This is default featured slide 1 title

Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.

This is default featured slide 2 title

Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.

This is default featured slide 3 title

Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.

This is default featured slide 4 title

Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.

This is default featured slide 5 title

Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.

Tampilkan postingan dengan label public policy. Tampilkan semua postingan
Tampilkan postingan dengan label public policy. Tampilkan semua postingan

Selasa, 22 Juli 2025

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 .

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

Rabu, 16 Juli 2025

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

"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.

Student loans face major changes under Trump's law

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) , signed into law by President Donald Trump on July 4, 2025, is being hailed as a transformative piece of fiscal legislation. This act seeks to make permanent many of the tax cuts introduced in the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, while also introducing new deductions and reducing federal spending. However, critics have raised concerns about the potential for a significant increase in the national debt, projected to rise by $3.4 to $5.0 trillion over the next decade.

One of the most notable changes introduced by the OBBBA is the elimination of unlimited borrowing for graduate students, effective July 1, 2026. The act removes subsidized loans for graduate students and Direct PLUS Loans for graduate or professional students. New borrowing limits have been set, with master's students capped at $20,500 annually and $100,000 lifetime, and professional degrees capped at $50,000 annually and $200,000 lifetime.

The OBBBA also introduces a total lifetime borrowing cap of $257,500 for all federal student loans. This measure is aimed at curbing excessive debt among students pursuing advanced degrees. While proponents argue that these changes will help manage debt more effectively, critics warn that they may deter enrollment in advanced degrees, particularly for low-income students who lack access to federal or institutional aid.

In addition to changes in borrowing limits, the OBBBA consolidates federal student loan repayment plans into two options for new borrowers starting July 1, 2026. Borrowers can choose between a standard plan with fixed payments and a Repayment Assistance Plan (RAP) based on income. RAP payments range from 1% to 10% of adjusted gross income, with a minimum monthly payment of $10, and the repayment term extends to 30 years.

Experts express concern that the new loan limits and repayment plans may lead to an increase in defaults. The required minimum payment and increased payments for low-income borrowers could result in financial strain, leading to higher default rates. Additionally, confusion and anxiety among borrowers are rising due to changes and delays in processing income-based repayment plan applications.

Refinancing federal loans with private lenders is another consideration for borrowers, as it results in the loss of federal benefits such as access to loan forgiveness programs, income-based repayment plans, and interest-free deferments. Borrowers must carefully weigh the benefits and drawbacks of refinancing, considering the long-term implications on their financial health.

Supporters of the OBBBA, including the Trump administration and conservatives, argue that these changes represent a strategic and compassionate approach to addressing the student loan crisis. They emphasize the importance of borrowers fulfilling their repayment agreements, especially after extended payment pauses, and view the simplification of the loan program as a way to better position borrowers to manage their debts effectively.

While the OBBBA introduces significant changes to federal student loans, impacting borrowing limits and repayment plans, it remains a topic of debate. Proponents argue for the benefits of simplification and debt management, while critics highlight potential negative impacts on access to advanced education and increased defaults. Understanding these changes is crucial for students and families navigating the evolving landscape of higher education financing.

Selasa, 15 Juli 2025

California bills aim to reveal federal officers, require visible ID in Assembly

Two bills aimed at addressing transparency issues within law enforcement agencies, locally and federally, were voted on Tuesday by California legislators.

One of those bills would make California the first state in the country to ban law enforcement officers at all levels from covering their faces during operations, including immigration raids.

Senate Bill 627 , which passed through the Assembly Public Safety Committee, was authored in direct response to immigration raids happening across the state.

Under the legislation, also known as the No Secret Police Act, if law enforcement officials do not comply, they could be charged with a misdemeanor. There are exceptions for SWAT and undercover operations.

State Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), who introduced the legislation with Senator Jesse Arreguin (D-Berkeley), said that the public has a right to know if they are interacting with a real officer.

