
Colleges are slightly less diverse as admissions officers seek ways to adapt post-affirmative action
The full impact of the Supreme Court's June 2023 ruling that colleges can't consider race in admissions may not be known for years. But a CBS News analysis of enrollment records shows the first class of freshmen since the high court's order is a little less diverse than the class before it.
College admissions experts say there are signs campuses will trend toward less diversity at the same time some universities are facing intensifying pressure from the Trump administration to eliminate diversity programs and remove international students.
CBS News gathered first-year enrollment data from 116 colleges and universities, 76 of which considered race in admissions before the Supreme Court ruling. The data showed the share of underrepresented minority students among those schools decreased by about 2 percentage points from fall 2023 to fall 2024.
Underrepresented minority students include Hispanic, Black, Indigenous or Pacific Islander students. These are groups that have historically had disproportionately lower rates of college admissions.
Among the 35 schools that did not previously consider race in admissions, the share of underrepresented minority students remained roughly the same, suggesting the ruling may have influenced diversity on campus.
Five schools did not report whether or not they considered race in admissions.
CBS News found the drop in diversity was even sharper at the most elite colleges and universities. At 17 schools that accept less than 10% of applicants, the share of minority students fell nearly 5 percentage points. This includes schools like Dartmouth, Princeton, Cornell, Brown and Tufts.
Despite this, the most selective schools still had a slightly higher share of underrepresented minority students than other institutions we collected data from.
While the one-year drop itself seems small, the fall 2024 semester was the first time the percentage of underrepresented minority students had decreased since at least 2015.
Black students experienced perhaps the most significant one-year shift. At the 76 schools that previously considered race in admission but no longer do, the average share of Black students dropped from 6.4% in fall 2023 to 5.3% in fall 2024, the lowest level in the data collected since at least 2015.
Early data 'sends up a warning flag'
Dominique Baker, an associate professor of education and public policy at the University of Delaware, said it's still too early to draw any concrete conclusions from this data.
'We like to look at trends over a longer period of time, because in any given year, we could see a blip that goes up, a blip that goes down,' Baker said.
But if the trend continues over four years — by the time these students are seniors — it could mean the campuses they attend will be significantly less diverse.
For Baker, this 'sends up a warning flag.'
'We're now starting to see … early indicators that we might be seeing a negative trend developing in the share of students of color who are attending, particularly the underrepresented minority students that you all are talking about attending more selective institutions,' she said.
She pointed to research out of California, one of the nine states that had banned affirmative action prior to the Supreme Court ruling.
A 2020 study found that enrollment among Black and Latino students at UCLA and UC Berkeley, the more selective campuses in the University of California system, fell by 40 percentage points after voters outlawed race conscious admissions (the state ban passed in 1996 and went into effect in 1998). It concluded that California's ban on affirmative action exacerbated socioeconomic inequities among Black and Brown students.
Desmond Kuhn, an 18-year-old sociology and urban studies major at Columbia University who identifies as African American, said the Supreme Court ruling happened as he was starting to apply for college.
'It's very discouraging and also makes it harder to reach a lot of these, especially private elite universities, because a lot of generally Black and Hispanic communities don't have the same resources as, say, White and Asian communities,' Kuhn said.
He said he saw the difference in resources between his predominantly Black high school in the suburbs of Detroit and the predominantly White private boarding school where he retook his SAT.
Columbia University published first-year enrollment numbers for fall 2024, but in a different format than the federal data collection, which we used in our analysis. In Columbia's reporting, the percentage of students who self-identified as Black or African American dropped from 20% for the class of 2027, to 12% for the class of 2028. (In this reporting method, students can identify with more than one race, whereas in the federal data, students could only pick one.)
Columbia declined to provide CBS News data in the same format used for the analysis of other schools, so the university is not included in our overall findings.
Other factors at play
Across all schools, the share of students who did not report their race in enrollment records (and were classified as 'unknown') grew significantly — the largest spike since at least 2015.
While the data suggests the start of a downward trend in the share of underrepresented minority students at colleges and universities, the jump in the 'unknown' category means the racial makeup of the class of 2028 could be different than what is being reported.
If many of the students who did not report their race were White, then the share of White students would be higher than the reported data might suggest, lowering the share of underrepresented minority students. But if the students who did not report their race were Black or Hispanic, then the share of Black or Hispanic students may be higher than what is reported.
