states

United States expects monthly tariff revenue to rise to $50bn | International Trade News

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick forecasts the revenue increase even as Trump announces higher pharma and semiconductor chip levies, which have yet to kick in.

The United States expects to bring in at least $50bn a month from tariffs as higher levies on imports from dozens of countries begin to kick in.

US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick on Thursday outlined the forecasted revenue, an increase of $20bn from last month, when tariffs brought in $30bn.

“And then you’re going to get the semiconductors, you’re going to get pharmaceuticals, you’re going to get all sorts of additional tariff money coming in,” Lutnick said in an interview with Fox Business Network.

US President Donald Trump’s higher tariffs on imports from dozens of countries took effect on Thursday, raising the average US import duty to its highest in a century, with countries facing tariffs of 10 percent to 50 percent.

Trump on Wednesday also announced plans to levy a tariff of about 100 percent on imported semiconductor chips unless manufacturers commit to producing in the US, as well as a small tariff on pharmaceutical imports that would rise to 250 percent over time.

Details of those sectoral tariffs are expected in the coming weeks after the Commerce Department completes investigations into the impact of those imports on US national security.

 

Lutnick told Fox Business Network that companies could win exemptions from the expected semiconductor tariff if they filed plans to build plants in the US, and those plans were overseen by an auditor.

“[Trump’s] objective is to get semiconductor manufacturing done here,” he said, predicting that the initiative would result in some $1 trillion in investment to bolster domestic manufacturing.

Other exemptions have already been agreed, including with the European Union, which said its agreement to accept a 15 percent tariff on most EU exports includes chips, and with Japan, which has said the US agreed not to give it a worse rate than other countries.

The push to boost domestic chip manufacturing is not new.

The US Congress created a $52.7bn semiconductor manufacturing and research subsidy programme in 2022 under former President Joe Biden, and all five leading-edge semiconductor firms agreed last year to locate chip factories in the US.

Last year, the Commerce Department said the US produced about 12 percent of semiconductor chips globally, down from 40 percent in 1990.

Lutnick, asked about separate talks under way with China on extending a tariff truce that is due to end on August 12, said he felt an agreement was possible.

“I think we’re going to leave that to the trade team and to the president to make those decisions,” he said. “It feels likely that they’re going to come to an agreement and extend that for another 90 days, but I’ll leave it to that team.”

Source link

Great Plains lighting bolt spanning three states sets shocking record

1 of 2 | An image from NOAA’s advanced GOES-16 satellite of the thunderstorm helped verify the record size of a megaflash lightning bolt on October 22, 2017. Photo by NOAA

Aug. 5 (UPI) — A massive lightning bolt that stretched from eastern Texas to just outside of Kansas City, Mo., has been officially recognized as the largest recorded flash by the World Meteorological Organization.

The lightning bolt was generated by a major cluster of thunderstorms that swept over the Great Plains on Oct. 22, 2017, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced Monday. Researchers used advanced satellite technology to capture the flash’s enormous span, and they hope it will help them better understand how lightning affects people.

Despite the bolt having a horizontal distance of 515 miles, it was not identified in the original analysis of the thunderstorm and researchers took note of it during a recent re-examination, according to NOAA.

The World Meteorological Organization’s Committee on Weather and Climate Extremes used NOAA’s Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite, the most advanced satellite technology available, to verify the length of the flash and recognize it as a new record, according to a press release from the organization.

Researchers had previously used data collected by ground-based technology to measure lightning flashes, according to the press release. The use of satellite technology allowed researchers to observe a larger area.

“Over time as the data record continues to expand, we will be able to observe even the rarest types of extreme lightning on Earth and investigate the broad impacts of lightning on society,” Michael J. Peterson, a researcher at the Georgia Institute of Technology’s Severe Storms Research Center and member of the committee, said in the press release.

The lightning bolt’s length is about the same distance between Paris, France, and Venice, Italy, according to the World Meteorological Organization. It would take about eight to nine hours to cover the same distance by car and about 90 minutes for a commercial plane.

The previous record was for a lightning bolt that spanned 477 miles across parts of the southern U.S. on April 29, 2020.

The Great Plains region is known for its large thunderstorms that also give rise to lightning “megaflashes” that extend over expansive distances or have longer durations. WMO Secretary-General Celeste Saulo said in a statement that while “lightning is a source of wonder,” it is also a deadly hazard.

“These new findings highlight important public safety concerns about electrified clouds which can produce flashes which travel extremely large distances and have a major impact on the aviation sector and can spark wildfires,” Saulo said.

Source link

California, other states sue Trump over order threatening gender-affirming care providers

California and a coalition of other liberal-led states sued the Trump administration Friday over efforts to end gender-affirming care for transgender, intersex and nonbinary children and young adults nationwide — calling them an unconstitutional attack on LGBTQ+ patients, healthcare providers and states’ rights.

The lawsuit was brought by California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and officials from 15 other states and the District of Columbia. It challenges a Jan. 28 executive order by President Trump that denounced gender-affirming care as “mutilation” and called on U.S. Justice Department officials to effectively enforce a ban, including by launching investigations into healthcare providers.

The lawsuit notes the Justice Department last month sent more than 20 subpoenas to doctors and clinics that have provided such care nationwide, with justice officials suggesting they may face criminal prosecution.

Bonta’s office, in a statement, said such efforts “have no legal basis and are intended to discourage providers from offering lifesaving healthcare that is lawful under state law.” The lawsuit asks a federal court in Massachusetts to vacate Trump’s order in its entirety for exceeding federal authority and undermining state laws that guarantee equal access to healthcare.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment Friday.

Trump made reining in transgender rights a key promise of his presidential campaign. Upon taking office, he moved swiftly to do so through executive orders, funding cuts and litigation. And in many ways, it has worked — particularly when it comes gender-affirming care for minors.

Clinics across the country that had provided such care have closed their doors in response to the threats and funding cuts. That includes the renowned Center for Transyouth Health and Development at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, one of the largest and oldest pediatric gender clinics in the U.S.

The clinic told thousands of its patients and their families that it was shuttering last month. Other clinics have similarly closed nationwide, radically reducing the availability of such care in the U.S.

Republicans and other Trump supporters have cheered the closures as a major win, and they praised the president for protecting impressionable and confused children from so-called woke medical professionals pushing what they allege to be dangerous and irreversible treatments.

Bonta said in the Friday statement that Trump and his administration’s “relentless attacks” on such care were “cruel and irresponsible” and endangered “already vulnerable adolescents whose health and well-being are at risk.”

“These actions have created a chilling effect in which providers are pressured to scale back on their care for fear of prosecution, leaving countless individuals without the critical care they need and are entitled to under law,” Bonta said.

Mainstream U.S. medical associations have supported gender-affirming care for minors experiencing gender dysphoria for years. They and LGBTQ+ rights organizations have accused Trump and his supporters of mischaracterizing that care, which includes therapy, counseling and support for social transitioning, and can include puberty blockers, hormone treatment and, in rarer circumstances, mastectomies.

Queer advocates, many patients and their families say such care is life-saving, alleviating intense distress — and suicidal thoughts — in transgender and other gender-nonconforming youth. They and many mainstream medical experts acknowledge that gender-affirming care for young people is still a developing field, but say it is also based on decades of solid research by medical professionals who are far better equipped than politicians to help families make difficult medical decisions.

However, as the number of children who identify as transgender or nonbinary has rapidly increased in recent years, that argument has failed to take hold in many parts of the country. Conservatives and Republican leaders have grown increasingly alarmed by such care, pointing to young people who changed their minds about transitioning and now regret the care they received.

“Countless children soon regret that they have been mutilated and begin to grasp the horrifying tragedy that they will never be able to conceive children of their own or nurture their children through breastfeeding,” Trump’s executive order stated.

Trump and others have escalated tensions further by spreading misinformation about kids being whisked away from school to have their gentials mutilated without their parents’ knowledge — which is not happening.

