USPS Reveals How It Will Celebrate 250th Anniversary, Including New Stamps
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
The United States Postal Service (USPS) has unveiled how it plans to celebrate its 250th anniversary.
Why It Matters
The USPS is older than the United States itself, having been founded in 1775. It became a financially self-sustaining government establishment in 1970 and, according to the Pew Research Center, is one of the most well-liked federal agencies, with a 72 percent approval rate.
Now, the agency serves nearly 169 million addresses in the U.S., delivering more mail and packages than any other postal service in the world, according to the USPS website.
What To Know
In a press release issued on April 25, the USPS has confirmed the anniversary will be marked with a new logo, commemorative stamps, branded merchandise and other events and releases.
A new logo, dubbed Eagle in Flight, will be used for 250th anniversary activities and on branded products. It depicts an eagle about to take to the skies, perched atop the phrase "USPS 250" in the traditional USPS colors of red, white and blue.
Other planned celebrations include releasing commemorative stamps, assorted branded merchandise, a USPS-licensed coffee table book, and a special 250th anniversary edition of The United States Postal Service: An American History, which will be available both online and in print.
Stock image/file photo: USPS Post Office Mail Trucks in August 2019.
Stock image/file photo: USPS Post Office Mail Trucks in August 2019.
GETTY
There will also be a special episode of the Mail with Mr. ZIP YouTube series focusing on the 250th anniversary, and special advertising campaigns built around the "Delivering since 1775" theme.
The 250th anniversary comes at a time when the future of the USPS seems uncertain.
President Donald Trump has previously signaled that he could support privatizing the USPS. Commenting on possible privatization in December last year, Trump said "it's an idea that a lot of people have liked for a long time." Trump adviser Elon Musk has also said he would support bringing the postal service out of public control.
While no official plans for the privatization of the USPS have been made public, postal worker unions have protested against the potential move.
It is no secret the agency has been experiencing financial troubles in recent years, having implemented a 10-year "Delivering For America" to stabilize its finances in 2021. The USPS is self funded, and operates through the sale of postage and postal services.
It reported a $9.5 billion loss in the fiscal year ending in September 2024, compared to a net loss of $6.5 billion in the fiscal year 2023.
What People Are Saying
Acting Postmaster General Doug Tulino said in the press release: "The founders of our great nation saw the intrinsic need of postal services as the United States was born — even before the country itself was formed. Since that time, our universal mail system has strengthened the bonds of friendship, family and community. The Postal Service remains a great organization connecting our nation and helping power our economy. We are proud to help set the stage for the 250th anniversary of the United States next year, and we look forward to continuing to serve the American public for another 250 years."
What Happens Next
Further updates on activities and releases are to come, the USPS has confirmed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Pason Systems Second Quarter 2025 Earnings: EPS Misses Expectations
Pason Systems (TSE:PSI) Second Quarter 2025 Results Key Financial Results Revenue: CA$96.4m (flat on 2Q 2024). Net income: CA$12.6m (up 16% from 2Q 2024). Profit margin: 13% (up from 11% in 2Q 2024). EPS: CA$0.16 (up from CA$0.14 in 2Q 2024). Trump has pledged to "unleash" American oil and gas and these 15 US stocks have developments that are poised to benefit. All figures shown in the chart above are for the trailing 12 month (TTM) period Pason Systems EPS Misses Expectations Revenue was in line with analyst estimates. Earnings per share (EPS) missed analyst estimates by 4.0%. Looking ahead, revenue is forecast to grow 2.9% p.a. on average during the next 3 years, compared to a 9.6% growth forecast for the Energy Services industry in Canada. Performance of the Canadian Energy Services industry. The company's share price is broadly unchanged from a week ago. Risk Analysis You still need to take note of risks, for example - Pason Systems has 2 warning signs we think you should be aware of. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned. Sign in to access your portfolio
New York Post
27 minutes ago
- New York Post
Why geopolitical alliance between the US and India is on ice
President Trump's announcement of sweeping new tariffs on India, totaling 50%, should dispel illusions that the US–India relationship is a warm alliance of like-minded democracies. The move marks a sharp escalation in what is now openly a trade war. Trump cited India's ongoing imports of discounted Russian oil, accusing New Delhi of helping fund Moscow's war machine and selling refined Russian crude on the open market for profit. India responded sharply, hinting at retaliation. Yet Trump pressed on: The first 25% tariff takes effect this week, with another 25% kicking in later this month. This is one of the harshest tariff regimes the US has ever imposed on a major trading partner — and it's aimed at a country Washington claims to view as a key ally. 5 President Trump's announcement of sweeping new tariffs on India, totaling 50%, should dispel illusions that the US–India relationship is a warm alliance of like-minded democracies. Trump is seen here with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. REUTERS On paper, India looks like