Peter Thiel Shows Trump How To Sort Spreadsheet Of Americans By Ethnicity
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
4 minutes ago
- USA Today
Paramount agrees to pay $16M to settle Trump lawsuit over '60 Minutes' interview
NEW YORK - CBS parent company Paramount on July 1 settled a lawsuit filed by President Donald Trump over an interview broadcast in October, the latest concession by a media company to a president who has targeted outlets over what he describes as false or misleading coverage. Paramount said it would pay $16 million to settle the suit, with the money allocated to Trump's future presidential library, and not paid to Trump "directly or indirectly." "The settlement does not include a statement of apology or regret," the company statement added. Trump filed a $10-billion lawsuit against CBS in October, alleging the network deceptively edited an interview that aired on its "60 Minutes" news program with then-vice president and presidential candidate Kamala Harris to "tip the scales in favor of the Democratic Party" in the election. In an amended complaint filed in February, Trump bumped his claim for damages to $20 billion. CBS aired two versions of the Harris interview in which she appears to give different answers to the same question about the Israel-Hamas war, according to the lawsuit filed in federal court in Texas. CBS previously said the lawsuit was "completely without merit" and had asked a judge to dismiss the case. The White House did not immediately respond to a Reuters' request for comment. Edward A Paltzik, a lawyer representing Trump in the civil suit, could not be immediately reached for comment. A spokesperson for Paramount Chair Shari Redstone was similarly unavailable for comment. The case entered mediation in April. Trump alleged CBS's editing of the interview violated the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act, which makes it illegal to use false, misleading, or deceptive acts in commerce. Media advocacy groups said Trump's novel use of such laws against news outlets could be a way of circumventing legal protections for the press, which can only be held liable for defamation against public figures if they say something they knew or should have known was false. The settlement comes as Paramount prepares for an $8.4-billion merger with Skydance Media, which will require approval from the U.S. Federal Communications Commission. On the campaign trail last year, Trump threatened to revoke CBS's broadcasting license if elected. He has repeatedly lashed out against the news media, often casting unfavorable coverage as "fake news." The Paramount settlement follows a decision by Walt Disney-owned ABC News to settle a defamation case brought by Trump. As part of that settlement, which was made public on December 14, the network donated $15 million to Trump's presidential library and publicly apologized for comments by anchor George Stephanopoulos, who inaccurately said Trump had been found liable for rape. It also follows a second settlement, by Facebook and Instagram parent company Meta Platforms, which on January 29 said it had agreed to pay about $25 million to settle a lawsuit by Trump over the company's suspension of his accounts after the January 6, 2021, attack at the U.S. Capitol. Why Trump sued CBS: What to know about complaint dating back to Kamala Harris interview Trump has vowed to pursue more claims against the media. On December 17, he filed a lawsuit against the Des Moines Register newspaper and its former top pollster over its poll published on November 2 that showed Harris leading Trump by three percentage points in Iowa. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages and an order barring the Des Moines Register from engaging in "ongoing deceptive and misleading acts and practices" related to polling. A Des Moines Register representative said the organization stands by its reporting and that the lawsuit was without merit. On June 30, Trump dropped the federal lawsuit and refiled it in an Iowa state court. (Reporting by Helen Coster and Jack Queen in New York, Kanjyik Ghosh and Surbhi Misra in Bengaluru; Editing by Noeleen Walder, Rod Nickel and Kate Mayberry)
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's 'Giant Win' Does Not Validate His Unconstitutional Birthright Citizenship Order
When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against "universal injunctions" last week, President Donald Trump hailed the decision as a "GIANT WIN" for his administration. Trump added that "the Birthright Citizenship Hoax"—by which he meant the conventional understanding of the 14th Amendment—also had been "hit hard," albeit "indirectly." That take was misleading in two important ways. First, the issue that the Court addressed goes far beyond this particular administration, potentially affecting progressive policies pursued by Democrats as well as conservative policies favored by Republicans. Second, the majority said nothing about the legal merits of Trump's attempt to restrict birthright citizenship by presidential fiat, which remains just as constitutionally dubious as it always was. In an executive order he issued on his first day in office, Trump purported to exclude children of unauthorized immigrants and temporary legal visitors from U.S. citizenship. From now on, he said, U.S.-born children will qualify for that status only if at least one parent is a citizen or lawful permanent resident. That decree provoked lawsuits by individuals, organizations, and states, several of which resulted in preliminary injunctions blocking enforcement of the order across the country. The question for the Supreme Court was whether federal courts hearing challenges to executive actions or federal legislation are authorized to issue injunctions that extend beyond the plaintiffs in the cases before them. Such injunctions have become increasingly common in recent decades as both Republicans and Democrats have used them to frustrate the plans of the opposing party. From 1963 to 2023, according to a 2024 study, federal courts issued 127 universal injunctions, more than three-quarters of which were granted during the administrations of four presidents: George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Trump, and Joe Biden. The targets of those orders covered a wide range, including international travel restrictions, COVID-19 policies, abortion drugs, environmental regulations, student loan forgiveness, and a ban on transgender soldiers. In other words, this tool has no particular political or ideological valence, and the same people might welcome or condemn its use, depending on which party happens to be in power. Six justices concluded that universal injunctions are not within the powers granted by the relevant statute, the Judiciary Act of 1789. "The universal injunction was conspicuously nonexistent for most of our Nation's history," Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the majority. "Its absence from 18th- and 