether dependents have disabilities or chronic conditions that could hinder the applicant’s ability to maintain employment.

Currently, immigrants must undergo a medical examination by a physician approved by a U.S. embassy. This includes screenings for communicable diseases and inquiries about drug or alcohol use, mental health conditions, and violence history. Additionally, applicants must provide proof of vaccinations against infectious diseases such as measles, polio, and hepatitis B.

However, the new guidance expands the criteria for evaluation, prompting immigration lawyers like Sophia Genovese from Georgetown University to express concern. She noted that the directive encourages visa officers and examining physicians to speculate on the potential costs of an applicant’s medical care and their ability to secure employment based on their medical history. This could lead to significant challenges for applicants during their consular interviews.

The implications of these changes could affect countless individuals seeking to immigrate to the U.S., particularly those with pre-existing health conditions. As the Trump administration continues to implement stricter immigration policies, the impact on public health and the lives of potential immigrants remains to be seen.

According to KFF Health News, the new guidelines represent a significant shift in how health considerations are integrated into the visa application process, raising concerns about equity and access for those with medical conditions.

Source: Original article

Stefanik Honored with Jewish Award Following New York Governor Bid Announcement

Rep. Elise Stefanik received the World Jewish Congress’ highest honor while launching her campaign for New York governor, pledging to combat rising antisemitism in the state.

Rep. Elise Stefanik accepted the World Jewish Congress’ prestigious Theodor Herzl Award on Monday night, just days after announcing her candidacy for New York governor. During her speech at the Museum of Modern Art in Manhattan, she emphasized her commitment to fighting antisemitism and upholding what she described as “the very Western values that have shaped America.”

Stefanik received the award from Ronald Lauder, a businessman and former U.S. ambassador to Austria under President Ronald Reagan. The Theodor Herzl Award, established in 2012, is the highest honor given by the World Jewish Congress, recognizing individuals who embody Herzl’s vision for a secure and self-reliant Jewish community.

In her acceptance speech, Stefanik expressed gratitude to Lauder for his leadership and dedication to Jewish unity and security. “Under his leadership, the World Jewish Congress has carried forward Theodor Herzl’s vision — not only of a Jewish homeland, but of a Jewish people strong, self-reliant, and respected among the nations,” she stated.

Stefanik described the honor as “deeply humbling,” acknowledging the World Jewish Congress as a longstanding diplomatic voice and moral conscience for Jewish communities worldwide. She praised the organization for its efforts to combat antisemitism and strengthen ties between Israel and the global community of free nations.

Reflecting on her experiences in Congress, Stefanik recounted a notable 2023 hearing with the presidents of Harvard, MIT, and the University of Pennsylvania, where she posed a critical moral question regarding antisemitism. “Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate your university’s code of conduct?” she asked. Her expectation for a straightforward answer was met with a troubling response: “it depends on the context.” She asserted that this exchange sparked a global reckoning and accountability in higher education regarding antisemitism.

As she turned her focus to New York, Stefanik declared the state “the epicenter of the battle for the very Western values that have shaped America.” She emphasized the urgency of addressing antisemitism, bigotry, and anti-Americanism, particularly in a state with a significant Jewish population. “Eighty years after Kristallnacht, we must not stay silent. I will continue to call out antisemitism,” she affirmed, noting that antisemitic incidents in New York reached an all-time high last year.

Stefanik’s remarks resonated with the audience, as she invoked Theodor Herzl’s legacy, stating, “My friends, Theodor Herzl’s story is not ancient history. That is the spirit I see in this room tonight — the spirit that built Israel, the spirit that has always animated the Jewish people, and the spirit that will save New York.”

The award ceremony came a day after billionaire philanthropist Miriam Adelson publicly endorsed Stefanik’s gubernatorial campaign during the Zionist Organization of America’s Justice Louis D. Brandeis Award Dinner. Adelson praised Stefanik for her efforts to confront antisemitism on college campuses, recalling her late husband Sheldon Adelson’s emphasis on moral conviction.

Stefanik, who serves as chairwoman of the House Republican Leadership, was also honored with the Zionist Organization of America’s Mortimer Zuckerman Maccabee Warrior Award for her advocacy against antisemitism. Adelson introduced her at the gala, calling her “a great leader” and commending her commitment to defending the Jewish people, Israel, and the Free World.

With her gubernatorial campaign officially launched, Stefanik is set to challenge Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul in the 2026 election. Once critical of former President Donald Trump during his first presidential run, Stefanik has since become one of his most ardent supporters in Congress.

Fox News Digital has reached out to Gov. Hochul’s office for a comment regarding Stefanik’s campaign.

Source: Original article

U.S. Launches 175 Investigations into H-1B Visa Potential Abuse

The U.S. Department of Labor has launched 175 investigations into potential H-1B visa abuses, emphasizing a commitment to prioritizing American workers and holding employers accountable.

The U.S. Department of Labor has ramped up its efforts to address potential abuses of the H-1B visa program, confirming the initiation of 175 active investigations into suspected violations. This move underscores the agency’s commitment to prioritizing American workers and addressing longstanding issues within the program.

In a recent post on social media platform X, the Labor Department highlighted its determination to enforce regulations more stringently, stating that it will hold employers accountable for any misuse of the H-1B visa. “For decades, DC bureaucrats looked the other way as companies abused the H-1B visa and sold out the American Worker,” the department stated. “POTUS and Secretary LCD are bringing this to an end, holding employers accountable for their abuse and ensuring American jobs go to American workers.”

Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer has emphasized that safeguarding American workers is her top priority under President Donald Trump’s administration. She announced the launch of Project Firewall, an initiative designed to combat widespread H-1B visa misuse and ensure that U.S. workers are prioritized for available jobs. “That’s why we’re taking action through Project Firewall to hold companies accountable for rampant H-1B abuse and ensure Americans are put first in the hiring process,” she stated.

In an interview with Fox News, Chavez-DeRemer revealed that she personally approved all 175 investigations, marking a significant shift in the Labor Department’s approach to oversight. “We want to make sure these companies are not abusing,” she said, indicating a hands-on approach to the enforcement of H-1B regulations.

Just two days prior to the announcement, Deputy Labor Secretary Keith Sonderling criticized Senate Democrats for allegedly obstructing President Trump’s “America First” agenda. He urged lawmakers to cease “playing politics” with the livelihoods of American workers, further emphasizing the administration’s focus on protecting domestic employment.

The investigations are primarily aimed at uncovering misuse of the H-1B visa program, particularly cases where employers may have underpaid or manipulated over $15 million in worker wages. Early findings from the investigations have revealed concerning patterns in how the visa program has been utilized.

Officials from the Labor Department have reported widespread irregularities in the use of the H-1B visa program. In several instances, foreign workers, including those with advanced degrees, were allegedly compensated far less than what their employers had certified in official filings. Such practices not only exploit visa holders but also contribute to wage suppression for American workers.

Additionally, investigators discovered that some companies delayed reporting the termination of H-1B employees, resulting in inaccurate employment records that remained on file for weeks or even months. A review of Labor Condition Applications (LCAs)—documents that must be filed prior to hiring an H-1B worker—revealed further red flags, including fake or non-existent job locations, mismatched salaries, and positions that did not align with what was promised in the paperwork. In some cases, job postings appeared to be generic templates, lacking relevance to the actual work being performed.

These findings indicate systemic flaws in the management of the H-1B program, prompting the Labor Department to adopt a more aggressive enforcement stance to protect both U.S. and foreign workers from further exploitation.

Project Firewall, launched in September, represents the Labor Department’s most assertive effort to close loopholes and address misuse within the H-1B system. This initiative followed President Trump’s imposition of a $100,000 fee on H-1B visa applications, a measure aimed at discouraging what the administration describes as mass applications for low-cost foreign labor.

The H-1B program is widely utilized across various sectors, including technology, engineering, and healthcare, to attract highly skilled professionals from abroad, with Indian nationals constituting one of the largest groups of recipients. According to the White House, the new measures are designed to prevent companies from inundating the system with “cheap labor” petitions and to ensure that American workers remain competitive in the job market.

Officials assert that the initiative is part of a broader strategy to restore public confidence in the visa process and guarantee that U.S. jobs are prioritized for U.S. citizens. Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer has stated that the department is committed to deploying “every resource” available to combat H-1B program abuse and will continue to strengthen oversight under President Trump’s leadership.

Source: Original article

Restaurants Reassess Service Tax on Large Groups Following ‘No Tax on Tips’ Law

Restaurants are reassessing their mandatory gratuity policies following new tax laws that affect how tips are classified and deducted.

Restaurants across the United States may need to reevaluate their mandatory gratuity policies in light of recent tax legislation that impacts how tips are classified for workers. The new “no tax on tips” provision, part of President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill act, allows certain employees to deduct up to $25,000 in “qualified tips” annually from 2025 through 2028.

However, the law specifies that mandatory gratuities—typically the 15% to 20% service charges imposed on parties of six or more—do not qualify for this deduction. This has left many in the restaurant and food service industry disappointed, as they had hoped for a more favorable outcome regarding the treatment of automatic gratuities.

Advocates for the restaurant industry are actively lobbying for a change to this policy. The Culinary Union in Nevada has submitted formal recommendations to the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the IRS, arguing that both automatic gratuities and suggested tips should be recognized as eligible tip income. Additionally, several members of Congress from Nevada have reached out to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, urging him to ensure that automatic gratuities are classified as deductible tips.

In a letter dated August 12, lawmakers emphasized that there is no functional difference between auto-gratuities and voluntary tips for employees. They argued that including this income as eligible would prevent arbitrary distinctions that could disadvantage workers based solely on their employer’s business model.

Despite these efforts, it appears unlikely that the IRS will alter the distinction between service fees and tips. In September, the IRS proposed rules regarding the “no tax on tips” deduction, and while these rules are not yet finalized, the language suggests that tips must be voluntary to qualify.

“Congressional intent is pretty clear,” stated Andrew Lautz, director of tax policy for the Bipartisan Policy Center. “What’s unclear is how restaurants will respond to that.”

Many restaurant operators are taking a cautious approach, opting to wait for the final IRS rules on the “No Tax on Tips” policy before making any changes to their current tipping practices. Sean Kennedy, executive vice president of public affairs for the National Restaurant Association, noted in an email that restaurant operators are closely monitoring the situation to determine how best to align their policies with the desires of their tipped employees.

“These employees have chosen a restaurant job because of the income potential they get from tipping, so operators want to ensure they can fully benefit from the tax credit while it is available,” Kennedy added.

A spokesperson for the Texas Restaurant Association indicated that some establishments are consulting with accountants and point-of-sale providers to identify the most effective strategies for their businesses and employees.

Additionally, competitive pressures may drive some business owners to adjust their policies. A representative from The Florida Restaurant and Lodging Association highlighted that servers at restaurants using commission-based models or service charges might view it as a disadvantage to miss out on the opportunity for $25,000 in tax-free income. This could lead them to seek employment at establishments that do not impose service charges and thus allow for tax-free tips.

As the restaurant industry navigates these changes, the impact of the “no tax on tips” law will likely continue to shape tipping practices and policies across the country.

Source: Original article

Indian Mid-Tier IT Firms Achieve Stability Amid Rising H-1B Costs

Mid-sized Indian IT firms are adapting to rising H-1B visa costs by emphasizing local hiring and diversified delivery models, mitigating potential impacts on their operations.

Mid-sized Indian IT companies are responding to the Trump administration’s significant increase in H-1B visa fees with a sense of calm, asserting that the effects on their operations will be limited. While the fee hike has caused unease in parts of the global outsourcing sector, executives from these firms believe they are better positioned than larger competitors due to their focus on local hiring and diversified delivery models across the United States and India.

The revised fee structure has raised H-1B petition costs to nearly $100,000 in some instances, raising concerns about the financial burden of maintaining large onsite teams in the U.S. However, earnings calls from various mid-cap Indian IT firms this quarter indicate that the fallout may be less severe than anticipated. Executives report a declining reliance on H-1B workers in recent years, as they have invested more in local hiring and established nearshore delivery centers throughout North America.

Tech Mahindra, a prominent mid-tier IT service provider in India, has highlighted its minimal exposure to the H-1B program. The company has progressively shifted its workforce toward offshore and nearshore locations, thereby reducing its dependence on U.S. work visas. Currently, fewer than 1% of its global employees hold H-1B visas, and overall reliance on U.S. visa routes has fallen below 30%, according to the company.

Managing Director and CEO Mohit Joshi characterized the visa fee increase as “manageable,” outlining a three-part strategy already in place. He noted that Tech Mahindra is concentrating on “identifying and safeguarding critical onsite talent roles,” enhancing its U.S. hiring pipeline, and expanding its delivery network in nearby markets such as Canada, Mexico, and Brazil. Joshi emphasized that this interconnected nearshore model not only helps control costs but also fortifies business continuity.

Industry analysts observe that this shift has been developing over several years. The rapid expansion of Global Capability Centres (GCCs) in India has fundamentally altered how U.S. companies manage their tech operations, diminishing the need for visa-dependent staff movement. These in-house hubs collaborate closely with Indian IT service providers, creating a distributed delivery network that is less vulnerable to changes in U.S. immigration policies.

“American companies have been investing in setting up GCCs in the country, which work closely with system integrators on Indian shores. This further insulates them from H-1B dependence,” said Pareekh Jain, chief executive at tech research firm EIIRTrend, in comments to Financial Express.

Analysts and talent consultants believe that the new H-1B fee structure, which primarily affects new applications, provides Indian IT firms with some leeway before the changes take effect in April 2026. They argue that mid-sized companies, already operating with a higher proportion of offshore talent, are well-positioned to adapt. This transition period allows ample time to refine hiring strategies and rebalance workforce deployment without significant disruption to business operations.

Mphasis has expressed a similar perspective, indicating that the immediate impact of the H-1B fee increase is expected to be minimal. CEO Nitin Rakesh noted that clients with established capability centers and visa-compliant teams have not raised major concerns. He also acknowledged that the company is taking proactive measures to strengthen its delivery network and talent supply chains to better navigate potential fluctuations in H-1B availability over the coming years.

In contrast, larger IT firms such as Tata Consultancy Services, Infosys, Wipro, and HCLTech have been gradually reducing their reliance on H-1B visas since processing challenges began to escalate in 2018. Over the years, these companies have shifted towards hiring more local talent in the U.S. and building robust regional delivery networks, a strategy that has helped shield them from policy changes regarding visa regulations.

Neeti Sharma, chief executive of TeamLease Digital, remarked, “The conversation around (challenges in obtaining) H-1B visas started back in 2018, and since then, the industry has faced multiple macro headwinds like the global pandemic and the slowdown in BFSI. So, IT firms have had to adapt.”

Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) has confirmed that it will suspend new H-1B visa hires in the United States for the current financial year, as the company shifts its focus toward bolstering its local workforce. CEO K. Krithivasan stated, “We’ll continue to hire more locally… we had 500 employees on H-1B visas traveling from India to the U.S. so far this financial year.”

The company reported that of its 32,000 to 33,000 employees based in the U.S., approximately 11,000 currently hold H-1B visas, and it has been deploying fewer visa holders than the number approved each year.

Other major employers, including Cognizant, have also reportedly paused H-1B hiring in light of the steep rise in visa application costs.

Source: Original article

Sanders Criticizes Eight Senate Democrats for Government Funding Vote

Sen. Bernie Sanders criticized eight Senate Democrats for voting with Republicans on a continuing resolution, labeling it a harmful decision for working families.

Senator Bernie Sanders, an Independent from Vermont, has publicly condemned eight Senate Democrats who sided with Republicans in a recent procedural vote to advance a continuing resolution in the U.S. Senate. In a video posted to his X account, Sanders described the decision as “a very, very bad vote.”

During the vote, which took place on Sunday, Sanders expressed his disapproval, stating, “Tonight, 8 Democrats voted with the Republicans to allow them to go forward on this continuing resolution. And to my mind, this was a very, very bad vote.”

The continuing resolution was intended to provide temporary funding for the federal government and prevent a shutdown. However, Sanders argued that it included provisions that could lead to increased healthcare premiums, potential cuts to Medicaid, and tax benefits favoring high-income earners.

According to Sanders, the measure threatens to “raise healthcare premiums for over 20 million Americans by doubling, and in some cases tripling or quadrupling them.” He emphasized the burden this would place on families already struggling with high healthcare costs, stating, “People can’t afford that when we are already paying the highest prices in the world for healthcare.”

Sanders further criticized the resolution for potentially jeopardizing Medicaid coverage for 15 million individuals, warning that this could result in approximately 50,000 preventable deaths each year. “All of that was done to give a trillion dollars in tax breaks to the 1%,” he added.

Reflecting on the recent elections, Sanders noted, “As everybody knows, just on Tuesday, we had an election all over this country. And what the election showed is that the American people wanted us to stand up to Trumpism — to his war against working-class people, to his authoritarianism. That is what the American people wanted. But tonight, that is not what happened.”

In his video, Sanders framed the procedural vote as more than just a measure to keep the government operational; he viewed it as indicative of a broader policy direction that undermines healthcare protections and the interests of working-class Americans. “So we’ve got to go forward, do the best that we can to ensure and protect working-class people, to make sure that the United States not only does not throw people off of healthcare, but ends the absurdity of being the only major country on earth that doesn’t guarantee healthcare to all people,” he asserted. “We have a lot of work to do, but to be honest with you, tonight was not a good night.”

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has indicated that if the enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies established under the American Rescue Plan are allowed to expire, millions of Americans could face significantly higher marketplace premiums. A 2023 CBO analysis highlighted that the expiration of these expanded subsidies would lead to increased out-of-pocket costs for enrollees in ACA marketplaces.

Additionally, studies referenced by the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP), which Sanders chairs, have estimated that substantial cuts to Medicaid could result in tens of thousands of preventable deaths annually. A 2023 HELP Committee report on Sanders’ website cited peer-reviewed research published in Health Affairs and The Lancet Public Health, which found that losing Medicaid coverage is associated with higher mortality rates due to reduced access to preventive and emergency care.

Supporting this alarming trend, a letter from researchers at the Yale School of Public Health and the University of Pennsylvania’s Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics warned that proposed federal healthcare cuts could lead to over 51,000 preventable deaths each year.

Sanders’ remarks reflect his long-standing opposition to Republican budget proposals, which he argues disproportionately benefit the wealthy at the expense of working Americans. His comments have been consistently echoed in press releases on his official website since March of this year.

Source: Original article

Iran’s Water Crisis May Undermine Regime and Nuclear Ambitions, Expert Warns

Iran’s severe water crisis, described as “water bankruptcy,” poses a significant threat to the regime’s stability and its nuclear ambitions, according to UN expert Kaveh Madani.

Iran is currently grappling with its worst drought in decades, raising concerns about potential evacuations in Tehran and the overall stability of the regime. Kaveh Madani, Director of the United Nations University Institute for Water, Environment and Health, warns that this escalating “water bankruptcy” could severely impact the country’s functionality and diminish its standing on the global stage.

“This water bankruptcy weakens Iran on the world stage,” Madani stated in an interview with Fox News Digital. “If they want to stick to their ideology and fight with the West, they must use their natural resources and burn them. So if there is no water, there is less resilience and less capacity to resist.”

Madani, who has long highlighted the consequences of environmental mismanagement in Iran, emphasized that the current water crisis was not an unforeseen event. “The water bankruptcy situation was not created overnight,” he explained. “The house was already on fire, and people like myself had warned the government for years that this situation would emerge.”

President Masoud Pezeshkian has warned that without significant rainfall before winter, Tehran could face partial evacuations. Reports indicate that of the five major dams supplying the capital, one has already run dry, while another is operating at less than 8% capacity.

In response to the crisis, Energy Minister Abbas Alibadi announced that water supplies would be cut off during certain evenings to allow reservoirs to refill. He urged citizens to reduce their water consumption by 20% to avoid further rationing. “The symptoms were already present, and now the flames are undeniable. We are discussing Day Zero, when the taps would run dry in Tehran and other cities once immune to shortages,” Madani warned.

Madani further elaborated on the implications of this crisis, stating, “Iran is in a state of water bankruptcy, the result of decades of mismanagement, worsened by prolonged drought and climate change.” He cautioned that the collapse of basic infrastructure could lead to widespread unrest. “When people are out of water and electricity, you face domestic and national security problems that even Iran’s enemies, not even President Trump or Prime Minister Netanyahu, could have wished for this to happen,” he added.

The expert also noted that the ongoing crisis threatens not only the welfare of Iranian citizens but also the country’s energy and nuclear infrastructure. Despite U.S. claims that airstrikes have destroyed Iran’s nuclear facilities, new intelligence reported by The New York Times suggests that enrichment activities continue at a fortified site known as Pickaxe Mountain.

“If water and electricity shortages persist, any nuclear program would also be impacted,” Madani asserted. He explained that reduced rainfall means less hydropower generation, which in turn leads to both water and power outages.

The situation is further complicated by the reimposition of sweeping sanctions on Iran’s oil exports and banking sector following the collapse of the 2015 nuclear deal. “Additionally, they face the issue of sanctions,” Madani noted. “There were already sanctions in place, imposed by the United States, and there were also Security Council sanctions that, as you know, have been reintroduced.”

Madani described Iran as being in “resistance mode,” a state that increases pressure on the country’s ecosystem, natural resources, and water supply. This mode of operation also raises concerns about food insecurity and dependence on food imports.

While the prospect of evacuating Tehran remains unlikely, Madani acknowledged the challenges faced by residents. “People have jobs, children are in school, so it can’t happen overnight. The government hopes for rain, but people are already afraid,” he said. He concluded, “Iran is in resistance mode, and remaining in this mode means increased pressure on Iran’s ecosystem, natural resources, and water.”

Source: Original article

Pharmaceutical Companies Shift to Direct Sales of Medicines to Patients

Several pharmaceutical companies are set to sell drugs directly to patients in the U.S., offering significant discounts as part of a shift in the industry aimed at reducing drug prices.

U.S. pharmaceutical companies are increasingly cutting out the middleman by selling drugs directly to patients. This shift comes in response to calls from former President Donald Trump to lower drug prices and eliminate intermediaries such as pharmacies, insurers, and pharmacy benefit managers.

Major drug manufacturers are embracing direct-to-consumer sales and substantial discounts, driven by regulatory pressures and a focus on reducing costs. AstraZeneca has announced it will sell certain medications at discounts of up to 70-80% off the list price through a direct purchase site. This initiative is part of a deal that grants the company three years of tariff relief in exchange for these price reductions.

Bristol-Myers Squibb is also participating in this trend, offering significant discounts for U.S. patients on drugs like Eliquis and Sotyktu, with the latter being available at more than an 80% discount.

Eli Lilly is moving its top-dose weight-loss drug, Zepbound, to an online platform for cash-pay customers. In collaboration with Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly has also agreed to reduce prices for GLP-1 weight-loss drugs for both cash and public payers. Novo Nordisk has set the price of its diabetes medication Ozempic at $499 per month for eligible cash-pay patients through its own pharmacy and telehealth partnerships.

In a significant move, Pfizer has reached an agreement with the U.S. government to lower its Medicaid drug prices to align with those in other developed nations. The company is also launching direct-to-consumer channels through the forthcoming TrumpRx website. Roche is contemplating full direct-to-patient sales in the U.S. to cut costs by bypassing insurers and pharmacy benefit managers.

Sanofi has committed to providing a month’s supply of any of its insulin products for $35 to U.S. patients, regardless of their insurance status. Additionally, emerging players like Zealand Pharma and telehealth provider Wisp are entering the direct-to-consumer market for weight management and telemedicine delivery of key therapies.

This shift in the U.S. pharmaceutical industry in 2025 indicates a significant transformation. Many large firms are launching discounted, direct-to-consumer offerings as the government tightens pricing and tariff regulations, creating a new dynamic in drug manufacturing, distribution, and access.

The move toward direct-to-consumer sales and substantial drug discounts reflects a broader strategic recalibration within the pharmaceutical sector. Companies are increasingly recognizing that these approaches can enhance brand loyalty, improve patient adherence, and provide valuable data on usage patterns, all while navigating regulatory and pricing pressures.

For patients, these changes promise greater transparency, reduced out-of-pocket expenses, and more convenient access to essential medications, particularly for chronic conditions and weight-management therapies. However, the shift also introduces operational and regulatory challenges for the industry, including compliance, logistics management, and balancing profitability with public expectations.

As the industry evolves, questions about equity and access arise. Patients with limited digital literacy or without internet access may find themselves at a disadvantage. Policymakers and regulators will need to monitor these new models closely to ensure that lower prices do not compromise patient safety or oversight.

Ultimately, the move toward direct-to-consumer sales in 2025 represents both an opportunity and a challenge for the pharmaceutical industry. It promises more affordable and transparent healthcare delivery but requires careful balancing of commercial incentives, government objectives, and patient needs to achieve sustainable and equitable outcomes.

Source: Original article

Trump’s Second Term Could Bring Major Immigration Overhaul

New report reveals that the Trump administration’s recent immigration policies threaten the foundations of American democracy through extreme measures and a radical overhaul of the immigration system.

WASHINGTON, D.C., July 23, 2025 — A special report released today provides a comprehensive analysis of the Trump administration’s first six months back in office, highlighting a significant transformation of the U.S. immigration system that poses a serious threat to the foundations of American democracy. While some voters may have endorsed a tougher stance on immigration during the election, the report illustrates how the administration’s extreme actions extend far beyond mere policy changes; they undermine the rule of law itself.

The report, titled Mass Deportation: Analyzing the Trump Administration’s Attacks on Immigrants, Democracy, and America, was published on July 23 by the American Immigration Council. It details a radical, multi-faceted assault on immigrants and the immigration system.

Among the administration’s actions are severe restrictions on who can enter the United States, the removal of legal protections for those already residing in the country, and an unprecedented increase in enforcement measures. In the process, the Trump administration has dismantled long-standing legal safeguards, disregarded the authority of Congress and the courts, and weaponized government resources against immigrants and dissenters alike.

“This isn’t just a hardline immigration agenda,” said Nayna Gupta, policy director at the American Immigration Council and co-author of the report. “It’s a wholesale effort to use immigrants and the U.S. immigration system to attack core tenets of our democracy and exercise unchecked executive power to realign the American government around exclusion and fear.”

The report outlines several key findings that underscore the administration’s aggressive approach to immigration:

The end of asylum. The report states that asylum at the southern border is effectively non-existent. The administration has shut down the CBP One application without providing an alternative. Asylum-seekers who attempt to approach a port of entry are often turned away, and in some instances, those who win their cases remain detained indefinitely.

Demolishing the refugee program. The U.S. Refugee Admissions Program has been indefinitely suspended, with the exception of white South Africans who have been fast-tracked under questionable persecution claims. Tens of thousands of approved refugees are left stranded abroad.

Mass revocation of legal status. The administration has aggressively revoked humanitarian parole and Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for over a million individuals within just six months, stripping them of work permits and forcing many into undocumented status.

Weaponizing bureaucracy. Legal immigration pathways are being obstructed by significant fee increases, processing freezes, and opaque barriers that make it nearly impossible for lawful applicants to obtain or maintain their status.

A maelstrom of fear and chaos. The administration’s aggressive enforcement tactics have instilled fear among immigrants of all legal statuses, leaving them anxious about their daily safety in the United States. Anyone can be targeted for arrest, detention, and deportation, regardless of their legal status, and these actions can occur in places such as churches, schools, and courthouses.

A radical reorganization of law enforcement resources. The Trump administration is establishing an unprecedented, cross-agency immigration operation that draws resources from various federal and state law enforcement agencies and the U.S. military, prioritizing immigration enforcement above all other public safety and law enforcement objectives.

Turbocharging an inhumane detention system. The “Big Beautiful Bill Act,” enacted in July, increases the budget for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention by 308 percent annually, setting the stage for a dramatic expansion of a detention system already criticized for its careless and cruel management, which has placed tens of thousands of immigrants in life-threatening conditions.

The report also includes powerful firsthand accounts from individuals affected by these policies. Ilia, a nonbinary Russian dissident, won their asylum case but remained in detention for over a year without a release date. Axel, a DACA recipient and youth leader, is leaving his job to return to school amid uncertainty regarding his legal status. Beatriz, an immigrant lawyer, has encountered cases that remind her of her own journey to the U.S., including a confused six-year-old who appeared in court without representation. Kaelyn is incurring debt to prevent her partner from being deported to El Salvador’s megaprison under the Alien Enemies Act.

The report warns that while some policies may change due to legal challenges, the administration’s broader agenda remains clear: to permanently redefine who belongs in America and how power is wielded by the federal government.

“The administration’s policies are reshaping the immigration system in ways that are unfair, unlawful, and out of step with core American values,” said Dara Lind, senior fellow at the Council and co-author of the report. “We’re seeing real harm to families, communities, and the rule of law, and the public deserves to understand what’s at stake.”

The full report is available for review, along with interviews featuring experts and individuals impacted by these policies.

Source: Original article

New Report Highlights Impact of Expanded Travel Ban on Indian-Americans

A recent report highlights the significant economic and humanitarian impacts of the Trump administration’s expanded travel ban, which affects immigration from 19 countries.

WASHINGTON, DC — A new report released today by the American Immigration Council outlines the extensive economic and humanitarian consequences of the Trump administration’s travel ban, implemented in June 2025. This ban restricts immigration from 19 countries, and its effects are already being felt across various sectors.

In 2022, nearly 300,000 individuals from these affected countries entered the United States, contributing significantly to the economy by filling essential jobs and generating approximately $715.6 million in tax revenue.

“Those affected by this travel ban are students, workers, and family members who pay taxes, support local economies, and fill jobs in industries facing massive shortages. We’re throwing all of that away, to the detriment of our communities and the U.S. economy,” stated Nan Wu, research director of the American Immigration Council.

According to data from 2023, of the 300,000 individuals impacted by the travel ban, 82 percent were employed, particularly in sectors already grappling with labor shortages, such as hospitality, construction, and manufacturing. The manufacturing sector alone is projected to face a shortfall of 1.9 million workers by 2033.

“The United States absolutely needs strong screening procedures to protect national security, but this travel ban isn’t how you do that. The Trump administration is trying to sell this policy as a security measure, but when you dig into the justifications, they don’t add up,” remarked Jeremy Robbins, executive director of the American Immigration Council. “Many of the targeted countries had fewer than 500 visa overstays last year. This isn’t about keeping America safe; it’s about keeping certain people out.”

While the original travel ban enacted in 2017 sparked immediate and widespread public backlash, the 2025 iteration has seen a more subdued response. This is largely attributed to its gradual implementation and the introduction of expanded exemptions. However, the report emphasizes that the damage caused by this version of the ban is no less severe.

“This quieter version of the ban is deeply harmful,” Robbins added. “It separates families, blocks international talent, and hurts communities across the country. The absence of airport protests doesn’t mean the harm isn’t real; it’s just happening more quietly and more bureaucratically.”

Reports indicate that the administration is contemplating the addition of 36 more countries to the travel ban. Should this occur, tens of thousands more individuals from those nations could be prohibited from entering the United States, further exacerbating the economic, social, and diplomatic fallout.

The countries currently affected by the travel ban include:

All travel banned:

Afghanistan

Burma

Chad

Republic of Congo

Equatorial Guinea

Eritrea

Haiti

Iran

Libya

Somalia

Sudan

Yemen

Visas sharply restricted:

Venezuela

Burundi

Cuba

Laos

Sierra Leone

Togo

Turkmenistan

The implications of this travel ban extend beyond individual hardship; they pose a significant threat to the U.S. economy and its global standing. As the situation evolves, the American Immigration Council continues to advocate for policies that promote inclusivity and economic growth.

Source: Original article

SNAP Food Aid Program Faces Cuts: Key Information for Recipients

The Trump administration’s changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) are set to impact millions, strain state budgets, and challenge the nation’s food supply chain.

The Trump administration’s overhaul of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the largest food assistance initiative in the United States, is poised to result in significant cuts that could affect millions of beneficiaries. These changes are expected to strain state budgets and pressure the nation’s food supply chain, all while potentially undermining the administration’s health initiatives, according to researchers and former federal officials.

Permanent modifications to SNAP are anticipated regardless of the outcomes of ongoing federal lawsuits aimed at preventing the government from terminating benefits scheduled for November. These lawsuits challenge the administration’s refusal to release emergency funds necessary for the program’s continued operation during the government shutdown.

A federal judge in Rhode Island has mandated that the government utilize these funds to sustain SNAP, while a Massachusetts judge has similarly ruled that the administration must tap into its food aid contingency funds to support the program, giving officials until November 3 to devise a plan.

In light of this uncertainty, food banks across the country are preparing for a surge in demand, anticipating that millions may soon be cut off from the vital food assistance that helps them purchase groceries.

On October 28, a delivery of groceries, including SpaghettiOs and tuna, arrived at the Gateway Food Pantry in Arnold, Missouri. This may be one of the pantry’s last shipments for the foreseeable future. Executive Director Patrick McKelvey noted that the pantry primarily serves families with school-age children and has already exhausted its annual food budget due to increased demand.

In response to the looming cuts, New Disabled South, a Georgia-based nonprofit that advocates for individuals with disabilities, announced it would provide one-time payments ranging from $100 to $250 to families and individuals expected to lose SNAP benefits in the 14 states it serves. Within 48 hours, the organization received over 16,000 requests totaling $3.6 million, predominantly from families, far exceeding its available funding.

The impending SNAP funding lapse serves as a precursor to the changes outlined in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed by President Trump in July. This legislation is set to cut $187 billion from SNAP over the next decade, representing nearly a 20% reduction in current funding levels, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

These new regulations will shift many food and administrative costs to the states, potentially leading some to consider withdrawing from the program that assisted approximately 42 million individuals in purchasing groceries last year. Additionally, the administration is advocating for states to impose restrictions on SNAP purchases, such as banning items like candy and soda.

Cindy Long, a former deputy undersecretary at the Department of Agriculture and now a national adviser at the law firm Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, remarked that these developments place SNAP in “uncharted territory.”

