Tag: no-latest

  • Dear Abby | Bitter ex cut off Dad from his daughters

    DEAR ABBY: After nearly 18 years of marriage, I left my wife. Our daughters were 10 and 12. We had married quickly, and only later did I realize how deeply judgmental her “born-again” beliefs were — so much so that she gradually cut off my entire side of the family. I tried for years to reason with her, to no avail, and we divorced. What I never anticipated was losing my children as well.

    In the years that followed, I sent cards, letters and messages — most went unanswered. I was told, “The girls don’t want to see you,” yet I was never given the chance to hear that directly from them. Over time, I came to realize I was a victim of parental alienation — something I never would have imagined from someone who professed strong Christian values.

    More than 35 years have passed since I left that marriage, and I have had no meaningful contact with my daughters since. I am not without fault, and I own my mistakes, but the pain of lost years — and lost connection — remains. I write for others who may see themselves here: Please don’t let years pass in silence. Talk. Listen. Apologize. Seek understanding before distance becomes permanent.

    — MR. KALAMAZOO

    DEAR MR. KALAMAZOO: You have my sympathy for the years of pain and separation you’ve endured. Your story shows the importance of seeking partial custody or visitation rights as part of a divorce settlement. Your ex-wife would have had a much harder time cutting you off from your daughters if you’d had a court-mandated right to spend time with them. What’s done is done. You must allow yourself to accept it and live your life.

    ** ** **

    DEAR ABBY: I am feeling uncomfortable with what has become a steady stream of requests on social media for charitable contributions on friends’ birthdays. My husband and I carefully budget our annual charitable contributions, and we try to be as generous as possible, but we cannot possibly respond to all of these requests and still fund our own preferences.

    Would it be rude to post a comment saying, “Although this is not one of our charitable priorities, we wish you a happy birthday!”? My best friend says it would be better not to respond at all, but that feels a bit rude. What do you think?

    — UNHAPPY BIRTHDAYS IN MONTANA

    DEAR UNHAPPY: Do not state that the charity the person has chosen is low on your list of priorities. Acknowledge the occasion by posting warm wishes for the birthday to be a special one. Period.

    ** ** **

    DEAR ABBY: My daughter is 19 and has a job. She has had a friend since fifth grade. They went six months without talking, but now they’re friends again. My daughter offers to buy her stuff, but I feel it’s not fair of the friend to accept. She works, too, but she doesn’t have enough money for any activities other than lunch. I want to stay out of it, but it bothers me. What should I do?

    — PROUD MOM IN MASSACHUSETTS

    DEAR MOM: Stay out of it. If the arrangement becomes so out of balance that it begins to bother your daughter, she will deal with it without your involvement. If she wants your advice, she’ll ask for it.

  • Deportees who refused to exit a U.S. flight in Liberia are sent to Equatorial Guinea

    Deportees who refused to exit a U.S. flight in Liberia are sent to Equatorial Guinea

    DAKAR, Senegal — Six people who were deported by the United States to Liberia last week resisted getting off the plane and instead were sent to Equatorial Guinea, another ‌African nation that signed a third-country deportation agreement with the Trump administration, a person on the plane and a lawyer in contact with the six said Monday.

    Under a series of often secret agreements, the Trump administration has deported thousands of people to two dozen countries that aren’t their own as it pushes ahead with its immigration crackdown, advocates say. Immigration lawyers say the practice is being used as a legal loophole to indirectly return some asylum seekers to countries they fled.

    The group who refused to get off the plane in Liberia on Thursday include four Cuban men, a Brazilian man, and a Cameroonian woman, the person and lawyer said.

    A Honduran deportee aboard the flight said the group refused to disembark, saying Liberia was “not their country” and that they would face danger there. They were then separated from the others, he said. He spoke on condition of anonymity out of fear of reprisals.

    He said the other passengers got off in Liberia because they feared officers would force them.

    Meredyth Yoon, litigation director for Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Atlanta, said the deportees who resisted leaving the plane in Liberia were told they would be returned to the United States but instead were flown to Malabo city in Equatorial Guinea.

    “It was a really heartbreaking and chaotic scene when they arrived in Malabo on Thursday,” Yoon said.

    Some arrived in chains and in extreme distress, she said, including the Cameroonian woman and one of the Cuban men, who Yoon said has a large abdominal growth and uses a colostomy bag that must be drained regularly.

    There is no medical staff at the hotel in Equatorial Guinea where the six are being held, alongside around 40 other deported migrants, she added.

    Conditions at the hotel have worsened in recent months, Yoon said, with food sometimes withheld and guards accused of threatening, beating, and choking some of the migrants.

    Equatorial Guinea’s government did not immediately respond to a request seeking comment.

