u.s. government

WASHINGTON — Cornell University has agreed to pay $60 million and accept the Trump administration’s interpretation of civil rights laws in order to restore federal funding and end investigations into the Ivy League school.

Cornell President Michael Kotlikoff announced the agreement on Friday, saying it upholds the university’s academic freedom while restoring more than $250 million in research funding that the government withheld amid investigations into alleged civil rights violations.

The university agreed to pay $30 million directly to the U.S. government along with another $30 million toward research that will support U.S. farmers.

Kotlikoff said the agreement revives the campus’ partnership with the federal government “while affirming the university’s commitment to the principles of academic freedom, independence, and institutional autonomy that, from our founding, have been integral to our excellence.”

The six-page agreement is similar to one signed by the University of Virginia last month. It’s shorter and less prescriptive than others signed by Columbia University and Brown University.

It requires Cornell to comply with the government’s interpretation of civil rights laws on issues involving antisemitism, racial discrimination and transgender issues. A Justice Department memo that orders colleges to abandon diversity, equity and inclusion programs and transgender-friendly policies will be used as a training resource for faculty and staff at Cornell.

The campus must also provide a wealth of admissions data that the government has separately sought from campuses to ensure race is no longer being considered as a factor in admissions decisions. President Trump has suggested some campuses are ignoring a 2023 Supreme Court decision ending affirmative action in admissions.

Education Secretary Linda McMahon called it a “transformative commitment” that puts a focus on “merit, rigor, and truth-seeking.”

“These reforms are a huge win in the fight to restore excellence to American higher education and make our schools the greatest in the world,” McMahon said on X.

Cornell’s president must personally certify compliance with the agreement each quarter. The deal is effective through the end of 2028.

It appears to split the difference on a contentious issue colleges have grappled with as they negotiate an exit from federal scrutiny: payments made directly to the government. Columbia agreed to pay $200 million directly to the government, while Brown University reached an agreement to pay $50 million to state workforce organizations. Virginia’s deal included no payment at all.

Binkley writes for the Associated Press.

TEHRAN, Iran — The United States will deport hundreds of Iranians back to Iran in the coming weeks, with the first 120 deportees being prepared for a flight in the next day or two, Iran said Tuesday.

The deportation of Iranians, not yet publicly acknowledged by the U.S. government, comes as tensions remain high between the two countries following the American bombings of Iranian nuclear sites in June.

Meanwhile, the United Nations reimposed sanctions on Iran this past week over its nuclear program, putting new pressure on the Islamic Republic’s ailing economy.

The deportations also represent a collision of a top priority of President Trump — targeting illegal immigration — against a decadeslong practice by the U.S. of welcoming Iranian dissidents, exiles and others since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

As many as 400 Iranians would be returning to Iran as part of the deal with the U.S., Iranian state television said, citing Hossein Noushabadi, director-general for parliamentary affairs at Iran’s Foreign Ministry. He said the majority of those people had crossed into the U.S. from Mexico illegally, while some faced other immigration issues.

Noushabadi said the first planeload of Iranians would arrive in a day or two, after stopping over in Qatar on the way. Authorities in Qatar have not confirmed that.

The U.S. State Department referred questions to the Department of Homeland Security, which did not immediately respond. The New York Times first reported the deportations.

In the lead up to and after Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution, a large number of Iranians fled to the U.S. In the decades since, the U.S. had been sensitive in allowing those fleeing from Iran over religious, sexual or political persecution to seek residency.

In the 2024 fiscal year, for instance, the U.S. deported only 20 Iranians, according to statistics from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Iran has criticized Washington for hosting dissidents and others in the past. U.S. federal prosecutors have accused Iran of hiring hitmen to target dissidents as well in America.

It’s unclear exactly what has changed now in American policy. However, since returning to the White House, Trump has cracked down on those living in the U.S. illegally.

Noushabadi said that American authorities unilaterally made the decision without consultations with Iran.

But The New York Times said Tuesday, citing anonymous Iranian officials, that the deportations were “the culmination of months of discussions between the two countries.”

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, as well as President Masoud Pezeshkian, both attended the U.N. General Assembly in New York last week as a last-ditch effort to stop the reimposed sanctions. However, Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei boxed in their efforts by describing diplomacy with the U.S. as a “sheer dead end.”

Speaking to state TV in footage aired Tuesday, Araghchi acknowledged that direct communication from Iran went to the U.S. government during the U.N. visit — something he had been careful not to highlight during five rounds of nuclear negotiations with the Americans earlier this year.

“With Americans, both directly and indirectly, messages were exchanged, and eventually, we are relieved that we did whatever it was necessary,” Araghchi said. “It was clear and evident to us after the interpretation the Supreme Leader made that negotiations with Americans is an obvious dead-end.”

Vahdat writes for the Associated Press.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta on Monday accused Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr of unlawfully intimidating television broadcasters into toeing a conservative line in favor of President Trump, and urged him to reverse course.

In a letter to Carr, Bonta specifically cited ABC’s decision to pull “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” off the air after Kimmel made comments about the killing of close Trump ally Charlie Kirk, and Carr demanded ABC’s parent company Disney “take action” against the late-night host.

Bonta wrote that California “is home to a great many artists, entertainers, and other individuals who every day exercise their right to free speech and free expression,” and that Carr’s demands of Disney threatened their 1st Amendment rights.

“As the Supreme Court held over sixty years ago and unanimously reaffirmed just last year, ‘the First Amendment prohibits government officials from relying on the threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion to achieve the suppression of disfavored speech,’” Bonta wrote.

Carr and Trump have both denied playing a role in Kimmel’s suspension, alleging instead that it was due to his show having poor ratings.

After Disney announced Monday that Kimmel’s show would be returning to ABC, Bonta said he was “pleased to hear ABC is reversing course on its capitulation to the FCC’s unlawful threats,” but that his “concerns stand.”

He rejected Trump and Carr’s denials of involvement, and accused the administration of “waging a dangerous attack on those who dare to speak out against it.”

“Censoring and silencing critics because you don’t like what they say — be it a comedian, a lawyer, or a peaceful protester — is fundamentally un-American,” while such censorship by the U.S. government is “absolutely chilling,” Bonta said.

Bonta called on Carr to “stop his campaign of censorship” and commit to defending the right to free speech in the U.S., which he said would require “an express disavowal” of his previous threats and “an unambiguous pledge” that he will not use the FCC “to retaliate against private parties” for speech he disagrees with moving forward.

“News outlets have reported today that ABC will be returning Mr. Kimmel’s show to its broadcast tomorrow night. While it is heartening to see the exercise of free speech ultimately prevail, this does not erase your threats and the resultant suppression of free speech from this past week or the prospect that your threats will chill free speech in the future,” Bonta wrote.

After Kirk’s killing, Kimmel said during a monologue that the U.S. had “hit some new lows over the weekend, with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it.”

Carr responded on a conservative podcast, saying, “These companies can find ways to change conduct, to take action, frankly, on Kimmel, or, you know, there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.”

Two major owners of ABC affiliates dropped the show, after which ABC said it would be “preempted indefinitely.”

Both Kirk’s killing and Kimmel’s suspension — which followed the cancellation of “The Late Show With Stephen Colbert” by CBS — kicked off a tense debate about freedom of speech in the U.S. Both Kimmel and Colbert are critics of Trump, while Kirk was an ardent supporter.

Constitutional scholars and other 1st amendment advocates said the administration and Carr have clearly been exerting inappropriate pressure on media companies.

Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley Law School, said Carr’s actions were part of a broad assault on free speech by the administration, which “is showing a stunning ignorance and disregard of the 1st amendment.”

Summer Lopez, the interim co-chief executive of PEN America, said this is “a dangerous moment for free speech” in the U.S. because of a host of Trump administration actions that are “pretty clear violations of the 1st Amendment” — including Carr’s threats but also statements about “hate speech” by Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi and new Pentagon restrictions on journalists reporting on the U.S. military.