SNAP, which originated during the Great Depression to help impoverished populations afford food, has evolved from food stamps to a modern debit card system. The program continues to support farmers and food retailers while combating hunger during economic downturns.

The CBO estimates that approximately 3 million individuals will lose food assistance due to several provisions in the budget law, including expanded work requirements and increased costs shifted to states. Administration leaders have justified these changes as a means to reduce waste, encourage employment, and promote health.

This represents the most significant cut to SNAP in its history, coinciding with rising food prices and a fragile labor market. The precise impact of these cuts remains difficult to gauge, especially following the administration’s termination of an annual report that tracked food insecurity.

Several major changes are on the horizon for SNAP, each with implications for the health and wellbeing of Americans.

First, accessing food benefits will become more challenging. The new law requires recipients to complete additional paperwork to obtain SNAP benefits. Many recipients are already obligated to work, volunteer, or engage in other qualifying activities for 80 hours per month to receive assistance. The new regulations will extend these requirements to previously exempt groups, including homeless individuals, veterans, and young adults who aged out of foster care. Parents with children aged 14 and older, as well as adults aged 55 to 64, will also be subject to these expanded work requirements. Starting November 1, recipients who fail to document compliance will be limited to just three months of benefits within a three-year period.

Second, states will be required to contribute more funds and resources to maintain the program. Previously, states were responsible for only half of the administrative costs and none of the food costs. Under the new law, states will be liable for 75% of administrative costs and a portion of food costs, potentially leading to a median cost increase of over 200%, according to a report by the Georgetown Center on Poverty and Inequality. A KFF Health News analysis suggests that one funding shift related to food costs could place an additional $11 billion burden on states.

While all states participate in SNAP, some may opt out due to financial constraints. In June, nearly two dozen Democratic governors warned congressional leaders that some states might not be able to sustain their SNAP programs. They cautioned that ending these programs would exacerbate hunger and poverty, negatively impacting health, grocery stores in rural areas, and jobs in agriculture and the food industry.

Third, the administration’s health initiatives may not yield the intended results. Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has promoted restrictions on the purchase of soda and candy through SNAP. Currently, 12 states have received approval to limit eligible purchases. However, previous federal officials had blocked such restrictions due to implementation challenges and the stigma they create around SNAP. Research indicates that individuals receiving SNAP benefits are not more likely to purchase sweets or salty snacks compared to those without benefits. Encouraging healthy food choices has proven to be a more effective strategy than imposing purchase restrictions.

Fourth, the health implications of SNAP cuts could be severe. Advocacy organizations highlight that food insecurity is linked to various health issues, including mental disorders in children and chronic diseases in working-age adults. Low-income adults not on SNAP typically incur higher healthcare costs compared to those who receive benefits.

Lastly, the cuts to SNAP will have repercussions for the nation’s food supply chain. SNAP spending directly supports grocery stores, suppliers, and the transportation and farming sectors. When low-income households receive assistance, they are more likely to allocate funds to other essential needs. Each dollar spent through SNAP generates at least $1.50 in economic activity, according to the USDA. However, compliance with the new SNAP restrictions could cost grocers an estimated $1.6 billion, potentially leading to increased prices for consumers or store closures.

As the nation braces for these significant changes to SNAP, the implications for food security, health, and the economy remain a pressing concern.

Source: Original article

Dem Lawmakers Explain Stock Market Boom Amid Trump Tariffs

The stock market’s continued success under President Trump has prompted Democratic lawmakers to question its relevance to the broader economy, particularly in light of ongoing tariffs.

Democratic lawmakers have been grappling with the apparent contradiction of a thriving stock market amid President Donald Trump’s administration, particularly as they have expressed concerns over the impact of his tariffs on the economy. During a recent conversation with Fox News Digital on Capitol Hill, several Democrats attempted to explain this phenomenon while downplaying the significance of the stock market’s performance.

Senator Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada emphasized that “the stock market is not the economy.” She pointed out that while the market may be doing well, many Americans are feeling the financial strain at the grocery store due to rising prices. “The tariffs are a cause of that,” she stated, adding that they effectively act as taxes on consumers, which has led to higher costs for everyday goods.

Progressive Representative Pramila Jayapal from Washington echoed this sentiment, asserting that the stock market’s success is primarily benefiting the wealthiest Americans. “Corporations got massive tax breaks, $7 billion in tax breaks in the big, bad betrayal bill,” she explained. Jayapal argued that the stock market’s performance reflects the health of large corporations rather than the economic reality faced by average citizens.

Senator Angela Alsobrooks of Maryland also weighed in, noting that regardless of stock market trends, many Americans are struggling with high grocery and healthcare costs. “They can’t afford the cost of goods,” she remarked, highlighting the disconnect between market performance and everyday financial challenges faced by constituents.

Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut added that while the stock market is important, the rising prices of goods directly impact people’s lives. “The stock market matters to a lot of folks, but prices matter the most to people,” he stated. Murphy pointed out that Trump’s economic policies, including tariffs, are contributing to increased costs for consumers, which he believes is a significant concern that Democrats are addressing.

In contrast, the Trump administration has shifted the blame for high prices onto the Biden administration, arguing that current inflation issues stem from policies enacted after Trump left office. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt recently took to social media to advocate for Trump’s economic policies, claiming they are a “proven formula” for making America affordable again. She asserted that prices for various essential goods are beginning to fall, suggesting that the administration is working diligently to address affordability issues.

On Capitol Hill, Senator John Hoeven of North Dakota defended Trump’s approach to tariffs, arguing that the president is negotiating better trade terms for American exporters. “You have to separate the short term from what’s going to happen over time,” he explained, suggesting that the benefits of these negotiations may not be immediately apparent but will ultimately strengthen the economy.

Interestingly, not all Democrats are opposed to tariffs. Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania expressed support for some tariffs, particularly those targeting China, while criticizing the approach taken against Canada and other allies. He acknowledged the complexities of the issue, noting that the Supreme Court’s decisions on tariffs will carry significant weight moving forward.

As the discussion continues, Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut offered a more cautious perspective, stating, “One thing I’ve learned is not to try to predict or analyze the stock market.” His comment reflects the uncertainty surrounding the relationship between stock market performance and the broader economic landscape.

In summary, Democratic lawmakers are navigating a complex economic narrative as they address the disconnect between a booming stock market and the financial struggles faced by many Americans. Their focus remains on the tangible effects of tariffs and economic policies on everyday life, even as the stock market continues to thrive.

Source: Original article

Federal Judge Orders Trump to Disburse SNAP Benefits by Friday

A federal judge has ordered the Trump administration to fully fund SNAP benefits for November, emphasizing the urgent need to address food insecurity amid ongoing political gridlock.

A federal judge has ruled against the Trump administration regarding the funding of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, ordering that full payments be made by Friday. This decision comes in light of the ongoing U.S. government shutdown, which has left millions of Americans facing food insecurity.

During a hearing in U.S. District Court in Rhode Island on Thursday, Judge Jack McConnell expressed concern over the impact of partial funding on the 42 million Americans who rely on SNAP. “People have gone without for too long,” he stated, underscoring the urgency of the situation.

Judge McConnell’s order requires the administration to utilize both a congressionally authorized contingency fund and additional resources, known as Section 32 funds, which the administration had previously declined to access. “The evidence shows that people will go hungry, food pantries will be overburdened, and needless suffering will occur” if SNAP is not fully funded, he added.

The SNAP program, which supports over 40 million Americans, has faced significant disruptions due to the federal government shutdown that began in October. The U.S. Department of Agriculture had initially announced that new SNAP benefits would not be issued starting November 1, 2025, leaving many low-income households uncertain about their access to food assistance. While existing benefits remained usable, the threat of halted future payments created immediate economic stress for vulnerable populations.

In response to the crisis, two federal court rulings mandated that the administration utilize contingency funds or other measures to ensure at least partial disbursements, preventing a complete cessation of benefits. This situation has highlighted the critical dependence of SNAP recipients on timely government funding, as well as the exacerbation of food insecurity during government shutdowns.

Judge McConnell pointed out in his written order that more than half of SNAP recipients are children, seniors, and veterans. “While the President of the United States professes a commitment to helping those it serves, the government’s actions tell a different story,” he wrote, emphasizing the disconnect between political rhetoric and the reality faced by many Americans.

On Monday, the Trump administration informed Judge McConnell that it would provide only 50 percent of the benefits by utilizing the contingency fund, while ruling out the use of at least $4 billion from the Child Nutrition Program and other funding sources. This decision raises questions about the balance of power, as courts increasingly step in to enforce social protections when administrative decisions threaten public well-being.

For policymakers, this episode serves as a cautionary tale, illustrating that ensuring food security requires not only adequate funding but also resilient systems capable of withstanding political stalemates. For the public, it highlights the tangible consequences of government gridlock, demonstrating how delays in decision-making can lead to real hardship for millions of individuals and families.

Ultimately, the 2025 SNAP case serves as a critical reminder that social safety nets are only as strong as the commitment of government institutions to maintain them consistently, even amid political uncertainty.

Source: Original article

India Considers Potential Ban on U.S. Apps, Experts Warn

Harsh Goenka and Sridhar Vembu have raised concerns over a potential ban on U.S. tech platforms in India, urging a shift towards self-reliance in technology.

RPG Group Chairman Harsh Goenka has expressed alarm regarding reports that U.S. President Donald Trump may consider blocking India’s access to major American tech platforms, including X, Google, and Instagram. Goenka warned of the potential consequences of such a ban and encouraged users to explore alternative platforms.

In a post on the social media platform X, Goenka stated, “Imagine if Trump bans India from using US tech platforms—no X, Google, Instagram, Facebook, or ChatGPT. Frightening, no? Just think about the consequences seriously and what could be Plan B for us.”

Joining Goenka in his concerns, Zoho founder Sridhar Vembu emphasized the importance of addressing India’s reliance on foreign technology. He advocated for a National Mission for Tech Resilience to tackle the country’s deep-rooted dependence on external tech solutions.

Vembu commented, “I agree. And we have a lot more such tech dependency beyond the app level: OS, chips, fabs… it goes deeper and deeper. We need a 10-year ‘National Mission for Tech Resilience.’ It can be done.” His remarks come at a time when India is increasingly promoting its own homegrown digital ecosystem.

Platforms developed by Vembu’s company, such as Arrattai—positioned as a local alternative to WhatsApp—and Zoho Mail, which competes with Gmail, have recently gained popularity in India. This trend reflects a growing user interest in domestic tech solutions.

In support of India’s homegrown technology sector, Union Home Minister Amit Shah and several cabinet members have adopted Zoho Mail for official use, signaling the government’s endorsement of domestic digital platforms.

Building on the success of Arrattai, Zoho launched Vani on October 1, 2025. This intelligent visual collaboration platform is designed to transform how remote and hybrid teams plan, collaborate, and execute projects within a unified workspace, positioning it as a strong competitor to Google Workspace.

Goenka’s post has sparked a lively discussion on social media, with users debating the feasibility and potential of developing Indian alternatives to dominant global tech platforms. One user remarked, “Waiting for the day when US tech companies start worrying about attracting top talent from India. The day it happens we will have real independence. As you pointed out, this problem cannot be looked at in isolation. Supply chain dependencies are higher than automotive and pharma.”

Another user suggested, “A consortium of private companies can work for this. Help colleges, R&D labs, etc. A lot of youth would love to stay close to families, and with connectivity, help make it a reality.”

Conversely, some users expressed skepticism about the likelihood of a ban. One user stated, “I highly doubt this would ever happen, not in the next 10 years. Trump’s a businessman, not a fool to cut off America’s biggest tech market—India. India is the largest or second-largest market for nearly every U.S. tech giant. Tech independence is good, but this reasoning isn’t,” as quoted by Mint.

Indian leaders are clearly signaling a push toward self-reliance in the digital space, championing homegrown platforms like Zoho Mail, Arrattai, and Vani as viable alternatives to global giants. Meanwhile, users are actively engaging in the conversation online, with some expressing optimism about adopting domestic tech, while others debate its scalability and readiness.

Source: Original article

Supreme Court Reviews Legality of Trump’s Tariffs and Economic Effects

As the Supreme Court reviews the legality of President Trump’s tariffs, the economic implications of these import taxes continue to unfold, affecting consumers and businesses alike.

President Trump’s tariffs, among the highest imposed since the Great Depression, have had a profound impact on the U.S. economy. These import taxes have generated billions in revenue for the federal government but have also incurred significant costs for consumers and businesses. Currently, average tariffs have surged to nearly 18%, a stark increase from just 2.4% prior to Trump’s re-election. The Treasury Department is now collecting close to four times the tariff revenue compared to the previous year, with nearly half of this revenue—amounting to billions of dollars—under scrutiny by the Supreme Court.

The tariffs form a central part of Trump’s trade strategy, aimed at bolstering domestic manufacturing, addressing trade deficits, and applying political pressure on international trading partners. However, the economic ramifications are multifaceted. While these tariffs have contributed approximately $224 billion to government revenue, they have simultaneously led to increased prices for everyday goods, including apparel, furniture, and electronics. Retailers have expressed concerns that ongoing tariffs could further elevate consumer prices, contributing to rising inflation, which reached 3% annually in September 2025, up from 2.3% earlier that year.

The economic burden extends beyond consumers. Numerous businesses, particularly those reliant on imported electronics, automotive parts, and other components, are struggling with unpredictable tariff fluctuations, complicating their supply chain management. Although it is often claimed that foreign suppliers bear the brunt of these costs, the reality is that U.S. importers and manufacturers typically absorb the tariffs, resulting in higher costs that are frequently passed on to consumers. The financial impact is significant, with households facing an estimated additional monthly expense exceeding $1,300. Many businesses are either absorbing these costs or raising prices in response to the tariffs.

Legal challenges surrounding Trump’s tariffs center on their extensive application and whether the president exceeded his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of the 1970s. This law grants the president emergency powers to regulate trade but does not explicitly mention tariffs. Legal experts and business groups argue that utilizing this law to impose broad tariffs infringes upon constitutional limits on presidential power, leading to high-stakes deliberations at the Supreme Court.

A ruling against the administration could result in the dismantling of current tariff policies, potential refunds for duties paid, and broader implications for international trade relations. Conversely, if the Supreme Court upholds the tariffs, they may continue to serve as a significant tool in U.S. trade strategy, albeit at a cost to consumers and business profitability. Meanwhile, President Trump and his supporters maintain that these tariffs are essential for national strength, while critics caution about the long-term effects on economic stability and global relations.

As the Supreme Court deliberates, the outcome could reshape the landscape of U.S. trade policy and its economic repercussions for years to come, highlighting the delicate balance between national interests and global economic dynamics.

Source: Original article

Lawsuit Challenges New Public Service Loan Forgiveness Rule by Education Department

Four non-profit organizations have filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Education, challenging a new rule that could disqualify certain employers from the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program.

Washington, D.C., Nov. 4 — A coalition of four non-profit public-interest organizations has initiated legal action against the U.S. Department of Education (ED) over a newly established rule that threatens to disqualify certain employers from participating in the federal Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program. The plaintiffs in this case include Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights, the American Immigration Council, The Door – A Center of Alternatives, Inc., and the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC). They are represented by Student Defense and the Public Citizen Litigation Group.

The new rule, finalized on October 31, was implemented in response to an Executive Order issued by former President Donald Trump. It grants the Secretary of Education the authority to disqualify employers from the PSLF program if they are deemed to have a “substantial illegal purpose.” This determination will be made unilaterally by ED, based on its assessment of whether an organization has engaged in activities that the current administration disapproves of, particularly concerning immigration, gender-affirming care, and alleged discrimination, among other issues. Critics argue that the rule’s vague and broad language allows for arbitrary enforcement against mission-driven organizations that may express views contrary to those of the government.

The implications of this regulation could be significant for the approximately 2.5 million federal student loan borrowers who have collectively dedicated over 100 million months to public service jobs in pursuit of PSLF forgiveness. The lawsuit contends that the new rule will hinder employers in specific fields, such as immigrant advocacy, from effectively recruiting and training employees. Furthermore, it asserts that the rule contradicts the PSLF statute, exceeds the Department’s regulatory authority, and infringes upon the constitutional rights of nonprofits whose employees are eligible for PSLF.

Established in 2007, the PSLF program was designed to encourage graduates to pursue careers in public service. It offers federal student loan forgiveness to individuals who spend ten years repaying their loans while employed full-time in qualifying public service positions. The statute outlines a clear list of eligible employers, which includes military service, emergency management, public health, government, public safety, law enforcement, early childhood education, library science, and all 501(c)(3) organizations, among others.

The lawsuit seeks a court ruling declaring the new rule unlawful and asserting that ED lacks the authority to alter the statutory criteria for PSLF. Cormac Early, an attorney at Public Citizen Litigation Group and the lead counsel on the case, emphasized that “Congress created PSLF to support those who work in public service jobs, not to let the President play favorites. The Trump administration should not be allowed to use a program designed to reward public service as a weapon against its political enemies.”

Student Defense President Aaron Ament added, “Congress made a promise that if Americans give back to the country, the country will give back to them. Now the Trump Administration wants the power to renege on that promise if they disagree with your employer’s mission or perceived political views. This new, unlawful rule is a slap in the face to the millions of first responders, health workers, teachers, and other public servants who believed the government could be trusted to keep its word.”

Kerry Kennedy, President of RFK Human Rights, stated, “The Trump Administration’s attack on the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program strikes at the heart of civic space and public service. By targeting individuals who choose to work in nonprofits defending the human rights of immigrants and advancing diversity, inclusion, and transgender rights, this rule seeks to silence voices for equity and justice while weakening these organizations’ ability to recruit the next generation of leaders.”

Jorge Loweree, Managing Director of Programs and Strategy at the American Immigration Council, remarked, “Public Service Loan Forgiveness was a clear commitment from the government to individuals who have dedicated themselves to public service. This regulation weaponizes that commitment. No one should be forced to choose between supporting their neighbors and securing the financial stability they were promised.”

Juan Proaño, CEO of the LULAC Institute, expressed concern for Latino families, stating, “Latino families across the country rely on mission-driven nonprofits for immigration assistance, health care, and programs that support underserved young adults. This rule hands any administration a blank check to punish nonprofits it dislikes and jeopardizes the future of the teachers, nurses, veterans, and legal advocates who serve the public every day.”

The lawsuit highlights the potential consequences of the new rule on public service employment and the broader implications for civic engagement and advocacy in the United States.

Source: Original article

Rep. Ami Bera Launches Campaign for CA-03 Seat in 2024

Representative Ami Bera has announced his candidacy for re-election in California’s newly redrawn Third Congressional District, positioning Democrats to potentially reclaim the House majority in 2024.

Following the successful passage of Proposition 50, Representative Ami Bera (CA-06) declared his intention to run for re-election in California’s newly redrawn Third Congressional District. Bera enters the race with nearly $2 million in cash on hand, a significant financial advantage that strengthens the Democratic Party’s position to capture CA-03 and regain control of the House of Representatives next November.

Nonpartisan analysis indicates that the new district has a D+6 partisan lean, with Vice President Kamala Harris winning it by approximately 10 points in the 2024 election. Bera’s candidacy introduces one of California’s most experienced and well-resourced Democratic leaders into a prime opportunity for pickup.

Since first being elected in 2013, Bera has represented Sacramento County, establishing deep roots in the region and a proven track record of winning competitive races. He initially gained his seat by defeating a nine-term Republican incumbent in one of the nation’s most closely watched contests. Bera has successfully navigated three of the most competitive House elections in the country—2014, 2016, and 2018—each time increasing his margin of victory.

In the 2024 election, Bera outperformed Harris by 2.4 points in CA-06, showcasing his ability to exceed favorable Democratic baselines and garner support in swing neighborhoods and suburban communities.

Notably, Bera has represented approximately 60 percent of the new Third District at various points during his congressional career, providing him with a solid foundation as he introduces himself to new constituents across the district.

“The path to a Democratic House majority runs through California,” Bera stated. “I’m stepping up in CA-03 to help deliver that majority and to keep fighting for the hardworking families who call the greater Sacramento region home.”

With a background as a physician, Bera has dedicated 21 years to serving his community as a doctor, including roles as Sacramento County’s Chief Medical Officer and as a Clinical Professor of Medicine and Dean of Admissions at UC Davis. In Congress, he has prioritized expanding access to healthcare, supporting the middle class, and achieving tangible results for the greater Sacramento area, even amidst partisan challenges.

Since taking office, Bera has assisted over 34,000 constituents and returned more than $22 million to Sacramento County taxpayers through federal casework and benefits.

“Our campaign is built to win tough races,” Bera emphasized. “With nearly $2 million in the bank, a strong record of service, and a clear path to victory, we’re ready to take back the House majority and place a much-needed check on Donald Trump’s power.”

Bera brings over a decade of legislative experience to CA-03, currently serving as the Ranking Member of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on East Asia and the Pacific, a senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, and a member of the pro-growth New Democrat Coalition.

Dr. Ami Bera has lived in Sacramento County for nearly 30 years, further solidifying his connection to the community he aims to represent.

Source: Original article

Medicaid Cuts Impact Indian-American Seniors’ Quality of Life

Recent cuts to Medicaid threaten the ability of families, particularly within the Indian American community, to care for their aging loved ones with dignity and support.

When the Senate passed the sweeping Megabill that significantly reduced funding for Medicaid, it marked more than a mere shift in healthcare policy; it represented the unraveling of a vital lifeline for millions of American families. For Indian Americans, these cuts are particularly devastating, jeopardizing core values such as caring for elders with dignity, maintaining close family ties, and ensuring that parents and grandparents age surrounded by love rather than institutional walls.

My 100-year-old grandmother has lived with our family for decades, benefiting from home health services covered by Medicaid. This support has allowed four generations to share in her twilight years. Without it, the burden would fall heavily on my late mother, who battled metastatic cancer while caregiving for her; my uncle, who faces chronic illness in his seventies; and my aunt, now in her sixties. These narratives are not isolated; they reflect the experiences of countless Indian American families nationwide who honor their elders while relying on stable public support to do so.

The recent cuts to Medicaid threaten to dismantle the caregiving compact that has sustained many families. According to the Caregiving in the U.S. 2025 report by AARP and the National Alliance for Caregiving, there are currently 63 million unpaid family caregivers across the United States—approximately one in five Americans. Among them, about 6% identify as Asian American, often navigating the cultural expectations of multigenerational care alongside systemic challenges such as healthcare access, language barriers, and a lack of culturally relevant home and community-based services. Notably, three in ten caregivers of older adults provide over 20 hours of unpaid care each week, often while juggling employment commitments.

In Indian American households, where nearly 70% of older adults live with or near family members, Medicaid-funded home supports make it feasible to fulfill cultural obligations without succumbing to financial and emotional strain. The AARP report highlights that more than half of all caregivers report experiencing high emotional stress, with one in four facing severe financial burdens. The cuts to Medicaid introduce yet another layer of impossible choices: leave the workforce, sacrifice personal health, or place loved ones in understaffed facilities.

The new bill’s cuts of over $1 trillion to Medicaid strike at the fragile infrastructure that supports family caregivers, including transportation to medical appointments, respite care, physical therapy, home health aides, and essential items like dentures and eyeglasses. These services have played a crucial role in keeping aging Americans safe, independent, and at home.

This situation is particularly disheartening given that caregiver policy had begun to make progress. Bipartisan initiatives, such as President Trump’s RAISE Family Caregiver Act in 2018 and President Biden’s National Strategy to Support Family Caregivers in 2022, aimed to provide recognition and resources for caregivers. However, the recent Medicaid cuts threaten to reverse these advancements, eroding trust and pushing millions back into isolation and exhaustion, forced to bear the weight of caregiving alone.

In Indian culture, elders are often viewed as repositories of memory and identity. Caring for them is not seen as a burden but as a blessing—a recognition of the wisdom accumulated over a lifetime. However, blessings cannot substitute for broken systems. When policymakers strip financial support from caregivers, they compel families to choose between their jobs and their aging parents, between pursuing the American dream and fulfilling their cultural responsibilities.

At 100 years old, my grandmother continues to share her life stories, reminiscing about her childhood in pre-Independence India. She walks diligently on her rolling walker, engaging with each generation and communicating in broken English with her great-grandchildren, who delight in their attempts to speak Gujarati. The loss of Medicaid support now threatens these cherished interactions within our home.

As life expectancy increases and the prevalence of dementia is projected to double by 2040, the demand for home and community-based care will surge. The recent cuts to Medicaid will do the opposite of what is needed; they will accelerate institutionalization, caregiver burnout, and despair.

This issue transcends party lines. Caregiving is a universal experience that connects us across age, race, and political affiliations. AARP data indicates that 75% of Americans wish to age at home, but for this to remain a viable option, Medicaid must be preserved and strengthened.

For Indian American families, who view caregiving as an act of love and legacy, this is not merely a policy debate; it is a collective struggle to uphold the sanctity of home. As we approach Family Caregiving Awareness Month this November, let us urge our lawmakers to reverse these damaging actions and restore faith in the promise America once made to its elders: that aging with grace is not a privilege but a fundamental right.

Source: Original article

New U.S. Assistant Secretary Paul Kapur Engages with Indian Envoy

Assistant Secretary of State Paul Kapur met with Indian Ambassador Vinay Kwatra in Washington, discussing shared priorities and strengthening U.S.-India relations.

WASHINGTON, DC – India’s Ambassador to the United States, Vinay Kwatra, recently hosted Paul Kapur, the newly appointed Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs, at his residence in Washington.

On November 4, the Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs shared a message on X, expressing gratitude for the meeting. “Thank you @AmbVMKwatra for graciously hosting me at India House last night. Appreciated the opportunity to discuss shared bilateral and regional priorities, including strengthening the U.S.-India relationship,” Kapur tweeted.

Kapur, an Indian American security expert, was sworn in as Assistant Secretary on October 22, marking a significant appointment within the Trump administration for the region. He is also a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution and a professor at the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California.

His confirmation came after a Senate vote in early October, alongside the appointment of Sergio Gor as the new U.S. Ambassador to India. During his Senate confirmation hearing in June, Kapur reflected on his unique background, stating that his career had “come full circle.”

“I can’t avoid the feeling of having come full circle. I was born in New Delhi to an Indian father and an American mother. Although I visited India often during my childhood, I grew up in the United States as a thoroughly American kid, never imagining that my career would someday return me to the place where I was born,” he shared.

In discussing U.S.-India relations, Kapur emphasized the multitude of common interests shared by the two nations. He noted the importance of ensuring a free and open Indo-Pacific region, which he asserted should not be dominated by China. He also highlighted the need to expand bilateral trade and build a more symmetrical and profitable economic relationship.

Kapur pointed out the significance of facilitating technology sharing and innovation, as well as ensuring access to energy resources essential for both countries’ economic growth.

Regarding Pakistan, he mentioned his intent to “pursue security cooperation where beneficial to U.S. interests.”

The Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs plays a vital role in shaping U.S. policy concerning security, economic engagement, counterterrorism, and infrastructure development across the broader South and Central Asia region.

As the U.S. continues to navigate its foreign policy in South Asia, the discussions between Kapur and Kwatra signal a commitment to strengthening ties and addressing shared challenges.

Source: Original article

DeSantis-Backed Gonzalez and Democrat Higgins Advance to Miami Mayor Runoff

Democratic County Commissioner Eileen Higgins and Republican Emilio González will face off in a runoff for Miami mayor on December 9, potentially making history with the election of the city’s first female mayor.

Miami’s mayoral race is set for a pivotal runoff on December 9, as Democratic County Commissioner Eileen Higgins and Republican candidate Emilio González advance from a crowded field of 13 candidates. The runoff was necessitated after no candidate secured more than 50% of the vote in the initial election.

Higgins and González will compete to succeed the term-limited Republican Mayor Francis Suarez. The runoff format is triggered when no candidate achieves the required majority, compelling the top two candidates to face off in a decisive election.

Eileen Higgins, who has served as a Miami-Dade County commissioner since 2018, represents several neighborhoods including Miami Beach, Downtown, Brickell, Coral Way, Little Havana, and West Flagler. Her diverse background includes roles as an engineer, marketing executive, and director of the Peace Corps in Belize, where she served starting in 2006. Additionally, Higgins has experience as a Foreign Service Officer with the U.S. State Department.

During a recent debate on October 16, Higgins emphasized her commitment to a drama-free administration, stating, “There’s going to be no drama. There’s going to be no corruption. There’s going to be no yelling.” She pledged to focus on the needs of Miami residents, aiming to make the city “the best place on earth.”

Her campaign priorities include enhancing affordability, restoring trust in Miami City Hall by reducing bureaucratic hurdles, funding police and first responders, improving transportation, and protecting the environment, as outlined on her campaign website.

In contrast, González, who is backed by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and Senator Rick Scott, has positioned himself as a reform candidate. He previously served as a bilingual surrogate for Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and was involved in the transition team before becoming a senior fellow at the America First Policy Institute.

González has focused his campaign on modernizing city services, cutting property taxes, easing regulations for small businesses, increasing police presence, and reducing government spending. At the debate, he remarked, “We need reform and we need reform bad,” highlighting the loss of public trust in local government. He expressed a commitment to public service, stating, “Public service and being mayor has to be vocational. It isn’t about making money, it isn’t about making my ego bigger.”

The mayoral race has not attracted the same level of national attention as other high-profile elections, such as those in New York or gubernatorial contests in New Jersey and Virginia. However, it has been marked by political jabs and past scandals involving various candidates. In September, a Florida judge blocked a city plan to postpone the November election to 2026 without voter approval, a decision that followed a lawsuit initiated by González.

The upcoming runoff will not only determine the next mayor of Miami but also has the potential to make history by electing the city’s first female mayor. As the campaigns intensify, both candidates are expected to further clarify their visions for Miami’s future.

Source: Original article

GOP Representative Advocates for Stronger India-U.S. Relations, Warns Trump on Tariffs

Republican Congressman Rich McCormick advocates for a stronger partnership between India and the U.S., emphasizing the importance of maintaining close ties and cautioning against tariff increases.

WASHINGTON, DC – Republican Congressman Rich McCormick, co-chair of the India Caucus, has called for a stronger partnership between India and the United States, suggesting that their collaboration could lead to “another generation” of global peace.

Speaking at an event hosted by the Hudson Institute on November 3, McCormick emphasized the need for the Trump administration to keep allies like India “close” to the United States. He stated, “When you talk about India, and I’m the chair of the India Caucus, I love India. I think India and the United States pair up well into the future of the largest democracy and the wealthiest and oldest democracy. Pairing together could bring us together for another generation of peace that the world’s never seen, where you can have prosperity and wealth development.”

In addition to advocating for stronger ties, McCormick also provided advice regarding the Trump administration’s tariff policies toward India. He urged caution, noting that India has historically imposed tariffs averaging around 15 percent, while the U.S. has maintained a much lower rate of about 2 percent with no barriers. “That’s something that President Trump did very well, but we have to be careful,” he remarked.

McCormick praised India’s advancements in its space program, particularly highlighting its achievement in 2023 as the first country to successfully land a spacecraft near the dark side of the moon. He quipped, “A country that does things very well puts a spaceship on the dark side of the moon for $74 million. I always joke that we couldn’t even develop a building to talk about putting a spaceship on the dark side of the moon for that amount. We could do things so much better if we keep our friends close.”

Following a period of relative silence, many Republican lawmakers are now publicly reaffirming their support for India-U.S. relations. In recent weeks, at least six bipartisan letters and resolutions have been drafted, defending the interests of the Indian American community, reaffirming support for the India-U.S. partnership, and urging the administration to be accountable for its recent actions targeting New Delhi.

As discussions around international relations continue to evolve, McCormick’s remarks underscore the significance of maintaining strong diplomatic ties with India, particularly in the context of global peace and economic collaboration.

Source: Original article

Congressional Leaders, Including Ami Bera, Call for Reconsideration of H-1B Restrictions

U.S. lawmakers, including Representative Ami Bera, are urging President Trump to reconsider recent restrictions on H-1B visas, citing potential negative impacts on the economy and U.S.-India relations.

In a recent letter to President Donald Trump, U.S. Representative Jimmy Panetta, along with Congressmen Ami Bera, Salud Carbajal, Derek Tran, and Congresswoman Julie Johnson, has called for the reversal of the September 19 Proclamation that limits H-1B visas. The bipartisan group of lawmakers expressed concern that these restrictions could adversely affect the relationship between the United States and India, as well as diminish America’s competitive advantage in technology and innovation.

Representative Ami Bera, a senior Indian American member of Congress and a long-time proponent of stronger ties between the U.S. and India, underscored the importance of H-1B professionals in bolstering the U.S. technology sector. “Our economy thrives on global talent and innovation,” Bera stated. He cautioned that restrictive visa policies could jeopardize both American leadership in the tech industry and the partnership with India.

Panetta shared similar sentiments, describing the H-1B program as essential for maintaining America’s leadership in technological innovation, particularly in light of the rapid advancements in artificial intelligence. He noted that nearly 75 percent of current H-1B recipients originate from India and urged the administration to expand the program rather than restrict it to foster continued growth in high-tech industries.

The lawmakers highlighted that many of the most successful companies in America were founded or led by individuals who were once H-1B visa holders. These entrepreneurs continue to contribute to job creation and economic development across the country. They argued that limiting visa availability would negatively impact local economies, particularly in areas with significant Indian American and immigrant populations that play a vital role in civic and economic life.

This appeal comes in the wake of Florida Governor Ron DeSantis’s recent decision to prohibit H-1B hiring at state universities, as well as new guidance from the Department of Homeland Security regarding application fee adjustments. Despite these developments, the White House has reiterated that President Trump’s priority remains “putting American workers first.” This stance continues amid ongoing legal challenges from business groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, regarding the visa restrictions.

As the debate over H-1B visa policies unfolds, the implications for the tech industry and U.S.-India relations remain a focal point for lawmakers advocating for a more inclusive approach to immigration that supports innovation and economic growth.

