Donald Trump surprises Florida diver by granting full presidential pardon, ‘That was really cool'
They had called authorities before acting, but didn't realise the line belonged to a NOAA-approved research project. Days later, they were charged with theft in a maritime zone.
Though they didn't face jail, they had to pay a fine of $3,343.72 and lost rights like voting and travelling. On May 28, Donald Trump pardoned Mansell and his partner, clearing their record.
Mansell later said he believed he was stopping a crime, not committing one. He was shocked by the punishment. Mansell had spent years working in those waters without issues.
His story drew public sympathy, and the pardon came as an unexpected relief.
"The judge made a comment, and he commended us for our dedication to (the) environment. He gave out what my lawyer said was probably the lowest sentence ever," Fox News quoted Mansell as saying.
Mansell said he would have acted differently if he had known about permits for legal shark killings. At the time, he believed he was doing the right thing and had no idea he was breaking the law.
Mansell was surprised to receive a pardon as even his lawyers hadn't expected it. The turning point came when a judge from the U.S. Court of Appeals said the case should never have continued, noting that Mansell had openly informed authorities about his actions.
This comment gained public attention and reached the Cato Institute, which published an article. That article caught the interest of the White House, which then contacted his lawyers.
"That was really cool because our lawyer called us that the White House had it in front of them and were looking into it," he said.
Later, Mansell was informed on a flight that he had received a full presidential pardon. He was left completely speechless and deeply emotional. He said it was a moment he would never forget, especially after going through such a long legal battle.
'I was speechless. I couldn't even say thank you. I just soaked it in," he said.
"I'm just so grateful. I have said thank you every step of the way. Words can't explain it," he said. "I know that the White House took a look at this and they decided it was worth it. And, I got President Trump's signature," Mansell added.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India Today
an hour ago
- India Today
As Asim Munir dares, how real is Pakistan's nuclear war threat?
(NOTE: This article was originally published in the India Today issue dated June 2, 2025)No battle plan ever survives the first bullet fired in a war. That old military adage held true for the sixth war between India and Pakistan, which ended abruptly in a ceasefire on May 10, four days after it had begun. India planned to deliver a strong punitive deterrent to Pakistan's aiding and abetting terror strikes on our soil, including the attack in Pahalgam this April. It achieved that goal in its very first strike, in the early hours of May 7, when its armed forces launched precision attacks across the international border and the Line of Control, targeting the headquarters and training camps of key Pakistan-backed terror groups. Having deliberately avoided hitting military installations, India informed Pakistan that it had no interest in escalating hostilities further and only if Islamabad retaliated would it though, was in no mood to take India's blows lying down. Over the next three days, fighting intensified, with both sides chiefly deploying their air assets, including high-speed missiles as well as loitering, kamikaze drones to target each other's air bases and military installations. India claimed its superior firepower helped it get the upper hand in these exchanges, forcing Pakistan to call a truce. What it did not anticipate, though, was US president Donald Trump stealing its thunder and claiming victory for stopping the war. In a post on his social media account, Trump declared it was the US that helped mediate a ceasefire, announcing it even before the combatants could do so themselves. Two days later, at a White House briefing, Trump embarrassed India further, claiming, 'We stopped a nuclear conflict. I think it could have been a bad nuclear war. Millions of people could have been killed.'Trump stuck to that line even after Prime Minister Narendra Modi, in his address to the nation on May 12, asserted that Operation Sindoor had proved that 'India would not be deterred by nuclear blackmail' and foreign secretary Vikram Misri denied any 'nuclear signalling' during the war. In an interview to Fox News on May 16, Trump said, 'These are major nuclear playersand they were angry. And the next phase was probably—did you see where it was getting? It was tit for tat. It was getting deeper and more missiles, that got stronger and stronger. To a point where the next one's going to be, you know what? The N word. The N word used in a nuclear sense—that's the worst thing that can happen. And I think they were very close. The hatred was great.' With all three nations involved—India, Pakistan and the US—presenting differing versions of what really happened in the final hours of the war, one