foreign

While the ruling does not order Khalil’s immediate release, it does undermine the US government’s case against Khalil.

A federal judge in New Jersey has ruled the administration of United States President Donald Trump cannot use an obscure law to detain Columbia University student Mahmoud Khalil for his pro-Palestine advocacy.

The ruling from US District Judge Michael Farbiarz on Wednesday cut to the core of the Trump administration’s justification for deporting Khalil, a permanent US resident. But it came short of ordering Khalil’s immediate release from detention.

Instead, Judge Farbiarz gave the administration until 9:30am local (13:30 GMT) on Friday to appeal. After that point, Khalil would be eligible for release on a $1 bail.

Nevertheless, the judge wrote that the administration was violating Khalil’s right to free speech by detaining and trying to deport him under a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. That provision allows the secretary of state to remove foreign nationals who bear “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States”.

Judge Farbiarz has previously signalled he believes that provision to be unconstitutional, contradicting the right to free speech.

“The petitioner’s career and reputation are being damaged and his speech is being chilled,” Farbiarz wrote on Wednesday. “This adds up to irreparable harm.”

Khalil was arrested on March 8 after immigration agents showed up at his student apartment building at Columbia University in New York City. After his arrest, the State Department revoked his green card. He has since been held at an immigration detention centre in Louisiana.

The administration has accused Khalil, a student protest leader, of anti-Semitism and supporting Hamas, but officials have offered no evidence to support their claims, either publicly or in court files.

Critics have instead argued that the administration is using such claims to silence all forms of pro-Palestine advocacy.

Like other student protesters targeted for deportation, Khalil is challenging his deportation in immigration court, while simultaneously challenging his arrest and detention in federal proceedings.

The latter is called a habeas corpus petition, and it asserts that the Trump administration has violated his civil liberties by unlawfully keeping him behind bars.

While students in the other high-profile cases — including Mohsen Mahdawi, Rumeysa Ozturk and Badar Khan Suri — have all been released from detention as their legal proceedings move forward, a ruling in Khalil’s case has been slower coming.

In April, an immigration judge had ruled that Khalil was deportable based on the State Department’s interpretation of the 1952 law, despite a written letter from US Secretary of State Marco Rubio providing no further evidence for the allegations made against him.

Immigration judges fall under the executive branch of the US government and are generally considered less independent than judges in the judicial branch.

Also that month, immigration authorities denied Khalil’s request for temporary release for his son’s birth.

In the case before the New Jersey federal court, meanwhile, the Trump administration has argued that Khalil was not fully transparent in his green card application, something his lawyers deny. But Judge Farbiarz indicated on Wednesday that it was unusual and “overwhelmingly unlikely” for permanent residents to be detained on such grounds.

They have warned that your accommodation may no longer be suitable

The Foreign Office has updated its Greece travel advice page. On June 6, and still current today, the Government issued an alert under its safety and security page.

In one of the first updates, it warns people that where they plan to stay may not be suitable. In addition, it also warns that your insurance may not be good enough, urging people to double-check what their cover includes.

Here is what you need to know.

Staying overnight in Greece?

If you are set to stay in Greece overnight – regardless of how long – you need to ensure you are allowed to stay where you are planning on sleeping. This comes as Greece has implemented regulations which bans people from camping in tents and parking trailers, semi-trailers, camper vans, and motorhomes near archaeological sites, on seashores and beaches, at the edges of public forests, and in other public spaces. The Foreign Office UK urges people that in order to avoid fines, you should only stay at licensed campsites.

Doing any activities on holiday?

Urging people to be cautious, under their hiking and exploring nature sub-section, they warn: “Take extra care when planning a hike or walk, especially during higher temperatures than you are used to. Trails often lack shade and the quality of route markings can vary.”

Ensure that you:

• plan your route beforehand, and consider your limitations in distance and difficulty
• check weather forecasts and avoid hiking during the peak hours of sun; pack a hat, sunscreen and plenty of water
• wear appropriate footwear for uneven terrain and consider taking a map, GPS and a fully charged phone
• avoid hiking alone if you can, and always tell someone where you are going and the route you will take

They also urge that you never “light fires”. This is because not only is it “dangerous”, they also note it is “illegal due to the high risk of wildfires.”

UK Foreign Office urges people to do this when taking out travel insurance

If you have yet to take out travel insurance, you will need to ensure you are covered for a few things. The Foreign Office urges people to look out for coverage that includes “mountain rescue service and helicopter evacuation.” Remember, if an accident happens or if you become lost, call 112 for the emergency services.

A consumer rights champion has explained the rules after one woman had to eat Greek food every day on her Greek holiday

A consumer rights expert has explained what you can do if your hotel on a foreign holiday refuses to serve you a full English breakfast, after a woman got £100 from TUI because she couldn’t get British food on her Greek break. Susan Edwards took a seven-night getaway to the Greek island of Corfu but was horrified to find there was no English food available – although she did get chips one night.

Susan, from Westerhope, described the holiday as “horrendous from the minute [they] got there.”

Susan said: “It was all-inclusive, £750 each we paid and there was no food we could eat and we couldn’t have anything to drink.”

Susan, who has ulcerative colitis, said: “On a morning you could have toast, a hard boiled egg, or something in sauce. There was no bacon. For breakfast there was mozzarella and sliced tomatoes. There was no hot bacon or sausage.

“We got chips one day. One day out of the whole lot. There was fish, sardines and rice – I was sick to death of looking at rice. There was pasta and salads, none of this was marked (labelled). One night there was a Greek night and they had kebabs, I couldn’t eat that. It’s the worst holiday I’ve ever been on.”

Susan was offered £100 in holiday vouchers from TUI but has turned down the offer.

Consumer rights expert Helen Dewdney, known as The Complaining Cow, said your package holiday rights are protected under the Package Holiday and Linked Travel Arrangements 2018.

She said: “A package holiday consists or two or more components, such as accommodation and flight or transfers, and must last longer than 24 hours or at the very least have an overnight element. The organiser (i.e. the travel company with which you booked) is liable for the failures of hoteliers, suppliers and services within the contract.”

Helen said: “The organiser must not provide misleading information. If the holiday does not match the description, you will be entitled to redress. The organiser must clearly state the details of the booking in a Standard Information Form, before you make any payment. The Form must include specifics of any arrangements: dates, times, costs, meals, excursions included/excluded, activities, transportation, cancellation fees, contact details for the package organiser, information on compulsory/voluntary insurance regarding repatriation in the event of illness/death/accident, and/or the cost of termination of the contract by the traveller.”

She added: “You are entitled to redress for the disappointment and distress caused by things going wrong. The amount will be dependent on what and for how much of the holiday.”

Helen said: “Make sure you take out travel insurance at the same time you book your holiday. You never know what might happen between now and then!”

She added: “Is it reasonable to claim for a lack of ‘English food’ on a continental holiday? Probably not. However, at least one TUI customer has succeeded in claiming limited compensation for this alleged breach, although she has got to buy another holiday to use it!”

A spokesperson for TUI UK and Ireland said: “Our priority is to ensure customers have the best possible holiday experience, so we are sorry to hear that Mrs Edwards felt dissatisfied with her holiday. We have been in touch directly with Mrs Edwards to come to a resolution.”

United States President Donald Trump has imposed a travel ban on 12 countries, with restrictions on seven more.

And it’s not the first one of its kind – Trump issued a similar order in 2017 that focused on Muslim-majority countries.

He says the latest initiative aims to protect national security, but critics say the ban is racist and has nothing to do with safety.

So what is really at stake, and what might Trump gain from the ban?

Presenter: Mohammed Jamjoom

Guests:

Yael Schacher – Director for Americas and Europe, Refugees International

Steven Heller – US immigration lawyer

Johanna Leblanc – National security law and US foreign policy specialist

Harvard University has broadened its existing lawsuit against the administration of President Donald Trump to fight a new action that attempts to stop its international students from entering the United States.