"This bill is not about preventing law enforcement from engaging in their typical work," Wiener said. "It is about preventing extreme masking that is causing terror in our communities."

Critics argue that the bill is cracking down on California law enforcement officers who are not even involved in immigration raids.

John Myers, visiting professor of law at UC College of Law, San Francisco, said he understands the concerns surrounding U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents and other officers concealing their identities.

He calls it a legitimate public policy issue. However, he said that this bill isn't a good way to address those concerns, calling it micro-managing.

It's an effort to solve an issue that the State of California has no authority to solve, unfortunately," Myers said. "And secondly, I think it will hamper local law enforcement with a bill that will have lots of unintended consequences.

The other bill passed by the committee was Senate Bill 805 , which aims to strengthen existing laws for impersonating an officer, firefighter, or government employee.

That requires all law enforcement, including local, state and federal, to display visible identification such as names or badge numbers.

SB805, referred to as the No Vigilantes Act, was introduced by Senator Sasha Perez (D-Pasadena)

"We are facing an extraordinary moment here in California. Masked individuals with no identification, no uniform, driving unmarked vehicles and carrying firearms are taking our neighbors, both immigrants and American citizens, in broad daylight. When asked by the public to provide badge numbers, they refuse," Perez said.

Supporters of the bill include the Peace Officers Research Association of California.

However, Myers said that this legislation would not be a problem for patrol officers who are clearly law enforcement with their uniforms and badges on display. He said it is a problem for the hundreds of detectives and investigators across the state.

They wear a suit to work, and the long-standing tradition in law enforcement for them is to have the badge typically on their belt, where it cannot be seen," Myers said. "They are not acting undercover. They are just doing their normal investigative work. It could be quite disruptive to that work if they are required to have that badge out.

Myers said that if that part of the bill were eliminated, it would be a step in the right direction. That is expected to be amended as the bill progresses.

Senate sets up debate on package to reclaim public broadcasting, foreign aid funds

Vice President Vance broke a tie on Tuesday night to allow the Senate to begin debate on a bill to reclaim billions of dollars in funding previously authorized by Congress for foreign aid and public broadcasting.

The chamber voted 50-50 to begin debate on the package of cuts. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Sen. Susan Collins (Maine) and Sen. Mitch McConnell (Ky.) voted against the motion. The vote came shortly after the three also voted against discharging the rescissions package from the Appropriations Committee, forcing Vance to break that tie as well.

Senators expect a marathon voting session on potential changes to the bill in the day ahead as Senate leaders look to pass the measure ahead of a looming Friday deadline.

The bill, which passed the House last month, calls for about $8 billion in cuts to the United States Agency for International Development and foreign aid, and more than $1 billion in cuts to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB).

Murkowski and Collins both expressed concerns about the cuts to public broadcasting and the way the rescission package had been presented to Congress.

"I don't want us to go from one reconciliation bill to a rescissions package to another rescissions package to a reconciliation package to a continuing resolution. We're lawmakers. We should be legislating," Murkowski said on the Senate floor earlier Tuesday.

Collins, in a statement, said, "I recognize the need to reduce excessive spending and I have supported rescissions in our appropriations bills many times, including the 70 rescissions that were included in the year-long funding bill that we are currently operating under. But to carry out our Constitutional responsibility, we should know exactly what programs are affected and the consequences of rescissions."

The vote comes after the Trump administration worked with Republicans on potential changes to the package after some expressed concerns about the scope of cuts.

White House budget chief Russell Vought told reporters on Tuesday that the administration would be "fine with" an amendment to the package that shields the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) from proposed cuts in the package.

Senator Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), who had previously refrained from supporting the package due to concerns about how tribal stations would be affected by the proposed public media cuts, also said he would support the plan after a deal with the administration.

Rounds said Tuesday that he worked with OMB on a deal that would redirect some funding approved under the Biden administration as part of the Inflation Reduction Act.