She said Kimmel’s return to ABC showed that “public outrage does make a difference,” but that “it’s important that we generate that level of public outrage when the targeting is of people who don’t have that same prominence.”

Carr has also drawn criticism from conservative corners, including from Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) — who is chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, which oversees the FCC. He recently said on his podcast that he found it “unbelievably dangerous for government to put itself in the position of saying we’re going to decide what speech we like and what we don’t, and we’re going to threaten to take you off air if we don’t like what you’re saying.”

Cruz said he works closely with Carr, whom he likes, but that what Carr said was “dangerous as hell” and could be used down the line “to silence every conservative in America.”

A legal aid group has sued to preemptively block any efforts by the U.S. government to deport a dozen Honduran children, saying it had “credible” information that such plans were quietly in the works.

The Arizona-based Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project, known as FIRRP, on Friday added Honduran children to a lawsuit filed last weekend that resulted in a judge temporarily blocking the deportation of dozens of migrant children to their native Guatemala.

In a statement, the organization said it had received reports that the U.S. government will “imminently move forward with a plan to illegally remove Honduran children in government custody as soon as this weekend, in direct violation of their right to seek protection in the United States and despite ongoing litigation that blocked similar attempted extra-legal removals for children from Guatemala.”

FIRRP did not immediately provide the Associated Press with details about what information it had received about the possible deportation of Honduran children. The amendment to the organization’s lawsuit is sealed in federal court. The Homeland Security Department did not immediately respond to email requests for comment Friday and Saturday.

Over Labor Day weekend, the Trump administration attempted to remove Guatemalan children who had come to the U.S. alone and were living in shelters or with foster care families in the U.S.

Advocates who represent migrant children in court filed lawsuits across the country seeking to stop the government from removing the children, and on Sunday a federal judge stepped in to order that the kids stay in the U.S. for at least two weeks.

Children began crossing the border alone in large numbers in 2014, peaking at 152,060 in the 2022 fiscal year. July’s arrest tally translates to an annual clip of 5,712 arrests, reflecting how illegal crossings have dropped to their lowest levels in six decades.

Guatemalans accounted for 32% of residents at government-run holding facilities last year, followed by Hondurans, Mexicans and Salvadorans. A 2008 law requires children to appear before an immigration judge with an opportunity to pursue asylum, unless they are from Canada and Mexico. The vast majority are released from shelters to parents, legal guardians or immediate family while their cases wind through court.

The lawsuit was amended to include 12 children from Honduras who have expressed to the Florence Project that they do not want to return to Honduras, as well as four additional children from Guatemala who have come into government custody in Arizona since the suit was initially filed last week.

Some children have parents who are already in the United States.

The lawsuit demands that the government allow the children their legal right to present their cases to an immigration judge, have access to legal counsel and be placed in the least restrictive setting that is in the best interest of the child.

Willingham writes for the Associated Press.

NEW YORK — President Donald Trump on Friday announced the U.S. government has secured a 10% stake in struggling Silicon Valley pioneer Intel in a deal that was completed just a couple weeks after he was depicting the company’s CEO as a conflicted leader unfit for the job.

“The United States of America now fully owns and controls 10% of INTEL, a Great American Company that has an even more incredible future,” Trump wrote in a post.

The U.S. government is getting the stake through the conversion of $11.1 billion in previously issued funds and pledges. All told, the government is getting 433.3 million shares of non-voting stock priced at $20.47 apiece — a discount from Friday’s closing price at $24.80.

That spread means the U.S. government already has a gain of $1.9 billion, on paper. The remarkable turn of events makes the U.S. government one of Intel’s largest shareholders at a time that the Santa Clara, California, company is in the process of jettisoning more than 20,000 workers as part of its latest attempt to bounce back from years of missteps taken under a variety of CEOs.

Intel’s current CEO, Lip-Bu Tan, has only been on the job for slightly more than five months, and earlier this month, it looked like he might be on shaky ground already after some lawmakers raised national security concerns about his past investments in Chinese companies while he was a venture capitalist.

Trump latched on to those concerns in an August 7 post demanding that Tan resign.

But Trump backed off after the Malaysian-born Tan professed his allegiance to the U.S. in a public letter to Intel employees and went to the White House to meet with the president, leading to a deal that now has the U.S. government betting that the company is on the comeback trail after losing more than $22 billion since the end of 2023.

Trump hailed Tan as “highly respected” CEO in his Friday post. In a statement, Tan applauded Trump for “driving historic investments in a vital industry” and resolved to reward his faith in Intel.

“We are grateful for the confidence the President and the Administration have placed in Intel, and we look forward to working to advance U.S. technology and manufacturing leadership,” Tan said.

Intel’s current stock price is just slightly above where it was when Tan was hired in March and more than 60% below its peak reached 25 years ago when its chips were still dominating the personal computer boom before being undercut by a shift to smartphones a few years later.

The company’s market value currently stands at about $108 billion – a fraction of the current chip kingpin, Nvidia, which is valued at $4.3 trillion. The stake is coming primarily through U.S. government grants to Intel through the CHIPS and Science Act that was started under President Joe Biden’s administration as a way to foster more domestic manufacturing of computer chips to lessen the dependence on overseas factories.

But the Trump administration, which has regularly pilloried the policies of the Biden administration, saw the CHIPs act as a needless giveaway and is now hoping to make a profit off the funding that had been pledged to Intel.

“We think America should get the benefit of the bargain,” U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said earlier this week. “It’s obvious that it’s the right move to make.”About $7.8 billion had been been pledged to Intel under the incentives program, but only $2.2 billion had been funded so far. Another $3.2 billion of the government investment is coming through the funds from another program called “Secure Enclave.”

Although the U.S. government can’t vote with its shares and won’t have a seat on Intel’s board of directors, critics of the deal view it as a troubling cross-pollination between the public and private sectors that could hurt the tech industry in a variety of ways.

For instance, more tech companies may feel pressured to buy potentially inferior chips from Intel to curry favor with Trump at a time that he is already waging a trade war that threatens to affect their products in a potential scenario cited by Scott Lincicome, vice president of general economics for the Cato Institute.

“Overall, it’s a horrendous move that will have real harms for U.S. companies, U.S. tech leadership, and the U.S. economy overall,” Lincicome posted Friday.

The 10% stake could also intensify the pressure already facing Tan, especially if Trump starts fixating on Intel’s stock price while resorting to his penchant for celebrating his past successes in business.

Nancy Tengler, CEO of money manager Laffer Tengler Investments, is among the investors who abandoned Intel years ago because of all the challenges facing Intel.

“I don’t see the benefit to the American taxpayer, nor do I see the benefit, necessarily to the chip industry,” Tengler said while also raising worries about Trump meddling in Intel’s business.

“I don’t care how good of businessman you are, give it to the private sector and let people like me be the critic and let the government get to the business of government.,” Tengler said.

Although rare, it’s not unprecedented for the U.S. government to become a significant shareholder in a prominent company. One of the most notable instances occurred during the Great Recession in 2008 when the government injected nearly $50 billion into General Motors in return for a roughly 60% stake in the automaker at a time it was on the verge of bankruptcy.

The government ended up with a roughly $10 billion loss after it sold its stock in GM. The U.S. government’s stake in Intel coincides with Trump’s push to bring production to the U.S., which has been a focal point of the trade war that he has been waging throughout the world.

By lessening the country’s dependence on chips manufactured overseas, the president believes the U.S. will be better positioned to maintain its technological lead on China in the race to create artificial intelligence.

Even before gaining the 10% stake in Intel, Trump had been leveraging his power to reprogram the operations of major computer chip companies. The administration is requiring Nvidia and Advanced Micro Devices, two companies whose chips are powering the AI craze, to pay a 15% commission on their sales of chips in China in exchange for export licenses.

McALLEN, Texas — A federal judge ruled Friday to deny the Trump administration’s request to end a policy in place for nearly three decades that is meant to protect immigrant children in federal custody.