    Under an opaque $7.5 million deal with the Trump administration, Equatorial Guinea’s all-powerful president, Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo, has turned the hotel owned by his family into a prison for asylum seekers deported from the U.S.

  • Washington Post ordered to rehire fired columnist

    Washington Post ordered to rehire fired columnist

    A private arbitrator has ordered the Washington Post to rehire opinion columnist Karen Attiah, who was fired in September over her social media posts about the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. It also ordered the company to compensate her with back pay.

    Sarah Miller Espinosa, the arbitrator, said in a written decision Thursday that the Post “did not have good and sufficient cause” to terminate Attiah and “violated” its labor agreement, according to a copy of the decision shared with the New York Times by Attiah’s lawyers.

    “The Washington Post failed to establish the grievant engaged in gross misconduct,” Espinosa wrote.

    In a statement, Attiah said that she hoped the decision “sends a message to journalists and media institutions everywhere that freedom of expression is always worth fighting for.” She said that she was “willing to go back” to her work at the Post, which she called “one of the world’s most storied newspapers.”

    “This decision confirms what we’ve said from the start: I was doing my job as an opinion writer, and this was wrongful termination,” she said, adding that she was “relieved to finally have that record set straight”

    A spokesperson for the Post said the company respects the arbitration process and declined to comment further.

    The decision is the result of a yearlong fight between the Post and Attiah, who last year accused the company of violating its labor agreement and social media policy when it fired her for posts she said were within her purview as an opinion columnist. A clause in the agreement allows employees to submit disputes for arbitration.

    Arbitration is generally considered binding in most disputes, though courts have occasionally overturned decisions after courtroom findings of fraud or other improprieties. The Post’s labor agreement says arbitration is binding, though both the company and the employee retain their legal rights.

    The Washington Post said in its termination letter that Attiah’s posts about Kirk had harmed “the integrity” of the organization and violated standards requiring employees to use social media with civility and respect.

    Attiah’s remarks about Kirk’s assassination, which she posted to the social network Bluesky on Sept. 10, the day he was shot, responded to the outpouring of grief after the shooting. “Refusing to tear my clothes and smear ashes on my face in performative mourning for a white man that espoused violence is … not the same as violence,” Attiah wrote in one of the posts.

    The Post’s opinion section has been in flux since early last year, when Jeff Bezos, the newspaper’s owner, moved to reorient the section to focus on “personal liberties and free markets.” Some readers canceled their subscriptions and accused Bezos of attempting to curry favor with the Trump administration.

    Lawyers for the Washington Post and Attiah made their arguments before Espinosa in June during a hearing that included testimony from Attiah; Adam O’Neal, then the opinion editor at the Washington Post; and Wayne Connell, the company’s chief human resources officer. Attiah was represented by Democracy Defenders Action, a progressive nonprofit co-founded by the lawyer Norman Eisen, and by the Washington-Baltimore News Guild.

    In his testimony, O’Neal said he saw Attiah’s posts the morning after Kirk died and sent them to Connell, according to a transcript of the hearing obtained by the New York Times. “Karen’s social media feed yesterday and today is beyond the pale, completely unacceptable for someone associated with Opinions,” O’Neal wrote, according to the transcript.

    Soon after, O’Neal and Connell met with Will Lewis, then the CEO of the Washington Post, to discuss the posts, according to the transcript. They ultimately decided to fire Attiah.

    During her testimony, Attiah defended her social media posts, saying that they were part of her work for the Post, “commenting on our discourse on political violence,” Attiah said, according to the transcript.

    In a statement, Eisen called the decision “a landmark victory for one of our nation’s crusading journalists.”

    This article originally appeared in the New York Times.

  • U.S. military kills 2 people in attack on boat in Pacific

    U.S. military kills 2 people in attack on boat in Pacific

    WASHINGTON — The U.S. military killed two men in a strike against a boat in the eastern Pacific that it said was transporting narcotics, U.S. Southern Command announced early Monday. It was the first such strike by the military since June 21.

    The United States began a campaign of boat strikes last year in the run-up to the military operation that seized Nicolás Maduro, the president of Venezuela. The military has continued the operations in the Caribbean and the eastern Pacific, killing at least 223 people in 67 strikes that it said were involved in the narcotics trade.

    But narcotics experts say the boat strikes have failed to slow the smuggling of cocaine from South America to the United States. According to Brown University, the costs of the operation were at $4.7 billion as of March 31.

    Legal specialists also have said the strikes are illegal extrajudicial killings because the military is not permitted to deliberately target civilians — even suspected criminals — who do not pose an imminent threat of violence.

    Southern Command provided little detail about the strike that took place Sunday but noted that intelligence reports said the vessel was trafficking narcotics and traveling on a route used by drug smugglers.

