Modi Launches $5.4 Billion Rail Project in Jammu and Kashmir
Follow Bloomberg India on WhatsApp for exclusive content and analysis on what billionaires, businesses and markets are doing. Sign up here.
India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi inaugurated the world's tallest railway bridge connecting the restive Kashmir valley with the rest of the country on Friday, marking his first visit to the region after days of missile and drone attacks with Pakistan brought the two nuclear-powered nations close to a war.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
31 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Supreme Court lets DOGE access Social Security data of millions of Americans
A divided Supreme Court on Friday sided with the Trump administration for now in a pair of cases involving the U.S. DOGE Service, whose efforts to slash government agencies and obtain data about Americans have been mostly shrouded from public view. The justices cleared the way in the first case for DOGE representatives to access sensitive data and internal systems at the Social Security Administration while litigation on the matter continues.
Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
Any Chance Of A ‘Big Beautiful Reconciliation' Between Trump And Musk?
Elon Musk and President Donald Trump at happier times. (Photo by) Supporters of President Donald Trump have been vocal on social media, pleading for the former real estate developer-turned-reality TV star-turned-politician to reconcile with tech entrepreneur Elon Musk, following their very public and not-so-amicable breakup earlier this week. However, no calls are pending between the two billionaires, who instead have taken to their respective social media platforms to criticize one another. Although both had stepped back from hastily posted and very publicly made comments on Friday, it doesn't seem like a make-up is imminent. Instead, the ongoing feud is reminiscent of the very high-profile spat between newspaper moguls Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The difference is that, unlike Pulitzer and Hearst, who were never friends, Musk was seen as one of Trump's closest allies, and his influence almost certainly contributed to Trump's return to the White House. It may also be harder for them to find common ground again. This is because each is known to be quick to post whatever they feel at the moment, and they own platforms that have millions of followers. In this way, it is almost a real-time smackdown, more commonly seen in the world of hip-hop, pop music, or reality TV, where celebrities are supported by de facto "teams" in their respective corners. "To some extent, this social media fight doesn't have many recent precedents," said Dr. Cliff Lampe, professor of information and associate dean for academic affairs in the School of Information at the University of Michigan. "Online feuds are very common, but to have two platform owners each with their own dedicated group of followers and a history of aggressive posting is breaking some type of new ground," Lampe added. "There are some historical comparisons, but not really anything in living memory." In the short term, the winners are those who aren't supporters of either Musk or Trump. Critics of the president have argued this moment has been a long time in coming. How could two individuals with such strong opinions, and large egos, not eventually have a differing opinion? The fact that they control social media platforms ensured that even a minor disagreement could snowball into something far larger. "When you have two ego-maniacal oligarchs who are unaccustomed to being told no having an online slap fight, it's entertaining until you remind yourself that one is the president of the United States, and the other a scion of exploding rockets," suggested Susan Campbell, distinguished lecturer in the Communication, Film and Media Studies Department in the College of Arts and Science at the University of New Haven. "Both men are adept at grabbing attention and leveraging social media, which certainly amplifies this feud, in addition to cable and traditional media," added technology industry analyst Susan Schreiner of C4 Trends. "Adding their extreme narcissism and egos to this very public breakup, along with their threats and allegations, makes this feud begin to resemble a script for a blockbuster thriller-drama, with Trump and Musk competing for ratings." It would also be easy to view this as entertainment, which, based on social media responses, many already do. But this isn't a throwdown between rappers, and it mostly certainly isn't a reality TV show, even if it almost feels like one. "The only response to that is sadness," Campbell acknowledged. "These two are going at it as two fake wrestlers go at each other with folding chairs. It's entertaining — somewhat — but entirely embarrassing for them. I have yet to see a reconciliation accomplished on social media, so this could take a while." Regardless of how it shapes out, everyone is a loser. Trump may weather the storm better than Musk, as the MAGA crowd stood behind the president before the tech billionaire walked into the spotlight. Still, Musk continues to operate the platform on which many of the Trump faithful now communicate. Musk reinstated Trump and others after purchasing Twitter and rebranding it X, so he could just as easily pull the plug again if the situation worsens. Yet, in the short term, it may be impossible to declare a winner. "When we look at lower-stakes feuds on social media, the 'winner' is usually someone who damages the reputation of the other person, or makes them look foolish," said Lampe. "My sense is that both of these men will damage each other and both lose in the process, but both will claim they won the battle." That will only further complicate the process of getting this band back together. "It's possible they reconcile, but some of the more bombastic statements in the last day make that seem less likely," Lampe continued. Both President Trump and Mr. Musk are hyper-aware of appearances, and Lampe suggested that this is a big part of what makes them such effective aggressors in online spaces. "Given the damage already done, and the amplifying effects of both traditional and mainstream media, it's likely to reconcile, though it may cool to a place where each men ignore the other," he added. "However, social media will keep churning the posts and the clips, and traditional media will keep mentioning the men in relation to each other, so I'm not sure they can ever be effectively separated." A long-term feud will certainly help neither man. Trump already faces intense criticism from his critics, and Musk would only serve to amplify any criticism. Likewise, Musk is still the owner of companies with U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) contracts. "There's a significant interdependency between SpaceX and the US government," said Schreiner. "Consider the threat Musk made about decommissioning SpaceX's Dragon on Thursday, which he later retracted in the evening." Likewise, the Musk-owned Tesla took a beating earlier this year. The brand became a polarizing symbol and was targeted by the left. It didn't gain a lot of traction with the right, but it won't win back the other side at this point. Thus, it may be in Musk's interest to mend fences. "For the sake of his image, brand, and the value of his businesses, circumstances and crisis management may compel Musk to admit or finesse that the 'break-it' philosophy backfired in Washington," added Schreiner, "And that it's a different culture than Silicon Valley." Pulitzer and Hearst never had to admit they were wrong. For them, it was about selling newspapers. For Trump and Musk, the stakes are different, and an ongoing feud may ensures neither gains anything.