On Thursday, the prestigious Ivy League school filed an amended complaint that alleges Trump’s latest executive order violates the rights of the school and its students.

Just one day earlier, Trump published an executive order claiming that “it is necessary to restrict the entry of foreign nationals who seek to enter the United States solely or principally” to attend Harvard.

He called Harvard’s international students a “class of aliens” whose arrival “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States”. As a result, he said that he had the right under the  Immigration and Nationality Act to deny them entry into the country.

But in Thursday’s court filing, Harvard dismissed that argument as the latest salvo in Trump’s months-long campaign to harm the school.

“The President’s actions thus are not undertaken to protect the ‘interests of the United States,’ but instead to pursue a government vendetta against Harvard,” the amended complaint says.

It further alleged that, by issuing a new executive order to restrict students’ entry, the Trump administration was attempting to circumvent an existing court order that blocked it from preventing Harvard’s registration of foreign students.

The complaint called upon US District Judge Allison Burroughs in Massachusetts to extend her temporary restraining order to include Trump’s latest attack on Harvard’s foreign students.

“Harvard’s more than 7,000 F-1 and J-1 visa holders — and their dependents — have become pawns in the government’s escalating campaign of retaliation,” Harvard wrote.

Trump began his campaign against Harvard and other prominent schools earlier this year, after taking office for a second term as president. He blamed the universities for failing to take sterner action against the Palestinian solidarity protests that cropped up on their campuses in the wake of Israel’s war on Gaza.

The president called the demonstrations anti-Semitic and pledged to remove foreign students from the US who participated. Protest organisers, meanwhile, have argued that their aims were non-violent and that the actions of a few have been used to tar the movement overall.

Critics have also accused Trump of using the protests as leverage to exert greater control over the country’s universities, including private schools like Harvard and its fellow Ivy League school, Columbia University.

In early March, Columbia — whose protest encampments were emulated at campuses across the country — saw $400m in federal funding stripped from its budget.

The school later agreed to a list of demands issued by the Trump administration, including changes to its disciplinary policies and a review of its Middle East studies programme.

Harvard University was also given a list of demands to comply with. But unlike Columbia, it refused, citing concerns that the restrictions would limit its academic freedom.

The Trump administration’s demands included ending Harvard’s diversity programmes and allowing the federal government to audit its hiring and admissions processes to “establish viewpoint diversity”. When those demands were not met, it proceeded to strip Harvard of its federal funding, to the tune of billions of dollars.

Trump also threatened to revoke the school’s tax-exempt status and barred it from receiving future federal research grants.

But the attack on Harvard’s international students has threatened to drive away tuition revenue as well. Nearly a quarter of Harvard’s overall student body is from overseas.

In May, the Department of Homeland Security announced it would revoke Harvard’s access to a system, the Student Exchange Visitor Program, where it is required to log information about its foreign students.

That would have forced currently enrolled Harvard students to transfer to another school, if they were in the country on a student visa. It would have also prevented Harvard from accepting any further international students.

But Harvard sued the Trump administration, calling its actions “retaliatory” and “unlawful”.

On May 23, Judge Burroughs granted Harvard’s emergency petition for a restraining order to stop the restriction from taking effect. But since then, the Trump administration has continued to exert pressure on Harvard and other schools.

Earlier this week, for example, the Trump administration wrote a letter to Columbia University’s accreditor, accusing the New York City school of falling short of federal civil rights laws.

A longtime columnist for Foreign Policy and professor of international relations at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government, Stephen Walt is a sharp critic of how the United States has pursued its version of liberal democracy globally, which he calls liberal hegemony. His books include Taming American Power, The Hell of Good Intentions, and the New York Times bestseller The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy.

In this episode of Reframe, Ken Roth and Stephen Walt discuss how President Donald Trump is undermining democratic norms and institutions within the US and worldwide, questioning whether his leadership has brought about an unprecedented shift in its global power.

May 30 (UPI) — A Defense Intelligence Agency worker has been charged with attempting to provide classified information to an officer or agent of a government because he was dissatisfied with the Trump administration, the Justice Department said.

Nathan Laatsch, 28, of Alexandria, Va., was arrested Thursday and was to make his initial court appearance Friday afternoon in the Eastern District of Virginia on Friday, DOJ said.

Thinking he was communicating with a foreign official, Laatch unknowingly was in touch with an undercover FBI agent.

Since 2019, Laatsch was a civilian employee as a data scientist and information technology specialist in the DIA’s Insider Threat Division and held a top secret security clearance, according to the DOJ.

DIA headquarters are located in Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling in Washington.

The arrest affidavit didn’t list the name of the foreign country.

After his arrest, he allegedly told authorities he was requesting citizenship in the foreign country because of conditions in the United States.

“I’ve given a lot of thought to this before any outreach, and despite the risks, the calculus has not changed,” the affidavit obtained by Politico said. “I do not see the trajectory of things changing, and do not think it is appropriate or right to do nothing when I am in this position.”

Subsequently, the agency obtained video from the DIA office where Laatsch was seen writing notes and then hid them into his socks, according to an affidavit filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia obtained by ABC News.

Another DIA employee saw him placing multiple notebook pages in the bottom of his lunchbox, according to the affidavit.

In March, the FBI received a tip that someone was willing to provide classified information to a friendly foreign government. It initially wasn’t known that person was Laatsch.

The FBI obtained an email from someone who didn’t “agree or align with the values of this administration” and was “willing to share classified information” to which he had access. This included “completed intelligence products, some unprocessed intelligence, and other assorted classified documentation,” DOJ said.

Laatsch transcribed classified information to a notepad at his desk and over about three days moved it from his workspace.

A meeting was scheduled with the suspect’s contact.

On May 1, FBI surveillance observed Laatsch go to a specified location at a park in Northern Virginia and left an item. After Laatsch departed, the FBI retrieved a thumb drive, which contained information marked “Secret” or “Top Secret.”

On May 7, Laatsch allegedly sent a message to the undercover FBI agent, which indicated Laatsch was seeking something from the foreign government in return for continuing to provide classified information. On the next day, Laatsch said he was interested in “citizenship for your country” because he did not “expect things here to improve in the long term.”

He told the agent he didn’t need “material compensation.”

Between May 15 and Tuesday, Laatsch again transcribed multiple pages of notes from his work station and put them in his clothing, DOJ said.

On Thursday, the suspect arrived at a prearranged location in northern Virginia. He was arrested when the FBI received the documents.

The FBI Washington Field Office is investigating the case with assistance from the U.S. Air Force Office of Investigations and DIA.

FBI Director Kash Patel posted Thursday on X: “This case underscores the persistent risk of insider threats. The FBI remains steadfast in protecting our national security and thanks our law enforcement partners for their critical support.”

In the world of international relations, foreign aid is not simply about altruism. It is a very complex thing, as Carol Lancaster points out in her fundamental work, Foreign Aid: Diplomacy, Development, and Domestic Politics: Aid is not just about pure altruism or even pure development. It is also about a country’s diplomacy, its domestic politics, and other broader strategic interests. In today’s evolving global landscape, this diplomatic element has increased even further. Today, the world is no longer dominated by one or just two superpowers, but rather a new multipolar order has taken shape, giving rise to a phenomenon or concept that we can call “competitive aid.”

Aid is no longer about who gives more, but rather about a high-stakes game in which countries use it to compete, gain advantage, and consolidate their influence in a country or region. Under these conditions, what does this increased competition mean for recipient countries? Does it really lead to better outcomes for developing countries? Or is it just creating a mess of fragmented efforts, redundant projects, and inappropriate prioritization by geopolitical shifting rather than actual development needs?

Foreign Aid Diplomacy in the New Global Era

To better understand “competitive aid,” we can recall where foreign aid diplomacy came from. For decades after World War II, especially during the Cold War, aid was largely a Western affair, with the United States in the lead. The narrative was often about rebuilding war-ravaged economies or, most importantly, preventing the spread of communist ideology. Aid is a key component of soft power, building alliances and promoting a particular vision of the global order.

