Trump Advocates Mortgage Fraud Investigations Targeting Political Opponents

President Donald Trump is amplifying allegations of mortgage fraud against political opponents, including New York Attorney General Letitia James, amid ongoing legal challenges.

President Donald Trump is intensifying his campaign against political opponents by raising allegations of mortgage fraud. This strategy comes as he faces various legal challenges, including ongoing investigations into his own business practices.

Recently, New York Attorney General Letitia James was indicted on charges of bank fraud and making false statements regarding a mortgage loan. Trump’s campaign has also directed its focus toward Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, who is accused of misrepresenting information on a mortgage application. Additionally, Senator Adam Schiff is reportedly under federal investigation for similar allegations.

Mortgage fraud typically involves the deliberate provision of false or omitted information on mortgage applications. This can include misrepresenting income, assets, or property occupancy. Trump’s probes have particularly centered on occupancy fraud, which occurs when a property is falsely claimed as a primary residence while it is actually rented out or unused.

Experts highlight that mortgage fraud is relatively rare, and proving malicious intent can be quite challenging. Clifford Rossi, a finance professor at the University of Maryland, noted that errors on mortgage forms can happen innocently. For instance, a borrower might mistakenly mark a property as their primary residence even if co-borrowers are living there.

Data indicates that only 1 in 116 mortgage applications in the second quarter of 2025 were flagged as potentially fraudulent, with occupancy fraud being even less common. This raises questions about the validity of the allegations being made against James, Cook, and Schiff.

James, who previously secured a significant civil victory against Trump for mortgage and tax fraud, is accused of claiming a property in Norfolk, Virginia, as a secondary residence while it was being rented out. She has vehemently denied any wrongdoing, labeling the charges as “baseless.” Civil rights groups have condemned the indictment, calling it an abuse of power. Schiff has echoed these sentiments, describing the investigation as a “vindictive prosecution.”

In response to the allegations, Cook has denied any wrongdoing concerning her vacation home and has initiated legal action to counter Trump’s attempts to remove her from her position. She asserts that the efforts against her are politically motivated.

Trump has publicly called for the swift prosecution of James, Schiff, and former FBI Director James Comey, asserting that “justice must be served.” He claims that legal experts support his stance on the matter.

However, legal specialists caution that proving intentional fraud is extremely difficult. Errors or misunderstandings on mortgage documents are common, making it challenging to establish malicious intent. Rossi, the former Citi risk officer, emphasized that even when fraud is suspected, prosecuting such cases can be quite complex.

Moreover, experts have raised ethical concerns regarding Bill Pulte, director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency. Pulte publicly requested investigations into Cook’s mortgage on social media rather than pursuing formal internal channels, which has sparked debate about the appropriateness of his actions.

As the legal battles unfold, the implications of these allegations could have significant consequences for the individuals involved and the broader political landscape.

Source: Original article

Trump Considers Tomahawk Missile Deliveries to Ukraine Amid Ongoing Conflict

President Donald Trump is considering sending Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine if Russia continues its aggression, describing the weapon as a significant escalation in the ongoing conflict.

Former President Donald Trump has indicated that he may authorize the delivery of Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine if Russian President Vladimir Putin fails to reach a resolution in the ongoing conflict. During a recent conversation with reporters aboard Air Force One, Trump referred to the Tomahawk missile as “incredible” and “very offensive.”

Trump’s comments came after a discussion with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who had reached out to him regarding Ukraine’s urgent need for additional military support. Trump noted that he spoke with Zelenskyy on Sunday morning, where the topic of weaponry was a focal point.

“They need Patriots very badly. They’d like to have Tomahawks. That’s a step up,” Trump stated, emphasizing the importance of providing Ukraine with the necessary arms while also ensuring that the United States retains sufficient resources for its own defense.

In contrast to the Biden administration’s approach, Trump asserted that the U.S. has historically sold and sent weapons to NATO allies, claiming that his administration had provided Ukraine with “respect and some other things,” while criticizing the current administration for its financial support of $350 billion.

Before making any decisions regarding the potential shipment of Tomahawk missiles, Trump mentioned that he might first reach out to Putin to gauge Russia’s stance on the matter. “I might speak to Russia about that, in all fairness,” he said. “I told that to President Zelenskyy because Tomahawks are a new step of aggression.”

Trump elaborated that if the conflict remains unresolved, he would consider informing Putin of the possibility of sending the missiles. “The Tomahawk is an incredible weapon, a very offensive weapon, and honestly, Russia does not need that,” he remarked. “I may tell him that if the war is not settled, we may very well. We may not, but we may do it. I think it’s appropriate to bring up.”

In a post on X, Zelenskyy confirmed that their discussions encompassed various aspects of Ukraine’s defense, including efforts to bolster air defense systems and enhance long-range capabilities. He also mentioned that they touched on details related to the energy sector, although he did not provide specifics.

Zelenskyy expressed confidence in Trump’s understanding of the situation, stating, “President Trump is well informed about everything that is happening. We agreed to continue our dialogue, and our teams are doing their preparations.”

These discussions come amid ongoing Russian attacks on Ukraine, which have resulted in significant casualties and damage. Recent strikes in Kyiv injured at least 20 individuals and caused widespread power outages. A child was also reported killed in a separate attack in southeastern Ukraine.

Late Saturday and early Sunday, Russian forces targeted Ukraine’s power grid, aiming to undermine the country’s energy infrastructure as winter approaches. This latest assault aligns with Russia’s pattern of pre-winter strikes, coinciding with Moscow’s expressed “extreme concern” over the potential U.S. provision of Tomahawk cruise missiles to Ukraine.

As the situation evolves, the implications of Trump’s potential missile delivery remain to be seen, but it underscores the ongoing complexities of international relations and military support in the region.

Source: Original article

Trump’s National Guard Troops Remain in Illinois Amid Judge’s Ruling

Federal judge allows National Guard troops to remain in Illinois but prohibits their deployment for patrol duties amid President Trump’s comments on the Insurrection Act.

A federal judge has ruled that National Guard troops deployed to Illinois by President Donald Trump to address crime can stay in the state. However, they are prohibited from patrolling or protecting federal property.

The ruling came after U.S. District Judge April Perry issued a temporary restraining order on Thursday, blocking the deployment of the National Guard in Chicago and throughout Illinois for at least two weeks. The Trump administration sought an emergency stay following this decision.

In her ruling, Judge Perry stated that there was no evidence to support claims of a “danger of rebellion” in Illinois, despite Trump’s suggestions that he might invoke the Insurrection Act. This act allows the federal government to deploy troops to states that resist federal laws or fail to quell insurrections.

During a press briefing in the Oval Office, Trump remarked, “I’d do it if it was necessary. So far it hasn’t been necessary. But we have an Insurrection Act for a reason.” The Insurrection Act was last invoked in 1992 during the Los Angeles riots.

Judge Perry emphasized that there has been no indication of a failure of civil authority in Illinois. She noted that individuals who have violated the law by attacking federal authorities have been arrested, and the courts remain operational. “Resort to the military to execute the laws is not called for,” she stated.

She further added, “Not even Alexander Hamilton could have envisioned one state’s militia to be used against another state’s residents because the President wants to punish those with views other than his own.”

In her order, Judge Perry clarified that members of the National Guard do not need to return to their home states unless specifically directed by a court. This decision allows the troops to remain in Illinois while further legal arguments are considered.

In addition to Chicago, Trump has also dispatched federal troops to other cities, including Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., and Memphis.

According to Fox News, the situation continues to develop as legal proceedings unfold regarding the deployment of National Guard troops in Illinois.

Source: Original article

India-U.S. Trade Challenges Highlight Global Economic Paradox

The Indian diaspora faces significant challenges due to U.S. tariffs and visa policies, impacting trade and employment opportunities for businesses and professionals.

The Indian diaspora in the United States is grappling with a range of challenges stemming from recent U.S. tariffs and visa policies that have significant implications for trade and employment. The Trump administration’s imposition of nearly 50% tariffs on a variety of Indian goods—including textiles, shrimp, and diamonds—coupled with a newly introduced $100,000 fee for H-1B visas, has raised alarm among Indian businesses and professionals operating in the U.S.

These policy changes have not only affected trade but have also created an atmosphere of uncertainty for many within the Indian community. While domestic political considerations may have played a role in shaping these policies, their global execution has often been perceived as inconsistent and abrupt. Economists, including Jeffrey Sachs, have criticized some of these tariffs as exceeding the presidential authority, questioning their effectiveness in addressing trade deficits or the national budget.

On a global scale, export-driven economies such as the European Union, Japan, and South Korea have engaged in trade negotiations under pressure from the U.S., underscoring Washington’s ongoing influence in international trade. In contrast, India has been more cautious, particularly in protecting its agricultural sector and farmers, which has led to hesitance in pursuing similar trade negotiations. This reluctance has left India vulnerable to economic disruptions in an increasingly interconnected global economy.

India’s foreign policy has also come under scrutiny, particularly regarding its position within BRICS. The country is attempting to balance its relationships with the U.S. while also participating in initiatives led by China and Russia, creating a sense of strategic ambiguity. Although India advocates for gradual reforms, such as local currency settlements, uncertainty persists in global financial circles about its alignment with U.S. interests.

From an economic perspective, the U.S. is facing its own set of challenges, including rising national debt, trade deficits, and inflation, all of which threaten the stability of the middle class. The decline of industrial hubs in the Midwest highlights growing wealth disparities, which in turn fuel social and political divisions. Despite these issues, the Indian diaspora in the U.S. continues to thrive, although frustrations are mounting as multinational corporations exploit visa systems, often at the expense of local talent.

As India navigates these complex global trade realities, it must adapt its strategies. Historically, protectionist policies have allowed the country to build domestic industries and achieve a degree of self-reliance. However, in today’s globalized economy, finding a balance between protecting domestic interests and engaging in international trade is crucial.

Despite the myriad challenges, India and the U.S. share foundational democratic principles, a spirit of entrepreneurship, and a commitment to innovation. By leveraging these commonalities, both nations have the potential to strengthen their strategic partnerships and work towards fair, sustainable trade agreements that benefit their economies and contribute to global stability.

Source: Original article

María Corina Machado Receives 2025 Nobel Peace Prize for Democracy Advocacy

Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado has been awarded the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize for her unwavering commitment to democracy and human rights in Venezuela.

Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado has been honored with the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize for her steadfast commitment to promoting democratic rights and advocating for a peaceful transition from dictatorship to democracy in Venezuela. The Norwegian Nobel Committee recognized her as a symbol of “civilian courage” and praised her efforts in unifying the opposition and pushing for free elections in a deeply divided political landscape.

At 58, Machado has faced significant personal and professional challenges, including being barred from running in the 2024 presidential election and living in hiding due to safety concerns. Despite these obstacles, she has remained a prominent figure in Venezuela’s pro-democracy movement, earning international recognition for her resilience and dedication.

In her acceptance speech, Machado dedicated the award to the Venezuelan people and acknowledged the support of former U.S. President Donald Trump, who has been a vocal critic of President Nicolás Maduro’s regime. The Nobel Peace Prize ceremony is scheduled for December 10, 2025, in Oslo, Norway.

Machado’s journey has been marked by her relentless pursuit of democratic ideals in a country plagued by political turmoil and economic instability. Her leadership has inspired many within Venezuela and abroad, as she continues to advocate for human rights and democratic governance.

As the political situation in Venezuela remains precarious, Machado’s recognition by the Nobel Committee serves as a significant endorsement of her efforts and the broader struggle for democracy in the region. Her work highlights the importance of civic engagement and the role of leaders who are willing to stand up against authoritarianism.

Machado’s dedication to her cause has not gone unnoticed, and her award is seen as a beacon of hope for those who continue to fight for a democratic future in Venezuela. The international community’s support for her efforts underscores the global significance of her work.

As the date of the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony approaches, anticipation builds around Machado’s message and the impact it may have on the ongoing struggle for democracy in Venezuela. Her recognition is not only a personal achievement but also a testament to the resilience of the Venezuelan people in their quest for freedom and justice.

Source: Original article

Democrats Fundraise During Government Shutdown, Hakeem Jeffries Urges Supporters

As the government shutdown enters its third week, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and other Democrats are leveraging the situation for fundraising while criticizing Republicans and former President Donald Trump.

The government shutdown has now stretched into its third week, causing concern as service members and federal workers prepare to miss paychecks. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., along with other Democrats, has been vocal in attributing the crisis to Republicans and former President Donald Trump.

In a recent fundraising email, Jeffries reiterated his commitment to the party’s demands for reopening the government, signing off with his familiar slogan, “keep the faith.” He emphasized that Democrats would not waver in their stance, stating, “Democrats will continue to stand up to address the Republican healthcare crisis, and we will NOT back down until it’s fixed. America deserves better.”

While discussions have been ongoing in the Senate behind closed doors, no substantial negotiations have emerged regarding expiring Obamacare tax credits that could provide a solution to end the shutdown. Jeffries’ comments suggest that Democrats remain steadfast in their position.

“Republicans thought we’d back down because of their deepfake videos, threats, and lies,” Jeffries wrote. “Not a chance. Cancel the Cuts. Lower the Cost. Save Healthcare. Keep the faith.”

Other House Democrats are also actively fundraising amid the shutdown. Representative Janelle Bynum, D-Ore., has sent multiple fundraising emails, one of which stated, “The stakes couldn’t be higher.” Her team highlighted her commitment to prioritizing Oregonians and ensuring that the government serves the people. “If you’re with her, pitch in today to help her keep up this critical fight for hardworking Americans in the House,” they urged.

In another email, Bynum expressed frustration over an attack ad from Republicans blaming her for the shutdown. “They’re targeting me for their failed leadership and the chaos they’ve created in Washington. We can’t allow their shameful attacks to go unanswered,” she wrote, encouraging supporters to donate to counter the Republican narrative.

Representative Dave Min, D-Calif., also reached out to supporters, emphasizing the need to regain control of Congress to prevent future shutdowns. “If you’re in a position to give, will you chip in whatever you can to help me defend this toss-up district next year?” he asked, outlining the Democrats’ demands for reversing GOP Medicaid cuts and extending Obamacare tax credits to make health insurance more affordable.

Representative Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio, took a direct approach in her fundraising efforts, asking supporters to “chip in $10, $25, or whatever makes sense for you to stand with me against this reckless shutdown and help us take back the House next fall.”

Speaking to reporters on Friday, Jeffries reiterated his opposition to the GOP’s continuing resolution spending bill, labeling it a “partisan spending bill that continues to gut the healthcare of the American people and threatens to raise the costs of living on tens of millions of people.”

Fox News Digital reached out to the offices of Jeffries, Bynum, Min, and Kaptur for comments but did not receive an immediate response.

Source: Original article

Trump Overlooked for Nobel Peace Prize; Venezuelan Activist Wins Award

Venezuelan pro-democracy activist Maria Corina Machado has been awarded the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize, while former President Donald Trump was notably overlooked for the prestigious honor.

The Nobel Peace Prize for 2025 has been awarded to Maria Corina Machado, a prominent Venezuelan pro-democracy activist. This decision marks a significant recognition of her efforts to promote democracy and human rights in Venezuela.

Following the announcement, Jorgen Watne Frydnes, chair of the Nobel Committee, addressed the media regarding the decision to overlook former President Donald Trump. Frydnes emphasized that the committee evaluates candidates based on their contributions to peace, stating, “I think this committee has seen every type of campaign and media attention. We receive thousands and thousands of letters every year from people expressing what leads to peace for them.” He added, “But this committee sits in a room with the portraits of all laureates, and that room is filled with both courage and integrity. So, we base our decision solely on the work and will of Alfred Nobel.”

Maria Corina Machado, born in Caracas in 1967, is an industrial engineer and politician who has become a leading figure in the fight for democracy in Venezuela. She co-founded Súmate, an organization dedicated to monitoring elections and advocating for free and fair electoral processes. In 2012, she established the political party Vente Venezuela, further solidifying her commitment to democratic ideals.

Machado’s political career has not been without challenges. In 2011, she was elected to Venezuela’s National Assembly with a record number of votes. However, her mandate was stripped in 2014 after she accepted a diplomatic position, a move deemed unconstitutional by the Venezuelan authorities. Despite these obstacles, Machado has remained a vocal opponent of the country’s authoritarian regime and has continued to push for democratic change.

Although barred from participating in the 2024 presidential election, Machado’s influence within the opposition movement remains strong. Her recent recognition as a Nobel laureate highlights her unwavering dedication to promoting democracy and facilitating a peaceful political transition in Venezuela. Throughout her activism, she has faced significant personal risks, including threats and the exile of her allies, yet she continues to inspire resistance against the dictatorship.

The Nobel Peace Prize, established by the will of Alfred Nobel in 1895, is one of the five original Nobel Prizes. First awarded in 1901, it honors individuals, groups, or organizations that have made substantial contributions to peace, conflict resolution, disarmament, or international cooperation. Unlike the other Nobel Prizes, which are awarded in Sweden, the Peace Prize is presented in Oslo, Norway, by the Norwegian Nobel Committee.

Notable recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize include influential figures such as Martin Luther King Jr., Malala Yousafzai, and Nelson Mandela, as well as organizations like the United Nations and the International Committee of the Red Cross. The prize often acknowledges efforts in human rights, diplomacy, and humanitarian work. Winners receive a gold medal, a diploma, and a monetary award, and the Peace Prize is widely respected, although it can sometimes be controversial, reflecting the complexities of peace in international relations.

Maria Corina Machado’s receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize serves as a testament to her relentless pursuit of democracy and human rights in Venezuela, while also highlighting the ongoing struggles faced by activists in authoritarian regimes.

Source: Original article

Former DeepMind Researchers’ Startup Reflection AI Secures $2 Billion Funding

Reflection AI, a startup founded by former DeepMind researchers, has successfully raised $2 billion, significantly increasing its valuation to $8 billion.

Reflection AI, a startup established by two former researchers from Google DeepMind, has announced a remarkable fundraising achievement of $2 billion, elevating its valuation to $8 billion. This marks a substantial increase from its previous valuation of $545 million.

Initially focused on developing autonomous coding agents, Reflection AI is now positioning itself as an open-source alternative to prominent closed frontier labs like OpenAI and Anthropic. Additionally, it aims to serve as a Western counterpart to the Chinese AI company DeepSeek.

The recent funding round attracted notable investors, including Nvidia, former Google CEO Eric Schmidt, Citi, and the private equity firm 1789 Capital, which is backed by Donald Trump Jr. Existing investors such as Lightspeed and Sequoia also participated in this significant investment.

Founded in 2024 by Misha Laskin and Ioannis Antonoglou, Reflection AI focuses on creating tools that automate software development, a rapidly growing application of artificial intelligence. Following the fundraising, the company announced that it has assembled a team of top-tier talent from both DeepMind and OpenAI. It has developed an advanced AI training stack that it promises will be accessible to all. Furthermore, Reflection AI claims to have identified a scalable commercial model that aligns with its open intelligence strategy.

Currently, Reflection AI employs around 60 individuals, primarily consisting of AI researchers and engineers specializing in infrastructure, data training, and algorithm development. Laskin, who serves as the company’s CEO, revealed that Reflection AI has secured a compute cluster and aims to release a frontier language model next year, trained on “tens of trillions of tokens.”

In a post on X, Reflection AI stated, “We built something once thought possible only inside the world’s top labs: a large-scale LLM and reinforcement learning platform capable of training massive Mixture-of-Experts (MoEs) models at frontier scale.” The company highlighted the effectiveness of its approach, particularly in the domain of autonomous coding, and expressed its intention to extend these methods to general agentic reasoning.

The Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) architecture is crucial for powering frontier large language models (LLMs), which were previously only trainable at scale by large, closed AI laboratories. DeepSeek was the first company to successfully train models at scale in an open manner, followed by other Chinese models like Qwen and Kimi.

Laskin emphasized the urgency of the situation, stating, “DeepSeek and Qwen and all these models are our wake-up call because if we don’t do anything about it, then effectively, the global standard of intelligence will be built by someone else. It won’t be built by America.”

Although Reflection AI has not yet released its first model, Laskin indicated that the initial offering will be primarily text-based, with plans for multimodal capabilities in the future. The company intends to utilize the funds from this latest round to acquire the computational resources necessary for training its new models, with the first release anticipated for early next year.

Source: Original article

Visa Restrictions Under Trump Administration Result in 19% Decline in International Students

In August 2025, the U.S. saw a 19% drop in international student arrivals, largely due to visa restrictions enacted during the Trump administration.

In August 2025, the United States experienced a notable decline of 19% in international student arrivals compared to the same month in 2024. This downturn is largely attributed to a series of stringent measures implemented by the Trump administration.

Among these measures were the suspension of student visa interviews and the introduction of a travel ban affecting 19 countries, primarily located in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. This has had a particularly significant impact on India, which has historically been the largest source of international students to the U.S. The country saw a staggering 45% decrease in student arrivals.

The new vetting procedures introduced during this period require applicants to provide access to their social media accounts, further complicating the visa application process. These developments have led many prospective students to reconsider their options for studying abroad, with some choosing alternative destinations such as Germany and the United Kingdom instead.

The decline in international student numbers poses a financial challenge for U.S. universities, many of which rely heavily on tuition fees from foreign students. Experts warn that if this trend continues, it could undermine the global standing of American higher education institutions.

As the landscape of international education shifts, the long-term implications of these visa restrictions remain to be seen. Universities may need to adapt their recruitment strategies to counteract the effects of these policies and attract students from abroad.

According to Global Net News, the ramifications of these changes could extend beyond immediate enrollment figures, potentially affecting the diversity and global engagement of U.S. campuses.

Source: Original article

Health Care Workforce Faces Challenges from Immigration Policies and Medicaid Cuts

The health care sector is experiencing significant job growth, but immigration restrictions and Medicaid cuts may threaten its future stability, according to economists and industry experts.

The health care sector has emerged as a bright spot in the U.S. economy this year, contributing nearly half of the nation’s employment gains. However, economists and experts warn that ongoing immigration crackdowns and impending cuts to Medicaid could threaten future job growth in this vital industry.

According to the latest nonfarm payroll data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, employers added 487,000 jobs from January to August, with the health care sector accounting for 48% of that growth. This translates to approximately 232,000 new jobs in health care, despite the sector employing only about 11% of the workforce.

“On the labor side, health care growth is driving the economy,” said Neale Mahoney, a professor of economics at Stanford University.

However, the potential impact of President Donald Trump’s immigration policies and cuts to public insurance programs could dampen this growth. These changes may create uncertainty in the economy and pose challenges for the GOP in the upcoming midterm elections. The health care industry is particularly reliant on foreign-born workers, and a proposed law that would reduce federal spending on the $900 billion Medicaid program is projected to result in a loss of 1.2 million jobs nationwide, according to the Commonwealth Fund.

In recent years, job growth in health care has been most pronounced in the home health sector, which has seen an increase of nearly 300,000 jobs, bringing the total to 1.82 million workers from August 2019 to August 2025. This growth is largely driven by an aging population that requires more in-home care. Job growth has also been robust in hospitals and doctors’ offices, while nursing homes and residential care facilities have experienced weaker numbers due to a shift towards home caregiving.

Some research suggests that while health care job growth is generally seen as positive, it does not always translate to economic benefits. An increase in administrative roles within health care can drive up costs without significantly improving patient outcomes. Nevertheless, health care jobs are often viewed as stable and recession-proof, making the sector the top employer in most states. Despite the growth, many areas still face a critical shortage of health care workers to meet rising demand.

Several economists have expressed concern that recent federal policy changes regarding immigration and Medicaid could hinder job growth in the health care sector.

“Health care as an industry is pretty reliant on immigrant labor,” noted Allison Shrivastava, an economist with the Indeed Hiring Lab. “It has a large share of non-native labor, so it’s going to be impacted more.”

According to 2023 Census Bureau data, approximately 18% of Americans employed in health care were born abroad. Around 5% of health care workers are non-citizens, which includes about 60,000 doctors and surgeons, 117,000 registered nurses, and 155,000 home health or personal care aides. While many of these workers are in the U.S. legally, the Census Bureau does not track how many non-citizens have authorization to live and work in the country. Nonetheless, even those with legal status may face deportation risks, as the federal government deported around 200,000 individuals from February to August, marking a significant increase from previous months.

Moreover, the perception of hostility towards immigrants may deter potential health care workers from studying or relocating to the U.S. Data from the State Department indicates that the number of immigrant visas issued from March to May fell by approximately 23,000, or 14%, compared to the same period last year. Additionally, attempts to cross the border without authorization have reportedly decreased.

Despite these challenges, Shrivastava mentioned that Indeed’s job posting data indicates a continued strong demand for doctors, particularly among employers willing to assist with visa sponsorship. However, it remains uncertain whether prospective workers will accept these offers.

This summer, Congress passed what Republicans termed the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” which President Trump quickly signed into law. This legislation includes approximately $910 billion in cuts to federal Medicaid spending over the next decade, according to an analysis by the Kaiser Family Foundation based on data from the Congressional Budget Office.

The reductions in Medicaid are expected to leave millions without health insurance in the coming years. Consequently, hospitals, nursing homes, and community health centers may have to absorb more costs associated with treating uninsured patients, potentially leading to service reductions or closures.

California alone could see up to 217,000 job losses, with two-thirds of those in the health care sector, according to an analysis conducted by the University of California-Berkeley Labor Center prior to the bill’s finalization.

“It doesn’t mean necessarily that 200,000 people are going to lose their jobs,” said Miranda Dietz, interim director of the Health Care Program at the Labor Center. “Some people will lose their jobs, and in some cases, job growth won’t be as fast as anticipated.”

Adding to the complexity, Trump recently dismissed the official who oversaw the Labor Department’s statistical branch, raising concerns about the potential political influence on job data.

While it is unclear when or if the immigration actions and Medicaid cuts will impact hiring in the health care sector, there are early signs of a potential slowdown. Federal data revealed a significant decline in job openings in the health care and social assistance sector in July. Additionally, Indeed’s job posting data indicates a decline in certain health care fields, although Laura Ullrich, director of economic research at the Indeed Hiring Lab, noted that overall postings remain above pre-pandemic levels.

For the time being, job growth is expected to remain strong, particularly among nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and home health aides, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics projections.

Many health care jobs require extensive education but offer high salaries, with family physicians earning over $240,000 annually and registered nurses making approximately $94,000 per year.

Joshua Lejano, president of the Sacramento State chapter of the California Nursing Students’ Association, expressed cautious optimism about securing a job as a registered nurse upon graduation in December. He is currently completing nursing clinical rotations that provide essential real-world experience for long shifts.

Lejano noted that hospitals in his area are expanding capacity, while some veteran nurses are exiting the profession due to burnout from the COVID-19 pandemic, creating new openings. “Right now, I think the big thing is just staying on top of all the application cycles,” he said.

Health care jobs that require less training tend to offer lower pay. The median annual earnings for approximately 4.4 million home health and personal care aides were about $35,000 last year, comparable to the earnings of waitstaff, according to federal data.

The growth in health care jobs has been particularly advantageous for women, with nearly 80% of health care and social assistance workers being female, as highlighted in a recent Indeed study. This research found that female workers accounted for over a million new health care jobs in the past two years.

According to Shrivastava, the health care sector remains resilient because Americans generally do not view health care as a luxury. They continue to pay for it during both prosperous and challenging times. Health insurance costs are projected to experience their largest increase in at least five years, and health care spending often focuses on older adults, a demographic that is rapidly growing as baby boomers age. The number of Americans aged 65 and older increased from 34 million in 1995 to 61 million in 2024.

“So many of these health care jobs are to support the growing population of older Americans,” Ullrich said. “It’s not surprising that we’re seeing growth there. But I think what is surprising is how lopsided it is.”

Source: Original article

US Collaborates with Finland to Address Arctic Icebreaker Shortage

The U.S. has signed a $6.1 billion agreement with Finland to acquire four new icebreakers, aiming to enhance Arctic defense amid increasing competition from Russia and China.

In a significant move to bolster its Arctic capabilities, the U.S. Coast Guard has turned to Finland for assistance in enhancing its icebreaking fleet. This decision comes as concerns grow regarding the United States’ ability to compete with global rivals in the Arctic region.

For years, military and intelligence officials have expressed alarm over the U.S. reliance on a limited number of aging icebreakers. In stark contrast, Russia boasts a fleet of over 40 icebreakers, including several nuclear-powered vessels. As climate change continues to melt sea ice, opening new shipping lanes and access to vital resources, the Pentagon and Coast Guard have emphasized that a stronger Arctic presence is essential.

On Thursday, President Donald Trump and Finnish President Alexander Stubb formalized a $6.1 billion agreement for Finland to supply up to four new icebreakers to the United States. This acquisition is part of a broader strategy to address the so-called “icebreaker gap” that has left the U.S. dependent on outdated vessels for Arctic patrols and Antarctic resupply missions.

Defense officials have underscored that the Arctic is now a critical front line for homeland defense. This region is where U.S. early-warning systems, missile detection networks, and undersea cables intersect with increasing military activities from both Russia and China. “We need these ships very badly because we have a lot of territory, more than anybody. And so, I’m very honored to have this deal,” Trump stated at the White House. “Thank you very much. It’s going to be great.”

The purchase from Finnish shipbuilders, recognized as leaders in polar vessel design, aligns with the United States’ efforts to strengthen its Arctic capabilities. Finland, which recently joined NATO, is collaborating with the U.S. and Canada in the ICE Pact. This agreement aims to expedite icebreaker construction, facilitate technology sharing, and enhance allied operations in polar waters.

The Coast Guard’s newest polar icebreaker, the U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Storis, recently returned to Seattle after a 112-day mission at sea, where it monitored Chinese-flagged research vessels Jidi and Xue Long 2. The Storis, acquired in 2024, marked the first polar ice cutter added to the Coast Guard’s fleet in 25 years. Currently, the Coast Guard operates only two other polar icebreakers: the 48-year-old Polar Star heavy icebreaker and the medium icebreaker Healy. Officials assert that at least eight polar icebreakers are necessary to meet operational demands.

In addition to its polar icebreakers, the Coast Guard maintains 21 domestic icebreakers designed to clear shipping channels in areas like the Great Lakes, as well as 16 ice-capable buoy tenders that can break through thinner layers of ice.

Russia’s strategic objectives in the Arctic include solidifying control over the Northern Sea Route, a crucial maritime passage connecting Europe and Asia through Arctic waters. The country has been actively militarizing the region, redeploying air, naval, missile, radar, and anti-submarine assets to forward bases. Given that Russia’s naval nuclear deterrent, particularly its ballistic missile submarines, relies on Arctic sea lanes for stealthy deployment, Moscow perceives Western military presence as a direct threat.

The Arctic is also rich in hydrocarbons, minerals, and rare elements—resources that the U.S. and its near-peer competitors are eager to dominate. Although China is not an Arctic state, it has positioned itself as a “near-Arctic” power and is advocating for recognition as a stakeholder in Arctic affairs. China has integrated the Arctic into its Belt and Road Initiative through the concept of the “Polar Silk Road,” a proposed maritime route over the Arctic connecting China and Europe.

As the U.S. moves forward with its plans to enhance its Arctic capabilities through this partnership with Finland, the implications for regional security and resource competition are significant. The agreement not only aims to close the icebreaker gap but also represents a strategic response to the evolving geopolitical landscape in the Arctic.

Source: Original article

Israeli Ambassador: Peace in Gaza Requires Hamas to Disarm and Release Hostages

Israel’s Ambassador Yechiel Leiter asserts that peace in Gaza hinges on Hamas returning all hostages and disarming, following a newly finalized peace agreement.

Israel’s Ambassador to the United States, Yechiel Leiter, has issued a stark warning regarding the ongoing conflict in Gaza. He stated that the war will persist unless Hamas returns all 48 hostages—both living and deceased—and fully disarms as stipulated in a recently finalized peace agreement.

In an interview with Fox News Digital, Leiter emphasized that the Israeli government is poised to approve the peace deal initially proposed by former President Donald Trump late last month, which has since received the endorsement of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. However, concerns linger regarding Hamas’ commitment and capability to return the bodies of deceased hostages within a 72-hour timeframe, starting Friday night local time, as outlined in the agreement.

“They have an obligation to return everyone in 72 hours. Hopefully, we’re going to be able to keep everything within that framework,” Leiter remarked when asked about the potential challenges Hamas may face in delivering all the deceased hostages. He acknowledged that there are “some glitches” that need to be addressed, stressing the importance of recovering all bodies before any progress can be made in the peace process.

Leiter pointed out that one of the complications stems from Hamas’ inadequate record-keeping regarding the locations of the deceased hostages. He reiterated that Israel will not withdraw its military forces from the Gaza Strip until every body is returned.

To facilitate the recovery of the deceased, an international task force has been established, involving the United States, Qatar, and Egypt. However, the White House did not respond to inquiries about the specific role the U.S. will play or whether American personnel will be deployed on the ground to assist in the search.

The agreement was reached after extensive negotiations involving mediators from the U.S., Egypt, and Qatar, who worked diligently with both Hamas and Israeli officials to finalize the details. It remains unclear if any modifications were made to Trump’s original 20-point plan during these discussions.

Reports from the weekend indicated that Hamas expressed objections to the requirement of complete disarmament. In exchange for compliance, Hamas would be granted amnesty and a pathway to leave Gaza for a third-party nation, should they choose to do so. Leiter was unable to confirm whether Hamas has formally agreed to the disarmament terms.

“We hope it proceeds according to the president’s plan,” Leiter stated. He acknowledged the historical challenges posed by Hamas and similar organizations, noting, “We assume, having long experience with Hamas and Islamic Jihad and these terrorist organizations, that there are going to be glitches along the way.” He added, “Look, they’re going down. This is basically a surrender on Hamas’s part. They don’t like it one bit, and they’re going to do whatever they can to try to show that they’re still relevant.”

The first phase of the peace agreement focuses on the complete return of all hostages, a partial withdrawal of Israeli troops to a designated line agreed upon by both parties, and the release of nearly 2,000 Palestinian prisoners, including 250 serving life sentences for terrorist offenses such as murder. The second phase will involve further Israeli troop withdrawals in conjunction with the complete disarmament of Hamas and the demilitarization of the Gaza Strip. An international “peace body,” led by Trump, is also expected to be established to initiate the rebuilding of Gaza.

“We’ve put all the focus now on the first phase,” Leiter said, while recognizing that Hamas has made statements indicating it may resist disarmament. He cautioned that the second phase of the peace deal could potentially collapse as a result. “But that’s part of the plan – that’s very clearly part of the president’s plan. That was the goal set out by Prime Minister Netanyahu from the outset, that Hamas is disarmed, that Gaza is de-radicalized and demilitarized.”

Leiter concluded by emphasizing the necessity of preventing a return to a situation where militant groups pose a threat at Israel’s borders. “We can’t go back into a situation where we have Jihadi militants sitting at our border, or else we haven’t accomplished anything,” he stated. “This is performance-based. They disarm, they are disarmed if necessary, and then Israel withdraws.”

Source: Original article

Pharma Stocks Rise Following Trump’s Tariff Exemption for Generic Drugs

Pharmaceutical stocks rose by up to 4% on October 9 after President Trump indicated that tariffs on generic drugs from foreign countries would not be imposed.

Pharmaceutical shares experienced a notable increase on October 9, climbing as much as 4% following reports that President Donald Trump is not planning to impose tariffs on generic drugs imported from foreign countries.

A report from the Wall Street Journal indicated that while the decision to exclude generic medicines from tariffs is not yet finalized, it is being seriously considered. The report also noted that this decision could change in the coming weeks, depending on ongoing discussions within the administration.

In addition to the tariff exemption, the Trump administration is reportedly exploring alternative measures, such as federal grants or loans, to promote domestic production of critical generic drugs. This initiative aims to reduce reliance on foreign suppliers, particularly India, which is a leading producer of affordable generics.

Kush Desai, deputy press secretary of the White House, stated, “The administration is not actively discussing imposing Section 232 tariffs against generic pharmaceuticals.” Desai emphasized that the administration is pursuing “a nuanced and multi-faceted approach to onshore manufacturing of generic pharmaceuticals” to mitigate future dependencies, a concern that became particularly evident during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Generic medications account for approximately 90% of all prescriptions in the United States, providing affordable treatment options for millions of patients. Many of these drugs are imported, especially from India, which plays a crucial role in the global supply of cost-effective generics. Imposing tariffs on these medications could have led to increased prices for patients, placing additional strain on healthcare providers, insurers, and government programs such as Medicare and Medicaid.

The decision to exempt generics from tariffs aims to prevent disruptions in the medicine supply chain and protect vulnerable populations who rely on affordable medications. This move also serves to maintain positive trade relations with India, a vital pharmaceutical supplier to the U.S.

While there is a clear intent to encourage domestic manufacturing and reduce dependency on foreign sources—an issue underscored by shortages experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic—the immediate implementation of tariffs could have unintended consequences. By opting to avoid tariffs on generics, the administration acknowledges that abrupt disruptions in critical supply lines can adversely affect vulnerable populations and healthcare systems.

Looking ahead, the focus may shift toward more strategic, long-term investments and partnerships that enhance domestic capabilities without compromising access or affordability. This approach reflects a growing understanding that resilience in essential industries like pharmaceuticals necessitates cooperation, innovation, and balanced policy-making rather than relying solely on protectionist measures.

Source: Original article

Emails Sent to Eligible Borrowers for Student Loan Forgiveness Under IBR Plans

A major student loan forgiveness program has resumed, with borrowers on income-driven repayment plans receiving emails confirming their eligibility for loan discharge.

A significant student loan forgiveness initiative has restarted after a hiatus of several months. Recently, borrowers enrolled in income-driven repayment (IDR) plans have begun receiving notifications from the Department of Education, indicating that they have met the necessary payment criteria and are now eligible for loan forgiveness.

Emails reviewed by Business Insider featured the subject line: “You’re eligible to have your student loan(s) discharged.” These messages informed borrowers that the department is coordinating with their loan servicers to implement the relief over the coming months, with discharge information expected to be sent to servicers after October 21.

Income-driven repayment plans adjust monthly student loan payments based on a borrower’s income, offering forgiveness after 20 or 25 years of qualifying payments. As of the second quarter of 2025, approximately two million borrowers were enrolled in these plans, according to data from Federal Student Aid. The Department of Education had paused relief under these programs since July to verify payment records.

The emails also stated, “Your loan servicer will notify you if and when your IBR discharge has been processed.” While most borrowers can expect their discharge to be processed within two weeks, some may experience longer processing times.

Borrowers who wish to decline the IBR loan relief have until October 21 to inform their loan servicer of their decision. The Department of Education cautioned that some borrowers might opt out to avoid potential state tax obligations. However, those who choose to decline forgiveness must continue making regular loan payments.

As pressure mounts to finalize student loan forgiveness before the end of the year, a provision in the American Rescue Plan from 2021 that made debt relief tax-free is set to expire. Borrowers receiving forgiveness after January 1, 2026, could face significant tax liabilities.

In September, the American Federation of Teachers, which represents members on IDR plans and those eligible for Public Service Loan Forgiveness, filed a complaint urging the Department of Education to cancel loans for borrowers who have met their payment requirements before the relief becomes taxable again.

As the processing of IDR applications accelerates, the Trump administration is actively pursuing measures to limit future loan forgiveness and overhaul student repayment programs. Discussions regarding these changes concluded the first week of October, under President Donald Trump’s proposed spending law, which aims to replace current income-driven repayment plans with two less favorable alternatives.

The administration is also expanding the role of its ombudsman’s office to educate borrowers about repayment options, indicating a shift away from debt relief initiatives. This follows the department’s decision to resume collections on defaulted student loans in May, ending a five-year suspension.

James Bergeron, acting head of Federal Student Aid, stated in a September announcement, “Unlike the previous administration’s focus on loan forgiveness, the Trump Administration is taking action to implement meaningful and necessary enhancements to the way student loans are serviced to better serve borrowers and American taxpayers,” as reported by Business Insider.

