What hurdles lie ahead for any US-China TikTok deal?

(Corrects story to show Andreessen Horowitz is not a current investor in ByteDance in paragraph 13)

By David Shepardson

WASHINGTON (newsrealtime) - Questions and potential hurdles surround a framework agreement announced on Monday between the U.S. and China that would transfer short-video app TikTok to U.S.-controlled ownership, including whether any deal will comply with a 2024 law.

U.S. and Chinese officials announced the deal in principle in Madrid following trade talks, but did not provide details or answer key questions such as whether China will agree to transfer ownership of the algorithm that makes the app so popular with 170 million Americans.

WHAT HAPPENS TO THE ALGORITHM?

During previous negotiations, Chinese authorities expressed strong reluctance to allow the export of TikTok's recommendation algorithm, widely seen as owner ByteDance's most valuable asset and a key driver of the app's global popularity.

In 2020, when the Trump administration first pushed for a sale of TikTok's U.S. business, China updated its export control rules to cover technologies such as recommendation algorithms, effectively giving the government a say over any transfer.

DOES CONGRESS NEED TO APPROVE THE DEAL?

Any agreement could require approval by the Republican-controlled Congress, which passed a law in 2024 requiring ByteDance to divest TikTok or face a ban in the U.S., due to fears that TikTok's U.S. user data could be accessed by the Chinese government and allow Beijing to spy on Americans or conduct influence operations through the app.

Since that law came into effect, U.S. President Donald Trump has extended the deadline for its enforcement three times.

Some Democratic lawmakers argued that Trump had no legal authority to extend the deadline and suggested that a previous deal under consideration in April would not meet legal requirements.

Attorney General Pam Bondi sent letters to Apple, Google, and other companies in February that provide services or host TikTok, informing them that the Justice Department was relinquishing any claims for potential violations of the law. They were made public in June.

A congressional aide told NewsRealTime on Monday that lawmakers plan to scrutinize the latest deal when it is made public to see if it complies with the law.

WILL CHINA RETAIN ANY OWNERSHIP?

One issue is whether ByteDance will fully divest from TikTok U.S. after the deal.

Trump responded to a question during an Oval Office press conference about whether China will have a stake in TikTok: "We haven't decided that, but it looks to me, and I'm speaking to President Xi on Friday for confirmation."

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Tom Cotton said in April that American investors wanting to buy TikTok must cut all ties with China.

ByteDance's current shareholders include American firms Susquehanna International Group, General Atlantic, and KKR.

If Congress rejects the latest agreement, Trump may have limited recourse. In January, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the law, passed by an overwhelming bipartisan majority in Congress last year and signed by former Democratic President Joe Biden, did not violate the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment protection against government abridgment of free speech.

WHO WILL CONTROL TIKTOK AFTER DIVESTITURE?

Officials expect the final deal to be very similar to what was anticipated under the previous deal outlined in April, which would spin off TikTok's U.S. operations into a new U.S.-based company, majority-owned and operated by U.S. investors. This stalled after China indicated it would withhold its approval following Trump's announcements of steep tariffs on Chinese goods. The precise structure of the new expected ownership remains unclear.

(Reporting by David Shepardson; Editing by Nia Williams)

Read More

Opinion | Waqf Act: When BJP Mocked the Procedure

The Modi-led coalition cares two hoots about Parliament.

If you are looking for more examples to support this proposition, which the Opposition often makes, then the week began with another Black Monday for the Union government. The Supreme Court did more than just reprimand those who engaged in legislative trickery. In its interim order, the highest court in India stayed two of the most controversial provisions of the Waqf Act, 2025. First, a person has to be a practicing Muslim for five years before he can dedicate a property as waqf. Second, the designated officer can adjudicate the rights of personal citizens. Both these key provisions were stayed.

The passage of the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025 in Parliament was marked by trickery and evasive tactics. Even a casual observer of Parliament can outline how the BJP-led coalition is making a mockery of parliamentary procedure.

1. The motion to refer the Bill to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament was, again, moved on the last day of the session.
2. When the report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) was presented in Parliament, dissent notes by members of the Opposition had been erased using a whitener. (I am not making this up! This actually happened this year in Parliament.) After aggressive protests by the Opposition, a corrigendum was added, which contained the notes that had been redacted.
3. "For the night is dark and full of terrors" - Game of Thrones The Waqf Bill was passed in Parliament in the dead of night. Around midnight in Rajya Sabha, and before one in the morning in Lok Sabha. Incidentally, Manipur was discussed at 3 am.

Presumption of Constitutionality

One major argument made in this case was of the principle of presumption in favor of constitutionality. This means that when a law's constitutionality is challenged, courts should generally presume the law to be valid and uphold it unless it is clearly proven otherwise. This doctrine originated to maintain judicial restraint, uphold the separation of powers, and respect the legislature as the representative body enacting laws within the constitutional framework. It assumes that legislatures act in good faith and within their authority, and that invalidating laws should be an exception, not the default. The Supreme Court of India, like many constitutional courts worldwide, has repeatedly affirmed this presumption, stating that courts should only strike down legislation if it is "manifestly unconstitutional" or violates fundamental rights beyond reasonable doubt.

However, given recent trends where laws have been used selectively to impose disproportionate burdens, regulate minority rights restrictively, or enable the state to overreach in areas constitutionally protected (such as religious freedom and equality), the presumption in favor of constitutionality merits re-evaluation.

Targeted Laws

Governance under the BJP has revealed a striking pattern: the emergence of customized, targeted laws designed to affect specific communities while leaving others untouched. Legal pluralism, where various religions govern themselves, was a system adopted by the country with the intention of respecting diverse customs. However, this is increasingly being used as a source of legal exceptionalism, where groups are treated not as citizens under a single rule of law, but as subjects of special, more restrictive legal regimes. The effect is highly symbolic: the law itself becomes a political message, not merely a regulatory tool. Citizens are left with a sense that laws are designed "for them," not to protect or administer society, but for surveillance, constraint, and to signal hierarchy.

The State As Judge Of Identity

Some examples of these laws are the religion-specific Citizenship Law, which creates exclusions based on faith, and anti-conversion laws in states targeting interfaith marriage and religious conversion (12 states including Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka, Rajasthan). Along with targeting, what these laws also do is place the state in the position of judge of identity. Including the five-year requirement in the Waqf Act, these laws rely on the State to decide who qualifies as a minority and who does not. Once the State assumes the right to decide who qualifies as a legitimate member of a community, it establishes a precedent that identity is conditional; citizenship, faith, and rights can all be reduced to state-certified categories. When the State gets to decide who counts, democracy itself is at risk.

Does the Waqf Act violate rights such as equality before the law (Article 14)? Does it violate freedom of religion (Articles 25 and 26)? Does it violate the prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of religion (Article 15)? These are the probing questions that India hopes will be addressed by the Supreme Court.

Research credit: Chahat Mangtani

(Derek O'Brien, MP, leads the Trinamool Congress in the Rajya Sabha)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author

Read More

"We Correct That Wrong Today": Abbey Gate Gold Star Families Visit the Oval Office After Biden Forgot About Them

President Donald Trump righted a wrong on Monday by honoring the Gold Star families of the 13 soldiers killed during the Abbey Gate bombing in Kabul, Afghanistan, in August 2021.

In an Oval Office event, Trump signed a proclamation to mark the fourth anniversary of the bombing , which happened on August 26, 2021, after President Joe Biden ordered a hasty and what turned out to be disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Before signing the proclamation, Trump told the families of the slain standing behind him, "There are some great souls that are looking down on you right now, and they're very proud of their parents, and brothers, and sisters. Moms and dads, especially. That's what I seem to have dealt with, mostly. There's nothing tougher."

The president also thanked members of the media covering the event for being respectful towards the families.

"They deserve it. They went through hell for no reason. It should have never happened," Trump said.

Vice President J.D. Vance , a Marine Corps veteran who served during the Iraq war, added, "We're so honored to have all of you here. I know that days like today can't make the hurt go away. But hopefully four years on, we can start to remember with fondness and a little bit of joy, the people that were taken from us. We're so proud of you."

Regarding the proclamation That Trump signed, Vance said, "This is a correction of a wrong—the fact that the [former] president of the United States lost your loved ones through incompetence, but never acknowledged it. And your government never actually put pen to paper to say we're grateful for your sacrifice. We correct that wrong today."

Trump's proclamation said, in part, "As our Nation remembers this atrocious attack, we honor the memory of every brave warrior who made the ultimate sacrifice for our country."

We join in grief with the families who have senselessly lost a loved one, and we renew our solemn pledge to our 13 fallen patriots -- we will never forget you; we will never forsake you; and your memory will live on forever.

Trump's honoring of the Gold Star families stood in stark contrast to Biden's treatment of them. The 46th president was infamously caught on camera checking his watch during the dignified transfer ceremony at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware.

The New York Post Reported at the time that family members of Marines killed during the attack criticized Biden, with one father calling his repeated checking of his watch, "the most disrespectful thing I've ever seen."

Mark Schmitz -- whose 20-year-old son, Marine Lance Cpl. Jared Schmitz was a casualty -- told The Washington Post that his family's meeting with Biden "didn't go well."