'That's part of the really, really big challenge of … charting and thinking through who is currently enrolling at colleges and universities after the Supreme Court decision,' Baker said.
Tom Delahunt, the vice president for strategic recruitment and enrollment at Southwestern University in Texas, said the drop in underrepresented minority students could also be because of problems with the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, or FAFSA, that were at play while the future fall 2024 freshman class would have been making decisions about if and where to go to college.
Typically, students can apply for the FAFSA on Oct. 1 each year. But in 2023, the form wasn't available until Dec. 30. As a result, schools couldn't offer financial aid on time because they did not have the FAFSA information, forcing students to wait for delayed offers.
'Delays, glitches, and other issues led to a 9% decline in submitted FAFSA applications among first-time applicants, and an overall decline of about 432,000 applications as of the end of August,' said a report from the Government Accountability Office.
Delahunt said that many of the students who had delayed FAFSAs would likely only make decisions about schools if their families had the money to go ahead without knowing how much they were going to have to pay. But many underrepresented minority students may come from poorer families that could not afford to guess how much college would cost.
Impact of diversity on campus
Experts said studies have found diversity of all kinds, not just racial diversity, is essential to students' education.
'These studies don't say that students of color benefit from diverse learning environments. White students also benefit. Every student benefits from a diverse learning environment,' Baker, from the University of Delaware, said.
Jennifer Levine, a first-year student at Stanford University who is half Asian and half Jewish, agreed. She participates in a residential humanities program, where she lives with the same students she takes classes with, a group she described as predominantly White. The uniformity, she said, makes for 'a worse learning space.'
'I think that all academic environments are made better with more opinions, more experiences, people who have different sets of knowledge,' she told CBS News. 'For me as someone who's not Black reading Toni Morrison, I can't offer my perspective on that in the sense of race.'
Stanford's first-year class has roughly half as many Black students this year compared to last year. Austin Shaw, one of those Black freshmen, said he can see the difference. He lives in a dorm that is themed around the Black diaspora, so many Black students choose to live there.
'All of us are very tight because we're literally like half of the Black freshman population,' he said of his dormmates. 'But when you go out into class, it's a completely different vibe.'
Shaw said that about half of the students in his high school in Los Angeles were Black. One of the reasons he chose Stanford over other California schools was that it had a higher proportion of Black students.
'You become an expert on the subject of being Black, or you feel like you have to represent, or you feel like you have to talk for your community,' he said. 'When I was in high school, where half of the class would be Black, you wouldn't have that expectation.'
Other ways to ensure a diverse student body
Delahunt, of Southwestern University, said this ruling, along with other restrictions on diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, have made his job harder. He said his goal is to try to ensure that the student body reflects the community around it in Georgetown, Texas, just north of Austin.
This is so 'when they leave … they are ready for the next step of entering into society as a contributing member of society, that they understand how to work together. That we're going to have differences, and that's OK. How to work through those differences, how to work together to solve problems,' Delahunt said.
Now, without being able to see race and ethnicity on admissions forms, he must rely heavily on recruiting from high schools where he knows the population of the school is reflective of the mix of students he wants to come to Southwestern.
'Our job hasn't changed. Maybe the way we do it has to change a little bit. But our goals are the same,' Delahunt said.
Richard Kahlenberg, director of the American Identity Project at the Progressive Policy Institute, said that if schools were to consider socioeconomic status instead of race, they could still increase diversity on campus. Kahlenberg testified on behalf of Students for Fair Admissions in support of the ruling ending affirmative action.
With data obtained through the legal process, he and an economist ran dozens of admissions simulations and found that considering socioeconomic status and ending preferential admissions for legacy students could increase diversity at Harvard and the University of North Carolina while maintaining academic caliber.
'If there were some universities that did not see declines in racial diversity, as we know there were some, then it's incumbent upon those institutions that saw larger drops to learn what happened,' Kahlenberg said.
He added that universities and colleges have argued that this method would be far more expensive, as it would increase the amount of financial aid the schools have to provide.
'It's not that race-neutral alternatives are ineffective, it's that they cost more money,' he said.
Some schools have increased socioeconomic diversity. UNC increased the number of students with federal Pell Grants to nearly a quarter of the class. Both Yale and Dartmouth's first-year classes had the highest-ever share of first-generation and low-income students, all while increasing their share of underrepresented minority students.
