Birthright Citizenship and the U.S. Constitution

July 31, 2025August 4, 2025 Staff ReporterCover, Politics, U.S. 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Original article

Trump Proposes Revoking Birthright Citizenship in New Plan

July 31, 2025 Staff ReporterElection, Immigration, Politics 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Original article

Tariffs on the Rise as Trump’s Trade Deadline Passes

July 31, 2025July 31, 2025 Staff ReporterBusiness, Pharmaceuticals 0

A Thursday stock market rally faltered as President Donald Trump released letters demanding pharmaceutical companies address drug pricing.

A rally in U.S. stocks lost momentum Thursday afternoon following social media posts by President Donald Trump, who shared letters to executives at several U.S. and European pharmaceutical corporations, calling for immediate action on drug pricing issues.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell by 275 points, or 0.6%, marking its fourth consecutive day of losses. The S&P 500 dipped 0.4%, sliding into negative territory, while the Nasdaq Composite decreased by 0.15%, despite previously rising by as much as 1.5% earlier in the day.

In his communications to companies such as Pfizer, Trump outlined a timeline for addressing concerns related to drug prices. His letter demanded, “Moving forward, the only thing I will accept from drug manufacturers is a commitment that provides American families immediate relief from the vastly inflated drug prices and an end to the free ride of American innovation by European and other developed nations.”

Initially, the S&P and Nasdaq indexes found support from gains in tech giants Meta Platforms (META) and Microsoft (MSFT), which rose 12% and 4%, respectively. However, the broader market weakened as pharmaceutical stocks declined.

Shares in Merck (MRK) dropped by 4%, dragging down the Dow. Meanwhile, shares of Eli Lilly (LLY) and Pfizer (PFE) fell by 2% and 1.6%, respectively. U.S.-traded shares of Novo Nordisk (NVO) and AstraZeneca (AZN) also saw declines, falling 5% and 3.6%, respectively.

According to CNN, the stock market’s performance was influenced by the pharmaceutical sector, which faced pressure due to heightened scrutiny over drug pricing policies.

Source: Original article

DOJ to Prioritize Revoking Citizenship Cases

July 31, 2025 Staff ReporterElection, Immigration 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Original article

Trump Imposes Tariffs on India; New Delhi Delays Deal

July 31, 2025 Staff ReporterBusiness, Economy, Politics 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Original article

India Leads China’s Smartphone Exports to US, Manufacturing Up 240%

July 31, 2025 Staff ReporterBusiness, Economy, USA 0

India has surpassed China as the leading exporter of smartphones to the United States, highlighting a significant shift in manufacturing supply chains away from Beijing amid ongoing tariff uncertainties.

India’s emergence as the top exporter of smartphones to the U.S. has been substantiated by a report from research firm Canalys. Smartphones manufactured in India accounted for 44% of American imports of such devices in the second quarter of this year, a substantial rise from 13% during the same timeframe last year. The total volume of Indian-made smartphones shipped to the U.S. soared by 240% compared to a year ago, illustrating India’s growing significance in the global smartphone supply chain.

Meanwhile, Chinese smartphones made up only 25% of the U.S. import market by the end of June, down from 61% the previous year. Vietnam also surpassed China, with a 30% share of smartphone exports to the U.S. These shifts underscore a reconfiguration of global supply chains, driven by geopolitical and economic tensions.

According to Sanyam Chaurasia, a principal analyst at Canalys, the primary driver of India’s increased exports has been Apple’s accelerated strategy to expand manufacturing in the country due to heightened trade tensions between the U.S. and China. For the first time, India has exported more smartphones to the U.S. than China, marking a pivotal moment in global trade dynamics.

There are reports that Apple has been hastening its plans to produce a significant portion of the iPhones sold in the U.S. within Indian facilities, aiming to manufacture approximately 25% of all iPhones in India over the coming years. This strategic shift reflects broader efforts to mitigate risks associated with tariffs and geopolitical tensions.

Despite these moves, challenges remain. Former President Trump threatened additional tariffs on Apple products unless they were manufactured domestically, though such a shift was viewed as impractical by experts due to the potential for soaring costs. Notably, many of Apple’s key products, including iPhones and Mac laptops, have been granted temporary tariff exemptions, though these measures are subject to change.

Apple’s peers, such as Samsung Electronics and Motorola, have also begun relocating assembly operations for U.S.-bound smartphones to India, but their progress is considerably more gradual and limited compared to Apple. Canalys reports that these companies are striving to diversify their manufacturing footprints to reduce dependency on China.

The trend of shifting last-mile assembly to India is gaining traction among global manufacturers, who are allocating more capacity in India to cater to the U.S. market. Renaud Anjoran, executive vice president of Agilian Technology, a Chinese electronics manufacturer, noted that the company is renovating a facility in India with plans to move a portion of its production there. The firm anticipates launching trial production runs soon before scaling up to full-scale manufacturing despite India’s lower yield rates compared with China due to quality and logistical issues.

Despite the increase in smartphone shipments, it’s important to note that these numbers do not necessarily translate to final sales but do serve as an indicator of market demand. In the U.S., iPhone shipments fell by 11% year-over-year to 13.3 million units in the second quarter, reversing a previous quarter’s growth rate of 25.7%, according to Canalys. Globally, iPhone shipments decreased by 2% from a year ago, totaling 44.8 million units from April to June.

The challenges are reflected in Apple’s stock performance, with shares declining by 14% this year amid concerns regarding tariff exposure and increasing competition in the smartphone and artificial intelligence sectors.

While Apple has commenced assembly of iPhone 16 Pro models in India, it continues to depend heavily on China’s established manufacturing infrastructure to meet U.S. demand for high-end models. The complexity of these supply chains illustrates the delicate balance companies must maintain in an evolving global trade landscape.

Amidst these uncertainties, former President Trump imposed a 26% tariff on imports from India in April, which pales in comparison to the significantly higher tariffs levied on Chinese goods then. These duties were deferred, providing a temporary hiatus in tariff pressures pending an August 1 deadline.

Source: Original article

Fed Holds Interest Rates Steady Despite Pressure from Trump

July 31, 2025 Staff ReporterBusiness, Economy 0

Policymakers at the Federal Reserve voted 9-2 to maintain current interest rates, despite significant pressure from President Trump to reduce borrowing costs.

The Federal Reserve decided on Wednesday to keep its benchmark interest rate between 4.25% and 4.5%, resisting calls from President Trump to lower it. This decision influences the borrowing costs for businesses and consumers, with many investors speculating that a rate cut could occur at the Fed’s next meeting in September.

Since reducing interest rates by a full percentage point last year, the Federal Reserve has held rates steady, waiting to assess the impact of President Trump’s new tariffs and other policies on the economy. Trump has frequently criticized Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell for not reducing rates faster, derisively assigning the nickname “Too Late” to Powell.

The White House also expressed concerns about cost overruns related to a $2.5 billion renovation of two Federal Reserve buildings in Washington. Tensions heightened last week when Trump and Powell had a verbal exchange during a building tour, with Trump allegedly inflating the project’s cost to over $3 billion. Powell corrected him, explaining that this higher figure included a third building completed earlier.

Despite these interactions, Powell maintains that the president’s personal attacks have not influenced his policy decisions. “I’m very focused on just doing my job,” he said at a central bankers’ meeting in Portugal. With over ten months left in his term, which expires next May, Powell expressed a desire to leave the economy in a stable condition for his successor.

The debate over interest rates continues as inflation remains above the Federal Reserve’s 2% target. Economists are concerned that Trump’s tariffs might further increase prices. For instance, consumer prices rose by 2.7% in June compared to the previous year, marking a more considerable annual increase than in the preceding month.

Yet, with unemployment still low, the Federal Reserve faces little immediate pressure to cut borrowing costs. The Labor Department’s upcoming report on July’s job gains, due on Friday, could further influence the central bank’s future policy decisions.

According to NPR, the Federal Reserve’s cautious approach reflects a broader strategy to balance economic growth with price stability amid ongoing political and economic challenges.

Source: Original article

Kamala Harris Rules Out California Governor Run

July 31, 2025 Staff ReporterElection, Politics, U.S. 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Original article

Trump Imposes 25% Tariff on Indian Imports

July 30, 2025August 4, 2025 Staff ReporterEconomy, Cover, USA 0

President Donald Trump has announced a 25% tariff on imports from India, marking the latest development in his aggressive trade policy during his second term.

President Donald Trump declared on Wednesday that imports from India will be subjected to a new 25% tariff. This decision is the most recent action in his administration’s vigorous trade policies that have increasingly become a focal point of his presidency.

The announcement, made via Trump’s social media platform Truth Social, cited India’s existing tariffs as being “far too high” and criticized their trade restrictions as “strenuous and obnoxious.” Additionally, Trump mentioned penalties targeting India’s reliance on Russian energy and military hardware.

Trump’s declaration arrives just before a crucial trade negotiation deadline on Friday, which he asserted would remain firm without extensions. He has indicated that a plethora of other nations could also experience elevated baseline tariff levels, potentially reaching as high as 20%, which builds on the already heightened 10% tariffs introduced in April.

The potential tariff levels could approach the historic highs that Trump initially proposed on April 2, deemed “Liberation Day,” which had initially unsettled global markets and triggered stock market declines.

Having initially retreated from those threats, President Trump has gradually reinstated elevated tariff measures, reminiscent of levels seen during the 1930s when protectionist trade strategies were employed in a bid to reinvigorate the U.S. economy, albeit with counterproductive outcomes that exacerbated the Great Depression.

According to the Yale University Budget Lab, as of their recent Monday analysis, U.S. consumers face a de facto tariff rate of 18.2%, the highest since 1934. This could result in a household loss equivalent of up to $2,400 by 2025. Notably, these figures were calculated before Trump’s recent tariff announcement on India.

While the 25% tariff on Indian imports is lower than the previously suggested 26% on April 2, it marks a substantial rise from India’s customary average tariff rate of 2.4% on exports to the U.S. In recent years, India has been a critical partner for the U.S., exporting approximately $90 billion in annual goods.

India recently overtook other suppliers as the leading source of smartphones imported into the United States, aligning with Apple’s strategic move to relocate production away from China due to heightened tariffs and geopolitical tensions, as reported by Bloomberg. Apple notably exported $17 billion worth of iPhones from India last year.

Apple CEO Tim Cook noted during the company’s May 1 earnings call that, starting this quarter, the majority of iPhones sold in the U.S. would likely originate from India.

beyond smartphones, the U.S. imports a variety of products from India, including chemicals, plastics, leather goods, agricultural commodities, and metals.

In the previous year, India imposed an average tariff rate of 5.2% on U.S. goods, primarily purchasing oil, cement, stone, glass, and machinery from American markets.

President Trump’s focus on tariffs as a key trade strategy perpetuates a climate of unpredictability within the global economy. Over recent weeks, Trump has unveiled new agreements with several other countries aimed at refining trade conditions with the U.S. Despite the intentions, critics argue these deals are mired in ambiguous details and difficult promises to implement.

However, major stock indices have shown resilience and have continued to rise, partly because some companies observe that the tariffs’ impact may not be as severe as initially anticipated when Trump first introduced his sweeping country-specific tariffs in April.

Nonetheless, the recently negotiated bilateral trade agreements come with tariffs significantly higher than historical norms. These agreements stipulate 19% tariffs on goods from Indonesia and the Philippines, and 15% tariffs on imports from Japan and the European Union.

Furthermore, a new deal with Vietnam imposes tariffs of 20% on its exports, with potential increases to 40% for goods rerouted from China.

Top Trump Allies Prepare for Potential Supreme Court Vacancy

July 30, 2025 Staff ReporterPolitics, USA 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trump’s Trade War Victory Faces New Challenges

July 30, 2025 Staff ReporterEconomy, Politics 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UK May Recognize Palestine Without Israel-Gaza Ceasefire Agreement

July 30, 2025 Staff ReporterDiplomacy, World 0

The United Kingdom announced it will recognize a Palestinian state by September if Israel does not agree to a ceasefire in Gaza, escalating tensions between the countries.

