Graham Expects Russia Sanctions Bill to ‘Start Moving' Next Week
South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham said the Senate is likely to 'start moving' on new punishing sanctions against Russia next week because of the lack of progress toward a ceasefire in Ukraine.
'Enough of talking, it's time to act,' Graham, the sponsor of the sanctions bill and one of President Donald Trump's biggest supporters in the upper chamber, told reporters during a visit in Kyiv on Friday. 'I would expect next week that the Senate will start moving the sanctions bill.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
8 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
South Korea's Exports Drop on Tariff Threats and Political Risks
South Korea's exports contracted in May, underscoring growing challenges for the trade-reliant economy as global demand weakens and uncertainties deepen over Donald Trump's sweeping tariff push. The values of exports fell 1.3% from a year earlier, according to data released Sunday by the customs office. That compared with a decline of 2.4% estimated by economists in a Bloomberg survey.
Forbes
12 minutes ago
- Forbes
Raising Capital, Raising Defenses: Turning Endowments Into Legal Lifelines
TOPSHOT - People hold up signs during the Harvard Students for Freedom rally in support of ... More international students at the Harvard University campus in Boston, Massachusetts, on May 27, 2025. Harvard students protested Tuesday after the US government said it intends to cancel all remaining financial contracts with the university, President Donald Trump's latest attempt to force the prestigious institution to submit to unprecedented oversight. (Photo by Rick Friedman / AFP) (Photo by RICK FRIEDMAN/AFP via Getty Images) Capital campaigns have long been used by universities to fund new buildings, research centers and endowed faculty positions. But as campuses become frequent targets of political and legal challenges, institutions may need to expand the purpose of these campaigns. Increasingly, capital campaigns are being used not only to build infrastructure, but also to defend it in court. Universities are navigating policy battles that stretch from federal funding threats to litigation over diversity programs, student protest rights and academic freedom. As legal costs grow and federal support becomes less predictable, capital campaigns offer an alternative stream of funding for long-term legal resilience. Capital Campaigns Are Evolving The traditional capital campaign is a multi-year fundraising effort aimed at major institutional investments. Notable examples include the University of Chicago, which raised $5.43 billion during its 'Inquiry and Impact' campaign, and Harvard University, whose record-setting campaign brought in $9.6 billion, The Harvard Crimson reported. While most campaigns historically focused on physical infrastructure, many now include less visible priorities: legal clinics, policy centers, and public interest litigation units. At the University of Virginia School of Law, a recent capital campaign met its $400 million goal early, highlighting growing donor support for initiatives that blend legal education with public impact work. Similarly, Villanova University's $1.25 billion campaign supports not only new facilities but also mission-driven academic programming. Legal Landscape Legal challenges faced by universities have threatened protections for undocumented students and investigated race-conscious admissions, including a high-profile case involving Harvard College's admissions policies, Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. (SFFA) v. President & Fellows of Harvard College (Harvard) and SFFA v. University of North Carolina (UNC), Nos. 20-1199 & 21-707. The U.S. Supreme Court held that Harvard and UNC's admissions programs, which account for race at various stages in the process, violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, striking down affirmative action in higher education. In another legal battle, a coalition of universities challenged efforts to terminate the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. That case, Dep't of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 591 U.S. ___ (2020),which reached the Supreme Court in 2020, resulted in a ruling that preserved the program for hundreds of thousands of lawsuits may represent a broader pattern of legal exposure for universities on issues ranging from state restrictions on curricula to challenges against student protest rights. Building internal capacity to respond to these challenges may further emerge as a core strategic priority. Funding Litigation Through Philanthropy Legal advocacy is expensive. A single federal lawsuit can require years of staff time, expert witnesses, and appellate litigation. When public funding is reduced or tied to ideological compliance, private fundraising becomes essential. Donors already support legal centers focused on civil rights, government accountability and higher education access. At the University of Chicago, a $100 million anonymous donation in 2024 funded the Forum for Free Inquiry and Expression to protect open discourse on campus. Northwestern University's Community Justice and Civil Rights Clinic supports students working on over-policing and mass incarceration cases. Morgan State University received a $3 million gift from Kirkland & Ellis for its Robert M. Bell Center to fund racial justice fellowships and civil rights education. Universities may be further compelled to frame legal capacity-building as part of their capital campaign messaging, reflecting a broader concern for institutional autonomy. Foundations and individuals that once focused solely on infrastructure or scholarship are now looking to sustain the principles that make education possible: academic freedom, equal access, and legal independence. Looking Ahead Legal pressure on higher education institutions continues to escalate under the Trump administration's aggressive posture. Harvard University, in particular, has become a national focal point. The Department of Homeland Security recently revoked Harvard's certification to enroll international students, citing the school's refusal to turn over protest-related records. That move affects approximately 7,000 students. The university has filed suit, and a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order allowing continued enrollment during litigation, Reuters reported. In parallel, the Trump administration has reportedly frozen more than $2 billion in research grants to elite universities, including Harvard, citing alleged violations of federal directives related to antisemitism and national security, NPR reported. The federal government is also testing new visa protocols. Under a pilot program, the State Department is now reviewing the social media history of student visa applicants affiliated with certain universities to assess for 'antisemitic or extremist content,' the Associated Press reported. This evolving climate presents operational, reputational, and financial risks for higher education. In response, some universities are starting to build legal infrastructure into their capital campaigns, not just to fund scholarships and faculty chairs, but to support general counsel offices, legal centers, and rapid-response litigation teams that can defend academic freedom and student rights. These legal investments may prove just as essential as endowment growth in this era of political volatility. Universities that build legal infrastructure into capital campaigns can ensure they have both the resources and the strategic clarity to defend their operations, values, and students. As litigation becomes a persistent cost of operating in politically divided environments, legal capacity must be part of the fundraising conversation. Universities that succeed in the coming years will be those that recognize a building is only as secure as the law that protects it—and that constitutional integrity is a capital asset worth funding.
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Massie labels House-passed Trump policy bill a ‘debt bomb ticking'
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) labeled the sweeping tax and spending bill a 'debt bomb ticking' on Thursday ahead of the House vote passing the legislation following an all-night marathon session. The bill includes language increasing the debt limit by $4 trillion. It would also extend President Trump's tax cuts from 2017, add other tax provisions and slash Medicaid funding. It now goes to the Senate. 'I'd love to stand here and tell the American people, we can cut your taxes and we can increase spending and everything's going to be just fine. But I can't do that because I'm here to deliver a dose of reality,' Massie, one of two Republicans to vote against the bill, said on the House floor. 'This bill dramatically increases deficits in the near term but promises our government will be fiscally responsible five years from now,' he added. 'Where have we heard that before? How do you bind a future Congress to these promises? This bill is a debt bomb ticking,' he continued. The lawmaker said Thursday's House-approved bill would force the government to pay $16,000 of interest per U.S. family. He estimated that under the bill's taxing and spending levels, the national debt could swell by up to $30 trillion over the next decade. 'We're not rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic tonight. We're putting coal in the boiler and setting a course for the iceberg,' Massie said. 'If something is beautiful, you don't do it after midnight,' he said before yielding. Prior to the vote, Massie voiced his concerns on Wednesday, causing the president to lash out against the Kentucky representative, labeling him a 'grandstander.' 'I don't think Thomas Massie understands government. I think he's a grandstander, frankly' Trump said at the Capitol when asked about Massie's concerns the president's legislative agenda will add to the deficit. He later added the lawmaker should be voted out of office. Massie said the president's criticism would not affect his position on the bill. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