    “Joint Task Force Western Hemisphere executed a lethal kinetic strike on a low-profile vessel operating along established narcotrafficking routes in the Eastern Pacific,” Southern Command said in a statement, referring to a new military unit set up to expand the Pentagon’s war against drugs in cooperation with regional allies.

    Gen. Francis L. Donovan, the head of Southern Command, said in the statement on social media announcing the strike: “When I ordered the establishment of Joint Task Force Western Hemisphere, it was precisely for this purpose: to accelerate, synchronize, and execute lethal actions against these destabilizing narco-terrorist networks.”

    Southern Command did not explain the two-month lull in strikes since an attack on a boat in the Caribbean killed eight people June 21. Military officials have attributed the pause at least in part to planes and other equipment being diverted to help victims of the recent earthquake in Venezuela.

    The Trump administration has in recent months stepped up its cooperation with allies across Latin America to combat the drug trade. It created the coalition, part of the regional Shield of the Americas alliance, and convened its first meeting in March.

    That month, Ecuador and the United States launched joint military operations against designated terrorist groups. In May, the Pentagon pressed Guatemala to agree to joint U.S. airstrikes and other military action inside its borders to target suspected drug groups.

    Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said this month that Honduras and Colombia had also agreed to allow joint operations.

    This article originally appeared in the New York Times.

  • Trump’s ‘economic D-Day’ threats become warnings for countries to sever financial ties with Iran

    Trump’s ‘economic D-Day’ threats become warnings for countries to sever financial ties with Iran

    WASHINGTON — Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced a new round of sanctions aimed at Iran on Monday and warned every country that does business with the Islamic Republic to sever those financial ties or face retaliation from the United States.

    President Donald Trump’s pledge last week to unleash an “economic D-Day” against Tehran turned out to be new warnings to cut off Iran from the rest of the global economy. Asked why the U.S. was not imposing secondary sanctions on Iran’s trading partners, Bessent told reporters he wanted countries to have an opportunity to shift away from Iran before it was too late.

    “Why would I want to blow up the global financial system?” Bessent said.

    The Trump administration is struggling to find an off-ramp nearly six months into an unpopular war with an increasingly obstinate Iran. Washington had promised new sanctions would put even more pressure on an Iranian economy already battered by previous penalties and a U.S. naval blockade.

    But the announcement Monday provided little detail and did not name which countries could face secondary sanctions. China, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates are Iran’s largest trade partners.

    “We are level-setting with every country to tell them our expectations. We know who they are. They know who they are,” Bessent said. “So when the hammer of U.S. Treasury actions falls upon them, they will have no one to blame but themselves.”

    Dubbing the campaign “Operation Economic Outcast,” Bessent said Trump has been “making phone calls to world leaders with specific requests to cease their interactions” with Iran and has already seen results.

    The UAE announced last week that it was suspending all trade, commercial exchanges, and financial transactions with Iran until further notice after a reported missile attack on the Gulf country. Bessent said the UAE decision was “not a coincidence.”

    Shortly before the announcement, Iranian parliamentary Speaker Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf said the U.S. is not in an economic position to further restrict Tehran’s relations with other countries.

    “Iran’s trading partners, both in the media and through messages sent to us, have made it clear that they don’t take these statements into account anywhere,” Qalibaf, who has been Iran’s lead negotiator over the past six months, posted on X.

    Bessent is pressed on what new campaign means for China

    Asked whether the U.S. would target China, Bessent said, “No one is above the reach of U.S. sanctions,” despite the fragile trade truce in place between the world’s two largest economies.

    “If they facilitate transactions and are part of the ecosystem that turns Iranian oil into money, into repression, they will be targeted,” he added.

    Experts say the U.S. is likely to carefully calibrate its actions on China, just a month before Chinese leader Xi Jinping is expected to visit the U.S.

    How much the announcement matters “depends on the aggressiveness with which President Trump is willing to enforce it,” said Ali Wyne, senior research and advocacy adviser for U.S.-China relations at the International Crisis Group. “Thus far, despite threatening severe economic consequences for countries that do business with Iran, he has largely given China a pass.”

    The Treasury Department said Monday that it was imposing sanctions on nearly 60 Iran-linked entities, accusing them of roles in Iran’s nuclear and missile programs, cyber activities, and oil shipments.

    That includes Hong Kong-based Sweet Ocean Industrial Limited and associated people and businesses, which were accused of helping Iran acquire sensitive goods such as laser optics equipment. Also penalized was China-based Shenzhen Huamei, which is a service provider for the Iran-based logistics company BRE Line, as well as BRE Line’s branch in Hong Kong, for allegedly supporting the missile and nuclear programs.