Jump forward to the 21st century; the situation seems completely different. We have seen the rise of new economic giants, most notably China, as well as increasingly influential players such as India, Brazil, and the Gulf states. These are not just new faces on the list of donor countries. They bring very different philosophies, historical experiences, and, most importantly, strategic interests. China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is a very clear example. It is a massive infrastructure financing project that often offers large-scale loans on easier political terms than the approach of traditional Western donors. On the other hand, the European Union emphasizes human rights and good governance in its development cooperation. Meanwhile, US aid often ties its assistance directly to national security concerns, such as stabilizing an unstable region or securing vital supply chains. This diversity of donors, each with their own geopolitical strategies, has undeniably increased competition for aid.

The Dynamics of “Competitive Aid”

So, what exactly does “competitive aid” look like on the ground? It is a complex form of diplomacy where development projects are likened to pawns on a global chessboard. Donor countries are not just writing checks; they are actively competing for influence by offering what they expect to be the most attractive terms, the most impactful projects, or the most strategically aligned visions. The most prominent example of this competitive dynamic is seen in the global scramble for infrastructure development and connectivity. China’s BRI, launched more than a decade ago, has poured massive investment into roads, railways, ports, and digital networks across the continent. While Beijing insists that it is purely about economic growth and trade, it is hard to disregard the undeniable geopolitical implications of expanding China’s economic reach and gaining political influence as a result. A simple example is the Hambantota port project in Sri Lanka. While the project has economic aspirations, its handover to Chinese control due to Sri Lanka’s debt problems has sparked a heated debate on “debt trap diplomacy” and potential strategic leverage for Beijing.

In response, Western powers did not remain silent. The G7’s “Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment” (PGII) and the EU’s “Global Gateway” are a direct response and counter-response. These initiatives explicitly aim to provide a “value-based” alternative to infrastructure financing, emphasizing transparency, environmental sustainability, and fair labor practices. It is a clear competition over who will build the next big highway or port, with recipient countries finding themselves persuaded by many different parties offering favors.

However, competitive aid goes beyond just concrete and steel alone. It is also fiercely played out in efforts to gain access to resources. Donors might sweeten the aid package with agreements that guarantee access to vital minerals—for example, cobalt in the Democratic Republic of Congo or lithium in Latin America—or other important energy supplies. This could manifest as direct investment in extractive industries or broader development programs designed to stabilize strategic resource-rich regions. And let’s not forget the drive to grow political influence and shape the international norm. This can involve financial support for democratic institutions, judicial reform, or civil society groups, all aimed at promoting the donor country’s preferred governance model. Sometimes, it is more transactional in nature, with aid subtly or overtly linked to the recipient country’s support for the donor country’s position on international forums, such as votes in the UN or alignment on key geopolitical issues. This competition is not just about physical assets; it is about hearts, minds, and diplomatic solidarity.

So, what does all this competition mean for aid effectiveness and how it is coordinated? To be honest, it’s a double-edged sword that offers both exciting possibilities and significant headaches for recipient countries. On the one hand, a diverse donor landscape can be a good thing. With many players offering aid, recipient countries may find themselves in a stronger bargaining position. They can potentially negotiate better terms, more flexible loan conditions, or projects that are truly aligned with their own development plans. This is a bit like a “buyer’s market” for development, which, in an ideal world, could lead to more aid flows and faster progress. Just imagine a country in need of a new national railroad, perhaps getting attractive bids from Chinese, European, and American consortiums, allowing them to choose the best fit. This competitive pressure may even encourage donors to be more responsive to local needs.

However, the drawbacks of competitive aid are often greater, creating real challenges for aid effectiveness. First, when donors focus primarily on their own strategic interests, it often leads to a lack of coordination that is ultimately underwhelming. Donors may ignore existing national development strategies or multilateral coordination mechanisms and prefer to work bilaterally to maximize their own visibility and influence. This can result in fragmented aid efforts, where projects are undertaken in isolation, without synergy or a cohesive approach to a country’s overall development. Imagine a scenario where multiple donors fund separate, unconnected health clinics in the same district, rather than collaborating to build a comprehensive and integrated healthcare system. This duplication of efforts and resources is simply very inefficient and certainly wasteful.

Second, competitive aid can easily lead to misplaced development priorities. Recipient countries, desperate for funds, may feel pressured to accept projects that primarily serve the donor’s strategic agenda, even if it is not the most urgent or beneficial for themselves. This can result in the infamous “white elephant” projects with large-scale infrastructure that look impressive but are economically unfeasible or poorly integrated into the local economy. They become more about donor prestige than real development goals. And then there is the obvious risk of an increased debt burden. While the “debt trap diplomacy” narrative (the idea that China deliberately traps countries in debt to seize assets) is the subject of ongoing academic debate, the reality is that large, non-transparent loans from multiple sources can pile up very quickly. If these projects do not generate sufficient economic returns, recipient countries can find themselves trapped in ongoing debt and forced to divert critical resources from social services to debt repayment.

Finally, this competitive dynamic could erode multilateralism and established international development norms. If powerful countries consistently prioritize interest-driven bilateral aid over collaborative efforts through multilateral bodies, it will undermine institutions designed to promote coordinated, principles-based development. This could erode trust, create parallel aid structures, and make it harder to address global challenges that truly require collective action, such as climate change or future pandemics, which demand a united front. The recent decline in official development assistance (ODA) from some traditional donors, partly due to domestic refugee costs and shifting geopolitical priorities, further underscores how fragile the aid landscape is in this competitive environment.

A Path Forward: Navigating the New Aid Landscape

It is clear that foreign aid diplomacy has undergone a profound transformation. What was once a tool for post-war reconstruction has become a central player in today’s complex geopolitical arena. The rise of new global powers has undeniably ushered in an era of “competitive aid,” where development assistance is increasingly becoming a strategic asset in the pursuit of influence and advantage. Despite the tempting promise that this competition might offer more choice and leverage to recipient countries, fragmentation, duplication, distorted priorities, and the continuing shadow of debt present formidable obstacles to proper and long-term development.

So, where do we go from here? Responsibility certainly lies on both sides. For recipient countries, it is crucial to develop strong strategic planning capacity and sharpen their negotiation skills. This is not just about receiving money but rather about ensuring that foreign aid actually serves their national development agenda rather than being a mere pawn in a larger geopolitical chess game. For donor countries, while national interest will always be a driving force, there is a strong argument for a renewed commitment to coordination, transparency, and adherence to internationally agreed principles of aid effectiveness. In conclusion, moving beyond a purely competitive mindset towards a more collaborative approach to foreign aid diplomacy is very essential. It’s not just about being generous. It is about how to effectively address global challenges together and build a more just and prosperous world for all. The shifting balance of power demands not only new strategies but also a careful re-evaluation of the purpose and practice of foreign aid itself.

May 30 (UPI) — President Donald on Friday announced a 50% tariff on steel made outside the United States as he touted a partnership between Japan’s Nippon Steel Corporation and the United States Steel Corporation during a rally near Pittsburgh.

Calling it the “heart of U.S. Steel,” Trump spoke at the company’s headquarters in Allegany County. The indoor rally began around 5:30 p.m. and ended one hour later.

On Feb. 11, Trump restored a 25% tariff on steel and increased the aluminum tariff from 10% to 25%.

Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Japan, Mexico, South Korea, the European Union, Ukraine and Britain had received exemptions, “which prevented the tariffs from being effective,” according to the order.

He touted the efforts of Treasury Secretary Scott Bessett and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, who were on hand.

One week ago, Trump announced a “planned partnership between the two steel giants, promising the U.S. Steel headquarters would remain on American soil rather than shift to Japan.

Trump said the deal includes “vital protections to ensure that all steelworkers will keep their jobs and all facilities in the United States will remain open and thriving.”

Writing on Truth Social, Trump said the new tariffs will take effect June 4.