question still hangs in the air: how real was and is the threat of a nuclear war? (Graphic by Tanmoy Chakraborty) THE NUCLEAR EQUATIONNot for nothing did Bill Clinton, as US president, describe the subcontinent as the most dangerous place in the world. Both India and Pakistan had conducted nuclear tests in the summer of 1998, when Clinton was in office, overtly demonstrating their recessed prowess. By then, they already had over 50 nuclear weapons each, a number that has trebled since. Both have perfected accurate supersonic ballistic missiles to deliver these weapons, with India relying on the Agni series and Pakistan on the Ghauri and its variants. Apart from air force jets, India has completed the triad of delivery systems for nuclear weapons by equipping two of its nuclear submarines with a sea variant of the strategic terms of doctrine, India believes in no-first use of its nuclear weapons. But if Pakistan does use a nuclear missile against it, it will retaliate massively and destroy all its major cities. Pakistan, on the other hand, believes in using its nukes first if its territorial integrity or economy is under threat; it will apply the full spectrum of nuclear weapons in its possession in that eventuality. If either launches a nuclear weapon like the 15-kiloton bomb in Hiroshima on Mumbai or Karachi, the death toll, experts say, could exceed a million, while large parts of these cities will be rendered unfit for human habitation for decades because of the impact of the Tellis, author of several seminal books on South Asia's nuclear conundrum, believes Pakistan has overtaken India and possesses the largest and most diversified nuclear arsenal in the region. This is because, he says, 'Pakistan is increasingly driven less by what India is actually doing and more by its fervid imaginings of India's capabilities coupled with an expansive—and expanding—notion of what its nuclear requirements entail.' In the past decade, Pakistan has added tactical nuclear weapons and missiles suited for battlefield scenarios to thwart an unexpected land invasion by India. It has thus introduced a hair-trigger complexity, as the command and control of tactical weapons have to be decentralised to the brigade level for effective use during crisis, leaving the so-called nuclear button in the hands of relative to expectations that the possession of such dangerous weapons would reduce the risk of a confrontation for fear of mutually assured destruction, the two nations have found themselves on the brink of a nuclear conflagration on three major occasions. The first was in 1999, a year after their respective nuclear tests, when the two countries fought a bitter border war in the icy heights of Kargil under the shadow of a nuclear umbrella. When both sides brandished their nukes, Clinton was forced to step in and tell Pakistan to withdraw its intrusion and restore status quo. The US had to intervene again after the 2001 terror attack on India's Parliament to prevent an all-out war between the two countries by forcing Pakistan to take strict action against third nuclear confrontation took place as recently as February 2019, following the Pulwama terror attack that killed 40 paramilitary personnel, prompting India to send fighter jets to strike terrorist camps in Balakot, deep within Pakistani territory. However, when an Indian pilot was captured in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir after his fighter jet was shot down and he bailed out, the crisis, according to then US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, came close 'to spilling over into a nuclear conflagration'. Pakistan accused India of moving its nuclear-armed submarine close to its shores and gave orders to keep its nukes in readiness. It took Pompeo and then US national security advisor John Bolton much jaw-jawing with leaders of the two sides to defuse the situation, with the pilot set free and both India and Pakistan claiming victory. DANGEROUS BRINKMANSHIPDespite the sixth war between India and Pakistan lasting just four days compared to the two-month-long 1999 Kargil war, Lisa Curtis, director, Indo Pacific Security Program, Center for a New American Security, in Washington DC, believes it was the most serious Indo-Pak conflict since the 1971 Bangladesh war. Her reason: 'The scope and breadth of the territory involved in this war was vast compared to the limited border strikes in the 1999 Kargil war. I have been following India-Pakistan now for 30 years and the sight of two nuclear-armed states barraging each other with missiles and drone strikes over a four-day period, striking military installations deep inside each other's territory, was both shocking and alarming.'From US vice-president J.D. Vance telling Fox News on May 8 that this conflict was none of America's business to calling up PM Modi 12 hours later, asking India to de-escalate, is how rapidly the situation had escalated. According to American media reports, Vance had conveyed to Modi on May 9 that, as per US assessment, there was a high probability of Pakistan dramatically escalating violence, and pressed the Indian