The battle has played out in the courts, in part as a state’s rights issue. In June, the Supreme Court ruled that conservative states may ban puberty blockers and hormone treatments for transgender teens, with the court’s conservative majority finding that states are generally free to set their own standards of medical care.

The Trump administration, however, has not taken the same view. Instead, it has aggressively tried to eradicate gender-affirming care nationwide, regardless of state laws — like those in California — that protect it.

Trump’s Jan. 28 executive order, titled “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation,” claimed that “medical professionals are maiming and sterilizing a growing number of impressionable children under the radical and false claim that adults can change a child’s sex through a series of irreversible medical interventions.”

It defined children as anyone under the age of 19, and said that moving forward, the U.S. wouldn’t “fund, sponsor, promote, assist, or support the so-called ‘transition’ of a child from one sex to another,” but would “rigorously enforce all laws that prohibit or limit these destructive and life-altering procedures.”

The states’ lawsuit focuses on one particular section of that order, which directed Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi to convene state attorneys general and other law enforcement officials nationwide to begin investigating gender-affirming care providers and other groups that “may be misleading the public about long-term side effects of chemical and surgical mutilation.”

The section suggested those investigations could be based on laws against “female genital mutilation,” or even around a 1938 law known as the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which authorizes the Food and Drug Administration to regulate food, drugs, medical devices and cosmetics.

On July 9, Bondi announced the Justice Department’s subpoenas to healthcare providers, saying doctors and hospitals “that mutilated children in the service of a warped ideology will be held accountable.”

On July 25, The Times reported that Bill Essayli, the Trump administration’s controversial pick for U.S. attorney in L.A., had floated the idea of criminally charging doctors and hospitals for providing gender-affirming care, according to two federal law enforcement sources who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal.

The targeting of gender-affirming care is part of a wider effort by the administration to eliminate transgender rights more broadly, in part on the premise that transgender people do not exist. On his first day in office, Trump issued another executive order declaring there are only two sexes and denouncing what he called the “gender ideology” of the left.

His administration has sought to limit the options transgender people have to get passports that reflect their identities, and the Justice Department has sued California over its policies allowing transgender girls to compete against other girls in youth sports. Many transgender Americans are looking for ways to flee the country.

Still, many in the LGBTQ+ community fear the attacks are only going to get worse. Among those who are most scared are the parents and families of transgender kids — including those who believe their health records may have been collected under the Justice Department’s subpoenas.

One mother of a Children’s Hospital patient told The Times last month that she is terrified the Justice Department is “going to come after parents and use the female genital mutilation law … to prosecute parents and separate me from my child.”

Bonta is leading the lawsuit along with the attorneys general of Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts and New York. Joining them are Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro and the attorneys general of Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Rhode Island and Wisconsin.

Source link

California, other states sue Trump administration over bill defunding Planned Parenthood

California and a coalition of other liberal-led states sued the Trump administration Tuesday over a provision in the “Big Beautiful Bill” that bars Planned Parenthood and other large nonprofit abortion providers from receiving Medicaid funding for a host of unrelated healthcare services.

The measure has threatened clinics across the country that rely on federal funding to operate. California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, who is helping to lead the litigation, called it a “cruel, backdoor abortion ban” that violates the law in multiple ways.

The states’ challenge comes one day after Planned Parenthood won a major victory in its own lawsuit over the measure in Boston, where a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking the ban from taking effect against Planned Parenthood affiliates nationwide.

Federal law already prohibits the use of federal Medicaid funding to pay for abortions, but the new “defund provision” in the bill passed by congressional Republicans earlier this month goes further. It also bars nonprofit abortion providers that generated $800,000 or more in annual Medicaid revenue in 2023 from receiving any such funding for the next year — including for services unrelated to abortion, such as annual checkups, cancer screenings, birth control and testing for sexually transmitted infections.

Attorneys for the U.S. Department of Justice have argued that the measure “stops federal subsidies for Big Abortion,” that Congress under the constitution is “free to decline to provide taxpayer funds to entities that provide abortions,” and that Planned Parenthood’s position should not hold sway over that of Congress.

In announcing the states’ lawsuit Monday, Bonta’s office echoed Planned Parenthood officials in asserting that the provision specifically and illegally targets Planned Parenthood and its affiliate clinics — calling it “a direct attack on the healthcare access of millions of low-income Americans, disproportionally affecting women, LGBTQ+ individuals, and communities of color.”

Bonta’s office said the measure threatened $300 million in federal funding for clinics in California, where Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider, and “jeopardized the stability” of Planned Parenthood’s 114 clinics across the state, which serve about 700,000 patients annually — many of whom use Medi-Cal, the state’s version of Medicaid.

During a virtual news conference Monday, Bonta noted that federal funds already don’t cover abortions. He said the new provision was “punishment for Planned Parenthood’s constitutionally protected advocacy for abortion” and “a direct attack on access to essential healthcare for millions who rely on Medicaid.”

“The Trump administration and Congress are actually gutting essential lifesaving care, like cancer screenings and STI testing, simply because Planned Parenthood has spoken out in support of reproductive rights,” Bonta said. “The hypocrisy is really hard to ignore. A party that claims to be defenders of free speech only seem to care about it when it aligns with their own agenda.”

Bonta added: “Rest assured, California will continue to lead as a reproductive freedom state, and will continue to defend healthcare as a human right.”

In their lawsuit, the states argue that the measure is unlawfully ambiguous and violates the spending powers of Congress by singling out Planned Parenthood for negative treatment, and that it will harm people’s health and increase the cost of Medicaid programs for states by more than $50 million over the next decade.

In its lawsuit, Planned Parenthood also argued that the measure intentionally singled it and its affiliates out for punishment, in violation of their constitutional rights, including free speech.

In granting Planned Parenthood’s request for a preliminary injunction, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani wrote Monday that she was “not enjoining the federal government from regulating abortion and is not directing the federal government to fund elective abortions or any healthcare service not otherwise eligible for Medicaid coverage.”

Talwani, an Obama appointee, wrote that she also was not requiring the federal government “to spend money not already appropriated for Medicaid or any other funds.”

Instead, Talwani wrote, her order blocks the Trump administration from “targeting a specific group of entities — Planned Parenthood Federation members — for exclusion from reimbursements under the Medicaid program,” as they were likely to prove that “such targeted exclusion violates the United States Constitution.”

In a statement to The Times on Tuesday, White House spokesman Harrison Fields said the “Big, Beautiful Bill” was “legally passed by both chambers of the Legislative Branch and signed into law by the Chief Executive,” and Talwani’s order granting the injunction was “not only absurd but illogical and incorrect.”

“It is orders like these that underscore the audacity of the lower courts as well as the chaos within the judicial branch. We look forward to ultimate victory on the issue,” Fields said.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for additional comment on the states’ lawsuit.

Jodi Hicks, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, joined Bonta during his news conference. She welcomed the states’ lawsuit, saying “an attack this severe requires a multi-pronged response with both short and long term strategies.”

Hicks said it’s particularly important that California is helping to fight back, given the huge stakes for the state.

“California is the most impacted state across the country because of the volume of patients that we have, but also because of the amount of Medicaid that our state takes,” she said. “It speaks to our values. And this defund provision is certainly [an] attack on values — most heavily on California.”

Bonta is leading the lawsuit along with the attorneys general of Connecticut and New York. Joining them are Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro and the attorneys general of Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin and the District of Columbia.

Bonta noted the lawsuit is the 36th his office has filed against the Trump administration in the last 27 weeks.

Source link

California, other states sue over USDA demand for SNAP recipients’ data

California and a coalition of other liberal-led states filed a federal lawsuit Monday challenging the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s recent demand that they turn over the personal information of millions of people receiving federal food assistance through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

USDA Secretary Brooke L. Rollins informed states earlier this month that they would have to transmit the data to the USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service to comply with an executive order by President Trump. That order demanded that Trump’s agency appointees receive “full and prompt access” to all data associated with federal programs, so that they might identify and eliminate “waste, fraud, and abuse.”

