Letters: The lurking agenda in the argument for having more babies
Women are indeed making different choices than 50 years ago. We are more educated, on the whole, with more opportunities for fulfilling our aspirations. The editorial board notes that many women now earn college degrees and prioritize career. The implication is that they really be having children instead, such as the editorial's examples of women in Afghanistan and Yemen. We all are aware of the tragic status of women in those countries.
But perhaps that is embedded in the editorial's message. Women have forgotten their role and place in society? Wouldn't this all be better if women did not care so much about other aspects of their lives and just did their duty as defined by the patriarchy?
The board also leaves out other considerations that people have for delaying or not having children: the environmental crisis, for one example.
Yes, work for better child care and parental leave, which is essential for those who choose to have children, but respect the growing numbers of men and women who are making other choices. And search for what agenda lurks underneath what appears to be a reasonable argument.
In the meantime, if the board insists on talking about women's bodies, please consider impassioned editorials about, for example, abortion and contraception access, equitable research on women's health concerns, and the miserable mortality rate in childbirth, particularly among women of color.In reference to the editorial 'Should we worry about American women having fewer kids?': One viable solution is to relax our collective sphincter muscle about . Newly arriving immigrants tend to be younger, healthier and fertile. This would would add to our population.
As a 76-year-old Black American woman, I know that it has happened before in our country. Successive waves of immigrants from Eastern Europe, Southern Europe and Ireland weren't readily accepted due to their traditions, foreign tongues, different foods and, of course, their poverty. But with the passage of time, they became Americans.
And then, as now, we the people of the United States of America became changed, as reflected in the foods we eat, our entertainment and our fashion.
Look at them now — so many 'ethnic' success stories. Some opponents of present immigration benefited from past immigration, such as Christopher Rufo and Steven MillerThere are two main reasons the 'brilliant' (as the Tribune Editorial Board calls him) Elon Musk wants more babies. First, he wants more white babies, because he fears, like other white supremacists, that nonwhites will take over by outbreeding. Musk and his ilk see this the pathway to civilizational wrack and ruin. There are more than a few people in the MAGA hierarchy who are totally on board with this assessment.
The second reason is to defend corporate capitalism, which survives only by ever-expanding markets for ever-expanding profits. It won't be sufficient to simply hollow out government resources and plunder public treasuries, although that will continue to occur. Capitalism needs a new baby boom (and the editorial mentions 'baby boom' approvingly) in order to keep demand spiking upward. Resources might be getting scarcer as the world's population soars past sustainability tipping points, but the eyes of capitalists will never be cast anywhere else but on their own balance sheets.
We do need babies and families, as the editorial board says, to replace the current population, but a stable, sustainable Earth requires limits to growth and population. Make family life more affordable by fully funding perinatal care programs, housing assistance and day care programs. Raise wages and expand parental leave benefits.
Our nation needs more of a commitment to, and investment in, people in general, not merely to have more kids but to have the means to achieve a more decent life. Yet we are called upon only to make more sacrifices of our social framework in order to provide billionaires like Musk with further tax cuts. How is that pro-family?
Quality, not quantity, of life is what matters. Let's do that.My first thought after reading the editorial was: Is someone trying out material for 'Saturday Night Live' or possibly a remake of 'The Boys From Brazil'? I applaud the Tribune Editorial Board for refraining from saying women should remain barefoot and pregnant. Remember, in general, men regulated women to second-class citizen status in this country.
If the board wants women to have more babies, then give us back the right to control our own bodies, the right to say 'no' and in the workplace and at home. Perhaps the board should be wondering why we would want to bring more children into today's world.
Who would knowingly want to bring new life into an authoritarian society?While I admire Timothy Shriver's larger point in his op-ed ('Pritzker, if you want to solve problems, lose the contempt,' May 8) that contempt should not be a part of our political discourse, I cannot let Shriver's blatant hypocrisy go without its own share of my own contempt. That horse is out of the barn, released by Republicans, and enabled by media pretending that old norms apply when they do not and have not since 2015, when Donald Trump began his first presidential campaign by impugning all Mexican immigrants as drug dealers and rapists. Pretty contemptible, yes?