He talked a bit more about his own son [Beau Biden] than he did my son," Schmitz said, "and that didn't sit well with me.

When he just kept talking about his son so much, it was just - my interest was lost in that. I was more focused on my own son than what happened with him and his son," Schmitz added. "I'm not trying to insult the president, but it just didn't seem that appropriate to spend that much time on his own son.

The Washington Post noted that Beau Biden died of brain cancer in 2015. Joe Biden often linked his son's death to seven-month deployment to Iraq in 2008 and 2009.

During a February 2024 call to a Gold Star family who lost a loved one due to a drone strike near Syria, he reportedly said , "My son spent a year in Iraq; that's how I lost him."

"My son Beau, he had been near a burn pit in Baghdad and came down with stage four neuroblastoma, a brain tumor," he added.

During Biden's last State of the Union address in March 2024, after he said, "All Americans deserve to be safe," the father of Lance Col. Kareem Nikoui, who was killed in the 2021 Kabul bombing, called out from the gallery, "Abbey Gate!"

"Second Battalion, First Marines!" he then shouted. Capitol Police then removed him from the chamber.

Fox News reported last August on the third anniversary of the bombing that neither Biden nor then-Vice President Kamala Harris had ever reached out to the Abbey Gate Gold Star families.

The two may not like being reminded of the preventable tragedy that occurred on their watch, but thankfully, Trump and Vance were not willing to let the Gold Star families' sacrifice be forgotten.

Read More

Person arrested for burning US flag near White House after Trump's order

A person was arrested near the White House on Tuesday after setting fire to an American flag, just hours after the President Donald Trump signed an executive order seeking to punish people who burn the flag.

The U.S. Secret Service confirmed the initial detention in a statement to newsrealtime.

Why It Matters

The arrest sets the stage for a legal battle because Trump's executive order, which he signed Monday, is in opposition to a legal precedent set by the Supreme Court in 1989 when it reached a 5-4 decision in Texas vs. Johnson Justice William Brennan wrote that the government could not prohibit expressive conduct merely because society found it offensive.

The ruling stated that burning the flag is protected by the First Amendment because it constitutes symbolic and political speech.

What To Know

A video clip posted on social media shows a man in Lafayette Park outside the White House speaking to passersby through a bullhorn before setting fire to a U.S. flag soaked in some kind of accelerant on the ground.

The man said he was a 20-year combat veteran and identified himself as Jay Carey.

He said he was protesting to defend the right to burn the flag under the First Amendment.

"I fought for every single one of your rights to express yourself in however you feel that you may want to express yourself. It is a First Amendment right to burn the American flag," the man said.

He said no president, or anyone else, can make a law that infringes on First Amendment rights.

"We burn this flag in protest to that president who feels that it's his right to do whatever he wants, make whatever law he wants, regardless if it's legal or illegal."

The video clip did not show the man being detained, but the Secret Service confirmed he had been taken into custody.

"On August 25 at approximately 6:15 p.m., the U.S. Secret Service detained an individual in Lafayette Park for igniting an object," the agency said. "The individual was subsequently turned over to U.S. Park Police as they have jurisdiction. We'd refer you to U.S. Park Police for any charges or additional questions."

The Park Police confirmed that the individual was arrested after being contacted for comment by newsrealtime , saying, "At about 6:30 p.m., the United States Park Police arrested one person in Lafayette Park for a violation of 36 CFR 2.13(a)(1), prohibited fire. All units have cleared the scene."

Earlier, Trump acknowledged that while burning the flag was protected by the court, doing so was an open door to violence.

"When you burn the American flag, it incites riots at levels that we've never seen before," Trump said.

The order states that those who burn an American flag, whether in the U.S. or other countries, will be subject to prosecution and penalties.

In the order, penalties were outlined, including those for non-citizens that could range from the revocation of visas or immigration benefits, and even the possibility of removal from the country.

White House spokeswoman Taylor Rogers said newsrealtime after the flag burning, "President Trump will not allow the American Flag—a special symbol of our country's greatness—to be used as a tool to incite violence and riots that jeopardize the safety of everyday Americans."

What People Are Saying

President Donald Trump said while signing the order: They burn the American flag. They call it freedom of speech. When you burn a flag, the area goes crazy. If you have hundreds of people, they go crazy. You can do other things... but when you burn the American flag, it incites riots at levels we've never seen before.

The executive order reads in part: Despite the Supreme Court's rulings on First Amendment protections, the court has never held that American flag desecration conducted in a manner likely to incite imminent lawless action or that constitutes 'fighting words' is constitutionally protected.

White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers said: President Trump will always protect the First Amendment, while simultaneously implementing common-sense, tough-on-crime policies to prevent violence and chaos.

The man who set fire to the flag said: "Nobody will enforce those illegal laws that that president tried to make."

What Happens Next

A legal battle is likely to unfold in court if legal proceedings are pursued against the flag burner.

Correction: 8/26/25, 6:58 a.m. ET: This article has been updated to name the arrested veteran as Jay Carey, not Dave Perry as originally reported.

Related Articles

• Donald Trump's Executive Order to End Cashless Bail: What to Know
• How Rare Is DC's 12-day Homicide-Free Run?
• Donald Trump Says 'Maybe' People Like Dictators
• Poverty and Policy, Not Politics, Drive Crime in American Cities | Opinion

Start your unlimited news real time trial

Read More

Alina Habba defies judges' removal: 'Broken'

Alina Habba, former personal defense lawyer to the President Donald Trump , is forcefully resisting efforts to remove her from her post as U.S. Attorney for New Jersey - vowing to fight what she describes as a politically motivated campaign to oust her.

"To put it in really simple terms, it's a complicated mechanism - what's happening - and it's, frankly, I think, a broken one," she said during an interview with political commentator Benny Johnson.

Why It Matters

It comes after a panel of federal judges in New Jersey declined to extend Habba's term as the state's interim top prosecutor.

Trump appointed Habba as interim U.S. attorney in late March and nominated her on July 1 to be the U.S. attorney permanently, which would have removed her interim status by the end of this week.

But a DOJ spokesperson said The New York Times on Thursday that the president has withdrawn her nomination, which will Allow her to continue serving in an interim capacity.

What To Know

During the interview, Habba said the Senate's blue slip courtesy—a nonbinding tradition—is being used to block presidential appointments of U.S. attorneys, which she says effectively amounts to stalling or undermining the president's authority.

The blue slip tradition is a Senate custom that gives home-state senators significant influence over federal judicial and U.S. attorney nominations in their state. It allows a senator to approve or block a nominee by returning or withholding a blue-colored form, known as the "blue slip," to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

In Habba's case, both of New Jersey's Democratic senators, Cory Booker and Andy Kim, withheld their blue slips, signaling formal opposition and preventing her nomination from moving forward through the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Booker and Kim allege that she has pursued politically motivated prosecutions against Democratic lawmakers to advance Trump's agenda.

During Habba's tenure as interim U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey, Newark Mayor Ras Baraka was charged with trespassing after a congressional visit to an immigration detention facility. The case was dropped days later, and a federal judge condemned the arrest as a "worrisome misstep," warning it should not be used as a political tool.

Meanwhile, Representative LaMonica McIver was charged with assaulting federal agents during the same protest. McIver and critics called the prosecution politically motivated, especially given her congressional oversight role. Legal experts observed the case appeared "spectacularly inappropriate," claiming Habba bypassed required DOJ supervisory approval for charges against elected officials.

Habba also launched investigations into Democratic Governor Phil Murphy and Attorney General Matt Platkin, focusing on New Jersey's decision to limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement—a move viewed by critics as aligned with Trump's political priorities.

But Habba said the decision to remove her from her post was an attempt to hinder President Trump's powers.

What we're seeing is a systemic problem, where they are using the blue slip courtesy—it's not a law—as a mechanism to block the appointment of U.S. attorneys by the president, per Department of Justice ," Habba said.

That puts those U.S. attorneys in a position where they're kind of stuck. You're in this freeze, and you can't get out. Then they'll run the clock on you, and basically, what ends up happening is they're attempting to thwart the president's powers.

What we saw in my situation, the Senate minority leader sent direct instructions on Twitter Telling the judges to vote and block me. Once it's out of Senate ownership, the judges can vote to keep you. I stepped down as interim and am now the acting attorney. You have 120 days in the interim, I stepped down the day before.

Trump has the power to remove U.S. attorneys who have been appointed by judges.

A panel of federal judges in New Jersey ruled on Tuesday to replace Habba with her handpicked top deputy in the U.S. attorney's office, Desiree Leigh Grace, after her 120-day term was up.

Soon after the court's decision, the Justice Department, led by Attorney General Pam Bondi , fired Grace and accused the judges of political bias aimed at curbing the president's authority.

In response, Trump's team withdrew Habba's nomination for the permanent position—allowing her to resign as interim U.S. Attorney, then be appointed First Assistant U.S. Attorney, and automatically assume the role of acting U.S. Attorney under relevant vacancy laws, extending her tenure for another 210 days.

What People Are Saying

Harrison Fields, a White House spokesperson , previously told newsrealtime In a statement: "President Trump has full confidence in" Alina Habba , whose work as acting U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey has made the Garden State and the nation safer. The Trump Administration looks forward to her final confirmation in the U.S. Senate and will work tirelessly to ensure the people of New Jersey are well represented.