The British government, led by Prime Minister Keir Starmer, made this declaration following a cabinet meeting where Starmer emphasized the importance of timing in recognizing Palestine to help facilitate a long-lasting peace process. He stated that the UK would acknowledge the State of Palestine during the United Nations General Assembly in September unless Israel takes significant steps to resolve the ongoing conflict in Gaza.

“I have always said that we will recognize a Palestinian state as a contribution to a proper peace process at the moment of maximum impact for the two-state solution,” Starmer explained. He urged Israel to end the violence, agree to a ceasefire, and commit to sustainable peace efforts to revive hopes for a two-state solution.

The announcement followed public outrage in the UK over images of starvation in Gaza, which Starmer addressed alongside US President Donald Trump in Scotland. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu criticized the decision, claiming it rewards terrorism by Hamas and poses a future threat to Britain.

“A jihadist state on Israel’s border TODAY will threaten Britain TOMORROW,” Netanyahu warned in a statement. He emphasized that appeasement of jihadist terrorists would ultimately be unsuccessful.

Israel’s foreign ministry expressed concern that the UK’s stance undermines efforts to negotiate a ceasefire and secure the release of hostages in Gaza. Trump mirrored some of Israel’s criticisms, stating the United States has no intention of following the UK’s lead. He remarked that although Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron share similar views, he does not have to agree with them.

During his announcement, Starmer reiterated his demands for Hamas, requiring them to release hostages, disarm, agree to a ceasefire, and exclude themselves from governing Gaza. He asserted that the UK would evaluate the progress in September to determine the next actions, stressing that no one should have veto power over the UK’s decision.

Within Starmer’s Labour Party, pressure has been mounting for a more assertive stance towards Israel, intensified by France’s recent declaration to recognize Palestinian statehood in September, a move that made it the first G7 country to do so.

France welcomed Starmer’s announcement, with Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot noting that the UK joined the momentum initiated by France for recognizing Palestine. Saudi Arabia and Palestinian Authority Vice President Hussein Al Sheikh also praised the UK’s decision as a commitment to international law.

Jordan described the decision as a step towards a two-state solution, according to their foreign ministry spokesperson. In contrast, Scottish First Minister John Swinney argued that Palestinian statehood should not be conditional and should be supported with sanctions against Israel if the violence continues.

Starmer attributed the decision to the deteriorating humanitarian situation in Gaza and concerns that the prospect of a two-state solution is declining. He referenced a report from a UN-backed food security agency describing the condition in Gaza as a “worst-case scenario of famine,” with more than 20,000 children treated for acute malnutrition between April and mid-July.

“The reason we have announced this in the way we have in relation to the General Assembly in September is precisely because I want to ensure that this plays a part in changing the conditions on the ground,” Starmer told reporters, emphasizing the importance of aiding Gaza and striving for a hopeful two-state solution.

British Foreign Secretary David Lammy supported Starmer’s position, urging Israel to halt its military actions in Gaza and pursue peace aligned with a two-state solution. He reiterated that there is no contradiction between supporting Israel’s security and Palestinian statehood.

While Spain, Ireland, and Norway recognized Palestinian statehood last year, most European nations remain reluctant to follow suit, according to the original source.

French PM Criticizes EU-US Trade Deal as Submission

July 29, 2025 Staff ReporterBusiness, Politics 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Original article

Trump, EU’s Von Der Leyen Agree to 15% Tariff Deal

July 28, 2025 Staff ReporterEconomy, World 0

President Donald Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced a landmark trade agreement on Sunday, which establishes a 15 percent tariff on European goods and guarantees a substantial investment in the United States.

In a significant development for transatlantic trade relations, President Donald Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced a new trade deal on Sunday. The agreement, reached during a meeting at Trump’s golf course in Turnberry, Scotland, sets a 15 percent tariff on European goods, including automobiles, thereby averting a potential trade conflict.

The European Union has committed to purchasing $750 billion worth of energy from the United States as part of this agreement. Additionally, the EU plans to invest $600 billion more in the U.S., a substantial increase over current levels. This marks a strategic shift in the economic relationship between the U.S. and one of its largest trading partners, moving away from the higher 30 percent tariff initially threatened by Trump, which was set to commence on August 1.

Both leaders emphasized the historic nature of the agreement. “I think it’s the biggest deal ever made,” Trump stated. Von der Leyen echoed this sentiment, emphasizing the stabilizing effect the deal will have on the two largest economies globally. “It’s a big deal, it’s a huge deal, it will bring stability, it will be predictability,” she said. “It’s a good deal, it’s a tough deal.”

Von der Leyen acknowledged that the agreement addresses an unbalanced trade relationship that previously existed between the EU and the U.S., which had resulted in a trade deficit for the United States. “We wanted to rebalance the trade relation and we wanted to do it in a way that trade goes on between the two of us across the Atlantic,” she stated.

Trump expressed optimism before the meeting with von der Leyen, assessing the probability of reaching a deal as fifty-fifty. Both leaders drew attention to the significance of their trading partnership, with von der Leyen noting Trump’s reputation as a formidable negotiator. “You’re known as a tough dealmaker and negotiator,” she remarked, to which Trump replied, “And fair.” He added, “This is really the biggest trading partnership in the world so we should give it a shot.”

This agreement comes on the heels of a similar deal with Japan, where Trump negotiated a 15 percent tariff on Japanese goods. The Japanese agreement also avoided a higher 25 percent tariff and included Japan’s commitment to invest $550 billion in U.S. projects while opening its markets to American automobiles, rice, and other agricultural products.

President Trump reiterated that the tariffs and deals would officially commence on August 1, stating, “The Aug. 1 is there for everyone. The deals all start on Aug. 1.”

According to The Hill, these developments mark a pivotal moment in international trade negotiations, showcasing a shift towards balanced economic relations between the U.S., the EU, and Japan.

Redistricting May Impact Future US House Elections

July 27, 2025 Staff ReporterElection, Politics 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Original article

Trump Administration Proposes Stricter Citizenship Test and H-1B Reforms

July 26, 2025August 4, 2025 Staff ReporterImmigration, Cover, USA 0

The Trump administration is set to introduce significant immigration reforms, targeting the H-1B visa program and the U.S. citizenship test, with plans to make both processes more challenging.

The Trump administration is preparing to implement a new wave of immigration reforms aimed at changing the visa system for skilled foreign workers and revising the citizenship test. Joseph Edlow, the newly appointed Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), detailed these plans in an interview with The New York Times, describing the existing citizenship evaluation as “easy.”

“The test as it’s laid out right now, it’s not very difficult. It’s very easy to kind of memorize the answers. I don’t think we’re really comporting with the spirit of the law,” Edlow stated during the interview on Thursday.

The proposed changes arise amid a broader crackdown on immigration during Trump’s second term, which has seen tightened visa rules and reduced refugee programs, affecting both documented and undocumented immigrants. The administration intends to reintroduce a stricter version of the citizenship test first seen during Trump’s initial term in office. Under the new format, applicants must correctly answer 12 out of 20 civics questions compared to the current requirement of 6 out of 10, thereby ensuring a deeper understanding of U.S. civics and governance beyond rote memorization.

Another key proposal involves restructuring the H-1B visa program, which serves skilled foreign workers. Edlow indicated that the USCIS plans to prioritize companies offering higher wages over the current lottery-based system. This revision would address criticism that companies exploit the system by hiring cheaper foreign labor, thus undercutting American workers.

Vice President JD Vance echoed these concerns, criticizing companies that lay off domestic workers while continuing to hire foreign workers. However, Edlow maintains, “I really do think that the way H-1B needs to be used… is to, along with a lot of other parts of immigration, supplement, not supplant, U.S. economy and U.S. businesses and U.S. workers.”

Despite the administration’s push, not everyone agrees with the proposed direction. Doug Rand, a former Biden official, cautioned that favoring higher-salary positions might undermine the original purpose of the H-1B program. “Like it or not, the H-1B program is the main way that U.S. companies can hire the best and brightest international graduates of U.S. universities,” Rand remarked to The New York Times. “Congress never allowed DHS to put its thumb on the scale based on salary.”

Edlow, who was confirmed by the Senate in July 2025, is anticipated to play a pivotal role in shaping immigration policy. With extensive experience in immigration enforcement and policy, stemming from his previous tenure at USCIS and the Justice Department, Edlow emphasized that immigration should serve as a national asset. “I think it absolutely should be a net positive,” he commented. “And if we’re looking at the people that are coming over… to advance certain economic agendas and otherwise benefit the national interest, that’s absolutely what we need to be taking care of.”

Though detailed policy documents outlining these reforms have not yet been disclosed, the USCIS has signaled a broader return to the rigorous approach seen during Trump’s first term. That era witnessed tightened green card eligibility rules and alterations to the asylum system, many of which faced legal challenges.

According to The New York Times, the tangible impact of these proposed changes on businesses and immigrants remains closely watched as the policies unfold.

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

July 26, 2025July 26, 2025 Staff ReporterPolitics, Cover, Economy 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trump’s Stance Changes on Prosecuting Former Presidents

July 25, 2025 Staff ReporterCover, Election, Governance 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Original article

Trump Signs Order Easing Homeless Removal Policies

July 25, 2025 Staff ReporterElection, Nation, Politics 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Original article

Poll Shows Growing Disapproval of Trump Among Independents

July 25, 2025 Staff ReporterEditorial/Opinion, Election, Politics 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to Politico.

Source: Original article

GENIUS Act Enables Stablecoin Adoption via Mastercard

July 24, 2025 Staff ReporterTechnology, Cover, Finance 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Court Again Blocks Trump Birthright Citizenship Order Nationwide

July 24, 2025 Staff ReporterPolitics, USA 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Immigration Alerts Green Card Holders With New Warning

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Justice Department Informs Trump of Name in Epstein Files

July 24, 2025 Staff ReporterPolitics, USA 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tulsi Gabbard’s White House Briefing: 5 Key Takeaways

July 23, 2025 Staff ReporterPolitics, USA 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obama Responds to Trump’s Call for Prosecution

July 23, 2025 Staff ReporterCover, Politics, USA 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Original article

US Withdraws from UNESCO Again Under Trump’s Leadership

July 22, 2025 Staff ReporterCover, Election, Politics 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Original article

Trump Administration Releases FBI Files on Martin Luther King Jr.

