Mourners Honor the NYPD Officer Killed in the Attack at the NFL Headquarters Building
Officer Didarul Islam 'did believe in the American dream, not as something handed down but as something built with your own hands,' Police Commissioner Jessica Tisch told Islam's family and friends as his fellow officers lined up rows deep outside the Bronx house of worship.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
11 minutes ago
- Newsweek
We Must Protect American Courtrooms From Foreign Interference
In most American courtrooms today, a party in court could be financed by foreign interests (and other unrelated third parties) without the other party ever knowing it. This alternate funder may be an investor hoping for uncorrelated returns, a wealthy donor with personal or business interests in the case, or an affiliate of an adversarial nation seeking to undermine U.S. competitiveness. The third-party litigation funding industry operates in the Wild West. Any outside group can pay the bills for a party in a legal dispute. They do this often in exchange for a percentage of an eventual settlement. Absent a handful of states that have passed disclosure laws affecting their own state court systems, the vast majority of state and federal courts do not require parties to disclose who's paying their legal costs—not to other parties and not even to the presiding judge. A stone sign for the United States Court House in downtown Los Angeles, Calif. is pictured. A stone sign for the United States Court House in downtown Los Angeles, Calif. is pictured. Getty Images But disclosure is critical and not just for transparency's sake. Incentives matter in the courtroom. The American civil litigation system is premised on fairness, impartiality, and the pursuit of justice. If a party's funders have hidden motives that stray from the desire to fairly resolve a dispute, trust in the system is put at risk. Foreign sources of litigation funding introduce a whole new set of perverse incentives. A foreign funder may finance a case in order to gain access to sensitive intellectual property or even to evade sanctions that prohibit transactions or investments in U.S. capital markets. Also, since litigation funders have their own monetary and non-monetary goals, the funder may push its client to demand steeper settlement terms than the client would otherwise consider. These are not hypothetical situations. In 2024, Bloomberg Law reported that a group of sanctioned Russian billionaires created an investment fund to back bankruptcy lawsuits in New York and London thus allowing the oligarchs to steer (launder) tens of millions into western financial institutions. In another instance, China-based technology firm PurpleVine financed several intellectual property lawsuits against Samsung. This was discovered by a lone overseeing judge in Delaware who luckily requires litigation financing disclosure in his courtroom. Had the case not crossed his desk, the defendants may never have known that their case was hardly a mere legal challenge but, in actuality, a case with national security importance. Foreign donors may also fund lawsuits that advance their personal agendas. Last year, Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) filings revealed that an Australian mining billionaire was paying the legal bills for a coalition of environmental nonprofits in their lawsuit against ExxonMobil. The billionaire, Andrew Forrest, runs a mining empire that he aims to convert into a clean-energy provider—demonstrating both ideological and anticompetitive reasons to target an American oil major that he would not otherwise have standing to sue. This backdoor litigation is getting foreign companies and even foreign governments into American courtrooms they otherwise wouldn't be able to access. Since the third-party litigation funding industry is entirely unregulated, each of these examples only came to light by accident: strong investigative reporting; a lone judge's standing transparency order; and a buried FARA filing. But in each instance, the discovery of foreign funding changed both public perception and legal strategy. Routine civil suits became vehicles for money laundering, corporate espionage, and personal grievance. Unregulated third-party litigation financing is a crucial vulnerability for American competitiveness and national security. In order to secure a just and fair civil justice system, it's only common sense that parties should know who they're up against. We must act quickly as this "hidden party" industry is growing at a pace stressing the non-existent regulatory regime. One estimate values the global market at $17.5 billion in 2025, and it is forecasted to grow to $67.2 billion by 2037. Naturally, it's also becoming more complex. Opportunistic actors are developing secondary markets—a "stock exchange for lawsuits"—which, if left unregulated as well, will only create new avenues for foreign actors to distort the civil justice system and surreptitiously move capital. Regulators can be certain that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and other adversarial nations have taken notice of this influx of cash into the industry. The CCP may be responsible for a significant part of this cash flow, but we cannot be sure. Under the current system, neither national security officials nor legal professionals have any way to discern the source of billions of dollars propping up civil suits from behind the curtain. A number of bills in state legislatures and in Congress have been introduced to require disclosure of any third-party litigation financing—of foreign funding in particular. This is a welcome development. Lawmakers in Washington and in statehouses across the country should move with alacrity and act on this issue before American companies, our justice system, and our capital markets are subjected to further foreign meddling. Former Representative Michael Patrick Flanagan (R-Ill.) previously represented the 5th District of Illinois in the U.S. House of Representatives and sat on the Committee on the Judiciary. An attorney, he previously served in the U.S. Army and retired at the rank of captain. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Newsweek
13 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Fewer Than 1,000 Trump Gold Cards Will Be Sold—Experts