Source: Original article

Trump’s Influence Felt in Key 2025 Election Day Contests

Voters across the United States are heading to the polls for key elections on Tuesday, with the outcomes seen as a significant test of former President Donald Trump’s second-term agenda.

As voters prepare to cast their ballots on Tuesday, the spotlight is on several key races across the country, including gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia, as well as a high-profile mayoral contest in New York City. These elections are viewed as the first major test of former President Donald Trump’s ambitious second-term agenda, which has sparked considerable debate and division.

Nearly ten months into Trump’s second term, the elections are being closely monitored as indicators of the political landscape leading up to next year’s midterms. Trump, leveraging his influence, has urged Republican voters to participate, stating on social media, “FAILING TO VOTE TOMORROW IS THE SAME AS VOTING FOR A DEMOCRAT.”

New Jersey and Virginia are the only states holding gubernatorial elections in the year following a presidential election, making their races particularly significant. Historically, these contests have attracted national attention and are often seen as bellwethers for the upcoming midterm elections, where the GOP will aim to defend its slim majorities in both the House and Senate.

In New Jersey, Republican candidate Jack Ciattarelli is making his third consecutive bid for the governorship. After a narrow defeat to Democratic Governor Phil Murphy four years ago, Ciattarelli is optimistic about his chances this time around. Despite New Jersey’s Democratic-leaning voter base, Ciattarelli has gained momentum in recent weeks, closing the gap with his Democratic opponent, Representative Mikie Sherrill.

Trump’s support has been pivotal for Ciattarelli, who has received significant backing from the former president in the campaign’s final days. “We appreciate what the president is doing to get the base excited, and remind them that they got to vote,” Ciattarelli stated after a campaign stop in northern New Jersey. He emphasized the importance of voter turnout, asserting that “the future of our state hangs in the balance.”

However, Sherrill has consistently linked Ciattarelli to Trump, arguing that he has aligned himself closely with the former president’s policies. The race has been further complicated by a recent controversy involving the release of Sherrill’s military records, which were improperly redacted and included sensitive personal information. This incident has added another layer of complexity to an already contentious campaign.

In Virginia, the gubernatorial race has also been fraught with drama. Democratic nominee Abigail Spanberger, a former congresswoman, was initially seen as the frontrunner against Republican Lieutenant Governor Winsome Earle-Sears. However, the race took a turn following the emergence of controversial texts from Democratic attorney general candidate Jay Jones, who faced backlash for comparing a Republican lawmaker to historical mass murderers.

Spanberger has been forced to defend her association with Jones, whose remarks have drawn widespread condemnation. During a recent debate, Earle-Sears seized the opportunity to link Spanberger to Jones, calling for her to denounce his candidacy. Spanberger, while denouncing Jones’s comments, did not distance herself from him, which could impact her campaign.

Meanwhile, the mayoral election in New York City is generating significant interest, particularly as 34-year-old democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani seeks to make history as the city’s first Muslim and millennial mayor. Mamdani’s victory in the Democratic primary earlier this year sent shockwaves through the political landscape, and he now faces challenges from former Governor Andrew Cuomo, who is running as an independent after resigning amid scandals four years ago.

Cuomo’s return to the political arena has raised eyebrows, and he is vying for a comeback against Mamdani and two-time Republican nominee Curtis Sliwa. The dynamics of this race are further complicated by the recent withdrawal of incumbent Mayor Eric Adams, who had been running for re-election as an independent but has since endorsed Cuomo.

In addition to these high-stakes races, voters in California will decide on a significant ballot measure regarding congressional redistricting. The proposed measure seeks to dismantle the state’s nonpartisan redistricting commission, allowing the Democrat-controlled legislature to redraw congressional maps for the next decade. This move is seen as an effort to create additional Democratic-leaning districts in response to recent Republican gains in Texas.

Finally, three state Supreme Court justices in Pennsylvania are facing retention elections, which could shift the balance of power in a court that currently holds a Democratic majority. The outcome of these elections could have far-reaching implications for key issues such as voting rights and reproductive rights in the state.

As voters head to the polls, the stakes are high, and the outcomes of these contests could shape the political landscape for years to come. The results will not only reflect the current sentiments of the electorate but also serve as a precursor to the upcoming midterm elections.

According to Fox News, the outcomes of these races will be pivotal in determining the direction of both state and national politics.

Source: Original article

Trump Aims to Restrict Nvidia’s AI Chips from China and Others

President Donald Trump has announced that Nvidia’s most advanced AI chips will be reserved exclusively for U.S. companies, restricting access to China and other nations.

In a recent statement, President Donald Trump emphasized the United States’ commitment to keeping Nvidia’s cutting-edge AI chips within its borders. The advanced chips, including the H100 and H200 “Blackwell” series, are now central to U.S. trade and technology policy.

As of 2025, Nvidia is ramping up domestic production in states like Arizona and Texas to bolster supply chains. However, many of the components still depend on global suppliers. The U.S. government has implemented stringent export controls on the sale of advanced AI chips to China, citing national security concerns. Certain older models are still permitted for export under specific conditions, which include a revenue-sharing agreement that allocates approximately 15% of sales back to the U.S. government.

These measures aim to protect the United States’ technological leadership while supporting domestic manufacturing. Nevertheless, they do not entirely eliminate reliance on foreign production or supply chains, raising questions about the long-term sustainability of this strategy.

The policies surrounding these export restrictions carry significant risks and uncertainties. By limiting access to major markets, the U.S. may inadvertently accelerate the development of foreign competitors. Specific details regarding which Blackwell models are restricted and the complete terms of the revenue-sharing agreements remain publicly unconfirmed. Nvidia has voiced concerns that overly stringent controls could stifle innovation and commercial opportunities.

During a taped interview that aired on CBS’s “60 Minutes” and in comments made to reporters aboard Air Force One, Trump reiterated that only U.S. customers should have access to Nvidia’s top-tier Blackwell chips. He stated, “The most advanced, we will not let anybody have them other than the United States,” reinforcing his earlier remarks made while returning to Washington from a weekend in Florida.

Trump clarified that while he would not permit the sale of the most advanced Blackwell chips to Chinese companies, he did not completely rule out the possibility of allowing them access to less capable versions of the chip. “We will let them deal with Nvidia but not in terms of the most advanced,” he explained during the “60 Minutes” interview.

This decision to reserve the most advanced chips for domestic use reflects the U.S. government’s strategy to maintain a competitive edge in AI innovation while safeguarding sensitive capabilities from strategic rivals. However, the export controls and revenue-sharing conditions for other models highlight the complexities of balancing commercial interests with security objectives.

While these measures may strengthen U.S. technological leadership and support domestic manufacturing, they also present potential downsides. Limiting access to key global markets could incentivize foreign competitors to accelerate their own chip development, creating uncertainty for companies navigating international trade.

Overall, this situation underscores that maintaining U.S. dominance in advanced AI is not solely about fostering innovation. It also involves careful policy management, supply chain resilience, and strategic coordination between government and private industry in a fiercely competitive global landscape.

Source: Original article

Google Removes Gemma from AI Studio Following Defamation Accusations

Google has removed its AI model Gemma from the AI Studio following accusations of defamation by Senator Marsha Blackburn, who claimed it falsely implicated her in sexual misconduct.

Google has announced the removal of its AI model, Gemma, from the AI Studio after Senator Marsha Blackburn accused the technology of making false claims about her. In an email to Google CEO Sundar Pichai, Blackburn highlighted a specific interaction with Gemma, where it was asked, “Has Marsha Blackburn been accused of rape?” The AI model responded with allegations that during a 1987 state senate campaign, a state trooper claimed Blackburn had pressured him to obtain prescription drugs, and that the relationship involved non-consensual acts.

Blackburn vehemently denied these allegations, stating, “None of this is true, not even the campaign year which was actually 1998.” She pointed out that while there were links provided in the AI’s response that were supposed to support these claims, they led to error pages and unrelated news articles. “There has never been such an accusation, there is no such individual, and there are no such news stories,” she asserted.

In her letter, Blackburn also referenced a recent Senate Commerce hearing where she discussed a lawsuit filed by conservative activist Robby Starbuck against Google. Starbuck’s lawsuit alleged that Google’s AI models, including Gemma, generated defamatory statements labeling him as a “child rapist” and “serial sexual abuser.”

In response to the controversy, Google’s Vice President for Government Affairs and Public Policy, Markham Erickson, acknowledged that “hallucinations” are a known issue with AI models and stated that the company is “working hard to mitigate them.” However, Blackburn argued that the fabrications produced by Gemma should not be dismissed as mere “hallucinations,” but rather recognized as acts of defamation generated by a Google-owned AI model.

Following the backlash, Google’s official news account on X clarified that the company had observed non-developers attempting to use Gemma in AI Studio to ask factual questions. The AI Studio is designed primarily for developers and is not intended for general consumer use. Gemma is categorized as a family of AI models tailored for developers, with specific variants for medical applications, coding, and evaluating text and image content.

To address the confusion surrounding its use, Google stated that access to Gemma would no longer be available on AI Studio, although it would still be accessible to developers through the API. The company emphasized that Gemma was never intended to serve as a consumer tool or to answer factual inquiries.

Senator Blackburn, a Republican from Tennessee, has had a complex relationship with the Trump administration’s technology policies. Notably, she played a role in removing a moratorium on state-level AI regulation from Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill.” Additionally, she has echoed concerns raised by the administration regarding perceived biases in Google’s AI systems against conservatives.

As the debate over the implications of AI technology continues, the incident involving Gemma raises critical questions about the responsibilities of tech companies in managing the outputs of their AI models and the potential consequences of misinformation.

Source: Original article

Judge Blocks National Guard Deployment to Portland, Citing Insufficient Justification

U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut has temporarily blocked the Trump administration’s deployment of National Guard troops to Portland, citing insufficient justification for the federalization.

U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut has extended an order that prevents the Trump administration from deploying National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon. The judge’s decision, made on Sunday, stems from the government’s failure to provide adequate justification for the federalization of these troops.

In her order, Immergut “preliminarily enjoins Defendant Secretary of Defense Hegseth from implementing” the memorandums that authorized the deployment of National Guard members from Oregon, Texas, and California to Portland. This injunction will remain in effect until the court issues a final ruling on the matter, which is expected by Friday, November 7, 2025, at 5 p.m. PT.

Immergut noted that the court had recently conducted a trial that included three days of testimony and argument, during which more than 750 exhibits were reviewed. She emphasized the importance of a thorough examination of the evidence before reaching a final decision, stating, “the interest of justice requires that this Court complete a thorough review of the exhibits and trial transcripts.”

In her assessment of the Trump administration’s actions, Immergut found the government’s justification for the deployment lacking. She indicated that there was no credible evidence to support claims that protests in Portland had escalated to a level that warranted federal intervention. “Based on the trial testimony, this Court finds no credible evidence that during the approximately two months before the President’s federalization order, protests grew out of control or involved more than isolated and sporadic instances of violent conduct that resulted in no serious injuries to federal personnel,” she wrote.

Furthermore, Immergut concluded that President Trump likely did not have a valid basis to invoke federal authority under either Section 12406(3) or Section 12406(2) to deploy the National Guard to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility in Portland. She highlighted the testimony from local law enforcement officials, who provided firsthand accounts of the demonstrations, as critical to her determination that the protests did not constitute a rebellion.

“Based on trial testimony that this Court found credible, particularly the testimony of Portland Police Bureau command staff, who work in Portland and have first-hand knowledge of the crowds at the ICE building from June to the present, the protests in Portland at the time of the National Guard call outs are likely not a ‘rebellion,’ and likely do not pose a danger of rebellion,” she stated.

In addition to questioning the justification for the deployment, Immergut asserted that the administration’s actions likely violated statutory limits and constitutional protections. She wrote, “Defendants’ federalization and deployment of the National Guard in response to protests outside a single federal building in Portland, Oregon, extended beyond delegated statutory authority under 10 U.S.C. § 12406 and violated the Tenth Amendment.” This assertion underscores the potential infringement on state sovereignty, which she described as “an injury to Oregon’s sovereignty under the Constitution, and Oregon’s equal sovereignty among the States.”

As the case progresses, Immergut has indicated that she will issue her final opinion on the merits by the specified deadline. Until that time, the Oregon National Guard may remain federalized but will not be deployed.

Source: Original article

Nvidia’s Valuation Compared to India’s Market Sparks Debate on AI Hype

Indian American investor Kanwal Rekhi warns that the soaring valuations in artificial intelligence could lead to a market correction, drawing parallels to past financial crashes.

Indian American entrepreneur and investor Kanwal Rekhi has issued a stark warning regarding the state of the global technology market, suggesting that the current boom in artificial intelligence (AI) may be nearing a critical turning point.

In a recent Facebook post, Rekhi highlighted a striking comparison: Nvidia’s market capitalization is now roughly equivalent to the total market capitalization of all publicly traded companies in India. He described this disparity as indicative of a significant imbalance, stating, “Either Nvidia is overvalued or Indian stocks are an attractive buy. Both can’t be true.”

Rekhi characterized the situation as a full-blown AI bubble, noting that nearly 40 percent of all investments today are directed towards AI-related activities. However, he expressed skepticism about the returns on these substantial investments, saying, “I am not able to see the commensurate return on these investments.” He pointed to Nvidia’s price-to-earnings ratio, which is approaching 60, and described the expectations surrounding these valuations as “too high to be realistic.”

Concerns about the broader macroeconomic environment were also raised by Rekhi, who warned that “any hiccup in economic numbers is likely to cascade very rapidly,” attributing this instability to what he referred to as the “unstable policies” of President Donald Trump.

As a veteran of multiple market cycles, Rekhi drew parallels between the current enthusiasm for AI and previous speculative manias. He recalled the crash of 1987 and the dot-com crash, asking rhetorically, “Is an AI crash coming, soon?” His insights resonate within the technology and venture capital ecosystem, where he is recognized as a pioneer of Silicon Valley’s Indian diaspora network and co-founder of the Indus Entrepreneurs (TiE). Over the past three decades, Rekhi has supported numerous startups, making his perspective particularly relevant amid growing concerns among seasoned investors.

In recent weeks, several experts have echoed Rekhi’s warnings about a potential AI bubble. Last month, the Bank of England cautioned that global markets are facing an increasing risk of a “sudden correction” due to soaring valuations of leading AI companies. The Bank’s financial policy committee (FPC) stated, “The risk of a sharp market correction has increased. On a number of measures, equity market valuations appear stretched, particularly for technology companies focused on artificial intelligence. This leaves equity markets particularly exposed should expectations around the impact of AI become less optimistic.”

A report from Stanford University’s Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence (HAI) further underscores the rapid financial growth within the AI sector. The report revealed that corporate investment in AI surged to $252.3 billion in 2024, with private funding increasing by 44.5% and mergers and acquisitions rising by 12.1% compared to the previous year. Over the past decade, total investment in AI has grown more than thirteenfold since 2014, highlighting both the scale and potential fragility of the current AI gold rush.

Rekhi’s cautionary stance reflects a growing unease among investors who fear that the current AI frenzy, driven by companies like Nvidia and OpenAI, may not be sustainable without tangible, near-term returns to justify such high valuations. As the technology landscape continues to evolve, the implications of these soaring valuations remain a topic of significant concern for market watchers.

Source: Original article

Federal Judges Order Funding for November SNAP Benefits Amid Shutdown

The Trump administration faces a court-imposed deadline to ensure the distribution of November’s SNAP benefits amid an ongoing government shutdown that threatens food security for millions.

The Trump administration has been ordered by federal judges to clarify how it will comply with directives to distribute November’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits during the current government shutdown. Initially, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced plans to suspend SNAP payments starting November 1, citing funding challenges due to the shutdown. SNAP plays a crucial role in supporting approximately one in eight Americans, costing around $8 billion monthly across the nation.

Two separate court rulings from Rhode Island and Massachusetts have mandated that the administration utilize $5.25 billion in contingency funds to sustain the SNAP program. The judges have granted the administration the option to either issue partial payments by midweek or full payments by the end of Monday, November 3. Should the contingency funds prove insufficient, the USDA has been advised to seek alternative funding sources, including discretionary funds that currently hold a balance of about $23 billion.

A coalition of Democratic state attorneys general and governors, representing 25 states and the District of Columbia, has challenged the proposed payment freeze. They argue that the Trump administration bears a legal obligation to maintain SNAP operations. Additionally, several cities and nonprofit organizations have joined the legal challenge, emphasizing the importance of uninterrupted support for those in need.

Despite the court’s directives, the timing of SNAP payments for November remains uncertain, with potential delays anticipated. States must reload recipients’ electronic benefit transfer cards, a process that can take several days. This uncertainty has raised significant concerns for millions of Americans who rely on SNAP for their food security.

Federal judges have acknowledged President Trump’s responsiveness to the court order, yet tensions remain high as Congress continues to navigate the ongoing shutdown and its implications for essential social safety net programs like SNAP.

Source: Original article

US and China Establish Direct Military Hotline Following Summit

The United States and China have agreed to establish direct military communication channels to mitigate tensions following a meeting between U.S. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and Chinese defense chief Admiral Dong Jun.

U.S. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth described his recent discussions with China’s Minister of National Defense, Admiral Dong Jun, as “positive,” highlighting a mutual agreement to open military channels aimed at easing tensions between the two nations.

Following a meeting between President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping, Hegseth announced plans to establish military-to-military communications to “deconflict and deescalate” potential issues. In a post on X, he emphasized the importance of peace, stability, and good relations between the U.S. and China.

“Admiral Dong and I also agreed that we should set up military-to-military channels to deconflict and deescalate any problems that arise. We have more meetings on that coming soon. God bless both China and the USA!” Hegseth wrote.

Earlier on the same day, Hegseth participated in a meeting in Malaysia with defense leaders from the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). During this meeting, he urged ASEAN members to counter China’s aggressive actions in the South China Sea.

“China’s sweeping territorial and maritime claims in the South China Sea fly in the face of their commitments to resolve disputes peacefully,” he stated, according to reports from The Associated Press. “We seek peace. We do not seek conflict. But we must ensure that China is not seeking to dominate you or anybody else,” he added.

The South China Sea remains a contentious area, with overlapping territorial claims from China, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, and Brunei. Tensions have escalated as China’s maritime fleet has clashed with the Philippines in these disputed waters. Recently, Chinese officials labeled the Philippines a “troublemaker” for conducting naval and air drills in collaboration with the United States, Australia, and New Zealand.

During the ASEAN meeting, Hegseth defended the Philippines against China’s claims, particularly regarding the Scarborough Shoal, which was seized from the Philippines in 2012. He criticized Beijing’s designation of the area as a “nature reserve,” calling it “yet another attempt to coerce new and expanded territorial and maritime claims at your expense.”

Hegseth encouraged ASEAN members to finalize a Code of Conduct with China and proposed the creation of a “shared maritime domain awareness” network. He also suggested implementing rapid-response systems to deter provocations, ensuring that any member facing “aggression and provocation is not alone.”

In addition, he welcomed plans for an ASEAN-U.S. maritime exercise scheduled for December, aimed at enhancing coordination and safeguarding freedom of navigation in the region.

As the U.S. and China work to establish direct military communication channels, the focus remains on maintaining stability and preventing conflicts in the increasingly volatile South China Sea.

Source: Original article

War Department Intensifies Narco-Terror Campaign at Sea with 15th Strike

The U.S. military has intensified its campaign against narco-terrorism at sea, launching its 15th strike aimed at disrupting drug trafficking operations in the Caribbean.

The U.S. military has executed its 15th maritime strike targeting narco-terror groups in the Caribbean, as War Secretary Pete Hegseth emphasizes the government’s commitment to combating drug cartels. The latest operation resulted in the deaths of three suspected smugglers, according to Hegseth, who stated that the strike was carried out “at the direction of President Trump.”

In a post on X, Hegseth detailed the operation, describing it as a “lethal kinetic strike” against a vessel linked to a Designated Terrorist Organization (DTO). He noted that the targeted vessel was known to be involved in illicit narcotics smuggling and was traversing a recognized narco-trafficking route while carrying narcotics.

“These narco-terrorists are bringing drugs to our shores to poison Americans at home — and they will not succeed,” Hegseth declared. He pledged that the U.S. military would pursue these groups with the same determination it applied in its fight against Al Qaeda: “We will continue to track them, map them, hunt them, and kill them.”

This recent announcement highlights the ongoing maritime offensive against transnational cartels, which has seen at least 64 individuals killed in operations since September, according to defense officials familiar with the campaign. Hegseth has characterized these efforts as a vital response to the evolving threat posed by drug cartels, which he argues have transformed into transnational terror organizations.

President Trump has defended these military strikes as a necessary measure to disrupt the flow of drugs into the United States, framing the situation as an “armed conflict” with these cartels. This perspective aligns with the legal authority invoked following the September 11, 2001, attacks, which allows for military action against perceived threats.

Despite the administration’s strong stance, there has been increasing pressure from lawmakers for greater transparency regarding the legal justifications for these operations. On Friday, Senate Democrats renewed their calls for clarity, sending a letter to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, and Hegseth. The letter requested the administration disclose its legal rationale and the list of entities deemed targetable under the president’s directive.

The letter, signed by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and several senior Democrats, including Senators Jack Reed and Jeanne Shaheen, accused the administration of selectively releasing conflicting information to certain lawmakers while withholding details from others.

In a related development, the bipartisan leadership of the Senate Armed Services Committee has released two previously undisclosed letters sent to Hegseth in late September and early October. These letters urged the Pentagon to clarify its legal framework for the strikes and to identify which cartels have been formally designated as terrorist organizations.

As the U.S. military continues its campaign against narco-terrorism, the implications of these operations raise significant questions about the balance between national security and transparency in government actions.

Source: Original article

New Platform Reveals Details of Family Separation Chaos

Newly launched platform reveals the chaotic implementation of family separations during the Trump administration’s zero-tolerance policy, highlighting the need for transparency and accountability in immigration practices.

On October 30, 2025, the American Immigration Council unveiled a new platform aimed at analyzing records pertaining to the U.S. government’s tumultuous execution of family separations during the controversial zero-tolerance policy period under the first Trump administration.

This transparency project provides a detailed examination of what many consider to be one of the most disgraceful immigration policies in modern American history. It also highlights the responses from various stakeholders during the crisis, offering critical insights into how public resistance emerged against this harmful policy.

The project draws upon thousands of internal government emails, memos, and previously unreleased datasets obtained through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and litigation. It reveals that the zero-tolerance policy was not merely a reactionary measure but a calculated strategy intended to deter migration by punishing families while obscuring accountability.

“Thanks to these records, we can more clearly see the inner workings of how this atrocity was carried out and the public’s struggle to obtain transparency and accountability,” said Raul Pinto, deputy legal director for transparency at the American Immigration Council. “The same disregard for oversight and human consequences that made family separation possible is now re-emerging in the ongoing mass detention and deportation efforts.”

The family separation project features interactive visualizations and declassified documents that illustrate how families were systematically erased from government databases. It also reveals how officials misled the public and how congressional oversight, along with media scrutiny, played a crucial role in bringing the policy to an end. The project includes audio recordings of actor Corey Stoll reading significant internal government emails that expose the confusion and insensitivity surrounding the policy’s implementation.

Key findings from the archive underscore the troubling realities of the family separation policy. Internal communications show that officials were aware their data on separated families was “corrupt.” Leaders within Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) expressed a lack of confidence in their own data regarding children taken from their parents, even while publicly denying any wrongdoing.

Moreover, oversight from Congress, the media, and regulatory agencies proved vital in halting family separations. However, as of 2025, critical oversight bodies such as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Inspector General and the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties have faced significant sidelining or defunding.

The records indicate that the family separation policy was characterized by intentional chaos. Confusion was weaponized to create significant delays in the reunification of children with their parents, exacerbating the trauma experienced by affected families.

“The records don’t just show government officials’ egregiousness and cruelty. They serve as a warning for our current moment of mass detention and deportation that is still seeing families separated,” Pinto stated. “These records illustrate how data manipulation and secrecy enabled systemic human rights violations during the first Trump administration. Without transparency and oversight, history will repeat itself.”

The newly created portal, a result of years of FOIA litigation by the American Immigration Council and its partners, allows journalists, researchers, and policymakers to delve into key documents and data that expose the inner workings of family separation and the failures that ensued.

Despite claims that the family separation policy ended in June 2018, hundreds of children remained separated from their parents for years, with some still not reunited. “Family separation was a national shame made possible by bureaucratic indifference to human suffering,” Pinto added. “The lesson here is clear: a collapse of oversight allows for cruelty to fill the vacuum.”

Source: Original article

Sen. Warner Criticizes Trump Administration for Excluding Democrats from Briefings

Senator Mark Warner criticized the Trump administration for excluding Democrats from briefings on military strikes against alleged drug traffickers, calling the decision “indefensible and dangerous.”

Senator Mark Warner, a Democrat from Virginia and the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, has publicly condemned the Trump administration for holding briefings exclusively with Republican lawmakers regarding U.S. military strikes targeting alleged drug boats in the Caribbean. Warner characterized the exclusion of Democrats from these national security briefings as “indefensible and dangerous.”

In a statement, Warner expressed his concerns, stating, “Shutting Democrats out of a briefing on U.S. military strikes and withholding the legal justification for those strikes from half the Senate is indefensible and dangerous.” He emphasized that decisions regarding the use of American military force should not be treated as partisan campaign strategy sessions or the exclusive domain of one political party.

Warner further argued that such actions undermine national security and violate Congress’s constitutional responsibility to oversee matters of war and peace. He described the partisan nature of the briefings as a “slap in the face” to Congress’s war powers and to the service members involved in military operations. He warned that this approach sets a “reckless and deeply troubling precedent” for future administrations.

Reports indicate that the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has produced a legal opinion justifying the military strikes, which Democrats have been requesting in recent weeks. Warner insisted that the administration must provide Democrats with the same briefing and the OLC opinion that Secretary Rubio had promised him during a recent meeting on Capitol Hill. “Americans deserve a government that fulfills its constitutional duties and treats decisions about the use of military force with the seriousness they demand,” Warner stated.

In response to Warner’s criticism, the Pentagon defended its actions, asserting that the “appropriate” committees had been briefed on the strikes. Pentagon press secretary Kingsley Wilson stated, “The Department of War has briefed the appropriate committees of jurisdiction, including the Senate Intelligence Committee, numerous times throughout the operations targeting narco-terrorists. These have occurred on a bipartisan basis and will continue as such.”

On Wednesday, Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee also sent a letter demanding to review the legal justification for the series of boat strikes, which they argue may violate several laws. The letter highlighted the importance of adhering to legal standards, stating, “Drug trafficking is a terrible crime that has had devastating impacts on American families and communities and should be prosecuted. Nonetheless, the President’s actions to hold alleged drug traffickers accountable must still conform with the law.”

Members of the Trump administration have faced scrutiny not only from Democrats but also from within their own party. Senator Rand Paul, a Republican from Kentucky, raised concerns about the potential for killing individuals without due process and the risk of harming innocent people. Paul referenced Coast Guard statistics indicating that a significant percentage of boats boarded under suspicion of drug trafficking are, in fact, innocent.

Furthermore, Paul argued that if the administration intends to engage in military action against Venezuela, particularly after targeting boats allegedly linked to the Venezuela-connected Tren de Aragua gang, it must seek a formal declaration of war from Congress. Similar sentiments have been echoed by Representative Thomas Massie, a Republican from Kentucky.

This controversy follows the announcement by Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth that the U.S. military conducted another strike on a boat carrying individuals he described as narco-terrorists. This latest operation, directed by President Donald Trump, resulted in the deaths of four men on board. It marked the 14th strike on suspected drug boats since September, with reports indicating that a total of 61 individuals have been killed in these operations, while three survived, including at least two who were later repatriated to their home countries. The Pentagon has not disclosed the identities of those killed or provided evidence that drugs were present on the boats involved.

Source: Original article

China Remains Silent on U.S. Discussions About TikTok

China is withholding details on negotiations with the U.S. regarding TikTok, as both nations seek to address concerns surrounding the app’s U.S. operations.

China is remaining tight-lipped about its discussions with the United States concerning TikTok. The Chinese Commerce Ministry stated that Beijing will collaborate with Washington to “properly resolve” issues related to the divestiture of TikTok’s U.S. operations, as reported in a translation by CNBC.

Louise Loo, head of Asia economics at Oxford Economics, expressed concerns about the lack of specifics in these discussions. In an email, she noted, “It’s the lack of specifics that will most certainly add to policy miscalculation risk.” Loo further emphasized that there is insufficient evidence to suggest that Beijing’s interests in the TikTok issue align with President Trump’s motivations to divest the entity’s U.S. business.

The Commerce Ministry’s statement did not include a timeline or additional details. This announcement followed a significant meeting between President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping, marking their first in-person encounter since Trump took office in January.

The ownership of TikTok, which is operated by the Chinese company ByteDance, has been a contentious issue in U.S.-China relations, primarily due to concerns about data privacy, national security, and content manipulation. U.S. officials have raised alarms that Chinese ownership could potentially grant access to American user data or influence TikTok’s algorithm. Conversely, China has insisted that any resolution must protect the sovereignty and rights of its enterprises, rather than merely ensuring “fair treatment.”

Negotiators from both countries have reached a preliminary framework agreement aimed at addressing these concerns. This proposed plan suggests that a U.S.-based entity would assume majority control of TikTok’s U.S. operations, while ByteDance would retain a minority stake. Additionally, American user data would be stored under U.S. control, and the recommendation algorithm would either be licensed, rebuilt, or managed through a hybrid approach specifically for the American market.

This development signifies a broader shift in U.S.-China technology relations, indicating a willingness to negotiate significant company-level disputes instead of resorting to outright bans or unilateral actions. While this approach alleviates immediate tensions, several critical aspects—such as algorithm oversight, limits on Chinese ownership, and enforcement of U.S. data controls—remain provisional.

The TikTok situation exemplifies the intricate intersection of technology, geopolitics, and national security in today’s digital landscape. The preliminary framework between the U.S. and China underscores both nations’ acknowledgment that high-profile tech companies can become focal points for larger strategic and economic issues. While the agreement seeks to balance U.S. data protection and algorithm oversight with China’s desire to safeguard its enterprises, the absence of finalized details highlights the precariousness of such arrangements.

This scenario illustrates the potential risks of misalignment between governmental objectives, which could have significant implications for policy, commerce, and public perception.

Source: Original article

Trump Indicates Nvidia’s Blackwell Chips Will Be Restricted for China

President Donald Trump expressed reluctance to allow Nvidia’s Blackwell chips to be shared with China, emphasizing national security concerns during a recent meeting in South Korea.

President Donald Trump has indicated a firm stance against sharing Nvidia’s Blackwell chips with China. Following a meeting in South Korea on Thursday, Trump addressed reporters aboard Air Force One, stating that while discussions about semiconductors had taken place, he was clear that “we’re not talking about the Blackwell.”

Nvidia’s Blackwell architecture, which was announced in 2024 and is set to be rolled out throughout 2025, marks a significant leap forward in GPU technology, particularly for artificial intelligence (AI) and large-scale machine learning applications. Named after the renowned mathematician David Blackwell, this architecture succeeds the previous Hopper design and introduces several key innovations, including the second-generation Transformer Engine, multi-die “superchip” configurations, and high-bandwidth interconnects.

The flagship models of this architecture, such as the B200 and GB200, are engineered to enhance the training and inference of large language models (LLMs). Nvidia claims that these models can achieve performance improvements of up to 30 times compared to earlier GPUs in specific AI-related tasks, although actual results may vary based on model size, task, and configuration. Additionally, Blackwell aims to enhance energy efficiency, which also depends on the type of workload being processed. This architecture is designed to meet the rising demands of generative AI, facilitating the use of larger models and quicker computations while catering to both enterprise deployment and research environments. The gradual rollout of Blackwell in 2025 is influenced by supply constraints and selective adoption among major AI users.

Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang expressed optimism regarding the discussions between President Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping during their recent meeting in South Korea. “I have every confidence that the two presidents had a very good conversation. It doesn’t have to involve anything that I do,” Huang remarked.

The U.S. government has tightened export controls on advanced semiconductors, including GPUs, to limit China’s access to cutting-edge AI technologies that could be used for both commercial and military purposes. The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) has issued updated regulations that require broader licensing for high-performance chips intended for China, emphasizing national security concerns. These measures specifically target processors capable of enhancing AI and machine learning workloads, effectively restricting access to the most advanced hardware while permitting limited, regulated exports.

These export controls reflect the U.S. strategic goal of maintaining technological leadership in AI and high-performance computing while addressing geopolitical risks. Amid these restrictions, Nvidia has acknowledged the possibility of introducing its Blackwell-architecture GPUs to China, contingent upon U.S. government approval. Huang noted that any deployment in China would adhere to export regulations, potentially involving versions of the chips with limited performance capabilities. This situation highlights the tension between commercial opportunities and regulatory constraints, illustrating how major technology firms must navigate the complex U.S.-China geopolitical landscape while fostering global AI innovation.

For companies like Nvidia, balancing commercial prospects with stringent regulatory compliance is crucial. They must ensure that their technology deployment aligns with government policies and international market dynamics, reflecting the intricate interplay of technology, trade policy, and national security in 2025.

Source: Original article

Trump’s Leverage Could Help Halt Sudan Killings, Yale Researchers Say

Yale researchers have revealed evidence of mass killings in Sudan’s El Fasher through satellite imagery, urging former President Trump to leverage his influence to halt the violence.

New satellite images have surfaced, depicting what appear to be bloodstains on the sand and bodies scattered across El Fasher, North Darfur, amid alarming reports of mass killings perpetrated by the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) in the war-torn region. Yale University’s Humanitarian Research Lab (HRL) released these images in a report published on Tuesday, coinciding with the collapse of ceasefire negotiations in Washington and the RSF’s recent entry into El Fasher.

