Israel Strikes Syria After U.S. Warning, Drone Hits Tribal Fighters Convoy Near Sweida
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
8 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
Columbia's $200M deal with Trump administration sets a precedent for other universities to bend to the government's will
How does this deal address antisemitism? The Trump administration has cited antisemitism against students and faculty on campuses to justify its broad incursion into the business of universities around the country. Antisemitism is a real and legitimate concern in US society and higher education, including at Columbia. But the federal complaint the administration made against Columbia was not actually about antisemitism. The administration made a formal accusation of antisemitism at Columbia in May of this year but suspended grants to the university in March. The federal government had initially acknowledged that cutting federal research grants did nothing to address the climate for Jewish students on campus, for example. When the federal government investigates civil rights violations, it usually conducts site visits and does very thorough investigations. We never saw such a government report about antisemitism at Columbia or other universities. The settlement that Columbia has entered into with the administration also doesn't do much about antisemitism. The agreement includes Columbia redefining antisemitism with a broader definition that is also used by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. The definition now includes 'a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews' – a description that is also used by the US State Department and several European governments but some critics say conflates antisemitism with anti-Zionism. Instead, the agreement primarily has to do with faculty hiring and admissions decisions. The federal government alleges that Columbia is discriminating against white and Asian applicants, and that this will allow the government to ensure that everybody who is admitted is considered only on the basis of merit. The administration could argue that changing hiring practices to get faculty who are less hostile to Jewish students could change the campus climate, but the agreement doesn't really identify ways in which the university contributed to or ignored antisemitic conduct. Is this a new issue? There has been a long-running issue that conservatives and members of the Trump administration – dating back to his first term – have with higher education. The Trump administration and other conservatives have said for years that higher education is too liberal. The protests were the flash point that put Columbia in the administration's crosshairs, as well as claims that Columbia was creating a hostile environment for Jewish students. The administration's complaints aren't limited to Columbia. Harvard is in a protracted conflict with the administration, and the administration has launched investigations into dozens of other schools around the country. These universities are butting heads with the administration over the same grievance that higher education is too liberal. There are also specific claims about antisemitism on university campuses and the privileges given to nonwhite students in admissions or campus life. While the administration has a common set of complaints about a range of universities, there is a mix of schools that the administration is taking issue with. Some of them, such as Harvard, are very high profile. The Department of Justice forced out the president at the University of Virginia in January 2025 on the grounds that he had not done enough to root out diversity, equity and inclusion programs at the public university. The University of Virginia may have been a target for the administration because a Republican governor appointed most members of its governance board and agreed with Trump's complaints.
The Print
8 minutes ago
- The Print
India uses BRICS to push reforms—not to challenge the US
These nations are now challenging the hegemony of the West. Calls for de-dollarisation—reducing reliance on the US dollar in trade and finance— are becoming prominent, posing a threat to America's financial and geopolitical dominance. It gives China and Russia (and India too) a louder voice on the world stage. It fuels global economic realignment away from the dollar and Western institutions, pointing to a multipolar world order—something that US President Donald Trump doesn't support. Although forming groups of countries to promote cooperation is common globally, BRICS is more than a conventional grouping. It is a group of countries challenging the clout of the developed powers, particularly the US and European nations. In 2010, the first five members—Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa—constituted 18 per cent of the global GDP. Their collective share has risen to 26.5 percent in 2025. The latest edition of the BRICS Summit was significant because all 10 member countries participated. It included Iran, Egypt, Ethiopia, and the UAE, which attended as member states for the first time at the 2024 summit in Russia, and Indonesia, which joined in early 2025 as the first Southeast Asian country in the bloc. With its expansion, the group is now known as BRICS Plus—a term first used at the 2024 summit. Trump's worries with BRICS The recent expansion of BRICS, with five new members joining, has increased the worries of the West, particularly the US. And without mincing words, Trump has started expressing his unhappiness over the developments happening in BRICS. Here are the key reasons why Trump opposes BRICS: The primary reason is that both the original members (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) and new entrants like Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt, Iran, and Ethiopia are openly discussing reducing reliance on the US dollar in trade and finance. Trump's long-standing 'America First' stance makes any move away from the dollar a direct challenge to U.S. economic influence and its ability to enforce sanctions. The second point that irks Trump is BRICS' geopolitical opposition to the West. BRICS increasingly positions itself as a counterweight to Western institutions like the G7, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the World Bank. The deepening ties between China and Russia within BRICS are seen as part of a broader anti-Western