cap

A protestor holds up a sign protesting President Trumps new policies towards refugees at the International Arrivals Terminal at Dulles International Airport as the first flight of Afrikaners From South Africa granted refugee status arrive in the United States on May 12, 2025 in Sterling, Virginia. File Photo by Jemal Countess/UPI | License Photo

Oct. 31 (UPI) — The Trump administration will permit a record-low 7,500 refugees into the United States during the 2026 fiscal year, with most spots allocated to White South Africans.

The number, a drastic drop from the 125,000 that the previous Biden administration had set for 2025, is expected to be swiftly challenged by Democrats and human rights and immigration advocates.

The announcement was made Thursday, with the presidential determination being published in the Federal Register.

According to the document, the Trump administration said the number “is justified by humanitarian concerns or is otherwise in the national interest.”

The document specifies that “admissions numbers shall primarily be allocated among Afrikaners,” in line with President Donald Trump‘s February executive order that sought to penalize South Africa over a land expropriation law allowing the government to confiscate land if it was in the public interest and in a few specific cases without compensation.

Trump has claimed, without evidence, that Black-majority South Africa would use the law to take land from White Afrikaners. He has said that they were victims of “racial discrimination” and “large-scale killings.”

South Africa has repeatedly refuted the characterization.

In May, the first 49 Afrikaners granted refugee statues by Trump arrived in the United States.

About two weeks later, tensions flared between South African President Cyril Ramaphosa and Trump at the White House as the American leader said he had heard “thousands of stories” about violence against White South Africans in the country.

The International Refugee Assistance Project criticized the Trump administration for issuing the decision without consultation with Congress, as required by law. It also rebuked the administration for reserving admissions mostly for Afrikaners, at the expense of at-risk refugees.

It said the Trump administration was valuing “politics over protection.”

“Today’s announcement highlights just how far this administration has gone when it comes to abandoning its responsibilities to displaced people around the world,” IRAP President Sharif Aly said in a statement.

The 7,500 is the lowest since Trump set the refugee limit at 15,000 for fiscal year 2021, during his first term.

The Trump administration will limit the number of refugees admitted to the US to 7,500 over the next year, and give priority to white South Africans.

The move, announced in a notice published on Thursday, marks a dramatic cut from the previous limit of 125,000 set by former President Joe Biden and will bring the cap to a record low.

No reason was given for the cut, but the notice said it was “justified by humanitarian concerns or is otherwise in the national interest”.

In January, Trump signed an executive order suspending the US Refugee Admissions Programme, or USRAP, which he said would allow US authorities to prioritise national security and public safety.

The previous lowest refugee admissions cap was set by the first Trump administration in 2020, when it allocated 15,000 spots for fiscal year 2021.

The notice posted to the website of the Federal Register said the 7,500 admissions would “primarily” be allocated to Afrikaner South Africans and “other victims of illegal or unjust discrimination in their respective homelands”.

In February, the US president announced the suspension of critical aid to South Africa and offered to allow members of the Afrikaner community – who are mostly white descendants of early Dutch and French settlers – to settle in the US as refugees.

South Africa’s ambassador to Washington, Ebrahim Rasool, was later expelled after accusing Trump of “mobilising a supremacism” and trying to “project white victimhood as a dog whistle”.

In the Oval Office in May, Trump confronted South Africa’s President Cyril Ramaphosa and claimed white farmers in his nation were being killed and “persecuted”.

The White House also played a video which they said showed burial sites for murdered white farmers. It later emerged that the videos were scenes from a 2020 protest in which the crosses represented farmers killed over multiple years.

The tense meeting came just days after the US granted asylum to 60 Afrikaners.

The South African government has vehemently denied that Afrikaners and other White South Africans are being persecuted.

On his first day in office on 20 January, Trump said the US would suspend USRAP to reflect the US’s lack of “ability to absorb large numbers of migrants, and in particular, refugees, into its communities in a manner that does not compromise the availability of resources for Americans” and “protects their safety and security”.

The US policy of accepting white South Africans has already prompted accusations of unfair treatment from refugee advocacy groups.

Some have argued the US is now effectively shut to other persecuted groups or people facing potential harm in their home country, and even former allies that helped US forces in Afghanistan or the Middle East.