When any Democratic politician, including Gov. JB Pritzker, dares to stand up to extreme Republican rhetoric with any language beyond polite pablum and pious platitudes, pundits tell Democrats to lower the volume, cut the contempt and be nice. Democrats might alienate some putative centrist voter, and it just lowers the dignity of our political discourse. Heaven forbid Democrats do such damage to our precious polite political discourse!
Meanwhile, Republicans such as our current president spew contempt like volcanoes of hatred, prejudice and madness. And that's regrettable, but Democrats should be nice? While the Republican lava flow of contempt incinerates our constitutional separations of powers, our economy and (especially for women) our very bodily liberty, we must be nice.While Timothy Shriver's thoughts are pleasant enough for a normal person, one just needs to recognize who Gov. JB Pritzker is addressing. President Donald Trump is the most offensive bully and contempt-monger in the history of the U.S. presidency. Pritzker must fight fire with fire.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Insider
32 minutes ago
- Business Insider
I moved to the US, but got fed up with fighting the immigration system. I've taken a salary hit in Canada, but I feel like I belong.
This as-told-to essay is based on a transcribed conversation with Sindhu Mahadevan, who moved from the US to Canada in 2021. The following has been edited for length and clarity. I moved to the US from India in 2012 to study a master's degree in biology. I graduated and entered the workforce in the States, but slowly began to grow disillusioned with the US immigration system. In 2021, I decided to stop fighting the system and move to Canada. Although I've left behind the high salaries available in the US, I've traded it for a sense of belonging as a permanent resident in Canada. I entered the American workforce, but felt vulnerable as an immigrant I grew up in a city in western India. I had family who lived in the US. I moved there on an F-1 visa for international students and graduated in 2014. My visa status made me eligible for two types of work authorization — optional practical training (OPT) and curricular practical training (CPT), both of which I used. I knew that after my student work authorization expired, I'd require a visa sponsorship. Some companies I applied to told me they wouldn't offer sponsorships or ghosted me after they realized I'd eventually need one. I started a career in the medical device industry and was employed under my work authorization until 2018. I was very conscious of my immigration status at work. I struggled to have difficult conversations about aligning everyone on compliance issues because I was worried about my job security. Sometimes, I felt this affected how well I could do my job. The path to a green card didn't feel possible I got married in 2015, and my husband, who was also on a visa, and I wanted to try to build a life in the US. I felt I needed permanent residency to do this. I wanted the freedom to visit India and the flexibility to change jobs, which became complicated on an F-1 visa. In 2016 and 2017, my company tried twice to get me an H-1B visa, which can be a step toward permanent residency in the US. Petitions are chosen for processing through a lottery selection system, but I wasn't picked either time. Around that time, I started to find out more information about the green card backlog for Indian nationals. There's a cap per country at 7% of all the green cards allocated that year. India has a large population with a lot of applicants, so there is a very long waitlist to have your applications processed. I felt I was thrashing against the system just to be able to stay in the country and contribute. In a moment of clarity, I realized I wasn't willing to keep fighting. In 2018, I no longer had work authorization and had to stop working. I didn't like not making an income at all, and it felt like a hard-won career had been yanked away from me. I moved to Canada as a permanent resident and have found a sense of belonging As a temporary solution, I tried changing my status from an F-1 to an F-2 visa, which would make me a dependent of my husband's F-1. I was allowed to remain in the US while my application was pending. Around the same time I filed the application to change my status, I began looking at backup plans. Moving to Canada was on the cards through the "Express Entry" system. It's a points-based system that scores applicants on things like their education, work experience, and language proficiencies. The highest-scoring applicants receive an invitation to apply for permanent residence. My work experience was American-centric. Canada was a better fit than Europe or Asia. I applied just before the pandemic hit in 2020, when I still hadn't heard back with a final decision about changing my status to F-2. I received PR in October 2021, and my husband and I went to Canada straight away. As a permanent resident, I can work and buy property, but I can't vote in elections or stay outside