Also, he said U.S. Steel would also keep all of its blast furnace facilities at full capacity for at least the next decade and vowed that there would be “no layoffs and no outsourcing whatsoever.”

Trump, who opposed the acquisition during the 2024 campaign, is now touting the $14 billion investment that the president said would create at least 70,000 jobs.

“You’re going to be very happy,” Trump said Friday. “There’s a lot of money coming your way.”

Every U.S. steelworker would be receiving a $5,000 bonus, he said.

At one time, U.S. Steel dominated production worldwide, but over the years it has “melted away just like butter melts away” as China mainly poured what he said was “garbage steel” into the country.

“If you don’t have steel, you don’t have a country,” Trump said in citing national security.

U.S. Steel, which was founded in 1901, has about 22,000 employees with revenue of $15.6 billion in 2024. Nippon, which traces its roots to Japan Iron & Steel Co. in 1934, has about 113,640 workers with revenue of $43 billion in 2019.

This week, CNBC reported Tokyo-based Nippon Steel will pay $55 per share to acquire U.S. Steel, citing sources familiar with the deal.

Pittsburgh-based U.S. Steel shares rose $0.59 or 1.11% to $53.82 at the close of the U.S. Stock Exchange on Friday afternoon.

The two steel companies were working on a deal before Trump took office on Jan. 20.

Days before leaving office in January, former President Joe Biden blocked Nippon Steel’s proposed $14.1 billion acquisition of U.S. Steel.

Biden cited national security concerns when rejecting the deal involving the second-largest American steel producer and Japan’s largest.

Both firms later filed separate federal lawsuits in the District of Columbia and in Pennsylvania to move the deal ahead, citing “unlawful political influences.”

In April, Trump issued an executive order directing a review of the acquisition by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a branch of the U.S. Department of the Treasury. U.S. Steel stock surged at the time, climbing more than 10% in a single day.

The president has said the deal will have a major positive economic effect.

The deal “will create at least 70,000 jobs, and add $14 Billion Dollars to the U.S. Economy. The bulk of that Investment will occur in the next 14 months,” Trump said on Truth Social last week.

He also teased Friday’s rally at U.S. Steel’s Irvin Works factory.

“President Trump is a bold leader and businessman who knows how to get the best deal for America, American workers and American manufacturing,” Trump said in a statement to The Hill on Friday.

“U.S. Steel greatly appreciates President Trump’s leadership and personal attention to the futures of thousands of steelworkers and our iconic company.”

Trump touted other companies increasing production in the United States.

During his speech, sometimes ad-libbed, he ventured into other areas, noting undocumented immigrants coming into the nation in “open borders.” He also bragged about winning all the battleground states during the 2024 election, including Pennsylvania.

He blasted Biden and called Democrats “lunatics.”

He voiced his support for the U.S. budget bill, which is moving through Congress, including extension of the 2017 tax cuts, no taxes on tips or overtime, deductions on loan interest for U.S.-made cars and permanent extension of the $2,000 per child credit. He didn’t mention Medicaid cuts and other program reductions.

Former Steelers running back Rocky Bleier presented Trump with a Steelers 47 jersey as two current players also were called up to speak: quarterback Mason Rudolph and safety Miles Killbrew.

The rally was about 35 miles south of Butler, where he survived an assassination attempt on July 13, two days before the National Republican Convention in Milwaukee, Wis.

As I write this in 2025, I find myself increasingly concerned about India’s manufacturing trajectory. While India celebrates digital prowess and service sector dominance, a stark reality confronts my country: our manufacturing exports as a percentage of global trade have remained stubbornly stagnant at around 1.7%, even as China commands over 15% and Vietnam has surged to capture significant market share in textiles, electronics, and manufacturing.

The time for incremental reforms has passed.

India needs a comprehensive overhaul of its export and entrepreneurship policies, strategically aligned with foreign policy objectives, to prevent what I believe could be a permanent relegation to service sector dependency while manufacturing opportunities slip away to more agile competitors.

The Manufacturing Imperative

The numbers paint a sobering picture. China’s manufacturing value-added reached $4.9 trillion in 2023, accounting for roughly 30% of global manufacturing output.

Vietnam, with a population less than 7% of India’s, achieved manufacturing exports of $370 billion in 2023, compared to India’s $450 billion total merchandise exports across all sectors.

More critically, India’s share in global manufacturing exports has declined from 1.8% in 2019 to 1.7% in 2024, while Vietnam’s share grew from 2.1% to 3.4% in the same period.

This isn’t just about absolute numbers; it’s about momentum and trajectory.

Countries like Bangladesh, Mexico, and Turkey are all gaining ground in manufacturing exports while India debates policy frameworks.

The demographic dividend we often celebrate is actually a ticking time bomb. With 12 million Indians entering the workforce annually, service sector jobs alone cannot provide sufficient employment. Manufacturing historically creates 3-4 jobs for every direct job, compared to 1.5-2 jobs in services. Without a manufacturing renaissance, we risk social instability and economic stagnation.

The Export-Foreign Policy Nexus: Learning from Successful Models

My analysis of successful export economies reveals a crucial insight: export policies cannot operate in isolation from foreign policy. China’s Belt and Road Initiative isn’t just infrastructure investment; it’s export market creation. Vietnam’s export success stems partly from its strategic positioning between US-China tensions, attracting supply chain diversification.

India needs to reimagine its foreign policy through an export lens. Our current approach treats trade and diplomacy as separate domains, resulting in missed opportunities. For instance, our Act East Policy has yielded modest results in manufacturing exports to ASEAN, partly because we haven’t aligned trade facilitation with diplomatic priorities.

Consider this data point: India’s bilateral trade with Africa was $98 billion in 2023, but only 25% consisted of manufactured goods exports. China’s Africa trade was $282 billion, with 45% being manufactured exports. This disparity isn’t just about market access; it reflects China’s systematic alignment of diplomatic engagement with export promotion.

The Compliance Raj: Quantifying the Regulatory Stranglehold

Our current export promotion architecture suffers from what I call “scheme fatigue,” but the deeper malady is what recent analysis terms the “Compliance Raj”—a” systematic regulatory stranglehold that makes Vietnam and China look like libertarian paradises by comparison.

The numbers are staggering: India experienced 9,420 compliance updates in 2024 alone, averaging 36 daily regulatory changes. To put this in perspective, Vietnamese manufacturers face approximately 12 major regulatory updates annually, while Chinese exporters operate under relatively stable regulatory frameworks with predictable annual changes.

The India Business Corruption Survey 2024 reveals that 66% of businesses admitted to paying bribes, with 54% coerced for permits, licenses, or approvals. This isn’t just about corruption; it’s about competitive disadvantage. While Indian exporters navigate bribery demands and regulatory uncertainty, Vietnamese competitors focus on production efficiency and market expansion.

The Production Linked Incentive (PLI) scheme, while well-intentioned, allocated $26 billion across 14 sectors over five years. China spends more than this amount annually on manufacturing subsidies and export promotion. Vietnam’s foreign direct investment in manufacturing reached $22 billion in 2023 alone, compared to India’s $15 billion across all sectors.

The bureaucratic maze compounds these challenges beyond previous estimates. Businesses are required to manage 23 different identity numbers, including PAN, GSTIN, and CIN, resulting in excessive paperwork and frequent renewals.

A recent study by the Confederation of Indian Industry found that compliance costs for Indian exporters are 23% higher than Chinese competitors and 31% higher than Vietnamese exporters. But when we factor in time lost to regulatory uncertainty and bribery, the real competitive disadvantage reaches 45-50%.

Our export infrastructure remains fragmented. While China has 34 ports handling over 10 million TEU annually, India has only 12 major ports with combined capacity struggling to match Shanghai alone. Logistics costs consume 13-14% of GDP compared to 8-9% in developed economies, directly impacting export competitiveness.