"We have an agreement with OMB to resource the funds from other already allocated funding through what had been [former President] Biden's Green New Deal program, and we'll take that money and we'll reallocate it back into the tribes to take care of these radio stations that have been granted this money for the next two years," Rounds told reporters Tuesday.

While the CPB provides some funding to NPR and PBS, which have come under heavy GOP scrutiny as the party has accused the media organizations of bias, Republicans in both chambers have raised concerns that the cuts could have a disproportionate impact on rural and tribal stations.

Top Republicans are increasing efforts to secure support for Trump's plan to reclaim funds previously approved by Congress. The party can afford to lose three votes in the Senate.

Congress has until July 18 to pass the legislation under the special rescissions process initiated by the White House last month, which allows the Senate to approve the funding cuts with a simple majority vote, bypassing expected Democratic opposition.

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 The Hill.

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.

Kamis, 10 Juli 2025

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.

Selasa, 08 Juli 2025

New football watchdog to be established as MPs back independent regulator

MPs have supported the plans to set up the Independent Football Regulator and issue operating licenses for football clubs.

The Football Governance Bill is set to become law after it passed the Commons, with MPs voting in favor at third reading by 415 votes to 98, a majority of 317.

The Bill will introduce a football watchdog for the top five tiers of the men's game to ensure clubs are run sustainably and are accountable to their fans.

The regulator will also have "backstop" powers to impose a financial settlement between the English Football League (EFL) and the Premier League if they cannot agree among themselves.

Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy told the Commons: "We promised in our manifesto that we would end years of inaction and make the changes that fans have fought for for so long and are so overdue."

I am proud to be part of the winning team that has put our fans back on the pitch at the heart of the game where they belong.

She added: "This is for Macclesfield, for Wigan, for Bury, for Bolton, for Derby, for Reading, for Sheffield Wednesday, for Morecambe and for many, many more who have had to endure the misery of being put last when they should have been put first."

Earlier, calls from the Conservatives to consult on the "two-tier" alcohol ban in football stands were rejected by the Government.

Sports minister Stephanie Peacock said moves to reverse the ban, which has been in effect since 1985 , do not fall within the scope of the Bill.

MPs voted 346 to 167, a majority of 179, against a consultation on ending the stadium alcohol ban across the top five tiers of men's football in England.

MPs also rejected a bid to demand broadcasters show at least 10 Premier League football matches on free-to-air television each season.

The Commons voted by 340 to 86, majority 254, against new clause three, proposed by Liberal Democrat culture spokesman Max Wilkinson, which would have also required free-to-air coverage of the League Cup final, and the Championship , League One and League Two play-off finals.

Ms Peacock said: "The Government believes that the current list of events works well, and it strikes an appropriate balance between access to sporting events and allowing sports to maximize broadcasting revenue."

In domestic football, the current arrangements under the listed events regime have protected key moments such as the FA Cup final, while ensuring that the Premier League, the EFL, and the FA are able to raise billions of pounds annually, which is invested back into the pyramid.

We all want to see more matches being televised, free-to-air, but that must be balanced against investment and not risk it.

The sports minister also stopped short of agreeing to financial support for former players who have suffered brain conditions caused by heading footballs, but said the government is "committed" to looking further into player welfare.

A number of MPs, including Labour's Chris Evans (Caerphilly), had tabled amendments to the Bill calling for greater support for former players who have developed neurodegenerative diseases as a result of heading footballs.

During the Bill's report stage, shadow sport minister Louie French accused the Government of "appointing a Labour crony to be the new sheriff of football".

David Kogan, a media rights expert, was named as the Government's preferred candidate to chair the Independent Football Regulator in April, and his appointment was endorsed by a cross-party committee of MPs.

But Mr. Kogan faces an inquiry into his appointment t following the revelation that he had donated money to both Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and Ms. Nandy, as well as other Labour figures.

Ms. Nandy said then-minister Stuart Andrew had "actively headhunted the individual in question and added him to the shortlist."