premier for a potential off-ramp to stop hostilities that would also be acceptable to the Pakistanis. But while the reports said Modi was non-committal, sources in India's external affairs ministry reveal that the Indian prime minister told Vance, 'If the Pakistanis do anything, please be assured that they will get a response more forceful, stronger and more devastating than anything they did. Pakistan needs to understand this.'Modi's warning went unheeded by Pakistan. That evening, around 8.30, its armed forces launched Operation Bunyan Marsoos (literally, a wall of lead, but a phrase that symbolises unity, strength and discipline), unleashing a wave of retaliatory strikes using drones, heavy artillery and missiles on 26 sensitive Indian locations, including air bases and military installations. It even launched a Fatah-II missile, a supersonic guided artillery rocket system with 400-km range, to strike the Delhi airport, but India's missile defence system intercepted it near Sirsa. India claims to have neutralised most incoming Pakistani munitions with minimal struck back ferociously in the early hours of May 10 around 1.10 am, using among other missiles the BrahMos, its hypersonic cruise missile. It targeted eight air bases, including the one at Nur Khan in Chaklala between Rawalpindi, the general headquarters of the Pakistan army, and capital Islamabad. India's armed forces released photographs, showing the damage to vital infrastructure there. The Nur Khan base is also close to Pakistan's nuclear command and control headquarters. Pakistan prime minister Shehbaz Sharif later revealed that army chief General Asim Munir had called him up at 2.30 am and informed him of the attack on the air bases, including the one close to the capital. Meanwhile, sources disclose that the Indian navy, too, had by then positioned its strike fleet close to Karachi and had been alerted that orders to begin a blockade of Pakistan's ports were imminent. THE TIPPING POINTExperts in the know say that on May 10 between 2.30 am and 10.30 am—for eight hours, that is—the fate of the subcontinent hung in the balance. Brig. Feroz Hassan Khan (retd), a research professor at the US Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, who had earlier served in Pakistan's Strategic Plans Division, says, 'The fact that Nur Khan was hit [near] the capital city would create more political pressure. Both India and Pakistan had climbed the rungs of the military escalation ladder so fast, it was evident that in the next 24-48 hours, the tipping point would have been reached for an all-out war.' That India had hit at strategic air bases such as Nur Khan, and Mushaf at Sargodha, meant that red lines were about to be crossed. 'Had India inadvertently hit a nuclear storage site, Pakistan would have considered it as a first strike and retaliated with nuclear weapons. If the ceasefire had not been called on May 10, the next night would have been a terrible one,' says is among those who do not think the crisis was near nuclear boiling point. He believes the Indian air strikes of May 10 were extremely modest because, he says, 'The fear of nuclear escalation is always baked into such conflicts. Destroying infrastructure is not something you can do in a single spasm of violence, it needs protracted targeting. In Nur Khan, India didn't set out to decapitate the nuclear command system. What they did was more of a psychological campaign of uncertainty, intimidation and fear, which is the real payoff rather than physically destroying large portions of infrastructure.' Unless there is clear evidence of Pakistan moving to elevate its nuclear weapons readiness levels, Tellis finds it hard to believe the current crisis would have careened towards a nuclear sources, too, maintain the crisis never acquired nuclear dimensions, and that Pakistan climbed down after the air strikes on its bases as it realised that another two days of war would have forced it into humiliating submission. They say it was Gen. Munir who got in touch with Rubio early that morning and requested him to get India to stand down. Soon after, Rubio called external affairs minister S. Jaishankar, who told him that if Pakistan wanted to cease hostilities, it needed to communicate it via the hotline between their respective director generals of military operations. Maj. Gen. Kashif Abdullah, Pakistan's DGMO, then called his Indian counterpart, Lt Gen. Rajiv Ghai, at 3.35 pm and told him that Pakistan wanted a ceasefire. India agreed and it was mutually decided that it would come into force at 5 pm that day. India denies US intervention in bringing this explanation flies against Trump's assertion that he had averted a potential nuclear conflict. Rubio, too, had several rounds of discussions with the key players—Jaishankar, Gen. Munir, Shehbaz Sharif and India's national security advisor Ajit Doval. In a social media post, Rubio thanks these leaders and says that both countries had not only agreed to an immediate ceasefire but also 'to start talks on a broad set of issues at a neutral site'. This seemed in consonance with state department