The Libertarian Imperative

The evidence is overwhelming: countries that have embraced more libertarian approaches to business regulation consistently outperform India in manufacturing exports. This isn’t ideological positioning; it’s empirical reality backed by hard data.

Singapore, despite its small size, achieved $470 billion in total trade in 2023 with minimal regulatory complexity. Businesses can be registered in 15 minutes online, with most permits issued within 2-3 days. The regulatory framework is predictable, with major changes announced annually and implemented systematically.

Vietnam’s success partly stems from its increasingly libertarian approach to export manufacturing. Export processing zones operate under simplified regulations, with businesses facing minimal compliance burden once established. The contrast with India is stark: Vietnamese exporters spend 2-3% of their time on compliance activities, compared to 15-18% for Indian counterparts.

Even within India, states that have adopted more libertarian approaches show superior performance. Gujarat’s single-window clearance system, operational since 2009, has attracted significantly higher manufacturing FDI per capita compared to states with complex approval processes. Tamil Nadu’s simplified labor regulations for export industries have made it a preferred destination for automotive and textile manufacturing.

The Jan Vishwas Act 2023 decriminalized 180 provisions, reducing imprisonment risks for minor business violations. While this represents progress, it barely scratches the surface. With 20,000 imprisonment clauses still in place and the proposed Jan Vishwas 2.0 targeting only 100 additional provisions, we’re implementing incremental reforms when radical deregulation is required.

Consider the regulatory approach differences: A smartphone manufacturer in India faces 67 different approvals across 14 agencies, compared to 23 approvals across 6 agencies in Vietnam and just 12 approvals across 4 agencies in Singapore. This isn’t about maintaining standards; it’s about regulatory rent-seeking that destroys competitiveness.

The libertarian solution isn’t about abandoning all regulations; it’s about smart regulation focused on outcomes rather than processes. Export-oriented manufacturing should operate under presumptive compliance—businesses assume compliance unless proven otherwise, rather than seeking pre-approvals for every activity.

The Vietnam Model: Libertarian Agility Over Bureaucratic Scale

Vietnam’s transformation offers crucial lessons in libertarian reform applied to export manufacturing. Between 2010 and 2023, Vietnam increased its manufacturing exports from $72 billion to $370 billion, a 414% growth compared to India’s 185% growth from $178 billion to $450 billion in total merchandise exports.

Vietnam’s success stems from three key libertarian principles that India must embrace:

Regulatory Minimalism: Vietnam’s export sector operates under what economists call “libertarian” zones”—areas where businesses face minimal regulatory interference once basic standards are met. While India debates comprehensive labor law reforms, Vietnam implemented sector-specific deregulation for export manufacturing, allowing 24/7 operations, flexible hiring, and performance-based compensation without bureaucratic approvals.

Strategic FDI Targeting with Minimal Barriers: Vietnam attracted $108 billion in manufacturing FDI between 2015 and 2023, focusing on electronics, textiles, and automotive components with streamlined approval processes. India received $67 billion in manufacturing FDI in the same period, spread across too many sectors with complex approval requirements. Vietnamese authorities can approve major manufacturing investments within 45 days; Indian approvals take 8-12 months on average.

Export Processing Zone Efficiency: Vietnam operates 16 EPZs contributing 40% of total exports, with average clearance times of 8 hours and minimal compliance requirements once operational. India’s 265 SEZs contribute only 25% of exports with average clearance times of 72 hours and continuous compliance monitoring that disrupts operations.

Trade Agreement Leverage: Vietnam has 16 operational FTAs covering 58 countries, compared to India’s 13 FTAs covering 32 countries. More importantly, Vietnam utilizes these agreements effectively—67% of Vietnamese exports benefit from preferential access compared to 31% for Indian exports. The difference lies in implementation: Vietnam’s streamlined customs procedures make FTA utilization cost-effective, while India’s complex procedures often make preferential rates economically unviable.

The China Challenge

China’s manufacturing dominance isn’t accidental; it’s systematically built through what I observe as a four-pronged strategy: technology acquisition, market creation, supply chain control, and financial leverage.

China’s outbound FDI in manufacturing reached $145 billion in 2023, often creating captive markets for Chinese exports. India’s outbound manufacturing investment was $8.2 billion, focused primarily on resource extraction rather than market creation.

The technology dimension is particularly concerning. China spent $444 billion on R&D in 2023, with 78% focused on manufacturing and industrial applications. India’s R&D expenditure was $66 billion, with only 34% targeting manufacturing. This gap isn’t just about current competitiveness; it’s about future technological leadership.

Supply chain control represents another strategic advantage. Chinese companies control critical nodes in global supply chains—from rare earth processing to semiconductor assembly. India’s supply chain participation remains largely peripheral, missing opportunities for value addition and strategic positioning.

A Comprehensive Reform Blueprint

Based on my analysis of successful models and India’s unique advantages, I propose a five-pillar transformation strategy:

Pillar 1: Export-Foreign Policy Integration

Every diplomatic mission should function as an export promotion hub. Our embassies in 47 countries with bilateral trade exceeding $1 billion should have dedicated commercial sections with annual export targets. Currently, only 12 missions have adequate commercial infrastructure.

Trade facilitation must become a diplomatic priority. India should negotiate dedicated export corridors with key trading partners, similar to China’s economic corridors. The proposed India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor should prioritize manufacturing export facilitation over general connectivity.

Strategic economic partnerships need restructuring around export complementarity. Our partnership with Japan, for instance, should focus on technology transfer for export-oriented manufacturing rather than domestic market access.

Pillar 2: Manufacturing Infrastructure Revolution

India needs 20 world-class manufacturing clusters in the next five years, each with integrated port connectivity, power supply, and digital infrastructure. Current industrial parks lack this integration, forcing manufacturers to create their own infrastructure at prohibitive costs.

Port modernization requires a $45 billion investment to match Chinese efficiency standards. This isn’t just about capacity; it’s about turnaround time, digital integration, and multimodal connectivity. Current port-to-factory connectivity adds 2-3 days to export timelines compared to Vietnamese competitors.

Digital infrastructure for manufacturing must move beyond basic connectivity to Industry 4.0 readiness. Only 12% of Indian manufacturers use advanced automation compared to 34% in China and 28% in Vietnam.

Pillar 3: Financial Architecture Redesign

Export financing needs fundamental restructuring. Current institutional lending covers only 23% of export credit needs, compared to 67% in China. We need specialized export development banks with $100 billion capitalization over five years.

Currency hedging mechanisms must evolve beyond current limited options. Vietnamese exporters access hedging products at 40% lower costs than Indian counterparts, directly impacting pricing competitiveness.

Investment promotion requires sector-specific targeting. Instead of generic FDI promotion, India needs dedicated agencies for electronics, textiles, automotive, and pharmaceuticals—sectors where we can realistically compete with China and Vietnam.

Pillar 4: Libertarian Regulatory Revolution

The current regulatory complexity creates what economists call “death by a thousand cuts,” but the solution requires embracing libertarian principles that prioritize business freedom over bureaucratic control. A smartphone manufacturer faces 67 different approvals across 14 agencies to start production, compared to 23 approvals across 6 agencies in Vietnam and just 12 in Singapore.

Presumptive Compliance Framework: Instead of seeking pre-approvals, export-oriented businesses should operate under presumptive compliance—assume businesses are compliant unless proven otherwise. This single change could reduce regulatory compliance time by 70% and eliminate opportunities for corruption in the approval process.

Single-Window Reality, Not Fiction: Real single-window systems require complete backend integration across agencies, not just common application forms. This technological integration needs a $2.8 billion investment but would save exporters $15 billion annually in compliance costs. More importantly, it should operate on risk-based assessment—low-risk activities get automatic clearance, medium-risk activities get fast-track approval, and only high-risk activities require detailed scrutiny.

