EU to provide emergency funds to help keep Radio Free Europe afloat
BRUSSELS — The European Union agreed Tuesday to provide emergency funds to help keep Radio Free Europe afloat after the Trump administration stopped grants to the pro-democracy media outlet, accusing it of promoting a news agenda with a liberal bias.
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty started broadcasting during the Cold War. Its programs are aired in 27 languages in 23 countries across Eastern Europe, Central Asia and the Middle East. Its lawyers have been fighting the administration in court.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
an hour ago
- Washington Post
EPA says power plant carbon emissions aren't dangerous. We asked 30 scientists: Here's what they say
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration's Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday proposed a new ruling that heat-trapping carbon gas 'emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants do not contribute significantly to dangerous air pollution.'' The Associated Press asked 30 different scientists, experts in climate, health and economics, about the scientific reality behind this proposal. Nineteen of them responded, all saying that the proposal was scientifically wrong and many of them called it disinformation. Here's what eight of them said.
CBS News
an hour ago
- CBS News
Entire Fulbright scholarship board quits, accusing Trump administration of meddling
All 12 members of the board overseeing the prestigious Fulbright scholarships resigned Wednesday, protesting the Trump administration's alleged meddling with the selection of award recipients for the international exchange program. A statement published by the board members said the administration usurped their authority by denying awards to "a substantial number of people" who had already been chosen to study and teach in the U.S. and abroad. Another 1,200 foreign award recipients who were already approved to come to the U.S. are undergoing an unauthorized review process that could lead to their rejection, the board members said. "To continue to serve after the Administration has consistently ignored the Board's request that they follow the law would risk legitimizing actions we believe are unlawful and damage the integrity of this storied program and America's credibility abroad," the statement reads. Congress established the Fulbright program nearly 80 years ago to promote international exchange and American diplomacy. The highly selective program awards about 9,000 scholarships annually in the U.S. and in more than 160 other countries to students, scholars and professionals in a range of fields. Fulbright scholars include recent U.S. college graduates who pursue further study or teach English overseas, American professors who spend a year at a university in another country and international scholars who come to the U.S. to study or work at universities here. Alumni have gone on to serve as heads of state and have received Nobel and Pulitzer prizes. Award recipients are selected in a yearlong process by nonpartisan staff at the State Department and other countries' embassies. The board — whose members are selected by the president — has had final approval. The recipients who had their awards canceled are in fields including biology, engineering, agriculture, music, medical sciences, and history, the board members said. All the board members who resigned were selected under former President Joe Biden. The State Department, which runs the scholarship program, said they were partisan political appointees. "It's ridiculous to believe that these members would continue to have final say over the application process, especially when it comes to determining academic suitability and alignment with President Trump's Executive Orders. The claim that the Fulbright Hayes Act affords exclusive and final say over Fulbright Applications to the Fulbright board is false. This is nothing but a political stunt attempting to undermine President Trump," the department told the Associated Press. The resignations were first reported by The New York Times. The intervention from the Trump administration undermines the program's merit-based selection process and its insulation from political influence, the board members wrote. "We believe these actions not only contradict the statute but are antithetical to the Fulbright mission and the values, including free speech and academic freedom, that Congress specified in the statute," the statement said. "It is our sincere hope that Congress, the courts, and future Fulbright Boards will prevent the administration's efforts to degrade, dismantle, or even eliminate one of our nation's most respected and valuable programs." The Trump administration has imposed new restrictions on international students in recent weeks. The State Department halted all new student visa interviews late last month, in preparation for "expanded social media vetting." Mr. Trump has also tried to block virtually all international students from traveling to the U.S. to attend Harvard University amid a feud with the Ivy League school, leading a federal judge to issue a restraining order. And anybody who wants to travel to Harvard from abroad — including students, faculty, guest speakers and tourists — is subject to "additional vetting," according to a State Department email obtained by CBS News. International students who have already been granted visas could also face extra scrutiny. The administration says it will "aggressively revoke" the visas of some Chinese students, and authorities have sought to rescind thousands of other students' legal status, though a judge blocked that practice.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Why Donald Trump and Josh Hawley Are Wrong To Call for Jailing People Who Burn the American Flag