“This decision doesn’t just lower the refugee admissions ceiling,” Global Refuge CEO and president Krish O’Mara Vignarajah said on Thursday. “It lowers our moral standing.”

“At a time of crisis in countries ranging from Afghanistan to Venezuela to Sudan and beyond, concentrating the vast majority of admissions on one group undermines the programme’s purpose as well as its credibility,” she added.

Refugees International also slammed the move, saying it “makes a mockery of refugee protection and of American values”.

“Let us be frank: whatever hardships some Afrikaners may face, this population has no plausible claim on refugee status – they are not fleeing systematic persecution,” Refugees International said in its statement.

The South African government has yet to respond to the latest announcement.

During the Oval Office meeting, President Ramaphosa said only that he hoped that Trump officials would listen to South Africans about the issue, and later said he believed there is “doubt and disbelief about all this in [Trump’s] head”.

Earlier this year, Ramaphosa signed a controversial law allowing the government to seize privately-owned land without compensation in some circumstances.

While the country does not release race-based crime figured, figures published earlier this year showed that 7,000 people were murdered in South African between October and December 2024.

Of these, 12 were killed in farm attacks and only one of the 12 was a farmer. Five others were farm dwellers and four were employees, who are likely to have been black.

If this World Series is going to turn into a food fight about the economics of baseball, Dave Roberts tossed the first meatball.

The Dodgers had just been presented with the National League Championship trophy. Roberts, the Dodgers’ manager, had something to say to a sellout crowd at Dodger Stadium, and to an audience watching on national television.

“They said the Dodgers are ruining baseball,” Roberts hollered. “Let’s get four more wins and really ruin baseball.”

The Dodgers had just vanquished the Milwaukee Brewers, a team that did everything right, with four starting pitchers whose contracts total $1.35 billion.

The Brewers led the major leagues in victories this year. They have made the playoffs seven times in the past eight years, and yet their previous manager and general manager fled for big cities, in the hope of applying small-market smarts to teams with large-market resources.

The Dodgers will spend half a billion dollars on player payroll and luxury tax payments this year, a figure that the Brewers and other small-market teams might never spend in this lifetime, or the next one.

The Brewers will make about $35 million in local television rights this year. The Dodgers make 10 times that much — and they’ll make more than $500 million per year by the end of their SportsNet LA contract in 2038.

Is revenue disparity a problem for the sport?

The owners say yes. They are expected to push for a salary cap in next year’s collective bargaining negotiations. A cap is anathema to the players’ union. At the All-Star Game, union executive director Tony Clark called a cap “institutionalized collusion.”

The union could say, yes, revenue disparity is the big issue and propose something besides a cap.

But that is not what the union is saying. The union does not agree that revenue disparity is the issue, at least to the extent that the players should participate in solving it. Put another way: Tarik Skubal should not get less than market value in free agency to appease the owner of the Pittsburgh Pirates.

For the most part, the union believes the owners should resolve the issue among themselves.

And the fundamental difference might be this: To most of the owners, the Dodgers’ spending is the big problem, or at least the symptom of a big problem. This was Commissioner Rob Manfred at the owners’ meetings last February: “Do people perceive that the playing field is balanced and fair and/or do people believe that money dictates who wins?”

To the union, the problem is not one of perception. The union believes the problem is that the Dodgers’ spending exposes other owners who would love a salary cap that would give them cover — not to mention cost certainty that could increase profits and franchise values.

“Players across the league show up every day ready to compete and ready to win,” Clark told The Times. “Excuses aren’t tolerated between the lines, and they shouldn’t be accepted outside them either.

“When decision-makers off the field mirror the competitive drive exhibited on it, everybody wins and baseball’s future is limitless. Fans and players alike deserve — and should demand — far more accountability from those to whom much is given.”

In its annual estimates, Forbes had the Dodgers’ revenue last season at a league-leading $752 million and the Pirates’ revenue at $326 million. The Pirates turned a profit of $47 million and the Dodgers turned a profit of $21 million, according to those estimates.