U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee in Los Angeles issued her ruling a week after holding a hearing with the federal government and legal advocates representing immigrant children in custody.

Gee called last week’s hearing “deja vu” after reminding the court of the federal government’s attempt to terminate the Flores settlement agreement in 2019 under the first Trump administration. She repeated the sentiment in Friday’s order.

“There is nothing new under the sun regarding the facts or the law. The Court therefore could deny Defendants’ motion on that basis alone,” Gee wrote, referring to the government’s appeal to a law it argued kept the court from enforcing the agreement.

In the most recent attempt, the government argued it had made substantial changes since the agreement was formalized in 1997, creating standards and policies governing the custody of immigrant children that conform to legislation and the agreement.

Gee acknowledged that the government made some improved conditions of confinement, but wrote, “These improvements are direct evidence that the FSA is serving its intended purpose, but to suggest that the agreement should be abandoned because some progress has been made is nonsensical.”

Attorneys representing the federal government told the court the agreement gets in the way of their efforts to expand detention space for families, even though President Trump’s tax and spending bill provided billions to build new immigration facilities.

Tiberius Davis, one of the government attorneys, said the bill gives the government authority to hold families in detention indefinitely. “But currently under the Flores settlement agreement, that’s essentially void,” he said last week.

The Flores agreement, named for a teenage plaintiff, was the result of more than a decade of litigation between attorneys representing the rights of migrant children and the U.S. government over widespread allegations of mistreatment in the 1980s.

The agreement set standards for how licensed shelters must provide food, water, adult supervision, emergency medical services, toilets, sinks, temperature control and ventilation. It also limited how long U.S. Customs and Border Protection could detain child immigrants to 72 hours. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services then takes custody of the children.

The Biden administration successfully pushed to partially end the agreement last year. Gee ruled that special court supervision may end when Health and Human Services takes custody, but she carved out exceptions for certain types of facilities for children with more acute needs.

In arguing against the Trump administration’s effort to completely end the agreement, advocates said the government was holding children beyond the time limits. In May, CBP held 46 children for more than a week, including six children held for over two weeks and four children held for 19 days, according to data revealed in a court filing. In March and April, CPB reported that it had 213 children in custody for more than 72 hours. That included 14 children, including toddlers, who were held for over 20 days in April.

The federal government is looking to expand its immigration detention space, including by building more centers like one in Florida dubbed “Alligator Alcatraz,” where a lawsuit alleges detainees’ constitutional rights are being violated.

Gee still has not ruled on the request by legal advocates for the immigrant children to expand independent monitoring of the treatment of children held in U.S. Customs and Border Protection facilities. Currently, the agreement allows for third-party inspections at facilities in the El Paso and Rio Grande Valley regions, but plaintiffs submitted evidence showing long detention times at border facilities that violate the agreement’s terms.

Gonzalez writes for the Associated Press.

MEXICO CITY — The U.S. Treasury Department imposed sanctions Wednesday on more than a dozen Mexican companies and four people it says worked with a powerful drug trafficking cartel to scam elderly Americans in a multimillion-dollar timeshare fraud.

The network of 13 businesses in areas near the seaside tourist destination of Puerto Vallarta were accused of working with the Jalisco New Generation Cartel, a group designated by the U.S. government as a foreign terrorist organization.

In a scheme dating back to 2012, four cartel associates are accused of defrauding American citizens of their life savings through elaborate rental and resale schemes, according to a Treasury statement. In the span of six months, officials said they were able to document $23.1 million sent from mostly people in the U.S. to scammers in Mexico.

The sanctions imposed by the administration of President Trump would prohibit Americans from doing business with the alleged cartel associates and block any of their assets in the U.S.

“We will continue our effort to completely eradicate the cartels’ ability to generate revenue, including their efforts to prey on elderly Americans through timeshare fraud,” U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in a statement.

In past years, the administration of then-President Biden also sanctioned associates and accountants related to such schemes.

The Wednesday announcement was made amid an ongoing effort by the Trump administration and the Mexican government to crack down on cartels and their diverse sources of income.

The U.S. Treasury Department has slapped sanctions on a variety of people from a Mexican rapper who it accused of laundering cartel money to Mexican banks facilitating money transfers in sales of precursor chemicals used to produce fentanyl.

The announcement also came one day after Mexico sent 26 high-ranking cartel figures to the U.S. in the latest major deal with the Trump administration as Mexico tries to avoid threatened tariffs.

MIAMI — For decades, its powerful lighthouse illuminated Miami’s Biscayne Bay, and during the height of the Cold War, what was known as the Freedom Tower stood as a beacon of hope for hundreds of thousands of Cubans fleeing communist rule.

The 14-story Spanish Revival skyscraper was where, from 1962 to 1974, the U.S. State Department welcomed Cuban refugees with medical services, English classes, and comfort kits containing essentials and something wholly exotic to the new arrivals: peanut butter.

After decades of neglect, what was once Miami’s tallest building is getting a well-deserved facelift. Next month, it will reopen as a museum honoring the history of Cuban exiles with immersive, state-of-the-art exhibits that explore the meaning of migration, freedom and homeland.

Ellis Island of the South

The reopening of what’s dubbed the Ellis Island of the South comes at a sensitive moment. Cuban Americans — who dominate politics in Miami — voted overwhelmingly for Donald Trump in the last presidential election. But the president’s crackdown on migrants — including Cubans — is increasingly viewed as a betrayal and has left many second-guessing that support. Not surprisingly, recent protests against Trump have gathered outside the tower.

The organizers of the museum, while tiptoeing around the present-day politics, are nonetheless unapologetic in their embrace of the American dream. In Miami, a thriving crossroads where 70% of residents speak Spanish as their first language and more than half are foreign-born, compassion for migrants runs deep.

“It’s cyclical,” said Rene Ramos, who as head archivist of Miami Dade College participated in the $65 million renovation led by the school. “This country has had moments where it clearly saw the value of immigrants and other moments when it did not. What we’re doing here is reminding people what immigrants can accomplish when they’re given the opportunity.”

The iconic building opened in 1925 as the headquarters of the once-acclaimed Miami Daily News, which shuttered decades ago. It was designed in the style of a Moorish bell tower from Seville, Spain, by the New York architectural firm Schultze & Weaver, which was behind some of the most glamorous hotels, theaters and office towers of the era.

It was renamed the Freedom Tower when President John F. Kennedy launched the Cuban Refugee Assistance Program to resettle the streams of middle-class individuals and families fleeing Fidel Castro’s revolution. It’s estimated that nearly 400,000 Cubans relied on services provided at the tower by the U.S. government in coordination with the then-fledgling Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami. The total cost of the refugee assistance ran over $730 million by 1971 — almost $6 billion in today’s dollars — a U.S. government report from that year found.

A safe place for refugees

Known to the Spanish-speaking migrants as “El Refugio,” or “The Refuge,” it was a safe place to get vaccines, fill out paperwork and receive financial assistance of around $120 per month. In the Grand Hall, with its giant windows and Corinthian columns, the Pizarra de la Suerte — the Bulletin Board of Good Luck — carried job notices to help the Cubans adjust to their new life, according to a replica of the hall in the museum.

At the time, metropolitan Miami was a tropical tourist town, with fewer than 1 million inhabitants. Most émigrés fanned out across the United States.

“They weren’t staying in Miami because they didn’t want warmth and sunshine. There were no jobs,” said Madeline Pumariega, the president of Miami Dade College, whose own Cuban parents relocated to Amarillo, Texas, after arriving here.

But over time, the exiles would trudge back from the cold and snow to put their unmistakable Cuban stamp on what would become one of America’s most vibrant cultural and economic hubs.

Jorge Malagón, who teaches history at Miami Dade College, was just 5 when he arrived. But he still wells up recalling the hardship of his departure — when Cuban customs officials ripped open his teddy bear looking for contraband jewelry — and arriving in Miami on a “Freedom Flight” paid for by the U.S. government and being immediately shuttled in a school bus from the tarmac to the Freedom Tower.