the perfect partner. It's the world's most populous democracy, largely English-speaking, and deeply embedded in the US economy. Bilateral trade in goods and services hit $212 billion in 2024, with the US trade deficit at about $46 billion. India serves as a key manufacturing hub for pharmaceuticals, apparel and tech. The US sees India as a counterweight to China in the Indo-Pacific. But India doesn't see the relationship through sentimental eyes. Since the Cold War, New Delhi has pursued a doctrine of non-alignment, which has evolved into strategic autonomy. It joins US-led forums like the Quad — in which, alongside Japan and Australia, they aim to promote a free and open Indo-Pacific without demanding formal allegiance. But India is also a member of the BRICS group of developing nations and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. It buys weapons from the US and France, but also Russia, maintaining friendly ties with Iran and boycotting no one. 5 Russia is a long-time defense partner and energy supplier. India now imports more than a third of its oil from Russia, totaling over $50 billion annually — which is a huge spike since 2021. Modi is seen here with Russia's President Vladimir Putin. AP That instinct is rooted in deep historical memory. Colonized by Britain and sidelined by US Cold War support for Pakistan, India emerged with a fierce desire to avoid foreign dependency. Especially under the nationalist Prime Minister Narendra Modi, it sees itself not as a junior partner in a Western-led order but as a civilizational power asserting its own sovereignty. This helps explain India's refusal to isolate Russia over the Ukraine war. Russia is a long-time defense partner and energy supplier. India now imports more than a third of its oil from Russia, totaling over $50 billion annually — which is a huge spike since 2021, meaning India has taken advantage of Russia's discounts, and which makes it the largest importer of Russian crude ahead of China and Iran. Some of that oil is refined and re-exported to Western markets through a sanctions loophole. It's a lucrative arrangement India has no intention of abandoning — and it keeps Vladimir Putin in business. That's the connection driving events these past few weeks: As Trump has lost faith in Putin's willingness to engage on ending the Ukraine war, so has his impatience with Modi gone through the roof. 5 The US wants India's help in containing China and securing global supply chains. Modi is seen here with China's President Xi Jinping. Getty Images But Trump's response — tariffs as geopolitical punishment — is unusual. Tariffs are typically used to protect domestic industry. Using them to enforce foreign policy aims introduces a different logic. Is it madness? Not entirely. Tariffs are one of the few levers a president can pull unilaterally. But the India case exposes the risks of this approach. India is unlikely to cave. With 1.4 billion people (the most in the world), a $4.2 trillion economy (tied with Japan for fourth in the world) and decent economic growth, it doesn't take kindly to coercion. Worse, this tactic invites charges of hypocrisy. Other countries still trade with Russia in fertilizer, chemicals and refined products. There's also blowback. Tariffs generally raise prices for US consumers, particularly in sectors like generic drugs and clothing. They also threaten to undermine supply chain shifts away from China. Companies like Apple have moved production to India — only to find their new base hit with punitive tariffs. Meanwhile, India may retaliate against US exports in energy and aerospace. 5 The US sees India as a counterweight to China in the Indo-Pacific. But India doesn't see the relationship through sentimental eyes. Carlo – American policymakers of the pre-Trump era spoke of a shared democratic identity and mutual values. But the real relationship is transactional. The US wants India's help in containing China and securing global supply chains. India wants American technology, markets and investment. That's why cooperative efforts like the iCET tech partnership and semiconductor joint ventures may succeed where talk of 'friendship' falls flat. The signs of this can be subtle. For example, Trump has been bragging in recent weeks about having averted war between India and Pakistan earlier this year. Putting aside the likely exaggeration, it did not escape notice in New Delhi that he was placing India — an imperfect but pluralistic democracy — on equal footing with its less-than-democratic rival. For a country deeply conscious of its global standing, this surely reinforced the perception that the Trump administration views India not as a partner of principle, but as just another actor to be cajoled as the situation demands. So it is no surprise that trade negotiations have repeatedly stalled over tariffs and market access. India maintains high barriers on agricultural imports and resists regulatory alignment. The US complains of protectionism; India sees imperialism. Neither is entirely wrong. India's foreign policy is rational, pragmatic, occasionally aggressive and ruthlessly self-interested. Trump's tariffs may sting, but they won't alter that fact. 5 In 1949, President Herbert Hoover met with Indian activist Mahatma Gandhi in New Delhi. Bettmann Archive The discomfort lies in letting go of the fantasy that India is a democratic soulmate. If both sides accept that the relationship is not built on shared values but overlapping interests, then real partnership is still possible. For the likes of Trump and Modi, that's about the best that you can hope for. Dan Perry led Associated Press coverage in Europe, the Middle East, and Africa, and served as AP's special international editor. He publishes Ask Questions Later on Substack.