Canada for longer than 730 days in a five-year window. In the US, I was a passenger along for the ride. In Canada, with PR status, I'm back in the driver's seat. I feel comfortable and in a solid legal position. As a permanent resident, I can take chances with my career I haven't had issues getting employment without Canadian experience, a problem some expats face, perhaps because my US experience is seen as valuable in my industry. I had a job lined up before the move. I've taken a salary hit, but with my PR status I have the freedom to take a chance working for a startup, something I wouldn't have dreamed of while in the US, where if the startup went under and I lost my job, it could mean the end of the road. Though more politely presented here than in the US, anti-immigrant sentiment in Canada concerns me, even though I haven't personally experienced negativity. People are expressing concerns around strained healthcare and housing, and Canada is experiencing immigration contraction. I'm fine with Canada's smaller economy Living in America shaped me in many ways. I admire Americans for their zeal to fight for what they believe in and to speak up. I don't regret moving there. If you're looking for the best universities or economy, the rational choice is the US. I moved to the US for my education, but the constraints of the immigration system slowly overshadowed the economic opportunities. I'm fine being in a smaller economy where I have more security. In a statement to BI, a spokesperson from the Department of Homeland Security said it was "committed to restoring integrity to the visa program" and ensuring people cannot illegally remain in the US.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
How China — and even US taxpayers — are funding the left's climate lawfare campaign
Congressional hearings come and go, but some are supremely useful in terms of casting light on egregious efforts at ideological circumvention or subversion of democratic processes. One such important hearing occurred last month in the Senate Subcommittee on Federal Courts, Oversight, Agency Action, and Federal Rights, titled 'Enter the Dragon — China and the Left's Lawfare Against American Energy Dominance.' In the words of the subcommittee chairman Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), the problem is 'a systematic campaign against American energy,' driven by a 'coordinated assault by the radical left backed and paid for by the Chinese Communist Party, to seize control of our courts, to weaponize litigation against U.S. energy producers, all in order to undermine American energy dominance.' Cruz explained that foreign money from entities tied to Chinese Communist Party fund efforts by climate advocacy groups to litigate against American energy producers. This litigation is pursued by 'activist lawyers' filing lawsuits designed to bankrupt energy producers and to dismantle energy infrastructure 'through sheer attrition.' Cruz argued as well that the judiciary is being quietly captured and brainwashed as 'left-wing nonprofits host closed-door training that indoctrinates judges to adopt the ideological goals of the climate lawfare machine.' Cruz' narrower argument about judiciary being captured has a few holes, in that the climate lawfare campaign is in a slow-motion collapse. Such litigation has been rejected in courtrooms virtually without exception — in a Bucks County, Pa. Court of Common Pleas decision, a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, a dismissal by New Jersey Superior Court Judge Douglas Hurd, a dismissal by Anne Arundel County Circuit Court Judge Steven Platt, a dismissal by Judge Videtta Brown of the Baltimore City Circuit Court, a dismissal by Delaware Superior Court Judge Mary M. Johnston, the dismissal of the San Francisco and Oakland case, and in a unanimous dismissal by the U.S. Supreme Court in American Electric Power vs. Connecticut. But the nearly universal failure of the climate lawfare campaign in court is not for want of trying, and this poses problems all of its own. Consider the Climate Judiciary Project of the Environmental Law Institute. No objective reading of its legal theories and propositions could fail to conclude that their efforts represent a blatant ideological campaign of litigation against fossil energy producers. Their climate science arguments — presented as settled science to judges — are uniformly alarmist, ignoring the evidence on climate phenomena, the failure of the climate models to predict the temperature record, the impossibility of the assumed greenhouse gas scenario, the distinction between natural and anthropogenic influences on climate phenomena, and much more. But in the view of the Climate Judiciary Project, it cannot hurt to keep trying — in particular given that its funding stream from various foundations is substantial. Who knows? at some point some judge might rule in its favor, and then who knows what the appellate courts might do? Cruz's larger argument about the perverse nature of the lawfare waged against U.S. energy producers is correct and crucial. His 'sheer attrition' point is illustrated well by the longstanding leftist effort to block the construction of new pipelines and other energy infrastructure, in substantial part by suing on grounds based in the National Environmental Policy Act. NEPA, as applied by the courts, has been deeply perverse for decades, although a recent decision by the Supreme Court narrowed it somewhat. Cruz's warnings about the lawfare campaign against U.S. energy producers and its connections to the Chinese Communist Party remain highly relevant, as detailed in the hearing testimony by Scott Walter, president of Capital Research Center. 