Last week, USDA officials informed state SNAP directors that the deadline for submitting the data is Wednesday and that failure to comply “may trigger noncompliance procedures” — including the withholding of funds.

In announcing the states’ lawsuit Monday, California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said the “unprecedented” demand “violates all kinds of state and federal privacy laws” and “further breaks the trust between the federal government and the people it serves.”

Bonta’s office noted that states have administered the equivalent of SNAP benefits — formerly known as food stamps — for 60 years. It said that California alone receives “roughly $1 billion a year” to administer the program in the state and that “any delay in that funding could be catastrophic for the state and its residents who rely on SNAP to put food on the table.”

The USDA has demanded data for all current and former SNAP recipients since the start of 2020, including “all household group members names, dates of birth, social security numbers, residential and mailing addresses,” as well as “transactional records from each household” that show the dollar amounts they spent and where. It said it may also collect information about people’s income.

Meanwhile, a Privacy Impact Assessment published by the agency showed that it also is collecting data on people’s education, employment, immigration status and citizenship.

The USDA and other Trump administration officials have said the initiative will save taxpayers money by eliminating “information silos” that allow inefficiencies and fraud to fester in federal programs.

“It is imperative that USDA eliminates bureaucratic duplication and inefficiency and enhances the government’s ability not only to have point-in-time information but also to detect overpayments and fraud,” Rollins wrote in a July 9 letter to the states.

The Trump administration, which is pursuing what Trump has called the biggest mass deportation of undocumented immigrants in the nation’s history, has requested sensitive data from other federal programs and services — including Medicaid and the IRS — to share with immigration officials.

That has raised alarm among Democrats, who have said that tying such services to immigration enforcement will put people’s health at risk and decrease tax revenue. California sued the Trump administration earlier this month for sharing Medicaid data with Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

On Monday, Bonta raised similar alarms about the administration’s demand for SNAP data, questioning what it will do with the information and how families that rely on such assistance will react. His office said it appeared to be “the next step” in the administration’s anti-immigrant campaign.

“President Trump continues to weaponize private and sensitive personal information — not to root out fraud, but to create a culture of fear where people are unwilling to apply for essential services,” Bonta said. “We’re talking about kids not getting school lunch; fire victims not accessing emergency services; and other devastating, and deadly, consequences.”

Bonta said the USDA demand for SNAP benefits data is illegal under established law, and that California “will not comply” while it takes the administration to court.

“The president doesn’t get to change the rules in the middle of the game, no matter how much he may want to,” Bonta said. “While he may be comfortable breaking promises to the American people, California is not.”

The new data collection does not follow established processes for the federal government to audit state data without collecting it wholesale. During a recently concluded public comment period, Bonta and other liberal attorneys general submitted a comment arguing that the data demand violates the Privacy Act.

“USDA should rethink this flawed and unlawful proposal and instead work with the States to improve program efficiency and integrity through the robust processes already in place,” they wrote.

Last week, California and other states sued the Trump administration over new rules barring undocumented immigrants from accessing more than a dozen other federally funded benefit programs, including Head Start, short-term and emergency shelters, soup kitchens and food banks, healthcare services and adult education programs.

The states did not include USDA in that lawsuit despite its issuing a similar notice, writing that “many USDA programs are subject to an independent statutory requirement to provide certain benefits programs to everyone regardless of citizenship,” which the department’s notice said would continue to apply.

Bonta announced Monday’s lawsuit along with New York Atty. Gen. Letitia James. Joining them in the lawsuit were Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear and the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington and Wisconsin, as well as the state of Kentucky.

Source link

United States, Israel recall negotiators in Gaza hostage talks

Steve Witkoff, U.S. special envoy to the Middle East, speaks to members of the media outside the White House in Washington, D.C., in March. On Thursday, Witkoff recalled hostage negotiators from Doha after Hamas’s latest response to talks. File Photo by Al Drago/UPI | License Photo

July 24 (UPI) — The United States has recalled its negotiators in Gaza hostage talks after the latest response from Hamas “clearly shows a lack of desire to reach a cease-fire,” U.S. Mideast Special Envoy Steve Witkoff said Thursday.

Negotiators were meeting in Doha and Witkoff said the parties will pursue “alternative options” following the Hamas response in the latest round of negotiations.

“While the mediators have made a great effort, Hamas does not appear to be coordinated or acting in good faith,” Witkoff continued in a statement.

“We will now consider alternative options to bring the hostages home and try to create a more stable environment for the people of Gaza. It’s a shame Hamas has acted in this selfish way. We are resolute in seeking an end to this conflict and permanent peace in Gaza,” he said.

Israel has also recalled its team of negotiators, but an Israeli negotiator said the talks did not “collapse.”

There was no immediate response from Hamas.

Source link

AstraZeneca to invest $50 billion in United States facilities

The AstraZeneca headquarters in Sydney, Australia, in August of 2020. File Photo by Dan Himbrechts/EPA-EFE

July 22 (UPI) — The biopharmaceutical company AstraZeneca announced it will $50 billion into the United States, with plans to open several manufacturing facilities in several states.

AstraZeneca said in a press release Monday that it will invest by both manufacturing some of its medicines and conducting research and development stateside, and will reach that $50 billion mark by 2030.

This move is intended to create thousands of new American jobs, with the main effort to expand being a multi-billion-dollar manufacturing facility to be built in Virginia. A number of its weight management drugs are to be produced there, and it will create its products via a combination of data analysis, AI and automation.

Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin thanked AstraZeneca in the release, “for choosing Virginia as the cornerstone for this transformational investment in the United States.”

“This project will set the standard for the latest technological advancements in pharmaceutical manufacturing, creating hundreds of highly skilled jobs and helping further strengthen the nation’s domestic supply chain,” said Youngkin. “Advanced manufacturing is at the heart of Virginia’s dynamic economy, so I am thrilled that AstraZeneca, one of the world’s leading pharmaceutical companies, plans to make their largest global manufacturing investment here in the Commonwealth.”

Other highlights of the $50 billion investment include research and development facilities constructed in Maryland, Massachusetts, Texas, Indiana and California.

According to the release, the financial goal of AstraZeneca is to reach a total revenue of $80 billion by 2030, half of which is expected to be generated in the United States.

U.S. Secretary of Commerce said in the release that the Trump administration is “proud that AstraZeneca has made the decision to bring substantial pharmaceutical production to our shores.”

“This historic investment is bringing tens of thousands of jobs to the [United States] and will ensure medicine sold in our country is produced right here,” he added.

Source link

California, other Democratic-led states roll back Medicaid access for people lacking legal status

For nearly 20 years, Maria would call her sister — a nurse in Mexico — for advice on how to manage her asthma and control her husband’s diabetes instead of going to the doctor in California.

She didn’t have legal status, so she couldn’t get health insurance and skipped routine exams, relying instead on home remedies and, at times, getting inhalers from Mexico. She insisted on using only her first name for fear of deportation.

Things changed for Maria and many others in recent years when some Democratic-led states opened up their health insurance programs to low-income immigrants regardless of their legal status. Maria and her husband signed up the day the program began last year.

“It changed immensely, like from Earth to the heavens,” Maria said in Spanish of Medi-Cal, California’s Medicaid program. “Having the peace of mind of getting insurance leads me to getting sick less.”

At least seven states and the District of Columbia have offered coverage for immigrants, mostly since 2020. But three of them have done an about-face, ending or limiting coverage for hundreds of thousands of immigrants who aren’t in the U.S. legally — California, Illinois and Minnesota.

The programs cost much more than officials had projected at a time when the states are facing multibillion-dollar deficits now and in the future. In Illinois, adult immigrants ages 42 to 64 without legal status have lost their healthcare to save an estimated $404 million. All adult immigrants in Minnesota no longer have access to the state program, saving nearly $57 million. In California, no one will automatically lose coverage, but new enrollments for adults will stop in 2026 to save more than $3 billion over several years.