19th-century equity practice settles the question of judicial authority." The decision leaves open several other options that could have an impact similar to universal injunctions. The Administrative Procedure Act, for example, explicitly authorizes federal courts to "set aside" agency actions when they are "arbitrary," "capricious," an abuse of discretion, or otherwise contrary to law. Another alternative is illustrated by one of the cases that resulted in the Supreme Court's stay: When states challenge a federal policy on behalf of their residents, they can argue that adequate relief requires a nationwide injunction. Finally, representative plaintiffs can bring class-action lawsuits on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated individuals, assuming they can meet the tests established by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The three justices who dissented from the Supreme Court's decision argued that universal injunctions are historically validated and appropriate in at least some cases. In particular, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said in an opinion joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, such remedies should be available when a law or executive action is plainly unconstitutional. Trump's order pretty clearly falls into that category. It contradicts centuries of legal tradition, the original understanding of the 14th Amendment, 127 years of Supreme Court precedent, and the consistent positions of federal officials in every branch of government. Tellingly, the Trump administration, despite the president's bluster about "the Birthright Citizenship Hoax," did not challenge the injunctions against his order insofar as they apply to the plaintiffs in those cases. That would have entailed defending the constitutionality of Trump's edict—a fight he cannot win. © Copyright 2025 by Creators Syndicate Inc. The post Trump's 'Giant Win' Does Not Validate His Unconstitutional Birthright Citizenship Order appeared first on
News24
29 minutes ago
- News24
Trump urges Hamas to accept 60-day truce after Israel agrees ‘for the good of the Middle East'
Israel has agreed to a Gaza ceasefire, claims US President Donald Trump. He urged Hamas to accept the terms of the 60-day truce. Israel's military killed 26 people on Tuesday. US President Donald Trump urged Hamas on Tuesday to accept a 60-day ceasefire in Gaza, saying that Israel had agreed to finalise such a deal, as its forces also stepped up operations in the Palestinian territory. Trump, in a post on social media, said his representatives had met with Israeli officials about the raging conflict, ahead of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's visit to Washington next week. 'Israel has agreed to the necessary conditions to finalise the 60 Day CEASEFIRE, during which time we will work with all parties to end the War,' Trump wrote. He said representatives of Qatar and Egypt, mediators in the conflict, would deliver 'this final proposal'. 'I hope, for the good of the Middle East, that Hamas takes this Deal, because it will not get better - IT WILL ONLY GET WORSE,' he added. Trump earlier on Tuesday said he would be 'very firm' with Netanyahu when they meet on 7 July. The end of Israel's 12-day war with Iran - which followed a US bombing mission on Tehran's nuclear sites - has provided a window of opportunity for a deal, with Trump keen to add another peace agreement to a series of recent deals he has brokered. Israel's campaign meanwhile continued to rage on, with Gaza's civil defence agency reporting Israeli forces killed at least 26 people on Tuesday. In response to reports of deadly strikes in the north and south of the territory, the Israeli army told AFP it was 'operating to dismantle Hamas military capabilities'. Separately, it said on Tuesday morning that in recent days it had 'expanded its operations to additional areas within the Gaza Strip, eliminating dozens of terrorists and dismantling hundreds of terror infrastructure sites both above and below ground'. Raafat Halles, 39, from the Shujaiya district of Gaza City, said 'air strikes and shelling have intensified over the past week,' and tanks have been advancing. 'I believe that every time negotiations or a potential ceasefire are mentioned, the army escalates crimes and massacres on the ground,' he said. I don't know why. Raafat Halles AFP photographers saw Israeli tanks deploying at the Gaza border in southern Israel and children picking through the rubble of a destroyed home in Gaza City. Others photographed Palestinians mourning over the bodies of relatives in the city's Al-Shifa hospital and the Al-Aqsa hospital in Deir el-Balah, central Gaza. The Red Cross warned that Gaza's few functioning medical facilities were overwhelmed, with nearly all public hospitals 'shut down or gutted by months of hostilities and restrictions' on supplies. 'The International Committee of the Red Cross is deeply alarmed by the intensifying hostilities in Gaza City and Jabaliya, which have reportedly caused dozens of deaths and injuries among civilians over the past 36 hours,' the ICRC said in a statement. Moiz Salhi/Anadolu via Getty Images Gaza's civil defence service said 16 people were killed near aid distribution sites in central and southern Gaza on Tuesday, in the latest in a spate of deadly attacks on those seeking food, with 10 others killed in other Israeli operations. Commenting on the incidents, the Israeli military told AFP its forces 'fired warning shots to distance suspects who approached the troops', adding it was not aware of any injuries but would review the incidents. Referring to an incident in Rafah, it said the shots were fired 'hundreds of metres away from the aid distribution site', which was 'not operating'. Media restrictions in Gaza and difficulties in accessing many areas mean AFP is unable to independently verify the tolls and details provided by rescuers. A group of 169 aid organisations called on Monday for an end to Gaza's 'deadly' new US- and Israeli-backed aid distribution scheme which they said was leading to civilian deaths. They urged a return to the UN-led aid mechanism that existed until March, when Israel imposed a full blockade on humanitarian assistance entering Gaza during an impasse in truce talks with Hamas. The new scheme's administrator, the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), has distanced itself from reports of aid seekers being killed near its centres. Netanyahu announced he would visit Trump and senior US security officials next week, amid mounting pressure to end the devastating fighting in Gaza and bring the remaining hostages home. Trump, while visiting a migrant detention centre in Florida, said Netanyahu 'wants to end it too'. Hamas official Taher al-Nunu told AFP the group is 'ready to agree to any proposal if it will lead to an end to the war and a permanent ceasefire and a complete withdrawal of occupation forces'. 'So far, there has been no breakthrough.'