All diversity, equity and inclusion efforts are at risk
As universities adapt admissions processes to maintain diversity, they risk butting heads with an administration that is seeking to end all diversity, equity and inclusion efforts.
The Department of Justice announced at the end of March that it is investigating four California universities to assess their compliance with the Supreme Court's ruling.
University of California schools, which have not been allowed to use race as a factor in admissions directly since voters passed Proposition 209 in 1996, recently moved from using test scores and GPA for admissions to a ' comprehensive review ' process.
That process looks 'at multiple factors beyond courses and grades to evaluate applicants' academic achievements in light of the opportunities available to them and the capacity each student demonstrates to contribute to the intellectual life of the campus,' according to the University of California's admissions website.
UC admissions for underrepresented minority students has increased since the initial drop following Prop 209, with the nine universities admitting the largest share of underrepresented minority students in its history in 2021. But the schools' student bodies are still less diverse than the California population or the cohort of high school graduates who meet UC admissions requirements.
Underrepresented minorities make up about 32% of the UC fall 2024 freshman class. But they make up 46% of Californians and more than half of the state's high school graduates who meet the minimum academic requirements to get into UC schools.
However schools choose to adapt, ignoring race in wholistic admissions entirely is unrealistic, said Levine, the mixed-race Stanford freshman.
'Parts of your identity can't be separated from your field of study, from your interests, from what you do,' she said. 'My identity is tied to the kinds of things I'm interested in, what I wrote my essays about to get into college. Taking out my race from that is not going to take away the fact that that is part of who I am.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


See - Sada Elbalad
8 hours ago
- See - Sada Elbalad
Trump Administration Abruptly Fires 3 Senior Officials Seen as Strong Israel Supporters
Ahmed Emam In a move that has taken Washington and Tel Aviv by surprise, the administration of former U.S. President Donald Trump has dismissed three senior officials from the White House and the National Security Council who were known for their strong support of Israel. According to a report by the Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth, the decision was driven by growing rifts between Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, particularly over Israel's desire to launch a unilateral military strike on Iran — even without Washington's consent — and the ongoing conflict in Gaza. The three officials removed from their posts are Merav Sarn, a U.S.-Israeli dual national who had recently been appointed head of the Iran and Israel desk at the National Security Council; Eric Trager, the NSC's Coordinator for the Middle East and North Africa; and Morgan Ortagus, deputy to U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff, Washington's special representative to Lebanon. Sources cited by Israeli newspaper suggested that further dismissals of pro-Israel figures within Trump's circle could follow, signaling what the newspaper described as 'a widening gap between Israel and the Trump administration.' The report characterized the move as part of a broader recalibration in U.S. policy. 'These dismissals are not coincidental,' the paper stated, 'but rather a reflection of Washington's deliberate distancing from Israel at this stage, based on its own strategic interests.' Trump had previously urged Netanyahu to refrain from attacking Iran, pointing instead to progress in renewed nuclear negotiations with Tehran and suggesting that a new agreement was within reach. On the Gaza front, envoy Steve Witkoff had recently submitted a ceasefire proposal to both Israel and Hamas. Although he initially expressed optimism, he later criticized Hamas for what he viewed as a dismissive response to the initiative. The abrupt shakeup has stirred debate within foreign policy circles in both the U.S. and Israel, raising questions about the future trajectory of U.S.-Israel relations and the Trump team's evolving stance on Middle East policy. read more Gold prices rise, 21 Karat at EGP 3685 NATO's Role in Israeli-Palestinian Conflict US Expresses 'Strong Opposition' to New Turkish Military Operation in Syria Shoukry Meets Director-General of FAO Lavrov: confrontation bet. nuclear powers must be avoided News Iran Summons French Ambassador over Foreign Minister Remarks News Aboul Gheit Condemns Israeli Escalation in West Bank News Greek PM: Athens Plays Key Role in Improving Energy Security in Region News One Person Injured in Explosion at Ukrainian Embassy in Madrid News China Launches Largest Ever Aircraft Carrier News Australia Fines Telegram $600,000 Over Terrorism, Child Abuse Content Sports Former Al Zamalek Player Ibrahim Shika Passes away after Long Battle with Cancer Sports Neymar Announced for Brazil's Preliminary List for 2026 FIFA World Cup Qualifiers News Prime Minister Moustafa Madbouly Inaugurates Two Indian Companies Arts & Culture New Archaeological Discovery from 26th Dynasty Uncovered in Karnak Temple Business Fear & Greed Index Plummets to Lowest Level Ever Recorded amid Global Trade War Arts & Culture Zahi Hawass: Claims of Columns Beneath the Pyramid of Khafre Are Lies News Flights suspended at Port Sudan Airport after Drone Attacks News Shell Unveils Cost-Cutting, LNG Growth Plan