July 22, 2025 Staff ReporterPolitics, USA 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

July 22, 2025 Staff ReporterPolitics, Editorial, Opinion, USA 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

July 22, 2025July 22, 2025 Staff ReporterPolitics, Cover, Economy 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Coinbase CEO: Stablecoin Bill Marks Financial Shift in America

July 22, 2025 Staff ReporterTechnology, Finance/Economy 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Harvard Claims Government First Amendment Breach; Trump Sees Contract Issue

July 22, 2025 Staff ReporterPolitics, Education 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trump Administration Closes EPA’s Scientific Research Division

July 21, 2025 Staff ReporterCover, Environment, Nation 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Original article

Trump Supports Gabbard on Obama Prosecution, Criticizes Alleged Election Fraud

July 20, 2025 Staff ReporterPolitics, Cover 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

July 20, 2025 Staff ReporterCover, Election, Politics 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ohio House Speaker Backs Vivek Ramaswamy for Governor Election

July 20, 2025 Staff ReporterUSA, Politics 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(New York, NY: July 18, 2025)

GOPIO’s inaugural Webinar receives wonderful response;

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

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

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

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

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

Featured Experts and Insights

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Key Action Items and Initiatives

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

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

July 19, 2025 Staff ReporterDiplomacy, Politics 0

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

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

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

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

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

Bolsonaro has consistently denied any wrongdoing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Original article

Trump Administration Evaluates New H-1B Visa Issuance Method

July 19, 2025 Staff ReporterImmigration, Politics, Visa 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Original article

Trump Sues WSJ for Libel Over Epstein Birthday Letters Report

July 19, 2025 Staff ReporterCover, Law/Legal, Politics 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Original article

Trump Sues Murdoch for $10 Billion Over Epstein Letter Story

July 19, 2025 Staff ReporterPolitics, USA 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Original article

Trump Uses Office to Boost Family Business Profits

July 18, 2025 Staff ReporterPolitics, Business 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

USISPF Appoints Taranjit Sandhu as Board Advisor and Institute Chair

July 18, 2025 Staff ReporterDiplomacy, USA 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rupee Declines as US Inflation Concerns Elevate Dollar

July 18, 2025 Staff ReporterEconomy, Finance/Economy 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stablecoin bill clears House in key crypto victory

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fed Reports Businesses Passing Tariff Costs to Consumers

July 18, 2025 Staff ReporterCover, Economy 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Government Prioritizes Energy Security in Response to NATO

July 18, 2025 Staff ReporterEnergy, World 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

July 18, 2025 Staff ReporterBusiness, Health 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trump Presidency News on July 17, 2025

July 18, 2025July 18, 2025 Staff ReporterPolitics, Cover 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

Larry Ellison Becomes Second Richest After Oracle AI Investments

July 18, 2025 Staff ReporterBusiness, Technology 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trump Administration Shares Medicaid Data with ICE

July 17, 2025 Staff ReporterCrime, Immigration 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Original article

Rural Impact Feared From Trump NPR, PBS Funding Cuts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Original article

Trust in US Dollar’s Global Supremacy Diminishing

July 17, 2025 Staff ReporterCover, Economy, Politics 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Original article

India’s Tactical Diplomacy Faces Criticism Over Strategic Power

July 17, 2025 M A HossainOpinion 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Original article

Democratic Senators Question Trump’s New Citizenship Data System

July 17, 2025 Staff ReporterElection, Politics, World 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Original article

Obama Couple Responds to Recent Divorce Rumors

July 17, 2025 Staff ReporterUSA 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Original article

BITCOIN RECORD-BREAKING SURGE

July 16, 2025 Dr. Mathew JoysTechnology, Money 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let’s ride this wave of excitement!

India Misses Tariff Deal, Signals Potential Future Agreement

July 16, 2025 Staff ReporterEconomy, Diplomacy 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trump’s Disapproval Rating Reaches Record High Second Term

July 16, 2025 Staff ReporterPolitics, USA 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trump Expresses Disappointment with Putin in BBC Interview

July 16, 2025 Staff ReporterDiplomacy, USA 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Original article

Rupee Hits Two-Week Low Amid Corporate Dollar Bids

July 16, 2025 Staff ReporterEconomy 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

July 16, 2025 Staff ReporterImmigration, India 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trump Confronts Crisis Amid Epstein Conspiracy Theories

July 16, 2025 Staff ReporterPolitics, Cover 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trump Administration to Omit Climate Reports from NASA Website

July 15, 2025 Staff ReporterClimate, Politics 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Original article

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

July 15, 2025 Staff ReporterNation USA, World 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Original article

Trump Aims to Dismantle Education Department Post-Supreme Court Ruling

July 15, 2025 Staff ReporterEducation, Governance 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Original article

Democrats Prepare for 2028 Presidential Race in Key States

July 15, 2025 Staff ReporterElection, Politics, U.S. 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Original article

USPS Adjusts Stamp Prices: Key Details to Know

July 15, 2025 Staff ReporterNation, Politics, Women 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Original article

Andrew Cuomo Announces NYC Mayoral Run Against Zohran Mamdani

July 15, 2025 Staff ReporterElection, Nation USA, Politics 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Original article

Proposed High-Speed Train to Connect NYC and Los Angeles

July 15, 2025 Staff ReporterTechnology, Travel, World 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Original article

Trump Proposes Russia Tariffs Alongside New Ukraine Weapons Plan

July 15, 2025 Staff ReporterPolitics, USA 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Original article

Cuomo Announces New York City Mayor Election Bid

July 15, 2025 Staff ReporterElection, Politics 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Original article

Nvidia CEO Urges US to Onshore Technology Manufacturing

July 13, 2025 Staff ReporterTechnology, Economy 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If finalized, India would join a select group of trading partners that have secured agreements with the Trump administration. In contrast, numerous trading partners have been unsettled by recent announcements of tariffs as high as 50%, ahead of an August 1 deadline.

The Indian Ministry of Commerce and Industry, along with the White House and the Commerce Department, did not immediately respond to requests for comment regarding this potential agreement.

New Delhi aims to secure terms more favorable than those in the recent agreement reached between the United States and Vietnam, which saw import duties set at 20%. Vietnam, surprised by this rate, is still attempting to renegotiate. Besides Vietnam, the UK is the only nation with which President Trump has announced a trade deal.

In an interview with NBC News, President Trump mentioned contemplating blanket tariffs of 15% to 20% for most trading partners. Currently, the global baseline minimum levy affecting nearly all US trading partners stands at 10%.

Thus far, announced tariff rates for Asian nations range from 20% for both Vietnam and the Philippines to as high as 40% for Laos and Myanmar.

India was among the first countries to engage the White House in trade talks this year; however, tensions have surfaced in recent weeks. Although President Trump stated that an agreement with India is nearing completion, he simultaneously threatened additional tariffs due to India’s involvement in the BRICS group. A delegation of Indian negotiators is expected to travel to Washington soon to advance these talks.

India has already presented its best offer to the Trump administration and outlined the limits it is unwilling to cross during negotiations. However, the two countries remain entrenched in disputes over several key issues, including Washington’s request for India to open its market to genetically modified crops, which New Delhi has opposed on behalf of its farmers.

Some contentious topics, such as non-tariff barriers in the agricultural sector and regulatory processes within the pharmaceutical industry, continue to prevent the two nations from reaching a consensus, according to those familiar with the matter.

Source: Original article

Ackman Offers One-Word Advice on Stock Market Trends

July 12, 2025 Staff ReporterBusiness, Economy, Finance/Economy 0

Recent developments in the stock market have sparked significant discussions regarding its resilience amid economic uncertainties, punctuated by a succinct one-word advisory from veteran hedge fund manager Bill Ackman.

The stock market has experienced a robust rally since April 9, when President Donald Trump temporarily halted the majority of the reciprocal tariffs he announced earlier in the month. This decision came after markets had responded negatively to the initial tariff impositions on April 2, known as Liberation Day. The suspension of tariffs provided relief to an oversold market, driving a remarkable recovery that saw the S&P 500 gain approximately 25% within three months.

The rally in stocks is especially noteworthy given the backdrop of a potentially faltering U.S. economy. Concerns over rising unemployment and persistent inflation have fueled worries about stagflation or a possible recession. With the unemployment rate climbing from 3.4% to 4.1% over the past year and inflation pressures still being felt, the economic outlook remains challenging.

This environment typically poses a tough scenario for stocks, which generally thrive during periods of economic growth, supported by increased consumer and business spending. Despite these conditions, stocks have nearly recovered the losses incurred during a near-bear market earlier this year.

Opinions diverge on the market’s trajectory from here. Optimists, or bulls, argue that the earlier market declines sufficiently accounted for the economic risks, paving the way for sustained gains. In contrast, pessimists, or bears, caution that the current valuations are high, and the economy’s struggles could hinder further progress.

Bill Ackman, a prominent figure on Wall Street, added a brief yet impactful perspective to the conversation this week. With a personal net worth of $8.2 billion, Ackman ranks 413th on Bloomberg’s Billionaires Index and manages Pershing Square, a hedge fund with $18 billion under its management. His succinct message to investors is noteworthy, given his extensive experience in the financial sector.

Divergent views on the economic impact of tariffs persist. Some believe that tariffs could significantly burden consumers already dealing with financial constraints, leading to reduced economic activity. Others assert that the risks associated with tariffs are overstated and temporary.

Despite the unemployment rate being relatively low, there has been a significant increase in layoffs. According to data from Challenger, Gray, & Christmas, over 696,000 layoffs have been announced this year through May, marking an 80% rise from the previous year.

The increase in unemployment has occurred alongside the most aggressive pace of interest rate hikes by the Federal Reserve in its history. The Federal Reserve raised interest rates by a total of 5% over 2022 and 2023 to combat inflation, which successfully reduced the CPI inflation rate from 8% to below 3%.

However, as inflationary pressures stabilized, the Federal Reserve pivoted to rate cuts late last year, reducing the Fed Funds Rate by 1%. Despite this, concerns over inflation, exacerbated by tariffs, have prompted the Federal Reserve to maintain a cautious stance, leaving rates unchanged and adopting a wait-and-see approach.

This cautious approach has faced criticism from the White House. President Trump has expressed dissatisfaction with Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell for not cutting rates, which could mitigate some economic strains caused by tariffs. Despite this, Powell has maintained that patience is necessary for monetary policy decisions.

The Federal Reserve’s hesitancy coincides with projections of a slowing U.S. economy. The Fed and the World Bank anticipate that the GDP growth rate will slow from 2.8% last year to 1.4% this year. This slowdown exacerbates concerns about economic growth and limits potential government fiscal policy responses, given the substantial national deficit and debt levels.

The U.S. deficit exceeds $1.8 trillion, accounting for 6.4% of GDP, while total public debt is approximately 122% of GDP, a significant increase from 75% in 2008 during the Great Recession.

Despite these concerning indicators, the stock market seems to be focusing on potential positive outcomes, such as successful trade negotiations, retreating inflation expectations, and the belief that tariff-related risks are exaggerated, which might support corporate earnings growth.

Bill Ackman’s extensive experience, which dates back to the early 1990s, includes navigating major market events such as the Internet boom and bust, the Great Recession, and the COVID-19 pandemic. His insights are hence seen as valuable within the investment community.

According to TheStreet, his one-word message to investors on the current state of the stock market carries weight due to his substantial industry experience.

Source: Original article

U.S. Treasury Reports June Surplus Amid Rising Tariff Revenues

July 12, 2025 Staff ReporterBusiness, Finance/Economy 0

The U.S. Treasury Department reported an unexpected surplus of $27 billion in June, driven primarily by a significant increase in tariff receipts.

The U.S. government posted a surplus in June, driven by a rise in tariff collections, as reported by the Treasury Department on Friday.

Amid an overall increase in government spending throughout the year, the Treasury reported a $27 billion surplus for the month, contrasting sharply with a $316 billion deficit recorded in May.

Year-to-date, the fiscal deficit stands at $1.34 trillion, marking a 5% rise from the same period last year. However, after adjusting for the calendar, the deficit has slightly decreased by 1%. The fiscal year concludes on September 30, providing three more months for adjustments.

In June, the government’s receipts rose by 13% compared to the previous year, while expenditures decreased by 7%. Annually, receipts have experienced a 7% increase, with spending rising by 6%.

This occasion marks the first instance of a June surplus since 2017, during the initial term of President Donald Trump. The boost from tariffs has been a major factor in this development.

Customs duties reached approximately $27 billion in June, increasing from $23 billion in May and reflecting a 301% rise compared to June 2024. Annually, these collections have amounted to $113 billion, marking an 86% increase from the previous year.

In April, President Trump imposed a 10% tariff on imports, in addition to other select duties, and announced a series of reciprocal tariffs on various U.S. trading partners, which are still under negotiation.

The report highlights that the month’s results benefited from calendar adjustments, without which the deficit would have been $70 billion.

High Treasury yields continue to challenge federal finances, as net interest payments on the $36 trillion national debt totaled $84 billion in June, a slight decrease from May. However, these interest payments remain second only to Social Security in terms of government expenditure. So far this fiscal year, net interest has reached $749 billion, with total interest payments expected to hit $1.2 trillion by fiscal year-end.

