H-1B Techie’s Green Card Dreams Derailed by Suspected Fake Job Applicants

An H-1B visa holder working in the United States was recently hit with an unexpected and troubling setback from his employer—one that had nothing to do with his performance or qualifications, but rather with a suspicious surge of job applications. This tech professional, who shared his story online, is currently in his second year of employment as an Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning Engineer at a financial technology firm. His journey toward permanent residency in the U.S. was progressing until it was suddenly halted under questionable circumstances.

The company had initially planned to sponsor his green card under the “Data Scientist II” role—the same designation under which he was hired back in 2022. Everything seemed to be on track until earlier this month when the company’s immigration team suddenly decided to pause the PERM labor market process. The reason? They had received over 400 applications for the job opening posted as part of the labor certification requirement. Surprisingly, not a single interview was conducted before this abrupt decision was made.

According to the employee, the company feared that the sheer volume of applications could potentially trigger an audit by the U.S. Department of Labor. Such audits are often lengthy and complex, and companies typically prefer to avoid them due to the bureaucratic complications they entail. The techie also acknowledged a flaw in the process, admitting that the job description provided for the PERM process was vague and didn’t accurately represent the kind of work he actually performs.

In the time since the original PERM application process began, the H-1B worker has even received a promotion. He now holds the position of AI/ML Engineer III. With this new role, his employer has opted to restart the green card process from scratch, which includes preparing a new job posting and going through the labor market testing phase again.

But what’s more alarming about this entire episode is what it reveals about an emerging and disturbing trend. The unusually high number of applications received for the Data Scientist II role may not be entirely genuine. In fact, another user on social media highlighted the presence of an account on the platform X (formerly Twitter) that has been actively urging individuals to flood PERM job postings with applications. The account even boasted about the outcome of the exact scenario that this tech worker experienced, sharing celebratory posts whenever companies were forced to pull back from the green card sponsorship process due to overwhelming applicant numbers.

There appears to be a coordinated effort among some individuals online to disrupt the green card processes of H-1B visa holders by artificially inflating the number of applicants for labor certification jobs. Some of these users are openly admitting that they are applying for positions under the PERM process for which they are not remotely qualified. Their objective is not to secure the job, but to sabotage the path to permanent residency for foreign workers.

“This is weaponizing a system that is already skewed against immigrants,” one observer noted. U.S. citizens who participate in these tactics face no legal repercussions. They are allowed to apply for any job, even if they do not meet the qualifications or do not intend to accept the position if offered. As a result, the real cost is borne by the H-1B visa holders, who are already navigating a complex and uncertain immigration landscape.

For many foreign workers, the PERM process is an essential step toward obtaining a green card, which in turn provides a sense of security and stability in the U.S. However, the system requires the sponsoring employer to demonstrate that there are no qualified U.S. workers willing and available to take the job. This is typically done by advertising the job and allowing a window of time for applicants to respond. If qualified U.S. workers do apply, or if the volume of responses is unusually high, the process may be paused or even abandoned entirely, as companies fear scrutiny or delays from federal audits.

In this particular case, the flood of over 400 job applications—none of which resulted in interviews—has raised serious questions about the legitimacy of those applications. The affected H-1B techie, who had followed all the legal and professional steps to advance his career and permanent residency in the U.S., finds himself back at square one.

The employer’s decision to pause the PERM process and start anew might appear as a procedural reset, but it represents a significant emotional and professional setback for the worker. Not only does it delay his green card timeline, but it also places his future in the U.S. in jeopardy, especially given the limited duration of H-1B visas and the uncertainty involved in annual renewals.

This growing trend of sabotaging PERM listings could have far-reaching implications for the broader immigrant community in the U.S. It exposes a vulnerability in the labor certification system—one that can be exploited without consequence to deliberately derail the aspirations of skilled foreign workers.

The techie’s story highlights how a system designed to balance opportunities for domestic workers and foreign talent can be manipulated to serve exclusionary agendas. While immigration processes have always been subject to regulatory checks, this new wave of deliberate disruption is unprecedented in its scale and intent.

As the techie’s experience circulates online, it has sparked broader conversations about the fairness and resilience of the current immigration system. Supporters of H-1B workers argue that reform is urgently needed—not only to streamline the green card process but also to safeguard it from bad-faith actors who misuse the system for political or personal motives.

In the meantime, individuals like the AI/ML engineer at the center of this story are left to pick up the pieces and start over. Despite his qualifications, promotion, and proven contributions to his employer, he now faces yet another uphill battle to secure his place in a country he has already begun to call home.

There is little legal recourse for H-1B workers in such scenarios. The immigration system allows domestic applicants to flood listings without accountability, while foreign workers face strict scrutiny at every stage. In essence, those looking to derail green card sponsorships can do so freely, but the consequences fall squarely on the shoulders of the immigrants affected.

As one observer succinctly put it, “There is no legal trouble for anyone who is applying for these jobs. But for an H-1B techie chasing a secure future in the US, he pays a heavy price.”

UAE Unveils Groundbreaking High-Speed Rail Linking Abu Dhabi and Dubai

High-speed train systems are becoming a global phenomenon, with rapid developments underway across continents—from Europe to North Africa and East Asia. Now, the Middle East is entering the scene with an ambitious new high-speed rail service that will link two of its most prominent cities: Abu Dhabi and Dubai.

The announcement came during a ceremonial event held at the Al Faya Depot in Abu Dhabi. At the heart of this development is Etihad Rail, the national railway company, which is spearheading the creation of a high-speed train connecting the Emirati capital with Dubai.

Already recognized as one of the most advanced cities in the world in terms of public transportation, Abu Dhabi is set to enhance its connectivity even further. This new train service is expected to significantly ease the commute between the two cities, creating a smoother experience for both residents and tourists.

One of the most striking aspects of this upcoming service is its speed. The train is designed to travel at a maximum speed of 350 kilometers per hour. With this, the journey time between Abu Dhabi and Dubai will be cut down to a mere 30 minutes. This dramatic reduction in travel time is expected to make daily life more efficient and convenient for many, especially for those who frequently travel between the two cities for work or leisure.

The rail project is not just about speed and convenience; it also plays a critical role in the United Arab Emirates’ broader sustainability goals. It is closely aligned with the UAE’s Net Zero 2050 strategy, a national plan aimed at achieving carbon neutrality by mid-century. A statement from the official press release underlined the environmental benefits, explaining that the new railway is expected to contribute significantly to a greener and more sustainable mode of transportation.

Additionally, the development of the high-speed service is being viewed as a major step forward for the UAE’s global standing in the realm of sustainable infrastructure. The release expressed optimism that the project would enhance the nation’s international competitiveness. In the words of the official statement, the hope is that this development will “bolster the UAE’s competitiveness internationally when it comes to sustainable transport.”

Economically, the implications of this infrastructure advancement are equally compelling. Analysts and government officials are forecasting significant financial benefits. One projection suggests that the railway will contribute a remarkable AED145 billion to the country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) over the next 50 years. That’s an eye-opening one hundred and forty-five billion dirhams in added economic value.

But this high-speed line is just one part of a broader plan to expand and modernize the UAE’s public transport infrastructure. During the same ceremony, officials also unveiled the country’s first fleet of passenger trains. These trains are set to operate at speeds of up to 200 kilometers per hour, catering to longer distances within the country and possibly the broader Gulf region.

As if that weren’t enough, the event also marked the introduction of the UAE’s first four passenger rail stations. These new stations will be located in Abu Dhabi, Dubai, Sharjah, and Fujairah. Importantly, they’ve been designed to seamlessly integrate with existing metro and bus networks. This integrated approach reflects a growing emphasis on making public transport more efficient, connected, and accessible to the population at large.

The ceremony at Al Faya Depot thus served as more than just an announcement of a new train. It showcased a holistic vision for the future of mobility in the UAE. The inclusion of stations in different emirates also points to a long-term goal of fostering national unity and regional development, with rail travel acting as a catalyst for both.

With work now moving forward, residents and stakeholders alike are looking to the future with anticipation. Once operational, the high-speed train is expected to transform the way people travel between Abu Dhabi and Dubai. For daily commuters, it means spending less time on the road and more time at work or home. For tourists, it offers a faster, more scenic, and eco-friendly way to explore the region.

All of this is in line with the UAE’s broader ambitions to position itself as a global leader in innovation, sustainability, and infrastructure development. The unveiling of these projects reflects a national commitment to long-term progress that is both economically and environmentally responsible.

In summary, the UAE’s new high-speed rail link between Abu Dhabi and Dubai is much more than just a transportation upgrade. It’s a symbol of the country’s forward-thinking vision, one that encompasses environmental sustainability, economic growth, and improved quality of life for its citizens and visitors alike. With trains expected to zip along at 350 kilometers per hour and reach their destination in just 30 minutes, the project promises to be a game-changer for the region.

As the official press release noted, the initiative will “vastly improve connectivity between Abu Dhabi and Dubai” while also reinforcing the UAE’s commitment to a more sustainable future. Furthermore, projections indicate that the project will “improve the country’s GDP by a staggering AED145 billion over the next five decades.”

During the event, attendees were also introduced to “the UAE’s first passenger train fleet,” capable of speeds of up to 200 kilometers per hour. Additionally, the presentation of “the country’s first four passenger rail stations in Abu Dhabi, Dubai, Sharjah and Fujairah” highlighted how these stations have been “designed to integrate with metro and bus services.”

By combining rapid transit with environmentally conscious goals and substantial economic foresight, the UAE is laying down the tracks—both literal and figurative—for a more connected and sustainable future.

India Hopes for Early Trade Deal with U.S. Before Tariffs Kick In: Piyush Goyal

As the deadline approaches for the U.S. to implement “reciprocal tariffs” on Indian goods beginning July 9, Indian Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal has voiced cautious optimism that both countries may sign an initial segment of a broader trade agreement before that date. Although hopeful, Goyal refrained from confirming whether a preliminary deal would indeed be finalized in time.

“We are in continuous dialogue. I have always been an optimist,” Goyal remarked during an interview with The Hindu on the sidelines of the India Global Forum 2025 conference held in London.

Expressing confidence in the partnership between the two countries, he added, “I’m very confident that, given that the U.S. and India are very friendly countries, trusted partners, both wanting to have resilient, reliable, trusted supply chains, both vibrant democracies, we will be able to come up with a win-win for the businesses of both countries.” Without a deal, Indian exports to the U.S. could face a steep 26% tariff starting in early July.

While there is urgency surrounding the negotiations, Goyal chose not to disclose whether the initial portion of the Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA) under discussion would include sensitive sectors such as dairy and agriculture. When questioned on this, he stated, “I think negotiations are best left to the negotiators and the negotiating table. We will, of course, inform the media at the right time.”

He was similarly tight-lipped regarding the impact of the expiration of the U.S. Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) on the overall agreement. The TPA is a legislative mechanism allowing the U.S. President to expedite trade deals, especially those involving tariffs lower than the standard Most-Favoured Nation (MFN) rates offered under the World Trade Organization (WTO) guidelines.

Earlier in the day, Goyal shared a platform with his British counterpart, Business and Trade Secretary Jonathan Reynolds, during a moderated session. Their appearance followed the recent conclusion of a free trade agreement between India and the United Kingdom on May 6. Goyal attributed the success of that deal to mutual respect for each other’s concerns and the willingness to set aside issues that were not immediately negotiable.

Turning attention to India’s ongoing trade discussions with the European Union, Goyal said that the aim was to wrap up a comprehensive trade pact by the end of the current calendar year. When asked whether the agreement would be finalized as a full-scale deal or as an interim arrangement, he responded by invoking a metaphor. “There’s that famous English phrase…since we are in Great Britain…‘the air is pregnant with possibilities,’” he said, emphasizing that the exact nature and form of the final deal remained undetermined at this stage.

On the question of whether the return of Donald Trump and his “America First” policy to the U.S. presidency had any bearing on India’s negotiations with the European Union, Goyal dismissed such notions, stating that bilateral talks are generally insulated from third-party influences. His comments came a week after European Union Foreign Minister Kaja Kallas called the EU a “reliable, predictable and credible partner for India” during a joint press briefing with India’s External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar. Since Trump’s return to power, various countries have been reevaluating their diplomatic and trade ties with Washington.

Goyal, however, maintained that bilateral negotiations operate independently of geopolitical shifts. “I don’t think there’s any impact of any other situation on a negotiation between two countries, because these negotiations are not a short-term arrangement. These are like long-term marriages you are negotiating after crystal-gazing … 25 years, 50 years, into the future,” he explained.

Commenting on the future of multilateral trade, Goyal reiterated India’s commitment to the World Trade Organization (WTO), despite growing skepticism in the global community about the body’s efficacy. He emphasized that the WTO still plays a significant role in maintaining global trade norms and frameworks, even as the U.S. steps back from multilateralism under the Trump administration.

“[India] believes we have to strengthen the WTO over the next few years through dialogue and discussions and will continue to play an increasingly important role to promote multilateralism,” Goyal stated. He underscored India’s belief in the importance of global cooperation through established institutions.

Meanwhile, India has also informed the WTO of its right to consider retaliatory tariffs in response to the U.S.’s decision to increase import duties on steel and aluminum. This move serves as a signal of India’s readiness to respond firmly when its trade interests are affected.

Addressing a specific issue involving Tata Steel, Goyal said that the Indian government had not raised the matter directly with British authorities. Tata Steel owns the Port Talbot steel plant in South Wales, which has faced operational adjustments, including sourcing raw materials from India and Europe, after its blast furnace was shut down last year. The plant is scheduled to transition to an electric arc furnace by 2027.

These adjustments may complicate matters if the U.S. insists on tighter rules regarding input materials before granting tariff reductions as part of any UK-U.S. agreement. According to a report by The Guardian, the Trump administration has warned that it may continue imposing a 25% tariff on British steel unless the UK can assure that Tata Steel’s inputs comply with American standards.

When asked whether India had intervened or planned to intervene on behalf of Tata Steel in negotiations with the U.K. or the U.S., Goyal replied bluntly, “That, the U.K., has to negotiate with the U.S.”

In summary, Goyal’s remarks convey a cautiously hopeful tone regarding an initial trade pact between India and the U.S. before the July 9 tariff deadline. While refraining from revealing specifics, his comments stress India’s readiness to pursue long-term, mutually beneficial agreements rooted in trust and democratic values. He emphasized the importance of resilience in supply chains, bilateral respect in negotiations, and the continued relevance of multilateral platforms such as the WTO.

Trump Considers Joining Israeli Strikes on Iran as Tehran Seeks Talks

President Donald Trump announced on Wednesday that he is deliberating whether the United States should participate in Israeli military strikes on Iran. He also claimed that Iranian officials had approached the U.S. seeking negotiations to resolve the intensifying conflict.

Trump made these remarks while observing the installation of a new flagpole at the White House. Indicating growing impatience, he emphasized that his tolerance for Tehran’s actions had already worn thin and reiterated his demand for Iran’s complete and unconditional capitulation. “My patience had already run out,” he declared, adding once again his call for the Islamic republic’s “unconditional surrender.”

Addressing reporters from the South Lawn, Trump responded ambiguously when asked if he had made a final decision on launching American airstrikes. “I may do it, I may not do it. I mean, nobody knows what I’m going to do,” he said, maintaining his characteristically unpredictable stance.

The escalating situation follows Israeli military actions targeting Iran, including reports that one of Israel’s drones was downed over Iranian territory. Despite the rising tensions, Trump pointed to Iran’s growing difficulties as a sign that the country was feeling pressure. “I can tell you this, that Iran’s got a lot of trouble, and they want to negotiate,” Trump stated.

According to the president, Iranian officials had even proposed dispatching envoys to the White House to open discussions focused on Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, hoping such talks could put an end to Israel’s continuing air campaign. However, Trump appeared dismissive of the proposal’s timing. “I said it’s very late to be talking. We may meet. There’s a big difference between now and a week ago, right? Big difference,” he remarked.

Still, Trump acknowledged the gravity of Iran’s overture, describing the offer as a bold move on Tehran’s part. “They’ve suggested that they come to the White House. That’s, you know, courageous, but it’s, like, not easy for them to do,” he said. Despite calling it “very late,” Trump did not rule out the possibility of engagement. When asked directly whether it was too late for negotiations, he replied, “Nothing is too late.”

This moment marks a significant shift in Trump’s approach to Iran. During his presidency, he initially favored a diplomatic strategy aimed at curbing Tehran’s nuclear program, seeking a new deal to replace the 2015 agreement he had withdrawn from in 2018. However, with Israel’s recent air assaults now in their sixth day, Trump appears to be aligning more closely with America’s key Middle Eastern ally, signaling a willingness to consider military measures.

In parallel, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth addressed lawmakers on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, confirming that the Pentagon is supplying President Trump with potential strategies regarding Iran. However, he stopped short of revealing whether the U.S. military intended to participate directly in Israeli-led strikes.

Hegseth’s comments came during a hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, the final installment in a series of sometimes confrontational sessions with legislators. Throughout the hearings, he has faced questions on a range of topics, including his controversial use of encrypted messaging app Signal for sensitive military communications earlier this year and the Pentagon’s policies on transgender troops.

During his testimony, Hegseth emphasized that the Pentagon was taking extensive precautions to safeguard American forces stationed in West Asia. “Maximum force protection” is being implemented, he confirmed. However, he made it clear that the decision to escalate militarily rested solely with President Trump.

One potential course of action under discussion is the provision of a powerful “bunker buster” bomb to Israel. Such a weapon would enable Israeli forces to strike deeply buried Iranian nuclear sites. However, deploying this bomb would necessitate the involvement of a U.S. B-2 stealth bomber and its pilot, a step that would bring the United States directly into the conflict. Hegseth offered no details about whether such an action was imminent or likely.

Meanwhile, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei publicly rejected the notion of surrender. In a stern warning aimed at Washington, he vowed never to capitulate and cautioned that U.S. intervention could lead to severe consequences. Khamenei stated that Iran would “never surrender” and warned of “irreparable damage” should the United States choose to get involved in the confrontation.

Trump’s rhetoric and the White House’s increased openness to military involvement underscore the shifting dynamics in U.S. foreign policy toward Iran. The administration, once focused on re-negotiating nuclear terms, is now appearing more inclined toward the use of force. Yet even as he threatens military options, Trump continues to leave the door to diplomacy ajar, albeit narrowly.

By highlighting Iran’s proposed diplomatic outreach, Trump portrays the regime as desperate and vulnerable, yet at the same time, he emphasizes that any resolution would come on America’s terms. This dual strategy of pressure and ambiguity—while maintaining a veneer of openness to negotiation—reflects a characteristic Trumpian approach to foreign crises.

The possibility of U.S. engagement in Israeli military actions represents a dramatic escalation in regional tensions. It would also mark a decisive turn from previous American positions that often aimed to avoid direct conflict in the Middle East. Now, as Israel intensifies its campaign and Iran signals a potential willingness to talk, the world watches closely to see whether Trump’s next move will be diplomatic, military, or—as is often the case with him—something entirely unpredictable.

U.S. Tightens Scrutiny on Student Visa Applicants’ Online Presence Amid Broader Immigration Clampdown

U.S. diplomats have now been officially instructed to examine the social media and digital activity of all foreign nationals applying for student and other educational visas, according to a State Department cable dated Wednesday and obtained by POLITICO. The move represents a significant tightening of visa screening protocols under the Trump administration.

According to the cable, consular officers must now investigate applicants’ digital footprint for “any indications of hostility towards the citizens, culture, government, institutions or founding principles of the United States.” This directive is part of a broader effort to enhance national security and prevent entry of individuals perceived as threats. The cable further mandates that embassies identify and flag any “advocacy for, aid or support for foreign terrorists and other threats to U.S. national security” along with “support for unlawful antisemitic harassment or violence.”

A notable example provided in the document is explicit support for Hamas, the Palestinian militant organization. The inclusion of such a specific reference underscores the administration’s increased concern about extremism and anti-American sentiment potentially entering U.S. borders through educational visa channels.

This initiative appears to be another strategic move by the Trump administration to penalize American academic institutions, particularly those criticized for their handling of pro-Palestinian demonstrations on campuses. The administration has often accused elite colleges and universities of harboring both antisemitic ideologies and liberal political leanings. This directive also aligns with a broader push to curb legal immigration, which complements the administration’s ongoing efforts to address undocumented immigration domestically.

The cable instructs consular officers to pay particular attention to “applicants who demonstrate a history of political activism,” with an emphasis on determining whether such individuals are likely to continue their activism while in the United States. This applies not only to first-time student visa applicants but also to returning students seeking visa renewals.

Consular officials are told to create “detailed case notes” of their digital investigations and to “take screenshots to preserve the record against possible later alteration or loss of the information.” This instruction implies a need for robust documentation, potentially for use in future reviews or appeals, should questions about an individual’s intentions arise later.

The cable makes clear that the scope of “online presence” extends beyond basic social media activity. It includes data found in online databases such as LexisNexis, signaling a comprehensive approach to digital background checks. By expanding the definition, the administration appears intent on capturing a wide spectrum of information, potentially revealing ideological affiliations or troubling past behavior.

Importantly, none of the online indicators outlined in the cable would in themselves automatically disqualify an applicant from receiving a visa under current U.S. immigration law. However, the discovery of such content is meant to prompt further evaluation by consular officers. The goal is to assess whether the applicant is likely to follow U.S. laws and “engage only in activities consistent with his nonimmigrant visa status.”

While The Free Press first reported the existence of the cable, its acquisition by POLITICO sheds additional light on the evolving direction of U.S. immigration policy under the Trump administration, particularly as it relates to students and educational exchanges.

Earlier, in May, POLITICO reported that the State Department was considering expanding its social media screening procedures, which had already applied to a subset of student visa applicants, to include all applicants. That same month, the department had instructed its embassies to suspend scheduling new interviews for student visa applicants. These pauses appeared to be in preparation for the implementation of more intensive screening methods.

Subsequently, by the end of May, the State Department initiated a targeted screening pilot program for applicants planning to study, teach, or participate in educational programs at Harvard University. That cable, which laid the foundation for the broader screening strategy, did not specify what kinds of online content might be viewed as problematic or “derogatory.” Nonetheless, it marked the beginning of a new phase of digital vetting for educational visa seekers.

The latest cable, issued on Wednesday, now permits embassies to resume scheduling student visa interviews. However, it emphasizes that interviews must be conducted in a manner that acknowledges the increased workload resulting from the new vetting requirements. As part of these instructions, the State Department advised embassies to prioritize certain categories of visa applicants.

Embassies are urged to give priority to physicians applying for the “J-1” visa, which is typically used for educational exchange programs. Additionally, students planning to attend U.S. universities where international students make up 15 percent or less of the overall student body should also be prioritized for visa interviews. This criterion suggests an intent to encourage diversity in institutions where international representation is relatively low.

The directive highlights the Trump administration’s intensifying focus on using immigration tools to advance broader political objectives. By linking visa approvals to political and ideological content found online, the administration seems determined to ensure that those entering the U.S. on educational grounds do not bring views deemed incompatible with American values or national security interests.

This move also comes at a politically sensitive time, with growing scrutiny over antisemitism, campus activism, and the intersection of foreign policy and domestic dissent. While critics are likely to view these measures as overreach or an attack on free speech, supporters will likely frame them as a necessary safeguard in a volatile global landscape.

In summary, the State Department has significantly broadened the mandate for vetting foreign student visa applicants by including detailed scrutiny of their online activity. The new policy calls for extensive documentation, prioritization of certain visa categories, and careful evaluation of political and ideological signals in digital spaces. As the administration continues to reshape the nation’s immigration landscape, student visa policy has become one more arena for enforcing its vision of national security and cultural alignment.

H-1B Data Scientist Alleges Exploitation and Humiliation at US Company Amid Visa Pressures

A 28-year-old data scientist on an H-1B visa has come forward on social media to recount what he describes as a deeply disturbing and unfair experience at his U.S.-based company. His post has sparked conversations around how foreign workers, particularly those on temporary visas, are often subjected to workplace exploitation due to their vulnerable immigration status.

According to the data scientist, he was recruited and brought on board with the expectation of contributing to a meaningful technical project. For five months, he claims to have shouldered a bulk of the groundwork—doing the “heavy lifting” for the project, a phrase he used to indicate the foundational and difficult tasks required to set things up. However, when the time came to work on the core modelling aspect of the project—widely considered the most prestigious and intellectually rewarding phase—he was abruptly sidelined.

He alleges that the modelling work was reassigned to someone else, and in place of that, he was handed a different task that was grueling and considered undesirable by others on the team. As he described it, “Now, when it’s finally time to shine, his manager has swooped in to build the model himself.” The disappointment in his words is clear—after investing months of effort, he felt robbed of the opportunity to showcase his capabilities on the main component of the project.

But the experience, he claims, didn’t just stop at professional marginalization. The data scientist says that his manager has continued to rely on him for technical support while reserving the more visible, high-value work for himself. “His manager still expects him to continue supporting the project only with the technical aspect,” the worker pointed out. This suggests that while he is still heavily involved in the project’s mechanics, he is being systematically excluded from recognition and leadership.

To make matters worse, the young professional says that he’s become the target of what he describes as public shaming within the workplace. In his post, he recounts multiple instances of being mocked during meetings, subjected to what he calls “ridiculous questions” regarding his Python scripts, and being micromanaged to the point of humiliation. These experiences, he notes, have contributed to an increasingly toxic work environment.

He believes that these actions are part of a broader strategy to force him out of the job. “They’re trying to mentally exhaust him into quitting,” he wrote, pointing to the fact that employees on H-1B visas are under immense pressure not to lose their jobs. If an H-1B worker is terminated, they are typically given only a short grace period—currently 60 days—to find a new employer willing to sponsor their visa, or else they risk having to leave the country. In a job market that may not offer immediate opportunities, this timeline places international workers in a precarious position.

Knowing this, the data scientist says, companies can exploit international talent with minimal consequences. “Many H-1B workers also stay silent even when mistreated because losing a job could mean leaving the country. That’s the harsh reality,” he wrote. His experience sheds light on the psychological and emotional burden that accompanies visa uncertainty, particularly for younger professionals who may not have extensive networks or backup plans.

The broader implications of his story point to a systemic issue. Foreign workers, especially those in tech roles, are often brought to the U.S. with the promise of career development and stability. However, many find themselves at the mercy of employers who understand how to leverage the restrictive immigration system to their advantage. The data scientist’s ordeal also calls attention to a recurring pattern seen across various companies: assigning difficult or less desirable tasks to visa holders while reserving the strategic or leadership roles for others.

His story has resonated with many, particularly within the immigrant and tech communities. Several commenters expressed solidarity, sharing similar experiences of being overworked and under-credited. Others noted the psychological tactics sometimes used to push out employees without technically firing them—a move that would trigger visa complications and legal scrutiny.

The public nature of his complaints, however, makes his case somewhat rare. Many visa holders are reluctant to speak out, fearing retaliation or the risk of damaging future job prospects. For those on H-1B visas, being vocal can be a gamble. “Even when you’re humiliated, even when you know it’s wrong, you often stay quiet because your entire life here depends on that job,” one user responded under his post.

The tech industry has long relied on H-1B visa holders to fill roles in data science, engineering, and software development. These positions require advanced skills, and companies often justify the sponsorship of foreign workers by citing talent shortages. However, as the data scientist’s account suggests, the dependence on employer sponsorship creates an imbalance of power, making visa holders more susceptible to mistreatment.

As this case illustrates, mental exhaustion, public shaming, and exclusion from key responsibilities can serve as non-verbal signals meant to push an employee toward resignation. Such tactics are difficult to prove but are widely discussed within communities of foreign workers. The employer-employee relationship under the H-1B framework is often described as “one-sided,” with the employer holding considerable leverage due to the visa dependency.

Ultimately, the data scientist’s experience sheds light on a troubling facet of corporate culture—one that mixes performance management with immigration pressure in a way that can be deeply harmful. His decision to speak publicly, even without naming the company, is being seen as a courageous move to draw attention to an underreported issue affecting thousands of skilled professionals across the United States.

In sharing his story, the young worker has sparked a wider discussion about ethics in the workplace, accountability for managers, and the reforms needed in the H-1B system to protect those who come to the U.S. in search of opportunity but end up feeling trapped and devalued.

Global Perception of the American Dream Shifts Amid Trump’s Immigration Crackdown

For generations, people around the world viewed the United States as a beacon of opportunity and inclusion. However, recent developments, particularly President Donald Trump’s aggressive stance on immigration, have prompted widespread reassessment of this ideal. With protests erupting across Los Angeles, on college campuses, and within religious communities, many are reconsidering the once-cherished notion of pursuing the American dream.

According to Edwin van Rest, CEO of Studyportals—a platform that monitors real-time interest from international students considering studying abroad—the current sentiment from Washington signals exclusion. “The message coming from Washington is that you are not welcome in the United States,” he said. His organization’s data shows that international interest in studying in America has dropped to its lowest point since the COVID-19 pandemic. He added, “The fact is, there are great opportunities elsewhere.”

America has long cultivated a romanticized image of itself as a land open to immigrants. While this vision remains powerful, the truth has always been more complex, with race and ethnicity playing significant roles in determining who is truly welcomed. Despite this, the allure of America has endured, powered in part by a strong economy that continues to attract millions each year. This influx has driven the population past 340 million.

Yet, signs from various industries such as tourism, education, entertainment, and trade suggest that the dream is fading for foreigners who once flocked to the U.S. for a better life. A recent Pew Research Center survey, conducted between January and April, revealed that public opinion of the U.S. declined over the past year in 15 of the 24 countries polled.

Trump and many of his followers argue that undocumented migrants pose a risk to national security, employment, and cultural identity. However, his sweeping immigration policies have also affected individuals legally present in the country, making even prospective tourists hesitant about visiting. Adding to the unease is Trump’s global trade war and his stance against international students who support pro-Palestinian causes—moves that are hard to forget among those abroad who once dreamed of participating in America’s tradition of free speech and opportunity.

An Australian Reddit user, Duncan Greaves, encapsulated this global sentiment when advising someone contemplating a U.S. vacation: “The chances of something truly horrific happening are almost certainly tiny… Basically it’s like the Dirty Harry quote: ‘Do you feel lucky?’”

Ironically, Trump himself is closely connected to immigration. Not only has he married two immigrants—Ivana Trump from what is now the Czech Republic and Melania Trump from Slovenia—but his grandfather, Friedrich Trump, was an immigrant from Germany. During a recent Oval Office meeting, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz even presented Trump with a framed copy of his grandfather’s birth certificate. Friedrich Trump had emigrated from Germany in 1885 amid war and economic hardship.

After building a fortune in the U.S. and obtaining citizenship, Friedrich Trump tried to return to Germany but was expelled for failing to fulfill military service obligations. In a letter to Luitpold, prince regent of Bavaria, he wrote, “Why should we be deported? This is very, very hard for a family. What will our fellow citizens think if honest subjects are faced with such a decree — not to mention the great material losses it would incur.”

These details reflect both the promise and the precariousness of the immigrant experience—something the Trump family has personally encountered.

Immigration has undeniably reshaped American culture and demographics. In 2024, immigration drove U.S. population growth to its highest rate in 23 years, pushing the total to over 340 million, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Nearly 2.8 million more people immigrated to the country in 2024 than in the previous year, partly due to revised methods that now include individuals admitted for humanitarian reasons. Net international migration was responsible for 84% of the nation’s 3.3 million-person increase.

In fact, immigration was the sole driver of population growth in 16 states that would have otherwise seen declines, according to the Brookings Institution.

Still, views on immigration remain deeply divided. While many Americans see it as a source of talent and labor, Trump has long regarded it as an “invasion.” Since returning to the White House, he has implemented an expansive immigration crackdown that has tested the boundaries of presidential authority. His administration has often found itself at odds with federal judges over actions that include deporting individuals, revoking visas, and transferring deportees to third countries.

Unlike during his first term, Trump has not shied away from controversial immigration policies this time around. Immigration has become his top issue in public opinion polls, solidifying his standing among Republicans and reflecting a broader change in public sentiment.

A survey conducted in June by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research showed that 46% of U.S. adults approved of Trump’s immigration policies—nearly 10 percentage points higher than his ratings on the economy or trade. Notably, the poll was conducted before protests began in Los Angeles and did not include questions about Trump’s decision to deploy military forces there.

While the United States continues to be seen as an economic superpower, its global image is shifting. Pew’s polling indicates that more people now view China as the world’s top economy. Whether Trump’s policies will lead to a tangible decline in international students and others who once looked to America for safety and opportunity remains uncertain.

Studyportals, based in the Netherlands, reported a significant drop in interest among international students. Weekly pageviews for U.S. degree programs fell by half from January 5 to the end of April. If this pattern continues, the U.S. could lose even more ground to competing nations like the United Kingdom and Australia.

“International students and their families seek predictability and security when choosing which country to trust with their future,” said Fanta Aw, CEO of NAFSA, an organization representing international educators. “The U.S. government’s recent actions have naturally shaken their confidence in the United States.”

The changing global perspective on the United States is evident. What was once seen as the ultimate destination for personal freedom and opportunity is now viewed with increasing skepticism. The American dream, while not entirely extinguished, is being reconsidered by those abroad—many of whom are now setting their sights on other nations where they feel more welcome, more secure, and more hopeful.

US Raises Travel Advisory for India to Level 2, Citing Crime and Terrorism Risks

The United States has recently updated its travel advisories ahead of the anticipated summer travel surge, and India, one of the world’s most populated countries, has been given a revised security classification. The U.S. State Department has now raised its travel warning for India to a Level 2 advisory, encouraging travelers to maintain heightened awareness while visiting the country.

In the updated notice, the department urged Americans to be cautious during their stay in India, citing concerns over crime and terrorism. The advisory clearly states, “Exercise increased caution in India due to crime and terrorism. Some areas have increased risk.” It points to incidents such as rape, violent crimes, and terrorism as notable threats. Tourist destinations and areas with high foot traffic are considered potential targets, and travelers are advised to be vigilant when visiting such places.

The travel advisory also identifies specific regions that American citizens are strongly discouraged from visiting. These include parts of eastern Maharashtra, northern Telangana, and western West Bengal. The State Department explained that these areas are especially risky because American authorities do not have direct access to them in case of emergencies. “Due to the risks, U.S. government employees working in India must obtain special authorization to travel to these areas,” the department clarified.

In addition to identifying high-risk areas, the advisory also includes guidelines on how visitors should conduct themselves to stay safe and respectful. American travelers are encouraged to comply with Indian laws and customs at all times. This includes restrictions on certain technologies and advice for personal safety. The State Department highlighted that devices such as GPS trackers and satellite phones are banned in India. Women are advised to avoid traveling alone, and all travelers are recommended to exercise the same caution they would in any unfamiliar foreign country.

Moreover, the State Department gave some areas the most severe warning possible. Jammu and Kashmir, for instance, has been labeled as a Level 4 risk area, meaning “Do Not Travel.” The advisory mentions that this region frequently experiences civil unrest and terrorist activity. The area lies along the Line of Control separating India and Pakistan, and tourist destinations like Srinagar, Gulmarg, and Pahalgam in the Kashmir Valley are also included in the warning.

Other parts of India have also received the Level 4 designation. Certain regions in central and eastern India, for example, are known for activities by political extremists. These groups have carried out terrorist attacks targeting law enforcement, paramilitary personnel, and government officials. Such incidents increase the level of danger and make these areas highly unsafe for visitors.

The northeastern state of Manipur has similarly been categorized under Level 4. According to the advisory, the area has witnessed considerable violence and displacement of communities in recent times. This ongoing instability makes it particularly hazardous for foreign travelers.

Furthermore, the advisory advises Americans to reconsider travel to several states in northeastern India. Insurgent groups in these regions have carried out bombings and other forms of violence, creating an unpredictable security environment. While not under the highest threat level, these areas still pose a significant risk and should be approached with caution.

The U.S. Embassy in India is situated in the capital, New Delhi. It serves as the primary point of contact for American citizens in the country and is tasked with providing consular assistance during emergencies or other travel-related issues. Given the current travel advisory, American visitors are strongly encouraged to stay connected with the embassy during their time in India and to register their travel plans when possible.

In sum, the updated travel advisory for India reflects a complex landscape of safety concerns, ranging from urban crime to political violence and terrorism. While the overall country has been classified under a Level 2 advisory—suggesting travelers should “exercise increased caution”—multiple regions within India are considered extremely dangerous and should be avoided altogether. These designations are based on recent developments, ongoing threats, and limited access for emergency assistance in some areas.

By updating this advisory, the United States aims to provide its citizens with clear and timely information that can help them make informed decisions when planning international travel. As always, the priority remains the safety and well-being of U.S. nationals abroad. Travelers are reminded to remain alert, follow local laws and customs, and heed the recommendations laid out by the State Department.

Siemens Consortium Wins Key Contract for India’s Mumbai-Ahmedabad Bullet Train Signalling Systems

India’s first bullet train project connecting Ahmedabad and Mumbai is moving forward steadily despite experiencing various delays over the years. In a significant development, a consortium led by Siemens has been awarded a crucial contract by the National High Speed Rail Corporation Limited (NHSRCL) to handle the signalling and telecommunications systems for this high-speed rail corridor.

The consortium includes Dineshchandra R Agrawal (DRA) Infracon Private Limited, Siemens Limited, and Siemens Mobility GmbH. Together, these firms will be responsible for delivering and implementing state-of-the-art signalling and telecommunication systems that are vital for operating the Mumbai-Ahmedabad bullet train efficiently and safely.

As part of this contract, Siemens will be deploying the European Train Control System (ETCS) Level 2, which is an advanced signalling and train control mechanism. This system is capable of supporting train operations at speeds of up to 350 kilometres per hour. It offers key features such as real-time monitoring, continuous wireless connectivity for communication, and a centralised traffic control mechanism. These capabilities ensure that the train can function with high precision and safety standards expected from modern high-speed rail systems.

The ETCS Level 2 system is not new to global rail infrastructure. It has already been successfully adopted and implemented in more than 50 countries around the world. Its selection for India’s first bullet train project underscores the nation’s intention to align with globally accepted best practices in rail safety and technology.

The National High Speed Rail Corporation Limited (NHSRCL), the government-owned entity overseeing the bullet train venture, is in charge of managing and executing all aspects of this pioneering infrastructure initiative. NHSRCL has been entrusted with transforming India’s rail transport landscape through the introduction of high-speed rail services that match international standards.

In an official communication, Siemens Limited confirmed the awarding of the order, describing it as being worth approximately Rs 4,100 crore in total. The company’s specific share in this contract stands at Rs 1,230 crore. This amount will cover Siemens Limited’s responsibilities in designing, installing, and maintaining the advanced signalling and telecommunication systems over the long term.

According to Siemens Limited’s official statement, “The order valued at approximately Rs. 4,100 crores, includes Siemens Limited’s share of Rs 1,230 crore for the design, installation, and long-term maintenance of advanced signaling and telecommunications technologies.”

The company also elaborated on the execution timeline and maintenance plan for the project. “The project is expected to be executed over a period of 54 months, with Siemens providing 15 years of maintenance services, ensuring lifecycle reliability,” the statement further noted.

This approach indicates that Siemens is not only tasked with the initial installation but is also responsible for ensuring that the systems remain functional and reliable for a significant duration following completion. This long-term commitment reflects a focus on durability and operational consistency.

Speaking on behalf of Siemens Limited, Sunil Mathur, the managing director and chief executive officer of the company, expressed both pride and confidence in undertaking such an important national assignment. He said, “As a consortium, we are proud to partner with National High Speed Rail Corporation Limited, in the prestigious high-speed rail project. This project reflects our commitment to ‘Make in India’ and delivering technologies that promote sustainable and future-ready mobility.”

Mathur’s remarks underline the broader significance of this contract, which not only advances India’s transport infrastructure but also reinforces the government’s ‘Make in India’ initiative. By sourcing technologies that are both cutting-edge and tailored for the future, the project aims to pave the way for a modernised rail network across the country.

The Mumbai-Ahmedabad bullet train project is a central element of India’s high-speed rail ambitions. Once completed, it will drastically reduce travel time between the two cities and serve as a blueprint for future high-speed rail corridors in other parts of the country.

Despite earlier hurdles, such as land acquisition challenges and shifts in construction timelines, the project appears to be gaining fresh momentum. The awarding of this crucial contract suggests that groundwork for operational readiness is well underway.

The involvement of Siemens, a global leader in rail technology and infrastructure, adds further credibility to the technical execution of the project. With a robust track record in supplying and maintaining rail systems worldwide, Siemens brings both experience and technological expertise to the table.

Furthermore, the inclusion of Indian partner Dineshchandra R Agrawal (DRA) Infracon Private Limited as part of the consortium signifies a balanced approach combining international know-how with domestic implementation capabilities. This collaborative model is in line with current trends in large-scale infrastructure development, where global partnerships enhance both speed and quality of delivery.

In essence, the integration of the ETCS Level 2-based signalling and communication system is a key milestone in making the Mumbai-Ahmedabad bullet train operational. These systems are essential to ensure that the trains can run at high speeds while maintaining stringent safety and communication standards.

Overall, the contract signifies a major step forward for the bullet train initiative, reinforcing India’s aspirations to transform its rail transportation network into a modern, efficient, and world-class system. With clear timelines, advanced technologies, and experienced players on board, the project is now poised to take significant strides towards completion.

UN Nuclear Chief Raises Concerns About Potential Contamination at Iran’s Natanz Facility After Israeli Strike

The head of the United Nations nuclear watchdog has expressed serious concerns over possible radiological and chemical contamination at Iran’s primary nuclear enrichment center in Natanz. This follows a recent Israeli military strike targeting the facility. While radiation levels outside the site remain within safe limits, the situation inside the complex poses several hazards, especially involving radioactive and toxic materials.

Rafael Mariano Grossi, Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), addressed an emergency session of the agency’s board in Vienna on Monday. The meeting was called at Russia’s request to discuss the consequences of the Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. During his remarks, Grossi acknowledged the dangers within the Natanz compound but also sought to reassure the international community that no immediate radiological threat had been detected beyond the facility.

“The level of radioactivity outside the Natanz site has remained unchanged and at normal levels, indicating no external radiological impact to the population or the environment from this event,” Grossi stated.

Despite the absence of external radiation risks, the IAEA chief highlighted a significant concern for workers and inspectors inside the facility due to the potential release of uranium hexafluoride gas. This compound is produced when uranium is mixed with fluorine during the enrichment process. Grossi explained that uranium hexafluoride is not only highly corrosive and reactive but also exceptionally hazardous if inhaled.

“The risk can be effectively managed with appropriate protective measures, such as using respiratory protection devices while inside the facilities,” Grossi added.

He warned that the material’s chemical toxicity could pose serious health risks, especially because it can burn human tissue upon contact and is deadly if inhaled in even moderate amounts. Experts have also noted that the compound is highly volatile and can quickly spread if containment is compromised.

Grossi emphasized that the agency’s ability to fully assess the situation is being hindered by the lack of timely technical information from Iran. This data is essential to evaluate any environmental and health impact resulting from the strike. Without proper insight into the facility’s internal condition, the IAEA cannot effectively monitor the consequences or provide appropriate support.

“Amid these challenging and complex circumstances, it is crucial that the IAEA receives timely and regular technical information about the facilities and their respective sites,” Grossi said. “Without information, the U.N. agency cannot accurately assess the radiological conditions and potential impacts on the population and the environment and cannot provide the necessary assistance.”

Despite the operational difficulties, Grossi reassured the board that U.N. inspectors would remain in Iran. He noted that inspections would resume at the earliest opportunity once safety within the affected areas could be confirmed.

“U.N. inspectors would remain present in Iran and inspect the nuclear facilities as soon as safety conditions allow,” he stated.

The IAEA Director-General issued a stark warning about the broader implications of military actions targeting nuclear sites. He stressed that such operations could trigger unforeseen radiological events, with long-term consequences not only for the immediate area but also for global efforts to maintain nuclear safety and security. Grossi called for urgent diplomatic engagement to prevent further escalation.

“Military escalation threatens lives, increases the chance of a radiological release with serious consequences for people and the environment and delays indispensable work towards a diplomatic solution for the long-term assurance that Iran does not acquire a nuclear weapon,” he warned.

At the same emergency meeting, Venezuela delivered a joint statement on behalf of several nations, including Iran and Russia. The group condemned the Israeli strike, calling it a violation of international norms and a threat to global security. The statement was made behind closed doors, and diplomats who were present shared its contents anonymously due to the confidential nature of the discussions.

According to these diplomats, the joint statement denounced what it described as “an unprovoked and aggressive act” against Iran’s peaceful nuclear infrastructure. The coalition expressed support for Iran’s right to develop nuclear technology for civilian purposes under international oversight and called for restraint from all parties involved in the ongoing tensions.

Meanwhile, satellite imagery has provided a clearer picture of the physical damage inflicted on the Natanz site. Analysis conducted by The Associated Press using images from Planet Labs PBC revealed widespread destruction across several parts of the complex. Photographs taken on Saturday, shortly after the Israeli operation, show that multiple structures at the facility had been either significantly damaged or completely destroyed.

Among the affected structures were those identified by nuclear experts as essential for supplying power to the enrichment systems. These buildings play a crucial role in maintaining the functionality of the centrifuges and other machinery used to process uranium. Their loss could substantially hinder Iran’s enrichment activities, at least temporarily.

The attack and its aftermath come amid already heightened tensions between Iran and Israel over Tehran’s nuclear ambitions. Israel has repeatedly stated that it will not allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons and has taken preemptive actions in the past to disrupt what it views as a growing threat. Iran, on the other hand, maintains that its nuclear program is solely for civilian energy purposes and remains under the scrutiny of international bodies such as the IAEA.

This latest strike further complicates the already fragile diplomatic landscape surrounding Iran’s nuclear activities. The 2015 nuclear deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), has been largely inactive since the United States withdrew from the agreement in 2018. Efforts to revive the deal have stalled amid growing mistrust, regional tensions, and now, escalating military actions.

Grossi’s remarks also highlighted the precarious balance the IAEA must maintain in situations involving geopolitical conflict and nuclear oversight. The agency is tasked with ensuring nuclear safety and verifying compliance with international agreements, even in environments where political and military developments pose significant challenges.

The IAEA continues to advocate for a return to diplomacy and transparency, stressing that technical monitoring and access to sites are key pillars of its mission. Without them, the international community is left to speculate about the risks and developments inside facilities like Natanz, with limited tools to verify claims or intervene in a timely manner.

As the situation evolves, the focus remains on ensuring the safety of nuclear materials and the prevention of any release that could harm human populations or the environment. The IAEA’s call for renewed cooperation and de-escalation echoes the broader concern that military interventions near sensitive nuclear infrastructure could lead to unintended and possibly catastrophic consequences.

With no new damage reported at either Natanz or the Isfahan nuclear research site since Saturday, according to Grossi, attention now turns to whether all parties involved will take steps to reduce tensions and re-engage in dialogue.

He concluded his address by reaffirming the IAEA’s commitment to staying engaged in Iran and conducting thorough inspections once conditions allow, underscoring the importance of technical data sharing and peaceful resolution efforts in the interest of global nuclear safety.

Israel-Iran Conflict Escalates Amid G7 Diplomacy and Rising Civilian Toll

The fifth day of open hostilities between Israel and Iran has seen an escalation of attacks, with both countries trading strikes and civilians bearing the brunt of the conflict. The situation has turned increasingly deadly, with at least 224 people reported killed in Iran and 24 fatalities confirmed in Israel since the outbreak of violence.

As the fighting intensifies, U.S. President Donald Trump made the unexpected decision to leave the G7 summit in France a day ahead of schedule, citing the need to return to Washington to deal with the crisis. French President Emmanuel Macron disclosed that the United States had put forward a ceasefire proposal, suggesting a possible diplomatic channel to contain the violence. Trump, in a stark warning, advised Iranians to leave the capital, Tehran, pointing out the severe risk posed to its population of 10 million.

In a statement likely to inflame tensions further, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu asserted that the Israeli strikes had dealt a significant blow to Iran’s nuclear ambitions. “I estimate we are sending them back a very, very long time,” he said, referring to the impact of Israeli attacks on key elements of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. According to reports, Israel had targeted three of Iran’s most vital nuclear facilities along with top nuclear scientists. However, the full extent of the destruction remains unknown.

Iran’s state media announced that the death toll from an Israeli strike on the country’s national broadcasting headquarters has increased. The Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) was hit during the series of airstrikes. Two individuals have been confirmed dead: Nima Rajabpour, a news editor, and Masoumeh Azimi, an administrative worker. The Iranian state-run news agency IRNA confirmed the casualties in what they called a targeted strike on a civilian institution.

Meanwhile, the Group of Seven (G7) leaders issued a joint statement on Monday calling for a peaceful resolution to the spiraling Iran-Israel crisis. The statement, initially met with hesitation by President Trump, ultimately received his endorsement after diplomatic language revisions were made. An official familiar with the matter stated that “after changing some of the language in the document — including calls for a diplomatic resolution to the crisis and upholding international law — Trump signed off.”

The finalized G7 declaration included a broad appeal to reduce conflict in the Middle East. “We urge that the resolution of the Iranian crisis leads to a broader de-escalation of hostilities in the Middle East, including a ceasefire in Gaza,” read the official statement, attributed to the collective “G7 leaders.” Such wording typically indicates unanimous agreement among participating nations.

The diplomatic efforts appeared to intensify following Trump’s departure from the summit. According to one official familiar with the sequence of events, Trump had earlier signaled he would not endorse the draft version of the G7 statement, which had been crafted primarily by European leaders. However, as the language of the statement was adjusted to align more closely with American positions—particularly the emphasis on diplomacy and international law—Trump agreed to support the document.

The joint declaration reaffirmed the commitment of the G7 nations to restoring calm in the Middle East. “The statement said the G7 leaders ‘reiterate our commitment to peace and stability in the Middle East,’” the official confirmed. Although CNN reached out to the White House for additional comments, no official response was immediately provided.

Trump’s early exit from the summit was seen by some as a sign of the gravity with which Washington is viewing the current hostilities. Before boarding his flight, he emphasized the urgency of monitoring the ongoing military developments between Israel and Iran, implying that further escalation might require a coordinated international response or heightened American involvement.

Back in the Middle East, the human toll continues to rise. The reported casualties in Iran have already reached over 220, signaling the scale and severity of Israel’s air campaign. Iran’s government has yet to provide a comprehensive damage assessment of the targeted nuclear facilities, but analysts warn that any substantial destruction could provoke a long-term crisis over nuclear proliferation and regional security.

The strike on Iran’s state media building has also intensified global concern over civilian targets being drawn into the conflict. The deaths of Nima Rajabpour and Masoumeh Azimi are being cited by Iranian officials as evidence that Israel is deliberately attacking civilian infrastructure, a charge that Israel has not publicly addressed.

On the Israeli side, the casualty count has reached 24, with several regions facing rocket attacks and retaliatory drone strikes. While Israel’s military has not released detailed operational updates, Prime Minister Netanyahu remains adamant that the country’s strategic objectives are being met. “I estimate we are sending them back a very, very long time,” he reiterated, implying that Israel’s targeting of Iran’s nuclear apparatus was both preemptive and successful.

This unfolding conflict now places the global community at a crossroads, with the G7’s joint statement reflecting a shared interest in de-escalation. Still, observers caution that even with high-level diplomatic interventions, the dynamics on the ground could outpace efforts to secure a ceasefire.

Although the call for peace and stability is loud and clear from world leaders, there is growing skepticism about whether either Israel or Iran is ready to halt military operations. The possibility of the crisis spilling over into other flashpoints, such as Gaza and southern Lebanon, is now a major concern for international security analysts.

With the G7 summit concluding and the U.S. President returning home, attention is now turning to how Washington might further influence developments. Whether Trump’s backing of the ceasefire language and the G7 resolution will lead to any immediate diplomatic breakthrough remains uncertain.

At the very least, the joint G7 statement has managed to articulate a consensus among major world powers, even as missiles continue to fly and families mourn their dead. The test ahead lies in translating those words into action—before the cost of war climbs even higher.

Modi Heads to Canada for G-7 Summit Amid Global Conflicts and Diplomatic Reset

Prime Minister Narendra Modi is set to arrive in Calgary, Canada, on Monday, June 16, 2025, to participate in the G-7 Outreach Summit. The summit, to be hosted in Kananaskis, Alberta, is attracting global attention due to its timing amid intensifying conflicts in both the Middle East and Eastern Europe. The ongoing Israel-Iran tensions and the continued Russia-Ukraine war provide a crucial backdrop to this high-level multilateral gathering. Among the prominent global figures joining Modi at the summit is Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, underscoring the relevance of security discussions in the current geopolitical climate.

Modi’s trip to Canada, which follows a short stopover in Cyprus, is being closely observed as it marks a potential turning point in India-Canada relations. This visit is expected to pave the way for a diplomatic thaw between the two nations following a significant deterioration in ties under former Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Relations hit a low point after Trudeau publicly accused the Indian government of involvement in the killing of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a prominent pro-Khalistan activist, on June 18, 2023.

Trudeau’s explosive allegation in September 2023, that “Indian state actors” were behind Nijjar’s murder on Canadian soil, caused a major diplomatic rift. The accusation led to expulsions of diplomats, suspension of talks, and strained people-to-people ties between the two democracies. As Modi now prepares to meet Canada’s new leader, Prime Minister Mark Carney, observers hope for a fresh chapter.

Carney, who assumed office following Trudeau’s departure, has indicated a willingness to move past the previous administration’s tensions. Significantly, he has acknowledged India’s expanding global footprint and emphasized the need for constructive engagement with the world’s largest democracy. In an earlier statement, Carney remarked that “India’s global profile requires engagement,” suggesting his administration is seeking to normalize ties with New Delhi.

This diplomatic reset coincides with Prime Minister Modi’s first appearance at a major international event since India concluded Operation Sindoor in May 2025. The military operation targeted terror networks across Pakistan and received international attention. The G-7 Outreach Summit thus provides Modi with a timely platform to engage with global leaders and position India’s security and diplomatic priorities.

During the summit, Modi is expected to hold discussions with multiple heads of state, including host Prime Minister Carney and other members of the G-7 as well as guest nations. The event promises to be a venue for strategic dialogue, coalition-building, and multilateral coordination. Modi’s interactions at the summit are likely to touch on issues ranging from counterterrorism to economic cooperation and energy security.

The G-7 Outreach Summit, scheduled for Tuesday at noon, will focus on three key themes that reflect the current international climate. The first theme, “Protecting our communities around the world,” is expected to encompass a wide array of discussions, including defense cooperation, counterterrorism, cyber threats, and humanitarian crises. With conflicts like those in Ukraine and Gaza continuing unabated, leaders will deliberate on ways to shield civilians and prevent further escalations.

The second core issue is “Building energy security and accelerating the digital transition.” This topic is highly relevant given the dual challenges posed by geopolitical instability and the global energy crisis. As nations seek alternatives to fossil fuels and aim for sustainable energy sources, digitalization is increasingly becoming a central pillar of national development strategies. The summit is likely to explore avenues for collaboration in clean energy, semiconductor supply chains, and 5G infrastructure.

The third and final theme, “Securing the partnerships of the future,” emphasizes the importance of fostering resilient international alliances. This is particularly crucial at a time when traditional multilateral structures are under stress and new alignments are emerging. The summit may also include deliberations on reforming global institutions and developing mechanisms for inclusive growth and equitable development.

Besides India and Ukraine, the summit will include leaders from Australia, Brazil, Mexico, South Africa, and South Korea as special invitees. Their presence signifies the growing recognition that global challenges require broad-based cooperation beyond the G-7 nations. These countries represent diverse regions and bring valuable perspectives to the table, especially in addressing issues like climate change, global trade, and digital equity.

Following his diplomatic engagements in Canada, Prime Minister Modi will depart on Tuesday evening for Zagreb, Croatia, which marks the final leg of his three-nation tour. This visit comes at a critical time for Indian foreign policy, as it seeks to consolidate alliances, rebuild frayed ties, and assert its strategic interests on the global stage.

The upcoming meeting between Modi and Carney is expected to be a closely watched event. While the specifics of the bilateral dialogue are yet to be disclosed, the broader context suggests that both leaders are interested in de-escalating the diplomatic standoff that defined the latter years of Trudeau’s tenure. The murder of Nijjar had cast a long shadow on India-Canada relations, and Modi’s visit is seen as an attempt to move beyond the impasse.

Observers note that the shift in leadership in Canada offers a fresh opportunity for reconciliation. Carney’s pragmatic approach to foreign policy and his willingness to recognize India’s importance in the global order are crucial factors in resetting the bilateral agenda. India, on its part, has consistently rejected Trudeau’s accusations, terming them “absurd” and “politically motivated,” and has maintained that it seeks constructive ties with Ottawa.

As the G-7 Outreach Summit convenes, it also provides a timely forum for leaders to exchange views on managing a world in flux. With the war in Ukraine dragging on, tensions flaring in the Middle East, and economic uncertainties looming, the stakes are high. For India, which has long advocated for multipolarity and reform of global governance institutions, the summit offers a platform to advance its vision of a more balanced and inclusive international order.

Modi’s participation in the G-7 Outreach Summit in Canada represents more than just a diplomatic engagement. It reflects India’s evolving role on the global stage, its readiness to mend fractured ties, and its commitment to working with like-minded nations on shared challenges. As he moves on to Croatia, the outcomes of this summit and his interactions with leaders like Carney will be closely analyzed for signs of strategic alignment and future cooperation.

Experts Question Feasibility and Ethics Behind Trump-Branded Smartphone Initiative

Experts are casting serious doubt on the Trump Organization’s claim that its new smartphone, marketed as being entirely made in the United States, can realistically be built domestically. Industry professionals argue that it is currently “virtually impossible” for such a product to be wholly manufactured in the US, especially on the scale required for commercial launch.

The proposed smartphone, which is gold in color and priced at $499 (approximately £367.50), has triggered skepticism from analysts and critics alike. One analyst conveyed to the BBC that the phone’s production claim is largely implausible under present technological and economic circumstances. Furthermore, concerns have arisen about the ethical implications of what appears to be another business initiative leveraging President Donald Trump’s name.

Meghan Faulkner, communications director for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, openly criticized the venture, stating, “It’s unbelievable that the Trump family has created yet another way for President Trump to personally profit while in office.”

In addition to the handset, the initiative includes a new mobile service that will carry a monthly fee of $47.45—a figure that symbolically references Trump’s roles as both the 45th and 47th President of the United States. Trump has publicly stated that he has placed his business ventures into a trust overseen by his children, while the White House has consistently maintained that he makes decisions in the best interest of the American public.

However, Faulkner noted that this new business project introduces familiar ethical dilemmas. These include the possibility that individuals or entities might subscribe in hopes of currying favor with the president, as well as potential conflicts of interest as Trump may influence regulations in the very industry where his family now holds a commercial stake.

Despite declaring the phone will be manufactured in the US, the Trump family has not disclosed which company will be responsible for the production. During an interview on “The Benny Show” podcast, Eric Trump implied that full domestic manufacturing may not be in place for the initial August release, saying, “Eventually, all the phones can be built in the United States of America.”

This ambiguous claim has led technology experts to question the feasibility of such production plans. Many argue that manufacturing smartphones entirely from scratch in the US is not currently viable. Professor Tinglong Dai of Johns Hopkins’ Carey Business School expressed serious skepticism, saying, “They don’t even have a working prototype. It’s extremely unlikely.” He further elaborated, “You would have to have a miracle. You would need to have economies of scale. You would need to have sustainable demand for this kind of product.”

The smartphone initiative also aligns with Trump’s recent public efforts to persuade Apple CEO Tim Cook to move iPhone production for American consumers back to the US. Just last month, Trump threatened to impose a 25% import tax—or more—on iPhones not manufactured within American borders.

Leo Gebbie, an analyst at CCS Insight, noted the logistical challenges involved in making smartphones entirely in the United States, saying that the country “simply does not have the high-tech supply chain” needed for smartphone assembly. This makes a full US-based production timeline by August highly unlikely. However, he allowed for a partial possibility, stating, “It’s possible that the device could be assembled in the US with parts imported from abroad. This might be the most likely outcome that lets the T1 claim American sovereignty.”

Details about the business partner responsible for managing the mobile service and licensing the Trump brand remain scarce. The Trump Organization did not respond to the BBC’s inquiries regarding its business collaborators, ethical criticisms, or specifics behind the “built in the United States” assertion.

In announcing the project, the Trump Organization stated, “Hard-working Americans deserve a wireless service that’s affordable, reflects their values, and delivers reliable quality they can count on.” The plan promises “discounted” international calling for families with members serving abroad in the military. The mobile service also pledges US-based customer support and currently offers the gold-colored handset for pre-order.

This new venture is a continuation of Trump’s longstanding business strategy of licensing his name in exchange for royalties and fees, something he engaged in well before his entry into politics. However, since stepping onto the political stage a decade ago, opportunities to monetize his brand have grown exponentially.

According to his most recent financial disclosure, Trump reported earnings exceeding $600 million last year. These earnings include profits from an array of Trump-branded products such as Bibles, watches, sneakers, and fragrances. Forbes estimated in March that Trump’s net worth had more than doubled from the previous year, now totaling around $5.1 billion. This surge in wealth is partially attributed to his loyal base of supporters, who have boosted the valuation of Truth Social, Trump’s social media platform. Forbes noted that Truth Social accounted for about half of Trump’s total net worth in the past year.

Public reaction to the Trump-branded smartphone has been mixed, especially on social media. While some potential buyers expressed enthusiasm, others ridiculed the concept. One user on X (formerly Twitter) asked, “Where do I have to wait in line to buy the new Trump phone?” In contrast, critics mocked the design and made humorous references to Trump’s personal communication style, joking that all texts from the phone might appear in capital letters.

