EXCLUSIVE They've stretched their toxic tentacles across the developing world. But now they're launching a terrifying secret plot on American soil... and it could destroy the country
The warning comes amid a wave of innovative military tactics on display in recent months, including Ukraine 's deep-strike drone assaults inside Russian territory and Israel 's daring sabotage raids on Iranian nuclear sites.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
6 minutes ago
- Reuters
Trading Day: No tariff clarity, or market movement
July 8 - TRADING DAY - Making sense of the forces driving global markets By Alden Bentley, Editor in Charge, Americas Finance and Markets Jamie is enjoying some well-deserved time off, but the Reuters markets team will still keep you up to date on what markets were focused on today and why they took a breather. I'd love to hear from you so please feel free to reach out at opens new tab Today's Key Market Moves Today's Key Reads From 'fantastic' to 'spoiled': How Japan's trade effort to woo Trump backfired Gold ETFs drew largest inflow in five years during first half of 2025, WGC say In the Fed's hunt for a reason to cut rates, surveys and tariffs make answers elusive Investors put 'Liberation Day' lessons to work, scarred by tariff tumult Trump says steep copper tariffs in store as he broadens his trade war No tariff clarity, or market movement Investors let the fluid tariff situation simmer on Tuesday, sitting on their hands a day after knocking stock indexes back from record highs as U.S. President Donald Trump warned that new levies would hit a range of trading partners, including Japan and Korea. While Wall Street was in sideways mode seemingly fatigued by tariff headlines, the beaten down dollar posted the second of back-to-back gains and Treasury yields ticked higher for the fifth day running. The new date to watch is August 1 with Trump showing again his eagerness to allow time to reach deals by pushing back the deadline, which had been Wednesday since he postponed April's ill-received opening tariff gambit. In the meantime the market will stay ready for surprising turns from the White House and otherwise be waiting for economic data, the Federal Reserve and other known unknowns to incentivize trade. No major indicators are on the calendar this week, and the only set pieces to look for Wednesday are the auction of $39 billion of 10-year notes, the Treasury's benchmark U.S. debt instrument, and the release of minutes from the Fed's last meeting when they held the policy rate at 4.25%-4.5%, where it has been since December. Futures show investors expect cuts beginning in September. Last week, we saw the unemployment rate fell in June, while inflation has ticked up, also the wrong direction for easing soon. The June transcript won't reveal policymakers in great discord. They weren't very divided in their economic projections, with 10 seeing several cuts this year and nine effectively pushing easier monetary policy into 2026. Powell has insisted that any cuts will depend on the data. Meanwhile, the market will wait for the numbers and probably take the minutes in stride too. What could move markets tomorrow? Opinions expressed are those of the author. They do not reflect the views of Reuters News, which, under the Trust Principles, opens new tab, is committed to integrity, independence, and freedom from bias. Trading Day is also sent by email every weekday morning. Think your friend or colleague should know about us? Forward this newsletter to them. They can also sign up here.
Reuters
7 minutes ago
- Reuters
J&J defeats generic drugmakers in US appeal over schizophrenia treatment
July 8 (Reuters) - Johnson & Johnson (JNJ.N), opens new tab convinced a U.S. appeals court on Tuesday to reject a bid from generic drugmakers Teva ( opens new tab and Viatris (VTRS.O), opens new tab to invalidate a patent covering its schizophrenia medication Invega Sustenna. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that Teva and Viatris failed to demonstrate, opens new tab that the patent's innovations were obvious, blocking their path to manufacturing a cheaper generic version of J&J's blockbuster drug. In an earlier appeal in the same case last year, the Federal Circuit had granted the drugmakers' request for U.S. District Judge Claire Cecchi in New Jersey to reconsider their case. The appeals court on Tuesday affirmed a December ruling by Cecchi that J&J's patent was valid. Spokespeople for Teva and Viatris did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the decision. A J&J spokesperson said that the company was pleased with the ruling. J&J sold more than $4.2 billion worth of Invega Sustenna and related drugs worldwide last year, with more than $3.1 billion in U.S. sales, according to a company report. It sued Teva and Mylan, which is now part of Viatris, for patent infringement over their proposed generic versions of the drug in 2018 and 2019, respectively. Cecchi ruled in 2021 that Teva failed to prove a J&J patent covering a dosing regimen for Invega Sustenna was invalid. Viatris agreed to be bound by Cecchi's decision. The Federal Circuit overturned that ruling last April and remanded the case to New Jersey. The appeals court gave Teva another chance to prove that the patent was invalid by showing that the dosing regimen would have been obvious to an ordinary person in the field. Cecchi ruled for J&J again in December. The appeals court upheld the decision on Tuesday, agreeing with the judge that the dosing regimen was not obvious. The case is Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, No. 2025-1228. For J&J: Barbara Mullin of Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler For Teva and Mylan: John O'Quinn of Kirkland & Ellis For Mylan: Deepro Mukerjee of Katten Muchin Rosenman Read more: Teva, Viatris win new chance to challenge J&J schizophrenia drug patent
The Guardian
19 minutes ago
- The Guardian
US supreme court clears way for Trump officials to resume mass government firings