    Iranian currency falls to a record low

    Hours before Bessent’s announcement, Iran’s currency hit a record low.

    The rial dropped to 2.02 million to the U.S. dollar as trading opened on currency markets. Iran’s official Central Bank rate stood at around 1.5 million rials to the dollar, but the market rate is what most Iranians pay.

    The currency had already been under pressure before the U.S. and Israel attacked Iran on Feb. 28, as Iran faced double-digit inflation and negative growth. The rial has repeatedly hit new lows as nearly six months of war have taken an even greater toll.

    Iranians find daily staples increasingly unaffordable. Since the war began, rice is up some 60% and beef prices are more than 150% higher. The International Monetary Fund forecasts that gross domestic product will contract more than 5%.

    Still, economic pressure has not yet translated into political pressure. Iran retains a key strategic advantage: Its attacks and threats on ships in the Strait of Hormuz have brought traffic in the vital waterway to a near halt, damaging the world economy and heaping pressure on U.S. President Donald Trump ahead of congressional elections.

    The war, as a result, has devolved into a fight over who controls the strait, through which a fifth of the world’s traded oil transited before the conflict. Iran is now refusing to fully reopen it unless it can charge ships.

    Iran and Oman, which is on the opposite side of the strait, are reportedly in the final stages of agreeing on a plan for joint management of the waterway. Oman’s foreign minister is set to visit Iran on Tuesday.

    Pakistani delegation visits Iran

    Pakistan, which played a key role in brokering a 60-day ceasefire in June, sent a high-level delegation to Iran on Monday to encourage the U.S. and Iran to return to negotiations, two senior officials said. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media.

    The military confirmed only Field Marshal Asim Munir’s visit, saying it was aimed at de-escalating tensions in the region.

    Trump spoke with Munir ahead of the army chief’s visit to Iran, according to a person familiar with the discussion who spoke on condition of anonymity to confirm a private conversation. Reuters, citing Pakistani sources, first reported the call.

    Munir met Iranian Interior Minister Eskandar Momeni in Tehran, according to the two senior officials. Munir was accompanied by Pakistani Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi and other officials. Munir was expected to remain in Iran overnight and meet the Iranian president and other senior officials before returning to Pakistan.

    His previous visit to Tehran in May helped pave the way for a memorandum of understanding signed by the U.S. and Iran in June.

    In downtown Tehran, 73-year-old Sadegh Mahmoudi did not hold out hope for a resolution. He joined a line of about a dozen people to purchase U.S. dollars with his remaining savings to hedge against further declines.

    “There is no hope for a deal and peace,” he said.

  • U.S. Marines cancel drill with South Korea, citing Iran war demands

    U.S. Marines cancel drill with South Korea, citing Iran war demands

    SEOUL, South Korea — The United States has canceled a joint amphibious landing exercise with South Korean forces that was set for next month, citing resource constraints driven by the war in Iran, the South Korean military announced Monday.

    The U.S. Marine Corps had notified its South Korean counterpart in June that Middle East operational demands would prevent the deployment of forces for the biennial exercise known as Ssangyong, or “Twin Dragons,” the South Korean Marine Corps said Monday. The U.S. military in Korea did not immediately comment on the announcement.

    The move marked the second joint military drill with South Korea to be canceled or downsized during President Donald Trump’s second term. The decision has intensified doubts over Washington’s commitment to maintaining a credible deterrent on the Korean Peninsula and ​its capacity to manage concurrent global conflicts, as U.S. weapons stockpiles have fallen to troubling levels.

    Ssangyong is one of the highest-profile joint exercises that the allies have conducted for decades. In a typical iteration, more than 10,000 Marines from both countries storm a sandy beach on the southeastern coast of South Korea, supported by columns of amphibious vehicles and fleets of military aircraft. North Korea has routinely condemned the drill as a rehearsal for invasion.

    While Ssangyong was previously shelved during Trump’s first term​ —​ when he dismissed major exercises as “provocative” and too expensive amid his personal diplomacy with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un​ —​ it was revived in 2023.

    However, Trump recently renewed his criticism of the drills, labeling them “insulting” to Kim. Earlier this month, he abruptly ordered the Pentagon to curtail the Ulchi Freedom Shield, shortening the 11-day annual exercise to just five days.

    “The U.S. and South Korean Marine Corps are continuing close consultations regarding the future resumption” of Ssangyong, Han Seung-jeon, a South Korean Marine Corps spokesperson, said Monday.

    Beyond financial concerns, Trump has questioned why his country should support joint military drills when South Korea has declined to participate in the conflict with Iran. The war has significantly strained U.S. military resources, depleting critical munitions stockpiles and forcing a realignment of assets from Asia to the Middle East.