President Trump has been urging the Federal Reserve to reduce short-term interest rates to alleviate the financial burdens of federal debt servicing. Nevertheless, market expectations indicate the central bank may not implement any rate cuts until September. Fed Chair Jerome Powell has expressed concerns over the possible inflationary effects of tariffs.

The Congressional Budget Office projects that Trump’s recently passed spending bill could increase the national debt by an additional $3.4 trillion over the next decade.

Source: Original article

Justice Department’s Citizenship Revocations May Violate Constitutional Rights

July 12, 2025July 16, 2025 Staff ReporterU.S., Visa 0

The Trump administration is intensifying efforts to strip citizenship from naturalized Americans, targeting cases across ten broad categories, according to a recent Justice Department directive.

The Justice Department’s recent memo signifies a substantial policy shift, as it urges the department to “maximally pursue denaturalization proceedings in all cases permitted by law and supported by evidence.” This move marks a distinct push to revoke citizenship on a massive scale, affecting naturalized Americans nationwide.

Denaturalization differs from deportation in that it involves a civil lawsuit that revokes a person’s U.S. citizenship, subsequently turning them back into noncitizens who can then face deportation. The government can pursue denaturalization if it can prove that an individual “illegally procured” their citizenship by failing to meet legal requirements or by committing fraud during the naturalization process.

The new directive promotes a “maximal enforcement” policy, effectively seeking denaturalization in any case where evidence supports such action, irrespective of the strength of the evidence or the priority level. This has led to instances like Baljinder Singh, whose citizenship was revoked after a name discrepancy, potentially the result of a translator’s error rather than fraudulent intent.

Historically, denaturalization was a rare occurrence until the 1940s and 1950s during the Red Scare, as suspicion of communism and Nazism prompted a surge in such cases. Between 1907 and 1967, over 22,000 Americans were denaturalized. However, the landmark Supreme Court case Afroyim v. Rusk in 1967 restricted the government from revoking citizenship without consent, except in cases involving fraud.

Since then, denaturalization was seldom pursued; from 1968 to 2013, under 150 individuals lost their citizenship, mainly due to concealed war crimes. The current approach stands in contrast with this history, sparking concerns among legal scholars about violations of constitutional rights.

In civil denaturalization cases, individuals lack access to free legal counsel, jury trials, and face a lower burden of proof—”clear and convincing evidence”—compared to criminal cases which require “beyond a reasonable doubt” proof. The absence of a statute of limitations allows the government to investigate cases irrespective of how long ago the alleged misconduct occurred.

The expansion of denaturalization has significant implications for democracy and societal security, as a core tenet of citizenship lies in its permanence. The fear that naturalized citizens might lose their status at any time undermines their full participation in American democracy.

The Justice Department’s directive outlines 10 categories for denaturalization, ranging from national security threats and war crimes to various frauds and financial crimes. This policy effectively creates two categories of American citizens: those born in the U.S., who face no risk of losing their citizenship, and naturalized citizens, who may remain vulnerable throughout their lives.

Individuals, such as a woman who became a naturalized citizen in 2007 and later faced potential denaturalization due to non-disclosure of a crime she was involved in unaware at her naturalization time, illustrate the precariousness of this policy. She cooperated with an FBI investigation and completed her legal sentence, yet decades later her citizenship was under scrutiny.

This intensified scrutiny could significantly impact approximately 20 million naturalized Americans, whose decades-old paperwork discrepancies might now threaten their citizenship status. The Justice Department’s move to “maximally pursue” denaturalization cases, alongside initiatives from the first Trump administration to re-evaluate over 700,000 naturalization files, represents a considerable escalation of efforts to rescind citizenship.

Constitutional challenges to this policy are anticipated, as they raise significant concerns about its alignment with the principles established in Afroyim v. Rusk, which underscored the inviolability of citizenship as a fundamental right.

As legal and academic critiques continue, the debate surrounding the policy’s implications unfolds, with broader consequences looming over the security and integrity of naturalized citizenship in America.

Source: Original article

Trump’s Bill Impact on Social Security Taxes Explained

July 11, 2025 Staff ReporterEconomy, Nation 0

The newly passed legislation includes a provision that offers a significant tax deduction for seniors, altering the landscape for tax obligations on Social Security benefits.

In the aftermath of Congress passing President Trump’s legislative package, many Americans received an intriguing email from the Social Security Administration. The email hailed the enactment of the new law and highlighted a provision that reportedly “eliminates federal income taxes on Social Security benefits for most beneficiaries.” However, according to experts, the email misrepresented the complexities of the legislation.

Although the legislation aligns with Trump’s campaign promise of “no tax on Social Security benefits,” it doesn’t provide a full tax exemption for Social Security benefits. Instead, the law introduces a new tax deduction specifically for individuals aged 65 and over. This is expected to reduce or eliminate the tax liabilities on Social Security benefits for a larger number of seniors.

Marc Goldwein, senior vice president at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, explained, “The legislation that passed does make it so some people won’t pay taxes on their benefits because it increases their standard deduction.”

The newly introduced senior deduction is set at $6,000 annually for those aged 65 or older.

The controversial email, which carried the subject line “Social Security Applauds Passage of Legislation Providing Historic Tax Relief for Seniors,” marked a rare political outreach by the agency, as noted by experts.

Howard Gleckman, a senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, criticized the email for being misleading. He stated, “The email included a number of assertions that simply are either not true or overstated, confusing recipients.”

One of the misleading points, according to Gleckman, was the implication that the bill had fundamentally altered the taxation of Social Security benefits. In reality, these benefits are still taxed similarly to other income, and the legislation does not change this.

The email further claimed that the bill “ensures that nearly 90% of Social Security beneficiaries will no longer pay federal income taxes on their benefits.” While this aligns with estimates from the White House Council of Economic Advisers—indicating that 88% of older Social Security recipients may avoid taxation on their benefits—Gleckman pointed out that nearly two-thirds of these beneficiaries already avoid such taxes due to their lower income levels.

The Social Security Administration did not respond to NPR’s request for comments on these critiques. However, the agency eventually issued a correction online, clarifying the details about the new $6,000 deduction for seniors.

Howard Gleckman highlighted that the added deduction will be most beneficial to middle- and upper-middle-class seniors. Those with incomes ranging between $80,000 and $130,000 stand to gain the most, with an average tax cut of about $1,100.

Lower-income seniors are not expected to experience much of a change, as they generally earn too little to be liable for taxes. On the other hand, those with higher income—individuals earning over $175,000 or couples with incomes exceeding $250,000—would not be eligible for this new deduction.

Despite the apparent benefits, Gleckman expressed concerns regarding the financial health of Social Security. “Taxes paid on Social Security benefits contribute directly to the trust funds for Social Security and Medicare Part A. Cutting these taxes risks accelerating the insolvency of these trust funds,” he explained.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget projects that this move could advance the timeline for trust fund insolvency to late 2032. Unless Congress enacts further changes, this could necessitate a 24% cut in Social Security benefits.

The email quoted Social Security Administration Commissioner Frank Bisignano, stating that the legislation “reaffirms President Trump’s promise to protect Social Security and helps ensure that seniors can better enjoy the retirement they’ve earned.” Nonetheless, easing the tax burden now may undermine the long-term sustainability of the Social Security system.

Supreme Court to Decide on Birthright Citizenship Issue

July 11, 2025 Staff ReporterImmigration, Nation 0

The legal battle over President Donald Trump’s executive order aiming to restrict birthright citizenship could soon return to the U.S. Supreme Court after a federal judge blocked the order’s implementation nationwide.

A judge in New Hampshire on Thursday issued a preliminary injunction against President Donald Trump’s executive order that sought to end birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to parents without legal status. This decision halts the enforcement of the order across the country.

Judge Joseph LaPlante, appointed by former President George W. Bush, granted a preliminary injunction and certified a class-action lawsuit regarding all children potentially impacted by the order. This ruling arrives shortly after the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. CASA, which limited judges’ ability to issue nationwide injunctions but did not resolve the constitutionality of Trump’s order itself.

The concept of birthright citizenship is rooted in the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which grants American citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil, including children born to undocumented immigrants.

In his order, Judge LaPlante expressed little hesitation in determining that an injunction was necessary. “Respondents’ arguments about irreparable harm remain unconvincing to the court,” LaPlante wrote, highlighting the constitutional concerns surrounding the rapid implementation of such a policy. He stated that acting without legislation and national debate could cause irreparable harm to thousands who would otherwise be entitled to citizenship.

Renowned immigration law expert Stephen Yale-Loehr told Newsweek that while the injunction is a critical step, it is a preliminary finding that allows the case to proceed as a class action. He noted that it does not resolve the essential questions concerning the executive order itself, emphasizing that a final decision might not reach the Supreme Court until next year.

In a statement made on the Bloomberg Law podcast, Jonathan Adler, a constitutional law professor at William & Mary Law School, speculated that the Trump administration will likely challenge the class certification of the case. He suggested that the matter may end up before the Supreme Court, anticipating that five justices might be ready to rule on the order’s merits.

Cody Wofsy, the deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigrant’s Rights Project, described the ruling as a significant victory, asserting that it upholds the intended constitutional protection of citizenship for all children born in the U.S. He underscored the importance of preserving these citizenship rights against presidential overreach.

Conversely, White House spokesman Harrison Fields affirmed that the Trump administration plans to actively contest what he called the obstructive actions of district court judges undermining policy objectives set by President Trump.

Judge LaPlante’s decision includes a seven-day stay, allowing the government time to appeal the ruling. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court concluded its opinions for the 2024-25 term in late June, and the upcoming term will commence in October, with emergency order applications being considered at any point.

According to Newsweek, the legal trajectory related to this executive order remains unsettled as the battle over birthright citizenship persists.

US Imposes $250 Visa Fee for Tourists, Students from 2026

July 10, 2025July 16, 2025 Staff ReporterImmigration, Visa 0

Indian nationals traveling to the United States will face a significant increase in visa-related costs starting in 2026, as part of a broad immigration overhaul under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

Indian nationals traveling to the United States for tourism, education, or temporary work will soon face a significant increase in visa-related costs.

Beginning in 2026, a new $250 “Visa Integrity Fee” will be levied on most non-immigrant visa categories under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (H.R. 1), which was signed into law by U.S. President Donald Trump on July 4.

The surcharge will apply to B-1/B-2 tourist and business visas, F and M student visas, H-1B work visas, and J-1 exchange visas, among others. Only diplomatic visa classes (A and G) are exempt.

The fee will be collected by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) at the time of visa issuance and is framed as a refundable security deposit. To be eligible for a refund, travelers must comply with all visa conditions—such as departing the U.S. within five days of expiration or adjusting their immigration status legally—and submit the required documentation.

The $250 charge is in addition to existing costs. The current $185 Machine-Readable Visa (MRV) application fee remains unchanged, but applicants will also be required to pay a $24 I-94 surcharge for entry/exit tracking.

Those using the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) or Electronic Visa Update System (EVUS) will incur additional fees of $13 and $30, respectively. For Indian travelers, the total cost of obtaining a U.S. visa could rise to approximately $480, effectively doubling current expenses.

The new surcharge is part of a broader immigration overhaul under the One Big Beautiful Bill, which allocates $150 billion through 2029 for expanded immigration enforcement.

The legislation increases funding for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP), expands detention infrastructure, accelerates deportations, and limits asylum access. These measures will be partially funded through higher visa fees and a new 1 percent tax on foreign remittances, according to the Immigration Advocacy Project.

While the DHS maintains that the Visa Integrity Fee will promote compliance and deter overstays, critics argue that the fee disproportionately burdens applicants from countries like India, which sees high demand for U.S. visas. Education providers, technology employers, and travel industry representatives have warned that the increased financial burden may discourage students and skilled workers from choosing the U.S.

Estimates suggest that the new visa and related fees could generate $64 billion through 2034, contributing to federal tax and enforcement funding—but at a substantial cost to immigrant communities.