The Pirates — and other small-market teams — make more than $100 million each year in their equal split of league revenue (national and international broadcast rights, for instance, and merchandising and licensing) and revenue shared by the Dodgers and other large-market teams. That means the Pirates can cover their player payroll before selling a single ticket, beer, or Primanti sandwich stuffed with meat, cheese and fries.

“The current system is designed so larger markets share massive amounts of revenue with smaller markets to help level the playing field,” Clark said. “Small-market teams have other built-in advantages, and we’ve proposed more in bargaining — and will again.”

The union would be delighted to get a salary floor — that is, a minimum team payroll. The owners would do that if the union agreed to a maximum team payroll — that is, a salary cap.

Whether the owners believe recent and potential future changes — among them a draft lottery, more favorable draft-pick compensation for small-market teams losing free agents, providing additional draft picks for teams that promote prospects sooner and for small-market teams that win — can begin to mitigate revenue disparity is uncertain. Whether the players can condition revenue sharing on team progress also is uncertain.

And, perhaps most critically to owners, the collapse of the cable ecosystem means many teams have lost local television revenue that might not ever bounce completely back, even if Manfred can deliver on his proposed “all teams, all the time, in one place” service.

Whatever the issues might be, fans are not throwing up their hands and walking away. The league sold more tickets this year than in any year since 2017. Almost every week brought an announcement from ESPN, Fox or TNT about a ratings increase, and the league did not complain about the outstanding ratings the Dodgers and New York Yankees attracted in last year’s World Series.

Payroll is under the control of an owner. Market size is not.

Of the top 15 teams in market size, six made the playoffs. Of the bottom 15 teams in market size, six made the playoffs.

Is that a reasonable exhibition of competitive balance? Would the Dodgers winning the World Series in back-to-back years define competitive imbalance, even if they would become the first team in 25 years to repeat? The only other team currently dedicated to spending like the Dodgers — the New York Mets — has not won the World Series in 39 years.

The Kansas City Chiefs have played in the Super Bowl five times in six years, winning three times. That is because they have Patrick Mahomes, not because the NFL has a salary cap.

In the past three years, the Dodgers are the only team to appear in the final four twice — more diversity than in the final four in the NFL, NBA or NHL, each of which has a salary cap.

The league used to happily distribute information like that. After the winter chants about the Dodgers ruining baseball, the league started talking about how no small-market team had won the World Series in 10 years.

Payroll itself should not define competitive balance, but that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy if an owner decides competing with the Dodgers would be no less futile by spending another $25 million on players.

It is premature to count heads now. However, at this point, you wonder whether any team besides the Dodgers and Mets would lobby against the league pursuing a salary cap in negotiations. If the owners really want a salary cap, they need to be prepared to do what the NHL did to get one: shut down the league for an entire season.

We should be talking about the magic of Shohei Ohtani and Mookie Betts. Instead, on its grandest stage, the talk around baseball will be all about whether its most popular team is ruining the game to the point of depriving us of it come 2027. Well done, everyone.

SCRAPPING the two-child benefit cap may not help with a child’s early development and being ready for school, a report says.

The new study says ending the policy would massively help reduce child poverty but it currently has “no adverse” impact on kids by the end of their reception year.

1

Sir Keir Starmer is under pressure to end the cap from ex-Prime Minister Gordon Brown and the Archbishop of York Stephen Cottrell.

But ending the policy that came into effect in 2017 would cost between £2 billion and £3.5 billion by the end of the decade.

The government has a goal of raising the proportion of children starting school ready to learn from the current 68 per cent to 75 per cent by 2030.

Report author Tom Waters, of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, said: “This suggests that it might be hard for the Government to ‘kill two birds with one stone’ – simultaneously reducing child poverty and raising school readiness – through scrapping the two-child limit.”

The government is expected to set out its strategy to tackle child poverty this Autumn.

Cabinet Minister Bridget Phillipson said scrapping the cap is “on the table” while drumming up support for her bid to be Labour’s deputy leader, following Angela Rayner leaving the role.

Google CEO Sundar Pichai (pictured with Elon Musk, R, in January) saw market the capitalization of parent company Alphabet reach $3 trillion Monday, following a rise in its stock that began after a mostly favorable anti-trust ruling. File Photo by Chip Somodevilla/UPI | License Photo

Sept. 15 (UPI) — Shares of Google‘s parent company Alphabet soared on Monday, pushing the tech conglomerate’s market capitalization past the $3 trillion mark for the first time.