Source: Original article

US Soldiers in Urban Areas Increase Safety Concerns, Says Candidate

New Jersey Democratic gubernatorial candidate Mikie Sherrill criticized President Trump’s National Guard deployments, asserting that military presence in cities makes people feel less safe.

New Jersey Democratic gubernatorial candidate Rep. Mikie Sherrill has voiced strong opposition to President Donald Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to American cities, claiming that the presence of troops on the streets “makes people less safe.” During a gubernatorial debate on Wednesday night against Republican candidate Jack Ciattarelli, Sherrill emphasized her belief that “military members should not be on our streets.”

Sherrill articulated her concerns, stating, “It makes people less safe, it makes people feel less safe.” When asked how she would respond if Trump were to send the National Guard to a city in New Jersey, she clarified her stance. “Unless there is an insurrection or some sort of crisis where the National Guard could come in and the president invokes the Insurrection Act, he’s moving these National Guard troops across the country illegally against the Insurrection Act, against posse comitatus,” she said.

In her remarks, Sherrill reiterated her position that military personnel should not be deployed in civilian areas. “I can tell you this, because I’ve both worked at the U.S. Attorney’s office with law enforcement to keep people safe, and I’ve also worked in the military, and those are two very different jobs,” she explained. She expressed her disapproval of Trump’s comments regarding using U.S. cities as training grounds for the military, calling such a notion “unacceptable.” Sherrill stated, “I will not stand for that as governor.”

On the other side of the debate, Ciattarelli challenged Sherrill’s record on public safety. He accused her of being weak on safety issues, stating, “The congresswoman has been anything but strong when it comes to public safety.” He pointed out her vote to eliminate qualified immunity, which he described as a fundamental protection for local law enforcement. Ciattarelli also criticized her consideration of reappointing the current attorney general, whom he labeled as the most anti-police attorney general New Jersey has ever had.

Ciattarelli assured the audience that, as governor, he would prioritize safety, declaring, “I’ve told the president, and the people of New Jersey, that he will never have to worry about New Jersey because as governor, we’ll have safe communities.” He emphasized his commitment to restoring law and order in the state, stating, “We will be a law-and-order state again, and there will be a consequence for unruly, unlawful behavior.”

As the gubernatorial race heats up, the contrasting views on public safety and military presence in urban areas are likely to remain central themes in the campaign.

Source: Original article

World Leaders Commend Landmark Israel-Hamas Peace Deal Mediated by U.S.

World leaders have praised a historic peace deal between Israel and Hamas, mediated by the United States, marking a potential turning point for stability in the Middle East.

Israel and Hamas have reached a historic ceasefire agreement, prompting a wave of support from world leaders. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has hailed the deal as a significant victory for Israel.

In an exclusive interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity, President Donald Trump announced the “landmark peace deal,” describing it as “a historic step toward peace in the Middle East.” He emphasized the collaborative effort, stating that “the whole world came together” to facilitate the agreement, attributing its success to both “luck” and “talent.” Trump remarked, “So many countries that you wouldn’t have thought of have come together. It’s been so great for Israel, so great for Muslims, for the Arab countries — and so great for the United States of America. This is more than Gaza — this is peace in the Middle East.”

Global leaders have welcomed the news, viewing it as a potential turning point in the region. Netanyahu expressed optimism about the agreement, stating, “With the approval of the first phase of the plan, all our hostages will be brought home. This is a diplomatic success and a national and moral victory for the State of Israel.” He reiterated his commitment to ensuring the return of all hostages and achieving Israel’s objectives, thanking Trump for his support.

Israeli President Isaac Herzog also praised the deal on social media platform X, expressing gratitude to Trump. He stated, “Should he visit us in the coming days, he will be received with immense respect, affection, and gratitude by the people of Israel.” Herzog highlighted the emotional impact of the agreement, saying, “This agreement will bring moments of indescribable relief to the dear families who have not slept for 733 days. This agreement offers a chance to mend, to heal, and to open a new horizon of hope for our region.”

Herzog took a moment to honor those who have suffered during the conflict, acknowledging “the heroes among us: our sons and daughters who fought bravely to bring the hostages home; the bereaved families; the wounded in body and spirit; and all who have paid an unbearable price for this historic and vital moment.”

At the United Nations, Secretary-General António Guterres welcomed the breakthrough and called for swift implementation of the agreement. According to Reuters, Guterres stated, “I welcome the announcement of an agreement to secure a ceasefire and hostage release in Gaza. The United Nations will support full implementation and recovery efforts. This momentous opportunity must not be lost.”

As part of the deal, Hamas is expected to release all 20 living hostages by the weekend. In conjunction with this, the Israeli military is anticipated to begin withdrawing troops from most areas of Gaza as part of the initial phase of the agreement. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) also released a statement on social media, expressing approval of the agreement for the return of hostages, which was signed overnight.

Trump remarked, “This is a great day for peace. Many years they talked about peace in the Middle East — now it’s happening.” However, the Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry has reported that more than 67,000 Palestinians have been killed since the onset of the conflict, a figure that has yet to be independently verified.

Source: Original article

H-1B Fees Impact Universities: 25 Schools Face Financial Risks

The implementation of a $100,000 fee for new H-1B visas could significantly impact universities, prompting advisories and concerns about the future of international faculty recruitment.

The recent announcement of a $100,000 fee for new H-1B visas is poised to create challenges for universities across the United States. While the fee is not scheduled to take effect until March 2026, coinciding with the annual lottery for approximately 85,000 new H-1B visas, its implications are already being felt in academic institutions.

Jeremy Neufeld, director of immigration policy at the nonpartisan Institute for Progress, emphasizes that universities may be among the first to experience the fallout from this policy. Unlike private companies, universities and certain nonprofit organizations are currently exempt from the lottery system, allowing them to apply for H-1B visas year-round. However, they are not exempt from the new fee, which represents a significant financial burden. “The universities are on the frontlines and this is just a pure tax on their pipeline,” Neufeld stated.

Previously, H-1B fees ranged from $2,000 to $5,000, depending on the size of the employer, according to the American Immigration Council. The steep increase to $100,000 raises concerns about the ability of universities to attract and retain international talent, particularly as the Trump administration’s recent measures also propose changes to the visa lottery system that would favor older, higher-paid workers. This shift could hinder the prospects of international students earning advanced degrees in the U.S., who traditionally have relied on H-1B visas to remain in the country after graduation.

In response to the uncertainty surrounding the new visa rules, the University of Southern California (USC) has issued a travel advisory for faculty and staff on H-1B visas. The advisory recommends postponing international travel until further guidance is provided. The university’s student newspaper reported that faculty currently abroad are encouraged to return to the United States before the new regulations take effect.

“Out of an abundance of caution, all faculty and staff in H-1B status currently in the U.S. should put international travel plans on hold until they receive further guidance,” the advisory stated. “If possible, any faculty and staff in H-1B status who are currently outside the U.S. are strongly recommended to return to the U.S. before the proclamation takes effect.”

Aisling Kelliher, an associate professor in cinematic arts at USC, highlighted the importance of the American education system’s international reputation. “It’s a huge opportunity, both to come here as an immigrant and to receive an education, and then also to be able to continue as a researcher and as a teacher within the system that you’ve learned from,” she remarked.

The impact of the Trump administration’s policies on foreign student enrollment is already evident. Data from the U.S. International Trade Administration indicates that international student arrivals (excluding those from Canada and Mexico) decreased by 19% in August 2025 compared to the previous year, totaling 307,419. Similarly, July arrivals fell by 28% to 76,519. Forbes immigration senior contributor Stuart Anderson noted that some of this decline may be attributed to already enrolled students opting not to return home for the summer, as many universities advised them to remain in the U.S. to avoid potential reentry issues.

According to data from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the 25 universities that received the most H-1B visas in the first nine months of Fiscal Year 2025 included Stanford University, which granted 500 visas during this period. Notably, 36% of its graduate students are international. Washington University in St. Louis and Columbia University in New York City reported that nearly half of their graduate students (46%) are from abroad.

In light of the new fee, a lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California challenging the $100,000 charge. The plaintiffs include the American Association of University Professors, unions representing graduate students and medical residents, a church and its pastor, the recruiting firm Global Nurse Force, and an Indian postdoctoral researcher who lost her H-1B sponsorship due to the fee.

The lawsuit argues that the fee disproportionately affects workers already in the U.S. on other visas, such as F-1 student visas, who are seeking to transition to H-1B status. Even if the courts ultimately block the fee or grant exemptions for universities and nonprofits, the broader implications of the H-1B measures could still deter international faculty recruitment.

Additionally, proposed changes to student visas may restrict some graduate students from pursuing postdoctoral positions in the U.S. through Optional Practical Training (OPT). This program allows STEM graduates from abroad to work for up to three years, helping them build professional networks and transition into H-1B roles sponsored by universities or private employers.

The evolving landscape of immigration policy continues to raise concerns among academic institutions, as they navigate the challenges posed by new fees and regulations that could significantly alter the recruitment of international talent.

Source: Original article

Axel, DACA Recipient, Works to Safeguard His Community

Axel Herrera, a DACA recipient in North Carolina, faces uncertainty as local police checkpoints increase, impacting his community and prompting him to pursue further education at Yale.

Since the election of President Trump, Axel Herrera has witnessed a troubling rise in local police traffic checkpoints throughout his North Carolina community. As a DACA recipient, Axel enjoys legal protection from deportation, yet he has seen friends and family members detained or deported following random traffic stops. This has left many undocumented individuals in his community living in a state of constant fear. “It’s creating a hostile environment,” Axel states. “It’s pretty clear what the government is trying to do.”

At 27 years old, Axel has lived in North Carolina since he was seven, when his family fled Honduras in search of a better life. Achieving DACA status felt like the realization of his family’s dreams. He earned a scholarship to Duke University, becoming the first in his family to attend college, and graduated with multiple awards, including a prestigious Congressional internship.

Following his graduation, Axel took on the role of civic engagement director for Mi Familia en Acción, a nonprofit organization dedicated to supporting Hispanic communities. Over the past few years, he has focused on registering citizens to vote, creating youth programs, and mentoring immigrants as they pursue educational and professional opportunities. “All I ever wanted was to belong, and to give something back,” he reflects.

However, the current political climate has posed significant challenges. Ongoing legal battles surrounding DACA’s validity threaten Axel’s protection from deportation. He must renew his DACA status and employment authorization every two years. Although he was able to process his paperwork just before Trump took office, he remains uncertain about the future of his status when it expires in 2026. He is aware that some Dreamers are struggling to get their applications processed, and the Trump administration has already deported at least one DACA recipient under the claim of an outstanding deportation order. “Right now, everything is up in the air,” Axel admits. “I’m very concerned about the future.”

One potential outcome is that courts may uphold DACA but revoke the work authorization for its recipients. Due to this uncertainty, Axel has decided to leave his hard-earned job and return to school. This fall, he will relocate to Yale, where he has secured a scholarship to study business and public policy. “It’s a great opportunity, but also a hedge against losing my status,” he explains. “If I lose my work authorization, then being a student might buy me some time and let me find a different path forward.”

Despite his current protections, Axel feels conflicted about leaving his community. Many of his friends and neighbors are constantly communicating via WhatsApp, assessing police conditions whenever they leave their homes. He knows numerous young Venezuelans whose humanitarian parole has recently been revoked, rendering them unable to work or study. In the past six months, he has witnessed families torn apart by raids and deportations, or those too fearful of ICE to attend school. “I speak all the time with young people whose whole future is on the chopping block,” Axel shares.

Yet, despite his protections, Axel senses a looming threat that conditions could deteriorate rapidly. Under Trump, anti-immigrant sentiment and policies have become more entrenched. He is particularly concerned about the long-term implications of a new state law mandating that sheriffs cooperate with ICE. Axel fears for his and his family’s future, stating, “After 20 years, we’re barely scratching the surface of dealing with our status issues. It never ends—and the Trump administration is rolling back so much of the progress we’ve made.”

Source: Original article

Supreme Court Questions Legality of Conversion Therapy Ban for Minors

The Supreme Court is poised to evaluate Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy for minors, weighing the implications for free speech, faith, and LGBTQ+ protections.

The Supreme Court of the United States is currently reviewing Colorado’s controversial ban on conversion therapy, a practice aimed at changing an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity. The case has significant implications for First Amendment rights and the ongoing debate surrounding LGBTQ+ protections.

During oral arguments on Tuesday, the court’s conservative majority appeared inclined to support the claims of licensed counselor Kaley Chiles, who argues that the Colorado legislation infringes upon her free speech rights and the religious freedoms of both herself and her clients. Chiles contends that the law effectively censors private conversations between counselors and their clients, restricting the type of therapy she can provide.

Colorado’s law is part of a broader trend, with approximately two dozen states and Washington, D.C., enacting similar bans. The state government maintains that the legislation is necessary to regulate professional conduct, citing overwhelming evidence that conversion therapy is both unsafe and ineffective.

During the 90-minute oral arguments, several justices expressed skepticism about the law’s implications. Justice Samuel Alito highlighted a potential double standard, questioning whether the state could legitimately favor one viewpoint over another in the realm of medical advice. Justice Amy Coney Barrett echoed this sentiment, asking if the state could choose sides in a debate among medical experts regarding the safety of gender-affirming care.

Conversely, some justices sided with Colorado’s position, emphasizing the consensus among mental health professionals that verbal-based conversion therapy can be harmful. Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed out that numerous studies indicate such practices can lead to emotional and physical distress.

The key justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, may ultimately determine the outcome of the case. Roberts referenced prior court rulings that did not differentiate between professional speech and other forms of expression, suggesting that the law could be seen as infringing upon protected speech.

Chiles’ legal team describes her as a practicing Christian who believes individuals thrive when they align their lives with what she describes as God’s design, which includes accepting their biological sex. She employs “faith-informed” counseling techniques to assist young clients who wish to navigate their sexual attractions and behaviors. However, her attorneys clarify that she does not aim to “cure” clients of same-sex attractions or change their sexual orientation.

Outside the courthouse, a small group of demonstrators gathered to support the Colorado law, while Chiles’ supporters canceled their planned rally due to safety concerns. Inside, the courtroom saw a stark contrast in perspectives regarding the efficacy of conversion therapy. Colorado’s representatives argued that a substantial body of evidence supports the law’s effectiveness in preventing harm, while Chiles’ team contended that existing studies are flawed and do not demonstrate harm from conversion therapy.

Chiles’ attorney, James Campbell, argued that states should not interfere in the private conversations between licensed professionals and their clients. The majority of justices seemed to resonate with this viewpoint. Justice Elena Kagan posed a hypothetical scenario in which two doctors treat a patient with differing approaches—one advocating for change and the other for acceptance. She questioned whether it was fair for one approach to be permissible while the other was not, suggesting a potential case of viewpoint discrimination.

As the arguments unfolded, Colorado Solicitor General Shannon Stevenson emphasized that the core issue at stake was not merely about free speech but about maintaining best practices in mental health care. Alito interjected, recalling instances in history where medical consensus has been influenced by political ideologies, questioning the reliability of such consensus.

The Trump administration’s Justice Department has also weighed in, arguing that the law creates a “muzzling” effect, preventing counselors from assisting clients in accepting their assigned sex at birth while allowing other therapists to support those exploring their sexual orientation or gender identity.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson raised concerns about whether talk therapy should be treated differently from medical care, expressing confusion over why a therapist’s verbal guidance would not be afforded the same protections as a medical professional’s treatment.

Stevenson reiterated that the harm associated with conversion therapy arises when individuals are told they can change an inherent aspect of themselves, leading to feelings of shame and distress when they fail to do so. The American Psychiatric Association has not classified homosexuality as a mental illness for over five decades, further complicating the debate.

Chiles attended the oral arguments and later expressed her belief that her work is an extension of her faith. She advocates for access to voluntary counseling for struggling youth, arguing that they deserve better than a one-size-fits-all approach from the state.

The Supreme Court has faced a series of LGBTQ+-related cases in recent years, including a ruling that upheld a Tennessee law banning certain medical treatments for transgender teens. The court is also set to consider state laws regarding transgender athletes’ participation in girls’ and women’s sports teams.

The Colorado case has become a focal point for political and social discourse, with 187 House and Senate Democrats, along with major medical and mental health organizations, supporting the law. Conversely, groups backing Chiles include the Trump Justice Department and various conservative organizations.

In a 2015 report, the Obama administration’s Health and Human Services Department concluded that conversion therapy for minors should be prohibited. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) stated that there is no evidence supporting the effectiveness of such interventions in altering gender identity or sexual orientation.

The current case, Chiles v. Salazar (24-539), is expected to yield a ruling by early summer 2026, marking a significant moment in the ongoing legal and societal debates surrounding LGBTQ+ rights and mental health practices.

Source: Original article

Trump’s Gaza Deal Advances as Family Cautions Against Another Sinwar Release

As President Trump works to finalize a ceasefire and hostage exchange in Gaza, an Israeli family warns against releasing a notorious Hamas terrorist, fearing renewed violence.

As President Donald Trump advances his 20-point plan aimed at ending the Gaza conflict, Israel faces a critical decision that could significantly alter the landscape of the region. The proposed framework includes a phased withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza, the return of all hostages, and a substantial prisoner exchange. In exchange, Hamas would agree to disarm and permit a technocratic transitional authority to oversee Gaza’s reconstruction.

A contentious aspect of the agreement involves the release of hundreds of convicted Palestinian terrorists, a provision that has already sparked outrage among the families of victims of terrorism. Dr. Michael Milshtein, head of the Moshe Dayan Forum at Tel Aviv University and a leading expert on Hamas, expressed serious concerns about the implications of such a release. He noted that the list of approximately 250 prisoners includes individuals who pose what he termed “a real strategic danger.”

“These are not low-level activists,” Milshtein stated. “Among them are individuals who have built power and influence while incarcerated. If released, they will return as leaders.” He provided several examples to illustrate the risks associated with past prisoner exchanges. Notable names on the current list include Abbas al-Sayed, convicted for the 2002 Park Hotel bombing in Netanya that resulted in 30 fatalities; Ibrahim Hamed, a former Hamas military commander serving over 40 life sentences; and Abdullah Barghouti, who manufactured explosives for a series of devastating suicide bombings.

“These are individuals with dozens of life sentences,” Milshtein explained. “We’ve already seen the consequences of releasing such figures. Many of those responsible for the October 7 massacre were prisoners freed in the 2011 Gilad Shalit deal.” Milshtein also pointed out that several recently released prisoners have quickly rejoined Hamas’s leadership abroad. He cited Abdel Nasser Issa, a Hamas operative convicted in 1995, who was released earlier this year and subsequently relocated to Turkey, where he began appearing in podcasts as part of the group’s senior political echelon. “That is the model,” he remarked. “They enter prison as operatives and emerge as decision-makers.”

Among the most alarming names on the draft list is Jamal Al-Hur, whom Milshtein described as “one of the five most dangerous.” Al-Hur, who has spent nearly three decades in prison, is deeply connected to Hamas’s hierarchy and acts as a key liaison between jailed operatives and the group’s external leadership. “He didn’t enter as a leader but became one inside,” Milshtein noted. “If released, he will quickly re-establish himself—just as others have done before him.”

The inclusion of Al-Hur in the proposed release has reignited anguish for the family of Sharon Edri, the Israeli soldier he helped kidnap, torture, and murder in 1996. Al-Hur was also convicted for the 1997 Apropo Café bombing in Tel Aviv, which killed 13 civilians. His name has appeared on proposed release lists twice before, only to be removed following public outcry.

“I know what it’s like not to know where your brother is for seven months,” said Danielle Edri Karten, Edri’s sister, who resides in New York. “There’s nothing that makes me happier than knowing families will soon be reunited with the hostages. But this man shouldn’t be released—not just because of my brother, but because of the danger he still poses.”

“He kidnapped, mutilated, and tortured my uncle,” added Izzy Karten, Edri’s nephew, in an interview with Fox News Digital from New York. “He went to jail, was released, and then committed the Apropo Café bombing. Later, he helped organize the kidnapping of three boys that sparked the 2014 war. Now he’s a senior Hamas leader inside prison—that’s why we call him the next Sinwar.”

Karten emphasized, “We’re not against the peace deal. We’re praying for the hostages to come home. We just need to ensure they aren’t traded for the worst of the worst.” The family has initiated a new petition urging the Israeli government to prevent Al-Hur’s release and to prohibit any future exchanges involving convicted murderers.

During Sharon Edri’s funeral nearly three decades ago, Prime Minister Netanyahu vowed to the family, “We are telling the killers—you won’t break the people and the family. We will not forget him and your daughter Hana. We will end the terror and will bring peace.” The family now fears that this promise may be compromised.

In addition to the list of notorious prisoners, another issue complicates the negotiations: Hamas’s demand for the release of approximately 90 members of its elite “Nukhba” force, the commandos responsible for the most horrific atrocities during the October 7 attack on Israeli communities. Milshtein, who visited the section of Ramla Prison where some of these terrorists are held, reported that they remain unrepentant. “I spoke with them,” he told Fox News Digital. “They are fanatical—completely committed. They show no remorse. The only thing they regret is not having killed more people.”

He characterized the Nukhba detainees as the most ideologically extreme and operationally capable among Hamas’s ranks. “They are akin to a special-forces division with a radical worldview,” he stated. “Releasing them would be like unleashing the individuals who planned and executed the worst day in Israel’s history.”

Despite the significant risks involved, Milshtein acknowledged that Israel may find itself with few alternatives. “It’s a terrible dilemma,” he admitted. “But strategically, this may be one of those bitter compromises Israel will have to make to bring its citizens home.”

Source: Original article

Trump Administration Explores Privatization of $1.6 Trillion Student Loan Debt

The Trump administration is exploring the privatization of parts of the $1.6 trillion federal student loan portfolio, raising concerns about borrower protections and repayment terms.

The Trump administration is considering options to privatize portions of the federal government’s substantial student loan portfolio, which currently stands at $1.6 trillion. This initiative could significantly alter the landscape of student loan management in the United States.

According to sources familiar with the discussions, senior officials from both the Education Department and the Treasury Department are engaged in talks about potentially selling high-performing segments of the federal student loan portfolio. This portfolio is owed by approximately 45 million Americans, and the administration aims to ensure the long-term health of the loans for the benefit of both students and taxpayers.

A senior administration official stated, “The Trump administration is committed to analyzing all aspects of the federal student loan portfolio. Unlike the previous administration, we are focused on ensuring the long-term health of the portfolio for the benefit of both students and taxpayers.”

However, not everyone is optimistic about the potential outcomes of such a move. Eileen Connor, executive director of the Project on Predatory Student Lending, expressed skepticism regarding the administration’s ability to structure a deal that would benefit both taxpayers and borrowers. “The only way for it to make economic sense is to structure the deal in a way that really short-changes borrowers,” she noted.

Connor highlighted that much of the value of federal student debt stems from unique powers that private entities do not possess. These include the ability to collect on loans indefinitely, garnish Social Security benefits and tax refunds, and enjoy broad immunity from lawsuits if the government mishandles borrowers’ debts.

As of late 2025, the total student loan debt in the United States has reached approximately $1.8 trillion, making it one of the largest sources of personal debt in the country. Of this, around $1.66 trillion consists of federal student loans held by over 42 million borrowers. The average federal student loan debt per borrower is roughly $39,000, with many individuals also carrying private loans that exacerbate their financial burdens.

The demographic most affected by this debt is individuals aged 35 to 49, who collectively owe about $570 billion. Additionally, borrowers over the age of 50 are increasingly facing serious repayment challenges. Delinquency rates have surged, exceeding 8% in early 2025, indicating a growing difficulty in meeting loan obligations.

In response to these challenges, the current administration has resumed student loan forgiveness programs under Income-Based Repayment, aiming to alleviate some of the financial pressure on borrowers. However, the potential sale of federal loans to private investors raises significant concerns about the future of loan management and repayment terms.

The rising delinquency rates underscore the repayment challenges many borrowers face. While the resumption of loan forgiveness programs provides some relief, the introduction of privatization could create uncertainty regarding future protections and repayment conditions for borrowers.

As discussions continue, the implications of privatizing parts of the federal student loan portfolio remain to be seen. Stakeholders are closely monitoring these developments, as they could have lasting effects on millions of borrowers across the nation.

Source: Original article

Trump-Era Education Policies Continue to Influence U.S. Universities

President Trump’s proposed cap on international students could significantly alter U.S. higher education, affecting university finances and America’s reputation as a global education leader.

President Donald Trump has proposed a cap on international students in U.S. universities, limiting their enrollment to 15% of an institution’s undergraduate population, with no more than 5% from any single country. This initiative, framed as a national security measure, aims to ensure that foreign students bring exceptional talent to the American economy while addressing concerns about the potential dilution of opportunities for American students.

The proposal raises alarms about the possibility of universities becoming saturated with students whose values may be perceived as “hostile to the United States,” which could pose national security risks. Current statistics indicate that most U.S. universities are below the proposed 15% cap for foreign undergraduates. For instance, institutions like the University of Arizona and the University of Texas report international student shares of approximately 4-5%, while Brown University stands at 13.5%. Only a few universities, such as Dartmouth College, slightly exceed the proposed limit, with a 15.5% international student population.

The 5% cap on single-country representation could significantly impact universities with large concentrations of international students. The University of Southern California (USC), for example, has historically enrolled a substantial number of Chinese undergraduates, with around 1,051 students, slightly above the proposed limit. Similarly, Vanderbilt University faces challenges with 377 Chinese undergraduates, exceeding the 5% cap of 361 students.

Experts warn that implementing such strict caps could hinder access to international talent and adversely affect universities that rely on foreign tuition to sustain their operations. Critics argue that this policy could undermine America’s status as a global education hub and create administrative burdens for institutions tasked with enforcing these limits.

This proposal comes at a time when U.S. universities are already experiencing a decline in foreign student enrollment, a trend influenced by visa restrictions, increased global competition, and shifting student preferences. DePaul University recently informed its faculty of immediate spending cuts following a 30% drop in international student enrollment this fall. This decision reflects a broader trend among U.S. colleges as they adapt to the repercussions of previous education and immigration policies enacted during the Trump administration.

While the exact scale of the budget cuts at DePaul has not been finalized, potential measures could include a hiring freeze, reductions in executive salaries, and limitations on discretionary spending, according to a memo from university president Robert Manuel shared with faculty. DePaul is not alone; at least 35 other U.S. colleges have announced budget reductions in response to policies from the Trump administration. Notably, Johns Hopkins University eliminated over 2,000 positions in March following an $800 million reduction in federal research grants, while Northwestern University cut 425 jobs. The University of Southern California also laid off more than 630 employees, citing declining federal funding and anticipated drops in international student enrollment among other financial challenges.

As universities finalize their fall enrollment figures, a comprehensive national picture is still pending. Preliminary data from the Department of Homeland Security’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) indicates a 2.4% decline in international students this month compared to last September, dropping from 965,437 to 942,131. However, these numbers are subject to change as many institutions have yet to report their updated totals and student movement continues throughout the semester.

Last year, an estimated 1.2 million international students were enrolled in U.S. institutions, according to NAFSA: Association of International Educators. The organization projected in July that this figure could decrease by as much as 15% this year, potentially resulting in an economic loss of nearly $7 billion for the country.

This proposed cap on international students could have far-reaching implications for U.S. higher education, impacting not only university finances but also the nation’s ability to attract global talent and maintain its status as a premier education destination.

Source: Original article

Netanyahu Gains Unexpected Support as Concerns Over Government Stability Rise

Israeli opposition leader Yair Lapid extends support to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu amid ongoing hostage negotiations and concerns over the stability of Netanyahu’s government.

Two years after the tragic events of October 7, 2023, when Hamas terrorists attacked Israel, killing 1,200 individuals and taking 251 hostages into Gaza, the situation remains precarious. There is still no resolution regarding the hostages, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government faces the threat of collapse. In this challenging context, Netanyahu has found an unexpected ally in Yair Lapid, the leader of the opposition and former Prime Minister, who has offered a “security net” to help stabilize the government as negotiations with Hamas continue.

“Nothing is more important than making this deal, bringing our hostages back home,” Lapid stated in an interview with Fox News Digital.

Lapid’s support comes at a critical time, as right-wing leaders within Netanyahu’s coalition, including National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, have expressed dissatisfaction with Netanyahu’s acceptance of a peace plan proposed by former President Donald Trump. They have threatened to withdraw from the coalition multiple times over the past year.

Netanyahu’s coalition lost its majority in the Knesset in July when two ultra-Orthodox parties exited their ministerial roles following the expiration of an exemption that allowed religious students to avoid military conscription. This departure left Netanyahu’s coalition with control over just 50 of the 120 seats in the Knesset.

<p”Now he’s totally dependent on the extreme alt-right within his government that says no to any deal [with Hamas],” Lapid explained.

When asked about the likelihood of special elections being called once the Knesset reconvenes after its autumn break on October 19, Lapid responded, “very likely.” However, he noted that a special election would not occur before February or March 2026, as there is a designated timeframe for campaigning in Israel. Should the Knesset trigger an early election cycle by November, it would be just seven months earlier than the previously scheduled elections in October 2026.

Lapid believes that the Israeli public would support a more centrist government that includes both right and left factions. He argues that such a coalition would prioritize Israeli security while also working towards an end to the war in Gaza and restoring Jerusalem’s international standing.

“If there’s one thing I’m sorry about, [it] is the fact that nobody in the government has the political courage to stand up and say…this is a just war, we are doing what needs to be done in order to protect ourselves, but we are sorry for every child that loses his life,” Lapid remarked. “Children should not die in grownups’ wars.”

He expressed concern that the current government’s failure to articulate a clear strategy against Hamas has contributed to media bias and false reporting, ultimately costing Israel valuable international support, even from groups that have traditionally backed the nation.

Reflecting on a meeting he had with Netanyahu on October 7, 2023, Lapid described the prime minister as appearing “gray and tired and old all of a sudden.” He recalled telling Netanyahu, “Prime Minister, this is the worst day for the Jewish people since the Holocaust,” and urged the formation of a unity government. Lapid emphasized the need to remove extremists from the government to create a coalition capable of addressing the unprecedented challenges facing Israel.

Despite Lapid’s suggestions, he noted that Netanyahu was “reluctant” to pursue this path. “Until this day, I’m sorry about this. I thought it was the right thing to do, and I still think it was the right thing to do,” he added.

Netanyahu has been a prominent figure in Israeli politics for 15 years, first serving as Prime Minister from March 2009 to June 2021, and then regaining the position in December 2022. Lapid described Netanyahu’s lengthy tenure as “admirable” and a testament to his “resilience,” while also acknowledging the potential benefits of term limits, similar to those in the United States.

Lapid believes that Israelis are ready for a “unity government” in response to Netanyahu’s hard-right coalition. He anticipates that the upcoming elections will be “interesting,” crossing political lines and based on hope.

“It’s been the hardest two years of everybody’s lifetime. And for the first time in a long, long time, the fragility of Israeli society was tangible to us. And we need to rebuild,” Lapid concluded.

Netanyahu’s office did not respond to inquiries from Fox News Digital by the time this report was published.

Source: Original article

New Jersey Democrat Plans Lawsuit Against Trump Over Troop Deployments

New Jersey gubernatorial candidate Mikie Sherrill has pledged to sue President Trump if he deploys National Guard troops to the state, arguing that such actions would be illegal and unnecessary.

Mikie Sherrill, a former Navy veteran and current representative of New Jersey’s 11th Congressional District, has expressed her strong opposition to the deployment of National Guard troops in her state. During a town hall meeting broadcast live on Univision 41 Nueva York, Sherrill made it clear that she would take legal action against the Trump administration should the president decide to send federal troops to New Jersey.

The town hall audience, which engaged with Sherrill in Spanish while she responded in English, included a member whose family fled the Nicolás Maduro regime in Venezuela. This individual posed a question regarding Sherrill’s stance on potential troop deployments by President Trump. In her response, Sherrill emphasized that American troops should not be patrolling the streets of the country except in extraordinary circumstances, such as during an insurrection or a national crisis.

“Troops are not trained for policing missions like local law enforcement,” Sherrill stated. She further elaborated on her position, saying, “And that’s why, as governor, should Trump try to deploy troops on our streets, I would be very opposed to that. I’d immediately take him to court and demand that he stop this – because I think it’s illegal – and ensure that here in New Jersey, people are kept safe.”

Sherrill is currently running against Republican candidate Jack Ciattarelli in the race to succeed term-limited Democratic Governor Phil Murphy. Her remarks come in the context of President Trump’s recent actions, which have included the deployment or threats of deployment of federal troops to various cities across the United States, including Baltimore, Los Angeles, and Memphis. The administration has characterized these cities as crime-ridden and in need of federal intervention.

In Illinois, Governor J.B. Pritzker has also taken legal action against the Trump administration, seeking to block the deployment of National Guard troops to Chicago. This lawsuit was initiated following a federal judge’s decision to halt the deployment of Guard troops in Portland, Oregon, amid protests related to immigration enforcement.

The Trump administration has defended its troop deployments, asserting that they are essential for curbing violent crime and restoring law and order. However, critics, including various officials, have accused the administration of overreach, arguing that federal intervention often exacerbates tensions rather than alleviating them.

In a recent ruling, a federal judge stated that the Trump administration “willfully” violated federal law by deploying Guard troops to Los Angeles earlier this year in response to protests concerning immigration raids.

As the gubernatorial race heats up, Sherrill’s commitment to legal action against potential troop deployments highlights the ongoing debate over federal intervention in local law enforcement and the implications it holds for state sovereignty and public safety.

Source: Original article

Congressman Frank Pallone Calls for U.S.-India Talks on H-1B Visa Issues

Congressman Frank Pallone has called for early U.S.-India discussions in light of recent turmoil surrounding H-1B visa policy changes that could significantly impact skilled workers and the technology sector.

The Global Organization of People of Indian Origin (GOPIO) hosted a special webinar titled “H-1B Visa Storm: Current Challenges and Pathways Forward” on October 4, 2025. The event brought together immigration attorneys, policy experts, and community leaders to discuss the implications of recent changes to U.S. visa policies.

This webinar was organized in response to growing confusion and concern following President Donald Trump’s announcement on September 19, which introduced a $100,000 fee for H-1B visas. This fee is nearly 67 times higher than the current cost, leaving thousands of Indian professionals and U.S. employers uncertain about their futures.

Sunil Vuppala, GOPIO Associate Secretary and Webinar Chair, welcomed participants and highlighted the urgent need for clarity amid widespread misinformation. GOPIO Chairman Dr. Thomas Abraham expressed disappointment over the administration’s response to concerns raised by the organization. He emphasized that the H-1B program generates over $200 billion annually for the U.S. economy, while costs amount to only $8.5 billion.

Dr. Abraham remarked, “The U.S. technology sector thrives because of the H-1B visa program. There’s a clear link between H-1B professionals and American innovation.”

The panel discussion was moderated by New York Immigration Attorney Dilli Batta and featured experts such as David Nachman from NPZ Law Group in New Jersey, Stephanie Dy from Parikh Law Group in Chicago, and Prashanti Reddy from Reddy Law Firm in New York.

Attorney David Nachman described the new policy as a “torrential storm” for skilled workers, outlining three critical changes. First, the massive fee increase primarily affects first-time H-1B applicants outside the U.S., excluding renewals or extensions. Experts warned that this could deter global talent from seeking opportunities in the United States.

Second, proposed reforms would prioritize higher-paying jobs in the H-1B lottery system, which could disadvantage small and mid-sized firms and undermine merit-based selection. Third, enhanced compliance checks will lead to increased site visits and audits, tightening scrutiny on employers and raising operational challenges.

Attorney Prashanti Reddy noted that while renewals and amendments remain unaffected, the new policy could harm applicants in research and technology sectors. Stephanie Dy added that stricter qualification standards could make it more challenging for small firms to recruit top talent, particularly those without advanced degrees.

The panelists collectively warned that the U.S. risks losing its competitive edge in innovation if it continues to discourage skilled immigrants.

Congressman Frank Pallone Jr. (D-NJ), who served as the Chief Guest, criticized the administration’s approach, labeling it “short-sighted and counterproductive.” He argued that instead of imposing exorbitant fees, the government should focus on training domestic talent and fostering international collaboration.

Pallone stated, “This policy shifts focus from developing local skills to simply generating revenue,” stressing that small businesses and startups would be hit hardest. He cautioned that other nations, such as Germany and China, are actively courting global professionals, potentially diverting talent away from the U.S.

The Congressman also underscored the strategic implications of alienating India, noting that India’s growing ties with Russia and China could complicate U.S. foreign policy. He urged both nations to initiate early bilateral dialogue to “remove current hiccups” and strengthen their long-standing ties.

Pallone reaffirmed bipartisan support in Congress for maintaining the H-1B program and encouraged organizations like GOPIO to continue engaging lawmakers. “Community participation and policy dialogue are vital to ensure America remains open to innovation and global expertise,” he added.

The session concluded with a vote of thanks from GOPIO General Secretary Siddharth Jain, with technical coordination provided by Vatsala Upadhyay, CEO of AI Junoon. GOPIO announced plans for continued engagement with congressional leaders on immigration and diaspora issues.

Founded in 1989, GOPIO is a non-partisan, non-profit organization with chapters in over 36 countries. It works to build bridges between the global Indian diaspora and local communities through cultural, civic, and humanitarian initiatives.

Source: Original article

Kaelyn Faces Debt to Prevent Partner’s Deportation to El Salvador

Kaelyn’s unexpected romance with Yapa, an asylum seeker from Venezuela, has turned into a desperate fight against his deportation, leading her into significant debt for legal support.

Last summer, Kaelyn found herself at a Latin club in Wilmington, North Carolina, when a charming stranger asked her to dance. Initially reluctant, she was drawn in by his genuine demeanor. “If anyone else had asked, I would’ve said no, but Yapa is so genuine,” she recalls, using a pseudonym to protect his identity. What began as a dance blossomed into a deep friendship and romance, but it would soon lead to a desperate battle for Yapa’s freedom.

Yapa, who fled violence in Venezuela in 2022, was an asylum seeker with a legal work permit. He attended regular court hearings and worked as a delivery driver, aspiring to obtain his commercial trucking license. As their relationship grew, Kaelyn became an integral part of his life.

They celebrated Thanksgiving together, with Yapa bonding with Kaelyn’s family, even playing pool with her father. Her affection for him was evident as his sisters affectionately called her “reina,” a term of endearment meaning queen. They spent their time watching movies and overcoming language barriers with translation apps and Kaelyn’s college Spanish. Each morning, Yapa would text her to ask about her day, solidifying their connection.

Before meeting Yapa, Kaelyn rarely considered immigration policy. Originally from Connecticut, she had relocated to Wilmington for work in film location scouting. However, the political climate shifted dramatically after President Trump’s election, which sparked her concerns about the treatment of asylum seekers.

“People would tell me, ‘Oh, you’re overreacting,’” she says. “This isn’t 1930s Germany. And I’d say, ‘Yeah, but it’s starting to feel that way.’ Looking back now, while people were telling me I was being dramatic, I was actually underreacting.”

On February 22, 2025, Kaelyn’s worst fears materialized when Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents arrived unexpectedly in the early morning hours while Yapa was preparing for work. Without explanation, they handcuffed him, confiscating his ID and work permit—documents that have not been returned. They provided no information about his destination, only that he was being deported.

Kaelyn was devastated when Yapa’s sister called to inform her of his detention. Just the night before, Yapa had stayed with her, and she had hoped to keep him close as a U.S. citizen, believing she could better advocate for his rights. “I couldn’t explain it, but I was so emotional,” she recalls of their final night together. “And he told me, ‘There’s no reason for them to take me.’” Now, they faced an urgent need to act to save him.