Meanwhile, Trump has also faced protest from critics accusing him of corruption, particularly as he hosts events such as cryptocurrency galas that raise additional concerns about conflicts of interest. The broader debate over Trump’s financial entanglements continues to attract attention, particularly in light of his growing wealth and expanding business ventures.

In terms of the mobile industry landscape, the US market is primarily dominated by three major carriers: AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile, all of which offer monthly service plans starting below $40. A number of smaller mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs) also exist, leasing capacity from the big players to serve niche customer segments with either lower prices or customized plans.

According to a 2024 report by the Federal Communications Commission, the largest of these MVNOs have fewer than 10 million subscribers. One notable example is Mint Mobile, which was once backed by actor Ryan Reynolds. T-Mobile acquired Mint Mobile in 2023 for $1.35 billion, with Reynolds reportedly owning a 25% stake. That share may have netted the actor as much as $300 million from the sale.

As Trump continues to expand his branding empire, questions over the practicality, legality, and ethics of such endeavors remain unresolved. Whether this new smartphone project proves to be a commercial success or another political flashpoint remains to be seen.

Pope Leo XIV Calls for Justice and Hope in Serving the Poor

Pope Leo XIV has called attention to the spiritual and material dimensions of poverty in his message for the ninth World Day of the Poor, emphasizing that recognizing God is the true measure of wealth. In the message released by the Vatican press office on June 13, the Holy Father stated, “The gravest poverty is not to know God,” adding that when we walk through life with God, “we discover the real treasure that we need.”

The Pope warned against putting too much trust in material possessions, observing that “wealth often disappoints and can lead to tragic situations of poverty — above all the poverty born of the failure to recognize our need for God and of the attempt to live without him.”

Scheduled for observance on Sunday, November 16, the World Day of the Poor was introduced to urge the Church and society to place the needs of the impoverished at the center of attention. Much like Pope Francis once denounced a growing “globalization of indifference,” Pope Leo raised concern about becoming “hardened and resigned” in response to emerging forms of destitution. His message encourages reflection on social responsibilities, rooted in the belief that God’s creation intends for the goods of the earth and the results of human labor to be shared equitably.

He supported this point by quoting St. Augustine: “You give bread to a hungry person; but it would be better if none were hungry, so that you would have no need to give it away. You clothe the naked, but would that all were clothed and that there be no need for supply this lack.”

Pope Leo also drew attention to the moral obligation behind helping the poor, stating that this is “a matter of justice before it is a question of charity.” He emphasized that many of us may find ourselves losing things we once took for granted, such as “a home, sufficient food for each day, access to health care and a good education, information, religious freedom, and freedom of expression.”

For him, the World Day of the Poor serves as a reminder that the poor should remain central to the Church’s mission — not only in charitable works but also in the broader message it preaches. “God took on their poverty in order to enrich us through their voices, their stories, and their faces,” the pontiff wrote, noting that the message was signed on June 13, the feast day of St. Anthony of Padua, patron saint of the poor.

He was clear in stating that the poor “are not a distraction for the Church but our beloved brothers and sisters.” According to him, the poor offer a living witness to the Gospel through “their lives, their words, and their wisdom.”

Importantly, the Pope rejected the view of the poor as merely passive recipients of aid. Instead, he described them as “creative subjects” who challenge the Church “to find novel ways of living out the Gospel today.” In this light, he called for every kind of poverty to be seen as a call “to experience the Gospel concretely and to offer effective signs of hope.”

Despite being deprived of material security, the poor often embody a more resilient form of faith. “They cannot rely on the security of power and possessions; on the contrary, they are at their mercy and often victims of them. Their hope must necessarily be sought elsewhere,” the Pope explained. He added that by placing God at the center of our lives as “our first and only hope,” we transition “from fleeting hopes to a lasting hope.”

The message also quoted Pope Francis’ Evangelii Gaudium, which declares that the greatest injustice suffered by the poor is “the lack of spiritual care.” Echoing this, Pope Leo commented, “This is a rule of faith and the secret of hope: All this earth’s goods, material realities, worldly pleasures, economic prosperity, however important, cannot bring happiness to our hearts.”

He went on to reflect on the theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity, asserting that “hope is born of faith, which nourishes and sustains it on the foundation of charity, the mother of all virtues. All of us need charity, here and now.”

Charity, according to Pope Leo, is not just a private virtue but a social commandment that should guide our actions toward the common good. “Those who lack charity not only lack faith and hope; they also rob their neighbors of hope,” he stated.

He emphasized the foundational nature of hope in Christian belief by likening it to an anchor, a symbol used since the early Church. “Amid life’s trials, our hope is inspired by the firm and reassuring certainty of God’s love, poured into our hearts by the Holy Spirit. That hope does not disappoint,” he said.

Addressing the structural dimensions of poverty, the Pope highlighted the necessity of engaging actively with history and society. “Poverty has structural causes that must be addressed and eliminated. In the meantime, each of us is called to offer new signs of hope that will bear witness to Christian charity, just as many saints have done over the centuries.”

He identified hospitals and schools as essential tools for reaching the marginalized, arguing that these institutions “should be part of every country’s public policy.” Yet he lamented, “Wars and inequalities often prevent this from happening.”

He pointed to grassroots initiatives as beacons of hope, referencing “group homes, communities for minors, centers for listening and acceptance, soup kitchens, homeless shelters, and schools for low-income students.” According to the Pope, “How many of these quiet signs of hope often go unnoticed and yet are so important for setting aside our indifference and inspiring others to become involved in various forms of volunteer work!”

In conclusion, Pope Leo called for the global community and Church leaders to formulate policies targeting both old and emerging forms of poverty. “Labor, education, housing, and health are the foundations of a security that will never be attained by the use of arms,” he stressed. Expressing optimism, he said, “I express my appreciation for those initiatives that already exist, and for the efforts demonstrated daily on the international level by great numbers of men and women of goodwill.”

With a blend of spiritual reflection and practical guidance, Pope Leo XIV’s message for the World Day of the Poor seeks to reawaken compassion, deepen faith, and spur action for justice in a world that continues to be marked by inequality and suffering.

Trump Blocked Israeli Plan to Assassinate Iran’s Supreme Leader Amid Escalating Tensions

U.S. President Donald Trump reportedly intervened to halt an Israeli proposal to assassinate Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, according to information from two U.S. officials cited by Reuters. This revelation adds a new dimension to the ongoing crisis involving Iran, Israel, and the broader international community.

A senior official from the Trump administration disclosed the rationale behind the decision, emphasizing that such an action was unwarranted at that point. “Have the Iranians killed an American yet? No. Until they do, we’re not even talking about going after the political leadership,” the official was quoted as saying. This statement underscores the administration’s hesitancy to endorse escalatory measures in the absence of direct Iranian aggression against U.S. citizens.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, when asked to respond to the report, avoided providing a direct confirmation or denial. “There’s so many false reports of conversations that never happened, and I’m not going to get into that,” he said. However, Netanyahu did express a strong stance regarding Israel’s approach, stating, “But I can tell you, I think that we do what we need to do, we’ll do what we need to do. And I think the United States knows what is good for the United States.”

Reuters reported that American officials have maintained regular contact with their Israeli counterparts throughout the unfolding crisis. The discussions intensified following a substantial Israeli offensive aimed at crippling Iran’s nuclear capabilities. Though it remains uncertain whether Trump personally communicated the veto to Israeli officials, multiple sources confirmed his consistent dialogue with Netanyahu during this critical period.

The situation became more volatile with Israel’s military actions against Iran, which began on a Friday and have since continued. In a separate appearance on Fox News, Netanyahu hinted that the ultimate goal of the military campaign could be regime change in Iran. He also acknowledged informing President Trump before the operations were initiated, reinforcing the idea that the U.S. was not caught off guard.

Despite the high tensions and military developments, Trump adopted a mixed approach in his public communications. He issued a forceful warning to Tehran via his social media platform, Truth Social, asserting that the U.S. military would respond with overwhelming force if Iran dared to target American assets. “If we are attacked in any way, shape, or form by Iran, the full strength and might of the US armed forces will come down on you at levels never seen before,” Trump declared. This message served as a deterrent against potential Iranian retaliation amid the unfolding conflict.

Iran had reportedly warned that it would target military bases and naval assets belonging to the U.S., the United Kingdom, and France if they interfered with Iranian strikes against Israel. These threats heightened the international concern surrounding the expanding crisis in the Middle East.

However, Trump did not rely solely on threats. He also left the door open for diplomacy, expressing hope that a resolution could be achieved. “We can easily get a deal done between Iran and Israel and end this bloody conflict,” he stated. This dual message — combining military readiness with diplomatic outreach — aimed to balance deterrence with the possibility of peaceful negotiation.

Amid the mounting hostilities, Trump reiterated his longstanding belief in the value of diplomacy and called on both Iran and Israel to seek a negotiated settlement. He referenced his own track record as a peacemaker, asserting that his administration had played a pivotal role in resolving other international disputes. “I never got credit” for these accomplishments, he lamented, pointing to previous efforts to facilitate peace between Serbia and Kosovo, as well as helping ease tensions between Egypt and Ethiopia over past disagreements.

In a separate development, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan engaged with Trump in a phone call on Sunday, offering Turkey’s help as a mediator in the intensifying conflict. Erdogan suggested that Ankara could play a constructive role in addressing the nuclear standoff and reducing the likelihood of further violence between Israel and Iran.

Meanwhile, the conflict on the ground showed no signs of abating. Israel launched a third consecutive day of airstrikes targeting multiple locations within Iran. Some of these strikes reportedly penetrated Iranian air defense systems and reached urban centers, raising concerns about civilian casualties and wider regional instability. Israeli officials warned that additional attacks could follow, suggesting the situation might deteriorate further.

The toll from these attacks has already been severe. According to Human Rights Activists, a Washington-based non-governmental organization that monitors the situation in Iran, at least 406 people have been confirmed dead, and 654 others have sustained injuries as a result of the airstrikes. These figures have not been verified by the Iranian government, which has yet to release official statistics regarding casualties. The lack of transparency has made it difficult for international observers to fully assess the scale of the humanitarian impact.

Efforts to de-escalate the crisis through diplomacy have also suffered setbacks. Talks that were scheduled to address both the immediate violence and broader concerns regarding Iran’s nuclear ambitions have reportedly been canceled due to the ongoing military activity. The collapse of these negotiations represents a significant blow to those hoping for a peaceful resolution to the conflict.

The series of developments paints a troubling picture of a rapidly deteriorating situation, with potential implications far beyond the region. Trump’s reported decision to prevent an Israeli attempt to assassinate Iran’s supreme leader reflects the delicate balance that global leaders must maintain in the face of escalating threats. While military responses remain on the table, there is still some hope that diplomatic engagement might avert an all-out war.

In the end, Trump’s approach seems to straddle two divergent paths — one of power projection and another of negotiation. His administration’s decision to restrain an Israeli strike on Iran’s political leadership, combined with his repeated calls for diplomacy, suggests an awareness of the potentially catastrophic consequences of unchecked escalation. Whether these efforts will lead to de-escalation or whether the region will spiral further into conflict remains uncertain.

With Israel continuing its military operations and Iran threatening retaliation, the international community faces a critical test. The choices made in the coming days could determine not only the fate of the current standoff but also the broader trajectory of Middle Eastern geopolitics in the years to come.

American Catholics Express Optimism Over First U.S.-Born Pope Leo XIV

Just over a month into Pope Leo XIV’s historic papacy as the first pontiff born in the United States, a fresh poll reveals that American Catholics are embracing their new religious leader with considerable enthusiasm. The survey, conducted by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, indicates that nearly two-thirds of American Catholics hold a “very” or “somewhat” favorable opinion of Pope Leo. In contrast, only a small minority—fewer than 1 in 10—express unfavorable views. Meanwhile, around 3 in 10 American Catholics say they don’t know enough about him to form an opinion.

Outside the Catholic community, many Americans are still evaluating Pope Leo’s leadership, but the overall sentiment among those who do have an opinion is largely positive. The poll shows that 44% of U.S. adults view the new pope favorably, while about the same percentage say they haven’t yet formed an opinion. Again, just 1 in 10 adults report an unfavorable impression.

This wave of support cuts across political and ideological lines, which is particularly significant given the current polarization within the church. As Pope Leo vows to foster unity within the Catholic community, people from various backgrounds and beliefs are expressing hope for what his tenure might bring.

Terry Barber, a 50-year-old Catholic from Sacramento, California, and a Democrat, believes Pope Leo could lead the Church toward a more inclusive future. “I’m optimistic. Certainly, the first pope from the United States is significant,” Barber remarked. “Since he worked under the previous pope, I’m sure he has similar ideas, but certainly some that are original, of his own. I’m looking forward to seeing what, if any changes, come about under his leadership.”

The poll highlights Pope Leo’s broad bipartisan appeal. Roughly half of Democrats view him favorably, while about 4 in 10 Republicans and independents share that sentiment. Interestingly, Republicans appear more hesitant to form an immediate opinion—about half of them say they don’t know enough about the pope, compared to about 4 in 10 Democrats. Still, members of both parties are equally unlikely to view him negatively, with about 1 in 10 expressing unfavorable views in each group.

Victoria Becude, a 38-year-old Catholic and Republican from Florida, expressed enthusiasm for the pope’s potential influence on American spirituality. “I’m rooting for him,” she said. “I hope that America can get back to faith, and I hope he can do that.”

While political affiliations don’t always match religious leanings, the survey found no significant partisan divide among Catholics in how they perceive Pope Leo. Believers from both liberal and conservative Catholic backgrounds are hopeful that he can help mend divisions that widened during Pope Francis’ tenure.

During a recent prayer, Pope Leo criticized the global surge in nationalist political movements and called for reconciliation and open dialogue—a reflection of his broader promise to position the Catholic Church as a force for peace.

Pope Leo’s record before becoming pontiff also offers some insight into his approach. As Cardinal Robert Prevost, he played a key role in one of Pope Francis’ most notable reforms by allowing women to serve on the Vatican board that evaluates bishop nominations. However, he has also upheld the Church’s position that women cannot be ordained as priests.

Donald Hallstone, a 72-year-old Catholic living in Oregon, sees opportunity in Leo’s stance. “It’d be great to see women in those roles,” he said, referring to leadership positions within the Church. “Women were not excluded in the first centuries.”

At the same time, more conservative Catholics are hoping that Pope Leo will reinforce traditional doctrines, particularly on issues like same-sex marriage and abortion. Becude shares this view to an extent, stating her opposition to same-sex relationships based on her belief that unions should be between a man and a woman—an opinion she notes Pope Leo shares. However, she diverges from official Church teaching on reproductive rights.

“I don’t believe that they should stop women from having abortions,” Becude explained. “We should have our own rights because you don’t know the circumstances behind the reason why a woman would want the abortion in the first place.”

Although Pope Leo has been in office for only a short time, the early signs suggest that public opinion remains fluid, with much depending on how his papacy unfolds. A large segment of Americans, particularly those from other religious traditions, have not yet formed strong views. The poll shows that about half of born-again Protestants, mainline Protestants, and religiously unaffiliated adults haven’t developed an opinion. Still, unfavorable views remain minimal—roughly 1 in 10 in each of these groups.

Age also appears to influence public sentiment. Older Americans, who are statistically more likely to identify as Catholic, tend to view the pope more favorably. About half of Americans aged 60 and above have a positive impression of Pope Leo. In contrast, among adults under 30, only about 4 in 10 express a favorable view. However, even within this younger demographic, unfavorable opinions are rare—just around 1 in 10.

Mercedes Drink, a 31-year-old from the pope’s hometown of Chicago who now lives in Minnesota, identifies as part of the “religious nones”—those who consider themselves atheist, agnostic, or affiliated with no particular religion. Despite not being a practicing Catholic, Drink sees Pope Leo as a potential agent of change. “It’s cool; I like him because he brings something different,” she said.

“As a young woman, I hope that he can bring change … considering who he is, he brings something new to the table. I hope he opens the world’s eyes to modernizing the church, bringing more people in, having more diversity.”

Whether Pope Leo will fulfill these hopes remains to be seen, but for now, his unique background and early signals have sparked widespread interest and optimism across diverse segments of American society. From lifelong Catholics to curious outsiders, many are watching closely to see how this historic papacy will shape the future of the Catholic Church.

Modi’s Canada Visit for G7 Marks Diplomatic Opportunity Amid Strained India-Canada Relations

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is scheduled to visit Canada next week, following an invitation from his Canadian counterpart, Mark Carney, to attend the upcoming Group of Seven (G7) summit. The summit, set to take place from June 15 to 17 in Kananaskis, Alberta, will mark Modi’s return to Canada after nearly a decade. Although India is not a G7 member—which includes Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United States—New Delhi has consistently received invitations to the summit since 2019, signaling India’s increasing clout on the global stage.

Highlighting the rationale behind extending the invitation to Modi despite the recent turbulence in bilateral ties, Canadian Prime Minister Carney stated, “India is the fifth-largest economy in the world, the most populous country in the world and central to supply chains.”

This visit will be Modi’s first to Canada since 2015. Expressing optimism about the upcoming summit and the potential to enhance bilateral cooperation, Modi remarked, “As vibrant democracies bound by deep people-to-people ties, India and Canada will work together with renewed vigor, guided by mutual respect and shared interests. Look forward to our meeting at the summit.”

Political experts believe that Modi’s presence at the G7 could serve as a critical opening to rebuild fractured ties between India and Canada. Relations between the two countries soured significantly after Canada accused Indian agents of involvement in the killing of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a 45-year-old Canadian citizen and Sikh separatist advocate. Nijjar was known for his activism supporting a separate Sikh homeland, Khalistan, to be carved from Indian territory.

India strongly rejected these allegations, calling them “absurd” and “preposterous.” The dispute escalated to the point where both countries expelled each other’s diplomats in 2023 and 2024, pushing diplomatic relations to a low point. However, expectations for a diplomatic reset have grown since Carney assumed office in March, replacing Justin Trudeau.

According to Meera Shankar, India’s former ambassador to the United States, Modi’s visit “hopefully mark[s] the beginning of a reset in India’s relations with Canada, which have plummeted in recent years over the Canadian allegations on the Nijjar case and India’s belief that Canada indulges Sikh extremism directed against India.” She added that both nations stand to benefit “if the relationship is stabilized, especially in a volatile world.”

The India-Canada partnership includes significant trade and investment flows. In 2023, bilateral trade between the two nations reached around $9 billion. Additionally, Canadian pension funds have invested approximately $55 billion in India. These financial ties underscore the interdependence of both countries. On the demographic side, Canada hosts a vibrant Indian diaspora of nearly two million people, comprising about 5% of the country’s total population. Canada is also a favored destination for Indian students, second only to the United States.

Still, major unresolved issues could hamper progress in healing relations. Central among them is the continued investigation into Nijjar’s assassination. Complicating the matter is Canada’s status as home to the largest Sikh diaspora globally, estimated at around 800,000 people. Within this population are proponents of the Khalistan movement, a fringe separatist group seeking to establish a sovereign Sikh state from parts of India’s Punjab region. This movement is outlawed in India, which has repeatedly urged Canada to take firmer action against its supporters.

Meanwhile, Ottawa has accused New Delhi of orchestrating an expansive campaign against Sikh activists in Canada. This alleged campaign, according to Canadian authorities, has involved intimidation, threats, and even violent acts.

Carney’s decision to invite Modi to the G7 summit has not gone unchallenged. Some Sikh advocacy groups in Canada have expressed strong disapproval, with protests anticipated during Modi’s visit. However, not all Canadian observers view the invitation as controversial. Former Canadian diplomat David Mckinnon applauded the move, saying, “The politics of this decision in Canada, and particularly within the Liberal Party, were not easy, but Carney made the right choice. It’s also notable that the leader of the opposition, Pierre Poilievre, quickly welcomed it.”

Despite these positive sentiments, Mckinnon cautioned against assuming that bilateral ties are fully repaired. “A big outstanding question is whether this trip leads to a mutually agreeable off-ramp from the allegations of Indian government interference in Canada, including involvement in the Nijjar murder, and India’s allegations about Khalistani activities in Canada,” he said.

Diplomatic efforts to strengthen relations have been underway. In the past month, India’s External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar held a phone conversation with Canadian Foreign Minister Anita Anand. The two leaders discussed steps to broaden economic cooperation and advance common goals.

Ajay Bisaria, India’s former high commissioner to Canada, noted that Modi’s attendance at the G7 summit provides an opening to stabilize bilateral relations while also concentrating on economic and strategic matters. “It always presents a strategic opportunity for Modi to discuss the global commons like climate, trade, supply chains and the broader development agenda with the developed world,” Bisaria explained.

Beyond India-Canada issues, Modi may also use the summit platform to raise other pressing international matters. For example, Bisaria noted that Modi could urge a tougher global stance toward Pakistan, especially following a recent deadly assault on tourists in India-administered Kashmir. New Delhi has blamed Islamabad for backing the attackers, a charge that Pakistan has denied.

In Bisaria’s view, the summit is “a diplomatic opportunity to present India’s current concerns to key world leaders, while China and Pakistan are out of the room.” This absence could allow India to voice its positions without direct opposition from its regional adversaries.

In summary, Modi’s visit to Canada for the G7 summit arrives at a delicate time for bilateral relations. While underlying tensions remain, particularly concerning the Nijjar case and the Khalistan issue, the high-level diplomatic engagement signals potential progress. With growing trade, sizable diaspora connections, and shared democratic values, India and Canada have several incentives to mend ties. Whether Modi’s visit yields a lasting improvement in relations will depend on how both nations navigate their sensitive issues, particularly those that intersect domestic and international politics.

Trump Administration Signals Easing of International Student Visa Restrictions Amid Mounting Pressure

The administration under U.S. President Donald Trump is preparing to lift the temporary suspension on international student visa applications—a decision that could bring significant relief to many students who had already secured admissions at American universities.

Last month, Secretary of State Marco Rubio issued a directive instructing U.S. embassies and consulates globally to halt new interviews for foreign student visa applicants. This pause was part of the State Department’s implementation of stricter measures, including an in-depth examination of applicants’ social media profiles.

Rubio also revealed plans to revoke visas for certain Chinese students, particularly those with affiliations to the Chinese Communist Party or those enrolled in sensitive academic disciplines. These actions were part of broader efforts by the Trump administration to tighten scrutiny on foreign nationals in the United States.

However, President Trump struck a different tone on Wednesday by indicating a softening of stance toward Chinese students. As part of ongoing trade negotiations with China, he stated that students from the country would be permitted to study in the U.S. “We will provide to China what was agreed to, including Chinese students using our colleges and universities,” Trump said in a message posted on Truth Social.

Harvard University has also come under specific scrutiny from the administration. Trump has accused the prestigious institution of admitting too many international students and alleged it was a haven for anti-Semitic sentiments. Consequently, the administration attempted to block Harvard from enrolling international students. However, a federal judge intervened last month to halt that decision, temporarily protecting the university’s ability to admit foreign students.

These abrupt policy changes and conflicting messages have left thousands of prospective and current international students in limbo, casting uncertainty over their academic futures and travel plans. Many students have been unsure whether they could commence their studies as scheduled in the upcoming academic term.

On Tuesday, State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce offered a measure of reassurance. She suggested that U.S. embassies and consulates would soon restart visa interviews for international students. Encouraging students to remain alert for available interview slots, she said, “People should watch for those spaces to be open, should continue to apply. This is not going to be a lengthy or an ongoing dynamic.”

Bruce explained that the brief halt in interviews was designed to help U.S. diplomatic posts understand new procedures tied to enhanced background screening. “It was meant for a specific, almost an administrative adjustment,” she clarified, emphasizing that the updated screening process would be implemented swiftly. “And that process, we were told, would be rapid,” she added.

A drawn-out freeze in visa processing would have significant ramifications for American universities, many of which depend heavily on the tuition fees paid by international students. During the 2023-2024 academic year, the U.S. hosted a record high of 1.1 million foreign students. Among these, approximately 90,000 hailed from Arab nations, while over 300,000 were from India. Chinese students, numbering more than 270,000, represented nearly one-quarter of all international enrollees in U.S. institutions, making China the second-largest source of foreign students after India.

The Trump administration’s toughened stance on international student admissions has sparked widespread concern across American campuses and among students overseas. Many fear that such measures threaten not only individual academic careers but also the broader diversity and cultural richness of higher education in the United States.

Dechen Parkel, a 21-year-old student currently attending George Washington University in Washington, D.C., shared his concerns about how reductions in international student populations could impact life on campus. The university has a student body of roughly 2,800 individuals. “We live in a world where it’s like, we’re all connected,” Parkel observed. “It would be sad to see them go, because I just think it’s such a cool part of [Washington] DC. … Being able to interact with people from different cultures is what makes college worth it.”

Meanwhile, an international student at Harvard University expressed deep frustration and disappointment with the visa policy shifts and the administration’s targeting of both the university and foreign students. “I feel like the visa ban is nonsense as it deprives the smartest students in the country to reach their full potential and finish their studies, and it turns the ‘American dream’ into an American nightmare,” the student said. He added, “Morale is definitely down among students as we are all scared not knowing what will come next, but we’re more united than ever.”

This student also noted the personal consequences of the changing immigration environment, stating that he is now reluctant to leave the United States due to fears he might not be allowed to return. His story reflects a broader anxiety that is becoming increasingly common among foreign students, many of whom now feel their educational journeys are under threat.

For decades, the United States has been a top destination for international scholars, who are drawn by the promise of world-class education and opportunities for personal and professional growth. However, the recent policy shifts under the Trump administration have prompted questions about the future of this long-standing academic appeal. While the resumption of visa services would offer immediate relief to some, the ongoing policy uncertainty continues to cast a long shadow over the aspirations of countless students worldwide.

As the Trump administration navigates the complex terrain of trade diplomacy, immigration, and higher education, the lives of international students remain in delicate balance. With campuses relying on their presence for both financial and cultural vitality, and students depending on fair and stable immigration procedures, the next steps taken by U.S. authorities will be closely watched by educational institutions and global communities alike.

Air India Flight AI 171 Crash: A Global Tragedy and a Testament to Shared Humanity

On Thursday, June 12, 2025, a harrowing event unfolded that captured the world’s attention and brought it to a standstill. Air India Flight AI 171, a Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner en route to London Gatwick, crashed shortly after taking off from Ahmedabad at approximately 1.38 pm IST. The catastrophic nature of the accident, with visuals of thick smoke rising from a densely populated area and grim reports of widespread loss of life, sent shockwaves through every corner of the globe.

In that devastating moment, national boundaries faded, and the digital space transformed into a unified zone of collective mourning, anxiety, and emotional solidarity. The incident became a painful reminder of the fragility of life and the deep, universal connections that unite people beyond their geographies.

Disasters of this magnitude remind us of a truth we often forget—our shared vulnerability. The victims aboard that aircraft were more than just statistics. They were individuals—beloved sons and daughters, cherished parents, close friends, hardworking colleagues—each carrying with them dreams, ambitions, and life stories tragically interrupted. Among them were families eagerly beginning new chapters of life and professionals undertaking business journeys, none imagining their voyage would end in such devastation.

The impact was not confined to the passengers alone. As details emerged, the public learned with sorrow of the collateral damage on the ground, particularly at the B J Medical College hostel. Several medical students lost their lives when the aircraft crashed into the area. These young individuals had dedicated themselves to the noble pursuit of healing and serving others. Their promising futures were wiped out in an instant, adding another layer of heartbreak to an already unimaginable tragedy.

Amid the chaos, there emerged a glimmer of hope—a lone survivor. Vishwash Kumar Ramesh, a 38-year-old British citizen of Indian descent, was miraculously rescued from the wreckage. His survival offered a brief reprieve from the overwhelming despair. Thrown from the plane as part of the fuselage disintegrated mid-air, Vishwash landed near an open field, distanced from the core crash zone. Dazed and injured, he lived through an ordeal that would haunt most forever.

Vishwash shared fragments of his terrifying experience, describing the ascent, a sudden violent jolt, and flashes of green and white before the plane hit the ground. His account not only underscored the randomness of fate but also humanized the catastrophe. Though alive, he bore the emotional burden of knowing his brother Ajay, who was also on board, did not survive.

The immediate response from global leaders illustrated the magnitude of the tragedy. Prime Minister Narendra Modi expressed profound grief, saying the crash had “stunned and saddened” the entire country and was “heartbreaking beyond words.” The following day, on June 13, he visited the crash site, walking among the smouldering wreckage and taking in the full scope of the disaster firsthand. He then visited Civil Hospital to meet Vishwash, offering words of encouragement and compassion.

Modi also interacted with other injured survivors and hospital staff, ensuring that every possible measure was being taken for their recovery. Following these visits, he led a high-level meeting focused on coordinating relief and rehabilitation efforts, stressing the importance of extending full support to grieving families.

Expressions of condolences came from around the world. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer described the scenes as “devastating,” particularly noting the number of British nationals aboard the flight. He assured that updates and necessary support would be continuously provided.

King Charles III and Queen Camilla expressed being in “desperate shock” and extended their “deepest possible sympathy.” They also acknowledged and praised the emergency response teams working tirelessly at the crash site.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio sent his “heartfelt prayers” to those affected, while Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, French President Emmanuel Macron, and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen all offered messages of sympathy and unity, emphasizing how this tragic event had impacted people beyond India’s borders.

Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif also extended his condolences. “We extend our condolences to the families of the victims grieving this immense loss. Our thoughts and prayers are with all those affected by this heartbreaking tragedy,” he said. This show of solidarity, especially from countries with historically tense relationships, illustrated how deeply humanitarian crises can transcend political divides.

At Indian Newslink, we join in mourning the loss of every life touched by this unspeakable tragedy. To those who perished—whether aboard Flight AI 171 or on the ground in Ahmedabad—we pray for eternal peace. We offer our sincerest condolences to the grieving families, whose lives have been forever changed. No words can fully capture their sorrow, but in the shared embrace of a compassionate world, we hope they find a fragment of solace.

This incident is more than just a national tragedy—it is a global one. It reflects how, beneath our cultural and ideological differences, we are fundamentally bound by our common humanity. In the face of suffering, people the world over reached out with kindness, with empathy, and with unity. The reactions and gestures that followed serve as testament to the enduring power of human connection.

Let this horrific event not be remembered solely for its destruction and grief, but also for the way it brought people together. Let it remind us that in moments of darkness, our capacity for compassion, resilience, and solidarity shines through.

The crash of Air India Flight AI 171 is a painful wound on the global psyche, but it also affirms the immense strength of community and shared humanity. As we move forward, may this tragedy ignite a renewed commitment to valuing life, supporting one another, and fostering a world where empathy prevails over indifference—even in the face of unimaginable loss.

USCIS Introduces New Guidelines to Strengthen Integrity of Medical Disability Certifications for Naturalization

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has announced the implementation of updated policy guidance aimed at reinforcing the credibility of the Form N-648 process, which grants exceptions to the English and civics requirements for naturalization based on medical disabilities.

This newly issued guidance marks a significant shift in how Form N-648, the Medical Certification for Disability Exceptions, will be evaluated. With a sharper focus on the authenticity of medical documentation and the detection and prevention of fraudulent submissions, USCIS is seeking to safeguard the integrity of the naturalization system. The updated policy reflects concerns that, over the years, certain individuals and medical practitioners have misused the certification process.

Highlighting the importance of the changes, USCIS noted, “Across the country and over the decades, there have been numerous instances where the medical certification process has been exploited.” The agency further stated, “When a medical professional provides a false certification, it not only undermines the purpose of the disability exception but also weakens the credibility of the entire naturalization system because it causes USCIS to naturalize aliens who have not established eligibility for naturalization.”

By default, individuals applying for U.S. citizenship are required to demonstrate proficiency in the English language, as well as a foundational understanding of U.S. history, government, and civic principles. However, applicants suffering from certain physical or developmental disabilities, or mental impairments, may qualify for an exemption from these requirements. To be eligible for such an exemption, applicants must file Form N-648, which documents and confirms their medical condition. This form must be completed and signed by a licensed medical professional who has personally evaluated the applicant.

The updated guidance stipulates that it is not enough for an applicant to simply be diagnosed with a disability. The medical professional must clearly articulate how the specific condition hinders the applicant’s ability to comply with the English and civics testing requirements. As the USCIS emphasized, “The presence of a disability alone is not sufficient.” Rather, the medical certification must directly link the disability or impairment to the applicant’s inability to meet naturalization criteria.

Additionally, the new policy takes aim at practices that may raise red flags for potential fraud. For example, the concurrent submission of multiple Forms N-648 for a single applicant is now flagged as a matter of concern. “Submitting multiple Forms N-648 concurrently may raise concerns about the credibility of the disability or impairment claim and could be subject to further review,” the guidance notes. This measure is designed to deter individuals from attempting to manipulate the process by seeking out multiple or conflicting medical opinions in hopes of receiving a favorable outcome.

This policy change is not an isolated action but part of a broader initiative aligned with recent executive orders aimed at strengthening the integrity of immigration processes. Specifically, the USCIS guidance is in accordance with Executive Order 14148, titled Initial Rescissions of Harmful Executive Orders and Actions, and Executive Order 14159, Protecting the American People Against Invasion. These directives reflect the current administration’s intent to reverse policies deemed detrimental to immigration accountability and national security, and to prioritize lawful and transparent procedures.

According to USCIS, the updated guidance is being integrated into Volume 12 of the USCIS Policy Manual, which deals specifically with citizenship and naturalization. Importantly, these changes are effective immediately. The guidance will apply to all naturalization applications and associated Form N-648 submissions made on or after June 13, 2025.

By reinforcing these procedures, USCIS is seeking to bolster public confidence in the naturalization process, ensuring that only eligible individuals benefit from exemptions. This change, the agency suggests, will help uphold the legitimacy of the nation’s immigration system, protecting it from abuse while continuing to provide accommodations for genuinely deserving applicants.

In essence, the revised guidance strives to strike a balance between compassion and compliance. It allows exemptions for individuals with legitimate medical conditions but simultaneously introduces necessary safeguards to deter misuse. USCIS’s actions demonstrate its ongoing commitment to maintaining the integrity and fairness of the U.S. naturalization process while guarding against vulnerabilities that could be exploited.

The decision to intensify scrutiny over the medical certification process reflects broader immigration enforcement trends. By targeting weaknesses in the system, such as fraudulent documentation and misleading medical claims, the agency is aligning its procedures with national priorities focused on lawful conduct and eligibility verification.

Overall, this policy aims to refine the naturalization application process by ensuring that disability waivers are granted only when justified by clearly documented and well-explained medical evidence. With the introduction of this guidance, USCIS is signaling a firm stance on preventing abuse of legal pathways to citizenship while remaining committed to upholding the rights of applicants with legitimate medical needs.

By doing so, the agency hopes to prevent further erosion of trust in the system and ensure that exemptions are based on factual and thoroughly verified claims. It serves as a reminder to both applicants and medical professionals that integrity and accuracy in documentation are not optional but essential to the process.

In conclusion, USCIS’s new policy guidance on Form N-648 marks a pivotal step in enhancing the oversight and reliability of medical disability certifications in the naturalization process. By tightening the requirements for documentation, addressing concerns about potential fraud, and supporting the current administration’s executive directives, the agency aims to protect both the credibility of the naturalization system and the rightful claims of individuals who genuinely qualify for such exceptions.

ITServe’s 5th Annual Capitol Hill Day Makes Huge Impact Through 145 Meetings with Key Lawmakers, Advocating for Policies and Programs that Help Maintain US Leadership in Technology

“I’m proud to be the original sponsor of the HIRE ACT, which is foundational,” Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthy, while addressing the nearly 200 ITServe Alliance members, who had come together on June 11th, 2025 as part of their annual Capitol Hill Day to make their voices heard on the corridors of power. “It just updates the law. It doesn’t do anything revolutionary, but it does something necessary for our country, which is to make sure that we modernize our system in accordance with our needs, and plowing money into the STEM fields so that more indigenous talent rises, so that our children and others end up taking these jobs eventually, because we need to make sure that at the same time that we attract the best and the brightest from around the world to come here, that we also grow talent here. Am I right about that? That’s the only way that we compete. That’s the only way that we compete.”

Capitol Hill With Rep Jim JordanITServe Alliance leaders met with Rep. Jim Jordan, a Republican Congressman representing Ohio’s 4th District. The powerful Chairman of the House Committee on the Judiciary expressed openness to the concerns shared by ITServe leadership. Rep. Tim Moore, representing North Carolina’s 14th District in the U.S. House, and a member of House Committees on Financial Services and the Budget, posted on his Facebook page: “ITServe Alliance visited to discuss education and building a skilled workforce in North Carolina.”

Sen. Eric Schmitt of Missouri, Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona, Rep. LaMonica McIver from New Jersey, and Rep. Robert Paul from Pennsylvania were among other key lawmakers that ITServe members met and advocated for immigration reforms.

ITServe Alliance, with an active membership of 2,500 + members who are small & medium-sized companies, representing prestigious IT companies functioning with similar interests across the United States, had its 5th annual Capitol Hill Day in Washington, D.C., where they met with 145 US Representatives and Senators and their staff, including influential committee chairs and members from both the Parties, eliciting support for the causes put forth by ITServe.

Capitl Hill With Sen Mark KellyHigh-Skilled Immigration Reform for Employment (HIRE) Act, introduced by US Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi, D-Illinois in the past and is being considered to be reintroduced in the current Congress, has been a key measure ITServe supports and has made aware of among the more than 145 key Lawmakers who were part of the Capitol Hill Day by ITServe this year. The Bill would strengthen U.S. competitiveness by helping to close the skills gap – the space between the skills required for jobs that employers need to fill, and the skills possessed by current prospective employees.

“The dedication of ITServe members, especially those 200 members who came from across the nation and participated in our 5th annual Capitol Hill Day, and engaging in 145 meetings in a single day, is truly impressive,” said Anju Vallabhaneni, ITServe National President 2025.  “The impact of these efforts on lawmakers is invaluable, and it’s inspiring to see such motivated teams working toward meaningful changes to the legal immigration system in the United States.”

Recognizing that H-1B visa holders play a critical role in bolstering the U.S. economy, fostering innovation, and enriching the fabric of American society through their skills, contributions, and diverse backgrounds, and knowledge to American workplaces, Siva Moopanar, President-Elect of ITServe said, “They facilitate knowledge transfer and skills development by engaging in research and development activities, particularly in STEM fields, which contributes to scientific advancements and technological progress. Therefore, ITServe Alliance continues its efforts in supporting and advocating for immigration reforms that will help America maintain its tech leadership in the world.”

Capitl Hil Day with Rep Robert PaulITServe supports the HIRE ACT Bill (High Skilled Immigration Reform for Employment). Innovation, STEM education, and avoiding brain drain are the highlights of the Bill. Another area, where ITServe has focused is the STEM Program to promote the “American Ingenuity Account” to fund State-administered grants for STEM education and worker training.  Enhancing the current H1B CAP limits – from   65,000 to 130,000 per year has been a major area where ITServe has placed its efforts in recent years.

“The U.S. needs to maintain its leadership in technology and innovation,” Sateesh Nagilla, ITServe Alliance Director – Policy Advocacy Committee (PAC) & Immigration, said. “The U.S. has a large skills gap – availability of workers vs the openings for talent in IT. We need the brightest minds from all over the world to keep our wide lead in technology and innovation. To that end, ITServe Alliance, through its PAC teams, is consistently working to protect its members’ needs, advocating on Capitol Hill and with the US Administration.”

Sudheer Chakka, Managing Director, ITServe Alliance Connect Policy Advocacy Committee (CPAC) urged the lawmakers, among other initiatives, to support the Bill, “Through our annual Capitol Hill Day, ITServe has advocated and urged the Lawmakers to bring back this program[SM1] . We at ITServe are grateful that the US lawmakers, who have listened to our concerns and needs and have expressed their openness to support the HIRE ACT, benefitting tens of thousands of skilled workers in the nation.”

A major objective of the Capitol Hill Day is to showcase to the lawmakers some of the significant contributions of the ITServe members to the country’s economy through Technology & Innovation, local employment, and STEM education. The event addressed key concerns faced by small businesses, including the need for high-skilled immigration reform.

Featured & Cover ITServe’s 5th Annual Capitol Hill Day Makes Huge Impact Through 145 Meetings with Key Lawmakers Advocating for Policies and Programs that Help Maintain US Leadership in Technol“The ITServe Alliance is consistently working to protect its members’ needs. To that end, ITServe Alliance, through its PAC teams, advocated on Capitol Hill and with the US Administration. Capitol Hill Day serves as a perfect platform to communicate our collective voice with key policymakers on important issues to our members,” added Amar Varada, ITServe Governing Board member.

“Congrats, ITServe, PAC, and CPAC leadership, and Monte for a very successful Capitol Hill Day. 145 meetings in one day is great work and could be accomplished only with highly motivated teams of ITServe members. Everyone was very appreciative of the impact the ITServe is creating on lawmakers and how it will make a difference in the long run,” said Vinay Mahajan, past President and current member of the ITServe Governing Board.

Stressing the importance of ITServe and the Legislative Day, Monte Ward, a key organizer of the day long events on Capitol Hill, said, “ITServe Alliance’s Capitol Hill Day has effectively served as a powerful platform in [SM2] advocating with policymakers on the issues that are important to our members and the business community, ensuring that our needs and views are reflected in policy debates and outcomes on Capitol Hill. The U.S. needs to maintain its leadership in technology and innovation.”

CVapitol Hill With Rep LaMonica McIverH-1Bs are temporary, nonimmigrant visas for foreign workers with at least a bachelor’s degree, and they often go to technology workers. Currently, the number of H-1B visas is limited to 65,000 each year, although there are an additional 20,000 available to workers who have a master’s degree or higher from a US university. Enhancing the current H1-B CAP limits – from   65,000 to 130,000 per year has been a major area where ITServe has placed its efforts.

 H-1B visa holders, possessing specialized skills and expertise in fields like STEM, which are vital for American companies to stay competitive in the global market, are a highly skilled foreign workers that brings numerous benefits to the United States. They fill in critical skill gaps in the labor market, contributing to economic growth and innovation, thus leading to increased productivity and competitiveness in various industries, by creating new job opportunities by starting businesses and driving entrepreneurship.

Referring to a recent poll of people around the world, Rep. Krishnamoorthy said, while only 6% wanted to immigrate to China, 90% of the people wanted to immigrate to the United States.  “Imagine a country that has the number one draft pick of the very bright, the brightest, and the most hard-working people from every other country in the world. And why would you ever squander that?” he asked.

Capiol Hill Day 1Rep. Krishnamoorthy lauded the contributions of ITServe members to the nation. He said, “I look at you today. You chose Team America. You come here and bless this country with your gifts, with your talents, with your energy, with your ideas, with your industry, with your ability to make it happen. And that’s what you did. You made your company, you hired people, you created jobs. And that’s what you’re trying to do over and over and over again. You’re trying to replicate that success.”

ITServe Alliance, the largest association of IT Solutions & Services organizations in the US, serves as the collective voice for prestigious small and mid-sized IT firms with shared interests nationwide. As a trusted platform, ITServe collaborates and implements measures to safeguard common interests, ensuring the protection of its member companies. Since its establishment in 2010, ITServe Alliance has been a beacon of knowledge, skill, and awareness, empowering its members through 22 regional chapters across the country. For information on ITServe and its many noble initiatives, please visit: www.itserve.org

Youth Advocates Present Campaign Findings on Mental Health, Language Access, and Bullying in NYC Schools

Youth leaders from the Coalition for Asian American Children and Families’ (CACF) renowned Asian American Student Advocacy Project (ASAP) gathered to present the outcomes of their advocacy campaigns for the 2024–2026 cycle. These efforts focused on three major concerns impacting Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) students in New York City’s public schools—language access, mental health, and bullying and harassment. The results were unveiled at the program’s annual Community Briefing held on Friday.

ASAP, which marked its 21st year, was initiated in 2004 with a vision to empower young AAPI students across New York to become knowledgeable and self-aware advocates for their communities and peers. Since its inception, the program has become a powerful platform for elevating youth voices on critical issues within the city’s education system.

This year’s cohort comprised 36 young individuals representing diverse backgrounds from all five boroughs of New York City as well as neighboring regions. These youth leaders spent the year investigating the challenges AAPI students face and strategizing ways to bring about meaningful change.

“Our annual ASAP Community Briefing is a special moment for everyone at CACF because it is a chance for our young people to showcase their research and advocacy on the issues that affect them the most,” said CACF Co-Executive Directors Anita Gundanna and Vanessa Leung. “ASAP was built on the belief that our young people are experts on their own experiences and we are so pleased to be able to highlight the research they’ve done this academic year to their teachers, families, and elected officials.”

The event drew a wide audience that included community members, educators, and public officials. Among the attendees was Councilmember Rita Joseph, who delivered a brief address to the youth participants, acknowledging their contributions and commitment. In recognition of their efforts, the youth advocates received certificates of completion from CACF’s Co-Executive Directors.

Additionally, they were honored with City Council citations provided by Councilmembers Shekar Krishnan, Linda Lee, and Mercedes Narcisse. For those hailing from Brooklyn, the Brooklyn Borough President’s Office also extended its congratulations with official citations.

The ASAP Youth Leaders were chosen through a competitive application process and come from 22 different high schools across the city. This year’s group was among the most diverse in the program’s history, representing 15 different Asian ethnicities and collectively speaking 11 different languages.

Several of the youth leaders reflected on what the program and the Community Briefing meant to them personally. Their experiences revealed the depth of learning, collaboration, and emotional connection involved in the yearlong journey.

“This briefing is the conclusion to a long year of focusing on AAPI mental health, the different perspectives of the gaps and challenges that AAPI face in schools, and how we can put that all together and find solutions and patterns. I’ve learned so much from my team over this year, and the briefing as a whole is such a special place for all the teams to share work that they’re proud of and advocate for change to our schools and, especially as a high school senior, to the generations after us,” said Olivia Kim, an ASAP Youth Leader.

Emily Ng, also a high school senior and longtime participant, described the briefing as a significant personal milestone. “The ASAP briefing is special because it’s a unique opportunity to let others know what we do at ASAP and why it’s important. It’s a space where we get to educate and have meaningful conversations. For me personally, I’m also excited because this is my last ASAP briefing as a youth leader, and in a way, it’s like the ASAP graduation,” she shared.

The campaigns covered a range of timely issues that continue to impact AAPI students in public schools. For example, one of the teams focused on combating bullying and harassment—a subject that has gained national attention in recent years, especially in the context of rising anti-Asian hate.

“This year, my team have been working hard, having many discussions about anti-bullying and harassment, and how it affects AAPI students in NYC’s public schools. I am excited to finally be able to share what I have learned with other people and hope to educate people in and outside ASAP on issues of bullying and harassment in schools,” said Ari Schaer, another youth leader in the program.

Mental health was another central theme of the advocacy projects. Ayesha Tasnim, who participated on a team that explored the psychological well-being of students, explained the significance of the work her group had completed over the past academic year.

“Today’s briefing is special because it marks the end of the ASAP mental health campaign team for 2024–2025 and is a celebration of all of the progress that we’ve made. This briefing accumulates all the hard work that my team and I have done all school year on researching and understanding the mental health needs of AAPI and other students in New York City schools. I am excited about sharing our findings with the community,” she stated.

The sense of accomplishment and empowerment was echoed by several participants. For many, the briefing symbolized more than a presentation—it was a culmination of months of dedication, teamwork, and a shared desire to make schools more inclusive and supportive environments for all students.

“I’m excited for the briefing because us ASAPers work so hard during the year, and I think we all love the idea of showing off our efforts. It also gives me a sense of accomplishment and contribution because I get to share our campaign’s findings with the community,” said Jonas Wooh, one of the student leaders involved in the initiative.

The Community Briefing served as both a platform to celebrate youth-driven advocacy and an opportunity for broader engagement with city leaders and education stakeholders. Through the efforts of its young participants, ASAP continues to shed light on the unique challenges faced by AAPI students and promote solutions tailored to their lived realities.

With the 2024–2026 campaigns now formally presented, the findings will not only help shape future efforts within the program but may also influence broader policy conversations about equity, safety, and access in public education. The voices of these young advocates are expected to resonate long after the event, inspiring both peers and adults to rethink how schools can better support diverse student populations.

By equipping its participants with research tools, collaborative skills, and public speaking opportunities, CACF’s ASAP program continues to fulfill its mission of nurturing the next generation of community advocates and changemakers. As the 21st year of the initiative concludes, the passion and dedication displayed by this year’s youth leaders signal a promising future for student-led advocacy in New York City.

Israeli Airstrikes Target Iranian Nuclear Sites, Kill Top Officials, Prompting Fears of Escalation

In a dramatic escalation of hostilities in the Middle East, Israel launched a series of airstrikes against Iran early Friday morning, local time, aimed at facilities it identified as being linked to Iran’s nuclear ambitions. The strikes have intensified global concern over the possibility of a wider regional war, especially as both countries exchanged threats and retaliatory actions.

According to Iranian state media, the Israeli assault resulted in the deaths of two of Iran’s most senior military leaders. Mohammad Hossein Bagheri, the highest-ranking official in Iran’s Armed Forces, was confirmed dead. He was killed alongside Hossein Salami, the commander-in-chief of Iran’s powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. These losses mark a severe blow to Iran’s military hierarchy.

In addition to these key figures, two of Iran’s leading nuclear scientists were also killed in the strikes. Iranian news outlets identified them as Fereydoun Abbasi-Davani and Mohammad Mehdi Tehranchi. Both individuals played central roles in the country’s nuclear development program, and their deaths are expected to have a significant impact on Iran’s scientific and military infrastructure.

In response to the Israeli operation, Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, issued a stern warning, vowing retribution. “With this crime, the Zionist regime has brought a bitter and painful fate upon itself, and it will certainly face it,” Khamenei declared in an official statement.

The Israeli offensive reportedly included airstrikes in various parts of Iran. In the capital city of Tehran, multiple casualties were reported. The city of Natanz, which houses one of Iran’s primary nuclear enrichment facilities, was also struck. However, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency, the Isfahan nuclear facility remained unharmed, and there was “no increase in radiation levels has been observed at the Natanz site.”

Other locations that came under fire included Khandab, home to a heavy water nuclear reactor, and Khoramabad, which hosts a base for ballistic missiles. The choice of these specific sites underlines the Israeli objective to disrupt what it sees as critical components of Iran’s nuclear and military capabilities.

In a swift response, Iran launched approximately 100 drones aimed at Israeli territory, an Israeli military spokesperson reported. The Israeli defense system is currently engaged in efforts to intercept and neutralize these drones. This exchange indicates the high likelihood of further military confrontation between the two nations.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed his nation following the strikes, making it clear that the operation could continue. “This operation will continue for as many days as it takes to remove this threat,” he asserted. His statement suggests a prolonged campaign may be underway.

Israel’s Defense Minister, Israel Katz, declared a state of emergency in the immediate aftermath of the strikes. He issued a dire warning, stating, “A missile and drone attack against the State of Israel and its civilian population is expected in the immediate future.” This announcement heightened public alert and underscored the seriousness of the situation.

Although the United States did not take part in the military operation, it was kept in the loop by Israeli officials. Secretary of State Marco Rubio revealed that U.S. President Donald Trump had been briefed in advance of the strike. Rubio explained, “Israel advised us that they believe this action was necessary for its self-defense.”

Earlier in the week, Trump had authorized the withdrawal of some American personnel from the Middle East, acknowledging the volatility of the region. He stated that the area “could be a dangerous place,” and emphasized the U.S. preference for diplomacy over military action. Trump has long advocated for a negotiated agreement over Iran’s nuclear enrichment program rather than pursuing conflict.

Despite these diplomatic overtures, Iran has expressed dissatisfaction with Washington’s stance. Tehran accused the United States of failing to take the negotiations seriously and not respecting Iran’s right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes.

On Friday morning, Trump made a pointed statement via social media, warning Iran of the military power at Israel’s disposal. “The United States makes the best and most lethal military equipment anywhere in the World, BY FAR, and that Israel has a lot of it, with much more to come – And they know how to use it,” Trump wrote. In a more provocative tone, he added, “Certain Iranian hardliners spoke bravely, but they didn’t know what was about to happen. They are all DEAD now, and it will only get worse!”

The possibility of further escalation remains uncertain. Iran and Israel have a long history of animosity, and tensions between the two have surged since the October 2023 terror attack carried out in Israel by Hamas, a Palestinian group backed by Tehran. Israel has repeatedly accused Iran of orchestrating proxy conflicts through its support of militant groups like Hamas, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the Houthi rebels in Yemen.

Late last year, both Iran and Israel exchanged direct missile strikes on each other’s territory, a rare occurrence that threatened to spiral into full-scale war but was ultimately contained. These previous flare-ups demonstrate just how close the region has come to the brink of wider conflict.

Reacting to the current crisis, United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres called for de-escalation. He urged both nations to “show maximum restraint, avoiding at all costs a descent into deeper conflict, a situation that the region can hardly afford.” His plea reflects growing international anxiety over the potential for a broader war in an already volatile region.

Meanwhile, the economic impact of the conflict has been immediate. Global oil prices surged amid fears that a wider war could disrupt supply lines in the energy-rich Middle East. Investors, rattled by the news, rushed toward safe-haven assets. Gold prices soared to near two-month highs, while U.S. Treasury bond prices also rose as a sign of flight to safety.

At the same time, U.S. stock futures took a hit, reflecting concerns over geopolitical risk and economic stability. Dow Jones Industrial Average futures were down by 580 points, highlighting the market’s sensitivity to sudden escalations in global conflict zones.

The events of Friday morning represent one of the most significant confrontations between Israel and Iran in recent history. With key figures killed, nuclear sites targeted, and retaliatory strikes underway, the potential for continued violence remains high. The world is now watching closely to see whether either side will step back from the edge—or move further into confrontation.

Brazil Books World Cup Spot, Palestine’s Dream Ends in Heartbreak as 2026 Qualifying Intensifies

Brazil have secured their place in the 2026 FIFA World Cup with a narrow 1-0 win over Paraguay, courtesy of a decisive goal by Vinicius Jr. The victory, celebrated by an enthusiastic crowd of 46,000 fans at the Corinthians Arena in São Paulo, marks another step forward for the five-time world champions. The match was also notable as one of the first major tests for Brazil’s new head coach, Carlo Ancelotti, who recently took over the reins of the national team.

Vinicius Jr, a key player for Real Madrid, scored just before half-time, sending the home crowd into a frenzy. The result confirmed Brazil’s qualification from the South American region, alongside fellow powerhouses Argentina and Ecuador. Brazil’s journey to the tournament now shifts from qualifying to preparation, as they aim to lift their sixth World Cup trophy.

While Brazil celebrated, another team experienced a bitter night in their own qualifying campaign. In a dramatic match held in Amman, Jordan, Palestine were on the verge of advancing to the fourth round of the Asian Football Confederation (AFC) qualifiers until they conceded a heartbreaking equalizer from the penalty spot in the dying seconds of the game against Oman.

Palestine had taken the lead at the end of the first half thanks to a goal by Oday Kharoub. They maintained their advantage until stoppage time, when a controversial penalty decision saw Oman’s Essam al-Subhi convert in the 97th minute. The 1-1 result ended Palestine’s hopes of moving forward in the AFC qualification process.

Palestine have been playing their matches at neutral venues due to the conflict in their homeland. Israel’s war on Gaza, its control and destruction of sports facilities and venues in Gaza and the occupied West Bank have left the players unable to travel and play at their home venue, the Faisal Al-Husseini International Stadium in ar-Ram, a town northeast of occupied Jerusalem.  Matches have been relocated to Jordan, Kuwait, and Qatar to ensure the safety and participation of the Palestinian team.

Oman have now taken Palestine’s spot in the next round, joining other Asian teams that have successfully advanced. The emotional blow to Palestine highlights the often overlooked human and geopolitical challenges that intersect with international football.

Across the world, several other nations have already punched their tickets to the 2026 FIFA World Cup. Here’s a breakdown of which countries from each region have officially qualified so far:

From Asia, six teams have confirmed their spots: Iran, Uzbekistan, South Korea, Jordan, Australia, and Japan. In South America, the teams that have booked their places are Argentina, Brazil, and Ecuador. North, Central America, and the Caribbean have three automatic spots reserved for the host countries – Canada, Mexico, and the United States – all of whom have confirmed participation. In the Oceania region, New Zealand claimed their sole qualification slot by winning the third-round playoff final against New Caledonia on March 24.

However, no team from Africa or Europe has qualified yet. None of the 54 nations involved in the qualifiers has been able to confirm their spots as the first round of qualifying matches does not conclude until October 16. Europe is in a similar position, with its 54 competing teams having until November 18 to complete their initial qualification round.

As for those who will miss out, Chile, who famously finished third in the 1962 World Cup, have been eliminated. China, despite ambitious investments in domestic football development and having last played in a World Cup in 2002, also crashed out following a critical loss on June 5.

Several other teams still remain in contention, hoping to grab one of the remaining qualification spots.

In Asia, teams like Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Iraq, and Oman are still competing for two direct World Cup slots and one intercontinental playoff position.

From South America, the battle for qualification continues among Uruguay, Paraguay, Colombia, Venezuela, and Bolivia, who are all vying for the three remaining direct slots. Peru can no longer qualify directly but still has a chance via the intercontinental playoff.

In the North, Central American and Caribbean region, twelve teams – Honduras, Bermuda, Costa Rica, Trinidad and Tobago, Curaçao, Haiti, Panama, Nicaragua, Jamaica, Guatemala, Suriname, and El Salvador – have made it to the third round. Three of these teams will earn direct qualification, while the three runners-up from each group will compete for one intercontinental playoff spot.

New Caledonia, having lost out to New Zealand in the Oceania qualifiers, have qualified for the intercontinental playoffs and will look to secure a spot through that route.

The final list of the 48 teams that will take part in the 2026 FIFA World Cup won’t be confirmed until March 31, 2026. The European qualifiers will extend into March, and the intercontinental playoff final is also scheduled for the same month, leaving just under three months before the tournament begins to finalize the lineup.

The 2026 FIFA World Cup, which will be the first edition of the tournament to feature 48 teams, is scheduled to begin on June 11 in Mexico City. The final will take place on July 19 in New Jersey, United States. This extended format is set to bring in more nations than ever before and will be hosted across Canada, Mexico, and the United States.

As qualification heats up, the coming months promise intense action, heartbreak, and triumph as teams from around the world fight for their place on football’s biggest stage.

The American India Foundation Raises Record-Breaking $4.5 Million at Its Annual Gala in New York

The American India Foundation (AIF) hosted its annual New York City gala to an audience of nearly 700 guests at Cipriani Wall Street on June 10, raising a record-breaking $4.5 million to support its multidimensional interventions in public health, education, and livelihoods, benefiting over 21 million lives across 35 states and union territories since 2001.

The event honored the exceptional leadership and philanthropic endeavors of Roshni Nadar Malhotra, Chairperson of HCLTech, and Douglas Peterson, former President & CEO of S&P Global. This marquee gathering brought together changemakers, innovators, business leaders, and stalwarts from across the Indian diaspora to drive transformative social impact.

Hosted by the renowned comedian Zarna Garg and featuring a world-class menu curated by acclaimed Chef Gaurav Anand, the evening provided a full-sensory experience. Guests were given a front-row seat to AIF’s award-winning MANSI (Maternal and Newborn Survival Initiative) program through an interactive Virtual Reality experience.

Roshni Nadar Malhotra stated, “I am truly humbled to receive this recognition from AIF, an organization whose mission resonates strongly with my own. Whether it is empowering young leaders, safeguarding our planet, or expanding access to education, I believe that progress must be inclusive, and everyone deserves the opportunity to thrive.”

Douglas Peterson remarked, “My profound love for India spans decades and stems from my relationships with its people. I have witnessed firsthand how access to opportunity transforms lives. AIF’s partnership-driven model delivers that access with purpose and scale. Tonight serves as a steadfast reminder of what is achievable when collaboration catalyzes true change for millions.”

AIF’s CEO Nishant Pandey addressed the audience, stating, “Tonight is not simply about generosity; it is a collective act of belief in the power of partnership. AIF’s success is built on this very foundation: our partnerships with the Indian government at every level across the nation, collaborations with binational corporations, and connections between the civil societies of India and the U.S. Tonight’s record-breaking support not only funds programs but also highlights our collective dedication to Viksit Bharat as we reimagine what opportunity looks like.”

Ajay Banga, AIF’s Chairman Emeritus, graced the evening with his family to pay a heartfelt tribute to his longtime “mentor and inspiration,” Victor Menezes, AIF’s founder and only other Chairman Emeritus, who passed away earlier this year. The evening focused on AIF’s people—its donors, indefatigable team, and the millions of beneficiaries they serve.

During the pledge-drive that raised over $850,000, Bharat and Neerja Desai announced their gift of $1 million towards AIF’s educational initiatives, including DEEP Shaala in Amreli, Gujarat—a multi-year program with Desai’s Samvid Ventures to bridge the digital divide in middle and high school education.

This event was AIF’s highest-grossing gala in its 24-year history, thanks to the generosity of its donors, including leadership corporate sponsors EXL, Goldman Sachs Gives, HCLTech, Mastercard, and S&P Global. For a full list of our sponsors, please click here. Learn more at the American India Foundation. For queries in the US, please contact Kalpana Kanthan, Chief Development and Marketing Officer, at Kalpana.Kanthan@aif.org. AMERICAN INDIA FOUNDATION

Hosted once again by comedian, actress, author, and creator extraordinaire, Zarna Garg, guests experienced AIF’s mission firsthand through a moving VR journey into the public health program and powerful video stories from our beneficiaries and enjoyed a delectable menu by Chef Gaurav Anand.

The American India Foundation is a 501(c)(3) organization committed to improving the lives of India’s underprivileged, with a special focus on women, children, and youth.

H1B Visa Holders Face Bureaucratic Hurdles in Routine License Renewals in the U.S.