Source: Original article

India Sees 27% Decline in US Student Visas Since COVID

July 10, 2025 Staff ReporterImmigration, Visa 0

The issuance of student visas to Indian nationals for studying in the United States experienced a notable 27 percent decline between March and May this year, representing the slowest start to the visa season since the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The latest statistics from the U.S. State Department reveal that 9,906 F-1 visas were issued to Indian students during the referenced period. This marks a significant decrease from the 13,478 visas granted in the same months the previous year, and an even lower figure than the 10,894 visas issued in 2022, when international travel had only recently resumed.

The months from March to May typically witness a surge in visa processing as students gear up for the Fall semester, which generally commences in August or September. However, this year’s downturn coincides with a renewed immigration crackdown under the Trump administration, characterized by the introduction of more rigorous screening procedures for international students.

In late May, the U.S. State Department issued a directive halting new interview scheduling for F, M, and J visa applicants. This suspension of appointments, which lasted from May 27 to June 18, was a global measure as embassies were instructed to adhere to the newly implemented protocols.

The directive, endorsed by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, sought to enforce mandatory social media scrutiny. Visa applicants were required to disclose their social media profiles from the preceding five years, a mandate that has stirred concerns among prospective students about processing delays and potential backlogs.

The U.S. Embassy in New Delhi issued public advisories urging Indian visa applicants to comply with these new conditions. Meanwhile, the policy adjustments have led to visa cancellations across at least 32 states in the U.S. Reports indicate that some of these cancellations involved Indian students and were associated with involvement in pro-Palestinian protests or previous legal infractions, such as DUIs, although in several cases, the reasons for cancellation were not explicitly communicated.

In response to the augmented scrutiny, many students have taken proactive measures to sanitize their digital footprints. This includes removing sensitive posts, unfollowing accounts, and tightening privacy settings in an effort to mitigate the risk of visa rejection under the expanded vetting processes.

Despite the current slowdown, Indian students continue to represent the largest cohort of international students in the United States. According to Open Doors 2024, Indian students overtook their Chinese counterparts during the 2023–2024 academic year, becoming the top contributors to the foreign student population.

Nevertheless, the overall trend for 2024 has been one of decline. From January to September of the previous year, Indian students were granted 64,008 F-1 visas, a decrease from 103,000 in 2023 and 93,181 in 2022.

Source: Original article

Ex-White House Doctor Refuses to Testify in Biden Investigation

July 10, 2025 Staff ReporterLaw/Legal, Politics 0

Dr. Kevin O’Connor, former President Joe Biden’s longtime physician, has declined to testify in a Republican-led investigation into Biden’s health, citing physician-patient confidentiality and his Fifth Amendment rights.

Dr. Kevin O’Connor, who was former President Joe Biden’s physician throughout his presidency, has refused to testify in a Republican-led congressional inquiry regarding Biden’s health while in office. The deposition was scheduled before the House Committee on Oversight and Government to investigate what some Republicans label as “the cover-up of President Joe Biden’s cognitive decline.”

O’Connor declined to take the stand at the deposition scheduled for Wednesday, invoking physician-patient privilege and his Fifth Amendment rights. His legal team asserted that the decision was essential given “the unique circumstances of this deposition.”

Speculation about Biden’s health, particularly his cognitive state, persisted during his presidency. New reports following his departure from office claim that his staff may have concealed his health issues, a situation further complicated by Biden’s recent announcement of a cancer diagnosis. These developments have intensified calls for clarity from GOP lawmakers.

In a statement to the committee, O’Connor emphasized that participating in the investigation would contravene his professional duty to maintain confidentiality and could lead to the revocation of his medical license. “Dr. O’Connor will not violate his oath of confidentiality to any of his patients, including President Biden,” the statement read.

Chair of the committee, Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., criticized O’Connor for resorting to the Fifth Amendment, insisting that “the American people demand transparency.” He expressed intentions to gather further testimony from former Biden officials, such as ex-White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, and former senior advisers Anita Dunn and Michael Donilon. Interviews with Ronald Klain and Jeff Zients, who both served as Biden’s chief of staff at different times, have also been requested.

Despite criticism, O’Connor’s attorneys highlighted that President Trump had previously invoked his Fifth Amendment right in a 2022 deposition during a New York State Attorney General investigation. Trump had noted, “anyone in my position not taking the Fifth Amendment would be a fool, an absolute fool.”

Biden publicly addressed and refuted the claims of cognitive decline in the last year of his presidency during a May appearance on ABC’s The View.

Original article

Trump Delays Tariffs as Global Negotiations Intensify

July 10, 2025 Staff ReporterNews, Politics, USA 0

Despite promises of “90 deals in 90 days,” the Trump administration’s efforts to negotiate trade agreements have fallen short, with only a handful of deals likely by the initial deadline.

Donald Trump’s White House initially aimed to secure “90 deals in 90 days” following a temporary pause in implementing what the U.S. president termed “reciprocal” tariffs. However, this ambitious goal appears to be far from realization.

As the initial deadline of July 9 approaches, it’s clear that fewer than nine agreements will be completed. The original target has proven elusive, highlighting the complexities involved in trade negotiations. In a strategic move, the deadline has been extended from the previous Wednesday to August 1. Further extensions or delays remain possible as talks continue.

From the perspective of the United States, the focus is primarily on addressing trade imbalances with the 18 countries responsible for 95% of America’s trade deficit. Scott Bessent, the U.S. Treasury Secretary, emphasized the concentration on these significant trading partners as negotiations advance.

The correspondence being dispatched from the U.S. to its trading partners this week resembles earlier communications from the White House, specifically the “Liberation Day” blue board, which outlined similar concerns and objectives in trade dealings.

Essentially, the proposed tariff rates have remained consistent since they were first disclosed on April 2. The controversial calculation, initially presented as a measure of trade deficit size to indicate “the sum of all trade cheating,” persists in a similar form amid the ongoing discussions.

According to BBC News, the process illustrates the challenging dynamic of trade negotiations and the complexities of addressing longstanding trade imbalances.

Source: Original article

Trump Administration Subpoenas Harvard, Accreditation at Risk

July 10, 2025 Staff ReporterGovernance, Nation USA, Politics 0

The Trump administration has intensified its conflict with Harvard University, warning that the prestigious institution might lose its accreditation due to allegations concerning foreign student programs and antisemitism on campus.

The Departments of Education and Health and Human Services released a joint statement on Tuesday indicating that Harvard’s accrediting agency had been alerted to possible violations of federal law by the university. These violations pertain to Harvard’s alleged failure to adequately address harassment claims against Jewish students. Such a loss of accreditation could have serious ramifications, including making it impossible for Harvard’s students to receive federal financial aid.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has expressed frustration with Harvard, posting on social media platform X that their attempts at resolving issues amicably have been thwarted by the university’s lack of cooperation. The DHS has now resolved to “do things the hard way.”

This escalation includes plans by the Department of Homeland Security to issue administrative subpoenas to Harvard. The university is accused of not providing necessary information related to its student visitor and exchange program certification.

Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin reiterated in the statement, “We tried to do things the easy way with Harvard. Now, through their refusal to cooperate, we have to do things the hard way.”

This development marks the latest in a series of initiatives by the Trump administration against elite universities. These institutions have been criticized by officials for reportedly promoting leftist ideologies and allegedly failing to safeguard Jewish students amid increasing campus tensions.

As of now, Harvard officials have not issued any public response to the recent actions taken against the university.

Source: Original article

Nvidia Hits $4 Trillion Market Cap, Surpassing Apple and Microsoft

July 10, 2025 Staff ReporterBusiness, Economy, Technology 0

Nvidia has made history as the first company to achieve a $4 trillion market capitalization, highlighting its substantial influence in the global financial arena.

Nvidia has reached a historic milestone, becoming the first company to reach a market valuation of $4 trillion. This achievement underscores its dominant role in the global financial sector.

The chipmaker’s shares experienced a 2.8 percent rise to $164.42 on Wednesday, driven by the unwavering demand for artificial intelligence technologies and Nvidia’s strategic leadership in the AI hardware market. This surge has solidified Nvidia’s position on Wall Street as the most valuable company, surpassing long-standing industry giants Apple and Microsoft. Currently, Apple and Microsoft are the only other U.S. companies with valuations exceeding $3 trillion.

Nvidia first attained a $1 trillion market valuation in June 2023, and since then, the company’s growth trajectory has surpassed that of every other mega-cap stock. In a little over a year, its market value has more than tripled, achieving this milestone at a faster pace than Apple and Microsoft, which are currently valued at $3.01 trillion and $3.75 trillion respectively.

The company’s rebound has been remarkable, with its shares increasing by approximately 74 percent from their lowest point in April. This recovery follows a period of market instability triggered by U.S. President Donald Trump’s renewed tariff conflicts. During this time, investors were concerned about a potential slowdown in AI investments, particularly due to emerging competition from China’s DeepSeek. However, recent optimism surrounding new trade agreements has improved market sentiment, driving the S&P 500 to an unprecedented high.

Currently, Nvidia holds a 7.3 percent weighting on the S&P 500, the highest of any company, surpassing both Apple and Microsoft, which account for around 7 percent and 6 percent, respectively, according to Indian Express.

Source: Original article

Immigration Officials Warn Green Card Holders of New Risks

July 9, 2025 Staff ReporterImmigration, U.S., Visa 0

Green card holders in the United States have been cautioned that their legal status could be at risk if they have a criminal record and violate immigration laws.

Federal authorities have issued a warning to green card holders, noting that the U.S. government has the power to revoke legal residency for those who break and abuse national laws. A statement from Customs and Border Protection (CBP) emphasized that lawful permanent residents arriving at U.S. ports of entry with previous criminal convictions could face detention before removal proceedings.

The advisory comes amid heightened immigration enforcement under the Trump administration, which has vowed to deport millions of undocumented immigrants as part of a stringent deportation strategy. The administration has labeled anyone present in the country illegally as a “criminal.”

In addition to focusing on undocumented individuals, the government’s rigorous operations have also subjected immigrants with valid visas and green cards to detention. Various reports have highlighted numerous instances of green card holders being ensnared in immigration raids.

Reports from the Office of Homeland Security Statistics estimate that 12.8 million lawful permanent residents, or green card holders, were living in the United States as of January 1, 2024. The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has stated that lawful permanent residents who breach immigration laws could lose their status and face deportation procedures.

Amelia Wilson, an assistant professor at the Elisabeth Haub School of Law and director of the Immigration Justice Clinic, underscored that there are defined legal protections in place to prevent abrupt revocation of a green card holder’s status. “The law contained within the Immigration and Nationality Act is clear,” Wilson explained to Newsweek. “The Department of Homeland Security cannot unilaterally ‘revoke’ a permanent resident’s status. There is a process the agency must follow, including serving the individual with a ‘Notice of Intent to Rescind,’ at which time that individual is entitled to a hearing before an immigration judge.”

Under the Trump administration, agencies such as CBP, USCIS, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) have embarked on comprehensive social media campaigns. These campaigns encourage undocumented immigrants to self-deport, highlight criminal arrests, and maintain a significantly larger online presence than in previous administrations.

The administration is also taking action to revoke visas of foreign students allegedly involved in pro-Hamas activities, demonstrating, and distributing flyers on college campuses. This move is part of a broader executive order aimed at combating antisemitism and targeting supporters of extremist groups. The expanded crackdown includes immigration enforcement against pro-Palestinian activists holding green cards.

Several high-profile detentions have occurred, such as the case of Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian activist and Columbia graduate student, who was arrested at his university-owned apartment.

Wilson pointed out that during these proceedings, it falls upon the government to prove by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence that a permanent resident should lose their status. “At that point, it is the immigration judge—and only the immigration judge—who can effectively strip an individual of their green card,” Wilson added.