Egypt Independent
8 hours ago
- Egypt Independent
Trump's tariff threat exposes China's tight grip on the global pharmaceuticals industry
Hong Kong/New York CNN — It's the most prescribed antibiotic in the United States, used by tens of millions of people every year to treat bacterial infections including pneumonia, stomach ulcers, and strep throat. Yet, it isn't exactly common knowledge that amoxicillin, a relative of penicillin that has been in chronic short supply, has only one manufacturer in the US, or that China controls 80 percent of the raw materials required for its production. That's a major concern as US President Donald Trump threatens to impose tariffs on pharmaceutical imports, throwing a spotlight on America's dependence on critical drug supplies from abroad. 'Increasing trade hostilities or more protracted conflicts could devastate our access to amoxicillin or the ingredients used to make it should Beijing weaponize its supply chain dominance,' Rick Jackson, founder and CEO of Jackson Healthcare, which owns America's sole amoxicillin manufacturer, told CNN. Last year, 96 percent of US imports of hydrocortisone (the active ingredient in the anti-itch cream), 90 percent of imports of ibuprofen (found in common over-the-counter pain relievers), and 73 percent of imports of acetaminophen (in other kinds of pain relievers) all came from China, according to CNN calculations based on trade data from the Census Bureau. With the US already facing shortages of many essential medications, experts warn that Beijing could potentially exploit this reliance as leverage in an escalating trade war. Tensions between the two sides have soared since Trump unleashed his trade assault on the world's second-largest economy. While the two countries have announced a temporary truce that rolled back the three-digit tariffs for 90 days, relations remain tense with ongoing feuding over chip restrictions imposed by the US. Leland Miller, a commissioner at the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission, said the 'chokepoints' that China holds over the US pharmaceutical supply are 'detrimental to American security.' 'Simply by having this leverage … whether or not they ever pull the trigger, causes us to change our policy positions on a lot of things, and that's not good,' he said. So far, China has made no official public threat about weaponizing its dominant position in this segment of the pharmaceutical industry. But Trump's tariffs on the sector, if imposed, could worsen existing drug shortages and drive up prices for Americans, undermining his promise to lower health care costs. Generic drugs, which are designed to provide the same therapeutic effects as brand-name ones and are released after their patents expire, account for 90 percent of all prescriptions in the US. India produces many of those generics, often from ingredients imported from China. Even though industry insiders and experts widely acknowledge America's heavy reliance on Chinese pharmaceuticals, there is little comprehensive data on the full extent of this dependence across the sector, as major pharmaceutical firms have little incentive to disclose such information. That's part of the reason why last month, the Trump administration launched a probe into pharmaceuticals imports as part of efforts to impose tariffs on the sector on national security grounds. A 'catastrophic' interruption With China making 80 percent of the world's raw materials for amoxicillin, according to Jackson, it's a clear example of just how vulnerable the world could be to 'Chinese political or economic whims.' 'Any interruption by China along the lengthy amoxicillin supply chain could be catastrophic, particularly in the face of a potential bacterial epidemic,' he said. In 2021, Jackson purchased a bankrupt manufacturing site located in Bristol, Tennessee, and renamed it USAntibiotics. The facility, built in the 1970s, used to produce enough amoxicillin for the whole country at the time. After the amoxicillin patent expired in 2002, the Tennessee facility began to make generic equivalents. At that point, it began facing lower-cost competition from overseas and eventually went bankrupt. Concerns about America's dependence on Chinese pharmaceuticals aren't new. As early as 2019, the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission recommended that Congress assess America's pharmaceutical vulnerabilities. Two years later, when Jackson bought the amoxicillin factory, he cited national security and the need to ensure a steady supply of antibiotics as a major reason for the purchase. China controls 80 percent of the raw materials