    Trump also appears eager to pivot from the Middle East conflict toward renewed diplomatic engagement with Kim, with whom he once said he “fell in love.” While halting drills successfully incentivized Kim to negotiate​ during Trump’s first term, North Korea dismissed this month’s scaling down of Ulchi Freedom Shield as “unworthy of comment.”

    This article originally appeared in the New York Times.

  • Nancy Kassebaum, first woman to chair a major Senate panel, dies at 94

    Nancy Kassebaum, first woman to chair a major Senate panel, dies at 94

    Nancy Kassebaum, a three-term moderate Republican from Kansas who was the first woman to chair a major standing committee in the U.S. Senate, died Friday in Manhattan, Kan. She was 94.

    The death, at a hospice care facility, was confirmed by her son William Kassebaum.

    As the leader of the Committee on Labor and Human Resources (now known as the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions) from 1995 to 1997, Sen. Kassebaum won passage of legislation to ensure the portability of health insurance coverage when workers changed jobs. She and the bill’s Democratic co-sponsor, Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, overcame months of opposition from Sen. Bob Dole, the majority leader and her close friend, fellow Republican, and fellow Kansan.

    She had earlier played a role as Congress overrode President Ronald Reagan’s veto of a 1986 bill to enact economic sanctions against the apartheid regime in South Africa. As chairperson of a subcommittee on African affairs, she met with the president, urging him to challenge the regime: “There is one person they might listen to, and that is President Reagan.” Instead, he warned of the threat of Marxist tyranny if apartheid fell. She joined 77 other senators as they overrode his veto.

    Over her Senate career, which lasted from 1978 to 1997, her voting record was scored at 56% by the American Conservative Union and 37% by the liberal organization Americans for Democratic Action. On most economic issues, she voted conservatively. But from her first run, she supported abortion rights, saying in a campaign debate, “Abortions are seldom the right moral choice, but I feel there should be a choice.”

    In a 2013 interview for this obituary, she said that because of her views on abortion and her support for a ban on assault weapons, “I couldn’t get elected today” in Kansas. She was a critic of President Donald Trump’s since the 2016 campaign, and endorsed Kamala Harris against him in 2024. In recent years, she also endorsed Democratic candidates for governor and senator in Kansas.

    She had no trouble winning her three terms, though, and was a heavy favorite to win again in 1996. But like many moderates, then and now, she had tired of the political strife in the capital.

    In December 1995, after she announced her retirement, she told the New York Times: “The higher the decibel level gets, the more it’s like a boxing match. It’s really different from when I came here.”

    A year later, in December 1996, shortly before her third and final term ended, she married former Sen. Howard Baker of Tennessee, an influential Republican politician who had served as majority leader and whose first wife died of cancer in 1993. For years, they lived at his home in Huntsville, Tenn., and on her ranch in Burdick, Kan., which she said in 2013 was so peaceful that “at night the only thing I hear is the coyotes.” Baker died in 2014, at 88.

    Burdick is on the edge of the Flint Hills, and she said that, of all her achievements in Congress, she was proudest of the establishment of the 10,894-acre Tallgrass Prairie National Preserve in that region, as well as legislation limiting liability for manufacturers of general aviation aircraft, an important industry in Kansas.

    Nancy Josephine Landon was born in Topeka, Kan., on July 29, 1932. Her father, Alfred Mossman Landon, an oilman known as Alf, was then running for the first of what would be two terms as a progressive Republican governor. Her mother, Theo (Cobb) Landon, was a pianist and harpist.

    Nancy went to local public schools, graduated from the University of Kansas in 1954 with a bachelor’s degree in political science, and earned a master’s degree in diplomatic history at the University of Michigan in 1956, the year she married John Philip Kassebaum, known as Phil, a law student there. They moved to Maize, Kan., outside Wichita, and had four children.

    Politics had been the lifeblood of the Landon home as she grew up — all the more so after her father ran in 1936 as the Republican nominee against President Franklin D. Roosevelt. (Landon won only two states, Maine and Vermont, and eight electoral votes.) Often visited by leading Republicans, he remained a revered figure in Kansas until he died at 100 in 1987.

    But before his daughter ran for the Senate in 1978, her political experience was limited. She had been elected to the local school board and served a year as a constituent services staff member for Sen. James Pearson.

    When Pearson unexpectedly announced his retirement, she entered a wide-open, crowded Republican primary with eight other candidates. She was separated from her husband at the time — they divorced in 1979 — and ran as Nancy Landon Kassebaum.

    She never denied the value of name recognition. “It has been said I am riding on the coattails of my dad,” she conceded while campaigning, “but I can’t think of any better coattails to run on.”