Public officials have echoed similar sentiments about enforcement. Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated on social media: “We will be revoking the visas and/or green cards of Hamas supporters in America so they can be deported.” In another statement, USCIS noted that “Green cards and visas will be revoked if an alien breaks the law, supports terrorism, overstays their permitted visit time, performs illegal work, or anything else that violates the terms on which we granted them this privilege or compromises the safety of our fellow Americans.” Additionally, CBP reminded green card holders that having a criminal history does not constitute exemplary behavior for lawful permanent residents, emphasizing that possessing a green card is a privilege, not a right.

Source: Original article

Trump Announces Tariffs on Copper and Pharmaceutical Imports

July 9, 2025July 9, 2025 Staff ReporterPolitics, Business, USA 0

President Donald Trump has announced a new 50% tariff on all copper imports into the United States, though the timeline for its implementation remains uncertain.

President Donald Trump declared on Tuesday that a 50% tariff will be imposed on all copper imported into the U.S., continuing his administration’s pattern of leveraging tariffs as a strategic tool. However, details regarding when this new tariff will take effect are not yet clear.

“Today we’re doing copper,” Trump stated during a Cabinet meeting, indicating his administration’s decision to set the tariff at 50%.

This initiative marks the fourth broad-based tariff imposition by Trump in his second term. Previously, the administration set tariffs of 25% on imported cars and car parts, alongside 50% tariffs on imported steel and aluminum.

The White House has not yet provided CNN with any information about the timeline for enacting the copper tariffs.

The decision to impose a copper tariff follows a Section 232 investigation initiated in February, leveraging a legal framework that authorizes the president to impose tariffs for national security reasons.

Copper is integral to the manufacturing of numerous goods, including electronics, machinery, and automobiles. Imposing tariffs on copper could potentially elevate the cost of these goods for American consumers. Last year, the United States imported $17 billion worth of copper, according to data from the U.S. Commerce Department. Chile emerged as the largest supplier, exporting $6 billion worth of copper to the U.S. in 2024.

Following Trump’s announcement, copper prices soared to unprecedented levels. Copper futures in New York spiked by as much as 15%, reaching a record high of $5.68 per pound.

“I’ve been surprised it’s taken this long to get the copper tariff,” Ed Mills, a Washington policy analyst at Raymond James, remarked to CNN.

This year, copper prices have surged by 38%, reflecting a tendency to stockpile the metal in anticipation of tariff hikes.

“A 50% increase will be a massive tax on consumers of copper,” commented Ole Hansen, head of commodity strategy at Saxo Bank. “Watch what Trump does, not what he says,” Hansen advised, suggesting that a staggered tariff approach might be adopted to mitigate its impact on consumers.

In addition, Trump announced impending 200% tariffs on pharmaceuticals, noting that these could be delayed to incentivize pharmaceutical companies to relocate their operations to the U.S.

Although the president had exempted pharmaceutical imports from tariffs during his first term, he has been vocal about implementing such measures, citing national security concerns. An investigation into pharmaceutical imports commenced in mid-April, potentially paving the way for these tariffs.

Trump argues that increasing domestic pharmaceutical production is crucial for reducing reliance on foreign medicine supplies. Several pharmaceutical companies have announced plans to expand their manufacturing capacities within the U.S., some of which were initiated prior to Trump’s second term beginning in January.

The announcement of possible pharmaceutical tariffs prompted a reaction from Australia’s Treasurer, Jim Chalmers, who stated that the country is “urgently seeking” more details about this development given its potential impact on billions of dollars in exports to the U.S.

Additionally, on Monday, Trump extended a pause on “reciprocal” tariffs until August 1. These tariffs, originally set to resume in April, were scheduled to restart at 12:01 a.m. ET on Wednesday. In the interim, Trump has been actively communicating with foreign leaders about potential new tariff rates, pending further negotiations.

This article has been updated to include additional context and recent developments, according to CNN.

Supreme Court Supports Trump’s Plan to Reshape Federal Government

July 9, 2025 Staff ReporterElection, Governance, Politics 0

The Supreme Court has endorsed President Donald Trump’s agenda to execute extensive layoffs and restructurings within federal agencies, countermanding a prior restriction established by a lower court.

The Supreme Court’s latest ruling grants President Donald Trump permission to carry out significant staff reductions and organizational changes in several federal agencies, overriding a lower court’s decision that required congressional approval for such actions. This development signifies another judicial victory for Trump, reinforcing his administration’s policies, including those concerning deportation and executive orders.

Issued through an unsigned order, the Supreme Court nullified lower court injunctions that blocked the administration’s general restructuring efforts rather than assessing individual agency plans for workforce reduction. Although the precise vote count was not disclosed, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, part of the court’s liberal contingent, voiced her dissent.

The case originated from an executive order signed by Trump in mid-February, initiating a sweeping downsizing of federal agencies, a commitment he made during his presidential campaign. In response, departments announced their intentions to lay off tens of thousands of employees.

Historically, lower courts have ruled that while the president can propose modifications, the executive branch cannot unilaterally dissolve federal departments or slash their personnel to the extent that they are unable to fulfill their mandated responsibilities.

“Considering the strong likelihood that the government’s argument—that the executive order and its associated memorandum are lawful—will prevail, we grant the application,” the Supreme Court’s brief noted. “We do not opine on the legality of agency-specific reduction-in-force and reorganization strategies crafted or sanctioned under the executive order and memorandum.”

The ruling left open the potential for future judicial scrutiny if it appears any reorganization plans might incapacitate an agency from meeting its legal duties.

The lawsuit challenging the executive order was initiated by a coalition of unions, nonprofit organizations, and local governments. This group labeled the litigation as the most extensive legal objection to the Trump administration’s workforce downsizing objectives.

In a statement, the coalition expressed grave concern: “Today’s decision represents a grave setback to our democratic values and threatens critical services that American citizens depend on, placing them in significant jeopardy. Reorganizing government functions and conducting mass layoffs without congressional consent remains unconstitutional.”

The coalition vowed to keep fighting the legal battle to “ensure essential public services that protect the American public remain intact.”

Reacting to the Supreme Court’s verdict, the White House heralded it as “a clear victory for the President and his administration,” denouncing judicial interventions perceived as impediments to achieving enhanced governmental efficiency. White House spokesperson Harrison Fields remarked, “This decision rebuffs attempts by leftist judges seeking to prevent the President from exercising his constitutionally granted executive powers.”

Justice Jackson criticized the court’s decision in her dissent, calling it “hubristic and senseless” and contending that lower courts are more adept at assessing the impact of such governmental changes.

“The case is fundamentally about whether the administration’s plans effectively usurp Congressional policymaking authority, which seems difficult to evaluate meaningfully after such changes occur,” Jackson wrote. “Yet surprisingly, this court has decided to intercede now, facilitating the President’s agenda prematurely.”

The ruling impacts planned workforce reductions across more than a dozen federal agencies, encompassing the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, Labor, Treasury, State, Health and Human Services, Veterans Affairs, and the Environmental Protection Agency.

Particularly notable proposed cuts include reducing positions by around 10,000 at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration, and the National Institutes of Health, as found in court records. Moreover, the Treasury Department’s plan involves decreasing Internal Revenue Service personnel by 40%. Initially, the Department of Veterans Affairs intended to cut 80,000 jobs, though that number has been adjusted down to 30,000 through specified workforce management strategies.

Some agency leaders indicated they had paused their reorganization efforts due to the lower court’s injunction. For instance, Andrew Nixon, a spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services, expressed intent to proceed with department transformation efforts aimed at improving public health.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, also of the court’s liberal faction, shared some agreement with the decision, acknowledging its limitations and ensuring existing legal constraints remain intact. Sotomayor noted that the executive order in question directs agencies to execute changes “consistent with applicable law.”

A previous ruling from a federal judge in California had halted comprehensive layoffs, and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals opted not to intervene, prompting the Trump administration to bring the case to the Supreme Court.

Judge Susan Illston of the U.S. District Court had earlier commented, “While presidents are entitled to set priorities for the executive branch and have them executed by agency heads, a president cannot initiate significant executive branch reorganization without Congressional partnership.”

The appeals court, with Judge William Fletcher writing the majority opinion, reiterated that historically, such types of organizational reforms have been subject to Congressional consent.

Dow Jones Drops as China Issues Tariff Warning to US

July 9, 2025 Staff ReporterBusiness, Finance/Economy, Global 0

The Dow Jones is expected to open lower on Tuesday after China issued a warning regarding U.S. tariffs, amid ongoing international trade tensions.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) is poised to start the trading session on a downward trend following a stern message from China to the Trump administration. On the previous day, President Trump dispatched letters detailing new tariff rates to representatives from 14 countries.

The People’s Daily, an official newspaper of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), emphasized that “dialogue and cooperation are the only correct path” in response to the tariff announcements. The newspaper criticized President Trump’s tariff policies, describing them as “bullying.”

In its statement, the People’s Daily warned that China would take retaliatory measures against any countries that exclude China from their supply chains while negotiating deals with the United States. “China firmly opposes any side striking a deal that sacrifices Chinese interests in exchange for tariff concessions,” the newspaper asserted.

President Trump has vowed to impose higher tariffs on countries that engage in transshipment—a method of circumventing tariffs on Chinese goods by passing them through intermediary countries. This strategic move aims to address tariff evasion concerns and tighten trade controls.

The Dow Jones ETF, indicated by the ticker DIA, reflected the market sentiment, showing a decline of 0.10% at the time of writing after experiencing a 0.91% drop on Monday.

This development underscores the ongoing complexities of global trade relations, with significant implications for international markets and supply chain dynamics.

According to TipRanks, these events continue to shape the economic discourse and market movements on a global scale.

U.S. Visa Rule May Impact 420,000 Indian Students

July 9, 2025 Staff ReporterEducation, Immigration 0

The proposed U.S. student visa rule under review could impose fixed stays on F, J, and I visas, potentially affecting over 420,000 Indian students as they face increased uncertainty and costs.

The United States is contemplating a significant change to its student visa policy that may impact more than 420,000 Indian students. Under a proposed rule from the Department of Homeland Security, currently being reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget, the U.S. would impose fixed stays for holders of F, J, and I visas—encompassing students, exchange visitors, and foreign media professionals.

If implemented, this rule would replace the current “duration of status” policy, which allows students to stay as long as they remain enrolled full-time. Instead, students would confront fixed expiration dates on their visas. This adjustment would necessitate periodic applications for extensions, potentially causing delays and additional costs, according to Rajiv Khanna, managing attorney at Immigration.com. Khanna noted that the average extension request could take months, adding to the challenges faced by international students.

The change poses a particular concern for Indian students, who are the largest group of international students in the U.S. In 2024, over 420,000 Indian nationals were enrolled in American universities, per U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement data. The rule could disrupt individual academic journeys and strain the broader educational partnership between India and the U.S.

A similar proposal was introduced in 2020 under the Trump administration but did not advance. Its potential revival signals a move towards stricter visa policies, raising apprehensions among stakeholders. Critics warn that it could alter how “unlawful presence” is determined; currently, it commences only after a formal finding by immigration authorities. Under the new proposal, any overstay, intentional or not, could trigger it immediately.

Universities and colleges in the U.S. have opposed the change, arguing that it stems from exaggerated concerns about visa overstays. In 2023, the overstay rate for F, M, and J visas was 3.6 percent. There is also uncertainty about the rule’s implementation. If the DHS issues it as an interim final rule, it could come into effect immediately, bypassing public comment, and leaving institutions and students little time to adapt.

While the final rule hasn’t been published in the Federal Register, the policy’s direction highlights a shift in how the U.S. views international student flexibility, potentially affecting the attractiveness of U.S. education.

The impending change compounds anxiety for Indian students awaiting F-1 visa interview slots for the upcoming fall 2025 academic session. Frustrations have mounted among student communities, as evidenced by a widely shared Reddit post expressing worries about the unavailability of F-1 visa slots in India. The delay has left many students, who face August start dates, in a dilemma as they remain unable to secure required interviews at U.S. consulates in India.