Cuts in all three states were backed by Democratic governors who once championed expanding health coverage to immigrants.

The Trump administration this week shared the home addresses, ethnicities and personal data of all Medicaid recipients with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials. Twenty states, including California, Illinois and Minnesota, have sued.

Healthcare providers told the Associated Press that all of those factors, especially the fear of being arrested or deported, are having a chilling effect on people seeking care. And states may have to spend more money down the road because immigrants will avoid preventive healthcare and end up needing to go to safety-net hospitals.

“I feel like they continue to squeeze you more and more to the point where you’ll burst,” Maria said, referencing all the uncertainties for people who are in the U.S. without legal permission.

‘People are going to die’

People who run free and community health clinics in California and Minnesota said patients who got on state Medicaid programs received knee replacements and heart procedures and were diagnosed for serious conditions like late-stage cancer.

CommunityHealth is one of the nation’s largest free clinics, serving many uninsured and underinsured immigrants in the Chicago area who have no other options for treatment. That includes the people who lost coverage July 1 when Illinois ended its Health Benefits for Immigrants Adults Program, which served about 31,500 people ages 42 to 64.

One of CommunityHealth’s community outreach workers and care coordinator said Eastern European patients she works with started coming in with questions about what the change meant for them. She said many of the patients also don’t speak English and don’t have transportation to get to clinics that can treat them. The worker spoke to the AP on condition of anonymity to protect patients’ privacy.

Health Finders Collective in Minnesota’s rural Rice and Steele counties south of Minneapolis serves low-income and underinsured patients, including large populations of Latino immigrants and Somali refugees. Executive director Charlie Mandile said his clinics are seeing patients rushing to squeeze in appointments and procedures before 19,000 people age 18 and older are kicked off insurance at the end of the year.

Free and community health clinics in all three states say they will keep serving patients regardless of insurance coverage — but that might get harder after the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services decided this month to restrict federally qualified health centers from treating people without legal status.

CommunityHealth Chief Executive Stephanie Willding said she always worried about the stability of the program because it was fully state funded, “but truthfully, we thought that day was much, much further away.”

“People are going to die. Some people are going to go untreated,” Alicia Hardy, chief executive officer of CommuniCARE+OLE clinics in California, said of the state’s Medicaid changes. “It’s hard to see the humanity in the decision-making that’s happening right now.”

A spokesperson for the Minnesota Department of Health said ending the state’s program will decrease MinnesotaCare spending in the short term, but she acknowledged healthcare costs would rise elsewhere, including uncompensated care at hospitals.

Minnesota House Speaker Lisa Demuth, a Republican, said the state’s program was not sustainable.

“It wasn’t about trying to be non-compassionate or not caring about people,” she said. “When we looked at the state budget, the dollars were not there to support what was passed and what was being spent.”

Demuth also noted that children will still have coverage, and adults lacking permanent legal status can buy private health insurance.

Healthcare providers also are worried that preventable conditions will go unmanaged, and people will avoid care until they end up in emergency rooms — where care will be available under federal law.

One of those safety-net public hospitals, Cook County Health in Chicago, treated about 8,000 patients from Illinois’ program last year. Dr. Erik Mikaitis, the health system’s CEO, said doing so brought in $111 million in revenue.

But he anticipated other providers who billed through the program could close, he said. “Things can become unstable very quickly,” he said.

Monthly fees, federal policies create barriers

State lawmakers said California’s Medi-Cal changes stem from budget issues — a $12-billion deficit this year, with larger ones projected ahead. Democratic state leaders last month agreed to stop new enrollment starting in 2026 for all low-income adults without legal status. Those under 60 remaining on the program will have to pay a $30 monthly fee in 2027.

States are also bracing for impact from federal policies. Cuts to Medicaid and other programs in President Trump’s massive tax and spending bill include a 10% cut to the federal share of Medicaid expansion costs to states that offer health benefits to immigrants starting October 2027.

California health officials estimate roughly 200,000 people will lose coverage after the first full year of restricted enrollment, though Gov. Gavin Newsom maintains that even with the rollbacks, California provides the most expansive healthcare coverage for poor adults.

Every new bill requires a shift in Maria’s monthly calculations to make ends meet. She believes many people won’t be able to afford the $30-a-month premiums and will instead go back to self-medication or skip treatment altogether.

“It was a total triumph,” she said of Medi-Cal expansion. “But now that all of this is coming our way, we’re going backwards to a worse place.”

Fear and tension about immigration raids are changing patient behavior, too. Providers told the AP that, as immigration raids ramped up, their patients were requesting more virtual appointments, not showing up to routine doctor’s visits and not picking up prescriptions for their chronic conditions.

Maria has the option to keep her coverage. But she is weighing the health of her family against risking what they’ve built in the U.S.

“It’s going to be very difficult,” Maria said of her decision to remain on the program. “If it comes to the point where my husband gets sick and his life is at risk, well then, obviously, we have to choose his life.”

Nguyễn and Shastri write for the Associated Press and reported from Sacramento and Milwaukee, respectively. AP journalist Godofredo Vasquez in San Francisco contributed to this report.

Source link

Contributor: Stunts in L.A. show Democratic states and cities that Trump’s forces can invade anytime

Early this month, the U.S. military and masked federal agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement and from Customs and Border Protection invaded a park near downtown Los Angeles — ironically, a park named after Gen. Douglas MacArthur. They came ready for battle, dressed in tactical gear and camouflage, with some arriving on horseback, while others rolled in on armored vehicles or patrolled above in Black Hawk helicopters. Although the invasion force failed to capture anyone, it did succeed in liberating the park from a group of children participating in a summer camp.

The MacArthur Park operation sounds like a scene from “South Park,” but it really did happen — and its implications are terrifying. As Gregory Bovino, the Border Patrol agent in charge, said to Fox News: “Better get used to us now, ’cause this is going to be normal very soon. We will go anywhere, anytime we want in Los Angeles.” And President Trump is sending the same message to every Democratic governor and mayor in America who dares oppose him. He will send heavily armed federal forces wherever he wants, whenever he wants and for any reason.

The United States stands at the threshold of an authoritarian breakthrough, and Congress and the courts have given Trump a lot of tools. He’s learned from Jan. 6, 2021, that he needs tight control over the “guys with the guns,” as retired Joint Chiefs Chairman Mark Milley put it. And that’s what he got when Congress dutifully confirmed Trump loyalists to lead all of the “power ministries” — the military, the FBI and the Department of Justice, the rest of the intelligence community and the Department of Homeland Security.

As commander in chief, the president can deploy troops and, under Title 10, he can also put National Guard troops under his command — even against the wishes of local officials. Gov. Gavin Newsom challenged the legality of Trump’s exercise of this authority in Los Angeles last month, and we will see what the courts say — but based on its initial rulings, the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit appears likely to defer to the president. Under the Posse Comitatus Act, the troops cannot currently enforce laws, but Trump could change that by invoking the Insurrection Act, and we have to assume that the current Supreme Court would defer to him on that as well, following long-standing precedents saying the president’s power under the act is “conclusive.”

Trump could send the military into other cities, but the most dangerous weapon in his authoritarian arsenal might be the newly empowered Department of Homeland Security, which has been given $170 billion by Congress to triple the size of ICE and double its detention capacity.

No doubt, this will put Trump’s “mass deportation” into overdrive, but this is not just about immigration. Remember Portland in 2020, when Trump sent Border Patrol agents into the city? Against the wishes of the Oregon governor and the Portland mayor, the president deployed agents to protect federal buildings and suppress unrest after the killing of George Floyd. Under the Homeland Security Act, the secretary can designate any employee of the department to assist the Federal Protective Service in safeguarding government property and carrying out “such other activities for the promotion of homeland security as the Secretary may prescribe.”