Yapa was transported to Georgia’s Stewart Detention Center, where he faced allegations of gang affiliation with the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua (TdA) during a hearing two months later. “Shocking is not even the word,” Kaelyn says, recalling her reaction. “I was shaking.”

In a recent court filing, ICE admitted it has no evidence linking Yapa to any gang. However, a ruling from the Trump administration complicates the situation for immigrants like Yapa, who entered the country recently and are now struggling to secure their release from detention. Yapa could remain incarcerated for up to a year while his asylum case is pending, facing the grim possibility of deportation to a dangerous environment.

Kaelyn’s fear of the allegations against Yapa was palpable, knowing that if he were deported, he could end up in CECOT, a notorious prison in El Salvador known for its brutality. “I thought, I’m going to have to live the rest of my life knowing he’s in there, and there’s nothing that we can do to get him out of there,” she reflects. The thought of Yapa, along with many other innocent individuals, being imprisoned in what some describe as a modern-day concentration camp is an “atrocity,” she asserts.

The emotional and financial toll on Kaelyn has been immense. She has hired multiple attorneys to advocate for Yapa and has incurred significant debt due to legal fees. Meanwhile, Yapa is held nearly nine hours away from Wilmington, with limited access to phone communication. In April, attorneys from the American Immigration Council and the ACLU took on part of Yapa’s case pro bono. By May, they secured a ruling that prevents the Trump administration from deporting Yapa to CECOT or elsewhere based on the Alien Enemies Act without allowing him a fair chance to contest the TdA allegations. While this decision brought some relief, Kaelyn’s life has been drastically altered.

Conversations with her sister now revolve primarily around updates on Yapa’s case and the latest developments in immigration policy. “We can’t be happy when there’s literally a member of our family who’s been taken from us,” she says. “I’ll never let this go. The administration thinks they’re sowing fear—but they’re creating activists. You can’t destroy someone’s life and expect us to stay quiet.”

Source: Original article

Beatriz: Immigrant Lawyer Advocating for Noncitizen Children’s Rights

Beatriz, a Venezuelan-American lawyer, faces challenges in advocating for unaccompanied minors amid changing immigration policies and a climate of fear affecting her community.

In February 2025, Beatriz, a Venezuelan-American lawyer, received an unexpected order from the Interior Department directing her nonprofit organization to cease all operations. Beatriz specializes in representing unaccompanied minors—children navigating immigration proceedings without their parents. These vulnerable youngsters often find themselves living with relatives, placed in foster care, or detained in facilities, facing a daunting system alone.

Beatriz’s own journey began when she immigrated to the United States at the age of eight, fleeing violence and political persecution in Venezuela. Having witnessed her parents struggle through numerous meetings with immigration lawyers, she decided to pursue a legal career to help others in similar situations. “I know how terrifying it is to be a child, alone and unable to speak English, trying to deal with authority figures,” Beatriz reflects. “That’s why I became a lawyer, to bring some empathy to that process.” Today, she is a U.S. citizen dedicated to advocating for those who are not.

The abrupt stop-work order disrupted Beatriz’s efforts to assist these children. “It came completely out of the blue—suddenly, everything changed,” she recalls. The order led to the cancellation of federal contracts, forcing organizations like hers to reduce staff and resources. “For those of us left, it was all hands on deck,” Beatriz explains, highlighting the urgency of their mission.

Although the stop-work order was eventually rescinded, the legal battles surrounding the canceled contracts continue. The immediate impact, however, has been severe. “In practical terms, it left children without anybody to advocate for them,” Beatriz states. During this period, she and her colleagues attended numerous hearings to observe and take notes. In one particularly heartbreaking instance, Beatriz witnessed a confused six-year-old appear in court without any legal representation. “These young children are being brought to immigration hearings—speaking no English, and without a lawyer—to try to explain why they shouldn’t be deported,” she laments.

The situation has been exacerbated by the use of “rocket dockets” in immigration courts, which cram multiple hearings into a single day. “They started fast-tracking kids through the system at a time when we weren’t able to accompany them,” Beatriz says, expressing her concern over the increasing challenges faced by unaccompanied minors.

Beatriz has also observed the chaos that ensues when caregivers are detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Some of her young clients have been placed in detention or foster care, while the government has sometimes refused to disclose the whereabouts of their caregivers. “It’s something none of my superiors—including people who worked during Trump’s first term—have ever experienced before,” she notes, highlighting the unprecedented nature of the current climate.

As a result, Beatriz frequently encounters children who are afraid to attend school or even leave their homes. “So much of my job is now simply dealing with anxious kids,” she says. “Pretty much every one of these children has a deep sense that the U.S. is no longer a safe place for them.”

This pervasive fear extends beyond the children to Beatriz’s entire community. Even before the Trump administration canceled Temporary Protected Status for approximately 350,000 Venezuelans, her WhatsApp groups were filled with messages from individuals whose loved ones had disappeared from their neighborhoods. “I have friends who are scared to step onto the street,” she shares. “The demonization of my culture and my community is really hurtful, and really harmful.”

With discussions around denaturalizing or deporting U.S. citizens to foreign prisons and eliminating due process for migrants, Beatriz worries for the safety of her own family, all of whom are now American citizens. “We worked hard to get citizenship, but there’s a real fear that even that won’t protect us,” she says. “For Venezuelans, the feelings of insecurity are always present. It really weighs heavily on us.”

Beatriz’s commitment to her work remains steadfast, even in the face of adversity. She continues to advocate for unaccompanied minors, striving to ensure that these children receive the legal representation and support they desperately need.

Source: Original article

Legal Challenge Emerges Against $100,000 Fee on H-1B Visas

The first legal challenge against President Trump’s $100,000 fee on H-1B visas has been filed, with critics arguing it could devastate key sectors and exceed presidential authority.

A coalition of unions, employers, religious organizations, and healthcare providers has initiated the first federal lawsuit against President Donald Trump’s controversial $100,000 fee on new H-1B visa petitions. The lawsuit, filed in San Francisco, asserts that the Trump administration has overstepped its constitutional authority, as only Congress has the power to impose taxes or fees.

Trump announced the unprecedented policy on September 19, claiming that the H-1B program, which allows tens of thousands of high-skilled foreign workers to enter the United States each year, had been “deliberately exploited” to replace American workers with lower-paid labor. The new fee is set to take effect just 36 hours after the announcement, prompting panic among employers who rushed to secure workers before the rules changed.

The proclamation mandates that employers pay an additional $100,000 for each new H-1B hire, in addition to existing fees that typically range from $2,000 to $5,000. Notably, this fee does not apply to current H-1B holders or to petitions filed before September 21.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit include the United Auto Workers union, the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), healthcare providers, and various religious groups. They argue that Trump’s actions have effectively disrupted a program established by Congress, creating chaos for employers, workers, and federal agencies alike. They contend that the proclamation must be blocked to prevent widespread harm.

“Without relief, hospitals will lose medical staff, churches will lose pastors, classrooms will lose teachers, and industries across the country risk losing key innovators,” stated the Democracy Forward Foundation and Justice Action Center, which are representing the plaintiffs in a joint press release.

The H-1B visa program, introduced by Congress in 1992, permits U.S. employers to hire temporary foreign workers in specialized fields such as technology, medicine, engineering, and education. Each year, the program issues 65,000 visas, with an additional 20,000 reserved for applicants holding advanced degrees. Due to high demand, visas are typically allocated by lottery.

This lawsuit highlights the extensive impact of the H-1B program beyond the technology sector. According to the plaintiffs, approximately one-third of H-1B visa holders are employed as nurses, physicians, teachers, scholars, and clergy. Hospitals and universities have expressed concerns that the new fee could severely hinder their staffing capabilities, while religious organizations fear it may impede their ability to recruit clergy.

“The $100,000 fee will discourage the best and brightest minds from bringing life-saving research to the U.S.,” remarked Todd Wolfson, president of the AAUP, in comments reported by the Associated Press.

Business leaders have echoed these sentiments. Amazon, which received over 10,000 H-1B visas this year, is among the largest beneficiaries, followed by Tata Consultancy, Microsoft, Apple, and Google. California, home to many of these companies, employs the highest number of H-1B workers in the nation. For these businesses, the new fee could translate into tens of millions of dollars in additional costs, not to mention the potential chilling effect on talent mobility.

The Trump administration defends the fee as a necessary measure to curb abuse of the H-1B program and to protect American jobs. Trump has argued that the influx of lower-wage workers has undermined the program’s integrity and poses a threat to national security by discouraging Americans from pursuing careers in science and technology.

Supporters of the fee assert that some outsourcing firms exploit the H-1B program to import workers at salaries as low as $60,000, which is significantly below the typical six-figure compensation for U.S. tech jobs.

The lawsuit raises a critical constitutional question: Can a president unilaterally impose new fees on a visa program established by Congress? The plaintiffs assert that the answer is no, emphasizing that the Constitution reserves the authority to levy taxes or fees for Congress alone.

The proclamation effectively transforms the H-1B program into one where employers must either “pay to play” or seek a “national interest” exemption, which would be granted at the discretion of the Secretary of Homeland Security. This system raises concerns about selective enforcement and potential corruption, according to the lawsuit.

Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, described the “exorbitant fee” as illegal and a potential invitation for corruption. “Congress created the program, and Trump cannot rewrite it overnight or impose new taxes by executive order,” she stated, as reported by the Associated Press.

The lawsuit also critiques the administration for failing to adhere to the required rulemaking process, alleging that agencies such as USCIS and the State Department implemented policies without proper notice or consideration of their impact on employers and innovation.

India is the largest beneficiary of the H-1B program, with Indian nationals accounting for 71 percent of approved visas last year, while China received 11.7 percent, according to government data. The steep new fee is expected to disproportionately affect Indian professionals, potentially straining U.S.-India relations at a time when Washington seeks to strengthen ties with New Delhi.

The plaintiffs are seeking an immediate injunction to halt the enforcement of the fee. A federal judge in San Francisco is expected to hear arguments in the coming weeks. Meanwhile, uncertainty looms as employers remain unsure whether to proceed with petitions and workers find themselves in limbo.

If the court rules against the administration, it would represent a significant rebuke of Trump’s expansive claims of executive authority over immigration. Conversely, if the order is upheld, it could permanently alter one of America’s most vital pathways for high-skilled immigration, with far-reaching implications for the economy, education, healthcare, and international diplomacy.

For now, this lawsuit marks the first but likely not the last challenge to a policy that critics argue threatens to close America’s doors to global talent while entangling employers and workers in costly and confusing regulations.

Source: Original article

California Governor Criticizes Trump’s Funding Incentives for Universities

California Governor Gavin Newsom has strongly opposed President Donald Trump’s proposed plan that pressures universities to alter admissions policies in exchange for federal funding, emphasizing the importance of academic freedom.

President Donald Trump’s proposed “compact for academic excellence” has ignited controversy as it seeks to pressure U.S. universities to abandon diversity factors in their admissions processes in exchange for federal funding. This initiative has drawn sharp criticism from California Governor Gavin Newsom, who is staunchly defending academic freedom.

In the wake of a recent ruling from Harvard, the Trump administration appears to be employing what some critics describe as a form of bribery to influence higher education institutions. The White House has reached out to nine prominent colleges and universities, urging them to adhere to a set of demands to gain expanded access to federal funding.

A document obtained by CNN outlines the terms of this compact, which calls for universities to eliminate considerations of sex and ethnicity in their admissions processes. The Trump administration argues that this would foster “a vibrant marketplace of ideas on campus” and ensure that no single ideology dominates, whether politically or in other relevant areas. Additionally, the compact includes provisions for assessing faculty and staff viewpoints, maintaining “grade integrity,” and implementing a five-year freeze on tuition costs.

According to a White House official, universities that sign the compact would gain a “competitive advantage.” These institutions would be prioritized for federal grants and would receive invitations to White House events and discussions with government officials.

The list of universities targeted by this initiative includes a mix of public and private institutions, such as Vanderbilt University, the University of Pennsylvania, Dartmouth College, the University of Southern California, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of Texas at Austin, the University of Arizona, Brown University, and the University of Virginia.

However, not all leaders are in favor of this approach. Governor Newsom issued a stern warning to California universities on Thursday, stating that any institution that complies with Trump’s demands would be considered a sell-out. He emphasized the potential consequences of signing the agreement, declaring, “IF ANY CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY SIGNS THIS RADICAL AGREEMENT, THEY’LL LOSE BILLIONS IN STATE FUNDING — INCLUDING CAL GRANTS — INSTANTLY.”

Newsom’s remarks reflect a broader commitment to protecting academic freedom and resisting what he views as federal overreach. He stated, “CALIFORNIA WILL NOT BANKROLL SCHOOLS THAT SELL OUT THEIR STUDENTS, PROFESSORS, RESEARCHERS, AND SURRENDER ACADEMIC FREEDOM.”

Trump’s push for universities to adopt the “compact for academic excellence” is seen as part of a larger effort to influence higher education by promoting ideological diversity and controlling admissions criteria. This initiative has sparked significant backlash, particularly from progressive leaders like Newsom, who are determined to uphold the principles of academic independence.

As the debate continues, the implications of this compact could have far-reaching effects on the landscape of higher education in the United States, particularly for those institutions that choose to comply with the administration’s demands.

Source: Original article

Supreme Court Begins Pivotal Term Amid Tests for Trump’s Presidency

The Supreme Court’s new term will address significant constitutional questions regarding presidential authority, particularly in relation to President Trump’s executive actions and their legal challenges.

The Supreme Court is set to begin its new term on Monday, focusing on controversial prior rulings and reviewing the sweeping executive agenda of President Donald Trump. After a three-month recess, the nine justices reconvened to reset their docket and discuss appeals that accumulated over the summer. This term, the Court will tackle a range of issues, including gender identity, election redistricting, and free speech. However, the specter of Trump-era legal battles looms large as the administration’s appeals reach the high court for final review.

Since January, the Supreme Court has largely favored the Trump administration in emergency appeals, which primarily addressed whether challenged policies could temporarily go into effect while lower courts deliberated. These cases have encompassed immigration, federal spending cuts, workforce reductions, and policies concerning transgender individuals in the military. The conservative majority, which holds a 6-3 advantage, has reversed approximately two dozen nationwide injunctions imposed by lower federal courts, leading to frustration and confusion among judges.

Legal analysts suggest that the Court may be poised to grant broad unilateral powers to the president as these petitions reach the Supreme Court for final review. The justices have fast-tracked the administration’s appeal concerning tariffs on numerous countries that were previously blocked by lower courts, with oral arguments scheduled for November. In December, they will consider whether to overturn a 90-year precedent regarding the president’s authority to dismiss members of certain federal regulatory agencies, such as the Federal Trade Commission. Additionally, in January, the Court will evaluate President Trump’s power to remove Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors.

Thomas Dupree, a prominent appellate attorney and constitutional law expert, noted, “A big fraction of the Supreme Court’s docket will present the question: ‘can President Trump do?’— then fill in the blank.” This could encompass imposing tariffs, firing independent board members, removing undocumented immigrants, or deploying the military in cities like Los Angeles. Much of the Court’s decisions this term will revolve around whether the president has acted within or exceeded his authority.

The tariffs dispute represents the Court’s first major constitutional test regarding the extent of presidential power, setting a precedent for future appeals related to Trump’s executive agenda. In earlier cases concerning temporary enforcement of these policies, the Court’s liberal justices cautioned against the judiciary becoming a mere rubber stamp for presidential actions. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson criticized her conservative colleagues for accommodating the Trump administration, stating, “Right when the Judiciary should be hunkering down to do all it can to preserve the law’s constraints, the Court opts instead to make vindicating the rule of law and preventing manifestly injurious Government action as difficult as possible.”

Despite these criticisms, some justices have denied that they are facilitating Trump’s aggressive attempts to reshape the federal government. Justice Brett Kavanaugh emphasized the importance of separating powers, stating, “No one person or group of people should have too much power in our system.” Justice Amy Coney Barrett echoed this sentiment, asserting that the Court does not align with political parties and is focused on making impartial decisions. “We’re taking each case and we’re looking at the question of presidential power as it comes,” Barrett remarked.

The ideological divisions within the Court are expected to intensify as justices examine the scope of presidential power and their own authority. Trump has previously suggested that actions taken in the name of national interest may justify legal violations, stating, “He who saves his Country does not violate any Law.” Federal courts have been grappling with defining the limits of executive power while also managing their own jurisdiction.

Numerous federal judges, appointed by both Democratic and Republican administrations, have expressed concern over the Supreme Court’s frequent overturning of lower court rulings related to Trump administration policies, often with minimal explanation. These judges, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, conveyed that such actions have created a perception of bias against the president and have left them feeling ineffective in their roles.

Judge James Wynn, a federal appeals judge, criticized the high court for leaving lower courts in a state of uncertainty, stating, “We’re out here flailing… They could easily just give us direction, and we would follow it.” While the Trump administration has achieved short-term victories in a Court where he appointed a third of the justices, the president and his associates have not hesitated to criticize federal judges, even calling for their impeachment when rulings have not favored the administration.

According to an analysis by Stanford University’s Adam Bonica, federal district judges ruled against the Trump administration 94.3% of the time between May and June. However, the Supreme Court has reversed those injunctions over 90% of the time, granting the president temporary authority to advance his reform agenda.

The Supreme Court’s reluctance to directly criticize Trump has been evident, with justices navigating a delicate balance. Justice Sonia Sotomayor recently remarked on the challenges facing the rule of law, stating, “Once we lose our common norms, we’ve lost the rule of law completely.” Chief Justice John Roberts has also publicly addressed the calls for impeachment from the right, emphasizing the need for judicial integrity.

As public confidence in major institutions continues to decline, a recent Fox News poll indicated that 47% of voters approve of the Supreme Court’s performance, a notable increase from the previous year. However, a significant portion of the public perceives the Court as leaning too conservative, with 43% of voters expressing this sentiment.

This term, the Court’s ability to remain apolitical will be tested as it considers several contentious appeals, including those related to same-sex marriage and school prayer. The justices are expected to decide soon whether to include these cases on their argument calendar, with potential rulings anticipated by June 2026.

As the Supreme Court embarks on this pivotal term, the implications of its decisions on presidential power and the broader legal landscape will be closely watched. The outcomes may not only affect the current administration but could also shape the trajectory of future presidencies.

Source: Original article

U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Key Cases on Tariffs and LGBTQ Rights

The new U.S. Supreme Court term opens with significant cases that may redefine presidential power and constitutional rights, including issues related to tariffs, birthright citizenship, and LGBTQ rights.

A new term of the U.S. Supreme Court has commenced, bringing with it a series of landmark cases that could significantly reshape the landscape of presidential power and constitutional rights.

At the forefront of this term are President Donald Trump’s assertive claims of executive authority, which are now under intense scrutiny. Several of his controversial policies are set to be reviewed by the Court, including expansive tariff powers, restrictions on birthright citizenship, and the authority of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions.

One of the most anticipated cases will address the participation of transgender girls and women in public school sports. This case will test the legal protections afforded under Title IX, as well as broader constitutional guarantees related to gender identity and equality.

In addition to these issues, the Court will also consider challenges to voting rights, particularly focusing on Louisiana’s redistricting efforts and potential reinterpretations of the Voting Rights Act. These cases are expected to have far-reaching implications for electoral processes and representation in the United States.

Thus far, the Court’s conservative majority has demonstrated a willingness to entertain some of Trump’s emergency appeals. However, as the cases are examined in detail, there is a possibility that the justices may adopt a more cautious approach in their rulings.

Justice Samuel Alito, currently 76 years old, is speculated to be considering retirement in 2026. Should he choose to step down, it would present Trump with the opportunity to appoint another conservative justice, further influencing the ideological balance of the Court.

Legal analysts suggest that this term could be one of the most politically charged in recent memory, with the potential to impact a wide range of issues that resonate deeply with the American public.

As the Supreme Court navigates these high-stakes cases, the outcomes may set significant precedents that could affect the balance of power between the executive branch and the judiciary, as well as the rights of individuals across the nation.

Source: Original article

SAAJCO Initiates Lawsuit Against $100,000 H-1B Fee for Indian-Americans

Labor unions, healthcare providers, and educational institutions have filed a lawsuit against President Trump’s new $100,000 fee for H-1B visa applications, claiming it threatens essential services and the economy.

A coalition of labor unions, healthcare providers, educational institutions, and religious organizations has initiated a lawsuit to challenge a recent executive action by President Trump that imposes a $100,000 fee on every new H-1B visa application. Filed on October 3, the lawsuit aims to halt what the plaintiffs describe as an unlawful and detrimental policy that could severely impact the American workforce and economy.

The proclamation, issued on September 19, 2025, and made effective just 36 hours later, has already created confusion among employers, workers, and federal agencies. Kalpana V. Peddibhotla, Executive Director of the South Asian American Justice Collaborative (SAAJCO), emphasized the importance of H-1B workers, stating, “South Asians make up the majority of H-1B workers and are part of the fabric of America, staffing rural hospitals, advancing lifesaving research, and driving innovation in businesses across the country.”

The lawsuit, titled *Global Nurse Force et al v. Trump et al.*, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. It argues that the executive order is unconstitutional and violates the Administrative Procedure Act. The coalition of plaintiffs includes organizations such as Global Nurse Force, Global Village Academy Collaborative, and the American Association of University Professors, among others.

The H-1B visa program was established by Congress to attract highly skilled professionals from around the world to fill critical roles in the U.S. economy and public services. This program allows U.S. employers to hire qualified foreign talent, including doctors, nurses, engineers, and researchers, after a thorough vetting process.

The coalition’s lawsuit highlights the potential consequences of the new fee, which they argue could lead to significant harm for communities across the nation. Peddibhotla noted that when the government makes it prohibitively expensive for skilled professionals to come to the U.S., entire communities suffer. “Patients wait longer for care, students have fewer teachers, and local economies miss out on the innovation and jobs these experts create,” she said.

The complaint outlines several key arguments against the new fee. It asserts that the fee violates the legislative framework established by Congress, which includes a carefully structured fee and oversight system for the H-1B program. The plaintiffs contend that the President does not have the authority to unilaterally impose such a fee or to create new taxes through executive action.

Additionally, the lawsuit claims that the proclamation invites chaos and favoritism by introducing a vague “national interest” loophole for fee exemptions, which could lead to arbitrary decision-making. The plaintiffs argue that the fee will disproportionately affect rural hospitals, schools, and nonprofit organizations that rely on H-1B workers to fulfill essential roles.

Economists have pointed out that H-1B workers contribute significantly to job creation and innovation in the U.S. economy. The lawsuit warns that forcing skilled talent to seek opportunities abroad could lead to a loss of jobs and innovation within the country. “Without relief, hospitals will lose medical staff, churches will lose pastors, classrooms will lose teachers, and industries across the country risk losing key innovators,” the complaint states.

The coalition is requesting that the court block the implementation of the $100,000 fee and restore predictability for employers and workers. Todd Wolfson, president of the American Association of University Professors, expressed concern about the implications of the new policy, stating, “Trump’s restrictions on H-1B visa applications will lead to less lifesaving research, reduced innovation, and diminished competitiveness.”

Dr. Taylor Walker, President of the Committee of Interns and Residents, SEIU, added that the fee would have a devastating impact on healthcare, particularly at a time when the U.S. is facing a physician shortage. “The unconscionable fee for H-1B petitions will reduce the number of resident physicians available to provide care,” he said.

Skye Perryman, President and CEO of Democracy Forward, criticized the fee as a tactic to undermine American innovation and essential work. “This exorbitant fee invites corruption and is unlawful, destabilizing, and bad for everyone,” she stated. “H-1B workers keep rural hospitals staffed, bring STEM education to schools with teacher shortages, advance lifesaving medical research, and help small businesses thrive.”

As the lawsuit progresses, the coalition seeks to have the court declare the proclamation unlawful and prevent the government from enforcing the new fee. Peddibhotla remarked, “We are asking the court to block the government from enforcing the $100,000 fee and require agencies to continue processing H-1B petitions under the law that Congress put in place.”

The outcome of this case could have significant implications for the future of the H-1B visa program and the broader landscape of immigration policy in the United States.

Source: Original article

Trump’s Influence Dominates Key Races as Election Day Approaches

As Election Day 2025 approaches, President Trump’s influence looms large over key gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia, alongside significant ballot measures in California and Pennsylvania.

The upcoming elections in November 2025 feature crucial gubernatorial contests in New Jersey and Virginia, alongside significant ballot propositions regarding congressional redistricting in California and state Supreme Court races in Pennsylvania. Although Donald Trump’s name will not appear on the ballot, his unprecedented second-term agenda and the ongoing federal government shutdown are central themes on the campaign trail as candidates prepare for the pivotal day.

New Jersey and Virginia are the only two states holding gubernatorial elections in the year following a presidential election, making these races critical early indicators of Trump’s popularity and agenda. They serve as important barometers ahead of the midterm elections for the U.S. House and Senate scheduled for the following year.

In New Jersey, the gubernatorial race has become a battleground where Trump’s influence is palpable. Republican nominee Jack Ciattarelli, who has the backing of the former president, argues that his opponent, Democratic nominee Rep. Mikie Sherrill, is using Trump as a political weapon. “Listen, if you get a flat tire on the way home from work today, she’s going to blame it on the president. There isn’t anything she doesn’t blame on the president,” Ciattarelli stated in a recent interview.

Sherrill, on the other hand, has accused Ciattarelli of enabling Trump’s agenda, asserting in a fundraising email, “As Trump has inflicted all this damage on our country, Republican politicians like Jack Ciattarelli have cheered him on every step of the way.” During their first debate, she claimed that Ciattarelli would “do whatever Trump tells him to do,” further intensifying the rhetoric surrounding the race.

The candidates have also exchanged barbs over the ongoing federal government shutdown, which has significant implications for New Jersey. Ciattarelli pointed to Sherrill’s congressional vote against a bipartisan effort to keep the government open, while Sherrill placed the blame for the shutdown squarely on Trump, stating, “This is precisely the extreme MAGA agenda that @Jack4NJ wants to bring to NJ.”

As the two candidates prepare for their second and final debate, Ciattarelli, a former state lawmaker and certified public accountant, downplays the notion that Trump is the dominant issue in the race. He seeks to link Sherrill to the policies of term-limited Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy and the long-standing Democratic control of the state legislature.

The race has also been marred by controversy, particularly after reports surfaced regarding Sherrill’s military records. Two weeks ago, it was revealed that the United States Naval Academy had blocked her from attending her graduation in 1994 due to a cheating scandal. Ciattarelli’s campaign has called for Sherrill to release her military records to clarify the situation. However, a subsequent report indicated that the National Personnel Records Center mistakenly released her redacted military files, prompting calls for an investigation from top Democrats.

In Virginia, the gubernatorial race features Republican Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears competing against former Democratic Rep. Abigail Spanberger. Earle-Sears, who made history as Virginia’s first female lieutenant governor, is vying to succeed GOP Gov. Glenn Youngkin, who is ineligible for re-election due to state law prohibiting consecutive terms.

Both candidates are poised to make history, as the winner will become Virginia’s first female governor. If Earle-Sears prevails, she will also be the first Black woman elected as governor in the United States. Trump’s policies and influence are significant factors in this race, particularly as the federal government shutdown is expected to impact Virginia’s economy.

In New York City, the mayoral election is drawing considerable attention, especially with the potential for the city to elect its first Muslim and first millennial mayor. Democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani, a 33-year-old state lawmaker, emerged victorious in the Democratic primary, creating political waves across the nation. He faces challenges from former Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who is running as an independent after resigning amid scandals, and two-time Republican nominee Curtis Sliwa.

Despite dropping out of the race, current Mayor Eric Adams remains on the ballot, adding to the complexity of the election. Trump’s influence in the race has been notable, given his New York roots and ongoing presence in political discourse.

In California, voters will decide on Proposition 50, which seeks to temporarily suspend the nonpartisan redistricting commission and allow the Democrat-controlled legislature to determine congressional redistricting for the next three election cycles. This move is seen as an effort by Gov. Gavin Newsom and California Democrats to create additional left-leaning congressional seats, countering recent redistricting efforts in Texas that were influenced by Trump.

Finally, in Pennsylvania, three Democrat-leaning justices on the state Supreme Court are facing retention elections after completing their ten-year terms. The outcome of these elections could significantly alter the court’s composition and impact critical issues such as voting rights and reproductive rights in a key battleground state.

As Election Day approaches, the interplay of Trump’s influence and the various races across the country will be closely watched, with implications that could shape the political landscape for years to come.

Source: Original article

Japan’s Ruling Party Elects Sanae Takaichi as New Leader

Japan is set to welcome its first female prime minister, Sanae Takaichi, following her election as leader of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party.

Japan is on the verge of a historic milestone as Sanae Takaichi has been elected as the new leader of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), positioning her to become the country’s first female prime minister. Takaichi, who previously served as the economic security minister, triumphed over Agriculture Minister Shinjiro Koizumi in a runoff held during the party’s leadership race on Saturday.

In the initial round of voting, Takaichi secured 183 votes, while Koizumi garnered 164. Since neither candidate achieved a majority, a two-way runoff was necessary to determine the winner. Takaichi’s election comes at a critical time for the LDP, which has faced significant setbacks in recent parliamentary elections, resulting in a minority status in both houses of the Diet. Despite these challenges, the LDP remains the largest party in the lower house, which ultimately plays a crucial role in selecting Japan’s leader.

Takaichi’s ascension to leadership marks a strategic move for the LDP as it seeks to regain public support and maintain its grip on power. The party is under pressure to address both domestic and international challenges while fostering cooperation with key opposition groups to advance its policy agenda.

A hard-line conservative, Takaichi has expressed admiration for former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, advocating for a stronger Japanese military and a more assertive approach towards China and North Korea. Her political stance includes opposition to same-sex marriage and connections to nationalist organizations, reflecting her traditional conservative values.

As Takaichi prepares to take on her new role, she may also face diplomatic challenges, including a potential summit with former President Donald Trump. Reports indicate that a meeting could be scheduled for late October, coinciding with Trump’s attendance at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in South Korea, which begins on October 31. During this meeting, Trump may press Japan to increase its defense spending, a topic of significant importance in U.S.-Japan relations.

In light of its recent electoral losses, the LDP recognizes the need to engage with opposition parties, particularly the moderate centrist Komeito, to build a broader coalition. This approach aims to stabilize the party’s position and facilitate the implementation of its policies in the Diet.

A parliamentary vote is anticipated in mid-October, which will further shape the political landscape in Japan as Takaichi steps into her new role.

According to Fox News, Takaichi’s leadership represents a significant shift in Japan’s political dynamics, paving the way for greater representation of women in government.

Source: Original article

FBI Ends Partnership with Anti-Defamation League Amid Conservative Criticism

The FBI has severed its ties with the Anti-Defamation League, citing accusations of the organization spying on conservatives amid a backlash from prominent right-wing figures.

The FBI has officially cut ties with the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), alleging that the organization has engaged in spying on conservatives. This announcement was made by FBI Director Kash Patel on Wednesday, following criticism from notable conservatives, including Elon Musk, regarding the ADL’s classification of the late right-wing activist Charlie Kirk in its “Glossary of Extremism and Hate.”

In his statement, Patel highlighted the ADL’s connections to former FBI Director James Comey, who has been a vocal critic of former President Donald Trump. Comey was indicted last week on charges of obstruction and lying to Congress. Patel emphasized, “This FBI won’t partner with political fronts masquerading as watchdogs,” in a post on social media.

Comey, during a 2014 speech at the ADL’s National Leadership Summit, praised the organization for its contributions to law enforcement training. He noted that the FBI had made the ADL’s Law Enforcement and Society training mandatory for its personnel and collaborated with the group to create a “Hate Crimes Training Manual.” Comey described the ADL’s expertise in investigating hate crimes as “essential” and its training as “eye-opening and insightful.”

While Patel did not specifically mention Kirk in his announcement, it came shortly after the ADL removed over 1,000 references to alleged extremism associated with him. The ADL stated that the decision was made because many of the terms were outdated and that some entries had been “intentionally misrepresented and misused.”

The ADL has previously characterized Kirk and his organization, Turning Point USA (TPUSA), as promoting “Christian nationalism” and espousing various conspiracy theories related to election fraud and COVID-19. The organization also claimed that TPUSA attracted racists and that its representatives had made “bigoted remarks” about minority groups and the LGBTQ community. Additionally, it noted that white nationalists had attended TPUSA events, despite the group’s claims of rejecting white supremacist ideology.

Kirk, who was vocal in his criticisms of the ADL while alive, labeled the organization a “hate group that dons a religious mask to justify stoking hatred of the left’s enemies.” In response to Patel’s recent statement, the ADL expressed its “deep respect” for the FBI and for law enforcement officers dedicated to protecting all Americans, regardless of their ancestry, religion, ethnicity, faith, or political affiliation. The ADL reaffirmed its commitment to combating antisemitism, especially in light of a significant increase in such incidents.

Critics of the ADL, including some on the left, have accused the organization of attempting to align itself with conservative figures. They argue that the ADL has been quick to criticize leftist individuals, particularly those who oppose Israeli policies, while offering milder rebukes to Trump associates who have faced allegations of antisemitism.

This severance of ties between the FBI and the ADL marks a significant shift in the relationship between the two organizations, reflecting the growing polarization in American political discourse and the complexities surrounding issues of extremism and hate.

Source: Original article

Taiwan Declines U.S. Proposal to Relocate Semiconductor Production

Taiwan has rejected a U.S. proposal to locally manufacture half of the chips it supplies, signaling a firm stance on its semiconductor production strategy.

Taiwan has firmly declined Washington’s proposal to locally manufacture half of the chips it currently supplies to the United States, according to the island’s top trade negotiator.

Cheng Li-chiun, who also serves as Taiwan’s vice premier, addressed reporters on Wednesday, stating that the suggestion for a “50-50” split in semiconductor production was never even discussed. Her comments came after returning from trade talks in the U.S., as reported by Taiwan’s Central News Agency.

The U.S. has been in discussions with Taipei regarding this “50-50” production model, which aims to reduce American reliance on Taiwanese semiconductor manufacturing. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick mentioned in a recent interview with NewsNation that currently, 95% of U.S. demand for chips is met by production within Taiwan.

“My objective, and this administration’s objective, is to get chip manufacturing significantly onshored — we need to make our own chips,” Lutnick stated. “The idea that I pitched [to Taiwan] was, let’s get to 50-50. We’re producing half, and you’re producing half.”

However, this proposal has faced backlash from Taiwanese politicians. Eric Chu, chairman of the Kuomintang, Taiwan’s principal opposition party, condemned the idea as “an act of exploitation and plunder.” He emphasized that “no one can sell out Taiwan or TSMC,” referring to the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, which is a global leader in advanced chip manufacturing.

The backdrop to these discussions includes the U.S. imposing a 32% tariff on select Taiwanese exports, effective April 9. This move is part of a broader strategy to address significant trade imbalances. The tariffs were announced after President Donald Trump implemented a universal 10% tariff on all imports starting April 5, with additional tariffs for countries with large trade surpluses. Taiwan’s electronic components, high-tech machinery, and industrial goods were primarily targeted, although semiconductors and other critical sectors were exempted to maintain strategic economic interests.

The Taiwanese government has strongly opposed these tariffs, labeling them “deeply unreasonable” and warning of potential negative impacts on its economy. Forecasts indicated that the tariffs could slow Taiwan’s GDP growth by as much as 1.6 percentage points, raising concerns about supply chain disruptions and diminished competitiveness in the U.S. market.

Instead of retaliating, Taiwan has opted for a diplomatic approach focused on negotiation and cooperation. Taiwanese officials have engaged in talks with the U.S. to seek tariff reductions and explore expanded bilateral industrial partnerships, particularly in high-tech sectors.

Taiwan’s “Taiwan model” emphasizes strategic investment, government support, and the development of Taiwan-U.S. industrial clusters to strengthen economic ties while minimizing supply chain relocations. President Lai Ching-te has also announced plans to purchase $10 billion in U.S. agricultural goods, signaling a commitment to cooperation amid ongoing tensions.

The rejection of the proposed 50-50 chip production split has significant implications for America’s technology and national security strategy. The U.S. has been striving to reduce its reliance on foreign semiconductor manufacturing, particularly from Taiwan, which currently produces over 60% of the world’s chips and more than 90% of the most advanced ones. A 50-50 production model was viewed as a step toward reshoring critical infrastructure and mitigating risks associated with geopolitical tensions with China.

With Taiwan unwilling to divide production evenly, the U.S. faces a more challenging path toward achieving chip independence. The country will need to rely more heavily on domestic incentives, such as the CHIPS Act, to attract investment and scale up manufacturing at home. Taiwan’s stance also highlights its willingness to partner strategically, but it will not relinquish control over its competitive edge.

This rejection may further strain trade negotiations, particularly regarding tariff reductions that the U.S. has linked to deeper semiconductor cooperation. Ultimately, the U.S. must now reconsider how to build resilience in its chip supply chain, potentially by diversifying partnerships beyond Taiwan, accelerating domestic fabrication development, and investing in workforce and research and development, without expecting foreign partners to significantly shift production offshore.

Source: Original article

Trump’s Second Term Could Bring Major Immigration Overhaul

A recent report reveals that the Trump administration’s immigration policies threaten the foundations of American democracy, marking a significant overhaul in the first six months of his second term.

WASHINGTON, D.C., July 23, 2025 — A special report released today provides an in-depth analysis of the Trump administration’s first six months back in office, revealing a dramatic transformation of the U.S. immigration system that undermines the very principles of American democracy. While some voters may have supported a “tougher” stance on immigration during the election, the report indicates that the administration’s extreme measures extend far beyond mere policy changes; they pose a direct threat to the rule of law.

Titled Mass Deportation: Analyzing the Trump Administration’s Attacks on Immigrants, Democracy, and America, the report was published by the American Immigration Council on July 23. It outlines how the administration has launched a radical, multi-faceted assault on immigrants and the immigration framework.

The report details several actions taken by the Trump administration, including restricting entry into the United States, stripping legal protections from those already residing in the country, and escalating enforcement to unprecedented levels. These measures have dismantled long-standing legal safeguards, defied the authority of Congress and the courts, and weaponized government resources against immigrants and dissenters alike.

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

Key findings from the report highlight several alarming trends:

The end of asylum: The report states that asylum at the southern border is effectively non-existent. The administration has shut down the CBP One application without providing an alternative. Asylum-seekers approaching a port of entry are often turned away, and some are detained indefinitely, even after winning their cases.

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

Mass revocation of legal status: Over one million individuals have had their humanitarian parole and Temporary Protected Status (TPS) revoked in just six months, stripping them of work permits and pushing many into undocumented status.

Weaponizing bureaucracy: The report notes that legal immigration pathways are being obstructed by significant fee increases, processing freezes, and opaque barriers, making it nearly impossible for lawful applicants to obtain or maintain their status.

A maelstrom of fear and chaos: The aggressive enforcement tactics employed by the Trump administration have instilled a constant sense of fear among immigrants of all legal statuses. Individuals can be targeted for arrest, detention, and deportation anywhere, including at churches, schools, and courthouses.

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

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

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

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

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

The full report is available for review, and interviews with experts and individuals impacted by these policies can also be arranged.

Source: Original article

Who Is Deported in the United States and Why?

Research reveals that over 96% of deportation orders in the U.S. target individuals from non-white countries, highlighting systemic racial biases in immigration policies.

Who gets deported in the United States? A recent report from the UCLA Center for Immigration Law and Policy, in collaboration with Million Dollar Hoods, sheds light on this pressing issue. The findings indicate a troubling trend: over 96% of deportation orders issued from 1895 to 2022 were directed at individuals from non-white countries.

During a briefing on September 19, hosted by American Community Media, experts involved in the project, titled Mapping Deportations, presented insights into their interactive maps and visualizations. These tools trace the history of deportation policies back to 1895, revealing patterns of racial bias that persist today.