PA

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.

Senin, 07 Juli 2025

50,000 children will be lifted out of poverty due to the welfare reform rebellion

Controversial welfare reforms will now lift 50,000 children out of poverty after a Labour rebellion forced a humiliating Government U-turn – but the package will no longer save any money, official figures show.

Updated impact assessments showed the plans - initially designed to save £5bn to help Rachel Reeves balance the books, but predicted to put 250,000 people including 50,000 children into relative poverty - will now save nothing, but actually lift 50,000 children and 50,000 adults out of relative poverty.

It comes after ministers were forced by Labour rebels into an embarrassing retreat - first revealed by The i Paper – to drop plans to make it harder to claim personal independence payment (PIP).

The Government also U-turned by exempting existing claimants from a freeze in the higher rate of health-related universal credit.

It means the flagship welfare legislation is now hollowed out and contains mainly plans to increase the standard rate of universal credit, encourage more people back to work, and extend protections for severely sick or disabled claimants.

Tax increases 'will need to rise'

Reeves, the Chancellor, has since signaled that tax increases will be needed to cover the black hole left in public finances after the U-turns on welfare and the winter fuel payment.

There have also been warnings that early plans to lift the two-child cap on benefits may have to be abandoned.

It has led to calls on Reeves to consider a wealth tax, which she has previously ruled out.

The universal credit bill will return to the Commons for its final stages on Wednesday, with some Labour MPs threatening to rebel again.

But The i Paper Understands that Labour whips expect numbers to be limited and unlikely to come close to threatening the Government's majority or forcing concessions.

Ministers, meanwhile, will try to shift the focus to the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, arguing that if they vote down the legislation, they are opposing lifting 50,000 children out of poverty.

One of the Labour rebels who forced the climbdown on PIP, Simon Opher, signaled he was now likely to support the legislation, while continuing calls for a wealth tax to help balance the books instead of cutting benefits.

While saying he would support amendments to try to change the law further, if these fail, Opher suggested he was unlikely to vote against the Bill as a whole.

We have all come a long way on this," said the Stroud MP. "While the vote last week was difficult, I believe that those of us who took the stand we did have helped move our Government to a better place.

I will be looking very carefully at the revised bill, and the amendments, before deciding how to vote. There is a lot to consider and I do not want to jeopardize the potential, and hard-won, benefits of the bill by adopting an approach which is too inflexible at this stage.

As it stands, about 7,000 people receiving universal credit in the Stroud district will benefit by £725 a year each, around £5m.

Wealth tax 'best way through'

Many of us believe that the best way through this is a wealth tax. However, I fear that it is impossible to achieve in the time frame, and we may have to continue to argue for the principles we believe in, while accepting pragmatic support for those who need it most.

Downing Street highlighted previous comments from Reeves in which she ruled out a wealth tax, a position which has shown no sign of changing.

In the Commons, shadow Chancellor Mel Stride highlighted the dilemma facing Reeves on how to "cover the £6bn of unfunded commitments which their U-turns have accumulated in the last month alone".

Read Next: I was a benefits assessor – I had to deduct points if people had 'full use of their arms'

Earlier on Sky News, Stride warned the Chancellor against a wealth tax as "the worst thing to do," as it would pile "further taxes on the wealth creators."

Calls for a wealth tax were revived by former Labour leader Lord Kinnock, who said the party's first year in power saw accomplishments "obscured" by disputes over welfare and winter fuel.

Lord Kinnock - who led the party from 1983 to 1992 - told Sky News that a "cloud hangs over the accomplishments of the Government," as Sir Keir Starmer marked a year in office this weekend.

He said that the party has "a series of really commendable and absolutely essential policies" and also suggested a wealth tax as a change that could "commend" them to the general public.

This story has been updated.