What Happens Next

Habba will remain in her role as interim U.S. attorney in New Jersey for at least the next 210 days.

Related Articles

• Alina Habba Declares She's Acting US Attorney Again
• Who Is Desiree Leigh Grace? DOJ Fires Alina Habba's Replacement
• White House Responds After Judges Reject Alina Habba for US Attorney Position
• Alina Habba to Leave US Attorney Position After Judges Disobey Trump Administration

Start your unlimited news real time trial

Read More

DOGE AI tool to target 100K federal rules for elimination: Report

The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is reportedly using a newly developed artificial intelligence (AI) tool to accelerate the rollback of federal regulations, with a stated goal of eliminating 50 percent of all federal rules by the first anniversary of the President Donald Trump 's second inauguration, according to a Saturday report from The Washington Post .

Internal documents reviewed by the newspaper, along with interviews with four government officials familiar with the project, reveal an ambitious timeline and a wide-ranging use of the tool across various agencies.

newsrealtime has reached out to the White House for comment via email on Saturday.

Why It Matters

DOGE was created by Trump through an executive order to improve efficiency and reduce waste in the federal government. It was led by a billionaire Elon Musk who left the administration in May .

The reported plan represents one of the most aggressive attempts by the Trump administration to overhaul the federal regulatory system. By automating the deregulation process, the administration aims to significantly reduce government spending and compliance burdens.

However, the use of AI to interpret complex legal language and determine regulatory necessity raises legal and practical concerns, particularly regarding accuracy, oversight, and the future role of civil servants in shaping public policy, according to the Post.

What to Know

"The DOGE AI Deregulation Decision Tool," developed by engineers brought into government under Elon Musk's DOGE initiative, is programmed to scan about 200,000 existing federal rules and flag those that are either outdated or not legally required.

According to a PowerPoint presentation dated July 1 that was obtained by the newspaper, the tool estimates that approximately 100,000 of those rules could be eliminated, mainly through automation with minimal human input. The projection claims this could save trillions in compliance costs and spark increased external investment.

At the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), AI has already reviewed over 1,000 regulatory sections in under two weeks. Similarly, it was responsible for "100% of deregulations" at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), according to the PowerPoint presentation. The Post , however, reported that it was not able to confirm the use of AI at the agency independently.

When asked about the use of AI for deregulation, White House spokesman Harrison Fields emphasized to the newspaper that "all options are being explored" to meet the president's deregulation goals. He clarified that no single plan has been finalized, and the effort is still in early, creative stages with ongoing consultation within the White House.

DOGE plans to complete agency-specific deregulation lists by September 1 and finish nationwide rollout by January 20, 2026 - labeled in internal documents as "Relaunch America." Agencies are currently receiving training on how to integrate the AI tool into their regulatory review process .The presentation claims the tool could save 93 percent of the labor typically required to gut federal rules, reducing what would usually take 3.6 million work hours to just 36.

Despite these goals, some federal employees expressed concern about accuracy. One HUD employee told the Post that the AI misinterpreted statutes and flagged legal language as non-compliant when it was accurate. HUD confirmed to the newspaper that while the agency is exploring AI to streamline efficiency, the system is not intended to replace expert judgment.

The push to eliminate regulations is not new for Trump. In January, he issued an executive order mandating the repeal of 10 rules for every new one added. Departments like Transportation and Labor have already reported dozens of regulatory cuts. However, experts question whether such repeals will withstand scrutiny under the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs the legal process for rescinding rules. Previous attempts to bypass procedural safeguards—such as Trump's reversal of showerhead regulations —have faced legal scrutiny.

DOGE's lawyers have reportedly reviewed the tool, but concerns remain about whether its recommendations will be upheld in court or trusted by the private sector.

While DOGE initially tried to play a leading role in the deregulation campaign , internal resistance from federal employees has slowed momentum. Agencies questioned DOGE's subject matter expertise and hesitated to outsource rulemaking authority to a third-party system. Moreover, the administration's efforts to downsize the federal workforce have hampered its ability to implement the deregulation strategy.

What People Are Saying

Nicholas Bagley, a law professor at the University of Michigan, told The Washington Post about Trump's unilateral efforts to reduce regulations: There have been some flashy sideshow efforts to avoid the legal strictures, but in general, they don't stick.

White House spokesman Harrison Fields wrote in an email obtained by The Washington Post : "The DOGE experts creating these plans are the best and brightest in the business and are embarking on a never-before-attempted transformation of government systems and operations to enhance efficiency and effectiveness."

What Happens Next?

Over the next several months, agencies will use the DOGE AI tool to select rules for repeal, respond to public comments, and finalize deregulation plans.

Whether the courts, the public, and the agencies themselves accept that transformation remains uncertain.

Related Articles

• Nationwide "Rage Against the Regime" Protest Planned for August 2
• Exclusive: Trump's Cuts Will Hit Rural America Like 'a Tsunami,' Democrat Warns
• JD Vance's Chances of Defeating Leading Democratic Candidates in 2028 - Poll
• Trump Refund Checks: President Updates on Payments to Americans

Start your unlimited news real time trial

Read More

Key points from AP's report on cuts to government grants for nonprofits

President Donald Trump's policies are poised to upend decades of partnerships the federal government has built partnerships with nonprofits to help people in their communities.

Since the 1960s, presidential administrations from both parties have used taxpayer dollars to fund nonprofits to take on social problems and deliver services. A vast and interconnected set of federal grants fund public safety programs, early childhood education, food assistance and refugee resettlement services in every state.

In January, the Trump administration sought to freeze federal grants and loans . Nonprofit groups immediately challenged the move and won a court-ordered pause . But in the six months since, the administration has cut, frozen, or discontinued many federal grant programs across agencies.

An analysis by the Urban Institute provides an understanding of the scale and extent of government support for nonprofits. Published in February, the data comes from the tax forms that nonprofits file, where they report any government grants they receive.

In response to questions about the cuts to grant funding, White House spokesperson Kush Desai said, "Instead of government largesse that's often riddled with corruption, waste, fraud, and abuse, the Trump administration is focused on unleashing America's economic resurgence to fuel Americans' individual generosity."

How much support does the government give to nonprofits?

The Urban Institute found $267 billion was granted to nonprofits from all levels of government — federal, state and local — in 2021, the most recent year a comprehensive set of nonprofit tax forms are available.

That figure underestimates the total funding that nonprofits receive from the government. It includes grants, but not contracts for services nor reimbursements from programs like Medicare. It also excludes the smallest nonprofits, which file a different, abbreviated tax form.

The data includes all tax-exempt organizations that file a full tax return, from local food pantries to universities and nonprofit hospitals. But government funding does not just go to the largest organizations. A majority of nonprofits in the dataset across every sector, from the arts to the environment to human services, report receiving government grants.

In most places, the typical nonprofit would run a deficit without government funding. The Urban Institute cautions that just because a nonprofit would run a budget deficit without government funding, it does not necessarily mean the nonprofit will close.

Even in wealthy areas, nonprofits would struggle without government support

The analysis found that in only two Congressional districts - one that includes parts of Orange County, California, and one in the suburbs west of Atlanta - typical nonprofits would not be in the red if they lost all of their public grant funding.

However, funders in Orange County warn that nonprofits are not as optimistic about their resilience.

Taryn Palumbo, executive director of Orange County Grantmakers, said local nonprofits "are seeing their budgets getting slashed by 50% or 40%."

Last year, a large local foundation, the Samueli Foundation, commissioned a study of nonprofit needs because they were significantly increasing their grantmaking from $18.8 million in 2022 to an estimated $125 million in 2025. They found that local nonprofits reported problems maintaining staff, a deep lack of investment in their operations, and a shortage of flexible reserve funds.

The foundation responded by opening applications for unrestricted grants and to support investments in buildings or land. Against this $10 million in potential awards, they received 1,242 applications for more than $250 million, said Lindsey Spindle, the foundation’s president.

It tells a really stark picture of how unbelievably deep and broad the need is," Spindle said. "There is not a single part of the nonprofit sector that has not responded to these funds. Every topic you can think of: poverty, animal welfare, arts and culture, civil rights, domestic abuse.

Private donations cannot replace government support

The nonprofit Friendship Shelter helps house and support 330 people in Laguna Beach, California, which is located within Orange County. Dawn Price, its executive director, said the organization has an annual budget of about $15 million, $11.5 million of which comes from government sources.

Price said the government funding is "braided" in complex ways to support different programs and fill in gaps. Private donors already subsidize their government grants, which she said pay for 69% of the actual program costs.

"We are providing this service to our government at a loss, at a business loss, and then making up that loss with these Medicaid dollars and also the private fundraising," she said.

Even in a wealthy place like Orange County, Price said she does not believe private donors are prepared to give five, six, or eight times as much as they do now if new cuts to government grants occur or programs are not renewed.

___

Associated Press coverage of philanthropy and nonprofits is supported through AP's collaboration with The Conversation US, with funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. AP is solely responsible for this content. For all of AP's philanthropy coverage, visit https://apnews.com/hub/philanthropy .

