&w=3840&q=100)
Trump appoints transport secretary Sean Duffy as interim Nasa chief
Bloomberg
President Donald Trump named Secretary of Transport Sean Duffy as what he calls an interim administrator of Nasa, replacing current acting administrator Janet Petro.
'He will be a fantastic leader of the ever more important Space Agency, even if only for a short period of time,' Trump wrote on his website Truth Social. 'Congratulations, and thank you, Sean!'
Petro, who has served as acting administrator since January, will return to the Kennedy Space Center, according to an administration official. She was appointed director of the KSC in June 2021, making her the first woman to hold the role.
Duffy's appointment comes less than two months after Trump unexpectedly pulled the nomination of his original choice for Nasa administrator, SpaceX astronaut and billionaire Jared Isaacman, citing his donations to Democrat politicians. Trump also claimed that Isaacman would have been 'inappropriate' as Nasa administrator because he was a 'very close friend' of Elon Musk and Nasa 'is such a big part of Elon's corporate life.'
The about-face on Isaacman also coincided with Musk's step back from the Trump administration and a very public fallout between the SpaceX CEO and the president.
It's unclear how long Duffy will serve in this role or if Trump still intends to nominate a full-time acting administrator for Nasa in the coming months. On Musk's social media site X, Duffy said he would be 'honored to accept this mission. Time to take over space. Let's launch.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
20 minutes ago
- Indian Express
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has ‘frank' talks with Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Kuala Lumpur
Secretary of State Marco Rubio said he expressed the United States' frustration that more progress has not been made on ending the war in Ukraine in a meeting on Thursday with Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov. 'It was a frank conversation. It was an important one,' Rubio said his 50-minute talks with the Russian foreign minister on the sidelines of the ASEAN foreign ministers' meeting in Malaysia. He said he expressed to Lavrov what US. President Donald Trump has said publicly, 'that there's not been more flexibility on the Russian side to bring about an end to this conflict.' The envoys' second in-person meeting came amid intensified Russian attacks in Ukraine. Trump has grown increasingly – and publicly – frustrated with Russian President Vladimir Putin as the war drags on. Rubio said he and Lavrov shared some ideas, including 'a new or a different approach' from the Russian side, which he would relay to Trump upon his return. 'We need to see a roadmap moving forward about how this conflict can conclude,' Rubio said. Russian drones and missiles bore down on the Ukrainian capital early on Thursday, as escalating Russian attacks have strained Ukrainian air defences, forcing thousands into bomb shelters overnight. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said Russia had launched 18 missiles and around 400 drones in an attack that primarily targeted the capital Kyiv. There was no comment from Moscow, which the previous night launched a record 728 drones at its smaller neighbour. Trump returned to power this year promising a swift end to the war, which began in 2022, and had been more conciliatory toward Moscow than his predecessor Joe Biden, who backed Kyiv staunchly. But on Tuesday, a day after ordering a resumption of deliveries of U.S. defensive weapons to Ukraine, he was unusually critical, saying Putin's statements on moving towards peace were 'meaningless.' Trump has also said he is considering supporting a bill that would impose steep sanctions on Russia, including 500% tariffs on nations that buy Russian oil, gas, uranium or other exports. Rubio said the Trump administration has been engaging with the U.S. Senate on that bill. Rubio spoke with Lavrov in Kuala Lumpur on Thursday evening, having already met with the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations in his first trip to Asia since taking office. The two diplomats first met in Saudi Arabia in February as part of Trump's effort to re-establish relations and help negotiate an end to the war. The counterparts also spoke by phone in May and June. The Kremlin said on Wednesday it was relaxed about Trump's criticism and would keep trying to fix 'broken' relations with Washington. At a conference of Ukraine-friendly nations in Rome on Wednesday, Trump's Ukraine envoy Keith Kellogg met with Zelenskiy.