The report from Yale HRL states, “Yale HRL finds evidence consistent with systematic mass killings of people outside El Fasher along the berm in satellite imagery collected on 27 and 28 October 2025.” The Wall Street Journal also reported that U.S. intelligence assessments have confirmed an increase in weapons transfers from the United Arab Emirates to the RSF, including drones identified by researchers at Yale.

According to Nathaniel Raymond, a researcher at Yale, “President Trump has unique leverage to stop the killing now by calling the United Arab Emirates and pressuring them to do what the Biden administration refused to do to stop arming the RSF.” Raymond noted that their lab identified a CH-95 drone in the imagery, which was supplied by the UAE to the RSF.

The team at Yale HRL analyzed high-resolution imagery from Airbus DS, confirming the presence of bodies, blood, and burned neighborhoods in El Fasher. This city has been under siege for 18 months, culminating in the RSF’s recent takeover.

Raymond explained that their surveillance efforts began in 2023 as part of the U.S. State and Sudan Conflict Observatory. He warned the United Nations that if El Fasher fell, atrocities would inevitably follow. Over the past 18 months, the team has meticulously documented the siege, producing reports for both U.N. and U.S. officials. “We told them we were approaching a genocide,” Raymond stated.

He also described how RSF forces have employed tactics to evade detection, such as hiding vehicles under trees and moving primarily at night to conceal resupply flights. Satellite measurements indicated the presence of objects on the ground consistent with human bodies, measuring approximately 1.3 to 2 meters (3 to 6 feet) long.

The RSF’s takeover has resulted in over 2,000 civilian deaths and left 177,000 people trapped under blockade. The ongoing conflict has displaced around 12 million individuals and claimed 150,000 lives since its onset in 2023.

Despite hopes for a breakthrough in U.S.-sponsored talks late last week, sources indicated that the United Arab Emirates declined to address the situation in El Fasher. In July, Trump had revived peace efforts for Sudan, which included a ministerial-level meeting with the so-called “Sudan Quartet.”

Raymond emphasized the urgency of the situation, stating, “It is time for Trump to build on the legacy of Republican leadership in Darfur and call Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan in Abu Dhabi and tell him to stop.” He also mentioned that he would present this appeal to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in the near future.

Fox News Digital has reached out to the White House for comment regarding these developments.

Source: Original article

US States File Lawsuit Against Trump Administration Over SNAP Stoppage

The Trump administration faces a lawsuit from a coalition of states over the impending suspension of SNAP benefits amid a government shutdown that could cost the nation $14 billion.

The Trump administration is facing significant legal challenges as a coalition of Democratic-led states has filed a lawsuit over the impending suspension of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits. This action comes amid a government shutdown that is projected to cost the nation an alarming $14 billion, according to reports from Reuters.

The lawsuit, initiated on Tuesday in federal court in Boston, aims to prevent what would be a historic lapse in food aid for millions of Americans. The suspension of SNAP benefits is set to begin on November 1, coinciding with the ongoing government shutdown.

Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell emphasized the urgency of the situation in a social media post. “The federal government has the money to continue funding SNAP benefits — they’re choosing to harm millions of families across the country already struggling to make ends meet,” she stated.

This legal action challenges the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) decision not to utilize $6 billion in contingency funds designated for SNAP, which typically costs around $8 billion monthly to operate. The program provides essential food assistance to approximately 41 million Americans, relying entirely on federal funding.

With Congress failing to pass a budget by the October 1 deadline, the USDA announced that no SNAP payments would be issued beginning November 1, citing the depletion of emergency contingency funds. This pause in benefits is expected to disproportionately impact vulnerable populations, including children, seniors, and individuals with disabilities, as well as low-income households that depend on SNAP for their nutritional needs.

States like Illinois and Texas have already warned residents about potential shortfalls in food assistance, and food banks across the nation are preparing for an increase in demand as the situation unfolds.

The lawsuit argues that the suspension of benefits is arbitrary and violates existing laws and regulations governing the SNAP program. According to the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, assistance must be provided to all eligible households. New York Attorney General Letitia James expressed her concerns, stating, “Millions of Americans are about to go hungry because the federal government has chosen to withhold food assistance it is legally obligated to provide.”

This legal challenge arises during a government shutdown that may persist for an extended period. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer indicated on Tuesday that the 28-day shutdown could extend into November, coinciding with a time when millions of Americans face rising health insurance costs due to expiring Affordable Care Act tax credits. This situation is expected to increase pressure on lawmakers to resolve the ongoing impasse.

Schumer remarked, “On November 1, people in more than 30 states are going to be aghast — aghast — when they see their bills, and they’re going to cry out. And I believe there will be increased pressure on Republicans to negotiate with us.”

The lawsuit is spearheaded by the attorneys general of Massachusetts, California, Arizona, and Minnesota. They argue that the contingency funds should be utilized when necessary to ensure the continuity of program operations.

If successful, the lawsuit could compel the federal government to resume funding for SNAP, thereby ensuring that low-income families, seniors, and children continue to receive critical nutritional support. Beyond the immediate implications for food security, this legal action highlights the broader tensions between federal agencies and state governments when essential services are disrupted.

The case also underscores how political gridlock at the federal level can have direct consequences for millions of vulnerable Americans, including children, seniors, and low-income families who rely on SNAP for their basic nutritional needs. Furthermore, it sets a potential precedent for state intervention when federal agencies fail to meet their statutory obligations, emphasizing the legal and moral responsibilities of the government to safeguard public welfare.

This lawsuit not only seeks to protect those who depend on SNAP but also serves as a reminder of the far-reaching effects of political disputes on essential social programs.

Source: Original article

Trump Suggests Possibility of Third Term, Rules Out Vice Presidency

Former President Donald Trump has hinted at the possibility of a third presidential run while firmly ruling out a vice presidential role during his recent trip to Asia.

During his recent trip to Asia, former U.S. President Donald Trump suggested that he has not dismissed the idea of running for a third term in office. In a conversation with reporters aboard Air Force One, he expressed enthusiasm, stating, “I would love to do it.” However, he was quick to reject the notion of serving as vice president as a means to reclaim the presidency, describing that idea as “too cute” and asserting that it “wouldn’t be right.”

Trump clarified that while he technically “would be allowed” to run for vice president, he has no intention of pursuing that path. “I think people wouldn’t like that,” he remarked, emphasizing his disinterest in the role.

When pressed about the prospect of a third term, Trump admitted he had not given it extensive thought but noted, “I have the best poll numbers that I’ve ever had.” This statement underscores his confidence as he contemplates the political landscape ahead.

In addition to discussing his own political ambitions, Trump took the opportunity to praise key figures within the Republican Party. He lauded Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, calling them “unstoppable” and highlighting the strength of the party’s current roster. “We have a great group of people,” he added, reflecting on the potential for Republican leadership moving forward.

The U.S. Constitution’s 22nd Amendment limits presidents to two elected terms, making a third term a complex issue. Repealing this amendment would require a significant political shift, needing support from two-thirds of both houses of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of U.S. state legislatures. Most political analysts view such an outcome as highly unlikely.

Despite previous statements suggesting he would “probably not” run again, Trump has left the door open for a potential return to the race in 2028, hinting that he is “not joking” about the possibility.

As speculation about his political future continues, several Democrats are already positioning themselves for the upcoming election cycle. Notable figures such as California Governor Gavin Newsom and former Vice President Kamala Harris have indicated their interest in running for the presidency, setting the stage for a competitive political landscape.

Trump’s recent comments reflect a blend of ambition and strategy as he navigates the complexities of American politics. His ability to galvanize support within the Republican Party remains a focal point as the nation approaches the next election cycle.

Source: Original article

Why Proposition 50 Is Significant for California Voters

California’s Proposition 50 aims to address mid-decade redistricting conflicts and ensure fair representation in congressional districts ahead of the 2026 elections.

A mid-decade redistricting conflict has emerged in response to President Trump’s push for new congressional maps in Texas, designed to bolster Republican representation ahead of the 2026 midterms. In California, Proposition 50 seeks to counter this initiative by proposing a series of new congressional maps for approval in an upcoming special election.

During an October 16 briefing hosted by the American Community Media, policy experts from Common Cause discussed the implications of California’s special election on redistricting and representation. Common Cause, a nonpartisan government watchdog group, has been instrumental in advocating for fair representation in California, having played a key role in the establishment of the state’s independent redistricting commission.

“In 2008, we helped end partisan gerrymandering in California on legislative lines. In 2010, we did the same for congressional lines,” said Darius Kemp, Executive Director for California Common Cause. The creation of the California Citizens Redistricting Commission ensured that voters, rather than politicians, would lead the redistricting process, promoting fair and impartial representation.

Kemp emphasized the significance of this initiative, stating, “We care deeply about this because we know that redistricting is more than just lines on a map. Fair maps mean fair representation, fair votes, and a fair future for everyone.” However, Proposition 50 aims to alter the structure and authority of California’s independent redistricting commission, expanding its powers to redraw congressional districts mid-decade in preparation for the 2026 elections.

In July, the Department of Justice, under President Trump, sent a letter to Texas political leaders demanding the dismantling of congressional voting districts that were designed to empower communities of color. Dan Vicuña, Senior Policy Director of Voting and Fair Representation at Common Cause, noted that Trump also sought to flip five of Texas’s congressional districts from Democratic to Republican control.

In response, California Governor Gavin Newsom announced a plan to redraw the state’s congressional map, aiming to convert five Republican districts to Democratic control ahead of the 2026 midterms. In August, the California legislature passed a legislative package that called for a special election on November 4, 2025, where voters will be asked to adopt the new congressional map.

If approved, Proposition 50 would implement a new U.S. House map for elections from 2026 to 2030. Following the 2030 Census, the authority for redistricting would revert to the Citizens Redistricting Commission. It is important to note that Proposition 50 would only affect U.S. House districts, not State Assembly or Senate districts, and would require a simple majority to pass.

Brittany Stonesifer, Senior Program Manager for Voting Rights and Redistricting at Common Cause, explained that the districts affected would primarily be located around Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Sacramento, Lodi, San Joaquin, and Fresno.

When evaluating the fairness of Proposition 50, Common Cause does not oppose the measure. Their fairness criteria include proportionality, public participation, racial equity, time limits, and support for federal and independent redistricting reforms. Vicuña stated, “We determined that Prop 50 meets those standards.”

He further emphasized the importance of informed voter decisions, noting, “This is no longer a one-state game in the system. It’s a national power grab designed to make Donald Trump unaccountable to voters in a midterm election he’s afraid of.” Common Cause’s fairness criteria provide a framework for determining how to allocate limited time and resources in the face of ongoing challenges to democracy.

Vicuña highlighted that mid-decade redistricting should be a targeted response to threats posed by gerrymandering, as seen in Texas and other states. Missouri has already completed a redraw, while North Carolina has announced plans to revise its gerrymandered map. Florida and Indiana are also preparing to make similar changes.

Stonesifer pointed out the disparities in voter turnout across California’s diverse population, noting that overall eligible voter turnout was 62% during the 2024 general election, with only 46% for Latino voters and 54% for Asian American voters. These persistent disparities underscore the urgency of addressing representation in the state.

To combat these challenges, California Common Cause mobilizes and trains nonpartisan election protection volunteers, who serve as a vital resource for voters facing obstacles at the ballot box. Voters in need of assistance can call or text 866-OURVOTE, a hotline available in multiple languages, including English, Spanish, Arabic, Chinese, Vietnamese, Korean, Bengali, Hindi, Urdu, and Tagalog.

To participate in California’s elections, individuals must be U.S. citizens, residents of California, and at least 18 years old on Election Day. Those currently serving a prison sentence or deemed mentally incompetent are ineligible to vote. Importantly, unhoused individuals who meet these criteria also have the right to vote.

Voter registration is required before casting a ballot, and it is crucial to ensure that registration is up-to-date. For the November 4 special election, voters can register or update their registration online or by mail until October 25. If they miss this deadline, same-day registration is available in person at vote centers or polling places until polls close on Election Day.

Californians have several options for casting their ballots, including mail-in voting. All active registered voters will automatically receive a ballot by mail, which can be returned through USPS without postage required. Ballots are available in nine languages other than English, and must be postmarked by November 4. However, voters are encouraged to mail them by October 31 to ensure timely delivery.

In-person voting will be available at locations across the state on November 4, from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. Voters are not required to show ID to vote, although poll workers may request it to facilitate the process. Anyone in line at 8 p.m. on Election Day has the right to vote.

This November, Proposition 50 will be the only statewide measure on the ballot. As Vicuña explains, California’s proposal meets fairness criteria because it prioritizes safeguarding checks and balances during a critical moment for democracy.

Source: Original article

Trump Claims China Will Collaborate to Combat Fentanyl Trafficking

President Trump expresses optimism about collaborating with China to combat fentanyl trafficking ahead of a significant meeting with President Xi Jinping during his Asia trip.

During the final leg of his Asia trip, President Donald Trump addressed reporters aboard Air Force One, sharing his confidence in the relationship he has cultivated with Chinese President Xi Jinping. This conversation comes as Trump prepares for a crucial meeting at an economic summit in South Korea.

When questioned about U.S. efforts to combat fentanyl trafficking, Trump indicated that this issue would be a primary focus of his discussions with Xi. He expressed hope for progress on a variety of challenges, including trade, tariffs, and the ongoing fentanyl crisis.

“China is going to be working with me, okay,” Trump stated. “They’re going to be working with me, and we’re going to do something, I believe.” His remarks suggest a strong belief in the potential for cooperation between the two nations on this pressing issue.

As he anticipates the meeting, Trump emphasized the importance of addressing fentanyl trafficking. “We have to have the meeting — a meeting tomorrow. That’s a big meeting,” he remarked. “And fentanyl will be one of the things that we’re discussing.” He noted that while farmers would also be part of the discussions, fentanyl remains a critical topic.

Trump linked the fentanyl crisis to drug trafficking across the southern U.S. border, characterizing it as a significant public health issue that has resulted in “tremendous amounts of death.” He referred to the influx of drugs as “boats of death,” highlighting the severity of the situation. “Under Biden and open borders, stuff was flowing. I think they killed 300,000 people last year — fentanyl drugs coming through the southern border. And now nobody gets through this. We’re very tough on the border,” he added.

In addition to discussing fentanyl, Trump touched on other international security issues during his trip, including the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas, as well as North Korea’s recent missile launches. He expressed optimism about the upcoming meeting with Xi, stating, “I think we’ll get a great meeting with President Xi of China. And a lot of problems are going to be solved.”

Trump’s comments reflect his strategy of linking border security with international cooperation as key priorities in his discussions with Xi Jinping. As the meeting approaches, the emphasis on fentanyl trafficking underscores the urgency of addressing this crisis through collaborative efforts.

Source: Original article

Comer Calls for DOJ Investigation into Biden’s Use of Autopen

House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer has called for a DOJ investigation into former President Biden’s use of autopen and alleged cognitive decline, following a detailed report from the committee.

The House Oversight Committee has released a comprehensive 100-page report examining former President Joe Biden’s use of autopen, prompting calls for a thorough investigation by the Department of Justice (DOJ). The report, unveiled by House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer, R-Ky., delves into concerns surrounding Biden’s cognitive health and the potential cover-up by his inner circle regarding his mental decline.

According to the report, aides to Biden allegedly concealed information about his cognitive state and fitness for office. “Faced with the cognitive decline of President Joe Biden, White House aides — at the direction of the inner circle — hid the truth about the former president’s condition and fitness for office,” the report states.

The investigation also scrutinizes the documentation process for pardons issued by Biden, suggesting that the lack of proper records raises questions about whether he made those decisions independently. The report asserts, “In the absence of sufficient contemporaneous documentation indicating that cognitively deteriorating President Biden himself made a given executive decision, such decisions do not carry the force of law and should be considered void.”

Comer has urged the DOJ to conduct a review of all executive actions taken by Biden from January 20, 2021, to January 19, 2025, with particular emphasis on acts of clemency. “This review should focus particularly on all acts of clemency. However, it should also include all other types of executive actions,” the report recommends.

In addition to the investigation into Biden’s executive actions, the report raises concerns about Hunter Biden’s involvement in the pardon process. Testimony from former Chief of Staff Jeff Zients indicated that Hunter was present during discussions regarding some pardons, including those for family members. Zients noted, “It was towards the end… But I don’t know — that doesn’t mean that was it. It was the pardons towards the end, very end of the administration.”

The report highlights that Zients testified President Biden included Hunter in discussions about pardons, which reportedly involved high-profile figures such as Dr. Anthony Fauci and General Mark Milley, as well as members of Congress involved in the January 6th investigation.

The Oversight Committee conducted interviews with 14 witnesses over three months, primarily consisting of senior aides from the Biden administration. Despite nearly 47 hours of interviews, Comer expressed skepticism about the honesty of the testimonies, suggesting that aides may have been shielding Biden during the proceedings.

“Throughout the Committee’s investigation, senior Biden White House aides presented a perspective of President Biden’s cognitive health completely disconnected from that of the American public,” the report claims. Notably, none of the witnesses acknowledged any concerns regarding Biden’s cognitive decline, with many unable to recall discussions about his mental health.

Comer also criticized former White House physician Dr. Kevin O’Connor, whose deposition was notably brief as he invoked the Fifth Amendment for all questions except for his name. Comer has called for the D.C. Health Board of Medicine to investigate O’Connor’s conduct and potentially revoke his medical license. The report labels O’Connor’s failure to conduct a cognitive exam during Biden’s presidency as “reckless” and accuses him of providing “grossly misleading medical assessments.”

The report states, “His refusal to answer questions about the execution of his duties as physician to the president — combined with testimony indicating that Dr. O’Connor may have succumbed to political pressure from the inner circle, influencing his medical decisions and aiding in the cover-up — legitimizes the public’s concerns that Dr. O’Connor was not forthright in carrying out his ultimate duties to the country.”

In light of these findings, the committee recommends that the District of Columbia Board of Medicine review O’Connor’s actions while serving as the White House physician for any potential wrongdoing, including whether he produced false or misleading medical reports.

Biden’s allies have dismissed the committee’s investigation as politically motivated and lacking credible evidence. Many witnesses have argued that concerns regarding Biden’s mental acuity have been exacerbated by media narratives and Republican commentary, particularly following his challenging debate performance against current President Donald Trump in June 2024.

In a July interview with The New York Times, Biden asserted that he “made every decision” independently, countering claims of cognitive decline.

Source: Original article

Trump Announces Arrival of Missiles for Japan’s F-35s This Week

President Trump announced that the first batch of missiles for Japan’s F-35 fighter jets will arrive this week, highlighting accelerated U.S. defense deliveries during his visit to the USS George Washington.

During a visit to the USS George Washington at Japan’s Yokosuka Naval Base, President Donald Trump informed U.S. troops that the “first batch of missiles for Japan’s F-35 fighter jets will arrive this week.” This announcement indicates that U.S. defense deliveries to Japan are progressing ahead of schedule.

Trump’s remarks were part of a broader Asia trip that included a stop in Malaysia, where he met with Japan’s first female prime minister, Sanae Takaichi. During their meeting, they signed a new U.S.-Japan framework agreement focused on rare earth minerals, a strategic resource for technology and defense industries.

Later this week, Trump is expected to engage in discussions with Chinese President Xi Jinping, further emphasizing the geopolitical significance of his trip.

Washington has recently approved several substantial arms sales to Japan, including advanced AIM-120 AMRAAM and AIM-9X air-to-air missiles specifically designed for the F-35s. This move is part of a broader strategy to enhance Japan’s defense capabilities amid rising regional tensions with China and North Korea.

In his address, Trump praised the longstanding alliance between the U.S. and Japan, describing it as “one of the most remarkable relationships in the entire world.” Prime Minister Takaichi echoed this sentiment, stating that Japan is “committed to fundamentally reinforcing its defense capability” and is “ready to contribute even more proactively to peace and stability in the region.”

Trump also highlighted the economic ties between the two nations, noting that both the U.S. and Japanese stock markets have reached record highs. He interpreted this achievement as evidence that “we’re doing something right.”

The president’s visit underscores the deepening security cooperation between Washington and Tokyo, particularly in light of ongoing threats from North Korea and the assertive posture of China in the region. Ahead of his Asia trip, Trump has extended multiple invitations to North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, although no concrete plans for a meeting have been established.

As the situation in East Asia continues to evolve, the delivery of missiles for Japan’s F-35s represents a significant step in bolstering Japan’s defense capabilities and reinforcing the U.S.-Japan alliance.

Source: Original article

Nayna Gupta Discusses Deportation’s Effects on Families and Communities

Nayna Gupta, Policy Director of the American Immigration Council, testified at a Shadow Hearing addressing the severe impacts of deportation on families and communities.

On September 18, 2025, Nayna Gupta, the Policy Director of the American Immigration Council, provided crucial testimony at a Shadow Hearing organized by U.S. Representative Pramila Jayapal (WA-07). This event, titled “Kidnapped and Disappeared: Trump’s Assault Destroys U.S. Families and Communities,” marks the third installment in Rep. Jayapal’s series focused on the profound human costs associated with deportation policies.

During her testimony, Gupta emphasized the far-reaching consequences of current deportation practices. She articulated how these policies not only tear apart families but also destabilize entire communities across the nation. Gupta pointed out that the impact of deportation extends beyond individual cases, affecting the social fabric and emotional well-being of those left behind.

In addition to the emotional toll, Gupta underscored the systemic issues that arise from such policies. She argued that deportation practices undermine due process and fairness within the U.S. immigration system. This erosion of legal protections, she noted, contradicts the foundational values of justice and dignity that should characterize American society.

Gupta’s testimony is part of a broader commitment by the American Immigration Council to advocate for an immigration system that prioritizes family unity, safeguards due process, and upholds the principles of justice and dignity. The Council aims to foster an environment where immigrant families can thrive without the constant threat of separation.

As the hearing concluded, the urgency of addressing these issues became increasingly clear. The testimonies shared during the event highlighted the need for comprehensive immigration reform that recognizes the humanity of all individuals affected by deportation.

According to the American Immigration Council, it is essential to build a system that not only protects families but also reflects the core values that define the nation.

Source: Original article

Major Changes at CBS Following Trump’s Comments on Network Direction

The television network CBS is undergoing a major overhaul in leadership and editorial strategy, influenced by scrutiny from Donald Trump regarding its anchor lineup and overall tone.

The television network CBS is currently experiencing a significant transformation, marked by substantial changes in its leadership structure and editorial approach. These developments come in the wake of increased scrutiny from former President Donald Trump, who has expressed a keen interest in the network’s future, publicly commenting on its anchor lineup and the tone of its reporting.

One of the most notable changes involves high-profile resignations and reorganizations within the news division. This shift highlights internal discord regarding the network’s editorial direction, as various factions within the organization grapple with how to best navigate the evolving media landscape. The adjustments are perceived as part of a broader strategy to recalibrate CBS’s influence, image, and content strategy.

Trump’s involvement in these developments has added another layer of complexity, as he has publicly questioned the network’s decisions and suggested that CBS still has work to do in order to regain credibility among its audience. His remarks reflect ongoing tensions between major media outlets and political figures, illustrating the challenges broadcast news faces during a time of rapid transformation.

As CBS navigates these internal changes, it is also contending with regulatory and competitive pressures. Industry analysts suggest that the current restructuring is aimed at positioning the network more favorably for potential corporate deals and alliances in the near future. The unfolding changes at CBS underscore the intricate relationship between media, politics, and business during a period of pronounced change within the American broadcasting landscape.

These developments at CBS not only highlight the challenges faced by traditional media outlets but also signal a shift in how networks may approach their editorial strategies in response to external pressures. The intersection of media and politics is becoming increasingly pronounced, as figures like Trump continue to engage with and influence public perceptions of major news organizations.

As CBS moves forward, the outcomes of these changes will likely have lasting implications for its operations and its relationship with viewers. The network’s ability to adapt to the current climate will be critical as it seeks to redefine its role in an ever-evolving media environment.

Source: Original article

Trump Willing to Extend Asia Trip for Meeting with Kim Jong Un

President Donald Trump expressed his willingness to extend his Asia trip to meet with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un if the opportunity arises.

President Donald Trump has indicated that he would be open to extending his trip to Asia to meet with North Korea’s Kim Jong Un, should the North Korean leader wish to engage in dialogue.

“But I’d love to meet with him if he’d like to meet. I got along great with Kim Jong Un. I liked him, he liked me,” Trump stated during a press gaggle aboard Air Force One.

When asked if he would consider prolonging his trip for a meeting with Kim, Trump affirmed his willingness to do so, emphasizing his previous rapport with the North Korean leader.

During a prior discussion on Air Force One, Trump reiterated his openness to meeting with Kim, saying, “I got along very well with him.” This sentiment reflects the president’s ongoing interest in fostering diplomatic relations with North Korea.

North Korea remains one of the few countries in the world equipped with nuclear weapons, making any potential meeting between the two leaders significant on the global stage.

Throughout his first term, Trump met with Kim Jong Un multiple times, marking a historic moment when he became the first sitting U.S. president to step into North Korea.

As Trump prepares for his upcoming trip to Asia, tensions surrounding North Korea’s ballistic missile tests and trade issues with China loom large, adding urgency to the prospect of a meeting.

According to Fox News, a South Korean official has suggested that both leaders should make a “bold decision” to meet during Trump’s Asia trip, highlighting the potential for diplomatic breakthroughs.

Source: Original article

Milei Achieves Significant Victory in Argentina’s Midterm Elections

Argentine President Javier Milei achieved a significant midterm election victory, expanding his congressional control and paving the way for extensive economic reforms and spending cuts.

Argentine President Javier Milei secured a decisive victory in the midterm elections held on Sunday, significantly expanding his control over Congress. This win provides his administration with renewed momentum to implement deep spending cuts and extensive free-market reforms.

The results represent a notable boost for Milei’s libertarian movement and signal a dramatic shift for one of Latin America’s largest and most volatile economies. His party, La Libertad Avanza, garnered approximately 41.5% of the vote in Buenos Aires province, marking a historic upset in a region traditionally dominated by the Peronist opposition, which received 40.8%, according to figures reported by Reuters and The Associated Press.

Nationwide, La Libertad Avanza increased its representation in the lower house from 37 to 64 seats. This expansion positions Milei to more effectively defend his vetoes and executive decrees, which have been central to his economic agenda.

“The result is better than even the most optimistic Milei supporters were hoping for,” said Marcelo Garcia, Americas director at the risk-analysis firm Horizon Engage, in comments reported by Reuters. “With this result, Milei will be able to easily defend his decrees and vetoes in Congress.”

Political consultant Gustavo Cordoba also weighed in, suggesting that the election outcome reflects a cautious optimism among voters who seem willing to give Milei’s economic policies more time to take effect. “Many people were willing to give the government another chance,” Cordoba noted. “The triumph is unobjectionable, unquestionable.”

Inflation in Argentina has seen a significant decline, falling from 12.8% before Milei’s inauguration to just 2.1% last month. His administration has also reported a fiscal surplus and implemented broad deregulation measures, marking a stark reversal after years of economic instability.

According to The Associated Press, the U.S. government under former President Donald Trump offered Argentina a $40 billion aid package, which included a $20 billion currency swap and a proposed $20 billion debt-investment facility. This support was contingent upon Milei’s performance in the midterms.

Following the election results, President Trump congratulated Milei on Truth Social, stating, “Congratulations to President Javier Milei on his Landslide Victory in Argentina. He is doing a wonderful job! Our confidence in him was justified by the People of Argentina.”

Investors responded positively to the election results, with expectations that Argentine bonds and stocks will rally. Milei’s stronger position in Congress is anticipated to provide him with the political capital necessary to accelerate his reform agenda.

Milei characterized the election as “a turning point for Argentina,” according to AFP via the Times of Israel.

Source: Original article

U.S. Implements New Entry and Exit Rules for Foreign Nationals

The U.S. government has introduced new entry and exit regulations for non-citizens, including Green Card holders, aimed at enhancing border security through advanced facial recognition technology.

The United States government has unveiled new entry and exit regulations that mandate the collection of photographs from all non-citizens, including Green Card holders. This initiative, part of enhanced border security measures, was published by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) in the Federal Register on Friday. The primary goal of these new rules is to leverage advanced facial recognition technology to bolster national security and combat document fraud.

According to CBP, the initiative aims to address various national security concerns, including the threat of terrorism, the fraudulent use of legitimate travel documentation, and the presence of individuals who remain in the United States beyond their authorized stay or are present without proper admission or parole.

The agency’s filing specifies that photographs and biometric data will be collected at all entry and exit points, which include airports, seaports, and land crossings. While CBP has already been gathering fingerprints and images from visa holders and certain residents, this new regulation extends mandatory data collection to all individuals departing the country.

These measures are part of a broader immigration crackdown initiated during former President Donald Trump’s administration. Although first proposed in 2021, the updated rule is set to take effect on December 26, 2025. This will grant U.S. border officials the authority to photograph non-citizens at any point of exit. Additionally, CBP plans to expand biometric data collection to include individuals who are currently exempt from such measures, such as children under 14 and adults over 79.

CBP has acknowledged the challenges associated with implementing these new systems, particularly the difficulty of executing the program without designated, secure exit lanes at various ports. However, the agency has stated that advancements in facial recognition technology now make comprehensive enforcement more feasible.

According to the Trump administration, an integrated biometric entry-exit system will assist the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in identifying visa overstays and individuals attempting to evade immigration laws. CBP plans to create galleries of images linked to individuals, utilizing passport data, border checkpoints, and travel documents to compare with real-time images at entry and exit points.

A public comment period regarding the new rule will commence on October 27. CBP anticipates that the system could be deployed nationwide within three to five years. Officials assert that this updated framework represents a significant step toward establishing a “fully coordinated” border security system.

Source: Original article

Rubio Discusses Intelligence Sharing That Averted Possible Hamas Attack

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that shared intelligence helped prevent a potential Hamas attack, while discussing plans for an international stabilization force in Gaza.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio revealed on Saturday that intelligence sharing among the U.S., Israel, and other mediators played a crucial role in averting a possible Hamas attack last weekend. Speaking to reporters while traveling from Israel to Qatar, Rubio stated, “We put out a message through the State Department, sent it to our mediators as well, about an impending attack, and it didn’t happen. So that’s the goal here, is ultimately to identify a threat before it happens.”

This announcement follows a week after the State Department reported “credible reports” indicating that Hamas was planning an attack on Palestinian civilians, which would violate the terms of the recent peace agreement.

Rubio emphasized the importance of collaboration with various nations, mentioning that the U.S. has engaged in discussions with countries such as Qatar, Egypt, and Turkey, all of whom have expressed interest in contributing to an international stabilization force in the region. He also noted that Indonesia and Azerbaijan are among those interested in participating.

However, Rubio pointed out that many of these countries would require a United Nations resolution to support the establishment of such a force. This highlights the complexities involved in international cooperation and the necessity of formal backing for military or peacekeeping initiatives.

In addition to his diplomatic efforts, Rubio met with President Donald Trump in Qatar ahead of the president’s upcoming tour of Asia. The discussions included strategies to solidify the ceasefire agreement that was implemented earlier this month.

Vice President JD Vance was also present in Israel earlier this week, accompanied by special envoy Steve Witkoff and Trump adviser Jared Kushner, who is also the president’s son-in-law. Their visit aimed to reinforce the ceasefire deal and ensure its longevity.

Next week, Rubio announced that General Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is expected to travel to Israel as part of ongoing efforts to stabilize the region.

During his meeting with Qatar’s Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani and Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al Thani, Trump expressed gratitude for Qatar’s role in facilitating the peace deal. “This should be an enduring peace,” he remarked to reporters, underscoring the administration’s commitment to long-term stability in the region.

Rubio’s remarks and the ongoing diplomatic efforts reflect a proactive approach by the U.S. to address security concerns in Gaza and foster international cooperation aimed at maintaining peace.

Source: Original article

Trump Administration Aims to Dismantle China’s Control Over Africa’s Rare Earth Minerals

The Trump administration is working to reduce China’s dominance in the rare earth minerals market by forming new partnerships with African nations, particularly Tanzania and Angola.

The Trump administration is actively seeking to counter China’s significant control over the rare earth minerals market through strategic partnerships with African nations. The U.S. State Department has indicated that it is focused on mitigating the “national security” risks posed by China’s dominance in this critical sector.

Rare earth elements (REE), which include 17 distinct metals, are essential for both human and national security, according to a 2022 report by the Brookings Institution. These elements are integral to a wide range of technologies, including electronics such as computers and smartphones, renewable energy solutions like wind turbines and solar panels, and national defense systems including jet engines and missile guidance technologies. Notably, China is responsible for approximately 60% of global rare earth extraction and 85% of processing capacity.

While China has secured contracts in various African nations, including the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) for cobalt shipments, the continent is rich in untapped resources. The African Union’s Minerals Development Center recently announced that new specialist rare earth mines are expected to come online by 2029 in countries such as Tanzania, Angola, Malawi, and South Africa, potentially contributing nearly 10% of the world’s supply.

In response to these developments, the Trump administration is making concerted efforts to enhance U.S. involvement in Africa’s mining sector. A State Department spokesperson stated, “The administration’s approach prioritizes partnerships with African nations to ensure their minerals flow west, not east to China.” This shift is part of a broader strategy to address concerns over China’s influence in global mineral supply chains, which the spokesperson described as a threat to both U.S. and African interests.

The spokesperson further elaborated that China’s state-directed strategies exploit Africa’s natural resources, consolidate control over upstream mining assets, and create economic dependencies that undermine regional stability. Currently, the U.S. imports around 70% of its rare earth elements from China, raising alarms about national security risks associated with this reliance.

Senator Jim Risch, the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, emphasized the urgency of addressing this issue. He stated, “Relying on China for critical minerals needed for a modern economy is a top national security risk that President Biden left unaddressed for four years. Under President Trump’s leadership, we can secure new sources in Africa, strengthen our partnerships there, and ensure America’s defense is never dependent on our adversaries.”

The administration is also looking to invest in infrastructure to facilitate the export of minerals from Africa to global markets. A key project in this initiative is the Lobito Corridor, an 800-mile railway designed to connect mineral-rich regions in the DRC and Zambia with Angola’s Atlantic coast, providing easier shipping access to the U.S. The U.S. has pledged a $550 million loan for the development of this corridor.