Under that law, DHS officers can also make arrests, on and off of federal property, for “any offense against the United States.” This is why, in 2020, Border Patrol agents — dressed like soldiers and equipped with M-4 semi-automatic rifles — were able to rove around Portland in unmarked black SUVs and arrest people off the streets anywhere in the city. Trump could do this again anywhere in the country, and with the billions Congress has given to immigration and border agencies, DHS could assemble and deploy a formidable federal paramilitary force wherever and whenever Trump wishes.

Of course, under the 4th Amendment, officers need to have at least reasonable suspicion based on specific, articulable facts before they can stop and question someone, and probable cause before they arrest. And on Friday, U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong issued a temporary restraining order blocking ICE and Customs and Border Protection from making such stops without reasonable suspicion, and further holding that this could not be based on apparent race or ethnicity; speaking Spanish or speaking English with an accent; presence at a particular location, such as a Home Depot parking lot; or the type of work a person does. This ruling could end up providing an important constitutional restraint on these agencies, but we shall see. The Trump administration has appealed the ruling.

However, this litigation proceeds, it is important to note that the DHS agencies are not like the FBI, with its buttoned-down, by-the-book culture drilled into it historically and in response to the revelations of J. Edgar Hoover’s abuses of power. DHS and its agencies have no such baggage, and they clearly have been pushing the envelope in Los Angeles — sometimes brutally — over the last month. And even if Frimpong’s ruling stands up on appeal, ICE and Customs and Border Protection will no doubt adapt by training their officers to articulate other justifications for stopping people on the street or in workplaces. Ultimately, these agencies are used to operating near the border, where, in the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s words, the federal government’s power is “at its zenith,” and where there are far fewer constitutional constraints on their actions.

These are the tools at Trump’s disposal — and as DHS rushes to hire thousands of agents and build the detention facilities Congress just paid for, these tools will only become more formidable. And one should anticipate that Trump will want to deploy the DHS paramilitary forces to “protect” the 2026 or 2028 elections, alongside federal troops, in the same way they worked together to capture MacArthur Park.

A fanciful, dystopian scenario? Maybe, but who or what would stop it from happening? Congress does not seem willing to stand up to the president — and while individual federal judges might, the Supreme Court seems more likely to defer to him, especially on issues concerning national security or immigration. So, in the words of Bruce Springsteen, “the last check on power, after the checks and balances of government have failed, are the people, you and me.” Suit up.

Seth Stodder served in the Obama administration as assistant secretary of Homeland Security for borders, immigration and trade and previously as assistant secretary for threat prevention and security. He teaches national security and counterterrorism law at USC Law School.

Source link

States sue Trump over more than $6bn in education funds | Donald Trump News

Officials from California, New York, Kentucky and 20 other states allege the US administration acted unconstitutionally.

Two dozen states have sued the administration of United States President Donald Trump after the federal government froze $6.8bn in education funding.

On Monday, a group of 23 attorneys general and two governors filed a lawsuit in Rhode Island arguing that the decision to halt funds approved by the US Congress was “contrary to law, arbitrary and capricious, and unconstitutional”.

The freeze extended to funding used to support the education of migrant farm workers and their children, recruitment and training of teachers, English proficiency learning, academic enrichment, and after-school and summer programmes.

The administration also froze funding used to support adult literacy and job-readiness skills.

“This is not about Democrat or Republican – these funds were appropriated by Congress for the education of Kentucky’s children, and it’s my job to ensure we get them,” Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear said in a statement.

“In Kentucky, $96 million in federal education funds are at risk. Our kids and our future depend on a strong education, and these funds are essential to making sure our kids succeed.”

While the government was legally required to release the money to the states by July 1, the federal Department of Education notified states on June 30 that it would not be issuing grant awards under those programmes by that deadline. It cited the change in administration as its reason.

Schools in Republican-led areas are particularly affected by the freeze in federal education grants.

Ninety-one of the 100 school districts that receive the most money per student from four frozen grant programmes are in Republican congressional districts, according to an analysis from New America, a left-leaning think tank. New America’s analysis used funding levels reported in 2022 in 46 states.

Republican officials have been among the educators criticising the grant freeze.

“I deeply believe in fiscal responsibility, which means evaluating the use of funds and seeking out efficiencies, but also means being responsible – releasing funds already approved by Congress and signed by President Trump,” said Georgia schools superintendent Richard Woods, an elected Republican.

“In Georgia, we’re getting ready to start the school year, so I call on federal funds to be released so we can ensure the success of our students.”

The Office of Management and Budget said the pause is part of a review to ensure funds are not used to “subsidize a radical leftwing agenda”.

Source link

Indeed and Glassdoor to cut 1,300 jobs, mostly in the United States, and boost AI use

Indeed and Glassdoor face 1,300 layoffs as the parent company restructures and focuses on AI. Photo illustration by Sascha Steinbach/EPA

July 11 (UPI) — Glassdoor and Indeed will cut about 1,300 jobs as their sites intertwine and the parent company pushes for more use of artificial intelligence.

Recruit Holdings owns the two sites. The Japanese company said more Glassdoor operations will fold into Indeed, and the companies will use more AI.

The company said in a statement it is focusing on “simplifying hiring by building a better job seeker and employer experience using AI.” It cited its internal figure that AI helps people find a job every 2.2 seconds, TechCrunch reported. “AI is changing the world, and we must adapt by ensuring our product delivers truly great experiences for job seekers and employers,” CEO, Hisayuki “Deko” Idekoba wrote in an internal memo.

Most job cuts would be in the United States in both companies’ research and development, tech, human resources and sustainability departments. But the cuts will affect all functions and countries, the memo said. Six percent of Recruit’s HR technology division will suffer cuts.

Glassdoor CEO Christian Sutherland-Wong is resigning.

In May, Idekoba said at a JPMorgan Chase technology conference, CBS News reported: “[W]hen we think about HR industry, which is $300 billion-plus industry, but it includes like 60% or 65% of human labor manual cost. It’s very difficult to find that big industry with such a high percentage of human labor manual cost. And so what we believe is, basically, how can we simplify hiring with using AI and technology and data to reduce manual work. That’s what we are focusing on.”

Idekoba said that about one-third of the company’s new programming code is written by AI: “It’s going to be 50% pretty soon.”

Recruit Holdings bought Indeed in 2012 and Glassdoor in 2018, securing two popular platforms that jobseekers use.

It’s not clear exactly how the company will use AI to replace workers.

Source link

UN’s Albanese slams states that let Netanyahu fly over airspace for US trip | Israel-Palestine conflict News

Rome Statute signatories Italy, France and Greece accused of ‘violating’ international legal order by letting alleged war criminal fly over territory.

Francesca Albanese, the United Nations special rapporteur on the human rights situation in the occupied Palestinian territory, has hit out at countries that allowed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to fly over their airspace en route to the United States, suggesting that they may have flouted their obligations under international law.

Albanese said on Wednesday that the governments of Italy, France and Greece needed to explain why they provided “safe passage” to Netanyahu, who they were theoretically “obligated to arrest” as an internationally wanted suspect when he flew over their territory on his way to meet United States President Donald Trump on Sunday for talks.

All three countries are signatories of the Rome Statute, the treaty that established The Hague-based International Criminal Court (ICC) in 2002, which last year issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and former Israeli defence minister Yoav Gallant for war crimes and crimes against humanity perpetrated during Israel’s war on Gaza.

“Italian, French and Greek citizens deserve to know that every political action violating the int’l legal order, weakens and endangers all of them. And all of us,” Albanese wrote on X.

Albanese was responding to a post by human rights lawyer Craig Mokhiber, who had said the previous day that the countries had “breached their legal obligations under the treaty [Rome Statute], have declared their disdain for the victims of genocide, and have demonstrated their contempt for the rule of law”.

Netanyahu’s visit to the US, during which he and Trump discussed the forced displacement of Palestinians amid his country’s ongoing ceasefire negotiations with Hamas, was not his first sortie since the ICC issued the warrant for his arrest.

In February, Netanyahu travelled to the US, which is not party to the Rome Statute, becoming the first foreign leader to meet Trump after his January inauguration.