ICE agents wearing masks add new levels of intimidation, confusion during L.A. raids

For many Angelenos, the spectacle of armed federal agents — faces hidden behind neck gaiters and balaclavas — jumping out of unmarked vans to snatch people off the streets presents a clear threat to public safety.

As federal immigration agents have increased enforcement raids, arresting and detaining anyone they suspect of violating immigration laws, critics warn their tactic of blending in - particularly when wearing plain clothes and no visible marker of identity - spreads fear and panic across communities and endangers citizens as well as immigrants without legal status.

"It's very dangerous," said Scott Shuchart, who worked for the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement from 2022 until January of this year as an assistant director for regulatory affairs and a policy counselor.

If someone approaches you with a mask and a T-shirt and no badge, why would you think they are exercising legitimate authority, as opposed to being a violent criminal trying to harm you?" Schuchart said. "How do you know that you need to not resist to avoid arrest, as opposed to resisting arrest to possibly survive the encounter?

But defenders of federal immigration agents also cite security as a reason for masking.

They present immigrants without legal papers as a threat to public safety, even though the majority of people ICE arrested across LA in early June had no criminal record . They also argue that masking is necessary because a convergence of factors - supercharged political rhetoric, more sophisticated facial recognition technology, and increased threat of doxing on social media - makes the job more dangerous for agents in the field.

We have a lot of agents whose faces are being put on social media platforms across the country," said Mathew Silverman, national president of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association. "We have politicians right now that are saying, 'We will find these federal agents who have masks on. We will expose them.' It's just creating an era in law enforcement where trying to do the jobs of law enforcement is becoming more and more difficult.

Critics of law enforcement tactics say masking does not make officers safer and only escalates tension. Some argue federal agents operate under no greater threat than local officials.

"Regular police officers operate every day with their faces uncovered and their badge numbers visible, and it's not considered unsafe for their identities to be available to people in the public," said Stuart Schrader, a history professor at Johns Hopkins University.

I think it's clear that agents are trying to create a certain spectacle of intimidation and lack of democratic control," he said. "By anonymizing themselves, they are indicating that they are not accountable to any sort of public.

Is masking required?

As the Trump administration has set a new goal of arresting 3,000 unauthorized immigrants per day, officials say they have not introduced any new policy requiring agents to hide their identity.

"Rules haven't changed on masks," Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin told The Times.

Last week, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi told a Senate subcommittee hearing that she did not know plainclothed agents were hiding their faces while making arrests. But Bondi also seemed to justify the masks, saying that officers and their families were being threatened and doxxed.

"I can assure you that if they're covering their faces now, it's to protect themselves," she said. "But they also want to protect all citizens."

Is masking legal?

The U.S. Constitution has no prohibition against masking, and no federal law forbids federal law enforcement personnel from wearing masks.

"It's perfectly legal," said Edward Obayashi, a Northern California deputy sheriff, special prosecutor, and use-of-force expert.

DHS regulations Require immigration officers to identify themselves during an arrest "as soon as it is practical and safe to do so."

California state law is more specific, requiring uniformed officers to "wear a badge, nameplate, or other device which bears clearly on its face the identification number or name of the officer."

In California, we are not going to mask ourselves," Obayashi said. "We don't mask our identities, particularly on patrol. We're in uniform. It's just common sense.

What have Trump administration officials said about masks?

Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons has defended the practice of federal officers concealing their identity.

I'm sorry if people are offended by them wearing masks," he said in early June. "But I'm not going to let my officers and agents go out there and put their lives on the line, their families on the line because people don't like what immigration enforcement is.

In an interview with Fox News Lyons said it was 'not right for agents to be demonized, called modern-day Nazis.'

This week, DHS stated that ICE officers and federal agents conducting enforcement operations had experienced a 700% increase in assaults. The federal agency declined requests from The Times for raw numbers and details of assaults against ICE agents; Fox News Reported ICE had recorded 10 "assault events" from Jan. 21, 2024, to June 30, 2024, versus 79 "assault events" over the same time span this year.