Even the most straightforward administrative procedures are becoming increasingly difficult for H1B visa holders living in the United States. A recent incident shared on social media highlights how even renewing a driver’s license can turn into a bureaucratic nightmare. The user recounted a frustrating experience at the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), where their attempt to extend their driver’s license was abruptly stalled due to a verification failure involving their immigration status.

Despite arriving fully prepared and submitting every required document—including a valid passport, vehicle registration papers, and an Employment Authorization Document (EAD)—the DMV officials were unable to proceed with the license renewal. The problem stemmed from the fact that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) system failed to verify the user’s immigration status, causing a deadlock.

The situation escalated to the point where the manager of the DMV office had to intervene and initiate a SAVE (Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements) check, a process used to verify the immigration status of non-citizens applying for public benefits. This additional step, while ultimately necessary, prolonged the ordeal and reflected a growing pattern of procedural breakdowns that many immigrants are reporting.

This account is not an isolated case. Several other H1B visa holders have shared similar stories, suggesting that such complications are becoming alarmingly frequent. One H1B worker detailed how their experience took an even stranger turn. Despite holding a valid driver’s license for several years, they were unexpectedly instructed to retake a driving test. This demand came with no warning or justification and seemed disconnected from their previous driving record or renewal application.

While the agencies involved continued to shift blame, the visa holder’s license expired during the back-and-forth exchanges. The outcome was a stressful, confusing, and avoidable disruption in the life of a skilled professional who was simply trying to follow the rules.

For many Indian nationals living and working in the U.S. under the H1B visa program, these recurring issues are taking a toll. They find themselves caught in a system where compliance is expected but reciprocation in the form of smooth, functional public services is often lacking. “Every mundane government service is becoming a test of patience,” lamented one H1B professional, summarizing a sentiment felt widely across the community.

The core issue appears to lie in the gaps between different governmental departments and databases. When agencies like the DMV depend on immigration status verification from USCIS, any delay, error, or discrepancy can leave the applicant in limbo. While SAVE checks are intended to resolve such mismatches, they are not always initiated quickly, nor do they always deliver timely results. In the meantime, the lives of the applicants are put on hold.

H1B visa holders, many of whom are highly skilled professionals in sectors like technology, engineering, and healthcare, are growing increasingly frustrated by the way they are treated by public institutions. These are individuals contributing significantly to the U.S. economy, yet they find themselves facing unreasonable obstacles in accessing even the most basic services.

There is also a psychological burden associated with such encounters. The inability to drive legally due to a lapsed license can affect one’s job, family responsibilities, and general mobility. Moreover, being forced to undergo retesting or subjected to redundant verifications can feel demeaning, especially for those who have lived in the U.S. for years and maintained perfect compliance with immigration and civil rules.

One user who had to go through this ordeal voiced concern that “the system doesn’t always play fair in return,” highlighting a perceived imbalance between the responsibilities of H1B holders and the responsiveness of the institutions that serve them. These individuals are not just expected to follow the rules—they are also required to demonstrate that they are following them at every turn, even when the system itself is flawed or inconsistent.

In cases where licenses expire while USCIS and DMV officials argue over procedural responsibility, visa holders are left to suffer the consequences. This not only affects their legal ability to drive but can also trigger complications in employment, banking, and housing arrangements—areas that often require a valid state-issued ID.

What adds to the frustration is the lack of transparency in these bureaucratic processes. When a SAVE check is initiated, the applicant may not receive clear communication about when the check will be completed or what information is missing. This vagueness makes it hard to plan next steps or seek redress, especially for those who cannot afford prolonged gaps in their documentation.

Further compounding the issue is the lack of standardized training among DMV personnel in handling immigration-related verifications. Many frontline employees at local DMV branches may not fully understand the complexities of visa documentation, leading to misinterpretations and delays. In such scenarios, applicants are often required to escalate their cases to supervisors or wait for specialized staff to step in, further slowing down the process.

These incidents also underscore the pressing need for better integration and coordination between federal immigration authorities and state-level service departments. When systems do not talk to each other effectively, it is the applicants—law-abiding, tax-paying immigrants—who are left to deal with the fallout. Even small fixes, such as automated alerts for expiring visas or shared access to valid status data, could go a long way in minimizing disruption.

Until such improvements are made, the H1B community will continue to be at the mercy of outdated systems and unclear procedures. “We’re expected to be perfect in our paperwork, timelines, and compliance,” said another affected professional, “but the same precision doesn’t exist on the other side.”

The broader implication of these incidents is a potential deterrent to future talent considering a move to the U.S. If the daily logistics of life—like renewing a license—become this difficult, it could influence skilled workers to look elsewhere for better support and respect. In a global economy where talent is mobile, a clunky public system can end up being a significant liability.

In the end, while the rules and regulations may be designed with structure and accountability in mind, their real-world execution reveals deep flaws. For now, the message from many H1B visa holders is simple: they’re trying to play by the rules. They just wish the system would, too.

USCIS Tightens Green Card Medical Exam Rules Amid Public Health Concerns

The Trump administration has swiftly implemented changes to the green card application process, announcing on Wednesday that all new applicants must now submit an up-to-date medical examination form. The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) declared that its earlier policy—allowing indefinite use of the medical exam form—posed potential risks to public health and will no longer be valid.

Previously, immigrants applying for permanent residency were permitted to reuse an I-693 medical form that had been signed by a certified civil surgeon, even after long intervals. However, under the new rule, effective June 11, 2025, that flexibility has been eliminated. Every new green card application must now be accompanied by a freshly signed medical report, regardless of whether a similar form had been used in a prior, withdrawn, or denied application.

The change could significantly affect individuals currently seeking adjustment of status, who until now had a deadline of June 10 to submit forms signed under the old guidelines. These abrupt changes offer little to no time for applicants or their legal representatives to adjust, a departure from previous USCIS practice, which typically allowed a grace period for transitioning to new policies.

The medical examination form in question, known as the I-693 or “Report of Immigration Medical Examination and Vaccination Record,” is a key part of the green card application process. It is designed to identify health-related grounds of inadmissibility to the U.S., such as infectious diseases or missing vaccinations. While these forms were previously valid indefinitely if signed after November 1, 2023, the new directive revokes that policy.

Under the revised guidelines, once an application is withdrawn, any corresponding I-693 form becomes invalid. This forces the applicant to undergo a new medical exam and secure a freshly signed form. This change is expected to affect thousands of immigrants who are in the midst of preparing their Form I-485, which is used to apply for lawful permanent resident status.

“This is pretty typical of the kind of changes we’ve been seeing. Time was that they would at least give you some grace period, some lead up, but this means that things that were in the mail this week are going to be invalid potentially,” said Matt Cameron, an immigration attorney with the law firm Cameron Micheroni and Silvia in Boston, in an interview with Newsweek.

The implications of this shift are not only procedural but also financial. Immigration medical exams, which include general physical assessments, vaccination record verification, and disease screening, generally cost between $100 and $500. Cameron highlighted the concern that applicants could end up paying for the process multiple times. With the new rule, every new filing will necessitate another round of testing, which could place additional financial burdens on immigrants.

Before December 2024, filing the I-693 was a requirement only for applicants who needed to show they were not inadmissible on medical grounds. Now, every applicant for a green card must file this form, and even those applying for other types of visas might be required to do so, at USCIS’s discretion.

This regulatory tightening reflects a broader trend under the Trump administration, which has intensified its scrutiny of both temporary and permanent visa applicants. These efforts align with the administration’s goal of cracking down on perceived abuses of the immigration system.

A similar abrupt change in March caused considerable confusion among applicants. A wave of modifications to several immigration forms at that time prompted a lawsuit from immigration attorneys, who argued that the changes were too sudden and left applicants unprepared. In response, USCIS had to provide a two-week buffer before implementing those modifications.

The new rules come amid a more aggressive stance by the Trump administration on immigration enforcement, which includes taking actions even against green card holders. In one prominent case from March, federal agents detained Mahmoud Khalil, a green card holder, Columbia University graduate, and participant in pro-Palestinian protests. Although he held lawful permanent resident status, the administration argued that his actions contradicted U.S. foreign policy and pursued his removal from the country.

Instances like Khalil’s, where green card holders have been detained domestically or refused entry upon returning from international travel, are becoming more common. While not entirely new, these occurrences were rare prior to the administration’s more hardline stance following January 20.

The federal government continues to emphasize that a green card does not equate to U.S. citizenship and can be revoked for a range of reasons, including violations of immigration law, criminal activity, or national security concerns.

Commenting further on the recent policy change, Matt Cameron told Newsweek, “They usually would give this until the end of the month or something, so the applications that are just about to be filed can be honored. It’s not a radical change, but I think it’s very much of a piece of the trend here in just making everything more difficult. Across the board [they] have made every kind of contact with the immigration system more difficult.”

Elissa Taub, an immigration attorney at Siskind Susser in Houston, Texas, also offered her perspective. “Previously, I-693s all had an expiration date, so we had clients needing to get multiple exams done while their I-485s were pending over many years due to backlogs,” she said.

“Currently, I-693s don’t expire, and it sounds like they are clarifying that if you withdraw that application or it’s denied, you can’t reuse the same unexpired I-693 with a new application. I don’t think this is too earth-shattering, and I’m happy that this policy change is relatively narrow and that they didn’t decide to create a new pre-filing expiration period,” Taub added.

USCIS explained its rationale in a statement accompanying the new directive: “We have since determined that the April 4, 2024, policy is overly broad and could potentially threaten public health in the United States. By limiting the validity period to only the current immigration benefit application or request, we ensure that aliens get timely and proper medical examinations and treatment, which safeguards public health.”

While the latest update may seem like a technical adjustment, it carries significant implications for applicants navigating an already complex and often costly immigration system. The decision underscores the Trump administration’s consistent approach: increasing the stringency of immigration processes under the premise of safeguarding national interests.

British Man Miraculously Survives Air India Crash That Killed Over 200

AHMEDABAD, INDIA — In a devastating air disaster that claimed the lives of over 200 people, a British man has emerged as the sole survivor of an Air India flight that crashed shortly after takeoff in Ahmedabad on Tuesday.

Vishwashkumar Ramesh, a UK resident originally from India, was seated in 11A on the Boeing 787-8 bound for London Gatwick when the aircraft crashed less than a minute after lifting off from Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport. The cause of the crash remains unknown.

Ramesh, covered in blood and visibly dazed, was seen walking toward an ambulance as smoke billowed from the wreckage in videos shared on social media. He is currently receiving treatment at a local hospital, where he was later visited by Indian Home Minister Amit Shah.

Speaking to the BBC, his brother Nayan Kumar Ramesh said the family was in shock: “He has no idea how he survived, how he got out of the plane. When he called us, he was just worried about my other brother, Ajay, who was also onboard. That’s all he cared about.”

A relative, identified only as Jay, told the PA News Agency that Ramesh suffered facial injuries but is expected to recover: “He was painted in blood. It’s a big shock, but he’s doing well.”

Ahmedabad Police Commissioner GS Malik confirmed that one survivor, seated in 11A, had been found alive and transported to the hospital. “The police found one survivor in seat 11A. He is under treatment,” Malik told ANI news agency.

Air India reported there were 230 people on board, including 169 Indian nationals, 53 Britons, seven Portuguese citizens, and one Canadian. The flight, numbered AI171, departed at 1:39 p.m. local time and was scheduled to arrive at London Gatwick at 6:25 p.m. BST.

The crash, which occurred when the aircraft plunged into a residential complex used by hospital staff near the airport, resulted in the recovery of 204 bodies so far. Additionally, 41 individuals on the ground sustained injuries.

Among the British victims believed to have perished are Akeel Nanabawa, his wife Hannaa Vorajee, and their daughter Sara, as confirmed by the Gloucester Muslim Society. Also feared dead are London-based couple Fiongal and Jamie Greenlaw-Meek, co-founders of the Wellness Foundry, who had posted a video to Instagram joking about their return flight just hours earlier.

In Blackburn, 72-year-old Adam Taju, his wife Hasina (70), and their son-in-law Altafhusen Patel (51) were also onboard. Their family remains hopeful, with granddaughter Ammaarah Taju saying, “We’re clinging onto hope.”

The tragedy has sparked condolences from leaders across the world. Britain’s King Charles expressed deep sorrow, saying he and Queen Camilla were “desperately shocked” by the tragedy. “Our special prayers and deepest possible sympathy are with the families and friends of all those affected across so many nations,” read the royal statement.

British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer called the incident “awful news,” adding that the government was still working to verify reports. UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy said crisis response teams have been deployed in both the UK and India.

London Gatwick Airport confirmed the establishment of a reception center for relatives of passengers and urged concerned British citizens to contact the Foreign Office helpline at 0207 008 5000.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi called the crash “heart-breaking beyond words,” and pledged full support for the investigation and victims’ families.

As investigations into the cause of the crash continue, questions remain about what went wrong just moments after takeoff. A video verified by the BBC shows the aircraft descending rapidly before erupting into a massive explosion on impact.

This incident marks one of the deadliest aviation disasters in recent Indian history, with the lone survival of Vishwashkumar Ramesh offering a glimmer of hope amid profound tragedy.

Global Confidence in U.S. Declines Sharply Amid Trump’s Return to Power

The global perception of the United States has taken a significant hit since Donald Trump returned to the presidency, according to a new survey released by the Pew Research Center on June 11. The study highlights a widespread decline in approval for both Trump personally and his policy decisions across numerous countries. Out of the 24 nations surveyed, 15 reported a notable drop in their overall view of the United States.

Trump received his harshest criticism from Mexico, a nation he has frequently criticized and pressured on immigration matters. A staggering 91 percent of Mexicans expressed little or no confidence in Trump to act appropriately in global affairs. This deep skepticism was reflected in the overall image of the United States in Mexico, where public opinion has shifted significantly in a negative direction.

Canada, the United States’ northern neighbor, also exhibited a similar change in perception. Last year, during President Joe Biden’s administration, both Canadians and Mexicans generally held favorable views of the United States. However, that sentiment has reversed sharply with Trump’s return. Trump had previously made provocative comments suggesting that Canada should become the 51st U.S. state, which likely contributed to the souring of public sentiment.

The survey results showed a deteriorating view of the U.S. not only in North America but also across much of Europe. In Poland, an important ally of Ukraine and a country previously supportive of U.S. efforts, opinions of the United States have worsened considerably. This shift comes as Trump has scaled back support for Ukraine and indicated a preference for negotiating with Russia instead of confronting it.

Sweden, a country that joined NATO during Biden’s tenure in response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, gave the United States the most unfavorable rating among all surveyed countries. Seventy-nine percent of Swedes reported a negative view of the U.S., signaling a dramatic erosion of trust and approval.

When evaluating Trump’s global policies, the survey uncovered widespread disagreement across key issues. Majorities in every country surveyed opposed Trump’s approaches to immigration, climate change, the conflict in Gaza, and the war in Ukraine. Furthermore, personal views of Trump were largely negative. A dominant 80 percent of respondents described him as arrogant, while only 28 percent considered him to be honest.

Still, the Pew Research Center noted that Trump’s current global image is not as dire as it was during his first term in office. In 2017, when Trump succeeded the highly popular Barack Obama, international opinion of him was at its lowest. Although he remains an unpopular figure worldwide, some nations have shown slightly improved views compared to his initial presidency.

One country that stands out in the survey is Israel, which continues to have a very favorable opinion of the United States. Eighty-three percent of Israelis view the U.S. positively, a figure that has even risen slightly under Trump’s current leadership. Israel has benefited from strong U.S. support during the conflict in Gaza, likely contributing to this favorable assessment.

In Africa, Nigeria and Kenya maintained their historically positive opinions of the United States, regardless of who holds the presidency. In India, sentiment toward the U.S. also remained relatively stable, with over half of the population continuing to see the country in a positive light.

Since his return, Trump has embarked on an ambitious and sweeping presidential agenda. He has drastically cut foreign aid and taken aggressive action on deportations. These moves, while aligned with his core supporters, have not done much to improve his standing on the international stage.

Janell Fetterolf, a senior researcher at the Pew Research Center, pointed out that Trump’s standing on economic issues globally is not significantly different from Biden’s. “The past decade has also seen the growing normalization of right-wing populists,” she explained. This normalization may explain why Trump’s negative ratings, though substantial, are not as extreme as during his first term.

The case of Brazil illustrates this trend. There, Trump’s approval has improved from 14 percent during his first term to 34 percent now. Brazil was governed by Jair Bolsonaro, a political ally of Trump, from 2019 to 2022. Although Trump’s support in Brazil remains low, the uptick indicates a broader shift in political attitudes.

The survey also shed light on demographic patterns in Trump’s global support. Generally, men viewed Trump more favorably than women, and individuals with right-wing political leanings expressed more positive opinions of him. However, the data also revealed boundaries to Trump’s influence abroad.

Even among supporters of far-right nationalist parties in countries like Sweden and France, Trump struggled to gain majority support. While these groups were more sympathetic to him than the general public, confidence in Trump still fell short of a majority.

Conducted between January and April, the annual Pew survey involved 28,333 adults across 24 countries. The research offers a sobering picture of the United States’ global reputation under Trump’s leadership and underscores the challenges his administration faces in repairing diplomatic relationships and restoring international trust.

Despite modest improvements in some regions and a less severe perception compared to 2017, Trump’s second term appears to have reignited concerns across much of the world about the direction of U.S. leadership and foreign policy. The study shows a persistent gap between Trump’s actions and global expectations, with many foreign populations remaining wary of his intentions and capabilities.

With issues like climate change, global migration, and geopolitical conflict dominating headlines, the survey’s findings indicate that Trump’s positions continue to isolate the United States from many of its traditional allies and global partners. As his presidency progresses, the administration’s ability to address these concerns may play a decisive role in determining whether U.S. favorability can rebound on the world stage.

In sum, while Trump’s current international image is not quite as low as it was during his first term, the decline in global confidence in both him and the United States is clear. This shift signals the continued influence of his policies and rhetoric on the country’s international standing, potentially shaping the geopolitical landscape for years to come.

Indian Genius: Capturing the Meteoric Rise of Indian-Americans in One Frame

A single image on the cover of Meenakshi Ahamed’s new book, Indian Genius, speaks volumes about the Indian-American journey. It features 16 iconic figures, side by side like a class photo, capturing a legacy of excellence. In that one photograph are prominent names like Kanwal Rekhi, Vinod Khosla, Shantanu Narayen, Satya Nadella, Suhas Patil, Nikesh Arora, Dr. Deepak Chopra, Chandrika Tandon, Fareed Zakaria, Dr. Vivek Murthy, Congressman Ro Khanna, Nikki Haley, Neal Katyal, and renowned doctors and writers Abraham Verghese, Siddhartha Mukherjee, and Atul Gawande.

What links all of them? They or their parents were born in India—some in rural villages, some in big cities. Decades ago, they left the subcontinent behind and journeyed across mountains and rivers toward their new destination: America. These names are deeply embedded in the narrative of Indian-American excellence and stand as symbols of power, strength, and promise.

Ahamed, who is also the author of A Matter of Trust: India-US Relations from Truman to Trump, takes a more intimate approach with Indian Genius, exploring the rise of Indians in the U.S. through the personal and professional journeys of 16 individuals. Born in Calcutta, Ahamed first came to the U.S. as a student and later worked with institutions like the World Bank and NDTV. Like many others, she belonged to the so-called “$8 Club” of immigrants who arrived in America with only a few dollars and a dream.

Rather than make her book a list of high earners, Ahamed focused on impact. “I wanted to see whether someone had an impact in the community on their way up,” she said. She chose three spheres where Indian-Americans have been particularly influential: technology, medicine, and public policy. In each category, she focused on five figures, presenting their stories in rich detail.

Her own experience gave her a unique lens. She held on to her Indian passport for years before choosing to stay in the U.S. and embrace American citizenship. That transition offered her insight into what makes Indians succeed. “When you live in a country of 1.5 billion people, competition is ingrained in you,” she said. “You’re competing for everything from day one.”

That competitive edge is evident in the story of Kanwal Rekhi, who grew up in poverty and eventually became what Ahamed calls the “godfather” of the Indian tech community in Silicon Valley. His company, Excelan, became the first Indian-American-owned firm to go public on Nasdaq in 1987. Rekhi once noted, “Indians in the Valley did not look at Bill Gates and imagine they could become him, but when they saw me, another Indian, run a company and go public with it, it inspired them. They felt, ‘If he can do it, why not me?’”

Yet even Rekhi made missteps. As a new immigrant, he turned down a job at IBM—then the leader in computing—and was later blacklisted for refusing the offer without a strong reason. But he went on to co-found The Indus Entrepreneurs (TiE), which now has 61 chapters across 14 countries.

The idea of jugaad—Indian ingenuity—runs deep in many of the stories. Suhas Patil of Cirrus Logic showed inventive talent as a boy, crafting projects from scrap. He credited a high school realization that “electronics had legs” with his decision to pursue engineering, eventually gaining a scholarship to MIT based on his IIT thesis.

Ahamed highlights the role of India’s top educational institutions. Vinod Khosla, another IIT alumnus, described how getting in “was the only way to escape whatever was your lot in society,” emphasizing the meritocracy and performance-based admission. “Your community determines how you develop,” he said, adding that IIT becomes “a brand of excellence that you are associated with.”

These pioneers—Rekhi, Khosla, Patil—were part of the early wave of Indian tech leaders in the U.S. “Smarts are not enough,” Khosla explained. “You had to have a risk-taking entrepreneurial culture to leave the comfort of home and come to this country not knowing anybody… Silicon Valley is about performance and it’s not just a place; it’s a mindset.”

He also stated, “I was never coming here to just get a job. What makes me happy are the things I’ve pursued. It’s this internal drive to do things that motivates me, not what others expect of me.”

Transformational leadership is another recurring theme. Satya Nadella and Shantanu Narayen receive high praise from Ahamed for reshaping Microsoft and Adobe with future-oriented strategies rooted in AI. “They stand out as truly visionary CEOs,” she wrote.

In medicine, figures like Dr. Atul Gawande have shifted paradigms. His book The Checklist Manifesto led to a 60% drop in hospital infections, and his later work, Being Mortal, questioned the medical obsession with prolonging life. “You have to weigh prolonged life against what the patient wants,” Ahamed noted, advocating hospice as a humane alternative.

Dr. Siddhartha Mukherjee and Dr. Abraham Verghese also brought about major changes, from cancer care to AIDS-era medicine. “There’s something called Jugaad in India… being able to create something out of nothing – and leaving things better than they found them,” Ahamed said.

Chandrika Tandon’s journey from engineering school to McKinsey partner to Grammy-nominated musician exemplifies this spirit. She famously interviewed at McKinsey in a sari and chappals. “When you don’t look at boundaries, everything seems connected. Everything seems possible,” she said.

Ahamed’s book also looks at the broader impact of thought leaders like Deepak Chopra and Fareed Zakaria. Chopra popularized yoga in America, and Zakaria reshaped global news commentary. “All of a sudden, everyone from Dubai to Delhi to Des Moines, Iowa were listening to him,” Ahamed noted.

While spelling bee winners like Indian-American children demonstrate discipline and drive, Ahamed distinguishes that from genius. “Winning spelling bees led them to perfectly respectable careers but does not lead to becoming CEO of Microsoft,” she observed.

As for the future of Indian-American success, Ahamed remains cautiously optimistic despite immigration restrictions. “There’s always room for excellence, no matter where you are,” she said. “If you have really remarkable abilities and you’re smart and you have something that society wants, there are always going to be avenues to succeed.”

She adds that America’s strength lies in its immigrant roots. “Every wave of immigrants has contributed to this country and Indians are the most recent. We all, every one of us and our ancestors, have contributed towards the American story – so we should be celebrating that.”

Senate Republicans Divided Over Trump Agenda Spending Amid Musk Criticism and Deficit Concerns

Senate Republicans are wrestling with major internal divisions over how to reduce the cost of a House-approved bill that aims to advance  President Donald Trump’s legislative agenda. The legislation, which has been slammed by billionaire Elon Musk as a “mountain of disgusting pork,” has drawn widespread criticism from fiscal conservatives for failing to make meaningful cuts to the federal deficit.

Responding to nervous investors in the bond market and Musk’s pointed remarks, Republican lawmakers are now exploring previously untouched areas of the federal budget—including Medicare, defense, and the Federal Reserve—for potential savings. Just weeks ago, these areas were considered politically untouchable.

However, every new idea seems to be generating new controversy within the party.

Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri has taken a firm stance against any reductions to Medicare spending, even though proponents argue the cuts would be limited to curbing “waste, fraud and abuse.” Expressing his reservations, Hawley stated, “I don’t like this idea of fiddling with Medicare at all. I think it’s a bad idea. We should not do that. I’ve counseled against it.”

Hawley suggested a different route for saving money, asking, “How about instead we cap the price [Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] is paying for prescription drugs? Why touch Medicare?”

Other GOP members are turning their attention to Medicare Advantage, the program that allows private insurers to provide Medicare benefits. Some senators believe the program is being exploited by questionable health care providers and is costing the federal government unnecessarily.

Senator Roger Marshall of Kansas highlighted a proposal by Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana that targets overbilling by insurance companies participating in Medicare Advantage. This measure could save as much as $275 billion. “No one is more concerned about our national debt than I am. I would like to cut more money on this bill. If it was up to me, we would be going from $7 trillion a year to $6.5 trillion,” Marshall said, aiming for a $500 billion reduction over the next ten years.

Another contentious proposal involves trimming defense spending. Though the House version of the bill includes $150 billion in new funds for the Pentagon—primarily for projects like Trump’s proposed “Golden Dome” missile defense system—many conservatives argue that the defense budget is bloated and needs downsizing.

Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky has been particularly vocal, accusing pro-defense colleagues of using Trump’s bill as a vehicle for excessive military expenditures. “It’s a frustration for those of us who think it ought to be about fiscal restraint and/or cutting taxes, or both. It ends up becoming a spending bill, and the spending is $150 billion on top of [what] they were already increasing the military” in regular appropriations, Paul said.

“If you’re fiscally conservative, you have to be fiscally conservative everywhere. You can’t be for blowing the budget out on the military,” Paul argued.

Marshall echoed this view, remarking, “I’m one of the few Republicans that thinks that defense has more than enough money.”

Nonetheless, any suggestion to cut the Pentagon’s budget is likely to meet resistance from powerful Senate figures. Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Roger Wicker of Mississippi and Defense Appropriations Chair Mitch McConnell of Kentucky have both insisted that Trump’s proposed military budget is insufficient. Earlier this year, Wicker pushed for $175 billion in new defense funds but later accepted the lower $150 billion figure as the bare minimum.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is expected to face intense scrutiny from McConnell on Trump’s defense budget request in the coming days.

Meanwhile, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas has offered a highly ambitious plan: halting interest payments to banks for deposits held at the Federal Reserve. Cruz argues this would save the federal government $1 trillion over the next decade. However, the banking industry is already pushing back hard. According to Bloomberg News, strategists at JPMorgan Chase & Co. warn that ending these payments would destabilize financial markets, casting serious doubt on the feasibility of Cruz’s proposal.

Some of the most controversial cuts in the House-passed bill—nearly $800 billion in Medicaid spending and $267 billion in reductions to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)—have hit roadblocks in the Senate. Senators Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and Jerry Moran of Kansas have all raised concerns about the social impact of such reductions.

In addition, several senators are pushing back against provisions in the bill that would immediately end renewable energy tax credits. These tax breaks are seen as vital for clean energy investments in Republican-leaning states like West Virginia. If construction on certain projects—such as the Appalachian Regional Clean Hydrogen Hub—doesn’t start before year’s end, those investments could be lost.

Senators Thom Tillis of North Carolina, John Curtis of Utah, and Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia have all warned that abruptly ending the clean energy tax incentives could hurt their local economies and result in job losses.

On the other side of the debate, fiscal conservatives like Senator Mike Lee of Utah argue that the bill doesn’t go far enough—especially when it comes to denying federal benefits to undocumented immigrants. Lee told The Hill, “We’re talking about Medicaid, we’re talking about EITC, earned income tax credit, child tax credit, and eligibility for claiming the benefits of dependents for income tax purposes. Those things should be benefits available to citizens and lawful permanent residents and not others, not illegal migrants.”

Lee insists the legislation fails to completely bar undocumented migrants from receiving federal benefits and declared, “That’s the problem.”

Senator Rick Scott of Florida is also demanding swift action to eliminate clean energy tax subsidies that were part of President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act. “We got a fiscal crisis,” Scott said. “We have to balance our budget.”

He added, “We should completely eliminate the Green New Deal, that’s No. 1.”

In the end, Senate Republicans are grappling with competing priorities. Some are focused on deficit reduction through sweeping cuts, while others are trying to protect politically sensitive programs that affect their constituents. With criticism from influential figures like Elon Musk and growing pressure from conservative voters, the GOP faces a delicate balancing act as they attempt to reshape Trump’s legislative blueprint into something fiscally palatable and politically feasible.

Greta Thunberg Deported by Israel After Gaza-Bound Aid Mission

Greta Thunberg was deported from Israel on Tuesday, just one day after Israeli forces intercepted and seized the Gaza-bound vessel she was aboard. The climate activist was traveling with a group of international campaigners on a humanitarian mission to deliver aid to Gaza, a territory facing severe shortages due to a prolonged conflict and blockade.

After her deportation, Thunberg arrived in Paris as she made her way back to Sweden. Speaking to reporters, she called for the release of the other activists who remained in detention. Reflecting on her time in custody, she described it as a “quite chaotic and uncertain” experience. However, she emphasized that what she endured was minor in comparison to the suffering of the Palestinian people. “The conditions they faced are absolutely nothing compared to what people are going through in Palestine and especially Gaza right now,” she stated.

The journey, organized by the Freedom Flotilla Coalition, aimed to challenge Israeli restrictions on humanitarian aid entering Gaza. Over 2 million people reside in the territory, many of whom rely almost entirely on external aid for survival. According to the group, the mission was intended to protest Israel’s control over aid delivery following a 20-month war in Gaza. Thunberg remarked, “We were well aware of the risks of this mission. The aim was to get to Gaza and to be able to distribute the aid.” She confirmed that despite the setback, the activists remained committed to delivering aid to Gaza in the future.

On Monday, U.S. President Donald Trump criticized Thunberg, calling her “a young angry person” and suggesting she enroll in anger management classes. In response, Thunberg remarked, “I think the world need a lot more young angry women.”

Still recovering from the ordeal, Thunberg mentioned she was unsure of her exact itinerary, had not used a phone in several days, and was eager for a shower. She explained that the activists were detained in separate facilities, and many faced difficulties in securing legal representation. When asked why she accepted deportation, she responded, “Why would I want to stay in an Israeli prison more than necessary?”

Thunberg urged her supporters to take action by pressuring their governments to push not only for unrestricted humanitarian access to Gaza but also for a broader political resolution. She said, “Ask your governments to demand not only humanitarian aid being let into Gaza but most importantly an end to the occupation and an end to the systemic oppression and violence that Palestinians are facing on an everyday basis.” She added that recognition of Palestine by other nations is “the very, very, very minimum” they could do.

Thunberg had been one of 12 individuals on board the Madleen when it was intercepted by the Israeli navy about 200 kilometers (125 miles) off the Gaza coast on Monday. Israeli authorities stated that the ship was seized peacefully. The Freedom Flotilla Coalition and allied human rights organizations have condemned the operation as a breach of international law, since it occurred in international waters. However, Israel rejected these allegations, arguing that the naval blockade on Gaza is lawful and that the intercepted vessel sought to violate it.

Israeli officials dismissed the mission as more symbolic than practical, referring to the Madleen as a “selfie yacht” and claiming its aid cargo was “meager,” amounting to less than a single truckload.

According to the Freedom Flotilla Coalition, three activists, including Thunberg, and a journalist were deported. The group stated it had advised some individuals to accept deportation so they could speak freely about what they had experienced. “Their detention is unlawful, politically motivated and a direct violation of international law,” the coalition said in a statement. Eight others who refused deportation remained in custody at Givon Prison in Ramle. Their legal cases were heard on Tuesday by Israeli authorities at a detention tribunal.

Lubna Tuma, an attorney with the legal rights organization Adalah, represented the detained activists. She said, “We argued today, and that also was emphasized by all the activists, that their goal is to enter humanitarian aid to Gaza, to end the famine and to end a genocide in Gaza. Any violation or any prohibition to entering the humanitarian aid to Gaza is deepening the complicity of Israel in the famine in Gaza.”

Tuma and other legal representatives pointed out that since the activists were captured in international waters and brought into Israel by force, the Israeli authorities had no legitimate legal grounds to detain or deport them.

Sabine Haddad, spokesperson for Israel’s Interior Ministry, explained that those who were deported on Tuesday had chosen to waive their right to a judicial hearing. The remaining detainees are scheduled to appear before a judge and will be held for up to 96 hours before further decisions are made regarding their deportation.

One of the detained passengers was Rima Hassan, a member of the European Parliament from France who is of Palestinian descent. Hassan had previously been barred from entering Israel due to her public criticism of its policies toward Palestinians. It was not immediately clear whether she was being deported or remained in custody.

French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot confirmed that one of the French nationals involved signed a deportation agreement and would be returning home Tuesday. The remaining five French activists had refused to sign, though all had received consular assistance.

In Barcelona, Spanish activist Sergio Toribio expressed outrage at the treatment he and the others received. “It is unforgivable, it is a violation of our rights. It is a pirate attack in international waters,” he told reporters upon his return.

The broader backdrop of this incident is the ongoing blockade of Gaza. Since Hamas seized control of Gaza from rival Palestinian factions in 2007, both Israel and Egypt have enforced varying degrees of blockade. Israel defends its measures as necessary to prevent Hamas from importing weapons, while critics argue that the blockade effectively punishes Gaza’s civilian population collectively.

The current war in Gaza, ongoing for 20 months, has seen Israel restrict and at times completely block aid supplies such as food, fuel, and medicine. Humanitarian experts claim these policies are driving the region toward famine. Israel, on the other hand, accuses Hamas of diverting aid for its own use.

The conflict escalated dramatically after an October 7, 2023, assault by Hamas-led militants that left about 1,200 people dead, most of them civilians, and resulted in the capture of 251 hostages. While many hostages have since been freed in ceasefire agreements or prisoner swaps, Hamas still holds 55 individuals, more than half of whom are believed to have died.

Israel’s retaliatory military campaign has resulted in over 54,000 Palestinian deaths, according to figures from the Gaza Health Ministry. While the ministry does not differentiate between combatants and civilians, it reports that most of the casualties are women and children. In addition to the staggering death toll, vast areas of Gaza have been destroyed and approximately 90% of the territory’s residents have been displaced.

India and Pakistan: A Tale of Two Economies in the Battle Against Poverty

Recent data released by the World Bank draws a striking contrast between India and Pakistan, two neighboring South Asian countries with a shared colonial past but vastly different trajectories in addressing poverty. The figures reflect not just economic performance but also the choices made by each nation over the past several years, shedding light on how governance, policy priorities, and accountability can shape the future of millions.

India’s data, released by the World Bank on Saturday, compares poverty levels between the fiscal years 2011-12 and 2022-23. In contrast, Pakistan’s statistics cover a shorter period, from 2017-18 to 2020-21. The timing of this data release is noteworthy, coinciding with recent developments that saw India overtake Japan to become the fourth-largest economy in the world. Conversely, Pakistan was in the news for yet another financial bailout from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), signaling its ongoing economic instability.

The diverging paths of these two countries highlight the consequences of their respective governance models. While India’s progress stems from a developmental agenda focused on poverty alleviation, Pakistan’s challenges are rooted in mismanagement of funds and continued support for policies associated with extremism.

The World Bank has updated its definition of extreme poverty by adjusting the income threshold from $2.15 to $3 per person per day to account for inflation. Using this new benchmark, the World Bank’s Poverty and Shared Prosperity report shows that India achieved a major reduction in poverty. Between 2012 and 2022, the proportion of people in India living in extreme poverty dropped from 27.1 percent to just 5.3 percent of the population.

The numbers behind this transformation are significant. In 2022-23, about 75.24 million Indians were living in extreme poverty, a dramatic decrease from 344.47 million in 2011-12. That means 269 million people—more than the total population of Pakistan—were lifted out of extreme poverty in just 11 years.

Pakistan’s experience over a shorter span presents a grim picture. From 2017 to 2021, the percentage of people in extreme poverty rose sharply from 4.9 percent to 16.5 percent. Experts caution that these figures may understate the crisis, given that they are based on outdated surveys such as Pakistan’s Household Income and Expenditure Survey. In terms of the broader poverty line of $4.2 per person per day, the poverty headcount in Pakistan jumped from 39.8 percent of the population in 2017 to more than 44.7 percent in 2021.

Pakistan’s economic strategy has relied heavily on external loans to stay afloat. It has received 25 bailout packages from the IMF, totaling $44.57 billion. In addition, Pakistan has borrowed $38.8 billion from institutions like the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, and the Islamic Development Bank. Loans from China alone surpass $25 billion, and additional funds totaling $7.8 billion have come from sources like Eurobonds and Sukuks. Meanwhile, countries such as Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and members of the Paris Club have extended several billion dollars in support as well.

Despite this significant inflow of money, transparency and accountability remain serious concerns in Pakistan. Over the years, international financial institutions have repeatedly raised alarms over Islamabad’s handling of funds. A major criticism lies in the fact that a considerable portion of these resources is diverted to military expenditure. This spending often supports Pakistan’s long-standing policy of asymmetric warfare against India, which includes financing terrorist organizations and maintaining terror infrastructure.

Ajay Bisaria, a former High Commissioner of India to Pakistan, emphasized this point during an interview with NDTV. “The world cannot fix the Pakistan problem unless the structural problem of Pakistan army’s overwhelming presence in politics and economy is fixed. Pakistan’s army controls the allocation of resources. So, all the funds that are sent either via bilateral donors or multilateral donors ends up being misused by the army and in building the terror machinery. All donors will do well to get a wake-up call from the data which shows that only the Pakistani army is getting enriched by its bailouts.”

Bisaria further advised that global institutions must adopt stricter oversight. “The world will do well to put strong FATF-like conditions to monitor the aid money that goes to Pakistan to ensure funds are used for development and the benefit of the people of Pakistan,” he added.

Echoing this sentiment, former Ambassador Ashok Sajjanhar told NDTV, “The Pakistani government’s priorities focus mainly on defence purchases on one end, and building a terror apparatus on the other end. Growth and development are phrases that are unheard of in Pakistani politics, as all governments have an unhealthy obsession with bringing India down, economically, politically and socially, rather than focusing on its own pressing domestic issues.”

Sajjanhar also noted how Pakistan’s continued support for extremist agendas undermines its own development. “But dismantling terror factories are not on Pakistan’s agenda since most continue to indulge in falsehoods. When Congressman Brad Sherman told Pakistan to end terror, he also spoke on behalf of millions of Pakistanis who see their development funds being funneled away towards terror and towards fulfilling the inflated egos of Pakistani generals,” he added.

Economist Piyush Doshi, co-founder of the Foundation for Economic Development, commented on the irrationality of Pakistan’s spending patterns. “Pakistan spending money in defence, particularly when it comes at the cost of very important development expenditure, is illogical. The world will be doing the people of Pakistan a favour by blacklisting the country, which will then force them to make rational choices and using funds to benefit its citizens.”

The contrasting realities of India and Pakistan, as captured by the World Bank’s latest data, offer a powerful lesson to the Global South. India serves as an example of what can be achieved through determined leadership, sound policy, and a commitment to lifting citizens out of poverty. Pakistan, on the other hand, illustrates the dangers of misgovernance, misplaced priorities, and a lack of accountability.

In essence, these developments reveal that poverty is not an inevitable outcome of history or geography. Rather, it is shaped by leadership decisions, economic priorities, and national will. As the data clearly shows, one neighbor is forging ahead, and the other is faltering. The global message is loud and clear: poverty can be overcome—not by chance, but by choice.

Sarod Maestros Amaan & Ayaan Ali Bangash Create Original Score for 25th New York Indian Film Festival

As the New York Indian Film Festival (NYIFF) gears up to celebrate its 25th anniversary this summer, the festival has unveiled a unique musical collaboration with renowned Sarod maestros Amaan Ali Bangash and Ayaan Ali Bangash. The brothers, sons of the legendary Ustad Amjad Ali Khan, have composed an original score exclusively for the festival’s official trailer, adding a stirring musical dimension to the milestone celebration.

The evocative score, blending the timeless elegance of the Sarod with cinematic percussion, has been released across NYIFF’s digital platforms. It serves as both a tribute to the legacy of Indian independent cinema and a bold nod to its evolving future.

“We wanted the score to feel intimate yet expansive—like a reflection of Indian independent cinema itself,” the artists shared in a joint statement. “The sound is rooted in the classical idiom, but layered with rhythm and energy to speak to this moment.”

Festival organizers describe the composition as a “sonic overture” to a lineup of over 45 films, including features, documentaries, and shorts representing diverse languages and regions of India rarely portrayed on mainstream platforms.

Dr. Nirmal Mattoo, Chairman of the Indo-American Arts Council, which presents NYIFF, expressed heartfelt appreciation for the collaboration. “I have had the great privilege of knowing the Khan family for over four decades,” said Dr. Mattoo. “Amaan and Ayaan carry forward their father’s legacy with grace and brilliance. Their contribution is a beautiful testament to their artistry and a personal highlight for me.”

Suman Gollamudi, Executive Director of the Indo-American Arts Council, echoed the sentiment. “Having Amaan and Ayaan compose the signature score for our 25th year is an immense honor. Their music elevates not only our trailer but the entire message of the festival—it celebrates legacy, experimentation, and artistic courage.”

Festival Highlights and Masterclasses

In addition to its dynamic film programming, NYIFF 2025 will feature exclusive masterclasses with two leading figures in Indian cinema:

  • Smriti Mundhra, acclaimed director and producer of Indian Matchmaking and Oscar-nominated shorts, will share insights on navigating global storytelling across formats.

  • Anurag Kashyap, renowned filmmaker, will speak candidly about the current state of Indian cinema, addressing the challenges faced by Bollywood, streaming platforms, and independent films.

Festival Dates and Venue

NYIFF 2025 will take place from June 20 to 22 at the Village East by Angelika in Manhattan. The festival will feature premieres from acclaimed filmmakers including Anurag Kashyap, Goutam Ghose, and Rima Das. All films will be screened with English subtitles.

For tickets, full programming, and masterclass registration, visit nyiff.us.

About NYIFF

Presented by the Indo-American Arts Council, the New York Indian Film Festival is the longest-running and most prestigious U.S. festival dedicated to Indian independent cinema. Now in its 25th year, NYIFF continues to champion daring, diverse, and deeply human storytelling from across the Indian subcontinent.

Greta Thunberg Deported by Israel After Joining Gaza-Bound Aid Flotilla

Israeli authorities deported Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg on Tuesday, just a day after her participation in a Gaza-bound aid flotilla resulted in the seizure of her ship by Israeli naval forces. Thunberg, along with other activists aboard the vessel Madleen, was aiming to challenge Israel’s blockade of Gaza and deliver humanitarian assistance.

Speaking to reporters upon her arrival in Paris while en route to Sweden, Thunberg described the circumstances of their detention as “quite chaotic and uncertain.” However, she quickly added perspective to their experience by saying, “The conditions they faced are absolutely nothing compared to what people are going through in Palestine and especially Gaza right now.” She emphasized that the mission was intended to protest the harsh Israeli restrictions on humanitarian aid entering Gaza, a territory now struggling to support over 2 million people following 20 months of war.

According to the Freedom Flotilla Coalition, which organized the mission, the aim of the journey was to break through the blockade and deliver aid directly to Gaza. Thunberg acknowledged the risks involved, stating, “We were well aware of the risks of this mission. The aim was to get to Gaza and to be able to distribute the aid.” Despite the setback, she affirmed the activists’ commitment to continue supporting the people of Gaza, saying, “The activists would continue trying to get aid to Gaza.”

During the same week, U.S. President Donald Trump criticized Thunberg, labeling her “a young angry person” and suggesting she take anger management classes. Responding to the remark, Thunberg retorted, “I think the world need a lot more young angry women.”

Thunberg shared more details about her experience, noting she hadn’t had access to a phone for several days and was looking forward to a shower. She said the activists were held separately, with some facing difficulties in obtaining legal representation. When asked why she agreed to be deported, she replied candidly, “Why would I want to stay in an Israeli prison more than necessary?”

She also issued a plea to her supporters around the world to urge their governments not only to ensure humanitarian aid reaches Gaza but also to push for an end to what she described as the systematic oppression of the Palestinian people. “Ask your governments to demand not only humanitarian aid being let into Gaza but most importantly an end to the occupation and an end to the systemic oppression and violence that Palestinians are facing on an everyday basis,” she said. Furthermore, she added, “Recognizing Palestine is the very, very, very minimum that governments can do to help.”

The vessel Madleen, carrying Thunberg and 11 other passengers, was intercepted without incident early Monday by Israeli naval forces approximately 200 kilometers, or about 125 miles, from the Gaza coast. The Freedom Flotilla Coalition, along with various rights organizations, condemned the Israeli action, asserting that intercepting the boat in international waters constituted a violation of international law. Israel dismissed the accusation, claiming the flotilla aimed to breach a lawful naval blockade imposed on Gaza and asserting its right to enforce the blockade.

Officials in Israel reportedly viewed the flotilla as more of a publicity move than a genuine humanitarian effort. They derisively referred to the vessel as the “selfie yacht” and downplayed the significance of the aid it carried, noting that it was less than what would fit in a single truck.

The Freedom Flotilla Coalition confirmed that Thunberg, two other activists, and a journalist were deported. The group said it had advised some participants to accept deportation in order to speak freely about their experiences. However, eight others refused deportation and remained in detention awaiting legal proceedings. Adalah, a legal advocacy group based in Israel and representing the detained activists, said those individuals were expected to appear in court later Tuesday.

“Their detention is unlawful, politically motivated and a direct violation of international law,” the Freedom Flotilla Coalition stated. It called for the immediate release of the remaining detainees and urged authorities to permit them to complete their journey to Gaza. Lawyers representing the detainees were preparing to argue for their right to proceed.

Israeli Interior Ministry spokesperson Sabine Haddad explained that those activists deported on Tuesday had waived their right to appear before a judge. In contrast, those who opted to contest their deportation would appear in court and could be detained for up to 96 hours before further action was taken.

One of the high-profile detainees was Rima Hassan, a French Member of the European Parliament of Palestinian descent. Hassan had previously been banned from entering Israel due to her opposition to Israeli policies. It was unclear whether she would be deported or detained. French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot confirmed that one French national signed an expulsion order and was to leave on Tuesday, while five others declined to do so. All of them reportedly received visits from French consular officials.

Sergio Toribio, a Spanish activist who arrived back in Barcelona, strongly condemned Israel’s actions. “It is unforgivable, it is a violation of our rights. It is a pirate attack in international waters,” he told reporters, echoing the outrage expressed by many in the international community.

The situation in Gaza remains dire. The region, controlled by the Hamas militant group since 2007, has long been under varying degrees of blockade by both Israel and Egypt. Israel insists the blockade is necessary to prevent the smuggling of weapons to Hamas, while critics argue that the policy amounts to collective punishment of the Gaza population.

Since the outbreak of war 20 months ago, Israel has imposed even stricter restrictions on aid, often blocking essential supplies such as food, fuel, and medicine. International experts warn that these measures are driving Gaza toward widespread famine. Israel, however, contends that Hamas routinely diverts aid to maintain its grip on power.

The current conflict was sparked by a violent attack on October 7, during which Hamas-led militants killed approximately 1,200 people, mostly civilians, and took 251 hostages. While many of those hostages have been released in ceasefire deals or exchanges, Hamas still holds 55 individuals, with more than half believed to have died.

In response, Israel launched a sweeping military campaign in Gaza that, according to the Gaza Health Ministry, has resulted in the deaths of over 54,000 Palestinians. The ministry does not differentiate between combatants and civilians, but reports that the majority of casualties have been women and children.

The war has also left large portions of Gaza in ruins, displacing around 90 percent of the territory’s residents. As the humanitarian crisis deepens, international pressure continues to mount on Israel to allow unimpeded delivery of aid and to seek a long-term resolution to the ongoing conflict.

US State Department Resumes Visa Processing for Harvard Students Following Court Order

The United States State Department has instructed its diplomatic missions across the globe to restart the processing of student and exchange visitor visas specifically for those intending to study at Harvard University. This directive, issued on Friday, comes in the wake of a federal judge’s decision to halt President Donald Trump’s recent attempt to block international students from attending the institution.

Earlier in the week, embassies and consulates had received guidance telling them to deny visa applications for Harvard-bound students and researchers. That instruction was quickly overturned following a temporary restraining order (TRO) issued by U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs. The judge’s decision prompted the State Department to reverse its stance and allow visa processing to proceed for these applicants.

A new internal cable sent to U.S. diplomatic posts explicitly stated, “Effective immediately, consular sections must resume processing of Harvard University student and exchange visitor visas.” It also emphasized that “no such applications should be refused” under the presidential proclamation. The message made clear that any denial of visa applications for students heading to Harvard would no longer be in line with current U.S. policy, as dictated by the court’s order.

The directive was signed by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, signaling a significant shift from the administration’s previous position. The State Department described the decision as a return to “standard processing,” affirming that it was “in accordance with the TRO.” This phrase underscored the department’s compliance with the judicial ruling and the temporary restraining order imposed by Judge Burroughs.

This development comes as part of an ongoing legal battle between Harvard University and the Trump administration. At the center of the conflict is the administration’s latest effort to restrict international students from attending the university, which Harvard has strongly opposed.

One of the primary concerns throughout the case has been whether foreign consulates are adequately complying with court directives in processing student visas for those admitted to Harvard. The matter gained urgency after Harvard brought the issue to Judge Burroughs’ attention. The university argued that students trying to obtain visas were facing delays and denials at various U.S. embassies overseas, even after being accepted to Harvard.

Judge Burroughs acknowledged these concerns during court proceedings. She said she was troubled by reports that some international students had encountered barriers when trying to obtain visas in the weeks prior to her order. Her ruling emphasized the importance of preserving the status quo for Harvard’s international student community, and she made it clear that the administration should not interfere with that population’s ability to enter the United States.

“I’m concerned about students being denied the opportunity to pursue their education simply because of an abrupt change in federal policy,” Judge Burroughs stated. She added that the court’s role was to prevent unjustified disruptions for those already accepted to academic programs in the country.

While the judge’s ruling provided temporary relief for international students hoping to attend Harvard, the legal battle is far from over. A major court hearing is scheduled for next week, where further arguments and possibly a more permanent decision will be presented.

The latest guidance from the State Department represents a significant policy reversal. Earlier in the week, the administration had begun enforcing a new rule based on President Trump’s proclamation, effectively blocking many international students from entering the U.S. if their programs were held entirely online. This move disproportionately impacted institutions like Harvard, which had opted for virtual learning due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

Harvard and other academic institutions quickly challenged the administration’s action, arguing that it was discriminatory and harmful to the academic futures of thousands of students. In response, the university filed a lawsuit, contending that the policy would undermine its educational mission and hurt its ability to attract global talent.

In her temporary ruling, Judge Burroughs sided with Harvard’s arguments, indicating that the administration’s actions lacked sufficient justification. Her decision to issue the restraining order allowed time for the matter to be fully considered in court, while also ensuring that students would not miss crucial deadlines or classes.

“This court is not convinced that this abrupt policy shift serves any urgent national interest,” Burroughs said in her remarks. “To the contrary, it seems likely to inflict significant harm on students and universities alike.”

Legal experts suggest that the court’s intervention could serve as a precedent for similar cases involving other universities, especially those with large international student populations. Harvard’s lawsuit has drawn support from numerous institutions of higher learning, including the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Stanford University, who argue that the federal government’s actions threaten the integrity and inclusivity of American higher education.

The State Department’s new cable, issued after the judge’s ruling, signals at least temporary adherence to the judicial branch’s authority. By instructing consular officers to continue issuing visas to Harvard’s international students, the department is now facilitating rather than hindering their entry into the U.S. for academic purposes.

Still, Harvard officials and immigration advocates remain vigilant. They note that past experiences have shown that even when the federal government shifts policy, implementation can lag, especially at individual embassies. Consular officers must now act swiftly and uniformly to honor the updated instructions.

In the meantime, students affected by the earlier guidance have begun resubmitting applications and reaching out to embassies for new visa appointments. Many of them remain anxious about their ability to arrive in time for the academic term, despite the recent legal win.

One student from India, who requested anonymity, shared her frustration: “I got my admission letter months ago and have been preparing to study at Harvard. When I heard that my visa might be rejected, it was devastating. Now, with this new development, I hope I can finally get to campus.”

Although the State Department’s response appears to be in line with the court’s order, the situation remains fluid. The next hearing could result in further changes to visa policy, depending on how the court evaluates the administration’s justifications and the broader legal implications of restricting student mobility.

For now, the TRO remains in place, and the directive to resume visa processing has brought a degree of relief to Harvard’s international students and faculty. Still, the broader issues raised by the case—about the intersection of immigration policy and higher education—are likely to persist well beyond the current legal battle.

AI Will Usher in a New Golden Age, Says DeepMind CEO, Not a Job Crisis

Demis Hassabis, the CEO of Google DeepMind, foresees a future shaped by artificial intelligence where humanity will begin to explore and colonize the galaxy. In as little as five years, he predicts the development of AI systems smarter than humans—an advancement that, rather than leading to mass unemployment, could lead to what he terms a “golden era.” According to Hassabis, this transformation will mark an age of prosperity and human flourishing, not the dystopia some fear. Other technology leaders, such as Bill Gates and Marc Benioff, share a similarly optimistic view, believing AI will fundamentally alter the world of work for the better.

There is, however, a wide gap in how different groups perceive the potential impact of AI. While CEOs and executives are enthusiastic about the new possibilities that AI promises, many workers are uncertain or even fearful about what lies ahead. Hassabis, in an interview with Wired, offered a broader, more abstract view that goes beyond routine job disruptions, speaking instead about space colonization and the emergence of superhuman capabilities.

“If everything goes well, then we should be in an era of radical abundance, a kind of golden era,” said Hassabis, reinforcing his belief that advanced AI will significantly uplift human life.

Hassabis places his confidence in artificial general intelligence, or AGI, which he defines as AI that matches or surpasses human intellectual abilities. DeepMind, backed by Google with a $600 million budget, is already working on making this vision a reality, and Hassabis said the company is “dead on track” to potentially achieve AGI within five to ten years.

With AI systems already performing certain tasks more efficiently than human workers—such as chatbots, copilots, and automated agents—concerns are rising that more advanced systems could trigger widespread job losses. However, Hassabis refutes this claim, suggesting that these technologies will lead to new kinds of employment rather than wipe out existing jobs.

“What generally tends to happen is new jobs are created that utilize new tools or technologies and are actually better,” he said. “We’ll have these incredible tools that supercharge our productivity and actually almost make us a little bit superhuman.”

He envisions this leap in productivity extending far beyond Earth. “If that all happens, then it should be an era of maximum human flourishing, where we travel to the stars and colonize the galaxy. I think that will begin to happen in 2030.”

Hassabis is convinced that the coming decade, starting around 2030, could represent a turning point for humanity, thanks to AI. He calls this future the “golden era,” one where AGI helps solve major global challenges.

“AGI can solve what I call root-node problems in the world—curing terrible diseases, much healthier and longer lifespans, finding new energy sources,” he explained.

Despite his optimism, some in the tech world are sounding alarms about the turbulence ahead. Dario Amodei, CEO of AI company Anthropic, has warned that up to 50% of entry-level jobs could be automated within five years. He cautions this could push unemployment rates to 10% or even 20%. Similarly, Aneesh Raman, LinkedIn’s chief economic opportunity officer, has expressed concerns that technological disruption will first affect the most vulnerable segments of the workforce.

Hassabis, however, maintains that fears of a widespread AI-induced job crisis may be overstated. He noted that he hasn’t personally observed much pushback against AI taking over jobs. Instead, he views these tools as mechanisms to amplify human potential. For example, in healthcare, AI can assist rather than replace workers.

“There’s a lot of things that we won’t want to do with a machine,” he said. “You wouldn’t want a robot nurse—there’s something about the human empathy aspect of that care that’s particularly humanistic.”

Other tech industry leaders share Hassabis’ belief that AI will reshape the nature of work—but they offer different visions of what that future might look like. Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates imagines a world where AI automates many routine tasks, potentially shortening the workweek dramatically.

“What will jobs be like? Should we just work like 2 or 3 days a week?” Gates pondered during an appearance on The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon earlier this year.

At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff offered another perspective. He believes that the current generation of CEOs will be the last to oversee fully human workforces. As AI continues to integrate into the workplace, executives will need to learn to lead both people and machines.

“From this point forward…we will be managing not only human workers but also digital workers,” Benioff said during a panel discussion.

Chris Hyams, CEO of job search platform Indeed, also aligns with Hassabis in thinking that AI won’t wipe out vast numbers of jobs. However, he stressed that the kinds of skills employers value are rapidly evolving. While technical expertise in areas like software development, data science, and cybersecurity has been highly prized over the last decade, Hyams now sees a shift toward soft skills.

“Every job is going to change pretty radically, and I think many of them in the next year,” he said. He emphasized the importance of attributes such as empathy, curiosity, and a genuine eagerness to keep learning. “Having a curiosity and an openness and maybe even a veracity to learn new things” will be critical, Hyams added.

As AI becomes more capable, these human-centered qualities could prove to be the most important assets in the workplace of the future. Even though the nature of work may change dramatically, leaders like Hassabis are confident that it will ultimately change for the better. The world of tomorrow may involve fewer mundane tasks and more meaningful, creative roles enabled by advanced AI.

Rather than inciting mass unemployment, AI could be the catalyst for one of the most transformative and uplifting eras in human history. While opinions differ and challenges remain, tech leaders overwhelmingly agree that we are on the brink of a major shift—one that could redefine both the workplace and the human experience as we know it.

Indian Students Rethink American Dream Amid Tightened U.S. Visa Restrictions

Indian students have historically comprised the largest group of international students in the United States, drawn by its high-quality education and opportunities in research and employment. However, a growing number of Indian aspirants are now reconsidering their plans to study in America due to increased scrutiny and restrictions on student visas under President Donald Trump’s administration. Reporting from Mumbai, NPR’s Omkar Khandekar explores how these changes have affected Indian students’ ambitions and reshaped the perception of American education.

Kaustubh, a 20-year-old engineering student from India, has nurtured a dream of studying aeronautics in the U.S. since childhood. During a visit to the U.S. five years ago, he had the chance to tour Stanford University while staying with relatives. That visit had a lasting impact.

“When I saw what kind of life, what kind of, you know, freedom the students over there enjoy, I cannot express the quality of education that you get over there,” Kaustubh said.

Kaustubh, whose last name has been withheld due to fears that he might face repercussions and be denied entry to the U.S., has worked hard to earn a place in a prestigious program. He has maintained excellent academic scores, built model airplanes, and even completed an internship at India’s top aircraft manufacturing company. Despite his impressive resume, Kaustubh says that the increasingly restrictive U.S. immigration policies under Trump have cast a shadow over his aspirations.

“It’s kind of shattering my dream of studying in the Stanford,” he said.

Kaustubh is not alone. Many other students across India share the same concern. Although Trump had considerable support among some in India, with celebrations and prayers being held for his political success, Indian students and professionals have increasingly felt the brunt of his administration’s stringent immigration policies.

Less than a month into his first term, Trump’s government began deporting hundreds of Indian nationals it claimed had entered the U.S. unlawfully. These moves unsettled many families who had once viewed the U.S. as a land of opportunity. In a move that further intensified these concerns, the U.S. government suspended all new student visa appointments and started reviewing the social media activity of applicants. These decisions have created anxiety among prospective students and have led some to reassess the risks involved in choosing the United States as an education destination.

Sudhanshu Kaushik, who leads the North American Association of Indian Students, believes that these developments are symptomatic of broader cultural tensions playing out in the U.S. According to him, Indian students are starting to interpret the policy changes not merely as administrative actions but as part of a deeper ideological movement.

“I think that they want to push as much as possible to make it as homogeneous as they can,” Kaushik said.

He also points out the contradiction in targeting Indian students, who are often high-achieving and contribute significantly to the U.S. economy. Indian students inject more than $8 billion annually into the American economy, not just through tuition fees and living expenses, but also by fueling innovation and productivity in technology and science sectors. Indians are also integral to the workforce of many leading technology firms in the U.S.

Anand Shankar, co-founder of Learners Cortex, an educational consultancy in India that assists students applying to overseas universities, says the uncertainty surrounding visa policies has caused considerable anxiety. Some students have told him they are prepared to postpone their U.S. plans for several years in hopes of a more favorable political climate.

“They really want this presidency to end,” Shankar remarked, suggesting that students see the political leadership as directly impacting their academic future.

While some students are willing to wait it out, others have already abandoned the idea of pursuing their studies in the U.S. Nihar Gokhale, a journalist based in Delhi, had been offered admission to a Ph.D. program at a university in Massachusetts. However, that offer was later rescinded when the university informed him that federal budget cuts had affected their research funding, leaving them unable to support international students.

Gokhale expressed disappointment at how changes in U.S. policy are undermining its long-standing reliance on the intellectual contributions of foreign students. He pointed out that graduate and Ph.D. students often bring invaluable knowledge and talent to American institutions.

“Graduate students and Ph.D. students are the best brains that you can get,” Gokhale stated.

He emphasized that targeting such students under restrictive policies would be counterproductive to the very goals that Trump claims to champion under the slogan of “Make America Great Again.” In his view, curbing international student participation will diminish the intellectual edge that has long fueled America’s global leadership in innovation and technology.