Fox News
an hour ago
- Fox News
Senate Republicans reveal dramatic dealmaking behind Trump's $3.3T megabill passage
Senate Republicans left Washington this week to sell President Donald Trump's "big, beautiful bill," but the road to creating and passing the legislation began just over a year and a half ago. Trump's $3.3 trillion megabill, crammed with his legislative priorities on border security, defense and energy, was a product months in the making. And it was the marquee policy in the bill, which was to extend or make permanent many of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, that was the driving force behind Republicans' desire to pass it. But Senate Republicans have had little time to rest on their laurels and celebrate the bill's passage, spending the month since Trump signed it advancing a $9 billion clawback package and trying to ram through Senate Democrats' blockade of the president's nominees. The journey to pass the bill began well before Republicans had a trifecta in Washington in early 2024, when then-Senate Republican Conference Chair John Barrasso, R-Wyo., hosted a policy retreat with Senate Republicans to hash out what the GOP's agenda could look like should the win out in November. And months later, Trump visited with Senate Republicans to discuss the strategy they had been working on behind-the-scenes. "With President Trump in the White House, we discussed how Republicans will get America back on track," Barrasso said at the time. "That starts with helping families escape the pain of Democrat high prices, unleashing American energy, stopping Democrat tax increases, and securing the Southern Border. Republicans are united." The real, nitty-gritty work began in January where concepts were taken and fleshed out into legislation. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., opted to leapfrog the House and move forward with the Senate's own budget framework, which initially divided the "big, beautiful bill" into two chunks. That added pressure on Republicans in the lower chamber to coalesce behind a plan of their own. For much of the earlier part of this year, however, the Senate was waiting on the House to fine-tune and pass their own version of the bill. Still, Thune and his leadership team, including Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., worked to get a product from one side of the building to the other that the Senate GOP could work with. And when the bill made its way to the upper chamber in early June, the pressure was on to deliver a finished product to Trump by July 4, an artificial deadline used to help corral lawmakers into finishing work on the bill. One of the major disagreements in the upper chamber before the bill ever hit the floor was over the nature of cuts to Medicaid, particularly aimed at the provider tax rate. The issue was eventually smoothed over through the creation of a $50 billion rural hospital fund, but lawmakers who sounded the alarm against it vowed to ensure that the changes to the provider would never take effect. "I think it was a huge mistake," Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., said at the time. "I think this has been an unhappy episode here in Congress, this effort to cut Medicaid." "And I think, frankly, my party needs to do some soul-searching," he continued. "If you want to be a working class party, you've got to get delivered for working class people. You cannot take away health care from working people." And when the bill did finally hit the floor for what would evolve into a multi-day affair of passing through procedural hurdles, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., forcing the reading of the entire bill and a marathon vote-a-rama, Senate Republicans were still not entirely on board. At first, a cohort of fiscal hawks led by Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., and Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., appeared to not support the package — they wanted even deeper cuts to Medicaid by tweaking the percentage that the federal government pays for healthcare in states that opted into Obamacare, which they argued would have saved billions extra. They were offered an amendment that eventually never came to the floor, but was enough for them to back down from tanking the bill. And their resistance began in the first of a handful of huddles inside Thune's office outside the Senate floor. Sen. Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyo., joined them for the closed-door conversations, and told Fox News Digital that while her vote was not contingent on getting the change added, she wanted to make the case for why it should be. "It saved a lot of money," she said. "It saved a lot of money, and so I was anxious to see us use the opportunity, since we were able to open up mandatory spending, use the opportunity to really save some money." And later on, in the wee hours of the night, Republicans were bouncing from Thune's office to the Senate floor, hashing out deals as they went to get Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, to support the bill, knowing that Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Thom Tillis, R-N.C., could vote against it. "Sometimes it's got to be put on a clock, because at some point the argument has to come to an end," Mullin told Fox News Digital. "And that's why we had to do some of it on the floor. We had to, we had to force the hand." And in the end, only three Republicans, Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky, Collins and Tillis voted against the bill. From there it went to the House, where Republicans in the lower chamber had their own dramatic rally to pass the legislative behemoth. And now, as Republicans scatter to their home states to sell the bill to their constituents, Tillis said that the "foundational" piece of information that lawmakers can share is that they averted a nationwide tax hike. "The shame of the Medicaid provision is that the vast majority of the bill is supported," he told Fox News Digital. "I think we have to remind them the problem with the tax bill is they're not going to see a cut, but if we hadn't done it, they would have seen a historic increase." "So we need to remind them of what we're doing is continuing what we started, and the economy that we created, it was able to withstand COVID," he continued. "And I firmly believe if we hadn't passed it. We'd have been in a different posture."