Read More

WHO says Israeli forces attacked its facilities in Gaza and detained staff

The World Health Organization said the Israeli military attacked its staff residence and main warehouse in the central Gaza city of Deir al-Balah on Monday, endangering humanitarian workers and compromising relief operations in the besieged Palestinian territory.

The UN agency said its staff accommodation was hit three times, causing a fire and significant damage.

"Israeli military entered the premises, forcing women and children to evacuate on foot towards Al-Mawasi amid active conflict. Male staff and family members were handcuffed, stripped, interrogated on the spot, and screened at gunpoint," WHO said.

Two agency personnel and two family members were detained during the raid. According to WHO chief Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus , three were later released while one staff member remained in Israeli custody.

"WHO demands the immediate release of the detained staff and protection of all its staff," said Dr. Tedros.

A spokesperson for the agency later said the WHO does not know the reasons behind the detention of its staff by the Israeli authorities, and again urged their release.

The UN agency said its main warehouse in Deir al-Balah, located within an Israeli-declared evacuation zone, was damaged in a separate strike on Sunday, triggering explosions and a fire inside the facility.

The Israeli military was still to respond to these allegations by WHO.

The UN agency vowed to continue and expand its operations in the area, a critical center of humanitarian aid distribution during more than 21 months of war.

Deir al-Balah is densely packed with Palestinians displaced by Israeli bombardment and evacuation orders.

Israeli tanks entered the southern and eastern neighborhoods of the city on Monday for the first time since the conflict began.

Tank shelling in the city hit homes and mosques, killing at least three people and injuring several others, according to medics. Gunfire was reportedly heard throughout the day, and thousands of people fled on foot or using donkey carts, eyewitnesses said.

More than 25 countries, including the UK, France, Canada, Japan and Australia, issued a joint statement on Monday urging an immediate end to the war. The signatories criticized Israel's restriction of aid, describing it as "dangerous" and a violation of international humanitarian law.

The denial by the Israeli government of essential humanitarian assistance to the civilian population is unacceptable," they said. "Israel must comply with its obligations under international humanitarian law.

Israel's foreign ministry rejected the statement, saying it was "disconnected from reality and sends the wrong message to Hamas."

U.S. ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, also rejected the statement from many of Washington's closest allies, denouncing it as "disgusting" in a post on X, and said they should instead pressure the "savages of Hamas."

The broader Israeli attack across Gaza left at least 130 Palestinians dead and over 1,000 injured in the past 24 hours, said Gaza's Hamas-run health ministry on Monday.

The cumulative death toll from Israel's war on the besieged territory exceeded 59,000, with widespread destruction of infrastructure and displacement of people.

Israel launched a ground and air attack on Gaza after nearly 1,200 civilians and soldiers were killed and 251 taken hostage during a Hamas attack on October 7, 2023.

The UN's top humanitarian officials have raised the alarm over a collapsing healthcare system and rising malnutrition in Gaza due to the Israeli war and siege, particularly among children.

WHO said Gaza's health sector was "on its knees" amid critical shortages of fuel, medicines, and medical equipment.

UN Spokesperson Stéphane Dujarric confirmed that two UN guesthouses were also hit in the latest Israeli strikes, despite all parties being informed of their protected status.

"These locations - as with all civilian sites - must be protected, regardless of evacuation orders," he said.

UN Secretary General António Guterres expressed deep concern over what he called an accelerating breakdown of humanitarian conditions. "The last lifelines keeping people alive are collapsing," he said, according to the spokesman.

The head of the UN humanitarian office in Gaza, Jonathan Whittall, whom Israel said would not have his visa renewed, described the situation as "conditions of death," calling the suffering preventable and "intentional."

"Israel has the obligation to allow and facilitate by all the means at its disposal the humanitarian relief provided by the United Nations and by other humanitarian organizations," he said.

The Independent is the world's most free-thinking news brand, providing global news, commentary and analysis for the independently-minded. We have grown a huge, global readership of independently minded individuals, who value our trusted voice and commitment to positive change. Our mission, making change happen, has never been as important as it is today.

Read More

Affordable-Housing Projects Stalled Over Proposed Cuts to Rental Assistance

The Trump administration is proposing a $27 billion cut to federal programs that provide rental assistance to low-income individuals.

The proposed 43% cut in these programs is creating enough uncertainty that some lenders are already pulling back, stalling new affordable-housing projects.

That is the case for Jeff Fox. In June, the New York City-based real-estate developer was on track to start construction on a senior affordable-housing facility in Queens, N.Y., by the fall.

Then New York's housing-development department called with bad news. The July round for Section 8 housing subsidies was going to be "indefinitely postponed" because of a lack of HUD funding this year and the prospect of President Trump's proposed further cuts for next year.

Fox, who relies on this federal voucher program to fund his projects, said his Queens development is now on hold.

"No one knows what's going to happen, so rather than overcommit, they're pumping the brakes," he said.

The House Appropriations Committee last week removed Trump's plan to overhaul these rental assistance programs, but that has not stopped the Trump administration from pushing ahead.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development, which provides funding to local governments for low-income housing, is continuing to meet with congressional leaders to lobby for these changes, a spokeswoman said. The Senate Appropriations Committee is scheduled to conduct its own assessment of Trump’s proposed budget on Thursday.

The $27 billion cut would be part of an overall 44% reduction to HUD's budget intended to reduce government spending.

"We want to be lean and mean, not bloated and bureaucratic," HUD Secretary Scott Turner said at a June Senate hearing.

More than five million people across the U.S. use Section 8 vouchers to pay at least part of their rent. The vouchers are most heavily used in states such as New York and California, where housing costs are skyrocketing for renters and owners.

Landlords and developers say these budget cuts would reduce a crucial source of revenue for affordable apartments, making it harder to maintain and pay debt on their properties.

About $50 billion of multifamily loans purchased by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac between 2018 and 2023 would be at risk of default, according to an analysis by the New York Housing Conference, a nonprofit affordable-housing advocacy group.

"It would be destabilizing to the entire housing system," said Rachel Fee, executive director of the New York Housing Conference.

Some affordable-housing lenders say they are already slamming on the brakes.

We're definitely gun-shy" about using HUD funding, said Deborah La Franchi, chief executive of investment fund manager SDS Capital Group. "This is only going to make that worse.

As lenders retreat, housing developers have been forced to stall or cancel new projects due to the threat of budget cuts, said Noah Hale, managing director of development at national developer Fairstead.

Michael Dury, chief executive of lender Merchants Capital, said he has seen several affordable-housing deals face delays because of the proposed HUD budget cuts and lenders' "fear of will the money be there?"

The Trump administration has delivered some victories to the housing sector in the new tax law. A provision in the law makes it easier for developers to access the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit, the federal government’s largest program for incentivizing affordable housing.

This LIHTC expansion could spur more than one million new affordable units over the next decade, according to a Novogradac analysis. The law also made permanent Opportunity Zones and the New Markets Tax Credit, programs that aim to promote new development in low-income areas.

"It's a huge, huge win for the industry," said Dury of Merchants Capital.

Still, without voucher programs like Section 8, developers say that newly built housing could be left without necessary operating revenue.

The proposed budget cut "completely contradicts" the victory on LIHTC, said Amy Albery, chief executive of affordable-housing developer Wallick. Nearly all of her firm's 10,000 affordable-housing units use some kind of HUD housing assistance to finance their loans.

A HUD spokeswoman said the administration "will ensure there are proper safeguards to protect the integrity" of the federal government's mortgage-insurance fund.

Write to Rebecca Picciotto at Rebecca.Picciotto@wsj.com

Read More

Police leaders under pressure to allow media scanner access

HONOLULU (HawaiiNewsNow) - Honolulu's interim police chief is opposing allowing the media to have access to police radio scanners, despite sounding open to it last month.

Newly appointed interim Chief Rade Vanic is under pressure from the Honolulu City Council and the local broadcast industry.

The Hawaii Association of Broadcasters produced an announcement running on local television stations.

It says the lack of real-time information that used to come to newsrooms via police and fire department radio scanners has prevented the media from informing the public during emergencies.

"Our shared goal is to keep the community safe," the announcement says.

Last year, after no information was released while police chased and finally killed an armed fugitive on Oahu, The city council adopted a resolution asking first responders to consider restoring media access to scanners. , which then-Chief Joe Logan resisted.

Bill 46 from Council Chair Tommy Waters would force the department to work out agreements with news organizations to access scanner communications.

President of the Hawaii Association of Broadcasters, Chris Leonard, said the department's concerns are shared by media outlets.

"We can set up policies and procedures. We can work with the police department for credentialing and specific sets of rules that protect the things that they are concerned about," he said.

At the bill's first reading in June, HPD telecommunications manager Roy Kuroda repeated Logan's concerns about personal information being leaked and officer safety being jeopardized.

Real-time access to dispatch or tactical challenges presents serious risks. It is not compatible with federal security requirements or the operational realities of officers in the field," he said. "We remain committed to transparency, but not at the expense of officer investigations, integrity, or the privacy of victims or witnesses.

But minutes later, Deputy Chief Rade Vanic, who would become interim chief two weeks later, sounded open to it.

"There are a lot of departments that have been able to figure it out," he said.

Vanic said he wanted to work with media companies to ensure the department's concerns were met.

"But we also have a job to keep the community safe and part of that is being able to allow the media access to our radio because they provide critical information to the public when sometimes we cannot," he said then.