Additionally, the recent peace agreement between the DRC and Rwanda, facilitated in the Oval Office in June, is expected to enhance access to minerals. The State Department spokesperson noted that this bilateral agreement is intended to pave the way for new U.S. and U.S.-aligned investments in strategic mining projects across the DRC.

Analysts, including Dr. Gracelin Baskaran from the Center for Strategic and International Studies, view these developments as a significant opportunity for the U.S. in Africa. Baskaran remarked, “Africa is the last great frontier of mineral discovery. It has long been undervalued in global mineral exploration, even though it delivers some of the highest returns per dollar invested.”

Baskaran pointed out that Africa’s share of global exploration spending has declined from 16% in 2004 to only 10.4% in 2024. This is particularly concerning given that Sub-Saharan Africa is the most cost-efficient region for mineral exploration, boasting a mineral-value-to-exploration-spending ratio of 0.8, which surpasses that of Australia, Canada, and Latin America.

Despite its vast geological potential, Africa has not captured a significant share of global exploration spending, with countries like Australia and Canada receiving far more investment. Baskaran noted that even nations with established mining industries, such as Zambia and the DRC, have barely begun to explore their mineral wealth, with less than half of their land mapped.

Furthermore, Baskaran highlighted that the U.S. has a unique opportunity to engage in geological mapping and early-stage project development, as China typically focuses on acquiring projects that are already in development or nearing production. This presents a chance for the U.S. and its allies to establish a stronger presence in Africa’s mineral sector.

In terms of specific opportunities, analyst C. Géraud Neema Byamungu from the independent China-Global South Project identified Namibia as a promising alternative to China for heavy rare earth minerals. He pointed to Namibia’s Lofdal project as a significant development in this regard.

The Trump administration’s efforts to forge partnerships with African nations could reshape the landscape of the rare earth minerals market, reducing reliance on China and bolstering U.S. national security interests.

Source: Original article

Silicon Valley’s Silence on H-1B Visas: Indian-American Perspectives

Silicon Valley leaders have largely refrained from commenting on the recent increase in H-1B visa fees, raising concerns about its impact on the tech industry.

Silicon Valley executives have remained notably silent regarding the recent hike in H-1B visa fees, a policy change that directly affects the tech industry, one of the most vulnerable sectors. As both startups and major tech firms grapple with increased costs associated with hiring international talent, the lack of public response from these influential leaders has raised eyebrows.

In stark contrast, smaller startups have been vocal about the ramifications of the H-1B fee increase, openly discussing how it has strained their already limited budgets. Many founders express that the heightened costs are forcing them to slow down hiring, rethink planned expansions, and in some cases, even consider relocating operations to countries with more favorable immigration policies. For these young companies, which heavily rely on skilled international talent, the fee increase poses a significant threat to their growth and innovation, making their concerns both immediate and urgent.

While the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has filed a legal challenge against the administration’s $100,000 fee on H-1B visa petitions, some Silicon Valley leaders have surprisingly welcomed the fee hike. Figures such as Netflix co-founder Reed Hastings, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang, and OpenAI’s Sam Altman have expressed support, while others have chosen to remain silent. Tesla CEO Elon Musk, a long-time advocate for the H-1B program, has not publicly commented on the fee increase, leading to speculation about his silence, particularly following his recent fallout with former President Trump.

Atal Agarwal, founder and CEO of OpenSphere and LegalBridge, noted, “After the U.S. Chamber of Commerce lawsuit, I feel there is going to be more statement overall around this. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce usually consists of many different companies, so a joint lawsuit addresses that. Another point is – we all know the way Trump works. He is not happy with people or companies that retaliate. So, the real problem here is that companies do not want to go against him in isolation. But yes, everyone was expecting that the corporates would be more active and would issue more statements.”

In 2025, major tech companies such as Amazon, Microsoft, Apple, and Meta have significantly increased their reliance on H-1B visas, making them some of the largest sponsors of skilled foreign workers. Among these big players, JP Morgan has been one of the few to comment on the issue, while most others have opted for silence despite their growing dependence on the program. Agarwal added, “First of all, we have to realize that Silicon Valley consists broadly of two types of sectors – one, the really big tech companies that have a lot of money and often pay upwards of $300k per year to many H-1B employees. So, a $100k fee, while it bothers them, they know that they can absorb it. The other sector of Silicon Valley consists of founders who have raised VC capital or are in the early stages. These founders usually end up hiring their early employees, and often the founders themselves are immigrants who often end up using the O-1A pathway, so for them, the fee hike does not take any impact.”

JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon has been among the few industry leaders to directly address the H-1B fee hike, calling Trump’s $100,000 charge “something that came out of the blue.” He stated that the bank would be “engaging with stakeholders and policymakers” regarding the issue. In an interview with The Times of India, Dimon emphasized the importance of visas for a global firm like JP Morgan, saying, “For us, visas matter because we move people around globally – experts who get promoted to new jobs in different markets.” He also highlighted the broader implications, noting, “The challenge is that the US still needs to remain an attractive destination. My grandparents were Greek immigrants who never finished high school. America is an immigrant nation, and that’s part of its core strength.”

The approval figures underscore just how heavily these companies depend on international talent to fuel their growth. Data shared by Amanda Goodall on X indicates that Amazon Web Services led the way in 2025 with 10,044 H-1B approvals, nearly 800 more than the previous year. Microsoft and Meta followed closely with 5,189 and 5,123 approvals, both showing solid year-over-year gains. Apple also experienced an increase with 4,202 approvals, while JP Morgan Chase saw a sharp rise to 2,440, an increase of more than 700. Together, these numbers highlight a growing reliance on skilled workers from abroad, even as policy costs escalate.

Given these soaring approval numbers, the silence of most tech leaders is even more pronounced. Their companies are among the heaviest users of the H-1B program, yet they appear hesitant to speak out, possibly fearing political backlash or the risk of being blacklisted at a time when federal contracts and regulatory goodwill are crucial to their operations. For firms that depend heavily on Washington’s support—whether through infrastructure partnerships, AI research grants, or defense-related deals—the calculation may be that remaining quiet protects their interests, even if the policy directly undermines their hiring pipelines.

At the same time, if Silicon Valley giants choose to quietly accept the fee hike, they risk slowing down their hiring processes and narrowing their intake to only those skilled workers who can absorb the added costs. This selective hiring could disrupt revenue growth, stifle innovation, and ultimately harm competitiveness. Yet, despite these significant stakes, the industry’s most influential voices remain silent.

Are they working behind the scenes on a larger strategy? Will they press the Trump administration to reconsider, or simply move forward by absorbing the blow? If pressure mounts, could they follow the lead of smaller startups by relocating operations or relying more on remote talent, ironically at a time when many insist on returning to physical offices?

Source: Original article

Ciattarelli and Sherrill Compete for Upper Hand in New Jersey Governor Race

As the New Jersey gubernatorial race approaches Election Day, both Democratic nominee Mikie Sherrill and Republican nominee Jack Ciattarelli claim to be in strong positions, setting the stage for a highly competitive showdown.

BELLEVILLE, N.J. – The race for New Jersey governor is heating up as both major party nominees prepare for a potentially close finish. Democratic nominee Rep. Mikie Sherrill expressed optimism about her campaign’s prospects, stating, “Our polling’s looking good. I think we’re feeling really good right now,” during a recent event in northern New Jersey.

With just over a week remaining until Election Day, recent public opinion polls indicate that Republican nominee Jack Ciattarelli is closing the gap with Sherrill. This election marks one of only two gubernatorial contests taking place in the nation this year.

“I think we’re in a great position,” Ciattarelli remarked in a Fox News interview following a diner stop in Linden, N.J. Despite New Jersey’s Democratic majority, recent surveys from Fox News, Quinnipiac University, Fairleigh Dickinson University, and Rutgers-Eagleton show Ciattarelli gaining ground in the race to succeed term-limited Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy.

Ciattarelli noted that many polls indicate a tight race, emphasizing that Republicans often face underrepresentation in polling due to their minority status in the state. “And when you have the endorsement of Democratic mayors across the state, it says people want change. That’s exactly what we’re going to deliver when we win this race,” he asserted.

Throughout the campaign, Ciattarelli has actively engaged with voters across the Garden State, drawing enthusiastic crowds as he approaches the final stretch. With early voting set to begin soon, he is encouraging supporters to participate. “Early voting starts this Saturday. We turn out, we win. Let’s finish strong,” he urged.

Former President Donald Trump is scheduled to hold a tele-rally with Ciattarelli ahead of Election Day, while prominent figures from the MAGA movement, including Ohio gubernatorial candidate Vivek Ramaswamy and Florida gubernatorial hopeful Rep. Byron Donalds, are also rallying support for him. Donalds remarked, “Jack’s been running a great campaign. I’ve been watching it from down in the Sunshine State. But it’s about winning. We got to help everybody get across the line.”

Patrick Cassio, former chair of the Rahway GOP, emphasized the importance of mobilizing Trump supporters, noting that many of them do not vote for other candidates. He pointed out that in the previous election cycle, approximately 400,000 Republicans did not cast their votes. “So, think about that. If he [Ciattarelli] picks up half of that, he wins. The math is pretty simple,” Cassio explained.

Ciattarelli, who is making his third consecutive bid for the governorship after a near upset against Murphy four years ago, believes the dynamics of this election are different. “Because of the closeness of that race in ’21, people are paying closer attention this time around,” he said.

In contrast, Sherrill criticized Ciattarelli as a “kind of a perennial candidate.” A U.S. Naval Academy graduate and military veteran, Sherrill was first elected to Congress in 2018 and has been actively campaigning with notable figures. Last weekend, she was joined by Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, both of whom are considered potential contenders for the 2028 presidential election. Additionally, former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg and Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro are expected to support her campaign in the coming days.

Sherrill’s campaign recently announced that former President Barack Obama, one of the most popular Democrats in the country, will headline a rally with her in Newark on November 1, just days before the election.

Despite facing criticism from some Republicans and political analysts regarding her campaign’s energy, Sherrill highlighted the strength of her get-out-the-vote efforts. “We’re seeing great returns on the vote by mail. We’ll start early voting on the 25th, which we’re really excited about. We’re seeing a ton of energy on the ground,” she said.

Sherrill also emphasized that her campaign boasts “the biggest volunteer field program that anyone in New Jersey has ever run. We are getting to the right doors, and I’m really excited about what we’re gonna see.”

As both candidates ramp up their efforts in the final days leading to the election, the outcome remains uncertain, with both sides claiming momentum in this closely watched race.

Source: Original article

Standing with Sikh Truckers to Uphold Workers’ Rights in America

The recent federal rule change affecting immigrant truckers, particularly within the Sikh community, raises significant concerns about workers’ rights and the values that underpin American society.

As the proud son of Indian immigrants who built their lives in Silicon Valley through hard work and unwavering determination, I have always believed in the American promise: that if you follow the rules, contribute to society, and pursue your dreams with integrity, this nation will welcome you with open arms. However, the recent federal rule change targeting immigrant truckers—especially those from the hardworking Sikh community—strikes at the core of that promise. It is not merely a policy adjustment; it represents a betrayal of the values that make America great.

In the aftermath of a tragic accident on a Florida turnpike, where a Sikh trucker from California was involved in a fatal crash that claimed three lives, the Trump administration has seized upon this heartbreaking incident to cast a shadow over an entire community. U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy’s sweeping restrictions now bar immigrants with temporary work authorization—such as those with pending asylum cases—from obtaining or renewing commercial driver’s licenses (CDLs). This move is not about enhancing road safety; it is a blunt instrument wielded against legal workers who have every right to earn a living.

It is essential to clarify that the Sikhs affected by this rule are not skirting the system. They hold lawfully issued Employment Authorization Documents (EADs), granted after rigorous vetting by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. These individuals have presented their asylum claims in immigration courts, attended every required hearing, and complied fully with the law. Many have passed stringent CDL exams, logged thousands of safe miles, and supported families while keeping America’s supply chains humming. For them, trucking is not just a job—it is a pathway to the American Dream, one that accommodates their faith’s sacred tenets, such as uncut hair and turbans, in a profession that values independence and resilience.

Sikh Americans have long been the backbone of the trucking industry. An estimated 150,000 Sikhs drive trucks across the U.S., with the vast majority hailing from California, where they have transformed vast farmlands and bustling ports into economic engines. This community chose trucking because it offered dignity: the flexibility to pray five times a day, the open road to reflect on their heritage, and wages to send remittances home or invest in their children’s futures. Now, with licenses expiring overnight and no grace period for renewal, thousands face job loss, financial ruin, and the dismantling of businesses built over decades.

The xenophobia fueling this policy is as predictable as it is painful. The Florida crash sparked a torrent of racist vitriol online and on the airwaves—tweets mocking turbans, slurs hurled at bearded drivers, and conspiracy theories painting Sikhs as perpetual outsiders. This is not a new phenomenon; post-9/11, Sikhs were among the most targeted religious groups for hate crimes precisely because their visible faith makes them easy scapegoats. Yet, instead of condemning bigotry, the administration has amplified it, zeroing in on California as a punching bag for its progressive stance on immigration under Governor Gavin Newsom.

However, facts do not bend to fearmongering. Data from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) paints a starkly different picture. California’s commercial fatal crash rate is nearly 40% below the national average—proof that immigrant drivers, including Sikhs, are among the safest on the road. In contrast, the ten states with the highest rates of fatal crashes are all red states: Wyoming, New Mexico, North Dakota, West Virginia, Oklahoma, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, and Mississippi. When measured per 100 million vehicle miles traveled, these figures expose the hypocrisy of the current narrative. If safety were the goal, we would see nationwide reforms: mandatory advanced training, AI-assisted fatigue monitoring, and incentives for electric fleets. Instead, we are punishing a minority community that is already overrepresented in one of the nation’s deadliest jobs.

This is not a safety policy; it is immigration theater, timed to stoke division ahead of midterms and score points against “sanctuary” California. Immigrant truckers do not just drive our goods—they sustain our economy. They haul produce from the Central Valley, deliver tech components to factories, and ensure shelves remain stocked during crises. Revoking their licenses does not make roads safer; it creates chaos, shortages, and lost revenue. And for what? To appease a fringe narrative that portrays “others” as threats behind the wheel?

As someone who has championed South Asian voices in tech and politics—from advising on Indo-U.S. trade deals to mobilizing AAPI voters—I stand unequivocally with these Sikh truckers. They deserve better than abrupt edicts that ignore their qualifications and contributions. We must demand a reversal: reinstate eligibility for EAD holders who have passed CDL standards, provide transition periods for renewals, and invest in holistic safety measures that elevate everyone.

To my fellow Americans: Remember that the trucker logging miles at dawn, turban tied firm and eyes on the horizon, is as American as apple pie—or in this case, perhaps a plate of saag paneer shared roadside. Let us protect their right to work, worship, and thrive. The road ahead should be one of justice, not jeopardy.

Source: Original article

NASA Finalizes Strategy for Sustaining Human Presence in Space

NASA has finalized its strategy to sustain a human presence in space, focusing on the future of human activity in orbit following the planned de-orbiting of the International Space Station in 2030.

This week, NASA announced the finalization of its strategy aimed at maintaining a human presence in space, particularly in light of the upcoming retirement of the International Space Station (ISS) in 2030. The new document underscores the importance of ensuring that extended stays in orbit continue after the ISS is decommissioned.

“NASA’s Low Earth Orbit Microgravity Strategy will guide the agency toward the next generation of continuous human presence in orbit, enable greater economic growth, and maintain international partnerships,” the document states.

The commitment to this strategy comes amid concerns regarding the readiness of new commercial space stations to take over once the ISS is retired. With the incoming Trump administration’s focus on budget cuts through the Department of Government Efficiency, there are fears that NASA may face funding reductions.

“Just like everybody has to make hard decisions when the budget is tight, we’ve made some choices over the last year to cut back programs or cancel them altogether to ensure that we’re focused on our highest priorities,” said NASA Deputy Administrator Pam Melroy.

Commercial space company Voyager is actively working on one of the potential replacements for the ISS. The company has expressed support for NASA’s strategy to maintain a human presence in space. “We need that commitment because we have our investors asking, ‘Is the United States committed?’” said Jeffrey Manber, Voyager’s president of international and space stations.

The initiative to keep humans in space has historical roots, dating back to President Reagan’s administration, which first launched efforts for a permanent human presence in space. Reagan emphasized the importance of private partnerships in this endeavor, stating during his 1984 State of the Union address, “America has always been greatest when we dared to be great. We can reach for greatness.” He also noted that the market for space transportation could exceed the nation’s capacity to develop it.

The ISS, which has been continuously occupied for 24 years, first launched its initial module in 1998 and has since hosted over 28 individuals from 23 different countries. The Trump administration’s national space policy released in 2020 called for maintaining a “continuous human presence in Earth orbit” while emphasizing the transition to commercial platforms—a policy that the Biden administration has continued.

“Let’s say we didn’t have commercial stations that are ready to go. Technically, we could keep the space station going, but the idea was to fly it through 2030 and de-orbit it in 2031,” NASA Administrator Bill Nelson stated in June.

In recent months, there have been discussions about the implications of losing the ISS without a commercial station ready to replace it. Melroy addressed these concerns at the International Astronautical Congress in October, stating, “I just want to talk about the elephant in the room for a moment, continuous human presence. What does that mean? Is it continuous heartbeat or continuous capability?”

NASA’s finalized strategy has taken into account feedback from both commercial and international partners regarding the potential loss of the ISS. “Almost all of our industry partners agreed. Continuous presence is continuous heartbeat. And so that’s where we stand,” Melroy noted. She emphasized that the United States currently leads in human spaceflight, and the only other space station that will remain in orbit after the ISS de-orbits will be the Chinese space station, highlighting the importance of maintaining U.S. leadership in this domain.

Three companies, including Voyager, are collaborating with NASA to develop commercial space stations. Axiom signed an agreement with NASA in 2020, while contracts were awarded to Nanoracks, now part of Voyager Space, and Blue Origin in 2021.

Melroy acknowledged the challenges faced, particularly due to budget caps established through negotiations between the White House and Congress for fiscal years 2024 and 2025, which have limited investment. “What we do is co-invest with our commercial partners to do the development. I think we’re still able to make it happen before the end of 2030, though, to get a commercial space station up and running so that we have a continuous heartbeat of American astronauts on orbit,” she said.

Voyager has asserted that it is on track with its development timeline and plans to launch its starship space station in 2028. “We’re not asking for more money. We’re going ahead. We’re ready to replace the International Space Station,” Manber stated. He emphasized the importance of maintaining a permanent presence in space, warning that losing it would disrupt the supply chain established by numerous companies contributing to the space economy.

Additional funding has been allocated to the three companies since the initial space station contracts, and a second round of funding could be critical for some projects. NASA may also consider funding new space station proposals, including Long Beach, California’s Vast Space, which recently unveiled concepts for its Haven modules and plans to launch Haven-1 as early as next year.

“We absolutely think competition is critical. This is a development project. It’s challenging. It was hard to build the space station. We’re asking our commercial partners to step up and do this themselves with some help from us. We think it’s really important that we carry as many options going forward to see which one really pans out when we actually get there,” Melroy concluded.

Source: Original article

Trump Hosts Roundtable on Combating Cartels and Human Trafficking

President Trump will host a roundtable at the White House to discuss the achievements of Homeland Security Task Forces in combating criminal cartels and human trafficking.

President Donald Trump is set to host a roundtable at the White House on Thursday afternoon, bringing together law enforcement and administration officials to review the accomplishments of the Homeland Security Task Forces (HSTFs). These task forces were established on the president’s first day in office as part of a concerted effort to combat threats posed by criminal cartels operating within the United States.

White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson spoke to Fox News Digital about the significance of the event, stating, “The President’s Homeland Security Task Forces are a landmark achievement that highlight what the federal government can achieve with a leader like President Trump who is willing to slash red tape, increase coordination and put the safety of the American people first.” She emphasized that the Trump administration has made significant strides in removing lethal drugs, illegal weapons, and dangerous individuals from American communities, asserting that “the American people are safer today because of the HSTFs — and they’re just getting started.”

The creation of the HSTFs was formalized through an executive order titled “Protecting the American People from Invasion,” issued on January 20. This order directed Attorney General Pam Bondi and Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem to establish task forces in each state, focusing on dismantling cartels and human trafficking networks operating on U.S. soil.

The executive order outlined several key objectives for the task forces, including the eradication of criminal cartels, foreign gangs, and transnational criminal organizations throughout the United States. It also aimed to dismantle cross-border human smuggling and trafficking networks, with a particular emphasis on protecting children from such offenses. The order called for the utilization of all available law enforcement tools to enforce U.S. immigration laws effectively.

During Thursday’s roundtable, administration officials will provide updates on the progress made by the task forces. Notable attendees will include Deputy Chief of Staff and Homeland Security Advisor Stephen Miller, Secretary Noem, Attorney General Bondi, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, FBI Director Kash Patel, and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard.

Reports indicate that the task forces became fully operational nationwide at the end of August and have since resulted in thousands of arrests, as well as the removal of dangerous drugs and illegal firearms from U.S. streets. According to sources, more than 3,000 foreign terrorists and cartel members have been apprehended, including individuals affiliated with notorious gangs such as the Sinaloa Cartel, MS-13, and Cartel Jalisco Nuevo Generacion.

In addition to arrests, the task forces have recovered approximately two million fentanyl pills and seven tons of other deadly narcotics. They have also seized $3 million in currency and confiscated over 1,000 illegal firearms from communities across the country.

Trump’s campaign has prominently featured the promise to remove violent illegal immigrants and reduce crime in U.S. communities. In a speech before Congress in March 2025, he highlighted the dangers posed by cartels, stating, “The territory to the immediate south of our border is now dominated entirely by criminal cartels that murder, rape, torture and exercise total control. They have total control over a whole nation, posing a grave threat to our national security.” He declared, “The cartels are waging war in America, and it’s time for America to wage war on the cartels.”

The upcoming roundtable coincides with ongoing military operations targeting suspected drug cartel vessels in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific. These strikes, which began in September, are part of Trump’s broader strategy to dismantle transnational cartels through force.

Earlier this month, Trump held a similar roundtable at the White House, inviting independent journalists who have experienced violence from Antifa to share their stories. This event was part of the administration’s efforts to address protests outside immigration facilities and the recent designation of Antifa as a “domestic terrorist organization.”

As the roundtable approaches, the administration continues to emphasize its commitment to combating the threats posed by criminal organizations and ensuring the safety of American citizens.

Source: Original article

U.S. Conducts Strike in Eastern Pacific Against Alleged Narco-Traffickers

The U.S. military has conducted another strike in the Eastern Pacific, targeting alleged narco-terrorists, according to Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth.

Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth announced on Wednesday that the U.S. military has executed another strike in the Eastern Pacific aimed at alleged narco-terrorists involved in drug trafficking activities.

According to Hegseth, three suspected narco-terrorists were killed during the operation, which was ordered by President Donald Trump. He described the strike as “yet another lethal kinetic strike on a vessel operated by a Designated Terrorist Organization (DTO).” Hegseth emphasized that the deceased individuals were engaged in narco-trafficking in the Eastern Pacific.

“The vessel was known by our intelligence to be involved in illicit narcotics smuggling, was transiting along a known narco-trafficking route, and was carrying narcotics,” Hegseth explained. He confirmed that the strike took place in international waters, with all three terrorists aboard the vessel killed and no U.S. forces harmed during the operation.

This incident marks the ninth vessel strike since September and the second reported in the Eastern Pacific. A total of 37 individuals have reportedly been killed in these operations, while two others survived and were subsequently repatriated to their home countries.

Hegseth stated, “These strikes will continue, day after day. These are not simply drug runners—these are narco-terrorists bringing death and destruction to our cities. These DTOs are the ‘Al Qaeda’ of our hemisphere and will not escape justice. We will find them and kill them, until the threat to the American people is extinguished.”

Despite the Pentagon’s assertions, officials have declined to release the identities of those killed or provide evidence of drugs being transported on board the targeted vessel.

The Trump administration has faced scrutiny in recent weeks regarding these military strikes, particularly from Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who has raised concerns about the implications of killing individuals without due process and the potential for innocent casualties. In a recent interview, Paul referenced Coast Guard statistics indicating that a significant percentage of boats boarded under suspicion of drug trafficking are, in fact, innocent.

Furthermore, the senator has argued that if the administration intends to engage in military action against Venezuela, as it has targeted boats allegedly linked to the Venezuela-associated Tren de Aragua gang, it must seek a formal declaration of war from Congress.

As the situation unfolds, the U.S. military’s approach to combating narco-trafficking continues to draw attention and debate regarding its legality and ethical implications.

Source: Original article

BIGGEST SDB CORPORATE COMPLEX STRUGGLING!

India is proud about its Surat Diamond Bourse (SDB) a diamond trade centre located in DREAM City, Surat, Gujarat, India, designed by the architecture firm Morphogenesis. It is the world’s largest office complex, spanning 660,000 square metres (7,100,000 sq ft), and also the world’s largest office building.

With over 4,500 networked offices and more than 67 lakh square feet of floor area, the Surat Diamond Bourse (SDB) is the largest interconnected building in the world, located in Khajod village near Surat city. The office block is the largest customs clearing house in the nation and is even larger than the US Pentagon.

The SDB was planned with the intention of expanding the diamond-trading activities from Mumbai to Surat. Designed by the Delhi-based architecture firm Morphogenesis, SDB has been built on an area of 66 lakh square feet at DREAM (Diamond Research and Mercantile) city. Morphogenesis has claimed it to be “bigger than the biggest office space in the world, The Pentagon in the US”.
SDB was inaugurated by Prime Minister Narendra Modi last year in December. It has a capacity of about 4,200 offices ranging from 300 square feet to 7,500 square feet each. The bourse has nine towers — each with ground plus 15 floors.The SDB aims to offer a one-stop shop starting from rough and polished diamonds, certification laboratories, retail outlets covering a comprehensive ecosystem of all aspects of the diamond trader.
The SDB also hosts 27 retail outlets of diamond jewellery who are nationally and internationally renowned. Apart from this, importance has been given in safety and security aspects.
The SDB already has permission to open customs houses and some banks have also shown interest in opening their branches to ensure better facilities.
Meanwhile, DREAM City, a greenfield project by the Gujarat Infrastructure Development Board (GIDB), is spread on 700 hectares at Khajod on Surat’s outskirts. Once complete, it will have all the social infrastructure like schools, hospitals, hotels, dining spaces, entertainment zones, Information Technology offices!
The latest blow has come in the form of unprecedented tariffs imposed by the Donald Trump-led US administration. Experts say that the tariff hike is reported to be hurting not just Surat’s famed diamond industry but India’s overall $32-billion gems and jewellery export market.
Hope SDB with Government initiatives will fetch innovative offers to attract more business, toake SDB great as envisioned!

Former GOP Senator Returns with New Mission to Serve Community

Former Republican Senator John E. Sununu announces his candidacy for the 2026 Senate race in New Hampshire, aiming to succeed retiring Democrat Jeanne Shaheen.

Former Republican Senator John E. Sununu of New Hampshire is making a significant move to reclaim his seat in the U.S. Senate. On Wednesday, he officially announced his candidacy for the 2026 race to succeed retiring Democratic Senator Jeanne Shaheen, marking his return to the political arena after nearly two decades in the private sector.

In a campaign launch video shared exclusively with Fox News Digital, Sununu expressed his concerns about the current state of Congress, describing it as “loud, dysfunctional, even angry.” He emphasized his desire to “calm the waters” and contribute to a more productive legislative environment.

Sununu, who previously served three terms in the Senate, first won election in 2002 by defeating then-Governor Shaheen. However, he lost to her in a rematch in 2008. With Shaheen’s announcement earlier this year that she would not seek re-election in the upcoming midterms, Republicans are eager to flip the seat as they aim to defend and potentially expand their Senate majority.

Reflecting on his decision to run again, Sununu stated, “Maybe you’re surprised that I’m running for the Senate again. I’m a bit surprised myself. Why would anyone subject themselves to everything going on there right now? Well, somebody has to step up and lower the temperature. Somebody has to get things done.”

Sununu is a well-known figure in New Hampshire politics, with a family legacy that includes his father, John H. Sununu, a former governor and chief of staff under President George H.W. Bush. His younger brother, Chris Sununu, currently serves as the state’s governor and has been re-elected multiple times.

However, Sununu will face competition for the GOP nomination. Former ambassador and Senator Scott Brown, who previously served in the Senate from Massachusetts and narrowly lost to Shaheen in the 2014 New Hampshire Senate race, entered the race in late June. Brown has emphasized his campaign’s resources and his commitment to grassroots politics, stating, “Our campaign will have the necessary resources for the long haul, and allow me to campaign the only way I know how: relentless hard work and a focus on retail politics that Granite State voters expect.”

Brown has also criticized Sununu for his past lack of support for former President Donald Trump, who remains a significant influence within the GOP. Sununu served as national co-chair for the 2016 presidential campaign of then-Ohio Governor John Kasich, who did not endorse Trump as the party’s nominee. Additionally, both Sununu and his brother endorsed former ambassador Nikki Haley in the 2024 New Hampshire Republican presidential primary, where she competed against Trump for the nomination.

In contrast, Brown endorsed Trump ahead of his 2016 primary victory and later served as U.S. ambassador to New Zealand during Trump’s presidency. Brown has argued that Sununu’s past affiliations with the “DC establishment” and his time in the private sector may not resonate with today’s GOP primary voters. He stated, “Anyone who thinks that a never Trump, corporate lobbyist who hasn’t won an election in a quarter century will resonate with today’s GOP primary voters is living in a different universe.”

Despite the challenges, Sununu’s candidacy has garnered attention from national Republican strategists, who view him as a strong contender to reclaim the Senate seat for the GOP. Earlier this year, Trump expressed support for Chris Sununu’s potential Senate bid, indicating a willingness to overlook past criticisms. Trump remarked, “He’s been very nice to me over the last year or so. I hope he runs. I think he’ll win that seat.”

As the race unfolds, four-term Democratic Representative Chris Pappas has emerged as the frontrunner for his party’s nomination. New Hampshire’s state primary, scheduled for next September, will be one of the last in the nation, while the state has historically held the first-in-the-nation presidential primary.

Although Republicans have seen success in state elections, controlling the governor’s office and both chambers of the state legislature, they have not won a Senate election in New Hampshire since 2010. With Sununu’s return to the political landscape, the dynamics of the race are poised to shift as both parties prepare for a competitive battle in the coming years.

Source: Original article

India and U.S. Seek Trade Breakthrough Amid Tariff Disputes

India and the United States must navigate their trade relationship to avoid unnecessary tariffs and foster a mutually beneficial partnership, especially in light of recent economic developments.

In the evolving landscape of international trade, the relationship between India and the United States is at a critical juncture. As both nations seek to bolster their economies, the need for a fair and balanced trade agreement has never been more pressing.

Reflecting on my personal experience from 25 years ago, I recall attempting to send my seven-year-old used car to India as a gift for my parents. Upon learning that the customs duty would amount to approximately 100%, I quickly abandoned the idea. At that time, such protective measures were understandable, given India’s economic climate. However, the situation has changed dramatically, as India is now recognized as the fastest-growing major economy, expanding at a remarkable rate of 6.5%.

In this context, it is essential to consider the fairness of trade practices. I find myself in agreement with former President Trump’s assertion that trade should not be a one-sided affair. His efforts to level the playing field are commendable, and it is crucial for India to respond appropriately.

Countries such as the European Union, Japan, and South Korea have successfully negotiated compromise tariff rates around 15%. It raises the question: why can’t India, under the leadership of Piyush Goyal, achieve similar results? India had the opportunity to be among the first nations to sign a comprehensive trade deal, yet it appears that Goyal’s team may have missed a significant opportunity by rejecting a deal that was reportedly on the table. This decision could prove to be a costly mistake.

In light of these developments, it may be time for a change in leadership regarding trade negotiations. Prime Minister Modi’s direct involvement could provide the necessary clarity and urgency to rectify the current situation. Modi has established a strong rapport with President Trump over the past eight to nine years, highlighted by memorable moments such as their joint appearance at the “Howdy Modi” rally in Houston and Trump’s warm reception in Ahmedabad in 2020.

The strategic partnerships that have developed between the two nations in defense, space, and other sectors should not be jeopardized over a few percentage points in a trade deal. Such a stance would be short-sighted and detrimental to both countries’ interests.

The recent imposition of tariffs on Russian oil can be viewed as a consequence of the dissatisfaction stemming from the stalled trade negotiations. Had a deal been finalized earlier, it is likely that such measures would not have been enacted so overtly. Additionally, the apparent warming of relations between India and Pakistan could complicate matters further.

India, under Prime Minister Modi’s leadership, has made significant strides and is well-positioned to enhance its global standing. The United States, particularly under Trump’s administration, has also shown resilience and strength. This moment presents an opportunity to restore and even strengthen the bilateral relationship. It is crucial not to squander this chance. If the U.S. were to finalize a trade agreement with China before India, it would leave a lasting impression and be viewed as a missed opportunity.

To those in the Indian American community, such as Shashi Tharoor, it is important to recognize that while we are part of the Indian diaspora, our primary identity is as Americans. We must advocate for our interests and encourage India to take the necessary steps to facilitate a successful trade agreement. Placing the burden solely on the shoulders of the diaspora is not a prudent approach.

This issue transcends individual interests; it is fundamentally about fairness in trade. As we look to the future, it is imperative that both India and the United States work together to create a balanced and equitable trade framework that benefits both nations and their citizens.

Source: Original article

Department of Energy Cancels $700 Million Manufacturing Grant Program

The Department of Energy has announced the cancellation of $720 million in manufacturing grants aimed at supporting battery material production and recycling efforts.

The Department of Energy (DOE) has confirmed the cancellation of $720 million in manufacturing grants, a decision that impacts companies involved in producing battery materials, recycling lithium-ion batteries, and manufacturing super-insulating windows.