alignment. Third, Trump has consistently taken a hardline stance on China, through trade wars, tariffs, tech and investment restrictions, etc. BRICS giving China a leadership platform to challenge the US on the global stage agitates him. He views BRICS as a vehicle for China's global expansion under the guise of multipolarity. Fourth, the inclusion of Saudi Arabia and Iran gives BRICS influence over global energy markets. There is growing potential for oil trade to be conducted in non-dollar currencies (e.g., yuan or BRICS currency), which would weaken the petrodollar system—a critical pillar of US global economic power. Fifth, Trump perceives BRICS expansion as a sign that the 'Global South' is drifting away from Western influence, forming its own independent bloc. This runs contrary to Trump's vision of negotiating 'from strength,' where US dominance is unquestioned. Sixth, Trump views global influence in zero-sum terms. Any rise of a non-Western grouping that excludes the US is seen as a personal and national affront. BRICS summits that propose alternative visions for world order without US involvement are perceived as a threat to 'American prestige'—something Trump values highly. He has threatened to impose higher tariffs on countries siding with the BRICS. He has already announced the imposition of 50 per cent tariffs on Brazil. Also read: BRICS nations resist 'anti-American' label after Trump tariff threat India's pragmatic approach Although India is a member of BRICS, its approach is more nuanced, balanced, and pragmatic compared to other members. India's stance is shaped by its national interests, strategic autonomy, and growing global ambitions. While it has been trying to promote its economic interests by promoting international trade and settlements in rupee—thereby reducing dependence on dollar—India is not anti-dollar. It supports a broader effort to diversify the global financial system, reduce dependency on a single currency, and promote a multipolar world order. India has initiated bilateral trade in rupees with countries such as Russia, the UAE, Sri Lanka, and Mauritius to reduce its forex outflows. So far, more than 20 countries have opened Vostro accounts to facilitate trade settlement in domestic currencies. India backs BRICS to create alternative payment mechanisms, like using local currencies or discussions around a potential BRICS currency, but remains cautious about their practicality. India understands the dominance of the dollar in global trade and finance and has not called for its outright replacement (or de-dollarisation). Instead, it favors the coexistence of multiple reserve currencies (like the euro, the yuan, and the rupee). India does not see BRICS as an anti-US bloc. It views the grouping as a platform for reforming global institutions, not for confrontation. India supports a world with multiple power centres, where the voices of emerging economies are better represented. India has been pleading for long to bring reforms in institutions like the United Nations, IMF, and World Bank, which it believes are West-dominated and don't reflect current global realities. In this context, under India's G20 presidency, an expert group was formed to prepare a report on reforms for global financial institutions. This group was co-convened by economists Larry Summers and NK Singh. Their report focused on strengthening Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs). Guided by its own objectives, India uses BRICS to promote cooperation in technology, finance, infrastructure, and sustainable development. If the US is irked by Chinese dominance in BRICS, India too remains wary of China's influence in the bloc and rejects any behaviour that undermines its sovereignty or aligns too closely with Chinese interests. At the global level, India's balanced approach is to serve its national objectives and achieve its goals of protecting its national sovereignty. By promoting international settlements in Indian currency, reducing dependence on dollars, it's also trying to stop the de-weaponisation of dollars. India is promoting self-reliance through 'Aatmanirbhar Bharat', and discourages efforts of others (both the West and China) to weaponise global value chains. By promoting digital rupee payments, India is also trying to de-weaponise payment systems. These efforts protect our own national interest by not allowing others to dominate India. In the past, India has been able to demonstrate its clout by purchasing oil from Russia and Iran, promoting digital payments and pushing for reforms in global institutions at international fora. It's interesting that the US has not objected to these moves—perhaps looking at India as a force to balance the dominance of other countries, including China. Ashwani Mahajan is a professor at PGDAV College, University of Delhi. He tweets @ashwani_mahajan. Views are personal. (Edited by Ratan Priya)
Time of India
8 minutes ago
- Time of India
Emiratis Fume As Israel Envoy ‘Creates A Scene' At UAE Bar
'Selfish Hamas': US, Israel Spring A 'Surprise' By Cutting Short Gaza Truce-Hostage Release Talks Efforts to secure a long-awaited ceasefire and hostage release in Gaza have hit a fresh roadblock, as both Israel and the United States recalled their negotiators from Doha. The talks, underway since July 6, aimed to facilitate a 60-day ceasefire in exchange for the release of 10 living Israeli hostages and the bodies of 18 others, alongside a reciprocal release of Palestinian prisoners. U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff called Hamas' latest response 'selfish', stating the group was not acting in good faith. His remarks were echoed in Washington and Jerusalem, though both nations clarified that negotiations had not collapsed. Israeli officials insisted that this was not a crisis, but rather a moment of 'evidence of Hamas' rejectionist approach.' In response, Hamas condemned Witkoff's comments, calling them 'negative' and 'untrue.' In an official statement, the group claimed its proposal was made in consultation with Palestinian factions and had been welcomed by other mediators, reaffirming its commitment to ending hostilities. Amid these diplomatic tensions, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned Hamas that any misinterpretation of Israel's openness as weakness would be a grave mistake. 'We are determined to bring everyone back,' he declared. Watch. 979 views | 3 hours ago