'America's enemies, especially Russia and China, are pleased when we hobble our energy sector,' Walter said. 'They want to be in a stronger economic position, whether selling Russia's natural gas in Europe or selling China's 'green' technology in America. This fact shouldn't be controversial.' Walter continued: 'Many environmentalist groups funded by the multitude of left-wing billionaires have disturbing foreign ties. For example, the Rocky Mountain Institute, best known for its notorious study attacking gas stoves, now has a China program set up by its current CEO.' 'The California China Climate Institute is another troubling environmentalist group,' he said. 'Housed at UC Berkeley, [it] partners with the Institute of Climate Change and Sustainable Development at China's Tsinghua University, the alma mater of Xi Jinping.' Nor is it only the Chinese, whether directly or indirectly, that fund the energy lawfare campaign. American taxpayers are doing so as well. In earlier testimony before the House Subcommittee on Delivering on Government Efficiency, Walter had noted that the Environmental Law Institute has received awards from the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Homeland Security. This public funding is utterly perverse, both directly and because taxpayer dollars ought not be used to bias the ongoing development of climate science. In the larger context, it represents an attack on our democratic institutions, as a political movement attempts to attain through litigation what it cannot achieve in Congress. Even more fundamentally, it represents an assault on the Constitution, which is a framework to protect unpopular individuals, groups, and businesses from the whims and passions of ideological attacks. The climate litigation game thus represents a real pollution, so to speak, of our constitutional principles.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Trump toughens his stance on Russia
Morning Report is The Hill's a.m. newsletter. Subscribe here or using the box below: President Trump is providing fresh support for Ukraine and hardening his position on Russia in an effort to force Moscow to end its war by September. Trump's announcement Monday of sending more American weapons to Ukraine and his threat to hit Russia's trading partners with 100 percent tariffs are aimed at securing peace within 50 days, he said. The weapons the U.S. would sell to NATO, which would then be passed to Ukraine, include Patriot missile systems — critical defensive weaponry for Kyiv to ward off increased Russian air attacks. The president insisted during an Oval Office meeting with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte that Europe would pay for the arms, but didn't drill down on details. He suggested the weapons could move quickly to Kyiv. The deal comes after NATO nations agreed to ramp up defense spending. Since the start of the war in 2022, Washington has committed more than $175 billion in aid for Ukraine, most under the Biden administration. In Trump's second term, the U.S. briefly paused intelligence sharing with Ukraine and last month halted the delivery of defensive weapons to Kyiv. Trump has oscillated between praising Ukraine and its president, Volodymyr Zelensky, and calling him 'ungrateful' for U.S. assistance during a February White House meeting. But more recently he has stepped up his rhetoric targeting Russian President Vladimir Putin. The president had more harsh words for Putin on Monday, accusing him of stringing along multiple American administrations and failing to be serious about ending the war in Ukraine, which is now in its third year. 'I always hang up and say … 'Well that was a nice phone call,' and then missiles launch into Kyiv or some other city,' Trump said. 'That happens three or four times, you realize the talk doesn't mean anything.' 