While many Indian students are still attracted to the U.S. due to its premier institutions and cutting-edge research opportunities, the rising difficulty in obtaining visas and the perception of an unwelcoming environment are causing a shift in their outlook. Many are beginning to look toward alternative destinations like Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia, where immigration policies are seen as more predictable and student-friendly.

As for Kaustubh, he remains torn between his passion and the reality of the hurdles ahead. Despite his impressive qualifications and dedication to his field, the uncertainty surrounding visa policies has made him hesitant about investing more time and effort into what might ultimately become an unachievable goal.

Indian students have always been a vital part of America’s academic and economic ecosystem. However, as the political climate continues to influence educational policies, the U.S. risks alienating some of the brightest minds from countries like India—minds that have long enriched its classrooms, labs, and industries.

Omkar Khandekar, reporting for NPR from Mumbai, highlights the growing apprehension among India’s young scholars who once saw the U.S. as the ultimate academic destination but now face a future clouded with uncertainty.

Protest Chaos Erupts in Los Angeles Amid Trump’s National Guard Deployment

Tensions boiled over in Los Angeles on Sunday as thousands of protesters flooded the streets in defiance of President Donald Trump’s decision to deploy the National Guard. Demonstrators blocked a major freeway and torched self-driving cars while law enforcement responded with tear gas, rubber bullets, and flash bangs in an effort to disperse the crowds.

The protests, ignited by Trump’s immigration policies and intensified by the Guard’s presence, reached a new level of volatility. As dusk fell, police declared an unlawful assembly, ordering people to leave or face arrest. Although many complied and left the area, some stayed behind and clashed with police. Makeshift barricades were erected across streets, and objects like concrete chunks, rocks, electric scooters, and fireworks were hurled at California Highway Patrol (CHP) officers. Some officers had to retreat under a freeway overpass for safety.

Centered in several downtown blocks, the demonstrations marked the third and most heated day of protests in the city of nearly 4 million residents. The presence of roughly 300 National Guard troops seemed to deepen public outrage and fuel fear among citizens. The troops were tasked specifically with guarding federal properties, including a downtown detention facility that became a focal point for demonstrators.

Los Angeles Police Chief Jim McDonnell acknowledged the strain on his department, stating, “Officers were overwhelmed by the remaining protesters,” and adding that some of the demonstrators were known agitators who regularly attend protests to stir unrest.

Law enforcement arrested dozens of people over the weekend. Among them, one person was detained on Sunday for allegedly throwing a Molotov cocktail at officers, while another individual was taken into custody for ramming a motorcycle into a line of police.

Trump reacted on his social media platform, Truth Social, by urging McDonnell to take a harder line: “Looking really bad in L.A. BRING IN THE TROOPS!!!” He also encouraged the arrest of masked protesters.

Meanwhile, similar unrest unfolded in San Francisco. Police there reported dozens of arrests after a group refused to disperse following a protest near Sansome and Washington streets. The San Francisco Police Department explained via a social media statement that the gathering turned violent, prompting officers to declare it an unlawful assembly. While many participants left, others regrouped near Market and Kearny streets, where they vandalized buildings and damaged a police vehicle.

The disturbances continued to Montgomery Street, where authorities arrested 60 individuals after they failed tocomply with dispersal orders. The department reported three officers injured, with one requiring hospitalization. In their statement, police emphasized, “Individuals are always free to exercise their First Amendment rights in San Francisco but violence — especially against SFPD officers — will never be tolerated.”

Back in Los Angeles, the National Guard’s arrival on Sunday morning escalated the situation further. Clad in riot gear and armed with long guns, troops formed lines while protesters chanted “shame” and “go home.” As tensions rose, law enforcement began dispersing smoke canisters into the crowds. Soon after, the Los Angeles Police Department fired crowd-control rounds, asserting that the demonstrators were violating assembly laws.

The group then took their protest onto the 101 Freeway, blocking traffic for hours until CHP officers eventually cleared the roadway by late afternoon. Not far from this scene, four self-driving Waymo cars were torched, creating massive black smoke plumes and intermittent explosions as the electric vehicles burned. Police later declared an unlawful assembly and shut down multiple downtown blocks.

The evening air was frequently punctuated by the sound of flash bangs as officers attempted to clear remaining pockets of resistance.

Governor Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, formally requested the removal of the National Guard in a letter to Trump on Sunday afternoon. He described the deployment as a “serious breach of state sovereignty” and was in Los Angeles meeting with local officials and law enforcement at the time. Notably, the move marked one of the rare instances in recent decades where a state’s National Guard had been activated without the consent of its governor — a stark escalation in federal response to opposition against mass deportation efforts.

Both Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass blamed Trump’s decision to deploy troops for the intensifying protests. They accused the administration of deliberately heightening tensions rather than prioritizing public safety. “What we’re seeing in Los Angeles is chaos that is provoked by the administration,” said Bass during a press conference Sunday afternoon. “This is about another agenda, this isn’t about public safety.”

Chief McDonnell, however, said the unrest was part of a typical protest escalation cycle, with tensions peaking on the second or third day. He dismissed claims from Trump administration officials that LAPD had failed to support federal authorities during Friday’s demonstrations, which erupted in response to a series of immigration raids. McDonnell emphasized that his department had not been informed about the federal actions in advance and, as a result, had not been able to prepare officers accordingly.

While federal and city authorities exchanged blame, Newsom reiterated that California’s law enforcement agencies were fully capable of managing the situation without federal intervention. He even took a swipe at Trump for celebrating prematurely. The president had posted a congratulatory message following the Guard’s arrival, which Newsom ridiculed given the unfolding chaos.

The tensions across California underscore the fragile state of relations between the federal government and local leadership, especially when it comes to immigration enforcement and protest control. While the White House insists the Guard deployment is necessary to maintain order and protect federal property, state officials argue that it only serves to escalate unrest and provoke further violence.

In both Los Angeles and San Francisco, the weekend’s events were marked by chaos, confrontations, and a deepening divide over how protests and public dissent are handled. As the dust settles, city officials continue to urge peaceful demonstrations, even as fears mount over future escalations.

The unrest shows no signs of abating as calls grow louder for federal forces to withdraw, and local leaders brace for what could be another week of conflict and confrontation.

Elon Musk Calls for New Political Party as Rift with Trump Widens

Tech tycoon Elon Musk has stirred political debate by unveiling the results of an online poll he conducted on his social media platform X, asking whether it was time to form a new political party in the United States. The poll, which quickly went viral, revealed overwhelming support for the idea, with 80 percent of users responding affirmatively.

“The people have spoken,” Musk announced in a widely shared post. “A new political party is needed in America to representthe 80% in the middle! And exactly 80% of people agree. This is fate.”

The move, seen by many as a political statement, comes at a time when the billionaire entrepreneur appears to be distancing himself from President Donald Trump, with whom he once shared a strong public alliance. Musk’s provocative poll was interpreted by some observers as the latest in a string of moves aimed at reshaping the political landscape and appealing to Americans disillusioned by the two dominant parties.

Musk’s call for a centrist political party was not just a whimsical post. The timing of his remarks coincided with an intensifying online campaign against Trump, including a particularly stinging remark that shocked supporters and critics alike: “Without me, Trump would have lost the election.” Musk doubled down on his position shortly afterward by adding, “Such ingratitude.”

These sharp comments appeared to mark a turning point in the relationship between Musk and Trump, which had once seemed firmly rooted in mutual admiration and shared goals. But Trump wasted no time in responding to Musk’s criticism. Taking to his own platform, Truth Social, the president lashed out, accusing Musk of betrayal and hinting at financial retaliation.

“I was always surprised that Biden didn’t do it!” Trump wrote in a scathing post, threatening to revoke federal contracts and subsidies tied to Musk’s companies. He added, “The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon’s Governmental Subsidies and Contracts.”

Trump’s remarks alluded to the long-standing financial relationship between the federal government and Musk’s enterprises, including Tesla and SpaceX. These companies have benefited from various government programs, subsidies, and contracts over the years, often drawing scrutiny from both sides of the political aisle.

Despite their current public spat, Musk and Trump were once close political allies. During Trump’s presidency, Musk was a regular presence in Washington. He served on advisory councils, participated in policy discussions, and even made appearances at high-level events. Their political bond deepened over time, particularly as Trump pursued pro-business policies that aligned with Musk’s interests.

Following a narrow escape from an assassination attempt at a Pennsylvania rally in July of the previous year, Trump received a public show of support from Musk, who declared his backing in no uncertain terms. At the time, Musk was not just a supporter; he actively contributed to Trump’s reelection efforts. He established a political action committee, took part in campaign rallies, and assumed a highly visible role in Republican fundraising and strategy.

Musk’s support was evident in his appearances at campaign events, often seen wearing MAGA hats and even traveling with Trump aboard Air Force One. His involvement extended to participating in Cabinet meetings and standing behind Trump during key public moments, including the inauguration.

However, that political closeness has since devolved into open hostility, with both men now trading barbs in public forums. What began as a prominent and seemingly strategic alliance has now become a very public feud, raising questions about its potential impact on the business interests of both parties—and the broader political landscape.

The rift between Musk and Trump seems to reflect deeper tensions in American politics, where alliances are often short-lived and driven by transactional interests. As Musk champions the idea of a centrist alternative to the two major parties, some political analysts see it as an attempt to reposition himself as a new kind of political influencer—one who defies the traditional left-right binary.

His framing of the poll results as evidence of national consensus—“A new political party is needed in America to represent the 80% in the middle!”—suggests that he sees a real opportunity to shape political discourse. At the same time, critics argue that Musk’s approach is more about spectacle than substance and question whether he has the political infrastructure to make a third party viable in the U.S. system.

Still, Musk’s influence is hard to dismiss. With millions of followers on X and control of influential companies such as Tesla and SpaceX, his words carry weight far beyond the digital sphere. And his willingness to publicly challenge Trump—once a political ally—underscores the shifting dynamics of conservative politics, especially as the 2024 election looms.

Trump’s threat to cut off government funding for Musk’s ventures could carry real consequences. SpaceX, for instance, holds critical contracts with NASA and the Department of Defense, while Tesla has received federal incentives for electric vehicle production and infrastructure. The specter of political retaliation introduces uncertainty into those relationships.

Yet it also underscores the risk of public feuds in the high-stakes arena where business and politics intersect. As both men continue to spar, the potential fallout could extend beyond their personal reputations to affect investors, federal agencies, and even voters seeking clarity in a polarized environment.

What remains clear is that the Musk-Trump split is more than a personal disagreement. It represents a clash between two towering personalities—each commanding vast resources and influence—over the direction of American politics. Whether Musk’s call for a new political party gains real momentum remains to be seen, but his latest actions suggest he’s not content to sit on the sidelines.

In an era where political loyalty often shifts with public sentiment and digital platforms can shape national debates overnight, the Musk-Trump rupture is both a reflection of the current moment and a signal of the unpredictable months ahead.

Association of Indians in America (AIA) Honors 5 Outstanding Indian Americans at Annual Gala

In an evening marked by grace, celebration, and community pride, the AIA NY Chapter held its Annual Benefit Gala on June 1st, 2025 at the Pearl Banquet Hall, Long Island, NY. The event attracted over 350 guests, including dignitaries, the Consul General of India in New York, elected officials, Nassau County Executive, community leaders, professionals from medical and healthcare industries, all gathered to honor five exceptional individuals for their outstanding contributions to the community.

AIA-NY recognized five remarkable individuals from diverse industries, regions of India, and fields of expertise, referring to them as the ‘Five Ratnas’ (jewels) of the gala, symbolizing their invaluable contributions to their fields and the community.

Dr. Karthik Gujja, M.D., M.P.H., is acknowledged for his leadership and pioneering contributions in cardiovascular and endovascular medicine. He serves as Director of the Endovascular Program at Mount Sinai South Nassau and Associate Director of Endovascular Interventions at Mount Sinai Hospital. Additionally, he leads private practices as Director of Cardiac and Endovascular Services across multiple outpatient interventional suites. His journey epitomizes excellence, innovation, and leadership in modern medicine.

Navneet Sikka, Youth Ambassador, is honored for her exceptional achievements in business, entrepreneurship, and social activism. As Senior Technology Controls Manager and Senior Vice President at Citigroup, she brings over 21 years of expertise in the financial services sector. Navneet actively advocates for community service and empowerment and holds a significant board position as Chair of the American Punjabi Society Women’s Council, organizing community service events such as cancer awareness walks and blood donation drives.

Dr. Hetal Gor, MD, FACOG, is celebrated for her contributions in Obstetrics and Gynecology. Certified in Obgyn, Dr. Gor practices in Englewood, NJ, and has received numerous awards for her work. She has authored articles on webMD and peer journals and initiated free health fairs in Bergen County. Despite her professional accomplishments, her pride lies in her three children who are also successful in their own right.

Dr. Devendra Shrivastava, MD, is recognized for his dedication to nephrology care as Medical Director of Dialysis Services at The Brooklyn Hospital Center and Interfaith Medical Center. He has founded Empire ACO LLC and NYCC IPA, serving as CEO. His commitment to education is evident in his mentorship of medical residents, fellows, and students. He is actively involved with the American Association of Physicians of Indian Origin Queens and Long Island (AAPIQLI) and MPMAANA.

Dr. Ramesh C. Gupta, Ph.D., an expert in synthetic organic chemistry, is acknowledged for his research and innovation in treating diseases, especially cancer. He leads Chem-Master International Inc. and R&S Chemicals, with notable contributions to cancer and antiviral drug projects. His family, including his wife, children, and daughter-in-law, share a legacy of excellence in various fields.

The Gala also honored distinguished guests including the Chief Guest, The Honorable Binaya S. Pradhan, Consulate General Of India, and Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman. Leadership Award in the education field was presented to Dr. Christine Mannino, President of Queensborough Community College, and Excellence Tribute in Public Service award to Mr. Ashok Lavasa, a retired IAS officer.

President Beena Kothari extended sincere appreciation to all attendees, including dignitaries, elected officials, special guests, and honorees. She congratulated the honorees and expressed gratitude to the AIA team. Messages of best wishes and congratulations were sent by various elected officials.

The gala commenced with captivating performances:

·         Kiana Vyas performed the Ganesh Vandana.

·         Sujata Seth sang the Indian National Anthem.

·         Maya Kaul rendered the American National Anthem.

The event raised funds for the upcoming Deepavali festival. The President thanked everyone who contributed to the event’s success and invited all to join the Deepavali celebrations, showcasing Indian culture, traditions, and Indian-American cultural programs.

Save the Date: The iconic Deepavali event will take place on October 11th (rain date: October 12th) at Tanner Park, Copiague.

Association of Indians in America (AIA) is the oldest national association of Asian Indians in America, founded in 1967. AIA’s mission promotes the interests of Asian Indians, fosters community engagement, and celebrates cultural diversity.

FBI Refocuses on Violent Crime and Immigration Amid Shifting National Security Concerns

When federal agents captured an alleged MS-13 gang leader, Kash Patel stood prominently at the announcement, calling it a move toward restoring “our communities to safety.” The event signaled a marked shift in the FBI’s public focus, away from exclusively high-level national security threats and toward more visible law enforcement targets like gang activity and drug trafficking.

In a subsequent operation, federal authorities showcased a massive seizure of $510 million worth of narcotics headed for the United States. The announcement was made in front of a Coast Guard ship in Florida, where FBI Director Christopher Wray and other law enforcement leaders stood before piles of intercepted drugs. These high-profile appearances are part of a broader strategy to emphasize the FBI’s renewed commitment to tackling violent crime, illegal immigration, and narcotics—issues that are quickly becoming central to its updated mission, according to current and former officials.

The FBI recently revised its official priorities on its website, placing “Crush Violent Crime” at the top of the list. This marks a significant shift toward the law-and-order platform of President Donald Trump, whose administration has focused heavily on illegal immigration, drug cartels, and transnational gangs. Patel, now a key figure in directing the bureau, has made clear his intention to “get back to the basics.” His deputy, Dan Bongino, reinforced that sentiment, saying the agency is returning to “its roots.”

Although some of the bureau’s long-standing priorities remain in place—such as counterintelligence efforts targeting China—the recent pivot indicates a recalibration. The FBI confirmed this in a public statement: “The FBI continuously analyzes the threat landscape and allocates resources and personnel in alignment with that analysis and the investigative needs of the Bureau. We make adjustments and changes based on many factors and remain flexible as various needs arise.”

Recent violent incidents have reinforced the complexity of the threat landscape. One such case involved an Egyptian national who allegedly overstayed his visa and launched a Molotov cocktail attack in Colorado while shouting “Free Palestine.” The FBI considers such cases part of an evolving and interconnected web of domestic and international security risks.

Meanwhile, the agency is undergoing structural changes that reflect this strategic shift. The Justice Department has reportedly disbanded an FBI-led task force focused on foreign influence operations, and sources say a key public corruption team in the bureau’s Washington field office is also being dissolved. At the same time, the Trump administration has proposed significant budget cuts for the FBI, and several veteran agents have been forced out of leadership positions.

These developments have prompted concern among former FBI officials who worry that refocusing on more immediate, conventional crimes could come at the cost of preparedness for more sophisticated threats. Chris Piehota, a former executive assistant director who retired in 2020, warned, “If you’re looking down five feet in front of you, looking for gang members and I would say lower-level criminals, you’re going to miss some of the more sophisticated strategic issues that may be already present or emerging.”

An Increasing Focus on Immigration

Historically, enforcement of immigration laws has fallen under the purview of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), not the FBI. However, under Trump’s administration, the FBI has stepped more assertively into this area. The agency now claims responsibility for over 10,000 immigration-related arrests, with Patel frequently sharing these developments on social media as evidence of the administration’s commitment to immigration enforcement.

In practical terms, FBI agents are being dispatched to interview unaccompanied migrant children who crossed the U.S.–Mexico border, a move officials describe as a way to ensure their well-being. Across the country, FBI field offices have been instructed to devote personnel to immigration cases.

Moreover, the Justice Department has directed the FBI to examine its files for information about undocumented individuals and to share that data with the Department of Homeland Security—unless doing so would compromise ongoing investigations. Visual evidence of this shift can be seen on the FBI’s Instagram page, which features images of agents in tactical gear arresting suspects, captioned with a message that the FBI is “ramping up” its efforts with immigration agents to find “dangerous criminals.”

Deputy Director Dan Bongino expressed the administration’s uncompromising stance in a Fox News interview: “We’re giving you about five minutes to cooperate,” he said. “If you’re here illegally, five minutes, you’re out.”

This approach contrasts with the tone of previous FBI leadership. While former Director Christopher Wray did raise concerns about fentanyl trafficking across the southern border and the possibility that terrorists might use it as a point of entry, he never explicitly defined immigration enforcement as a central FBI mission.

A Mandate to ‘Crush Violent Crime’

Reprioritizing is not new for the FBI. After the September 11, 2001 attacks, then-Director Robert Mueller overhauled the agency into a counterterrorism and intelligence-oriented organization. That transformation saw agents diverted from more traditional criminal investigations into terrorism prevention efforts. In the FBI’s 2002 top ten priorities, fighting terrorism ranked first, while addressing violent crime fell near the bottom.

Today’s leadership appears to be reversing that trend. The current top priority—“Crush Violent Crime”—reflects a sharp pivot toward public safety and traditional crime-fighting. This is evident not only in rhetoric but also in operational choices.

Still, some law enforcement veterans caution against diminishing focus on less visible but potentially more dangerous threats. They point to cybersecurity breaches, espionage, and state-sponsored attacks as critical challenges that require deep expertise and long-term strategic focus.

Critics argue that shifting too many resources to street-level enforcement could leave the nation more vulnerable to these harder-to-detect dangers. The concern is not that violent crime and immigration issues aren’t serious, but that they may now be overshadowing other responsibilities that uniquely fall within the FBI’s mandate.

Nonetheless, the new leadership remains resolute in its course. Patel and Bongino continue to promote their agenda publicly, underscoring their belief that restoring public safety must take precedence. Patel’s stance is consistent: a return to “the basics” is the foundation for rebuilding public trust and ensuring national security.

Whether the FBI’s recalibrated mission will pay dividends or produce unforeseen vulnerabilities remains to be seen. But one thing is clear: the bureau is undergoing one of its most significant transformations in decades, recalibrating its priorities to match a new political and national security landscape.

Indian IT Outsourcing’s Global Rise: A Two-Decade Legacy of Opportunity, Displacement, and Visa-Linked Struggles

Two decades ago, a handful of well-established Indian information technology companies began to change the global job landscape by persuading top executives in the Western world that their engineers and developers could deliver the same or better performance than local candidates—at a fraction of the cost. This marked the beginning of a significant shift in the IT industry, driven by economic efficiency and globalization.

These Indian firms strategically utilized labor laws, immigration policies, and business regulations in some of the world’s most developed nations to offer low-cost labor. They managed to “export” their workforce to countries like the United States through limited and highly regulated employment visas. This model, though economically attractive, sparked ethical concerns. The restricted nature of these visas has led to the workforce being labeled globally as “the new ‘Slavery of our time.’”

A labor study conducted in March 2023 underscores the dominance of Indian IT giants—Infosys, Wipro, HCL, TCS, and Tech Mahindra—who together control over 96 percent of the global technology services market. These companies offer outsourcing and consulting services to major global corporations such as Cisco, T-Mobile, Pepsi, Disney, Johnson & Johnson, Facebook, Google, BD, Estée Lauder, Boeing, Bank of America, and many more.

But how did these Indian companies gain access to such a powerful position in global corporate structures, especially in the United States?

Their success strategy lies in assembling elite sales teams composed of some of the country’s highest-performing sales professionals. These individuals are exceptionally connected and networked. Their primary mission is to target the wealthiest and most influential corporate executives in America—what the article describes as “the wealthiest and most powerful one percent of the one percent executives of America.” These are the heavyweights, the “real whales,” who hold the keys to enterprise-level decisions.

Once these high-performing sales professionals gain access to boardrooms, they present proposals featuring dramatically underpriced IT managed service contracts. These agreements often include taking over an entire company’s IT operations at costs far below market rates.

The takeover process is swift and discreet. The implementation team begins by replacing high-ranking and critical IT roles within the client company with Indian professionals. This workforce is carefully selected and managed through the traditional Indian caste structure, known as Jati. As the transition deepens, the native local workforce is gradually reduced to a bare minimum and eventually replaced almost entirely by Indian employees—many of whom are loyal to this caste-based hierarchy. This management approach raises questions about workplace equity and cultural homogenization in global corporations.

So what becomes of the Indian IT professionals working abroad on restrictive work visas?

Sadly, they are the ones paying the highest price. These individuals are often bound to their visa sponsors—typically the outsourcing firms—which severely limits their job mobility. They are subjected to long hours, including night shifts, weekends, and holidays, without additional compensation. This is not merely a tough work schedule; it’s coerced. If they refuse these conditions or fall out of line, they risk having their visas revoked, which would require them to return to India within a few weeks of termination.

Unfortunately, these are the people, these are the humans that are treated as slaves. It describes how visa holders are “forced to work overtime, nights, weekends, and even holidays at no extra pay, or otherwise their work visas could be canceled.”

This grim reality raises a broader concern: how does this industry model impact other professionals in the technology sector?

If you’re an IT professional, the implications are significant. It becomes extremely difficult to break into companies whose entire IT departments are controlled by Indian outsourcing firms. These companies, often show a hiring preference toward Indian candidates over equally qualified local professionals. “Most likely they will prefer to hire an Indian person over you,” it states.

Moreover, if you’ve had a negative experience or left one of these outsourcing firms on bad terms, your prospects become even dimmer. “Unfortunately and unfairly the doors of many companies around the world will be close to you,” the article warns. This effectively creates a form of labor monopoly that excludes outside talent and punishes dissent.

So, is it fair to have such a dominant and exclusive labor structure in place, particularly one that marginalizes local professionals while placing migrant workers in borderline exploitative conditions?

That question remains deeply controversial. While companies enjoy reduced costs and streamlined IT services, the human and ethical cost is becoming increasingly hard to ignore. The outsourcing model may have delivered short-term savings and growth, but it has also led to long-term consequences—professional displacement, monopolistic practices, and a new kind of labor exploitation under the guise of visa dependency.

As this system continues to evolve, the global workforce is left to grapple with one unavoidable question: Should cost-efficiency come at the expense of equity, diversity, and human dignity?

How Amitabh Bachchan’s Legacy Helped Shape South Indian Superstars: Ram Gopal Varma’s Candid Take

Veteran filmmaker Ram Gopal Varma has offered a frank and insightful take on the origins of superstardom in South Indian cinema, asserting that the rise of several iconic actors from the region in the 1970s and 1980s was significantly influenced by remakes of Amitabh Bachchan’s classic Hindi films. In a detailed interview with IndiaTV Showbiz, Varma pointed out that all four major South Indian film industries—Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, and Malayalam—saw immense benefits from recreating the Bollywood legend’s work.

He named prominent actors such as Rajinikanth, Chiranjeevi, NT Rama Rao, and Rajkumar as direct beneficiaries of this wave. According to him, many defining moments in their careers came through roles that were essentially southern adaptations of Amitabh Bachchan’s powerful on-screen portrayals. These films, Varma noted, helped these actors rise to a level of stardom that made them not just celebrities but revered figures among fans. “They became cultural icons and, eventually, demigods,” he said, emphasizing the transformative impact of these remakes.

Elaborating further, Varma described how the South Indian industries actively embraced the “mass entertainer” formula that Bachchan had championed. Unlike Bollywood, which saw shifts in the 1990s due to the actor’s temporary hiatus and the growing influence of music companies, Southern cinema remained steadfast in its commitment to this formula. Varma argued that this approach played a critical role in solidifying the stardom of South Indian actors during that period.

He pointed out that the five-year break Bachchan took in the 1990s coincided with a changing Bollywood landscape. During this time, music companies increasingly began financing films primarily to promote their soundtracks, with Maine Pyar Kiya cited by Varma as a landmark example of this transition. As Bollywood moved in a new direction, South Indian cinema doubled down on the “masala” film structure that had been influenced by Bachchan’s earlier work.

“The South never stopped making the so-called masala films,” Varma remarked. This, he suggested, was key in helping actors like Rajinikanth and Chiranjeevi maintain and grow their appeal across generations. He emphasized that these remakes weren’t mere copies but carefully crafted vehicles designed to fit the regional flavor while leveraging tried-and-tested story arcs that resonated with audiences.

Another layer to Varma’s analysis was the difference in filmmaking philosophies between Bollywood and the South. He noted that while Bollywood directors, particularly in the 1990s, often came from urban, English-speaking backgrounds and were more attuned to global cinema, Southern filmmakers stayed rooted in the ground realities of their audiences. “They’re very close to the ground root,” Varma observed, implying that their storytelling remained more direct, accessible, and emotionally resonant with everyday viewers.

To illustrate his point about the unpredictability of audience reception and the disconnect between industry insiders and actual viewers, Varma shared a telling anecdote about Pushpa: The Rise, directed by Sukumar and starring Allu Arjun. He recalled that just before the film’s release, a producer—whom Varma did not name—watched the film and dismissed its chances of success. The skepticism, according to Varma, had little to do with Arjun’s acting and everything to do with the character’s unconventional traits.

“He was not referring to the actor,” Varma explained. “They are so used to good-looking six-pack heroes… that they can’t comprehend a hero chewing paan.” This, he argued, was a classic example of how film industry professionals often impose their own standards on what they believe audiences will accept, ignoring the broader cultural dynamics at play.

This anecdote fed into Varma’s larger point about how preconceived notions can sometimes prevent genuine innovation in cinema. Rather than assessing a character or story based on its potential to resonate with viewers, many producers and filmmakers rely on rigid formulas, often underestimating the audience’s openness to new ideas.

Beyond individual anecdotes and industry patterns, Varma’s reflections also touched on a broader and often under-discussed reality: the prevalence and importance of remakes in Indian cinema, especially during the earlier decades. He highlighted that while Bollywood today is frequently criticized for recycling old ideas, South Indian cinema, too, once heavily relied on remakes. However, Varma was quick to clarify that this wasn’t necessarily a sign of creative fatigue.

According to him, in the 1970s and 1980s, when a fresh and successful concept emerged—regardless of the language—it was rapidly adopted and adapted by filmmakers in other regions. “The culture of adaptation,” as Varma described it, was more a strategic creative exchange than a lack of originality. It enabled cross-pollination of ideas and helped shape some of India’s most enduring cinematic icons.

He noted that back then, original scripts were relatively rare across the Indian film landscape. Success was often built on how well an idea could be translated into a new cultural and linguistic setting. In that sense, Varma argued, the creative choices that directors and actors made during those decades were pragmatic rather than derivative. They ensured wide appeal while allowing regional talent to rise by stepping into roles proven to work with audiences elsewhere.

Reflecting on this legacy, Varma said that while the filmmaking environment has changed drastically in recent years, the impact of that era still echoes in today’s storytelling approaches. The groundwork laid by those adaptive strategies helped create stars whose influence persists, and the storytelling format continues to draw from those roots.

In summary, Ram Gopal Varma’s interview offered a unique and clear-eyed view of the interconnected histories of Bollywood and South Indian cinema. His assertion that legends like Rajinikanth and Chiranjeevi owe part of their early success to Bachchan’s legacy sheds new light on how stardom in India was crafted—not just through originality, but through thoughtful adaptation. As Varma’s analysis shows, cinema is often a mirror to the cultural and commercial forces behind the screen, and sometimes, a borrowed reflection can shine just as brightly as the original.

New Super-Earth Discovery Offers Fresh Clues in Hunt for Habitable Worlds

For decades, scientists have scanned the cosmos in search of distant planets and possible signs of extraterrestrial life. This relentless exploration has yielded many fascinating discoveries and driven the development of increasingly advanced instruments. However, planets that closely resemble Earth—especially those with low mass—often manage to evade detection.

Many of these elusive planets remain undetected due to the limitations of conventional observation methods. Their orbital alignments may not suit our line of sight, or their faint signals might fall below the threshold of standard detection techniques. These shortcomings have long posed a challenge to astronomers trying to discover Earth-like planets in faraway solar systems.

In a significant step forward, Leilei Sun, the lead author from Yunnan Observatories of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, along with a team of international collaborators, recently confirmed the existence of a super-Earth dubbed Kepler-725c. This discovery was made possible by a unique strategy that sidesteps the limitations of the widely used transit and radial velocity methods.

There are several established ways to detect planets outside our solar system, also known as exoplanets. One of the most popular methods is the transit technique, which involves observing slight dips in a star’s brightness caused by a planet passing in front of it. These dips signal the presence of a planet and provide information about its size and orbit.

This technique is particularly effective for identifying large exoplanets with short orbital periods. These planets pass across their host stars frequently, making them relatively easy to detect. Kepler-725c, for instance, belongs to this category of big, short-period planets. However, smaller planets with longer orbital cycles are more difficult to detect with the transit method. Their rare alignments with Earth’s line of sight make them much harder to observe.

That’s why Kepler-725c’s detection has drawn attention. Researchers are especially interested in planets with up to 10 times the mass of Earth. These so-called super-Earths are thought to form differently from much larger gas giants and may possess characteristics similar to our own planet. A mass close to Earth’s increases the likelihood of interesting features such as rocky terrain or the ability to retain water—both critical components when evaluating a planet’s potential to support life.

In order to find Kepler-725c, scientists employed the transit timing variation method, or TTV. This technique monitors how a planet’s gravity influences the orbit of a neighboring planet, causing slight shifts in its expected transit times. According to Sun, “This discovery demonstrates that the transit timing variation method enables the detection and accurate mass measurement of a super-Earth/mini-Neptune within a solar-like star’s habitable zone.”

The team studied changes in the transit times of Kepler-725b, a gas giant similar to Jupiter, to identify Kepler-725c in the same planetary system. The gravitational interplay between the two planets provided the telltale evidence of Kepler-725c’s existence.

One of the key advantages of TTV is that it doesn’t require the planet being studied to pass directly in front of its star from our point of view. Nor does it rely on detecting minute shifts in the star’s velocity caused by the gravitational tug of an orbiting planet. As such, TTV opens a door to finding planets that would otherwise be invisible.

This technique is particularly effective in systems where only one planet is seen transiting, but its movement suggests the presence of another gravitational body. These indirect signs, similar to cosmic breadcrumbs, lead researchers to unseen planetary companions. In the case of Kepler-725c, scientists were able to determine its orbit and mass even without visually detecting its transit.

Kepler-725c is located roughly 2,472 light-years from Earth. It orbits a G9V-type star and completes one full revolution in about 207.5 days. Its path occasionally takes it through the habitable zone—the region around a star where conditions might allow liquid water to exist. It receives about 1.4 times the solar radiation Earth gets from the Sun at a distance of 1 astronomical unit.

With an orbital distance of approximately 0.674 AU, Kepler-725c may experience moderate surface temperatures. However, many additional factors—such as atmospheric composition, planetary rotation, and magnetic fields—play a role in determining whether the planet could truly be habitable. Scientists aim to explore how heat, star behavior, and atmospheric makeup might affect Kepler-725c as they continue their analysis.

The timing of this discovery is significant. Space agencies around the world are preparing for missions that will focus on detecting smaller planets around Sun-like stars. Europe’s PLATO mission, among others, is expected to generate data that complements TTV-based methods. These upcoming missions could reveal additional Earth-like planets in similar orbital zones.

This moment marks a crucial opportunity for astronomers to refine their understanding of what conditions are necessary for life. By determining a planet’s mass and orbit with precision, TTV allows researchers to assess its characteristics without the limitations of traditional observation strategies.

The discovery of Kepler-725c demonstrates the practical value of the TTV method in identifying planets that do not visibly transit their stars. These hard-to-see worlds might still meet critical criteria for habitability, and TTV offers a powerful approach to locating them.

Future space missions could work hand-in-hand with this technique to uncover more low-mass, long-orbiting planets that older detection methods have missed. Such findings have the potential to greatly sharpen our focus as we search for planets that might support life.

Still, even with better detection tools and refined techniques, verifying whether a planet is truly habitable remains a complex and slow-moving process. For planets like Kepler-725c, more data—especially direct imaging or atmospheric readings—are needed before scientists can determine if life might exist there. So far, researchers mostly have indirect clues such as mass, orbit, and radiation levels, which are informative but not definitive.

Vital elements like liquid water, oxygen, or a stable surface are necessary for life as we know it. These details are still beyond our reach for many newly discovered planets, including Kepler-725c.

The research team behind this discovery includes scientists from several institutions: Yunnan Observatories, Hamburg Observatory, Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University, and the Nanjing Institute of Astronomical Optics and Technology. Their international collaboration reflects a growing global interest in using advanced techniques to uncover distant planets and better understand their environments.

By combining gravitational measurements with long-term orbital data, these researchers have illuminated yet another small corner of our universe—bringing us one step closer to answering the age-old question: are we alone?

Trump Targets Foreign Student Enrollment as Ivy League Schools See Soaring International Numbers

Three decades ago, only 11% of Harvard University’s student body came from abroad. Today, that figure has risen dramatically to 26%, marking a significant shift in the composition of elite academic institutions in the U.S. This trend is not unique to Harvard—many prestigious universities across the United States have increasingly relied on their global appeal to attract high-achieving students from around the world. However, the surge in international enrollment has recently come under fire, with President Donald Trump using his authority over immigration policy to challenge the status quo of American higher education.

Trump has initiated a direct move against Harvard University by invoking a broad federal law to prevent foreign students from entering the country to attend the school’s Cambridge, Massachusetts campus. Although this proclamation is currently limited to Harvard and was temporarily blocked by a federal judge late Thursday, it sets a precedent that may affect other institutions, especially those the Trump administration sees as bastions of liberalism requiring reform.

Colin Binkley, who has reported on Harvard for nearly ten years and lives just half a mile from its campus, noted the growing tension on university grounds facing federal scrutiny. Columbia University, where international students comprise 40% of the student population, is among the schools feeling the heat. As the Trump administration intensified reviews of new student visas last week, concerns began to mount within the Columbia academic community. A group of faculty and alumni, known as the Stand Columbia Society, voiced alarm over what they described as Trump’s arbitrary power over the academic landscape.

“Columbia’s exposure to this ‘stroke of pen’ risk is uniquely high,” the group stated in a newsletter, highlighting how vulnerable the institution is to executive decisions.

International students make up a disproportionate share of the student body at Ivy League institutions compared to the national average. While just 6% of all U.S. college students in 2023 were from other countries, international students accounted for 27% across the Ivy League. Columbia had the highest share at 40%, followed closely by Harvard and Cornell at about 25% each. Brown University had the lowest proportion, still substantial, at 20%.

Beyond the Ivy League, the trend of growing international enrollment extends to other elite private universities. For instance, both New York University and Northeastern University saw their foreign student populations double between 2013 and 2023. In contrast, public universities experienced more restrained growth in international admissions. Even among the 50 most selective public universities, only about 11% of students came from outside the U.S.

This pattern reflects global economic shifts. As middle-class families in countries like India and China have grown in affluence, more are able to invest in test preparation and application coaching to help their children secure spots in prestigious U.S. universities. Rajika Bhandari, head of a higher education consulting firm, noted the powerful allure of Ivy League schools overseas.

“The Ivy League brand is very strong overseas, especially in countries like India and China, where families are extremely brand-aware of top institutions in the U.S. and other competing countries,” Bhandari explained in an email.

Bhandari emphasized that over the past two decades, American universities have increasingly embraced the value of international exchange. This global perspective has not only enhanced cultural diversity but has also served as a crucial revenue stream, particularly for funding expensive programs in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). With many U.S. students deterred by rising tuition costs and student loan burdens, international students have helped keep enrollment numbers up and financial balance sheets stable.

The dramatic rise in foreign enrollment took off around 2008, driven largely by a surge in students from China. William Brustein, who helped lead international efforts at universities like Ohio State and West Virginia, described the phenomenon as a “gold rush” in higher education. As global competition intensified, universities raced to position themselves as the most globally connected institutions.

“Whether you were private or you were public, you had to be out in front in terms of being able to claim you were the most global university,” Brustein said.

Economic incentives also played a major role. Many international students are not eligible for federal financial aid and often pay significantly higher tuition than domestic students. This created a strong financial motivation for colleges to increase their international enrollment. According to Brustein, some elite institutions, such as Harvard, do offer financial aid to foreign students. However, many of those who are admitted can already afford to pay premium rates, which frees up more scholarship funds for American students.

Despite the growth, not all universities have expanded international enrollment at the same rate. Public institutions often face pressure from state lawmakers to prioritize local students, limiting the number of foreign students they can admit. In contrast, private universities do not face such restrictions and have aggressively pursued international applicants, especially as domestic college-going rates have remained stagnant.

Advocates of international education point to the significant benefits that foreign students bring, both to universities and the broader U.S. economy. These students contribute billions of dollars annually and frequently go on to work in high-demand fields like technology and engineering. Most international students choose to study STEM subjects, making them vital to U.S. innovation and competitiveness.

In the Ivy League, much of the international enrollment growth has occurred at the graduate level, although undergraduate numbers have also seen steady increases. At Harvard, more than half of all graduate students are from other countries, further underscoring the university’s dependence on global talent.

While elite universities benefit from global student flows, the reliance on international enrollment has exposed them to new vulnerabilities, particularly under politically motivated scrutiny. Trump’s recent actions, beginning with Harvard, signal a shift in the role of immigration policy in shaping the makeup of American higher education institutions.

The potential for abrupt policy changes is causing deep concern among administrators, faculty, and students alike. With the increasing politicization of higher education and immigration, universities may find themselves caught in the crossfire of ideological battles, jeopardizing both their financial stability and their reputation as global academic leaders.

Modi Congratulates Canadian PM Mark Carney, Emphasizes Strong India-Canada Partnership Ahead of G7 Summit

Prime Minister Narendra Modi recently held a telephone conversation with Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, during which the two leaders discussed bilateral ties and upcoming international engagements. The interaction highlighted mutual respect and a shared vision for closer cooperation between the two countries.

During the call, Prime Minister Modi extended his warm congratulations to Prime Minister Mark Carney on his recent electoral success. Modi also expressed his appreciation for the invitation to attend the G7 Summit, which is scheduled to take place later this month in Kananaskis, Canada. The invitation signals Canada’s intent to foster greater global dialogue by including key international partners like India in discussions on pressing global issues.

Both Prime Ministers acknowledged the robust people-to-people ties that have historically connected India and Canada. These strong cultural, educational, and familial connections have served as a foundation for the broader diplomatic relationship between the two nations. Recognizing this deep-rooted bond, Modi and Carney reaffirmed their commitment to advancing cooperation and strengthening bilateral relations. Their renewed emphasis on partnership was framed around shared democratic values, common global interests, and a desire to work together in the international arena.

According to a statement, both leaders pledged to engage with “renewed vigour,” underscoring the significance of mutual respect and common priorities in guiding their future collaboration. The conversation was a testament to their readiness to move past any prior tensions and to focus instead on areas of mutual benefit.

Prime Minister Modi conveyed that he is looking forward to meeting Prime Minister Carney in person at the G7 Summit. The in-person interaction is expected to further deepen the dialogue between the two leaders, especially in the context of evolving global challenges and opportunities for multilateral cooperation.

Reiterating his sentiments publicly, Prime Minister Modi also took to social media platform X to share a message about the call. In his post, Modi wrote, “Glad to receive a call from Prime Minister @MarkJCarney of Canada. Congratulated him on his recent election victory and thanked him for the invitation to the G7 Summit in Kananaskis later this month. As vibrant democracies bound by deep people-to-people ties, India and Canada will work together with renewed vigour, guided by mutual respect and shared interests. Look forward to our meeting at the Summit.”

This message echoed the themes of friendship, cooperation, and democratic values, while highlighting the upcoming opportunity for both leaders to further their dialogue in a multilateral setting. The use of social media to convey this message also reflects the growing importance of direct communication between world leaders and their citizens.

The invitation to the G7 Summit and India’s acceptance of it signals a potentially important shift in Canada-India relations, especially following a period of diplomatic friction in recent years. While the statement from both sides focused on the positive aspects of the relationship, the broader geopolitical context suggests that both leaders are interested in stabilizing ties and moving forward constructively.

The phone call also comes at a time when global cooperation is seen as critical for addressing challenges ranging from climate change and economic recovery to geopolitical tensions and technological innovation. The G7 Summit provides a valuable platform for like-minded countries to come together to shape collective responses to these issues. India’s participation as a guest nation reflects its growing influence on the global stage and its commitment to being part of these multilateral solutions.

Canada, under Prime Minister Carney’s leadership, appears keen on engaging more deeply with major global democracies like India. The invitation to the G7 Summit can also be interpreted as a step towards reinvigorating bilateral diplomatic efforts and rebuilding trust. For India, the opportunity to engage with G7 leaders allows it to highlight its perspectives on global governance and to advocate for the interests of the Global South.

In summary, the phone conversation between Prime Minister Modi and Prime Minister Carney set a constructive tone for future engagements between India and Canada. Both leaders acknowledged the historic and enduring connection between their nations and reaffirmed their intent to collaborate more closely on areas of shared concern. The G7 Summit will offer a timely platform for these efforts to be further articulated and advanced.

Quoting directly from Modi’s social media post: “Glad to receive a call from Prime Minister @MarkJCarney of Canada. Congratulated him on his recent election victory and thanked him for the invitation to the G7 Summit in Kananaskis later this month. As vibrant democracies bound by deep people-to-people ties, India and Canada will work together with renewed vigour, guided by mutual respect and shared interests. Look forward to our meeting at the Summit.”

This clear and public articulation of support for stronger India-Canada ties may mark the beginning of a more cooperative chapter in their bilateral relationship. With shared democratic ideals and mutual interests on the global stage, the renewed dialogue could pave the way for deeper strategic engagement in the months and years to come.

Trump and Musk Feud Sends Shockwaves Through Politics and Markets

Not long ago, U.S. President Donald Trump and billionaire Elon Musk seemed to share a strong public camaraderie. They were often seen together at events, collaborated on interviews, and spoke highly of each other. However, that apparent bond fractured suddenly, spiraling into a very public and bitter feud that now threatens political alliances and business interests.

The rift erupted when Trump publicly attacked Musk for his criticisms of the Republican tax-cut and spending bill. The situation escalated rapidly, unfolding through dueling posts on Trump’s Truth Social platform and Musk’s X (formerly Twitter), capturing national attention and drawing reactions from business leaders and politicians alike.

The conflict soon turned aggressive. Trump reportedly threatened to withdraw billions in government contracts awarded to Musk’s businesses. In retaliation, Musk implied that Trump owed his past electoral success to his support, stating that Trump “could not have won the election without him.”

As the feud became a national spectacle, several high-profile individuals attempted to intervene or weigh in. Billionaire hedge fund manager Bill Ackman, the CEO of Pershing Square Capital Management, publicly urged the two men to reconcile for the country’s sake. Posting on X, Ackman said, “We are much stronger together than apart.” Musk responded briefly: “You’re not wrong.”

U.S. Congressman Jim Jordan, speaking on Fox News’ Laura Ingraham show, also expressed hope for a reconciliation between Trump and Musk, while defending the contested budget bill that had triggered Musk’s initial criticism. But not all of Trump’s allies shared Jordan’s conciliatory tone.

Former Trump adviser Steve Bannon, who has had his own recent clashes with Musk, took a far more aggressive stance. On his “War Room Live” show, Bannon called for Trump to invoke the Defense Production Act — a national security law — to seize control of SpaceX. “The U.S. government should seize it,” Bannon declared, also urging the administration to revoke Musk’s security clearance and freeze all federal contracts with his companies pending an investigation.

Congressman Thomas Massie, a Republican known for his independent streak and previous opposition to Trump’s budget plans, pointed out the inherent clash in personalities. On X, he remarked, “The falling out was inevitable. You don’t land rockets backwards or get cars to drive themselves by suffering fools gladly.”

As the feud dominated headlines, others began floating new political concepts. Billionaire investor Mark Cuban appeared to back a suggestion Musk had posted in a poll — the formation of a new political party that would represent the “80% in the middle” of the American political spectrum. Former presidential candidate Andrew Yang joined the discussion, reposting Cuban’s endorsement and later proposing an “Independent ‘28 presidential primary” that could include figures like Cuban, JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon, and actor Matthew McConaughey.

The ripple effects of the Trump-Musk feud weren’t confined to the U.S. European officials also chimed in. Polish Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski, who had previously sparred with Musk and U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio over the role of Musk’s Starlink satellite service in Ukraine, took a swipe at the tech mogul. Referencing Musk’s earlier insult in which he told Sikorski to “Be quiet, small man,” the Polish minister retorted on X, “See, big man, politics is harder than you thought.”

Thierry Breton, the former European Union leader for digital policy and a previous critic of Musk, posted a cryptic combination of emojis — eyes and popcorn — suggesting he was watching the Musk-Trump drama unfold with interest.

Meanwhile, Ian Bremmer, president of the political risk consultancy Eurasia Group, gave a blunt assessment on X: “Trump is more powerful than elon, but far less competent.”

The feud also triggered massive turmoil in the financial world, particularly for Tesla, Musk’s flagship electric vehicle company. Spooked investors began selling off Tesla stock rapidly, sending its value plunging by more than 14% and wiping out a staggering $152 billion in market capitalization.

Dan Ives, managing director and senior equity research analyst at Wedbush Securities, noted in a research brief that the public conflict had rattled markets. “The conflict was jaw dropping and a shock to the market,” he wrote, adding that the feud “creates major fear for Tesla investors.”

Ives further explained the potential implications for Tesla: “Tesla’s stock is under major pressure down 15% as investors fear that this Musk/Trump battle will stop their friendship and change the regulatory environment for Tesla on the autonomous front over the coming years under the Trump Administration.” Still, he emphasized that Wedbush remained bullish on Tesla long-term, though he admitted the situation “clearly does put a fly in the ointment of the Trump regulatory framework going forward.”

Other Tesla supporters were less optimistic. Ross Gerber, CEO of Gerber Kawasaki Wealth and Investment Management and a well-known Tesla investor, criticized Musk sharply. In a series of posts on X, he wrote that Musk was “now attacking all the people he helped put in power.” Gerber continued: “Elon going postal on Trump and tesla stock is getting walloped. Trump will be returning his new tesla and is saying he got musked. All this can’t be good for shareholders. But hey, who cares about us.”

Gary Black, managing director at the Future Fund added to the pessimism. Black, whose firm recently sold all of its Tesla shares, commented that the feud would create further downward pressure on the stock. “These same bulls argued for months that the Musk-Trump alliance would streamline the federal process allowing TSLA to secure general unsupervised autonomy license nationally. That prospect is now highly unlikely.”

The dramatic deterioration in relations between Musk and Trump — once seen as mutual power brokers with influence over tech and politics alike — now poses uncertain risks for both figures. For Musk, the potential loss of regulatory favor and political alliances could hamper Tesla’s ambitious plans in autonomy and federal contracts for SpaceX. For Trump, alienating a high-profile tech magnate risks splintering support among moderate conservatives and business leaders ahead of a pivotal election.

What began as a disagreement over fiscal policy has ballooned into a fierce standoff with implications far beyond partisan politics. With influential voices urging a truce and the markets reeling, it remains unclear whether the damage can be undone — or if this feud marks a new chapter of political and corporate rivalry.

Pediatrician Rediscovers Joy in Medicine After Escaping Administrative Burdens

For many physicians, the path to medicine is motivated not only by a fascination with science and the human body but also by a deep sense of empathy and a desire to care for others. Unfortunately, the daily reality of practicing medicine doesn’t always align with that passion, often due to overwhelming bureaucracy, systemic inefficiencies, and constant administrative hurdles. These obstacles were enough to push Dr. Nalini Casey, a pediatrician, to the edge of burnout before she found a new beginning at Privia Health.

Dr. Casey has long been guided by a philosophy rooted in delivering compassionate, evidence-based care while involving parents as active participants in their children’s health. “A lot of times that’s through education and teaching them about their child’s illness,” she explained. “Any time they come to me, they’re going to be heard, and I’m going to listen to them.” However, despite her commitment to this patient-centered approach, she found herself increasingly pulled away from the very reason she pursued medicine.

In her previous practice, Dr. Casey was inundated with documentation errors, billing and coding corrections, and late-night charting sessions. These tasks consistently robbed her of valuable face-to-face time with patients. “I spent way more time charting than I ever got to spend with my patients and their families,” she said during an episode of “The Break Room” podcast, where she recounted the mounting challenges that led her to reevaluate her career path.

The constant stream of administrative demands eventually took a toll. “I was starting to feel a little hopeless,” she admitted. “Was there a practice somewhere I could put my tablet down, look my patients in the eye, and spend the time I needed to with them and their parents?”

After years of grappling with frustration and questioning her future in medicine, Dr. Casey began searching for a better alternative. It was during this search that she discovered Privia Health—an organization that is also a member of the American Medical Association’s Health System Program, which supports healthcare systems with tools and resources to shape the future of medicine.

Dr. Casey’s first encounter with Privia Health happened in a hotel room during a trip out of town. One evening, she had a long phone call with Lisa Freda, vice president of provider recruitment for Privia Health. That conversation would prove to be pivotal.

“Lisa spent over an hour with me, just getting to know me. Where I trained, where I worked, what my experiences were,” Dr. Casey recalled. “She honed right in on what my expectations were, what I wanted, what I came from, and what the other practices were looking for. It was like a matchmaking service.”

Following that call, Dr. Casey was connected with several practices, ultimately leading her to Bayside Pediatrics, a physician-owned clinic in Annapolis, Maryland. Today, she thrives in that environment, thanks to Privia Health’s systems and culture, which have allowed her to realign with the values that first inspired her to become a doctor.

At Bayside Pediatrics, the internal operations support a seamless experience from beginning to end. From the initial phone call to schedule a sick visit to arranging a follow-up at the end of the appointment, every part of the care journey flows smoothly among front desk staff, clinical teams, and physicians. There are no gaps or missed steps, allowing for a consistent and thorough experience.

Even lab results, which can often be delayed or overlooked in disjointed systems, are sent straight to Dr. Casey’s inbox. This ensures that every patient gets the attention and care they need. She no longer worries about things slipping through the cracks.

Prior to joining Privia Health, Dr. Casey spent countless hours fixing records and correcting coding errors—time that could have been spent with patients. Now, thanks to a streamlined system for charting and coding that includes built-in safeguards like requiring an ICD-10 code before a chart can be finalized, she has reclaimed that lost time.

“It’s great because at the end of the month, I don’t have 20 charts coming back saying, ‘This ICD-10 code didn’t work for these labs,’” she said. The technology now does the heavy lifting, offering curated lists of appropriate codes and automating much of the documentation process.

Moreover, the system has provided Dr. Casey with an expanded professional network. “When I pull up referrals, the system suggests frequently used Privia providers,” she said. “When I first arrived, I didn’t know who to refer patients to, so that was huge.”

She also praised the specialized templates and macros available through the system. These tools are pre-populated with insurance requirements and prompts to ensure that all the necessary clinical points are covered. “Everything about the system is pre-populated with the things that insurance companies require and prompts about the high points they want you to cover, so you don’t have to think of it yourself,” she noted.

Perhaps most importantly, Dr. Casey can tell that these features were designed by people who truly understand her specialty. “I can tell when something’s been created by another pediatrician,” she said. “The templates and order sets just make sense.”

With administrative burdens dramatically reduced, Dr. Casey now enjoys a healthier work-life balance and more meaningful connections with her young patients and their families. “I’ve always tried to go the extra mile, and I have time to do that now,” she said, expressing appreciation for the broader network of care that includes therapists, psychiatrists, emergency physicians, and radiologists.

The transformation in her practice has not only helped her rekindle her passion for medicine but also restored the quality of care she can provide. With Privia Health, Dr. Casey no longer needs to compromise between operational efficiency and patient interaction. She’s found a model of care that reflects her core values as a pediatrician and allows her to do what she loves most: healing and helping others.

Dr. Casey’s journey is a testament to how the right systems and supportive environments can help physicians overcome burnout and return to the joy of practicing medicine. As she put it, “I have time to do what I’ve always wanted—to care.”

AMA Warns Proposed Budget Bill Could Deepen Physician Shortage and Undermine Medical Education Access

The American Medical Association (AMA) has raised serious alarms over the 2025 budget-reconciliation bill, cautioning that if it passes the U.S. Senate in its current form, it would make medical school financially out of reach for most students, even those who are exceptionally qualified. The organization believes that such a shift in student-loan policy would not only limit access to the medical profession but would also worsen the already critical shortage of physicians across the United States.

As it stands, becoming a physician is one of the most demanding and high-stakes educational paths in the country. It requires four years of medical school, an additional three to seven years of residency training, and between 10,000 to 16,000 hours of clinical experience. This extensive and rigorous preparation ensures that physicians are the most capable members of any healthcare delivery team. “The high-stakes field of medicine demands education, expertise, acumen and coordination that is best delivered by a physician,” the AMA emphasized.

However, the cost of this education is already staggering. Medical school is the most expensive type of post-secondary education in the U.S., with over 70% of students graduating with an average debt of $212,341. In 2024, the cost of completing a medical degree at a public in-state school exceeded $286,000, while students at private medical schools faced expenses over $390,000.

Now, proposed legislative changes are threatening to make this educational path even less accessible. The AMA has responded by submitting official comments to Congress, outlining its concerns over specific elements of the bill—particularly changes affecting Federal Direct Unsubsidized Loans and Federal Direct Graduate (GRAD) PLUS loan programs.

One major proposal in the House version of the bill is a cap of $150,000 on the amount a student can borrow for professional education through Direct Unsubsidized Loans. This figure falls well short of the average financial requirement for medical school. Compounding the issue, the bill also calls for the elimination of both subsidized loans and GRAD PLUS loans, and it proposes limits on parental borrowing to support children’s education.

The bill doesn’t stop there. Another key change would redefine physician residency training, rendering it ineligible as a qualifying public service for the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program. This change could have a serious ripple effect. “Nearly 90% of medical school graduates carrying student debt last year who intended to enter into a loan forgiveness program said in their graduation questionnaire that they wished to participate in the PSLF program,” the AMA noted.

If residency no longer qualifies toward PSLF, fewer young physicians may be willing to take on jobs with eligible employers, many of which are located in rural or underserved regions. This would inevitably limit healthcare access for patients in the areas that most need it. As the AMA stated, “Denying PSLF eligibility to residents will harm patient care in those areas in greatest need.”

The consequences for healthcare access, especially in rural America, could be severe. Many patients already face long waits to see a physician or even difficulty in finding one at all. “Patients, particularly in rural areas, are having difficulty finding a physician and getting timely appointments,” the AMA said. This issue is likely to escalate given a projected physician shortfall that could reach 86,000 by the next decade.

A significant part of this shortage stems from demographics. Nearly half of all practicing physicians are 55 years or older, and one in five is over 65. At the same time, the U.S. population is steadily growing, with the number of individuals aged 75 and above expected to rise by nearly 55% by 2036. This trend will heighten the demand for and complexity of medical care.

Patients themselves continue to express strong support for physician-led care. According to recent AMA surveys, 91% of patients believe physicians’ education and training are essential for receiving optimal care, and 95% say it is important for doctors to play a role in their diagnosis and treatment.

In light of this, the AMA argues that Congress should be working to make it easier—not harder—for students to enter the medical profession. “At a time when our nation needs more physicians, Congress should be taking action to lessen the barriers for new physicians, not increasing the financial burden of their education,” the AMA asserted.

To address these challenges, the AMA is pushing for a multi-faceted approach aimed at reducing the financial strain on medical students. “The AMA believes that the cost of a medical education should never pose a barrier to a career in medicine,” the organization stated. Through its advocacy efforts—both independently and in partnership with others in the medical community—the AMA is pushing for policies that mitigate this burden.

This includes maintaining stable public funding for medical schools to help control tuition costs, encouraging financial literacy among students, and expanding service-based scholarships, such as those offered through the National Health Service Corps Program.

The AMA underlines the foundational role physicians play in the nation’s healthcare system and insists that everything possible should be done to strengthen that foundation. “Physicians are the foundation of our nation’s entire health care system, and we must make every effort to strengthen that foundation going forward.”

The changes proposed in the House bill could significantly shrink the pipeline of future doctors. They would do so by making medical school unaffordable, limiting available borrowing options, and removing incentives for doctors to work in areas most in need of healthcare services. “The student-loan changes now under consideration in Congress could reduce the pipeline of future physicians by making medical school unaffordable for many prospective students,” the AMA warned.

Ultimately, the AMA is calling on lawmakers to understand and support the unique and indispensable role physicians play. As the organization put it, “Congress should recognize the vital contributions and unique role of physicians in our society, and provide support for medical education that aligns with the financial and educational burdens physicians face as they provide the care that Americans want and deserve.”

In a healthcare landscape already stretched thin, the AMA’s message is clear: ensuring access to medical education is not just about helping students—it’s about safeguarding the health of an entire nation.

Samsung Sounds Alarm Over AI Privacy as Google Pushes Forward with Cloud-Centric Features

Samsung has issued a timely caution to Android users this week, highlighting a critical decision they now face as artificial intelligence rapidly evolves. The crux of the issue centers on privacy and how AI-powered features are being integrated into smartphones and PCs at an unprecedented pace. This comes amid murmurs of a growing disconnect between Samsung and Google—the two major players shaping the Android experience.

The central theme of Samsung’s warning is clear: AI brings powerful, personalized capabilities to mobile devices, but also raises significant concerns about data security. Samsung claims it has the edge in providing “privacy-first, AI-powered experiences” designed to “protect you in the era of AI.”

In its latest blog post, the company asks a pointed and timely question: “This level of personalization” brought by AI “can be incredibly helpful, but the more your phone knows, the more there is to protect. So, what’s keeping all that personal data secure?”

Samsung’s answer lies in Knox, its long-standing security platform. The company emphasizes that “every Galaxy device is protected from the chip up by a multi-layered approach, which includes on-device personalization, user-controlled cloud processing, and ecosystem-wide protection through Samsung Knox Matrix.” This system is designed to keep user data secure across different parts of the device and connected ecosystem.

At the core of this framework is Samsung Knox Vault, which the company describes as “Samsung’s hardware-based solution for your most sensitive information.” While Knox itself isn’t new, Samsung is now shifting focus to protect AI-generated data—such as voice commands, behavioral patterns, and personal metadata—on the same level as passwords and credit card details.

This move mimics Apple’s tightly controlled, security-focused ecosystem. Samsung’s approach is currently the closest alternative to Apple’s walled garden among Android manufacturers. What’s novel is the way Samsung is treating AI-related data with heightened sensitivity, separating it from other types of information and securing it in ways that go beyond conventional protections.

“Location service metadata from your most personal photos,” Samsung notes, “could easily give away the exact location where the image was taken.” This highlights the emerging privacy risks tied to AI, which is capable of extracting granular personal information from digital content.

Samsung adds, “In the era of AI, personal information like your home address, face clustering ID, person ID, pet type, scene type and more need to be encrypted and stored in a safe location. These things aren’t just files — they are deeply connected to your daily life.” The implication is that AI, while convenient, also has the potential to access intimate aspects of one’s private world.

Despite these statements, Samsung hasn’t fully detailed how it will segment or secure this sensitive AI data. It remains unclear how the company’s system will distinguish between on-device and cloud-based AI, or how these layers of protection interact with the user’s ability to opt in or out.

Nevertheless, it’s hard not to see this campaign as a direct counter to Google’s latest announcements. Google has been charging forward with its own AI offerings, most of which are deeply tied to the cloud. This includes AI tools that comb through emails, cloud storage, and other highly sensitive personal data. Users can opt out, but in many cases, it’s an all-or-nothing choice—either embrace cloud AI and its features or reject it entirely.

Samsung, on the other hand, presents its Knox Vault as a safeguard against the risks this new AI wave presents. “As Galaxy AI becomes more useful,” the company writes, “it also becomes more personal — learning how you use your device and adapting to your needs… Knox Vault is more than a security feature, it’s Galaxy’s promise that no matter how advanced your devices become, or how much AI evolves, your privacy is secured.”