Further complicating matters, in June, the U.S. Embassy in India specified that Indian applicants for F, M, or J student visas need to make their social media accounts public before attending their visa interviews.

According to The Times of India, these developments reflect the broader policy reassessment by the U.S., which may reshape the global perception and desirability of American higher education for international students.

Goldman Appoints Ex-UK Prime Minister Sunak as Adviser

July 9, 2025 Staff ReporterBusiness, Profile 0

Former UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has rejoined Goldman Sachs Group Inc. as a senior adviser, bringing his extensive experience back to the Wall Street bank nearly two decades after leaving his analyst role and a year after stepping down as Prime Minister.

Rishi Sunak, who led the United Kingdom as Prime Minister from October 2022 until July 2024, has signed on as a senior adviser with Goldman Sachs. In this new capacity, he will collaborate with leaders across the New York-based financial institution to provide clients worldwide with counsel on a diverse range of subjects, including macroeconomic issues and geopolitical dynamics, according to a statement from Goldman Sachs Chief Executive Officer David Solomon.

Sunak’s political career faced challenges, including guiding the Conservative Party to a significant defeat in the last general election. Despite this setback, Sunak continues to represent the Richmond and Northallerton constituency in northern England as a Member of Parliament. He previously committed to serving as an MP for the full term of the next Parliament, irrespective of the election results. Sunak’s successor as Prime Minister, Labour’s Keir Starmer, has the prerogative to call the next general election as late as mid-2029.

Sunak’s association with Goldman Sachs traces back to his early career, when he first joined as a summer intern in investment banking in 2000. Following his internship, he worked as an analyst from 2001 to 2004. His career trajectory took a new path afterward as he co-founded an investment firm that focused on working with companies on an international scale.

Beyond his professional achievements, Sunak and his wife, Akshata Murty, are noted for their wealth, with Murty being one of the wealthiest former residents of 10 Downing Street. Murty’s significant financial stake in Infosys Ltd., a software company established by her father, has contributed to this financial standing, with her wealth estimated to be over $700 million by the Bloomberg Billionaires Index.

Goldman Sachs, often colloquially referred to as “Government Sachs” due to its many connections with prominent government officials, has a history of hiring influential figures such as Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, Italy’s Mario Draghi, and former US Treasury Secretaries Henry Paulson and Steve Mnuchin.

Sunak’s transition to Goldman aligns with a broader trend seen among major Wall Street firms, which are increasingly bringing on board former politicians to enhance their clients’ geopolitical advisement. In similar moves, Citigroup has enlisted Donald Trump’s former trade representative Robert Lighthizer, and investment bank Centerview Partners brought in Trump’s former chief of staff Reince Priebus.

Prior to his premiership, Sunak served as Chancellor of the Exchequer from February 2020 to July 2022. His political career began as a Member of Parliament in 2015, after holding roles such as Chief Secretary to the Treasury and Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Ministry of Housing, Communities, and Local Government.

According to News India Times, Sunak’s return to Goldman Sachs as an adviser underscores his enduring influence in both financial and political spheres.

US Tariffs Delayed to August 1 Amid Trade Negotiations

July 8, 2025 Staff ReporterDiplomacy, Economy 0

U.S. President Donald Trump has postponed the implementation of country-specific tariffs to August 1 to allow time for continued trade negotiations with several countries, including India.

Originally set for July 9, the tariffs have been delayed, as announced by Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick. He stated that President Trump is currently establishing the rates and securing agreements regarding the tariffs, aimed at various nations.

President Trump expressed optimism about the negotiations, suggesting that he expects deals with most countries to be concluded by July 9. The process involves sending notification letters to trading partners about potential tariff hikes, slated to begin on Monday and continue into Tuesday. Trump emphasized the straightforwardness of the current approach, likening it to an ultimatum of sorts: to conduct business with the United States, countries must comply with specific tariff demands.

President Trump initially proposed a base tariff of 10 percent in April, with some tariffs potentially increasing to 50 percent, affecting multiple U.S. trading partners. To date, finalized trade agreements have been reached with the United Kingdom and Vietnam, with additional negotiations reported as ongoing.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent highlighted the urgency, indicating President Trump’s strategy to prompt swift resolutions. Bessent mentioned that letters would be sent to some trading partners, warning that failure to advance negotiations would result in tariffs reverting to April 2 levels by August 1. He anticipates this tactic will expedite the finalization of several trade agreements.

An Indian delegation, led by chief negotiator Rajesh Agrawal, has recently returned from talks in Washington. Despite extensive discussions, the U.S. and India have yet to finalize a comprehensive agreement. One of the major sticking points remains the U.S. demands concerning agricultural and dairy products.

In a broader context, President Trump announced an additional 10 percent tariff on countries that align themselves with BRICS anti-American policies, a move likely to impact several nations’ trade strategies with the United States.

According to IANS, these developments add pressure on U.S. trade partners to reach agreements that align with the new American trade policies.

IRS Permits Churches to Endorse Candidates Without Tax Penalty

July 8, 2025 Staff ReporterReligion, USA 0

The IRS has signaled that churches can endorse political candidates without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status, challenging a long-standing interpretation of the U.S. tax code’s Johnson Amendment.

The Internal Revenue Service announced in a federal court filing that churches are entitled to endorse political candidates during services without forfeiting their tax-exempt status. This decision marks a significant shift from a 70-year-old interpretation of the U.S. tax code, specifically the Johnson Amendment, which historically prohibited certain non-profit organizations, including churches, from engaging in such endorsements.

The IRS’s filing stated that communications from a house of worship to its congregation during religious services, when conducted through customary channels, do not violate the Johnson Amendment. The agency clarified that when a church discusses electoral politics from a religious perspective during services, it does not amount to participation or intervention in a political campaign, as understood within the usual meaning of these terms.

This move could lead to significant changes in how churches and religious organizations interact with political campaigns and candidates. The filing was part of a legal settlement effort in a U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, involving the IRS, the National Religious Broadcasters group, Sand Springs Church in Athens, Texas, and First Baptist Church Waksom in Waksom, Texas. The parties involved in the lawsuit argued that the Johnson Amendment infringed upon their First Amendment rights to free speech and religious expression.

President Donald Trump has previously advocated for the repeal of the Johnson Amendment, aligning with arguments presented by these religious groups. The IRS’s recent position indicates a considerable deviation from its past interpretations of the tax code concerning church involvement in political endorsements.

The lawsuit resulted in a joint motion to settle through a consent judgment, which, if approved, would prevent the IRS from enforcing the Johnson Amendment against the suing churches. However, at the time of the filing, the district court had not yet issued a ruling on the motion.

According to CNCB, these developments could influence similar cases and may lead to broader implications for the intersection of religious freedom and political expression within U.S. tax law.

Golden Visas: Costs in UAE, US, New Zealand, More

July 8, 2025 Staff ReporterImmigration, Global 0

The United Arab Emirates has introduced a nomination-based Golden Visa for Indians, distinct from traditional investment-driven residency programs.

The United Arab Emirates (UAE) government is launching a new Golden Visa specifically targeting Indian nationals, shifting the process from a traditional investment-based model to a nomination-based system.

India and Bangladesh have been selected as the initial countries to test this nomination-based visa system. The UAE has appointed the Rayad Group consultancy to oversee the introduction of this visa in India.

Golden Visas have become an attractive option for high-net-worth individuals (HNWIs) seeking to relocate overseas either immediately or for future retirement plans. These visas grant the right to live, work, study, and access healthcare in the host country.

Various countries offer the Golden Visa under different programs, tailored mainly to affluent foreigners willing to invest in the host country’s economy or meet certain conditions. Here’s a look at five such countries and the costs associated with obtaining their Golden Visas:

United Arab Emirates: The UAE’s new nomination-based Golden Visa for Indians allows for pre-approval from the applicant’s home country without requiring a visit to Dubai. This lifetime visa comes with a fee of AED 100,000, approximately ₹23.30 lakh.

United States: During his presidency, Donald Trump announced the Trump Gold Card Golden Visa aimed at wealthy individuals who invest in the United States in exchange for permanent residency.

New Zealand: The Active Investor Plus Visa, launched in September 2022, permits beneficiaries to live, work, and study indefinitely in New Zealand, subject to investment and residency requirements. The minimum investment begins at NZD 5 million.

Canada: Known as the Canada Start-Up Visa Program, this plan offers permanent residency to entrepreneurs and investors willing to set up businesses in Canada. The cost ranges from $215,000 to $275,000, depending on the start-up venture.

Singapore: The Singapore Global Investor Program targets entrepreneurs, business owners, and managers intending to establish businesses in the country. Successful applicants can secure permanent residence within 9 to 12 months, with an investment starting at SGD 10 million and potentially reaching SGD 50 million, based on business size.

These Golden Visa programs provide various pathways for individuals seeking permanent residence options outside their home countries by leveraging economic contributions or specific qualifications, according to LiveMint.

Green Card Holders Affected by Trump’s Immigration Bill

July 8, 2025July 16, 2025 Staff ReporterHealth, Immigration, Politics 0

The One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB), signed into law by President Donald Trump, is set to significantly impact green card holders and legal immigrants by restricting access to some health benefits and imposing new taxes on overseas remittances.

President Donald Trump’s recently signed One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB) introduces measures that could heavily impact legally present immigrants, including those holding green cards, by changing how they access certain health benefits and imposing a new tax on money sent abroad.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the OBBB will lead to 11.8 million more Americans being uninsured by 2034 and will increase the federal deficit by almost $3.3 trillion over the next decade. This legislation could result in 1.3 million lawfully present immigrants losing their health insurance by 2034, according to the CBO. Trump signed the bill into law on July 4.

Under current U.S. policy, lawful permanent residents, refugees, survivors of domestic violence, and individuals on valid work or student visas can purchase insurance through the Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplace. Many of these groups qualify for federal tax credits that help reduce monthly insurance premiums, while others may be eligible for Medicaid or Medicare, based on income and other criteria.

The OBBB, however, intends to limit access to these benefits. It may prevent some lawfully present immigrants from benefiting from federal health insurance subsidies. Immigrants most affected could include low-income green card holders still within the five-year waiting period for Medicaid along with refugees and survivors of domestic violence, who may face a loss of subsidized health insurance.

If the bill is fully enacted, only green card holders, select individuals from Cuba and Haiti, and some Pacific Island communities would continue to receive federal benefits. Most immigrant groups, regardless of legal status, could lose access to affordable healthcare options.

Alex Nowrasteh, vice president for economic and social policy studies at the Cato Institute, commented on the bill, noting that immigrants consume fewer government-supplied health benefits compared to native-born Americans. Nowrasteh views the bill as a start to widen this gap, suggesting it could benefit taxpayers without adversely affecting the health of excluded non-citizens.

In addition to healthcare changes, the OBBB will introduce a 1 percent tax on remittances sent overseas, impacting millions of immigrant families who send financial support to relatives in their home countries. Supporters of the measure argue it could generate significant federal revenue, but critics point out it places a financial strain on low to middle-income workers reliant on these remittances to support their families abroad.

The legislation also allocates significant funds to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), including $45 billion to expand detention capacities to nearly 100,000 beds, $14 billion for transportation and deportations, and $8 billion for hiring 10,000 additional deportation officers.

Veronique de Rugy, a Senior Research Fellow with the Mercatus Center, highlighted the economic implications of the tax on remittances, explaining that it effectively reduces household income, potentially pushing families back into poverty and damaging local economies.

Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson, emphasized that the OBBB aims to protect vulnerable Americans by eliminating waste and fraud in Medicaid and fulfilling President Trump’s campaign promise to strengthen border security and deport criminal illegal aliens.

Conversely, John Slocum, Executive Director of Refugee Council USA, expressed concerns about the bill’s potential to reverse decades of bipartisan support for newcomer integration. He warned that refugees and immigrant families could face significant hardships, impacting their recovery and integration into U.S. communities.