'I don't want to say he's an assassin, but he's a tough guy,' he said of Putin. Accusing Putin of engaging in double-dealing or disingenuousness has become more of a centerpiece of Trump's rhetoric recently, The Hill's Niall Stanage writes in The Memo. But the question remains of how meaningful Trump's shift will be — and how long his staunch support for Ukraine will last. Trump told the BBC in an interview published Tuesday he is 'disappointed' in Putin, 'but I'm not done with him. But I'm disappointed in him.' Asked whether he trusts the Russian leader, Trump said: 'I trust almost no one.' IN KYIV, Zelensky on Monday met with Keith Kellogg, Trump's special envoy for Ukraine. Zelensky said in a statement that he is ' grateful to President Trump for the important signals of support and the positive decisions for both our countries. We deeply value the support of the American people.' ▪ The Hill: Here's what to know about the Ukraine weapons deal. ▪ The New York Times: Trump's willingness to arm Ukraine puts him closer to former President Biden 's approach. ▪ The Times: Doubts and missing details clouded Trump's tough talk on Russia. UKRAINE HAWKS IN THE GOP cheered Trump's Monday announcements, with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) calling the weapons and sanctions threats against Moscow a 'turning point' in the war. But the president's MAGA base might not be as enthusiastic. Trump is already dealing with fallout from his core supporters over his administration's handling of the Justice Department and FBI's Jeffrey Epstein memo (more on that below), and it remains to be seen how the GOP's isolationist wing will react to tough moves to support Ukraine. ▪ The Associated Press: In his own words: Trump's evolving rhetoric about Russia and Ukraine and their respective presidents. ON CAPITOL HILL, senators are pushing even further. A bipartisan bill that would implement 500 percent tariffs on Russia and its economic partners currently has 85 co-sponsors. Trump discussed the bill Monday with Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) at the White House. 'I'm not sure we need it, but it's certainly good they're doing it,' Trump said. The Senate bill, as well as the secondary tariffs Trump announced if Russia doesn't agree to a ceasefire within two months, both threaten Russia's already weak economy. The president cast the tariffs as 'severe.' Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, deputy chair of the country's Security Council, dismissed Trump's tariff threats in an online post, calling it 'a theatrical ultimatum' and suggesting 'Russia didn't care.' SMART TAKE with BLAKE BURMAN President Trump heads to Pennsylvania today to reportedly announce billions of dollars in artificial intelligence (AI) and energy investments. Cabinet members and Gov. Josh Shapiro (D) are among those expected to attend, making it a bipartisan event. Yesterday, the Pentagon unveiled its awarding contracts, worth up to $200 million, to Google, OpenAI, Elon Musk's xAI, and Anthropic. The government says they want the best AI talent searching for military use cases. For most, comprehending AI, its future and ramifications of the new technology are hard to comprehend. However, expect more events like today's to be bipartisan, as it also involves competing against China. Burman hosts 'The Hill' weeknights, 6p/5c on NewsNation. 3 Things to Know Today Federal immigration authorities subpoenaed some landlords in Atlanta to turn over leases, rental applications, forwarding addresses, identification cards and other information on their tenants in an apparent drive to turn up undocumented residents. Timing is everything. Chart the years when key tax provisions take effect in Trump's 'big' new law. Join The Hill and NewsNation on Wednesday for the Hill Nation Summit. Speakers include White House trade adviser Peter Navarro, Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Marty Makary, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) and more. Leading the Day TRUST: Conservative influencers and personalities are warning that the uproar in MAGA World over the Trump administration's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein report could prove costly in next year's midterms by depressing enthusiasm for Trump, The Hill's Emily Brooks reports. Brooks reports in today's The Movement newsletter that national GOP strategists are for now dismissing the prospect of the Epstein files being a major factor for voters more than a year from now. Yet the backlash among the president's base is increasingly intense, with supporters demanding more information surrounding the disgraced financier and sex offender. (Click here to sign up for The Movement to read Brooks's full reporting) For their part, Senate Republicans want nothing to do with the Epstein debacle, reports The Hill's Alexander Bolton, and they worry the blowup is supplying oxygen to Democrats' anti-GOP messaging ahead of 2026. Democrats, including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), called for the release of the documents. Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) said he plans to push House Republicans today to hold a vote demanding the Trump administration release the 'FULL Epstein files.' 'Why are the Epstein files still hidden? Who are the rich & powerful being protected?' Khanna wrote in a post on the social platform X. The concern on the right: MAGA allies of Trump are accusing the administration of hiding evidence surrounding Epstein's death in a jail cell in 2019 and failing to come up with his rumored 'client list,' which the Justice Department now says is nonexistent. The MAGA World's open revolt tests the president's command over his most loyal supporters. Steve Bannon, a former Trump White House adviser, told young Republicans on Saturday that he sees a real political risk for Trump. 