The funding for these grants was authorized by Congress as part of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, which was enacted in 2021. Most of the grants were awarded in 2023 and 2024. The Trump administration previously used grants awarded between Election Day and Inauguration Day as a basis for canceling certain awards.

Energy Secretary Chris Wright has been reviewing contracts established during the Biden administration. The DOE has stated that the projects associated with these grants “missed milestones” and “did not adequately advance the nation’s energy needs.”

According to the DOE, the $720 million in grants includes funding awarded to several battery companies, including Ascend Elements, American Battery Technology Co., Anovion, and ICL Specialty Products, as well as the glass manufacturer LuxWall.

Ascend Elements has been developing a recycling technology designed to convert manufacturing waste and end-of-life batteries into materials necessary for domestic lithium-ion battery production. In October 2022, the company was awarded $316 million toward a $1 billion facility in Kentucky. Federal records indicate that $206 million has already been disbursed to Ascend Elements. The company has stated it will continue with its plans using alternative funding sources to cover any financial shortfall.

Another recipient, Anovion, received $117 million to reshore technology for producing synthetic graphite used in lithium-ion battery anodes. Currently, Chinese suppliers dominate the supply chain for synthetic graphite, controlling 75% of the market and producing 97% of all synthetic graphite anodes, according to Benchmark Mineral Intelligence. Anovion’s plant is expected to be constructed in Alabama, with only $13.8 million disbursed to date, as per federal database records.

LuxWall, which manufactures windows designed to insulate buildings, was awarded $31.7 million to establish a factory on the site of a former coal plant near Detroit. This grant was issued in November 2023, but only $1 million has been allocated to the company thus far. LuxWall opened the first phase of its factory in August 2024.

It remains uncertain whether the DOE plans to proceed with additional cancellations from the $20 billion list of grants. Following the announcement of $7.56 billion in funding cuts, Secretary Wright indicated to CNN that “many more” cancellations would occur this fall. These cuts have drawn criticism from Democrats, while some Republicans have urged the DOE to preserve projects in their states. For example, Senator Shelley Moore Capito has advocated against eliminating funding for a “blue” hydrogen project in Appalachia that would utilize natural gas and carbon capture technology.

As the situation develops, the implications of these cancellations on the energy sector and related industries will continue to unfold.

Source: Original article

Trump Nominee Paul Ingrassia Faces Scrutiny Over Racist Messages

Texts obtained by POLITICO reveal troubling remarks from Trump nominee Paul Ingrassia, raising serious concerns ahead of his Senate confirmation hearing to lead the Office of Special Counsel.

Paul Ingrassia, nominated by former President Donald Trump to head the Office of Special Counsel, is facing intense scrutiny following the release of text messages that contain racist and inflammatory remarks. These messages, obtained by POLITICO, include derogatory comments about Martin Luther King Jr., Asians, and references to “white nationalism.”

Ingrassia is scheduled to appear before the Senate for a confirmation hearing on Thursday. The messages reportedly originated from a group chat involving several Republican operatives and political influencers. In one message dated January 2024, Ingrassia described the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday as deserving to be “thrown into the seventh circle of hell.” He further likened King to George Floyd, stating, “MLK Jr. was the 1960s George Floyd and his ‘holiday’ should be ended and tossed into the seventh circle of hell where it belongs.”

In response to Ingrassia’s comments, one participant in the chat expressed shock, saying, “Jesus Christ.” Ingrassia also used an Italian racial slur targeting Black individuals in a separate message, stating, “No moulignon holidays … From kwanza [sic] to mlk jr day to black history month to Juneteenth. Every single one needs to be eviscerated.”

POLITICO spoke with two participants from the chat who requested anonymity due to concerns about personal and professional repercussions. One participant shared the full text chain with POLITICO, which confirmed that the phone number associated with the messages belongs to Ingrassia. This individual stated they came forward because they believe the government should be staffed by experienced professionals who are taken seriously. The second participant, who has since deleted the chat, could not recall specific details but confirmed the conversations took place.

Ingrassia’s attorney, Edward Andrew Paltzik, suggested that the messages might have been intended as satire aimed at mocking liberals, although he did not confirm their authenticity. “Looks like these texts could be manipulated or are being provided with material context omitted,” he stated. “However, even if the texts are authentic, they clearly read as self-deprecating and satirical humor making fun of the fact that liberals routinely call MAGA supporters ‘Nazis.’” Paltzik also defended Ingrassia’s reputation, asserting that he has strong support from the Jewish community.

In one of the messages, Ingrassia reportedly admitted, “I do have a Nazi streak in me from time to time, I will admit it.” A participant in the chat noted that this comment was not perceived as a joke, and three members of the group challenged Ingrassia during the conversation. The emergence of these messages complicates Ingrassia’s nomination to lead the Office of Special Counsel, which is tasked with investigating federal whistleblower complaints, discrimination claims, and other sensitive issues.

In July, Republican senators postponed Ingrassia’s nomination hearing, with one senator citing concerns over “some statements about antisemitism.” The messages also included other racist comments, such as Ingrassia’s remark about former Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy: “Never trust a chinaman or Indian,” followed by “NEVER.”

The Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus responded to these comments, questioning what it would take for Republican leaders to address the anti-Asian racism and bigotry within their party. In a post on X, they highlighted Ingrassia’s statement, saying, “From a Trump nominee: ‘Never trust a chinaman or Indian. NEVER.’”

During a May 2024 exchange, Ingrassia defended his comments about being perceived as a “white nationalist.” He suggested that a Georgia operative should “read a book (if she’s able to) on George Washington and America’s founding.” A participant warned him that his remarks could have lasting consequences, stating, “You’re gunna be in private practice one day this shit will be around forever brother.”

Ingrassia shared an image in the chat featuring several Founding Fathers, including George Washington, John Adams, and Alexander Hamilton, stating, “We should celebrate white men and western civilization and I will never back down from that.” This led to further criticism from participants who expressed concern over his tone, with one remarking that he sounded “like a scumbag.” Ingrassia allegedly responded, “Nah it’s fine … Don’t be a boomer … I don’t mind being a scumbag from time to time.”

One participant, a longtime acquaintance of Ingrassia from Republican political circles, noted that Ingrassia’s personality had changed over the years, describing him as an “extreme ego-driven” loyalist of Trump. “He was too young and too inexperienced to deal with the fame,” the participant said. “It was like giving an 18-year-old $10 million and saying, ‘Have at it, kid.’”

Following the May 2024 conversation, the group chat eventually dissolved, as members grew weary of Ingrassia’s rhetoric.

Source: Original article

Former Maine CDC Director Nirav Shah Launches Campaign for Governor

Former Maine CDC Director Nirav Shah has announced his candidacy for governor, emphasizing his leadership experience and commitment to addressing the state’s pressing challenges.

Nirav Shah, a Democrat and former Director of the Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), has officially declared his intention to run for governor of Maine. With a background as an attorney, economist, and public health leader, Shah aims to leverage his experience leading the state through the COVID-19 pandemic to bring effective governance to the state’s highest office.

In his announcement, Shah expressed his deep connection to the people of Maine, stating, “Over the years, I’ve been lucky to talk with thousands of Mainers from every corner of our state, and hear their worries and aspirations. Maine is at a crossroads, and we need a governor with proven leadership experience who is ready to tackle our challenges on day one. I’m running for governor to honor what works, fix what doesn’t, and deliver results for our state.”

Shah was appointed as the Director of the Maine CDC by Governor Janet Mills in 2019. Upon taking the role, he focused on revitalizing an agency that had faced significant challenges under the previous Republican administration. His leadership became particularly critical as the COVID-19 pandemic began to unfold in early 2020.

During the early stages of the pandemic, Shah took decisive action to secure personal protective equipment for healthcare workers and collaborated with local businesses to enhance the state’s testing capacity. His efforts were instrumental in saving lives during a time of unprecedented crisis.

Reflecting on his tenure as Maine CDC Director, Shah noted, “As Maine CDC Director, I saw how we could get through incredibly tough times together with empathy, resilience, and vision. I’ll bring those same values as governor to tackle big challenges: the unsustainable increases to the cost of living and housing, an economy that’s not delivering for people, and a rural health care system that’s struggling and will only get worse because of Trump.”

Under Shah’s leadership, Maine’s vaccination rollout became a national model, achieving some of the fastest and highest vaccination rates in the country. Despite the challenges posed by the pandemic, Maine recorded one of the lowest death rates nationwide, a testament to the effectiveness of the state’s public health strategies.

Shah emphasized the need for a leader with a diverse skill set to address the challenges facing Maine. He stated, “The challenges facing our state require a leader with a different skill set to bring Mainers more than they have today. I’ve run organizations with tens of thousands of employees and managed multi-billion dollar budgets by being curious, asking tough questions, and demanding accountability. As governor, I will run toward tough problems, not away from them.”

Following his time at the Maine CDC, Shah was appointed by President Biden to serve as the Principal Deputy Director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, where he held the agency’s second-highest position. After the election of President Trump, Shah returned to Maine and is currently a visiting professor at Colby College, where he teaches future public health leaders.

Shah resides in Brunswick with his wife, Kara, and their German Shepherd, Fritz. His campaign for governor is expected to focus on public health, economic stability, and the improvement of rural healthcare services, aiming to create a better future for all Mainers.

Source: Original article

Trump-Backed Former Navy SEAL Enters GOP Primary Against Massie

Ed Gallrein, a former Navy SEAL and Kentucky farmer, has announced his candidacy for the GOP primary against Rep. Thomas Massie in Kentucky’s 4th Congressional District, backed by Donald Trump.

Ed Gallrein, a longtime Navy SEAL and fifth-generation farmer from Kentucky, has officially declared his candidacy for the Republican primary in the state’s 4th Congressional District. His announcement comes as he challenges incumbent Republican Rep. Thomas Massie in the upcoming election.

In a statement shared exclusively with Fox News Digital, Gallrein expressed his commitment to public service, saying, “I’ve dedicated my life to serving my country, and I’m ready to answer the call again.” He emphasized the importance of supporting President Trump, stating, “This district is Trump Country. The President doesn’t need obstacles in Congress – he needs backup. I’ll defeat Thomas Massie, stand shoulder to shoulder with President Trump, and deliver the America First results Kentuckians voted for.”

The timing of Gallrein’s campaign launch is significant, coming just four days after Trump took to social media to endorse him. In his post, Trump criticized Massie, labeling him a “Third Rate Congressman,” a “Weak and Pathetic RINO,” and a “totally ineffective LOSER who has failed us so badly.” Trump praised Gallrein as a “Brave Combat Veteran” and a “very successful Businessman,” asserting that he would “fight tirelessly to Keep our now very Secure Border, SECURE, Stop Migrant Crime, and Defend our always under siege Second Amendment” if elected.

Gallrein’s military background is impressive; he served for three decades, achieving the rank of Captain. His campaign biography highlights his time with SEAL Team SIX, during which he deployed to Panama, Afghanistan, and Iraq. He was awarded four Bronze Stars and two Presidential Unit Citations for his service.

Gallrein’s ties to Kentucky are deep-rooted. He was born and raised in the state, where his family has been farming for over a century. They built Kentucky’s largest dairy farm and Gallrein Grain Farms, which is among the state’s largest grain operations.

In response to Gallrein’s candidacy and Trump’s endorsement, Massie did not hold back. He referred to Gallrein as a “failed candidate and establishment hack,” pointing to Gallrein’s unsuccessful bid for the state Senate last year. Massie stated, “After having been rejected by every elected official in the 4th District, Trump’s consultants clearly pushed the panic button with their choice of failed candidate and establishment hack Ed Gallrein. Ed’s been begging them to pick him for over three months now.”

Trump’s focus on ousting Massie began earlier this year, primarily due to Massie’s opposition to the “One Big Beautiful Bill,” a significant piece of legislation that passed through the GOP-controlled Congress largely along party lines. This bill is considered one of Trump’s major legislative achievements since returning to the White House.

Additionally, Massie has been leading an initiative, alongside Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna of California, to force a House floor vote on the release of the Justice Department’s files related to the late convicted sex-trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. This move has drawn scrutiny from the White House and House GOP leaders, who are working to counter it. Massie is nearing the necessary 218 signatures to compel the vote.

In June, two prominent Trump political advisers, Chris LaCivita and Tony Fabrizio, launched a super PAC aimed at defeating Massie. To date, nearly $2 million has been spent on television advertisements targeting the incumbent congressman.

Despite the challenges posed by Trump and his allies, Massie has leveraged these attacks to bolster his fundraising efforts, raising over $750,000 in the past three months, marking the best fundraising quarter of his congressional career.

Massie’s district, located in the northeastern part of Kentucky, encompasses the eastern suburbs of Louisville and the suburbs of Cincinnati.

According to Fox News, the political landscape in Kentucky’s 4th Congressional District is poised for a contentious primary battle as Gallrein seeks to unseat Massie with the backing of Trump and his supporters.

Source: Original article

USCIS Clarifies $100,000 H-1B Visa Fee Requirements for Employers

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services has clarified the implementation of a $100,000 fee for H-1B visa petitions, detailing who must pay and the limited exemptions available.

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has recently provided much-anticipated guidance regarding the $100,000 fee imposed on H-1B visa petitions. This fee applies to petitions filed on or after September 21, 2025, for beneficiaries located outside the United States who do not currently hold a valid H-1B visa. The announcement has sparked significant discussion within immigration circles, as many visa holders express concerns about their eligibility and the implications of this new requirement.

Employers are required to pay the fee through Pay.gov, utilizing the form titled “H-1B visa payment to remove restriction.” This payment must be completed prior to submitting any petitions to USCIS. Notably, petitions filed before the September 21 deadline, as well as extensions or amendments for individuals already in the U.S., are exempt from the new fee.

While the announcement has provided some clarity, it has also raised questions about the circumstances under which exemptions may be granted. According to USCIS, rare exemptions may be available if the H-1B worker’s employment is deemed to be in the national interest, poses no security risk, and there are no qualified U.S. workers available for the position. However, immigration attorneys have criticized the “national interest” waiver as overly broad and ambiguous, suggesting that it leaves room for significant administrative discretion.

Jihan Merlin, Head of Immigration Strategy at Alma, commented on the administration’s approach, suggesting that it reflects a strategic recalibration rather than a retreat. “It’s not unraveling but it’s being narrowed in a way that seems designed to give it more of a chance to survive in court,” she stated. “By limiting it to consular petitions, the administration is aligning the policy more closely with its 212(f) authority over entry restrictions.” The true test of this strategy will come as it faces legal scrutiny.

For many current H-1B holders, the new fee and the potential for USCIS to determine ineligibility for extensions while remaining in the U.S. adds a layer of uncertainty to their immigration status. Jitesh Kumar, an H-1B visa holder, expressed his concerns, stating, “This leaves me and many others like me in a state of limbo. Since there is no clear guideline on who qualifies, we may be doing everything by the book and still discover that we’re ineligible.” This uncertainty has left many visa holders fearing the possibility of having to leave the country unexpectedly.

In terms of payment logistics, USCIS has clarified that the fee must be processed through Pay.gov before any petition is submitted. This clarification comes after confusion surrounding the payment process since the announcement of the fee by President Trump.

As for the exemptions, USCIS has specified that petitions filed before September 21, those for individuals who already hold valid H-1B visas, and approved amendments or extensions for workers within the U.S. will not be subject to the new fee. However, the criteria for the national interest waiver remain vague, leaving many in the immigration community questioning how it will be applied in practice.

Looking ahead, Merlin expressed caution regarding the potential for further easing of the fee requirements. “I don’t see the administration easing up further unless the courts step in,” she remarked. “The recent tweaks look more like a legal defense strategy than a policy reversal. If they tighten it further, it’ll be just enough to stand up in court. We’re telling companies to plan for either outcome.”

The USCIS’s recent clarifications have shed light on the $100,000 H-1B visa fee, but the ambiguity surrounding exemptions and the implications for current visa holders continue to create anxiety within the immigration community.

Source: Original article

Bitcoin Struggles to Recover After $600 Billion Market Decline

Bitcoin is struggling to recover after a significant market decline that erased over $600 billion in digital-asset value, raising doubts about its status as a safe-haven asset.

Bitcoin is grappling to regain momentum following a substantial market downturn that resulted in the loss of over $600 billion in digital-asset value. The cryptocurrency’s price has fallen to $106,322, reflecting a 4% decline from its previous close. This downturn has intensified skepticism regarding Bitcoin’s role as a “safe-haven” asset.

The recent sell-off was triggered by escalating trade tensions between the United States and China, culminating in a 100% tariff on Chinese imports announced by President Trump. This unexpected move ignited panic selling across global markets, including cryptocurrencies. In the week leading up to October 12, Bitcoin’s price plummeted by as much as 6.3%, marking its most significant decline since early March.

Despite efforts by major cryptocurrency platforms such as Kraken, Circle, BitGo, and Ripple to enhance their involvement in regulated finance, the market has struggled to achieve a sustained recovery. Analysts suggest that the crash has purged excess leverage from the market, yet Bitcoin faces considerable challenges in reclaiming its previous highs.

Currently, Bitcoin’s price remains below its all-time high of $126,251, which was reached on October 6, 2025. The market’s cautious sentiment continues, with investors seeking stability amid ongoing geopolitical uncertainties. The combination of regulatory pressures and market volatility has left many wondering about the future trajectory of Bitcoin and its viability as a long-term investment.

As the cryptocurrency landscape evolves, the ability of Bitcoin to navigate these turbulent waters will be critical. Investors are closely monitoring developments, particularly in relation to regulatory changes and market dynamics, which could significantly impact Bitcoin’s recovery prospects.

In summary, while Bitcoin has faced a significant setback, the ongoing efforts by key players in the cryptocurrency space may provide a foundation for future growth. However, the path to recovery remains uncertain as market conditions continue to fluctuate.

Source: Original article

Working-Class Americans Face Hardship Amid Ongoing Government Shutdown

Working-class Americans could face significant challenges if the federal government shutdown continues, jeopardizing access to affordable healthcare through the Affordable Care Act.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA), a cornerstone of the American healthcare system for the past 15 years, has provided millions of Americans with access to affordable health coverage. Commonly referred to as Obamacare, the ACA allows individuals to purchase insurance through marketplaces and protects over 100 million people with pre-existing conditions from being denied coverage by insurance companies.

Despite its success, the ACA has faced ongoing opposition from Republican lawmakers. During his first term, former President Trump attempted to weaken or dismantle the ACA through various repeal-and-replace efforts and lawsuits. His administration implemented measures to undermine the law’s effectiveness, including cutting funding for public outreach, limiting enrollment periods, and promoting alternatives that circumvented ACA regulations.

In 2017, the ACA narrowly avoided repeal when the late Senator John McCain cast a pivotal vote against its dismantling. Now, in his second term, Trump has renewed efforts to roll back key provisions of the ACA.

In June 2025, the House of Representatives passed H.R.1, the Budget Reconciliation Act of 2025, also known as the “One Big Beautiful Bill” (OBBB). This legislation introduced significant changes to ACA marketplaces, impacting millions of Americans, including small business owners, self-employed workers, gig economy participants, and hourly wage earners. The OBBB also proposed funding cuts to Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

Instead of prioritizing healthcare, the OBBB focused on tax cuts for the wealthy, increased funding for immigration enforcement and defense, and subsidies for fossil fuels. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that the national debt could increase by $687 billion from 2025 to 2034, pushing the cumulative deficit to approximately $4.5 trillion. Despite these fiscal concerns, Republicans have continued to advocate for their agenda, opting not to extend enhanced ACA tax credits.

The federal government shut down two weeks ago due to a budget impasse between Republicans and Democrats over the future of ACA tax credits, which are set to expire at the end of December 2025. Democratic leaders are advocating for the permanent extension of these tax credits, rejecting temporary solutions that would only delay the issue.

During an October 10 briefing hosted by the American Community Media, health policy experts discussed the implications of the shutdown on ACA operations and enrollment. In 2025, over 24 million people were enrolled through ACA marketplaces, with 90% receiving federal tax credits that significantly reduced their monthly premiums. These enhanced credits, introduced by the Biden administration in 2021, expanded eligibility and increased the value of subsidies. However, the OBBB threatens to undermine these provisions by eliminating automatic re-enrollment for those receiving premium tax credits, shortening the open enrollment period, and removing the repayment cap for enrollees whose income changes during the year.

As a result, the accessibility and stability of ACA coverage could be severely compromised.

Anthony Wright, Executive Director at Families USA, emphasized that roughly half of the American population receives insurance coverage through their employers, while public programs like Medicaid and Medicare cover one-quarter to one-third of Americans. The remaining individuals and families rely on ACA marketplaces for their healthcare needs. Wright warned that Congress must act before November 1, when the next open enrollment period begins, to renew enhanced tax credits. If they fail to do so, insurance premiums are expected to rise dramatically, making coverage unaffordable for many.

Wright stated, “The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 1.5 million people may opt not to get coverage, just from the sticker shock, when they see what the new premiums are going to be!” If Congress does not take action, potential enrollees will encounter higher premiums, which may discourage them from signing up, even if lawmakers later restore the credits before the year ends.

The nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) estimates that if these tax credits expire, average premiums could increase by 114% or even double for some individuals in 2026. This could lead to at least 4 million people becoming uninsured in the coming years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Jenny Sullivan of the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities noted that 93% of marketplace enrollees currently receive premium tax credits (PTCs). The enhanced tax credits, initially introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic under the American Rescue Plan Act and later extended by the Inflation Reduction Act, have reduced average premiums by 44%. This reduction has led to a significant increase in enrollment, particularly among historically uninsured groups, including Black and Latino communities, low-income individuals, and residents of states that opted not to expand Medicaid. In these states, enhanced tax credits often represent the only path to affordable coverage.

Importantly, about 90% of marketplace enrollees earn below the threshold for premium tax credits, with nearly half earning less than twice the federal poverty level. This underscores the ACA’s critical role in supporting working-class Americans.

Data from KFF shows that 75% of enrollees who rely on HealthCare.gov or ACA marketplaces reside in states that Trump won in 2024. The ACA was designed with a dual system—Medicaid for the poorest and subsidies for those with slightly higher incomes. However, many low-income residents in states that declined to expand Medicaid rely solely on marketplace subsidies for healthcare access, resulting in disproportionately high enrollment in states like Tennessee, Georgia, Mississippi, Louisiana, West Virginia, and Texas. Enrollment in these red states has tripled since the ACA’s inception, with only West Virginia and Louisiana opting to expand Medicaid.

Public sentiment appears to favor the extension of tax credits. A KFF poll revealed that 78% of Americans support continuing premium tax credits beyond 2025. Support spans across party lines, with 92% of Democrats, 82% of Independents, and 59% of Republicans in favor of this extension. Even among self-identified MAGA supporters, 57% agree that these subsidies should continue.

This widespread public support has prompted some Republicans facing challenging reelection races to reconsider their positions. In September 2025, 11 GOP House members endorsed H.R. 5145, a bipartisan proposal to extend the subsidies through 2026, effectively postponing the issue until after the midterm elections. However, the bill has yet to be brought to a vote. GOP leader Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia publicly expressed her support for the extension, stating, “I’m absolutely disgusted that health insurance premiums will DOUBLE if the tax credits expire this year.”

Looking ahead, without congressional action before November 1, millions could face unaffordable premium hikes during the open enrollment period, jeopardizing the coverage gains achieved over the past decade.

Advocates at the briefing urged citizens, advocacy groups, and healthcare organizations to contact their representatives, raise public awareness, and participate in outreach campaigns that highlight the human and economic costs of allowing tax credits to lapse. They called on policymakers to weigh short-term fiscal arguments against the long-term social and economic stability that universal, affordable healthcare can provide.

The Affordable Care Act is not merely a landmark healthcare reform; it serves as a barometer of political will and compassion in the United States, determining whether access to healthcare is regarded as a privilege or a right.

Source: Original article

Trump’s Pressure on Venezuela Signals Potential Regime Change Campaign

Experts and lawmakers speculate that President Trump’s military actions against drug trafficking in the Caribbean may be aimed at pressuring Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro to step down.

President Donald Trump recently stated that Venezuela is “feeling heat” as his administration intensifies its efforts against alleged drug boats in the Caribbean. In just the past week, U.S. forces have targeted at least two vessels. While Trump claims these strikes aim to reduce the influx of drugs into the United States, experts and some lawmakers suggest that the underlying goal is to pressure Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro to relinquish power.

“The Trump administration is likely attempting to force Maduro to voluntarily leave office through a series of diplomatic moves, and now military action and the threat thereof,” said Brandan Buck, a foreign policy analyst at the Cato Institute, in an email to Fox News Digital. He added that whether this constitutes a ‘regime change’ is a matter of semantics.

The Trump administration has consistently refused to recognize Maduro as a legitimate leader, labeling him instead as the head of a drug cartel. In August, the administration increased the reward for information leading to Maduro’s arrest to $50 million, branding him “one of the largest narco-traffickers in the world.”

Despite the escalating military actions, the administration has remained tight-lipped regarding Maduro. Trump declined to answer questions about whether the CIA had the authority to “take out” Maduro but confirmed that he authorized the agency to conduct covert operations in Venezuela. This decision followed reports that Venezuela has released prisoners into the U.S. and that drugs were entering the country via sea routes from Venezuela.

In a recent statement, Trump noted that Maduro had offered the U.S. access to Venezuelan oil and other natural resources, claiming the Venezuelan leader did not want to “f*** around” with the U.S.

However, experts like Buck caution that these military strikes are unlikely to significantly disrupt the flow of drugs into the U.S. “It is more likely that those strikes are part of this incremental effort to dislodge Maduro than merely an effort to wage war on the cartels,” he explained. He pointed out that Pacific and overland routes through Mexico are far more prolific, and Venezuela itself plays a relatively minor role, especially concerning fentanyl trafficking.

The Trump administration has ramped up its maritime forces to combat drug threats, bolstering naval assets in the Caribbean in recent months. This includes the deployment of several U.S. Navy guided missile destroyers to enhance counter-narcotics efforts in the region, a strategy that began in August.

Geoff Ramsey, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, noted that the administration hopes the increased military presence will encourage the Venezuelan military to take action against Maduro. “What President Trump is hoping is that this deployment will signal to the Venezuelan military that they should rise up against Maduro themselves,” Ramsey said in an email. “The problem is that we haven’t seen this approach bear fruit in twenty years of trying. Maduro is terrible at governing, but good at keeping his upper ranks fat and happy while the people starve.”

Ramsey emphasized the need for a clear roadmap or blueprint for a transition that could appeal to the ruling party and those around Maduro who might secretly desire change but need assurance of a future in a democratic Venezuela.

As the Trump administration adopts a hard-line approach to combat the flow of drugs into the U.S., it has designated various drug cartel groups, including Tren de Aragua and Sinaloa, as foreign terrorist organizations as of February. Additionally, the White House informed lawmakers on September 30 that the U.S. is now engaged in a “non-international armed conflict” with drug smugglers, having conducted at least six strikes against vessels off the coast of Venezuela. The most recent strike resulted in the seizure of survivors, marking a shift in the nature of these military actions.

Concerns regarding the legality of these strikes have been raised by lawmakers from both parties. Senators Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Tim Kaine (D-Va.) filed a war powers resolution in September aimed at preventing U.S. forces from engaging in “hostilities” against certain non-state organizations. This resolution failed in the Senate by a narrow margin of 51–48 on October 8, with Republicans Rand Paul of Kentucky and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska voting alongside their Democratic colleagues.

On Friday, Schiff, Kaine, and Paul introduced a more targeted war powers resolution to prevent U.S. armed forces from participating in “hostilities” specifically against Venezuela. The lawmakers expressed concern over Trump’s comments suggesting potential land operations in Venezuela. “The Trump administration has made it clear they may launch military action inside Venezuela’s borders and won’t stop at boat strikes in the Caribbean,” Schiff stated. “In recent weeks, we have seen increasingly concerning movements and reporting that undermine claims that this is merely about stopping drug smugglers. Congress has not authorized military force against Venezuela, and we must assert our authority to prevent the United States from being dragged—intentionally or accidentally—into full-fledged war in South America.”

When questioned about lawmakers’ concerns regarding the legality of the strikes, Trump dismissed them, asserting that lawmakers were informed the vessels carried drugs. “But they are given information that they were loaded up with drugs,” Trump said. “And that’s the thing that matters. When they’re loaded up with drugs, they’re fair game. And every one of those ships were and they’re not ships, they’re boats.”

Source: Original article

Kamala Harris Criticizes Biden for Not Inviting Musk to EV Event

Former Vice President Kamala Harris criticized President Biden for not inviting Elon Musk to a 2021 electric vehicle event, calling it a “big mistake.”

Former Vice President Kamala Harris recently expressed her belief that President Joe Biden made a significant error by not inviting Tesla CEO Elon Musk to a White House event focused on electric vehicles in 2021.

During a discussion at Fortune’s Most Powerful Women Summit in Washington, D.C., Harris reflected on the August 2021 event, which featured executives from General Motors, Ford, and Stellantis, but notably excluded Musk, despite Tesla being the leading electric vehicle manufacturer in the United States.

“I write in the book that I thought it was a big mistake to not invite Elon Musk when we did a big EV event,” Harris stated, referring to her memoir, “107 Days.” In her book, she also critiques Biden for initially running for re-election amid health concerns.

Harris emphasized Musk’s role as a major American innovator in the electric vehicle space, saying, “Here he is, the major American manufacturer of extraordinary innovation in this space.” Musk is also known for his leadership at SpaceX.

The decision to exclude Musk was interpreted by many as an effort to support the United Auto Workers (UAW) and organized labor, given that Tesla’s workforce is not unionized. Harris noted in her memoir that she believed Biden was “sending a message about Musk’s anti-union stance,” but she argued that excluding him as a key player in the industry “simply doesn’t make sense.”

At the time, then-White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki explained that the event featured “the three largest employers of the United Auto Workers,” highlighting the administration’s focus on unionized labor. When questioned about whether Musk’s exclusion was a form of punishment for Tesla’s non-union status, Psaki remarked, “I’ll let you draw your own conclusion.”

The Biden administration defended its decision to invite only certain automakers, describing them as crucial partners in the president’s initiative to promote union jobs.

Harris further asserted that presidents should “put aside political loyalties” when acknowledging technological advancements. She expressed concern that the decision to exclude Musk may have affected his perspective on the administration, saying, “I don’t know Elon Musk, but I have to assume that that was something that hit him hard and had an impact on his perspective.”

Following the event, Musk appeared to express his displeasure over the snub, making several comments on social media. He remarked, “Yeah, seems odd that Tesla wasn’t invited,” and later suggested that the Biden administration seemed “controlled by unions” and was “not the friendliest administration.”

After the news broke that Tesla would not be included, administration officials reportedly extended an apology, according to The Wall Street Journal. Biden aides attempted to mend the relationship, but tensions between Musk and the administration persisted.

Harris’ remarks align with a passage in her memoir where she reiterates that the decision to exclude Tesla was a mistake, suggesting it alienated Musk, who later became a prominent financial supporter of former President Donald Trump.

“Musk never forgave it,” she wrote, noting that he subsequently endorsed Trump in the 2024 election and contributed approximately $300 million to Republican campaign efforts.

Source: Original article

State Department Cautions Hamas Could Breach Ceasefire, Target Civilians

The U.S. State Department has warned that Hamas may violate its ceasefire with Israel by planning attacks on Palestinian civilians, raising concerns about the stability of the region.

The U.S. State Department issued a warning on Saturday regarding Hamas, stating that the group is reportedly planning to violate its ceasefire with Israel by launching attacks on civilians in Gaza. This potential breach of the peace agreement has raised alarms among international observers.

“This planned attack against Palestinian civilians would constitute a direct and grave violation of the ceasefire agreement and undermine the significant progress achieved through mediation efforts,” the State Department said in a statement shared on social media. The department emphasized that the guarantors of the ceasefire expect Hamas to uphold its obligations under the terms of the agreement.

The United States, along with other guarantors, remains committed to ensuring the safety of civilians and maintaining calm in the region. The goal is to advance peace and prosperity for the people of Gaza and the surrounding areas.

A ceasefire between Israel and Hamas came into effect last weekend, marking a significant development after two years of conflict that escalated following the attacks on southern Israel on October 7, 2023. As part of the ceasefire agreement, the remaining 20 Israeli hostages were returned to Israel, although more than a dozen remains of hostages who were killed are still under Hamas control.

In light of the potential threat, the State Department indicated that “measures will be taken to protect the people of Gaza and preserve the integrity of the ceasefire” if Hamas proceeds with its planned attacks.

On Thursday, former President Donald Trump issued a stern warning on Truth Social, following the circulation of footage showing Hamas fighters executing Palestinians in Gaza City’s main square. Trump stated, “If Hamas continues to kill people in Gaza, which was not the deal, we will have no choice but to go in and kill them.”

Reports from Reuters indicate that at least 33 individuals were executed by Hamas in recent days, which officials described as part of a campaign to “show strength” after the ceasefire was established. Israeli sources have reported that most of those killed were members of families accused of collaborating with Israel or supporting rival militias.

Trump later clarified that U.S. troops would not be deployed into Gaza, stating, “It’s not going to be us. We won’t have to. There are people very close, very nearby that will go in, and they’ll do the trick very easily, but under our auspices.”

The situation remains fluid, and the international community is closely monitoring developments as tensions persist in the region.

Source: Original article

Nationwide Protests Against Monarchy Attract Large Crowds Across U.S.

A wave of “No Kings” protests took place across the United States on Saturday, drawing hundreds of thousands in opposition to President Donald Trump’s administration.

A significant wave of “No Kings” demonstrations unfolded across the United States on Saturday, with hundreds of thousands of protesters rallying against the administration of President Donald Trump. According to CNN, over 2,500 protests occurred in all 50 states, with organizers highlighting perceived threats to democracy, military deployments in urban areas, and extensive federal program cuts as central issues of concern.