Export Zone Libertarianism: Export-oriented manufacturing should operate under completely separate regulatory frameworks from domestic manufacturing. Singapore’s model demonstrates this: export manufacturers face minimal regulations, simplified labor laws, and tax incentives, while domestic manufacturers operate under standard frameworks. This isn’t about creating inequality; it’s about recognizing that export businesses face global competition and need regulatory advantages to remain viable.

Sunset Clauses for All Regulations: Every regulation affecting export businesses should have automatic sunset clauses requiring renewal every 3-5 years. This forces regulators to justify continued existence and prevents regulatory accumulation. Currently, regulations only get added, never removed, creating the 9,420 annual compliance updates that paralyze businesses.

One Nation, One Business Identity: The proposed consolidation of 23 different business identifiers into a single system represents a libertarian approach to reducing government interference. But it should go further—this single identity should provide access to all government services, eliminate renewal requirements, and operate on blockchain technology to prevent tampering and corruption.

Pillar 5: Technology and Skill Development

Manufacturing technology acquisition needs strategic focus. Current technology transfer agreements lack systematic knowledge absorption mechanisms. India should establish technology digestion centers in key manufacturing sectors, similar to China’s approach in the 1990s.

Skill development must align with export requirements rather than domestic needs. Current ITI and polytechnic curricula prepare students for local manufacturing, not global export standards. We need 500 export-oriented skill centers in the next three years.

Research and development for export competitiveness requires dedicated funding. The proposed National Manufacturing R&D Foundation should receive 1% of manufacturing exports annually—currently about $4.5 billion—to fund applied research for export enhancement.

Why Delay Is Dangerous

Global supply chains are undergoing fundamental restructuring. Companies are diversifying away from China-centric sourcing, creating a once-in-a-generation opportunity for countries like India. However, this window is narrowing rapidly.

Vietnam has already captured significant market share in textiles, electronics assembly, and furniture. Mexico is benefiting from nearshoring trends in North American markets. Bangladesh continues dominating low-cost textile manufacturing. Each day of policy delay allows competitors to strengthen their positions.

The demographic dividend argument also has a time limit. Current working-age population advantages will peak around 2035-2040. If we don’t create manufacturing jobs now, the demographic dividend becomes a demographic burden.

Technological evolution adds another urgency dimension. Manufacturing is becoming increasingly automated, potentially reducing labor cost advantages. Countries that establish manufacturing ecosystems now will benefit from technological upgrades, while late entrants may find fewer opportunities for labor-intensive manufacturing.

The Manufacturing Renaissance Imperative

India stands at a critical juncture. We can continue celebrating our digital achievements while manufacturing opportunities migrate to more decisive competitors, or we can undertake the comprehensive transformation our export potential demands.

The data is clear: manufacturing exports growth has stagnated while competitors surge ahead. The policy framework is fragmented while global supply chains seek reliable, efficient partners. The window of opportunity is narrowing while we debate incremental reforms.

This isn’t about choosing between services and manufacturing; it’s about leveraging our service sector strengths to build manufacturing competitiveness.

Our IT capabilities should power smart manufacturing, our financial sector should enable export growth, and our diplomatic networks should create market access.

The transformation I’ve outlined requires political will, financial commitment, and execution excellence.

But the cost of inaction—permanent manufacturing marginalization, employment crisis, and geopolitical irrelevance in global supply chains—far exceeds the investment required for transformation.

India’s manufacturing renaissance isn’t just an economic necessity; it’s a strategic imperative for sustained growth, employment generation, and global relevance. The question isn’t whether we can afford this transformation—it’s whether we can afford not to undertake it immediately.

The time for incremental reform has passed. India needs its manufacturing revolution now, before it’s too late to compete in the global economy of tomorrow.

May 29 (UPI) — A federal judge blocked the Trump administration Thursday from its attempt to deny Harvard University’s ability to admit international students.

U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs said in a hearing she plans to issue a preliminary injunction requested by Harvard and then extended a temporary restraining order that stops the administration from any attempt to follow through on its threat.

Twenty-seven percent of Harvard’s student body consists of foreign students, and it filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration last week after Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem ordered the termination of the school’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program, or SEVP certification.

Noem said in a press release last week, “This administration is holding Harvard accountable for fostering violence, antisemitism, and coordinating with the Chinese Communist Party on its campus.”

Her order also stated that foreign students at Harvard would need to transfer or lose their legal status.

The Harvard International Office’s Director of Immigration Services Maureen Martin filed a supplemental declaration in addition to the lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security on Wednesday, and among the concerns listed in the suit, she wrote: “As a result of the revocation notice, students and faculty alike have expressed profound fear, concern, and confusion. Faculty members and administrators have been inundated with questions from current international students and scholars about their status and options.”

CNN reported that Burroughs told the lawyers for both Harvard and the Trump administration to agree upon how to keep the student visa program in place, to which she added, “It doesn’t need to be draconian, but I want to make sure it’s worded in such a way that nothing changes.”

The Trump administration has also focused on Harvard’s finances in addition to the effort to block the enrollment of foreign students, as it announced Tuesday it plans to cancel all its contracts with Harvard University.

US president says Harvard must ‘show us their list’ of foreign students to make sure they are not ‘troublemakers’.

United States President Donald Trump has intensified his dispute with Harvard University, saying the college should cap foreign enrolments and share information with the government about its international students.

“Harvard has to show us their lists. They have foreign students, almost 31 percent of their students. We want to know where those students come from. Are they troublemakers? What countries do they come from?” Trump told reporters at the White House on Wednesday. According to university enrolment data, foreign students make up 27 percent of Harvard’s student body.

“I think they should have a cap of maybe around 15 percent, not 31 percent,” Trump said, adding that he wants universities to accept “people who are going to love our country”.

The Trump administration has sought to pressure Harvard into compliance on a number of demands, including greater control over the university’s curricula, information about foreign students and further steps to crack down on pro-Palestine student activism, which the administration has characterised as anti-Semitic.

“Harvard has got to behave themselves. Harvard is treating our country with great disrespect, and all they’re doing is getting in deeper and deeper,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office.

The university has resisted what it says is an effort to erode its independence from the government and commitment to academic freedom.

The Trump administration has severed grants worth billions of dollars to Harvard and announced that it would revoke Harvard’s ability to enrol international students entirely. The Department of Homeland Security said that order was a response to Harvard “fostering violence, antisemitism, and coordinating with the Chinese Communist Party”.

The university said in a statement at the time that the order was part of a “series of government actions to retaliate against Harvard for our refusal to surrender our academic independence and to submit to the federal government’s illegal assertion of control over our curriculum, our faculty, and our student body”.

The university swiftly challenged the order in court, and it was temporarily blocked by a judge on Friday.

Patricia McGuire, president of Trinity Washington University, said on Wednesday that Trump’s actions against foreign enrolment at US universities “makes no sense”.

“It’s so irrational because higher education is one of the top US exports to the world and the international students who come to this country enrich American universities immensely and take their knowledge back to all of their countries around the globe for the improvement of their countries and their populations,” McGuire told Al Jazeera from Washington, DC.

However, McGuire said Trump’s actions are consistent with “an administration that has literally snatched students off the street and taken them to detention centres”, referring to Tufts University student Rumeysa Ozturk, who was forcibly taken into custody by masked federal agents in broad daylight on a street near her Massachusetts home in March.

This month, a court ordered the release of the 30-year-old Turkish doctoral student from the custody of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.

“This is, in my view, completely anti-American values, and I think many academics are horrified by the fact that students are now being censored for their viewpoints,” McGuire said.

May 28 (UPI) — The Czech Republic accused China on Wednesday of being responsible for a “malicious cyber campaign” that targeted an unclassified network of the foreign ministry.

Little information about the cyberattack was made public, the Czech government said it began in 2022, affected an institution designated as Czech critical infrastructure and that it was perpetrated by well-known China-backed hackers APT31.

“The Government of the Czech Republic strongly condemns this malicious cyber campaign against its critical infrastructure,” the Czech foreign affairs ministry said in a statement.

