SLVRDRGN

Harvard University, the world-renowned institution emblematic of the elitism that Trump and his coterie hold in contempt, received an extortive demand from the administration that it surrender the core of its academic freedoms – and promptly told it to get lost.

Echoing pressures imposed on other elite colleges, notably Columbia University, the Trump team – representing the Departments of Education and Health and Human Services, and the General Services Administration – had demanded sweeping reforms in how Harvard is run, including the installation of viewpoint-diverse faculty members and the end of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programmes.

The backdrop to a demand for what would be unprecedented government interference in the affairs of the world’s richest university is the alleged rise of campus antisemitism, arising from an upsurge of pro-Palestinian demonstrations that have gripped Harvard and other colleges following Hamas’s 7 October 2023 attack on Israel and Israel’s retaliatory military offensive in Gaza.

Critics, however, see a more nefarious White House agenda – namely, gutting universities of what it sees as a liberal-left bias, while using antisemitism as a cudgel in an authoritarian power grab.

Having seen Columbia cave in to similar demands and threatening $9bn in federal funding, the White House may have thought it was on to a winner with Harvard.

“Investment is not an entitlement,” the administration’s 11 April letter read, accusing Harvard of having “failed to live up to both the intellectual and civil rights conditions that justify federal investment”.

The administration’s demands made “clear that the intention is not to work with us to address antisemitism in a cooperative and constructive manner”, Garber wrote.

“Although some of the demands outlined by the government are aimed at combating antisemitism, the majority represent direct governmental regulation of the ‘intellectual conditions’ at Harvard.

“No government – regardless of which party is in power – should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.”

The university’s lawyers, William Burck and Robert Hur, both of whom have conservative credentials, starkly set out the broader constitutional stakes, writing that the government’s demands were “in contravention of the first amendment” and concluding that “Harvard is not prepared to agree to demands that go beyond the lawful authority of this or any administration”.

Elon Musk was roundly mocked on social media after attempting to spin his defeat in the Wisconsin Supreme Court race into a win for voters' rights.

That was already the law in Wisconsin, and Question 1 just protected it in the state's Constitution. However, Musk had long focused on the state's Supreme Court race and talked little about Question 1. He often posted on social media about the dangers or electing a liberal judge and poured $25 million into the state to support the conservative candidate.
However, Musk's pick lost to the liberal candidate.

That led to Musk's post on X downplaying the loss - and the round of mocking that followed.

The DOGE leader had also traveled to Wisconsin two days before the race to personally hand voters $1 million checks after giving a speech in which he wore a cheesehead hat.

“The long con of the left is corruption of the judiciary,” the Tesla billionaire posted on X on Tuesday night.

Wednesday’s win by Democratic candidate Susan Crawford, over Brad Schimel, cemented a liberal majority for the next three years. In her acceptance speech, Crawford made reference to Musk and his campaign.

“I never could have imagined that I would be taking on the richest man in the world for justice in Wisconsin... and we won,” she said.

Crawford’s win keeps the court under a 4-3 liberal majority in the face of crucial litigation surrounding abortion access, voting rights and redistricting.

A US federal judge has questioned why the Trump administration failed to obey his order halting the deportations of alleged Venezuelan gang members.
White House officials argued in a court filing that they did not defy the ruling. The argued in part that because Boasberg's order was made orally rather than in written form, it was not enforceable - and that the planes had already left the US by the time it was issued.

During a hearing on Monday, Boasberg said he clearly ordered the government to turn the planes around. "You're saying that you felt you could disregard it because it wasn't in a written order?" he asked Department of Justice lawyers.

After lawyers told the judge that planes with deportees already had taken off, he reportedly gave a verbal order for the flights to turn back "immediately", although that directive was not included in a written ruling published shortly thereafter. Nonetheless, a timeline of events reported by US media suggests the Trump administration had the opportunity to stop at least some of the deportations.

Under the US system of checks and balances, government agencies are expected to comply with a federal judge's ruling.

El Salvador has agreed to accept the deportees from the US. The country's president, Nayib Bukele, appeared to mock the judge's ruling. "Oopsie… Too late," he posted on social media, along with a picture of a headline announcing the ruling and a 'crying with laughter' emoji. His team also published footage of some of the detainees inside one of its mega-jails.
According to the White House, El Salvador's government received $6m (£4.62m) to take the detainees, which Leavitt said "is pennies on the dollar" compared to the cost of holding inmates in US prisons.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which brought the lawsuit leading to the judge's order, questioned Trump's use of the Alien Enemies Act, a sweeping wartime authority that allows fast-track deportations. "I think we're in very dangerous territory here in the United States with the invocation of this law," said the ACLU's Lee Gelernt.
The Alien Enemies Act only allowed deportations when the US was in a declared war with that foreign government, or was being invaded, Mr Gelernt said. "A gang is not invading," he told BBC News. Making matters worse was the fact "the administration is saying nobody can review what they're doing", Mr Gelernt added.

Mahmoud Khalil, a recent graduate student at Columbia University and green-card holder, was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers over the weekend in what is likely one of the first high-profile detentions of a student who participated in the protests against the Israel-Hamas war.

The arrest follows through on one of President Trump's executive actions, which directed the government to use all of its tools to punish those who have engaged in "antisemitic harassment and violence." The executive action cites the federal law that authorizes deporting a foreign national who "endorses or espouses terrorist activity."