The development puts the search engine giant among a handful of other tech companies that have reached the milestone, which include Apple and Microsoft, as well as AI chipmaker Nvidia. Shares of Alphabet were up by more than 4% and were hovering at around $250 as of Monday afternoon.

The company’s all-time high follows its precipitous stock rise that began in early September when a federal judge ruled that Google would not have to sell off its Chrome browser or Android operating system. The ruling by Judge Amit Mehta was in response to antitrust lawsuit brought by the Justice Department accusing the company of running illegal search engine monopoly.

The ruling meant that Google dodged some of the most consequential remedies sought by federal prosecutors and Mehta still ordered the company to share some search engine data with rivals. The order also barred Google from contracts with other companies making its search engine and other products the default options on their products.

Stock market analysts anticipated the asendance of Alphabet’s stock following the ruling, and the company’s gains Monday account for nearly a third of its value this year, reported Investopedia.

The milestone for Google comes nearly two decades after the company’s first IPO when it began selling publicly traded stocks.

NBA commissioner Adam Silver on Wednesday pulled back the reins as allegations swirled about the Clippers circumventing the salary cap by orchestrating an endorsement deal for star forward Kawhi Leonard.

Silver, speaking to the media after a previously scheduled meeting of all 30 team owners in New York, said an NBA investigation would need to uncover clear evidence that the Clippers violated rules for owner Steve Ballmer to be punished.

“The burden is on the league if we are going to discipline a team, an owner, a player or any constituent members of the league,” Silver said. “I think, as with any process that requires a fundamental sense of fairness, the burden should be on the party that is, in essence, bringing those charges. …

“I think as a matter of fundamental fairness, I would be reluctant to act if there was sort of a mere appearance of impropriety.”

The Clippers and Ballmer are under league investigation after it was alleged last week on the podcast of Pablo Torre that Leonard was paid $28 million for a do-nothing endorsement role by Aspiration, a sustainability firm that had agreed to a $330-million sponsorship deal with the Clippers and had offered $1 billion for naming rights to the arena that instead became the Intuit Dome.

Aspiration turned out to be a fraudulent company, and co-founder Joseph Sanberg has agreed to plead guilty to defrauding multiple investors and lenders.

Silver said he would hesitate to take action against the Clippers if even a shred of doubt about the situation remains following the investigation, which will be conducted by a law firm experienced in probing wrongdoing by sports franchises, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen and Katz.

“Bringing in a firm that specializes in internal investigations adds a level of expertise and creates separation between the league and the investigation of a team,” said Michael McCann, a sports law expert and a visiting professor at Harvard. “The investigators have a background in prosecutorial work, insight into what documents to request and questions to ask.”

McCann and other legal experts said the investigation would center on whether Ballmer’s $50-million investment into Aspiration was a quid pro quo for the firm to turn around and give Leonard $28 million in cash and $20 million in Aspiration stock to essentially do nothing.

Ballmer is embarrassed by the allegations and about his apparent infatuation with Aspiration — which entered into a $330-million sponsorship arrangement with the Clippers and was nearly awarded naming rights to what became the Intuit Dome, only to be revealed as a fraudulent company run by scam artists.

McCann said the investigation would need to uncover concrete evidence that Ballmer or someone else representing the Clippers directed Aspiration to make the deal with Leonard. The only evidence presented on Torre’s podcast was hearsay — an audio clip of an anonymous former Aspiration employee saying that someone else in the company told them the endorsement deal “was to circumvent the salary cap, LOL. There was lots of LOL when things were shared.”

LOL typically is used in written communication, so if the allegation was made in an email or text, the next step for investigators would be to interview the person who wrote it and determine whether Ballmer was involved.

The investigation presumably will examine all of this. Silver tends to be methodical when conducting a probe and is expected to act on what can be proved, not on the perception of wrongdoing. But he also is charged with protecting and growing franchise values. Anything that could damage the integrity of the league would be a huge concern to him and team owners.