Still, Google’s rapid innovation makes the decision more complicated for consumers. The tech giant is pushing out AI-driven upgrades at a breakneck pace, often overshadowing what other companies can offer—especially those focused on privacy over functionality.

According to a recent report from Android Police, “Google’s Gemini [is] replacing Google Assistant as the default AI assistant, taking on all digital assistance responsibilities as Assistant is phased out later this year.” Gemini is also introducing “Scheduled Actions,” which lets users automate repeated tasks and receive information at specific times.

This marks a pivotal step toward what experts call agentic AI—systems that can observe and act independently on behalf of the user. By analyzing data, monitoring behavior, and understanding context, these agents could take over complex tasks autonomously.

This isn’t science fiction. As Mashable explains, “When combined with computer vision, which is what allows a model to ‘see’ a user’s screen, we get the agentic AI everyone is so excited about… Agentic AI tools could order groceries online, browse and buy the best-reviewed espresso machine for you, or even research and book vacations. In fact, Google is already taking steps in this direction with its new AI shopping experience.”

These tools promise unprecedented convenience but also deepen the dependency on cloud-based data processing and increase the exposure of sensitive user information. Google’s approach is focused on performance and intelligent automation, but Samsung warns that these advances can come at the cost of personal privacy.

In essence, Samsung is drawing a line in the sand: yes to AI, but not at the expense of privacy. Its strategy is to keep as much processing and data storage on-device as possible, ensuring users retain control over their information. In contrast, Google is moving quickly toward a future where cloud-based AI agents take the wheel.

Ultimately, Android users are now standing at a crossroads. Do they want the most advanced AI features available, with all the conveniences that cloud integration provides? Or do they prefer a more privacy-conscious path, even if it means giving up some of those cutting-edge functions?

Samsung’s message is clear: AI is becoming more deeply integrated into our daily lives, but that doesn’t mean we should hand over our personal data without question. As they put it, “no matter how much AI evolves, your privacy is secured.” Whether users agree will determine the next chapter of the Android ecosystem.

Trump and Musk’s Alliance Collapses Over Contentious Tax Bill Dispute

The once strong alliance between President Donald Trump and Tesla CEO Elon Musk came apart abruptly on Thursday amid a fierce disagreement over Trump’s proposed tax legislation currently awaiting Senate approval.

In a sharp rebuke, Trump referred to Musk as “crazy” and hinted at severing federal contracts with Musk’s various companies, which include Tesla, the aerospace giant SpaceX, and the AI venture xAI. Following Trump’s remarks, Tesla’s stock suffered a significant drop, and Musk reacted by announcing that SpaceX would start dismantling its Dragon spacecraft program without delay due to what he deemed as threatening behavior from the president.

According to Trump, Musk—who had previously been a top advisor—opposes the sweeping tax package primarily because it removes tax credits for electric vehicles and because Trump decided not to nominate Musk’s chosen candidate, Jared Isaacman, to lead NASA. “I’m very disappointed in Elon. I’ve helped Elon a lot,” Trump told reporters at the White House. Just a week earlier, he had praised Musk’s involvement in the DOGE project, aimed at slashing government spending and cutting down on the federal workforce.

Reflecting on their past, Trump added, “Elon and I had a great relationship. I don’t know if we will anymore.”

Musk quickly responded through a terse post on his platform, X, simply stating, “Whatever.” He has publicly opposed the bill on the grounds that it would drive up federal deficits. In a more detailed critique, Musk posted, “Keep the EV/solar incentive cuts in the bill, even though no oil & gas subsidies are touched (very unfair!!), but ditch the MOUNTAIN of DISGUSTING PORK in the bill. In the entire history of civilization, there has never been legislation that both big and beautiful.”

Further escalating tensions, Musk tweeted, “Without me, Trump would have lost the election,” asserting that his contributions were pivotal to Trump’s political fortunes. He went on to say, “Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate,” referring to the 2024 elections. Musk had poured over $250 million into Trump’s re-election campaign, making him the largest donor to that effort. “Such ingratitude,” Musk concluded in a follow-up post.

The billionaire CEO also launched a poll on X, asking, “Is it time to create a new political party in America that actually represents the 80% in the middle?”—a clear sign of his disillusionment with current political alignments.

The spat had immediate financial implications as Tesla’s share value dropped more than 8% amid the very public fallout between Musk and Trump. The conflict comes after several days of Musk lambasting the bill, which Trump has described as his “One, Big, Beautiful Bill,” on the grounds that it would inflate federal deficits. Musk had previously labeled the legislation a “disgusting abomination.”

Just days before the verbal feud, Trump had hosted Musk at an Oval Office event and commended him for his role in federal fiscal initiatives. However, things took a turn when the president rescinded his nomination of Jared Isaacman, a tech billionaire favored by Musk, to head NASA. “You know, I’ve always liked Elon,” Trump said on Thursday. “I’d rather have him criticize me than the bill, because the bill is incredible.”

Trump emphasized that Musk’s objections seemed tied to financial incentives for electric vehicles being cut from the bill. “Elon is upset because we took the EV mandate, and you know, which was a lot of money for electric vehicles,” he explained. “And you know, they’re having a hard time, the electric vehicles, and they want us to pay billions of dollars in subsidy.”

According to Trump, Musk was not only aware of the proposed elimination of EV tax credits, but had accepted it earlier in the process. “Elon knew this from the beginning,” Trump stated. “He knew it … a long time ago.”

Trump also criticized Musk for what he sees as a sudden and opportunistic shift in position. “I’m very disappointed, because Elon knew the inner workings of this bill better than almost anybody sitting here, better than you people. He knew everything about it. He had no problem with it,” Trump said.

“But all of a sudden he had a problem, and he only developed the problem when he found out that we’re going to have to cut the EV mandate, because that’s billions and billions of dollars, and it really is unfair,” Trump added.

Regarding the withdrawn NASA nomination, Trump explained, “I’m sure [Musk] respected him, but to run NASA … I didn’t think it was appropriate.” He also pointed out Isaacman’s political leanings as a factor. “You happen to be a Democrat, like totally Democrat,” Trump remarked. “And I say, you know, look, we won. We get certain privileges. And one of the privileges we don’t have to appoint a Democrat. NASA is very important.”

Trump hinted that Musk’s change in tone followed a common pattern he had observed with other former allies. “People leave my administration, and they love us. And then at some point they miss it so badly, and some of them embrace it, and some of them actually become hostile. I don’t know what it is,” Trump noted.

“It’s sort of Trump derangement syndrome, I guess they call it,” he added. “But we have it with others too. They leave, and they wake up in the morning, and the glamor is gone.”

In sum, the dramatic unraveling of the Trump-Musk relationship underscores the growing divide between pro-business conservatives and the evolving priorities of Trump’s economic agenda. What began as a fruitful partnership rooted in mutual ambitions for innovation and deregulation has now devolved into a public clash over subsidies, spending, and political loyalty—with potentially lasting consequences for both men.

Thune Faces Escalating Challenges in Senate Push for Trump Agenda Before July 4

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) and his team of negotiators are facing mounting complications in their drive to secure passage of a sweeping legislative package aimed at implementing President Trump’s economic agenda by the July 4 deadline. The process, already burdened by internal Republican divisions, is becoming increasingly tangled as GOP senators raise objections across multiple fronts.

Concerns are intensifying among various Republican senators over deep spending cuts targeting key social safety net programs, particularly Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). At the same time, fiscal conservatives are doubling down on demands for deeper deficit reduction. One particular point of contention is a controversial proposal from these conservatives to eliminate what they describe as over $200 billion in “waste, fraud and abuse” from the Medicare program—an idea fraught with political risk due to Medicare’s broad popularity.

Further friction has emerged over disagreements between Senate Republicans and the Trump-aligned White House over making some corporate tax breaks permanent. These include provisions such as 100 percent bonus depreciation for short-term investments and immediate expensing of research and development costs.

With a narrow majority of 53 seats, Senate Republicans can afford only three defections if they hope to pass what Trump has dubbed his “big, beautiful bill.” But with key senators already signaling opposition, that margin is rapidly shrinking.

Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is among the dissenters. He has flatly stated his opposition, declaring he will vote “no” because the legislation includes language that would raise the debt ceiling by $4 trillion. Likewise, Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) expressed strong resistance, branding himself a “hard no” due to the bill’s failure to return federal spending to prepandemic levels.

The following are the major issues that risk derailing the bill in the Senate:

Medicaid Cuts Stir Unease Among GOP Moderates

Republican Senators Susan Collins (Maine), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Jerry Moran (Kansas), and Josh Hawley (Missouri) are all threatening to vote against the bill if it results in reductions to Medicaid benefits for their constituents. These senators are still waiting to see the official language from the Senate Finance Committee regarding how Medicaid will be addressed.

Leadership in both the Senate and House has insisted that the bill will not slash Medicaid benefits. However, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a report on Wednesday estimating that approximately 10.9 million Americans would lose their health insurance if the bill passes, primarily due to changes involving Medicaid and Affordable Care Act provisions.

“I hope not benefit cuts, that’s my bottom line,” Senator Hawley said Thursday, underscoring his concern.

Specific proposals drawing criticism include limits on states’ ability to use provider taxes to boost their federal Medicaid reimbursements and new requirements for individuals earning between 100 percent and 138 percent of the federal poverty level to pay higher copays for medical services.

SNAP Spending Reductions Raise Red Flags

Several GOP senators, including Collins and Moran, have also voiced objections to proposed cuts to SNAP totaling around $267 billion. The Senate Agriculture Committee is working to finalize its section of the budget reconciliation bill, with hopes of unveiling the text next week.

However, Agriculture Committee Chairman John Boozman (R-Ark.) acknowledged that the issue remains unresolved. “We’re still working on it,” Boozman told The Hill. When asked if it had been resolved, he replied, “I wish it was.”

Senator Collins expressed specific concerns about the bill’s provisions that would shift much of the administrative responsibility for SNAP onto the states. She also objected to measures that could penalize states with outdated systems for monitoring benefits.

Push for Greater Deficit Reduction Gains Momentum

Senator Ron Johnson’s call for increased deficit reduction is gaining traction among fellow Republicans. Though the bill is projected to cut spending by roughly $1.6 trillion over the next ten years, several senators, including Senate Budget Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), argue that this is insufficient.

“I think the bill needs to be more fiscally responsible,” Graham told reporters Thursday.

In response, some Republicans are advocating a proposal to target alleged “waste, fraud and abuse” within Medicare Advantage. The proposal, led by Senator Bill Cassidy (R-La.), seeks to address what he describes as the practice of insurance companies “upcoding” diagnoses to secure higher Medicare reimbursements.

Supporters argue that the measure is a focused effort to curb abuse rather than cut legitimate Medicare services. They also point out that progressive lawmakers, including Senator Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), support the initiative. However, it remains divisive among Republicans.

Hawley voiced strong opposition on Thursday, saying, “It would be insane” to reduce Medicare funding. Despite assurances that the measure targets fraud rather than core benefits, his stance reflects the sensitivity around altering a program that millions of seniors depend on.

Defense-Related Spectrum Auction Sparks Alarm

Another sticking point comes from Senate Armed Services Committee members Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) and Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), who are opposing a House-passed provision that would auction off certain government-owned spectrum frequencies. These senators fear the move could interfere with the Pentagon’s use of those frequencies for vital radar and communication operations.

Rounds described the current House language as a “deal-breaker” and is pressing for adjustments that would ensure the Defense Department retains necessary access throughout the auction period.

“It has to be modified,” he insisted. “They’ve indicated that they would protect the spectrum,” Rounds added, but emphasized the need for those protections to be explicitly written into the Senate version of the bill.

Corporate Tax Break Disputes Continue

While less visible than the Medicaid or SNAP debates, disagreements over corporate tax policy are also clouding the path forward. Some Senate Republicans are frustrated by resistance from the Trump-aligned White House regarding the permanence of certain corporate tax breaks. These include the full expensing of research and development expenses and bonus depreciation.

These provisions, aimed at encouraging business investment, are popular among supply-side conservatives. But the White House has expressed reservations about cementing them into law without corresponding offsets—adding yet another layer of complexity to the ongoing negotiations.

In sum, Thune and his team are now juggling multiple conflicting priorities as they try to meet the July 4 goal. From health care entitlements and food assistance to national defense and tax reform, the issues plaguing the bill are varied and politically sensitive. With only a slim margin for error, the Majority Leader must either broker compromises that satisfy a broad range of senators or risk the entire package collapsing under the weight of its own contradictions.

India Gains Strong Bipartisan Backing from U.S. Lawmakers in Anti-Terrorism Efforts

India has garnered widespread bipartisan support from U.S. lawmakers in its ongoing battle against terrorism, according to Congress MP Shashi Tharoor. Tharoor is leading a multi-party Indian parliamentary delegation currently visiting Washington, D.C., to discuss counterterrorism cooperation and deepen diplomatic ties.

At a press briefing, Tharoor emphasized the warmth and unanimity of the American response, stating, “We didn’t encounter a single skeptical or negative voice. On the contrary, the responses were uniformly positive. There was total support and complete understanding of India’s right to defend itself against terrorism.” This visit marks a significant step in enhancing India-U.S. counterterrorism collaboration and fortifying the broader strategic partnership between the two democracies.

The Indian delegation held a series of meetings with key stakeholders on Capitol Hill, including members of the influential India Caucus, lawmakers from the House Foreign Affairs Committee, the South Asia and East Asia subcommittees, and six U.S. Senators—five of whom are members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and one representing the Senate Intelligence Committee. These discussions were aimed at rallying international support against terrorism and elaborating on the rationale behind India’s recent counterterrorism operation, known as Operation Sindoor.

Operation Sindoor, carried out in response to the April 22 terrorist attack in Pahalgam that left 26 people dead, has been central to the delegation’s engagements in the United States. The Resistance Front, which is believed to be affiliated with the Pakistan-based terror group Lashkar-e-Taiba, claimed responsibility for the attack.

Democratic Congressman Ro Khanna, who co-chairs the India Caucus, took to social media platform X to express his solidarity with India’s counterterrorism goals. “We discussed the importance of strengthening U.S.-India counterterrorism cooperation and dismantling the terrorist groups responsible for the April 22 attack in Pahalgam,” Khanna said, reaffirming the depth of bipartisan interest in expanding security collaboration between the two nations.

Senator Dave McCormick, a Republican who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on the Near East, South Asia, Central Asia, and Counterterrorism, echoed these sentiments. He highlighted the alignment of values between India and the United States. “We discussed combating terrorism, pushing back against authoritarian regimes, and deepening our economic ties to build a free and democratic future,” McCormick posted, noting the significance of bolstering shared democratic ideals in addition to security interests.

Representative Gregory Meeks, the ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, also met with Tharoor and underscored the commitment of the U.S. Congress to its partnership with India. “My colleagues and I expressed condolences for the terrorist attack in Pahalgam and reaffirmed Congress’s commitment to the U.S.-India partnership,” Meeks posted following the meeting. He acknowledged Tharoor’s role as Chair of India’s Parliamentary Standing Committee on External Affairs, highlighting the importance of legislative diplomacy in bilateral relations.

Tharoor reflected positively on the Capitol Hill engagements, stating, “We left Capitol Hill very pleased with the quality of the conversations and the level of engagement.” The U.S. stop is part of a broader diplomatic tour, during which the delegation had previously visited Guyana, Panama, Colombia, and Brazil. In each of these nations, the delegation received strong signals of solidarity against terrorism and keen interest in enhancing trade, investment, and other forms of economic collaboration.

According to Tharoor, this pattern of support underscores a global understanding of India’s security concerns and an eagerness to deepen bilateral and multilateral ties beyond security cooperation. “There was a fairly bipartisan consensus on Capitol Hill that as two of the world’s largest and most vibrant democracies, India and the United States have much to offer together,” Tharoor noted. He emphasized that while terrorism is an urgent concern, the long-term vision of the India-U.S. relationship must also center on economic partnerships and the shared defense of democratic institutions and values.

Delegation member Shashank Mani Tripathi and other MPs also conducted side meetings that focused on economic collaboration. These discussions aimed to explore opportunities for trade, technology exchange, and investment, reflecting India’s broader strategic objectives during the tour.

During the delegation’s visit to Washington, Tharoor also addressed journalists at the prestigious National Press Club. He used this platform to further promote India’s counterterrorism stance and to foster broader understanding among the American public and media. Additionally, he participated in a well-attended meeting with the Indian diaspora, where he encouraged Indian-Americans to remain actively engaged in civic life and to build bridges with their elected representatives.

“They listen to you. They respect you. You’re high achievers who can make a real impact. We’re proud of you,” Tharoor told diaspora members, urging them to play a proactive role in shaping India-U.S. relations from within American civil society.

The Indian parliamentary team represents a broad political spectrum, underscoring national unity on the issue of terrorism. Alongside Tharoor, the delegation includes Shambhavi Choudhary of the Lok Janshakti Party – Ram Vilas; Sarfaraz Ahmad of the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha; Milind Murli Deora of the Shiv Sena; Bhubaneswar Kalita and Tejasvi Surya of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP); and G.M. Harish Balayogi of the Telugu Desam Party, which is an ally within the National Democratic Alliance (NDA).

The presence of members from a wide range of political affiliations within the delegation was noted as a strength in meetings with U.S. lawmakers. It highlighted the unified political stance in India on the issue of terrorism and demonstrated the country’s cohesive approach to foreign policy and national security. This bipartisan Indian representation complemented the similarly bipartisan support they received from their American counterparts.

Tharoor and his colleagues hope their visit will serve as a foundation for deepened bilateral cooperation, not just in terms of defense and counterterrorism, but also in trade, education, technology, and climate action. As both India and the United States prepare for evolving geopolitical challenges, such exchanges are seen as vital for sustaining a resilient, long-term strategic partnership.

In conclusion, Tharoor’s delegation returns from Washington with a strong affirmation of U.S. solidarity, as well as a renewed sense of purpose in advancing India’s role on the world stage through democratic dialogue and strategic alignment.

Trump Reinstates Broad Travel Restrictions on 19 Countries, Citing Security Concerns

U.S. President Donald Trump has signed a sweeping presidential proclamation that reimposes travel restrictions on individuals from a total of 19 countries, invoking national security concerns as the primary justification. The new directive, announced late Wednesday, enforces a complete entry ban on nationals from 12 nations and imposes partial restrictions on travelers from an additional seven countries.

The proclamation specifically bars all entry to the United States for individuals from Afghanistan, Burma (Myanmar), Chad, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. Meanwhile, travelers from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela will face selective entry limitations under the new policy.

The latest move by Trump comes in the wake of a deadly terror attack in Boulder, Colorado, which targeted participants in a peaceful demonstration calling for the release of Israeli hostages held by Hamas. The president, in a video message issued shortly after the policy announcement, pointed to the Boulder incident as a glaring example of the risks associated with lax immigration controls and visa overstays.

“The recent terror attack in Boulder has underscored the extreme dangers posed by foreign nationals who are not properly vetted, as well as those who enter on temporary visas and never leave. We don’t want them,” Trump stated in the video, which was released through the White House.

According to officials from the Department of Homeland Security, the assailant behind the Colorado attack was identified as Mohammed Sabry Solima. Authorities say Solima arrived in the United States during President Joe Biden’s term and remained in the country after overstaying his visa, drawing further attention to what Trump and his allies describe as systemic failures in immigration enforcement.

White House Deputy Press Secretary Abigail Jackson defended the proclamation, calling it a fulfillment of Trump’s long-standing pledge to defend American citizens from external threats. In a statement shared on social media platform X, Jackson remarked, “President Trump is fulfilling his promise to protect Americans from dangerous foreign actors. These commonsense restrictions target countries that lack adequate vetting procedures, have high visa overstay rates, or fail to cooperate on identity and threat information sharing.”

This latest directive bears similarities to the controversial travel bans Trump enacted during his first term in office. At that time, several majority-Muslim nations—namely Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen—were subjected to full or partial travel bans. Those earlier orders faced a barrage of legal challenges, drawing criticism from civil rights groups, immigration advocates, and political opponents who denounced the bans as discriminatory and xenophobic. Ultimately, the Biden administration repealed those travel bans immediately after taking office in 2021.

However, Trump’s return to similar policy tactics underscores his broader agenda of reinstituting hardline immigration measures as part of his national security platform. Supporters argue that such measures are necessary to prevent potential terror threats and to address what they see as a failure of cooperation from foreign governments regarding traveler vetting.

The selection of countries in this latest proclamation appears to follow specific criteria. According to Trump administration officials, the nations listed for full bans either lack the capacity to conduct proper background checks, fail to reliably share criminal or security data with U.S. agencies, or have demonstrated significant issues with undocumented overstays. Those listed under partial restrictions may still have limited cooperation or issues with internal vetting systems but do not pose the same level of perceived risk as those under the full ban.

Officials say the new restrictions are tailored to the unique situation in each country, and the policies will be reviewed periodically. Still, civil liberties groups have already begun signaling opposition to the measure, raising concerns about its potential to reignite debates over immigration bias and due process.

Despite these criticisms, Trump’s allies maintain that the recent events in Colorado serve as an unavoidable reminder of the vulnerabilities in the existing immigration and visa system. The Boulder attack, which resulted in multiple injuries and prompted a heightened national alert, is being cited by the administration as a direct consequence of policy leniency under the Biden White House.

The Trump administration is portraying this latest move as a proactive measure designed to prevent future incidents. “We are taking action to ensure that individuals who pose a threat to our national security never get the chance to do harm,” said a senior Trump advisor who asked not to be named.

While the details of how the partial restrictions will be implemented are still being developed, initial indications suggest that individuals from the seven partially restricted countries may be subject to increased scrutiny during visa applications, additional background checks, and limitations on visa categories such as work, study, and tourism.

Some foreign policy analysts note that the inclusion of countries like Venezuela and Cuba could also reflect geopolitical tensions rather than purely security-based assessments. These analysts suggest that longstanding diplomatic friction with these governments may have influenced the administration’s decision to include them in the proclamation.

As Trump intensifies his rhetoric on national security and immigration ahead of a potential 2024 campaign return, this new travel policy marks a clear continuation of themes that were central to his first presidential run and administration. “America First” remains a rallying cry among Trump supporters, many of whom believe that policies such as travel bans are necessary to preserve safety and order.

Critics, however, argue that such policies risk alienating allies, damaging U.S. global standing, and punishing ordinary travelers who have no connection to terrorism or extremism. Immigration lawyers and advocacy organizations are already gearing up to challenge the new proclamation, and lawsuits are expected in the coming weeks.

For now, the administration appears steadfast in its position that the travel restrictions are vital for national security. “We will not sit idly by while foreign nationals, who pose a threat or come from uncooperative regimes, endanger our communities,” Jackson reiterated in her online post.

While debates over the balance between security and civil liberties are expected to intensify, the Trump administration’s decision to reimpose these restrictions marks one of the most significant immigration policy actions since his departure from office—and a sharp reversal from Biden-era openness.

The White House has indicated that it may consider expanding or adjusting the list of restricted countries in the future, depending on ongoing risk assessments and diplomatic engagement. Until then, travelers from the affected nations are being advised to consult U.S. embassies and immigration authorities for updated information on their eligibility to enter the United States.

In summary, the latest proclamation revives a cornerstone of Trump’s previous immigration strategy, reinforced by the violent events in Colorado. As the administration frames it, this action reflects a renewed effort to safeguard American lives. As Trump put it bluntly in his statement, “We don’t want them.”

Noem Scraps TSA’s Quiet Skies Program, Citing Cost, Ineffectiveness and Alleged Political Abuse

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced Thursday the termination of the Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) “Quiet Skies” program, describing it as a costly and politically weaponized initiative that failed to enhance national security.

In a press statement, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) explained the rationale behind shutting down the surveillance program. According to the release, “since its existence, the traveler surveillance program has failed to stop a single terrorist attack while costing US taxpayers $200 million a year.” The statement further charged that the program, “under the guise of ‘national security,’ was used to target political opponents and benefit political allies.”

An internal investigation by DHS and TSA revealed concerning details about the application of the program. The department said the probe uncovered “documents, correspondence and timelines” which demonstrate the “inconsistent application of Quiet Skies and watchlisting programs” to serve political interests.

Although DHS has not released the internal documents publicly, Noem urged Congress to delve deeper into the findings. In her words, “It is clear that the Quiet Skies program was used as a political rolodex of the Biden Administration—weaponized against its political foes and exploited to benefit their well-heeled friends.” She added, “I am calling for a Congressional investigation to unearth further corruption at the expense of the American people and the undermining of US national security.”

Noem also assured that ending the Quiet Skies initiative would not compromise aviation safety. “TSA’s critical aviation and security vetting functions will be maintained,” she said, emphasizing that the Trump Administration would “return TSA to its true mission of being laser-focused on the safety and security of the traveling public.” She also promised the restoration of “the integrity, privacy, and equal application of the law for all Americans.”

The Quiet Skies program, once classified, was initially developed to keep tabs on “unknown or partially known terrorists.” It involved federal air marshals discreetly monitoring airline passengers’ behaviors, such as their proximity to boarding areas, frequency of bathroom use, and physical signs of stress like sweating or twitching. The goal was to identify suspicious behavior that might not be captured through traditional screening methods.

However, the program has been controversial since its inception, drawing bipartisan scrutiny over privacy issues and potential civil liberty infringements. These concerns intensified in recent years, with increasing criticism from both Democrats and Republicans.

Last year, former Congresswoman and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard ignited further debate when she disclosed she had been placed on a “secret terror watch list.” She implied the move was politically motivated. Her claim sparked outrage and renewed questions about the political neutrality of TSA watchlists.

However, according to The New York Times, Gabbard’s inclusion on the list was likely tied to her international travel rather than politics. The report stated that her visit to the Vatican for an event hosted by someone on an FBI watchlist, along with previous trips to Lebanon and Syria—where she met with then-Syrian President Bashar Assad—were the probable causes of her being flagged.

Responding to Gabbard’s claims, Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, the top Democrat on the House Homeland Security Committee, dismissed her accusations. “To be clear, Tulsi Gabbard being targeted by TSA’s targeting systems was automatic and well deserved,” he said. Thompson insisted that the process “has worked the same under administrations of both parties, including the first Trump administration,” and added, “She can only blame herself—and the Trump administration’s herculean effort to cast her as a victim here is not supported by the facts.”

Thompson also criticized Noem’s call for a congressional inquiry. He questioned the logic of requesting a political investigation after an internal review had already been conducted. “Kristi Noem is lying when she pretends that the Quiet Skies security program was previously politicized,” he said in a statement. “It is truly bizarre she is begging for a politicized Congressional investigation into this matter when she runs a Department of 240,000 that can conduct its own – unless it already has completed an investigation and found nothing.”

Nonetheless, Thompson welcomed the idea of a deeper probe into the matter. “That said, I am happy to launch an investigation into what’s really going on here and I look forward to her full compliance,” he added.

Thompson also took aim at those who argue elected officials should receive special treatment regarding security screening. “The notion that current or former members of Congress are special and should be automatically exempt, regardless of the facts, from security rules or security screening—like some Republicans have argued—is asinine,” he said.

Further complicating the picture, earlier this week, CBS News reported that Sen. Jeanne Shaheen’s husband had been placed on the watchlist in 2023. According to the network, the issue was resolved and he was removed from the list after the senator communicated with the former TSA director. A spokesperson for Sen. Shaheen later told CBS that the senator had been unaware her husband had been monitored under the Quiet Skies program.

While the DHS statement and Noem’s announcement framed the Quiet Skies program as a partisan tool abused by the Biden administration, the overall narrative surrounding the initiative is far more complex. It has existed through multiple administrations and has been defended and critiqued by both sides of the political spectrum. Critics argue that ending the program entirely could leave a blind spot in aviation security, while supporters of its elimination see it as a necessary correction to government overreach and political misuse.

As this debate unfolds, attention will likely shift to Capitol Hill, where the possibility of congressional hearings now looms. Both parties seem willing to investigate, though for different reasons—Republicans focusing on alleged political abuse under the Biden administration, and Democrats looking to expose what they consider a politicized dismantling of a security measure that has operated consistently across several presidencies.

For now, with Secretary Noem’s announcement, the Quiet Skies program is officially grounded, ushering in a new chapter in the ongoing debate over the balance between national security and civil liberties.

Pakistan to Chair UN Taliban Sanctions Committee in 2025 Amid Broader Security Council Roles

Pakistan has been designated to lead the United Nations Security Council’s (UNSC) 1988 Taliban Sanctions Committee in 2025. This committee plays a crucial role in enforcing a range of international sanctions, such as asset freezes, travel bans, and arms embargoes on individuals and entities affiliated with the Taliban who are perceived to be threatening the peace and security in Afghanistan.

The appointment places Pakistan at the center of a sensitive international mechanism targeting Taliban-related threats, underlining its renewed engagement in global counter-terrorism frameworks. Guyana and Russia will serve as vice-chairs of the same committee alongside Pakistan.

In addition to chairing the Taliban Sanctions Committee, Pakistan is also set to take on a vice-chair role in the United Nations’ 1373 Counter-Terrorism Committee. This committee is responsible for overseeing measures adopted under Security Council Resolution 1373, which mandates member states to prevent and suppress terrorism and its financing. Algeria will chair the committee, while France and Russia will also serve as vice-chairs, highlighting the multilateral nature of leadership across the body.

Pakistan’s responsibilities within the Security Council will not end there. It will also co-chair two informal working groups: one focused on Documentation and Procedural Questions, and the other addressing General Sanctions Issues. These working groups play a critical function in guiding how Security Council sanctions processes are documented, structured, and refined over time.

Meanwhile, Denmark has been appointed to lead the 1267 Sanctions Committee, which targets ISIL and Al-Qaida entities. Russia and Sierra Leone will assist Denmark as vice-chairs in this committee. The 1267 Committee is another high-profile sanctions body aimed at curbing global terrorism through enforcement of sanctions on extremist groups beyond the Afghan context.

These UN sanctions committees consist of all 15 members of the Security Council, including both permanent and non-permanent members. Importantly, their decisions are reached by consensus, requiring negotiation and cooperation among all member states regardless of political alignment.

Pakistan is currently serving as a non-permanent member of the Security Council for the 2025–26 term. This marks a return to the UNSC for the country and positions it at the heart of deliberations on international peace and security over the next two years.

Pakistan’s elevation to these roles comes in a context shaped by past tensions, especially with neighboring India, over the issue of counter-terrorism. India previously chaired the Counter-Terrorism Committee during its own non-permanent membership term from 2021 to 2022. During that period, India often expressed concern over Pakistan’s record on terrorism, emphasizing what it described as Islamabad’s harboring of numerous UN-designated terrorists.

India has particularly drawn attention to the case of Osama bin Laden, the founder of al-Qaida, who was located and killed in 2011 by U.S. forces in the Pakistani city of Abbottabad. Referring to this, India has regularly questioned Pakistan’s credibility on counter-terrorism efforts and its commitment to tackling safe havens for terrorists.

Nonetheless, Pakistan’s new leadership roles within the UNSC structure reflect broader international acknowledgment of its involvement in global security dialogues and its ability to work within multilateral institutions. As chair and co-chair of key sanctions and procedural bodies, Pakistan will now play a direct role in shaping the enforcement of international norms and decisions targeting terrorism.

The current composition of the Security Council includes five permanent members—China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States—along with ten non-permanent members elected for two-year terms. The present group of non-permanent members comprises Algeria, Denmark, Greece, Guyana, Pakistan, Panama, South Korea, Sierra Leone, Slovenia, and Somalia.

In recent UNSC elections held on Tuesday, five countries were elected as new non-permanent members for the 2026–2027 term. These are Bahrain, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Liberia, Latvia, and Colombia. These states will replace outgoing members whose terms will expire at the end of 2025, joining the rotating group of ten non-permanent members and thereby influencing Security Council deliberations from 2026 onward.

The appointment of Pakistan to lead the Taliban Sanctions Committee comes at a critical juncture for Afghanistan. The situation in the country remains volatile following the Taliban’s return to power in 2021 after the withdrawal of U.S. and NATO forces. The 1988 Committee, named after the resolution that established it, is tasked with ensuring that individuals and groups linked to the Taliban do not threaten the peace process or engage in activities that destabilize the region.

The work of this committee involves constant monitoring, coordination with UN missions and member states, and updating lists of designated individuals and entities. It also collaborates with experts to assess the impact and effectiveness of sanctions and to propose recommendations for their improvement.

Given Pakistan’s proximity to Afghanistan and its long-standing involvement in regional security matters, its appointment to lead this committee could prove significant for both policy direction and implementation. Pakistan’s leadership will be closely scrutinized by the international community, particularly by states that have raised concerns about its historical ties with elements of the Taliban.

Pakistan’s role in the 1373 Counter-Terrorism Committee will also be watched carefully. The committee promotes national, regional, and international efforts to combat terrorism by monitoring the implementation of counter-terrorism measures. It reviews member states’ legal and institutional frameworks and encourages information-sharing and cooperation to prevent and respond to terrorist threats.

By assuming vice-chair responsibilities in this committee, Pakistan will have a hand in guiding these evaluations and recommendations—potentially influencing how the international community assesses compliance and gaps in global counter-terrorism efforts.

Similarly, its participation in the informal working groups on documentation and sanctions procedures will enable Pakistan to shape the administrative and technical dimensions of the Security Council’s sanctions regime. These include how evidence is compiled, how listing and delisting procedures function, and how compliance is monitored across various regions and political environments.

In conclusion, Pakistan’s multiple appointments within the United Nations Security Council structure for 2025 mark a notable expansion of its diplomatic role at the global level. While questions about its past record remain part of the international conversation, its leadership in key committees dealing with the Taliban, terrorism, and sanctions procedures will place it at the heart of the UN’s efforts to address some of the world’s most urgent security challenges.

India’s US Ambassador Reassures Investors of Strong Economic Prospects, Targets $28-$35 Trillion GDP by 2047

India’s Ambassador to the United States, Vinay Mohan Kwatra, has offered a strong reassurance to the investor community, particularly those based in the United States, about India’s economic fundamentals and its promising growth trajectory. He underlined the nation’s strategic efforts to attain a gross domestic product (GDP) between $28 trillion and $35 trillion by 2047, a milestone year that will commemorate 100 years of India’s independence.

Speaking at the United States-India Strategic Partnership Forum (USISPF) summit held in Washington D.C. on June 3, Ambassador Kwatra urged American investors to seriously consider the significant business prospects emerging in India. He emphasized that the current economic climate in India presents attractive and sustainable investment opportunities.

“You are looking at an economy, and therefore an investment and business opportunity, which is not only showing robust growth at this stage, but one which has the potential to grow even further,” Kwatra said, assuring attendees that India’s financial framework and market environment were both stable and conducive to foreign investment.

Kwatra’s remarks come at a time when India continues to position itself as a global economic engine. He detailed the country’s ambition to become a $28-$35 trillion economy over the next two decades, stating clearly that this is the vision for 2047, the centenary of India’s independence. This ambitious goal is rooted in deliberate policy measures, a growing domestic market, and increasing integration with the global economy.

“The Indian economy is not just about numbers, it is about quality and resilience,” he asserted. “By 2047, the 100th year of our independence, we are looking at an economy that is between $28 trillion to $35 trillion.”

Kwatra underscored that India’s economic advancement is being built on several solid pillars, including infrastructure expansion, digital innovation, ease of doing business, and a highly skilled workforce. He explained that the government’s continued push toward economic reforms, investment in modern technology, and improvements in logistics and connectivity have all contributed to making India a highly competitive investment destination.

The Ambassador pointed to macroeconomic indicators that demonstrate India’s resilience amid global headwinds. He noted that India’s inflation has remained within manageable limits, its foreign reserves are robust, and its current account deficit is under control—all of which are positive signals for long-term investors.

“Systemic stability is something we take very seriously,” Kwatra said, addressing concerns about geopolitical and economic uncertainty. “We have shown time and again that the Indian economy has the capacity to absorb global shocks and still move forward.”

He further highlighted the confidence that international financial institutions and global investors have shown in India. Referring to consistent foreign direct investment (FDI) inflows and the increasing presence of multinational companies in the Indian market, he said these were clear indicators of the world’s growing trust in India’s economic story.

In his speech, Kwatra also noted the critical role of U.S.-India economic cooperation in shaping the future of both countries. He described the United States as a “natural partner” in India’s development journey and praised the strong bilateral relations that span across trade, technology, energy, and innovation.

“The United States remains one of our most important and strategic partners. The trust and depth of this relationship continue to grow with every passing year,” Kwatra said.

He went on to describe how sectors like defense, clean energy, and digital technology are becoming key areas of collaboration. India’s participation in global supply chains and its initiatives in critical technologies, such as semiconductors and artificial intelligence, are providing new openings for U.S. businesses and investors.

According to Kwatra, India’s policy framework now actively encourages innovation and entrepreneurship. This is further supported by programs like Startup India and the Production Linked Incentive (PLI) schemes that have bolstered manufacturing and high-tech industries. He emphasized that these initiatives are not only creating jobs but also reinforcing India’s position as a hub for innovation and technology.

“Innovation-led growth is the future of the Indian economy,” he stated. “We are creating a fertile ecosystem for entrepreneurs and global businesses alike.”

Kwatra also cited the recent expansion of India’s digital public infrastructure as a strong testament to the country’s commitment to inclusive growth. He noted that platforms like Unified Payments Interface (UPI) and Aadhaar are helping bridge the gap between rural and urban economies, ensuring that development reaches all levels of society.

“The power of digital infrastructure is transformative,” he said. “We are not just building a digital economy; we are building a more inclusive and empowered India.”

At the summit, Kwatra encouraged American companies to look beyond traditional sectors and explore opportunities in emerging areas such as renewable energy, electric mobility, fintech, biotech, and space technology. He argued that India’s large consumer base, young population, and improving regulatory landscape make it a uniquely promising market for the future.

“Our growth story is backed by demographic strength, technology adoption, and a commitment to sustainability,” he told the gathering of investors and business leaders. “This is a moment to deepen our economic engagement and shape the future together.”

The ambassador also reaffirmed India’s strategic role in the Indo-Pacific region. He said India is playing an increasingly proactive part in shaping the geopolitical and economic architecture of the region, working with like-minded nations to ensure peace, prosperity, and stability.

“We believe in a free, open, and inclusive Indo-Pacific. India’s partnerships in this region are guided by mutual respect, shared values, and common goals,” he said.

Kwatra closed his remarks by reiterating the Indian government’s commitment to transparency, accountability, and good governance as key enablers of economic progress. He expressed optimism that India and the United States can together set new global benchmarks in economic collaboration, innovation, and sustainable development.

“India is ready. We are open. And we are committed to working with global partners to unlock our shared future,” he concluded.

Through this address, Ambassador Kwatra presented a compelling case for investing in India. His speech combined optimism with a detailed roadmap, assuring stakeholders that India’s rise is both intentional and inclusive. With a target GDP of up to $35 trillion by 2047, India is not just preparing for economic expansion—it is preparing to lead on the global stage.

Piyush Goyal Courts Global Investors in Paris, Highlights India’s EV and Green Energy Potential

Commerce and Industry Minister Piyush Goyal held a series of high-level meetings with top business executives in Paris on Monday, aiming to showcase India’s expanding capabilities in electric vehicles (EV) and renewable energy (RE) and to draw in fresh international investments.

Currently on an official visit to France, Goyal is working to bolster trade and investment ties between India and Europe. As part of his diplomatic mission, he is scheduled to participate in a ministerial-level meeting of the World Trade Organization (WTO) on Tuesday, where global trade issues are expected to take center stage.

Goyal took to social media platform X to share updates from his meetings, underlining the momentum India is gaining as a key destination for manufacturing and clean energy investments. In one of his posts, he wrote, “Held a meeting with Luca de Meo, CEO of Renault Group. Exchanged views on India’s growing potential as an automobile manufacturing hub, along with emerging opportunities in the EV sector.” The conversation with Renault’s top executive underscores India’s intent to become a major player in the electric mobility landscape, capitalizing on a growing domestic market and increasing global demand for sustainable transportation solutions.

Another crucial meeting during his Paris visit was with Bernard Fontana, the Chairman and CEO of EDF, the French state-owned energy giant. The discussions focused on renewable energy and the evolving role of India in the global green energy transition. According to Goyal, “Discussions centered around India’s leadership in renewable energy and strategies to further integrate sustainable energy into India’s development roadmap.” India’s ambitions in this sector have attracted interest from major energy corporations looking to invest in cleaner alternatives as part of their decarbonization strategies.

Earlier in the day, Goyal also met with Patrick Pouyanné, Chairman and CEO of TotalEnergies, a major global player in the energy industry. The dialogue focused on future plans for investment and collaborative projects in India’s renewable energy space. Goyal shared, “Discussed the company’s investment plans for India and avenues for deeper collaboration in the renewable energy sector.” The meeting highlights India’s ongoing push to expand its clean energy infrastructure and build strategic partnerships with global energy firms.

In addition to promoting India’s green and electric mobility initiatives, Goyal also touched upon progress in bilateral trade negotiations with Oman. The minister said that the free trade agreement (FTA) with the Gulf nation is nearing completion. The negotiations, which started in November 2023, gained significant momentum following Goyal’s visit to Oman in January this year. This upcoming trade pact is expected to further strengthen India’s ties with the Gulf region, creating new trade and investment opportunities and opening doors to greater regional cooperation.

Goyal’s three-day visit to France is packed with high-level engagements designed to reinforce India’s economic collaboration with European partners. He is set to hold bilateral discussions with several key French government officials, including Eric Lombard, Minister of Economy, and French Trade Minister Laurent Saint-Martin. The meetings aim to deepen the Indo-French economic partnership and identify new avenues for enhancing trade and investment flows between the two countries.

As part of his business outreach, Goyal will also meet with executives from several major French companies that have strategic interests in India. These include Vicat, a leading cement manufacturer; L’Oréal, the global cosmetics giant; and Renault, a prominent automotive firm. Other companies on the agenda include Valeo, which specializes in automotive technologies; EDF and TotalEnergies from the energy sector; and ATR, a regional aircraft manufacturer. These meetings are expected to further India’s efforts to attract large-scale investments and strengthen its position as a global manufacturing and innovation hub.

Following his engagements in France, Minister Goyal will continue his official European tour with a visit to Italy. The next leg of his journey is expected to include more diplomatic and business meetings focused on enhancing India’s bilateral economic ties with Italy and promoting cooperation across key sectors such as manufacturing, technology, and sustainable energy.

Goyal’s European tour comes at a time when India is actively positioning itself as a global hub for manufacturing, innovation, and sustainability. With a growing focus on electric vehicles and renewable energy, the government is courting foreign investors and multinational companies to participate in India’s growth journey. These efforts align with the broader vision of transforming India into a leading global economy powered by green technology and industrial competitiveness.

By engaging directly with CEOs and top business leaders of global corporations, Goyal aims to reassure potential investors about India’s stable economic policies, pro-business environment, and long-term commitment to clean energy goals. His meetings reflect India’s strategic approach to global outreach, using diplomacy and business collaboration as tools to strengthen economic partnerships and secure foreign capital for transformative sectors.

In summary, Piyush Goyal’s visit to France underscores a multi-faceted strategy aimed at attracting investment into key areas like electric mobility and renewable energy while simultaneously advancing trade negotiations and fostering bilateral economic cooperation. His engagements in Paris set the tone for deeper collaborations with French industry leaders and pave the way for the next phase of India’s industrial and green energy evolution. As the Commerce Minister continues his European tour in Italy, the spotlight remains on India’s drive to become a central player in the global economic landscape.

Usha Vance Reflects on Indian American Roots and Family Trip to India at USISPF Summit

Usha Vance, the Second Lady of the United States and spouse of Vice President JD Vance, opened up about her Indian American background, formative years in California, and a recent family journey to India. Her reflections came during a fireside chat at the U.S.-India Strategic Partnership Forum (USISPF) Leadership Summit on June 2.

Speaking candidly at the summit, Vance traced her personal story back to her roots in San Diego, California, where she was born and raised. Her parents, both immigrants from India, had come to the United States in the 1970s in pursuit of higher education. They were enrolled in PhD programs at the University of California. That immigrant journey laid the foundation for a childhood she described as full of opportunities. “I grew up with a sense of limitless possibility,” she said, recalling the freedom and support that defined her early life.

Vance’s upbringing in Southern California was deeply shaped by the values her parents brought with them from India. Their move to the U.S. was not merely a physical transition but a cultural and aspirational leap, one that enabled them to build a new life focused on academic and professional achievement. For Vance, growing up in such an environment instilled a strong work ethic, academic focus, and pride in her Indian heritage, even as she navigated life as a first-generation American.

During her remarks at the USISPF summit, Vance also reflected on how her Indian identity evolved over time. As a child and teenager, she often found herself straddling two cultures. On one hand, she was immersed in the vibrant traditions of her Indian household—filled with language, food, and customs passed down from her parents. On the other hand, she was engaging with American society in school and among friends. That duality, she noted, came with its own challenges and rewards.

This blend of cultures remained a meaningful part of her identity even as she advanced through her academic and professional journey. Vance studied law at Yale, where she met JD Vance, who would go on to become a bestselling author and, later, the Vice President of the United States. Throughout this trajectory, her Indian heritage remained a constant source of grounding and pride.

In more recent years, Vance has embraced opportunities to reconnect with her ancestral homeland. She spoke warmly about her family’s recent trip to India, describing it as a powerful experience not only for herself but for her children. Visiting India, she explained, helped her children connect with a part of their heritage that they had mostly known through stories, traditions, and food at home.

“It was very important for me to show my children where part of them comes from,” Vance said. The trip served as an opportunity to bring family history to life and strengthen the bridge between generations. From experiencing Indian hospitality to exploring the country’s diverse landscapes and bustling cities, the journey left a lasting impression on her entire family.

For Vance, the trip was also a reminder of the powerful connections that bind the Indian American community to their roots. As more Indian Americans rise to prominence in public service, business, and academia, she emphasized the importance of maintaining ties to their heritage. That, she said, includes passing on cultural knowledge and pride to the next generation.

Her remarks at the summit highlighted the growing role Indian Americans are playing in shaping U.S. society. As the wife of a Vice President, Vance occupies a highly visible platform, one that she uses to both celebrate and advocate for the rich tapestry of immigrant experiences in the United States. “The Indian American story is an American story,” she said, emphasizing the community’s contributions and resilience.

During the fireside chat, she also acknowledged the broader context of U.S.-India relations and the significance of the moment in which she was speaking. With strategic partnerships deepening between the two nations in fields like technology, defense, and education, Vance noted that these connections are not just government-to-government, but also deeply personal. “Our families, our stories, our friendships—these are what really bind the two countries together,” she remarked.

Her presence at the USISPF Leadership Summit was not just symbolic; it was also a reflection of the shifting face of American leadership. As someone who straddles both Indian and American worlds, Vance’s story underscores the evolving nature of identity in a globalized world. It also highlights the increasing importance of cultural diplomacy—people-to-people connections that reinforce official ties between nations.

She credited her parents for nurturing in her a deep appreciation for both her Indian background and her American identity. That dual legacy, she said, has given her a unique perspective—one that she brings to her current role as Second Lady. “My parents gave me the tools to succeed in any world, Indian or American,” she noted. That blend of heritage and opportunity, she believes, is what defines the Indian American experience.

Throughout the conversation, Vance remained focused on the importance of representation and cultural continuity. In her view, visibility of Indian Americans in leadership roles—whether in politics, business, or academia—is a powerful motivator for younger generations. She sees it as her responsibility to help sustain that momentum, not just through words but through action.

She also touched upon the challenges that come with public life, especially as a woman of color. Navigating these spaces, she admitted, can be daunting. However, she believes that staying connected to her roots has provided strength and clarity. “You have to know where you come from to know where you’re going,” she said. That clarity has helped her remain grounded even in the whirlwind of national politics.

Looking ahead, Vance expressed hope that her own journey—and the journeys of countless other Indian Americans—will inspire others to embrace the complexity and richness of their identities. She encouraged young people to honor their heritage while also stepping confidently into their roles as Americans shaping the country’s future.

Her message to the audience was clear: embracing a multicultural identity is not a limitation but a strength. With India and the United States continuing to build closer strategic ties, people like Usha Vance symbolize the deep and enduring personal connections that make such a partnership truly meaningful.

In sharing her personal story at the USISPF Summit, Usha Vance offered a powerful reminder of the journeys that shape us, the values we inherit, and the importance of preserving cultural roots while contributing fully to the society we call home.

RCB Ends Title Drought with Gritty Win Over Punjab Kings in IPL Final

After seventeen seasons of near misses and emotional heartbreaks, Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB) has finally lifted the coveted Indian Premier League (IPL) trophy. Once branded perennial bridesmaids with three previous runners-up finishes, RCB emerged victorious, defeating Punjab Kings (PBKS) by six runs in a pulsating final at the Narendra Modi Stadium on Tuesday.

The win marked a historic moment not only for the franchise but also for its loyal and massive fanbase, which had endured years of disappointment. With the triumph, Virat Kohli – one of the modern legends of the game – added the one missing piece to his otherwise glittering resume. As the crowd, overwhelmingly RCB supporters, erupted in joy, Kohli’s long-awaited moment finally arrived.

What made this triumph even more special was that it came under the leadership of Rajat Patidar, who captained the side for the first time this season. Patidar achieved what RCB greats like Kohli, Anil Kumble, and Rahul Dravid could not. Against a determined PBKS side and in front of a packed stadium, Patidar’s team held its nerve to etch its name in IPL history.

RCB posted a modest total of 190 for nine after batting first, and it seemed for a moment that they might have missed a golden opportunity. But their bowling unit rose to the occasion, putting up a superb performance that snatched victory from the jaws of defeat.

The early turning point in the chase came when PBKS captain Shreyas Iyer, the hero of their successful run-chase against Mumbai Indians in Qualifier 2, fell cheaply. Medium-pacer Romario Shepherd claimed Iyer’s wicket when the latter nicked an innocuous delivery outside off-stump. Iyer departed for just one run, and with him, PBKS’s title dreams began to fade.

The foundation for that dismissal was laid by Krunal Pandya, who bowled a game-changing spell. Introduced into the attack in the seventh over, the left-arm spinner baffled the batters with his tight line and length. He conceded only 17 runs in his full quota of four overs and took two crucial wickets—those of Prabhsimran Singh and Josh Inglis. His economical and incisive bowling halted PBKS’s momentum and helped RCB wrest control.

Though Shashank Singh tried to mount a late challenge with a blistering unbeaten knock of 61 from 30 deliveries, including three fours and six sixes, the task proved too steep. His lone battle could not prevent the inevitable, as RCB kept chipping away with regular wickets.

Earlier, Iyer won the toss and opted to bowl first—a strategy that had worked well for PBKS in their prior match. Rain earlier in the day had left the surface damp, which prompted a cautious start from the RCB batters.

Phil Salt provided a brief flourish at the top with a nine-ball 16, but RCB’s top order generally opted for a measured approach. Kohli assumed the anchor role, compiling a composed 43 off 35 balls with three boundaries. He focused on placement and quick running rather than aggressive strokeplay, which put pressure on his partners to take risks and accelerate the scoring.

As the run rate started to dip below nine an over, RCB turned to Jitesh Sharma for a late surge. Sharma responded with an explosive 24 off just 10 deliveries, giving the innings a much-needed boost. Even so, PBKS would have felt confident about keeping RCB under the 200-run mark.

Despite that psychological advantage, RCB’s bowlers made sure the total was enough. The dismissal of Iyer was symbolic—a single, decisive moment that turned the tide in RCB’s favor. Kohli, speaking after the match, looked visibly relieved and emotional. The win filled a glaring void in his career accomplishments. As he stood amidst celebrations, the significance of the night was unmistakable.

RCB’s disciplined bowling performance, combined with fielding brilliance and smart captaincy, proved too much for PBKS. Krunal Pandya’s economical spell was the game’s unsung highlight, while Romario Shepherd’s timely breakthrough rattled the opposition early.

In his post-match comments, PBKS captain Shreyas Iyer admitted the early loss of wickets hurt their chase. “It was a tough one. Losing early wickets, especially mine, put pressure on the middle order. We tried our best, but credit to RCB—they were the better team tonight.”

Meanwhile, Rajat Patidar was full of praise for his squad. “It’s a surreal feeling. We stuck together through tough games and believed we could do it. This trophy is for every RCB fan who never gave up on us,” he said.

RCB’s journey to the title has been long, filled with heartbreaks and what-ifs. But on this night, every painful memory was replaced by euphoria. The scenes at the Narendra Modi Stadium spoke volumes—flags waving, fans chanting, and players embracing each other in tears and triumph.

The scoreboard painted a gripping tale of the contest:

ROYAL CHALLENGERS BENGALURU

  • Phil Salt: c Shreyas b Jamieson 16 (9b, 2×4, 1×6)
  • Virat Kohli: c & b Omarzai 43 (35b, 3×4)
  • Mayank Agarwal: c Arshdeep b Chahal 24 (18b, 2×4, 1×6)
  • Rajat Patidar: lbw b Jamieson 26 (16b, 1×4, 2×6)
  • Liam Livingstone: lbw b Jamieson 25 (15b, 2×6)
  • Jitesh Sharma: b Vyshak 24 (10b, 2×4, 2×6)
  • Romario Shepherd: lbw b Arshdeep 17 (9b, 1×4, 1×6)
  • Krunal Pandya: c Shreyas b Arshdeep 4 (5b)
  • Bhuvneshwar Kumar: c Priyansh b Arshdeep 1 (2b)
  • Yash Dayal: not out 1 (1b)
  • Extras: (w-9) 9
  • Total: 190 for 9 in 20 overs

Fall of Wickets:

1-18 (Salt), 2-56 (Mayank), 3-96 (Patidar), 4-131 (Kohli), 5-167 (Livingstone), 6-171 (Jitesh), 7-188 (Shepherd), 8-189 (Krunal), 9-190 (Bhuvneshwar)

PBKS BOWLING:

  • Arshdeep: 4-0-40-3
  • Jamieson: 4-0-48-3
  • Omarzai: 4-0-35-1
  • Vyshak: 4-0-30-1

In the end, RCB’s six-run win was a story of perseverance, planning, and redemption. As Kohli summed up perfectly, “This is for every RCB fan who stood by us year after year. This night, this win, is unforgettable.”

Ukraine’s Daring Drone Strike Deals Historic Blow to Russia’s Strategic Bomber Fleet

In what Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy called an operation “for the history books,” Ukraine launched one of its most ambitious and impactful military offensives of the war. On Sunday, in a matter of hours, nearly a third of Moscow’s strategic bomber fleet was either destroyed or severely damaged. The surprise assault was executed with relatively inexpensive drones that managed to slip deep into Russian territory. Ukrainian officials celebrated the operation as a resounding success.

This elaborate mission, codenamed “Spiderweb,” was spearheaded by Ukraine’s Security Service (SBU) and was over 18 months in the making. It was personally supervised by President Zelenskyy. The operation was launched at a critical moment in the conflict, now in its third year, as diplomatic efforts for a ceasefire have failed to produce results and as Russia continues to bombard Ukraine with an unprecedented volume of missile and drone strikes.

Sunday’s operation highlights the broader wartime strategy that Ukraine has pursued: innovation and resourcefulness in the face of being outgunned and outnumbered. Heavily reliant on support from Western allies, Ukrainian defense planners have frequently turned to asymmetrical tactics to weaken Russian forces. These methods often include stealth and creativity, allowing Ukraine to punch above its weight.

According to Kyiv, four Russian military airfields were targeted in the strike. President Zelenskyy revealed that a total of 117 drones were deployed in the multi-layered attack, which inflicted major damage on 34% of Russia’s air missile carrier fleet.

The mission’s complexity was staggering. Zelenskyy disclosed that it was coordinated from a location next to an office of Russia’s powerful Federal Security Service (FSB), though he did not specify exactly where this took place. Ukrainian operatives covertly smuggled FPV (first-person view) drones into Russian territory. These drones were transported in wooden containers and moved by truck to areas near the targeted airfields.

Once positioned, the drones took flight from the containers to launch their strikes on Russia’s strategic bombers. Videos shared on Russian social media on the day of the attack showed drones rising from inside the wooden crates. By the time the assault ended, Ukraine’s security service estimated that over 40 Russian aircraft were either destroyed or heavily damaged, causing approximately $7 billion in losses.

One of the most significant targets hit was the Belaya air base, located in the Irkutsk region of Siberia, more than 4,000 kilometers—or about 2,500 miles—from Ukraine. The sheer distance underscores the depth of Ukrainian penetration and the operational reach of their drones.

Russia’s Defense Ministry confirmed that strikes had indeed occurred, noting that aircraft were damaged and fires broke out at air bases in both the Irkutsk and Murmansk regions. It also said additional drone attacks were thwarted in other regions, including Amur in the Russian Far East and the western locales of Ivanovo and Ryazan.

However, as is often the case in wartime, there has been no way to independently verify the extent of the damage reported by either side.

The primary targets of this operation were strategic aircraft known for their roles in bombing Ukraine. The SBU stated that the strike destroyed several high-value military assets, including the A-50 radar aircraft, as well as the Tu-95 and Tu-22M long-range bombers. These aircraft have been integral to Russia’s bombing campaign against Ukraine. While the Tu-95 and Tu-22M have previously launched missiles at Ukrainian cities, the A-50 plays a critical role in identifying targets, detecting air defenses, and guiding missiles.

The destruction of these planes marks a significant setback for Russia’s ability to maintain its missile assault operations. Ukraine has long sought to reduce Moscow’s aerial strike capabilities, which pose a major threat to civilians and infrastructure alike.

The timing of the drone assault was particularly notable. It came just as Russia had launched a record 472 drones toward Ukraine, another attempt to overwhelm Ukraine’s limited air defense supplies, cripple its arms manufacturing, and lower public morale. These attacks have not only strained Ukraine’s defensive systems but have also resulted in civilian casualties and destruction of non-military targets.

In contrast, Ukraine’s successful operation dealt a psychological and strategic blow to Russia while also lifting the spirits of Ukrainians. The morale boost is significant at a time when peace talks have shown little progress and when Ukrainians are bracing for more hardship.

The drone strike took place a day before a new round of direct peace negotiations commenced in Istanbul on Monday. It served as both a show of Ukrainian capability and a warning to Moscow.

“The enemy thought it could bomb Ukraine and kill Ukrainians with impunity and without end. But that is not the case,” said Vasyl Maliuk, head of Ukraine’s Security Service, on Monday. “We will respond to Russian terror and destroy the enemy everywhere — at sea, in the air, and on land.”

“And if necessary, we’ll get them from underground too,” he added, emphasizing Ukraine’s commitment to continue striking back regardless of the battlefield.

This latest operation also reinforces a pattern of Ukraine employing the element of surprise to strike high-value targets far behind enemy lines. Despite facing numerous challenges on the frontlines, Kyiv has consistently found ways to disrupt Russian operations in unexpected ways.

Sunday’s offensive may go down as the boldest action yet in this category. But it is by no means the first.

In April 2022, Ukraine shocked the world by sinking the Moskva, the flagship of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet, using two of its domestically produced Neptune anti-ship missiles. The destruction of the Moskva was a major symbolic and strategic victory early in the war.

Later that year, in October 2022, Ukraine struck the Kerch Bridge connecting Russia with Crimea, a key logistical and symbolic link for Moscow. The bridge was hit again in July 2023, further demonstrating Ukraine’s ability to attack far beyond the immediate warfront.

Sunday’s drone operation represents the continuation—and escalation—of Ukraine’s campaign to target strategic Russian military assets deep within its territory. It not only showcases Ukraine’s growing capabilities in unmanned warfare but also exposes vulnerabilities in Russia’s homeland defense systems.

With no end to the conflict in sight and peace negotiations still yielding little progress, Sunday’s attack may well become a defining moment in a war where creativity, precision, and resilience have become Ukraine’s most potent weapons.

CUNY Launches Research Platform Honoring Dr. Achyuta Samanta to Boost India-U.S. Educational Collaboration

In a move aimed at strengthening academic collaboration between India and the United States, the City University of New York (CUNY) has unveiled a specialized research initiative dedicated to Indian educational and social development. The new platform, named the Achyuta Samanta India Initiative of the CUNY CREST Institute (ASIICCI), was inaugurated this week during a ribbon-cutting ceremony in New York. The event was graced by Dr. Achyuta Samanta himself, alongside Dr. Milton Santiago, President of Bronx Community College.

The ASIICCI is designed to focus on interdisciplinary research tackling India’s pressing educational and social issues. While the scope is national, special attention will be given to Odisha, the eastern Indian state where Dr. Samanta hails from and where much of his pioneering work has been implemented. Notably, this platform represents one of the rare occasions when a public university in the U.S. has named a research initiative after a living Indian personality.

Dr. Samanta is a renowned academic and social reformer who has significantly reshaped the education landscape in India, particularly for marginalized communities. He is the founder of both the Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology (KIIT) and the Kalinga Institute of Social Sciences (KISS), two institutions widely recognized for their unique combination of academic rigor and social impact.

KIIT has emerged as a comprehensive university offering education in multiple professional disciplines to more than 40,000 students. In parallel, KISS provides free-of-cost education, lodging, food, and healthcare to another 40,000 tribal children—many of whom are first-generation learners. This holistic model of development, where academic empowerment is seamlessly combined with community welfare, has drawn acclaim from both national and international observers.

CUNY officials emphasized that this model holds immense promise for addressing educational and social equity challenges globally. They see Dr. Samanta’s approach as one that successfully merges educational excellence with grassroots empowerment. By creating ASIICCI, CUNY hopes to give researchers and scholars a dedicated platform to explore and expand on this model, fostering innovative solutions to real-world problems.

“The initiative will provide a collaborative space where academics can engage in interdisciplinary research grounded in Dr. Samanta’s development framework,” said a CUNY representative. “It’s a rare honor to name such a platform after a living Indian educator, which speaks volumes about the global relevance of his work.”