West Oahu council member Andria Tupola was pleased with what sounded like a new position from the changing department leadership.

"I hear you giving a commitment that you are going to help the introducer (Chair Waters) and the council to find the middle ground because we need to do more to keep the public informed," she said.

But on Monday, when contacted by Hawaii News Now, Vanic issued the following statement:

HPD acknowledges the need for the public and media to be aware of crime alerts, and our team is actively working on solutions to provide this service quickly and effectively. We believe in the importance of timely, accurate information and fully support efforts to keep our community informed.

However, providing the media with direct access to police radio dispatches raises serious concerns related to operational security, officer safety, and the risk of misinterpreting real-time information.

For these reasons, we respectfully oppose Bill 46 in its current form and encourage the City Council to explore alternative solutions that uphold transparency while also safeguarding sensitive law enforcement communications.

The council will have a chance to question both Vanic and media representatives at a hearing of the Public Safety Committee on Thursday.

The officers union, SHOPO, issued its own statement: "We support the goal of transparency in Bill 46, provided that the final policy clearly protects officer safety, ongoing investigations, and other sensitive police operations. We hope the final version of the bill strikes a fair balance between the objectives of transparency and safety."

Read More

Trump demands Commanders, Guardians restore old names, threatens to derail D.C. stadium deal

President Trump said he may move to block Washington Commanders ' new stadium as he called on the NFL team and also MLB's Cleveland Guardians to restore their old names.

The big picture: The Commanders changed their name from the Washington Redskins and the Guardians from the Cleveland Indians in the wake of an anti-racism movement that swept the U.S. after the 2020 murder of George Floyd and following years of activism and protests against the names that many Native Americans considered offensive.

• The Commanders had urged the D.C. Council to get the RFK Stadium redevelopment approved or risk Trump's intervention, according to Axios. Cuneyt Dil . The president can influence the NFL stadium project due to the power of the White House and through federal design commissions, Dil notes.

Driving the news: "The Washington 'Whatever's' should IMMEDIATELY change their name back to the Washington Redskins Football Team," Trump said on Sunday. post to Truth Social.

• "Likewise, the Cleveland Indians, one of the six original baseball teams, with a storied past," he said.
• "Our great Indian people, in large numbers, want this to happen," added Trump, without providing evidence.

Zoom in: In a later post , Trump said he "may impose a restriction" on the Commanders "if they don't change the name back.

• "I won't make a deal for them to build a Stadium in Washington," he added.
• Trump went on to attack Matt Dolan - a former state senator who is the son of the late Cleveland Guardians owner Larry Dolan , whom AP reports is no longer involved with the team.

For the record: White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters during a Monday briefing that Trump was "serious" about his comments on the Commanders.

• "Sports is one of the many passions of this president, and he wants to see the name of that team changed," she said.
• "You've seen the president gets involved in a lot of things that most presidents have not," Leavitt added.
• He's a nontraditional president. He likes to see results on behalf of the American people, and if you actually poll this issue with sports fans across the country, and even in this city, people actually do support the president's position on this and the name change.

What they are saying: Chris Antonetti, the Guardians' president of baseball operations, said in a media statement he hadn't paid much attention to the matter of changing the team's name back.

• "But I would say generally, I understand that there are very different perspectives on the decision we made a few years ago," Antonetti said.
• Obviously it's a decision we've made and we've had the opportunity to build the brand as the Guardians over the last four years and are excited about the future.
• The Commanders declined to comment on the matter.

The Native American Guardians Association said in an emailed statement on Monday that it stood with Trump in the push.

• Renaming the sports teams was a "scam to demonize proud Native identifiers in sports and the mainstream," added the group, which filed a lawsuit against the Commanders' name change that a federal judge dismissed last year.

Suzan Shown Harjo, an enrolled citizen of the Cheyenne and Arapaho tribes and a Native American activist, urged the Commanders on Facebook post to "keep up the good work" and "keep on the path of righteousness" after Trump's post.

• "Guardians, you were right to dump 'Chief Wahoo' and to scrap the 'Indians' name and egregious behaviors," wrote Harjo, a poet, who has long campaigned to end racist Indigenous mascots in sports.

Editor's note: This article has been updated with a comment from White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, the Native American Guardians Association, and to reflect that the Washington Commanders declined to comment.

Axios' Russell Contreras contributed the report.

Get more political stories in your inbox with Axios Sneak Peek.

Read More

Boebert on Epstein special counsel: 'This is something we need'

( newsrealtime ) — Republican Congresswoman Lauren Boebert , R-Colo., is not backing down in her calls for President Trump's administration to release Jeffrey Epstein files.

Appearing on Wednesday's "On Balance," Boebert said that Trump having a special counsel is "something we need."

"Well, there's certainly some rhetoric that we are hearing about frustrations with the information that was released," Boebert said.

Now I don't want this to become a false idol for Republicans and something that is going to distract us from the amazing progress that President Trump and his administration have been doing. And so I'm saying, let there be a special counsel to actually get the information that Americans want. If that's something that ends up taking place in Congress, fine, but I think the American public is also tired of hearing that Congress is going to have a hearing, have an investigation, have a deposition, and really hold somebody accountable.

Rep. Jordan says of Epstein files: 'I have confidence in the president'

The Justice Department and FBI said last week that Epstein did not have a client list and confirmed he died by suicide. Attorney General Pam Bondi , who avoided questions about Epstein this week, suggested in February that a list of Epstein's clients was on her desk. She later said she was referring to the overall case file.

Trump has vocally supported Bondi in her handling of the situation , saying, "She has done a really good job," and that "credibility is very important." Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Ohio, also responded , saying he "fully supports AG Bondi."

Boebert, however, is not impressed with Bondi's work. She points out, "there is no defense of this Epstein rollout whatsoever."

"I'm saying that I want more information to come out of this. Look, I'm not trying to be combative here. I think we're saying the same thing," she added.

People are frustrated. We want to know if there's more information. I don't know exactly what Pam Bondi has seen or what she hasn't seen. I've seen just as much that's been released from her as you have, so what I'm saying is maybe someone else needs to take a look at this.

Boebert, who is a close ally of Trump, said the special counsel would do the heavy lifting, in the same way as moving forward with a "task force."

Justice Department fires Maurene Comey, prosecutor on Epstein case and daughter of former FBI director

So the attorney general has set up a Second Amendment task force to go after states with unconstitutional gun laws," Boebert said. "She's not handling everything directly herself every minute of the day. And so I think having a special counsel allows someone to actually put their full time and effort into this, so we can move on and get back to President Trump's amazing victories.

Boebert acknowledged why the MAGA world is frustrated with Trump's demeanor. It's because they value transparency.

"This is something that we thought we could just open up phase one of a binder and get answers, and there hasn't been a phase two," Boebert said.

But I do trust President Trump, I trust the process, and I trust Dan Bongino. He has always been someone that I can count on and rely on.

Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, visit newsrealtime.

Read More

A Rare and Encouraging Rollback of Government Handouts

"The Big Beautiful Bill" did a lot of things, not all of them good. One positive step was to repeal many of the Inflation Reduction Act's green energy subsidies. It's a little disappointing that Congress didn't repeal all of them, as President Donald Trump promised during the campaign. Yet it's also somewhat amazing to witness a genuine rollback, something that was never a given for this bill and which typically loses out to special-interest politics.

To be clear, I want more green energy from more sources, including wind, solar, geothermal and whatever other promising avenues innovation makes possible. But subsidies like those of the Inflation Reduction Act are the wrong way to get there. They distort the tax code, misallocate capital and favor companies already in the game, to the detriment of new entrants that might bring something more transformative.

The result is not more abundance; it is cronyism masquerading as climate policy.

The promise to roll back the Inflation Reduction Act's extensive tax credits and subsidies was once a central part of the GOP's economic platform. According to a Cato Institute analysis, these were once expected to amount to $1.2 trillion over 10 years, many times the originally projected cost. The House version of the budget made a significant attempt to address it, with strict deadlines for wind and solar tax credits and stricter eligibility rules aimed at projects that could begin construction within 60 days of enactment and be in service before 2029.

It wasn't perfect, but it was a real attempt to inject discipline into a policy that had run off the rails. The Senate, however, had other plans, and the reform was diluted. New carveouts were added. Key provisions were extended, and the effective phaseout was pushed years into the future.

Thanks to generous grandfathering language, projects that start construction within a year of the bill's enactment can lock in 10 more years of production or investment tax credits. And what, by the way, counts as starting construction? Spending just 5% of expected costs on solar panels or booking a consulting firm. In Washington, that's good enough.

The good news is that even this weakened reform is expected to cut green subsidies by about $500 billion over 10 years. That's no small achievement, especially in a town where "cutting" usually means "slightly slowing the growth of programs we already can't afford." It's doubly impressive given that the forces fighting to maintain the subsidies outspent reformers by orders of magnitude.

Now, we're hearing the usual complaint — "But fossil fuels are subsidized too!" — as evidence of the outrage and unfairness in cutting down green energy subsidies. I sympathize with the desire to end fossil fuel subsidies.

I want an end to all private-sector subsidies. If your business model depends on special treatment in the tax code, then, as economist Douglas Holtz-Eakin once put it, you don't have a business. You have a tax shelter.