In a social media post on Monday, Trump said the arrest was the first of many to come. He vowed that his administration "will find, apprehend, and deport these terrorist sympathizers from our country — never to return again."

People dance and wave large Israeli flags during a rally against campus antisemitism at George Washington University in May 2024 in Washington, D.C.

Michael Thaddeus, a mathematics professor at Columbia University, said the move seeking to strip Khalil's green card and deport him violates the broader trust from foreign students who come to study in the U.S.

"They come because of their trust and belief that they could speak out freely while they're here and not be imprisoned or harassed because [of] their political speech or activism or advocacy," Thaddeus said.

First, they told Khalil, who's of Palestinian descent, that his student visa had been canceled. But he's not on a visa; he's a legal permanent resident. His wife went to get his green card from their apartment, but officers said his lawful permanent residency had been revoked.

During Trump's first term, he took steps towards limiting visas for foreign nationals and revoking people's immigration status, including denaturalization, or cancelling someone's status as a naturalized U.S. citizen.

The court currently has a 6-3 conservative supermajority, but both Barrett and Roberts have at times broken ranks and voted with the court's liberal wing in rulings that have infuriated the MAGA base.

The high court handed the U.S. president a significant setback when it ruled Wednesday that the Trump administration must abide by a lower court order to unfreeze $2 billion in foreign aid.

The aid was blocked after Trump signed an executive action his first day in office ordering the funding freeze while his administration scoured U.S. spending for what Trump and his allies characterize as "waste, fraud and abuse."

A lower court judge subsequently ordered the administration to unblock the aid in response to a lawsuit filed by nonprofit organizations in connection to the Trump administration's freezing of foreign assistance through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the State Department.

In a 5-4 ruling on Wednesday, Barrett and Roberts joined Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson and left in place the ruling by U.S. District Judge Amir Ali.

Mike Cernovich, a longtime conservative activist and Trump supporter, amplified a video of Barrett and Trump interacting during his address to a joint session of Congress.

"She is evil, chosen solely because she checked identity politics boxes," Cernovich wrote. "Another DEI hire. It always ends badly."

Mike Davis, a former law clerk for Gorsuch and the former chief nominations counsel for Republican Senator Chuck Grassley, didn't name Barrett directly but echoed Cernovich's criticisms of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, which Trump has dismantled across the federal government.

He wrote on X: "President Trump will pick even more bold and fearless judges in his second term. Extreme vetting. No DEI. No missteps."

Donald Trump just imposed a 25 percent tariff on virtually all goods produced by America’s two largest trading partners — Canada and Mexico. He simultaneously established a 20 percent across-the-board tariff on Chinese goods.

As a result, America’s average tariff level is now higher than at any time since the 1940s.

Meanwhile, China and Canada immediately retaliated against Trump’s duties, with the former imposing a 15 percent tariff on American agricultural products and the latter putting a 25 percent tariff on $30 billion of US goods. Mexico has vowed to mount retaliatory tariffs of its own.

This trade war could have far-reaching consequences. Trump’s tariffs have already triggered a stock market sell-off and cooling of manufacturing activity. And economists have estimated that the trade policy will cost the typical US household more than $1,200 a year, as the prices of myriad goods rise.

All this raises the question: Why has the US president chosen to upend trade relations on the North American continent? The stakes of this question are high, since it could determine how long Trump’s massive tariffs remain in effect. Unfortunately, the president himself does not seem to know the answer.

In recent weeks, Trump has provided five different — and contradictory — justifications for his tariffs on Mexico and Canada...

...more in the article.

Nigel Farage has been accused of acting as “Donald Trump’s spokesman in Britain” for refusing to criticize his ally after the US president bullied and belittled Volodymyr Zelensky in the Oval Office last Friday.

Condemning the Reform leader, Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey said: “Nigel Farage is once again showing his true colours as Trump's own spokesman here in Britain.

"Zelensky showed courage and integrity in that room - in stark contrast to Farage’s cowardly approach of licking Trump’s boots.

And the Conservatives said Mr Zelensky is a hero who has “stood up to Putin’s aggression and led his country’s defence against their barbaric and illegal invasion”.

“It is troubling to not hear the leader of Reform say that,” shadow foreign secretary Priti Patel said. She added: “For Nigel Farage to sit there pointing the finger at Zelenskyy is both morally wrong and diplomatically counterproductive.

Labour MP Blair McDougall, a member of the foreign affairs committee, told The Independent he was “utterly unsurprised” by Mr. Farage joining the attack on Mr. Zelensky.

He added: “Most of us look at Putin and feel disgust. Farage has always seen someone to admire. A leader who can’t pick a side between a murderous dictatorship and a democracy doesn’t deserve to be anywhere near decisions about Britain’s security.”

Please state in which country your phrase tends to be used, what the phrase is, and what it should be.

Example:

In America, recently came across "back-petal", instead of back-pedal. Also, still hearing "for all intensive purposes" instead of "for all intents and purposes".

Please try your best to narrow it down to THREE! Can you recall which shows on TV feel synonymous with your youth? Can be your childhood phase, your adolescent phase, etc. - whatever you define as your youth!

For me: Jackie Chan Adventures, The Fresh Prince of Bel Air, Pokemon