CUNY is among the largest public university systems in the United States, with a student body of more than 300,000 individuals hailing from 122 different nationalities. This rich diversity provides a fertile ground for cross-cultural learning and global academic exchange. The launch of ASIICCI is expected to not only boost research efforts but also foster deeper educational ties between India and the U.S.

Dr. Samanta’s contributions to education and social upliftment have earned him international recognition. He has been awarded 67 honorary doctorates from universities across the globe, a distinction that places him among the most decorated Indian academicians and social workers still active today. This latest acknowledgment from CUNY further cements his standing as a global thought leader in inclusive education.

“Education is the most powerful tool for social transformation,” Dr. Samanta remarked during the ceremony. “This initiative symbolizes how nations can come together to share knowledge, promote equity, and create sustainable models for inclusive development.”

His vision of using education as a means to achieve broader social goals has influenced a growing global conversation about the role of academic institutions in addressing inequality. Through institutions like KIIT and KISS, Dr. Samanta has demonstrated that access to quality education can catalyze wide-ranging improvements in community health, economic opportunity, and gender equality.

Academic communities have praised the ASIICCI as a meaningful and timely tribute to a figure who continues to shape lives through education. “It’s not often that such honors are bestowed upon individuals while they are still actively contributing to the field,” said Dr. Milton Santiago. “This is not just a recognition; it’s an investment in a philosophy that believes education must serve the most underserved.”

The platform also seeks to facilitate student and faculty exchanges between India and the United States, enriching both sides through mutual learning and cultural exchange. Such programs are expected to enhance students’ global competencies and expose them to diverse methods of teaching, learning, and community engagement.

“This initiative will allow researchers from both countries to draw inspiration from each other and co-develop solutions that are both innovative and culturally rooted,” said another CUNY official.

Furthermore, by concentrating part of its research on Odisha, the ASIICCI aims to shed light on regional challenges often overlooked in broader academic discussions. Issues such as tribal education, healthcare access, and rural empowerment will be at the forefront of the platform’s agenda. The goal is to inform policy and practice not just in India, but globally.

Dr. Samanta’s model is especially pertinent at a time when educational institutions worldwide are grappling with how to better serve marginalized populations. His work underscores the importance of treating education not just as a means of intellectual development but as a comprehensive tool for societal transformation.

The ASIICCI will be hosted under the umbrella of the CUNY CREST Institute, known for its focus on climate resilience and environmental systems. The incorporation of the India Initiative under this multidisciplinary research center signifies a commitment to addressing complex global issues through collaborative and holistic strategies.

In the coming months, the platform will begin accepting research proposals, hosting workshops, and organizing seminars aimed at drawing international scholars into the conversation. It also plans to publish findings that can be used to guide public policy and institutional reforms in both countries.

Dr. Samanta expressed hope that the platform will not only further his mission but also inspire future generations of educators and social entrepreneurs. “I believe this initiative will become a beacon of collaboration, innovation, and inclusivity,” he said. “Together, we can build bridges of knowledge that span continents.”

In sum, the launch of the Achyuta Samanta India Initiative at CUNY signifies a meaningful step forward in global academic cooperation, rooted in the values of inclusion, empowerment, and shared learning. By spotlighting the work of one of India’s most influential educators, the initiative aims to create lasting impact both in India and across the globe.

Trump Moves to Strip $1.1 Billion in Funding from NPR and PBS in Broader Cultural Battle

President Donald Trump took a new step on Tuesday in his ongoing clash with prominent cultural institutions by formally asking Congress to rescind $1.1 billion in federal funding that had been allocated to public broadcasters for the next two years. This move targets organizations such as NPR and PBS, both of which have long been in the crosshairs of conservative criticism over alleged partisan bias.

To move forward, this rescission request requires a simple majority in both the House and Senate within 45 days. Given Republicans’ narrow majorities in both chambers, the proposal could succeed with only minimal dissent from within their ranks.

The momentum for this move had been building for months. Earlier this spring, a House subcommittee hearing laid the foundation, with Republican lawmakers using the platform to accuse NPR and PBS of promoting partisan viewpoints. During that hearing, they argued for the removal of federal support funneled through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) to local public media outlets and their national counterparts.

At the hearing, PBS President and CEO Paula Kerger warned about the severe impact such cuts could have, particularly in rural areas where public stations often serve as the main providers of local programming and essential services. In a statement issued Tuesday following Trump’s request, Kerger said, “Without PBS member stations, Americans will lose unique local programming and emergency services in times of crisis. There’s nothing more American than PBS and we are proud to highlight real issues, individuals, and places that would otherwise be overlooked by commercial media.”

Similarly, Katherine Maher, President and CEO of NPR, expressed concern not only about the financial impact on local radio stations but also about the legality of the request. “The proposal, which is explicitly viewpoint-based and aimed at controlling and punishing content, violates the Public Broadcasting Act, the First Amendment, and the Due Process Clause,” she said in a statement. Maher warned that the abrupt withdrawal of funding would lead to “immediate budget shortfalls,” resulting in program cancellations and layoffs at public radio stations.

The move to eliminate public broadcasting funds is part of a broader $9.4 billion package of proposed budget clawbacks from the White House, which also includes cuts to foreign aid programs. House Speaker Mike Johnson emphasized that the proposed cuts had been developed with guidance from a government efficiency task force led by billionaire Elon Musk. “We thank Elon Musk and his DOGE team for identifying a wide range of wasteful, duplicative, and outdated programs, and House Republicans are eager to eliminate them,” Johnson stated, expressing eagerness to act swiftly on the president’s proposal.

However, opposition is expected in the Senate, where even some Republicans have expressed reservations. Senator Susan Collins of Maine, who chairs the Senate Appropriations Committee, objected to a proposed cut in the widely respected PEPFAR initiative — a U.S. program for combating HIV/AIDS that was launched under President George W. Bush. “I will not support a cut in PEPFAR, which is a program that has saved literally millions of lives and has been extremely effective and well run,” she said, though she avoided commenting directly on the proposal to defund public broadcasting or whether there would be enough Republican senators to halt the measure.

This request comes after conservative lawmakers voiced dissatisfaction with a recently passed House budget deal — approved only after Trump’s personal visit to Capitol Hill — which they said would significantly increase the federal debt. Still, while the $1.1 billion cut to public broadcasting is symbolically significant, its financial impact on the national debt is minimal. The U.S. national debt stands at a staggering $36 trillion, and the amount Trump seeks to rescind covers the full CPB budget through the end of September 2027. That funding was originally approved in March as part of a temporary spending bill signed by the president.

Public broadcasting has traditionally drawn bipartisan support, but it has become a lightning rod for criticism in recent years, especially from conservatives who claim it leans left politically. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, a prominent ally of Trump, exemplified this view during the spring subcommittee hearing, saying, “NPR and PBS have increasingly become radical, left-wing echo chambers for a narrow audience of mostly wealthy, white, urban liberals and progressives.”

Despite such criticism, not all Republicans agree with Trump’s proposal. Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski voiced her support for continued federal funding for public broadcasting, emphasizing its importance in states like hers. In rural areas, public radio and TV often provide critical services, including access to news, education, and emergency alerts.

Several prominent Democrats have also strongly opposed Trump’s push to defund public broadcasting. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Senator Patty Murray, the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, criticized the move as politically motivated. “President Trump is looking to go after PBS and NPR to settle political scores and muzzle the free press, while undermining foreign assistance programs that push back on China’s malign influence, save lives, and address other bipartisan priorities,” the two senators said in a joint statement.

Representative Dan Goldman of New York, who serves as the Democratic co-chair of the House Public Broadcasting Caucus, echoed those concerns. In May, he led a letter addressed to House appropriators that was signed by 106 Democratic lawmakers, urging the continued financial support of public broadcasters. “Without federal support for public broadcasting, many localities would struggle to receive timely, reliable local news and educational content, especially remote and rural communities that commercial newsrooms are increasingly less likely to invest in,” the letter stated. It emphasized that in places like Alaska, Minnesota, North Dakota, and Texas, public radio often remains “the only weekly or daily news source in their communities.”

While Trump’s rescission request may satisfy elements of his base and allies within Congress who seek to slash government spending and challenge perceived media bias, it has also ignited a broader debate about the role of public broadcasting in American society. The fate of the proposal now lies with lawmakers in both chambers, many of whom must balance partisan priorities against the needs of their constituents — particularly in rural America where public media often fills a void left by commercial broadcasters.

In essence, the latest effort by Trump to cut public media funding serves not only as a fiscal maneuver but also as part of a broader ideological campaign, reflecting deepening divisions over the future of American media and its role in public life.

International college students matter for the economy

Since late March, the government has been revoking international student visas or terminating their statuses, citing national security concerns. Then it stopped: While writing this Chalkboard post, a judge told the governmentit couldn’t do this. The government also recently told Harvard it was rescinding their authorization to enroll international students. Then, a different judge told the government it couldn’t do that to Harvard. And the latest as I write is that the government has cancelled new appointments to be cleared for a student visa.

By the time these words reach your screen, it’s anyone’s guess what new developments might affect international students enrolling in U.S. colleges and universities. So, let’s not talk about the legal stuff or politics.

Let’s talk about economics.

In particular, let’s talk about international students and our trade deficit. For a quick summary of the impact international students have, it’s hard to do better than Catherine Rampell’s column from April.

President Donald Trump says he wants to reduce our trade deficit. Yet he’s destroying one of our winningest exports: higher education. Colleges and universities are among America’s most competitive international exporters. . . We also run a huge trade surplus in this sector, meaning that foreigners buy much more education from the United States than Americans buy from other countries.

Catherine Rampell, Washington Post

I covered the issue for the Brown Center on Education Policy before the pandemic in 2017 and then again in 2018. Since then, education—primarily higher education—has become an increasingly important factor in the U.S. trade deficit. Exports occur when foreign buyers spend money on American goods or services. In this case, international students bring both their presence and their tuition payments, with the product being a degree or certificate. The figure below shows inflation-adjusted exports and imports in the education sector since 1999.

America’s education trade surplus has skyrocketed since 1999

U.S. education exports and imports in billions of 2024 dollars

America's education trade surplus has skyrocketed since 1999

Education exports have skyrocketed, then dipped during the pandemic, and have now recovered. Imports—in the form of Americans studying abroad—have also risen, but not nearly as fast as exports. Throughout this time, America’s trade surplus in the education sector (the difference between the export and import lines) has consistently benefited the United States. The education trade surplus has grown more than threefold over the past 25 years, rising from $12 billion in 1999 to over $43 billion in 2024, adjusted for inflation.

We’ll return to talking about the trade deficit below, but first let’s consider some of the high-level economic effects of spending by the one million-plus international students when they come to the United States.

According to NAFSA: Association of International Educators, international students in the higher education sector supported almost 400,000 jobs in the 2023-24 school year. Half of the jobs were directly within colleges and universities, while the other half resulted from student spending on housing, food, retail, and other living expenses. About one-fifth of the jobs came from housing, and another fifth from food and retail spending.

Suppose we toss international students out, or just make them feel unwelcome so they don’t come. The instant economic impact of losing them would be losing their tuition dollars. At public universities, international students pay out-of-state or “non-resident” tuition and fees, which are substantially higher than what they charge in-state students. International students—or more specifically, their tuition dollars—are an essential ingredient that make the “high cost, high aid” models at many selective U.S. colleges work. As an example, the University of California (where I work) teaches roughly one international undergraduate for every nine California students. But there are two financial differences: International tuition is more than triple the tuition for California students, and while over half of California undergraduates have their tuition fully covered by aid, international students receive essentially no financial aid. One way to look at it is that a significant portion of financial aid for California students is funded by the higher tuition paid by international students.

Looking ahead, market trends in the higher education business are quite clear—and international students can clearly make a difference. College attendance by Americans is at an all-time high but is expected to decline sharply over the next 15 years, in large part because there are simply fewer children in the United States. That means there will be many open spaces available in U.S. institutions to be filled by international students. If we lose international students while domestic enrollments are also falling, many colleges will have to shrink or, in some cases, shut down.

Finally, there are the indirect economic effects, which are much harder to measure. The leaders of many nations boast American degrees, including leaders of Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belgium, Cambodia, Egypt, Iceland, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, and Spain. And eight prime ministers or presidents of foreign countries have Harvard degrees, including Canada, Greece, Singapore, and Taiwan. It’s difficult to assign a dollar value to American-educated leaders governing much of the world, but their influence is undoubtedly valuable for international relations in both politics and business. And of course, there’s more than money involved with international students in U.S. colleges. American students benefit from getting to know students from other countries and other cultures. And I believe international students leave with admiration for much of what America represents and warm feelings toward its people.

Higher education is an internationally competitive industry, which the U.S. has dominated for a long time. The top four destination countries for foreign students are the U.S., Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia. Destinations succeed in this competition both due to the high quality of their higher education and the preference of students and families for education in English. Interestingly, several of these other leading countries are also grappling with internal clashes over immigration. For example, Canada has capped the number of student visas it will provide, reducing them by about a third compared to two years ago. Australia is also cutting back on international students numbers. This presents an opportunity for the United States to capture a larger share of the market, provided migration concerns can be addressed.

Returning to the balance-of-trade issue, a term frequently used by the Trump administration is “non-tariff barriers.” These are measures such as regulations or unnecessary inspections that countries use to limit imports without formally imposing tariffs. Oddly, the administration appears to be adding to these non-tariff barriers on U.S. higher education exports by revoking visas and creating an unwelcoming environment for many international students. To help reduce the overall trade deficit, this moment offers a strategic opportunity to attract more students to the United States rather than impose additional obstacles.

Source Credit: By (Brookings.edu)s

Delta Set to Resume Nonstop Flights from Atlanta to Delhi by 2026 in Strategic Partnership with IndiGo and Global Airlines

Delta Air Lines, headquartered in Atlanta, has announced its intent to reintroduce direct flights to India, with a nonstop route connecting Atlanta (ATL) to Delhi (DEL), subject to approval from relevant authorities. This decision represents a significant step in the airline’s broader strategy, which includes a key partnership with IndiGo, Air France-KLM, and Virgin Atlantic. The alliance is crafted to bolster air connectivity between India, Europe, and North America, and underscores Delta’s renewed commitment to the Indian market.

Delta’s return to India will mark its first presence in the country since 2019. The airline intends to initiate nonstop service between its primary hub in Atlanta and India’s capital, Delhi. At nearly 7,945 miles, or 12,785 kilometers, this proposed flight would rank among Delta’s lengthiest nonstop routes. The decision is part of the airline’s continued effort to expand globally and reconnect with markets that had been previously discontinued due to operational challenges.

Delta CEO Ed Bastian had earlier confirmed in 2024 that the airline was planning to relaunch its operations in India by 2026. This statement appears to be coming to fruition with the current announcement. The last time Delta ventured into the Indian market was in late 2019, with a direct flight from New York (JFK) to Mumbai (BOM). However, that route was short-lived, terminated due to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and the airline’s concurrent retirement of its Boeing 777 fleet. This aircraft type had been vital to supporting ultra-long-haul operations, and its phase-out left Delta without a suitable replacement at the time.

To address past hurdles, Delta plans to utilize the incoming Airbus A350-1000 aircraft, which boasts extended range and greater fuel efficiency. These new aircraft are expected to resolve the limitations that affected the previous India route and are seen as key to sustaining nonstop operations over such long distances. “With the upcoming delivery of Airbus A350-1000 aircraft—known for their fuel efficiency and long-range capabilities—Delta aims to overcome past challenges and re-establish direct service to the Indian subcontinent,” according to the airline’s update.

However, while the intent is clear, the precise launch date for the Atlanta-Delhi service has yet to be confirmed. It is likely that Delta is aligning its India reentry with the arrival of its new A350-1000 jets, initially expected in 2025. Delays in the delivery schedule have now shifted the anticipated arrival to 2026, pushing back the potential flight inauguration as well. The A350-1000 is well-suited for long-haul routes like ATL–DEL, offering ample range and passenger capacity without the operational trade-offs experienced with older aircraft.

Delta already operates the A350-900, but the A350-1000 variant provides higher capacity and improved performance—factors that are crucial for launching and sustaining an ambitious long-haul service such as Atlanta to Delhi. The airline appears to be earmarking these newer planes specifically for complex, high-demand routes that require top-tier operational efficiency.

The relaunch of Delta’s India service is more than just a singular route. It forms part of a larger, multilayered strategic partnership with prominent international airlines. The collaboration involves IndiGo, Air France-KLM, and Virgin Atlantic and is designed to deliver a seamless travel experience for passengers journeying between India, Europe, and North America. Through this alliance, the participating airlines intend to pool resources and align operations to offer a broader and more efficient global network.

As part of this expanded cooperation, IndiGo’s domestic network will play a crucial role. Delta, Air France-KLM, and Virgin Atlantic passengers will gain access to more than 30 destinations within India by connecting through IndiGo’s hubs. Simultaneously, travelers flying with IndiGo will have enhanced access to key transatlantic destinations via major European airports like Amsterdam (AMS), Paris (CDG), London (LHR), and Manchester (MAN). “Delta, Air France-KLM, and Virgin Atlantic customers can connect to 30+ destinations in India via IndiGo’s domestic network,” the airline confirmed.

The alliance will go beyond mere codesharing. The airlines plan to collaborate across various facets including commercial operations, frequent flyer programs, cargo services, aircraft maintenance, sustainability initiatives, and digital technology. This level of integration supports IndiGo’s long-term objective to evolve into a global airline by the end of the decade, while simultaneously reinforcing Delta’s renewed interest in tapping into the growing Indian travel market. “This integrated network supports IndiGo’s ambitions to become a global airline by 2030 and marks Delta’s renewed commitment to the high-growth India market,” a joint statement indicated.

IndiGo, India’s largest airline by market share, has been steadily expanding its long-haul capabilities. The carrier has secured damp-leased Boeing 787 aircraft and placed firm orders for 30 Airbus A350-900s, with options to purchase up to 70 more. These widebody jets will significantly enhance IndiGo’s ability to serve long-distance international routes and collaborate more deeply with global partners like Delta, Virgin Atlantic, and the Air France-KLM group.

This ramp-up of international capability has already begun bearing fruit. Air France-KLM, a current codeshare partner of IndiGo, plans to broaden its network in India with a new KLM-operated route from Amsterdam to Hyderabad (HYD). This new service is scheduled to commence in September 2025. With this addition, passengers traveling from Europe will have access to 24 more Indian destinations via IndiGo’s connecting flights. “Air France-KLM already codeshares with IndiGo and will expand its reach further with a new KLM route from Amsterdam (AMS) to Hyderabad (HYD), launching in September 2025,” according to the companies.

In summary, Delta’s return to India is not a standalone initiative but a coordinated effort that reflects a long-term vision for enhanced global connectivity. The Atlanta-to-Delhi route is just one component of a larger, interconnected system powered by shared goals and expanded fleets. By combining the network strengths of Delta, IndiGo, Virgin Atlantic, and Air France-KLM, the partnership is set to offer customers an improved and far-reaching travel experience.

While travelers will have to wait until 2026 for the Atlanta-Delhi service to begin, the strategic alliances already in motion are laying the groundwork for a more connected future in air travel. The initiative also signifies a strategic pivot by Delta, aiming to reclaim its position in one of the world’s fastest-growing aviation markets.

Bill Gates Vows to Spend Most of His Fortune on Africa’s Health and Education Over Next 20 Years

Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates has announced that the vast majority of his fortune will be spent on advancing healthcare and education systems in Africa over the coming two decades. Speaking from Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, the 69-year-old philanthropist emphasized that improving human capital through better health and education would pave the way for prosperity across the African continent.

“By unleashing human potential through health and education, every country in Africa should be on a path to prosperity,” Gates stated during his visit to the African Union headquarters. His remarks reflect a strategic vision aimed at long-term development by addressing systemic challenges in public services.

Gates also encouraged young African innovators to explore how Artificial Intelligence (AI) could be harnessed to transform the healthcare landscape. With Africa already witnessing technological leaps in sectors like banking, he suggested that AI could similarly revolutionize health services. “Africa largely skipped traditional banking and now you have a chance, as you build your next generation healthcare systems, to think about how AI is built into that,” he told his audience.

Just a month ago, Gates declared his intention to donate 99% of his immense fortune—expected to grow to $200 billion by 2045. By that time, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is also expected to conclude its operations. “I recently made a commitment that my wealth will be given away over the next 20 years. The majority of that funding will be spent on helping you address challenges here in Africa,” Gates said in his speech at the AU.

His pledge has garnered praise from African leaders and activists. Graça Machel, the former First Lady of Mozambique and widow of Nelson Mandela, described the announcement as timely and deeply needed. “We are counting on Mr Gates’ steadfast commitment to continue walking this path of transformation alongside us,” she said, highlighting the current pressures facing the continent.

In contrast to Gates’ renewed commitment, U.S. foreign aid to Africa has seen significant cuts in recent years. Under President Donald Trump’s “America First” agenda, financial support for several critical programmes, including those combating HIV/AIDS, was scaled back. This has left many African nations anxious about the future of healthcare services, especially for vulnerable populations.

Gates reassured that his foundation, which has worked extensively across Africa for years, would sharpen its focus on improving primary healthcare systems. Emphasizing maternal and child health, he said, “What we’ve learned is that helping the mother be healthy and have great nutrition before she gets pregnant, while she is pregnant, delivers the strongest results.” He also noted the importance of early childhood development: “Ensuring the child receives good nutrition in their first four years as well makes all the difference.”

This strategic focus was outlined further by the Gates Foundation, which said it would prioritize three core areas: reducing preventable deaths among mothers and newborns, eliminating the threat of deadly infectious diseases for future generations, and lifting millions out of poverty. “At the end of 20 years, the foundation will sunset its operations,” a statement from the organization clarified.

Gates has indicated that this is not merely a philanthropic endeavor but a personal mission that has evolved over time. In a recent blog post, he wrote, “People will say a lot of things about me when I die, but I am determined that ‘he died rich’ will not be one of them.” His sense of urgency in giving has grown in recent years, and he confirmed that he will be speeding up the pace of his donations through the foundation.

Yet, even after donating 99% of his assets, Gates is likely to remain a billionaire. According to Bloomberg’s billionaire index, he would still retain a level of wealth that places him among the world’s richest individuals.

Gates, along with his late friend Paul Allen, established Microsoft in 1975. The company quickly rose to prominence and became a dominant force in the software industry and broader tech landscape. Over the years, Gates gradually distanced himself from the day-to-day operations of Microsoft. He stepped down as CEO in 2000 and relinquished his position as chairman in 2014.

Much of his philanthropic inspiration comes from fellow billionaire investor Warren Buffett, as well as other global philanthropists who have pledged large parts of their wealth to charitable causes. Gates has long spoken of how their example spurred him to embrace a giving ethos, particularly focused on health and education.

However, not everyone views the Gates Foundation in a favorable light. Some critics argue that Gates uses the foundation’s charitable status to reduce his tax liabilities. Others contend that the foundation wields disproportionate influence over the global health system, potentially shaping public health policies and priorities without sufficient accountability or transparency.

Despite such criticisms, Gates remains focused on applying technological innovation to address Africa’s most pressing challenges. He cited Rwanda as a nation already showing promise in this regard, using AI-enabled tools like ultrasound technology to detect high-risk pregnancies and improve maternal outcomes.

In addressing young Africans, Gates stressed the power of innovation in shaping the continent’s future. Drawing parallels with how mobile phones transformed the financial landscape, he urged entrepreneurs to now channel that energy into healthcare systems. “Mobile phones revolutionized banking in Africa,” he noted, “and AI should now be used for the continent’s benefit.”

In summary, Bill Gates has committed himself to a 20-year plan that will redirect nearly all his wealth toward empowering Africa through better health and education. His foundation will emphasize maternal care, childhood nutrition, disease prevention, and poverty reduction. With a vision that includes AI integration and local innovation, Gates aims not just to donate, but to inspire sustainable, Africa-led transformation.

Diljit Dosanjh’s Met Gala Look Symbolizes a Global Punjabi Style Revolution

Indian singer Diljit Dosanjh made an unforgettable first appearance at the Met Gala last month, leaving a deep impression on global fashion circles. The 41-year-old artist, already celebrated as the only Punjabi musician to have performed at Coachella, walked the iconic red carpet wearing a look inspired by early 20th-century Indian royalty.

He was dressed in an extravagant ivory and gold outfit designed by Prabal Gurung, which featured a feathered and jewel-studded turban. The ensemble captured the attention of many and became a trending topic across India for weeks. Adding to the grandeur was a dazzling diamond necklace, whose design echoed a Cartier piece once worn by a former monarch from Punjab in northern India.

His outfit was completed with a Panthère de Cartier watch, a lion-head accessory, and a jewel-encrusted sword. A particularly personal touch was the cape, which had an embroidered map of his home state Punjab along with letters in Gurmukhi, the traditional script of the Punjabi language.

Dosanjh’s Met Gala appearance wasn’t an outlier—he’s long been recognized for his distinct fashion sense. Just as his music blends traditional Punjabi roots with modern hip-hop elements, his wardrobe does the same. He is frequently spotted in anti-fit pants, bulky sneakers, and a stack of necklaces that complement his colorful turbans. This signature mix of traditional and contemporary has become a form of personal expression that resonates with millions and has transformed Punjabi fashion in unexpected ways.

This evolution in style is evident across the globe. For example, high-energy bhangra competitions in California now rely on high-performance sneakers rather than traditional footwear. Meanwhile, bhangra-themed nights in Berlin’s basements are frequented by attendees wearing crop tops and creatively designed pants.

Punjabi music itself has developed into a full-blown subculture, bursting with energy and loud volume. The lyrics often name-drop international cities and luxury brands, cementing its global appeal. While Dosanjh leads this style movement, he’s not alone in influencing Punjabi fashion.

Punjabi-Canadian singer Jazzy B once made headlines with his enormous rings—some as big as cookies—his oversized Kanda pendants, and his silver-blonde hair streaks. More recently, artist Badshah’s yellow-tinted sunglasses, Yo Yo Honey Singh’s loose-fitting hoodies, and AP Dhillon’s designer outfits featuring Louis Vuitton jackets and Chanel timepieces have taken center stage among Punjabi youth.

Despite their fashion-forward choices, the influence of earlier artists remained mostly regional. However, Dosanjh and a select few have managed to elevate Punjabi style to a global platform. Their fashion resonates not only with the Sikh diaspora but also with a wider international audience. Dosanjh’s t-shirts, pearl accessories, and sneakers from his recent world tour sold out in just hours. AP Dhillon’s fashion appearances at Paris Couture Week have also sparked admiration and aspiration among young Punjabis.

According to cultural analysts, the fusion of music and fashion seen in today’s Punjabi artists has deep roots in Western pop culture, especially since many of these musicians live and perform abroad. As art historian and author Alka Pande observes, “Punjabi men are inventive. The region has been at the forefront of fusion, it believes in hybridity. This is especially the case with the Punjabi diaspora—even when they live in ghettos, they are the showmen [of their lives].”

With the rise of the Punjabi diaspora, a new generation of musicians began blending modern hip-hop with traditional Punjabi aesthetics. Their unique style vocabulary—marked by gold chains, faux fur, oversized jewelry, braids, and beards—has attracted the attention of academics and media alike. Numerous articles, books, and doctoral theses now explore this cultural evolution in South Asia.

Back in Punjab, the shift was immediate. When luxury fashion labels entered the Indian market in the 2000s, Punjabis—many of whom come from farming backgrounds—were quick to adopt and integrate these global styles. As renowned singer Rabbi Shergill puts it, “It symbolised the movement of the Punjabi identity from a farmer to a global consumer.” He believes these fashion choices reflect the realities of the modern world, stating, “These impulses are a response to the hyper capitalist world.”

Interestingly, the fashion of Punjabi musicians across genres—from bhangra pop to Punjabi rap and fusion—tends to remain grounded and even androgynous. These performers might don Balenciaga or traditional creations by Indian designer Manish Malhotra, appear in cities from Ludhiana to London, dance with Beyoncé near Dubai’s Burj Khalifa or on the lawns of a British mansion, but they never lose touch with their Punjabi heritage.

Dosanjh’s Met Gala appearance illustrated this perfectly. “It’s like the popularity of his androgynous style was waiting to happen,” notes Pande.

The ripple effects of this cultural blend are now clearly visible across Punjab’s creative scenes. Traditional bhangra outfits are no longer limited to the standard “dhoti-kurta-koti” with juttis (ethnic shoes). Performers now step on stage in sneakers, graphic T-shirts, unconventional pants, and even jeans. This updated wardrobe mirrors the hybrid identities of the artists themselves.

Harinder Singh, the owner of the 1469 brand, confirms the growing demand for such styles. “Such items are highly sought after by customers,” he says. His stores offer accessories made popular by Punjabi music stars, including Phulkari turbans worn by Dosanjh and Kanda pendants first made famous by the veteran Bhangra performer Pammi Bai. Singh himself owns turbans in over 100 shades, showcasing the diversity in modern Punjabi headwear.

This shift isn’t confined to performers alone. Everyday men’s fashion in Punjab now incorporates global influences. Gurpreet Saini, a young poet who performs at cultural events across India, wears shawls printed with Gurmukhi letters in ombre tones—a unique style he sources from his hometown of Hariana. He acknowledges the impact of musical icons on his aesthetic choices, particularly the legendary folk singer Gurdas Mann.

What started out as individual flair has now grown into a full-blown cultural movement. These fashion choices are no longer just personal—they have evolved into symbols of identity. Through bold rhythms, stylistic innovation, and a deep connection to heritage, Punjabi artists have reshaped how their culture is seen both at home and abroad.

Dosanjh’s statement at the Met Gala was not just about fashion—it was a declaration of identity. The blend of tradition and trend that he and his peers embody represents more than style; it reflects a new, confident Punjabi identity that is as global as it is rooted.

Rethinking the Roll: The Emerging Shift Away from Toilet Paper

It’s hard to picture daily life without toilet paper, yet there’s a growing possibility that it could soon be replaced by more sustainable options. The reasons behind this emerging shift are varied, but environmental awareness, health concerns, and cultural habits are at the heart of the movement. As Think Stewartville explains, “Environmental concerns, health implications, and cultural preferences are driving this change toward more sustainable alternatives.”

For most people, using the toilet multiple times a day is just a part of life. Cottonelle notes that the average individual visits the bathroom five times a day, although the number can vary from four to ten times and still be considered normal. Additionally, every trip to the toilet typically involves using several sheets of toilet paper. Cottonelle reports that women use about “6.41 sheets per toileting occasion” and men use around “8.1 sheets per occasion.” Over time, this adds up. On average, an American adult goes through about one roll of toilet paper each week and roughly 50 rolls in a year.

Given this frequency and volume of use, it becomes clear why people are beginning to consider alternatives. The widespread reliance on toilet paper not only impacts the environment due to the production and disposal processes but also places a burden on household expenses. So, what options do people have if they want to break up with toilet paper?

The most prominent and long-standing alternative is the bidet. Bidets have been around for centuries and remain a staple in many parts of the world. They are now being adopted more widely in places where toilet paper has traditionally dominated. Think Stewartville explains the functionality and appeal of bidets by stating, “These standalone fixtures use precisely directed water streams for cleaning, eliminating the need for paper products entirely.” A bidet allows users to cleanse themselves with water, offering a more environmentally friendly and often more hygienic solution. According to the Cambridge Dictionary, a bidet is a “small, low bath in which a person washes the lower part of their body.”

While bidets are a reliable alternative, they aren’t the only option gaining attention. Another substitute that’s becoming more popular is reusable cloth toilet paper. This option is designed to be both cost-effective and environmentally responsible. These cloths are often made from organic cotton or bamboo fibers and are used similarly to traditional toilet paper but are cleaned and reused rather than discarded after a single use. Think Stewartville highlights the benefits by noting, “Typically crafted from organic cotton or bamboo fibers, these washable squares provide a soft, effective cleaning option.” For eco-conscious households, reusable cloth toilet paper can significantly reduce waste and save money over time.

However, despite the advantages, reusable cloth toilet paper isn’t without its critics. The biggest concern is hygiene. Some people are uncomfortable with the idea of reusing something for personal sanitation. Healthline addresses these hygiene issues and offers advice on how to properly sanitize the cloths, saying they should be washed “in a hot-water laundry cycle that’s at least 160°F (71°C) for at least 25 minutes, or a sanitize setting if you have one.” This ensures that bacteria and germs are eliminated, making the cloths safe for repeated use.

Yet, even with proper sanitation, there is still a perception issue. As Healthline points out, one downside to cloth toilet paper is that “it can retain stains that make the cloths appear undesirable to use.” This aesthetic issue might discourage some people from embracing this method, despite its environmental and financial benefits.

In exploring the various alternatives to toilet paper, it’s evident that the transition won’t be easy or universal. For many, the idea of abandoning toilet paper feels unnatural, especially in cultures where it has long been the norm. But as global environmental concerns become more pressing and people seek out ways to reduce their carbon footprints, more households may begin to consider these sustainable options.

Moreover, it’s not just about reducing paper waste. Many of these alternatives also have health benefits. For example, using water instead of abrasive paper can be gentler on sensitive skin and may reduce irritation or discomfort for individuals with certain medical conditions. In this sense, switching from toilet paper isn’t just about being eco-friendly; it could also mean a better quality of life for some users.

As the conversation around sustainability continues to grow, the bathroom is becoming yet another area for reflection and change. Traditional toilet paper, once considered a household necessity, is now being reconsidered in light of newer, cleaner, and more responsible alternatives. Whether it’s the age-old bidet or the modern take on cloth wipes, the shift away from single-use paper products may very well become a part of our everyday lives.

To sum up, the average person goes to the toilet about five times daily and uses a substantial number of toilet paper sheets each time, resulting in roughly 50 rolls per year. While this has long been accepted as the norm, increasing awareness of the environmental consequences, health considerations, and cultural perspectives is prompting a reevaluation. As Think Stewartville puts it, “Environmental concerns, health implications, and cultural preferences are driving this change toward more sustainable alternatives.”

Bidets offer an efficient and time-tested solution that eliminates the need for paper entirely. Described by Think Stewartville as devices that “use precisely directed water streams for cleaning,” they are gaining traction among those seeking a cleaner and greener option. For those who prefer something more traditional but still eco-friendly, reusable cloth toilet paper offers a practical alternative. Crafted from durable materials like bamboo or organic cotton, these cloths “provide a soft, effective cleaning option” while also helping to reduce household waste.

Despite some concerns over hygiene and aesthetics, especially the potential for staining as noted by Healthline, proper laundering methods can address most of these issues. Washing them “in a hot-water laundry cycle that’s at least 160°F (71°C) for at least 25 minutes” ensures cleanliness and safety for repeat use.

Ultimately, the decision to move away from toilet paper is a personal one, shaped by values, comfort levels, and awareness of broader environmental and health issues. Still, with viable alternatives readily available and growing in popularity, it’s not unrealistic to imagine a future where toilet paper is no longer a necessity. Whether driven by a desire to save money, reduce waste, or adopt healthier habits, more people are starting to look beyond the roll—and that might be the beginning of a much-needed change.

Milk Punch: A Classic Three-Ingredient Cocktail With Centuries of History

While the idea of crafting a cocktail with just three ingredients might seem like a modern bartending trend, the concept has roots stretching back centuries. The early example of such a simple, boozy blend is milk punch — a drink that traces its origins to late 17th-century England. This historical concoction mixes whiskey, whole milk, and sugar, shaken over ice and served chilled. Though now firmly part of cocktail culture, this basic yet satisfying mixture had a long journey to recognition.

Despite its age, milk punch has stood the test of time, transitioning through phases of popularity and neglect before finding its way back to the bar scene. The original trio — alcohol, dairy, and sweetener — was a revelation in its time, demonstrating the transformative power of simple ingredients. Even today, this combination remains relevant, serving as both a foundational recipe and a base for innovation in the world of cocktails.

The drink’s staying power can largely be credited to its rich texture and balanced flavor profile. Over the years, milk punch found a new home in New Orleans, where it became a staple at brunch and a favorite of locals and visitors alike. The Crescent City has embraced the creamy cocktail, with several prominent establishments offering their own takes on the drink. Its regional association only added to the mystique and charm surrounding this old-fashioned creation.

Though the pairing of milk and alcohol eventually fell out of style, the early 2000s witnessed a renewed curiosity about a related technique known as milk-washing. This method involves clarifying a spirit with milk, creating a smoother, more refined drink. The resurgence of this practice helped shine a spotlight once again on milk and booze pairings, encouraging bartenders and home enthusiasts alike to revisit the milk punch formula.

Today, crafting a milk punch at home is both simple and rewarding. By shaking together a few high-quality ingredients, you can recreate a piece of cocktail history while enjoying a luxurious and flavorful drink. Shake up a whiskey milk punch, and you’ll get a terrifically textured cocktail that’s also a canvas for further flavors.

The foundation of a good milk punch is whole milk. The fat content is crucial, providing the rich and creamy mouthfeel that makes the drink so enjoyable. Skim or low-fat milk won’t deliver the same effect, as the texture would be too thin and lack the necessary depth. When combined with ice and shaken, whole milk gives the cocktail a refreshing, velvety consistency.

The sweetener is another element that can be personalized. While standard simple syrup — a mixture of sugar and water — works just fine, experimenting with flavored syrups can elevate the drink significantly. Vanilla syrup adds warmth, maple syrup lends a rustic touch, and birch syrup introduces a unique twist. You can also use this as an excellent opportunity for flavored syrups like vanilla, maple, or birch syrup for a top-shelf rendition.

Choosing the right whiskey is equally essential. Bourbon, with its natural sweetness and notes of caramel and vanilla, is a traditional choice. It pairs exceptionally well with milk, giving the drink a dessert-like character that’s still complex enough to satisfy seasoned cocktail drinkers. Brandy is another historical option, offering fruitier and softer notes that complement the dairy component.

However, don’t feel restricted to just bourbon or brandy. A good Scotch can add smoky depth, while a wheat-based whiskey brings a milder, more nuanced profile. The goal is to select a spirit with complementary flavors — think spices, vanilla, or caramel — that will harmonize with the milk and syrup. Harsh or overly strong whiskeys, particularly those that are over-proof, should be avoided, as they can overpower the drink and create an unpleasant contrast with the milk. Avoid over-proof and harsh whiskeys, as they’ll clash with the dairy.

If you’re open to expanding beyond the original three ingredients, garnishes can make a milk punch even more enticing. A dash of aromatic bitters, a sprinkle of cinnamon, or a dusting of nutmeg adds layers of aroma and flavor. These simple additions can turn a basic drink into a showstopper, enhancing both the presentation and taste. If you’re ok with breaking the three-ingredient formula, then finalize with a garnish of bitters, cinnamon, or nutmeg atop, creating an aromatic, creamy, and delicious drink.

One of the most fascinating aspects of milk punch is how it bridges the past and present. It serves as a reminder that even centuries ago, people were experimenting with ingredients to find the perfect balance of flavor and texture. This cocktail is proof that sometimes, the simplest ideas endure the longest.

The resurgence of milk punch and milk-washing in recent years highlights a broader trend in the beverage world — a return to classic techniques and respect for traditional recipes. Whether you’re a professional bartender or a curious home mixologist, making a milk punch offers a way to engage with history while enjoying a delicious and satisfying drink.

In summary, the legacy of milk punch is more than just its ingredients. It represents a timeless approach to cocktail-making that continues to influence modern mixology. With whiskey, whole milk, and sugar as its base, this centuries-old drink invites endless variation while staying true to its origins. So the next time you’re looking for a unique beverage with historical flair, consider shaking up a milk punch and joining generations of drinkers who have enjoyed its rich, creamy appeal.

As the original article fittingly concludes, “So pay some respects to cocktail history — and enjoy a delicious beverage — by shaking up this delightful trio.”

Experts Divided on AI Singularity Timeline, but Most Agree AGI Is Coming This Century

In today’s rapidly evolving technological world, one debate has sparked intense curiosity and speculation: when will artificial general intelligence (AGI) emerge, and how soon might we see the singularity—a moment when machines outpace human intelligence? Predictions range from the cautious to the bold, with some experts declaring it may never happen, while others believe it could arrive as soon as 2026.

A recent comprehensive study conducted by AIMultiple sheds light on how scientists, industry leaders, and researchers have forecasted the rise of AGI over the past 15 years. This macro-level analysis compiles and evaluates 8,590 predictions from top scientists, entrepreneurs, and AI community members, offering a clearer view of how projections have evolved—especially in light of revolutionary breakthroughs such as large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT.

Although individual opinions differ widely, with estimated timelines for AGI spanning nearly five decades, there appears to be consensus that it is likely to arrive before the 22nd century.

The proliferation of LLMs into virtually every facet of digital life has significantly intensified the conversation around AI’s trajectory. Since these models burst into public consciousness, a growing number of voices—from leading scientists to curious laypeople—have offered varying estimates on when machine intelligence might match or exceed human capacity.

Some researchers contend that the singularity may be just a few decades away. Others suggest it’s even closer than that. One notable view comes from the CEO of AI company Anthropic, who predicts, “we’re right on the threshold—give it about 6 more months or so.”

AIMultiple’s analysis attempts to untangle the web of predictions by tracing how timelines have shifted in response to technological advancements. The researchers highlight a major turning point following the advent of LLMs. “Current surveys of AI researchers are predicting AGI around 2040,” the report states. “However, just a few years before the rapid advancements in large language models (LLMs), scientists were predicting it around 2060. Entrepreneurs are even more bullish, predicting it around ~2030.”

The report emphasizes how major breakthroughs in AI, particularly LLMs, have shifted industry expectations toward earlier arrival dates for AGI and, potentially, superintelligence. Industry professionals are generally more optimistic—some might say aggressive—in their outlook compared to academic scientists.

While the debate continues, AIMultiple’s findings show that many experts are increasingly confident in the inevitable arrival of AGI. A key reason is the perception that machine intelligence doesn’t appear to have the same inherent limitations as human intelligence. Technological advancements, particularly the steady growth in computing power described by Moore’s Law, are central to this optimism. Moore’s Law holds that computing power doubles roughly every 18 months, and such exponential growth supports the notion that machines could soon perform calculations at a speed equal to or greater than that of the human brain.

The report notes another compelling factor: if traditional computing technology reaches its physical limits, quantum computing could take over and push the boundaries even further. “Most experts believe that Moore’s law is coming to an end during this decade,” the report reads. “The unique nature of quantum computing can be used to efficiently train neural networks, currently the most popular AI architecture in commercial applications. AI algorithms running on stable quantum computers have a chance to unlock singularity.”

However, not everyone is convinced that AGI is inevitable—or even achievable in the way some experts imagine. Skeptics argue that human intelligence is far more nuanced and multifaceted than the current concept of AGI encompasses. For instance, human intelligence is not solely based on logic or computation. Many cognitive scientists and psychologists reference eight different types of intelligence, which include not only logical-mathematical ability but also interpersonal, intrapersonal, and existential intelligences, among others.

AI pioneer Yann LeCun, who played a foundational role in developing deep learning, has a different take. He proposes that AGI should be redefined as “advanced machine intelligence,” asserting that the intricacies of human cognition are too specialized to be fully replicated by artificial systems. The report echoes this sentiment, stating that while AI is a powerful tool for innovation and discovery, it cannot independently drive scientific breakthroughs.

“More intelligence can lead to better-designed and managed experiments, enabling more discovery per experiment,” the report reads. “Even the best machine analyzing existing data may not be able to find a cure for cancer.”

This highlights a crucial distinction between analyzing data and creating novel hypotheses or solutions—something human researchers still excel at. While machines may soon match or even exceed human capability in certain areas, the breadth and depth of human intellect encompass emotional, philosophical, and experiential elements that AI has yet to master.

Despite a roughly 50-year span in predictions for when AGI might finally be realized, the overarching message from AIMultiple’s study is unambiguous: the emergence of AGI will almost certainly bring about transformative change for human society. Whether that change is overwhelmingly positive, deeply problematic, or somewhere in between, will depend largely on how humanity prepares for and responds to this new era.

The study concludes with a sobering but empowering message: Will these changes brought by AGI be good or bad? “Well, that’s up to us.”

As we stand on the brink of what could be one of the most significant technological revolutions in human history, the world continues to speculate—not just about when AGI will arrive, but how we’ll adapt once it does. With AI systems becoming more advanced by the day, the window for meaningful preparation is narrowing.

Whether humanity can harness this technology for progress without losing control remains one of the most important questions of our time.

GOPIO-CT Hosts Seminar to Promote Girls’ Education and Donates for Sanitation Facilities in India

The Connecticut Chapter of the Global Organization of People of Indian Origin (GOPIO-CT) recently organized a seminar aimed at emphasizing the importance of girls’ education, hygiene, health, nutrition, and women’s empowerment in rural regions of Maharashtra, India. The event, held on Saturday, May 31 at the Stamford Hampton Inn and Suites, was part of an ongoing collaboration with the Society for Human and Environment Development (SHED), a Maharashtra-based non-profit that has long worked to improve educational and health outcomes for underserved communities.

SHED operates several schools in the densely populated Dharavi slums of Mumbai as well as in tribal areas, while also delivering health services to rural populations. At the seminar, SHED’s Vice President and Trustee Asad Latif, along with Executive Council Member Prakash Kundalia, detailed the organization’s impactful work during a session moderated by GOPIO Life Member Biru Sharma. The session offered attendees insight into the various challenges and progress made in improving conditions for young girls in Maharashtra.

One of SHED’s notable partnerships is with the Akshara Foundation, with whom they have launched a Computer Literacy Program across four slum areas in Mumbai: Dharavi, Mahakali, Saphale, and Palghar. According to SHED, this program has made over 50,000 individuals employable, including 30,000 women. It aims to bridge the digital divide in low-income communities by offering vocational computer training that leads to greater job opportunities.

GOPIO CT Hosts Seminar to Promote Girls’ Education and Donates for Sanitation Facilities in India 1In tribal regions where access to healthcare is limited, SHED has established Health Centers that provide essential primary medical services. More severe or complex cases are referred to larger hospitals, such as Bhaktivedanta Hospital located in Meera Road. These centers serve as a crucial health lifeline in areas that often lack even basic medical facilities.

Speaking at the seminar, Asad Latif highlighted the scale of SHED’s long-term vocational training programs aimed at empowering women. “Over the past five decades, SHED’s vocational training initiatives have empowered 1.5 million women to become self-reliant and support their families,” he said. The programs offer women not only skill development but also a pathway to financial independence, which has significantly improved household stability in these regions.

Prakash Kundalia focused on the correlation between sanitation facilities and school dropout rates among adolescent girls. He emphasized that improving sanitation is crucial to ensuring girls can continue their education without disruptions caused by lack of privacy and hygiene. “SHED has constructed 42,000 hygienic toilets till date,” Kundalia noted, highlighting the massive scale of their sanitation efforts. He added that SHED is currently working on finalizing the construction of toilets in 10 municipal schools in Maharashtra, with the goal of reducing absenteeism and promoting health awareness among female students.

In a generous gesture of support, GOPIO-CT President Mahesh Jhangiani presented a donation check of $25,000 to SHED for the construction of these girls’ toilets at the municipal schools. This financial contribution underscores GOPIO-CT’s commitment to advancing gender equality through practical support that addresses on-the-ground challenges.

The seminar was well-attended by several GOPIO leaders and community figures. Among them were GOPIO International Chairman Dr. Thomas Abraham and Secretary Siddharth Jain, along with GOPIO-CT Vice President Nandu Kuppuswamy, Board Member Meera Banta, and Past Presidents Shailesh Naik and Ashok Nichani. Their presence reinforced the organization’s unified stance on social responsibility and global solidarity with Indian communities facing systemic issues.

GOPIO-CT has a long-standing history of civic engagement and community service. A chapter of GOPIO International, GOPIO-CT has emerged over the last 19 years as an active and vibrant organization committed to improving the lives of people of Indian origin both locally and globally. Through its various programs, it fosters dialogue with policymakers, promotes academic exchange, organizes youth mentoring workshops, and collaborates with regional organizations to effect positive change.

The organization defines itself as a non-partisan, secular civic body that strives to raise awareness about Indian traditions, culture, and the contributions of the Indian diaspora. Through forums, public events, and community activities, GOPIO-CT seeks to build bridges between cultures while advocating for the development of underprivileged communities. Its commitment to youth engagement and networking has also helped to strengthen the voice and visibility of the Indian American community in Connecticut and beyond.

The collaboration between GOPIO-CT and SHED reflects a shared vision for social progress through education and health initiatives. Their joint efforts demonstrate that diaspora organizations can play a significant role in addressing socio-economic issues in India by mobilizing resources and spreading awareness among the global Indian community.

The recent seminar not only highlighted SHED’s significant contributions in Maharashtra but also showcased how diaspora-led organizations like GOPIO-CT can leverage their platforms to advocate for global development causes. The event concluded with calls to action for attendees to contribute to or support similar initiatives, particularly those targeting the needs of girls and women in marginalized communities.

As the partnership moves forward, both GOPIO-CT and SHED remain committed to fostering long-term, sustainable improvements in education and health infrastructure in India. Their work stands as a testament to the power of collaboration across continents, uniting people through a common purpose of equity, empowerment, and community upliftment.

Silicon Valley Leaders Envision a Future Beyond Smartphones

A subtle but significant transformation is unfolding in Silicon Valley as some of the most influential names in technology propose a future where the smartphone — the hallmark of the digital age — is no longer central to human-computer interaction. Instead of refining existing phone technology, industry giants such as Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, Sam Altman, and Bill Gates are promoting alternatives that could eventually render smartphones irrelevant. These pioneers are steering innovation toward devices that use brain signals, skin interfaces, or augmented vision, aiming to reshape how people connect with technology in daily life.

Rather than imagining a more advanced version of a smartphone, their shared vision suggests a fundamental shift in interaction, replacing touchscreens with direct mental commands, visual overlays, or skin-based inputs. This marks a bold break from the current tech landscape — a future not everyone may be prepared to embrace.

Elon Musk and the Brain-Machine Revolution

At the forefront of this movement is Elon Musk, whose company Neuralink is pushing the boundaries of what is possible with brain-computer interfaces. The goal is to eliminate the need for physical interaction with devices altogether. Neuralink’s implants are designed to enable users to control technology through thought alone. As of now, two human subjects have reportedly received these implants, signaling a major milestone in this endeavor.

With Neuralink, Musk envisions a future in which actions such as sending a message or navigating an app are performed simply by thinking. There is no need to tap a screen, swipe a display, or even speak aloud. This direct brain-to-device communication could one day make conventional phones obsolete.

Bill Gates and the Rise of Digital Tattoos

Bill Gates, meanwhile, is supporting a very different type of interface through his backing of Chaotic Moon, a startup based in Texas. This company is developing electronic tattoos that are placed directly onto the skin. These tattoos incorporate nanosensors to monitor various forms of data, transforming the human body into a fully connected digital interface.

The possibilities of such technology extend beyond convenience. Electronic tattoos could monitor health, transmit location data, and even facilitate digital communication, all without the need for a traditional handheld device. By integrating computing capabilities with the human body, Gates’ approach imagines a more organic and seamless way to interact with the digital world.

Zuckerberg’s Bet on Augmented Reality Glasses

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg is placing his future in the realm of augmented reality (AR). He predicts that by 2030, AR glasses will replace smartphones as the dominant computing platform. These glasses would project digital content directly onto a user’s field of vision, allowing people to receive notifications, directions, and calls without looking down at a physical device.

This aligns with Zuckerberg’s wider ambitions for the AR and metaverse space. He has described his vision as an attempt to “step beyond screens” and reimagine the internet as something that is not confined to rectangular devices. By making digital content an integrated part of one’s surroundings, Zuckerberg hopes to build a computing experience that is both immersive and intuitive.

Tim Cook and Apple’s Commitment to the Smartphone

While many competitors are moving toward radical innovation, Apple’s CEO Tim Cook is charting a more measured course. Apple’s recent launch of the iPhone 16 showcases their focus on evolutionary improvement rather than disruption. The latest model incorporates sophisticated artificial intelligence features, but it still maintains the familiar form of a smartphone.

Cook’s approach centers on gradual innovation, bringing in emerging technologies like AI and AR within the framework of existing devices. He has made it clear that Apple does not intend to abandon the smartphone, which remains central to most users’ lives. “We’re committed to improving what people already use,” Cook has stated, emphasizing the importance of enhancing established tools rather than replacing them outright.

Apple’s philosophy diverges sharply from that of Musk, Zuckerberg, Gates, and Altman. While others are pushing to embed technology directly into the human body or our physical environment, Apple is working to improve the smartphone in ways that adapt to new technological demands. The iPhone, according to this strategy, remains a key platform for innovation, rather than an outdated piece of hardware.

A Philosophical Divide in Tech’s Future

This emerging divergence represents more than just product development. It highlights a fundamental difference in how technology leaders view the relationship between humans and machines. On one side are visionaries like Musk, Zuckerberg, Gates, and Altman, who are advocating for a transformative reimagining of our interaction with technology. They envision a world where computing is either internalized, through brain implants and skin interfaces, or made invisible, through devices like AR glasses.

Their ideas are not without controversy. Critics argue that such deep integration between humans and machines could raise serious ethical, medical, and privacy concerns. Nonetheless, these leaders are investing heavily in what they see as the next leap in human evolution through technology.

On the other side stands Apple, under Tim Cook’s steady leadership, committed to enhancing the smartphone — a device that billions of people already use daily. This approach aims to improve user experience through practical, incremental upgrades, rather than reengineering the very concept of computing. For Apple, the smartphone is not a relic, but a foundation upon which to build the future.

This split reveals a broader question about the future of technology: Should innovation aim to revolutionize how people interact with the digital world, even if it means embedding technology into the body? Or should it seek to refine and perfect the devices we already rely on?

While it may take years before one vision clearly prevails, the contrast in these strategies is becoming increasingly apparent. As Musk pursues mind-controlled devices, Gates explores digital tattoos, and Zuckerberg invests in augmented reality, Apple continues to find ways to make smartphones smarter without changing their form. The next phase of technology may be defined not by the devices themselves, but by the philosophies that shape them.

Catholic Bishops’ Conference of India Joins National Multi-Faith Coordination Committee for Social and Environmental Action

The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of India (CBCI), represented by its Office for Interreligious Dialogue and its social outreach arm, Caritas India, has formally joined the newly launched National Multi-Faith Action Coordination Committee (MFACC). The CBCI has committed to being a core member of this initiative, aimed at uniting faith-based efforts for addressing pressing humanitarian and environmental concerns. The inaugural meeting of the MFACC was organized by the Global Interfaith WASH Alliance (GIWA) and UNICEF, and took place on May 29, 2015, at Parmarth Niketan in Rishikesh, Uttarakhand.

During this historic event, CBCI was represented by Fr. Dr Anthoniraj Thumma, the National Secretary of its Office for Interreligious Dialogue, and Mr. Navneet Yadav, who leads Humanitarian Action and Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) at Caritas India. Both delegates expressed their organization’s commitment to supporting the MFACC’s objectives. Their message of solidarity underlined the Church’s longstanding belief in collaborative action across religious boundaries. They assured continued cooperation and partnership with both UNICEF and GIWA in advancing this visionary multi-faith mission.

This significant gathering was further elevated by the presence of the Honourable Shri Ram Nath Kovind, former President of India. The meeting marked a milestone as it brought together leaders from seven different faith traditions, as well as representatives of various faith-based organizations (FBOs) operating throughout India. The event was guided by the spiritual leadership of Pujya Swami Chidanand Saraswatiji, a well-known advocate for interreligious collaboration and environmental stewardship.

The primary goal of the MFACC is to create a nationwide platform for collaboration, enabling effective responses to social and environmental challenges. These include, in particular, issues identified as “the cry of the poor and the cry of the earth.” By drawing together faith leaders, FBOs, and other crucial stakeholders, the committee seeks to enhance cooperation and joint action in several critical areas.

These priority sectors include public health and nutrition, access to clean water, sanitation and hygiene (commonly referred to as WASH), child protection, education, and disaster preparedness and climate resilience. Through regular coordination and shared planning, the MFACC aspires to leverage the influence and grassroots networks of faith communities to make tangible, sustained progress on these issues.

The committee has already agreed to hold its next meeting in Delhi. This upcoming gathering will focus on drafting a comprehensive action plan and establishing quarterly review mechanisms to ensure effective monitoring and accountability of its initiatives. The intent is to maintain a steady and focused momentum for all ongoing and future collaborative activities.

MFACC’s formation reflects a growing recognition that religious institutions play a pivotal role in addressing some of society’s most urgent challenges. Their wide-reaching presence, moral influence, and connection with local communities position them as uniquely capable of fostering change. This initiative represents an acknowledgment of that potential, as well as an effort to harness it in a unified and strategic manner.

Fr. Dr Anthoniraj Thumma emphasized the CBCI’s enthusiasm in taking part in this interfaith movement. “We are committed to promoting dialogue, understanding and joint action among religions to respond to the needs of our people and our planet,” he said. His comments reinforce the CBCI’s dedication to not only theological unity but also to practical cooperation that leads to social impact.

Mr. Navneet Yadav echoed this sentiment by highlighting Caritas India’s focus on humanitarian work. He stated, “We see the MFACC as an opportunity to amplify our response to disasters and to build more resilient communities through shared values and collaborative engagement.” His remarks illustrate the importance of a united front when addressing crises, especially in vulnerable regions where faith-based organizations often serve as the first line of response.

The presence of Shri Ram Nath Kovind added symbolic and practical weight to the meeting. His attendance signaled a broader national acknowledgment of the role that religious leaders can play in shaping a more equitable and sustainable society. The former president has often spoken about the importance of inclusive development and the need for spiritual values in public life. His involvement in this launch event underlined the alignment between those ideals and the MFACC’s mission.

Under the stewardship of Swami Chidanand Saraswatiji, a central figure in promoting environmental awareness through spiritual means, the MFACC is expected to maintain a strong moral and ethical compass. Swamiji has consistently emphasized that protecting the environment and upholding human dignity are not merely technical concerns, but deeply spiritual ones. His influence is expected to guide the committee’s work in a direction that honors both ecological integrity and social justice.

The role of GIWA and UNICEF in organizing this multi-faith initiative cannot be overstated. Both organizations bring decades of expertise in water and sanitation issues, child welfare, and sustainable development. Their partnership with religious bodies is a strategic move aimed at multiplying the effectiveness of community outreach programs. By aligning secular resources with spiritual commitment, the initiative aims to create an enduring impact on lives and livelihoods.

UNICEF has long emphasized the necessity of integrating cultural and religious perspectives into public health strategies. Its support for MFACC fits into a broader agenda of building inclusive coalitions to address challenges that transcend borders, faiths, and political boundaries. The cooperation seen in Rishikesh serves as a promising model for such alliances.

GIWA, with its interreligious foundation and global scope, continues to champion the idea that shared spiritual values can lead to shared action. The organization’s co-founding role in MFACC reinforces its vision of leveraging faith traditions for social transformation, particularly in areas like clean water access, child welfare, and environmental sustainability.

The inaugural meeting at Parmarth Niketan is likely to be remembered as a turning point in interfaith collaboration within India. It demonstrated that when religious leaders come together with shared purpose, they can act as a powerful force for good. The symbolic unity on display also offered a counter-narrative to divisive rhetoric, illustrating instead how faith can be a bridge rather than a barrier.

Looking ahead, the MFACC has signaled its intention to not only meet regularly but also to produce measurable results. With its next session scheduled for Delhi, members are expected to outline concrete strategies, establish clear benchmarks, and foster deeper partnerships. Quarterly meetings will ensure that progress is regularly evaluated, helping the committee stay responsive to emerging needs and opportunities.

Gandhian Society Launches Eternal Gandhi Peace Center Initiative in New Jersey Honoring Rajashree Birla

The Gandhian Society (USA) hosted a Meet and Greet gathering on Monday, May 26, at Royal Albert’s Palace in Edison, New Jersey, in celebration of Smt. Rajashree Birla, the Chairperson of the Birla Group. The event also served as the official unveiling of the Society’s latest endeavor — the Eternal Gandhi Peace Center, which is set to be established in Central New Jersey.

This well-attended occasion drew members of the local community, public officials, and various dignitaries, all of whom expressed their collective support for upholding and promoting the ideals of Mahatma Gandhi. With the launch of the Eternal Gandhi Peace Center, the Gandhian Society aims to establish a dedicated space for community engagement, focusing on education, open dialogue, and programs rooted in Gandhian principles like non-violence, justice, and social unity.

The evening program featured a variety of cultural performances that showcased the talents of local artists. These artistic presentations emphasized values of peace and unity, reflecting the overarching themes of the event. These performances not only entertained but also underscored the philosophical foundations of the new initiative.

Among the prominent individuals who addressed the gathering were Edison Mayor Sam Joshi, Woodbridge Mayor John McCormac, and Consul Ms. Pragnya Singh. Each of them took the opportunity to speak about the ongoing importance and relevance of Mahatma Gandhi’s teachings in the current global climate.

Mayor Sam Joshi highlighted the power of Gandhian ideals to inspire social cohesion and moral clarity. He underscored how communities such as Edison, with its rich cultural diversity, can greatly benefit from the application of these time-tested values. Mayor John McCormac echoed these sentiments, noting how Gandhi’s philosophy continues to offer guidance in the quest for justice and human dignity. Meanwhile, Consul Ms. Pragnya Singh offered reflections from a diplomatic perspective, emphasizing the role of Gandhian thought in fostering international cooperation and peaceful coexistence.

A major highlight of the event was the keynote speech delivered by Smt. Rajashree Birla. In her address, she delved into the significance of living a life guided by peace, empathy, and service to others. She commended the Gandhian Society for its dedicated efforts in preserving Mahatma Gandhi’s legacy through grassroots initiatives and public engagement. “Peace and compassion are the cornerstones of a meaningful life,” she said. “The Gandhian Society has shown commendable commitment in promoting these values across generations.”