Are agents being doxxed?

Some argue that federal agents have become frightened in recent years as the threat of doxing — not just to them, but to their families — has increased.

John Q. Citizen out there is taking videos of this agent and posting it on social media," Silverman said. "The picture of this agent is posted, then their address is posted. It's 'go over to this house and protest in front of this person's house.' 'Oh, this person has a 15-year-old son.' 'That son goes to this school.' ... That's extremely scary for these agents.

Federal agents were also wearing masks to prevent jeopardizing future undercover operations, Silverman said. If a group of agents conducted street operations without covering their faces, he argued, their faces could be captured on camera and broadcast on the internet in a way that could make them vulnerable to criminals for years to come.

There is facial recognition now that criminals are using as well," Silverman said. "So now they get my face on there, and five or 10 years down the line, they pull me onto facial recognition and boom! 'Wait, this guy was a law enforcement officer.'

What precedents are there for U.S. federal agents adopting widespread masking?

Most experts agree that the longstanding custom in the U.S. is for law enforcement officers to wear uniforms and recognizable insignia.

Masks have long been used by immigration agents to protect their identities during sensitive undercover operations, such as a targeted raid on a dangerous drug house or cartel, Silverman said. But typically they were not used in regular patrols or in any widespread manner.

Over the years, individual law enforcement officers have frequently pushed the boundaries of what people might consider acceptable legal standard practice, Schrader said.

The FBI's Counter Intelligence Program of the 1950s and 1960s, he said, was considered a particular black mark on federal law enforcement because of its covert and illegal activities, such as violating people's constitutional rights, engaging in violence, and conducting secretive operations for political reasons.

The big difference here is that this is all happening in broad daylight," Schrader said. "This is happening totally in the open.

How does law enforcement masking change the relationship between citizens and law enforcement?

Many civic leaders across metro L.A. say the practice of masked federal agents has caused confusion in their communities.

"We are receiving questions like, 'How can I know if the masked man detaining me is ICE or a kidnapper?' And, 'Who can protect me if a masked man with a gun refuses to identify himself?'" Mayor of Burbank Nikki Perez said Tuesday.

In Burbank, fears of imposters became reality on Sunday when two masked men stopped a woman outside the Mystic Museum in Magnolia Park, Perez said.

According to the Burbank Police Department, the men got out of a white SUV, stopped a woman, and, pretending to be federal immigration agents, asked her for her papers. Thanks to witnesses, Perez said, the woman was able to leave without further harassment or, worse, kidnapping.

"What did not leave our community, or our residents, is a new sense of fear and uncertainty about safety for everyone in our community, regardless of their immigration status," Perez said.

Could lawmakers require federal agents to wear masks?

Some members of Congress are pushing the No Masks for ICE Act , a federal bill that would prohibit ICE agents from using face coverings during operations , except for specific safety reasons. It would also require agents to wear visible identification that clearly displayed their name and agency affiliation.

But a Republican co-sponsor has yet to come on board. Until that happens, it has little momentum in the GOP-controlled House.

In Sacramento, Democratic legislators have introduced the No Secret Police Act, a bill that would require officers operating in California to provide clear identification and prohibit them from concealing their identity.

But a state law could not control the behavior of federal officers, said David Levine, a law professor at UC San Francisco. "Even if California passed that," he said, "it wouldn't affect the immediate issue of what ICE chooses to do."

Some experts who defend masking say they think every federal agent should display clear identification for everyone's safety.

Definitely, 100%, a badge needs to be visible," Silverman said, adding that he would support federal requirements for agents to show identification. "Same thing with marking... It doesn't matter what agency you're in, you should be able to be identifiable.

In an age when anyone can order a DEA patch or FBI hat, Silverman said it is vital that agents are identifiable.

What I'm scared of is somebody's gonna think that a federal agent is impersonating, but it's gonna be a real agent," he said. "Or vice versa.