Yes, there are some lingering fossil fuel subsidies on the books. Cato's Adam Michel helpfully identifies them: credits for enhanced oil recovery, for marginal wells and for carbon capture and sequestration. These are targeted giveaways, and they should also go.

However, what most people calling for the end of fossil fuel subsidies are referring to are not subsidies at all, but simply neutral tax treatments—such as expensing and percentage depletion—that apply across many industries. They may distort investment decisions in general, but they are not special favors for oil and gas.

In addition, when comparing the size of green versus fossil fuel subsidies, the difference is staggering. Scaled by energy output, green energy receives subsidies at rates 19 to 30 times those of coal, oil, and natural gas. According to Michel's analysis, 94% of the fiscal cost of energy-related tax provisions over the next decade — $1.2 trillion — would have gone to renewables. Only 6% — about $70 billion — would benefit fossil fuels. And again, much of that 6% isn't specifically targeted at fossil fuel companies; it just happens to benefit them.

In other words, the idea that green subsidies were eviscerated while fossil subsidies thrive is not correct. That's not an argument for maintaining fossil fuel subsidies; that's an argument for managing the outrage.

If we've learned anything here, it's that cutting subsidies is hard. Once they're in place, armies of rent-seekers mobilize to preserve them. Renewable energy developers, financial firms and politically connected manufacturers descend on Capitol Hill to keep the money flowing.

But we've learned something else: Fighting back can work. Even this partial rollback shows that reformers aren't powerless. The next time someone says eliminating tax preferences is impossible, point to $500 billion in savings. We got that rollback not because the politics were easy but because some people stood firm.

Veronique de Rugy is the George Gibbs Chair in Political Economy and a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. To learn more about Veronique de Rugy and read features by other newsrealtimeSyndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the newsrealtimeSyndicate webpage at www.newsrealtime .

Follow news in real time on MSN for more exclusive content

Related Headlines

• An Epidemic of Mal-Parenting
• Toughen Up: Barack Obama's Message to Democrats
• No Due Process at Gitmo

Read More

GOP senators urge Trump administration to reverse $6 billion education funding freeze

A total of 10 Republican senators are urging the Trump administration to reverse its decision. to withhold more than $6 billion in federal funds for education programs already appropriated by Congress.

"The decision to withhold this funding is contrary to President Trump's goal of returning K-12 education to the states," the Republican senators wrote in a letter to Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought, obtained by ABC News.

"The funding goes directly to states and local school districts, where local leaders decide how this funding is spent, because as we know, local communities know how to best serve students and families," the letter stated.

MORE: What do Department of Education cuts mean for American students?

Federal aid for schools is typically allocated each year on July 1, but aid was paused on June 30 in an ongoing review of education funding , according to an Education Department memo sent to Congress obtained by ABC News.

Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W. Va., led the group of senators who signed the letter--a rare rebuke by Republicans of the president's education policies.

Capito, who chairs the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies (Labor-HHS), is a strong supporter of Education Secretary Linda McMahon and her mission to reform the Department of Education.

The letter encourages Vought to release the funding to states, noting that it was already approved by Congress in a short-term spending bill this past spring.

The funding that has been paused includes grants for after-school care, student support, English language and adult education, among other programs.

MORE: Trump administration halts $6B in education programs before the school year

The senators' letter comes just days after about two dozen state attorneys general and Democratic governors sued the Trump administration over the funding review that has left many education leaders scrambling as the school year approaches.

"We want to see students in our states and across the country thrive, whether they are adult learners, students who speak English as a second language, or students who need after-school care so that their parents can work. We believe you share the same goal," the senators' letter stated.

In Alabama, where Trump won overwhelmingly in 2024, the Superintendent of Education, Eric Mackey, told ABC News that he is frustrated the administration decided to halt congressionally appropriated funding in the middle of the summer.

MORE: Supreme Court allows Trump to continue effort to weaken the Education Department

We're talking about transparency and consistency and making good on a promise," Mackey told ABC News. "We're talking about programs that Congress has already authorized and just three weeks before school starts, you just find that the check is not coming.

The Education Department referred questions about the funding pause to OMB, which told ABC News that many of the programs "grossly misused" government funds to promote a "radical left-wing agenda."

The Impoundment Control Act -- a law that states Congress must consider and review executive branch withholdings of budget authorities -- requires OMB to specify the duration of proposed partial-year deferrals.

In a statement to ABC News, an OMB spokesman said no decisions have yet been made.

We share your concern about taxpayer money going to fund radical left-wing programs," the senators wrote in the letter. "However, we do not believe that is happening with these funds.

MORE: States sue over 'clearly against the law' Trump $6B education funding pause

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court's decision on Monday to lift an injunction blocking the administration's efforts to weaken the Education Department allowed the administration to take a step toward fulfilling Trump's goal of dismantling the agency completely.

Such a move would require congressional approval.

South Dakota Sen. Mike Rounds, one of the senators who signed the letter, introduced legislation called "Returning Education to Our States," which would block grant funds to states and redistribute the department's statutory functions to other agencies.

The proposed legislation hasn't been taken up in the Senate this year and would likely fail without 60 Senate 'yes' votes.

The other Republican senators who signed the letter were: Susan Collins, of Maine; John Boozman, of Arkansas; Katie Britt, of Alabama; Deb Fischer, of Nebraska; John Hoeven, of North Dakota; Jim Justice, of West Virginia; Mitch McConnell, of Kentucky; and Lisa Murkowski, of Alaska.

Read More

"High speed train to nowhere": Trump pulls $4B for California high-speed rail project

The Trump administration announced on Wednesday that it terminated $4 billion in federal funding for California's high-speed rail project

It's time for this boondoggle to die," said U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean P. Duffy in the announcement. "President Trump and I will always fight to ensure your tax dollars only go to projects that accomplish great, big, beautiful things.

It also prompted President Donald Trump to take to Truth Social, declaring he had "freed" the U.S. from funding California "high speed train to nowhere."

Newsom tweeted a response to Duffy, saying he "won't be taking advice from the guy who can't keep planes in the sky."

Duffy's announcement about the cut funding also states that he has directed the Federal Railroad Administration to review other grants related to the high-speed rail project, and he would be consulting with the Department of Justice about the possibility of recovering some of the already used funds.

ABC10 has contacted the California High Speed Rail Authority (HSRA) and the governor's office for comment.

WHAT TO KNOW

Voters first authorized $10 billion in borrowed funds in 2008 under Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to cover about a third of the estimated cost, with a promise the train would be up and running by 2020.

Five years beyond that deadline, no tracks have been laid and its estimated price tag has ballooned to over $100 billion.

Scrutiny over the high-speed rail project has long existed but ramped up in early February when Trump called for an investigation into it .

"The train that is being built between Los Angeles and San Francisco is the worst managed project I think I've ever seen," Trump said at the time.

The HSRA referred ABC10 to its tweet that 50 major structures along with 60 miles of guideway had been built so far with the project progressing into the track-laying phase.

Later in February, the Federal Railroad Administration launched a review of the project, which they said would be used to determine if $4 billion in taxpayer funds should still be committed to the section of the project connecting Merced to Bakersfield.

According to the Department of Transportation, the entire project — which would connect San Francisco to Los Angeles — was supposed to be completed by 2020 and cost $33 billion. The agency then estimated the total cost of the project is now around $106 billion.

The DOT says the California High-Speed Rail Office of the Inspector General found that the initial section has a funding gap of $6.5 billion, even with $4 billion in federal funding, and that the section connecting Merced to Bakersfield is unlikely to be completed by 2033.

Then, in June, the Trump administration signaled it intended to cut off the $4 billion in funding after a 300-page Department of Transportation report concluded there was "no viable path" to completing even part of the line.

In a letter to the California High-Speed Rail Authority, which oversees the project, Federal Railroad Administration acting Administrator Drew Feeley wrote that what was envisioned as an 800-mile system connecting the state's major cities has been reduced to a blueprint for "a 119-mile track to nowhere."

The HSRA had a month to formally respond to the FRA. The Department of Transportation says the FRA received an initial response from the HSRA on June 11 and then a final response on July 7. The FRA says neither response "satisfactorily addressed" its concerns, leading to the termination of the agreement on July 16.

This is a developing story and will be updated as we learn more.

Read More

Posts claim Trump administration plans to burn around 500 tons of emergency food. Here's what we know

• In July 2025, a rumor started spreading based on a report in The Atlantic, claiming that the U.S. Department of State was about to destroy $800,000 worth of high-energy biscuits intended for children suffering from malnutrition, at a cost of $130,000, resulting in a total cost of $1 million for U.S. taxpayers.
• The State Department confirmed in an emailed statement that it had ordered the incineration of the food, stored in a Dubai warehouse.
• It added that this situation was "not unique," although the Atlantic report cited "several aid workers" (unnamed) who directly contradicted this assertion, saying they had "never before seen the U.S. government simply give up on food that could have been put to good use."
• newsrealtimereached out to the State Department for clarification on this point and will update this report should we receive a response.

The administration of U.S. President Donald Trump was set to incinerate nearly 500 metric tons (550 imperial tons) of emergency food intended for starving children, according to a rumor that spread online in July 2025.