The panel included prominent figures such as Kelly Lytle Hernández, the Thomas E. Lifka Endowed Chair in History at UCLA and founding director of Million Dollar Hoods; Mariah Tso, a G.I.S. Specialist at UCLA; and Ahilan Arulanantham, Faculty Co-Director at the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at UCLA School of Law.

The interactive maps allow users to delve into data by year and region, as well as by categories such as race, country, and enforcement tactics. These visualizations incorporate context-rich quotes from lawmakers, highlighting the racial and ideological biases that underpin immigration policies. Features like racing bar charts and log-scale transformations make complex data more accessible and comprehensible. The website connects historical deportation data to current immigration policies, providing a clearer understanding of long-standing systemic patterns of racial discrimination.

According to Hernández, the website’s foundation lies in three significant forced migrations that shaped modern America: the expulsion of Native nations, the transatlantic slave trade, and contemporary mass deportations. While maps and visualizations exist for the removal of Native nations and the slave trade, there has been a notable absence of data on mass deportation.

“I knew, as a historian, that there had been more than 50 million deportation orders in U.S. history, which is a mind-boggling number, but no one had really scraped the data and created a dynamic map showing over time the patterns of deportation,” Hernández explained.

The goal of the website, according to Arulanantham, is to serve as an educational tool that presents a more honest narrative of immigration law and policy history, telling a rich, contextual story that has often been overlooked.

In collaboration with lead cartographer Mariah Tso, the researchers meticulously mapped every deportation order from 1895 to 2022. Tso noted that the data reveals a consistent pattern: over 96% of deportation orders have targeted predominantly non-white countries, reflecting policies steeped in racism.

The visualizations utilize publicly available data from federal authorities, mapping immigration statistics and deportation orders by country or region. Each dot on the map represents deportation orders, with larger dots indicating higher numbers of orders. Historically, prior to 1934, authorities tracked deportations by race or ethnicity, while post-1934, the focus shifted to nationality.

Notably, Mexico has consistently led in the number of deportation orders since 1916.

Arulanantham, who has dedicated 25 years to challenging federal immigration policies on behalf of immigrants and their rights, expressed concern over the stark racial discrimination evident in immigration policy, even under the Biden administration. He cited the Title 42 program, which excluded individuals from the U.S. based on COVID-19 concerns, applying it harshly to Haitians, Afghans, and Central Americans, while allowing virtually all Ukrainians to enter.

“There’s obvious racial discrimination even now that’s driving who gets to come in and also who gets deported,” Arulanantham stated, referencing quotes from lawmakers across different eras. He highlighted former President Donald Trump’s infamous remark regarding immigrants from Haiti and other countries, questioning, “Why are we having people from shithole countries coming here?”

The historical roots of racial discrimination in immigration laws can be traced back to a 1929 law motivated by eugenic ideologies, which remains influential today.

The website provides a historical overview of deportation data organized into five major eras, illustrating the laws enforced, communities targeted, and changing enforcement priorities. Hernández noted that from 1790 to 1875, during the period of slavery before the Civil War, the U.S. immigration system was designed to maintain a white-dominated republic, targeting free black migrants for exclusion.

From 1876 to 1929, the federal government sought to establish a whites-only immigration regime, excluding and punishing non-white immigrants. Despite these efforts, black and non-white immigration persisted, often relegating individuals to low-wage jobs, thereby reinforcing racial hierarchies.

During the Cold War, Congress continued to uphold the whites-only immigration system. Hernández pointed out that following the 1965 Immigration Act, new laws and Supreme Court rulings perpetuated racism within the immigration system, including the 1975 Brignoni-Ponce decision, which legitimized the use of race in immigration law enforcement.

Since 1991, the U.S. federal government has conducted over 7 million deportations and issued more than 25 million voluntary departure orders, establishing what Hernández describes as the largest immigrant detention and deportation system in the world.

Arulanantham cautioned that the current escalation of U.S. immigration policy echoes sentiments from the 1920s, where fears of “morally contagious” individuals from other countries were prevalent. He noted that racist rhetoric continues to influence public perception, as seen in Trump’s claims about Haitian immigrants and unfounded rumors regarding Venezuelans.

“Racism was baked into the immigration system over time, dating all the way back to the antebellum period, and is yet to be fully purged,” Hernández concluded, emphasizing the need for a critical examination of immigration policies and their historical implications.

Source: Original article

US Companies Experience Job Losses of 32,000, Payroll Processor Reports

U.S. companies experienced a loss of approximately 32,000 jobs in September, according to a report from payroll processing company ADP, raising concerns about the current state of the labor market.

Data released by payroll processing company ADP indicates that U.S. companies lost around 32,000 jobs in September, a development that has raised significant concerns about the labor market’s stability. This report, which is part of ADP’s monthly private-sector employment assessment, was released on Wednesday and deviated sharply from Wall Street expectations, which had anticipated job growth of 45,000 for the month.

“Despite the strong economic growth we saw in the second quarter, this month’s release further validates what we’ve been seeing in the labor market: that U.S. employers have been cautious with hiring,” said ADP chief economist Nela Richardson. This report comes in the wake of more optimistic economic indicators regarding gross domestic product and unemployment claims.

The timing of this report is particularly notable, as it may be the only employment data available this month. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is currently unable to publish its official jobs report due to a government shutdown. The shutdown occurred after the Trump administration and Democratic lawmakers failed to reach an agreement on funding, raising the possibility that the impasse could persist indefinitely.

Among the companies affected, those with fewer than 50 employees experienced the most significant job losses. Specifically, firms employing between 20 and 49 workers lost 21,000 jobs, while those with fewer than 19 employees saw a reduction of 19,000 jobs. The losses were widespread across various industries, with professional and business services, as well as leisure and hospitality, experiencing some of the largest declines. Conversely, health care businesses were the only sector to show consistent employment growth throughout the year.

Richardson also noted that the data comes with some important caveats. She explained that preliminary “rebenchmarking” of the data played a crucial role in the negative revision for August and the estimated job losses for September. “We found that once we benchmarked that data, it actually shows a September slowdown that has been consistent with what we’ve been reporting all year,” Richardson stated, highlighting that the process resulted in a reduction of 43,000 jobs in September compared to pre-benchmarked figures.

“In fact, though the numbers changed, the story and the narrative and the trend remain the same: Hiring momentum has slowed from the beginning of the year through September,” she added.

While ADP’s reports have faced criticism from economists for their inconsistent track record in short-term predictions, they are still regarded as a valuable indicator of the labor market’s trajectory. The discrepancies between ADP’s figures and the official monthly jobs numbers released by the BLS can lead to confusion, but the trends highlighted in ADP’s report are closely monitored by analysts.

As the labor market continues to navigate these challenges, the implications of these job losses may resonate throughout the economy, influencing both consumer confidence and business investment decisions.

Source: Original article

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

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

WASHINGTON, DC, August 6 — A report released today by the American Immigration Council outlines the extensive economic and humanitarian consequences of the Trump administration’s travel ban, which was expanded in June 2025 to restrict immigration from 19 countries. In 2022, nearly 300,000 individuals from these nations entered the United States, contributing approximately $715.6 million in taxes and filling essential roles in various sectors.

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

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

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

While the original travel ban enacted in 2017 prompted widespread public protests, the 2025 version has seen a more subdued response, attributed to its gradual implementation and expanded exemptions. However, the report emphasizes that the negative impacts remain significant.

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

Reports suggest that the administration is contemplating the addition of 36 more countries to the travel ban. If implemented, this could prevent tens of thousands of additional individuals from entering the United States, further exacerbating the economic, social, and diplomatic repercussions.

The countries currently affected by the travel ban include:

All travel banned:

Afghanistan, Burma, Chad, Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen.

Visas sharply restricted:

Venezuela, Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, and Turkmenistan.

This report underscores the far-reaching implications of the travel ban, highlighting the need for a reevaluation of policies that impact both the economy and the lives of individuals seeking opportunities in the United States.

Source: Original article

Federal Government Shutdown Fuels Political Blame Game in Governor’s Race

The federal government shutdown has intensified the blame game between gubernatorial candidates Jack Ciattarelli and Rep. Mikie Sherrill in New Jersey’s crucial 2025 election.

As the federal government faces its first shutdown in seven years, the political fallout is reverberating beyond Washington, D.C., and into the New Jersey gubernatorial race. This election is one of only two gubernatorial contests taking place in the United States in 2025, making it a focal point for both parties.

Republican nominee Jack Ciattarelli has seized the opportunity to criticize his Democratic opponent, Rep. Mikie Sherrill, in a recent exclusive interview with Fox News Digital. The verbal sparring began when Sherrill, a four-term congresswoman, accused “Washington Republicans” of prioritizing loyalty to former President Donald Trump over the needs of the American people. In response, Ciattarelli quipped that Sherrill would blame Trump for anything, even a flat tire.

“There’s nothing my opponent won’t blame on President Trump,” Ciattarelli said. “As I like to say, if you get a flat [tire] today, it’s President Trump’s fault.” His comments came after he participated in a candidate forum hosted by Fairleigh Dickinson University.

The government shutdown, which commenced early Wednesday morning, has been a contentious issue, with neither side willing to compromise. Democrats are insisting that any agreement to end the shutdown must include an extension of tax credits for the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which are set to expire soon. These credits are vital for millions of Americans who rely on them to afford healthcare.

On the other hand, many Republicans oppose the extension, arguing that it would lead to increased taxpayer-funded healthcare for undocumented immigrants. Sherrill, along with nearly all House Democrats, voted against a Republican stopgap measure that could have temporarily averted the shutdown. Ciattarelli pointed to her vote as evidence of her unwillingness to collaborate with bipartisan efforts to keep the government running.

“I do know that there’s a bipartisan group of congresspeople that are trying to keep the government open,” Ciattarelli stated. “My opponent has decided not to be part of that bipartisan group, and she voted no. And so here we are.”

Sherrill has consistently linked Ciattarelli to Trump, asserting that the shutdown is a direct result of the former president’s influence over the Republican Party. In a social media post, she stated, “This is precisely the extreme MAGA agenda that @Jack4NJ wants to bring to NJ.”

As Election Day approaches, Sherrill holds a slight lead over Ciattarelli in recent polling. A Fox News survey indicates that she is ahead by single digits, a margin that could shift as the candidates prepare for their second and final debate next week.

Ciattarelli, a former state lawmaker and certified public accountant, remains optimistic about his campaign. He noted that endorsements from Democratic mayors across New Jersey reflect a desire for change among voters. “The energy is off the charts,” he asserted.

In the upcoming debate, Ciattarelli plans to focus on specific policy proposals aimed at addressing New Jersey’s challenges. He expressed his intention to highlight instances where Sherrill fails to answer questions directly.

Meanwhile, the race has been further complicated by revelations regarding Sherrill’s military records. A report indicated that she was barred from participating in her 1994 graduation from the United States Naval Academy due to a cheating scandal. Sherrill has accused Ciattarelli of conducting a “witch hunt” over her military records, which were improperly released to a Ciattarelli ally.

Ciattarelli’s campaign has called on Sherrill to clarify the circumstances surrounding her graduation. “He has been caught with his hand in the cookie jar, if you will,” Sherrill said, referring to Ciattarelli’s campaign tactics. “He’s now trying to divert from that.”

The National Archives recently apologized for the improper release of Sherrill’s military records, attributing the error to a government worker’s mistake. Following the breach, Sherrill’s campaign issued cease-and-desist letters to the National Archives and Ciattarelli’s campaign.

In response to the controversy, Ciattarelli maintained that Sherrill’s past actions at the Naval Academy warrant scrutiny. “She needs to come clean on what she did to be punished by the Naval Academy,” he stated.

As both candidates gear up for the final stretch of the campaign, the interplay of national issues, personal attacks, and local concerns will shape the narrative leading to the polls. With early voting set to begin on October 25, the stakes are high for both Ciattarelli and Sherrill as they vie for the governorship of New Jersey.

Source: Original article

Trump Open to Talks with Kim Jong Un Amid Missile Concerns

President Trump remains open to unconditional talks with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, as South Korea warns that North Korea’s missiles could reach the U.S. mainland.

The White House has confirmed that President Donald Trump is willing to engage in discussions with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un “without any preconditions.” This statement comes amid warnings from South Korea that North Korea’s missile capabilities could potentially reach the U.S. mainland.

A White House official emphasized that Trump, during his first term, held three significant summits with Kim that contributed to stabilizing the Korean Peninsula. “U.S. policy on North Korea has not changed,” the official stated. “President Trump remains open to talking with Kim Jong Un, without any preconditions.”

South Korean Unification Minister Chung Dong-young made a stark assertion in Berlin this week, indicating that North Korea has become one of the few nations capable of launching an attack on the U.S. mainland. “What needs to be acknowledged should be acknowledged rationally,” he told reporters, as reported by the Yonhap News Agency. The White House did not respond to requests for comment regarding Chung’s claims.

Chung also noted that North Korea’s “strategic position is different” now compared to 2018, when Trump and Kim held their first summit in Singapore. “Acknowledging this reality should be the starting point” in addressing the regime, he added.

Experts have long suggested that North Korea possesses the capability to reach the U.S. mainland with intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). Bob Peters, a senior research fellow for strategic deterrence at the Heritage Foundation, stated, “They’ve tested ICBMs for a long time.” However, he pointed out that the critical question remains whether North Korea has developed a warhead capable of being accurately delivered by an ICBM.

Meanwhile, Kim Jong Un has indicated that dialogue with the U.S. is possible, but only on his terms. “If the United States drops the absurd obsession with denuclearizing us and accepts reality, and wants genuine peaceful coexistence, there is no reason for us not to sit down with the United States,” Kim was quoted as saying by state media.

A potential meeting with Kim would mark Trump’s fourth encounter with the North Korean leader, occurring at a time when relations between the two nations have become increasingly strained. In July, the White House reiterated that Trump “remains open to engaging with Leader Kim to achieve a fully denuclearized North Korea.” However, North Korea has made it clear that it will not engage with the U.S. if denuclearization is a precondition.

On Monday, North Korean Vice Foreign Minister Kim Son Gyong addressed the United Nations General Assembly, asserting that his country will never abandon its nuclear program, according to reports from Reuters.

Trump is set to travel to Asia later this month for an economic leaders’ summit with South Korean President Lee Jae-myung. A senior U.S. official indicated that there are currently no plans for a meeting in the Demilitarized Zone with Kim. However, reports suggest that Trump may meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping during the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit, scheduled for October 30 to November 1. Plans for this meeting are still being finalized.

In a recent call, Xi extended an invitation to Trump and First Lady Melania Trump to visit China, which Trump reciprocated. The U.S. official noted that any progress on nuclear negotiations would depend significantly on China. “The first thing that would need to happen is for the Chinese to acknowledge and be more transparent about its own programs,” the official stated.

Current U.S. estimates suggest that China’s nuclear arsenal may consist of approximately 600 warheads by 2024, with projections reaching 1,000 by 2030. In contrast, North Korea is believed to possess around 50 warheads, with sufficient fissile material for up to 90.

Last year, North Korea declared an “irreversible hegemonic position” following the test-firing of its Hwasong-19 intercontinental ballistic missile, which the regime claims can strike the American mainland. As tensions rise, Trump is reinforcing deterrence while keeping the door open for “talks without preconditions.”

Source: Original article

US Senators Introduce Major Reforms to H-1B Visa Program

The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee is advancing a bipartisan initiative to reform the H-1B and L-1 visa programs, addressing concerns over corporate misuse and its impact on American workers.

The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee is witnessing a rare moment of bipartisan cooperation as top Republicans and Democrats come together to propose significant changes to the H-1B and L-1 visa programs. This initiative is driven by concerns that large corporations have misused these visa systems, often at the expense of American workers.

The H-1B visa program allows U.S. companies to temporarily employ foreign workers in specialty occupations that require specialized knowledge, such as technology, engineering, and medicine. Designed to address labor shortages in fields lacking qualified U.S. workers, the H-1B visa is typically granted for up to three years, with the possibility of extension to six years. Each year, the program caps the number of H-1B visas issued at 85,000, which includes 20,000 reserved for applicants holding advanced degrees from U.S. institutions.

This program is highly competitive, with demand frequently surpassing the available visas, leading to a lottery system for selection. While the H-1B visa has been instrumental in fostering innovation and maintaining global competitiveness for businesses, it has also drawn criticism for potential misuse, wage suppression, and negative impacts on domestic employment. Policymakers continue to grapple with reforms that would balance the interests of employers, foreign workers, and the American labor market.

Among the proposed reforms, the Senators have suggested making job postings public and introducing a stricter definition of “specialty occupation,” which would require applicants to possess at least a bachelor’s degree.

Committee Chair Chuck Grassley, a Republican from Iowa, and Democratic ranking member Dick Durbin of Illinois have reintroduced the bill, which includes several key changes:

The legislation would empower the Labor Department to impose fees to hire 100 additional enforcement officers, aimed at increasing oversight of the visa programs.

It proposes stricter wage and hiring standards, ensuring that employers adhere to fair compensation practices.

Mandatory public job postings and narrower eligibility criteria for applicants are also part of the proposed changes, which aim to enhance transparency in the hiring process.

Additionally, the bill introduces new wage and hiring rules that prioritize H-1B applicants with qualifications in STEM fields. It seeks to tighten the definition of “specialty occupation,” mandating a bachelor’s degree as a minimum requirement for applicants.

Employers found in violation of wage rules would face fines or even debarment from the program, reinforcing accountability within the system.

This legislative effort comes on the heels of the Trump administration’s recent imposition of a $100,000 fee on new H-1B applications, which has intensified scrutiny of the visa program.

Grassley emphasized the original intent of the H-1B and L-1 visa programs, stating, “Congress created these programs as limited pathways for businesses to acquire top talent when it can’t be found at home. But over the years, many employers have used them to cut out American workers in favor of cheap foreign labor.”

The proposed changes aim to close existing loopholes and prevent misuse by large corporations that may prioritize cheaper labor over domestic employment. By tightening eligibility criteria, increasing enforcement, and emphasizing higher wage standards, the legislation seeks to protect U.S. workers while still allowing companies to fill critical skill gaps, particularly in STEM fields.

Public job postings and clearer definitions of specialty occupations are expected to promote transparency and fairness in the hiring process. These reforms could help restore trust in the visa system, ensuring it fulfills its original purpose of attracting top talent when genuinely needed, rather than displacing American workers.

Ultimately, this bipartisan approach reflects a pragmatic attempt to modernize immigration policies in a manner that supports both economic competitiveness and workforce integrity.

Source: Original article

President Donald Trump Secures $500 Million Deal with Harvard University

President Donald Trump announced a potential $500 million deal with Harvard University, aimed at establishing trade schools and addressing previous funding disputes.

President Donald Trump recently revealed that the White House is negotiating a significant deal with Harvard University, potentially worth $500 million. During a press briefing in the Oval Office, Trump indicated that while the agreement is not yet finalized, discussions are progressing positively.

“We’re in the process of getting very close,” Trump stated, referring to Education Secretary Linda E. McMahon, who affirmed his remarks. “They’d be paying about $500 million.” He elaborated that the funds would be allocated towards operating trade schools, focusing on teaching skills related to artificial intelligence and other technical fields.

This announcement comes on the heels of stalled negotiations between the Trump administration and Harvard, following a federal judge’s ruling that favored the university in a legal battle over $2.7 billion in federal grants and contracts. In April, Harvard filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, challenging the administration’s decision to freeze these funds.

The lawsuit was initiated after the Trump administration accused Harvard of tolerating antisemitism during pro-Palestinian protests related to the ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict. Harvard argued that the funding freeze was politically motivated, violated constitutional protections, including the First Amendment, and was enacted without due process.

Harvard sought immediate restoration of the frozen funds and aimed to prevent further punitive actions, such as revoking the university’s tax-exempt status and international student certifications. The legal dispute underscored the growing tensions between the federal government and higher education institutions, particularly regarding political influences on funding.

In a significant development, a federal judge ruled that the funding freeze was unlawful, granting Harvard a crucial early victory in the ongoing case. Trump remarked that reaching a deal would signify that Harvard’s “sins are forgiven,” suggesting a desire to move past the contentious issues that have characterized their relationship.

“They’ve put up $500 million interest and everything else would go to that account — meaning it would go to the trade school,” Trump explained, emphasizing the importance of this investment in vocational education.

The Harvard-Trump case highlights the delicate balance between accountability and autonomy in higher education. While universities depend heavily on government grants to support research and innovation, they must also safeguard their academic freedom and independence from political pressures.

As both parties work towards finalizing the agreement, the outcome could have significant implications for future interactions between universities and the federal government, especially concerning contentious social and political issues. The resolution of this dispute may encourage a more collaborative approach to addressing educational funding and political concerns, fostering a healthier environment for research and innovation.

As federal and state governments reassess their roles in supporting education, the implications of this case could set important precedents regarding funding decisions and their contestation. The potential deal with Harvard may serve as a pivotal moment in redefining the relationship between educational institutions and government entities.

Source: Original article

Italy’s Meloni Warns Gaza Flotilla Could Escalate Conflict and Ceasefire Risks

Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has criticized a Gaza-bound flotilla, warning it could escalate tensions and jeopardize peace efforts led by former President Donald Trump.

Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has condemned a Gaza-bound flotilla, which includes anti-Israel activists and notable figures such as Greta Thunberg. Her remarks come as Israel prepares for potential escalations in the ongoing conflict, raising concerns that the flotilla could undermine Donald Trump’s peace initiative.

Meloni asserted that the flotilla aims to disrupt Trump’s peace plan, stating on social media platform X, “The truth is simple: those aids can be delivered without risks. Insisting on wanting to force a naval blockade means making oneself—knowingly or not—an instrument of those who want to blow up every possibility of a ceasefire. Spare us the lesson in morality on peace if your goal is escalation. And do not exploit the civilian population of Gaza if you are not truly interested in their fate.”

The Trump administration has introduced a 20-point plan aimed at ending the conflict in Gaza and facilitating the release of Israeli hostages. However, the flotilla’s actions could redirect the narrative from diplomatic efforts back toward confrontation.

Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar echoed Meloni’s sentiments, stating on X, “The flotilla to Gaza is not a humanitarian act, but a dangerous provocation intended to inflame tensions and undermine ongoing diplomatic efforts.”

The Global Sumud Flotilla, which describes itself as a “multinational civilian effort to break Israel’s illegal siege of Gaza,” claims this is the largest attempt to breach Israel’s maritime blockade of the Gaza Strip, which has been in place for 18 years. Israel maintains that the blockade is essential for preventing Hamas from acquiring arms.

The flotilla is currently navigating waters within Israel’s exclusive economic zone and is expected to reach Israeli waters around Yom Kippur. It comprises nearly 50 vessels and hundreds of anti-Israel activists. In preparation, Israel has deployed 600 police officers and naval units, establishing a special court at Ktzi’ot Prison to process potential detainees. Security officials have warned of possible provocations at sea, with a senior Israeli police officer stating, “This is a sensitive and complex operation, and we are preparing for provocations.”

The flotilla has garnered international attention not only due to Thunberg’s involvement but also because of its connections across Europe and the region. The fleet departed from Barcelona, with activists supported by groups in Spain, which Israeli authorities allege have ties to Hamas operative Saif Abu Kashk. He is accused of running a front company that allegedly controls many of the ships involved in the flotilla.

Additionally, Turkey has been monitoring the flotilla with drones and has indicated it may offer assistance on humanitarian grounds. However, Turkey has faced accusations of providing shelter to Hamas members within its borders.

For Israel, the challenge lies in preventing the activists from reaching Gaza while avoiding an international incident that could benefit Hamas. As Trump seeks to solidify a peace deal, the impending confrontation at sea threatens to shift media focus away from diplomatic discussions and back toward conflict.

On Tuesday, Israeli officials released documents linking the flotilla’s organizers to Hamas through the Palestinian Conference for Palestinians Abroad (PCPA). This group, established in Turkey in 2017, has been designated a terrorist organization by Israel and is accused of acting as Hamas’s overseas arm.

Source: Original article

Trump Announces $625 Million Investment to Modernize U.S. Coal Industry

President Donald Trump has announced a $625 million initiative to modernize coal-fired power plants and open 13 million acres of federal land for coal mining, reversing trends in the U.S. energy sector.

President Donald Trump is intensifying his support for the coal industry, announcing a plan to allocate $625 million for the modernization of coal-fired power plants. This initiative comes alongside the opening of 13 million acres of federal land for coal mining, marking a significant step in Trump’s efforts to reverse the prolonged decline of the U.S. coal sector.

At a news conference held at the Department of the Interior, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum emphasized the administration’s commitment to coal, stating, “Everybody likes to say, ‘drill, baby, drill.’ I know that President Trump has another initiative for us, which is ‘mine, baby, mine.’”

Joining Burgum at the event were Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin and Energy Undersecretary Wells Griffith, both of whom expressed support for the administration’s coal initiatives. The trio signed orders aimed at bolstering the coal industry.

Burgum highlighted the economic benefits of the new policies, stating, “By reducing the royalty rate for coal, increasing coal acres available for leasing, and unlocking critical minerals from mine waste, we are strengthening our economy, protecting national security, and ensuring that communities from Montana to Alabama benefit from good-paying jobs.”

However, the renewed focus on coal raises concerns about its environmental and health impacts. Critics argue that coal is one of the dirtiest fossil fuels, releasing significant amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other harmful pollutants, such as sulfur dioxide and mercury, when burned. These emissions contribute to climate change and air pollution, leading to serious health issues, including asthma and heart disease.

As global temperatures continue to rise, the U.S. faces heightened risks of extreme weather events, including wildfires, hurricanes, droughts, and flooding. These phenomena threaten communities, infrastructure, and agricultural productivity across the nation.

From an economic standpoint, coal is increasingly becoming less competitive. The costs of renewable energy technologies, such as solar and wind, have plummeted, making them more affordable than coal-generated electricity in many cases. Critics warn that by neglecting investments in green energy, the U.S. risks losing its position as a leader in clean technology innovation and job creation in emerging sectors. Many states and countries are setting ambitious climate goals, creating robust markets for renewable energy products and services. Ignoring this trend could hinder the U.S. economy’s competitiveness on a global scale.

Ted Kelly, clean energy director for the Environmental Defense Fund, criticized the administration’s approach, stating, “Subsidizing coal means propping up dirty, uncompetitive plants from last century – and saddling families with their high costs and pollution. We need modern, affordable clean energy solutions to power a modern economy, but the Trump administration wants to drag us back to a 1950s electric grid.”

Kelly further argued, “It makes no sense to cut off your best, most affordable options while doubling down on the most expensive ones.”

Moreover, the long-term social and environmental consequences of coal mining and combustion cannot be overlooked. These practices often lead to habitat destruction and water pollution, adversely affecting local communities. In contrast, investing in green energy not only reduces emissions but also promotes energy independence and resilience by diversifying the energy supply.

As the debate over energy policy continues, the push to revitalize the coal industry raises critical questions about the future of energy in the United States. Returning to coal may undermine ongoing efforts to combat climate change, threaten public health, and pose economic risks. Advocates for green energy argue that prioritizing sustainable solutions is essential for a prosperous future.

Source: Original article

New H-1B Restrictions Raise Concerns Among Indian-American Workers

The recent proclamation regarding the H-1B program introduces significant financial barriers and travel risks for skilled workers seeking to enter the United States.

The immigration landscape for skilled workers has undergone a substantial transformation following a recent proclamation concerning the H-1B program. This new directive imposes significant restrictions on the entry of certain nonimmigrant workers, introducing immediate financial requirements and travel considerations.

On September 19, 2025, President Trump issued a proclamation titled “Restriction on Entry of Certain Nonimmigrant Workers,” which mandates a steep new fee for specific H-1B petitions. Effective from 12:01 a.m. ET on September 21, 2025, this proclamation requires that certain new H-1B petitions include a one-time payment of $100,000.

While the fee is substantial, it is important to note that it is a single payment due upon the submission of a new H-1B petition. This change does not affect existing fees or payments associated with H-1B renewals, allowing current holders of H-1B status to maintain their positions without incurring additional costs.

The new fee primarily targets individuals seeking to enter the United States. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has been instructed not to process petitions unless they are accompanied by proof of the $100,000 payment for H-1B workers currently outside the U.S. At this time, the fee appears to be applicable only to new H-1B petitions filed by individuals outside the country.

For beneficiaries already residing in the U.S. and maintaining lawful H-1B status, several actions seem to be exempt from this new fee structure. Extensions of stay, amended petitions, and changes of employer—provided the beneficiary remains in H-1B status—are not explicitly covered by the new proclamation. As such, these actions appear to be exempt unless further guidance is provided.

This proclamation represents a significant shift in employment-based immigration policy, creating a climate of uncertainty for many skilled workers. Given the regulatory confusion and the absence of clear procedures, the risks associated with international travel have increased. Consequently, H-1B employees and their dependents are strongly advised against leaving the United States at this time, as the potential complications could outweigh any benefits.

In addition to the immediate financial implications, the proclamation hints at future reforms aimed at enhancing the H-1B program. The Department of Labor is expected to propose rulemaking to revise and raise prevailing wage levels. This initiative, along with forthcoming rulemaking from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to prioritize high-skilled, high-paid foreign workers in the lottery, aims to refine the H-1B program and ensure that it is utilized to hire only the most qualified temporary foreign workers.

In summary, this recent H-1B proclamation introduces immediate, high-cost barriers for specific new petitions and signals a major shift in future policy, particularly with a focus on prioritizing higher-paid workers. Given the current inconsistencies in guidance, including a recently released FAQ that appeared to conflict with earlier instructions, the situation remains fluid and uncertain for those navigating the H-1B process.

Source: Original article

Strategic Partnership or Economic Rivalry: Tariffs Impact India-America Relations

A wave of tariffs from the U.S. has strained relations with India, testing the resilience of their bilateral ties and impacting various sectors of the economy.

A wave of tariffs from Washington aimed at protecting America’s domestic industries and addressing trade imbalances has strained relations with India, testing the resilience of their bilateral ties.

The growing controversy over trade policy has led to a series of court cases challenging the legality of the Trump administration’s tariffs. The tariff issue has been festering since April, when President Trump announced “reciprocal” or “Liberation Day” tariffs on over 180 trading partners, including India and other South Asian countries, under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

In May, a three-judge panel in the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York struck down the tariffs, including reciprocal tariffs. The court ruled that the President could not use the Act to reset the tariffs.

The Trump administration filed an appeal to that decision in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, only to be thwarted again. In a 7-4 decision on August 29, the court ruled that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not grant the President authority to impose tariffs; that power lies with the U.S. Congress.

The administration filed another brief to the Supreme Court on September 19 against the ruling, arguing that invalidating the tariffs “would have catastrophic consequences for our national security, foreign policy, and economy.” Solicitor General D. John Sauer stated that the tariffs could bring in $15 trillion in revenue to the U.S.

The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on November 5.

Meanwhile, India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi met China’s President Xi Jinping at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit in Tianjin, China, at the end of August, where they agreed they were partners, not rivals. An alliance between India and China leads to a combined population of nearly 3 billion and a GDP of nearly $23 trillion, according to estimates from the World Bank Group.

The U.S. tariffs imposed on India have impacted Indian and Indian American business communities, affecting them economically and leaving many feeling disappointed and frustrated. Historically, these communities viewed the U.S. as a strategic partner, but the recent developments have changed that perception.

The varied and far-reaching tariffs came as a shock to Indian business leaders. Many are puzzled as to why leadership has not devised a workaround to these problems. After all, India is a security partner in the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue alongside Australia, Japan, and the U.S., collaborating on climate change, critical technology, health, and maritime security. Additionally, India is not alone in purchasing crude oil from Russia; in August 2025, China bought 47% of Russia’s crude exports, while India accounted for 38%, according to data from the Center for Research on Energy and Clean Air.

“I think the concern is more about the relationship between the U.S. and India,” says Dr. Shankar Rachakonda, chairman and treasurer of the Indian American International Chamber of Commerce. The Washington, D.C.-based IAICC promotes trade, investment, and business relations between India and the U.S.

Dr. Rachakonda expressed concern over the breakdown in relations, noting that India was hit with a 25% tariff while countries like Vietnam and Pakistan received only 19%. “What you thought was a highly respectful relationship is not exactly in great shape because of these tariffs,” he told Sapan News.

The tariffs have emerged just as the U.S.-India relationship had reached a comfortable place, transitioning over decades from initial mutual mistrust, particularly during the Cold War era when India was aligned with the Soviet Union. Since the 2000s, the U.S. and India have developed a strategic partnership shaped by shared democratic values, economic interests, and growing geopolitical alignment.

It was then-President George W. Bush who significantly worked towards improving the relationship with India, including lifting the sanctions the U.S. imposed on India and Pakistan after their 1998 nuclear tests, Dr. Rachakonda recalled.

Today, however, there is a belief in India, whether right or wrong, that the relationship with the U.S. is increasingly transactional. Robert Koopman, a senior lecturer at American University in D.C., agrees with this view, describing the relationship under former President Obama as “strong,” while noting that it has been filled with more “tension or unpredictability” under President Trump.

Koopman, a former chief economist at the World Trade Organization, characterizes the U.S. approach to trade under Trump as “mercantilistic, extractive,” and unilateral—favoring benefits for the U.S. rather than fostering cooperative, win-win relationships.

The U.S. seeks access to India’s agricultural and dairy markets, which India has made clear it cannot accept. “I think India clarified that’s a big no because no Indian government can alienate the Indian farm sector,” Dr. Rachakonda stated.

India’s agricultural sector is politically sensitive, with the government aiming to maintain high tariffs and policy flexibility to support farmers and rural development, even as global trade negotiations push for more openness. Indian farmers held massive protests against changes to agricultural laws in 2021 and called for minimum crop prices in 2024.

Highlighting the shifting alliances and economic tensions, U.S. Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnik has criticized India’s decision to buy Russian oil, stating that before the Russian conflict, India purchased less than 2% of its oil from Russia, but that figure has now risen to 40%.

In an interview with Bloomberg, Secretary Lutnik claimed that India was taking advantage of the cheap, sanctioned oil to “make money,” calling this “just plain wrong” and “ridiculous.” He urged India to decide which side it wants to be on—supporting the U.S. and American consumers or aligning with BRICS, a multinational alliance that includes Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa.

He expressed optimism that India would return to trade negotiations and attempt to reach a deal with President Trump.

The announced tariffs have most severely affected industries such as textiles, pharmaceuticals, and jewelry, making Indian exports to the U.S. uncompetitive. The uncertainty surrounding these tariffs is discouraging investment and could lead some businesses in India or America to shut down or consider relocating to countries with lower tariffs, according to Dr. Rachakonda.

The garment industry, in particular, is expected to be hit hard, as many stores rely on fabric from India. “It’s mostly because of the uptick in price due to the tariffs,” he noted.

India’s textile industry employs more than 100 million people, with the U.S. as its single-largest market—almost 28% of Indian textile and apparel exports go to America, according to the New Delhi-based Confederation of Indian Textile Industry. In the financial year 2024-25, India exported close to $11 billion worth of products to the U.S.

Amid the growing frustration over tariff-related challenges, the uncertainty is affecting planning, investment, and long-term decision-making.

“India has depended significantly on foreign direct investment, and U.S. companies have invested a lot in India,” Dr. Rachakonda said. He questioned whether the tariffs would cut investments in India and if companies would continue to manufacture items made costlier by tariffs.

U.S. investments in India in 2024 were valued at about $58.5 billion, while Indian investments in the U.S. were valued at $5.01 billion in the same year, according to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.

Experts agree that the tariffs are forcing both India and the U.S. to reexamine their relationship with each other and with other countries. The BRICS alliance has historically opposed a post-World War II world led by the U.S., but now, “Trump is providing them with even more political and economic reasons to try to find ways to cooperate,” commented Koopman.

America’s reduced investment in infrastructure, education, and research and development could also handicap its long-term growth, regardless of trade policy, he added.

In the midst of this chaos, the IAICC is actively supporting businesses affected by the tariffs by collaborating and sharing information with media outlets and other organizations. Their virtual meetings and discussions bring together stakeholders and provide a platform for support. The organization is guiding companies as they explore alternative markets and adapt new business strategies amid the shifting global trade landscape.

Dr. Rachakonda, who heads the organization, is optimistic that the situation is temporary despite the challenges, viewing the latest tariff hikes as more about geopolitical strategy concerning Russia rather than India itself. He sees the tariffs as a serious but potentially resolvable issue.

While there is significant short-term pain at the moment, there is hope for a negotiated solution in the future. The efforts of stakeholders to find a resolution may ultimately determine the future of this complex relationship.

Source: Original article

Democratic Gubernatorial Nominee Faces Nepotism Accusations Over Children’s Naval Academy Acceptance

New Jersey Democratic gubernatorial candidate Mikie Sherrill faces accusations of nepotism following the acceptance of her children into the U.S. Naval Academy amid ongoing controversies surrounding her military past.

New Jersey Democratic gubernatorial candidate Mikie Sherrill is under scrutiny for alleged nepotism after two of her children were nominated and subsequently accepted into the U.S. Naval Academy. This controversy emerges as Sherrill is also dealing with a separate issue related to a cheating scandal during her own time at the academy.

In a June press release, Sherrill expressed pride in the 24 students from her district who were appointed to various military academies, including her children, Lincoln and Margaret Hedberg. However, the press release did not explicitly identify the two students with her husband’s last name as her children, and a photo accompanying the release did not feature them.

“From my time at the Naval Academy, I remember how challenging the academy’s programs are—both academically and physically,” Sherrill stated in the release. She emphasized the importance of teamwork and overcoming challenges, which she believes prepared her for leadership roles as a military officer. Sherrill wished the best for the young men and women starting their careers as future military leaders.

Members of Congress are responsible for nominating students to service academies, while the academies make the final appointments based on qualifications. Social media users have raised concerns about the fairness of Sherrill’s children’s admissions, particularly since only 22 students from her district were accepted into military academies, with just nine gaining entry to the Naval Academy. The academy is known for its highly competitive admissions process, boasting a mere 9% acceptance rate.

Rasmussen pollster Mark Mitchell took to social media to voice his concerns, stating, “Mikie Sherrill’s two kids are at the Naval Academy, one of the hardest schools to get into, because of her nepotism. Meanwhile, some hardworking, impoverished, and unconnected teenagers lose out on a life dream they earned.”

Journalist Jennifer Jean Miller echoed these sentiments, questioning how Sherrill’s children gained admission while potentially deserving candidates were overlooked. “Far left politicians like Mikie Sherrill like to virtue signal about privilege…yet have no problem exerting their own privilege,” she remarked.

While some have claimed that Sherrill nominated her children, an aide for Democratic Senator Cory Booker confirmed to Fox News Digital that Booker nominated one of Sherrill’s children for the current freshman class. “Each year, Senator Booker, as a member of Congress, has the honor of nominating qualified young people to serve in the United States military service academies,” Booker’s office stated. They emphasized that prospective candidates undergo a rigorous application and screening process to ensure that only the best candidates are recommended based on merit.

Sherrill’s other child received a nomination from now-former Democratic Senator George Helmy, as confirmed by a Helmy spokesperson. In response to the nepotism allegations, Sherrill clarified that her children did not participate in her office’s nomination process to avoid any appearance of conflict of interest. “Instead, they applied to the offices of the U.S. Senators from New Jersey, who also run academy nomination processes each year, and I am proud that they each earned nominations on their own,” she stated.

Sherrill’s office explained that the press release did not include her children because it listed all students from NJ-11 who were appointed to academies, not just those she nominated, which is considered routine for her office.

In a statement to Fox News Digital, Sherrill’s campaign described the nepotism accusations as a “depraved attack.” They alleged that the Trump administration, in collaboration with the Ciattarelli campaign, released Sherrill’s unredacted service records, including sensitive personal information, and are now resorting to attacks on her family.