What could happen if there was a clash with a masked federal agent?

Levine said he would like to see Bondi, the nation's top government lawyer, take the issue of identification seriously and write an advisory letter to federal agents with clear guidelines on badges, uniforms, and masking.

Somebody is going to make a mistake because of this," Levine said. "Somebody's gonna get shot or killed — and it may well be an officer.

If someone were to pull out their weapon," Levine said, "it would be pretty easy to say, 'I felt threatened' — particularly in a state that allows concealed carry and has a 'Stand Your Ground' law.

They could say, 'I thought I was under attack. I had no idea they were the police. They jumped out of an unmarked vehicle. Nobody had a badge on. Nobody was wearing a uniform.'

If a masked officer with no uniform or identification were to injure, or even kill, someone in a struggle, California officials would not be able to bring criminal charges.

No state prosecutor can bring charges against a federal officer," Obayashi said. "They can't even bring state charges for excessive force.

This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times .

Senin, 30 Juni 2025

I Read Roblox’s New Legal Docs So You Don’t Have To—Here’s What I Found (and Why You’ll Care)

Before logging in to play tonight— June 30, 2025 —I decided to skim through Roblox's freshly updated Terms of Use and Privacy & Cookie Policy Here's the plain-English rundown of what actually changed and how it could affect you.

(Full documents: Terms of Use | Privacy Policy )

1) Terms of Use — What Actually Changed

Brand licensing toolkit (name still to be announced)

  • Who is affected? Developers & real-world brands
  • Why it matters: Roblox has added a formal pipeline so that external IP owners can approve their characters or logos within experiences. Expect additional approval steps and revenue-sharing clauses.

Standalone UK appendix + Online Safety Act annex

  • Who is affected? UK players & creators
  • Why it matters: Adds country-specific complaint channels and strict takedown timelines for "priority illegal content."

Screen-recording clause

  • Who is affected? Developers whose games automatically record or stream gameplay
  • Why it matters: You must comply with the new Screen Recording Additional Terms—including providing clear notice to players—before capturing a single frame.

Expanded ban on "Roblox," "Blox," or close look-alikes in names

  • Who is affected? Anyone whose username, display name, group, or community contains those words
  • Why it matters: New accounts are blocked outright, and legacy accounts may be required to change their names.

Roblox may feature your UGC in its own ads

  • Who is affected? All creators
  • Why it matters: Roblox now holds an explicit license to showcase your creations in marketing without additional compensation—great exposure, zero extra Robux.

Creator-incentive language updated

  • Who is affected? Anyone earning DevEx or engagement payouts
  • Why it matters: Roblox clarified its right to update eligibility criteria and formulas—always read the latest payout rules before budgeting.

Arbitration + class-action waiver (U.S.) still in place

  • Who is affected? American users
  • Why it matters: You waive the right to sue in court unless you mail an opt-out letter within 30 days of first agreeing.

2) Privacy & Cookie Policy — Three Notable Tweaks

Voice & audio data

  • Voice-chat clips may be monitored, stored, and used to train safety-AI tools. You can disable voice chat in Settings → Privacy if that feels invasive.

Advertising profiles

  • The policy explains how Roblox tracks, measures, and personalizes ads. You can limit—but not completely turn off—behavioral ads from the same Privacy tab.

Facial media capture notice

  • A new pointer to the Facial Media Capture Privacy Notice explains how age-verification selfies or face-tracking videos are stored "until no longer needed." Skip selfie verification if that's a hard no.

(There is also a consolidated U.S. state privacy addendum that bundles CCPA, VCDPA, and similar rights.)

3) Why This Matters to Players & Parents

  • Username audit: If your handle contains "Roblox," "Blox," or "RBX," consider renaming before it's flagged.
  • Data comfort check: Review voice-chat, camera, and ad settings for each family member.
  • Arbitration awareness: In the U.S., mail the opt-out letter within 30 days if you want to keep court rights.