Smt. Birla also acknowledged the enduring relevance of Gandhian philosophy and emphasized how the Eternal Gandhi Peace Center could become a beacon for positive change. She highlighted the role of compassion in leadership and the transformative power of service, especially in today’s often polarized world. Her message resonated with many in the audience who view Gandhi’s teachings as a guiding light in both personal and societal contexts.

The Gandhian Society used the occasion to elaborate on its broader vision for the Eternal Gandhi Peace Center. According to the organization, the center will serve as a multifaceted space where individuals of all ages can come together to explore the ideals of Mahatma Gandhi. The Society plans to offer a range of activities designed to engage young people, support cultural exchange, and nurture a sense of civic duty among participants.

Among the planned activities are educational workshops, community dialogues, interfaith seminars, and youth leadership programs. The goal is to create an inclusive environment where people from all walks of life can find inspiration in Gandhi’s teachings. “This center will not just be a tribute to Gandhi’s memory,” a Society spokesperson said, “but a living, breathing effort to carry forward his mission of peace and social justice.”

Throughout the evening, there was a recurring theme of gratitude. The Gandhian Society expressed sincere appreciation to Smt. Rajashree Birla for her presence and words of encouragement. The Society also extended thanks to the dignitaries who participated, the volunteers who helped organize the event, the performers who contributed their talents, and all attendees who came out to support the initiative.

“This event marks a beginning,” said one of the organizers. “It is not the end goal but the first step in what we envision as a lasting movement for peace, understanding, and community engagement.” The organization emphasized that the launch of the Eternal Gandhi Peace Center is only the start of an ongoing commitment to building a more harmonious society, inspired by the timeless wisdom of Mahatma Gandhi.

Attendees left the event with a renewed sense of purpose and appreciation for Gandhi’s legacy. Many expressed optimism about the impact the Eternal Gandhi Peace Center could have on future generations. With the successful unveiling of the initiative, the Gandhian Society has laid the foundation for a community-driven platform that aims to keep the spirit of Gandhi alive in the hearts and minds of people throughout New Jersey and beyond.

In summary, the Meet and Greet event held in honor of Smt. Rajashree Birla not only celebrated her contributions and presence but also heralded the beginning of a transformative project. The Eternal Gandhi Peace Center aspires to be more than a physical location — it aims to serve as a catalyst for meaningful dialogue, educational growth, and the promotion of values that transcend cultural and political boundaries. Through sustained community involvement, the Gandhian Society hopes to ensure that Gandhi’s vision of a more just, peaceful world continues to inspire future generations.

The evening left a lasting impression on those in attendance, many of whom felt personally connected to the mission. As one community leader noted, “Gandhi’s message is timeless. By creating this center, we are ensuring that his voice of peace will continue to guide us through the challenges of the present and the future.”

U.S. Reiterates Call for Reciprocal Market Access in Advancing Trade Talks with India

As the United States and India edge closer to finalizing a much-anticipated bilateral trade deal, a high-ranking U.S. diplomat has reiterated Washington’s firm stance on the need for “fair and reciprocal market access” in the negotiations. This sentiment was emphasized during a crucial meeting between U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau and Indian Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri held in Washington on Wednesday. The dialogue also covered cooperation on illegal migration and efforts to combat narcotics trafficking.

Landau’s message was clear as he highlighted a foundational principle of the United States’ trade policy with India. According to a statement issued by State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce, the Deputy Secretary of State “underscored the importance of fair and reciprocal market access to fostering economic growth and prosperity in both countries.” This message not only reflects a core U.S. concern but also continues a bipartisan policy approach that has spanned several presidential administrations.

The insistence on equitable market access has long been a central element of U.S. trade negotiations with India. While American exports to India have grown in recent years, various tariffs, regulatory hurdles, and investment restrictions have led U.S. officials to repeatedly request greater openness in the Indian market. This issue has remained at the forefront of bilateral trade talks, regardless of which party has held power in Washington.

The demand for mutual access is also consistent with the broader trade vision set forth by President Donald Trump. Known for reshaping the tone and substance of America’s trade posture globally, Trump frequently pushed for trade arrangements that would rebalance existing deficits and secure better deals for the U.S. This strategic recalibration was not exclusive to adversaries but extended to long-standing allies and major trading partners such as the European Union, Japan, the United Kingdom, China, and India.

Though the Trump administration’s tactics were sometimes confrontational, the core principle of reciprocity has continued under subsequent administrations, becoming a foundational tenet of U.S. international trade policy. Washington’s expectations have remained the same—that trade should be a two-way street benefiting both partners through fair competition and equivalent access.

Recent developments suggest that the momentum for a trade agreement between the two nations is accelerating. Earlier this month, Indian Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal traveled to Washington to engage in a series of high-level meetings with key American counterparts. These included discussions with Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer.

These meetings were reportedly constructive, with both sides expressing optimism about the potential to resolve lingering issues and move forward on an agreement that could significantly enhance economic collaboration between the two countries. While no concrete deal has been announced yet, trade experts on both sides have noted that the current atmosphere is more favorable than at any point in recent years.

Trade, however, was not the only issue on the table during the meeting between Landau and Misri. The senior diplomats also addressed concerns related to illegal migration and narcotics control, two areas of increasing cooperation and sensitivity in U.S.-India relations.

Though specific details from the discussion were not made public, the issue of Indian nationals attempting to enter the U.S. unlawfully has drawn attention in past months. In some instances, individuals have been apprehended at the southern U.S. border and deported under challenging circumstances. Some of these deportations have involved the use of military planes and have included reports of detainees being shackled during transit.

While neither Landau nor Misri provided direct comments on these incidents, the inclusion of migration in the bilateral dialogue indicates a shared desire to manage these challenges in a way that respects human rights while enforcing immigration laws. It also points to a broader understanding that cooperation on law enforcement and border security must form a part of the strategic framework between the two nations.

In addition to migration and trade, narcotics control emerged as another key topic during the meeting. Although the U.S. and India are not typically linked in global drug trafficking narratives, both countries have increasingly recognized the importance of collaborative efforts to curb the flow of illegal substances. This includes information sharing, law enforcement training, and joint operations to dismantle trafficking networks.

The broader context of the meeting was not lost amid these issue-specific discussions. Both Landau and Misri took time to reaffirm the commitment of their respective governments to regional peace and stability. The acknowledgment of mutual security interests served to reinforce the strategic alignment that has steadily grown between Washington and New Delhi over the past two decades.

Their meeting reflects the evolving nature of U.S.-India relations, which have gradually shifted from a cautious engagement to a more robust partnership encompassing economic, political, and security dimensions. From shared concerns about China’s rising influence in the Indo-Pacific to expanded defense cooperation and technology exchanges, the relationship between the world’s largest democracies continues to deepen.

Landau’s emphasis on market access and fairness was not presented in isolation but within this broader vision of bilateral cooperation. His remarks reiterated Washington’s belief that a truly strategic relationship must include meaningful economic integration and mutually beneficial trade practices.

For its part, India has also expressed interest in reaching a trade agreement that supports its growing export sector while protecting domestic industries from overwhelming foreign competition. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government has frequently signaled its commitment to balancing global engagement with national interests, a stance that aligns with the push for a “self-reliant India” or Atmanirbhar Bharat. This policy framework has led to cautious but deliberate steps toward liberalization in select sectors.

However, New Delhi is also aware that a deeper partnership with the U.S. could offer significant long-term benefits. These include greater access to American technology, capital investment, and cooperation in emerging fields such as clean energy, digital infrastructure, and space exploration.

Despite the complexities, both nations appear committed to sustaining the dialogue and resolving outstanding issues. The recent meetings suggest a mutual understanding that strategic and economic collaboration must evolve together if the partnership is to reach its full potential.

While the exact contours of a U.S.-India trade agreement remain to be finalized, the shared resolve displayed by senior officials in Washington signals growing confidence on both sides. As Landau and Misri concluded their talks, the message was clear: economic ties, regional security, and responsible governance are all interconnected pillars of a modern, forward-looking partnership.

As Bruce summarized, Landau “underscored the importance of fair and reciprocal market access to fostering economic growth and prosperity in both countries.” With discussions ongoing and political will building, the prospect of a landmark trade agreement between the U.S. and India seems increasingly within reach.

U.S. Economy Contracts for First Time in Three Years Amid Tariff Uncertainty

The U.S. economy contracted at an annual rate of 0.2% in the first quarter of 2025, marking its first decline in three years. According to a revised estimate released by the Commerce Department on Thursday, the economic downturn was largely driven by President Donald Trump’s trade policies, particularly the imposition of tariffs, which disrupted normal business activity. The updated figure was a slight improvement from the government’s original estimate, though it still reflects an overall slowdown in economic momentum.

A key factor behind the drop was a significant increase in imports during the first three months of the year. Companies rushed to bring in foreign goods ahead of the president’s widely publicized tariff hikes. This surge in imports, while representing increased spending on foreign products, had a negative effect on GDP calculations because imported goods are not counted as part of domestic production.

Gross domestic product (GDP), the broadest measure of the nation’s economic activity, had expanded by 2.4% in the final quarter of 2024. However, the sudden spike in imports in early 2025 reversed that growth. Imports jumped at a remarkable annual rate of 42.6%, the fastest pace since the third quarter of 2020, and this alone subtracted more than five percentage points from GDP. In addition to the impact of trade, consumer spending also experienced a marked slowdown.

Federal government expenditures contributed further to the decline. Spending fell at an annual rate of 4.6% from January through March, representing the largest contraction in federal outlays in three years.

The way imports affect GDP is primarily a technical matter. Imports are subtracted from the GDP calculation to ensure that only domestically produced goods and services are counted. As an example, when an American consumer buys Costa Rican coffee, it shows up as consumer spending. But because the product was not made in the United States, it is later subtracted to avoid distorting the true level of domestic production.

Economists believe the unusual import surge observed in the first quarter is unlikely to recur in the second quarter, which spans April through June. As a result, imports are not expected to exert the same downward pressure on GDP in the next government report.

Despite the overall contraction, there were some areas of strength within the economy. Business investment grew at a robust annual rate of 24.4% in the first quarter. One reason for this was that companies increased their inventories in anticipation of the tariffs, boosting overall economic activity. This buildup of inventories added more than 2.6 percentage points to GDP growth during the quarter.

A specific measure within the GDP data that reflects the core strength of the economy rose by 2.5% annually in the first quarter. This figure, while lower than the 2.9% rate recorded in the previous quarter, still suggests the economy maintains a solid foundation. This core measurement includes consumer spending and private investment but excludes more volatile components like exports, government spending, and changes in inventories.

Still, the outlook for the economy remains clouded by policy uncertainty stemming from President Trump’s aggressive trade stance. His administration has implemented 10% tariffs on nearly every trading partner worldwide, in addition to targeted levies on steel, aluminum, and automobiles. These actions have led to significant unease among businesses and consumers, and their long-term effects remain uncertain.

This week, a federal court added to the uncertainty by blocking some of the tariffs introduced by the Trump administration. The court ruled that the president had exceeded his legal authority by imposing 10% tariffs and other specific duties on goods from Canada, Mexico, and China. The ruling could lead to further legal and political challenges to the administration’s trade policy and may complicate efforts to renegotiate trade agreements.

The Commerce Department’s report issued Thursday is the second in a series of three estimates for the first quarter’s GDP. A final, more comprehensive revision is scheduled to be released on June 26. This upcoming report will incorporate additional economic data and provide a more complete picture of the country’s economic performance during the early months of 2025.

Overall, while the first quarter’s economic decline reflects real challenges tied to trade policy and consumer caution, some underlying metrics continue to show resilience. But as the legal and economic implications of the president’s tariffs play out, businesses and policymakers alike will be watching closely for signs of either recovery or further disruption.

The report paints a complex picture: on one hand, it reflects the drag caused by an extraordinary surge in imports and reduced government spending, and on the other, it reveals solid business investment and a still-growing core economy. Whether those strengths will be enough to offset continued trade tensions in future quarters remains to be seen.

Economists and analysts have emphasized that while GDP is a critical gauge of economic health, short-term changes can be volatile, especially when influenced by policy-driven shifts such as tariffs. Still, the drop in GDP, even if slight, has raised concerns.

President Trump has framed his tariff strategy as a means to bolster American industry and reduce the country’s trade deficit. However, the short-term outcome, at least as captured in this latest GDP report, has been mixed. The administration’s efforts have triggered import spikes, supply chain disruptions, and a response from trading partners, all of which have fed into the current economic narrative.

What happens next will depend in part on how businesses adapt to the new trade environment and whether consumer spending rebounds in the coming months. The final GDP report in June will be a critical indicator, not just for economists but for the broader public and political leadership heading into the second half of the year.

As the nation waits for further economic updates, the first quarter’s data is a reminder of how interconnected global trade, domestic policy, and consumer behavior truly are—and how quickly shifts in one area can ripple across the entire economy.

White House to Correct Errors in Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Controversial Health Report

The White House has announced plans to correct errors found in a much-anticipated federal report led by U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. This report, titled “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA), harshly criticized America’s food supply, pesticide use, and prescription drug practices. However, a detailed examination by the news outlet NOTUS uncovered that some of the hundreds of studies referenced in the report did not exist.

In response to questions about the issues within the report, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed that updates would be made. During a press briefing, Leavitt stated, “I understand there was some formatting issues with the MAHA report that are being addressed and the report will be updated.” She emphasized that these problems do not diminish the overall significance of the report, adding, “But it does not negate the substance of the report, which, as you know, is one of the most transformative health reports that has ever been released by the federal government.”

Secretary Kennedy has positioned himself as a proponent of “radical transparency” and “gold-standard” scientific approaches in the realm of public health. Despite this, he has declined to disclose the identities of the authors behind the 72-page MAHA report. This report calls for greater scrutiny of the childhood vaccine schedule and portrays American children as being overmedicated and undernourished.

Leavitt reassured the public of the White House’s unwavering support for Kennedy, affirming, “The White House has complete confidence in Secretary Kennedy.” Furthermore, Andrew Nixon, a spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services, sent a statement via email clarifying, “Minor citation and formatting errors have been corrected.” Nixon described the MAHA report as “a historic and transformative assessment by the federal government to understand the chronic disease epidemic afflicting our nation’s children.”

The NOTUS investigation, published on Thursday, highlighted that seven of the more than 500 studies cited in the MAHA report did not seem to have been published at all. One researcher whose study was cited confirmed that although she conducted research on anxiety in children, she never contributed to the specific report referenced in MAHA. Additionally, some studies were misinterpreted within the report, particularly those addressing children’s screen time, medication use, and anxiety.

Concerns about the MAHA report have already been growing, especially among supporters of President Donald Trump. Farmers, in particular, have criticized the report’s portrayal of chemicals used on U.S. crops. The document’s critical stance on pesticides and agricultural chemicals has sparked pushback from agricultural communities.

The MAHA report is intended to serve as a foundation for new policy recommendations set to be released later this year. To support these initiatives, the White House has requested an additional $500 million in funding from Congress for the continuation and expansion of Kennedy’s MAHA program.

Texas Teen Clinches Victory at 100th Scripps National Spelling Bee with a Flawless Final Word

Faizan Zaki, a 13-year-old student from Allen, Texas, emerged as the champion of the 2025 Scripps National Spelling Bee on the night of May 29, triumphing in the 21st round by correctly spelling “éclaircissement.” The winning word, which means “the clearing up of something obscure: enlightenment,” secured his place in the annals of spelling bee history.

Representing C.M. Rice Middle School, where he is in the seventh grade, Zaki demonstrated not only his linguistic prowess but also an extraordinary level of composure and focus. When he spelled the championship word without hesitation or requesting any clarification, he dropped to the stage floor in relief, visibly overcome with emotion. This intense moment reflected the culmination of years of dedication and repeated efforts in one of America’s most competitive academic contests.

“Faizan exemplified the determination that defines a champion,” said Adam Symson, president and CEO of The E.W. Scripps Company. “His unwavering focus and preparation led to a well-earned victory tonight on the Bee’s largest stage.”

Zaki’s journey to this crowning moment was not without drama. The final night of competition, held at National Harbor in Maryland, brimmed with suspense as the top contestants battled through complex and often obscure words. Although Zaki made an early mistake that could have cost him the title, fate gave him a second chance. The contestants who re-entered due to his error stumbled later, allowing Zaki to regain his standing. In a contest known for its intensity and razor-thin margins, Zaki’s ability to rebound and push forward was remarkable. He ultimately emerged as the last standing out of eight finalists.

Finishing in second place was Sarvadnya Kadam from Visalia, California. Her exceptional performance earned her a $25,000 prize, reflecting the rigorous preparation required to reach the final stages of the competition. Third place went to Sarv Dharavane of Dunwoody, Georgia, who secured a $15,000 reward for his strong showing.

This victory was the culmination of Zaki’s four-year journey with the Scripps Bee. His first foray into the competition came in 2019 when, at just 7 years old, he placed 370th. From that humble start, his progress has been steady and determined. He rose to 21st place in 2023 and claimed second place in 2024. That year, he narrowly missed the championship in a tense tiebreaker against Bruhat Soma, another Indian-origin contestant. With this 2025 triumph, Zaki becomes only the fifth person in the Bee’s history to win after having finished as runner-up the previous year.

His perseverance and growth over the years place him in an elite group of past contestants who have shown not just talent, but also resilience. That kind of sustained effort across multiple years, especially in a competition that sees hundreds of young minds each year, underscores Zaki’s remarkable achievement.

Along with the prestigious title and the admiration of his peers, Zaki walks away with a generous collection of prizes. From Scripps, he receives $50,000 in cash and the championship trophy, known as the Scripps Cup. Additionally, he was awarded a $2,500 cash prize and a reference library from Merriam-Webster. His winnings also include a $400 reference set from Britannica and a three-year Britannica Online Premium membership.

Further contributing to his prize pool is a $1,000 Scholastic Dollars grant, which Zaki can donate to any school of his choice. The school he selects will also receive a five-year subscription to News-O-Matic, an educational news service for children. Zaki was sponsored by the Dallas Sports Commission, which helped support his participation in the national competition.

The 2025 Bee held special significance, as it marked the 100th anniversary of this storied competition. Originally launched in 1925, the Scripps National Spelling Bee has become a beloved fixture in American education, celebrating academic excellence, hard work, and the power of language. To commemorate the centennial, the organizers invited former champions to attend, turning the event into a meaningful celebration of its legacy.

In its hundred-year history, the Bee has grown from a small spelling contest into a major cultural institution, drawing participants from across the United States and even other countries. Each year, spellers study thousands of words, train with coaches and parents, and often dedicate months of preparation to qualify for this stage. The Bee has become a rite of passage for academically gifted students, particularly among South Asian American families who have had a strong presence in recent decades.

Zaki’s win continues a long line of successful Indian-American spellers, a trend that began gaining attention in the early 2000s. Their dominance has been widely attributed to strong family support, emphasis on education, and the establishment of informal spelling communities that prepare students through mock bees and study groups.

However, what makes Zaki’s story stand out is not only his cultural background but also his long-term commitment to the competition. Competing in four different years and steadily climbing the ranks required an exceptional degree of patience, adaptability, and sustained effort. While many spellers do not return after one or two appearances, Zaki remained focused on his ultimate goal, even after a heartbreaking loss in 2024.

His final performance, spelling “éclaircissement” with clarity and confidence, demonstrated that he had learned from past missteps and matured as a competitor. In the end, it was his calm delivery and unwavering concentration that clinched the title for him.

As the 2025 champion, Zaki now joins the pantheon of spelling greats who have left their mark on the national stage. More than just a spelling contest, the Bee is also about personal growth, public performance, and mental stamina. Faizan Zaki’s win embodies all those values and more.

Now that the competition has concluded, Zaki’s victory will inspire a new generation of students aiming for the Bee. His story proves that perseverance pays off, especially when matched with diligence and heart. As the centennial celebration comes to a close, the Scripps National Spelling Bee has once again delivered not just a winner, but a moment of triumph that resonates far beyond the final word.

Judge Weighs Big Changes for Google After Monopoly Ruling

The future direction of one of the world’s most influential tech companies, Google, now depends on a ruling from U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta, who is considering whether to enforce sweeping reforms following a declaration that Google’s search engine operates as an illegal monopoly.

On Friday, the judge listened to final arguments in a high-stakes legal showdown. Lawyers from the U.S. Justice Department advocated for a major restructuring, arguing that significant intervention is essential to ensure a competitive market. Among their proposed remedies are banning Google from paying to make its search engine the default on smartphones and compelling the tech giant to divest its Chrome web browser.

Google’s attorneys, however, maintained that only minimal adjustments are necessary and warned against imposing extreme sanctions that could jeopardize future innovation. They further asserted that the rapid evolution of artificial intelligence is already altering the digital search ecosystem. According to Google’s legal team, AI-powered conversational search platforms from emerging companies are starting to disrupt the market, and some of these startups are hoping that the DOJ’s years-long case will give them an edge in this new technological era.

Judge Mehta seemed to be giving genuine thought to the role of AI as he acknowledged the remarkable pace at which the industry is developing. Yet, he appeared uncertain about how much weight the rise of AI should carry in his forthcoming decision. “This is what I’ve been struggling with,” Mehta admitted.

Throughout the hearing, Mehta took an active role, frequently speaking and posing detailed questions to both sides. His remarks suggested he was searching for a balanced solution somewhere between the extreme measures proposed by the Justice Department and the more limited remedies sought by Google.

“We’re not looking to kneecap Google,” Mehta clarified during the proceedings. He emphasized that his aim was to “kickstart” competition so that rivals could begin to effectively challenge Google’s dominance in search.

The judge is expected to deliberate throughout the summer and intends to issue a final ruling by Labor Day. Although Google plans to appeal the decision that labeled its search engine a monopoly, the company must wait until Mehta delivers a ruling on the proposed remedies before it can move forward with an appeal.

Google’s lead attorney, John Schmidtlein, requested a 60-day delay in the implementation of any court-mandated changes. This suggestion was promptly opposed by Justice Department lawyer David Dahlquist, who responded, “We believe the market’s waited long enough.”

While both sides acknowledge that AI is a transformative force within the industry, they diverge on what impact it will have on Google’s dominance. The Justice Department believes that AI innovation alone won’t be enough to challenge the tech giant’s grip on search. Instead, they argue that formal legal restrictions are necessary to break Google’s monopoly—one that has helped parent company Alphabet Inc. reach a valuation of $2 trillion.

In response, Google has already started integrating AI into its search operations to morph its platform into what it calls an “answer engine.” This AI-driven transformation has so far helped the company maintain its position as the primary entry point to the internet, even as companies like OpenAI and Perplexity begin gaining ground with alternative tools.

One of the most significant and contentious proposals from the Justice Department is the potential divestiture of Google’s Chrome browser. Chrome, which was spearheaded nearly two decades ago by Google CEO Sundar Pichai, remains one of the most widely used web browsers. The DOJ believes that forcing Google to sell Chrome would limit its ability to consolidate massive amounts of browser traffic and personal data—resources that could further entrench its power in the AI era. Executives from both OpenAI and Perplexity have expressed interest in acquiring Chrome should the court order its sale.

The ongoing debate over Google’s future has attracted input from several key players in the tech and legal world, including Apple, app developers, legal scholars, and startup founders.

Apple, which reportedly earns over $20 billion annually for making Google the default search engine on iPhones and other devices, filed legal briefs objecting to the Justice Department’s proposed 10-year ban on such deals. Apple argued that ending these lucrative arrangements would cut off funding it uses for its own research and development. Furthermore, Apple claimed the ban might paradoxically strengthen Google’s position, as consumers would likely continue choosing its search engine regardless. The company also told the judge that it has no intention of developing its own search platform to compete with Google.

In a separate set of filings, a group of legal scholars voiced concern that forcing Google to divest Chrome would constitute an undue penalty and signal excessive government intrusion into business operations. Meanwhile, two former Federal Trade Commission officials, James Cooper and Andrew Stivers, raised alarms about another proposal that would require Google to share its data with competitors. They warned that such a move “does not account for the expectations users have developed over time regarding the privacy, security, and stewardship” of their personal information.

During Friday’s hearing, Mehta remarked that compared to other remedies suggested by the Justice Department, the idea of forcing Google to part with Chrome involved “less speculation” about potential fallout in the broader tech market. However, Schmidtlein rejected that assessment, contending that such a measure would be excessive and unjust. “I think that would be inequitable in the extreme,” he told the judge.

Justice Department lawyer Dahlquist was quick to dismiss what he considered exaggerated objections to the proposed divestiture. “Google thinks it’s the only one who can invest things,” he said, implying that others could innovate just as effectively if given the chance.

As Judge Mehta prepares to issue his final ruling by the end of summer, the outcome could reshape not only Google’s business model but also the future landscape of internet search and competition in the age of artificial intelligence.

Despite Soaring to Fourth-Largest Economy, India Struggles With Hunger and Inequality

India’s recent ascent to the position of the world’s fourth-largest economy highlights an extraordinary achievement in terms of national wealth. However, this rapid growth is undercut by a stark and troubling reality: a large portion of the population continues to live without access to three meals a day. The extent of this contradiction is reflected in the country’s 105th place on the Global Hunger Index 2024.

Hardik Joshi, an analyst who frequently discusses socioeconomic disparities, underscored this deep divide in a recent post on LinkedIn. He shared a striking comment from another user who stated, “If we remove the top 1% of rich people in India, we won’t even be comparable to African nations.” While this remark may seem blunt or even exaggerated at first glance, Joshi argued that it is strongly grounded in the available data.

India’s position on the hunger index places it behind countries such as Nigeria, which ranks at 100; Kenya at 89; and Ghana, which holds the 78th spot. These countries have smaller GDPs in comparison, yet India lags behind them when it comes to feeding its own people. Despite its economic standing, the country still struggles to meet basic nutritional needs for a significant share of its population.

Joshi explained that such rankings serve as a “mirror,” not as an overstatement. They force the country to reflect on who is really benefiting from all the growth. He argued that these facts must be taken seriously rather than dismissed as sensationalism. The reality is that the nation’s rising GDP masks severe and growing inequality.

India’s per capita income is approximately $3,000, which might suggest moderate prosperity on the surface. But averages are misleading when economic disparities run so deep. The top 1% of the population holds over 40% of the country’s total wealth, while the bottom 50% owns a mere 3%. This indicates that a vast number of people are surviving with barely enough to meet daily food requirements, with an estimated 700 million individuals living under various levels of food insecurity.

As Joshi put it, “We’ve mastered wealth creation, now we must figure out distribution.” His statement highlights the crux of India’s economic dilemma — wealth is indeed being generated, but its distribution remains lopsided and unfair. There is a significant gap between the creation of wealth and its impact on the everyday lives of ordinary citizens.

While overall national income figures suggest economic advancement, these numbers don’t account for how unequally that wealth is spread. India’s multidimensional poverty rate, which considers factors beyond income such as health and education, still stands at a concerning 16.4%. This figure underscores the fact that millions continue to face multiple layers of deprivation despite the country’s rise in global rankings.

Adding to the complexity is the structure of India’s labor force. About 90% of the workforce is part of the informal sector. This vast segment of the population works without formal contracts, social security, or steady income, leaving them vulnerable to economic shocks and making upward mobility extremely difficult. Informal employment generally offers low wages and little to no benefits, which further exacerbates poverty and food insecurity.

Joshi’s analysis also reveals how the urban-rural divide plays into the broader issue. Urban centers, with their booming industries and tech hubs, contribute significantly to GDP and tend to skew national statistics upward. However, these numbers fail to capture the struggle of rural communities, particularly those dependent on agriculture, who often do not share in the prosperity. Rural India continues to face challenges like low agricultural yields, inadequate infrastructure, and limited access to services, all of which contribute to food insecurity and economic hardship.

In this context, Joshi emphasized that the broader narrative of India’s economic growth doesn’t adequately account for who is truly reaping the benefits. His argument is not against development itself but rather about its distribution and inclusiveness. As he pointed out, “GDP means little if it hides empty plates.” This quote powerfully encapsulates his perspective — that economic figures and accolades lose meaning when a large segment of the population remains hungry and malnourished.

India’s achievements in terms of global economic status are, without a doubt, significant. But they must be weighed against the continuing struggle of millions who do not experience the benefits of this prosperity. Hunger, poverty, and inequality are issues that cannot be overlooked simply because the economy is expanding. The true test of growth lies in its ability to uplift everyone, not just the privileged few.

The data and observations laid out by Joshi draw a clear picture of a nation that stands at a crossroads. On one hand, there is success in wealth accumulation and global recognition; on the other, a growing crisis of hunger and inequity that undermines these very achievements. This dual reality calls for a rethinking of policy priorities, with a stronger focus on inclusive growth that ensures no one is left behind.

India’s path forward requires a shift in focus — not away from economic growth, but toward ensuring that growth is both equitable and sustainable. The country has demonstrated that it can generate wealth. The challenge now lies in distributing it more fairly and effectively, particularly to those who continue to go to bed hungry.

To address this, efforts must be made to strengthen social safety nets, increase investment in rural development, and formalize labor markets. Policies must aim at reducing income inequality and improving food security for the bottom half of the population. These are not just moral imperatives but also necessary steps for sustaining long-term national progress.

Joshi’s commentary, supported by hard data and global comparisons, serves as a critical reminder of the work that remains. His concluding reflections make it clear that growth alone is not enough — what truly matters is who benefits from that growth. The ultimate goal should be an India where its global economic ranking is matched by its success in eliminating hunger and improving the quality of life for all its citizens.

Federal Court Blocks Trump’s Broad Use of Emergency Law to Impose Global Tariffs

In a significant legal setback for President Donald Trump, a federal court ruled Wednesday that he cannot rely on an emergency law to unilaterally impose tariffs on countries across the globe. The decision blocks a series of tariff orders issued since February that had unsettled financial markets.

The ruling, delivered by a unanimous three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of International Trade, determined that Congress never gave Trump unrestricted authority to levy tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA), a statute central to his administration’s legal defense.

“An unlimited delegation of tariff authority would constitute an improper abdication of legislative power to another branch of government,” the court stated in its unsigned opinion. The judges emphasized that unchecked executive power in trade matters would violate constitutional principles.

“Regardless of whether the court views the President’s actions through the nondelegation doctrine, through the major questions doctrine, or simply with separation of powers in mind, any interpretation of IEEPA that delegates unlimited tariff authority is unconstitutional,” the opinion continued.

Trump’s legal team swiftly appealed the ruling on Wednesday evening, signaling an ongoing battle over executive authority in economic policymaking.

The IEEPA allows the president to implement economic sanctions in response to national emergencies involving “unusual and extraordinary threats.” Traditionally used to freeze foreign assets and restrict financial transactions, the law was designed to provide the executive branch tools to respond to crises such as terrorism, cyberattacks, and nuclear proliferation.

Trump, however, tried to stretch the scope of the law to justify imposing extensive tariffs. He cited persistent trade deficits and the dangers posed by international drug cartels as reasons to declare a national emergency and take sweeping trade actions.

“Foreign countries’ nonreciprocal treatment of the United States has fueled America’s historic and persistent trade deficits,” said White House spokesperson Kush Desai in response to the ruling. “These deficits have created a national emergency that has decimated American communities, left our workers behind, and weakened our defense industrial base – facts that the court did not dispute,” Desai added. “It is not for unelected judges to decide how to properly address a national emergency. President Trump pledged to put America First, and the Administration is committed to using every lever of executive power to address this crisis and restore American Greatness.”

Wednesday’s court decision specifically halts the enforcement of Trump’s April 2 “Liberation Day” tariffs, which included a blanket 10 percent duty on all imports and higher, “reciprocal” tariffs on dozens of countries. The ruling also nullifies earlier tariffs directed at major U.S. trading partners, including Canada, Mexico, and China. While some of those tariffs had already been postponed or adjusted due to negative market reactions—including stock declines and rising Treasury yields—the court’s ruling effectively invalidates them.

The judges provided the administration with a 10-day window to issue any administrative directives required to implement the decision.

The panel comprised Judge Timothy Reif, appointed by Trump; Judge Jane Restani, appointed by President Ronald Reagan; and Judge Gary Katzmann, appointed by President Barack Obama. Despite their different political backgrounds, all three judges agreed that the president had exceeded his legal authority.

The ruling stems from two lawsuits that form part of a broader legal offensive against Trump’s use of tariffs. One case was brought by a coalition of small businesses, primarily targeting the “Liberation Day” tariffs. The other lawsuit was led by a group of Democratic attorneys general, with Oregon at the forefront, and challenged a broader collection of tariff measures enacted under the IEEPA.

Before reaching its conclusion on the scope of the IEEPA, the court first dismissed a threshold argument from the Trump administration, which contended that the president’s trade actions were political decisions outside the jurisdiction of the courts.

“This reliance on the political question doctrine is misplaced,” the panel wrote in its unanimous opinion, asserting that the judiciary has the authority to interpret the limits of statutory powers granted to the executive.

The decision marks another chapter in the continuing debate over presidential powers in economic and trade policy. While Congress has gradually ceded significant authority to the executive branch in the realm of international commerce over the decades, the court’s ruling serves as a reminder that there are still legal boundaries that cannot be crossed, even during a declared emergency.

Trump’s aggressive use of tariffs has been a cornerstone of his “America First” agenda. His administration has argued that the country’s trade deficits are not merely economic issues but also national security threats. By framing trade imbalances and foreign supply chain dependencies as emergencies under the IEEPA, Trump sought to gain leverage over trading partners and bypass traditional congressional approval processes.

Critics, however, have long argued that using the IEEPA to justify sweeping trade measures undermines both the intent of the law and the constitutional balance of powers. Legal experts have warned that accepting such an interpretation would set a dangerous precedent by granting the president virtually unchecked control over international trade policy.

Wednesday’s ruling aligns with those concerns, offering a rebuke of efforts to expand presidential power in a way that bypasses legislative oversight. The court’s insistence that any delegation of power must be constrained by clear statutory limits echoes previous judicial decisions that have placed constitutional checks on the executive.

Though the Trump administration’s appeal could eventually lead the case to the Supreme Court, the immediate effect of the ruling is to block the implementation of tariffs that had threatened to escalate tensions with key allies and further destabilize financial markets.

The ruling also has implications for future presidents who might seek to invoke emergency laws for economic interventions. By reaffirming that even in times of crisis the president cannot exceed the powers granted by Congress, the decision underscores the enduring importance of constitutional safeguards in policymaking.

As the legal process continues, the debate over how far presidential powers should extend in the realm of trade and national emergencies is likely to remain a contentious issue. While Trump’s appeal may challenge the court’s interpretation of the IEEPA, for now, the ruling stands as a decisive limitation on the executive branch’s authority to wield emergency powers for sweeping economic actions.

With 10 days to comply, the Trump administration faces both a legal and political challenge in adjusting its trade policies without the broad emergency powers it sought to claim. The outcome of the appeal process will likely shape not only Trump’s legacy on trade but also the broader contours of executive power in future administrations.

Rubio Announces Aggressive Visa Revocations for Chinese Students Amid National Security Concerns

Secretary of State Marco Rubio declared on Wednesday that the United States will start “aggressively revoking visas” for Chinese students, particularly those linked to the Chinese Communist Party or those enrolled in sensitive academic disciplines. This measure marks a significant escalation in the U.S. government’s scrutiny of foreign students, particularly those from China and Hong Kong.

According to a statement from Rubio, the U.S. State Department will coordinate with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to carry out these visa revocations. In addition, visa requirements for Chinese and Hong Kong nationals will undergo stricter evaluations to prevent any potential risks associated with academic espionage or ideological infiltration.

“The U.S. will begin revoking visas of Chinese students, including those with connections to the Chinese Communist Party or studying in critical fields,” Rubio posted on X, previously known as Twitter.

This announcement follows a broader tightening of immigration and student visa policies by the Trump administration. Just a day prior to Rubio’s statement, the administration instructed U.S. embassies and consulates around the world to halt scheduling visa interviews for international students temporarily. The decision was made as officials deliberate over expanding social media checks and security vetting procedures for visa applicants.

An internal communication from the State Department, signed by Rubio and issued on Tuesday, clarified the immediate changes. As reported by several media outlets, the directive said: “Effective immediately, in preparation for an expansion of required social media screening and vetting, consular sections should not add any additional student or exchange visitor (F, M, and J) visa appointment capacity until further guidance is issued [separate telegram], which we anticipate in the coming days.”

This directive signals a strong commitment by the administration to further scrutinize foreign students and exchange visitors. Earlier in the year, the administration had already taken action by revoking the visas of thousands of international students. Though some relief came later when Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) reinstated over 1,500 of those visa registrations in its system, the overall trend has been toward increased restrictions.

In a related development last week, the DHS took steps to shut down Harvard University’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program. This move would effectively prevent the prestigious Ivy League institution from enrolling new international students. DHS Secretary Kristi Noem emphasized the consequences for affected students, stating that they would have to transfer to a different institution or face the risk of falling out of legal immigration status.

Adding to the growing list of restrictions, President Donald Trump on Wednesday proposed placing a 15 percent cap on the number of foreign students allowed at Harvard and other U.S. higher education institutions. The president’s rationale stemmed from what he sees as an overrepresentation of international students at elite universities, which he believes displaces qualified American applicants.

While speaking with reporters in the Oval Office, Trump argued that international students occupy too large a portion of the student population and expressed concern about the influence some of them may have on campus. “These countries aren’t helping us. They’re not investing in Harvard … we are. So why would 31 percent — why would a number so big,” Trump said. “I think they should have a cap of maybe around 15 percent, not 31 percent.”

Trump further voiced frustration that American students often struggle to gain admission to top universities because international students take many of the available slots. He also raised security concerns, linking foreign students to potential threats and unrest.

“We have people [who] want to go to Harvard and other schools, [but] they can’t get in because we have foreign students there,” Trump said. “But I want to make sure that the foreign students are people that can love our country. We don’t want to see shopping centers exploding. We don’t want to see the kind of riots that you had.”

He went on to suggest that some of the recent civil unrest in the United States may have been fueled by foreign students. “And I’ll tell you what, many of those students didn’t go anywhere. Many of those students were troublemakers caused by the radical left lunatics in this country,” Trump remarked.

Although he did not offer specifics, the president also expressed a desire to prevent “radical people” from entering the country under the guise of education. “I don’t want radical people coming into our country and making trouble,” he said.

The administration’s actions, including visa revocations, social media screening expansions, and institutional penalties, reflect a broad and aggressive posture aimed at reshaping the landscape of international education in the United States. Critics argue that such measures could damage the U.S.’s global educational standing and reduce cultural and academic exchange. However, supporters of the policy insist that national security and the integrity of American institutions must take precedence.

Rubio’s announcement and the White House’s follow-up proposals underscore a coordinated effort to curb what officials perceive as undue influence and security risks associated with certain categories of international students, particularly those from geopolitical rivals like China. While the long-term consequences of these changes remain to be seen, the immediate impact is a dramatic shift in how the United States handles student visas, placing unprecedented emphasis on ideology, loyalty, and national origin.

The administration’s latest actions are expected to draw both domestic and international scrutiny. Universities may push back against enrollment limits, and legal challenges could arise, particularly around accusations of discrimination or due process violations. Meanwhile, Chinese and other international students may face increased uncertainty and anxiety as they attempt to navigate the evolving U.S. immigration landscape.

As the administration continues to tighten its policies, the future of global academic collaboration and the reputation of American higher education as a welcoming destination for students from around the world may be called into question. Nonetheless, Rubio and Trump appear resolute in their belief that these steps are essential to safeguard national interests and restore control over who is allowed to study in the United States.

White House Seeks Spending Cuts as Musk Criticizes Bureaucracy and Political Influence

The White House is preparing to send a series of proposed rescissions to Capitol Hill, using a process that enables the cancellation of previously approved spending. This move is aimed at reinforcing some of the spending cuts outlined in the Deficit-Offset Government Efficiency (DOGE) initiative. According to a spokesperson from the Office of Management and Budget, the proposed package includes a $1.1 billion reduction from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the agency responsible for funding NPR and PBS. In addition, it outlines an $8.3 billion cut in foreign aid expenditures.

Elon Musk, the high-profile entrepreneur and political donor, has recently reflected on his time engaging with the government, revealing a more subdued and realistic tone. Describing his frustrations with bureaucracy, Musk remarked, “The federal bureaucracy situation is much worse than I realized. I thought there were problems, but it sure is an uphill battle trying to improve things in D.C., to say the least.”

Musk also disclosed that he plans to reduce his political contributions. “I think I’ve done enough,” he stated, suggesting a pullback from his earlier, more active political engagement.

Previously, Musk had been highly motivated by the prospect of reshaping the political landscape in Washington. He had contributed over $250 million to support President Donald Trump’s campaign. Musk also participated in campaign rallies and wore campaign-themed hats at White House events. He frequently warned about excessive government spending, which he described as a fundamental crisis. Throughout this period, Musk consistently expressed strong support for Trump. “The more I’ve gotten to know President Trump, the more I like the guy,” Musk said in February. “Frankly, I love him.”

Trump responded with praise of his own, calling Musk “a truly great American.” When Tesla experienced a downturn in sales, Trump demonstrated his loyalty by transforming the White House driveway into a temporary display area for Tesla vehicles, signaling his support.

Despite Musk’s waning involvement with the administration, it’s uncertain whether his recent critiques will significantly influence the ongoing legislative discussions. During the post-election transition period, when Musk’s influence was peaking, he played a role in stirring opposition to a proposed spending package. This occurred at a time when the nation was teetering on the edge of a government shutdown.

His latest remarks may serve to galvanize Republicans who are calling for even steeper spending reductions. One notable reaction came from Republican Senator Mike Lee of Utah, who shared a Fox News article about Musk’s comments. He added his own opinion on the bill’s prospects, stating that there was “still time to fix it.”

Lee further emphasized the need for a tougher stance in the Senate version of the bill. “The Senate version will be more aggressive,” he asserted. “It can, it must, and it will be. Or it won’t pass.”

When the House of Representatives recently voted on the measure, only two Republican lawmakers—Warren Davidson of Ohio and Thomas Massie of Kentucky—voted against it. Their dissent was noteworthy, especially in light of Musk’s public statements.

Davidson acknowledged Musk’s comments on social media. “Hopefully, the Senate will succeed with the Big Beautiful Bill where the House missed the moment,” Davidson wrote. “Don’t hope someone else will cut deficits someday, know it has been done this Congress.”

Meanwhile, the Congressional Budget Office has issued a preliminary analysis of the bill’s fiscal implications. According to their estimates, the bill’s tax provisions would raise federal deficits by approximately $3.8 trillion over the next ten years. In contrast, the spending reductions affecting Medicaid, food assistance programs, and other services are projected to save just over $1 trillion during the same timeframe.

Despite this imbalance, House Republican leaders argue that the bill could still be fiscally sound if it stimulates enough economic growth. They claim that improved economic performance might render the legislation either neutral or even beneficial in terms of deficit reduction. However, this optimistic assessment is not universally shared.

Independent analysts remain skeptical of those projections. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonpartisan fiscal watchdog group, estimates that the legislation would actually increase the national debt by $3 trillion over the next decade, including interest costs.

This debate comes at a time of heightened scrutiny over the federal government’s fiscal discipline. The combination of growing deficits and competing priorities has forced lawmakers into difficult conversations about what to fund and what to cut. The White House’s rescission package is an effort to show seriousness about reducing spending, even if the broader legislative path remains uncertain.

Elon Musk Exits Trump Administration Role After Turbulent Tenure Focused on Cutting Government Waste

Elon Musk is stepping down from his government position as a senior adviser to President Donald Trump, where he had led efforts to trim and restructure the federal bureaucracy. His resignation, announced on Wednesday evening, brings to a close a contentious chapter marked by significant layoffs, agency reductions, and legal battles. Despite bold ambitions, Musk struggled to adjust to the political climate in Washington and ultimately achieved far less than he had initially hoped.

Initially, Musk had aimed to slash federal spending by $2 trillion, but he gradually scaled back his goal—first to $1 trillion, and then to $150 billion—as he faced mounting opposition. The billionaire entrepreneur grew increasingly disillusioned with the resistance he encountered, often finding himself at odds with senior figures in Trump’s administration. These internal conflicts emerged as Musk tried to restructure various departments, drawing significant political criticism in the process.

Although Musk’s advisory role was always intended to be short-term, he had lately been indicating a shift in focus back to his businesses, including electric car manufacturer Tesla and aerospace firm SpaceX. Yet officials within the administration remained vague about the precise timing of his departure. The public only learned of it when Musk made an abrupt announcement on X, his social media platform.

“As my scheduled time as a Special Government Employee comes to an end, I would like to thank President @realDonaldTrump for the opportunity to reduce wasteful spending,” Musk posted. “The @DOGE mission will only strengthen over time as it becomes a way of life throughout the government.”

An unnamed White House official later confirmed Musk’s departure.

Musk’s resignation followed closely on the heels of a CBS interview snippet in which he criticized a central piece of Trump’s legislative agenda. In the interview, Musk said he was “disappointed” with what Trump had dubbed his “big beautiful bill,” a sweeping piece of legislation combining tax cuts with stricter immigration enforcement.

Calling the measure a “massive spending bill,” Musk argued that it undermined the objectives of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), the agency he led. “I think a bill can be big or it could be beautiful,” Musk remarked. “But I don’t know if it could be both.”

Responding from the Oval Office on Wednesday, Trump defended his legislative initiative by pointing to the delicate negotiations involved. “I’m not happy about certain aspects of it, but I’m thrilled by other aspects of it,” the president said, suggesting the bill was still subject to change. “We’re going to see what happens. It’s got a way to go.”

The legislation had already passed the House and was being debated in the Senate. Musk’s critiques have found support among some Republicans. “I sympathize with Elon being discouraged,” said Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin during an appearance at the Milwaukee Press Club. Johnson noted he was “pretty confident” that enough opposition existed to “slow this process down until the president, our leadership, gets serious” about reducing spending. He added that no amount of pressure from Trump would sway him from that stance.

House Speaker Mike Johnson has urged the Senate to avoid major amendments to the bill, emphasizing that House Republicans had achieved a “very delicate balance” that could be destabilized by significant changes. Since the House will need to vote again if the Senate alters the legislation, any shifts risk derailing the fragile consensus.

On the day Musk stepped down, Speaker Johnson thanked him for his service and affirmed that the House would continue pushing for further spending reductions. “The House is eager and ready to act on DOGE’s findings,” Johnson stated.

To support DOGE’s fiscal objectives, the White House is preparing a set of proposed rescissions—moves to cancel previously authorized expenditures—that will be sent to Congress. According to the Office of Management and Budget, the rescission package will target $1.1 billion from the Corporation of Public Broadcasting, which supports NPR and PBS, and $8.3 billion in foreign aid.

Musk has admitted that his foray into government work was more challenging than he had imagined. “The federal bureaucracy situation is much worse than I realized,” he told The Washington Post. “I thought there were problems, but it sure is an uphill battle trying to improve things in D.C., to say the least.”

Recently, Musk also indicated he would be cutting back on political contributions. “I think I’ve done enough,” he said.

Initially, Musk had been invigorated by the chance to overhaul Washington. After contributing at least $250 million to Trump’s campaign, he wore campaign hats in the White House, held rallies, and framed excessive government spending as a crisis. He frequently expressed admiration for Trump. “The more I’ve gotten to know President Trump, the more I like the guy,” Musk declared in February. “Frankly, I love him.”

Trump reciprocated Musk’s praise, calling him “a truly great American.” At one point, when Tesla’s sales were dipping, Musk even displayed his cars in the White House driveway to emphasize the administration’s support.

With Musk now exiting the administration, it remains uncertain what influence his recent criticisms will have on ongoing legislative debates. During his more influential period, Musk helped rally opposition to a spending bill when the government faced a potential shutdown. His latest remarks could inspire Republicans pushing for more aggressive cuts.

Sen. Mike Lee of Utah reposted a Fox News article featuring Musk’s CBS interview and added his own commentary, stating there was “still time to fix it.” He said, “The Senate version will be more aggressive. It can, it must, and it will be. Or it won’t pass.”

Only two Republican representatives—Warren Davidson of Ohio and Thomas Massie of Kentucky—voted against the bill during the House vote last week. Davidson acknowledged Musk’s critique on social media. “Hopefully, the Senate will succeed with the Big Beautiful Bill where the House missed the moment,” Davidson wrote. “Don’t hope someone else will cut deficits someday, know it has been done this Congress.”

Preliminary analysis from the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the bill’s tax elements would raise federal deficits by $3.8 trillion over ten years, while spending cuts to programs like Medicaid and food stamps would save just over $1 trillion during the same period.

House Republican leaders insist that the resulting economic growth would counteract the bill’s deficit impact. However, independent analysts are skeptical. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget predicts the bill would add $3 trillion—including interest—to the national debt over the next decade.

Miss India Nandini Gupta Shines as Asia-Oceania Winner in Miss World 2025 Top Model Challenge

Miss India Nandini Gupta was named one of the four continental winners in the Top Model Challenge at Miss World 2025, a key segment of the international beauty pageant. The event, which took place on Saturday evening at the Trident Hotel in Hyderabad, was a vibrant celebration of global fashion and regional culture.

A total of 108 contestants from various parts of the world graced the runway during this glamorous event. Each participant represented their country and continent, bringing forward not just beauty but elegance, cultural pride, and personality. The winners were chosen based on their confidence, stage presence, and command over the runway, making the challenge more than just a visual spectacle.

Representing the Asia and Oceania region, Nandini Gupta stood out among her peers and was selected as the winner for her continent. The other three winners who joined her were Miss Namibia Selma Kamanya from Africa, Miss Martinique Aurélie Joachim representing the Americas and Caribbean, and Miss Ireland Jasmine Gerhardt, who represented Europe. The winners were selected not only for their physical appeal but also for how they carried themselves during the event and embodied the values of grace and composure.

The fashion event went beyond traditional pageantry, becoming a platform that celebrated both high fashion and cultural heritage. Hyderabad’s role as host was particularly significant, as the city’s own rich traditions in textiles were highlighted during the show. Contestants wore beautifully crafted garments made using local handloom techniques such as Pochampally, Gadwal, and Gollabhama weaves. These designs also incorporated pearl-inspired elements, in homage to Hyderabad’s historical identity as the City of Pearls.

The outfits were designed by Indian fashion designer Archana Kochhar, widely admired for her ability to seamlessly merge modern silhouettes with traditional Indian artistry. Kochhar’s creations for the event were not only eye-catching but also served as cultural statements. Her work paid tribute to India’s heritage while ensuring the designs remained globally appealing.

After the cultural showcase segment, contestants returned to the runway in contemporary fashion. These modern ensembles were created by internationally renowned designers, presenting a dramatic contrast to the earlier part of the evening. This transition underscored the versatility of the participants as well as the event’s theme of merging tradition with modernity.

The contest was structured in several phases. In the initial stage, two finalists were shortlisted from each continent based on their performance in the earlier rounds. For Africa, the selected finalists were Miss Côte d’Ivoire Fatoumata Coulibaly and Miss Namibia Selma Kamanya. Representing the Americas and Caribbean were Miss Martinique Aurélie Joachim and Miss Venezuela Valeria Cannavò. In the Asia and Oceania category, Miss India Nandini Gupta was joined by Miss New Zealand Samantha Poole. For Europe, the two finalists were Miss Belgium Karen Jansen and Miss Ireland Jasmine Gerhardt.

From these eight finalists, one winner per continent was announced. The final selection was based on multiple criteria, including stage presence, confidence, and overall runway performance. All contestants had an opportunity to showcase their individuality and style before the final decisions were made.

The Top Model Challenge also included a segment where awards for the best designer dress were given. These awards were separate from the main continental winners and recognized participants who excelled in wearing and presenting specially crafted designer outfits. Miss South Africa Zoalise Jansen van Rensburg, Miss Puerto Rico Valeria Pérez, Miss New Zealand Samantha Poole, and Miss Ukraine Maria Melnychenko were honoured in this category. They were each praised for their poise and ability to carry unique and distinctive fashion creations with elegance and charm.

The overall tone of the evening was not just one of beauty and competition, but of unity, tradition, and artistic celebration. The Top Model Challenge served as a tribute to both global diversity and Indian heritage, with Hyderabad playing a central role as both a cultural ambassador and fashionable backdrop.

Commenting on the event’s broader impact, one of the organizers stated that it was about much more than pageantry. “This was not just a beauty pageant but a celebration of culture, fashion, and Telangana’s rich textile heritage.” This sentiment was evident in every segment, from the traditional handloom garments to the modern runway looks that closed the show.

For Miss India Nandini Gupta, the recognition as the top model from Asia and Oceania is a significant achievement and places her in strong contention for the Miss World crown. Her performance in the event showed not only her elegance but also her ability to represent her culture with pride and sophistication. Gupta’s inclusion among the four continental winners highlights India’s growing prominence in the global beauty and fashion industry.

Miss Namibia Selma Kamanya, winner for Africa, also left a strong impression with her performance, while Miss Martinique Aurélie Joachim and Miss Ireland Jasmine Gerhardt captivated audiences in their respective regions. Each of these winners symbolized the diverse beauty and talent present across continents, reinforcing the pageant’s global vision.

In total, the evening was a dynamic blend of fashion, tradition, and international camaraderie. From intricately woven Indian fabrics to sleek modern designs, from heartfelt cultural tributes to confident runway strides, the Top Model Challenge delivered a memorable experience for all in attendance and those watching from around the world.

By the end of the night, it was clear that Miss World 2025’s Top Model Challenge was more than just a lead-up event. It was a powerful display of how beauty, culture, and identity can intersect on a global stage. The success of contestants like Nandini Gupta marks a moment of pride not only for India but for everyone who believes in the celebration of both tradition and innovation.

Elon Musk Criticizes Trump’s Massive Tax Cut Bill, Warns of Fiscal Fallout

Elon Musk has voiced strong opposition to President Donald Trump’s ambitious tax cut proposal, expressing concern that it would jeopardize the cost-cutting efforts initiated by his own Department of Government Efficiency, commonly referred to as the Doge department.

Musk, who is also the founder of Tesla and SpaceX, said he was “disappointed to see the massive spending Bill, which increases the budget deficit, and undermines the work that the Doge team is doing.” His remarks come as Trump’s legislative package, widely referred to as the “big, beautiful bill,” faces growing criticism for promising $4.5 trillion in tax reductions while substantially inflating the U.S. deficit.

The billionaire business magnate criticized the nature of the bill during an interview with CBS, stating, “I think a Bill can be big or it can be beautiful, but I don’t know if it can be both. My personal opinion.” His comments reflect skepticism about the sustainability of the proposed measures, especially in light of America’s mounting debt.

Musk had previously stepped away from active leadership of the Doge department in order to concentrate on his roles at Tesla and SpaceX. Nonetheless, his impact while leading the agency was significant. During his time at the helm, Musk orchestrated a controversial mass dismissal of thousands of federal employees in a bold move to reduce government expenditures.

Even before his departure, Musk had been outspoken about the dangers posed by America’s rising national debt, which now stands at $36.2 trillion. He has repeatedly warned that this level of indebtedness could drive the nation toward financial collapse. In a January appearance on the Joe Rogan podcast, Musk cautioned, “If we don’t act, the entire government budget will be used just to pay interest.”

These concerns have been echoed by economists and fiscal policy analysts who have scrutinized the financial implications of Trump’s proposed legislation. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the bill is projected to increase the federal deficit by $3.8 trillion by the year 2034, intensifying anxieties among lawmakers and investors alike.

The proposed legislation has met with resistance from several members of Trump’s own Republican Party. The level of dissent was evident when the bill barely cleared the U.S. House of Representatives, passing by a single vote. It now awaits review and likely approval by the Senate.

In addition to extending the tax reductions first introduced under Trump’s administration in 2017, the new bill also includes a variety of other significant provisions. It seeks to boost funding for border security, limit tax credits for clean energy initiatives, and implement work requirements for individuals receiving Medicaid, the federal health insurance program for low-income Americans.

Despite the mounting concerns and legislative hurdles, Trump remains committed to fast-tracking the bill. He has stated his intention to sign the legislation into law by July 4, a symbolic date that marks America’s Independence Day.

Musk’s recent criticism also follows a series of public disagreements with key figures from Trump’s administration. He previously directed harsh words at Trump’s trade adviser, Peter Navarro, whom he described as “dumber than a sack of bricks.” The two had previously clashed over the White House’s aggressive use of tariffs during Trump’s tenure.

Beyond political disputes, financial markets have responded with increasing caution as the implications of the bill become clearer. Investors are particularly worried about how the legislation could affect the government’s borrowing capacity. These fears were further amplified when Moody’s, a major credit ratings agency, downgraded the United States’ credit rating, citing apprehensions about deficit growth and rising interest payments.

Musk’s perspective adds to a chorus of fiscal watchdogs and experts urging restraint and reevaluation. With his experience at the Doge department focused on trimming bureaucratic fat and cutting unnecessary government spending, Musk views Trump’s bill as a direct contradiction to his efforts. The measures he introduced while leading the agency were designed to ensure long-term sustainability of public finances, something he believes is now under threat.

The current political climate has heightened the stakes of this legislative battle. While Trump aims to reinforce his economic legacy with a bold tax reduction package, critics argue that such sweeping measures risk long-term financial instability. The proposed trade-offs—reducing green energy incentives and imposing stricter requirements on Medicaid recipients—have also stirred debate over policy priorities and ethical governance.

With the Senate poised to take up the legislation in the coming weeks, all eyes are now on how the final version of the bill will be shaped. The margin of its approval in the House suggests that significant amendments may be necessary to secure broader support. Yet Trump has shown no signs of backing down, driven by a desire to have a landmark achievement ready for the July 4 deadline.

Musk’s public statements continue to generate widespread attention, particularly as they reflect broader unease about the trajectory of U.S. fiscal policy. While no longer directly involved in government operations, his reputation as a cost-cutting innovator gives weight to his warnings. As America approaches critical financial crossroads, voices like Musk’s may prove instrumental in shaping both public perception and the decisions of policymakers.

In sum, the unfolding debate over Trump’s tax bill has exposed deep divisions within the country’s political and economic leadership. Musk’s disapproval underscores the potential risks of expanding the deficit through large-scale tax reductions, even as supporters of the bill tout its promise of economic stimulus and growth. Whether the Senate will heed these warnings or push ahead remains to be seen, but the conversation around debt, spending, and government efficiency is far from over.

Tharoor Leads All-Party Delegation Urging Global Unity Against Terrorism

Congress MP Shashi Tharoor, heading an all-party delegation, delivered a powerful message at the World Trade Center, calling for a united global front against terrorism. Speaking outside the 9/11 Memorial in New York, Tharoor emphasized the importance of international solidarity in combating terrorism and highlighted the shared suffering of the United States and India.

During his remarks, Tharoor noted that India’s experience with terrorism mirrors the pain commemorated at the memorial. “We ourselves in India have been subject to the same wounds that you are seeing the scars of today in this very moving memorial. We have come in a spirit of solidarity, we have come at the same time on a mission,” he said. The visit to the 9/11 Memorial served as both a tribute and a reminder of the common threat terrorism poses to all democracies.

The delegation began its journey in New York and is scheduled to travel to Guyana, Panama, Brazil, and Colombia. While in New York, they met with prominent think tanks and leading Indian Americans, including Indra Nooyi, former CEO of PepsiCo and a board member of several global organizations like Amazon and the World Economic Forum.

Tharoor spoke passionately about the mission of the delegation. “In these countries we are hoping to be able to explain to the world how important it is for all of us to stand together against the scourge of terrorism. Just as the US showed such resolution and determination in the wake of 9/11, so too our country has stood up against the forces of evil who attacked us on the April 22. We hope that a lesson has been learned by those who perpetrated this attack and by those who finance, train, equip, and direct them,” he said.

He warned that India would not remain passive if such attacks were repeated, stating, “But we want to communicate to the world that we will not be sitting quietly if this is repeated. We want the world to understand that this is not a time for indifference, but for mutual strength and mutual solidarity, so that we can all unitedly stand up for the values that the United States has always cherished—the values of democracy, of human freedom, of diversity, of coexistence of people of different communities, none of which sadly is on the agenda of those who conducted such attacks.”

Tharoor stressed the need to pursue justice for terrorism and called for international accountability. “Perpetrators of terror should indeed be brought to justice, and we are not going to stop our hunt for those who did this latest atrocity,” he said. He emphasized the importance of identifying and targeting those who support and protect terrorists: “We need to think about where these people are based, where they have safe havens, where they are trained, equipped, financed, guided, armed, and often directly directed… to perpetrate these horrors, and they too should be accountable for what they have been doing.”

Addressing the issue of UN sanctions, Tharoor, who previously served as the UN Under Secretary General, remarked, “I think there are something like 52 individuals and organizations based in Pakistan that at one time or the other have been listed by the UN Sanctions Committee… There is something much more direct that needs to be done, and we are not going to confine ourselves only to listings, to diplomacy, to the production of international dossiers. We are also going to exercise our right to self-defense, which every country recognizes.”

He also expressed strong confidence in the Indian diaspora’s ability to influence public discourse in the United States. “You are a very influential diaspora in this country. You are not just numerous. You are prosperous… You have an influential voice. You’re active in public life. You’re active in politics… We would like you to help sensitize public opinion and political opinion in this country about what is going on and how wrong it is, and certainly we would expect the diaspora to partake of the messaging that we are here to do… you are actually a force multiplier for us as well. We come and go, but you live here, and we want you certainly to please remind people around you of what the challenges are that India is facing.”

In a press release, the Indian Consulate confirmed the delegation’s engagement with think tanks, academic institutions, and the media in New York. The statement said the delegation highlighted the importance of strategic ties between India and the United States and emphasized collaborative global action against terrorism.