“Silver has quite a few very interesting relationships to protect and to nurture: other owners, his corporate sponsors, the media networks that are distributing the content,” said David Carter, a USC professor of sports business and principal of the Sports Business Group. “Everybody attached to the league is interested in getting to the bottom of this. So he has to balance different stakeholder interests and he is very good at doing that.

“So I have a feeling he will — working with the law firm — get to the bottom of it and then decide to what extent if any punishment is warranted. He’ll do that with the intent of making sure he’s protecting the interests of the other owners.”

Leonard joined the Clippers in July 2019 on a three-year, $103-million contract after leading the Toronto Raptors to the NBA title. The 6-foot-7 forward from Moreno Valley signed a four-year, $176.3-million extension in 2021, when Aspiration made its sponsorship deal with the Clippers and Ballmer invested and became a minority owner in the company.

After signing a three-year, $153-million extension a year ago, Leonard will have been paid or is under contract for $375 million in career salary over 14 years with three teams.

The NBA looked into allegations that the Clippers paid Leonard or his representative and uncle, Dennis Robertson, a side deal when he first joined the team in 2019. No wrongdoing was found, although this week the Toronto Star reported that Robertson made demands of the Raptors in 2019 “that line up almost perfectly with what Leonard reportedly got from Aspiration.”

The Star reported that Robertson demanded $10 million a year in sponsorship income but that Leonard didn’t want to do anything for the money. The Raptors rejected the demand, and Leonard signed with the Clippers.

Should the Clippers be found guilty of circumventing the salary cap, they could be forced to forfeit draft picks and be fined heavily. Ballmer and other team executives could be suspended, and perhaps Leonard’s contract could be voided.

Silver will proceed carefully.

“The goal of a full investigation is to find out if there really was impropriety,” he said. “In a public-facing sport, the public at times reaches conclusions that later turn out to be completely false. I’d want anyone else in the situation Mr. Ballmer is in now, or Kawhi Leonard for that matter, to be treated the same way I would want to be treated if people were making allegations against me.”

At the heart of the uproar over allegations that Kawhi Leonard of the Los Angeles Clippers received millions in undisclosed payments from a tree-planting startup is a National Basketball Association rule that caps the the total annual payroll for teams.

According to a report by Pablo Torre of the Athletic, bankruptcy documents show that the tree-planting startup Aspiration Partners paid Leonard $21 million — and still owes him another $7 million — after agreeing to a $28 million contract for endorsement and marketing work at the company.

The report claims there is no evidence to show that Leonard did anything for Aspiration Partners, whose initial funding came in large part from Clippers owner Steve Ballmer. Torre alleges that the payment to Leonard was a way to skirt the NBA salary cap and pad his contract.

The Clippers have forcefully denied that they or Ballmer “circumvented the salary cap or engaged in any misconduct related to Aspiration.”

Still, the NBA said it was launching an investigation into the matter.

The salary cap is a dollar amount that limits what teams can spend on player payroll. The number is determined based on a percentage of projected income for the upcoming year. In 2024-25, the salary cap was $140.6 million.

The purpose of the cap is to ensure parity, preventing the wealthiest teams from outspending smaller markets to acquire the best players. Teams that exceed the cap must pay luxury tax penalties that grow increasingly severe. Revenues from the tax penalties are then distributed in part to smaller-market teams and in part to teams that do not exceed the salary cap.

The cap was implemented before the 1984-85 season at a mere $3.6 million. Ten years later, it was $15.9 million, and 10 years after that it had risen to $43.9 million. By the 2014-15 season it was $63.1 million.

The biggest spike came before the 2016-2017 season when it jumped to $94 million because of an influx of revenue from a new nine-year, $24 billion media rights deal with ESPN and TNT.

Salary cap rules negotiated between the NBA and the players’ union are spelled out in the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). Proven incidents of teams circumventing the cap are few, with a violation by the Minnesota Timberwolves in 2000 serving as the most egregious.

The Timberwolves made a secret agreement with free agent and former No. 1 overall draft pick Joe Smith, signing him to a succession of below-market one-year deals in order to enable the team to go over the cap with a huge contract ahead of the 2001-2002 season.

The NBA voided his contract, fined the Timberwolves $3.5 million, and stripped them of five first-round draft picks — two of which were later returned. Also, owner Glen Taylor and general manager Kevin McHale were suspended.