    She won the primary with just over 30% of the vote, then defeated the Democratic candidate, Bill Roy, with 54% in the general election. She was reelected in 1984 and 1990, earning three-quarters of the vote both times.

    In addition to her son William, she is survived by another son, John Jr.; seven grandchildren; and two great-grandchildren.

    The only woman in the Senate when she was first elected, she bridled at the kind of commentary on her clothing and hair that would never be directed toward her male colleagues. She occasionally complained that those colleagues did not take her seriously. But she had experienced the same thing at home.

    “My dad was adamantly opposed” to her 1978 candidacy, she said in 2013. “I think it was because he’d thought I’d lose, but also because he could not imagine a woman in the Senate. It was especially hard for him to visualize it was his daughter.”

    In 1995, she said that one thing she would not miss after leaving was being asked, “What’s it like to be a woman in the Senate?” By then, eight women were senators — so, she said, “it’s no longer a big deal.”

    This article originally appeared in the New York Times.

  • Trump administration proposes $103,000 fee for H-1B visas after legal setback

    Trump administration proposes $103,000 fee for H-1B visas after legal setback

    The Trump administration plans to charge employers seeking skilled foreign workers through the H-1B visa program a $103,265 fee, a proposed regulation posted on Monday says.

    Revenue from the fee would be used to run the legal immigration system, the document says, including funding for federal immigration courts and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

    President Donald Trump’s administration argues that the H-1B program has been used to take jobs away from Americans and that the current system fails to prioritize the most exceptional foreign workers. Trump tried to implement a similar $100,000 fee last year through a presidential proclamation, but it was invalidated by a federal judge in June.

    The H-1B program, created by Congress in 1990, provides employers with visas for 65,000 skilled foreign workers annually, with another 20,000 visas available for workers with advanced degrees from U.S. universities.

    The proposed regulation contends the new fee would make employers “less likely to hire an H-1B worker over a qualified and highly-skilled American.” The regulation cites a working paper in the National Bureau of Economic Research that found H-1B workers made, on average, about 15% less than American counterparts.

    In the June ruling against the fee, U.S. District Judge Leo T. Sorokin of Massachusetts said the president unilaterally imposed an illegal tax, bypassing Congress, and failed to consider the impact of his actions on sectors experiencing labor shortages that rely on the H-1B program to hire physicians, nurses, and teachers.

    The Trump administration appealed the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit and requested it be paused pending the appeal, but the request was denied in late July.

    The new proposed regulation, which was set to formally publish in the Federal Register on Tuesday, seeks to carve a different legal path by proposing to use the fees to offset the cost of running the immigration system. It exempts some groups, such as most U.S. colleges, universities, and nonprofit hospitals affiliated with academic institutions. But unlike last year’s proposal, it would apply to many people who already reside in the United States, not just those submitting petitions from abroad.

    “This makes it much broader,” said Jeremy Neufeld, director of immigration policy at the Institute for Progress, a nonpartisan think tank.

    The proposed rule would restrict a major pathway for foreign guest workers that is widely used by Silicon Valley tech companies, among other businesses. Industry critics say that the fee would diminish the United States’ competitive edge against China, India, and other countries in a variety of research and tech industries, as well as harm a number of industries that depend on foreign professionals.

    “This is again an illegal tax,” said Charles Kuck, who practices immigration law in Atlanta.

    Amazon has received the most H-1B visas in recent years, with more than 9,300 approved petitions in fiscal year 2026 through June 30, according to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services data.

    Other top users of the H-1B program in 2026 have been India-based IT and outsourcing companies Tata Consultancy Services and Infosys, followed by American tech companies Apple and Microsoft.

    Neufeld said expanding the fee requirement to applicants already in the United States could lead to a significant reduction in the number of H-1B petitions that companies request.

    “I would be very surprised if even large companies pay this fee for many of their H-1Bs,” he said.

    Sorokin’s decision to strike down Trump’s original $100,000 H-1B visa fee came in response to a lawsuit from 20 states, led by California and Massachusetts.

    The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and an association of top research universities in a separate lawsuit last year criticized Trump’s earlier fee, saying H-1B workers fill critical jobs in the medical, manufacturing, and technology fields.

    The federal judge in that case sided with the Trump administration in December, leading the Chamber of Commerce and university association to appeal.

    The administration estimates the new proposed regulation would generate an estimated $8.8 billion annually.

    Nearly $3 billion would go to the federal immigration courts and be used to support more than 8,400 hires, including immigration court judges.

    ICE, already funded to historic levels, would receive roughly $1 billion to pay for vetting of immigration applications and the administration of the student visa program, the proposed regulation says.

    It says U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services would use the money to offset $3 billion in existing costs, and several other agencies involved in immigration processing would also receive funds.