Federal law allows members of Congress to nominate up to 15 candidates for each available vacancy at the U.S. Naval Academy, with each member permitted to have five constituents attending the academy at any given time.

The political landscape in New Jersey has been tense, particularly as the state prepares for its gubernatorial election, one of only two nationwide this year. The race intensified last week when reports surfaced that the Naval Academy had barred Sherrill from participating in her 1994 graduation due to a cheating scandal.

Sherrill’s opponent, Jack Ciattarelli, has called for her to release her military records to clarify the circumstances surrounding her graduation. “What we learned today is that she was part of it in some way, shape or form. Come clean, release the records. Tell us what’s in your disciplinary records. I think the people of New Jersey deserve that,” Ciattarelli stated during an interview.

Adding to the controversy, a report revealed that the National Personnel Records Center mistakenly released Sherrill’s improperly redacted military personnel files, which contained private information, to an ally of Ciattarelli. This incident has prompted calls from prominent Democrats for an investigation into the matter.

Sherrill expressed her outrage, stating, “To have a guy I’m running against, it will stop at nothing, it will stop at nothing, who will illegally obtain records. It’s just beyond the pale.”

The two candidates are set to face off in their second and final debate next week as they vie for the position of governor, succeeding term-limited Democratic Governor Phil Murphy.

Source: Original article

Economic Concerns Increase Under Trump, Deepening Democratic Divide

Economic concerns are rising among Americans under President Trump’s administration, leading to a growing divide with Democrats who see this as a political opportunity ahead of upcoming elections.

Under President Trump’s administration, economic unease is increasingly evident among many Americans. Persistent inflation, worries about job security, and aggressive trade policies have collectively undermined public confidence in the nation’s financial trajectory.

Democratic leaders are closely monitoring these economic shifts, perceiving them as potential political openings. They contend that the growing dissatisfaction over the cost of living and economic stability could significantly influence voter perceptions of the current administration as well as the upcoming elections.

While the White House often downplays economic concerns, framing current statistics against historical benchmarks, many citizens do not perceive the broader context. For a significant portion of the population, the disparity between rising prices and stagnant wages is a primary source of frustration. Additionally, trade disruptions, retaliatory tariffs, and ongoing supply chain pressures exacerbate these anxieties, intensifying fears about future economic conditions.

Analysts point out that widespread economic anxiety can alter voting behaviors—not solely along partisan lines but also based on the direct impact on individuals’ daily lives. In uncertain times, leadership that promises stability may find increased support. Currently, Democrats are banking on economic fatigue becoming a pivotal issue as the 2025 elections approach.

Source: Original article

Trump Anticipates ‘Real Chance for Greatness’ Ahead of Netanyahu Meeting

President Trump is set to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu at the White House to discuss a potential ceasefire in Gaza, expressing optimism for a significant breakthrough.

President Donald Trump is scheduled to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House on Monday. The meeting aims to broker a ceasefire agreement and bring an end to the ongoing war in Gaza.

In a preview of the discussions, Trump took to Truth Social on Sunday, stating, “We have a real chance for greatness in the Middle East. All are on board for something special, first time ever. We will get it done.”

While Trump did not provide specific details regarding the terms of a ceasefire, exit strategies, or plans for demilitarization in Gaza, he indicated that both Israel and Hamas have agreed to engage in indirect talks later this week in Qatar.

Vice President JD Vance discussed the negotiations during an appearance on “Fox News Sunday,” noting that top U.S. officials are deeply involved in “very complicated” discussions with both Israeli and Arab counterparts. He expressed cautious optimism about the current state of negotiations, stating, “I feel more optimistic about where we are right now than where we have been at any point in the last few months, but let’s be realistic, these things can get derailed at the very last minute.”

Vance outlined that the Trump administration’s proposal focuses on three primary objectives: securing the release of all hostages, eliminating the Hamas threat to Israel, and expanding humanitarian aid to Gaza. “So I think we’re close to accomplishing all three of those objectives,” he added.

In an exclusive interview on Fox News Channel’s “The Sunday Briefing,” Netanyahu emphasized that his team is actively collaborating with U.S. officials to prioritize the release of hostages. “I hope we can make it a go because we want to free our hostages. We want to get rid of Hamas rule and have them disarmed, Gaza demilitarized, and a new future set up for Gazans and Israelis alike and for the whole region,” he told co-host Jacqui Heinrich.

This meeting marks the third encounter between Trump and Netanyahu since January and follows the recent United Nations General Assembly. During Netanyahu’s address, numerous U.N. delegates walked out, leaving many seats empty. Subsequently, member states voted to allow Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to deliver his remarks remotely. In his speech, Abbas accused Israel of “genocide” and called for full U.N. membership for a Palestinian state, which garnered approximately 30 seconds of applause.

As the situation in Gaza continues to evolve, the upcoming discussions between Trump and Netanyahu are being closely watched, with hopes for a diplomatic resolution that could reshape the dynamics in the region.

Source: Original article

Russia’s Sergey Lavrov Issues Warning to NATO in UNGA Address

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov delivered a pointed address at the United Nations General Assembly, warning NATO and the U.S. of a “decisive response” amid rising tensions in Ukraine and the Middle East.

During his speech at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) on Saturday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov issued one of Moscow’s most direct warnings to the West, accusing NATO and the European Union of engaging in a “real war” against Russia.

Lavrov began his address with sweeping historical references to World War II, positioning Russia as the successor to the Soviet Union’s legacy in defeating Nazism and defending global sovereignty. He criticized the United States for undermining postwar principles through military interventions in regions such as Yugoslavia, Iraq, and Libya, asserting that similar actions are occurring today in the Middle East.

While condemning the October 7, 2023, attack by Hamas, Lavrov characterized Israel’s military campaign in Gaza as “collective punishment” of civilians. He linked this conflict to a broader narrative of what he described as decades of unchecked Western military force.

Lavrov accused NATO of disregarding longstanding security commitments and insisted that Russia has “never had and does not have” plans to attack NATO countries. He dismissed Western warnings of a potential Russian offensive as “provocations.” In a notable escalation, Lavrov stated, “Any aggression against my country will be met with a decisive response. There should be no doubt about this among those in NATO and the EU.”

This warning comes at a time of heightened tensions along NATO’s eastern flank, where Estonia has recently accused Russian jets of violating its airspace, and NATO forces have intercepted drones over Poland. In response, the U.S. has reiterated its commitment to defend “every inch of NATO territory.” Lavrov’s remarks underscored Moscow’s framing of any potential conflict with NATO as an existential threat to Russia.

The timing of Lavrov’s speech coincides with a shift in U.S. rhetoric regarding the war in Ukraine. President Donald Trump, who met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy earlier in the week, has adopted a firmer stance, asserting that Ukraine can and should reclaim all its territory. This marks a departure from earlier indications of openness to negotiations, following rare talks between U.S. and Russian officials in Alaska over a month ago.

Lavrov’s address appeared aimed at countering Trump’s new position, reminding Washington that Moscow views the conflict not as a distant issue but as a direct confrontation involving the United States. In his own address to the General Assembly, President Zelenskyy cautioned that failing to stop Russia now could trigger “the most destructive arms race ever.”

Following his speech, Lavrov reinforced his message during a press conference, responding to inquiries about Western calls to shoot down Russian aircraft that might violate European airspace. He dismissed Trump’s earlier characterization of Russia as a “paper tiger,” noting that the president had since retracted that statement. Lavrov then issued a stark warning: “If there are attempts to down any flying object … over our territory, in our airspace, then I think people will very much regret it, undertaking such an egregious violation of our territorial integrity and sovereignty.”

In addition to addressing NATO, Lavrov criticized U.S. sanctions on Iran, labeling Western efforts to restore or tighten restrictions as “illegal” and indicative of Washington’s strategy of “blackmail and pressure.” He argued that the West has undermined diplomatic efforts to revive the 2015 nuclear deal and rejected what he described as manipulations at the U.N. Security Council aimed at isolating Tehran.

Beyond Europe, Lavrov portrayed Russia as aligned with a growing “global majority” opposing Western dominance, citing organizations such as BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, as well as calls from African and Latin American nations for greater representation at the U.N. Security Council. He accused the U.S. of using sanctions and military alliances to maintain its hegemony while claiming that Russia is defending the sovereignty of nations across the Global South.

Source: Original article

Portland Mayor Criticizes Federal Intervention Amid Controversial Video Claims

Portland Mayor Keith Wilson has condemned President Trump’s plan to deploy federal troops to the city, asserting that there is no current lawlessness or violence in the area.

Portland Mayor Keith Wilson voiced strong opposition on Saturday to President Donald Trump’s announcement regarding the deployment of federal troops to Oregon’s largest city. The president’s decision comes amid ongoing protests and heightened tensions between federal authorities and local activists.

In a statement made during a news conference, Wilson asserted that there is no need for military intervention in Portland, declaring that the number of troops required is “zero.” He emphasized that the city is not a military target, stating, “This is an American city. We do not need any intervention.”

Trump’s announcement, made early Saturday morning, indicated that he had directed War Secretary Pete Hegseth to provide “all necessary troops to protect war-ravaged Portland, and any of our ICE facilities under siege from attack by Antifa and other domestic terrorists.” The president suggested he would authorize full force if necessary to address what he described as lawlessness.

In response, Wilson criticized the portrayal of Portland as a city in chaos, claiming that video footage of violence being circulated was outdated, stating it was “recycled and then recycled again” from incidents that occurred five years ago. He insisted that if Trump were to visit Portland today, he would see a community engaged in everyday activities such as riding bikes, playing sports, and shopping at local markets.

Wilson highlighted the progress the city has made since the footage was recorded, noting reforms in the public safety system and efforts to support vulnerable populations. “We’ve had hard conversations, and we’ve done important work in the years since that footage was taken,” he said.

Protests have intensified near the ICE facility in Portland since June, with city officials citing land use violations, including improper detainee holding times and boarded-up windows. The facility has been the site of vandalism and clashes between protesters and federal agents, occasionally resulting in violent confrontations. Law enforcement has responded with rubber bullets, tear gas, and flashbangs to disperse crowds during these events.

In August, video footage captured a particularly violent protest, showing demonstrators rolling out a guillotine, setting fires, and clashing with authorities. This incident prompted law enforcement to take action to control the situation.

Rather than sending troops to Portland, Wilson suggested that the president consider dispatching “hundreds of engineers, or teachers, or outreach workers” to the city. He expressed disappointment with the federal government’s approach, stating, “At the end of the day, this may be a show of force, but that’s all it is. It’s a big show, and after the big show, everyone goes home.”

Wilson emphasized Portland’s long-standing tradition of peaceful protest and its commitment to positive social change. He expressed concern over the potential risks associated with the federal intervention, noting that the administration has not clarified what it means by deploying “full force” against the city and its residents.

While Trump did not explicitly state that he would deploy full force against Portland’s citizens, he did mention sending “all necessary troops” to protect the city and its ICE facilities, authorizing full force against domestic terrorism if deemed necessary.

Portland has been designated a sanctuary city since 2017, resisting federal immigration enforcement and becoming a focal point in the administration’s immigration enforcement initiatives. In August, Attorney General Pam Bondi sent a letter to Wilson, warning that the city’s sanctuary policies undermine U.S. interests and demanding compliance with federal law.

The City of Portland did not immediately respond to requests for comment regarding the situation.

Source: Original article

Trump’s H-1B Visa Policy Threatens U.S.-India Tech Relations

Last week’s H-1B visa proclamation by the Trump administration has ignited a fierce debate over its implications for the tech industry and U.S.-India relations.

Last week’s proclamation regarding the H-1B visa program has set the stage for an intense and contentious debate, as tech firms strive to protect their access to global talent while critics advocate for even stricter regulations.

In Silicon Valley, the reaction to the new policy, which imposes a staggering $100,000 fee on H-1B visas, has been largely subdued. Many tech executives are hesitant to publicly criticize President Trump, aware that he often perceives even constructive dissent as an affront. Some industry leaders have even framed the fee as a means to safeguard American jobs, aligning themselves with the administration’s agenda.

However, behind the scenes, lobbying efforts are in full swing. Corporate legal teams and industry groups are working diligently to persuade the administration to reconsider the measure. Their efforts have already yielded some results.

Initially, the White House indicated that the $100,000 fee would apply to all H-1B visas, both new and existing. This announcement caused widespread panic among current H-1B holders, prompting many to rush back to the U.S. before the effective date. Airlines experienced a surge in demand and last-minute cancellations as a result. By the following Sunday, the administration clarified that the fee would only apply to new petitions, alleviating some concerns.

Criticism of the H-1B program has historically followed two main arguments. Trump and his supporters contend that companies exploit the program, using it as a loophole rather than a legitimate talent pipeline. They also assert that it suppresses wages and displaces American workers, as lower-paid foreign employees compete with U.S. graduates.

The recent proclamation is viewed by U.S. officials as the first step toward reforming the H-1B program. The White House announced that the Department of Labor would begin revising and increasing prevailing wage levels, aiming to ensure that the program supports only the most highly qualified foreign workers.

Simultaneously, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is preparing to restructure the H-1B lottery system, prioritizing higher-paid, highly skilled applicants over those at lower wage levels. This shift is expected to spark months of heated debate. Tech companies, which rely heavily on global talent, are likely to push back against what they perceive as punitive measures, while critics of the program will seize the opportunity to advocate for deeper cuts.

Some politicians are already calling for additional restrictions on global talent. Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, a long-time critic of the H-1B program, has urged the DHS to halt work authorizations for international students graduating from U.S. universities. In a recent social media post, Grassley argued that foreign students directly compete with American workers and warned that their presence poses risks of tech and corporate espionage.

If further restrictions are imposed on the visa program, the impact on India could be severe. No other country relies more on the H-1B program than India, where nationals consistently account for over 70 percent of annual approvals.

The H-1B program has significantly influenced India’s economic trajectory in three key ways. Firstly, it has fueled the remarkable growth of the Indian IT industry. Major outsourcing firms like Infosys, Tata Consultancy Services (TCS), and Wipro have been among the heaviest users of H-1B visas. The steady influx of Indian engineers to the U.S. has contributed to the rise of a $300 billion IT services industry in India, creating numerous jobs within the country.

Secondly, the program has been a substantial source of revenue for India. Conservative estimates suggest that between one and two million Indians have received H-1B visas since the program’s inception in 1990. Currently, Indian workers in the U.S. send back more than $30 billion annually in remittances, supporting families and bolstering the Indian economy.

Lastly, the H-1B pipeline has played a crucial role in expanding the U.S. Indian American community, which has evolved into a significant political force. Their financial and intellectual contributions have served as a bridge between Washington and New Delhi, strengthening bilateral ties.

Of course, the United States has also greatly benefited from the H-1B program. It has been instrumental in building the talent pool of Silicon Valley. Many of America’s most iconic innovations, from semiconductors to social media, have been driven by Indian-born engineers and executives.

However, the new $100,000 fee and the potential for further restrictions pose a threat to this vital talent pipeline. Companies may find it prohibitively expensive to hire foreign talent, which could lead them to scale back or outsource more work overseas. Startups and mid-sized firms, in particular, may struggle to compete for skills on a global scale.

A recent report from JPMorgan Chase projected that the fee could result in 5,500 fewer H-1B applications each month. Additionally, it may deter foreign students from pursuing education in the U.S., further diminishing the talent pool available to American companies.

For the U.S., this policy could undermine its global competitiveness. Tech executives have quietly warned that if hiring foreign workers becomes too costly, companies may accelerate the trend of establishing Global Capability Centers (GCCs) in India and other countries, shifting high-value work abroad rather than creating jobs in America.

For India, the proclamation represents a “double whammy.” Economically, it threatens to impact its largest export market, coming on the heels of the administration’s 50 percent tariff on Indian goods. Diplomatically, it risks straining U.S.-India relations at a time when Washington views New Delhi as a key partner in countering China and securing technology supply chains.

Source: Original article

Turkish Airlines Announces Purchase of 225 Boeing Aircraft

Turkish Airlines has announced a significant order for 225 Boeing aircraft, coinciding with recent talks between Turkish President Erdogan and U.S. President Trump regarding sanctions and military trade.

Turkish Airlines revealed on Friday that it has placed an order for 75 Boeing 787 aircraft and successfully finalized negotiations to acquire 150 737 MAX planes, contingent upon discussions regarding engines. This announcement follows a pivotal meeting between Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and U.S. President Donald Trump, marking their first face-to-face interaction since 2019. The two-hour discussion has raised expectations in Ankara regarding the potential lifting of U.S. sanctions, which would facilitate Turkey’s ability to purchase American F-35 fighter jets.

In a statement released on Friday, Turkish Airlines emphasized that these orders are part of a broader strategy to modernize its fleet, aiming for an entirely new-generation aircraft lineup by 2035. This initiative is expected to enhance operational efficiency and support an average annual growth rate of approximately 6%. The groundwork for this deal has been laid over an extended period, with the airline’s chairman first hinting at the planned purchase back in June 2024.

In addition to its aircraft orders, Turkish Airlines has also made strategic moves to expand its global presence, including a recent acquisition of a minority stake in Spain’s Air Europa. This investment allowed the airline to outmaneuver European competitors such as Lufthansa and Air France-KLM. The company disclosed to the Istanbul Stock Exchange that it has committed to purchasing 75 wide-body B787-9 and B787-10 models from Boeing, comprising 50 firm orders and 25 options. Deliveries for these aircraft are expected to take place between 2029 and 2034. Ongoing negotiations with Rolls-Royce and GE Aerospace are focused on securing engines, spare engines, and maintenance services for the new planes.

According to its strategic plan for 2023-2033, Turkish Airlines aims to expand its fleet to over 800 aircraft by the year 2033. As of June 2023, the airline operated 485 aircraft, as indicated in its latest presentation. Earlier in May 2023, Turkish Airlines announced that it had initiated discussions with manufacturers to procure around 600 additional aircraft, following a substantial order for 355 Airbus planes placed in December 2023.

The recent meeting between Trump and Erdogan was highly anticipated, particularly as Turkey seeks to have sanctions lifted to facilitate military aircraft trade with the United States. Turkey was previously removed from a program that allowed the U.S. to sell advanced F-35 fighter jets during Trump’s first term, primarily due to concerns that Turkey’s use of Russian technology could compromise U.S. military data security. Trump suggested on Thursday that he might consider lifting these sanctions if the meeting with Erdogan proved successful.

During their discussions, the two leaders also addressed the ongoing conflict in Gaza and the potential for a ceasefire. Additionally, they touched on the Russia-Ukraine war, with Trump urging Erdogan to halt any oil purchases from Russia while the country continues its military actions against Ukraine. Trump acknowledged Erdogan’s efforts in facilitating sanctions relief in Syria and commended his role in the removal of former Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad.

As Turkish Airlines moves forward with its ambitious expansion plans, the outcome of the Erdogan-Trump meeting may significantly influence the airline’s future operations and its relationship with the United States.

Source: Original article

Trump Agency’s Social Media Reach Exceeds MSNBC, CNN Viewership, DHS Reports

The Department of Homeland Security’s social media reach has significantly surpassed that of MSNBC and CNN, according to recent metrics obtained by Fox News Digital.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has reported that its social media reach outperformed that of legacy media outlets MSNBC and CNN during the summer months, with millions of media impressions across various platforms.

Exclusive metrics obtained by Fox News Digital reveal that DHS’s social media accounts, which include channels on Facebook, Instagram, and X, garnered approximately 6,395,700 daily impressions in July. This figure starkly contrasts with the daily viewership numbers for MSNBC and CNN, which averaged about 502,000 and 333,000 viewers, respectively.

In prime time, MSNBC attracted around 738,000 viewers, while CNN’s viewership reached approximately 440,000, according to data from Nielsen Media Research. The previous month, June, also saw DHS outperforming these outlets, with social media impressions totaling roughly 3,390,600. During that time, MSNBC averaged 593,000 daily viewers, and CNN had about 450,000.

The metrics compiled by DHS were derived from internal reports, which were subsequently verified using Sprout Social, a social media management tool. An “impression” is defined as the number of times a post or content appears on a user’s screen, regardless of whether the user engages with it.

DHS has adopted a distinctive approach to its social media strategy, incorporating memes, GIFs, and traditional American-style recruiting graphics to promote U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents. Sources within DHS indicated that one of their goals is to depict an idealized vision of what an American homeland represents.

This innovative strategy has not only been employed by DHS but has also been mirrored by other government agencies and the White House. Notably, during the Trump administration, DHS experienced a remarkable 34-fold increase in weekly reach compared to the Biden administration. In July 2024, the Biden administration’s DHS reported just 700,000 weekly impressions, while the Trump administration’s DHS, under Secretary Kristi Noem, achieved an impressive 46.1 million impressions.

Despite receiving criticism from some legacy media outlets regarding its social media style, DHS remains committed to its current approach, including the ongoing ICE recruiting campaign. A Washington Post opinion piece even labeled the agency’s videos as “preposterous,” suggesting they were part of a “holy war” to promote their agenda.

As the landscape of media consumption continues to evolve, the Department of Homeland Security’s social media strategy exemplifies a shift in how government agencies engage with the public, aiming to reach audiences where they are most active.

Source: Original article

Trump Unveils New Tariffs on Pharmaceutical Imports Impacting Indian-American Companies

President Donald Trump has announced new tariffs on pharmaceutical imports, escalating trade tensions and reshaping U.S. economic policy while pressuring allies like India over oil imports.

President Donald Trump is intensifying his tariff strategy, recently unveiling a new wave of tariffs that includes a staggering 100% levy on branded or patented drug imports, effective October 1. This move is contingent on companies establishing manufacturing facilities in the United States.

In 2025, tariffs have become a cornerstone of Trump’s economic agenda, with significant increases in trade duties enacted under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act. Earlier this year, Trump reinstated and expanded tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, raising rates to 50% and eliminating exemptions for specific countries.

These tariffs, justified on national security grounds, now encompass a wider array of downstream metal products. In July, Trump also imposed new 50% tariffs on copper and copper-based goods, again citing national security concerns. However, this appears to be just the beginning of his aggressive tariff policies.

In addition to pharmaceuticals, the administration plans to impose a 25% import tax on all heavy-duty trucks and a 50% levy on kitchen and bathroom cabinets. Trump stated that these measures are necessary due to the “large scale ‘FLOODING’ of these products into the United States by other outside countries,” emphasizing the need to protect U.S. manufacturers.

Neil Shearing, chief economist at Capital Economics, commented that the tariff announcement regarding pharmaceuticals may not be as significant as it initially seems. He noted that many of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies either already have production facilities in the U.S. or have announced plans to establish them in the near future.

William Bain, head of trade policy at the British Chambers of Commerce, echoed this sentiment, stating that leading pharmaceutical companies in the UK have committed to substantial investments in the U.S., particularly in advanced manufacturing. He believes this commitment should shield them from any new duties.

The tariffs on heavy-duty trucks are intended to protect U.S. manufacturers from what Trump describes as “unfair outside competition.” The new duties on kitchen and bathroom cabinets, along with other furniture, are a response to high import levels that have adversely affected local manufacturers.

Trump’s aggressive tariff strategy is also placing India in a difficult position. According to a Bloomberg report, Indian officials, during their recent visit to the U.S., reiterated their concerns to the Trump administration regarding oil imports. They indicated that a significant reduction in Russian oil purchases by Indian refiners would require Washington’s approval for crude imports from Iran and Venezuela, both of which are currently under U.S. sanctions.

Faced with a 25% additional penal tariff on its crude trade with Russia, India has requested the U.S. to permit oil imports from Iran and Venezuela.

By imposing steep tariffs on a wide range of imported goods—including steel, aluminum, copper, pharmaceuticals, heavy trucks, and household furniture—Trump’s administration aims to protect domestic industries deemed vital for national security and economic resilience. These measures are designed to reduce reliance on foreign suppliers, encourage the onshoring of manufacturing, and safeguard American jobs from what Trump characterizes as unfair foreign competition and an influx of inexpensive imports.

While some industry experts argue that sectors like pharmaceuticals may be less affected due to existing or planned U.S. production, the overall approach indicates a more aggressive stance on global trade relations. This policy could lead to increased costs for consumers and businesses reliant on imported materials, but it also incentivizes investment in U.S. manufacturing capabilities.

The situation with India highlights the broader complexities and potential unintended consequences of aggressive tariff policies. While these measures are aimed at protecting domestic industries and enhancing national security, they can disrupt established global supply chains and create tensions with key allies. Countries like India, caught between adhering to U.S. trade regulations and addressing their own economic needs, may seek exemptions or negotiate terms to mitigate economic challenges.

Source: Original article

John Roberts’ Two Decades on the Supreme Court and His Impact

Chief Justice John Roberts marks 20 years on the U.S. Supreme Court, navigating a conservative shift in jurisprudence, particularly in cases involving former President Donald Trump.

Chief Justice John Roberts is celebrating two decades in his role at the U.S. Supreme Court, a period marked by a significant shift toward conservative jurisprudence, particularly in cases related to former President Donald Trump. Throughout his tenure, Roberts has guided the Court through pivotal rulings concerning presidential immunity, administrative power, and various social issues, all while managing the delicate balance between institutional restraint and the pressures of partisanship.

Roberts has occasionally diverged from his conservative colleagues, yet he frequently aligns with major decisions that enhance executive authority. His leadership style has been characterized by a commitment to preserving the Court’s legitimacy, even when faced with the challenge of issuing controversial rulings. Critics argue that his approach has contributed to the consolidation of power within the executive branch, while supporters contend that he has effectively corrected instances of overreach and maintained legal consistency.

As Roberts embarks on his third decade as Chief Justice, the Supreme Court continues to confront urgent issues that challenge constitutional boundaries and the balance of power among the branches of government. His influence on the Court’s trajectory during this time will likely resonate for years to come, shaping not only legal precedents but also the broader political landscape.

According to Global Net News, Roberts’ tenure reflects a complex interplay of judicial philosophy and the realities of contemporary governance, illustrating the evolving role of the Supreme Court in American society.

Source: Original article

European Drugmakers Face Impact of New U.S. Tariffs, India Less Affected

European drugmakers are set to face significant challenges due to new U.S. tariffs on imported pharmaceuticals, while India’s impact may be less severe, according to the Global Trade Research Initiative.

New Delhi, September 26 (ANI) — European countries are expected to bear the brunt of new U.S. tariffs on imported branded or patented pharmaceutical products, while India may experience a lesser impact, as outlined in a recent press release by the Global Trade Research Initiative (GTRI).

On September 26, U.S. President Donald Trump announced that starting October 1, a 100 percent tariff will be imposed on all imported branded or patented pharmaceuticals, unless the manufacturer is already establishing a drug production facility in the United States. This decision is part of the administration’s “America First Manufacturing” initiative, which aims to compel global companies to localize their production efforts.

According to U.S. import data for 2024, the total value of pharmaceutical imports (HS 30) is projected to be USD 212.82 billion, with India contributing USD 12.73 billion, or 5.98 percent of the total. In contrast, Ireland accounted for USD 50.35 billion (23.66 percent), Switzerland for USD 19.03 billion (8.94 percent), and Germany for USD 17.24 billion (8.10 percent). These European nations, which primarily supply high-value branded and patented drugs, are anticipated to face the most immediate and severe repercussions from the new tariffs.

India’s contribution of USD 12.73 billion is largely dominated by generic medicines, which may provide a buffer against the full impact of the tariffs. Data from the Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics (DGCI&S) indicates that India exported USD 9.8 billion worth of pharmaceutical formulations to the U.S. in FY2025, representing 39.8 percent of its total pharmaceutical exports. These exports include a range of products such as tablets, capsules, and injectables used to treat various conditions, including hypertension, diabetes, infections, cardiovascular issues, and neurological disorders. Additionally, significant volumes of antibiotic formulations, including amoxicillin, azithromycin, and ciprofloxacin, as well as vitamin and nutritional products, are included in these shipments.

The GTRI press release highlighted that India’s emphasis on generics, rather than patented drugs, may protect a substantial portion of its trade from the full weight of the tariff. However, there remains uncertainty regarding how “branded generics” will be treated under the new U.S. policy.

“India exports both branded and unbranded generics to the U.S. Branded generics are common, generic molecules sold under brand names. For instance, paracetamol may be exported as a bulk drug or in tablet form under a brand like Crocin,” the release noted.

Currently, India’s pharmaceutical exports to the U.S. are concentrated among a few major companies, which together supply nearly 70 percent of shipments. These exports primarily consist of off-patent formulations that are crucial to the U.S. healthcare system.

While Europe braces for the most significant challenges, several global pharmaceutical companies, including Roche, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, and GSK, have announced investments exceeding USD 350 billion in U.S. manufacturing, research, and supply chain facilities by the end of the decade.

Source: Original article

Lawsuit Claims Illegal Immigration Arrests by Trump Administration in D.C.

Four D.C. residents and CASA have filed a class-action lawsuit against the Trump administration, alleging unlawful immigration arrests by ICE agents that have instilled fear in local immigrant communities.

A class-action lawsuit has been filed against the Trump administration by four Washington, D.C. residents and the national immigration organization CASA. The lawsuit alleges that federal agents have conducted a series of illegal immigration arrests across the District since August, creating widespread fear among immigrant communities.

Filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the lawsuit challenges what the plaintiffs describe as a pattern of arrests made without warrants or probable cause, which they argue violates federal immigration law. According to the law, agents are permitted to detain individuals without a warrant only if they can demonstrate probable cause that the person is unlawfully present in the country and poses a flight risk.

The plaintiffs contend that these legal safeguards have been disregarded. Each individual involved in the lawsuit claims to have been arrested without a warrant, subsequently detained, and later released. CASA, one of the plaintiffs, stated that the recent crackdown has compelled the organization to redirect its resources from social services to crisis response for community members who have been detained.

Elias, a CASA member and one of the plaintiffs, recounted his harrowing experience: “On my way to a life-saving dialysis appointment, I was detained by ICE one mile from the hospital. They ignored my U.S. driver’s license and left me without critical treatment that day, putting my health in immediate danger. I was detained for over eight hours without food or access to my necessary medicine. Since then, I have lived in fear that I could be torn from my family and deported to a place where I cannot get the medical care I need to survive. No one should be treated this way. I am standing up in this lawsuit to make sure ICE is held accountable and stops these unlawful arrests from destroying more lives.”

Advocates for immigrant rights have expressed concern that these practices have fostered an atmosphere of fear. Adina Appelbaum, program director of the Immigration Impact Lab at the Amica Center for Immigrant Rights, stated, “Families should not have to live in fear that simply walking to school, going to work, or attending a doctor’s appointment will result in being abducted and dragged away by federal agents without cause. ICE’s wide-sweeping arrests in D.C. are not just cruel; they are blatantly unlawful.”

The plaintiffs are represented by a coalition of organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of the District of Columbia, the Amica Center for Immigrant Rights, CASA, the National Immigration Project, the Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, and the law firm Covington & Burling LLP.

Aditi Shah, a staff attorney with the ACLU of D.C., emphasized the disruptive nature of the federal government’s actions. “The government’s policy and practice of arresting people without probable cause are illegal and have disrupted everyday life in the District. The policy and practice disregard important limits Congress has established for immigration arrests and have sown terror among immigrant communities and neighborhoods in D.C. Federal agents, like the rest of us, must follow the law,” she said.

This lawsuit arises in the context of President Trump’s declaration of a “crime emergency” in Washington, D.C., made in August. This declaration led to the deployment of federal law enforcement agents, including ICE, and authorized the Department of Justice to direct the Metropolitan Police Department to assist with immigration enforcement. Although the emergency period has since ended, federal immigration arrests in the city have persisted.

Yulie Landan, a staff attorney with the National Immigration Project, remarked, “For weeks, immigrant communities in D.C. have been living in a state of terror and disruption caused by a policy of indiscriminate targeting being carried out by immigration officials.”

CASA leaders have expressed their determination to combat these practices. Ama Frimpong, legal director at CASA, stated, “CASA members who live and work in D.C. are being targeted by immigration officials simply for existing. With this lawsuit, our members are making it clear: they have had enough of the federal government’s lawlessness and abuse of power. They will not be intimidated or silenced. They will continue to fight until the government is held accountable.”

Madeleine Gates, associate counsel at the Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, added that the fear extends beyond undocumented immigrants. “The federal government has created a culture of fear in D.C., including among U.S. citizens and immigrants with legal status,” she said. “People are justifiably afraid to go to work or even to walk their kids to school. We are determined to end this unlawful policy.”

A virtual press conference featuring the plaintiffs is scheduled for Friday, September 26, at 12:30 p.m. Eastern Time.

Source: Original article

Abbas to Address UN Amid Visa Dispute and Hamas Concerns

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas calls for Hamas to surrender its weapons and advocates for a ceasefire ahead of his upcoming address to the United Nations General Assembly.

Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas is scheduled to address the United Nations General Assembly on Thursday via video link, following the revocation of his visa by the U.S. last month. The U.N. recently voted 145-5 to allow Abbas to speak at this significant international event, despite the U.S. accusing the Palestinian leadership of undermining peace efforts and barring entry for approximately 80 Palestinians.

It remains uncertain how Abbas’ upcoming address will differ from his remarks made on Monday at an event co-hosted by France and Saudi Arabia. During that event, Abbas called for an immediate ceasefire and urged Hamas to surrender all weapons to the PA.

“Hamas will have no role in governance, and it, along with other factions, must hand over its weapons to the Palestinian Authority,” Abbas stated. “We want one unified state, without arms outside the framework of the law, under one legal system, and with one legitimate security force.”

Abbas also reaffirmed his condemnation of the actions of the Israeli occupation, while simultaneously denouncing the killing and kidnapping of civilians, including the attacks carried out by Hamas on October 7, 2023.

The PA was established in 1994 following the Oslo Accords peace agreement with Israel, but it has been largely sidelined since 2005. It continues to operate in the West Bank, although it has faced ongoing clashes with Hamas, which has held de facto power in the Gaza Strip since 2007 after a violent power struggle.

Last month, the U.S. State Department indicated that the PA “must consistently repudiate terrorism — including the October 7 massacre” before it can be considered a partner for peace.

Despite the PA’s limited role in ceasefire negotiations, Abbas expressed gratitude on Monday to the U.S., Qatar, and Egypt for their mediation efforts with Israel. He asserted that the PA is the only legitimate authority capable of assuming full responsibility for governance and security in Gaza, proposing a temporary administrative committee linked to the Palestinian government in the West Bank, supported by Arab and international partners.

Abbas outlined a “comprehensive reform agenda” aimed at strengthening governance, transparency, and the rule of law in Gaza. His proposed plan includes reforming financial institutions, aligning school curricula with UNESCO standards, establishing a social welfare program, and holding presidential and parliamentary elections within one year of the conflict’s conclusion.

The State Department did not immediately respond to inquiries regarding its support for the re-implementation of the PA. The Trump administration has consistently made clear its opposition to the actions taken by other Western nations, which have recently indicated their intention to recognize a “state of Palestine.”

Source: Original article

Ben Carson Sworn in as USDA National Advisor on Nutrition and Health

Former neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson has been sworn in as the national advisor for nutrition, health, and housing at the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Dr. Ben Carson, a prominent figure in American politics and a former neurosurgeon, was officially sworn in on Wednesday as the national advisor for nutrition, health, and housing with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).

Carson previously served as the secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development during President Donald Trump’s first term. In his new role, he will provide guidance to both President Trump and USDA Secretary Rollins on critical issues related to nutrition, rural healthcare quality, and housing accessibility.

According to a USDA news release, Carson will act as the Department’s chief voice on these matters. He will collaborate closely with Secretary Rollins on initiatives under the President’s Make America Healthy Again Commission and work alongside leadership in USDA’s Rural Development Mission Area.

“Today, too many Americans are suffering from the effects of poor nutrition. Through common-sense policymaking, we have an opportunity to give our most vulnerable families the tools they need to flourish,” Carson stated in the release. He expressed his honor in working with Secretary Rollins on initiatives aimed at realizing President Trump’s vision for a healthier and stronger America.

Earlier this year, President Trump signed an executive order to establish a Religious Liberty Commission, appointing Carson as vice chair of the commission.

During a recent address at the American Cornerstone Institute’s Founders’ Dinner, Trump announced plans to award Carson the Presidential Medal of Freedom. A ceremony honoring Carson is expected to take place at the White House. Notably, Carson was previously awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President George W. Bush in 2008.

Carson is also the founder of the American Cornerstone Institute, an organization dedicated to advocating for the principles he believes have shaped his life and contribute to the greatness of the nation: Faith, Liberty, Community, and Life.

As he embarks on this new role, Carson’s focus will be on addressing pressing issues related to nutrition and health, particularly in rural communities, while also enhancing housing accessibility for those in need.

His appointment comes at a time when the nation is increasingly aware of the challenges posed by inadequate nutrition and healthcare access, especially among vulnerable populations.

With a wealth of experience in both healthcare and public service, Carson is poised to make significant contributions to the USDA’s efforts in improving the quality of life for Americans across the country.

Source: Original article

The $100,000 H-1B Visa Fee and Its Impact on Indian-Americans

The Trump Administration’s recent $100,000 fee for H-1B visa applications has raised concerns among the Indian diaspora, particularly regarding its implications for skilled workers seeking employment in the U.S.

On September 19, the Trump Administration announced a significant change to the H-1B visa program, aimed at protecting American jobs. This new policy introduces a $100,000 fee for certain H-1B visa applicants, a dramatic increase from the previous fee of $215. The change is set to take effect at 12:01 a.m. ET on September 21 and will remain in place for one year, with the possibility of extension.

The announcement has sparked fear and confusion among H-1B visa holders and prospective applicants, particularly within the Indian diaspora. More than 70% of H-1B visas issued in recent years have gone to workers from India, making this change particularly impactful for that community.

The new fee will be required for new H-1B petitions submitted by employers, with the intention of restricting the entry of certain nonimmigrant workers. This measure is part of a broader effort to curb abuses of the H-1B program that allegedly displace U.S. workers.

In a statement released by the White House on September 20, the administration outlined the specifics of the executive order. It restricts the entry of nonimmigrant workers in specialty occupations unless their petitions are accompanied by the $100,000 fee. The Secretary of Homeland Security has been directed to deny approvals for petitions from individuals currently outside the U.S. that do not include this payment, although exemptions may be granted on a case-by-case basis if deemed in the national interest.

Employers will be required to maintain documentation of the payment, which will be verified during the petition process by the Secretary of State. The Departments of State and Homeland Security will deny entry to individuals who do not meet the payment requirement and will take necessary steps to implement the proclamation.

The order also mandates that the Departments of Labor and Homeland Security collaborate on guidance related to verification, enforcement, audits, and penalties. Additionally, the Secretary of Labor has been instructed to revise the prevailing wage levels for the H-1B program, while the Secretary of Homeland Security will prioritize high-skilled, high-paid H-1B workers.

The White House’s statement emphasized the administration’s concern that American workers are being replaced by lower-paid foreign labor. It noted that the share of IT workers holding H-1B visas has increased from 32% in fiscal year 2003 to over 65% in recent years. The administration cited specific instances of companies laying off American employees while simultaneously hiring H-1B workers, further fueling the narrative that the program is being abused.

In response to the announcement, immigration lawyers and advocates have organized webinars and disseminated information to clarify the implications of the new fee. Many companies have advised their H-1B employees to avoid international travel and to exercise caution when considering travel plans.

According to White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt, the $100,000 fee will apply only to new H-1B applicants and will be charged per petition. It will not affect existing visa holders who are re-entering the country. Leavitt clarified that this fee is a one-time charge associated with the petition for a skilled worker and is not an annual fee.

Current H-1B visa holders outside the U.S. will not be required to pay the new fee to re-enter the country. Leavitt reassured that these visa holders can travel as they normally would, and the new fee will only apply to the upcoming H-1B lottery round, not to renewals or current visa holders.