Then, in April, Netanyahu visited Hungary’s leader Viktor Orban in Budapest, the latter having extended his invitation just one day after the ICC issued the arrest warrant, withdrawing the country’s ICC membership ahead of the Israeli leader’s arrival.

From Hungary, Netanyahu then flew to the US for a meeting with Trump, his plane flying 400km (248 miles) further than the normal route to avoid the airspace of several countries that could enforce an arrest warrant, according to Israel’s Haaretz newspaper.

Member states of the ICC are expected to take subjects of arrest warrants into custody if those individuals are on their territory.

In practice, the rules are not always followed. For instance, South Africa, a member of the court, did not arrest Sudan’s then-leader Omar al-Bashir during a 2017 visit, despite an ICC warrant against him.

European Union countries have been split on the ICC warrant issued for Netanyahu.

Some said last year they would meet their ICC commitments, while Italy has said there were legal doubts. France has said it believes Netanyahu has immunity from ICC actions.

Source link

FIFA World Cup 2026 in United States, Canada and Mexico the ‘most polluting ever’, claims report

Next year’s Fifa World Cup in the United States, Canada and Mexico is set to be “the most climate-damaging” in the tournament’s history, according to new research by environmentalists.

Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR) has calculated the greenhouse gas emissions attributable to the tournament, which has been expanded from 32 to 48 teams.

“Driven by a high reliance on air travel and significant increase in the quantity of matches” the campaign group claims the expanded 2026 World Cup will generate more than nine million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent.

SGR says that is almost double the average for the last four World Cup finals, and significantly more than Qatar 2022, which is estimated to have had a footprint of up to 5.25 million tonnes of CO2e.

It says the predicted 2026 total is “equivalent to nearly 6.5 million average British cars being driven for an entire year” – and will make it the most polluting tournament ever staged.

Next year’s World Cup will be the first to be held across an entire continent and have 40 more matches (104) than before, although all will be played at existing stadia.

In their original bid book, the three prospective host nations for the 2026 tournament revealed a preliminary estimate of 3.6 million tonnes of CO2e, although at that stage it was expected to stage just 80 matches. They also said the bid “hopes the 2026 World Cup will establish new standards for environmental sustainability in sport and deliver measurable environmental benefits”.

Fifa has been approached for comment.

Source link

California, 17 other states challenge ‘suspicionless’ stops by masked ICE agents in L.A.

California and a coalition of 17 other states threw their support Monday behind a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of recent federal immigration enforcement raids in Los Angeles, asking a federal court to issue a temporary restraining order against such operations while their legality is challenged.

The states’ action adds substantial heft to a lawsuit filed last week by advocacy groups and detained individuals, who accused the federal government of violating the rights of Los Angeles residents by sending masked immigration agents to detain people in certain L.A. neighborhoods based on little more than the color of their skin.

It came the same day that heavily armed agents in tactical gear swept through MacArthur Park in Los Angeles in a stunning show of force that further rattled local residents and drew outrage from local officials.

In their amicus filing, the states wrote that masked and unidentified ICE and CBP agents were stopping people in L.A. communities without any legitimate cause, and that such stops have “shattered [the] rhythms of everyday life” and diminished public safety in those neighborhoods.

“Masked immigration agents conducting unannounced enforcement actions through the community and, in all too many instances, stopping residents without so much as a reasonable suspicion of unlawful conduct have left people afraid to leave their homes …,” the states argued. “The cumulative effect of defendants’ unlawful actions — including unconstitutional stops — has had devastating impacts on California’s peace and prosperity, and has turned once bustling neighborhoods into ghost towns.”

The states said the immigration enforcement tactics have had a “chilling effect” that has reached far beyond undocumented people, leading to the detention of U.S. citizens and others legally in the country.

The states wrote that the “secretive approach” to such raids — with agents heavily masked and in plainclothes — “has not only created a culture of fear, but has also needlessly impeded local law enforcement.”

Federal officials have vigorously defended their actions as part of President Trump’s promised agenda to conduct mass deportations. Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement last week that “any claims that individuals have been ‘targeted’ by law enforcement because of their skin color are disgusting and categorically FALSE.”

Trump administration officials also have defended federal agents wearing masks, saying it was to protect themselves and their families from threats to their safety. They declined to comment on the operation in MacArthur Park.

The Trump administration has specifically targeted L.A. for its “sanctuary” policies, and administration officials have suggested that heavy immigration enforcement activity will continue in the city for the foreseeable future.

In announcing the states’ filing Monday, California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said the recent actions of ICE and CBP agents in Los Angeles were “part of a cruel and familiar pattern of attacks on our immigrant communities by an administration that thrives on fear and division,” and that his office would be fighting back.

“Let me be crystal clear: These raids are not about safety or justice. They are about meeting enforcement quotas and striking fear in our communities,” he said. “We won’t be silent. We won’t back down. We will continue to hold the federal government accountable when it violates the Constitution and federal law.”

Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a statement that every person in California is protected by the Constitution against “unreasonable searches and seizures,” and that the recent actions of federal agents in L.A. have threatened “the fabric of our democracy, society, and economy.”

“Instead of targeting dangerous criminals, federal agents are detaining U.S. citizens, ripping families apart, and vanishing people to meet indiscriminate arrest quotas without regard to due process and constitutional rights that protect all of us from cruelty and injustice,” Newsom said.

Joining Bonta in the states’ filing were the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont and Washington.

Source link

US v Mexico in Gold Cup final: Self-belief or pre-World Cup panic on line for United States

It proved one game too far for Mauricio Pochettino’s United States as defeat to Mexico in the Gold Cup final ended their hopes of lifting the trophy in their own country.

Pochettino’s start to life as head coach has been unconvincing but a promising run in this summer’s Gold Cup had started to provide new hope.

A win against Mexico in Sunday’s final would not only have delivered a trophy but also started the process of instilling some much-needed belief. It was not to be as Mexico came from behind to win 2-1.

The defeat though will leave supporters questioning again whether things are moving in the right direction before a World Cup on home soil next summer.

Pochettino, who was furious after Guatemalan referee Mario Escobar Toca turned down a penalty appeal for handball, believed the majority of the 70,000 crowd at the NGR Stadium in Houston being Mexican went against his side.

He said: “Mexico is a great team, they have great players and a good coaching staff, but I want to emphasize how important the fans are in a soccer match.

“When you have their support, you regenerate the player’s energy on the field, and when you don’t, you drain their energy and it’s hard.

“If we had the majority supporting us today, it would have been different, but that’s what we’re dealing with. The truth was that if that happened in the opposite box, for sure, it’s [given as a] penalty.

“This Gold Cup though allowed us to have the players together for 40 days to establish the principles of what we want, and that has been very helpful. It was important to see players crying after losing; it makes me happy because that’s how this sport should feel.”

Mixed results across the Argentine’s first 16 matches have shown a worrying inconsistency and during this time, they have lost all five matches against a team in the top 30 of Fifa’s rankings.

By now, the US should have some clarity in their preparations for the 2026 tournament, but there remains an unfinished, rocky feel to the foundations they have been laying since Pochettino took over in September 2024.

Questions were being asked of the former Tottenham Hotspur and Paris St-Germain boss following consecutive defeats by Panama and Canada in the Nations League finals, and Turkey and Switzerland in Gold Cup warm-up games.

There has been a lack of consistency in both personnel and results. The squad appears unresolved, with the group of players called up differing for each camp, something that has mostly been beyond Pochettino’s control.

Fifty-five players have made appearances for the USA under the Argentine since he was appointed 10 months ago, making it difficult to build momentum and togetherness.

Source link

Club World Cup: Why are Brazilian clubs doing so well in United States?

Manchester City, Inter Milan, Atletico Madrid and Porto have already been sent packing, while both teams from Argentina – Boca Juniors and River Plate – have also been eliminated.