    The public will have 30 days to comment on the new proposed regulation following its publication to the Federal Register on Tuesday, the proposal says. It can take months or even years to finalize regulations.

    U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services generally does not refund filing fees, including when a visa petition is denied. The proposed regulation does not address whether the new $103,265 fee would be refundable, and the agency did not respond to a request for comment.

  • Firefighters are trying to stop a fast-moving Nevada wildfire from spreading to homes in Reno

    Firefighters are trying to stop a fast-moving Nevada wildfire from spreading to homes in Reno

    RENO, Nevada — A wildfire that mushroomed over the weekend in the Sierra Nevada foothills spread perilously close to neighborhoods in Reno, Nev., forcing authorities to urge more than 90,000 residents to leave their homes.

    The out-of-control fire has already burned some homes, but there’s concern that shifting winds could push the flames into newly developed and densely packed neighborhoods in Nevada’s largest city outside of metro Las Vegas.

    Schools across Washoe County were closed Monday because of the evacuations and to keep roads clear for emergency crews. Nevada’s governor declared a state of emergency in the county and mobilized the National Guard to help with aerial firefighting and protecting evacuated neighborhoods northwest of downtown Reno.

    At a roadblock in one neighborhood, residents expressed frustration Monday that they could not get back into their homes.

    “There’s no fire here! Why are the National Guard here?” a driver yelled.

    Authorities said late Sunday that the Hawk Fire had stayed in its footprint and firefighters were extinguishing hotspots while working to keep the fire from jumping a main highway and reaching homes and businesses. There was zero containment.

    The fire began Saturday and grew to more than 23 square miles on Sunday. It’s the third large wildfire in the rugged terrain north of Reno in the past two weeks — all caused by human activity, according to fire officials. They haven’t said whether the Hawk Fire was intentionally set or accidental.

    Reno, home to about 280,000 people, is known for its casinos and as a gateway to nearby Lake Tahoe, North America’s largest alpine lake and a popular vacation destination. It’s also about 120 miles southwest of Nevada’s Black Rock Desert, site of the annual Burning Man festival, which begins Aug. 30.

    At least six people — three first responders and three civilians — have been injured by the fire.

    Videos posted on social media showed the smoldering ruins of homes and cars, with only a scorched basketball hoop still standing.

    Many residents had little time to evacuate after the fire exploded in size.

    “Honestly, I thought it was like in a movie,” said Ruby Delatorre, who got back from a concert only to find her home in the evacuation zone. She returned Sunday to walk to her home and get a few more possessions.

    “I literally want to cry and go back for all my stuff. I just got what I thought I needed,” Delatorre said.

    Some who spotted the smoke on Saturday thought it was from another wildfire that has been burning the past two weeks.

    Teresa Lenshyn, who is among the evacuees, said being forced to leave was chaotic and stressful. “You don’t know if the winds are going to shift and it’s going to get worse,” she said.

    Much of Nevada’s western edge is under an increased risk of wildfires this week because of high winds and low relative humidity, the National Interagency Fire Center said. The National Weather Service says the region will see warm, dry, and breezy conditions, and that critical fire weather conditions are possible in the week’s later half.

    Extremely dry conditions across the American West have sparked a rash of wildfires this summer. Fires in eastern Washington state forced the evacuation of 60,000 people in the Spokane area in early August.

    Nationwide, there have been more than 50,000 wildfires — the most over the past 10 years covering the same time period, according to the national fire center.

  • Trump’s school voucher program could become a public school cash machine

    Trump’s school voucher program could become a public school cash machine

    Forget student fun runs, PTA bake sales, and Saturday morning car washes.

    The future of public-school fundraising may soon look more like a payroll deduction. Or perhaps door-to-door campaigns each tax season asking filers to earmark donations to support nearby public schools.

    When President Donald Trump’s tax overhaul known as the One Big Beautiful Bill last year created the first national school-voucher-style program to help families pay for private schools or homeschool costs, it allowed public schools to benefit as well. According to U.S. Treasury guidelines released in June, the program allows specific nonprofits to collect donations that people direct from their federal taxes for a vast array of public school costs, such as transportation or tutoring.

    Sara Hazel, president of the Denver Public Schools Foundation, the fundraising arm for Colorado’s largest school district, is among a small but growing number of district leaders who have said they plan to take advantage of the financial opportunity. She said she plans to tell potential donors, “Do you want that money going to the IRS or going to local kids?”

    The program doesn’t officially start until the new year, but its resemblance to private-school vouchers has inspired opponents of school choice to line up against it. Still, supporters and even cautious critics say the Republican-backed initiative could mean a financial boon for public schools.