“Such behavior undermines the credibility of the People’s Republic of China and contradicts its public declarations.”

APT31, which stands for Advanced Persistent Threat Group 31, is a collection of China state-sponsored intelligence officers, contract hackers and support staff that conduct cyberattacks on behalf of the Chinese government.

Seven Chinese nationals were charged in the United States in late March for their involvement in APT31, which federal prosecutors said has targeted U.S. and foreign critics of the Chinese government, business, and political officials over the last 14 years.

The Czech government said Wednesday it tied APT31 to the cyberattack through an “extensive investigation,” which “led to a high degree of certainty about the responsible actor.”

“The Government of the Czech Republic has identified the People’s Republic of China as being responsible,” it said.

NATO and the European Union — both of which Czech is a member of — were quick to condemn China following Prague’s revelation.

“We stand in solidarity with the Czech Republic following the malicious cyber campaign against its Ministry of Foreign Affairs,” the security alliance said in a statement.

NATO did not blame China but acknowledged the Czechs’ accusation of Beijing for the attack and said that it has observed “with increasing concern the growing pattern of malicious cyber activities stemming from the People’s Republic of China.”

Similarly, the EU did not directly point the finger at China for the attack on the Czech Republic, but said there have been cyberattacks linked to Beijing targeting EU and its member stats.

“In 2021, we urged Chinese authorities to take action against malicious cyber activities undertaken from their territories. Since then, several Member States have attributed similar activities at their national level,” the EU’s high representative, Kaja Kallas, said in a statement.

“We have repeatedly raised our concerns during bilateral engagements and we will continue to do so in the future.”

Palestinian groups slam the raids targeting exchanges in several cities in a widespread operation in the territory.

Israeli forces have raided money exchanges across the occupied West Bank, using live fire and tear gas as they stormed the city of Nablus, killing at least one Palestinian and wounding more than 30.

Exchange shops in the cities of Ramallah, Nablus, Hebron Arrabeh, el-Bireh, Bethlehem, Jenin and Tubas were attacked on Tuesday, residents said.

In the northern city of Nablus, Israeli soldiers raided a foreign exchange belonging to the Al-Khaleej company and a gold store, according to local media reports. They also fired smoke bombs in the centre of Jenin, and streets were closed in Tubas and Bethlehem in the occupied Palestinian territory.

The Ramallah-based Ministry of Health said one man was killed and eight injured by live ammunition during a raid in Nablus.

The Palestine Red Crescent Society said it treated 20 people for tear gas inhalation and three injured by rubber bullets.

The raids on foreign exchanges came as Israel continued its intensified military campaign in Gaza, killing more than 54,000 Palestinians since the war began on October 7, 2023, as tens of thousands of people starve in the besieged enclave.

Israeli Army Radio on Tuesday said Israel conducted the raids on foreign exchanges on suspicions that the shops supported “terrorism”. The radio station also said the operation resulted in the confiscation of large amounts of money designated for “terrorism infrastructure” in the West Bank.

“Israeli forces are taking action against Al-Khaleej Exchange Company due to its connections with terrorist organisations,” a leaflet left by Israeli forces at the company’s Ramallah location read.

Al Jazeera’s Hamdah Salhut said Israeli authorities have not released an official statement yet but an official talked to the Israeli media about the raids.

“This official said earlier that Israel ‘believes’ – not that it has any evidence or proof – but ‘believes’ that these cash exchange places are funnelling money to what they call terror organisations,” said Salhut, who was reporting from Amman, Jordan, because Israel has banned Al Jazeera from reporting from Israel and the West Bank.

“The people who own these shops say they were not given any sort of proof by the Israeli military,” she added.

Salhut said it was the fourth time such raids have taken place since the start of the Israeli genocide in Gaza.

“The first time was in December of 2023 when five different cash exchange places were raided by the Israeli military and they seized nearly $3m,” she said. “It happened again in August 2024 and again in September of that same year.”

Hamas slams raids

Hamas denounced the Israeli raids, saying they “constitute a new chapter in the occupation’s open war against the Palestinian people, their lives, their economy, and all the foundations of their steadfastness and perseverance on their land”.

“These assaults on economic institutions, accompanied by the looting of large sums of money and the confiscation of property, are an extension of the piracy policies adopted by the [Israeli] occupation government,” the Palestinian group said in a statement, adding that the targeted companies were “operating within the law”.

Hamas urged the Palestinian Authority to take measures against the Israeli attacks.

Separately, the Palestinian Mujahideen Movement said the raids are “part of the open war against our people, targeting their very existence and cause”. The group also urged the Palestinian Authority to “defend” Palestinians from such attacks and “halt its policy of security coordination” with Israel.

As the Trump administration cut billions of dollars in federal funding to scientific research, thousands of scientists in the U.S. lost their jobs or grants — and governments and universities around the world spotted an opportunity.

The Canada Leads program, launched in April, hopes to foster the next generation of innovators by bringing early-career biomedical researchers north of the border.

Aix-Marseille University in France started the Safe Place for Science program in March, pledging to welcome U.S.-based scientists who “may feel threatened or hindered in their research.”

Australia’s Global Talent Attraction Program, announced in April, promises competitive salaries and relocation packages.

“In response to what is happening in the U.S.,” said Anna-Maria Arabia, head of the Australian Academy of Science, “we see an unparalleled opportunity to attract some of the smartest minds here.”

Since World War II, the U.S. has invested huge amounts of money in scientific research conducted at independent universities and federal agencies. That funding helped the U.S. to become the world’s leading scientific power — and has led to the invention of cellphones and the internet as well as new ways to treat cancer, heart disease and strokes, noted Holden Thorp, editor in chief of the journal Science.

But today that system is being shaken.

Since President Trump took office in January, his administration has pointed to what it calls waste and inefficiency in federal science spending and made major cuts to staff levels and grant funding at the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, NASA and other agencies, while slashing research dollars that flow to some private universities.

The White House budget proposal for next year aims to cut the NIH budget by roughly 40% and the National Science Foundation budget by 55%.

“The Trump administration is spending its first few months reviewing the previous administration’s projects, identifying waste, and realigning our research spending to match the American people’s priorities and continue our innovative dominance,” White House spokesperson Kush Desai said.

Already, several universities have announced hiring freezes, laid off staff or stopped admitting new graduate students. On Thursday, the Trump administration revoked Harvard University’s ability to enroll international students, though a judge put that on hold.

Research institutions abroad are watching with concern for collaborations that depend on colleagues in the U.S. — but they also see opportunities to poach talent.

“There are threats to science … south of the border,” said Brad Wouters of University Health Network, Canada’s leading hospital and medical research center, which launched the Canada Leads recruitment drive. “There’s a whole pool of talent, a whole cohort that is being affected by this moment.”

Academic freedom

Universities worldwide are always trying to recruit from one another, just as tech companies and businesses in other fields do. What’s unusual about the current moment is that many global recruiters are targeting researchers by promising something that seems newly threatened: academic freedom.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said this month that the European Union intends “to enshrine freedom of scientific research into law.” She spoke at the launch of the bloc’s Choose Europe for Science initiative, which was in the works before the Trump administration cuts but has sought to capitalize on the moment.

Eric Berton, president of Aix-Marseille University, expressed a similar sentiment after launching the institution’s Safe Place for Science program.

“Our American research colleagues are not particularly interested by money,” he said of applicants. “What they want above all is to be able to continue their research and that their academic freedom be preserved.”

Imminent ‘brain drain’?

It’s too early to say how many scientists will choose to leave the U.S. It will take months for universities to review applications and dole out funding, and longer for researchers to uproot their lives.

Plus, the American lead in funding research and development is enormous — and even significant cuts may leave crucial programs standing. The U.S. has been the world’s leading funder of research and development — including government, university and private investment — for decades. In 2023, the country funded 29% of the world’s R&D, according to the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science.

But some institutions abroad are reporting significant early interest from researchers in the U.S. Nearly half of the applications to Safe Place for Science — 139 out of 300 total — came from U.S.-based scientists, including AI researchers and astrophysicists.