Immigration attorney Sweta Khandelwal confirmed that the policy specifically targets individuals outside the U.S. at the time of entry. While current H-1B holders are not directly affected, their international travel may be impacted, and they are advised to avoid unnecessary trips abroad. The policy is set to remain in effect for 12 months, through September 21, 2026, unless extended.

Khandelwal noted that employers must document the $100,000 payment and provide proof during the petition process. The Departments of State and Homeland Security will work together to ensure that visas and entry are denied if the required payment is not made. However, there is currently uncertainty regarding how the Department of State will process the payment, even if employers are willing to comply.

As the situation develops, the Departments of Homeland Security, State, and Labor are expected to issue detailed guidance and initiate rulemaking on wage levels and prioritization standards. Legal challenges to the new fee are anticipated as early as September 22, 2025, according to Khandelwal.

To help the community navigate these changes, the Foundation for India and Indian Diasporic Studies (FIIDS) is hosting an online event featuring CPA and Attorney Neeraj Bhatia on September 22 at 9 p.m. EST (6 p.m. PST) to discuss the implications of the new visa fee.

For those interested in attending, registration is available at: http://tiny.cc/FIIDS-Online-RSVP.

Source: Original article

Weight Loss May Be Achievable Through New Medication, Study Finds

A new oral weight loss medication, orforglipron, has shown promising results in clinical trials, potentially offering a more convenient alternative to injectable treatments like Ozempic.

A new oral weight loss medication, orforglipron, has demonstrated significant weight loss results in phase 3 clinical trials, positioning it as a potential alternative to injectable GLP-1 medications such as Ozempic and Wegovy.

The drug, developed by Eli Lilly, showed “meaningful weight loss” and improvements in cardiometabolic health, according to a press release. The findings were published in the New England Journal of Medicine following the phase 3 ATTAIN-1 trial, which assessed the safety and efficacy of orforglipron in adults with weight-related medical issues who do not have diabetes.

During the trial, participants underwent 72 weeks of treatment with three different doses of the medication: 6 mg, 12 mg, and 36 mg. Results indicated that orforglipron met the primary endpoint of superior body weight reduction compared to a placebo. Participants taking the highest dose lost an average of 27.3 pounds, with nearly 60% of them achieving a loss of at least 10% of their body weight. Additionally, 39.6% of participants lost at least 15% of their body weight.

Among the 1,127 participants who had pre-diabetes at the start of the study, up to 91% reached nearly normal blood sugar levels, compared to just 42% in the placebo group. The drug also demonstrated clinically meaningful improvements in cardiovascular risk factors associated with obesity, including reductions in non-HDL cholesterol, systolic blood pressure, and triglycerides.

Furthermore, the highest dose of orforglipron reduced levels of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, a marker for inflammation, by 47.7%. The study found that the safety profile of orforglipron was consistent with existing GLP-1 medications, with the most common side effects being gastrointestinal issues such as nausea, constipation, diarrhea, and vomiting, which were generally mild to moderate in severity.

Dr. Sean Wharton, director at Wharton Medical Clinic and lead study author, emphasized that obesity is a “complex, global health challenge” that requires effective treatment options that can be easily integrated into daily life. He noted that orforglipron demonstrated strong efficacy results and a safety profile similar to that of the GLP-1 class of medications, reinforcing its potential as a first-line treatment in primary care.

“Orforglipron could help reduce known markers of cardiovascular risk associated with obesity and support meaningful improvements in public health,” Wharton stated in the press release.

Eli Lilly has announced plans to seek approval for orforglipron as an obesity treatment, with expectations that it could receive the green light as early as 2026. The company also plans to apply for approval to use the drug for treating type 2 diabetes in the same year. According to Reuters, the medication could be “fast-tracked” under a one- to two-month review process initiated by the Food and Drug Administration, as noted by Wall Street analysts.

Analysts speculate that orforglipron is a viable candidate given the rising costs associated with injectable weight-loss drugs and Eli Lilly’s expansion of U.S. manufacturing, issues that have been prioritized by the Trump administration.

In an interview with Fox News Digital, Dr. Sue Decotiis, a medical weight loss doctor in New York City, described orforglipron as a “positive addition to the armamentarium” that is cheaper to produce and more affordable for consumers. However, she pointed out that the weight loss results are “not as impressive” compared to those from injectables like Ozempic and Mounjaro.

Decotiis acknowledged that compliance with orforglipron may be better since it is an oral medication rather than an injectable. However, she expressed concerns regarding the drug’s formulation, noting that it is not a peptide, which typically has a high safety factor and is easier for the body to metabolize and adjust to.

“There could be unknown long-term consequences that we have yet to know about,” she cautioned. “I believe there will be more oral weight loss drugs in the pipeline and hope they will be in the peptide category.”

Fox News Digital reached out to Eli Lilly for further comment on the study and the drug’s future.

Source: Original article

The H-1B Visa Process Faces Challenges Amid Ongoing Uncertainty

The Trump administration’s recent H-1B visa fee increase could significantly impact South Asian American communities, particularly those from India, leading to widespread confusion and concern.

On Friday, the Trump administration announced a major change to the H-1B visa program, which could have lasting effects on South Asian American communities. The fee for obtaining an H-1B visa has surged from a few thousand dollars to an unprecedented $100,000. This dramatic increase raises concerns about the viability of the visa for many employers, potentially making it prohibitively expensive.

The implications for the Indian American community are profound. Historically, the H-1B visa has served as a crucial pathway for thousands of South Asian Americans, particularly those from India, to establish their lives in the United States. Since the program’s inception in 1990, it has facilitated the immigration of a significant number of skilled workers.

Following the announcement, confusion spread rapidly across the U.S. WhatsApp groups lit up with discussions, and frantic emails circulated as individuals sought clarity. Some employers advised their current H-1B employees traveling abroad to return to the U.S. immediately. In a notable incident, an announcement was made on an Emirates flight preparing to take off from San Francisco, allowing passengers to de-board if they needed to.

As the weekend unfolded, the White House provided clarifications, stating that the $100,000 fee would apply only to new applicants, including those entering the upcoming H-1B lottery cycle. These changes took effect on Sunday, leaving little time for preparation.

The technology sector is expected to bear the brunt of this policy change. According to U.S. government data, approximately 300,000 Indians were working in the U.S. on H-1B visas in 2024. This group, along with their families, represents about 10% of all Indian-origin individuals residing legally in the country.

Many prominent American companies have been led by individuals who immigrated to the U.S. on H-1B visas, including Satya Nadella of Microsoft and Sundar Pichai of Alphabet, Google’s parent company. Indra Nooyi, who served as CEO of PepsiCo from 2006 to 2018, is another notable example.

While most media coverage has focused on the tech industry’s challenges, the medical community also has a substantial population of H-1B visa holders. With the U.S. facing a growing shortage of doctors and nurses, this fee increase could exacerbate existing issues in healthcare.

The White House indicated that doctors might be exempt from the new fee, but the overall impact on American universities and academic appointments remains uncertain. As institutions grapple with federal pressures and budget cuts, the implications for higher education could be significant.

A pressing question arises: Does the U.S. have enough homegrown talent to fill high-skilled roles in the near and long term? The answer appears to be no, particularly as the nation seeks to compete in the rapidly evolving field of artificial intelligence. The debate over the value of skilled immigration has created divisions within the political landscape, with some advocating for stricter measures while others, including former H-1B visa holder Elon Musk, argue for a more open approach.

The familial ramifications of this policy change are also noteworthy. India’s Ministry of External Affairs expressed concerns that the new measures could disrupt family units, highlighting the humanitarian consequences of such immigration policies. As the situation develops, the long-term effects on South Asian communities in the U.S. remain to be seen.

Globally, the impact of this policy shift is evident. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has urged Indians to prioritize local products over foreign goods, reflecting a growing trend of nationalism in response to U.S. tariffs and immigration policies. This inward focus may lead to a reverse brain drain, where talented individuals who would typically contribute to the U.S. economy choose to remain in India instead. Meanwhile, countries like Canada, Australia, and the U.K. may seize the opportunity to attract skilled workers from India.

For Indian Americans who supported Trump in the 2024 election, this policy change could test their loyalty. The administration’s actions on legal immigration directly affect their families and communities, raising questions about the future of their support.

As with many recent policy changes, the true effects of this fee increase will unfold over time. Legal challenges may arise, potentially altering the course of these regulations. The combination of high tariffs and sudden visa changes could strain the longstanding relationship between the U.S. and India, impacting commerce and the flow of talent.

Source: Original article

Democrats Criticize Trump’s Attacks on Free Speech, Target Vulnerable Republicans

Democrats have launched a digital ad campaign targeting House Republicans, accusing former President Donald Trump of undermining free speech following the suspension of comedian Jimmy Kimmel’s show.

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) initiated a new digital advertising campaign on Wednesday, highlighting what it describes as former President Donald Trump’s “ongoing attacks on free speech.” This campaign follows the recent suspension of comedian Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night television show, which has drawn significant attention and controversy.

The ads will focus on several House Republicans in swing districts who are facing tough re-election battles in the upcoming midterms. The campaign will be featured across various conservative and independent media platforms, including popular podcasts hosted by Joe Rogan and Ben Shapiro, which resonate strongly with younger and male audiences.

The DNC’s campaign comes in response to ABC’s decision to temporarily pull Kimmel’s show off the air after his comments regarding the alleged assassin of conservative activist Charlie Kirk sparked outrage and a veiled threat from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

The suspension of Kimmel has ignited backlash among Democrats, progressives, and even some prominent conservatives, who argue that the late-night host is being punished for exercising his right to free speech. Conversely, many Republicans contend that Kimmel’s remarks, which suggested that Kirk’s suspected killer was affiliated with the MAGA movement, were both outrageous and unfounded.

ABC reinstated Kimmel on Monday, and his program returned to the air on Tuesday night. However, approximately 60 affiliated stations owned by Nextar Media Group and Sinclair Broadcast Group opted to preempt the show.

The DNC asserted in a statement, “The American people don’t support attacks on free speech, which is why Trump is losing support among independent and conservative voters.” They emphasized that the Republican base is fracturing, with notable figures such as Megyn Kelly, Ted Cruz, and Ben Shapiro publicly distancing themselves from the former president’s administration.

The DNC’s advertisement features a clip of Trump from the early days of his second administration, where he declared, “On day one, I signed an executive order to stop all government censorship.” The ad’s narrator later claimed, “Trump wants to control what you see so he can control what you think.”

This campaign, which is backed by a modest budget in the five-figure range, will specifically target the congressional districts of Republican Representatives Rob Wittman and Jen Kiggans from Virginia, Brian Fitzpatrick from Pennsylvania, and Tom Kean Jr. from New Jersey.

The DNC stated, “It’s clear Donald Trump only cares about silencing his critics — and now, voters across the country and in Virginia, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey are going to hear about it.”

Trump and many of his allies, who have long positioned themselves as advocates for free speech, have criticized those who have spoken out against Kirk since the conservative activist’s assassination earlier this month. The former president welcomed ABC’s initial decision to suspend Kimmel and has suggested revoking the broadcast licenses of networks that he believes treat him unfairly.

DNC Chair Ken Martin expressed to Fox News, “Donald Trump’s administration has amassed a chilling record of restricting speech, extorting private companies, and dropping the full weight of the government censorship hammer on Americans simply exercising their First Amendment rights. This is no exaggeration, and it’s splintering the coalition that got Trump elected.” He further claimed that Trump is “attempting to silence people. It’s un-American, and Democrats won’t stand for it.”

During the administrations of Democratic Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden, Republicans and conservatives frequently criticized what they perceived as efforts to suppress free speech, accusing Democrats of promoting “cancel culture.” In response to recent events, Trump and his allies have framed their actions as a shift from “cancel culture” to “consequence culture.”

Source: Original article

Syria’s New President Addresses UNGA Amid Ongoing Terrorism Concerns

Ahmed al-Sharaa, a former al Qaeda member, is poised to address the UN General Assembly, advocating for Syria’s recovery amid ongoing concerns regarding his past and the nation’s sectarian violence.

Ahmed al-Sharaa, once affiliated with al Qaeda and the Islamic State, now leads Syria’s precarious transition following the ousting of Bashar Assad. As he prepares to address the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) on Wednesday, al-Sharaa aims to present a vision for a new direction for his war-torn country.

This marks a historic moment, as it is the first time a Syrian president has participated in high-level UN meetings since 1967. Natasha Hall, a senior associate at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, emphasized the significance of this event, stating, “On such a historic occasion, what he will try to emphasize and underline is that this is a new day for Syria.” Hall noted that al-Sharaa is expected to discuss the progress made since the Assad regime’s downfall and advocate for the lifting of U.N. sanctions to facilitate Syria’s recovery.

A high-ranking Syrian official confirmed to Fox News Digital that al-Sharaa plans to outline Syria’s vision for stability, reconstruction, and reconciliation during his address. Key issues he intends to raise include the need to lift unilateral sanctions that impede Syria’s recovery, the importance of combating terrorism, the return of displaced Syrians and refugees, and the establishment of an inclusive political process that reflects the will of the Syrian people.

Since leading the Islamist rebel group Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) to victory over Assad, al-Sharaa has adopted a more diplomatic approach, donning a Western-style suit and engaging with European and Western diplomats to improve Syria’s international standing. His efforts have garnered attention, including an endorsement from former President Donald Trump, who referred to al-Sharaa as a “young, attractive, tough guy” during their meeting in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, in May. Trump indicated that the U.S. would consider lifting sanctions imposed during the Assad era and discussed the possibility of normalizing relations.

Hall suggested that al-Sharaa might seek to secure a security pact between Israel and Syria on the sidelines of the UNGA, emphasizing his desire for a peaceful Syria that poses no threat to its neighbors, particularly Israel. Additionally, he aims to obtain crucial reconstruction aid to rebuild a nation devastated by 13 years of civil war. Estimates for reconstruction costs range from $250 billion to $400 billion, with approximately 16.7 million people—about 75% of the population—requiring humanitarian assistance, according to the U.N.

Since taking control of Damascus, al-Sharaa has made public commitments to form an inclusive government that represents all religious and ethnic groups in Syria, uphold women’s rights, and protect minority rights. He has also taken steps to combat ISIS and other terrorist factions operating within the country. Notably, just a month after assuming power, Syrian security forces intercepted a shipment of heavy ammunition intended for Hezbollah, a former ally of the Assad regime and a key player in Iran’s Axis of Resistance.

Despite the optimism surrounding al-Sharaa’s leadership, some experts caution that it may be premature to view him as a reliable Western ally due to his past affiliations. Robert Ford, the former U.S. Ambassador to Syria, expressed skepticism about al-Sharaa’s democratic intentions, stating, “Al-Sharaa is not a democrat. He ruled Idlib without power-sharing.” Ford highlighted the importance of assessing whether individual political and civil liberties will be respected under al-Sharaa’s leadership.

Ambassador Barbara Leaf, who met with al-Sharaa in December, noted that he appeared well-prepared and engaged during their discussion. Leaf, who served as assistant secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, emphasized that al-Sharaa has publicly committed to ensuring that Syria will no longer serve as a threat to its neighbors, including Israel, and that he would not permit Iranian or Hezbollah activities on Syrian soil.

While Leaf acknowledged al-Sharaa’s pragmatic approach, she also raised concerns about his true intentions as Syria’s new leader. She questioned whether he aims to establish a form of Islamist governance and whether he would resort to force to achieve that goal. The composition of al-Sharaa’s transitional government, which includes individuals closely associated with HTS and other armed groups, adds to the uncertainty surrounding his leadership.

Caroline Rose, director of The New Lines Institute, noted that al-Sharaa is navigating a delicate balance within his government, trying to appease both liberal opposition voices and more conservative factions aligned with HTS. She pointed out that Syria’s complex political landscape has led to gridlock and an inability to effectively address crises, such as the recent violence involving radical Sunni fighters in Latakia and Suweida.

As sectarian violence continues to plague Syria, the new government faces significant challenges. A recent attack in Latakia resulted in the deaths of approximately 1,400 people, primarily civilians, highlighting the ongoing instability. Additionally, the Christian community in Syria has been targeted by extremist violence, with a deadly suicide bombing at a Greek Orthodox church in June resulting in numerous casualties.

As al-Sharaa seeks to consolidate control over a divided society, he must also consider the integration of Kurdish forces operating in Northeast Syria, where the Syrian Democratic Forces have played a crucial role in the U.S.-led campaign against ISIS. Any disruptions in this integration could pose risks for a resurgence of ISIS in the region.

As al-Sharaa prepares for his address at the UNGA, the world watches closely, weighing the potential for a new chapter in Syria against the backdrop of his controversial past and the ongoing challenges facing the nation.

Source: Original article

Ex-Meta Engineer Highlights H-1B Visa Dependence in U.S. Tech Industry

A former Meta engineer has sparked a significant discussion regarding H-1B visa usage in the tech industry after revealing that most of his 2017 data engineering team were visa holders.

A former Meta engineer has ignited an online conversation about the reliance on H-1B visas within the tech industry. Zach Wilson, who is now leading his own data analytics startup in San Francisco, disclosed that 15 out of 17 members of his 2017 data engineering team were on H-1B visas. His comments come amid growing concerns over President Donald Trump’s recent proposal to impose a $100,000 visa fee for new applications.

In a post on X, Wilson shared, “When I worked at Meta in 2017, I was on a team of 17 people. 15 of the 17 were on H-1B visas. I was one of two Americans on the team.” He further noted that under the proposed new rules, this would amount to $1.5 million in visa fees solely for core growth data engineering roles.

Wilson’s remarks have resonated widely, particularly among American job seekers. He added, “If you’re an American looking to land a big tech role, now is your time because more than 80 percent of your competition literally just vanished overnight. Good luck!”

Having spent nearly two years at Meta as a data engineer, Wilson transitioned to entrepreneurship by launching his own startup. His post on X has elicited strong reactions from both Indian tech professionals and international observers. Some users clarified that the new visa fees would not impact current H-1B holders, suggesting that the changes would primarily slow the influx of new visa applicants over time. One user noted, “So any effect it will have will be slowing the pipeline of new H-1Bs over time,” highlighting the complexities of the situation.

Indian engineer Nitin Ahirwal contributed to the discussion by emphasizing that Meta’s success in core growth data engineering stemmed from talent rather than nationality. He stated, “If 15/17 engineers were on H-1Bs, that tells you something: US schools are producing users of tech, not builders.” Ahirwal also pointed out that the proposed $1.5 million in visa fees pales in comparison to the $120 billion in value generated by H-1B workers for major tech companies such as Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Netflix, and Google (FAANG). He argued, “Your ‘competition’ didn’t vanish. It just shifted. Those engineers will now be building the next Meta, Google, or Nvidia — in Bangalore, Hyderabad, Toronto, or Singapore.”

Another user, Rushikesh Patil, echoed this sentiment, stating, “If 15 out of 17 engineers at Meta were on H-1Bs, it tells you the reality. The talent pipeline wasn’t coming from US schools then and it isn’t ready now. Removing visas doesn’t replace the gap; it just exposes it.”

Tom Anderson, another user on X, shared his own experience, recalling, “I was on the Windows team (8) doing DevOps with Sanchez. We were the only two Americans on that team, and everyone else, including the manager, were from India — not to mention the three directors above the manager.” Wilson responded to Anderson’s comment, suggesting that if Meta had provided him with an opportunity, they would likely extend similar chances to graduates from prestigious institutions like MIT and Stanford if no other options were available.

The cost of filing an H-1B petition has historically ranged from $2,000 to $5,000. However, under President Trump’s new directive, this fee is set to increase dramatically to $100,000 for new applications. Experts warn that this substantial hike could have far-reaching implications for Indian professionals and the companies that rely on their expertise, particularly since Indians constitute over 70% of H-1B visa holders in the United States.

As the debate continues, the implications of these changes on the tech industry and the broader economy remain to be seen. The conversation sparked by Wilson’s post highlights the ongoing complexities surrounding immigration policy and its impact on the workforce.

Source: Original article

Trump Officials Criticize Governor for Ignoring Disruptive Anti-ICE Protests

The Department of Homeland Security has criticized Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker for his lack of response to an anti-ICE protest that escalated into chaos, prompting federal authorities to use tear gas.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has publicly criticized Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker for his inaction during a chaotic anti-ICE protest in Broadview, a suburb of Chicago. The protest forced federal authorities to deploy tear gas and other non-lethal measures to regain control of the situation.

In a statement released on Monday, DHS claimed that local police, operating under Pritzker’s sanctuary jurisdiction, “refused to answer multiple calls for assistance.” This assertion follows reports from Fox News Digital detailing clashes between federal officials and protesters who were obstructing ICE vehicles attempting to enter and exit a processing facility.

DHS characterized the protesters as “rioters,” stating that 16 individuals have been arrested in connection with the incident. The agency alleged that the rioters engaged in various violent actions, including obstructing law enforcement, throwing tear gas canisters, rocks, bottles, and fireworks, slashing the tires of vehicles, blocking facility entrances, and trespassing on private property. Additionally, it was reported that some rioters assaulted law enforcement officials during the unrest.

In response, Matt Hill, a spokesperson for Governor Pritzker, refuted the claims made by DHS. He told Fox News Digital that it is “completely false to suggest the state or local municipalities have been obstructing federal officials.” Hill emphasized that the state had not received multiple requests for assistance from the federal government and reminded DHS of the importance of coordinating with local law enforcement to ensure public safety.

“Governor Pritzker has been clear that violence is unacceptable and everyone needs to follow the law, which includes federal agents respecting constitutional rights to peaceful protest,” Hill added.

Hill also cautioned the media to approach reports from the Trump administration with skepticism, citing a “record of lies, lack of transparency, and failure to coordinate with the state and local law enforcement.”

The DHS statement highlighted that the protest disrupted an operation targeting individuals with serious criminal backgrounds. Among those being processed at the facility were individuals with convictions for drug trafficking, domestic abuse, driving under the influence (DUI), and assault.

One of the individuals mentioned by DHS was Andres Ventura-Uvaldo, a Mexican national with a history of felony DUI and domestic violence arrests. Another, Alberto Algeria Barron, had been previously removed from the U.S. in 2014 and had two convictions for domestic battery. Additionally, Erwin Jose Roa-Mustafa, a Dominican national, was being processed after pleading guilty to federal charges related to drug distribution, including fentanyl.

Other individuals included Ibis Alberto Testa Nunez, a Mexican national with prior arrests for cocaine possession, and Salvador Alcantar-Alcantar, who had been arrested for DUI, trespassing, and assault. Carlos Eduardo Chavez-Cardenas from Bolivia had a history of DUI and drug possession convictions.

DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin condemned the actions of the protesters, stating, “These heinous criminals, including domestic abusers, drug traffickers, violent offenders, and drunk drivers are some of the illegal aliens being held in the ICE Broadview Processing Center.” She further remarked that the rioters were “fighting to keep rapists, murderers, and other violent criminals loose on Illinois streets.” McLaughlin urged the public to recognize the efforts of ICE officers who work daily to enhance community safety.

This incident comes amid reports from DHS indicating that ICE officials are experiencing a more than 1,000 percent increase in assaults while conducting operations across Illinois.

According to Fox News Digital, the situation underscores the ongoing tensions between federal immigration enforcement and local jurisdictions that adopt sanctuary policies.

Source: Original article

US Strikes Drug-Smuggling Boat Carrying Over Ton of Cocaine

The Dominican Republic reported a major drug seizure after a U.S. airstrike targeted a vessel carrying over a ton of suspected cocaine.

The Dominican Republic has announced a significant drug seizure following a U.S. airstrike on a vessel suspected of trafficking narcotics. The boat was reportedly carrying “approximately 1,000 kilograms of suspected cocaine,” which translates to over 2,200 pounds, or more than one ton of the drug.

In the aftermath of the airstrike, the Dominican Republic’s National Drug Control Directorate and its navy seized hundreds of packages containing the suspected cocaine. These packages were subsequently sent, under chain of custody, to the National Institute of Forensic Sciences (INACIF) for analysis to determine their exact type and weight.

The operation was described as the first “joint operation against narcoterrorism in the Caribbean region” conducted between the Dominican Republic and the United States. According to a news release from the National Drug Control Directorate, authorities detected a speedboat, known as a “Go Fast” type, which intelligence reports indicated was loaded with narcotics and heading toward Dominican territory. The intention was to use the Dominican Republic as a transit point to transport the drugs to the United States.

This airstrike is part of a broader initiative by the U.S. government to combat drug trafficking. President Donald Trump has ordered strikes on multiple vessels this month as part of this crackdown. In a recent post on Truth Social, he emphasized the administration’s commitment to targeting drug traffickers, stating, “IF YOU ARE TRANSPORTING DRUGS THAT CAN KILL AMERICANS, WE ARE HUNTING YOU!”

The U.S. government has classified cocaine as “an intense, euphoria-producing stimulant drug with strong addictive potential.” A fact sheet from the government notes that tolerance to cocaine’s effects develops rapidly, leading users to consume higher doses.

This operation underscores the ongoing collaboration between the Dominican Republic and U.S. authorities in the fight against narcotics trafficking in the Caribbean region.

Source: Original article

India Reacts to Increased H-1B Visa Fees by U.S. Government

The U.S. government’s recent announcement of a $100,000 fee hike on H-1B visa petitions has sparked widespread anxiety among tech professionals in both the U.S. and India.

In a significant move, the U.S. government has announced a steep $100,000 fee increase on H-1B visa petitions, causing a wave of anxiety among tech professionals across the country. As news of the hike spread, many individuals began to assess the potential impact on their careers and futures.

Thousands of miles away in India, families of H-1B visa holders found themselves in a state of panic, grappling with uncertainty regarding travel plans, financial commitments, and the futures of their loved ones residing in the U.S. The announcement has transformed an already high-stakes application process into a source of overwhelming stress, with phones, laptops, and WhatsApp threads buzzing with activity around the clock.

Shubra Singh, a biotech professional currently in the U.S., experienced the tension firsthand during a Saturday night dinner in a Pittsburgh bar. Surrounded by eight Indian friends, all tech professionals on H-1B visas, she witnessed their focus shift entirely to their phones as they anxiously tracked updates on President Donald Trump’s decision regarding the fee increase. What began as a casual evening quickly turned tense, with conversations drowned out by notifications and urgent searches for clarity.

“Our families are sharing all kinds of articles on the H-1B situation,” Singh noted, highlighting the palpable anxiety among her peers. According to reports, Indians constitute the largest group of H-1B visa holders in the U.S., making up approximately 71%, while Chinese nationals account for about 11.7%. The recent proclamation to raise H-1B fees has left many questioning their employment prospects and reconsidering their plans in the U.S.

The impact of the fee hike was felt in India’s stock market as shares of major IT firms declined following the announcement. Investors reacted by offloading shares of leading IT outsourcing companies, including Infosys, Tech Mahindra, Wipro, HCL Technologies, and Tata Consultancy Services. Smaller and mid-sized firms, such as Persistent Systems, Coforge, Mphasis, Firstsource Solutions, and Cyient, also experienced stock price drops ranging from 1.7% to 4.2% during early trading in London.

Analysts are concerned that the $100,000 fee could deter Indian students from pursuing opportunities in the U.S. JPMorgan’s Toshi Jain remarked that this steep fee could act as a new “tax” on securing employment after graduation. Prashanth Prakash, a partner at the Indian venture capital firm Accel, echoed these sentiments, emphasizing the growing challenges for Indian students aspiring to study and work in the U.S.

Meanwhile, panic ensued on an India-bound Emirates flight shortly after the announcement. At San Francisco International Airport, several Indian passengers disembarked just before takeoff, leading to a three-hour delay. Videos posted on social media captured the chaotic scene, with travelers anxiously scrolling through their phones and standing in the aisles, uncertain about their ability to return to the U.S.

The captain of the Emirates flight addressed passengers, acknowledging the unprecedented circumstances and allowing those who wished to leave the aircraft to do so. “Ladies and gentlemen, it’s the captain speaking. Due to the current circumstances, obviously, that are unprecedented for us here at Emirates, we are aware that a number of passengers do not wish to travel with us, and that’s perfectly fine,” he stated.

Describing the situation as chaotic, a passenger shared their experience on Instagram, noting that panic had spread among Indian travelers, prompting some to choose to leave the plane. “It was complete chaos for Emirates passengers at San Francisco Airport this Friday morning,” the user wrote, detailing how they had been stranded for over three hours, waiting for the flight to depart.

In explaining the rationale behind the H-1B visa fee increase, President Trump stated that the program was intended to bring “temporary workers into the U.S. to perform additive, high-skilled functions,” but he claimed it had been exploited to replace American workers with lower-paid, lower-skilled labor.

As the implications of this fee hike continue to unfold, both tech professionals in the U.S. and their families in India are left grappling with uncertainty about their futures.

Source: Original article

Trump Administration Implements $100,000 Fee for H-1B Visas, Embassy Offers Support

Indian professionals express concern as President Trump imposes a $100,000 annual fee on H-1B visa applications, prompting the Indian Embassy in Washington, D.C., to establish an emergency helpline.

In a move that has raised alarm among Indian professionals, President Donald Trump recently signed a proclamation imposing an annual fee of $100,000 on H-1B visa applications. This decision has significant implications for the many Indian nationals who rely on this visa category for employment in the United States.

In response to the growing concerns, the Indian Embassy in Washington, D.C., has released an emergency assistance number for Indian nationals who may need immediate support. The Embassy stated, “Indian nationals seeking emergency assistance may call cell number +1-202-550-9931 (and WhatsApp). This number should be used only by Indian nationals seeking immediate emergency assistance and not for routine consular queries.”

The introduction of this steep fee has sparked serious concerns regarding its potential impact on Indian tech professionals and the overall flow of remittances. Notably, approximately 71 percent of all H-1B visas are granted to Indian citizens, making this development particularly significant for the Indian community.

To alleviate some of the anxiety surrounding the new fee, a senior official from the U.S. administration clarified that the $100,000 charge would apply only to new H-1B visa petitions. Existing visa holders and those seeking renewals will not be affected by this fee.

Following the announcement, the White House emphasized on September 20 that the fee is a “one-time fee” applicable solely to new visa applications, aiming to provide clarity amidst the confusion.

In light of the changes, the Indian government has instructed all its Missions and Posts to extend every possible assistance to Indian nationals who are scheduled to return to the United States within the next 24 hours. The Ministry of External Affairs is actively monitoring the situation and is carefully examining the implications of the newly imposed annual fee on the H-1B visa program.

This development has prompted a wave of reactions from various stakeholders, as many are concerned about the future of the H-1B visa program and its impact on the Indian workforce in the U.S. The Indian Embassy’s establishment of a helpline reflects the urgency of the situation and the need for immediate support for affected individuals.

As the situation continues to evolve, Indian nationals are encouraged to stay informed and reach out for assistance if needed. The implications of this new fee could reshape the landscape for H-1B visa applicants, particularly those from India, in the coming months.

Source: Original article

Nobel Economist Abhijit Banerjee Warns of Deep Scars from USAID Cuts

Dr. Abhijit Banerjee warns that recent cuts to USAID under the Trump administration could reverse decades of progress in global poverty reduction and development.

The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has experienced significant funding cuts over the past seven months, a trend that has sparked legal challenges and raised concerns about its global impact. The ramifications of these reductions are already being felt worldwide, according to Dr. Abhijit Banerjee, a Nobel Prize-winning economist.

On September 9, 2025, Dr. Banerjee addressed a briefing organized by the American Community Media in collaboration with the South Asian Literary Association. He discussed the implications of President Trump’s cuts to the global aid system, emphasizing the critical nature of the current moment for international development.

Dr. Banerjee, who received the 2019 Nobel Prize in Economics alongside Dr. Esther Duflo and Dr. Michael Kremer, is known for promoting data-driven approaches to identify and alleviate poverty. He expressed deep concern about the U.S. government’s shift in its contributions to global aid, stating, “We have seen a total repositioning of the US contributions to World Aid, but even more consequentially, the US is insisting that other Western countries also cut back on aid, and instead increase their defense budgets.”

A recent study published in *The Lancet* highlights the significant role USAID has played in global health and development. The United States has been the largest donor of official development assistance (ODA), contributing over $55 billion in 2023, which accounts for approximately 30% of the total ODA from Development Assistance Committee (DAC) countries. However, the U.S. ranks only 25th out of 30 DAC members in terms of ODA relative to national income, allocating just 0.24% of its gross national income. In contrast, countries like Norway and Luxembourg have exceeded the UN’s target of 0.7%, demonstrating a stronger commitment to international development.

Dr. Banerjee noted that USAID-supported initiatives have prevented more than 91 million deaths across all age groups, including 30 million among children. He emphasized the progress made globally in reducing extreme poverty, maternal mortality, and infant mortality, as well as improving children’s education from 2001 to 2019. However, he cautioned that the recent cuts could reverse these gains.

While larger countries like China, India, and Nigeria may be able to absorb the impact of reduced aid, smaller nations, such as Lesotho, could face severe consequences. Dr. Banerjee warned that these cuts, combined with tariffs imposed on ultra-poor countries, could lead to millions of preventable deaths. Forecasting models from the *Lancet* study predict that the current funding reductions could result in more than 14 million additional deaths by 2030, with over 4.5 million of those being children under five.

In response to questions about grassroots solutions to the crisis, Dr. Banerjee urged middle-income countries to take a more active role in global aid. He pointed out that China has already begun to implement targeted aid projects to enhance its influence, and he encouraged India to seize this opportunity to bolster its global standing.

Dr. Banerjee also addressed the narratives often propagated by far-right groups that portray the poor as lazy and undeserving. He argued that these views overlook the systemic issues contributing to poverty, such as capitalistic expansion, land degradation, and climate change. He emphasized that despite criticisms of USAID’s effectiveness, there is no substantial evidence to support claims of widespread corruption.

Looking ahead, Dr. Banerjee called for a rethinking of global aid. He proposed that reallocating just 1% of the wealth of the world’s top 3,000 individuals could generate around $140 billion, which could significantly offset the funding losses. “It isn’t an impossible thing to do, but rather a matter of will,” he stated.

As the world grapples with the consequences of reduced funding for global aid, the call for renewed commitment and innovative solutions has never been more urgent. Dr. Banerjee’s insights underscore the need for a collective effort to address the challenges posed by these cuts and to ensure that progress in poverty reduction and development is not lost.

Source: Original article

Kash Patel Expresses Pride in Leading FBI After Heated Hearing

FBI Director Kash Patel faced intense scrutiny during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing but remained defiant, asserting his pride in leading the agency and its historic recruitment efforts.

FBI Director Kash Patel faced significant criticism from Democratic senators during a recent Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, yet he remained resolute, stating that he is “proud” to lead the nation’s foremost investigative agency. Following the hearing, Patel emphasized the FBI’s record recruitment efforts, claiming that the agency has received the highest number of applications for FBI agents and intelligence analysts in its history.

One of the primary points of contention during the hearing was Patel’s earlier social media post, in which he mistakenly stated that the alleged killer of conservative leader Charlie Kirk was in custody. While Patel acknowledged that he could have phrased his post more carefully, he maintained that he does not regret it, asserting that it was made in the spirit of transparency.

In his remarks after the hearing, Patel noted, “The American people are seeing and hearing what the FBI is doing on a daily basis, crushing violent crime and defending the homeland.” He expressed pride in leading an agency that has experienced unprecedented growth in its application pool, stating, “I’m proud to be the director of the FBI that has seen the most significant, expansive application pool in history.”

During his opening statement to the committee, Patel highlighted several accomplishments of the FBI since President Donald Trump took office, including tens of thousands of arrests, a reorganization of the agency, and a renewed focus on combating illicit drugs. Despite the mounting criticism regarding his leadership, Patel challenged lawmakers to confront him directly, declaring, “I’m not going anywhere,” and inviting them to critique his 16 years of service.

Patel also faced scrutiny over a series of firings at the FBI, which some have alleged were politically motivated. Ranking member Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., criticized Patel for his perceived loyalty to Trump, claiming that the director has appointed “MAGA loyalists” to key positions and instituted internal “loyalty tests,” including polygraph examinations. Durbin further alleged that some FBI officials who failed these tests required waivers to remain employed at the bureau.

Additionally, Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, questioned Patel about a requirement for FBI field agents to perform push-ups as part of their physical fitness standards. Hirono expressed concern that this requirement could disproportionately affect female agents, asking, “There are concerns about whether or not being able to do these kinds of harsh pull-ups is really required of FBI agents.” In response, Patel asserted, “If you want to chase down a bad guy, excuse me, and put him in handcuffs, you had better be able to do a pull-up.”

In a particularly heated exchange, Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., warned Patel, “I think you’re not going to be around long,” suggesting that this might be his last oversight hearing. Booker criticized Patel for his allegiance to Trump rather than the Constitution, stating, “Donald Trump has shown us in his first term, and in this term, he is not loyal to people like you.” Patel countered Booker’s remarks, asserting that the senator’s “rant of false information does not bring this country together,” and added, “It’s my time, not yours.”

As the hearing concluded, Patel’s defiance and commitment to the FBI’s mission were clear, even in the face of mounting criticism from lawmakers. His tenure as director continues to be marked by controversy, but he remains steadfast in his role and the agency’s objectives.

Source: Original article

Nayna Gupta Discusses Deportation’s Impact on Families at Shadow Hearing

Nayna Gupta, Policy Director of the American Immigration Council, testified at a Shadow Hearing on September 18, 2025, addressing the severe impacts of deportation on families and communities.

On September 18, 2025, Nayna Gupta, the Policy Director of the American Immigration Council, provided crucial testimony at a Shadow Hearing organized by U.S. Representative Pramila Jayapal, who serves as the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Immigration, Integrity, Security, and Enforcement.

The hearing, titled “Kidnapped and Disappeared: Trump’s Assault Destroys U.S. Families and Communities,” marks the third installment in Rep. Jayapal’s series focused on the profound human costs associated with deportation policies.

During her testimony, Gupta emphasized the multifaceted consequences of these policies, which she argued have far-reaching effects on both individuals and society as a whole.

One of the key points Gupta raised was the way deportation policies tear apart families and destabilize communities. She illustrated how these actions not only affect the individuals being deported but also have a ripple effect on their loved ones and the broader community.

Gupta also pointed out that such policies undermine due process and fairness within the U.S. immigration system. She argued that the current framework often lacks the necessary protections for individuals, leading to unjust outcomes.

Furthermore, Gupta highlighted that these deportation practices weaken the core values of justice and dignity that should define America. She called for a reevaluation of the immigration system to better align with these fundamental principles.

The American Immigration Council remains committed to advocating for an immigration system that prioritizes family unity, upholds due process, and reflects the ideals of justice and dignity.

As the conversation around immigration continues to evolve, Gupta’s testimony serves as a poignant reminder of the human impact behind policy decisions.

According to the American Immigration Council, the ongoing discourse is essential for fostering a more humane and just immigration system.

Source: Original article

Trump Administration Emphasizes Patriotic Education in Federal Grant Programs

The Trump administration has introduced a new federal education grant priority focused on promoting “patriotic education” in American schools, emphasizing a positive portrayal of the nation’s history.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Trump administration has unveiled a new supplemental priority for federal education grants, aimed at fostering what it describes as “patriotic education” in American schools. This proposal, announced on September 17, represents the fifth such priority under the guidance of U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon and will shape future discretionary grant awards by the U.S. Department of Education.

In an official statement, the department indicated that this new priority will be utilized in grant competitions to encourage a “civic education that teaches American history, values, and geography with an unbiased approach.” Secretary McMahon emphasized the importance of an education system that conveys America’s founding principles, political institutions, and rich history honestly, stating, “It is imperative to promote an education system that teaches future generations honestly about America’s Founding principles, political institutions, and rich history… to inspire an informed patriotism and love of country.”

According to the department, “patriotic education” aims to present American history in a manner that is “accurate, honest, and inspiring.” The initiative will focus on an “uplifting portrayal” of the nation’s founding ideals while also acknowledging the progress made through the efforts of civil rights heroes who fought to extend the protections of the U.S. Constitution to all citizens.