For example, a post on X relayed the claim, adding that the story was "a tremendous metaphor" for the Trump administration because it was setting "a million dollars up in smoke" ( archived ):

As of this writing, the post had garnered 32,400 views and 2,000 likes. The claim further spread on X, including one post by Rep. Pramila Jayapal ( archived ), a Democrat from the state of Washington. It also appeared on Reddit and Facebook , in a post by Robert Reich, an economist and former secretary of labor under former President Bill Clinton.

In addition, several news real-time readers searched the site and emailed, seeking to confirm the veracity of the rumor. "Is [the] Trump administration incinerating 500 tons of emergency food intended for children rather than distributing?" one wrote.

Indeed, several prominent news outlets had relayed the rumor, including Rolling Stone , The Daily Beast and Gizmodo .

The rumor stemmed from a report in The Atlantic that cited anonymous sources within the U.S. government. It did not mention which part of the government employed these sources. We contacted the White House, which referred us to the State Department. The Department of State, under which USAID operated, confirmed that this food was indeed intended for incineration.

" Unfortunately, this risk is part of always being ready to respond to life-saving humanitarian needs with consumable commodities in remote locations around the world," a department spokesperson said in an emailed statement. "USAID has had to destroy commodities under previous administrations with similar circumstances - this is not unique.

Citing these sources, the report said these high-energy biscuits Were in storage at a warehouse in Dubai, a city and emirate of the United Arab Emirates. The administration of former President Joe Biden had acquired the nutrient-rich biscuits to distribute to children in Afghanistan and Pakistan, according to The Atlantic. The biscuits, which could have fed 1.5 million malnourished children for one week, had cost $800,000, the sources reportedly told The Atlantic, and their incineration would cost another $130,000, bringing the total bill to nearly $1 million.

The food expired on July 16, 2025, the report said. It had been stored in Dubai for months as staffing and funding cuts prevented USAID , the agency that acquired it, from distributing it.

However, contrary to the assertion by the Department of State that this situation was not unique, The Atlantic's report suggested it was unprecedented. "Several of the aid workers," the reporter said, "reiterated that they have never before seen the U.S. government simply give up on food that could have been put to good use." NewsRealTime contacted the State Department asking them to respond to this point.

While U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio testified In a congressional hearing on May 21, 2025, it was reported that the food would be distributed. The Atlantic reported that its sources said the order to incinerate the food had already been given by that date.

High-energy biscuits are a type of food that humanitarian and rescue efforts use as an immediate treatment for malnutrition during famines. They are highly caloric and provide essential nutrients, which makes them a temporary solution to help prevent the severe consequences of hunger while crises continue.

We will update this report if more details emerge.

Sources:

Deng, Grace. "What to Know about Trump, Musk and the Dismantling of USAID." newsrealtime , newsrealtime, 5 Feb. 2025, www.newsrealtime/news/2025/02/05/trump-elon-musk-dismantling-usaid . Accessed July 16, 2025.

Kiros, Hana. "The Atlantic." The Atlantic , theatlantic, 15 July 2025, www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2025/07/usaid-emergency-food-incinerate-trump/683532/ . Accessed July 16, 2025.

Madarang, Charisma. "Trump Administration to Set Fire to 500 Tons of Food Aid." Rolling Stone , July 15, 2025, www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-administration-destroy-500-tons-emergency-food-1235386525/ . Accessed July 16, 2025.

Ropek, Lucas. "The White House Has a Plan for All That Foreign Food Aid That DOGE Cut: Burn It." Gizmodo , 15 July 2025, gizmodo.com/the-white-house-has-a-plan-for-all-that-foreign-food-aid-that-doge-cut-burn-it-2000629489. Accessed 16 July 2025.

Sanders, Tom. "Trump Administration to Incinerate 550 Tons of Emergency Food Meant for Children." The Daily Beast , July 15, 2025, www.thedailybeast.com/trump-admin-to-incinerate-500-tons-of-emergency-food-for-children/ . Accessed July 16, 2025.

"What WFP Delivers: High-Energy Biscuits - World Food Program USA." World Food Program USA , September 23, 2017, www.wfpusa.org/news/what-wfp-delivers-high-energy-biscuits/ . Accessed July 16, 2025.

U.S. Department of State. "Secretary Rubio Testifies before the House Foreign Affairs Committee - 10:00AM." YouTube , May 21, 2025, www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAGqh7jvyus . Accessed July 16, 2025.

Budget Hearing - Department of State and Related Programs. House Committee on Appropriations - Republicans , May 13, 2025, appropriations.house.gov/schedule/hearings/budget-hearing-department-state-and-related-programs. Accessed July 16, 2025.

Updates:

July 16, 2025: This report was updated to include a response from the U.S. Department of State, which confirmed it had ordered the food to be incinerated.

Read More

Body language expert reveals a detail easily missed in the photo of Anthony Albanese with Xi Jinping

• Albo and Xi pose for a post-meeting photo
• Dr. Louise Mahler says they "forced happiness"
• READ MORE: Subtle detail most Aussies missed in Albo's engagement photo

A body language expert has suggested the posed photo of the Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Chinese President Xi Jinping was a 'success' despite fake grins.

The two leaders were captured smiling and shaking hands in front of Australian and Chinese flags following their in-depth discussion on political relations.

Body language expert Dr. Louise Mahler told Daily Mail Australia that it is "very staged and forced," but in a positive way, with the couple "forcing happiness and connection."

"I think they've carried it off. That's a lovely photo to put on the wall," she said.

Looking at the image, Dr. Mahler's attention was first drawn to the wide grin on Albanese's face as he looked at the camera.

"It's a little bit much, the smile with fake eyes. The eyes aren't really working, they look squinted as opposed to just a lift under the eyes," she said.

It just looks a bit fake, doesn't it?

But the expert added that this was not something to be concerned about, explaining that she knew the visit is a "very stressful situation and he's doing his best."

Standing next to Xi, Dr. Mahler noted that there was not much comparison when it came to statesmanship between the two leaders.

"Albanese never exudes world leadership, ever. He exudes, I don't know, the class dork, the head of the Tiddly Winks group," she said.

Statesman is not a word I'd ever associate with Albanese.

But Xi came across as a "man of action," she said, suggesting the Chinese leader conveyed an image of someone who speaks little but decides much.

Dr. Mahler also praised the handshake between the two and said Albanese positioned himself well within the frame.

"Albanese's hand hasn't left his body, so he's not reaching out to China (but) China's reaching out to him," she said.

Having said that, it's really a natural distance for (Xi's) hand, so he's not really reaching.

The analysis is a significant improvement on Dr. Mahler's last review of the Australian prime minister after he returned from the NATO summit in the Netherlands.

She described Albanese's performance during a press conference on June 27, in which he refused to budge on federal government defense spending, as 'shocking'.

"Mr Albanese sounds stressed to the limit," she said at the time.

Unable to string two words together with a broken breath and baulking with every word, he frowns, tightens his jaw (a 'tell' of Mr Albanese's stress level) and throws his head forward.

This is not helped by the gentleman beside him who looks like he needs immediate emergency assistance, disheveled in appearance with messy hair, loose tie and barely able to keep his eyes open (Browny points to Tanya Plibersek for holding a professional stance).

The question is, do I, as a member of the general public, need to know what a disaster the trip has been? Because, in contrast to the words spoken, that's the clear message I am getting here.

And the message to the rest of us is to have a clear spoken message and make sure both you and everyone around you has the correct brief (and training) to bring it across. Otherwise you are wasting your stilted breath and time.

Given her "stressed to the limit" summary of Albanese a fortnight ago, she said the smiling picture with Xi was a "good start" for projecting leadership.

Albanese headed to China over the weekend to hold 'constructive' talks with Xi in Beijing to restore relations between the two nations before speaking with Premier Li and Chairman Zhao Leji.

The Prime Minister visited the Great Wall of China on Wednesday before flying out to Chengdu in the southwestern province of Sichuan.

The PM tweeted on Wednesday morning, 'Australia is committed to a stable relationship with China.'

Across trade, tourism, and climate action, we're working collaboratively with China in Australia's interests.

Read more

Read More

White House agrees to withdraw proposed cuts to AIDS prevention program

WASHINGTON — The White House has agreed to remove proposed cuts to an HIV/AIDS prevention program in an attempt to get sufficient Republican support to approve $9 billion in other spending cuts central to President Donald Trump’s agenda.

The administration made a deal with Senate Republicans to remove $400 million in proposed cuts to the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR, a program launched under the George W. Bush administration that focuses on global HIV prevention, care and treatment. The agreement brings the total spending cuts package to $9 billion targeting other forms of foreign aid and organizations that the Trump administration has accused of being anti-conservative.

We're fine with adjustments," Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought told reporters on Tuesday after meeting with GOP senators. "This is still a great package, $9 billion, substantially the same package. The Senate has to work its will, and we've appreciated the work along the way to get to a place where they think they've got the votes.

The proposed cuts raised concerns among some Senate Republicans, including Utah Sen. John Curtis, who suggested removing that provision from the final package.

Still, the promise to remove the cuts has left some wary Republicans with more questions than answers. While the updated language would explicitly protect some programs, some senators have expressed that they have not been given adequate information from the administration about what would specifically be cut.