The delegation includes Shambhavi Chaudhary (Lok Janshakti Party), Sarfaraz Ahmed (Jharkhand Mukti Morcha), G M Harish Balayagi (Telugu Desam Party), Shashank Mani Tripathi, Tejaswi Surya, Bhubaneswar K Lata (all from BJP), Mallikarjun Devda (Shiv Sena), and former Indian Ambassador to the US Taranjit Singh Sandhu. Their unified message underscores India’s bipartisan consensus in the fight against terror.

Upon arriving in the U.S. on May 25, the delegation visited the 9/11 Memorial, accompanied by India’s Ambassador to the U.S., Vinay Mohan Kwatra. At the site, they paid tribute by offering white roses and folding their hands in a gesture of respect.

Reflecting on the visit, Tharoor said at the Indian Consulate, “It was obviously a very moving moment for us, but it was also meant to send a very strong message that we are here in a city which is bearing still the scars of that savage terrorist attack in the wake of yet another terrorist attack in our own country.” He continued, “We came both as a reminder that this is a shared problem, but also out of a spirit of solidarity with the victims… It’s a global problem, it’s a scourge and we must all fight it unitedly.”

The 9/11 Memorial honors the 2,977 victims of the September 11, 2001 attacks at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, as well as the six individuals killed in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. Spanning eight acres within the 16-acre complex, the Memorial provides a space for reflection amid the hustle of lower Manhattan.

After their visit to the United States, the delegation will continue to Guyana, Panama, Brazil, and Colombia to further amplify India’s position against terrorism. This diplomatic mission includes a total of seven groups, each comprising eight to nine members from across the Indian political spectrum. Their task is to present India’s unified stance and detail Operation Sindoor to international counterparts.

Operation Sindoor, initiated on May 7, was a military response to the April 22 terror attack in Pahalgam, which resulted in the deaths of 26 individuals. The Indian government has reported that the operation targeted terror infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir, killing over 100 terrorists affiliated with groups such as Jaish-e-Mohammed, Lashkar-e-Taiba, and Hizbul Mujahideen.

Following India’s strike, Pakistan launched retaliatory attacks including cross-border shelling and attempted drone incursions. In response, India undertook a coordinated counter-offensive that damaged radar systems, communication hubs, and airfields across 11 Pakistani airbases. A mutual agreement to cease hostilities was announced on May 10.

Through this high-level diplomatic outreach, India seeks to convey that it is unwavering in its fight against terrorism and that any threats to its sovereignty will be met with decisive action and international engagement.

UnitedHealth’s Fall From Grace Sparks Scrutiny of Medicare Advantage Model

In early April, UnitedHealth Group was being hailed by market analysts as a “tariff safe haven,” largely due to a favorable policy shift. The Trump administration had announced increased payments to Medicare Advantage plans starting in 2026. With UnitedHealth standing as both the country’s largest insurer and the top provider of Medicare Advantage plans, many anticipated that the firm would enjoy significant profits as a result.

However, less than two months later, the company is in a downward spiral. Its rapid decline not only underscores broader issues plaguing the health care sector but also highlights the deep-rooted problems within the Medicare Advantage system itself. Designed with the belief that private insurers could outperform traditional Medicare in both efficiency and cost, Medicare Advantage has instead become a tool for corporate profit. Critics argue that the system leads to higher charges and more frequent care denials than traditional Medicare.

What’s unfolding at UnitedHealth Group now suggests something more serious than just operational missteps. The company may have inflated its earnings through fraudulent billing and mistreatment of patients. Currently, it is facing three separate federal investigations for potential civil and criminal fraud as well as antitrust violations.

A February report in The Wall Street Journal revealed that the Department of Justice is probing whether UnitedHealth forced clinicians to input questionable diagnoses that made Medicare Advantage patients appear sicker than they actually were. This technique, known as “upcoding,” can trigger additional federal reimbursements. UnitedHealth, however, told the Journal that it stands “by the integrity of our Medicare Advantage program.”

Further allegations surfaced in The Guardian, which reported that UnitedHealth had covertly paid nursing homes to delay or prevent transfers of Medicare Advantage patients to hospitals. This tactic saved the insurer money, but in some cases, severely impacted patients. “At least one lived with permanent brain damage following his delayed transfer,” the outlet wrote, citing a confidential log, recordings, and photo documentation.

The Guardian also cited five current and former UnitedHealth employees who alleged that the company “pressed nurse practitioners to persuade Medicare Advantage members to change their ‘code status’ to DNR” — do not resuscitate — a move that made them ineligible for “certain life-saving treatments that might lead to costly hospital stays.” UnitedHealth has denied these allegations.

Adding to its woes, a group of investors filed a lawsuit accusing UnitedHealth of misleading them about its financial health following the death of Brian Thompson, CEO of UnitedHealthcare, the company’s insurance division. UnitedHealth also denied the claims in the lawsuit.

In May, CEO Andrew Witty abruptly resigned, citing “personal reasons,” and the company retracted its earnings forecast for 2025. It attributed this to unexpectedly high costs within its Medicare Advantage segment during the first quarter of the year.

UnitedHealth’s structure is vertically integrated. It not only pays for medical care through UnitedHealthcare but also provides that care via its health services arm, Optum, which owns both physician groups and pharmacies. This integration gives UnitedHealth vast control over which claims get approved, which doctors patients can see, and which medications are prescribed.

Additionally, UnitedHealth reportedly pays its own physician practices and pharmacies much higher rates than it pays independent competitors. A recent Federal Trade Commission (FTC) report highlighted that markups could reach over 7,700%. This leaves independent doctors and pharmacists at a significant disadvantage, forcing many to sell to Optum. This consolidation further cements UnitedHealth’s dominant position in the market and pushes patients into health care deserts as independent services shutter.

Despite ethical concerns, the Medicare Advantage approach has been enormously profitable. Since 2003, UnitedHealth’s annual revenue has grown nearly 15-fold, reaching $372 billion last year. The company also surged 59 places on the Fortune rankings, now sitting in fourth place. Seeing this success, competitors like CVS Health’s Aetna, Elevance Health’s Anthem, and Humana have mimicked its vertically integrated model and Medicare Advantage billing tactics.

Earlier this month, the Department of Justice sued these three rivals. The allegation: they paid brokers hundreds of millions of dollars to steer elderly Americans toward their Medicare Advantage plans while actively avoiding potential enrollees with disabilities. Each of the companies has said it plans to contest the charges.

Many seniors are initially drawn to Medicare Advantage because of its lower out-of-pocket costs and extra benefits like dental and vision coverage. Yet, it’s often only when they need intensive care that the program’s pitfalls — especially the frequency of denied treatments — come to light.

For over 20 years, patients and taxpayers have borne the financial and health-related burdens of the Medicare Advantage system. Only recently have shareholders begun to feel its impact, as UnitedHealth’s dramatic downturn reveals that its size and business model might now be liabilities instead of strengths.

Even though the Trump administration is pushing for higher payments to Medicare Advantage plans next year, the sector is still grappling with the effects of a Biden-era rule aimed at curbing upcoding. At UnitedHealth, things worsened when Medicare Advantage costs unexpectedly ballooned. One reason cited is that patients sought significantly more care in the first quarter of the year — potentially due to a backlog of health needs following the COVID-19 pandemic. Regardless of the cause, UnitedHealth had to shell out more for care both as an insurer covering claims and as a provider handling the delivery of services. As The Wall Street Journal put it, the company was “absorbing the higher cost of delivering that care.”

This brings to light the fundamental flaw of Medicare Advantage. The model prioritizes shareholder gains, often necessitating the denial of care to maintain profits. Moreover, these profits are then funneled into acquiring other entities within the health care system — including the very clinics and pharmacies patients rely on. Employees within these acquisitions may then find themselves compelled to act in ways that serve corporate rather than patient interests.

The situation has alarmed lawmakers across party lines. Democratic Representative Lloyd Doggett of Texas and Republican Representative Greg Murphy of North Carolina have both called for a formal investigation into private Medicare Advantage plans. Representative Pat Ryan of New York wrote to Attorney General Pam Bondi urging her to hold UnitedHealth accountable. In a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, several senators echoed these concerns and advocated for breaking up large insurance conglomerates like UnitedHealth.

Senator Cory Booker, a Democrat from New Jersey, criticized what he called “a level of corporate violence that is costing American lives, a level of colossal greed at the expense of patient wellbeing.” Republican Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri also weighed in, stating, “Why shouldn’t we be breaking you guys up? This looks like classic monopolist behavior. The patients are getting screwed. … You’re getting rich.”

While all this unfolds, traditional Medicare continues to perform efficiently. It costs Americans about 20% less than private alternatives and outperforms them in most care-related metrics. Ironically, this government-run system, often portrayed as inefficient, has proven to be a more responsible steward of taxpayer dollars than profit-driven executives and shareholders. Yet, traditional Medicare now covers only a minority of Medicare beneficiaries.

It’s time to confront reality. Medicare Advantage, like much of the private insurance system in the U.S., is fundamentally broken. Nothing short of a complete overhaul can restore the health care system to one that prioritizes patients over profits.

AAPI Gains Membership to the International Association of Medical Regulatory Authorities

“We are thrilled to share with you all today as the American Association of Physicians of Indian Origin (AAPI) has accomplished a major milestone in our mission to elevate the role and recognition of Indian medical professionals across the globe,” said, Dr. Satheesh Kathula, President of AAPI.  “The International Association of Medical Regulatory Authorities (IAMRA) has formally accepted AAPI’s application for Partner membership.”

With this acceptance, AAPI joins an influential global network that includes regional, national, and international medical boards of leading medical regulatory bodies, including organizations such as the AAMC, ECFMG, FSMB, and numerous U.S. state medical boards, as well as the national medical boards from India such as Gujarat, Karnataka, Delhi, and the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS).

Currently IAMRA has 116 member organizations from 44 countries, united by a shared vision: “Everyone around the world is treated and cared for by safe and competent doctors.”

IAMRA’s mission is to promote effective medical regulation worldwide by fostering best practices, encouraging innovation, enabling collaboration, and supporting knowledge-sharing to ensure public safety and enhance global healthcare quality.

“We extend our sincere thanks to Dr. Lokesh Edara, past Chairman of the AAPI Board of Trustees, for his initiative and leadership in this endeavor.”

According to Dr. Lokesh Edara, who has been leading the efforts for AAPI’s Global Medical Education Initiatives, AAPI has been collaborating with the Government of India on efforts with “the objective of making every MBBS graduate from India to be the best in the world through programs and activities on AAPI platform. We now look forward to working closely with IAMRA and its members to strengthen our shared mission and ensure that the voices of Indian-origin physicians are heard and respected worldwide.”

“This achievement reaffirms AAPI’s commitment to collaborating with international medical regulatory authorities; Bridging professional gaps between Indian and global healthcare systems; Building stronger platforms for Indian-origin physicians; and advocating for policy harmonization and mutual recognition of qualifications. Thank you for your continued support as we take this proud step forward,” said Dr. Kathula.

The AAPI Ad Hoc Committee on Medical Regulation has been established to provide expert insight and guidance on matters related to medical licensing and regulatory standards across the United States. Chaired by Dr. Srini Gangasani, Chairman of the Georgia Medical Board, the committee will serve as a resource for evaluating current regulatory frameworks and proposing recommendations to ensure consistency, transparency, and efficiency in the medical licensing process. This initiative reflects AAPI’s continued commitment to supporting high standards in medical practice and ensuring a fair and effective regulatory environment for healthcare professionals.

Serving 1 in every 7 patients in the US, AAPI members care for millions of patients every day, while several of them have risen to hold high-flying jobs, shaping the policies and programs, and inventions that shape the landscape of healthcare in the US and around the world.

Since its inception in 1982, AAPI has been at the forefront, representing a conglomeration of more than 125,000 practicing physicians in the United States, seeking to be the united voice for the physicians of Indian origin. For more information on AAPI and its programs and initiatives, please visit:  www.aapiusa.org

ITServe Alliance Members Across the Nation Honor Fallen Heroes, Donate Funds to Veterans on Memorial Day

ITServe Alliance members representing several Chapters, led by the national and Chapter leadership, honored our Veterans and the fallen Heroes on the occasion of Memorial Day in various towns and cities across the nation on May 26, 2025.871cbea0 1351 4b47 8dd3 8605f5dbb803

Initiated and driven under the banner of ITServe Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) local CSR Teams of Austin, Dallas, Houston, New Jersey, and, Raleigh were some of the chapters that led the Memorial Day events in their respective states.

Thanks to the initiatives of Chapter Presidents, Vineeth Reddy Amaram, Austin; Abhishek Boyanapally, Dallas; Srinivas Mettu, Houston; Subramaniyam Osuru, New Jersy; and, Praveen Chakraraj, Raleigh, hundreds of ITServe members joined these events, honoring thise who have sacrificed their lives for Freedom.

ITServe Alliance Team Dallas had the distinguished honor of having Raghu Chittimalla, Governing Board Chair; Anju Vallbhaneni, National President; and Jagadeesh Mosali, Immediate past President of ITServe during the ceremony, where the Dallas Chapter members gathered at the DFW National Cemetery, placing National Flags for the Fallen Heroes on Memorial Day.

Raghu Chittimalla said, “Founded in 2010, ITServe’s vision has been to empower local communities by creating, retaining, and fostering employment opportunities within the United States. ITServe has an active membership of 2,400 + members, and 24 Chapters established across the United States, who are small & medium-sized companies that create local employment and fulfill the growing demand for highly skilled professionals in America.”

c695f444 0529 4534 8c55 d5b50d959265 “ITServe and its member community is committed to corporate social responsibility (CSR) and actively contributing to local communities nationwide,” said Anju Vallabhaneni. “We recognize the sacrifices of our veterans and first responders, who selflessly serve our nation. Supporting them and their families is of utmost importance to us, as we express our gratitude for their unwavering dedication and bravery.”

As part of their continued commitment to community service, ITServe Alliance Austin Chapter donated $1,000 to the Sons of the American Revolution during the Memorial Day Flags Ceremony. This gesture is a small token of our deep gratitude for those who served and sacrificed for our nation.

“Thank you all for joining today and representing ITServe Austin Team in honoring our Veterans on the occasion of Memorial Day. Proud to be part of ITServe always at forefront in serving the community,” said Vineeth Reddy Amaram.

“A heartfelt thank you to all our members and volunteers who joined us in this meaningful tribute. Let us all participate and encourage everyone to participate in similar event. These kind of events will be very helpful to ITServe and gives us tremendous satisfaction,” said Srinivas Mettu.

“It was a great event, and every Chapter needs to do this at their cities – nothing can explain or feel good unless you attend personally – everyone attended felt proud to be part of this event today – Thank you entire CSR team – and Dallas Chapter President and core team for arranging this event,” said Abhishek Boyanapally.85ed2544 e269 4535 9dc3 96056f6eab7e

“Great giving back to heroes efforts by #TeamRaleigh,” said Praveen Chakraraj. “A heartfelt thank you to all our members and volunteers who joined us in this meaningful tribute.”

ITServe Alliance – New Jersey Chapter President, Subramaniyam Osuru after the event honoring the Veterans with Memorial Day Donation on May 26, 2025 said, “We remember our veterans with deep gratitude and reflect on the freedoms we enjoy because of their services.”

“ITServe CSR team has embarked on a remarkable journey in the realm of CSR,” said Tanuj Gundlapalli, Managing Director for ITServe Alliance CSR. Gundlapalli expressed his “deep gratitude to all the members, volunteers, Chapter Presidents, the 10 Chairs, and our partners who are passionate and have contributed to the many CSR efforts over the past years. Your dedication and support are the driving forces behind our success. As we look to the future, I am optimistic about the positive impact we can achieve together.”

Dinesh Movva, CSR Secretary said, Come, Join us in our journey as we strive to make a meaningful difference. Together, we can transform lives, inspire change, and leave a lasting legacy of compassion and service. Let’s stand united and make our communities stronger, one step at a time.” For more details about the many noble initiatives of ITServe, please visit: www.itserve.org

 

 

 

 

Bond Market Signals Trouble Amid Rising Deficit Fears and Tax Bill Concerns

The U.S. bond market is once again showing signs of distress, raising alarms among investors and economists. Long-term Treasury yields rose sharply this week, driven by heightened investor concern over the expanding federal deficit and the fiscal direction tied to President Donald Trump’s recently proposed tax legislation.

Traditionally seen as a refuge during times of uncertainty, the bond market is behaving unusually. Investors are pulling away from U.S. Treasurys, signaling growing anxiety and triggering fears that a broader global trend to abandon U.S. assets—commonly referred to as the “sell America” trade—may be underway.

“Clearly, the market is very focused on two key things: the tariff news and this policy framework of debt and deficits with interest rates,” said Jeremy Schwartz, chief investment officer at WisdomTree Global, during an interview with Yahoo Finance on Thursday. “If interest rates blow out because there’s fear about the deficit [and] we don’t actually bring down spending … that’s one of the [key] downside risks.”

Concerns over growing deficits are nothing new, but the current unease is fueled by a combination of both longstanding and emerging threats. Investors are now juggling worries about government overspending, persistent inflation, and the unpredictable political landscape. At the heart of these concerns is Trump’s recently advanced tax bill, which successfully passed through the House this week and now awaits a Senate vote.

“We have an unsustainable fiscal situation that is leading to very challenging dynamics in the bond markets where we are having to pay higher interest rates to service our debts,” Shai Akabas, director of economic policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center, told Yahoo Finance on Friday.

Akabas added, “That ultimately is leading to higher interest rates across the economy and feeding the inflation that we’ve seen in past years, and that we might continue to see from the tariff dynamic that’s going on.”

The legislation in question introduces significant tax cuts, affecting both individual and corporate rates. Analysts estimate that the bill will increase the national debt by $4 trillion over the next ten years. What worries investors further is that, despite the massive tax breaks, the legislation does not propose immediate or meaningful spending cuts. This omission is intensifying fears regarding America’s already vulnerable fiscal health.

Brett Ryan, a senior U.S. economist at Deutsche Bank, commented, “The House bill is probably the floor for what deficits look like. The Senate is going to have its say, and that’s probably going to mean even less in terms of spending cuts.”

Ryan also expressed skepticism over the bill’s long-term fiscal promises, stating, “Will it ever happen?” in reference to the more than $1 trillion in projected savings, much of which would occur beyond the current presidential administration.

The bond market’s response to the proposed legislation was both immediate and severe. The 30-year Treasury yield spiked to 5.15% this week, marking the most substantial single-day rise since 2023. That level is approaching closing highs last seen before the 2008 financial crisis.

This spike wasn’t driven solely by domestic fiscal concerns. A poorly received Treasury auction and financial turbulence in Japan also played roles. Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba’s warning about his country’s deteriorating financial position caused a bond sell-off there, which, in turn, stoked fears globally about diminishing demand for U.S. debt.

Joe Hegener, chief investment officer at Asterozoa Capital, described the volatility in the long end of the bond market as significant. “The long end of the curve, there’s a tremendous amount of uncertainty,” Hegener said on Friday. He added, “We’re starting to see investors get a little spooked. What’s going on in Japan and abroad is only exacerbating that risk.”

While shorter-term bond yields have remained relatively stable due to expectations that the Federal Reserve will not raise interest rates in the near term, longer-term yields are rising faster. This divergence reflects growing investor demands for higher returns to compensate for long-term risks tied to fiscal instability and erratic policymaking.

Heather Boushey, who previously served on President Joe Biden’s Council of Economic Advisors, sees the bond market’s recent behavior as a warning sign. “There is not good news here,” Boushey said. “Let’s not go down this path,” she added, suggesting that the financial markets are reflecting a growing concern about the direction of the economy, including potential stagflation—a combination of high inflation and stagnant growth.

Altogether, the bond market appears to be reacting to a convergence of troubling factors: ballooning federal deficits, a controversial tax proposal with unclear long-term savings, and international fiscal unrest. The result is a wave of anxiety that is causing U.S. bond prices to fall and yields to climb, a shift that could ripple across all sectors of the economy.

Investors, economists, and policymakers are all watching closely, as the implications of these market shifts could prove far-reaching. Rising long-term yields increase borrowing costs for the government, businesses, and consumers alike. If these trends persist, they could undercut economic growth, push inflation higher, and make it more expensive for the U.S. to service its growing debt.

With Trump’s tax bill headed to the Senate, the next steps taken by lawmakers could either reinforce or alleviate market fears. However, the current mood in the bond market suggests that confidence is already fragile. Whether this represents a short-term reaction or the start of a deeper financial reckoning remains to be seen.

In the meantime, experts like Jeremy Schwartz, Shai Akabas, Brett Ryan, Joe Hegener, and Heather Boushey are united in their message: the combination of tax cuts, deficits, and political instability is presenting serious risks. And if these are not addressed, the markets may continue to react in ways that could affect everything from interest rates to equity prices to global investor sentiment.

The warning from the bond market is growing louder by the day. As Boushey put it succinctly, “There is not good news here.”

Billie Eilish Dominates 2025 American Music Awards as Beyoncé Makes History in Country Category

The 2025 American Music Awards, held on Memorial Day, proved to be a night of unforgettable wins, powerful performances, and historic firsts. Among the biggest stories of the evening was Billie Eilish’s sweeping victory, claiming all seven awards she was nominated for, including the top honors of Artist of the Year, Album of the Year, and Song of the Year. Although Eilish was not present to receive her awards in person due to her ongoing tour, her presence was deeply felt throughout the ceremony.

Beyoncé made her own mark on the night by securing her first ever wins in the country music category. She took home the awards for Favorite Female Country Artist and Favorite Country Album for “Cowboy Carter,” underscoring her successful crossover into the genre. Meanwhile, Kendrick Lamar won Favorite Hip-Hop Song for “Not Like Us,” and SZA took home two awards: Favorite R&B Song and Favorite Female R&B Artist.

The event was hosted by Jennifer Lopez, who opened the show with a dynamic dance number that blended tracks from various artists, including Beyoncé, Billie Eilish, Shaboozey, and Chappell Roan. The high-energy introduction set the tone for a vibrant evening of music celebration.

One of the most poignant moments of the night came when Janet Jackson was honored with the 2025 Icon Award. Jackson made her return to television with her first performance in seven years, delighting fans with renditions of classics such as “Someone to Call My Lover” and “All for You.” In an emotional acceptance speech, she reflected on her journey and legacy. “My family (and) myself, our dream wasn’t ever to be famous. We weren’t raised like that. We always had a special love for music, dancing and singing, and fame came with the result of hard work and dedication,” she said. “My story, my family’s story, it’s truly an American story. This would’ve only happened in America.”

Sir Rod Stewart received the Lifetime Achievement Award and concluded the evening with a heartfelt performance of “Forever Young,” reinforcing his enduring influence on the music world. Other artists who took the stage during the broadcast included Blake Shelton, Benson Boone, Gloria Estefan, Lainey Wilson, Gwen Stefani, and Reneé Rapp.

In keeping with the significance of Memorial Day, the AMAs partnered with the Easy Day Foundation, an organization that supports military veterans transitioning to civilian life. The ceremony paid tribute to veterans in the audience, with special mentions by Zac Brown and Ciara highlighting their contributions and presence during the event.

This year’s awards saw an expansive list of nominees and winners across a wide range of genres. Gracie Abrams was named New Artist of the Year, while “Hit Me Hard and Soft” by Billie Eilish won Album of the Year. Eilish’s hit “Birds of a Feather” secured Song of the Year and also took the award for Favorite Pop Song. Additionally, Eilish was recognized as Favorite Female Pop Artist, Favorite Pop Album winner, and Favorite Touring Artist.

Lady Gaga and Bruno Mars were also notable winners, clinching Collaboration of the Year and Favorite Music Video for “Die With A Smile.” Doechii’s track “Anxiety” won Social Song of the Year, and Eminem secured wins for both Favorite Male Hip-Hop Artist and Favorite Hip-Hop Album with “The Death Of Slim Shady (Coup De Grâce).”

The Weeknd won Favorite Male R&B Artist, and his album “Hurry Up Tomorrow” earned Favorite R&B Album. SZA’s “Saturn” was named Favorite R&B Song. Post Malone, recognized for his growing influence in country music, won Favorite Male Country Artist and also shared a win for Favorite Country Song alongside Morgan Wallen for “I Had Some Help.”

Among other notable victories, Dan + Shay won Favorite Country Duo or Group, while Twenty One Pilots were honored as Favorite Rock Artist and won Favorite Rock Album for “Clancy.” Linkin Park took the award for Favorite Rock Song with “The Emptiness Machine.”

In the Latin categories, Bad Bunny once again made a strong showing, winning Favorite Male Latin Artist and Favorite Latin Album for “DeBÍ TiRAR MáS FOToS.” Becky G won Favorite Female Latin Artist, while Shakira’s “Soltera” was named Favorite Latin Song. Julión Álvarez y su Norteño Banda received recognition as Favorite Latin Duo or Group.

Afrobeats and K-Pop categories also saw celebrated wins. Tyla won Favorite Afrobeats Artist, and RM of BTS fame secured the Favorite K-Pop Artist title, continuing the genre’s international prominence. Lady Gaga added another win to her list by being named Favorite Dance/Electronic Artist. In the soundtrack category, “Arcane League of Legends: Season 2” took the win for Favorite Soundtrack.

The evening’s blend of star-studded performances, moving tributes, and a broad showcase of music genres underscored the American Music Awards’ continued relevance and cultural impact. Billie Eilish’s dominant performance at the awards reinforced her status as one of the most influential artists of her generation. Beyoncé’s recognition in the country genre highlighted the genre’s growing inclusivity, while Janet Jackson’s return served as a powerful reminder of the lasting legacy of iconic performers.

“My story, my family’s story, it’s truly an American story,” Jackson said, summing up a night that celebrated music’s ability to cross boundaries, genres, and generations.

In all, the 2025 AMAs succeeded in honoring both emerging and legendary talents while using the platform to pay tribute to American heroes, making it one of the most memorable ceremonies in recent years.

King Charles III Begins Canadian Visit Amid Sovereignty Tensions with the U.S.

King Charles III and Queen Camilla have commenced a significant two-day visit to Canada, a trip widely interpreted as a demonstration of support for Canadian sovereignty during a time of mounting pressure from the United States. The visit comes in the wake of provocative remarks by  U.S. President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly threatened to absorb Canada as the 51st American state.

The royal couple arrived in Ottawa, Canada’s capital, where they were received with ceremonial honors by prominent Canadian leaders. Among those welcoming the monarch was the country’s recently elected prime minister, Mark Carney, and Governor General Mary Simon, the first indigenous person to hold that role and the official representative of the British monarch in Canada.

Carney, who assumed leadership in April after running on a platform that strongly opposed Trump’s foreign policy, extended the invitation to King Charles shortly after becoming head of the Liberal Party. At that time, Trump had heightened tensions by levying tariffs on Canadian goods and making inflammatory suggestions about annexing the country.

In a formal statement released ahead of the royal visit, Prime Minister Carney emphasized the symbolic importance of the king’s presence. “It speaks to our enduring tradition and friendship, to the vitality of our constitutional monarchy and our distinct identity, and to the historic ties that crises only fortify,” said Carney, reflecting on the significance of the moment.

During the royal stay, Carney and the king are scheduled to hold a private meeting. While the exact content of their discussions remains undisclosed, it is widely expected that matters concerning national unity, sovereignty, and diplomatic resilience in the face of U.S. pressure will be at the forefront.

One of the key highlights of the royal tour will take place on Tuesday, when King Charles delivers the speech from the throne to inaugurate a new session of the Canadian Parliament. This rare event will mark the first time a reigning monarch has performed this ceremonial duty in Canada since 1977, when Queen Elizabeth II addressed the Senate during her reign.

Though largely symbolic, the speech holds deep political resonance. Canada operates as a constitutional monarchy, with the king serving as its official head of state. This stands in marked contrast to the republican system of governance in the United States. The presence of the monarch in a legislative setting underscores the country’s unique political structure and reaffirms its ties to the British Crown at a time when questions of sovereignty have become especially sensitive.

The speech from the throne will outline the government’s future plans and policy priorities. While King Charles will read the address, the contents are being drafted by Prime Minister Carney’s office. The speech is expected to make a strong case for defending Canada’s autonomy and independence, echoing the sentiments Carney expressed during his recent election campaign.

This journey marks King Charles’ first official visit to Canada since he ascended to the throne in 2023. A previously planned trip was cancelled last year due to the king’s cancer diagnosis. Nevertheless, Charles has maintained a longstanding affection for Canada and its citizens. During a visit in May 2022, he praised the country warmly, describing Canadians as “outward-looking, big-hearted people.”

With the backdrop of ongoing tensions between Ottawa and Washington, the timing of the king’s visit could not be more relevant. Trump’s comments about annexing Canada have drawn international criticism and alarmed many Canadians, leading to a surge in public support for reaffirming the country’s distinct identity and democratic structure. In this context, the royal visit is not merely a ceremonial gesture but a potent symbol of the enduring relationship between Canada and the British monarchy.

Carney’s political rise has also coincided with a renewed national conversation about Canada’s place on the global stage and its relationship with larger powers like the United States. Since taking office, Carney has sought to define his leadership around principles of national integrity, self-determination, and a recommitment to Canada’s foundational institutions — values that many see as being reinforced by the presence of the monarch.

For his part, King Charles has shown an appreciation for the complexities of Canadian society, particularly its cultural diversity and evolving role in the international community. His prior remarks and current itinerary suggest that his engagement during this visit will be both ceremonial and deeply personal.

As part of the visit, additional events and public appearances are planned, although exact details have not been disclosed. Security is expected to be tight, and public interest high, as Canadians observe the rare occasion of a monarch addressing their Parliament.

Observers note that the speech from the throne will serve not just as a formal opening of Parliament but also as a reaffirmation of Canada’s political identity at a time of external threats. While Charles will deliver the speech, it is effectively a message from the Canadian government — and its newly elected leader — to both its own citizens and to the world.

For many Canadians, the visit is a reassurance of continuity in uncertain times. The symbolic presence of the monarch serves as a counterweight to the political turbulence generated by Trump’s remarks and policy decisions. It’s a reminder that Canada’s democratic institutions, traditions, and alliances remain strong.

In addition to political and ceremonial functions, the visit is likely to touch upon cultural themes that reflect King Charles’ known interests, such as environmental conservation, indigenous rights, and community engagement. While these themes are not the main focus of this short trip, they have been recurring elements in the king’s previous tours and public commentary.

The participation of Governor General Mary Simon is also being seen as a reflection of Canada’s ongoing efforts to recognize and include indigenous voices at the highest levels of government. Her role in receiving the monarch adds a further layer of historical significance to the visit, marking a convergence of tradition and progress in Canadian society.

As King Charles continues his Canadian tour, many are watching closely not just for the pomp and circumstance, but for the deeper messages conveyed through his presence and his words. With a speech from the throne soon to be delivered, and private talks scheduled with key Canadian leaders, this visit may prove to be a defining moment in the ongoing narrative of Canadian sovereignty and its relationship with both the Crown and its powerful neighbor to the south.

In a period marked by political tension and public uncertainty, the king’s visit is being received as both a diplomatic gesture and a unifying signal. As Prime Minister Carney put it, “It speaks to our enduring tradition and friendship, to the vitality of our constitutional monarchy and our distinct identity, and to the historic ties that crises only fortify.”

India Surpasses Japan to Become World’s Fourth-Largest Economy, Says NITI Aayog CEO

India has overtaken Japan to claim the position of the fourth-largest economy in the world, according to BVR Subrahmanyam, Chief Executive Officer of NITI Aayog. Speaking at a press conference during the 10th NITI Aayog Governing Council Meeting focused on the theme Viksit Rajya for Viksit Bharat 2047, Subrahmanyam cited the latest data from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to support the announcement.

“We are the fourth largest economy as I speak. We are a USD 4 trillion economy as I speak, and this is not my data. This is IMF data. India today is larger than Japan,” said Subrahmanyam, stressing the significance of this achievement on the global economic stage.

Until recently, India was ranked as the fifth-largest economy, but the latest IMF figures indicate that the country has now edged past Japan. This development reflects India’s strong economic momentum, which experts say is likely to continue in the near future.

In addition to the announcement about India surpassing Japan, Subrahmanyam also expressed optimism about the country’s future economic trajectory. He stated that India may soon overtake Germany, which currently holds the position of the world’s third-largest economy.

“It’s only the United States, China, and Germany which are larger, and if we stick to, you know, what is being planned, what is being thought through, it’s a matter of another 2, 2.5 to 3 years; we would become the third largest economy,” he added. The CEO’s remarks suggest that the government is confident about its economic strategy and expects steady growth over the coming years.

Subrahmanyam’s projections are backed by the April edition of the IMF’s World Economic Outlook report, which presents strong numbers for India’s economic growth. The report estimates that India’s nominal GDP for the fiscal year 2026 will reach nearly $4,187.017 billion. In comparison, Japan’s GDP is projected to be slightly lower at $4,186.431 billion. This subtle difference has allowed India to inch ahead of Japan in global economic rankings.

The IMF report also reinforces the view that India will continue to be the fastest-growing major economy for at least the next two years. According to the projections, India’s economy is expected to grow by 6.2 percent in 2025 and 6.3 percent in 2026. These growth figures stand out sharply against global trends. The IMF estimates global economic growth will be just 2.8 percent in 2025 and 3.0 percent in 2026, significantly lower than India’s forecasted performance.

India’s consistently high growth rate has helped it rise rapidly in the global economic rankings over the past few years. In 2024, India was still in fifth place, but robust performance across sectors has propelled it to fourth place in a short span of time. With continued momentum and favorable policy frameworks, India appears well positioned to climb even higher.

Commenting further on India’s strong economic performance, Subrahmanyam highlighted the factors that are driving this growtfh. One key element, according to him, is the demographic advantage that India enjoys. With a large, young population entering the workforce, the country is well placed to experience sustained growth over the next few decades.

“India is at a takeoff stage where it can grow very rapidly, as has been done by many countries in the past… Given this, as well as the demographic dividend that India is actually blessed with for the next 20 to 25 years, that we can grow rapidly, the Prime Minister gave a call to all states to prepare vision documents at their level. This is already visible in the growth of India,” Subrahmanyam explained.

The demographic dividend refers to the economic benefit that arises when a country has a higher proportion of working-age individuals compared to dependents. In India’s case, this demographic phase is expected to last for the next two to two-and-a-half decades, giving it a unique opportunity to boost productivity and expand its economic base.

To make the most of this opportunity, the Indian government has been encouraging states to prepare long-term development plans. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s call for each state to create its own vision document is intended to align regional strategies with national goals. This decentralized planning approach is already beginning to show positive results, according to the NITI Aayog CEO.

India’s rise to the fourth position also reflects its successful navigation through global economic challenges, including the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, inflationary pressures, and geopolitical uncertainties. While many economies around the world have been struggling with slow growth and high inflation, India has managed to maintain a relatively stable and positive economic outlook.

The IMF’s optimistic projections suggest that this trend is likely to continue, provided India sticks to its current policy direction and continues implementing reforms that enhance ease of doing business, increase investment in infrastructure, and promote innovation and digital inclusion.

India’s increasing economic clout is also likely to enhance its global influence. As it climbs the ranks among the world’s largest economies, India will have greater say in shaping international economic policies and trade agreements. Moreover, as the country becomes a more attractive destination for global investors, it may also see increased foreign direct investment, further bolstering its growth.

While challenges such as income inequality, rural development, and job creation remain, India’s overall economic trajectory appears to be on a strong and upward path. Subrahmanyam’s remarks at the Governing Council Meeting serve as both a milestone announcement and a call to action for policymakers to continue building on this momentum.

In summary, India’s leap into the fourth position among the world’s largest economies is a significant achievement backed by IMF data. With strong growth forecasts and a young, dynamic population, the country is well placed to continue its rise. “We are the fourth largest economy as I speak,” said Subrahmanyam, pointing to the data. With Germany now in sight and long-term planning underway, India’s economic ambitions are clearly set on becoming a global powerhouse in the near future.

United States Ramps Up Visa Efforts Ahead of Historic FIFA World Cup 2026

With the FIFA World Cup 2026 drawing near, the United States is making major preparations to welcome supporters from around the globe. As the host country, the U.S. is undertaking extensive efforts to ensure fans from every nation can gain entry in time for the massive sporting event. According to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the government is implementing sweeping measures to streamline visa processing, including extended embassy operations and new technologies. These steps aim to prevent any fan from missing the event due to bureaucratic delays.

Rubio highlighted the significance of these actions during his testimony before the Homeland Security Subcommittee. “Double shifts and new technologies will be implemented in key embassies,” he said. The goal, he emphasized, is to “guarantee visas for everyone,” making sure that paperwork obstacles don’t keep fans away. The state’s priority is clear: no one should miss out on the global celebration of football because of procedural issues.

This moment in U.S. history as a sports host is unique. Following the successful hosting of the 2024 Copa América and with the 2025 FIFA Club World Cup also scheduled, the country is fast becoming a hub for major international tournaments. With the 2028 Olympic Games already confirmed, America faces logistical demands on a scale never seen before. Yet these challenges come amid a political climate shaped by stricter immigration controls under the Trump administration.

Despite this, the message from U.S. officials remains one of openness—provided all immigration paperwork is correctly handled. The Trump administration’s tightening of immigration rules has increased scrutiny around visa applications, but officials are attempting to balance national security with the international spirit of hospitality. “The message the U.S. wants to show the world is that it wants to open its doors to the world… as long as the paperwork is in order,” the article noted.

With World Cup excitement building across the country, the U.S. government is preparing for an unprecedented surge in visa applications from every continent. Recognizing the potential for overwhelming demand, they have chosen to act early, attempting to ward off administrative backlogs before they occur.

Rubio explained that a key part of the strategy includes deploying more personnel to high-demand embassies, particularly in countries where ticket sales are high. “Double shifts will be implemented in many embassies to reduce wait times,” he said. He cited Colombia as one of the countries that would struggle to meet demand without these changes, indicating the urgency of the initiative.

To further improve efficiency, the U.S. is introducing artificial intelligence into the visa renewal process. This marks a significant leap in how visa applications are handled. By automating repetitive tasks, AI will allow human staff to focus on reviewing new applications. This should help reduce wait times without compromising national security. “This tool will allow repetitive tasks to be automated and free up human resources for new applications,” Rubio explained.

This is not the first time the United States has hosted the FIFA World Cup. Back in 1994, the country staged the tournament and broke attendance records. That event left a lasting impact, sparking increased domestic interest in the sport. Many still remember Italy’s Roberto Baggio missing the decisive penalty that allowed Brazil to claim their fourth title.

Fast forward to 2026, and the nation now has the benefit of modernized infrastructure and decades of experience in organizing global sporting events. The upcoming World Cup is expected to be the largest in history, with more teams, more venues, and more matches than ever before. This also means millions of international visitors will be attempting to cross U.S. borders during the event.

The collaboration between U.S. President Donald Trump and FIFA President Gianni Infantino underscores the importance of delivering a successful tournament. Both leaders understand that the country’s international reputation is on the line. “The image of the country is at stake,” the article noted. A poorly managed World Cup marred by visa delays or disorganization could be disastrous. Legal and structured access to the U.S. has now become a national priority.

However, the situation is complex. Even as the government works to facilitate entry for sports tourists, it continues to enforce strict immigration rules, especially on irregular entries. This duality reflects the Trump administration’s broader stance: promote international events and tourism while maintaining firm control over immigration processes. “While channels are being opened to facilitate sports tourism, the same Trump government maintains its pressure on irregular immigration,” the article explained.

As a result, while fans may benefit from faster and more accessible visa options, they should also expect more detailed scrutiny during the process. The United States is making it clear: if you want to attend the World Cup, start preparing now. Delays or incomplete documentation could be costly. “Come to the World Cup, but prepare ahead of time,” is the message being sent globally.

With increased staff at embassies and AI helping to process renewals, visa procedures are expected to move faster. But they’ll also be more rigorous than ever before.

So for those dreaming of cheering on their team live in 2026, the journey doesn’t start in the stadium—it starts at the embassy. “If you want to be there, screaming your team’s goal live and in person and not from the couch, the first thing you need to do is move now,” the article concluded. “Because this time, the World Cup starts at the embassy.”

Trump’s Expansive Power Push Poses a Historic Stress Test for the Constitution

From the start of his second term, Donald Trump has pursued a presidency defined not only by sharp rhetoric and personal grievances but by an expansive attempt to consolidate power in the White House. What often appears to be a chaotic stream of attacks against universities, celebrities, corporations, and courts may in fact reflect a unified strategy: to weaken, if not fully dismantle, the system of checks and balances that has defined American governance since the Constitution’s founding.

In recent months, Trump has attacked a range of institutions and individuals—from attempting to block Harvard from enrolling international students to targeting Bruce Springsteen and Taylor Swift online, and pressuring companies like Walmart and Apple over their trade policy positions. On the surface, this might seem like political improvisation. But many legal scholars and political scientists argue that Trump’s actions aim to erode the very foundations of constitutional governance.

According to these experts, Trump’s second term differs from previous presidencies not just in degree but in kind. While past presidents have tested the boundaries of executive authority, Trump’s efforts appear to combine multiple unprecedented moves—sidelining Congress, challenging judicial rulings, asserting sweeping executive control, and using federal power to penalize perceived enemies in civil society.

Paul Pierson, a political scientist at the University of California at Berkeley, says the “sheer level of aggression and the speed at which [the administration has] moved” is without precedent. “They are engaging in a whole range of behaviors that I think are clearly breaking through conventional understandings of what the law says, and of what the Constitution says,” Pierson remarked.

Yuval Levin of the American Enterprise Institute also acknowledges that Trump is advancing the most sweeping vision of presidential authority since Woodrow Wilson. However, Levin predicts that this effort could provoke a counter-reaction, particularly from the Supreme Court, which may seek to reassert limits on presidential power. “The reaction that Trump’s excessive assertiveness will draw from the Court will backfire against the executive branch in the long run,” Levin wrote.

Others aren’t so sure. With the Court’s conservative 6-3 majority, many analysts question whether it will truly rein in Trump’s efforts to expand his authority—raising concerns that America’s constitutional balance might be in serious jeopardy.

A Multi-Front Assault on Constitutional Boundaries

Unlike past presidents who typically challenged one branch of government at a time, Trump’s second term has been marked by a comprehensive campaign to sideline all constitutional constraints simultaneously.

He has marginalized Congress by undermining agencies established by statute, asserting the right to withhold funds Congress has authorized, and bypassing the legislative process to enact major policies—such as on tariffs and immigration—via emergency declarations. He’s refused to enforce laws he dislikes, including the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which bans American firms from bribing foreign officials.

Within the executive branch, Trump has centralized control through purges of civil servants, inspectors general, and independent regulators—blurring the boundaries between independent oversight and presidential authority. These actions have simultaneously weakened the authority Congress originally built into those agencies to shield them from political interference.

Trump has also challenged judicial authority. He’s resisted federal court orders, such as restoring federal funds and complying with rulings on immigration enforcement. One case involved Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a deported immigrant the administration admitted was wrongly removed, yet Trump’s government showed little effort to obey the court’s directive to facilitate his return.

Federalism, too, has been under pressure. Trump’s administration has sought to override blue states by enforcing conservative cultural policies nationwide. He’s pursued controversial arrests of local officials, including a judge in Wisconsin and a mayor in New Jersey. Though charges against the Newark mayor were dropped, a new case was filed against Democratic Representative LaMonica McIver—another sign of Trump’s willingness to use federal power against political opponents.

Even more extraordinary is Trump’s assault on civil society. His administration has targeted law firms with Democratic ties, withheld research funds from universities over ideological disagreements, and tried to revoke their tax-exempt status. Trump has even ordered the Department of Justice to investigate the Democratic fundraising platform ActBlue and critics from his first term. Courts have already rejected some of these actions as unconstitutional.

Eric Schickler, co-author of Partisan Nation, says Trump’s strategy to deter other actors from performing their core roles is unprecedented in its scope. “This ability to just deter other actors from exercising their core rights and responsibilities at this kind of scope is something we haven’t had before,” Schickler said.

Yet for many of Trump’s supporters, this aggressive centralization of authority is precisely the point. Russell Vought, director of the Office of Management and Budget and a key architect of Trump’s governance philosophy, argues that the expansion of presidential power is necessary to undo decades of liberal influence. He contends that bureaucrats and federal agencies have usurped too much authority from elected officials, and the presidency must be “unshackled” to correct that.

Trump put it more bluntly in his first term when he said, “I have an Article II, where I have the right to do whatever I want as president.”

Warnings Echo from the Founding Era

In a nod to American revolutionary tradition, Trump earlier this year signed a proclamation honoring Patrick Henry’s famed “Give me liberty or give me death” speech. However, he omitted a lesser-known but prescient warning from Henry, issued 13 years later when debating the Constitution’s ratification.

Henry feared that the presidency could become a tool for authoritarianism. “If your American chief, be a man of ambition, and abilities, how easy is it for him to render himself absolute!” Henry warned. His concerns about the potential for executive abuse were echoed by other Founders, even those who supported the Constitution.

James Madison, writing in the Federalist Papers, argued that the Constitution’s design would prevent tyranny by dividing power across institutions and levels of government. “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition,” he wrote. Madison believed this system, bolstered by federalism, would safeguard individual liberty through what he called a “double security.”

Despite the Constitution’s flaws—most egregiously its original accommodation of slavery—the separation of powers functioned relatively well for over two centuries, Pierson and Schickler argue. The diffusion of authority helped prevent any single individual or group from consolidating power.

But the system has weakened in recent decades, as growing polarization and nationalized political identities have eroded the commitment of officeholders to their institutional roles. Instead of defending the prerogatives of Congress, courts, or states, many officials now align themselves primarily with their political party. This shift has reduced the likelihood that members of a president’s party will challenge overreach, enabling figures like Trump to push boundaries further than ever before.

A Fragile System Faces an Uncertain Future

Will Trump’s second term mark a turning point in American constitutional history—one in which presidential power overwhelms the traditional system of checks and balances?

That question is no longer academic. Corey Brettschneider, author of The Presidents and the People, notes that past challenges to civil liberties—from John Adams to Richard Nixon—have often triggered successful public resistance. But even he expresses doubt that such outcomes are guaranteed in today’s polarized climate. “We have these past victories to draw on,” Brettschneider said. “But we shouldn’t be naïve: The system is fragile. We just don’t know if American democracy will survive.”

Yuval Levin remains somewhat more optimistic. He sees the Supreme Court as the last likely counterweight to Trump’s ambitions. While he acknowledges that Congress is unlikely to resist, he believes the Court will ultimately differentiate between a president’s authority over the executive branch and overreach into other branches and civil society.

“So this court will simultaneously strengthen the president’s command of the executive branch,” Levin predicts, “and restrain the president’s attempts to violate the separation of powers.”

Still, even that vision suggests a presidency transformed—and a constitutional system facing a stress test unlike any in modern times.

Trump Demands Disclosure on Harvard’s Foreign Students, Escalates Battle with Elite University

President Donald Trump intensified his criticism of Harvard University on Sunday, questioning the presence of foreign students and demanding transparency about who they are and where they come from. His comments follow recent actions by the Department of Homeland Security, which attempted to restrict the university’s ability to enroll international students—a move that has stirred significant controversy.

“Why isn’t Harvard saying that almost 31% of their students are from FOREIGN LANDS, and yet those countries, some not at all friendly to the United States, pay NOTHING toward their student’s education, nor do they ever intend to,” Trump said in a post. He added, “Nobody told us that! We want to know who those foreign students are, a reasonable request since we give Harvard BILLIONS OF DOLLARS, but Harvard isn’t exactly forthcoming. We want those names and countries. Harvard has $52,000,000, use it, and stop asking for the Federal Government to continue GRANTING money to you!”

The university has stated that it enrolled around 6,800 international students in the 2024-2025 academic year, which amounts to approximately 27 percent of its total student body, slightly lower than the figure Trump cited. These students come from a variety of countries and, according to Harvard’s publicly available data, pay full tuition for their education. International students are typically not eligible for U.S. federal financial aid, which means that their tuition payments may, in fact, contribute to supporting institutional costs for domestic students.

Despite the financial contribution international students make to Harvard, Trump’s statements reflect growing political tension over elite academic institutions and their perceived alignment with liberal values, diversity efforts, and global engagement. Some observers believe that limiting the number of foreign students at Harvard could create more openings for American applicants. While this idea may resonate with certain groups, it also raises concerns about the long-term implications for higher education and the global academic reputation of U.S. universities.

Trump has been locked in an extended battle with Harvard, the nation’s oldest and most financially robust university. His grievances range from accusations of antisemitism on campus to allegations of racial and ideological bias embedded within the school’s policies and curriculum. This latest attack zeroes in on the university’s global makeup and its relationship with the federal government.

The president’s repeated targeting of Harvard has coincided with his broader efforts to reshape the direction of American education and reduce what he sees as liberal dominance in the nation’s academic institutions. He has accused the school of failing to uphold American values and has specifically condemned its diversity initiatives. His actions have not only affected Harvard but also sent ripples through the broader higher education landscape, with other institutions watching closely.

Trump’s demands come on the heels of a legal victory for Harvard, which recently challenged the Department of Homeland Security’s attempt to block the enrollment of foreign students. A federal judge intervened on Friday, issuing a temporary halt to the policy. This ruling gives Harvard a brief reprieve as it continues to litigate the matter. The university has also filed a separate lawsuit against the Trump administration over billions of dollars in federal research funding that the administration froze in retaliation for Harvard’s refusal to dismantle its diversity programs.

The financial stakes in this clash are substantial. Harvard’s endowment exceeds $52 billion, making it the wealthiest university in the country. Despite this vast financial reserve, the school still receives significant federal research grants, which Trump now threatens to cut off permanently. In his remarks, Trump insisted Harvard should use its own funds instead of relying on taxpayer money, arguing that “Harvard has $52,000,000, use it, and stop asking for the Federal Government to continue GRANTING money to you!”

The battle over foreign student enrollment has sparked broader concerns within the academic community about the future of U.S. higher education under increasing political scrutiny. Universities across the country are grappling with how to respond to shifting federal policies, particularly those targeting diversity, free speech, and foreign influence. Many fear that aggressive moves against institutions like Harvard could set a precedent that undermines the academic freedom and international prestige that American universities have long enjoyed.

Moreover, Trump’s rhetoric seems tailored to resonate with a portion of the electorate that views elite institutions as out of touch and unaccountable. His emphasis on Harvard receiving “BILLIONS OF DOLLARS” in federal funds plays into a narrative that taxpayer money is being funneled to liberal strongholds that do not reflect mainstream American values. By questioning the loyalty and financial accountability of international students, Trump appears to be doubling down on his America First platform, extending its reach to education policy.

At the same time, Trump’s critics argue that these attacks risk doing real damage to U.S. interests. International students not only bring in substantial revenue to American universities but also contribute to the nation’s economy and innovation ecosystem. Many go on to become researchers, entrepreneurs, and community leaders. Policies that discourage their enrollment could have long-term repercussions, both academically and economically.

The president’s call for disclosure of international students’ names and countries of origin also raises privacy concerns. While universities typically collect this information, releasing it could pose legal and ethical challenges. Critics warn that such demands might violate student privacy rights and increase the vulnerability of certain students, especially those from politically sensitive or conflict-affected regions.

Harvard, for its part, has remained largely restrained in its public responses, relying instead on legal avenues to contest the administration’s directives. By pursuing litigation, the university aims to protect not only its own interests but also those of other academic institutions that could be similarly targeted in the future.

The ongoing legal battle over foreign students and diversity funding is emblematic of the deeper ideological clash between Trump’s vision of a nationalist, merit-based educational system and the more global, inclusive approach favored by institutions like Harvard. As the 2024 presidential election cycle heats up, it’s likely that these cultural flashpoints will continue to be politicized, with elite universities caught in the crossfire.

While Trump’s latest salvo may energize his base, it also underscores the growing divide over the role of education in shaping America’s future. For universities, the challenge will be navigating this contentious landscape while upholding their commitments to academic excellence, inclusivity, and global engagement.

In the meantime, Harvard’s legal and public relations teams are preparing for what could be a prolonged battle over the school’s autonomy and access to federal support. Whether the university’s endowment will be enough to shield it from the political fallout remains to be seen. But what is certain is that the fight over foreign students is only the latest front in a much larger war over the soul of American higher education.

Dr. Hetal Gor Recognized by the US Congress for Her Unwavering Commitment to Community and Culture

Dr. Hetal Gor, a board-certified obstetrician-gynecologist and the Chair-Elect, Board of Trustees of the American Association of Physicians of Indian Origin (AAPI) has been recognized by the US Congress for her unwavering commitment to community and culture.

The Honorable Congressman Jonathan L. Jackson of Illinois in the House of Representatives on May 19, 2025 recognized Dr. Hetal Gor as an extraordinary individual, whose unwavering commitment to community and culture has left an indelible mark on countless lives.

During the Congressional Record Proceedings and Debates of the 119th Congress, the House of Representatives honored Dr. Hetal Gor during the Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month.

In his address, Rep. Jackson  said, Dr. Hetal Gor’s “distinguished career reflects a lifelong commitment to advancing women’s health, promoting medical equity, and empowering underserved communities. Dr Gor’s  committed to global health and wellness.”

Rep. Jackson went on to add that “As the Medical Director and Owner of Women’s Own OB/GYN and BetterU Medical Spa, as well as the CEO of Healthmedia LLC, Dr. Gor exemplifies how innovation, compassion, and clinical expertise can intersect to elevate healthcare delivery. Her practice not only provides top-tier medical care but also fosters an environment of dignity and respect for every patient.”

Dr. Gor holds multiple advanced degrees, including dual MDs, and is a proud Fellow of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Dr. Hetal Gor  is a board certified Obgyn, practicing in Englewood, NJ. Dr Gor was born and raised in Bombay, India. Dr Gor completed her medical training in India and her OBGYN training from India, UK and USA. Dr Gor has multiple degrees like MD OBGYN from India, MD OBGYN & FACOG from USA , FCPS,DGO,DNB from India.

Dr Gor is the Chair-Elect, Board of Trustees of National AAPI. Her many accolades— including the Dr Gor  has won multiple awards as a Top Doctor , Top10 Gyn Surgeon Award, Compassionate Doctor Award, Patients Choice Awards, International Women Award for Balancing Career and Family, International Academy Award 2017, Rising  star award 2016, Nari Udyami Award 2018, Top five Hundred Gujarati world wide, CAIT Award for Women Entrepreneurship 2021, are a testament to both her professional excellence and personal integrity.

Dr. Gor has authored multiple articles on webMD and peer journals . Dr Gor was instrumental in starting free health fairs in Bergen county and sits on Multiple Non Profit and  Charitable Organizations. Dr Gor sits on New Jersey’s State wide Advisory Commission on Minority and Multicultural Health .

Dr. Gor had her own medical talk show on Indian cable channels since 2010. Dr. Gor also  had a Political Radio Show and now has her own Podcast and a YouTube Channel.

Dr Gor is the president/Founder of Bergen Indian Medical Association , President /Founder of US chapter of FOGSI (Federation of OBGYN Society of India, and had served as the past President of the American Association of OBGYN of Indian Origin. Dr Gor is the Chair of North NJ chapter of Indian American Women Entrepreneurs Association. Dr Gor is a Board of Trustees of Bergen Performing Arts Center in Englewood, NJ, where she brings Indian art and artists to showcase Indian Heritage.

Dr Gor is a political activist and Women’s Rights Advocate. Dr Gor has worked on issues affecting minority women, small businesses owners, physician & healthcare related, patient advocacy, immigrants’ rights, domestic violence and women empowerment .

In spite of being a very respected and talented surgeon, OBGYN, successful entrepreneur, women’s rights champion, political activists, and avid art lover, her pride and joy are her 3 children who are champions in their own way.

In his address, Rep. Jackson stated, “Dr. Gor is also a committed civic leader. She has been instrumental in launching free health fairs in Bergen County, expanding access to preventive care and health education. Her deep commitment to public service extends to numerous nonprofit and charitable organizations. Equally inspiring is her voice as a political activist and women’s rights advocate, tirelessly addressing the unique challenges faced by minority women, immigrants, and small business owners.

“Her leadership is rooted in justice, inclusion, and the unwavering belief that every individual deserves a seat at the table. Dr. Hetal Gor’s legacy is one of healing, empowerment, and transformative service a beacon for all who seek to make a difference,” Rep. Jackson added.

These remarks have been entered into the Congressional Record, where they will be permanently placed in the Library of Congress.

Women Take the Lead in Philanthropy as Billionaire Boomers Fade Out

The era dominated by billionaire baby boomer men steering global philanthropy is drawing to a close. As icons like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett wind down their historic contributions, a new wave is rising—wealthy women, led by the likes of MacKenzie Scott, are now taking charge of charitable giving. With proposed tax reforms threatening the traditional foundation model, the future of philanthropy is being reshaped by trust-based giving and innovative donation strategies pioneered by these women.

Bill Gates and Warren Buffett once stood as titans of philanthropic giving, often compared to the Rockefellers and Carnegies for their transformational impact. They brought about a new Gilded Age of charity, establishing a model for billionaire benevolence. However, this landscape is undergoing dramatic changes. As liberal institutions face mounting tax pressures and unconventional giving strategies gain ground, a broader and more diverse group of philanthropists is poised to redefine the field.

Earlier in May, Gates revealed his plan to close the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, committing to distribute $200 billion by 2045 and to give away his personal $100 billion fortune in the process. Amir Pasic, dean of the Lilly Family School of Philanthropy at Indiana University, reflected on the ripple effects of Gates’ decision, saying, “There’s an air of anticipation in terms of if and how people are going to follow in his footsteps.”

Simultaneously, Warren Buffett, now 94, is preparing to step away from the helm of Berkshire Hathaway. His Giving Pledge, which inspired 240 billionaires to commit around $600 billion to philanthropic causes, dramatically expanded the culture of elite giving. But with Buffett stepping back, questions arise about the continuity of these commitments and whether future billionaires will uphold the pledge’s intentions in his absence.

Despite these transitions, experts say the philanthropic momentum won’t stop—instead, it may accelerate and become more inclusive. “We’re likely to see more women come out of the shadows,” Pasic predicted, signaling a shift in who holds influence in the charitable sector.

One major force reshaping philanthropy is a proposed change in U.S. tax policy. A recently approved budget reconciliation package includes a 10% tax on foundations with assets exceeding $5 billion. This move could significantly impact large liberal institutions such as those founded by Gates, George Soros, and Mark Zuckerberg.

Kathleen McCarthy, director of the Center on Philanthropy at CUNY, warned that the impact would be uneven. “The reason this is insidious is that it’s going to really hit the big liberal foundations like Gates, Ford, and Soros,” she said. “Whereas the conservative foundations are much smaller and they will pay a much lower rate.”

This shift in taxation is prompting billionaires to reevaluate their giving strategies. “They will start looking at alternative mechanisms once they realize that they’re going to be forced to sunset foundations,” McCarthy explained. “That’s what’s being jeopardized right now.”

One of the most significant alternatives gaining attention is the method used by MacKenzie Scott. Her model of “stealth giving” involves donating large sums directly to nonprofits without imposing restrictions or demanding detailed reports. She simply trusts recipients to make good use of the money.

As traditional foundation-based models come under strain, Scott’s direct and discreet approach is gaining traction. “I think she’s a trendsetter and sort of moral ballast to the way that Gates has been,” noted Bella DeVaan, associate director of the charity reform initiative at the Institute for Policy Studies. “I do see that being not just a trend, but shifting common sense towards trust-based philanthropy.”

Scott’s donations come through her Yield Giving foundation, which has disbursed more than $19.25 billion to 2,450 nonprofits. Her impact has proven that significant giving can be accomplished without elaborate bureaucracies. Experts believe her style will inspire other billionaires to adopt a more streamlined and anonymous model of charity to avoid taxation and bureaucratic hurdles.

DeVaan also anticipates that Melinda French Gates, another philanthropic heavyweight, could lead the way in adopting the philanthropic limited liability company (LLC) model—an alternative to traditional foundations that offers more flexibility and privacy.

A deeper pattern is emerging across the philanthropic landscape: women are no longer just supporting roles in charitable work—they’re becoming the primary drivers. In 2024 alone, more than 200 new billionaires have been minted—an average of four every week—and many of them are women. As more women accumulate wealth and power, their presence in philanthropy is becoming increasingly prominent and may soon define the sector.

When experts are asked who might fill the void left by Gates and Buffett, one name consistently surfaces: MacKenzie Scott. Her unique approach to giving—bypassing traditional vetting and bureaucracy—sets her apart. “This is a woman making a pretty bold statement about how she’s going to give her money away: by trusting the recipients, and not asking for any reporting back,” Pasic observed. “She’s in contrast to the very technocratic way that Bill Gates has approached matters.”

Melinda French Gates also remains a key player. Having played a vital role in the Gates Foundation, she continues to lead independent efforts in global health, gender equality, and family planning. Meanwhile, other philanthropic couples like Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan are investing heavily in human health innovations.

Though these women may appear to be breaking new ground, their involvement in philanthropy is not without precedent. Historical figures like Madam C.J. Walker—a pioneering African American businesswoman and the first self-made female millionaire—were notable benefactors in their time, even if they received less public recognition.

Now, in 2025, women in the U.S. have greater access to wealth, education, and leadership than ever before. As they rise into top executive positions and assert control over their finances, their influence in philanthropy continues to grow.

“You’ll see women becoming much more prominent mega donors,” McCarthy concluded. “They’re very comfortable handling money. They’re very comfortable doing research, and they’re looking for ways to change the system.”

The torch of philanthropy is being passed to a new generation—one shaped not just by shifting tax codes and policy reforms, but by the quiet revolution of women donors who are reshaping giving on their own terms. The era of Gates and Buffett may be ending, but a new, more inclusive chapter is already being written.

-+=