One of the more relevant maxims today, particularly in the age of social media, is the fact that saying the same thing over and over again does not make it a reality. There are many people—across the political spectrum—who should internalize this. President Donald Trump is one of them. While speaking at Fort Bragg on Tuesday, he re-upped an idea he has floated many times: "People that burn the American flag should go to jail for one year," he told a crowd of U.S. service members in a now-viral clip. "And we'll see if we can get that done." They cannot, in fact, get that done. Trump is, of course, entitled to oppose flag burning on moral grounds. Many understandably find the act tasteless and offensive, as is their right. His administration will not be able, however, to address that using the blunt force of the law, as the highest law of the land already protects it as a form of free expression. This isn't new. "If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment," wrote U.S. Supreme Court Justice William Brennan in 1989, "it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable." That came from his opinion in Texas v. Johnson, in which the Court said it was unconstitutional when Texas used a law criminalizing flag desecration to prosecute Gregory Lee Johnson, who had burned an American flag to protest President Ronald Reagan during the Republican National Convention. Johnson was sentenced to one year in jail. Sound familiar? Some lawmakers weren't happy with the Court's decision, so Congress passed the Flag Protection Act of 1989. The law prescribed up to one year of incarceration for anyone who "knowingly mutilates, defaces, physically defiles, burns, maintains on the floor or ground, or tramples upon" any American flag. In trying to dance around the Court's recent ruling, legislators got creative and shifted the focus of the law to preserving its literal physical integrity, which they hoped would be seen as content neutral. They were unsuccessful. "Punishing desecration of the flag dilutes the very freedom that makes this emblem so revered, and worth revering," wrote Brennan the next year in United States v. Eichman. The Court ruled the law unconstitutional. But what about recent high-profile prosecutions against people who burned the pride flag? There is a reason those cases were allowed to proceed under the Constitution: They concerned defendants who burned flags they stole. Law enforcement should not pursue hate crime enhancements for such offenses—or for any offenses, as prosecutors should be in the business of punishing bad acts, not bad thoughts. But there is a difference under the law between burning a flag you own, and stealing someone's property so you can then destroy it. You have a right to burn any type of flag you want, so long as it belongs to you, whether that be a pride flag, a pirate flag, a Pizza Hut flag, a "NO STEP ON SNEK" flag, an unofficial Antarctica flag (which appropriately looks a bit like a mistake), and an American flag. The list goes on. The debate here is increasingly fraught in a political climate that has a large appetite for red meat. "I'm with Trump on this one," said Sen. Josh Hawley (R–Mo.), an attorney, on X. "Anyone who burns our flag committing a crime should go to jail—double the sentence. Evidently all of Fort Bragg agrees." His phrasing is clever. Someone who "burns our flag committing a crime" will already be subject to arrest, prosecution, and jail for the crime they committed, because crimes are already illegal. That includes, for example, stealing and destroying an American flag—or any property—that doesn't belong to you. And, as Hawley certainly knows, if he is "with Trump on this one," then he is on board with prosecuting the expressive act itself, as the president has made clear over and over again. The latter idea is what some U.S. troops were heard cheering during Trump's speech. Their service in defense of freedom is admirable. But it's worth noting that they take oaths to the Constitution, not to the political moment. As Brennan reminded us decades ago, that document also protects the freedoms of people whose expression you may completely despise; any effort to uphold it has to include your ideological opposites, or it doesn't mean a lot. Perhaps ironically, nothing is more emblematic of that ideal than the American flag itself—and your right to do with it what you wish. The post Why Donald Trump and Josh Hawley Are Wrong To Call for Jailing People Who Burn the American Flag appeared first on