“The memories never go away,” said Malagón, who recalls being welcomed with a bar of unfamiliar peanut butter and a block of government cheese. “To this day, a grilled cheese sandwich with cheap, Velveeta processed cheese is still comfort food to me.”

The Freedom Tower, a national historic landmark, was long ago overtaken by Miami’s fast-growing steel and glass skyline. Abandoned for years, it was rescued in 1997 by Cuban American businessman Jorge Mas Canosa, a top exile opponent of Castro. He later sold it to a prominent Cuban American family and it was then donated to Miami Dade College.

Even in a dilapidated state, the tower remained a mecca of the Cuban diaspora. In 2003, tens of thousands of salsa fans gathered here to show their respects to Cuban-born singer Celia Cruz. And Secretary of State Marco Rubio, whose parents migrated from Cuba, used it as the backdrop to announce his bid for the U.S. presidency in 2015.

The current restoration was funded by $25 million investment from the state of Florida, with additional funding from Miami Dade College, private donors and federal government grants.

Galleries designed by the same firm behind New York City’s National September 11 Memorial & Museum provide a gripping account of the Cuban American journey to freedom. They include exhibits dedicated to Victims of Communism, the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion that the CIA organized against Castro, and the 14,000 unaccompanied minors sent by their parents as part of the U.S.-led Operation Peter Pan.

Giant media screens project scenes of protest and acts of courage by newer residents of the Magic City fleeing persecution in Venezuela, Haiti and Nicaragua. There’s also a makeshift recording studio for those who passed through the Freedom Tower to add their testimony to an archive of over 300 oral history interviews with exiles, including prominent voices like singer Gloria Estefan.

Emerging from the dark galleries of often traumatic stories of dislocation and exile, the museum’s final stop is a gallery flooded with all the sun, salsa music and pastel hues that make modern-day Miami so beloved.

“Miami and the world would not be what it is today without them,” said Pumariega. “That’s important and so is the contributions that immigrants play in our country, and I think will continue to play beyond this moment.”

Goodman writes for the Associated Press.

President Trump struck an unusual deal with Nvidia and Advanced Micro Devices that allows the companies to sell certain chips to China in exchange for giving the U.S. government a 15% cut of those sales.

But the unprecedented agreement also has raised concerns from politicians and legal experts over whether the deal is legal and would pose a national security threat.

Questions also linger about exactly how the deal, which was announced Monday, would work because the U.S. Constitution bars taxes on exports, although some experts said Trump could find a workaround.

The U.S. government might receive $3 billion from the revenue split if China’s demand for Nvidia’s H20 chip — which is less powerful than the company’s highest-end artificial intelligence chip — reaches $20 billion, according to a note from Bernstein Research.

“It ties the fate of this chip manufacturer in a very particular way to this administration that is quite rare,” said Julia Powles, a professor and executive director of the UCLA Institute for Technology, Law & Policy.

Trump’s agreement with the world’s most valuable company could put pressure on other tech companies and major exporters to strike similar deals with the U.S. government, but it’s still unclear what the implications will be internationally, she said.

The deal is the latest example of how tech companies are seeking to curry favor with the Trump administration, which has threatened to impose tariffs on semiconductor companies that don’t commit to investing in the United States.

Apple faced potential tariffs as well, but committed to investing $100 billion more in U.S. manufacturing after Trump criticized the company for expanding iPhone production in India.

Trump also placed restrictions in April around the export of certain AI chips, including Nvidia’s H20 and AMD’s MI308, over national security concerns.

He’s called for the resignation of Intel Chief Executive Lip-Bu Tan, who has faced scrutiny over his reported investments in Chinese companies, but changed his tune after meeting the executive this week.

Democratic and Republican lawmakers have criticized the idea that tech companies should split their sales with the U.S. government in exchange for export licenses that allow them to resume chip sales in China.

“Export controls are a frontline defense in protecting our national security, and we should not set a precedent that incentivizes the Government to grant licenses to sell China technology that will enhance its AI capabilities,” Rep. John Moolenaar (R-Mich.), the chair of the House Select Committee on China, said in a statement.

Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, (D-Ill.), a ranking member of that committee, said in a statement that the deal raises questions about its legality and how the funds will be used.

“The administration cannot simultaneously treat semiconductor exports as both a national security threat and a revenue opportunity,” he said. “By putting a price on our security concerns, we signal to China and our allies that American national security principles are negotiable for the right fee.”

The White House didn’t answer questions about the agreement. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters Tuesday that “the legality of it, the mechanics of it, is still being ironed out by the Department of Commerce.”

On Monday, Trump defended the deal with Nvidia, stating that the H20 chips are “obsolete” and less powerful than the company’s more high-end Blackwell chip. At a news conference, Trump said he met with Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang and initially asked for a 20% revenue split but they came down to 15%.

“We negotiate a little deal,” Trump said. “So he’s selling a essentially old chip.” Trump’s remarks came after a report from the Financial Times over the weekend that Nvidia and AMD would pay 15% of their China chip revenue to the U.S. government. AMD didn’t respond to a request for comment.

An Nvidia spokesperson said in a statement that the company hasn’t shipped H20 chips to China for months but it hopes that easing export restrictions will “let America compete in China and worldwide.”

“America cannot repeat 5G and lose telecommunication leadership. America’s AI tech stack can be the world’s standard if we race.”

For Nvidia, the stakes are high. Huang said in a May interview with Stratechery, a newsletter and podcast, that the Chinese market is about $50 billion a year. Restricting H20 chip sales means that the company is walking away from profits that could be used to compete with China in the race to dominate AI.

Taylar Rajic, an associate fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said she’s skeptical that legal concerns would halt the arrangement because it’s unclear who would sue.

“I can’t identify who would bring that suit forward,” she said. “It wouldn’t be Nvidia because they’re the ones who negotiated this deal.”

Meanwhile, Chinese officials have their own fears that Nvidia’s chips could have location tracking or remote shutdown capabilities, though the company has denied those accusations.

“China obviously has its own concerns and its own national security considerations that it wants to take into account,” Rajic said. “It just depends on whether or not they want to buy it from us too.”

There are people who keep reliving their glory days, and then there’s Dean Cain.

The film and TV actor is best known for his work in the 1990s series “Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman.”

He was no Christopher Reeve or Henry Cavill.

But enough people remember Cain in blue tights and a red cape so that he’s a regular on the fan convention circuit.

It’s his calling card, so when the Trump administration put out the call to recruit more ICE agents, guess who answered the call?

Big hint: Up, up and a güey!

On Aug. 6, the up until then not exactly buzzworthy Cain revealed on Instagram that he joined la migra — and everyone else should too!

The 59-year old actor made his announcement as an orchestral version of John Williams’ stirring “Superman” theme played lightly below his speech.

Superman used to go after Nazis, Klansmen and intergalactic monsters; now, Superman — er, Cain — wants to go after Tamale Lady. His archenemy used to be Lex Luthor; now real-life Bizarro Superman wants to go to work for the Trump administration’s equally bald-pated version of Lex Luthor: Stephen Miller.

“You can defend your homeland and get great benefits,” Cain said, flashing his bright white smile and brown biceps. Behind him was an American flag in a triangle case and a small statue depicting Cain in his days as a Princeton Tigers football player. “If you want to save America, ICE is arresting the worst of the worst and removing them from America’s streets.”

Later that day, Cain appeared on Fox News to claim he was going to “be sworn in as an ICE agent ASAP.” a role Assistant Homeland Security Secretary Tricia McLaughlin later on clarified to the New York Times would be only honorary. His exaggeration didn’t stop the agency’s social media account to take a break from its usual stream of white supremacist dog whistles to gush over Cain’s announcement.

“Superman is encouraging Americans to become real-life superheroes,” it posted “by answering their country’s call to join the brave men and women of ICE to help protect our communities to arrest the worst of the worst.”