U.S.-based applicants in this year’s recruitment round for France’s Institute of Genetics, Molecular and Cellular Biology roughly doubled over last year.

At the Max Planck Society in Germany, the Lise Meitner Excellence Program — aimed at young female researchers — drew triple the number of applications from U.S.-based scientists this year as last year.

Recruiters who work with companies and nonprofits say they see a similar trend.

Natalie Derry, a U.K.-based managing partner of the Global Emerging Sciences Practice at recruiter WittKieffer, said her team has seen a 25% to 35% increase in applicants from the U.S. cold-calling about open positions. When they reach out to scientists currently based in the U.S., “we are getting a much higher hit rate of people showing interest.”

Still, there are practical hurdles to overcome for would-be continent-hoppers, she said. That can include language hurdles, arranging child care or elder care, and significant differences in national pension or retirement programs.

Brandon Coventry never thought he would consider a scientific career outside the United States. But federal funding cuts and questions over whether new grants will materialize have left him unsure. While reluctant to leave his family and friends, he’s applied to faculty positions in Canada and France.

“I’ve never wanted to necessarily leave the United States, but this is a serious contender for me,” said Coventry, who is a postdoctoral fellow studying neural implants at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

But it’s not easy to pick up and move a scientific career — let alone a life.

Marianna Zhang was studying how children develop race and gender stereotypes as a postdoctoral fellow at New York University when her National Science Foundation grant was canceled. She said it felt like “America as a country was no longer interested in studying questions like mine.”

Still, she wasn’t sure of her next move. “It’s no easy solution, just fleeing and escaping to another country,” she said.

The recruitment programs range in ambition, from those trying to attract a dozen researchers to a single university to the continent-wide Choose Europe for Science initiative.

But it’s unclear whether the total amount of funding and new positions offered could match what’s being shed in the United States.

A global vacuum

Even as universities and institutes think about recruiting talent from the U.S., there’s more apprehension than glee at the funding cuts.

“Science is a global endeavor,” said Patrick Cramer, head of the Max Planck Society, noting that datasets and discoveries are often shared among international collaborators.

One aim of recruitment drives is “to help prevent the loss of talent to the global scientific community,” he said.

Researchers worldwide will suffer if collaborations are shut down and databases taken offline, scientists say.

“The U.S. was always an example, in both science and education,” said Patrick Schultz, president of France’s Institute of Genetics, Molecular and Cellular Biology. So the cuts and policies were “very frightening also for us because it was an example for the whole world.”

Larson, Ramakrishnan and Keaten write for the Associated Press.

May 23 (UPI) — A federal judge in Massachusetts on Friday issued an injunction that blocks President Donald Trump‘s administration from stopping Harvard University’s enrollment of international students.

The Trump administration may not proceed with an order that blocks Harvard from using the Student and Exchange Visitor Program, U.S. District Court Judge for the District of Massachusetts Allison D. Burroughs said in her written ruling.

Such an order would cause Harvard to “sustain immediate and irreparable injury before there is an opportunity to hear from all parties,” Burroughs wrote.

On Thursday, the Trump administration blocked Harvard from using the SEVP process to enroll foreign students, because of the school’s “refusal to comply with multiple requests to provide the Department of Homeland Security pertinent information while perpetuating an unsafe campus environment that is hostile to Jewish students.”

Harvard filed a lawsuit, naming the Justice Department, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and others as defendants, seeking to block the move.

“This revocation is a blatant violation of the First Amendment, the Due Process Clause, and the Administrative Procedure Act. It is the latest act by the government in clear retaliation for Harvard exercising its First Amendment rights to reject the government’s demands to control Harvard’s governance, curriculum, and the ‘ideology’ of its faculty and students,” the lawsuit contends.

The university contends the administration’s move would negatively affect more than 7,000 current students.

“For more than 70 years, Harvard University has been certified by the federal government to enroll international students under the F-1 visa program, and it has long been designated as an exchange program sponsor to host J-1 nonimmigrants. Harvard has, over this time, developed programs and degrees tailored to its international students, invested millions to recruit the most talented such students, and integrated its international students into all aspects of the Harvard community,” the school said in its application for an injunction.

This week’s news is the latest chapter in a back-and-forth saga between the Trump administration and the post-secondary institution.

Last month, the federal government said it would withhold some $2 billion in funding. Earlier this month, the government blocked further grants, accusing Harvard of “engaging in a systemic pattern of violating federal law.”

Education Secretary Linda McMahon said the school is resisting what the administration calls “common-sense reforms.”

Earlier, the school took to social media to state its views on the matter. On Twitter, it posted, “Without its international students, Harvard is not Harvard.”

Later, former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg also used the same social-media app to criticize the administration’s moves. “America cannot long remain free, nor first among nations, if it becomes the kind of place where universities are dismantled because they don’t align politically with the current head of the government,” he said.

Reuter

Graduation in the shadow of uncertainty

Student dreams left in limbo

The government vs. an ultra-elite university

Donald Trump’s decision to ban Harvard from enrolling foreign students has caused irreparable damage, says one student leader. The order was the latest move in the administration’s escalating battle with the Ivy League school. A federal judge has now temporarily blocked it.

A ‘comprehensive review’ of the US’s chaotic military withdrawal from Afghanistan in August 2021 has also been ordered.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said that the United States is reviewing whether to designate Afghanistan’s rulers, the Taliban, as a “foreign terrorist organization”.

Rubio told the House Foreign Affairs Committee during a hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington on Wednesday, “I believe that classification is now, once again, under review.”

The response came a day after US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered a “comprehensive review” of the United States’s chaotic military withdrawal from Afghanistan in August 2021, an evacuation operation in which 13 US service members and 150 Afghans were killed at Kabul’s airport in an ISIL (ISIS) bombing.

Hegseth said in a memo on Tuesday that after three months of assessing the withdrawal, a comprehensive review was needed to ensure accountability for this event.

“This remains an important step toward regaining faith and trust with the American people and all those who wear the uniform, and is prudent based on the number of casualties and equipment lost during the execution of this withdrawal operation,” Hegseth wrote.

Former President Joe Biden’s administration, which oversaw the pull-out, mostly blamed the resulting chaos on a lack of planning and reductions in troops by the first Donald Trump administration, following its deal with the Taliban to accelerate the withdrawal of US forces.

Trump had signed the deal with the Taliban in Doha in February 2020 aimed at ending its 18-year war in Afghanistan, beginning with the withdrawal of about 4,000 troops “within months”.

The then-Trump administration had agreed it would withdraw from the country by May 2021 if the Taliban negotiated a peace agreement with the Afghan government and promised to prevent internationally designated terrorist groups, such as al-Qaeda and ISIL, from gaining a foothold in the country.

After assuming office in January 2021, Biden said he had to respect the agreement or risk new conflicts with the Taliban, which could have required additional troops in Afghanistan.

On the 2024 campaign trail, Trump frequently criticised Biden and his administration for the withdrawal, saying that the manner in which it was done “was the most embarrassing day in the history of our country’s life.” Trump said that the withdrawal should have been done with “dignity, with strength, with power.”

Senior US military officials, including then-Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and the then-top US general, Mark Milley, have already appeared before lawmakers to give their testimonies regarding the withdrawal.

The war in Afghanistan from 2001-2021 was the US’s longest war, surpassing Vietnam.

It remains unclear how Hegseth’s review would differ from the many previous reviews carried out by the US military, Department of State and Trump’s fellow Republicans in the House of Representatives.

US Central Command, which oversees operations in the Middle East, has also carried out an investigation into the ISIL attack on Kabul during the last few days of the withdrawal.

Israeli soldiers were captured on video firing towards a group of foreign diplomats on a visit to Jenin in the occupied West Bank, forcing them to run to their vehicles and flee the area. The military claims the group deviated from an “approved route” and the shots were only a “warning.”