This initiative is particularly timely as the nation approaches the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence in 2026. The proposed priority has been published in the Federal Register and is currently open for public comment for 30 days before it is finalized. Following this period, the Education Department plans to incorporate the feedback into its grantmaking decisions related to civic and history education.

The emphasis on patriotic education has garnered attention, reflecting a broader trend in educational policy that seeks to instill a sense of national pride and historical awareness among students. The administration’s approach has sparked discussions about the role of education in shaping civic identity and the narratives presented in American history.

As the public comment period progresses, stakeholders in education, including teachers, parents, and policymakers, will have the opportunity to voice their opinions on the proposed priority. The outcome of this initiative could significantly influence the direction of educational content and funding in the years to come.

According to ANI, the Education Department aims to create a framework that not only celebrates American achievements but also addresses the complexities of the nation’s history.

Source: Original article

Chuck Schumer Suggests Epstein May Have Influenced Kimmel’s Show Cancellation

Senator Chuck Schumer raised questions about the motivations behind Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night show cancellation, suggesting it may be linked to Kimmel’s comments on the Jeffrey Epstein case.

Senator Chuck Schumer has suggested that comments made by Jimmy Kimmel regarding the Jeffrey Epstein case may have played a role in the abrupt cancellation of Kimmel’s late-night talk show. This speculation follows the announcement that Disney would be pulling Kimmel’s “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” from its ABC affiliates.

In a post on social media platform X, Schumer questioned whether “Epstein” was “the real reason” for Kimmel’s removal from the airwaves. He included a screenshot of a New York Times article discussing how popular late-night hosts, including Kimmel, have utilized newly released Epstein documents to critique former President Donald Trump and his alleged connections to the disgraced financier. Schumer’s post read, “IS EPSTEIN THE REAL REASON TRUMP HAD KIMMEL CANCELED?!”

Fox News Digital reached out to Schumer’s representatives for clarification on his comments but did not receive a response prior to publication.

The cancellation of Kimmel’s show was announced by Nexstar Media Group, which operates numerous television stations. The company stated that it would replace Kimmel’s program with other content “for the foreseeable future” due to his remarks about Charlie Kirk, a conservative commentator. Nexstar’s broadcasting chief, Andrew Alford, described Kimmel’s comments as “offensive and insensitive” during a critical time in the nation’s political discourse. He emphasized that continuing to air Kimmel’s show did not align with the values of the local communities served by Nexstar.

Alford further explained that the decision to preempt Kimmel’s show was made in the interest of fostering respectful and constructive dialogue within the community.

Former President Trump weighed in on the cancellation during a press conference in the United Kingdom, attributing Kimmel’s departure to poor ratings. He stated, “Jimmy Kimmel was fired ’cause he had bad ratings more than anything else, and he said a horrible thing about a great gentleman known as Charlie Kirk.” Trump characterized Kimmel as lacking talent and suggested that he should have been let go long ago.

In a post on his platform, Truth Social, Trump referred to the cancellation as “great news for America.” Kimmel’s controversial comments reportedly stemmed from a recent episode of his show, in which he accused conservatives of attempting to politicize the murder of Charlie Kirk by linking it to left-wing ideology. Kimmel remarked, “We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them.”

Following the announcement of Kimmel’s cancellation, Federal Communications Commissioner Brendan Carr commended local television stations for prioritizing the interests of their communities in their programming decisions.

As the situation continues to unfold, the implications of Kimmel’s comments and the subsequent cancellation remain a topic of discussion among political figures and media analysts alike.

Source: Original article

Expanding Surveillance of Immigrants Raises Concerns Over Privacy Rights

Expanding surveillance measures targeting immigrants in the U.S. raise significant concerns about privacy rights, as government agencies increasingly share sensitive data and employ advanced monitoring techniques.

Since the Trump administration took office, the United States has witnessed a significant crackdown on immigrants. Immigration authorities, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), have intensified efforts to question, detain, and deport undocumented immigrants, student visa holders, and green card holders.

To facilitate this crackdown, the administration has directed non-immigration-related government agencies, such as the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and Medicaid, to share sensitive information with immigration authorities. During an American Community Media briefing on September 5, data privacy and policy experts expressed concerns that this development sets a dangerous precedent for privacy rights.

Nicole Alvarez, a Senior Policy Analyst for Technology Policy at the Center for American Progress (CAP), described the administration’s use of sensitive records for immigration enforcement as a “digital watchtower.” In a report published last month, Alvarez outlined how the administration is constructing an infrastructure for an expanding surveillance system that poses threats to both immigrants and citizens.

Alvarez noted that the Privacy Act of 1974, enacted in the wake of the Watergate scandal, was designed to ensure that the federal government could only use an individual’s private information for the purpose for which it was collected. However, she argued that the Privacy Act “has simply not kept up with the times.” It was established before the advent of the internet, mass data storage, and the ability to link extensive databases, resulting in limited accountability when data is reused or shared across agencies in unexpected ways.

The administration’s use of sensitive information for purposes other than its original intent—such as IRS or Medicaid data being utilized for immigration raids—can be classified as secondary data abuse. A 2022 report by the Center for Privacy and Technology at Georgetown Law revealed that ICE has access to personal information through various sources, including Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) driver’s license records and utility providers’ client records.

Another initiative underway is the consolidation of data from different agencies into a centralized repository, which simplifies the federal government’s ability to surveil both immigrants and citizens. Over time, Alvarez believes that secondary data abuse and the centralization of information will deter individuals from enrolling in or utilizing services offered by government agencies. Immigrants may become hesitant to pay taxes, enroll in healthcare programs, or seek other benefits to which they are entitled.

“When people disengage from public systems, those systems inherently become weaker; they become more unfair and less democratic,” Alvarez explained. “It becomes harder for agencies to serve communities effectively, and ironically, it undermines long-term goals like fraud prevention and civic participation.”

Emerald Tse, from the Center on Privacy and Technology at Georgetown Law, echoed Alvarez’s findings regarding the government’s digital watchtower and emphasized that the surveillance extends beyond data collected through federal agencies. The Center’s 2024 report, “Raiding The Genome,” provides a detailed analysis of a DHS program that collects DNA samples from thousands of individuals daily. In 2020, a Department of Justice rule granted DHS the authority to collect DNA from any individual they detain. These samples are then used to create profiles added to a federal policing database accessible to all levels of law enforcement.

“We found that the federal government has been collecting DNA on the assumption that people will commit crimes in the future,” Tse stated. “Profiles were added regardless of whether a person committed a crime or had been charged with one, and this included individuals of all ages, even children as young as four years old.” The report indicates that the DHS has added over 2.5 million profiles to the national policing database through this program, marking a staggering 5000% increase in the number of profiles added over the past three years.

The current administration is also leveraging social media to screen and, in some cases, target immigrants. Earlier this year, student visa interviews were paused for three weeks. Upon resuming, consular officers were instructed to vet applicants based on their social media profiles and online presence. This directive included screening candidates who demonstrated support for Hamas or exhibited a history of political activism. The government has also announced the use of an AI-based application called “Catch and Revoke,” which scours social media profiles of thousands of international students and revokes their visas if their sympathies align with Hamas.

Sophia Cope, Senior Staff Attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, views this social media surveillance as a direct challenge to individuals’ First Amendment rights. She highlighted a troubling trend in which the government is increasingly limiting what immigrants can express on social media.

“First it was pro-terrorism and pro-Palestine content, then it became anti-Semitism, and now it has broadened to include a general hostility toward American values and culture,” Cope explained. “This is absurd because all of that speech— even pro-terrorism speech—is protected under the First Amendment, as long as it does not incite imminent violence.”

As the U.S. government continues to expand its surveillance capabilities, the implications for privacy rights and civil liberties remain a pressing concern.

Source: Original article

Trump References Churchill Amid Growing Concerns Over UK Free Speech

President Donald Trump praised the U.S.-U.K. “special relationship” during a state dinner with King Charles III, addressing ongoing concerns about free speech in the U.K.

During a state dinner at Windsor Castle on Wednesday night, President Donald Trump highlighted the enduring “special relationship” between the United States and the United Kingdom. His remarks came amid ongoing debates regarding free speech in the U.K.

In his toast, Trump referenced the historical bond that inspired Sir Winston Churchill, stating, “His Majesty spoke eloquently about the bond which inspired Sir Winston Churchill – the bust is in the Oval Office right now – the beautiful bust of Winston Churchill, to coin the phrase ‘special relationship,’ but seen from American eyes, the word ‘special’ does not begin to do it justice.” He emphasized the connections shared by the two nations, describing them as “joined by history and fate, by love and language and by transcendent ties of culture, tradition, ancestry and destiny.”

Trump’s remarks came during an unprecedented second state visit, which included King Charles and other members of the royal family, as well as First Lady Melania Trump. Traditionally, royal events tend to avoid partisan issues, with the royal family maintaining a neutral stance on contentious topics. However, Trump has previously deviated from this norm.

While his toast appeared to remain politically neutral, it touched on a sensitive issue that has sparked controversy in both the U.S. and the U.K. in recent months: free speech. “The British Empire laid the foundations of law, liberty, free speech and individual rights virtually everywhere the Union Jack has ever flown, including a place called America,” Trump stated. This comment could raise eyebrows, particularly as the U.K. government faces criticism regarding its approach to free speech.

In recent months, U.K. online safety laws have become a contentious topic, drawing heated political debate not only within Britain but also among American leaders. Vice President JD Vance, who was not present at the state dinner, has been vocal about these issues. Critics, including right-wing Reform UK leader Nigel Farage, have described the U.K.’s approach to free speech as an “authoritarian” crackdown, comparing it to laws seen in countries like North Korea.

As discussions surrounding free speech continue to evolve, Trump’s remarks at Windsor Castle underscore the complexities of the U.S.-U.K. relationship and the shared values that both nations hold dear.

Source: Original article

Cruz Criticizes UN’s Israel ‘Genocide’ Accusation, Calls for Action

Texas Senator Ted Cruz condemned a recent U.N. report accusing Israel of genocide, warning of potential sanctions against those involved in the allegations.

Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz has voiced strong criticism of a new United Nations report that accuses Israel of committing genocide in Gaza. He cautioned that the Trump administration and Congress possess the necessary tools to impose sanctions on those responsible for the report.

The report, released on Tuesday by the United Nations Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory (COI), asserts that “the State of Israel bears responsibility for the failure to prevent genocide, the commission of genocide, and the failure to punish genocide against the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.”

In a statement to Fox News Digital, Cruz remarked, “This latest announcement by the United Nations is no different than any of the other antisemitic smears and libels that have been leveled against Israel in their ongoing response to Hamas’ atrocities on October 7.” He emphasized that this campaign undermines American national security interests by diminishing Israel’s ability to act against Hamas terrorists, who have killed Americans, and by fueling international legal actions against Israel that could also affect American servicemembers and citizens.

Cruz concluded his statement by urging the Republican Trump administration and Congress to utilize the tools and sanctions they have developed to address these threats.

Anne Bayefsky, director of the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust and president of Human Rights Voices, also criticized the U.N. report. She described it as promoting genocide against Jews and argued that it rationalizes the crimes against humanity committed by Hamas and other Palestinians on October 7. Bayefsky contended that the report diminishes the severity of the mass murder, rape, torture, and trauma inflicted on Israelis by suggesting that not enough Jews were harmed to pose an “existential threat” to Israel.

Bayefsky pointed out that the COI has been previously accused of omitting critical facts in its reporting and noted that the report fails to make any recommendations for Hamas. She highlighted that the report mentions Hamas’s tunnel network, which played a crucial role in the October 7 attacks, only in the context of criticizing Israel.

Salo Aizenberg, director of the media watchdog group HonestReporting, challenged the COI’s claim that Israel has imposed measures intended to prevent births. He questioned, “If Israel truly aimed to destroy Gaza’s population, why did it allow WHO teams earlier in 2025 to vaccinate 603,000 children under age 10 — matching pre-October 7 numbers?” Aizenberg also pointed out that the report overlooks the fact that over 20,000 fatalities in Gaza are fighters from Hamas and other armed groups, thereby obscuring the true dynamics of the conflict.

The COI report calls for Israel to “ensure full, unimpeded access of humanitarian aid at scale” and to “end the distribution of food aid through the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation.” It cites the commissioner-general of the controversial U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), who has described the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) as “an abomination” and “a death trap” that is “costing more lives than it saves.”

Recent U.N. statistics indicate that between July 21 and August 18, there were double the number of deaths along U.N. convoy routes (576) compared to those surrounding GHF sites (259). Furthermore, only 14.5% of U.N. aid trucks sent into Gaza have reached their intended destinations since May due to armed looting and theft. During the same period, GHF has managed to distribute 165 million meals to Palestinians at its secure distribution sites.

GHF released a statement asserting that the COI published its report “without ever contacting” the organization, labeling its statements as “falsehoods that could have been easily corrected had we been asked.” The organization emphasized that there have been no shootings at its sites and that claims, particularly those alleging that children have been shot, are “not only false” but also “reckless.”

While the COI currently assigns specific blame to three Israeli officials for alleged genocide, COI member Chris Sidoti stated in a press conference that “there are many, many statements by Israeli political and civilian leaders that incite genocide, and also by others, including some media commentators in Israel, that have been inciting genocide.”

In response to inquiries regarding Sidoti’s remarks, Stéphane Dujarric, spokesperson for U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres, did not clarify whether these comments were directed at Israel’s media. Guterres stated that “it is not in the attributions of the Secretary-General to do the legal determination of genocide. That belongs to the adequate judicial entities, namely, the International Court of Justice.” He added, “the truth is that this is something that it is morally, politically, and legally intolerable.”

Bayefsky remarked that “U.S. law withholds funds for the COI, but clearly it has not had the intended impact.” She argued that it is “high time” to take more significant actions to mitigate the dangers that the U.N. and its COI pose to both the United States and Israel.

Fox News Digital reached out to the State Department to inquire whether it plans to sanction COI members or prevent their travel to the U.N. for the upcoming General Assembly debate, but did not receive a response by press time. A spokesperson for the COI also did not respond to questions regarding its report.

Source: Original article

Remembering Charlie Kirk

Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative activist and media figure in the United States, and a devoted supporter of President Donald Trump, tragically lost his life on September 10 at the young age of 31. He was attending a college event for Turning Point USA, an organization he co-founded, when he was shot in what police are describing as a targeted attack.

The suspected shooter, Tyler Robinson, turned himself in to authorities on Thursday night.
At the time of the incident, Kirk was participating in the viral Prove Me Wrong debate, a conversation that addressed critical issues of gun violence and the transgender community in America.
In the wake of this devastating loss, Charlie Kirk’s widow, Erica, delivered a heartfelt and emotional speech that resonated around the world. The broadcast from Turning Point USA’s headquarters in Arizona opened with a poignant moment of silence in honor of her husband.
With tears in her eyes, she expressed gratitude to first responders, her husband’s dedicated staff, and the White House for their efforts. “Mr. President, my husband loved you. He knew you loved him too,” she shared, also thanking Vance and his wife, Usha, for their support in bringing her husband back to their home state of Arizona. “But most of all, Charlie loved his children. He loved me with all his heart. He made sure I knew that every day.”
In a touching Instagram post, Erica reiterated her heartfelt sentiments from the live broadcast, sharing intimate videos and images of herself by her husband’s casket. One poignant video captured the moment she kissed his hand while he lay in his suit and tie.
Charlie Kirk was a figure who stirred strong feelings across the political spectrum. Many viewed him as embodying the future of American conservatism, particularly regarding his ability to inspire and energize young conservatives. He played a crucial role in the MAGA coalition, mobilizing the youth vote to support Trump’s bid for a second term.
Kirk was known for his steadfast support of gun rights, opposition to abortion, and criticism of transgender rights, often promoting claims about COVID-19 that faced significant scrutiny. His views polarized opinion on college campuses, where he organized significant events that drew both supporters and detractors.
Those who admired Kirk found him relatable, believing he understood their concerns. However, his rhetoric also faced sharp criticism, especially from liberal circles, where many felt his words harmed communities, particularly the LGBTQ+ community.
In a touching tribute, President Trump announced he would posthumously award Kirk the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian honor, recognizing him as a “giant of his generation and a champion of freedom.” This recognition serves as a testament to the impact he had on those who supported him and the conversations he sparked throughout his life.
(The funeral of conservative activist Charlie Kirk will be held on September 21 in Arizona. US President Donald Trump and other officials are expected to attend).
********************************
The writeup is compiled by Dr. Mathew Joys, Las Vegas is an accredited journalist and columnist in English and Malayalam periodicals in North America.
unnamed (1)

Rubio Affirms Strong US-Israel Alliance Amid Qatar Strike Backlash

Secretary of State Marco Rubio reaffirms the steadfast U.S.-Israel alliance amid controversy over recent Israeli military actions in Qatar, while addressing broader foreign policy challenges.

JERUSALEM: Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that the U.S. relationship with Israel remains strong, despite the backlash following Israel’s recent strike targeting Hamas negotiators in Qatar. In an exclusive interview with Fox News in Jerusalem, Rubio stated, “We’re going to continue to be strong allies and partners.” He acknowledged that while President Biden expressed dissatisfaction with how events unfolded, it does not alter the United States’ commitment to its partnership with Israel.

Rubio is scheduled to travel to Doha on Tuesday, where he plans to encourage Qatar to maintain a “constructive role” in efforts to resolve the ongoing conflict in Gaza and facilitate the release of hostages held by Hamas. “We’re visiting again with them very shortly here in the next day as well,” he noted. “We understand they’re upset about it. We understand the Israeli position on it. Irrespective of that, we still have hostages that we want released. We still have a Hamas that needs to be defeated or eradicated or removed so that we can get to the peace that everybody says they want.”

His visit to Qatar, a key non-NATO ally, comes on the heels of an Arab-Islamic summit that addressed Israel’s military actions. The summit produced a draft resolution that criticized Israel for “threatening the prospects of peace and coexistence in the region.” Rubio emphasized the need for all parties to focus on future solutions rather than dwelling solely on past actions. “We’re trying to get everybody to stay focused on what happens moving forward, not just only focus on what’s already happened with what happened last week in Doha,” he said.

When asked about U.S. support for Israel’s potential annexation of parts of the West Bank, Rubio refrained from providing a direct answer. Instead, he pointed to the influence of other nations, suggesting that their recognition of a Palestinian state has pressured Israel into considering such actions. “We warned it would force Israel to now do things in reaction to that,” he explained. “Part of this conversation about annexation is in response to what’s been coming out of Europe and Canada and other countries with this Palestinian statehood move, which is largely symbolic, but yet has these real-world implications in terms of making it harder to achieve peace.”

Rubio also addressed concerns regarding Russian President Vladimir Putin’s actions following his recent summit with President Trump. Despite reports of Russian drone incursions in Poland and Romania, Rubio denied that Putin had been “emboldened” by the meeting. “This is an example of why this war, the President thinks, needs to end. Wars generally will escalate. They’ll actually get worse, not better,” he remarked. He noted that the drone operations are not directly impacting the front lines and are primarily intended to weaken opposing forces. He added that Ukraine is also conducting strikes within Russia, underscoring the complexity of the ongoing conflict.

Additionally, Rubio responded to allegations that the United States had placed a bounty on Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro after announcing a $50 million reward for information leading to his arrest. “Nicolas Maduro was indicted by the Southern District of New York. A grand jury returned an indictment. They read the evidence, they saw the evidence, they returned an indictment, not just against him personally, but against a network of people in that country who use the apparatus of what they claim to be of government to conduct drug trafficking operations against the United States,” he stated.

Rubio further clarified Maduro’s status, asserting, “He’s not the president of Venezuela, that’s the title he’s given himself. What he is, is someone who’s empowered himself of some of the instruments of government, and they’re using that to operate a drug cartel from Venezuelan territory.” He emphasized the national security implications of drug trafficking, stating, “When you traffic drugs into the United States, you’re meddling into the internal affairs of America. When you are pushing drugs towards the United States of America, you are a direct threat to the national security and the national interest of the United States. And that’s what we’re addressing here.”

Source: Original article

Neeta Thakur’s Environmental Justice Efforts Affect Indian-American Communities

Physician-scientist Neeta Thakur is leading a fight for environmental justice, focusing on health disparities exacerbated by wildfire smoke, particularly affecting disadvantaged communities.

As smoke from wildfires increasingly impacts communities, understanding the factors that exacerbate health risks is crucial. This is especially true for disadvantaged communities that often bear the brunt of environmental hazards. Dr. Neeta Thakur, a physician-scientist at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), is at the forefront of this battle, advocating for critical research funding aimed at addressing these disparities.

Thakur has emerged as a prominent figure in the fight against cuts to research grants that focus on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). She became the lead plaintiff in a class-action lawsuit against the Trump administration’s efforts to eliminate these essential grants, viewing the funding cuts as a direct attack on science with potentially life-threatening consequences.

Her research, supported by a grant from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), investigates the impact of increased wildfire smoke on low-income communities and communities of color. These populations already face heightened exposure to pollution, making them particularly vulnerable to the health risks associated with wildfire smoke.

The abrupt funding cuts prompted Thakur and her colleagues to take legal action, highlighting the harm inflicted on public health and the importance of research for vulnerable populations. They argue that the loss of funding threatens to undermine critical studies that could inform safety messaging and treatment strategies for those most affected by environmental hazards.

Preliminary findings from Thakur’s research indicate that wildfire smoke can trigger breathing emergencies in children days after exposure. This underscores the urgent need for timely safety messaging and better treatment strategies to protect these vulnerable groups.

Former President Trump’s administration took a firm stance against DEI programs, blocking federal funding and claiming that such initiatives prioritize “how people were born instead of what they were capable of doing.” This decision led to the cancellation of over 400 grants, totaling approximately $2 billion, which directly impacted research focused on health equity and environmental justice.

In response to the lawsuit, U.S. District Judge Rita Lin issued a preliminary injunction that temporarily blocked the grant terminations by the EPA, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the National Science Foundation. This ruling allowed the reinstatement of UC grants pending the outcome of the lawsuit, providing a glimmer of hope for researchers like Thakur.

Thakur’s commitment to health equity is deeply personal. Growing up in a mixed-income neighborhood, she has witnessed firsthand how living conditions and experiences can significantly impact health outcomes. This background drives her dedication to addressing health disparities, particularly those exacerbated by environmental factors.

The uncertainty surrounding research funding has also taken a toll on the morale of junior researchers. Many are questioning their career paths, with some contemplating leaving academia due to the instability and lack of support for health equity and climate change-related expertise.

Neeta Thakur’s fight extends beyond the realm of research funding; it is about ensuring that science serves all communities, particularly those most vulnerable to environmental hazards. Her experiences as an Indian American physician-scientist provide a unique perspective on the intersections of race, class, and health, making her advocacy all the more vital in the ongoing struggle for environmental justice.

For more insights into Neeta Thakur’s work and its implications for Indian Americans and broader communities, the full story can be found here.

Source: Original article

Trump Travels to UK for Second State Visit, Then to Arizona

President Donald Trump is set for a rare second state visit to the UK, followed by a trip to Arizona for the funeral of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.

President Donald Trump will embark on a state visit to the United Kingdom this week, marking only his second such visit during his presidency. Following his time in the UK, Trump will travel to Arizona to attend the funeral of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.

This return to England is notable, as U.S. presidents typically make only one state visit during their time in office. The significance of this occasion is underscored by both its political and symbolic weight.

During the visit, Trump and First Lady Melania Trump will be hosted by King Charles III and Queen Camilla at Windsor Castle, as Buckingham Palace is currently undergoing renovations. The couple will also meet with Prince William and Princess Catherine of Wales during their stay.

The state visit will begin with a formal welcome, followed by a series of ceremonial events that include a carriage procession, a gun salute, and a military flyover. The festivities will culminate in a lavish state dinner, which typically invites around 150 guests who are chosen based on their cultural, diplomatic, or economic ties to the host nation.

Darren McGrady, a former personal chef to the late Queen Elizabeth II and Princess Diana, emphasized the importance of getting the menu right for such an occasion. McGrady, who served as a royal chef for 15 years and cooked for five U.S. presidents, noted that there is no room for error when it comes to the culinary offerings at a state dinner.

On Thursday, Trump will travel to Chequers, the official country residence of the UK prime minister, where he will meet with Prime Minister Keir Starmer. This meeting will include a series of bilateral discussions, followed by a joint news conference later that day.

Trump, who is 79 years old, and King Charles, aged 76, have known each other for decades, with their relationship dating back to Charles’s visit to Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in the late 1980s. More recently, King Charles sent Trump a personal note after Trump survived an assassination attempt during a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania.

After concluding his UK visit, Trump will head to Arizona to attend the funeral of Charlie Kirk, who was tragically assassinated during an outdoor debate at Utah Valley University. Kirk, the charismatic founder of Turning Point USA, was shot on Wednesday, prompting an outpouring of grief and support from his followers.

In the wake of her husband’s death, Kirk’s widow, Erika, expressed her determination to carry on his mission. “To everyone listening tonight across America, the movement my husband built will not die,” she stated in a video message. “I refuse to let that happen. No one will ever forget my husband’s name. And I will make sure of it. It will become stronger. Bolder. Louder and greater than ever,” she affirmed.

Andrew Kolvet, executive producer of “The Charlie Kirk Show,” shared on social media that Turning Point USA has received over 32,000 inquiries from individuals interested in starting new campus chapters in the wake of Kirk’s assassination. In a separate post, Kolvet remarked, “This is the Turning Point.”

Trump’s dual engagements this week highlight significant moments in both international relations and domestic political discourse, reflecting the ongoing impact of influential figures in American conservatism.

Source: Original article

Backlash Over Mystery Company’s Data Center in Fox News AI Newsletter

Residents in Wisconsin are expressing strong opposition to a proposed $1.6 billion data center, raising concerns about its impact on the local community and environment.

The Fox News AI newsletter provides insights into the latest advancements in artificial intelligence technology, as well as the challenges and opportunities that AI presents both now and in the future.

In today’s newsletter, a significant issue has emerged in Wisconsin, where a proposed $1.6 billion data center has drawn the ire of local residents. This facility, backed by a mystery company, has sparked concerns among those living in a region celebrated for its natural beauty and outdoor recreational opportunities.

Residents are voicing their skepticism about the potential impact of the data center on their community. Many are worried about environmental degradation and the strain on local resources that such a large-scale project could entail.

In other news, artificial intelligence giant OpenAI announced that its nonprofit parent organization will maintain control of the company while securing an equity stake valued at over $100 billion. This move is seen as a significant development in the tech industry, highlighting the growing influence and financial backing of AI technologies.

Additionally, a prominent figure in the semiconductor and AI sectors has praised the Trump administration’s efforts to ensure that the United States remains a leader in artificial intelligence. This endorsement underscores the ongoing competition in the tech landscape, particularly as nations vie for dominance in AI capabilities.

In a related development, Oracle’s stock has surged, significantly increasing co-founder Larry Ellison’s net worth by tens of billions of dollars in just two days. This financial boost has positioned Ellison ahead of Tesla CEO Elon Musk as the richest person in the world, showcasing the volatility and potential for wealth creation within the tech industry.

On a more practical note, a new robot named HARR-E, developed by Oshkosh Corp., aims to revolutionize waste collection. This autonomous trash collector can be summoned to a resident’s door, offering a convenient alternative to traditional garbage collection methods.

Meanwhile, in Tarboro, North Carolina, residents are urging their town council to reject a proposal for a 50-acre, 300-megawatt Energy Storage Solutions LLC site. While the project promises to create 500 jobs and generate millions in tax revenue, community members are expressing concerns about its long-term implications for their town.

As artificial intelligence continues to infiltrate everyday life, tools such as AI notetakers are becoming commonplace in virtual meetings. Platforms like Zoom and Google Meet now offer features that record and summarize discussions. While these tools can enhance productivity, they also raise privacy concerns, as they capture comments that users may not intend to share.

President Trump’s initiative to establish “America’s global AI dominance” may face challenges from the effective altruism movement, a small but influential group that harbors a more cautious view of artificial intelligence. This emerging conflict highlights the diverse perspectives on the future of AI and its implications for society.

As the trucking industry undergoes significant transformation, artificial intelligence is enhancing efficiency and productivity across various sectors, including logistics. The integration of AI technologies is reshaping traditional practices, paving the way for a more automated future.

Stay informed about the latest advancements in AI technology and the challenges and opportunities it presents by following the Fox News AI newsletter.

Source: Original article

Montana GOP Representative Ryan Zinke Calls Charlie Kirk Assassination ‘Watershed Moment’

Montana Congressman Ryan Zinke described the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk as a “watershed moment,” emphasizing the need for civil political discourse without violence.

Rep. Ryan Zinke, a Republican from Montana, characterized the recent assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk as a “watershed moment.” He underscored the importance of maintaining civil political discourse, asserting that Americans should be able to engage in political disagreements without resorting to violence.

Zinke made these remarks during an appearance on NewsNation’s program “The Hill” on Friday. He referenced earlier comments made by Utah Governor Spencer Cox, expressing disappointment that differing political viewpoints have led to violent confrontations.

“We should look and reflect,” Zinke stated. “As the governor pointed out, this is a watershed moment. So, the watershed moment depends on what this country does.” He posed a critical question: “Are we going to continue this? Are we going to continue to not be able to have dialogue and talk to your neighbor?”

Kirk, who was 31 years old and co-founder of Turning Point USA, was shot on the campus of Utah Valley University on Wednesday afternoon. He was transported to a hospital in critical condition but was later pronounced dead. The alleged shooter, identified as 22-year-old Tyler Robinson, turned himself in after a multi-day manhunt, reportedly encouraged by his family.

During a news conference on Friday, Governor Cox called for civility and urged individuals on both sides of the political spectrum to de-escalate tensions and “choose a different path.” He stated, “This is our moment: Do we escalate, or do we find an off-ramp? It’s a choice.”

In an emotional reflection, Cox shared, “For the last 48 hours, I have been as angry as I have ever been, as sad as I have ever been … and as anger pushed me to the brink, it was actually Charlie’s words that pushed me back. Charlie said, ‘When people stop talking, that’s when you get violence.'” This sentiment resonated with Zinke, who similarly called for political dialogue devoid of violence.

Zinke expressed concern over disheartening statements he has observed on social media following recent incidents of political violence. He remarked, “You see, you know, an assassination attempt. You see a political assassination in Minnesota. You see one with Charlie Kirk. You know a father. You know a great patriot, a loving husband. You know, assassinated. And ironically, his assassination was over his message, which was, ‘Let’s have a dialogue. Let’s talk.'”

He further emphasized, “In our country, the strength is that we may agree or disagree, but disagreement should never result in violence.” Zinke also referenced a June incident in which Vance Boelter was charged with the murders of former Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman, her husband Mark, and their dog at their Minneapolis home. Boelter was also charged with shooting Minnesota state Senator John Hoffman and his wife, Yvette, and for attempting to shoot their daughter, Hope.

Other recent acts of political violence include assassination attempts against former President Donald Trump and the attack on Paul Pelosi, the husband of Rep. Nancy Pelosi, with a hammer in 2022.

Zinke’s office did not immediately respond to requests for comment regarding his statements.

Source: Original article

Two Shootings Raise Concerns Among Indian-American Communities

Recent events in the U.S., including a mass shooting and ongoing tariff disputes with India, highlight complex issues of ideology and international relations.

Chicago: As the Indian media focused on U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariffs and his aide Peter Navarro’s critical remarks about India and Prime Minister Narendra Modi, a tragic mass shooting unfolded in the United States.

While the two events may seem unrelated at first glance, they share a common thread of anti-India sentiment. Observers note that the ideologies of transgederism, antisemitism, jihadism, and anti-India bigotry are interconnected in troubling ways.

The Annunciation Catholic Church Shooting

On Wednesday, August 27, 2025, the new school year began at The Annunciation Catholic School in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Just before 8:30 a.m., as children gathered at the church for Mass, a shooting erupted. The school serves students from preschool through eighth grade and is affiliated with the historic Annunciation Catholic Church.

The shooter, identified by law enforcement as 23-year-old Robin (born Robert) Westman, opened fire through the church’s stained glass windows. Tragically, the attack resulted in the deaths of two children, aged 8 and 10, and left 18 others injured. Westman ultimately died by suicide at the scene.

Reports indicate that Westman was a mentally disturbed individual radicalized by leftist jihadist ideology. A manifesto revealed violent fantasies against children, along with a detailed seating map of the church. In addition to anti-Catholic slurs, Westman’s writings included threats against “filthy Zionist Jews” and inscriptions on weapons that read “NUKE INDIA,” “Kill Donald Trump,” and “Israel Must Fall.”

This incident is not isolated; the U.S. has witnessed several high-profile cases of violence involving transgender individuals in recent years. In March 2023, Aiden Hale, a 28-year-old who identified as transgender, killed three children and three staff members at The Covenant School in Nashville, Tennessee. Hale’s manifesto referenced the Columbine High School massacre, indicating a troubling pattern of violence.

In November 2022, Anderson Lee Aldrich, who identifies as nonbinary, fatally shot five people and injured 40 others at Club Q, an LGBTQ nightclub in Colorado Springs. Aldrich was subdued by patrons and later sentenced to life in prison.

Critics argue that transgenderism represents a radical ideology that dismisses biological realities. Jessica Hart Steinmann and Leigh Ann O’Neill have noted that it teaches individuals to suppress their instincts and question the fairness of protective rules designed for their safety.

Despite the progressive narrative surrounding Hindu society, traditional Hindu values were not intended for social engineering, and many overlook this fact.

As is often the case following mass shootings in the U.S., the Annunciation Catholic Church shooting ignited a wave of liberal commentary regarding gun laws. The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms, which has become a contentious issue in American politics. Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey criticized the focus on “thoughts and prayers,” emphasizing the gravity of the situation as children prayed in a church during their first week of school.

Tariffs and U.S.-India Relations

The U.S.-India relationship is currently facing significant challenges, particularly during the Modi administration. Tariffs and the purchase of Russian oil are not new issues in this bilateral relationship.

During Trump’s first term, tariffs were a major point of contention, with high tariffs on products like Harley-Davidson motorcycles causing friction. In March 2019, the U.S. revoked India’s Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) status, which allowed certain products from India to enter the U.S. duty-free.

More recently, President Joe Biden’s administration has taken a hard stance on India’s compliance with U.S. sanctions. Deputy National Security Advisor Daleep Singh, of Indian descent, warned India of “consequences” for its actions, while Under Secretary of State Victoria Nuland imposed a stealth visa ban on Indians for failing to comply with U.S. sanctions on Russia. This led to significant delays for Indians seeking visa appointments.

Senior journalist Prof. M.D. Nalapat noted that Nuland was frustrated by India’s refusal to abandon the S-400 missile deal with Russia, highlighting the complexities of U.S. foreign policy in the region.

Walter Russell Mead, a distinguished fellow at the Hudson Institute, recently suggested a shift toward protectionism in the Indo-Pacific, indicating a bipartisan move away from trade policies that promote export-oriented growth in developing economies. This shift may require India to align its policies with U.S. strategic interests, which include countering Chinese aggression and stabilizing the Middle East.

The Tragic Death of Charlie Kirk

As these discussions unfolded, the tragic news of the killing of Charlie Kirk, a 31-year-old conservative activist, emerged. Kirk was instrumental in mobilizing young voters for Trump’s 2024 campaign through his organization, Turning Point USA.

A college dropout, Kirk was known for engaging with students on college campuses about faith, family, and conservative values. His assassination on a campus—an institution meant to foster diverse ideas and free speech—serves as a grim reminder of the rising violence against conservative voices in America.

These events collectively underscore the complexities of contemporary American society, where ideological battles intersect with issues of safety, policy, and international relations.

Source: Original article

Netanyahu’s Actions Against Qatar Raise Concerns for Hostages’ Safety

Israel’s recent airstrike in Qatar has drawn widespread condemnation and raised questions about the future of peace negotiations amid ongoing hostilities in Gaza.

In a shocking turn of events, an Israeli airstrike in Qatar has claimed the lives of five senior Hamas leaders who were reportedly discussing ceasefire proposals with U.S. officials. The attack, named Operation Atzeret HaDin, or “Day of Judgement,” occurred while the leaders were meeting in a luxurious residential area in northern Doha.

Israeli President Isaac Herzog stated that the strike specifically targeted Khalil al-Hayya, the primary Hamas negotiator based in Qatar. Herzog claimed that al-Hayya had repeatedly obstructed peace efforts, asserting, “We targeted those who refused to accept the deal, including primarily al-Hayya, whose hands carried the blood of thousands of Israelis.”

However, neutral observers have criticized the strike, suggesting that it was a deliberate attempt by Israel to undermine ongoing peace talks and continue its military campaign in Gaza. Many view the attack as a move to achieve what Israel describes as a “total victory” over Hamas.

Qatar, a key mediator in the region and a U.S. ally, condemned the airstrike as a violation of its sovereignty. Prime Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim al-Thani expressed outrage, stating, “We will act firmly against the reckless breach that threatens our security.” He added that he had met with families of hostages just hours before the attack, emphasizing their reliance on diplomatic mediation for hope.

Other Gulf nations also voiced their condemnation of the Israeli strike. The United Arab Emirates, part of the Abraham Accords aimed at normalizing relations with Israel, labeled the attack a “reckless” and “flagrant violation” of international law. Iran and Saudi Arabia characterized the bombing as a “criminal act,” further escalating regional tensions.

Reports indicate that the discussions among Hamas officials in Doha included proposals for a 60-day ceasefire and the early release of hostages, both living and deceased. The negotiations also considered the release of Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli jails. However, the airstrike abruptly ended these discussions, raising questions about the future of peace efforts.

In the wake of the bombing, President Donald Trump, who had previously expressed optimism about the negotiations, altered his tone. Before the strike, he had posted on Truth Social, “The Israelis have accepted my Terms. It is time for Hamas to accept as well.” After the attack, he expressed dissatisfaction, stating, “I’m not thrilled about it. It’s not a good situation,” while distancing himself from the decision, claiming it was made solely by Prime Minister Netanyahu.

This shift in Trump’s rhetoric has led many to question the reliability of U.S. security guarantees in the region. The bombing poses a complex political dilemma for Trump, who must balance support for Israel with the need to maintain diplomatic relations with Arab nations.

Qatar hosts the largest U.S. military facility in the region, the Al Udeid airbase, which underscores its strategic importance to American interests. This military presence provides Qatar with a degree of security, especially as Israeli officials have long criticized the nation as a “Club Med for terrorism.”

The implications of the airstrike extend beyond immediate diplomatic relations. Analysts warn that the attack could lead to further destabilization in the region, with the potential for a multi-front conflict that could disrupt oil prices and exacerbate humanitarian crises. Recent Israeli strikes on other Middle Eastern capitals, including Tehran and Damascus, have already raised concerns about escalating violence.

Looking ahead, the outcome of Operation Atzeret HaDin remains uncertain. While a major rocket attack on Israel is unlikely in the immediate future, the potential for further Israeli strikes could increase tensions. Observers suggest that restraint from all parties, coupled with strong diplomatic efforts—particularly from the U.S.—could help prevent a broader conflict.

For the families of the hostages, the situation is dire. Netanyahu’s government appears to prioritize a military solution over negotiations, raising fears for the safety of the approximately 20 hostages believed to still be alive. The families are understandably anxious, as Netanyahu’s commitment to securing their release seems increasingly performative. Had he genuinely sought to negotiate, the airstrike on Qatar would not have occurred, effectively jeopardizing any chance for successful mediation.

As the UN General Assembly prepares to meet next week, where several Israeli allies may recognize an independent Palestinian state, the stakes continue to rise. Israel has initiated operations to seize Gaza City, where hostages are believed to be held, further complicating the situation.

In summary, Netanyahu’s recent actions have not only escalated military tensions but have also significantly diminished the prospects for peace, effectively signing the death warrants of innocent hostages who have endured over 700 days in captivity.

