Moscow's 2,000 Drones To Hit Ukraine? Kremlin Drops Visuals Of Giant 'Shahed Drones' Plant
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov clarified that BRICS nations don't aim to replace the US dollar, but rather seek alternatives for mutual settlements to circumvent US sanctions. He stated BRICS intends to trade in national currencies, with Russia already conducting 90% of payments with partners in local denominations. This counters US President Trump's concerns and threats of tariffs on BRICS countries, who are also developing "BRICS Pay," a decentralized blockchain payment system for cross-border transactions.
42.2K views | 16 hours ago
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
15 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Judge blocks Trump's birthright citizenship restrictions in third ruling since high court decision
A federal judge on Friday (July 25, 2025) blocked the Trump administration from ending birthright citizenship for the children of parents who are in the U.S. illegally, issuing the third court ruling blocking the birthright order nationwide since a key Supreme Court decision in June. U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin, joining another district court as well as an appellate panel of judges, found that a nationwide injunction granted to more than a dozen States remains in force under an exception to the Supreme Court ruling. That decision restricted the power of lower-court judges to issue nationwide injunctions. The States have argued Mr. Trump's birthright citizenship order is blatantly unconstitutional and threatens millions of dollars for health insurance services that are contingent on citizenship status. The issue is expected to move quickly back to the nation's highest court. Lawyers for the government had argued Mr. Sorokin should narrow the reach of his earlier ruling granting a preliminary injunction, arguing it should be 'tailored to the States' purported financial injuries.' 'The record does not support a finding that any narrower option would feasibly and adequately protect the plaintiffs from the injuries they have shown they are likely to suffer,' Mr. Sorokin wrote. Mr. Sorokin acknowledged his order would not be the last word on birthright citizenship. Mr. Trump and his administration 'are entitled to pursue their interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and no doubt the Supreme Court will ultimately settle the question,' Mr. Sorokin wrote. 'But in the meantime, for purposes of this lawsuit at this juncture, the Executive Order is unconstitutional.' The administration has not yet appealed any of the recent court rulings. Mr. Trump's efforts to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily will remain blocked unless and until the Supreme Court says otherwise. An email asking for the White House's response to the ruling was sent on Friday. A federal judge in New Hampshire issued a ruling earlier this month prohibiting Trump's executive order from taking effect nationwide in a new class-action lawsuit. U.S. District Judge Joseph LaPlante in New Hampshire had paused his own decision to allow for the Trump administration to appeal, but with no appeal filed in the last week, his order went into effect. On Wednesday (July 23, 2025), a San Francisco-based appeals court found the President's executive order unconstitutional and affirmed a lower court's nationwide block. A Maryland-based judge said this week that she would do the same if an appeals court signed off. The justices ruled last month that lower courts generally can't issue nationwide injunctions, but it didn't rule out other court orders that could have nationwide effects, including in class-action lawsuits and those brought by States. The Supreme Court did not decide whether the underlying citizenship order is constitutional. Plaintiffs in the Boston case earlier argued that the principle of birthright citizenship is 'enshrined in the Constitution,' and that Mr. Trump does not have the authority to issue the order, which they called a 'flagrantly unlawful attempt to strip hundreds of thousands of American-born children of their citizenship based on their parentage.' They also argue that Mr. Trump's order halting automatic citizenship for babies born to people in the U.S. illegally or temporarily would cost States funding they rely on to 'provide essential services' — from foster care to health care for low-income children, to 'early interventions for infants, toddlers, and students with disabilities.' At the heart of the lawsuits is the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified in 1868 after the Civil War and the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision. That decision found that Mr. Scott, an enslaved man, wasn't a citizen despite having lived in a state where slavery was outlawed. The Trump administration has asserted that children of noncitizens are not 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States and therefore not entitled to citizenship.