American heroes used to storm Omaha Beach. Now the Trump administration wants their version of them to storm the garden section of Home Depot.

Dean Cain speaks during a ceremony honoring Mehmet Oz, the former host of “The Dr. Oz Show,” with a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame on Feb. 11, 2022.

(Chris Pizzello / Invision / Associated Press)

Its appeal to Superman is part of their campaign to cast la migra as good guys while casting all undocumented people as shadowy villains who deserve deportation — the faster and nastier the better. But as with almost anything involving American history, Team Trump has already perverted Superman’s mythos. In early June, they put Trump, who couldn’t leap over a bingo card in a single bound let alone a tall building, on the White House’s social media accounts in a Superman costume. This was accompanied with the slogan: “Truth. Justice. The American Way.” That was the day before Warner Bros. released its latest Man of Steel film.

Even non-comic book fans know that the hero born Kal-El on Krypton was always a goody-goody who stood up to bullies and protected the downtrodden. He came from a foreign land — a doomed planet, no less — as a baby. His alter ego, Clark Kent, is humble and kind, traits that carry over when he turns into Superman.

The character’s caretakers always leaned on that fictional background to comment on real-world events. In a 1950 poster, as McCarthyism was ramping up, DC Comics issued a poster in which Superman tells a group of kids that anyone who makes fun of people for their “religion, race or national origin … is un-American.”

A decade later, Superman starred in a comic book public service announcement in which he chided a teen who said “Those refugee kids can’t talk English or play ball or anything” by taking him to a shabby camp to show the boy the hardships refugees had to endure.

The Trumpworld version of Superman would fly that boy to “Alligator Alcatraz” to show him how cool it is to imprison immigrants in a swamp infested with crocodilians.

It might surprise you to know that in even more recent times, in a 2017 comic book, Superman saves a group of undocumented immigrants from a man in an American flag do-rag who opened fire on them. When the attempted murderer claimed his intended targets stole his job, Superman snarled “The only person responsible for the blackness smothering your soul … is you.”

Superman used to tell Americans that immigrants deserved our empathy; Super Dean wants to round them up and ship them out.

Rapists? Murderers? Terrorists? That’s who Superman né Cain says ICE is pursuing — the oft repeated “worst of the worst” — but Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse found that 71% of people currently held in ICE detention have no criminal records as of July 27 .

I don’t think the real Superman — by whom I mean the fictional one whom Cain seems to think he’s the official spokesperson for just because he played him in a middling dramedy 30-some years ago — would waste his strength and X-ray vision to nab people like that.

Dean “Discount Superman” Cain should grab some popcorn and launch on a Superman movie marathon to refresh himself on what the Man of Steel actually stood for. He can begin with the latest.

Its plot hinges on Lex Luthor trying to convince the U.S. government that Superman is an “alien” who came to the U.S. to destroy it.

“He’s not a man — he’s an It. A thing,” the bad guy sneers at one point, later on claiming Superman’s choirboy persona is “lulling us into complacency so he can dominate [the U.S.] without resistance.”

Nicholas Hoult as Lex Luthor and David Corenswet as Superman in Warner Bros. Pictures’ “Superman.”

(Jessica Miglio / Warner Bros. Pictures)

Luthor’s scheme, which involves manipulating social media and television networks to turn public opinion against his rival, eventually works. Superman turns himself in and is whisked away to a cell far away from the U.S. along with other political prisoners. Luthor boasts that “[constitutional] rights don’t apply to extraterrestrial organisms.”

Tweak that line a little and it could have come from the mouth of Stephen Miller.

Director James Gunn told a British newspaper that his film’s message is “about human kindness and obviously there will be jerks out there who are just not kind and will take it as offensive just because it is about kindness. But screw them.”

He also called Superman an “immigrant,” which set Cain off. He called Gunn “woke” on TMZ and urged Gunn to create original characters and keep Superman away from politics.

Well, Super Dean can do his thing for ICE and Trump. He can flash his white teeth for promotional Trump administration videos as he does who knows what for the deportation machine.

Just leave Superman out of it.

Federal authorities in the United States revealed Tuesday that they will not seek the death penalty against three reputed Mexican drug cartel leaders, including an alleged former partner of the infamous “El Chapo” and the man accused of orchestrating the killing of a Drug Enforcement Administration agent.

Court filings showed decisions handed down in the trio of prosecutions, all being held in Brooklyn, N.Y.

The cases involve drug and conspiracy charges against Ismael “El Mayo” Zambada, 75, charged with running a powerful faction of Mexico’s Sinaloa cartel; Rafael Caro Quintero, 72, who allegedly masterminded the DEA agent’s torture and murder in 1985; and Vicente Carrillo Fuentes, 62, also known as El Viceroy, who is under indictment as the ex-boss of the Juarez cartel.

Prosecutors from the Eastern District of New York filed a letter in each case “to inform the Court and the defense that the Attorney General has authorized and directed this Office not to seek the death penalty.”

The decision comes despite calls by President Trump use capital punishment against drug traffickers and the U.S. government ratcheting up pressure against Mexico to dismantle organized crime groups and to staunch the flow of fentanyl and other illicit drugs across the border.

A White House spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

It’s rare for the death penalty to be in play against high-level Mexican cartel figures. Mexico long ago abolished capital punishment and typically extradites its citizens on the condition they are spared death.

In Zambada’s case, the standard restrictions did not apply because he was not extradited. Zambada was brought to the U.S. last July by a son of his longtime associate, Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán. Zambada alleges he was ambushed and kidnapped in Sinaloa by Joaquín Guzmán López, who forced him onto an airplane bound for a small airport outside El Paso, Texas.

Zambada has pleaded not guilty to the charges against him and remains jailed in Brooklyn while his case proceeds. A court filing in June said prosecutors and the defense had “discussed the potential for a resolution short of trial,” suggesting plea negotiations are underway.

Frank Perez, the lawyer representing Zambada, issued a statement Tuesday to The Times that said: “We welcome the government’s decision not to pursue the death penalty against our client. This marks an important step toward achieving a fair and just resolution.”

Federal authorities announced in May that Guzmán López, 39, an accused leader of the Sinaloa cartel faction known as “Los Chapitos,” would also not face the death penalty. He faces an array of drug smuggling and conspiracy charges in a case pending before the federal court in Chicago.

Another son of El Chapo, Ovidio Guzmán López, 35, pleaded guilty to drug trafficking, money laundering and firearms charge last month in Chicago. Court filings show he has agreed to cooperate with U.S. authorities in other investigations.

Caro Quintero and Carrillo Fuentes were two of the biggest names among a group of 29 men handed over by Mexico to the U.S. in February. The unusual mass transfer was conducted outside the typical extradition process, which left open the possibility of the death penalty.

Reputed to be a founding member of Mexico’s powerful Guadalajara cartel in the 1980s, Caro Quintero is allegedly responsible for the brutal slaying of DEA agent Enrique “Kiki” Camarena 40 years ago.

The killing, portrayed on the Netlfix show “Narcos: Mexico” and recounted in many books and documentaries, led to a fierce response by U.S. authorities, but Caro Quintero managed to elude justice for decades. Getting him on U.S. soil was portrayed a major victory by Trump administration officials.

Derek Maltz, the DEA chief in February, said in a statement that Caro Quintero had “unleashed violence, destruction, and death across the United States and Mexico, has spent four decades atop DEA’s most wanted fugitives list.”

Carrillo Fuentes is perhaps best known as the younger brother of another Mexican drug trafficker, Amado Carrillo Fuentes, the legendary “Lord of the Skies,” who died in 1997. Once close to El Chapo, El Mayo and other Sinaloa cartel leaders, the younger Carrillo Funtes split off to form his own cartel in the city of Juárez, triggering years of bloody cartel warfare.

Kenneth J. Montgomery, the lawyer for Carrillo Fuentes, said Tuesday his client was “extremely grateful” for the government’s decision not to seek the death penalty.”I thought it was the right decision,” he said. “In a civilized society, I don’t think the death penalty should ever be an option.”