CBS News
an hour ago
- CBS News
Supreme Court halts lower court order requiring DOGE to hand over information about work and personnel
Elon Musk on DOGE and his work in and out of government Elon Musk on DOGE and his work in and out of government Elon Musk on DOGE and his work in and out of government Washington — The Supreme Court on Friday halted a lower court order that required the White House's Department of Government Efficiency to turn over information to a government watchdog group as part of a lawsuit that tests whether President Trump's cost-cutting task force has to comply with federal public records law. The order from the high court clears DOGE for now from having to turn over records related to its work and personnel, and keeps its acting administrator, Amy Gleason, from having to answer questions at a deposition. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented. "The portions of the district court's April 15 discovery order that require the government to disclose the content of intra–executive branch USDS recommendations and whether those recommendations were followed are not appropriately tailored," the court said in its order. "Any inquiry into whether an entity is an agency for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act cannot turn on the entity's ability to persuade. Furthermore, separation of powers concerns counsel judicial deference and restraint in the context of discovery regarding internal executive branch communications." Chief Justice John Roberts temporarily paused the district court's order last month, which allowed the Supreme Court more time to consider the Trump administration's bid for emergency relief. A district judge had ordered DOGE to turn over documents to the group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, by June 3, and for Gleason's deposition to be completed by June 13. The underlying issue in the case involves whether DOGE is subject to the Freedom of Information Act. CREW argues that the cost-cutting task force wields "substantial independent authority," which makes it a de facto agency that must comply with federal public records law. The Justice Department, however, disagrees and instead claims that DOGE is a presidential advisory body housed within the Executive Office of the President that makes recommendations to the president and federal agencies on matters that are important to Mr. Trump's second-term agenda. DOGE's agency status was not before the Supreme Court, though the high court may be asked to settle that matter in the future. Instead, the Trump administration had asked the justices to temporarily halt a district court's order that allowed CREW to gather certain information from DOGE as part of its effort to determine whether the task force is an advisory panel that is outside FOIA's scope or is an agency that is subject to the records law. The judge overseeing the dispute, U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper, had ordered DOGE to turn over certain documents to the watchdog group by June 3 and to complete all depositions, including of Gleason, by June 13. President Trump ordered the creation of DOGE on his first day back in the White House as part of his initiative to slash the size of the federal government. Since then, DOGE team members have fanned out to agencies across the executive branch and have been part of efforts to shrink the federal workforce and shutter entities like the U.S. Agency for International Development and the U.S. Institute of Peace. DOGE has also attempted to gain access to sensitive databases kept by the Internal Revenue Service, Social Security Administration and Office of Personnel Management, prompting legal battles. In an effort to learn more about DOGE's structure and operations, CREW submitted an expedited FOIA request to the task force. After it did not respond in a timely manner, CREW filed a lawsuit and sought a preliminary injunction to expedite processing of its records request. The organization argued that DOGE was exercising significant independent authority, which made it an agency subject to FOIA. Cooper granted CREW's request for a preliminary injunction in March and agreed that FOIA likely applies to DOGE because it is "likely exercising substantial independent authority much greater than other [Executive Office of the President] components held to be covered by FOIA." He then allowed CREW to conduct limited information-gathering, which the watchdog group said aimed to determine whether DOGE is exercising substantial authority that would bring it within FOIA's reach. A federal appeals court ultimately declined to pause that order, requiring DOGE to turn over the documents sought by CREW. In seeking the Supreme Court's intervention, Solicitor General D. John Sauer said CREW is conducting a "fishing expedition" into DOGE's activities. He warned that if Cooper's order remains in place, several components of the White House, such as the offices of the chief of staff and national security adviser, would be subject to FOIA. "That untenable result would compromise the provision of candid, confidential advice to the president and disrupt the inner workings of the Executive Branch," Sauer wrote. "Yet, in the decisions below, the court of appeals and district court treated a presidential advisory body as a potential 'agency' based on the persuasive force of its recommendations — threatening opening season for FOIA requests on the president's advisors." But lawyers for CREW told the Supreme Court in a filing that the Justice Department's position "would require courts to blindly yield to the Executive's characterization" of the authority and operations of a component of the Executive Office of the President. They said adopting the Trump administration's approach to DOGE would give the president "free reign" to create new entities within the Executive Office of the President that exercise substantial independent authority but are shielded from transparency laws. "Courts would be forced to blindly accept the government's representations about an EOP unit's realworld operations, unable to test those representations through even limited discovery," CREW's lawyers wrote. "It is that extreme position, not the discovery order, that would 'turn[] FOIA on its head.'"