'You're going to lose 10 percent of the MAGA movement,' he said, warning the controversy could cost Republicans dozens of House seats in the midterm elections next year. Trump on Saturday deflected into a new suggestion, baselessly claiming that then- President Obama and former 2016 rival Hillary Clinton created fake Epstein files. The financier was arrested in 2019, jailed and was awaiting trial when he died of apparent suicide during Trump's first term. Conservative activist and Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk said he is trusting the Trump administration to handle what it knows. ' I'm going to trust my friends in the administration, I'm going to trust my friends in the government to do what needs to be done, solve it, ball's in their hands,' he said on Monday. ▪ NBC News: Tucker Carlson leads MAGA's worried warriors in questioning Trump. MONEY PIT? Amid Trump's ire over interest rates and White House assertions that Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell could be fired 'for cause,' the price tag of renovations planned for the 1937 central bank headquarters in Washington is a new controversy. It prompted Powell to appoint a watchdog last month to examine the planned project, which is estimated to cost $2.5 billion. White House Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought — along with the National Capital Planning Commission — is investigating Powell over testimony he provided to Congress and questions about whether the project adhered to the National Capital Planning Act. White House national economic adviser Kevin Hassett told ABC News on Sunday that firing Powell on the basis of the project's price tag is 'being looked into.' Hassett is one of four reported candidates to replace Powell, whose term as chair ends next year. 'The cost overrun for this Federal Reserve project is about the same size as the second biggest building overhaul in American history, which was the FBI building. And so, the Fed has a lot to answer for,' the economist added. MEANWHILE ON CAPITOL HILL, Senate Republicans face a Friday deadline to either claw back billions of dollars in federal funding already approved by Congress or let the money flow as previously enacted. Trump wants his party to rescind $9.4 billion in foreign assistance and public media, including about $1 billion in support for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. But some red-state senators, reflecting their constituents, value local programming on public media stations that receive key funding from the corporation. To line up sufficient votes to pull back funds as Trump wants, Thune has been weighing changes to the measure but intends to forge ahead today. Budget director Vought will answer senators' questions behind closed doors in the Capitol during lunch. 'We still are lacking the level of detail that is needed to make the right decisions, ' Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins (R-Maine) told reporters on Monday. A procedural vote is scheduled today — if support lines up. A simple majority is needed to bring the package to the floor, but that means Republicans can lose just three votes from their ranks. House Republicans are wary of receiving a Senate version of the measure that includes changes they'd be pressed to accept. ▪ Bloomberg News: House Budget Committee Chair Jodey Arrington (R-Texas) said during an interview that the next House budget bill is taking shape to follow the Trump agenda enacted July 4, adding it would include deeper Medicaid cuts and Medicare spending reductions. Where and When The president at 12:30 p.m. will depart the White House for Pittsburgh to participate at 2:30 p.m. in the inaugural Pennsylvania Energy and Innovation Summit at Carnegie Mellon University. Trump will return to the White House by 7 p.m. The House convenes at 10 a.m. The Senate will meet at 10 a.m. Zoom In SUPREME COURT: Trump's moves to remake the executive branch through closures, firings, layoffs and buyouts have been embraced by conservative justices on the high court, at least when it comes to shrinking the State and Education departments. And pending court challenges suggest there will be more. The Supreme Court in a 6-3 ruling on Monday said Trump can resume efforts to dismantle the Education Department. The conservative majority lifted a lower court order that would have reinstated hundreds of department employees terminated through mass layoffs. Trump's latest victory and affirmation of his sway to remake the executive branch moves his administration closer to fulfilling a campaign promise to eliminate the Education Department and send public education responsibilities to the states while parceling out remaining federal education tasks to other agencies. Ineligible for bond hearings, locked up: Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in a new memo declared that migrants without legal status are ineligible for court bond hearings before an immigration judge to fight deportation. In a shift, ICE says immigrants are to be detained 'for the duration of their removal proceedings,' which can take months or years. Lawyers say the policy will apply to millions of immigrants who crossed the U.S.