Trump has been an ardent supporter of capital punishment. In January, he signed an order that directs the attorney general to “take all necessary and lawful action” to ensure that states have enough lethal injection drugs to carry out executions.

Trump’s order directed the attorney general to pursue the death penalty in cases that involve the killing of law enforcement officers, among other factors. For years, Trump has loudly called for executing convicted drug traffickers. He reiterated the call for executions again in 2022 when announcing his intent to run again for president.

“We’re going to be asking [that] everyone who sells drugs, gets caught selling drugs, to receive the death penalty for their heinous acts,” Trump said.

Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi lifted a moratorium on federal executions in February, reversing a policy that began under the Biden administration. In April, Bondi announced intentions to seek the death penalty against Luigi Mangione, the man charged with assassinating a UnitedHealthcare executive in New York City.

Bonnie Klapper, a former federal narcotics prosecutor in the Eastern District of New York, reacted with surprise upon learning that the Trump administration had decided not to pursue capital cases against the accused kingpins, particularly Caro Quintero.

Klapper, who is now a defense attorney, speculated that Mexico is strongly opposed to executions of its citizens and officials may have exerted diplomatic pressure to spare the lives of the three men, perhaps offering to send more kingpins in the future.

“While my initial reaction is one of shock given this administration’s embrace of the death penalty, perhaps there’s conversations taking place behind the scenes in which Mexico has said, ‘If you want more of these, you can’t ask to kill any of our citizens.’”

Broad economic sanctions, most of which are imposed by the U.S. government, kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people each year — disproportionately children. This week the Lancet Global Health journal published an article that estimated that number at about 564,000 annually over a decade. This is comparable to the annual deaths around the world from armed conflict.

Sanctions are becoming the preferred weapon of the United States and some allies — not because they are less destructive than military action, but more likely because the toll is less visible. They can devastate food systems and hospitals and silently kill people without the gruesome videos of body parts in tent camps and cafes bombed from the air. They offer policymakers something that can deliver the deadly impact of war, even against civilians, without the political cost.

The above estimate of 564,000 annual deaths from sanctions is based on an analysis of data from 152 countries over 10 years. The study was by economists Francisco Rodríguez, Silvio Rendón and myself.

It’s a horrifying finding, but not surprising to economists, statisticians and other researchers who have investigated these impacts of economic sanctions. These are measures that target the entire economy, or a part of it that most of the rest of the economy depends on, such as the financial sector or a predominant export, for example in oil-exporting economies.

The sanctions can block access to essential imports such as medicine and food and the necessary infrastructure and spare parts to maintain drinkable water, including electrical systems.

Damage to the economy can sometimes be even more deadly than just the blocking of critical, life-sustaining imports. Venezuela is an example of a country that suffered all of these impacts, and the case is far more well-documented than for most of the now 25% of countries under sanctions (up from 8% in the 1960s). In Venezuela, the first year of sanctions under the first Trump administration took tens of thousands of lives. Then things got even worse, as the U.S. cut off the country from the international financial system and oil exports, froze billions of dollars of assets and imposed “secondary sanctions” on countries that tried to do business with Venezuela.

Venezuela experienced the worst depression, without a war, in world history. This was from 2012 to 2020, with the economy contracting by 71% — more than three times the severity of the Great Depression in the U.S. in the 1930s. Most of this was found to be the result of the sanctions.

Our study found that a majority of people who died as a result of sanctions in all countries were children under 5. This atrocity is consistent with prior research. Medical studies have found that children in this age group become much more susceptible to death from childhood diseases such as diarrhea, pneumonia and measles when they become malnourished.

These results are also consistent with statistical studies by the Bank of International Settlements and other statisticians and economists who find that recessions in developing countries substantially increase death rates. Of course, the destruction caused by sanctions, as above, can be many times worse than the average recession.

In 2021, Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) wrote a letter to then-President Biden, asking him to “lift all secondary and sectoral sanctions imposed on Venezuela by the Trump Administration.” The impact of these sanctions, he said, “is indiscriminate, and purposely so. … Economic pain is the means by which the sanctions are supposed to work. But it is not Venezuelan officials who suffer the costs. It is the Venezuelan people.”

This is why U.S. sanctions are illegal under treaties the United States has signed, including the Charter of the Organization of American States. They are also prohibited during wartime under the Geneva and Hague conventions, as collective punishment of civilians. U.N. experts have argued, quite persuasively, that something that is a war crime when people are bombing and shooting each other should also be a crime when there is no such war.

These sanctions also violate U.S. law. In ordering the sanctions, the president is required by U.S. law to declare that the sanctioned country is causing a “national emergency” for the United States and poses “an unusual and extraordinary threat” to U.S. national security. But this has almost never been true.

Given the deterioration of the rule of law in the United States, and the lack of regard for human rights in America’s foreign policy — and increasingly at home — it’s easy to be pessimistic about the prospects for ending this economic violence. But it will end.

We have seen victories against much more formidable adversaries and entrenched policies, including wars — most recently against the U.S. participation in the war in Yemen. Organized opposition got Congress to pass a related war powers resolution in 2019. This forced an end to at least some of the U.S. military support and blockade that had put millions of people at emergency levels of hunger, thereby saving thousands of lives.

The CIA’s formal post-9/11 torture program, which included waterboarding, was ended by executive order in 2009, after public exposure and considerable opposition.

The biggest advantage of sanctions, for the policymakers who use them, is the invisibility of their toll. But that is also their Achilles’ heel. When the economic violence of broad sanctions becomes widely known, they will be indefensible and no longer politically sustainable.

Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. He is the author of “Failed: What the ‘Experts’ Got Wrong About the Global Economy.”

SAN FRANCISCO — Nvidia is already the world’s most valuable company being one of the biggest beneficiaries of the global artificial intelligence boom.

This week, the Santa Clara-based chip maker got another windfall.

The Jensen Huang-led technology giant on Monday received approval from the U.S. government to sell some of its AI chips in China, boosting Nvidia’s stock price by 4% to $170.70 a share on Tuesday. Rival Advanced Micro Devices Inc. has received similar assurances from the government.

Nvidia’s valuation has risen dramatically over the last two years since generative artificial intelligence became a mainstream topic. Last week, the 32-year-old company became the first publicly traded firm to reach $4 trillion in market capitalization, beating tech titans including Microsoft and Apple.

Though it’s a largely symbolic moment, the milestone raised the stakes for competition in the AI space, which has attracted enormous amounts of capital from established tech players and start-up investors.

“Once you reach that level of market cap, everybody and their brother wants to be you,” said Rob Enderle, principal analyst with advisory services firm Enderle Group. “So that means that there’s going to be a huge focus on creating competitive technologies to Nvidia because it looks incredibly lucrative.”

Nvidia has become a primary force in the growth of AI technology, as many applications are built with Nvidia’s chips.

Prior to the AI boom, Nvidia was mostly known for creating premium graphics cards that were attractive to gamers in rendering high-speed visuals. Most recently, the company is known for selling powerful chips that help chatbots such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT and self-driving cars process information quickly enough to make the technology useful. Nvidia said in its 2025 annual report that it powers more than 75% of the supercomputers on the TOP500 list, which ranks the 500 most powerful computer systems in the world.

What is powering Nvidia’s rise?

Founded in 1993, Nvidia has ridden many technology waves, including the crypto frenzy.

But lately, Nvidia has seen tremendous growth thanks to worldwide investor interest — and competition for dominance — in artificial intelligence.

Companies are eager to explore how AI can make processes more efficient and figure out complex problems. But getting the computing power behind AI can be expensive if companies are building hardware on their own. That’s where Nvidia comes in.

Nvidia’s sales increased 69% to $44.1 billion in its fiscal first quarter compared to a year ago. Net income was nearly $18.8 billion, up 26% from a year ago. In its fiscal year 2025, the company’s revenue more than doubled to about $130.5 billion compared to a year earlier, and net income increased 145% to nearly $72.9 billion compared to fiscal year 2024.