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. While Trump administration officials have said that more than 70,000 people have expressed interest in the Trump "gold card" visa, some industry experts suggest the number of sales may be significantly lower. Latitude Managing Director Chris Willis told Newsweek, "In the end, less than 1,000 Trump Cards will be sold—far below the standards for a golden visa program." Newsweek has contacted the U.S. Commerce Department for comment. Why It Matters The gold card proposal, introduced in February, would grant U.S. residency to foreign nationals who invest $5 million in the United States. The fast-track pathway targets high-net-worth individuals looking for a route to American citizenship. Since returning to office on January 20, President Donald Trump has enacted sweeping changes to U.S. immigration policy and has moved to limit other immigration pathways, with his administration pausing the processing of some green card applications and ending the temporary legal status of certain migrant groups. A person in Shanghai, China, holds a smartphone displaying the website for registering interest in the new U.S. gold card visa on June 12. A person in Shanghai, China, holds a smartphone displaying the website for registering interest in the new U.S. gold card visa on June 12. Wang Gang/VCG via AP What To Know Since Trump announced the gold card visa program, it has drawn criticism, with experts calling it too expensive. "The key flaw with the Trump Card is that it's overpriced. The Trump administration is overestimating the value of American citizenship," said Latitude CEO Eric Major, who founded HSBC's Global Investor Immigration Services. Latitude, a global advisory firm, advises wealthy clients on dual passports and gold visas worldwide. "A required $5 million donation—not even an investment—is at least five times higher than comparable pathways in Europe," Major told Newsweek. "Without a proper legal basis, the Trump Card lacks legitimacy in the eyes of the market," he added. A key feature of the proposed visa is that recipients would be taxed solely on income they earn in the U.S., rather than on their worldwide income. The program faces several obstacles, Major said. To create such a pathway, the U.S. would need to significantly revise the Internal Revenue Code. This would include establishing a new classification of taxpayers that is separate from citizens, green card holders and those meeting the substantial presence test. These groups are currently taxed on worldwide income. Such changes cannot be made through executive order. It would require legislation passed by both chambers of Congress. According to the global investment migration firm Henley & Partners, interest in U.S. residency programs among wealthy individuals has increased, driven in part by renewed attention to established initiatives such as the EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program following the gold card announcement. The EB-5 program, created in 1990, requires applicants to pay fees ranging from $100,000 to $200,000 to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, invest between $800,000 and $1 million, and create a minimum of 10 jobs for American workers. In June, the administration launched a website where foreign nationals can register their interest in the program. Registration is open to anyone. What People Are Saying Latitude CEO Eric Major told Newsweek: "The Trump Card, as currently presented, appears to have been launched for political branding. Even though they appear to have received close to 70,000 registrations, this reflects expressions of interest only. No formal applications have been processed, and the scheme still faces severe legal and legislative uncertainty, including whether Congress will approve the new visa category." Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson, previously told Newsweek: "President Trump is a businessman and innovator who is always looking for new ways to bring investment back to the United States and encourage legal immigration." David Lesperance, the managing partner at Lesperance & Associates, told Newsweek: "I doubt if the Trump Card will ever see the light of day." What Happens Next While individuals and businesses can register their interest in the visa on details about official application procedures and the vetting and approval processes have not been announced.
14 minutes ago
Woman becomes third person charged under Australia's foreign interference laws
MELBOURNE, Australia -- A Chinese citizen was charged Monday under Australia's recent foreign interference laws with covertly collecting information about an Australian Buddhist association, police said. The woman, an Australian permanent resident based in the capital Canberra, is only the third person charged since the laws were passed in 2018 and the first to be accused of interfering with the general population, Australian Federal Police Assistant Commissioner Stephen Nutt police said. She was charged in a Canberra court with covertly gathering information about a local branch of the Buddhist association Guan Yin Citta on behalf of the Public Security Bureau of China. The association is banned in China. Police have not detailed her alleged objectives. 'We allege the activity was to support intelligence objectives of the China's Public Security Bureau. This is the first time the AFP has charged a person with foreign interference that allegedly involves targeting members of the Australian community,' Nutt told reporters. 'Foreign interference is a serious crime that undermines democracy and social cohesion. It is a crime carried out by or on behalf of a foreign principal that involves covert and deceptive conduct or threats of serious harm or menacing demands,' Nutt added. The woman, who was arrested at her home Saturday, cannot be named publicly due to a court order. She was remanded in custody and faces a maximum 15 years in prison if convicted. The Chinese Embassy in Canberra did not immediately respond on Monday to a request for comment. She is the first foreign national to be charged under the sweeping laws that created a rift between Australia and China when they were first announced in 2017. Vietnam-born Melbourne businessman and local community leader Di Sanh Duong was sentenced to two years and nine months in prison last year over an attempt to influence a former federal government minister on behalf of China. Sydney businessman Alexander Csergo also was charged with foreign interference for allegedly accepting payments for information from two suspected Chinese spies. He pleaded not guilty to the charge. Mike Burgess, director-general of the Australian Security Intelligence Organization, said the nation's main domestic spy agency had made a signficant contribution to the latest arrest. 'Foreign interference of the kind alleged is an appalling assault on Australian values, freedoms and sovereignty,' Burgess said in a statement. The charge comes as Prime Minister Anthony Albanese mends bilateral relations with China that plumbed new lows under the previous Australian administration over issues including foreign interference laws. Xi Jinping for the fourth time since the Australian leader was first elected in 2022.