In San Francisco, The Guardian reported that crowds along Market Street exceeded 500,000 marchers, surpassing the turnout from June, as noted by Michelle Gutierrez Vo, president of the California Nurses Association. Demonstrators also gathered at Ocean Beach, forming the phrases “No Kings” and “Yes on 50” with their bodies. Among the participants was Hayley Wingard, who dressed as the Statue of Liberty and expressed her apprehension about military presence in cities like Los Angeles, Chicago, and particularly Portland, her hometown. “I was actually OK with everything until I found that the military invasion in Los Angeles and Chicago and Portland – Portland bothered me the most, because I’m from Portland, and I don’t want the military in my cities. That’s scary,” she remarked.

In New York City, BBC reported that Times Square was filled with thousands of protesters chanting slogans such as “Democracy not Monarchy” and “The Constitution is not optional.” The New York Police Department estimated that over 100,000 participants gathered across the five boroughs, with no arrests reported related to the protests. Organizers emphasized that “non-violence is a core principle of No Kings events” on the movement’s website.

Los Angeles also witnessed at least ten peaceful demonstrations, with Mayor Karen Bass affirming that “we know he’s (President Trump) not a king, but we don’t want to see our democracy slide backwards into authoritarianism.” She described the deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles against the governor’s wishes as “the first move toward authoritarianism.”

Peaceful protests were also reported in cities such as San Diego, Charlotte, and Austin, where local police departments expressed gratitude to participants for their cooperation during the events.

In Washington, D.C., a federal employee named Monica, who chose not to disclose her last name, shared her reasons for joining the protest after being furloughed during the government shutdown. “The elimination of all these jobs is creating mass threats for people to keep a roof over their head, send their kids to college, and the hope of the American dream,” she stated. “A lot of people have been stressed, including myself. I was in tears. I was losing sleep, just worried about the way everything was going, whether I was going to be able to keep my job. A lot of people I know that have just started in their careers… My children and co-workers, who also have bills and want to survive, have been really in a lot of turmoil.”

Throughout the nation, chants of “this is what democracy looks like” resonated in city streets, conveying a unified message of resistance against what protesters characterize as encroaching authoritarianism.

Source: Original article

Climate Anxiety Among Children Grows Amid Policy Retreat

Many children today are experiencing climate anxiety, a profound worry about the impacts of climate change, which affects their mental well-being and sense of security.

Climate anxiety is becoming a prevalent issue among children, characterized by an intense fear regarding climate change and its future implications. This phenomenon has been described as a “chronic fear of environmental doom.” While climate anxiety is not classified as a clinical disorder, it can significantly impact children’s mental health. Young individuals grappling with these concerns often report symptoms such as persistent sadness, sleep disturbances, nightmares, difficulty concentrating, and even panic attacks triggered by climate-related news.

A global study published in 2021 in The Lancet found that over 45% of young people indicated that their climate-related feelings negatively influenced their daily lives. Additionally, a 2020 survey by BBC Newsround revealed that 20% of children experienced climate-related nightmares, with many expressing a lack of trust in adults to safeguard their future. In essence, the looming threat of climate change is weighing heavily on the minds and mental health of children today.

Several factors contribute to children’s climate anxiety. For many, climate change represents a tangible threat to their future. They are growing up amidst alarming news about record-breaking hurricanes, wildfires, and floods, all of which they understand are exacerbated by human-driven climate change. Young people are acutely aware that they will have to navigate the consequences of these changes in the coming decades, making the crisis feel both personal and urgent. A recent survey of U.S. youth aged 16 to 25 revealed that nearly 60% expressed extreme concern about the impacts of climate change on humanity.

Another significant source of anxiety stems from a sense of powerlessness and betrayal when children perceive that adults are not taking adequate action. They are educated about the climate crisis but often see insufficient solutions, leading to feelings of frustration and anger. Many young people feel that governments and corporations have allowed the crisis to escalate unchecked, and they bear the unfair burden of dealing with its aftermath. As climate activist Greta Thunberg poignantly stated, they are fighting for a future they want.

The reality of climate change is undeniable, particularly in the United States, where its effects are increasingly apparent. Scientific consensus confirms that human activities, such as burning fossil fuels, are warming the planet. The U.S. has witnessed a dramatic increase in extreme weather events in recent years. In 2023 alone, the country experienced a record 28 billion-dollar weather and climate disasters, the highest number recorded in a single year, surpassing the previous record of 22 disasters in 2020. These events included destructive hurricanes, floods, wildfires, severe storms, and heat waves. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the U.S. now averages about 20 billion-dollar disasters annually, more than double the rate observed decades ago. Scientists warn that such extremes will only worsen as global temperatures rise.

For children, the impacts of climate change are not abstract; they witness the devastation firsthand. They see stronger hurricanes demolishing communities, wildfires turning skies orange, and unprecedented floods occurring with alarming frequency. When local news reports highlight record-breaking heat or water shortages in their towns, it becomes evident that climate change is not a distant threat. This constant exposure reinforces their worries, making it challenging for adults to reassure them about the future.

The shifting landscape of U.S. climate policy also plays a crucial role in shaping children’s climate anxiety. In recent years, U.S. climate policy has fluctuated dramatically, moving forward under one administration and retreating under another. Children are acutely aware of these changes.

Under President Joe Biden’s administration (2021–2024), the U.S. rejoined the Paris climate agreement on his first day in office, reaffirming the country’s commitment to international climate cooperation. His administration set ambitious targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and implemented policies to promote clean energy and decrease fossil fuel reliance. The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), signed into law in 2022, represented a historic investment of approximately $369 billion in climate and clean energy initiatives, the largest in U.S. history. These actions signaled to young people that the government was taking the climate crisis seriously.

However, with the anticipated return of President Donald Trump in 2025, many of these climate measures are expected to be rolled back. Trump has previously indicated intentions to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Agreement and expand fossil fuel extraction. His administration halted or scaled back numerous climate initiatives established under Biden, including funding for clean energy projects and electric vehicle infrastructure. This sharp policy reversal has not gone unnoticed by the younger generation, who feel the weight of these decisions.

In response to their anxiety and frustration, many young people are channeling their feelings into activism and legal action. Rather than succumbing to despair, children and teens are organizing and advocating for change. A notable example is the Fridays for Future movement, which began in 2018 when students worldwide, including thousands in U.S. cities, staged walkouts to demand climate action. In 2019, millions participated in coordinated climate strikes, highlighting the urgency of the crisis. This unprecedented youth activism demonstrates that while children may feel anxious, they are also determined to fight for their future. Participating in protests fosters a sense of empowerment and solidarity, counteracting feelings of helplessness.

Young Americans are also pursuing change through the legal system. Youth-led climate lawsuits have emerged as a new avenue for activism. In 2023, a group of 16 youths sued the state of Montana, arguing that its pro-fossil-fuel policies violated their constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment. In a landmark ruling, the court sided with the youth plaintiffs, mandating that Montana consider climate impacts and protect their rights. As 18-year-old plaintiff Rikki Held stated, this decision was “a victory for every young person whose future is threatened by climate change.” This historic ruling has inspired similar legal challenges across the country, showcasing the determination of young people to hold leaders accountable. Engaging in activism, whether through protests or lawsuits, provides a constructive outlet for their climate anxiety, transforming fear into purpose and compelling adults to take the issue seriously.

While youth activism is on the rise, not every child will choose to march or file lawsuits. Many are simply trying to cope with their climate anxiety in their daily lives. Parents, teachers, and other adults can play a crucial role in providing support and guidance. Experts recommend several strategies to help children navigate their feelings.

First, it is essential to listen and validate their concerns. Encourage children to express their climate fears and genuinely listen to their feelings. Acknowledge that their worries are understandable and that it is okay to care about these issues. Avoid dismissive comments like “It’ll be fine,” which can make children feel isolated. Instead, reassure them by saying, “I know this is scary, and I’m here with you.” Feeling heard can significantly alleviate a child’s anxiety.

Providing perspective and hope is also vital. While climate change is a serious issue, it is important to highlight the efforts being made to address it. Share age-appropriate information about ongoing initiatives, such as renewable energy projects, international agreements, and local conservation efforts. This can help children see that progress is possible and that many scientists, leaders, and ordinary citizens are actively working to combat climate change. Emphasizing victories can foster a sense of optimism.

Empowering children to take action can transform their anxiety into a sense of agency. Support them in engaging in positive activities, whether it’s organizing a recycling drive at school, planting trees, or advocating for energy conservation at home. Such initiatives provide children with a sense of control and accomplishment. Adults can participate in these efforts as well, demonstrating that everyone has a role in finding solutions. Even small actions, like reducing food waste or biking instead of driving, can help children feel like they are contributing to the solution rather than being victims of the problem.

Encouraging time spent in nature is another effective strategy. Outdoor activities serve as natural stress relievers. Whether playing at the park, hiking, gardening, or observing local wildlife, spending time in green spaces can help anxious children reconnect with the beauty of the world they are striving to protect. Research shows that time spent outdoors can lower anxiety and improve mood, reinforcing the idea that there is something tangible and positive worth safeguarding.

If a child’s eco-anxiety becomes overwhelming, leading to persistent sadness, sleeplessness, or withdrawal, seeking professional help may be necessary. Therapists, particularly those knowledgeable about climate anxiety, can provide coping strategies and reassurance. A few sessions with a counselor can help young individuals feel less isolated in their fears. It is important to recognize that seeking help is a proactive step toward managing significant emotions.

Ultimately, by fostering hope and advocating for meaningful climate action, adults can help ensure that the next generation grows up resilient and equipped to tackle the challenges that lie ahead.

Source: Original article

Republicans Criticize Anti-Trump Protests Amid Shutdown Negotiations

Republican lawmakers are criticizing the upcoming nationwide protests against President Trump, claiming that Democrats are prioritizing far-left activism over resolving the ongoing government shutdown.

As the federal government shutdown continues due to spending disagreements, Republican lawmakers have intensified their criticism of the nationwide protests planned for Saturday against President Donald Trump. Many GOP leaders have dismissed these events as “Hate America” rallies, asserting that they reflect the influence of far-left activism.

The protests, part of the “No Kings” movement, are expected to draw hundreds of thousands of participants across various cities in the United States. Several congressional Democrats have indicated their intention to attend, further fueling Republican claims that the demonstrations are politically motivated.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., expressed skepticism about whether Democratic leaders would be more open to negotiating a resolution to the shutdown after the protests. “It’ll be a collection of wild leftist policy priorities, and that’ll be on display for the whole country,” Johnson told Fox Business Network. “After that’s over, I hope there’s a few Democrats over here who will come to their senses and return to governing the country.” He added that he doubted Democrats would make any concessions before the rallies concluded, fearing backlash from their supporters.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., sidestepped a question about his attendance at the rallies, stating, “I haven’t finalized my schedule for the weekend given, you know, the sensitivities around the government shutdown.” He emphasized his support for Americans’ rights to express dissent against what he described as an “out-of-control administration.”

In contrast, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., confirmed his attendance at one of the protests, as did House Democratic Caucus Chairman Pete Aguilar, D-Calif. Rep. Zach Nunn, R-Iowa, speculated that more prominent Democratic figures would likely attend but echoed Johnson’s hope that they would be willing to negotiate afterward.

“My guess is if they don’t want a primary from the left, they’ll probably find a way to sneak it into their schedule,” Nunn remarked. “The real question is, do they have the fortitude after Saturday to come back and open up the government?”

House GOP leaders have criticized the rallies during their daily press conferences throughout the week. Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., accused Schumer of being “more concerned” with appeasing the protestors than with resolving the ongoing issues surrounding the shutdown. House Majority Whip Tom Emmer, R-Minn., suggested that the protests were influencing Democratic lawmakers’ decisions. “The rumor is that they can’t end the shutdown beforehand because a small but very violent and vocal group is the only one that’s happy about this,” Emmer stated.

He continued, “If they shut it down beforehand, then they’ve got to deal with that group beforehand. If they make it through that, then at least they’ve made it through their Hate America rally, and then they can get this thing done.”

Last month, the House passed a bill to keep the federal government funded at current levels through November 21, known as a continuing resolution (CR). However, this measure has failed ten times in the Senate, with a majority of Democrats rejecting any spending deal that does not include an extension of COVID-19 pandemic-era Obamacare subsidies, which are set to expire at the end of the year without congressional action.

As the protests approach, the political landscape remains tense, with both parties entrenched in their positions. The outcome of the demonstrations and their potential impact on the ongoing shutdown negotiations remains to be seen.

Source: Original article

Meta Nears Completion of $30 Billion Financing for Louisiana Data Center

Meta is finalizing a record $30 billion financing deal with Blue Owl Capital to construct its Hyperion AI data center in rural Louisiana, set to be completed by 2029.

Meta is on the verge of finalizing a historic $30 billion financing deal for its Hyperion data center in Richland Parish, Louisiana, according to a report by Bloomberg. This agreement marks the largest private capital deal on record.

The ownership of the Hyperion data center will be divided between Meta and Blue Owl Capital, an alternative asset manager, with Meta retaining only 20% of the ownership stake. Morgan Stanley has played a pivotal role in arranging over $27 billion in debt and approximately $2.5 billion in equity through a special purpose vehicle (SPV) to finance the construction of the facility.

It is important to note that Meta is not directly borrowing the capital. Instead, the financing entity will take on the debt under the SPV structure. Meta will serve as the developer, operator, and tenant of the data center, which is expected to be completed by 2029. Earlier reports from Reuters indicated that Meta had engaged U.S. bond company PIMCO and Blue Owl Capital for $29 billion in financing for its data centers.

On October 16, the involved parties took the final step to price the bonds, with PIMCO acting as the anchor lender. A few other investors are also receiving allocations of the debt, which is set to mature in 2049.

Previously, President Donald Trump announced that Meta would invest $50 billion in the Hyperion data center project. During the announcement, he displayed a graphic—reportedly provided by Mark Zuckerberg—showing the proposed data center superimposed over Manhattan to emphasize its immense scale.

A Louisiana state regulator has also approved Meta’s agreement with Entergy for the power supply to the data center. Three large power plants, expected to come online in 2028 and 2029, will generate 2.25 gigawatts of electricity to support the facility. At full capacity, the AI data center could consume up to five gigawatts as it expands.

In July, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg revealed that the company is constructing several large AI compute clusters, each with an energy footprint comparable to that of a small city. One of these facilities, known as Prometheus, will be Meta’s first multi-gigawatt data center, while Hyperion is designed to scale up to five gigawatts over time. These investments are aimed at advancing the development of “superintelligent AI systems.”

Additionally, Meta announced on Wednesday that it would invest $1.5 billion in a new data center in El Paso, Texas. This facility, which will be Meta’s third in Texas, is anticipated to become operational by 2028.

According to Bloomberg, the Hyperion data center represents a significant step in Meta’s ongoing commitment to expanding its infrastructure to support advanced AI technologies.

Source: Original article

Indian-American Tech Leaders Navigate H-1B Visa Changes Under Trump Administration

Several prominent Indian-origin tech leaders have navigated the H-1B visa landscape, influencing the U.S. tech industry amid proposed reforms by the Trump administration.

Several prominent Indian-origin tech leaders, including Satya Nadella, Sundar Pichai, Aravind Srinivas, Jayshree Ullal, and Arvind Krishna, began their careers in the United States on H-1B visas. These individuals have played pivotal roles in shaping the tech industry, with companies like Microsoft, Google, Perplexity AI, Arista Networks, and IBM benefiting from their leadership.

However, recent policy changes proposed by the Trump administration, such as a $100,000 fee for H-1B visa petitions and stricter eligibility criteria, have raised concerns among the tech community. These reforms could significantly impact the hiring practices of tech companies that rely on skilled foreign talent.

In response, several tech leaders have expressed their opposition to the proposed changes. Sundar Pichai has emphasized the importance of immigration in driving innovation and economic success in the U.S. Similarly, Arvind Krishna has advocated for policies that attract global talent to maintain the country’s competitive edge.

The ongoing debate highlights the critical role of immigration in the growth and sustainability of the tech industry, underscoring the need for balanced policies that support both national interests and the contributions of skilled immigrants. The voices of these leaders reflect a broader concern within the industry about maintaining an environment conducive to innovation and progress.

As the discussion continues, the implications of these proposed reforms remain to be seen. The tech industry, which has thrived on the contributions of diverse talent, faces a pivotal moment in its evolution. The outcome of this debate could shape the future landscape of technology in the United States.

Source: Original article

Trump and Zelenskyy to Discuss Tomahawk Missile Support for Ukraine

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is set to meet with President Donald Trump to discuss acquiring American Tomahawk missiles as Ukraine seeks stronger defenses against ongoing Russian aggression.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is scheduled to meet with President Donald Trump at the White House on Friday. The meeting aims to address significant defensive measures and strategies to counter Russia’s ongoing military actions in Ukraine.

This meeting comes just a day after Trump held a phone conversation with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Zelenskyy’s primary objective during this visit is to secure enhanced military support for Ukraine, particularly in the form of American Tomahawk missiles. These missiles are known for their long-range precision and capability to strike targets deep within enemy territory.

The Tomahawk missile system could potentially allow Ukraine to target not only Russian military installations but also critical components of its oil industry, which has been a significant source of funding for Putin’s military operations. However, experts caution that no single weapon system can serve as a definitive solution to the challenges Ukraine faces.

John Hardie, deputy director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies’ Russia Program, emphasized that a multifaceted approach is necessary to effectively counter Russia’s military strategy. “No one weapon system is going to be a wonder weapon or a game changer, per se,” he told Fox News Digital. Hardie advocates for a combination of increased missile capabilities for Ukraine and economic measures aimed at undermining Russia’s war funding.

He noted that targeting Russia’s economy through sanctions and disrupting its oil industry are crucial steps to weaken its military efforts. “Putin still seems to believe, or chooses to believe, that he can grind down Ukrainian forces in this war of attrition,” Hardie said. “The goal should be to exhaust the Russian military’s offensive potential.”

While the Tomahawk missiles would enhance Ukraine’s long-range strike capabilities, Hardie pointed out that there are other systems that could be more effectively utilized for Ukraine’s immediate needs. For instance, the Extended-Range Attack Munition (ERAM) missiles, which are designed specifically for Ukraine, are expected to begin arriving in October.

In addition, Hardie highlighted the importance of defensive systems, such as Patriot missile batteries, which are essential for protecting Ukraine against Russia’s persistent missile and drone attacks.

Following his conversation with Putin, Trump remarked that “great progress” was made, although he did not elaborate on the specifics of their discussion. The two leaders agreed to meet again in Hungary, but it remains unclear whether U.S. aid to Ukraine was a topic of conversation.

During the call, Trump suggested he might need to discuss with Putin the implications of placing U.S. Tomahawk missiles near Russian borders, which seemed to signal a potential threat. However, the details of the conversation did not include any mention of Tomahawks or defensive assistance for Ukraine.

According to Russian presidential aide Yuri Ushakov, the issue of Tomahawk missiles was indeed discussed, but Putin opposed the idea. Ushakov stated, “Vladimir Putin reiterated his thesis that Tomahawks won’t change the situation on the battlefield, but they will cause significant damage to relations between our countries. Not to mention the prospects for a peaceful settlement.”

As Zelenskyy prepares for his meeting with Trump, the stakes remain high for Ukraine as it seeks to bolster its defenses against ongoing Russian aggression.

Source: Original article

Tech Giants, Including Amazon and Google, Attend White House Dinner

President Donald Trump hosted a White House dinner for nearly 130 influential supporters and corporate leaders, celebrating a significant renovation project and unveiling new initiatives.

On Wednesday evening, President Donald Trump welcomed nearly 130 top donors, corporate allies, and influential supporters to a White House dinner. The event celebrated their commitments to a new, expansive ballroom, which is projected to cost around $250 million.

This ballroom renovation represents the largest undertaking of Trump’s second term, reflecting his background as a real estate developer. A White House official confirmed that representatives from major companies, including Amazon, Apple, Booz Allen Hamilton, Coinbase, Comcast, Google, Lockheed Martin, Meta, and T-Mobile, were in attendance. The Adelson Family Foundation, founded by prominent GOP donors Miriam Adelson and her late husband Sheldon, was also present at the gathering.

Among the notable guests were oil magnate Harold Hamm, Blackstone CEO Steve Schwarzman, Small Business Administration head Kelly Loeffler and her husband Jeff Sprecher, as well as cryptocurrency entrepreneurs Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss, as reported by The Wall Street Journal.

During the dinner, Trump described the ballroom as a space that would feature bulletproof glass on all four sides, grand enough to host a presidential inauguration. He emphasized that the design elements, including window shapes, molding, and color, would align with the historic aesthetic of the White House. “To me, there’s nothing like the White House,” Trump remarked, adding, “It’s just a special place so we have to take care of it.”

The new ballroom is set to occupy the area currently housing the East Wing and will cover an impressive 90,000 square feet. Initially, the White House indicated that the venue would accommodate 650 guests, but Trump announced that it could actually host up to 999 people.

Despite the ambitious plans, the ballroom has not yet received clearance from the National Capital Planning Commission or the Commission of Fine Arts, which typically review federal construction projects. However, White House Staff Secretary Will Scharf, appointed by Trump to lead the planning commission, stated that such approval is not necessary. During the dinner, Trump asserted that as president, he faces no zoning restrictions and can proceed with the project as he deems fit.

In addition to the ballroom announcement, Trump introduced a separate initiative to construct an arch at one end of the Arlington Memorial Bridge, which connects Virginia and Washington, D.C. He showcased three scale models of the proposed arch, which will feature Lady Liberty atop it, noting that the largest model was his preferred design. “It’s going to be really beautiful,” Trump stated.

The presence of major corporations and high-profile tech leaders at the dinner underscores the growing alignment between Trump’s vision and the business community. Their investments and commitments reflect not only financial support but also a shared interest in shaping projects that resonate with the president’s ambitions. This gathering signals a deepening partnership between private enterprise and the initiatives of the Trump administration.

Source: Original article

Crypto Firm Kraken Acquires Small Exchange in $100 Million Deal

Crypto firm Kraken has acquired the Small Exchange from IG Group for $100 million, aiming to enhance its U.S.-based derivatives offerings.

Crypto company Kraken has announced its acquisition of the futures exchange Small Exchange from IG Group for $100 million. This strategic move positions Kraken to launch a comprehensive U.S.-based derivatives suite, further expanding its offerings in the cryptocurrency market.

Small Exchange is recognized as a designated contract market licensed by the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). This acquisition provides Kraken with a regulated platform to offer futures and options to both retail and institutional clients.

“Under CFTC oversight, Kraken can now integrate clearing, risk, and matching into one environment that meets the same standards as the largest exchanges in the world,” stated Arjun Sethi, co-CEO of Kraken.

Kraken emphasized that by securing the necessary licensing and infrastructure, it is laying the groundwork for institutional-grade markets as the cryptocurrency sector matures. This acquisition comes at a time when the regulatory environment for cryptocurrencies in the U.S. appears to be becoming more favorable. President Donald Trump has been vocal in encouraging digital asset firms to expand within the country, promising clearer regulatory guidelines.

Earlier this year, Trump appointed a group to recommend policies for crypto markets, urging federal regulators to clarify rules surrounding the trading of digital assets and to facilitate the adoption of new financial products. On January 23, he signed Executive Order 14178, titled “Strengthening American Leadership in Digital Financial Technology.” This order halted previous initiatives aimed at developing a central bank digital currency (CBDC) and established the president’s “Working Group on Digital Asset Markets,” tasked with creating a comprehensive federal regulatory framework for digital assets.

The derivatives market is increasingly attracting digital asset firms that seek liquidity and risk management solutions. As the trillion-dollar cryptocurrency market evolves, it has moved beyond mere spot trading, with exchanges and investors now looking for institutional-grade tools such as futures, options, and tokenized assets.

This acquisition follows Kraken’s recent closure of a $500 million funding round. Founded in 2011, Kraken has gained significant attention for its high-profile acquisitions, including the U.S. futures platform NinjaTrader, and for launching new products in anticipation of an initial public offering (IPO) planned for next year. The latest funding round valued the company at $15 billion, with participation from investment managers, venture capitalists, and co-CEO Arjun Sethi through his Tribe Capital investment firm.

However, Kraken has also faced challenges, including a wave of executive turnover, with four senior executives departing the company as it streamlined operations in preparation for its IPO.

This acquisition of Small Exchange marks a significant step for Kraken as it seeks to solidify its presence in the evolving landscape of cryptocurrency derivatives.

Source: Original article

Global Economies Strained as U.S. Data Flow Halts During Shutdown

The U.S. government shutdown is disrupting vital economic data flows, creating challenges for global economies that rely on this information for trade and monetary policy decisions.

The ongoing U.S. government shutdown is casting a shadow over the global economy, as the flow of critical economic data from the United States has come to a halt. As the world’s largest economy, the U.S. plays a pivotal role in providing data that helps countries like Japan assess trade performance and currency trends. The absence of this information is causing significant challenges for nations around the globe.

Bank of Japan Governor Kazuo Ueda expressed concern during a news briefing on October 3, stating, “It’s a serious problem. We hope this gets fixed soon.” His comments highlight the difficulties the Bank of Japan faces in determining the timing of interest rate hikes amid the uncertainty created by the shutdown.

One unnamed Japanese policymaker voiced frustration, remarking, “It’s a joke. (Federal Reserve Chair Jerome) Powell keeps on saying the Fed’s policy is data-dependent, but there’s no data to depend upon.” This sentiment underscores the frustration felt by many economic leaders as they navigate the complexities of policymaking without access to essential data.

This week, finance and economic leaders from around the world are convening in Washington for meetings of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). In a context marked by ongoing geopolitical tensions, including a land war in Europe and violence in the Middle East, discussions are likely to be dominated by President Donald Trump’s plans for the global economy, his performance in office, and the implications of the sudden cessation of data from the U.S., which represents a $30 trillion economy accounting for roughly one-fourth of global output.

The IMF’s World Economic Outlook, published on Tuesday, warned that “intensification of political pressure on policy institutions could erode hard-won public confidence in their ability to fulfill their mandates.” It further noted that pressures on institutions responsible for data collection and dissemination could undermine public and market trust in official statistics. This erosion of trust complicates the tasks of central banks and policymakers, increasing the likelihood of policy errors if political interference compromises data quality, reliability, and timeliness.

The impact of the U.S. government shutdown on economic data flow extends far beyond American borders, highlighting the interconnectedness of today’s global economy. Countries around the world depend on timely and reliable economic data from the United States to inform their monetary policies, trade decisions, and financial market strategies. The current disruption creates a climate of uncertainty, complicating decision-making for central banks and governments alike.

This situation not only hampers effective policymaking but also poses a risk to public and market trust in official statistics, which are foundational to economic stability. When the quality and availability of data are compromised, institutions like the Federal Reserve and the Bank of Japan find it increasingly challenging to respond accurately to economic conditions, raising the potential for policy missteps.

As the world watches the developments in Washington, the hope remains that the U.S. government will resolve the shutdown soon, restoring the flow of vital economic data and alleviating the pressures faced by global economies.

Source: Original article

Stellantis Announces $13 Billion Investment in U.S. Manufacturing Expansion

Stellantis has announced a historic $13 billion investment aimed at expanding its manufacturing operations in the United States, creating thousands of jobs and launching new vehicle models.

Automaker Stellantis has unveiled a significant investment of $13 billion as part of its strategy to enhance its manufacturing capabilities in the United States. This investment marks the largest in the company’s 100-year history and is expected to increase U.S. production by 50% over the next four years.

As part of this ambitious plan, Stellantis will introduce five new vehicle models by 2029, alongside the creation of approximately 5,000 new jobs across the country. The investment will focus on expanding production facilities in key states including Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, and Indiana.

Among the initiatives included in the investment is the development of a new four-cylinder engine, as well as the reopening of the Belvidere Assembly Plant in Illinois. This facility will facilitate the increased production of popular models such as the Jeep Cherokee and Jeep Compass for the U.S. market.

Notably, this investment diverges from previous multi-billion-dollar commitments that primarily emphasized electrification. One of the new vehicles will be a range-extended electric vehicle (EV), set to be produced at the Warren Truck Assembly Plant in Michigan starting in 2028.

The remaining new products in the pipeline include a next-generation Dodge Durango, which will be manufactured at the Detroit Assembly Complex in 2029, and a new midsize truck that will be assembled at the Toledo Assembly Complex in Ohio. Additionally, the all-new four-cylinder engine, designated as the GMET4 EVO, is slated to begin production in 2026 at the Kokomo, Indiana factory.

Antonio Filosa, CEO and North America COO of Stellantis, emphasized the importance of this investment for the company’s growth and manufacturing presence in the U.S. He stated, “Accelerating growth in the U.S. has been a top priority since my first day. Success in America is not just good for Stellantis in the U.S. — it makes us stronger everywhere.”

This announcement comes in the wake of tariffs that have made imports from regions such as Mexico, Canada, and Europe, where Stellantis also operates facilities, increasingly costly. Former President Donald Trump had advocated for a greater focus on domestic auto manufacturing.

Following the announcement, Stellantis stock experienced a notable increase, rising over 5% in after-hours trading, with shares maintaining a 1% gain during midday trading on Wednesday.

This investment follows the departure of former CEO Carlos Tavares last year, as Stellantis faced challenges with bloated inventory and rising prices in its U.S. operations. Earlier this year, General Motors made a similar commitment, announcing a $4 billion investment to bolster its own U.S. manufacturing capabilities.

Source: Original article

Trump Expresses Confidence in Erdogan Amid Concerns Over Turkey’s Ambitions

Turkey is positioning itself for greater influence in Gaza as President Recep Tayyip Erdogan rebuilds relations with Washington following a recent ceasefire agreement.

Turkey is seeking to expand its influence in Gaza through construction contracts and peacekeeping roles as President Recep Tayyip Erdogan works to rebuild trust with Washington following the recent ceasefire agreement.

During a celebration of the ceasefire in Sharm el-Sheikh, President Donald Trump singled out Erdogan for extraordinary praise, crediting his leadership for helping to achieve the ceasefire. “A guy who’s been a friend of mine for a long time. I don’t know why I like the tough people better than the soft, easy ones,” Trump remarked. “This gentleman from a place called Turkey is one of the most powerful in the world… He’s a tough cookie — but he’s my friend.”

Throughout the conflict, Erdogan has condemned Israel’s military actions in Gaza and defended Hamas against U.S. policy, while avoiding a prominent diplomatic role in the resolution of the war. A former senior Israeli intelligence official questioned what had changed in Erdogan’s approach, noting, “What prompted him, two years later, to return to the arena of power? The most iconic image is him sitting next to Trump at the U.N. — that’s where the seeds were planted. Why did Trump suddenly seat him by his side? He was likely told, ‘He’s the one who can bring us Hamas.’”

Trump’s public endorsement highlights a new level of trust between Washington and Ankara. However, Turkish media reports indicate that Erdogan initially refused to land his plane in Egypt after learning that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, personally invited by Trump, might attend the summit. Erdogan only agreed to land once it was confirmed that Netanyahu would not be present.

Sinan Ciddi, a senior fellow and director of the Turkey Program at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, described Erdogan’s actions as “classic Erdogan theater.” He suggested that Erdogan’s refusal to land until Netanyahu was out of the picture was a strategic move to gain domestic political capital and enhance his image in parts of the Muslim world.

Ciddi also recalled a significant moment when Erdogan stated on American television, “I don’t consider Hamas to be a terrorist organization, but a resistance movement.” He noted that Erdogan made this declaration on American soil without facing any repercussions.

According to Ciddi, Erdogan’s ambitions extend beyond mere diplomacy. “He wants Turkish construction companies to rebuild Gaza, Turkish troops to take part in any enforcement mission, and Turkey to serve as guarantor for the Palestinians,” he explained. This strategy would provide Ankara with both economic and political leverage, securing contracts for its companies, deploying troops on the ground, and ensuring a seat at every table discussing Gaza’s future.

Ciddi emphasized that Turkey’s ambitions in Gaza are part of a broader strategic calculus. “Trump’s demands from Erdogan regarding the F-35 were not just predicated on Gaza,” he said. “They included ending Turkey’s energy dependence on Russia, addressing the S-400 missile issue, and playing a constructive role in stabilizing Gaza.” He noted that while Erdogan has resisted certain aspects of this package, his role in facilitating the ceasefire is an attempt to rebuild trust with Washington and demonstrate that Turkey can once again be a valuable NATO partner.

Avner Golov, vice president of the Mind Israel think tank, expressed concerns from Israel’s perspective regarding Iran’s influence in the region. “From Israel’s perspective, an Iranian land bridge from Tehran westward through Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, and Israel must not exist. Iran remains the biggest challenge,” Golov stated. He pointed out that in the current geopolitical landscape, the Muslim Brotherhood axis, led by Turkey and Qatar, is gaining prominence. “Qatar brings the money; Turkey brings influence as a regional power,” he added.

Golov, who previously served as a Senior Director at Israel’s National Security Council, noted that early U.S. efforts to center the post-war framework around Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have diminished. “In the current deal, the big winners are not the UAE and Saudi Arabia, which would have served Israel’s interests, but Turkey and Qatar,” he said. “Before the deal, Erdogan was already a major player, and yesterday he used a veto — Trump invited, and Erdogan vetoed. Those who didn’t want Erdogan on the Syrian Golan Heights will get him in Gaza.”

He suggested that Israel and the U.S. should counterbalance Turkey’s rise by revitalizing cooperation with the Gulf states. “Israel has what Qatar and Turkey don’t — technology and credibility,” Golov remarked. “If Israel links its innovation with Gulf energy and resources, it can build a regional hub that strengthens the pro-American camp and weakens both the Muslim Brotherhood and Iran.”

A former Israeli official emphasized that Washington should view Turkey and Qatar as stakeholders rather than neutral mediators. “They promised to dismantle Hamas together with Egypt,” he said. “They are not mediators — they are owners of the business. They have to deliver.”