4) Key Takeaways for Creators & Brand Partners

  • Formal IP collaborations: The new licensing toolkit streamlines brand crossovers—expect contracts and revenue splits.
  • Screen-recording consent: Add a clear pop-up or other notice before capturing gameplay.
  • UGC marketing rights: Assume Roblox may feature your items in promotions without additional compensation.

5) My Personal Action List (Feel Free to Copy)

  1. Remove my usernames — double-check that none of my accounts contain "Roblox," "Blox," or similar variations.
  2. Lock down voice chat — open Settings → Privacy on my nephew's profile and toggle voice chat off until he is older.
  3. Add a recording notice — create a sticky banner that reads My gameplay is currently being recorded and drop it into any experience that captures footage.
  4. Bookmark the docs — save the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy so future adjustments are just one click away.
  5. Accept the new terms — click "Agree" so I can dive into tonight's session after this much-needed pause.

Bottom Line

These updates won't ruin your next obby run, but they tighten naming rules, clarify data use, and pave the way for more brand crossovers. Spend five minutes in your settings (and maybe rethink that display name) and you'll jump back into Roblox—knowledgeably.

See something I missed? Leave a comment below or tag @newsrealtime on Threads so we can keep each other informed!

Newhouse praises removal of public lands sale from GOP One Big Beautiful Bill

U.S. Rep. Dan Newhouse over the weekend praised the removal of a provision in the Senate version of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that would have paved the way to sell off millions of acres of public lands.

"I have fought from the beginning of this process to keep public lands in public hands, and made clear I would vote against a final version that included the provision," Newhouse's office wrote Saturday on social media .

"However, we have to improve the management of our federal lands and I will work with this administration to accomplish this objective," the Sunnyside Republican continued.

U.S. Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, earlier on Saturday announced that he would rescind the sales provision in the reconciliation package.

Lee originally proposed it as a way to expand affordable housing in rural communities, but he couldn't ensure "clear, enforceable safeguards to guarantee that these lands would be sold only to American families."

That came after he was required to narrow and refine the proposal's language after it was reviewed by the Senate parliamentarian, according to Politico .

Then, the weekend updates came when Newhouse and a coalition of four other Western state Republican representatives submitted a letter to House Speaker Mike Johnson on Thursday 경고: 매도 물량 증가.

The lawmakers wrote that they generally agreed to many of the changes the Senate proposed to the bill, which was passed by the House on May 22. But they "cannot accept the sale of federal lands that Sen. (Mike) Lee seeks."

"If a provision to sell public lands is in the bill that reaches the House floor, we will be forced to vote no," they said.

Republicans barely passed the bill a month ago on a 215-214 vote.

Much of the federal land in the Tri-Cities area was far too remote to build on, saw frequent wildland fires, or had terrain that was too steep—mostly around the Horse Heaven Hills, the Saddle Mountains, and the Juniper Dunes areas. However, there were some tracts of developable land.

The land sale provision would have required the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service to cull nearly 3 million acres of public lands—less than 1% of their holdings—across nearly a dozen western states for sale to build housing.

While Lee's effort exempted beloved sites such as national parks and monuments, it sparked strict backlash in recent days from conservationists and fellow Republicans.

The One Big Beautiful Bill is President Donald Trump's marquee legislative package that includes a bulk of his second-term domestic and economic agenda. Congress is trying to pass and reconcile the package before the July 4 holiday weekend.

The proposed tax cuts would increase the deficit by $3.3 trillion and lead to 11.8 million more people without medical insurance by 2034, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

A spokesperson for Newhouse's office says the congressman plans to review the final text of the bill before determining how he will vote on it.

Newhouse commended the House version passed a month ago , highlighting the reforms to SNAP and Medicaid to eliminate "waste, fraud and abuse," and the tax benefits for proposed small modular nuclear reactors in Tri-Cities.

The latest local, national, and international news delivered every weekday morning.