Then-NBA commissioner David Stern told the Minnesota Star-Tribune at the time: “What was done here was a fraud of major proportions. There were no fewer than five undisclosed contracts tightly tucked away, in the hope that they would never see the light of day. … The magnitude of this offense was shocking.”

Current commissioner Adam Silver is just as adamant as Stern when it comes to enforcing salary cap rules, although the current CBA limits punishment.

According to Article 13 of the CBA, if the Clippers were found to have circumvented the cap, it would be a first offense punishable by a $4.5 million fine, one first-round draft pick, and voiding of Leonard’s contract. However, the Clippers don’t have a first-round pick until 2027.

Leonard, one of the Clippers stars, is extremely well compensated. He will have been paid $375,772,011 by NBA teams through the upcoming season, according to industry expert spotrac.com.

A former Aspiration finance department employee whose voice was disguised on Torre’s podcast said that when they noticed the shockingly large fee paid to Leonard, they were told that, “If I had any questions about it, essentially don’t, because it was to circumvent the salary cap, LOL. There was lots of LOL when things were shared.”

Aspiration Partners was a digital bank that promoted socially responsible spending and investments that, at one point, brought in a star-filled roster of investors that included Drake, Robert Downey Jr., and Leonardo DiCaprio. Founded in 2013, it offered investments in “conscious coalition” companies and offered carbon credits to businesses. The company was valued it at $2.3 million at one point.

But in August, the company’s co-founder, Joseph Sanberg, agreed to plead guilty to charges that he defrauded investors and lenders. Federal prosecutors accused Sanberg of causing more than $248 million in losses, calling him a “fraudster.”

Prosecutors alleged that Sanberg and another member of the company’s board, Ibrahim AlHusseini, fraudulently obtained $145 million in loans by promising shares from Sanberg’s stock in the company. AlHusseini allegedly falsified records to inflate his assets to obtain the loans, and Sanberg concealed from investigators that he was the source for revenue that was recognized by the company.

Sanberg had also recruited companies and individuals to claim they would be paying tens of thousands of dollars to have trees planted, but instead Sanberg used legal entities under his control to hide that he was making these payments, not the customers.

Aspiration, which was partially funded by Ballmer with a $50 million investment, filed for bankruptcy in March.

The company was expected to pay more than $300 million over two decades as a sponsor for the Clippers’ Intuit Dome, which opened in August 2024. But before the new arena opened, the Clippers said Aspiration was no longer a sponsor, just as the Justice Department and Commodity Futures Trading Commission began looking into allegations that Aspiration had misled customers and investors.

During Aspiration’s bankruptcy proceedings, documents emerged citing KL2 Aspire as a creditor owed $7 million, one of four yearly payments of that amount agreed upon in a 2022 contract. KL2 is a limited liability company that names Leonard — whose jersey number is 2 — as its manager.

Aspiration was partially funded by a $50-million investment from Ballmer. It is not known whether Ballmer was aware of or played a role in facilitating the employment agreement between Aspiration and Leonard.

The Clippers issued a lengthy statement Thursday, attempting to explain why Leonard being paid by Aspiration was unrelated to his contract with the Clippers.

“There is nothing unusual or untoward about team sponsors doing endorsement deals with players on the same team,” the statement said in part. “Neither Steve nor the Clippers organization had any oversight of Kawhi’s independent endorsement agreement with Aspiration. To say otherwise is flat-out wrong.”

“The Clippers take NBA compliance extremely seriously, fully respect the league’s rules, and welcome its investigation related to Aspiration.”

In his reporting, Torre noted that Leonard’s contract with Aspiration included an unusual clause that said the company could terminate the endorsement agreement if Leonard was no longer a member of the Clippers.

Mark Cuban, part owner of the Dallas Mavericks, took to X.com to suggest that Torre’s reporting was faulty.

‘I’m on Team Ballmer,” Cuban wrote. “As much as I wish they circumvented the salary cap, First Steve isn’t that dumb. If he did try to feed KL money, knowing what was at stake for him personally, and his team, do you think he would let the company go bankrupt ? “

Torre responded by inviting Cuban on his podcast, “Pablo Torre Finds Out.”