    The program works like this: Taxpayers can contribute up to $1,700 to what’s known as a scholarship-granting organization and receive a credit on their federal income taxes. It’s a dollar-for-dollar credit, meaning every pledged dollar reduces what an individual owes to the Internal Revenue Service by the same amount.

    These new intermediaries could be formed by an array of nonprofits, including public-school foundations, with approval from their state. The scholarship-granting organization would then pass on the money to private school and homeschool applicants in the form of scholarships — or to school districts so they could cover certain services for student applicants.

    Marguerite Roza, a school finance expert, has advised school districts — many of which have bandaged their slashed budgets by shuttering campuses or issuing pink slips — that they can’t afford to ignore this new source of funding. “Any time there’s an available revenue source, generally we don’t see districts saying, ‘No thank you,’” said Roza, director of the Edunomics Lab at Georgetown University.

    States must opt into the program, and so far, 30 states have done so. Now it’s up to individual school district leaders in those states to decide if they want to try to tap into the money.

    School finance experts suggest the scholarships could help districts access funding comparable to 3% of their entire budget. But tapping into this unexpected revenue risks political backlash and logistical headaches. Governors and superintendents may face fierce resistance from teachers unions, which in many states have portrayed the new program as a Trojan horse for the expansion of vouchers in education because it also allows money to be funneled to families to pay for private school.

    Some opponents also raise concerns about creating a new funding system that could favor school districts with a ready pool of wealthy donors over those in low-income communities where few residents may owe enough in federal taxes to contribute to the scholarships.

    “In low-income areas, you’re going to find it’s not easy for school districts to raise this money,” said Thomas Toch, director of the think tank FutureEd at Georgetown University.

    He said he worried that the inclusion of public school districts in the legislation was little more than a ploy, a shrewd political strategy to further school choice in states otherwise unlikely to support it.

    “It was designed to make the case that this program can support the public sector in order to win support in blue states,” Toch said.

    The mechanics of the tax credit scholarships represent a dramatic departure from how the federal government supports schools.

    The money for the scholarships never flows through federal Department of Education coffers, entirely bypassing Congress and its spending decisions.

    Treasury regulators will soon issue formal rules to set additional guardrails for the program. But the law suggests the scholarships could be used to cover an expansive list of expenses that public schools often struggle to fund including costs such as field trips, textbooks, or support services.

    The inclusion of public schools now places some governors, superintendents, and school boards in a new dilemma: Do they choose to tap into a Trump-backed program that could boost their bottom line, or leave the tax-credit cash on the table for others to claim?

    “The reality is this program exists, and if there are dollars on the table that can go to our children and families, I don’t understand the purpose of not trying to do everything we possibly can,” said Justin Dayhoff, chief financial officer for Nevada’s Clark County School District, which includes Las Vegas.

    His district, like many around the country, is strapped for cash as health insurance and other costs increase and fewer students enroll in public school due to population decline. Enrollment in Clark County — the nation’s fifth-largest district — has dwindled by more than 35,000 students, or 11%, since before the pandemic, and it laid off five dozen staff ahead of this new school year.

    How big a financial difference the voucher-style program would make for school districts remains to be seen.

    Some school finance experts expect soliciting donations could be as simple as districts partnering with employers to enroll their workers in the tax credit program, perhaps as another form in their regular HR paperwork. (Many employers already partner with nonprofits like United Way to collect pretax donations from paychecks.)

    Roza, of Georgetown, estimated a district could bring in about $200 per student by enrolling its own employees into the program. Convincing major companies to do the same — directing proceeds to nonprofits supporting students who attend local public schools — could push that figure higher. City and county governments might participate as well.

    “Local employers are an absolutely critical piece of this puzzle,” said Hazel, with the Denver Public Schools Foundation.

    Her organization hasn’t officially approached any of its corporate partners yet about enrolling their employees in the tax credit program. (Past donors to the foundation have included Chevron, the Colorado Rockies, and United Airlines.) But Hazel’s already thinking about whether Denver Public Schools will have to compete with other Colorado districts attempting to woo the same business leaders.

    “We’re the largest school district in Colorado, so we already have an advantage,” Hazel said. “But how can we go to a company and say, ‘Your employees must choose between all these great school districts?’”

    But her new fundraising plans will come with steep operational hurdles.

    Under the new law, at least 90% of all donations to scholarship-granting organizations like Hazel’s must go directly to student scholarships, leaving relatively little to cover marketing, staff, annual independent audits, and payment processing. Fees already take 4% of each credit card transaction, Hazel said.

    Yet even as she awaits further clarity from Treasury on how organizations can collect donations, she’s imagining what the money could mean for Denver schools.

    “My dream is I can give every second grader a tutor and we get everyone to grade-level reading and math,” Hazel said. “There are things like that are so scalable and would support every student.”