Time of India
20 minutes ago
- Time of India
US joblessness data: Applications for benefits remain in historically healthy range; fell to 227,000 last week
Unemployment benefit claims in the United States dipped last week,falling to a historically healthy range over the past couple years. These figures offer another sign of strength in the country's labour market even as major companies announce job cuts and concerns grow over the economic impact of tariffs. According to data released by the US labour department on Thursday, initial applications for unemployment aid fell by 5,000 to 227,000 in the week ending July 5, below the 238,000 predicted by analysts, AP reported. Jobless claims are closely watched as an indicator of layoffs. This follows last week's report showing that US employers added a stronger-than-expected 147,000 jobs in June. The national unemployment rate edged down to 4.1%, improving slightly from May's 4.2% figure. Many analysts had anticipated a rise to 4.3%, but the labour market once again showed unexpected resilience, despite growing uncertainty over US president Donald Trump's economic policies. Still, signs of strain are emerging. The ongoing uncertainty over Trump's policies, particularly his use of aggressive tariffs, is causing unease among businesses. Most economists argue that such tariffs reduce competition and make the economy less efficient. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Giá vàng đang tăng mạnh trong năm 2025 — Các nhà giao dịch thông minh đã tham gia IC Markets Tìm hiểu thêm Undo They also risk triggering retaliatory measures from other countries, which could hurt US exporters and prompt businesses to halt hiring or reduce their workforce. Unless fresh trade agreements are reached, the bulk of Trump's proposed tariffs, now extended until 1 August, could weigh further on economic momentum and rekindle inflationary pressures, economists warn. A number of major firms have already announced job reductions this year. Microsoft revealed last week it will cut around 9,000 jobs, marking its second large-scale layoff in recent months and the biggest in over two years. Google, meanwhile, confirmed fresh buyouts in June as part of its continued cost-cutting efforts. Other companies trimming their workforce include Meta (Facebook's parent company), Procter & Gamble, Starbucks, CNN, Workday, Dow, and Southwest Airlines. While short-term volatility in claims is common, the four-week moving average, considered a more reliable measure, also fell by 5,750 to 235,500. However, the number of Americans continuing to receive unemployment benefits rose by 10,000 to 1.97 million for the week ending June 28, the highest figure since November 2021. Stay informed with the latest business news, updates on bank holidays and public holidays . AI Masterclass for Students. Upskill Young Ones Today!– Join Now
Time of India
21 minutes ago
- Time of India
Trump targets Harvard again, threatens to strip accreditation over civil rights allegations
Harvard University in Cambridge (Pic credit: AP) The Trump administration has turned its gaze once more toward Harvard University, not with dialogue or policy debate, but with subpoenas, threats, and the specter of accreditation loss. What began as a political disagreement over curriculum and campus governance has now escalated into a full-blown assault on institutional autonomy. The latest move, declaring that Harvard may no longer meet federal accreditation standards, marks a chilling milestone in a war where ideology, not law, appears to dictate the rules. At the heart of the controversy is the allegation that Harvard violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act by failing to protect Jewish and Israeli students. While all claims of discrimination must be taken seriously, it is impossible to ignore the broader pattern: funding cuts, blocked admissions of international students, and a growing effort to subordinate higher education institutions to political whims. What is happening at Harvard is not merely a legal battle. It is a trial of ideas, fought in the shadows of subpoenas and administrative maneuvers, with profound consequences for academic freedom across the United States. Accreditation becomes a weapon Until recently, accreditation was viewed as a system of checks and balances that safeguarded academic integrity. Today, it is being transformed into a tool of executive pressure. The Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services have formally urged Harvard's accreditor, the New England Commission of Higher Education, to investigate the university for non-compliance. This, despite the fact that Harvard is not scheduled for comprehensive review until 2027. Such pressure sets a dangerous precedent. Although the accreditor is technically independent and cannot be ordered to revoke accreditation, the signal from Washington is unmistakable. This is no longer a process to ensure academic quality. It is a warning shot to any institution that dares to defy the administration's line. Targeting international students: A calculated blow Perhaps the most consequential aspect of the administration's campaign is its threat to revoke Harvard's ability to admit international students. The Department of Homeland Security has stated that it will issue subpoenas related to the "criminality and misconduct" of student visa holders on campus. No specifics have been offered, but the damage is already done. Harvard's international students make up nearly 27 percent of its population. The financial and intellectual contribution they bring is irreplaceable. This threat, if executed, would not only cripple Harvard's global stature, but would also signal to the world that the United States no longer welcomes international scholars unless they conform to the prevailing political order. This is not a matter of national security. It is ideological warfare disguised as regulatory oversight. First amendment at risk or political smoke? Harvard has argued that the administration's actions are retaliatory, a response to the university's refusal to yield control over its curriculum and admissions processes. It claims this is a direct infringement of its First Amendment rights. Whether one believes that this is purely about free speech or not, the pattern remains unmistakable. This is about power. The power to control what is taught, who gets to teach it, and who is allowed to learn. It is an attack not just on Harvard, but on the autonomy of any institution that does not toe the government line. If the government can freeze $2.5 billion in grants, challenge accreditation status, and intimidate a university into compliance through visa threats, then the separation between state and campus is all but gone. A warning to the academic world Harvard may be the target today, but the implications are far wider. If one of the wealthiest and most globally recognized institutions in the world can be politically cornered and publicly humiliated, then what protections exist for smaller, less resourced universities? What happens when public universities with fewer legal defenses face similar scrutiny? This is not governance. This is a performance of power meant to stoke fear and submission. Universities, long heralded as bastions of independent thought and critical inquiry, are being slowly transformed into ideological battlegrounds. Those that resist may find their funding cut, their students harassed, and their legitimacy questioned. The Idea of Harvard and the American Ideal The name Harvard conjures images of scholarly excellence, historical gravitas, and intellectual independence. But now it stands at the center of a storm that threatens the very principles it was built upon. The question is no longer whether Harvard can survive this administration's campaign. The real question is whether American higher education can survive the precedent being set. This is not just about a university. It is about whether a nation still believes in the importance of dissenting ideas, in the independence of its institutions, and in the sacred separation between government and education. If not, then what is happening at Harvard is not the exception. It is the beginning. Ready to navigate global policies? Secure your overseas future. Get expert guidance now!