-Mexico border over the past few decades. Schools: Twenty-four Democratic states and the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit on Monday challenging the administration's pause on $6 billion in education funding for after-school programs and specialized instruction. The lawsuit argues the administration violated the Constitution and several federal laws by halting funds for after-school initiatives, English lessons for nonnative speakers, training for teachers, expansion of science and arts curricula and antibullying programs. Afghan nationals: A U.S. appeals court on Monday temporarily blocked the administration from removing the temporary protective status of thousands of Afghans in the United States, a protection that will remain in place until July 21, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit said in an order granting a request from immigration advocacy organization CASA. New York City: Former Democratic New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo switched gears to run as an independent candidate for mayor and says he's staying in the general election race against independent Mayor Eric Adams and Democratic primary victor Zohran Mamdani. 'I'm in it to win it,' Cuomo said. Curtis Sliwa, the Republican nominee, and independent Jim Walden will also be on the ballot. Arizona: Here are five things to watch during the House Democratic primary to try to capture the seat held by the state's late Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D). Democratic past presidents: Obama encouraged members of his party to ' toughen up ' during remarks at a recent fundraiser. Meanwhile, some members of the Democratic Party are wringing their hands over former President Biden 's reemergence from private life to give a New York Times interview to defend his decision making end-of-term pardons, commutations and use of the autopen. They lament he's taken GOP bait after allegations by Republicans that an end-running by staff with an autopen was meant to protect a cognitively ebbing president. Biden denied it. Elsewhere TARIFFS: European Union trade ministers, representing the largest trading bloc in the world, on Monday announced solidarity in response to Trump's surprise threat of 30 percent tariffs. 'The EU remains ready to react and that includes robust and proportionate countermeasures if required and there was a strong feeling in the room of unity,' Denmark's foreign minister, Lars Løkke Rasmussen, told reporters after a meeting in Brussels. ▪ CNN: The EU warns that its trade with the U.S. could be effectively wiped out if Trump follows through on his threat. ISRAEL: Israel's Defense Ministry is promoting a plan to force much of Gaza's population into a small and largely demolished area in the enclave's south. The proposal threatens to derail the latest ceasefire negotiations between Israel and Hamas. Israeli officials have presented a plan to move hundreds of thousands of Palestinian civilians into an area close to the border with Egypt, which would be controlled by the Israeli military. Legal experts have warned that the plan for a 'humanitarian city' would violate international law because the civilians would not be able to return to their homes in other parts of Gaza. Such a restriction would constitute a form of ethnic cleansing. The plan is sowing conflict between military and government officials in Israel, who disagree on its cost and potential for implementation, as well as whether it draws resources away from efforts to free the remaining hostages in Gaza. ▪ CNN: Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert compared the displacement plan to a 'concentration camp.' ▪ The Wall Street Journal: Israel struck southern Syria in a new flare-up of violence. UKRAINE: Zelensky is looking to shake up his government amid battlefield setbacks. Zelensky said in a post on Facebook that he would nominate Yulia Svyrydenko, now serving as a first deputy prime minister, as prime minister. She played a prominent role in negotiating the rare minerals deal with the Trump administration. The move, which would be the highest-level government shuffle since Russia's invasion more than three years ago, needs to be approved by a vote of Parliament. Opinion The Closer And finally … 🐣 Twitter launched on this day in 2006. The microblogging platform, founded by Jack Dorsey, Evan Williams and Biz Stone gained more than 300 million users in the following decade. After tech billionaire Elon Musk acquired the social network in 2022 following a protracted legal battle, he changed its name to X and initiated a large-scale overhaul. The blue bird that became synonymous with the platform may be gone, but one thing remains — the use of the verb 'tweet' to describe an activity of a distinctly human nature.