"It's unclear to me how you get to $9 billion," Senator Susan Collins, R-Maine, who has opposed cuts to the global health program, told reporters.

Collins cited other concerns with the package, including proposed cuts to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting specifically targeting PBS and NPR.

The Senate is expected to vote on the package as early as Wednesday, which will only require a simple majority because it includes only budgetary changes. However, that opens the process up to an unlimited amendment process, giving Republicans a chance to remove some of the provisions before final passage.

If they are successful in doing so, the bill would then need to go back to the House for approval before it can head to Trump's desk for his signature. The House is expected to vote on those changes on Thursday at the earliest, according to the vote schedule shared with lawmakers obtained by the Deseret News.

However, some House Republicans have expressed frustration with their Senate colleagues for allowing smaller cuts than what was included in Trump's original request.

A group of 15 fiscal conservatives in the House sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., on Tuesday warning that "weakening" the cuts would "undermine both his leadership and the discipline our budget urgently demands." Instead, the group urged the Senate to pass the rescissions package as-is .

This is just a test case that the White House wants to see if we've got stomachs, if we've got guts, if we've got muscles for what we're willing to pass," Rep. Mark Harris, R-N.C., who signed the letter, told the Deseret News. "And if we can't hit this softball that's being pitched right over home plate, we can't knock this out of the park, then I'm very concerned about what we as Republicans are really willing to do.

But those demands may not be feasible as lawmakers are right up against the deadline on Friday, the day when the bill must be passed and signed by Trump, otherwise all halted funding must be continued.

Read More

Immigration operation at California cannabis farms leads to clash between federal agents and protesters

Protesters clashed with federal authorities on Thursday during an immigration operation north of Los Angeles at a marijuana farm allegedly employing illegal immigrants .

Multiple agents arrived at the Glass House Farms, a state-licensed cannabis facility which is considered illegal under federal law, in Camarillo. Federal authorities had a warrant for illegal employees, Fox News has learned.

Another raid also occurred at another Glass House Farm in Carpinteria.

ICE OFFICERS ATTACKED DURING RAID THAT CAPTURED 70 ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS AT MEAT PLANT: DHS

People were seen confronting the agents, who used tear gas and smoke bombs. Federal personnel used gas to push back protesters who arrived on the scene after hearing about a raid.

Military helicopters were also seen flying low over the fields, a maneuver generally used to flush out people hiding.

READ ON THE FOX NEWS APP

It is becoming increasingly apparent that the actions taken by ICE are bold and aggressive, demonstrating insensitivity towards the direct impact on our community," said Luis Mc Arthur, mayor of nearby Oxnard, in a social media post. "These actions are causing unnecessary distress and harm. I remain committed to working alongside our Attorney General and the Governor’s office to explore potential legal avenues to address these activities.

Footage captured by the news outlet showed several people being detained.

FEDERAL AGENTS CONDUCT IMMIGRATION RAID IN LOS ANGELES DESPITE FIERCE OPPOSITION FROM DEMOCRAT MAYOR

Four people were transported to the hospital, the Ventura County Fire Department said. Three additional people were treated at the scene without being transported, Fox Los Angeles reported.

U.S. Rep. Salud Carbajal, D-Calif., said he went to the scene of the raid in Carpinteria, saying 50 ICE agents arrived at the farm.

"This is deplorable. This should not be happening on our soil," he said in a video message. "Individuals dressed like military personnel on our soil. We don't do that in America."

"This was overkill. This was ridiculous. This was a bunch of crap," he added.

Thursday's raid is one of many that have occurred in Southern California, much to the anger of local and state Democratic officials.

Earlier this week, immigration authorities were in MacArthur Park in Los Angeles conducting a raid. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and California Governor Gavin Newsom condemned the operation and the Trump administration for targeting illegal immigrants for deportation.

Newsom criticized Thursday's raid and President Donald Trump on X.

Kids running from tear gas, crying on the phone because their mother was just taken from the fields," the governor wrote in a post accompanied by a video showing people running to avoid tear gas deployed by authorities. "Trump calls me 'Newscum' — but he's the real scum.

In another post, Newsom said White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, the architect of the administration's strict approach to illegal immigration, was running the White House.

"Instead of supporting the businesses and workers that drive our economy and way of life, Stephen Miller’s tactics evoke chaos, fear and terror within our communities at every turn," he wrote. "At Miller’s direction, Trump’s agents continue to detain U.S. citizens and racially profile Americans, ripping families apart and disappearing parents and workers into cruel federal detention centers to meet their self-imposed arrest quotas."

Bass has demanded the federal government end such operations in the city.

Los Angeles and eight other cities have sued the Trump administration, calling the tactics used by federal agents "unconstitutional," arguing that they are being used to instill fear rather than to protect the public.

Original article source: Immigration operation at California cannabis farms leads to clash between federal agents and protesters

Read More

The Trump administration wants to increase logging on federal land. Not everyone agrees.

Jeff Brink is proud of working on the same land his father did, in the national forests surrounding Oakridge, Oregon. But in the decades since his father ran the family logging business, less and less timber has been harvested, and more and more megafires have threatened his hometown.

"There needs to be some active management, because no management has given us this result," he told CBS News.

When the Trump administration announced executive actions aimed at increasing timber production on federal lands , Oregonians had mixed responses. Loggers and timber towns celebrated the attention from the White House, while environmentalists sounded the alarm over fears of deregulation and environmental harm. Local stakeholders wonder what forest management will look like in practice.

This is my backyard, my home, and I don't want to see it burn. I also don't want to see it logged heavily," Brink said. "There are two extremes here.

The White House made a series of announcements over the past several months regarding timber harvesting and managing national forests. An executive action in March ordered federal agencies, including the departments of the Interior and Agriculture, to focus on increasing logging on federal lands with the purpose of increasing timber production, while simultaneously reducing forest fire risk.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said in April that the country is facing a " national forest emergency ", and President Trump's executive order targets a 25% increase in timber production on federal forests. The agency also announced it would rescind rules such as the " roadless rule ," which prevented logging on 58 million acres of federal land.

The timber industry and environmentalists still have questions regarding the actual implementation of policy and changes in practices by federal agencies.

Oregon Wild is one of many environmental groups that believe the new executive actions threaten landmark environmental laws such as the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which date back to the 1970s. The nonprofit said it fears that language in executive orders prioritizing federal lands for timber production could lead to clear-cutting forests, habitat destruction and loss of old-growth forests. Old-growth or mature forests do not have an official definition, but they are understood to be undisturbed forests with large, older trees that scientists believe serve key roles in ecological functions like purifying water. They also store more carbon than younger forests and are said to be vital as a carbon sink.

This idea that there's some kind of national emergency is laughable," Quinn Read, executive director of Oregon Wild, told CBS News. "It's really more of a pretext to loot our public lands to benefit very, very few people at the expense of all Americans.

Timber groups counter that practices have changed in the decades since the 1990s, when timber output from federal forests was much higher.

After new federal forest plans were adopted in the 1990s, timber output on northwest federal lands declined by 80%, according to the American Forest Resource Council, which represents companies in the timber industry. They argue that wood products made with American timber are more environmentally and socially ethical, arguing that environmental regulations and labor laws are stronger in the United States than in countries from which the U.S. imports timber. Many of those laws were beneficial for the industry, timber groups say.

"We have the strongest environmental and labor laws on planet Earth. That's where I want our wood to come from," Travis Joseph, president of the American Forest Resource Council, told CBS News. "Yes, we're making some tweaks or changes to policy to make that more efficient, but we're not undermining, nor is the administration undermining, the fundamental structure of how public lands are managed."

Some in the timber industry also argue that increased logging serves as fire risk mitigation. The logic makes sense to Brink. His company shifted from traditional logging to land management that focuses on cutting smaller logs, thinning forests, and removing debris from previous fires in the name of fire risk mitigation. When timber outputs on national forests began to decrease, shifting to the new business model was how the Brink family business survived.

"Every year you see equipment go up for auction, there are names of loggers who are legends here," he told CBS News.

But prominent voices in forestry have their concerns, even if there is broad consensus among foresters that forest thinning, when done properly, can reduce the risk of fires.

Former U.S. Forest Service foresters, such as Steve Ellis, chair of the National Association of Forest Service Retirees, are concerned that staffing cuts at federal agencies since the second Trump administration took office will make it difficult for them to complete timber harvesting contracts, a lengthy process that often takes years and frequently faces litigation.

"You're going to have to have people to do it and set it up to do it right. And there's laws to be followed, if that's the intent, to follow NEPA and follow ESA and follow the Clean Water Act," Ellis told CBS News.

Timber project managers like Sarah Altemus Pope, executive director of the Southern Willamette Forest Collective, similarly worry about federal staff having the capacity to properly design timber projects that adhere to environmental requirements. She said she's found that dialogue between loggers, federal employees, community members and environmentalists gives projects the best chance to succeed, and in recent years, she had seen that dynamic improve. With the current administration, she worries it may begin to fray.

"I absolutely think it's important that the administration be talking with all parties that have that, all stakeholders and all parties that have an interest in how our forests are managed," she told CBS News.

The Pope thinks it's especially important because finding ways to better manage the forest will require budgets, Congress, and community support. "The executive orders alone are not going to move the needle," she said.

Read More