required for amoxicillin's production. Fred Tanneau/AFP/Getty Images Still, progress in growing America's pharma supply chain has been slow. In late April, Trump said pharmaceutical companies were 'going to have to' produce drugs in the US or face a 'tariff wall.' A key goal behind Trump's threats of pharmaceutical tariffs is to 'onshore' drug production. An American study in 2021 found that the US imports 72 percent of its essential medicines. But experts said tariffs are unlikely to achieve that goal for generics, which have become commodities, with price being the main differentiator. So-called brand-name drugs, by contrast, are protected by patents and therefore command higher prices and bigger profit margins. Instead, tariffs would not only drive up medical costs for patients, but they could also exacerbate ongoing drug shortages by pushing generic drug makers out of the American market. Even if they are willing to build drug-making facilities in the US, the process could take years. Reliance on China China's dominance in the global drug supply chain is part and parcel of its position as the world's factory. Over decades, the pursuit of lower production costs has prompted drug makers to shift production from Western countries to places like China and India. China plays an outsize role in the drug supply chain for its significant production of the critical chemical compounds, called key starting materials or KSM, which are necessary to produce active ingredients, called active pharmaceuticals ingredients or API. China and India dominate the global manufacturing capacity for API. Together, they account for 82 percent of all API manufacturer filings to the US Food and Drug Administration, according to United States Pharmacopeia (USP), a nonprofit that sets official quality standards for medicines. The filings contain detailed information about the facilities and manufacturing processes submitted by API manufacturers. In the two years after 2021, according to the most recent data, India's share of the filings dropped to 50 percent, while China's surged to 32 percent. Chinese manufacturers have also benefited from Beijing's policy incentives and subsidies for the pharmaceutical sector since the early 2000s, which led to industry clusters springing up in the country, said Qingpeng Zhang, an associate professor at the University of Hong Kong's LKS Faculty of Medicine. 'These industry clusters, which help drive down overall costs while maintaining quality … ultimately made China an ideal location for the production of generics and APIs within a free trade environment,' he said. Besides lower costs, the environmental impact of drug production also contributed to China's rise in this sector, as the US and European Union often have stricter environmental regulation, according to Ronald Piervincenzi, CEO of USP. Even India, the world's top supplier of generics, relies on China for APIs and other key ingredients. In fact, 70 percent of India's API imports come from China, according to a 2023 report commissioned by the Indian government. Dinesh Thakur, a public health expert and author of 'The Truth Pill,' a book on Indian drug regulations, said that India's reliance on China for drug materials reflected the 'natural evolution' of the industry. At the time when Indian drug companies moved up the value chain toward higher-margin products like formulations and injectables, China's nascent pharmaceutical sector made inroads with API production at a lower price point, he said. The Indian companies then 'bought the API for a lesser cost from China and focused their money and their capacity in India on building competence for developing more complex finished formulations,' Thakur said. He added that China's well-established chemicals industry, built independently of pharmaceuticals, also gave its manufacturers a head start in producing drug-related chemicals. Major policy push Besides its cost advantage, China's pharmaceutical industry also got a boost from the government. In 2015, Chinese leader Xi Jinping unveiled his signature 'Made in China 2025' industrial strategy, which identified biopharma and advanced medical products as key sectors for development in its broader push to reduce the country's reliance on foreign technology. The Covid-19 pandemic further exposed global dependence on China for pharmaceutical supplies – and served as a reminder to Beijing of the strategic advantage that that dominance provides. In a state-run magazine in 2020, Xi said China must consolidate its leadership in its advantageous industries, and 'tighten global industrial chains' dependence on China to build strong countermeasures and deterrent capabilities against deliberate external supply cutoffs.' In 2015, Chinese leader Xi Jinping unveiled his signature 'Made in China 2025' industrial strategy, which identified biopharma and advanced medical products as key sectors for development in its broader push to reduce the country's reliance on foreign technology. Tingshu Wang/Pool/Getty Images In 2021, during the height of the epidemic, China's National Development and Reform Commission, the state planner, highlighted APIs as a 'key strength in China's pharmaceutical industry's participation in global competition.' Li Daokui, a professor of finance at Tsinghua University in Beijing and a Beijing adviser, even suggested that China, given its strategic position in the production of raw materials for vitamins and antibiotics, could limit drug supplies to the US as 'countermeasures' against American sanctions. 