Source: Original article

NASA Finalizes Strategy for Sustaining Human Presence in Space

NASA has finalized its strategy for maintaining a human presence in space, focusing on the transition from the International Space Station to future commercial platforms.

NASA has finalized its strategy for sustaining a human presence in space, outlining plans as the International Space Station (ISS) approaches its planned de-orbiting in 2030. This strategy emphasizes the necessity of enabling extended stays in orbit beyond the ISS’s operational life.

The newly released document, titled “NASA’s Low Earth Orbit Microgravity Strategy,” aims to guide the agency toward establishing a new era of continuous human presence in low Earth orbit. It also highlights the potential for economic growth and the importance of maintaining international partnerships in space exploration.

This commitment comes amid uncertainties regarding the readiness of upcoming commercial space stations to replace the ISS. With the recent efforts by the Trump administration to reduce spending through the Department of Government Efficiency, there are concerns that NASA may face budget cuts that could impact its operations.

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

Commercial space company Voyager is actively developing one of the potential replacements for the ISS. Jeffrey Manber, Voyager’s president of international and space stations, expressed support for NASA’s strategy, emphasizing the need for a clear commitment from the U.S. government to reassure investors. “We need that commitment because we have our investors saying, ‘Is the United States committed?’” he stated.

The initiative to maintain a human presence in space dates back to President Reagan, who first launched the effort for a permanent residence in space. In his 1984 State of the Union address, he underscored the importance of private partnerships, stating, “America has always been greatest when we dared to be great. We can reach for greatness.” He also noted that the market for space transportation could exceed the nation’s capacity to develop it.

Since the launch of the first ISS module in 1998, the station has hosted over 28 astronauts from 23 countries, maintaining a continuous human presence in space for 24 years. The Trump administration’s national space policy, released in 2020, called for a “continuous human presence in Earth orbit” and emphasized the transition to commercial platforms, a policy that the Biden administration has continued to uphold.

In June, NASA Administrator Bill Nelson discussed the potential for extending the ISS’s operational life if commercial stations are not ready by the time the ISS is scheduled to de-orbit. “Let’s say we didn’t have commercial stations that are ready to go. Technically, we could keep the space station going, but the idea was to fly it through 2030 and de-orbit it in 2031,” he explained.

Recent discussions have raised questions about the definition of “continuous human presence.” Melroy addressed these concerns at the International Astronautical Congress in October, stating, “I just want to talk about the elephant in the room for a moment, continuous human presence. What does that mean? Is it continuous heartbeat or continuous capability?” She noted that while there were hopes for a seamless transition, ongoing conversations were necessary to clarify the concept.

NASA’s finalized strategy reflects the concerns of commercial and international partners regarding the potential loss of the ISS without a ready commercial alternative. “Almost all of our industry partners agreed. Continuous presence is continuous heartbeat. And so that’s where we stand,” Melroy affirmed. She emphasized that the U.S. leads in human spaceflight, and without a commercial destination, the only other space station in orbit after the ISS de-orbits would be the Chinese space station.

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

Melroy acknowledged the challenges posed by budget caps resulting from agreements between the White House and Congress for fiscal years 2024 and 2025. However, she expressed optimism about the potential for a commercial space station to be operational by the end of 2030, ensuring a continuous presence of American astronauts in orbit. “I think we’re still able to make it happen before the end of 2030,” she said.

Voyager remains confident in its development timeline, planning to launch its starship space station by 2028. Manber stated, “We’re not asking for more money. We’re going ahead. We’re ready to replace the International Space Station.” He highlighted the importance of maintaining a permanent presence in space, warning that losing it could disrupt the supply chain that supports the burgeoning space economy.

Additional funding has been allocated to the three companies since the initial contracts for space station development. A second round of funding could be critical for advancing some projects, and NASA may also consider new proposals for space stations. One such prospect is Vast Space, based in Long Beach, California, which recently unveiled concepts for its Haven modules and plans to launch the Haven-1 as early as next year.

Melroy emphasized the importance of competition in the development of commercial space stations, stating, “We absolutely think competition is critical. This is a development project. It’s challenging. It was hard to build the space station. We’re asking our commercial partners to step up and do this themselves with some help from us.” She reiterated the agency’s commitment to exploring multiple options to identify the most viable solutions for the future of human presence in space.

Source: Original article

Bera Cautions That Planned Parenthood Cuts Endanger Rural Healthcare Access

Representative Ami Bera warns that proposed cuts to Planned Parenthood could significantly harm healthcare access for over a million Americans, particularly in rural areas.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Representative Ami Bera (D-CA), a physician, recently joined fellow members of the Democratic Doctors Caucus and Planned Parenthood Federation of America CEO Alexis McGill Johnson to voice their concerns regarding cuts to Medicaid proposed by Republican lawmakers.

The group highlighted a provision within a law signed by former President Donald Trump, referred to as the “Big, Ugly Bill.” This provision aims to block Medicaid patients from accessing care at Planned Parenthood facilities, a move that could have dire consequences for healthcare access across the country.

Currently, this provision has been temporarily halted by the courts. However, if implemented, it could lead to the closure of up to 200 health centers, jeopardizing care for approximately 1.1 million Medicaid patients who rely on these services.

Bera emphasized that Planned Parenthood offers a wide range of healthcare services that extend beyond reproductive health. “In many communities across this country, they’re the sole provider of primary care services to women and men,” he stated. He pointed out that in rural and underserved areas, these centers often serve as the only source for essential healthcare services, including cancer screenings, STI testing, and chronic disease management.

<p“The impact of Donald Trump’s bill is clear: it takes away primary services and community health center resources from many Americans, particularly those in rural America,” Bera added. He accused Republican lawmakers of deliberately targeting these critical healthcare services.

Bera concluded by reaffirming the commitment of Democratic doctors to oppose these cuts and hold Republicans accountable for their actions, emphasizing the importance of maintaining access to healthcare for all Americans.

Source: Original article

Trump Administration Criticizes UN Vote on Palestinian Statehood

The United States has condemned a recent U.N. General Assembly resolution supporting Palestinian statehood, labeling it a “gift to Hamas” and counterproductive to peace efforts.

The United States has strongly condemned a U.N. General Assembly resolution that supports the creation of a Palestinian state, which passed with a vote of 142 in favor and 10 against, calling it a “gift to Hamas.” The resolution was backed by a coalition led by Saudi Arabia and France, and it has sparked significant backlash from the Trump administration.

U.S. United Nations Counselor Morgan Ortagus expressed the administration’s disapproval following the vote, stating, “Make no mistake — this resolution is a gift to Hamas.” She emphasized that the United States would not participate in what she described as an “insult to the victims of Oct. 7,” referring to the recent violence in the region. Ortagus further asserted that the resolution undermines diplomatic efforts aimed at achieving peace and securing the release of hostages.

In a statement to Fox News Digital, a White House official reiterated President Trump’s stance, indicating that recognizing a Palestinian state would reward Hamas and hinder efforts to bring hostages home. “He doesn’t think they should be rewarded,” the official stated, reinforcing the administration’s position against the resolution.

The “New York Declaration,” proposed during a U.N. conference in July, aims to outline what its sponsors describe as an “irreversible” path toward Palestinian statehood. The declaration condemns Hamas for the attacks on October 7, demands the release of hostages, and calls for Hamas to relinquish control of Gaza and hand over its weapons to the Palestinian Authority.

In Paris, the French Foreign Ministry hailed the resolution’s passage as a “historic vote,” reflecting the international community’s commitment to advancing a comprehensive roadmap for peace and security in the region. The ministry noted that the declaration embodies unprecedented support for principles such as an immediate ceasefire, the release of hostages, and the establishment of a viable, sovereign Palestinian state. It also confirmed that discussions would continue at a follow-up conference in New York on September 22, which will be attended by French President Emmanuel Macron.

Israel’s U.N. Ambassador Danny Danon criticized the vote, labeling it as “theater” and warning that the only beneficiaries would be Hamas. “When terrorists are the ones cheering, you are not advancing peace; you are advancing terror,” he stated, reflecting the concerns of many Israeli officials regarding the implications of the resolution.

Anne Bayefsky, director of the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust and president of Human Rights Voices, described the declaration as “a direct threat to American national security” and an “unabashed attempt to destroy the Jewish state.” She expressed particular concern over the provisions related to the so-called right of return, which she argued could lead to a mass influx of Palestinians into Israel, potentially undermining the Jewish majority and self-determination.

Bayefsky criticized the resolution’s provisions regarding Hamas as “smoke and mirrors,” asserting that it undermines the Abraham Accords by restoring a Palestinian veto over regional peace initiatives. She called for a robust response from the United States to counter what she views as a dangerous precedent.

While the U.S. and nine other countries, including Argentina, Hungary, Israel, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, and Tonga, voted against the resolution, Bayefsky expressed disappointment with Germany’s support for the measure, describing it as “absolutely shocking.” She emphasized that undermining the necessity of Jewish self-determination is “abhorrent.”

On the diplomatic front, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced plans to visit Israel ahead of high-level U.N. meetings later this month, where countries such as France and Britain are expected to formally recognize Palestinian statehood. The developments in the U.N. and the international response to the resolution indicate a complex and evolving landscape in the pursuit of peace in the region.

Source: Original article

Lawmakers Respond to Kirk’s Assassination and Political Violence Concerns

Following the assassination of Charlie Kirk, lawmakers from both parties are raising alarms about the escalating violence in U.S. political discourse.

In the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination, bipartisan concern has emerged among lawmakers regarding the deteriorating state of political discourse in the United States. The tragic event has intensified discussions about the alarming rise in political violence that has plagued the nation in recent months.

Kirk’s assassination marks a grim chapter in a series of violent incidents targeting high-profile political figures. This trend began in July 2024, when former President Donald Trump was shot while campaigning for a second term in Butler, Pennsylvania. Just months later, Trump faced another assassination attempt. In April, Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro was the victim of an arson attack, and in June, two Minnesota lawmakers and their families were attacked, resulting in two fatalities.

The chilling impact of this violence has led some lawmakers to cancel public appearances due to fears for their safety. “We have a climate right now where people who are frankly unhinged… like the two guys who tried to shoot President Trump, one who did shoot him, the person – whoever it is – who killed Charlie, the person who went after the Minnesota lawmakers – these people are nuts,” Senator Josh Hawley, R-Mo., told Fox News Digital. “But they are egged on by a climate that says, ‘Hey, you know, it’s okay basically to go out and shoot your opponents because they’re really Hitler.’”

This sentiment was echoed by Democratic lawmakers, who expressed their own fears about the current political climate. “It’s really sad and just scary, you know, honestly, just how dire things have gotten in this country in terms of our political discourse,” said Senator Andy Kim, D-N.J. He noted a recent survey indicating that over 50% of Americans would label members of the opposing political party as “the enemy,” a notion he described as “terrifying” and “dangerous.”

Senator Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., emphasized the necessity of respectful political engagement, stating that for democracy to function, individuals must be able to “passionately share [their] viewpoints and do so knowing that we resolve our differences through advocacy and voting, not through violence.”

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., remarked on the implications of Kirk’s death for political discourse. “I don’t know what it says about political discourse, but it certainly says something about violence, and it has no business in political discourse. You can have a robust disagreement with people, but when it turns to violence, something’s gone badly wrong,” he said.

Kirk was known for his passionate yet respectful engagement with students across the political spectrum as part of Turning Point USA, the grassroots organization he co-founded in 2012. He frequently visited college campuses nationwide, hosting debates and “Prove Me Wrong” events, where students could challenge his views directly.

Representative Thomas Massie, R-Ky., reflected on the loss of Kirk, stating, “I mean, that’s the shame of this. Charlie Kirk was polite, he had a message, and he spread that message, and he engaged people to speak and debate, and then he lost his life for that. That’s the thing about this country, we have freedom of speech. Nobody should ever take out violence based on something somebody said.”

Representative Jonathan Jackson, D-Ill., urged for a collective reflection on the current political rhetoric, warning that “these violent words precede violent actions.” He emphasized the need for a change in tone to prevent further tragedies.

Hawley suggested a broader perspective might help mitigate the issue. “I’ll just say again, part of the way we stop it is we realize that there’s stuff in life that’s more important than politics,” he advised reporters.

The assassination of Charlie Kirk has sparked urgent discussions among lawmakers about the need to address the rising tide of political violence and the rhetoric that fuels it. As the nation grapples with these issues, the hope remains that a return to civil discourse can be achieved.

Source: Original article

Apple Increases iPhone Prices Despite Trump’s Tariff Exemptions

Apple has raised prices across its iPhone lineup, starting at $799 for the base model, despite receiving tariff relief from President Donald Trump earlier this year.

Apple has officially increased the prices of its iPhone models, with the new lineup beginning at $799 for the entry-level version. This announcement came during the company’s highly anticipated annual event, where CEO Tim Cook showcased the latest innovations with a polished presentation.

Despite receiving tariff relief from President Donald Trump earlier this year, Apple has opted to raise prices across its iPhone lineup. The new ultra-thin iPhone 17 Air is priced at $999, while the iPhone 17 Pro starts at $1,099, and the Pro Max reaches a staggering $1,199. The entry-level iPhone 17, which serves as the new baseline model, begins at $799.

Apple has framed these price increases as a reflection of its commitment to breakthrough innovation. The company highlighted the iPhone Air’s sleek redesign, the powerful A19 chip, and significant camera upgrades. However, the message was clear: the tariff relief did not translate into savings for consumers. Instead, Apple is reinforcing its premium identity, indicating that cutting-edge technology comes with a higher price tag.

The iPhone 17 Air is being marketed as a game-changer, measuring just 5.6mm in thickness and weighing approximately 165 grams, making it the slimmest iPhone to date. The design incorporates recycled aluminum, glass, and titanium, ensuring durability while reducing weight. Apple has also enhanced the frame’s resilience with new drop-test algorithms to withstand daily use.

One of the standout features of the Air is its silicon anode battery technology, which enables a smaller device without compromising power. While Apple promised “all-day battery life,” it did not specify an exact duration, raising some questions among consumers. To address potential battery concerns, Apple introduced a new low-profile MagSafe battery accessory, claiming that together with the iPhone 17 Air, it can provide up to 40 hours of video playback.

In terms of camera capabilities, the iPhone 17 Air boasts a new ultra-wide 48MP fusion camera system, enhancing detail and low-light performance. The display now features a ProMotion 120Hz refresh rate, improving scrolling and animations. Additionally, the peak brightness has been increased to 3,000 nits, making it easier to view the screen in direct sunlight. The Air also includes a Ceramic Shield 2 coating, which Apple claims offers better scratch and drop resistance than previous models.

The iPhone 17 Pro introduces a striking unibody design, utilizing laser-welded vapor chamber cooling to maintain performance under heavy use. The back features a ceramic shield finish, while the front is equipped with an upgraded seven-layer coating that reduces glare in various lighting conditions. At the heart of the Pro is the new A19 Bionic chip, built on a 3nm architecture, paired with a 16-core Neural Engine for enhanced speed and efficiency.

Apple has also made significant improvements to the Pro’s camera system, which includes a 48MP main sensor and a 12MP ultra-wide lens, along with ProRes support for high-quality video recording. The Pro model is available in new finishes, including deep blue, cosmic orange, and silver, and starts at $1,099 with 256GB of storage.

The iPhone 17 Pro Max is positioned as the ultimate model, sharing the same design and features as the Pro but with a larger display. It also runs on the A19 Bionic chip and promises the best battery life of any iPhone to date, making it ideal for heavy users. The Pro Max is priced at $1,199 with 256GB of storage, marking the highest entry point for an iPhone yet.

The standard iPhone 17 rounds out the lineup, now serving as Apple’s new baseline model. It starts at $799 with 256GB of storage and incorporates many features from the Pro models, including a thinner profile and an upgraded camera system with a 48MP main sensor.

In addition to the iPhone announcements, Apple refreshed its wearables and audio lineup. The third-generation AirPods Pro, priced at $249, feature foam-infused ear tips for a more secure fit and extend listening time to up to eight hours on a single charge. Notably, the new AirPods Pro also include heart rate sensing capabilities, turning them into another health-tracking accessory within Apple’s ecosystem.

The Apple Watch Series 11 continues the company’s focus on health technology, introducing monitoring for hypertension and sleep apnea, although FDA clearance for some features is still pending. The watch also includes a Sleep Score feature and is built with 100% recycled materials, starting at around $399.

Apple’s event showcased a range of accessories designed to complement the new iPhones, including a low-profile MagSafe battery pack and various protective cases. These accessories are positioned as essential components of the iPhone experience, emphasizing the blend of technology and personal style.

Overall, Apple’s iPhone 17 lineup represents a significant step forward in innovation, combining sleek design with powerful features. The company continues to balance style, functionality, and user experience, setting a strong foundation for the year ahead.

Source: Original article

U.S. Media Express Optimism as Modi and Trump Address Trade Tensions

The U.S. media expressed optimism on September 10 regarding the positive exchange of messages between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Donald Trump, signaling potential resolution of trade tensions.

On September 10, the U.S. media reacted positively to the exchange of messages between Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Donald Trump, indicating a hopeful outlook for resolving ongoing trade issues, particularly concerning tariffs and trade barriers.

Fox Business reported on the resumption of trade talks, highlighting a “significant shift” in U.S.-India relations after months of heightened tensions. The article noted that the exchange of messages underscores both countries’ commitment to advancing negotiations, although it acknowledged that unresolved disputes in agriculture and energy continue to pose challenges.

In a similar vein, Bloomberg published an editorial titled “Don’t Let Tariffs Tank the US-India Relationship,” urging both nations to focus on their long-term interests. The piece emphasized the importance of maintaining strong ties with India, which it described as the world’s largest democracy and a vital partner in a critical region.

The editorial advised the Trump administration to continue supporting India, particularly in light of its strategic role within the “Quad” diplomatic group, which includes Japan and Australia. It argued that India can significantly contribute to diversifying supply chains, advancing technology, and upholding a rules-based international order in the face of pressures from China.

Bloomberg’s editorial cautioned against allowing trade disputes to undermine a carefully cultivated relationship. It noted that neither China nor Russia could provide the same level of investment, technology transfers, or access to advanced weaponry that the United States can offer. The article urged India to focus on preserving and enhancing its relationship with the U.S. through cooperation in areas such as semiconductors, quantum technology, and defense production, regardless of the status of trade negotiations.

While the editorial expressed hope for a resolution, it also acknowledged the unpredictable nature of political dynamics in Washington, stating that there is “no guarantee” of a deal. Nonetheless, it maintained that a successful resolution could yield significant benefits over time.

As both nations navigate these complex issues, the recent exchanges signal a mutual desire to improve relations and foster cooperation in various sectors, highlighting the importance of dialogue in addressing trade tensions.

Source: Original article

Rubio Cautions Brazil on U.S. Response Following Bolsonaro’s Coup Conviction

The U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has warned of a potential U.S. response following the conviction of former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro for plotting a coup.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced on Thursday that the United States would take action in response to the conviction of former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, who was found guilty of plotting a coup to retain power after losing the 2022 election. While Rubio did not specify the nature of the U.S. response, he expressed strong disapproval of the Brazilian judicial proceedings against Bolsonaro.

In a post on X, Rubio criticized what he described as “political persecutions” by Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, labeling the ruling against Bolsonaro as unjust. “The United States will respond accordingly to this witch hunt,” he stated, indicating that the U.S. government would not remain passive in the face of what he perceives as a violation of democratic principles.

Brazil’s Foreign Ministry reacted sharply to Rubio’s comments, asserting that they constituted a threat to Brazilian sovereignty and disregarded the facts surrounding the case. The ministry emphasized that Brazilian democracy would not be intimidated by external pressures.

On Thursday, Bolsonaro was sentenced to 27 years and three months in prison after being convicted by Brazil’s Supreme Court. The charges against him included plotting a coup to prevent President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva from assuming office in January 2023. Bolsonaro, who served as president from 2019 to 2022, was a close ally of former U.S. President Donald Trump.

Trump, commenting on the situation, expressed surprise at Bolsonaro’s conviction, likening it to his own legal challenges. “I thought he was a good president of Brazil,” Trump said, adding that he was taken aback by the developments. He also criticized the Brazilian judicial system, suggesting that it was politically motivated.

In response to the ongoing situation, Rubio has previously announced visa revocations for Justice de Moraes and his associates. This action followed the issuance of search warrants and restraining orders against Bolsonaro, which Rubio characterized as part of a “political witch hunt.” The U.S. Treasury Department has also sanctioned de Moraes, citing allegations of arbitrary pre-trial detentions and suppression of free speech.

Eduardo Bolsonaro, the former president’s son and a Brazilian Congressman, indicated that he expects further U.S. sanctions against Brazilian justices involved in the case. He warned that justices who voted to convict his father could face repercussions under the Magnitsky Act, a law previously utilized by the Trump administration against de Moraes. “If these Supreme Court justices keep following Moraes, they also run the risk of facing the same sanction,” he stated.

The situation continues to evolve, with both U.S. and Brazilian officials closely monitoring the implications of Bolsonaro’s conviction and the potential for increased tensions between the two nations.

Source: Original article

Trade Official’s Use of ‘Brahmins’ on Fox News Provokes Hindu Backlash

President Trump’s senior trade adviser, Peter Navarro, faced backlash from Hindu American groups after using the term “Brahmins” to criticize India’s elite during a Fox News interview.

Peter Navarro, a senior trade adviser to President Donald Trump, has ignited controversy and accusations of Hinduphobia following his use of the term “Brahmins” to describe India’s elite. This comment was made during a Fox News segment on August 31, where Navarro criticized India’s trade policies in light of the administration’s announcement of a new 50% tariff on Indian goods.

In his remarks, Navarro stated, “You have got Brahmins profiteering at the expense of the Indian people, and we want that to stop.” He further labeled New Delhi as “nothing but a laundromat for the Kremlin,” which added fuel to the fire of criticism directed at him.

The term “Brahmin” refers to the highest caste in the traditional Hindu social hierarchy, and its use in this context has drawn ire from the Hindu diaspora and communities in India. Many took to social media to express their outrage, with memes circulating that mocked Navarro’s apparent misunderstanding of Indian caste dynamics. This backlash prompted Hindu American organizations to call for Navarro’s immediate removal from his position.

Ajay Shah, the executive chair of the lobbying organization HinduPACT, condemned Navarro’s comments as “weaponized Hinduphobia.” He stated, “Dividing Hindus through colonial scripts doesn’t build relationships. It destroys them. People like Navarro have no place in American political life.”

Navarro’s comments coincided with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s significant visit to China, where he met with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping. The timing of the tariff announcement, which India has criticized as “unfair, unjustified and unreasonable,” has heightened tensions between the two nations.

American Hindus Against Defamation, a branch of HinduPACT, echoed the call for Navarro’s dismissal, labeling his remarks as a “reckless provocation” that threatens the dignity of over a billion Hindus worldwide. Their statement emphasized that using caste rhetoric to pressure a democratic ally is beneath the democratic dignity of the United States.

In Hindu tradition, Brahmins are associated with priestly and scholarly roles, historically responsible for conducting rituals and preserving sacred texts. Today, they make up approximately 4% to 5% of India’s population. The caste system, which is a birth-based social hierarchy, has been a topic of significant debate and contention, especially among the Indian diaspora in the United States.

In response to Navarro’s comments, Indian industrial CEO Harsh Goenka took to social media to clarify misconceptions about the Indian elite. He pointed out that many of India’s top business leaders, including those from major corporations like Tata and Reliance, do not belong to the Brahmin caste. Goenka stated, “But India’s soldiers, scientists, poets? Many were … Unlike some others who are trying to lobby for the Nobel prize, our Brahmins got their prize only through merit.”

Priyanka Chaturvedi, a member of India’s Shiv Sena political party, also criticized Navarro’s remarks on social media, describing them as “shameful and sinister.” She urged him to refrain from making comments that invoke caste identity to make political points.

In the United States, the term “Brahmin” has historically been used in different contexts. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, “Boston Brahmins” referred to an elite class of wealthy, white Protestant families who held significant cultural and political influence in New England.

Debates surrounding caste in modern America have been complex. Some argue that the focus on condemning caste has led to what they call “Hinduphobia,” suggesting that caste distinctions were exaggerated by colonial powers to divide Indians. Others maintain that casteism persists in various forms within American society, affecting opportunities and access for Indian Americans.

Research indicates that a significant majority of Indian immigrants to the U.S. belong to higher castes, with one study estimating that 90% of Indian Americans fall into this category. Prominent figures such as Sundar Pichai and Indra Nooyi, both CEOs, are part of the Tamil Brahmin community. Additionally, former Vice President Kamala Harris’s mother was also a member of this group.

A 2024 study by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace revealed that 32% of Indian American respondents did not identify with any caste, while 46% identified as “general or upper caste.” The study also found overwhelming support among Indian Americans for measures to formally outlaw caste discrimination.

Despite these statistics, advocates like Deepa Karthik, general secretary of HinduPACT, argue that caste rhetoric remains prevalent in America, particularly from those outside the community. “When someone like Navarro uses caste to shame India, it lands on Hindus here,” Karthik stated. “Kids get bullied. Workers get profiled. We get treated like we owe the world an apology for our heritage.”

This incident underscores the complexities surrounding discussions of caste and identity, particularly in the context of U.S.-India relations and the broader implications for the Hindu community in America.

Source: Original article

Democratic Senator Defends Against Accusations of Using Veterans as Props

Senator Jon Ossoff of Georgia faces accusations from Republicans regarding his claims about a veterans housing bill, which he defends as a celebration of bipartisan efforts to assist veterans.

Senator Jon Ossoff, a Democrat from Georgia, has dismissed Republican accusations that he misrepresented his involvement in the passage of a veterans housing bill. He questioned, “Is this the best they’ve got?” in response to the criticism.

The controversy centers around claims that Ossoff exaggerated his role in helping to pass legislation designed to prevent veterans from losing their homes. Some local media outlets inaccurately reported that Ossoff co-sponsored the bill, despite his lack of formal involvement.

Ossoff shared a video on social media last week featuring a news report that documented his press conference alongside local leaders and veterans groups. This event occurred shortly after President Donald Trump signed the VA Home Loan Program Reform Act. In the video caption, Ossoff stated that he “championed” the bipartisan bill aimed at protecting veterans.

However, a Fox News analysis revealed that Ossoff was not a co-sponsor of the legislation and did not vote on it. The bill was passed by unanimous consent in the House and through a voice vote in the Senate. Furthermore, Ossoff did not introduce any companion legislation in the Senate, nor was he present or active during the Senate floor discussions in July, according to a GOP source.

Republicans have criticized Ossoff’s messaging, arguing that he had “absolutely nothing” to do with the bill. When asked to clarify the discrepancies regarding his claims, Ossoff’s team defended his statements, asserting that he was merely celebrating the passage of a bipartisan bill that addressed a problem created by Republicans.

A spokesperson for Ossoff stated, “The Trump administration canceled the VASP program, and Sen. Ossoff sounded the alarm that its cancellation risked veteran homelessness, then celebrated the passage of a bipartisan bill to solve the problem. This is the best they’ve got?”

The VA Home Loan Reform Act is intended to replace the Veterans Affairs Servicing Purchase (VASP) program, which Ossoff previously criticized the Trump administration for terminating. Rep. Derrick Van Orden, a Republican from Wisconsin and the lead sponsor of the VA Home Loan Reform Act, described the VASP program as “fiscally irresponsible” and stated it was “endangering the entire VA home loan guarantee program.”

After Van Orden highlighted Ossoff’s social media posts claiming he “championed” the new veteran foreclosure bill, he accused the senator of telling a “bald-faced lie.” Other Republicans joined in the criticism, attacking Ossoff on social media platforms.

Rep. Buddy Carter, a Republican from Georgia, referred to Ossoff’s statements as “pathetic, disgusting lies,” suggesting that the senator was using veterans as props for political gain. He stated, “Congrats on showing Georgians you’re not above using veterans as props for your press stunts. Your empty suit gimmicks spit in the face of people you claim to serve.”

Senator Tim Scott, a Republican from South Carolina, echoed similar sentiments, asserting that Ossoff had no involvement in the Republican-led efforts to assist veterans. He criticized Ossoff for attempting to take credit amid what he described as political desperation, stating, “Georgia deserves so much better.”

Van Orden reiterated that Ossoff had no role in the bill, emphasizing, “He did not even vote for it; it passed by unanimous consent. This disgusting and shameful behavior must stop. Veterans are not political props.”

The controversy surrounding Ossoff’s claims has led to multiple local news outlets reporting inaccuracies regarding his role in the Veterans Affairs legislation. For instance, WSB Radio in Atlanta published an article stating that a new law co-sponsored by Ossoff aimed to prevent veteran foreclosures. However, according to official records, Van Orden was the bill’s sole sponsor.

The bill was forwarded to the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee for approval before being passed by a voice vote in the Senate, where Ossoff is not a member.

Ossoff’s team announced that President Trump signed the Veterans Affairs Home Loan Program Reform Act into law on a Wednesday, describing it as bipartisan legislation that Ossoff co-sponsored and supported to assist veterans relying on VA loans. This assertion has been challenged by critics who argue that Ossoff’s claims are misleading.

As Ossoff prepares for his 2026 re-election campaign, he faces a competitive Republican field, including Derek Dooley, a former University of Tennessee football coach and ally of Georgia Governor Brian Kemp, as well as Republican Representatives Mike Collins and Buddy Carter.

As the political landscape evolves, the scrutiny surrounding Ossoff’s claims highlights the contentious nature of political discourse, particularly regarding issues affecting veterans.

Source: Original article

World Leaders Mourn Charlie Kirk Following Shocking Assassination in Utah

World leaders condemned political violence following the shocking assassination of Charlie Kirk, a conservative media figure, during a speaking engagement at Utah Valley University.

International leaders expressed their outrage and sorrow on Wednesday after the tragic news broke that Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative media personality and co-founder of Turning Point USA, was shot and killed during a speaking event at Utah Valley University. Kirk, 31, was a husband and father of two.

Former President Donald Trump confirmed Kirk’s death in a social media post, revealing that he had been hospitalized after suffering a neck wound from the shooting.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was among the first world leaders to voice his grief over Kirk’s assassination. He stated on social media, “Charlie Kirk was murdered for speaking truth and defending freedom.” Netanyahu described Kirk as a “lion-hearted friend of Israel” who fought against falsehoods and stood firm for Judeo-Christian values. He noted that he had spoken with Kirk just two weeks prior and had invited him to Israel, lamenting that “sadly, that visit will not take place.” He concluded his tribute by acknowledging Kirk’s profound pride in America and his unwavering belief in free speech, stating, “Rest in peace, Charlie Kirk.”

Italy’s Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni also expressed her condolences, stating on X that she was “shocked by the news of the killing of Charlie Kirk.” She characterized the act as “an atrocious murder, a deep wound for democracy and for those who believe in freedom.” Meloni extended her sympathies to Kirk’s family, loved ones, and the American conservative community.

Argentina’s President Javier Milei shared a personal photo with Kirk and former Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz, offering condolences to Kirk’s family and to the young people worldwide who admired him. He called Kirk “a formidable disseminator of the ideas of freedom and staunch defender of the West,” labeling him a “victim of an atrocious murder” and attributing blame to the “left,” despite law enforcement officials not confirming the identity of the shooter. “The entire world lost an incredible human being,” Milei added.

U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer also expressed his sorrow and condemned political violence in a post on X, stating, “My thoughts this evening are with the loved ones of Charlie Kirk.” He emphasized the heartbreak of a young family being robbed of a father and husband, asserting that “we must all be free to debate openly and freely without fear – there can be no justification for political violence.”

Numerous leaders across the U.K. echoed Starmer’s sentiments, including Nigel Farage, the leader of Reform UK, who shared a photo with Kirk and remarked, “This is a very dark day for American democracy.” He expressed his deep sadness for Kirk, his wife, and children.

New Zealand’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Winston Peters, also condemned the rise of political violence and its threat to democracy. He stated on X, “It is tragic that we now live in a world where differences of opinion are met with a gun,” emphasizing that Kirk’s death should not merely be classified as “political violence” but rather as “an assassination.” Peters lamented the loss, noting that Kirk had traveled extensively to university campuses to provide open forums for debate, where all voices were welcomed. He warned that “the essence of democracy is under threat around the world and we must do everything we can to protect it.”

The assassination of Charlie Kirk has sparked a global conversation about the dangers of political violence and the importance of safeguarding democratic discourse.

Source: Original article

Trump Opponents Claim SCOTUS Ruling Promotes ‘Racial Terror’ in ICE Raids

California Democrats condemned a Supreme Court ruling that allows Trump administration immigration raids in Los Angeles, labeling it “un-American” and a potential source of “racial terror.”

California Democrats have expressed strong opposition to a recent Supreme Court ruling that permits the Trump administration to continue its immigration raids in Los Angeles. They characterized the decision as “un-American” and warned that it could lead to a “parade of racial terror.”

Governor Gavin Newsom, a vocal critic of President Donald Trump, took to X (formerly Twitter) to voice his disapproval. He stated, “Trump’s hand-picked SCOTUS majority just became the Grand Marshal for a parade of racial terror in LA. His administration is targeting Latinos — and anyone who doesn’t look or sound like his idea of an American — to deliberately harm our families and economy.”

The Supreme Court’s ruling, which passed with a 6-3 vote, allows the Trump administration to resume immigration raids in California, overturning a lower court’s decision that had previously halted such actions. This case was escalated to the Supreme Court after a federal judge ruled in July that the raids were likely unconstitutional, as they involved detaining individuals based on “apparent race or ethnicity” or their ability to speak Spanish. Immigration advocates have long accused the federal government of targeting Latinos based on these criteria.

In addition to Newsom, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and California Senator Adam Schiff also criticized the Supreme Court’s decision. They described the immigration raids as “blatantly illegal.” Schiff remarked, “This Administration rounded up and arrested California residents, including U.S. citizens and legal residents, based on the color of their skin or the language they speak. This is blatantly illegal, yet the Supreme Court is allowing it to happen while the case proceeds.” Schiff has a history of contentious interactions with Trump, which include disputes over the January 6 investigation and Trump’s impeachment trials.

Mayor Bass echoed these sentiments, stating, “I want the entire nation to hear me when I say this isn’t just an attack on the people of LA; this is an attack on every person in every city in this country. Today’s ruling is not only dangerous – it’s un-American and threatens the fabric of personal freedom in the U.S.” She emphasized her commitment to fighting for the rights and dignity of Angelenos, despite the administration’s efforts to undermine them.

The Supreme Court’s majority did not provide an explanation for their ruling. However, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in a concurring opinion, argued that race could be a relevant factor in determining reasonable suspicion for immigration stops. He stated, “To be clear, apparent ethnicity alone cannot furnish reasonable suspicion; under this Court’s case law regarding immigration stops, however, it can be a ‘relevant factor’ when considered along with other salient factors.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, expressing concern over the emergency order that approved such raids. She stated, “We should not have to live in a country where the Government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low wage job.”

The Trump administration welcomed the Supreme Court’s decision, with Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin declaring it a “win for the safety of Californians and the rule of law.” She added, “DHS law enforcement will not be slowed down and will continue to arrest and remove the murderers, rapists, gang members, and other criminal illegal aliens.”

This ruling follows the Trump administration’s directive for immigration officials to carry out raids in Los Angeles, a city that has identified itself as a “sanctuary” for undocumented immigrants. Protests and riots erupted in response to the crackdown, with local leaders like Newsom and Bass condemning the administration’s actions and offering support to undocumented individuals.

As the situation develops, the implications of the Supreme Court’s ruling remain a focal point of contention among California Democrats and immigration advocates, who fear that the decision could exacerbate racial profiling and discrimination in immigration enforcement.

Source: Original article

Trump’s Agenda and DOGE Cuts Impact Virginia Special Election

President Donald Trump’s policies, particularly job cuts and social issues, are central to the Virginia special election to fill a vacant House seat, with candidates debating their impacts on local voters.

In a special congressional election taking place in northern Virginia, President Donald Trump is a significant presence, despite not being on the ballot. The election, scheduled for Tuesday, will fill the seat left vacant by the late Democratic Representative Gerry Connolly, who passed away in June after a battle with cancer.

The race is primarily between Democratic nominee James Walkinshaw and Republican nominee Stewart Whitson. Key issues dominating the campaign include job cuts implemented by Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), crime and immigration policies, transgender rights, and calls for the release of Justice Department files related to the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Walkinshaw, who serves on the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors and previously worked as Connolly’s chief of staff, argues that Trump’s controversial agenda will significantly influence the election outcome in Virginia’s left-leaning 11th Congressional District. He stated that many voters in the area have been directly affected by the job cuts and layoffs associated with DOGE.

“Folks in Northern Virginia and Fairfax are feeling the impact of the Trump policies,” Walkinshaw said on the eve of the election. “Everybody in Fairfax knows someone who has lost their job because of DOGE or the Trump policies.” He emphasized that the district is experiencing the effects of these policies firsthand, which he believes will resonate with voters.

Whitson, an Army veteran and former FBI special agent, counters that Walkinshaw’s focus on opposing Trump is misguided. He argues that voters need solutions rather than empathy for those who have lost jobs. “The people in our district who have lost their job or who are worried about losing their job, they don’t need empathy. They need solutions,” Whitson said.

While Trump is not particularly popular in the district—having garnered only 31% of the vote in his re-election bid—Whitson maintains that Trump’s policies are rooted in common sense. He criticized Democrats for what he describes as “radical left” policies that are out of touch with the needs of the community.

Whitson also addressed the contentious issue of transgender rights in schools, asserting that he believes it is a civil right for girls to have access to safe spaces. “My opponent believes it is a civil right for men who identify as girls or women to go into our girls’ locker rooms and watch them change,” he charged. “I think this is all backwards.” He emphasized the importance of ensuring safety for all children in public facilities.

In response, Walkinshaw accused Whitson of fixating on a small percentage of students while neglecting the broader educational needs of all children in the district. “What I hear from folks in our community, and what I’m focused on, is how 100% of our kids can succeed in the classrooms,” he stated.

As the campaign progresses, Whitson has attempted to link Walkinshaw to Zohran Mamdani, a socialist candidate who recently won the Democratic mayoral nomination in New York City. “This is someone who has a history of supporting a lot of the exact same type of policies that Mamdani is supporting,” Whitson claimed, urging voters to consider the implications of such associations.

Walkinshaw dismissed the comparison, stating that voters in the 11th District are primarily concerned with local issues rather than political events in New York City. “Not a single voter has asked me about the New York mayor’s election,” he said. “I care what happens to folks right here in the 11th District.”

Another significant topic in the election is the push for the Justice Department to release files related to the investigation of Jeffrey Epstein. Walkinshaw noted that this issue resonates across the political spectrum, with many voters questioning whether there has been a cover-up regarding the files during the Biden administration.

If elected, Walkinshaw has pledged to sign a discharge petition led by Democratic Representative Ro Khanna of California and Republican Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky, which calls for the release of Epstein-related documents. “I absolutely will sign it,” he affirmed. “I think the American people deserve to know.” He expressed a desire to uncover any potential cover-ups by the Trump administration.

Whitson, however, criticized Walkinshaw for being late to address the issue, asserting that he had called for full disclosure of the Epstein files months ago. He accused Walkinshaw of politicizing the matter for personal gain, stating, “How long has this case been going on, and now he finally wants to reach on those records?”

The outcome of this special election could have significant implications for the balance of power in the House of Representatives, where Republicans currently hold a slim majority. With three Democratic seats vacant and one held by the GOP, a victory for Walkinshaw would further narrow the Republican majority in a district that has not elected a Republican in nearly two decades.

As voters prepare to cast their ballots, the impact of Trump’s policies and the candidates’ differing visions for the future of the district remain at the forefront of this critical election.

Source: Original article

-+=