The US supreme court has cleared the way for Donald Trump's administration to resume plans for mass firings of federal workers that critics warn could threaten critical government services. Extending a winning streak for the US president, the justices on Tuesday lifted a lower court order that had frozen sweeping federal layoffs known as 'reductions in force' while litigation in the case proceeds. The decision could result in hundreds of thousands of job losses at the departments of agriculture, commerce, health and human services, state, treasury, veterans affairs and other agencies. Democrats condemned the ruling. Antjuan Seawright, a party strategist, said: 'I'm disappointed but I'm not shocked or surprised. This rightwing activist court has proven ruling after ruling, time after time, that they are going to sing the songs and dance to the tune of Trumpism. A lot of this is just implementation of what we saw previewed in Project 2025.' Project 2025, a plan drawn up by the conservative Heritage Foundation thinktank, set out a blueprint for downsizing government. Trump has claimed that voters gave him a mandate for the effort and he tapped billionaire ally Elon Musk to lead the charge through the 'department of government efficiency', or Doge, though Musk has since departed. In February, Trump announced 'a critical transformation of the federal bureaucracy' in an executive order directing agencies to prepare for a government overhaul aimed at significantly reducing the workforce and gutting offices. In its brief unsigned order on Tuesday, the supreme court said Trump's administration was 'likely to succeed on its argument that the executive order' and a memorandum implementing his order were lawful. The court said it was not assessing the legality of any specific plans for layoffs at federal agencies. Liberal justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the sole member of the nine-person court to publicly dissent from the decision, which overturns San Francisco-based district judge Susan Illston's 22 May ruling. Jackson wrote that Illston's 'temporary, practical, harm-reducing preservation of the status quo was no match for this court's demonstrated enthusiasm for greenlighting this president's legally dubious actions in an emergency posture'. She also described her colleagues as making the 'wrong decision at the wrong moment, especially given what little this Court knows about what is actually happening on the ground'. Illston had argued in her ruling that Trump had exceeded his authority in ordering the downsizing, siding with a group of unions, non-profits and local governments that challenged the administration. 'As history demonstrates, the president may broadly restructure federal agencies only when authorized by Congress,' she wrote. The judge blocked the agencies from carrying out mass layoffs and limited their ability to cut or overhaul federal programmes. Illston also ordered the reinstatement of workers who had lost their jobs, though she delayed implementing this portion of her ruling while the appeals process plays out. Illston's ruling was the broadest of its kind against the government overhaul pursued by Trump and Doge. Tens of thousands of federal workers have been fired, have left their jobs via deferred resignation programmes or have been placed on leave. The administration had previously challenged Illston's order at the San Francisco-based ninth US circuit court of appeals but lost in a 2-1 ruling on 30 May. That prompted the justice department to make an emergency request to the supreme court, contending that controlling the personnel of federal agencies 'lies at the heartland' of the president's executive branch authority. The plaintiffs had urged the supreme court to deny the justice department's request. Allowing the Trump administration to move forward with its 'breakneck reorganization', they wrote, would mean that 'programs, offices and functions across the federal government will be abolished, agencies will be radically downsized from what Congress authorized, critical government services will be lost and hundreds of thousands of federal employees will lose their jobs'. Sign up to This Week in Trumpland A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration after newsletter promotion The supreme court's rejection of that argument on Tuesday was welcomed by Trump allies. Pam Bondi, the attorney general, posted on the X social media platform: 'Today, the Supreme Court stopped lawless lower courts from restricting President Trump's authority over federal personnel – another Supreme Court victory thanks to @thejusticedept attorneys. Now, federal agencies can become more efficient than ever before. The state department wrote on X: 'Today's near unanimous decision from the Supreme Court further confirms that the law was on our side throughout this entire process. We will continue to move forward with our historic reorganization plan at the State Department, as announced earlier this year. This is yet another testament to President Trump's dedication to following through on an America First agenda.' In recent months the supreme court has sided with Trump in some major cases that were acted upon on an emergency basis since he returned to office in January. It cleared the way for Trump's administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without offering them a chance to show the harms they could face. In two cases, it let the administration end temporary legal status previously granted on humanitarian grounds to hundreds of thousands of migrants. It also allowed Trump to implement his ban on transgender people in the US military, blocked a judge's order for the administration to rehire thousands of fired employees and twice sided with Doge. In addition, the court curbed the power of federal judges to impose nationwide rulings impeding presidential policies. On Tuesday the Democracy Forward coalition condemned the supreme court for intervening in what it called Trump's unlawful reorganisation of the federal government. It said in a statement: 'Today's decision has dealt a serious blow to our democracy and puts services that the American people rely on in grave jeopardy. 'This decision does not change the simple and clear fact that reorganizing government functions and laying off federal workers en masse haphazardly without any congressional approval is not allowed by our Constitution.'