'Not effective' While Trump is not the first US president to push for onshoring drug production, he is the first to attempt it through the threat of sweeping tariffs. Some companies have fallen in line. British firm AstraZeneca, for instance, is shifting production of certain medicines from Europe to the US, following a $3.5 billion investment plan announced late last year. Similarly, companies including Johnson & Johnson and Eli Lilly have pledged to expand their US operations. But these companies primarily focus on patented drugs. Stephen Farrelly, global head of pharma and healthcare at Dutch bank group ING, noted that the US accounted for 44 percent of global pharmaceutical sales in 2023, making it imperative for makers of patented drugs to maintain a presence in the country. The story is different for generics because their margins are often half those of branded ones. 'Given their margin profiles, they can't afford to make long-term investment decisions with so much uncertainty around,' he said. 'If even possible, it would take in excess of five years to begin reshoring.' Tariffs on pharmaceuticals would eventually fall on patients, experts say, widening health disparities in an already strained health care system. Because generics are as much as 85 percent cheaper than branded drugs, low-income patients and those without health insurance rely on them disproportionately. An April study commissioned by the main American pharmaceutical lobby group, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, revealed that a 25 percent tariff will increase costs of imported pharmaceuticals by $50.8 billion annually, causing prices to rise by 12.9 percent if passed to consumers. ING also found that a 25 percent tariff on a common generic cancer medication could raise its price by up to $10,000 for a 24-week prescription. Rather than achieving the intended goal of onshoring production, experts said the tariffs could risk pushing generics manufacturers to abandon the US market altogether. Piervincenzi warned that even modest tariffs could disrupt the supply of generics. 'There's very little profit there and any tariff would just result in [generic drug makers] being underwater and just exiting,' he said. Incentives other than tariffs are necessary to create a resilient drug supply chain, Piervincenzi said. And unlike with other industries, drug supply disruption or shortages could have life-threatening consequences. 'Each of these drugs, people's lives depend on them, and a single drug goes into shortage and a child can't get their cancer therapy, and it becomes a disaster, which you don't see if your favorite brand of ketchup's out of stock,' he said. 'You may be annoyed, but your life is not in danger.'


See - Sada Elbalad
11 hours ago
- See - Sada Elbalad
White House: Trump will participate in the upcoming NATO summit in the Netherlands
Basant Ahmed The White House announced on Tuesday that US President Donald Trump will participate in the upcoming NATO summit in the Netherlands. The White House said in a statement that "Trump had no prior knowledge of the Ukrainian attack on Russian sites," adding that Trump has made significant efforts to stop it. The statement added that the White House is aware of reports of Israeli forces firing on aid seekers in Gaza, noting that Washington will investigate the matter. Regarding the Iranian issue, the White House revealed that a good proposal has been presented to Iran, and President Trump hopes they will accept it, otherwise "there will be consequences." read more Gold prices rise, 21 Karat at EGP 3685 NATO's Role in Israeli-Palestinian Conflict US Expresses 'Strong Opposition' to New Turkish Military Operation in Syria Shoukry Meets Director-General of FAO Lavrov: confrontation bet. nuclear powers must be avoided News Iran Summons French Ambassador over Foreign Minister Remarks News Aboul Gheit Condemns Israeli Escalation in West Bank News Greek PM: Athens Plays Key Role in Improving Energy Security in Region News One Person Injured in Explosion at Ukrainian Embassy in Madrid News China Launches Largest Ever Aircraft Carrier News Australia Fines Telegram $600,000 Over Terrorism, Child Abuse Content Sports Former Al Zamalek Player Ibrahim Shika Passes away after Long Battle with Cancer Sports Neymar Announced for Brazil's Preliminary List for 2026 FIFA World Cup Qualifiers News Prime Minister Moustafa Madbouly Inaugurates Two Indian Companies Arts & Culture New Archaeological Discovery from 26th Dynasty Uncovered in Karnak Temple Business Fear & Greed Index Plummets to Lowest Level Ever Recorded amid Global Trade War Arts & Culture Zahi Hawass: Claims of Columns Beneath the Pyramid of Khafre Are Lies News Flights suspended at Port Sudan Airport after Drone Attacks News Shell Unveils Cost-Cutting, LNG Growth Plan