Mint
15 minutes ago
- Mint
Trump Birthright Order Blocked Again in Fresh Legal Setback
President Donald Trump's executive order limiting birthright citizenship was blocked nationwide for the third time in less than a month, the latest sign that a US Supreme Court decision restricting 'universal injunctions' is having little impact on the dispute. The injunctions set up what is likely to be yet another set of appeals that could reach the Supreme Court, which has largely backed Trump in his broad crackdown on immigration. The justices haven't yet taken up the question of whether Trump's birthright citizenship order is constitutional. A federal judge in Boston ruled on Friday that an injunction pausing Trump's order nationwide is the only way to offer full protection to the Democratic-led states the filed the suit. The judge said his actions are in line with the Supreme Court's findings. US Judge Leo Sorokin said in his ruling that he could not narrow his injunction in part because Justice Department lawyers hadn't offered useful details about how such a ruling would work. 'With stakes this high, the court simply cannot adopt the defendants' blasé approach to the details and workability of a more limited injunction,' the judge said. A nationwide injunction protecting all affected babies was granted in a class-action suit in New Hampshire on July 10, while a federal appeals court this week upheld a similar block in a suit brought by four Democratic-led states. The new ruling comes in a suit brought by 18 states. A judge in a separate class-action suit is weighing another potential injunction. The Fight Over Trump's Birthright Citizenship Order: QuickTake Trump's order would restrict citizenship to babies with at least one parent who is a US citizen or green card holder. Critics say it violates a provision of the Constitution that grants citizenship to virtually every baby born in the US. The government says the directive closes a loophole that encourages illegal immigration. Trump's order was initially put on hold nationwide months ago in three separate cases. But the Supreme Court on June 27 paused those orders after ruling that judges generally can't issue nationwide injunctions that block federal policies outright. The justices returned the cases to the lower courts to weigh whether their injunctions needed to be narrowed or amended so that they provide relief only to the people or groups that sued. Sorokin held a hearing on the matter earlier this week. The Supreme Court's opinion, hailed as a major victory by the Trump administration, hasn't stopped judges from finding that broad injunctions against the president's birthright citizenship order are still necessary to protect US-born children of migrants while the cases proceed. In their request to maintain a nationwide injunction, the Democratic-led states said the Supreme Court's finding on so-called universal injunctions 'has no bearing on this case.' The states argue that a nationwide injunction is the only way to prevent harm that they say would be caused by allowing the executive order to take effect in some states, creating a chaotic patchwork of citizenship. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Mint
15 minutes ago
- Mint
Investors eye possible US-Europe trade deal as deadline looms
NEW YORK, July 26 (Reuters) - Investors are hopeful a potential trade deal between the U.S. and European Union could bring more certainty to markets ahead of next Friday's tariffs deadline. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen was set to meet U.S. President Donald Trump on Sunday in Scotland after EU officials and diplomats said they expected to reach a framework deal this weekend. Trump on Friday said there was a 50-50 chance or perhaps less that the U.S. would reach a trade agreement with the EU. Trade tensions between the U.S. and Europe may have provided some investors with a rationale to be cautious, said Sameer Samana, head of global equities and real assets at the Wells Fargo Investment Institute. "It's one of our largest trading relationships... So if that last piece falls into place, then you've probably got at the margin more people that have to get back in the markets," Samana said. "It's been a source of uncertainty that will go away." A deal would likely include a 15% baseline tariff on all EU goods entering the U.S. and probably a 50% tariff on European steel and aluminum, the officials and diplomats said. Optimism over easing trade tensions broadly has helped push U.S. stocks to record highs. Trump's April 2 "Liberation Day" announcement of sweeping global tariffs sent stocks plunging in the immediate aftermath, due to spiking fears about a recession that have since faded. Still, investors have been bracing for increased volatility heading into August 1, which the U.S. has set as a deadline for raising levies on a broad swath of trading partners. The EU is facing U.S. tariffs on more than 70% of its exports - 50% on steel and aluminum, 25% on cars and car parts and a 10% levy on most other EU goods, which Trump has said he would hike to 30% on August 1. Hopes for a deal with Europe rose after Trump struck a trade agreement with Japan earlier in the week. "The deal with Japan and the likely one soon with the EU are especially important given both are major U.S. trading partners, together accounting for about a quarter of all goods imports," analysts at Capital Economics said in a note on Friday. In the agreement with Japan, the country's auto sector, which accounts for more than a quarter of its U.S. exports, will see existing tariffs cut to 15% from levies totaling 27.5% previously. An agreement that also lowers EU auto tariffs to 15% "would be no small deal" for the region as well, as about 10% of its shipments to the U.S. are in the same category, Capital Economics said. Investors over the weekend were also watching for developments on trade between the U.S. and China. Officials from the two countries plan to meet in Stockholm next week to discuss extending an August 12 deadline for negotiating a deal. (Reporting by Lewis Krauskopf; Editing by Alden Bentley and Edward Tobin)