In the last 12 months, Nvidia’s shares have increased more than 30%. Since five years ago, the stock has risen more than 16-fold.

“It is clear AI is going to change the world and people want to get on that train, and Nvidia is the easiest entry point,” wrote Berna Barshay, a partner at online investment platform Wall Street Beats, in an email. Over time, new winners and formidable rivals may emerge, Barshay said. “But during this foundational period of infrastructure creation, Nvidia has certainly been king.”

Other companies were slower to innovate in AI, including Apple and Intel, and underestimated how quickly AI technology would advance, analysts said.

Who is Jensen Huang?

Huang, a former microprocessor designer, discussed the idea behind Nvidia inside a Denny’s in San Jose with fellow entrepreneurs Chris Malachowsky and Curtis Priem. The company’s name is partly based on the Latin word “invidia” — which means envy, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Many businesses are certainly jealous of Nvidia’s success now, but in the 1990s, the company almost went out of business when its first chip, NV1, failed, according to media reports. Huang has said in public comments, including commencement speeches, that adversity can help people become better leaders.

Born in Tainan, Taiwan, in 1963, the onetime Denny’s dishwasher has become one of the industry’s most recognizable names, on par with Apple chief Tim Cook and Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg. Thousands of people watch Huang’s keynote at Nvidia’s developer conference, as his vision could provide a road map for companies eager to expand investments in AI. Some analysts regularly refer to him as the “godfather of AI.”

What challenges lie ahead?

The biggest challenges facing Nvidia are trade wars and competition, analysts say.

Tariffs in the semiconductor industry could hurt companies like Nvidia, which manufacture and sell countless chips abroad. The company said in its annual report that 53% of its revenue in its 2025 fiscal year came from outside the U.S.

The company said that worldwide geopolitical tensions and conflicts in countries like China, Hong Kong, Israel, Korea and Taiwan, where the manufacturing of its product components and final assembly are concentrated, could disrupt its operations, product demand and profitability.

Nvidia has worked with its production partners to increase U.S. manufacturing of its chips.

Several years ago, the U.S. restricted Nvidia’s sales of its chips in China due to concerns that its AI technology could be used to help the Chinese military. Huang has said that since the U.S. government could choose to apply restrictions, he didn’t think policymakers needed to be concerned about that and warned that allowing Nvidia to lose market share in China would cede a major advantage to Chinese tech company Huawei, according to Bloomberg.

While many analysts say Nvidia has a significant lead on competitors, it is possible over time they could catch up. OpenAI, which uses Nvidia products for ChatGPT, is developing its own chip design, according to Reuters.

There’s also the question of whether the power grid is robust enough to support the infrastructure needs of the fast-growing technology, which could slow down not just Nvidia but the larger AI ecosystem.

Despite the challenges, Thomas Monteiro, senior analyst at Investing.com, is bullish on Nvidia, saying it is possible that the company could reach $5 trillion in market cap during the next 18 months.

“The world’s still catching up and the thing is, it’s going to take years for them to catch up,” he said. “As long as we’re looking at the AI revolution as a multidecade transformation, it’s going to be really hard to take Nvidia out of that position.”

GREENBELT, Md. — The U.S. government would initiate deportation proceedings against Kilmar Abrego Garcia if he’s released from jail before he stands trial on human smuggling charges in Tennessee, a Justice Department attorney told a federal judge in Maryland on Monday.

The disclosure by U.S. lawyer Jonathan Guynn contradicts statements by spokespeople for the Justice Department and the White House, who said last month that Abrego Garcia would stand trial and possibly spend time in an American prison before the government moves to deport him.

Guynn made the revelation during a federal court hearing in Maryland, where Abrego Garcia’s American wife is suing the Trump administration over his mistaken deportation in March and trying to prevent him being expelled again.

Guynn said that U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement would detain Abrego Garcia once he’s released from jail and send him to a “third country” that isn’t his native El Salvador. Guynn said he didn’t know which country that would be.

Abrego Garcia became a flash point over President Trump’s immigration policies when he was deported in March to a notorious megaprison in El Salvador. The Trump administration violated a U.S. immigration judge’s 2019 order that shielded Abrego Garcia from deportation to his native country because he likely faced persecution there by local gangs that terrorized his family.

Facing increasing pressure and a Supreme Court order, the Trump administration returned Abrego Garcia last month to face federal human smuggling charges. Abrego Garcia’s attorneys have characterized the case as “preposterous” and an attempt to justify his erroneous deportation.

A federal judge in Nashville was preparing to release Abrego Garcia to await trial. But she agreed last week to keep Abrego Garcia behind bars at the request of his own attorneys. They had raised concerns that the U.S. would try to immediately deport him, while citing what they say were “contradictory statements” by the Trump administration.

For example, Guynn had told U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis in Maryland on June 26 that the U.S. government planned to deport Abrego Garcia to a “third country” that isn’t El Salvador. But he said there was no timeline for the deportation plans.

Later that day, Justice Department spokesperson Chad Gilmartin told the Associated Press that the department intends to try Abrego Garcia on the smuggling charges before it moves to deport him.

White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson posted on X that day that Abrego Garcia “will face the full force of the American justice system — including serving time in American prison for the crimes he’s committed.”

Abrego Garcia’s attorneys have asked Xinis to order the government to take Abrego Garcia to Maryland upon release from jail in Tennessee, an arrangement that would prevent his deportation before trial. Abrego Garcia lived in Maryland for more than a decade, working in construction and raising a family with his wife.

Xinis is still considering Abrego Garcia’s lawyers’ request to send him to Maryland if he’s released. Meanwhile, Xinis ruled Monday that the lawsuit against the Trump administration over Abrego Garcia’s mistaken deportation can continue.

Kunzelman and Finley write for the Associated Press. Finley reported from Norfolk, Va.

NASHVILLE — A federal judge in Tennessee on Sunday denied the U.S. government’s motion to keep Kilmar Abrego Garcia in detention before his trial on human smuggling charges and ordered his release.

But Abrego Garcia, whose mistaken deportation to El Salvador has become a high-profile case in President Trump’s immigration crackdown, is not expected to go free because U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement will probably take him into custody and possibly try to deport him.

In denying the Trump administration’s motion Sunday, U.S. Magistrate Judge Barbara Holmes scheduled a hearing for Wednesday to discuss the conditions of his release.

The U.S. government has already filed a motion to appeal the judge’s decision and is asking her to stay her impending release order.

Abrego Garcia pleaded not guilty on June 13 to smuggling charges that his attorneys have characterized as an attempt to justify his mistaken deportation in March to a notorious prison in El Salvador. That hearing was the first chance the Maryland construction worker had in a U.S. courtroom to answer the Trump administration’s allegations.

The smuggling charges stem from a 2022 traffic stop for speeding in Tennessee during which Abrego Garcia was driving a vehicle with nine passengers. Although officers suspected possible smuggling, he was allowed to go with only a warning.

A federal indictment accuses Abrego Garcia of smuggling throughout the U.S. hundreds of people living in the country illegally, including children and members of the violent MS-13 gang. He has denied the charges.

The investigation was launched weeks after the Supreme Court ordered the administration to facilitate his return from El Salvador amid mounting public pressure.

Holmes acknowledged in her ruling Sunday that determining whether Abrego Garcia should be released is “little more than an academic exercise” because ICE will probably detain him. But the judge wrote that the government failed to prove that Abrego Garcia was a flight risk, that he posed a danger to the community or that he would interfere with proceedings if released.

“Overall, the Court cannot find from the evidence presented that Abrego’s release clearly and convincingly poses an irremediable danger to other persons or to the community,” the judge wrote.

The acting U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Tennessee, Rob McGuire, argued on June 13 that the likely attempt by ICE to deport him was one reason to keep him in jail.