Ciddi expressed skepticism about the likelihood of Israel accepting any Turkish military presence in Gaza. “In Israel’s eyes, Turkish forces in Gaza would be a pathway to re-legitimizing Hamas,” he noted. “That’s a hard line.”

As the ceasefire takes hold, Erdogan’s calculated maneuvers have already secured him a prominent role on the international stage. The coming weeks will reveal whether Turkey can translate this visibility into real power or if Israel and Washington will find ways to limit Ankara’s influence.

Source: Original article

Jay Jones’ Controversial Text Messages Anticipated to Shape Virginia AG Debate

Former Virginia delegate Jay Jones is facing intense scrutiny over violent text messages, which are expected to overshadow his upcoming debate against Republican Jason Miyares.

Former Virginia state delegate Jay Jones is under fire for violent messages he sent regarding a Republican lawmaker, which are anticipated to dominate the attorney general debate scheduled for Thursday at the University of Richmond. The controversy has attracted national attention, with President Donald Trump and Republican leaders seizing upon Jones’ remarks and the muted response from fellow Democrats.

Recent polling data from Christopher Newport University, conducted on October 3 before the scandal erupted, indicated that Jones was leading Republican Attorney General Jason Miyares by six points. Other Democratic candidates on the statewide ticket were enjoying similar advantages. However, anecdotal evidence suggests that the race is tightening, as Miyares has taken on a significant role in the Republican campaign while Jones’ support appears to be waning.

During a recent debate in Norfolk, Republican gubernatorial candidate Winsome Earle-Sears pressed Democratic nominee Abigail Spanberger about whether Jones should withdraw from the race. Spanberger refrained from calling for his resignation, stating that it should be left to the voters to decide. However, several constituents in the Shenandoah Valley expressed disappointment over her lack of a stronger stance on the issue.

Jones’ fellow Democrats have largely remained silent or offered vague support for the embattled candidate as he continues his campaign, despite indications that his troubles could negatively impact the entire Democratic ticket. Current Virginia House Speaker Don Scott Jr., a Democrat from Portsmouth, defended Jones when addressing the media after the gubernatorial debate. He drew parallels between Jones’ situation and comments made by Trump regarding Wyoming Republican Liz Cheney facing threats for her political stances.

Senate President L. Louise Lucas and caucus campaign chief Sen. Mamie Locke later issued a joint statement backing Jones, cautioning that keeping Miyares in office would be a worse outcome for the state.

Meanwhile, Earle-Sears has garnered significant support from the Republican base, similar to the backing received by Governor Glenn Youngkin during his campaign. However, she continues to trail Spanberger in recent polling. Miyares appears to have either closed the gap or slightly surpassed Jones in the latest surveys, a development that political analysts suggest may dampen Democratic turnout for the entire ticket.

Republican lieutenant gubernatorial candidate John Reid recently claimed on social media that he has narrowed the gap to within a point or two of his challenger, Sen. Ghazala Hashmi, a Democrat from Chesterfield. However, the specifics of the surveys he referenced were not immediately verifiable. These developments indicate a tightening race in a state that has been leaning increasingly blue.

In 2021, Republican Glenn Youngkin achieved an upset victory, capitalizing on parental rights concerns regarding transgender athletes in school sports. Earle-Sears has since championed similar issues while criticizing Democrats for their silence or ambivalence regarding Jones’ continued candidacy.

Youngkin’s victory over Terry McAuliffe was an anomaly in recent Virginia elections, particularly when compared to Republican military veteran Hung Cao’s significant defeat against Sen. Tim Kaine in the subsequent 2024 election. Vice President Kamala Harris also defeated Trump that year.

Historically, Republicans maintained a presence in the populous northern Virginia region. Corey Stewart, a staunch conservative and former Prince William County chairman, unsuccessfully sought statewide office but remained influential in local leadership for many years. Although opposed to Trump’s brand of Republicanism, former Representative Barbara Comstock was a well-regarded officeholder in the now-progressive Loudoun County area. Currently, Del. Geary Higgins remains the only Republican delegate in the once-red county west of Washington, facing a challenging race against Warrenton innkeeper John McAuliff in November.

During his campaign, Youngkin made multiple visits to southwest Virginia to bolster turnout in Republican strongholds. This strategy, combined with support from concerned parents in northern Virginia’s Democratic-leaning suburbs, contributed to his electoral success.

Jones’ controversial messages, first reported earlier this month, included a text to Del. Carrie Coyner, a Republican from Hopewell, in which he envisioned firing “two bullets” into the head of then-House Speaker Todd Gilbert. He described Gilbert as worse than notorious dictators Pol Pot and Adolf Hitler, and referred to Gilbert’s young children as “fascists.” These revelations have sparked bipartisan condemnation, yet Democratic leaders have largely resisted calls, including from Youngkin, for Jones to withdraw from the race.

Source: Original article

MIT-Educated Indian-American Brothers to Stand Trial for $25 Million Crypto Heist

Two brothers educated at MIT are facing trial for allegedly stealing $25 million in cryptocurrency, claiming their actions were legal maneuvers against automated trading bots.

Federal prosecutors have charged two brothers, Anton Peraire-Bueno, 25, and James Peraire-Bueno, 29, with orchestrating a sophisticated cryptocurrency theft, accusing them of exploiting the Ethereum network to steal $25 million in a matter of seconds. Authorities are labeling the scheme as unprecedented in the realm of digital finance.

The brothers, however, maintain that their actions were not illegal. Their defense argues that they merely outsmarted what they describe as “predatory” automated trading bots. They contend that their actions were a clever strategy within the competitive and often chaotic landscape of cryptocurrency trading, rather than criminal behavior.

This defense is expected to be presented when their trial opens in Manhattan federal court on Tuesday. If convicted of conspiracy, wire fraud, and money laundering, the brothers could face up to 20 years in prison for each count. The trial occurs amid increasing scrutiny of the cryptocurrency industry, as the Trump administration seeks to implement tighter regulations.

Prosecutors allege that the brothers spent months preparing for the heist, executing a rapid 12-second exploit on the Ethereum blockchain in April 2023. They claim the scheme was meticulously planned, citing online searches the brothers allegedly conducted for terms like “how to wash crypto” and “top crypto lawyers.”

At one point, prosecutors noted that the brothers even searched for “Money launder statue of limitations,” mistakenly spelling “statute” as “statue.”

According to the prosecution, the brothers set up “bait transactions” to identify three target traders and analyze the operation of their bots. Once they gathered sufficient information, they allegedly lured the bots into a carefully timed trap.

Prosecutors assert that the brothers crafted an appealing package of crypto trades that they knew the victims’ bots would find irresistible. After the bots took the bait, the brothers reportedly triggered the trap, exploiting a software vulnerability that allowed them to access private transaction data and manipulate the trades in a bait-and-switch tactic. Instead of the anticipated profits, the victims discovered that their $25 million had been redirected into a collection of nearly worthless, illiquid tokens.

To conceal their identities and the location of the stolen funds, prosecutors allege that the brothers routed the money through shell companies, multiple crypto wallets, and overseas exchanges. The entire theft allegedly unfolded in just 12 seconds, during the brief window between when a cryptocurrency trade is initiated and when it is permanently recorded on the blockchain.

“Using the specialized skills developed during their education, as well as their expertise in cryptocurrency trading,” the brothers “exploited the very integrity of the Ethereum blockchain,” prosecutors stated in a 19-page indictment. The indictment claims that they “manipulated and tampered with the process and protocols by which transactions are validated and added to the Ethereum blockchain.”

In doing so, they allegedly fraudulently accessed pending private transactions and used that access to alter transactions and obtain their victims’ cryptocurrency.

During a hearing on Thursday, prosecutors indicated that the brothers’ legal team has expressed no intention of negotiating a plea deal. Instead, the defense plans to vigorously contest the prosecution’s claims during the trial before a jury.

In oral arguments presented in June, Patrick Looby, attorney for James Peraire-Bueno, argued before U.S. District Court Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke that “there’s no central authority” overseeing the Ethereum blockchain. He emphasized that “there’s no government regulations,” asserting that economic incentives guide the behavior of parties involved.

Earlier this year, in an attempt to dismiss the indictment, the defense attorneys contended that the alleged victims lost their cryptocurrency “through pre-programmed trades without ever interacting with the Peraire-Buenos, directly or indirectly.”

They further argued that prior to this indictment, no Ethereum user would have understood that thwarting a predatory attempt by bots engaged in market manipulation could lead to criminal charges. “No court has ever applied these statutes to similar transactions,” they claimed, asserting that the Peraire-Buenos had no reason to believe their actions could be deemed unlawful.

The outcome of this high-profile case could have significant implications for the cryptocurrency industry, particularly as regulatory frameworks continue to evolve.

Source: Original article

IDF Confirms Body Returned by Hamas Does Not Match Hostages

The Israel Defense Forces confirmed that a body handed over by Hamas does not correspond to any of the deceased hostages, prompting calls for further efforts to recover them.

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) announced that one of the four bodies surrendered by Hamas does not match any of the deceased hostages. This revelation came after examinations were conducted at the National Institute of Forensic Medicine.

The IDF stated, “Following the completion of examinations, the fourth body handed over to Israel by Hamas does not match any of the hostages.” The military organization emphasized that Hamas is obligated to make all necessary efforts to return the deceased hostages.

All living hostages were released as part of a deal facilitated by former President Donald Trump. In a post on Truth Social, Trump expressed his relief regarding the return of the hostages but underscored the importance of recovering the bodies of those who did not survive.

Trump wrote, “ALL TWENTY HOSTAGES ARE BACK AND FEELING AS GOOD AS CAN BE EXPECTED. A big burden has been lifted, but the job IS NOT DONE. THE DEAD HAVE NOT BEEN RETURNED, AS PROMISED! Phase Two begins right NOW!!!”

This situation remains fluid, and updates will continue to emerge as more information becomes available.

Source: Original article

Supreme Court Provides Relief for H-4 EAD Holders Amid Uncertainty

The Supreme Court’s decision to decline a challenge to the H-4 EAD program offers temporary relief to immigrant spouses, yet experts caution that its future remains uncertain amid shifting political landscapes.

The Supreme Court’s recent decision not to hear a challenge against the H-4 work authorization has provided a moment of stability for thousands of immigrant spouses. However, experts warn that the program’s future is still closely tied to the unpredictable nature of political will.

In recent months, the immigration landscape in the United States has been tumultuous, with work visa holders facing significant uncertainty due to abrupt policy changes from the Trump administration. Amid this chaos, a cautious sense of optimism has emerged for H-4 EAD (Employment Authorization Document) holders, who are primarily spouses of H-1B visa holders.

On Tuesday morning, the Supreme Court declined to review a petition filed by Save Jobs USA, which sought to challenge a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. This ruling affirmed that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) had the authority to implement the H-4 EAD rule. The news was met with celebrations among H-4 EAD holders, who viewed the decision as a protective measure for their work authorization.

Johnson Myalil, an immigration attorney based in the Washington, D.C., area, expressed cautious optimism about the ruling. “In some ways, it is good news, as it removes the uncertainty of the court invalidating the H-4 employment authorization, which is used by a substantial number of highly educated spouses of H-1B professionals—estimated to be around at least 300,000,” he stated.

Despite the positive implications of the Supreme Court’s decision, experts caution that challenges remain. Nandini Nair, an immigration attorney at A.Y. Strauss, LLC, emphasized the need for caution. “Absolutely not,” she said when asked if the decision alleviates uncertainty for H-4 EAD holders. “While the Supreme Court declined review this time, a different case with a stronger factual or procedural posture could make its way up again. The program is safe for now, but its survival depends on regulatory stability and political will.”

Nair further noted that for the H-4 EAD program to achieve true permanence, it would need to be codified by Congress rather than relying solely on regulation. “But for today, we can breathe a bit easier,” she added.

The history of the H-4 EAD program has been fraught with challenges. Introduced in 2015 during President Barack Obama’s administration, the program faced immediate opposition from Save Jobs USA, which argued that the DHS had overstepped its authority. This led to years of litigation, leaving many H-4 EAD holders in limbo as companies hesitated to hire them amid ongoing uncertainty.

Myalil remains cautious about the program’s future, stating, “We cannot rule out the possibility that immigration restriction advocates in the Trump administration may push for the cancellation of H-4 EAD through the federal rulemaking process.” However, he also pointed out a silver lining: “That process can take several years.”

Critics of the H-4 work authorization often argue that it takes job opportunities away from American workers. Yet, mounting evidence and legal testimony suggest the opposite—that H-4 EAD holders have made significant economic contributions. Nair highlighted that H-4 EAD holders are predominantly women who contribute billions in household income and tax revenue. Many work in high-demand STEM fields, launch startups, open businesses, and even employ U.S. workers.

“H-4 EADs aren’t just about helping immigrant families; they’re about unlocking untapped talent, boosting the U.S. economy, promoting equity, and stabilizing the workforce. This program has actually been a net gain for the United States,” Nair asserted.

Her argument is supported by data. A 2019 analysis by the American Action Forum, utilizing U.S. Census data, estimated that H-4 workers contribute approximately $12.9 billion annually to the U.S. GDP. This figure could rise to between $40 and $41 billion if all eligible spouses were authorized to work. A 2024 report by FWD.us found that removing current H-4 EAD holders from the workforce would shrink annual GDP by $7.5 billion and cut tax revenues by $2 billion across federal, state, and local levels.

Despite these positive contributions, the H-4 EAD program has often been unfairly criticized, similar to the H-1B visa program. This criticism often stems from widespread misconceptions about immigration’s role in the American economy. Nair noted, “They often get a bad rap because of the persistent narrative that H-1B visa holders ‘take American jobs.’ That same mindset spills over to the H-4 EAD program.”

She concluded, “The controversy isn’t really about H-4 spouses at all—it’s about the larger debate over high-skilled immigration.”

Source: Original article

Trump Awards Charlie Kirk Presidential Medal of Freedom Posthumously

President Donald Trump posthumously awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom to conservative activist Charlie Kirk during a ceremony at the White House.

In a poignant ceremony at the White House, President Donald Trump posthumously awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative activist known for his advocacy and influence within the Republican Party.

The event, which took place in the East Room, was attended by family members of Kirk, who passed away earlier this year. Trump praised Kirk’s contributions to the conservative movement and his dedication to promoting conservative values among young Americans.

During the ceremony, Trump highlighted Kirk’s efforts in founding Turning Point USA, an organization aimed at educating students about free markets and limited government. The President noted that Kirk’s work has inspired countless young people to engage in political discourse and activism.

As the Medal of Freedom was presented, the atmosphere in the room was filled with a mix of solemnity and celebration. Family members of Kirk expressed their gratitude for the recognition, reflecting on his legacy and the impact he had on the conservative landscape.

The Presidential Medal of Freedom is one of the highest civilian honors in the United States, awarded to individuals who have made significant contributions to the national interests of the country, world peace, or cultural endeavors.

Trump’s decision to honor Kirk posthumously underscores the former President’s commitment to recognizing individuals who align with his administration’s values and priorities. The ceremony served as a reminder of Kirk’s influence and the ongoing conversation about the role of activism in shaping political narratives.

As the event concluded, attendees were left to reflect on Kirk’s legacy and the importance of continued engagement in the political process, particularly among younger generations.

According to Fox News, the ceremony was a fitting tribute to a man who dedicated his life to advocating for conservative principles and empowering the next generation of leaders.

Source: Original article

Georgia Worksite Raid Highlights Impact of Trump’s Immigration Policies

On September 4, a massive immigration raid at a Hyundai plant in Georgia resulted in the detention of at least 475 workers, highlighting the chaos of the Trump administration’s immigration policies.

On September 4, law enforcement agents from various state and federal agencies, including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), conducted a significant immigration raid at a Hyundai manufacturing facility in southeastern Georgia. This operation led to the detention of at least 475 workers, many of whom were South Korean nationals, with some reportedly holding legal status. This incident marks the largest worksite raid in recent history.

In the wake of the raid, the American Immigration Council issued a statement addressing the implications of such actions. Michelle Lapointe, the legal director at the American Immigration Council, based in Atlanta, Georgia, expressed deep concerns about the impact of these raids on communities and families.

“These raids don’t make anyone safer. They terrorize workers, destabilize communities, and push families into chaos,” Lapointe stated. She emphasized that while the raid may generate dramatic headlines, it fails to address the underlying issues within the U.S. immigration system, such as the lack of legal pathways for workers and an inappropriate focus on punishing individuals who do not pose a threat to society. “Raiding worksites isn’t reform; it’s political theater at the expense of families, communities, and our economy,” she added.

Nan Wu, the director of research at the American Immigration Council, further elaborated on the economic implications of such raids. “Immigrant workers are the backbone of our economy, filling critical labor gaps in manufacturing and beyond,” she noted. According to Wu, undocumented workers constitute 5.7% of the national manufacturing workforce, while in Georgia, they represent 6.7% of that sector. She argued that targeting worksites instead of creating pathways to legal employment is not only cruel but also shortsighted. “The chilling effect of these raids will make it less likely that people will show up to work, deepening labor shortages and hitting businesses hard at an already precarious economic moment,” Wu explained.

The American Immigration Council has made experts available to discuss the counterproductive nature of worksite raids and to propose more effective immigration solutions. The organization advocates for reforms that would create a more humane and functional immigration system, rather than relying on punitive measures that disrupt lives and communities.

This incident serves as a stark reminder of the ongoing challenges within the U.S. immigration system and the need for comprehensive reform that prioritizes the well-being of workers and the economy.

Source: Original article

Joel Mokyr, Philippe Aghion, and Peter Howitt have been honored with the 2025 Nobel Prize in Economics

Report: Dr. Mathew Joys, Las Vegas 
Joel Mokyr, Philippe Aghion, and Peter Howitt have been honored with the 2025 Nobel Prize in Economics
Joel Mokyr, Philippe Aghion, and Peter Howitt have been honored with the 2025 Nobel Prize in Economics for their groundbreaking research. Their work uncovers how innovation and the relentless process of “creative destruction” serve as powerful engines of economic growth, transforming societies and elevating living standards

They won the Nobel Memorial Prize in economics on Monday for their research into the impact of innovation on economic growth and how new technologies replace older ones, a key financial concept known as “creative destruction”.

The winners represent contrasting but complementary approaches to economics. Mokyr is an economic historian who delved into long-term trends using historical sources, while Howitt and Aghion relied on mathematics to explain how creative destruction works.

Dutch-born Mokyr, 79, is from Northwestern University; Aghion, 69, from the Collège de France and the London School of Economics; and Canadian-born Howitt, 79, from Brown University.

Aghion, a French economist, warned that “dark clouds” were gathering amid increasing barriers to trade and openness, fuelled by Donald Trump’s trade wars. He also said innovation in green industries and blocking the rise of giant tech monopolies would be vital to stronger growth in the future.

Peter Howitt, MA‘69 (Economics), who was a faculty member at Western for nearly 25 years and remains an honorary professor, is among a trio of winners of the 2025 Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel, often known as the Nobel Prize in Economics.

The winners were credited with better explaining and quantifying “creative destruction,” a key concept in economics that refers to the process in which beneficial innovations replace – and thus destroy – older technologies and businesses. The concept is usually associated with economist Joseph Schumpeter, who outlined it in his 1942 book “Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy.”

The Nobel committee said Mokyr “demonstrated that if innovations are to succeed one another in a self-generating process, we not only need to know that something works, but we also need to have scientific explanations for why.”

Established in the 1960s, several decades after the original Nobel prizes, it is technically known as the Sveriges Riksbank prize in economic sciences in memory of Alfred Nobel.

Connecticut Congressman Jim Himes Backs GOPIO-CT on H-1B Visa Fees

Connecticut Congressman Jim Himes recently met with GOPIO-CT to discuss concerns over a proposed $100,000 fee increase for H-1B visas, emphasizing its potential negative impact on small businesses and the economy.

On October 9, 2025, the Connecticut chapter of the Global Organization of People of Indian Origin (GOPIO-CT) held a virtual meeting with Congressman Jim Himes (CT-4) to address the contentious $100,000 fee hike for H-1B visas, a policy introduced during the Trump Administration. The meeting included GOPIO-CT officials, representatives from GOPIO International, and business owners who would be affected by this significant change.

Dr. Thomas Abraham, Chairman of GOPIO and Trustee and Advisor to the chapter, underscored the H-1B program’s substantial contribution to the U.S. economy, noting it generates over $200 billion annually while costing only $8.5 billion. He cautioned that increasing barriers for highly skilled professionals may drive them to seek opportunities in countries such as Canada, Germany, and China, which could result in long-term economic detriment for the United States.

Mahesh Jhangiani, President of GOPIO-CT, highlighted the disproportionate impact of the fee hike on small and medium-sized enterprises, which typically lack the resources to absorb such a steep cost unlike larger corporations. He also expressed concerns regarding what he characterized as anti-India policies from the current administration.

Members of GOPIO-CT, including Prasad Chintalapudi from Panzer Solutions and Shailesh Naik of Cameron Engineers, emphasized the role of small businesses employing H-1B workers in fostering local employment and driving economic growth. They pointed out that many successful leaders in the tech industry, such as Elon Musk, Sundar Pichai, Satya Nadella, and Aravind Krishna, have benefitted from the H-1B program.

Attorney Nandita Ruchandani, representing Cameron Engineers, remarked on the critical sectors where H-1B visa holders work, including healthcare, education, engineering, and technology. She stressed that these immigrants not only contribute taxes and purchase homes but also support local communities. However, the prohibitive fee could jeopardize their employment.

Dr. S.K. Lo, Chairperson of the Asian American Unity Coalition (AAUC), also participated in the discussion, reinforcing the necessity of a collective approach to tackle these pressing issues.

Congressman Jim Himes, who is currently serving his ninth term and holds senior positions on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Financial Services Committee, expressed his full support for GOPIO-CT’s position. He acknowledged the risk of losing valuable talent and reiterated the importance of continued U.S.-India collaboration in areas such as commerce, trade, and defense.

For over two decades, GOPIO-CT has actively engaged in community programs, youth mentoring, policy discussions, and cultural initiatives. The chapter aims to promote awareness of Indian heritage while fostering dialogue and partnerships with local communities.

Source: Original article

Trump Claims Nobel Winner Told Him He Deserved the Honor

President Donald Trump claims Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado dedicated her Nobel Peace Prize to him, citing his support for her democratic efforts in Venezuela.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – President Donald Trump, who has expressed a desire for the Nobel Peace Prize, stated that Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado, the recipient of this year’s award, accepted it “in his honor.” He attributed this dedication to his support for her democratic initiatives in Venezuela.

During a press briefing at the White House on October 10, Trump revealed that Machado had called him to share the news of her award. “The person who got the Nobel Prize called me today and said, ‘I am accepting this in honor of you because you really deserved it.’ I didn’t say, ‘Give it to me,’ though. I’ve been helping her along the way. They needed a lot of help in Venezuela during the disaster. I am happy because I saved millions of lives,” Trump remarked.

Machado was awarded the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize for her “brave and committed” efforts in promoting democratic rights and leading the movement for a peaceful transition from dictatorship to democracy in Venezuela, as announced by the Norwegian Nobel Committee.

In its statement, the Committee praised Machado as “a woman who keeps the flame of democracy burning amid a growing darkness,” emphasizing that “democracy is a precondition for lasting peace.” The Committee noted that her struggle reflects broader global challenges to democratic values, highlighting the Venezuelan regime’s oppressive hold on power, the silencing of media, and the imprisonment of critics as part of a troubling global trend.

Trump also suggested that he should have been recognized for his contributions to global peace efforts. “I said, ‘Well, what about the seven others? I should get a Nobel Prize for each one,’” he commented.

The Nobel Committee concluded that Machado’s leadership “embodies the hope of a different future, one where the fundamental rights of citizens are protected, and their voices are heard.” They affirmed that she meets all three criteria outlined in Alfred Nobel’s will for the selection of a peace laureate.

According to ANI, Trump’s remarks reflect his ongoing interest in international recognition and his belief in the significance of his support for democratic movements abroad.

Source: Original article

Hamas Executes Rivals in Gaza Following Trump’s ‘War Is Over’ Declaration

Gaza faces a critical juncture as Hamas executes rivals to reassert control following President Trump’s declaration that “the war is over,” raising questions about the region’s future stability.

Gaza is at a pivotal moment as the deployment of a disarmament and stabilization force will be crucial in determining whether the region can begin rebuilding or if chaos will return.

Following President Donald Trump’s declaration in Israel’s Knesset that “the war is over” and the celebration of the return of remaining hostages, reports emerged of Hamas executing its opponents in Gaza City’s main square. Videos circulating on social media appear to show these executions, which an Israeli military official described as “Hamas’s deliberate attempt to show the killings publicly and reestablish its rule by terrorizing civilians.”

In conversations with Fox News Digital, residents of Gaza reported that Hamas fighters have reappeared on the streets, reasserting their control. However, some citizens expressed hope that this could be an opportunity for change and a chance to rid themselves of the terror regime.

Mukhaimar Abu Saada, a political analyst from Gaza, emphasized that disarming Hamas will not be a straightforward process. He noted that clashes between Hamas and local militias have already erupted. “This won’t happen quickly,” he stated. “We’re talking about an ideological organization. Even last night, people were killed in clashes between Hamas and local militias. It’s not a rosy road.”

Abu Saada revealed that Hamas has issued an ultimatum to collaborators with Israel, demanding they surrender and seek amnesty by October 19, provided they were not involved in killings. “They’re still strong,” he admitted. “Part of the reason they didn’t fight harder in the last days is that they saved some men and weapons for the day after. I still see Hamas police in the streets of Gaza. Trump said they lost thousands, but they’re still there, able to control the streets once Israel redeploys.”

One anonymous resident of Gaza expressed skepticism about the official declarations of peace. “You cannot say the war is finished,” he said. “We have to wait a few weeks to see what happens. There are gangs in Gaza now; Hamas is trying to fight them. If they don’t unify, another war could start.” He characterized Hamas as weakened and divided, stating, “Hamas is not strong like before. Those who remain are mostly police — not the real Hamas people who believe in their extremist jihadist ideology.” He emphasized the need for clarity regarding the future and the group’s survival, which he believes hinges on whether Hamas accepts the proposed deal.

Another resident echoed this uncertainty, saying, “No one knows what is happening — who will rule, what will happen with Hamas, and if the war is truly over. We hope for a better future. I just want me and my family to live without targeting, without bloodshed.” He noted that ordinary Gazans are exhausted but yearning for calm. “People just want the blood to stop. They want to stop losing their relatives and friends. It’s in their hands now — if they will allow Hamas to continue or finally rise up. But nothing is clear.”

Abu Saada asserted that there is “no question” Hamas will have to disarm eventually, describing it as an inevitable part of the plan announced by President Trump and endorsed by Israeli leadership. “The real question is who will hold those weapons — the Palestinian Authority or the so-called ‘security stabilization force’ that’s supposed to deploy next. It’s definitely going to happen, but we have to wait for the second phase of the negotiations.”

He added that even Qatari mediators have confirmed that disarmament “has not yet been discussed but will be discussed in the coming days.” For now, Gazans are focused on survival after enduring “two years of misery, destruction, and bloodshed.” Ultimately, he believes Hamas will have to comply, stating, “No Arab country will give a single dollar if Hamas doesn’t disarm. Rebuilding Gaza depends on Hamas no longer being in control. The war is over, but the real test is only beginning.”

While voices inside Gaza reflect uncertainty, experts in Washington assert that Hamas’s political and military isolation has never been greater. Jacob Olidort, director of the Center for American Security at the America First Policy Institute, told Fox News Digital that Hamas is “in the most militarily and diplomatically isolated place it has ever been.”

“Even before and after the release of hostages, Hamas has been defiant in tone,” Olidort noted. “But all of that will be overshadowed by the vast expansion of peace agreements between Israel and its neighbors. All of Israel’s regional partners are eager to normalize and build on where they left off prior to October 7.”

Olidort indicated that the upcoming Sharm el-Sheikh summit will mark the beginning of phase two of Trump’s plan. “Whatever is happening now on the ground doesn’t reflect Gaza’s future,” he said. “None of the steps in the peace plan have been implemented yet. What comes next will be defined by that summit and by the regional consensus that Hamas cannot continue to control Gaza.”

For Israel, he added, “the focus will be restarting, in a more public way, its regional and global partnerships — defense, commercial, and diplomatic. That’s where Israel’s future lies.” While the guns have fallen silent, the next stage — Hamas’ disarmament and the arrival of a stabilization force — will determine whether Gaza can finally begin rebuilding or slip back into chaos. As Abu Saada succinctly put it, “The war is over, but the question is whether peace will really begin.”

Source: Original article

JPMorgan Chase Commits $10 Billion to U.S. National Security Initiative

JPMorgan Chase has launched a decade-long initiative to invest $10 billion in sectors critical to U.S. national security, as part of a broader $1.5 trillion funding plan.

JPMorgan Chase has unveiled a significant initiative aimed at bolstering U.S. national security through strategic investments. The bank announced plans to invest up to $10 billion over the next decade in sectors deemed vital to the nation’s interests.

This initiative, known as the Security and Resiliency Initiative, is part of a larger strategy through which JPMorgan aims to facilitate $1.5 trillion in funding for companies identified as crucial to national security. This new commitment represents a 50% increase over previous funding plans.

JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon emphasized the urgent need for the United States to reduce its reliance on foreign sources for critical minerals, products, and manufacturing. “It has become painfully clear that the United States has allowed itself to become too reliant on unreliable sources of critical minerals, products and manufacturing — all of which are essential for our national security,” Dimon stated in a press release.

Dimon further noted that the U.S. must eliminate barriers such as excessive regulations, bureaucratic delays, and partisan gridlock to enhance its security posture. Within the four key sectors targeted for investment—defense and aerospace, frontier technologies like artificial intelligence and quantum computing, energy technologies including batteries and supply chains, and advanced manufacturing—JPMorgan has identified 27 specific industries to support through financing and advisory services.

<p“Our security is predicated on the strength and resiliency of America’s economy,” Dimon remarked. He highlighted that the initiative would focus on ensuring reliable access to life-saving medicines and critical minerals, defending the nation, building energy systems to meet the demands of AI, and advancing technologies such as semiconductors and data centers.

In addition to the financial investments, JPMorgan plans to hire an unspecified number of bankers and establish an external advisory council to guide the initiative. Dimon clarified in an interview with CNBC that this project is an internal effort that began several months ago and is not a response to the Trump administration’s policies.

While the initiative represents a substantial increase in JPMorgan’s financing efforts, Dimon indicated that he does not anticipate “lower-than-commercial returns” from these investments. “Obviously, we work closely with people in the government, which we’ve always done, but this is a JPMorgan effort,” he said.

The announcement comes at a time when the Trump administration is actively seeking to reduce dependence on foreign supply chains, particularly in critical sectors such as pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, clean energy, and rare earths. The timing is also noteworthy, as it follows President Trump’s claims that JPMorgan and another bank had rejected him as a customer, reigniting discussions about the treatment of conservative clients in banking.

Despite these political undertones, JPMorgan has asserted that the investment initiative is independent of any political influence. “This is a JPMorgan initiative,” Dimon reiterated, emphasizing that the investments would be “100% commercial” rather than philanthropic.

As JPMorgan Chase embarks on this ambitious plan, it aims to play a pivotal role in strengthening the U.S. economy and enhancing national security through strategic investments in key industries.

Source: Original article

Dozens Killed in Gaza Amid Violence Between Hamas and Armed Clans

At least 64 people have died in Gaza amid violent clashes between Hamas and local militias, coinciding with the anticipated release of hostages by the militant group.

At least 64 individuals, including 52 members of the Doghmush clan and 12 Hamas militants, have been killed in violent confrontations in Gaza. The clashes erupted on Sunday, shortly before the expected release of hostages in the war-torn region, according to local reports.

The fighting unfolded as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu prepared to deliver a televised address, in which he described the imminent hostage release as “the beginning of a new path.” However, he cautioned that “the campaign is not over” and that significant security challenges remain.

Witnesses reported that gunfire sent families fleeing in panic. “This time people weren’t fleeing Israeli attacks. They were running from their own people,” one witness told the BBC.

The violence reportedly began when Hamas militants launched an assault on the Sabra neighborhood in Gaza City, home to the Doghmush clan, also known as the Al Doghmush family militia. According to Israeli outlet Ynet, the Hamas Interior Ministry accused the clan of attacking its forces, while members of the Doghmush clan claimed that Hamas exploited the ceasefire to target them due to alleged cooperation with Israel.

“Children are screaming and dying; they are burning our houses,” a relative of the clan told Ynet. Another member lamented, “We are trapped. I don’t know how they entered with all kinds of weapons. Where were they when the Jews were here? They arrested all the youths, lined them up against walls, pointed weapons at their heads. There is a massacre here.”

In addition to the casualties among the Doghmush clan and Hamas militants, reports indicated that Salah al-Ja‘farawi, a blogger who had celebrated the October 7 attacks online, was killed during the clashes. Hamas’s television channel claimed he was shot dead by “armed gangs operating outside the law.” The son of senior Hamas official Basem Naim was also reported among the deceased.

A senior member of the Doghmush clan expressed a sentiment of unity, stating, “We still say – you must not shed Muslim blood by a Muslim.”

In response to the escalating violence, Hamas’s Interior and National Security Ministry announced a “clemency framework.” This initiative allows militia members and criminals not involved in bloodshed to surrender by the following Sunday, with a warning that those who do not comply will face severe punishment.

Amid the turmoil, three anti-Hamas militias publicly expressed their support for President Trump’s peace proposal, rejecting Hamas’s authority in the Gaza Strip.

As the situation develops, Israel has indicated that Hamas is expected to release 20 living hostages to the Red Cross by 5 a.m. Eastern Time (noon in Gaza) on Monday. The hostages are to be transported in six to eight vehicles under Red Cross supervision and handed over to Israeli forces inside Gaza. They will then be driven to southern Israel to reunite with their families.

Fox News Digital has reached out to the Israeli government for further comment.

Source: Original article

-+=