Brazil’s Flamengo and Botafogo fell at the last-16 stage, but the country’s remaining two sides hope to march on.

“This tournament is a priority in the way an Olympic athlete will do all of his training and programming to peak at a specific time,” Vickery tells BBC Sport.

“Certainly for Palmeiras, who really want to win it. This is an absolute priority for them and they have programmed to be at their peak now.”

Could the climate, which the Brazilian teams are used to, be helping give them an edge?

Both Chelsea boss Enzo Maresca and Manchester City manager Pep Guardiola have mentioned the extreme heat since the tournament started.

Chelsea trained in 37C before their 3-0 group win over ES Tunis in Philadelphia.

“It is almost impossible to train or to make a session because of the weather,” said Maresca last week, while Guardiola said before last Thursday’s match with Juventus that his players must be prepared to “suffer” in the challenging heat of Orlando.

The soaring temperatures across the United States have led to matches across the competition implementing water breaks during games.

But not all players have struggled in the heat.

“We’re used to it,” Botafogo right-back Vitinho, who spent two years at Burnley, said of the high temperatures.

Another factor to consider is that all four teams from Brazil had broken away from their domestic season, which runs from March until December, to take part.

While they appear fresh and sharp, teams from Europe went into the Club World Cup on the back of long seasons.

PSG’s first game against Atletico Madrid in Pasadena on 15 June came 15 days after their 5-0 mauling of Inter Milan in the Champions League final in Munich.

Vickery adds: “A few weeks ago the Flamengo president was saying to a mate of mine ‘we’re flying in mid-season’.

“For the European clubs… is it the end of their season? Is it pre-season? The European clubs, their planning hasn’t been to peak now.”

Vickery believes there is something else to factor into the conversation about Brazilian clubs doing well.

“There is more money in Brazilian football [than before]” he says. “The standard has risen over the last few seasons. One reason is because of the influx of foreign coaches.

“Of the four Brazilian clubs here – two have Portuguese coaches [Abel Ferreira – Palmeiras and Renato Paiva – Botafogo].

“There’s plenty of Portuguese and Argentine coaches in Brazilian football and it’s brought more ideas. Even Filipe Luis, the Brazilian coaching Flamengo, his back-up staff are all Spanish.

“There’s an openness to new ideas that there wasn’t a few years ago.”

Mendonca adds: “The timing of this competition is very good for South American teams. They are in the middle of their season, they are very well prepared physically.

“They have better conditions now to keep their talented players and even bring back some players. Flamengo, for example, signed Jorginho after leaving Arsenal, while Danilo and Alex Sandro have come from Juventus.

“Also Botafogo, they have kept Igor Jesus for this competition. After this he will go to Nottingham Forest.

“These are aspects that explain why Brazilian teams are performing very well.”

Source link

States brace for reversal of Obamacare coverage gains under Trump’s budget bill

Shorter enrollment periods. More paperwork. Higher premiums.

The sweeping tax and spending bill pushed by President Trump includes provisions that will not only reshape people’s experience with the Affordable Care Act, but also sharply undermine the gains in health insurance coverage associated with it, according to some policy analysts.

The moves affect consumers and have particular resonance for the 19 states (plus Washington, D.C.) that run their own ACA exchanges.

Many of those states fear that the additional red tape — especially requirements that would end automatic reenrollment — would have an outsize impact on their policyholders. That’s because a greater percentage of people in those states use those rollovers versus shopping around each year, something more commonly done by people in states that use the federal healthcare.gov marketplace.

“The federal marketplace always had a message of, ‘Come back in and shop,’ while the state-based markets, on average, have a message of, ‘Hey, here’s what you’re going to have next year, here’s what it will cost; if you like it, you don’t have to do anything,’” said Ellen Montz, who oversaw the federal ACA marketplace under the Biden administration as deputy administrator and director at the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight. She is now a managing director with the Manatt Health consulting group.

Millions — perhaps up to half of enrollees in some states — may lose or drop coverage as a result of that and other changes in the legislation combined with a new rule from the Trump administration and the likely expiration at year’s end of enhanced premium subsidies put in place during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Without an extension of those subsidies, which have been an important driver of Obamacare enrollment in recent years, premiums are expected to rise 75% on average next year. That’s starting to happen already, based on some early state rate requests for next year, which are hitting double digits.

“We estimate a minimum 30% enrollment loss, and, in the worst-case scenario, a 50% loss,” said Devon Trolley, executive director of Pennie, the ACA marketplace in Pennsylvania, which had 496,661 enrollees this year, a record.

Drops of that magnitude nationally, coupled with the loss of Medicaid coverage for millions more people under the legislation Trump calls the “One Big Beautiful Bill,” could undo inroads made in the nation’s uninsured rate, which dropped by about half from the time most of the ACA’s provisions went into effect in 2014, when it hovered around 14% to 15% of the population, to just over 8%, according to the most recent data.

Premiums would rise along with the uninsured rate because older or sicker policyholders are more likely to try to jump enrollment hurdles, while those who rarely use coverage — and are thus less expensive — would not.

After a dramatic all-night session, House Republicans passed the bill Thursday, meeting the president’s Friday deadline. Trump is expected to sign the measure on Independence Day. It will increase the federal deficit by trillions of dollars and cut spending on a variety of programs, including Medicaid and nutrition assistance, to partly offset the cost of extending tax cuts put in place during the first Trump administration.

The administration and its supporters say the GOP-backed changes to the ACA are needed to combat fraud. Democrats and ACA supporters see this effort as the latest in a long history of Republican efforts to weaken or repeal Obamacare. Among other things, the legislation would end several changes put in place by the Biden administration that were credited with making it easier to sign up, such as lengthening the annual open enrollment period and launching a special program for very low-income people that essentially allows them to sign up year-round.

In addition, automatic reenrollment, used by more than 10 million people for 2025 ACA coverage, would end in the 2028 sign-up season. Instead, consumers would have to update their information, starting in August each year, before the close of open enrollment, which would end Dec. 15, a month earlier than currently.

That’s a key change to combat rising enrollment fraud, said Brian Blase, president of the conservative Paragon Health Institute, because it gets at what he calls the Biden era’s “lax verification requirements.”

He blames automatic reenrollment, coupled with the availability of zero-premium plans for people with lower incomes that qualify them for large subsidies, for a sharp uptick in complaints from insurers, consumers and brokers about fraudulent enrollments in 2023 and 2024. Those complaints centered on consumers being enrolled in an ACA plan, or switched from one to another, without authorization, often by commission-seeking brokers.

In testimony to Congress on June 25, Blase wrote that “this simple step will close a massive loophole and significantly reduce improper enrollment and spending.”

States that run their own marketplaces, however, saw few, if any, such problems, which were confined mainly to the 31 states using the federal healthcare.gov.

The state-run marketplaces credit their additional security measures and tighter control over broker access than healthcare.gov for the relative lack of problems.

“If you look at California and the other states that have expanded their Medicaid programs, you don’t see that kind of fraud problem,” said Jessica Altman, executive director of Covered California, the state’s Obamacare marketplace. “I don’t have a single case of a consumer calling Covered California saying, ‘I was enrolled without consent.’”

Such rollovers are common with other forms of health insurance, such as job-based coverage.

“By requiring everyone to come back in and provide additional information, and the fact that they can’t get a tax credit until they take this step, it is essentially making marketplace coverage the most difficult coverage to enroll in,” said Trolley at Pennie, 65% of whose policyholders were automatically reenrolled this year, according to KFF data.

Federal data show about 22% of federal sign-ups in 2024 were automatic reenrollments, versus 58% in state-based plans. Besides Pennsylvania, the states that saw such sign-ups for more than 60% of enrollees include California, New York, Georgia, New Jersey and Virginia, according to KFF.

States do check income and other eligibility information for all enrollees — including those being automatically renewed, those signing up for the first time, and those enrolling outside the normal open enrollment period because they’ve experienced a loss of coverage or other life event or meet the rules for the low-income enrollment period.