The judge suggested then that the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security could work out between themselves whether the government’s priority is to try him on the criminal charges or deport him. No date has been set for the trial.

A 2019 immigration judge’s order prevents Abrego Garcia from being deported to his native El Salvador because he faces a credible threat from gangs there, according to Will Allensworth, an assistant federal public defender representing him.

The government could deport him to a third country, but immigration officials would first be required to show that that country was willing to keep him and not deport him back to El Salvador, Allensworth said.

At the detention hearing, McGuire said cooperating witnesses have accused Abrego Garcia of trafficking drugs and firearms and of abusing the women he transported, among other claims. Abrego Garcia also denies those accusations, and although he is not charged with such crimes, McGuire said they showed him to be a dangerous person who should remain in jail pretrial.

Most people in ICE custody who are facing criminal charges are not kept in the U.S. for trial but deported, according to Ohio State University law professor César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández. The government would not need a conviction to deport Abrego Garcia because he came to the U.S. illegally.

However an immigration judge rules, the decision can be appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, García Hernández said. And the board’s ruling can then be contested in a federal appeals court.

Loller and Finley write for the Associated Press and reported from Nashville and Norfolk, Va., respectively.

CONCORD, N.H. — A Palestinian activist who was detained for more than three months pushed his infant son’s stroller with one hand and pumped his fist in the air with the other as supporters welcomed him home Saturday.

Mahmoud Khalil greeted friends and spoke briefly to reporters Saturday at Newark Liberty International Airport in New Jersey a day after a judge ordered his release from a federal immigration facility in Louisiana. The former Columbia University graduate student, a symbol of President Trump’s clampdown on campus protests, vowed to continue protesting Israel’s war in the Gaza Strip.

“The U.S. government is funding this genocide, and Columbia University is investing in this genocide,” he said. “This is why I will continue to protest with every one of you. Not only if they threaten me with detention. Even if they would kill me, I would still speak up for Palestine.”

Khalil, a legal U.S. resident whose wife gave birth during his 104 days of detention, said he also will speak up for the immigrants he left behind in the detention center.

“Whether you are a citizen, an immigrant, anyone in this land, you’re not illegal. That doesn’t make you less of a human,” he said.

The 30-year-old international affairs student wasn’t accused of breaking any laws during the protests at Columbia. However, the Trump administration has said noncitizens who participate in such demonstrations should be expelled from the U.S. for expressing views it deems to be antisemitic or “pro-Hamas,” referring to the Palestinian militant group that attacked Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.

Khalil was released after U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz said it would be “highly, highly unusual” for the government to continue detaining a legal U.S. resident who was unlikely to flee and hadn’t been accused of any violence. The government filed notice Friday evening that it is appealing Khalil’s release.

Joining Khalil at the airport, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said his detention violated the 1st Amendment and was “an affront to every American.”

“He has been accused, baselessly, of horrific allegations simply because the Trump administration and our overall establishment disagrees with his political speech,” she said.

“The Trump administration knows that they are waging a losing legal battle,” Ocasio-Cortez added. “They are violating the law, and they know that they are violating the law.”

Ramer writes for the Associated Press.

NEW YORK — A federal judge on Friday ordered the U.S. government to free former Columbia University graduate student Mahmoud Khalil from the immigration detention center where he has been held since early March while the Trump administration sought to deport him over his role in pro-Palestinian protests.

Ruling from the bench in New Jersey, U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz said it would be “highly, highly unusual” for the government to continue to detain a legal U.S. resident who was unlikely to flee and hadn’t been accused of any violence.

In reaching his decision, he said Khalil is likely not a flight risk and “is not a danger to the community. Period, full stop.”

He ordered Khalil released from a detention center in rural Louisiana later Friday.

The government had “clearly not met” the standards for detention, he said later in the hourlong hearing, which took place by phone.

Khalil was the first arrest under President Trump’s crackdown on students who joined campus protests against Israel’s devastating war in Gaza. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said Khalil must be expelled from the country because his continued presence could harm American foreign policy.

Farbiarz had ruled earlier that the government couldn’t deport Khalil on those grounds, but gave it leeway to continue pursuing a potential deportation based on allegations that he lied on his green card application. Khalil disputes the accusations that he wasn’t forthcoming on the application.

Khalil’s lawyers had asked that he either be freed on bail or, at the very least, moved from a Louisiana jail to New Jersey so he can be closer to his wife and newborn son, who are both U.S. citizens.

The judge noted Khalil is now clearly a public figure given his prominence during the campus protests and since his detainment.

He was detained on March 8 at his apartment building in Manhattan over his participation in pro-Palestinian demonstrations. His lawyers say the Trump administration is simply trying to crack down on free speech.

Khalil isn’t accused of breaking any laws during the protests at Columbia. The international affairs graduate student served as a negotiator and spokesperson for student activists. He wasn’t among the demonstrators arrested, but his prominence in news coverage and willingness to speak publicly made him a target of critics.

The Trump administration has argued that noncitizens who participate in such demonstrations should be expelled from the country as it considers their views antisemitic.

The judge noted Khalil has no criminal record and the government has put forward no evidence to suggest he’s been involved in violence or property destruction.

Marcelo writes for the Associated Press.

President Trump on Thursday signed an executive order giving TikTok a 90-day extension to work out a deal with the U.S. government that addresses security concerns over the app’s ties to China.

Significant pressure has been placed on TikTok, known for its popular social video app, after a law was signed in 2024 that required TikTok’s Chinese parent company ByteDance to sell its U.S. operations of TikTok or the app would be banned in the U.S.

The new order signed by Trump will give TikTok an extension until Sept. 17. During that period, the Justice Department will not enforce the 2024 law that would have banned TikTok in the country or impose penalties on companies that distribute TikTok, the order said.

“We are grateful for President Trump’s leadership and support in ensuring that TikTok continues to be available for more than 170 million American users and 7.5 million U.S. businesses that rely on the platform as we continue to work with Vice President Vance’s Office,” TikTok said in a statement.

TikTok has a large presence in Southern California, with offices in Culver City that serve as the company’s U.S. headquarters, and many video creators in the L.A. area produce content for TikTok.

The app has interested buyers, including Amazon and an investment group led by Frank McCourt, a former Dodgers owner, whose bid includes “Shark Tank” star Kevin O’Leary. San Francisco artificial intelligence company Perplexity said in March it wants to “rebuild the TikTok algorithm.”

Two tribal nations filed a lawsuit saying that the federal government used the trust fund money of tribes to pay for boarding schools where generations of Native children were systematically abused.

In the lawsuit filed Thursday in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, the Wichita Tribe and the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California said that by the U.S. government’s own admission, the schools were funded using money raised by forcing tribal nations into treaties to cede their lands. That money was to be held in trust for the collective benefit of tribes.

“The United States Government, the trustee over Native children’s education and these funds, has never accounted for the funds that it took, or detailed how, or even whether, those funds were ultimately expended. It has failed to identify any funds that remain,” according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit was filed against Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Bureau of Indian Education. A spokesperson for the Interior declined to comment on pending litigation.

In 2022, the Department of the Interior, under the direction of Secretary Deb Haaland, the first Native American to run the agency, released a scathing report on the legacy of the boarding school era, in which Native children were stolen from their homes, forced to assimilate, and in many cases physically, sexually and mentally abused. Countless children died at the schools, many of whom were buried in unmarked graves at the institutions.

That report detailed the U.S. government’s intentions of using the boarding schools as a way to both strip Native children of their culture and dispossess their tribal nations of land.

The tribes are asking the court to make the U.S. account for the estimated $23.3 billion it appropriated for the boarding school program, detail how that money was invested, and list the remaining funds that were taken by the U.S. and allocated for the education of Native children.

Last year, President Biden issued a formal apology for the government’s boarding school policy, calling it “a sin on our soul” and “one of the most horrific chapters” in American history. But in April, the administration of President Trump cut $1.6 million from projects meant to capture and digitize stories of boarding school survivors.

Brewer writes for the Associated Press.