The OBBB’s enactment might result in hundreds of thousands of lawfully present immigrants, including asylum seekers, trafficking survivors, and refugees, losing access to ACA marketplace coverage, with the elimination of subsidies that help make healthcare premiums more affordable.

Trump Bill Implementation Timeline: Key Aspects and Effects

July 8, 2025 Staff ReporterEconomy, Medicine, Politics 0

President Trump signed a tax cut and spending package, dubbed the “big, beautiful bill,” which enacts several sweeping fiscal changes, including permanent tax cuts, Medicaid reforms, and funding modifications for key federal programs.

In a celebratory move marking the Fourth of July, President Trump officially enacted a significant tax cut and spending bill into law. Promoted as the “big, beautiful bill,” the legislation aims to solidify previous tax cuts while making extensive modifications to federal funding, including Medicaid and food assistance programs, as well as education loans and energy incentives.

The newly signed law allocates increased funds for defense and the border wall, while making Trump’s earlier 2017 tax reductions permanent. However, these adjustments come with notable compensations: substantial cuts to Medicaid, food assistance programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), student loan structures, and initiatives promoting clean energy.

Healthcare coverage under Medicaid is particularly affected, with the Congressional Budget Office estimating that about 16 million Americans could lose their health insurance by 2034. This would result from cuts to Medicaid funding, as well as changes affecting the Affordable Care Act marketplace.

Among the controversial changes are new work requirements for Medicaid recipients. Adults aged 19 to 64 must work a minimum of 80 hours monthly to maintain Medicaid coverage, with exemptions granted for those with dependent children or specific medical conditions. While funding changes are postponed until 2028, these work requirements are slated to be implemented by December 31, 2026.

The SNAP program will also experience transformations in both funding and eligibility criteria. Starting in 2028, states with a payment error rate of 6 percent or more will need to partially fund SNAP, although those with the highest error rates can delay these contributions by two more years. Furthermore, the age threshold for work requirements is extended from 54 to 64, affecting most adults unless they have children under 14.

In terms of tax modifications, the legislation assures permanence for the 2017 tax cuts and introduces several significant updates. Residents of high-tax states like New York and California will benefit from increased deductions related to state and local taxes, lasting through 2028. Working-class individuals will encounter new provisions, such as tax-deductible tips under $25,000 and tax-deductible overtime pay up to $12,500, both aimed to conclude in 2028.

Additional tax adjustments include reforms to the child tax credit, now set at $2,200 per child with inflation adjustments beginning next year, and an increased deduction for Americans over 65, amounting to an extra $6,000 through 2028.

The bill also scales back initiatives from the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act targeting clean energy. Notable eliminations include electric vehicle tax credits commencing September 30 of this year and other energy-related tax incentives phased out starting next year. Further, the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, supporting local emissions projects, will be concluded, albeit existing contracts are expected to remain intact.

Educational finance sees restructuring with the replacement of Grad PLUS loans and repayment options like the SAVE Plan. The introduction of Repayment Assistance Plan options and standard repayment plans will limit borrowing to $100,000 for many graduate students and $200,000 for professional students. These changes, including adjustments to endowments-based tax rates on colleges, are to be enforced by July 2026.

In a statement on the sweeping implications of the new law, Republicans advocate the permanence of the tax cuts ahead of upcoming elections, viewing them as an appealing factor for voters. Meanwhile, Democrats and various advocacy groups voice concerns about the anticipated impacts on healthcare access and financial support for vulnerable populations.

The complexities of implementation timescales across different sectors, coupled with political and public reception, will likely shape the ensuing economic landscape in the lead-up to the 2026 midterm elections, according to The Hill.

Source: Original article

Texas Floods Raise Concerns Over Job Cuts Impact on Forecasts

July 7, 2025 Staff ReporterGovernance, Nation 0

Staffing cuts at the National Weather Service (NWS) are under scrutiny after deadly flooding in Texas, with at least 80 fatalities highlighting concerns about reduced forecasts and weather warnings.

The National Weather Service has come under intense criticism following numerous deaths resulting from torrential rains and flash flooding in the Texas Hill Country. Local officials voiced dissatisfaction with the weather forecasts provided, although comments largely stopped short of directly linking the perceived inadequacies to cuts in staffing imposed under President Donald Trump’s administration.

In the wake of the disaster, which reportedly claimed the lives of over two dozen girls and counselors at a Guadalupe River summer camp, Democrats have not hesitated to connect the staffing reductions at the NWS to the tragic events. Despite this critique, current and former NWS officials defended the agency’s actions, citing urgent flash flood warnings dispatched early Friday morning before the river’s abrupt rise.

Brian LaMarre, former meteorologist-in-charge at the NWS forecast office in Tampa, Florida, noted, “This was an exceptional service to come out first with the catastrophic flash flood warning and this shows the awareness of the meteorologists on shift at the NWS office.” LaMarre emphasized the significant urgency reflected in the early warnings issued by the service.

Nevertheless, concerns have arisen regarding the level of coordination and communication between the NWS and local officials during the incident. The Trump administration’s cuts have resulted in down-sizing by at least 20% at nearly half of the 122 NWS field offices across the country and a reduction in round-the-clock staffing at several offices. Furthermore, early retirements were encouraged among experienced forecasters and senior managers, leading to gaps in crucial positions.

The budget for the NWS’s parent agency has also been targeted, with proposals to slash funding by 27% and eliminate federal research centers devoted to weather, climate, and oceanic studies.

The situation is particularly concerning at the NWS office responsible for the afflicted area, Austin/San Antonio. Six out of 27 positions there remain vacant. These include a key managerial role essential for issuing weather warnings and coordinating with emergency management officials, left unfilled following an early retirement after 17 years of service.

As the situation continues to unfold, Senator Chuck Schumer and other Democrats have pressed for a detailed inquiry into the potential impact of staffing shortages on the tragic loss of life during the floods in Texas.

President Trump has countered claims that these job eliminations hampered the NWS’s ability to forecast weather accurately, stating, “The raging waters were a thing that happened in seconds. No one expected it. Nobody saw it.”

Source: Original article

Musk Plans New Political Party After Trump Tax Dispute

July 7, 2025July 16, 2025 Staff ReporterPolitics 0

Elon Musk announced the formation of the America Party following a split with President Donald Trump over the president’s new tax cuts law, marking a potential shift in the political landscape.

BRIDGEWATER, N.J. — Elon Musk has made good on a previous declaration to establish a new political party, revealing the launch of the America Party in response to President Donald Trump’s recently enacted tax cuts law. This move comes as Musk distances himself from Trump, with whom he previously had close political ties.

Musk’s departure from the Republican president’s support was initiated by dissatisfaction with the tax legislation, which Trump signed on Friday. The bill’s approval by Congress prompted Musk to threaten the creation of the “America Party,” expressing his concern about excessive government spending.

“When it comes to bankrupting our country with waste & graft, we live in a one-party system, not a democracy,” Musk stated on X, the social media platform he owns. “Today, the America Party is formed to give you back your freedom.”

On Sunday, as Musk prepared to leave his New Jersey residence for a return to Washington, Trump addressed the media regarding Musk’s new party, dismissing the idea as “ridiculous.” Trump highlighted the Republican Party’s significant achievements, while also suggesting that third parties historically introduce confusion.

While new political parties are not uncommon in the U.S., they often struggle to draw substantial support away from the major Republican and Democratic parties. However, Musk, being the world’s richest individual, has the potential to influence the 2026 congressional elections if he chooses to allocate substantial financial resources to the America Party. Musk has previously invested at least $250 million backing Trump in the 2024 election.

The renewed discord with Trump could have significant ramifications for Musk, as several of his business enterprises, including Tesla, benefit from substantial government contracts. The lack of clarity regarding the formal establishment of the America Party remains, as spokespeople for Musk and his political action committee, America PAC, have not commented.

Notably, several political entities listed in the Federal Election Commission database appeared after Musk’s announcement on Saturday, including variations of “America Party” names or affiliations with Musk. However, many were not legitimate, with contact information appearing as unverifiable addresses.

Moreover, on Sunday morning, Musk engaged users on X, gathering insights on the America Party and indicating plans to participate in the 2026 midterm elections. Last month, Musk expressed intentions to challenge every congressional member who supported Trump’s tax legislation, criticizing it as a “disgusting abomination.”

His critique extended to the expanded federal deficit and criticized the Republican Party, which controls the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, for enlarging the government and national debt by five trillion dollars.

Musk’s decision to form a political party reflects a significant change from his stance in May when he indicated an intention to reduce political engagement as his tenure in the White House closed.

Scott Bessent, Treasury Secretary, and former Doge boss, acknowledged on CNN’s “State of the Union” that Musk’s principles resonated with some, but noted polling suggested Musk himself was not popular. “I imagine that those board of directors did not like this announcement yesterday and will be encouraging him to focus on his business activities, not his political activities,” Bessent remarked.

Source: Original article

Texas Floods Prompt Debate on Impact of Job Cuts in Forecasting

July 7, 2025July 16, 2025 Staff ReporterEnvironment, Nation, Politics 0

Following torrential rains and flash floods in Texas Hill Country, President Trump’s staffing cuts to the National Weather Service (NWS) are under scrutiny, with critics raising concerns about the impact on disaster preparedness and response.

The National Weather Service (NWS) is facing criticism in the wake of a catastrophic weather event that claimed the lives of at least 80 people in Texas, with a significant number being young girls and counselors at a summer camp along the Guadalupe River. Torrential downpours and sudden floodwaters ravaged the Texas Hill Country on Friday night, prompting questions about the adequacy of weather forecasting and warnings provided during the disaster.

The weather event has brought attention to staffing reductions within the NWS, with former federal officials and experts having previously warned that President Donald Trump’s significant cuts to the agency could jeopardize public safety. Despite these concerns, the majority of officials in the Republican-dominated state have refrained from directly attributing the tragic outcomes to the staffing cuts.

As the thunderstorms intensified Thursday night, five staff members were on duty at the NWS office responsible for the affected region—consistent with the number typically available during expected severe weather conditions. Defending the agency’s efforts, current and former NWS officials highlighted the timely issuance of urgent flash flood warnings, including a catastrophic flash flood warning issued before the river rose significantly.

“This was an exceptional service to come out first with the catastrophic flash flood warning and this shows the awareness of the meteorologists on shift at the NWS office,” stated Brian LaMarre, who retired in April as the meteorologist-in-charge at the NWS forecast office in Tampa, Florida. LaMarre noted the challenges in precisely predicting extreme weather but commended the urgent response provided by the meteorologists.

Despite the timely warnings, concerns remain about the level of coordination between the NWS and local officials during the night of the disaster. The Trump administration’s downsizing initiative has reduced staffing by at least 20% at nearly half of the 122 NWS field offices across the country, and several offices no longer maintain around-the-clock staff. In addition, numerous forecasters and senior managers were prompted to retire early.

The Trump administration has also proposed a 27% reduction in the budget for the NWS’s parent agency, potentially affecting research centers dedicated to weather, climate, and ocean studies. In the Austin/San Antonio office, which oversees the severely impacted Kerr County, six of 27 positions remain unfilled. This includes a pivotal management role responsible for coordinating emergency responses with local officials, left vacant following the former employee’s departure in April after mass retirement encouragements.

In response to the devastating incident, Democratic leaders have demanded clarity on the staffing changes. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer pressed the Trump administration for an investigation into the possible contribution of staffing shortages to the “catastrophic loss of life” in the area.

President Trump, addressing the situation, stated that the reduction in jobs did not impair weather forecasting capabilities. He described the sudden floods as an unforeseen event, stating, “The raging waters were a thing that happened in seconds. No one expected it. Nobody saw it.”

According to AP News, despite the debate over staffing and preparedness, the tragic events have highlighted the need for comprehensive review and potential restructuring to ensure effective warning and response mechanisms in future disasters.

Source: Original article

TheUNN Corporation

CONTACT US

Follow us

Subscribe to Newsletter