“We have access to many data sources on the back end that we ping, to make sure nothing has changed,” Altman said. “Most people sail through and are able to stay covered without taking any proactive step.”

If flagged for mismatched data, applicants are asked for additional information. Under current law, “we have 90 days for them to have a tax credit while they submit paperwork,” Altman said.

That would change under the tax and spending plan before Congress, ending presumptive eligibility while a person submits the information.

A white paper written for Capital Policy Analytics, a Washington-based consultancy that specializes in economic analysis, concluded there appears to be little upside to the changes.

While “tighter verification can curb improper enrollments,” the additional paperwork, along with the expiration of higher premiums from the enhanced tax subsidies, “would push four to six million eligible people out of Marketplace plans, trading limited fraud savings for a surge in uninsurance,” wrote free market economists Ike Brannon and Anthony LoSasso.

“Insurers would be left with a smaller, sicker risk pool and heightened pricing uncertainty, making further premium increases and selective market exits [by insurers] likely,” they wrote.

Appleby writes for KFF Health News, a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling and journalism.

Source link

Wisconsin Supreme Court tosses state’s 1849 abortion law

July 2 (UPI) — Wisconsin’s Supreme Court on Wednesday issued a ruling that invalidated an 1849 state law banning nearly all abortions and said Wisconsin women will continue to have access to critical abortion-related health services.

The 4-3 ruling by the Democratic-controlled state supreme court upheld a December 2023 decision by Dane County Judge Diane Schlipper in Kaul v. Urmanski that says Wisconsin’s strict abortion law did not apply to voluntary abortions, but did to feticide.

Justice Rebecca Dallet argued in the court’s majority opinion that the state effectively repealed its own 176-year-old law when lawmakers passed additional laws that regulated abortion access in Wisconsin, which was backed up in the lawsuit by state Attorney General Josh Kaul.

Dallet said the case was about “giving effect to 50 years’ worth of laws passed by the legislature about virtually every aspect of abortion, including where, when, and how healthcare providers may lawfully perform abortions.”

But she added that the state’s legislature, “as the people’s representatives, remains free to change the laws with respect to abortion in the future.

Then-Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson, later appointed as U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services from 2001-2005 under former President George W. Bush, told UPI in 1990 that he would sign a bill that mandates minors seek parental consent for an abortion.

But Wednesday’s ruling by the state’s high court now ends statewide uncertainty over the issue after the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling struck down the nearly 50-year-old Roe v. Wade, which guaranteed a woman’s constitutional right to abortion.

However, Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Rebecca Bradley, a member of its conservative minority, was critical of the court’s majority opinion.

On Wednesday, Bradley wrote that her colleagues erased “a law it does not like, making four lawyers sitting on the state’s highest court more powerful than the People’s representatives in the legislature.”

Notably, this year’s Wisconsin Supreme Court race saw national attention when then-White House DOGE adviser Elon Musk drew the ire of Kaul, the state’s chief law enforcement officer, after Musk directly got involved in a push to elect conservative Brad Schimel in the court race Musk said had the “destiny of humanity” at stake.

“Any remaining doubt over whether the majority’s decisions are motivated by the policy predilections of its members has been extinguished by its feeble attempt to justify a raw exercise of political power,” stated Bradley.

“The majority not only does violence to a single statute; it defies the People’s sovereignty,” she wrote.

Source link

20 states challenge HHS’ transfer of Medicaid data to DHS

July 2 (UPI) — California and 19 other states have filed a lawsuit challenging the legality of the Department of Health and Human Services permitting the Department of Homeland Security “unfettered access” to individual Medicaid health data, raising fears it could be used as part of President Donald Trump’s mass deportation plans.

According to the lawsuit, filed Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the states are asking the court to declare HHS’ transfer of Medicaid data to DHS, which oversees Immigration and Customs Enforcement, was unauthorized and enjoin its use for the purposes of immigration enforcement. They are also seeking to prevent any further sharing of Medicaid data.

“The Trump administration has upended longstanding privacy protections with its decision to illegally share sensitive, personal health data with ICE,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a statement. “In doing so, it has created a culture of fear that will lead to fewer people seeking vital emergency medical care.”

The lawsuit states that on June 13, the plaintiff states learned that HHS had transferred to DHS en mass Medicaid files from California, Illinois and Washington.

The states said the data transferred was personally identifiable, not anonymized and included Medicaid beneficiaries’ immigration status and addresses among other information.

According to the lawsuit, HHS provided neither the states nor the Medicaid beneficiaries with warning or notice of the transfer and the department has not identified the legal authorities under which it shared the personal Medicaid data with DHS.

HHS has said, the lawsuit states, that it gave the information to DHS “to ensure that Medicaid benefits are reserved for individuals who are lawfully entitled to receive them” but Congress has permitted coverage and federal fund for emergency Medicaid to all residents of the United States, including those without immigration status.

Among the consequences of the sharing of this information is that it could lead to noncitizens disenrolling or refusing to enroll in emergency Medicaid, which they are eligible for, thereby denying them healthcare they may need.

“The Trump administration’s use of Washingtonians’ private health information for its own political agenda is outrageous,” Washington Gov. Bob Ferguson said in a statement.

“This is a violation of trust for everyone whose data was inappropriately shared, but especially our immigrant communities and mixed-status families, who are already being targeted by the Trump administration.

Source link

2 Chinese nationals charged with spying in the United States

July 1 (UPI) — Two Chinese nationals made separate appearances in federal courts on Tuesday to face charges accusing them of acting as agents for the Chinese government.

Yuance Chen, 38, is a permanent legal resident of Happy Valley, Ore., and was arraigned on charges in the U.S. District Court of Oregon in Portland and accusing him of acting as an agent of the Chinese government without notifying the U.S. attorney general.

Liren “Ryan” Lai, 39, also is charged with acting as an agent of the Chinese government and was arraigned in the U.S. District Court ofSouthern Texas in Houston. Lai traveled to the United States on a tourist visa in April.

“This case underscores the Chinese government’s sustained and aggressive effort to infiltrate our military and undermine our national security from within,” Attorney General Pam Bondi said on Tuesday in a news release.

“The Justice Department will not stand by while hostile nations embed spies in our country,” Bondi added.

The charges against both defendants were filed in the U.S.District Court of Northern California in San Francisco, and they were arrested on Friday, the Department of Justice. Each is innocent until proven guilty.

Both men are accused of “overseeing and carrying out various clandestine intelligence taskings in the United States on behalf of the [Chinese] government’s principal foreign intelligence service, the Ministry of State Security,” the DOJ said.

The pair allegedly were “attempting to recruit U.S. military service members on behalf of the People’s Republic of China,” FBI Director Kash Patel said.

“The Chinese Communist Party thought they were getting away with their scheme to operate on U.S. soil, utilizing spy craft, like dead drops, to pay their sources,” Patel continued.

He said the case was a “complex and coordinated effort” that involved counterintelligence work by FBI agents in San Francisco, Portland, Houston and San Diego and the agency’s Counterintelligence Division.

The DOJ accuses Lai of recruiting Chen on behalf of the MSS in 2021 and says the pair met in Guangzhou, China, in January 2022, to devise a dead-drop payment of at least $10,000.

They allegedly worked with individuals in the United States to leave a backpack with the cash inside a day-use locker at a recreational facility in Livermore, Calif., that same month.

The DOJ says Lai and Chen also conspired to obtain a list of personnel from a U.S. Navy recruitment center in San Gabriel, Calif., and a Navy installation in Washington state to identify potential intelligence assets and transmit the information to the MSS in China.

China’s MSS also instructed Chen in how to “engage and recruit future sailors and methods for minimizing his risk of exposure,” the DOJ alleges.

Chen also is accused of traveling to China in April 2024 and March 2025 to meet with MSS intelligence officers and discuss specific tasks and compensation.

Chen and Lai each could be imprisoned for up to 10 years and fined up to $250,000 if found guilty of the charges against them.

Source link