spokesperson Tammy Bruce's read-out of Rubio's conversations with Munir and Jaishankar. The one with Munir read, 'He continued to urge both parties to find ways to de-escalate and offered US assistance in starting constructive talks in order to avoid future conflicts.' The read-out with Jaishankar, on the other hand, went thus: 'Rubio emphasised that both sides need to identify methods to de-escalate and re-establish communication to avoid miscalculation. He further proposed US support in facilitating productive discussions to avert future disputes.' Posting his take on the conversation, Jaishankar's message on X read: 'Had a conversation with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio this morning. India's approach has always been measured and responsible and remains so.' THE ENDGAMEIn off-the-record briefings, however, the MEA says there was no such agreement to resume talks with Pakistan as it would run contrary to India's stated policy of no talks unless Pakistan turns off the terror tap. Christopher Clary, assistant professor of Political Science at the University at Albany, State University of New York, and an expert on South Asian nuclear issues, believes the truce came about through a combination of factors, including the likelihood of US intelligence agencies observing a change in the readiness status of Pakistan's nuclear assets. 'My hypothesis,' says Clary, 'is that a combination of Indian military pressure combined with US inducements created a mix of carrots and sticks that made Pakistan indicate it could cease hostilities.' Curtis agrees that India and Pakistan would not have agreed to a ceasefire on their own and needed third-party intervention to step back from the nuclear though, saw Trump's observations and Rubio's comments as a significant victory. Not only did Trump, in a subsequent briefing, offer to mediate between India and Pakistan on Kashmir, the US also told India to hold talks on key issues. Pakistan claimed they were able to internationalise the Kashmir issue again and get re-hyphenated with India. Gen. Munir got himself promoted to Field Marshal to demonstrate his clout and cement his status as the de facto czar of sense of triumphalism in the Pakistan military worries Curtis. 'It makes it seem like this act of terrorism helped draw international attention to Kashmir and sends a wrong signal that could encourage more violence in the future,' she says. 'It doesn't help calm tensions in the region.' She believes the US must quietly work behind the scenes to encourage the two sides to get some kind of bilateral dialogue going, including on the issues of terrorism and nuclear risk admit the truce is tenuous, and another terrorist act could trigger a resumption of hostilities. Husain Haqqani, a former Pakistan ambassador to the US and senior fellow, Hudson Institute, Washington DC, says, 'The jihadis may want to break the peace, but I think Pakistan will now put a leash on them as they don't want to go down this path again.' The real problem, Haqqani fears, is that the public in both countries is jingoistic and seemingly unaware of the grave dangers of a nuclear miscalculation. 'Our attitude seems to be that even if the plane we are travelling in is crashing, we are laughing and asking for more whisky,' he says. Hassan Khan believes India and Pakistan need to build an architecture that can sort out such things immediately before they get into 'a commitment trap' that pushes them towards a dangerous war. Tellis thinks the longer term challenge is now tied up with the future of India-Pakistan relations and cannot be resolved without actual engagement between the two countries. 'To my mind, the question is how do you punish the enemy by minimising the risks to yourself,' he says. Talking about nuclear war, a sci-fi movie from the Cold War era had this line: 'It is a strange game. The only winning move is not to play.' It could be a tactic worth to India Today Magazine- EndsTune InMust Watch
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
3 hours ago
- First Post
For the love of gold: Inside the Oval Office makeover by Donald Trump
Donald Trump has given his White House Oval Office a 'golden' makeover. With gold trim, trophies, and a gilded seal, Trump has replaced Biden's simpler decor. Here's what has changed read more The Oval Office has had a bit of a makeover recently. Every president leaves their mark on the White House, swapping out decor and rearranging details to reflect their style and priorities. But in his second term, Donald Trump has taken that tradition in a flashier direction with his not-so-subtle love for gold, glitz, and unapologetic grandeur. 'The transformation has been gradual and unmistakable… By February, some golden urns on the mantle. April, gold adornments appear on the walls. By July, it's gold everywhere. Just this week more scaffolding popped up, even more new gold trim appeared,' Acyn Torabi, a journalist, wrote on Trump's new glitzy new 'gold' Oval Office. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD So what has changed? And how does it differ from what his predecessor, Joe Biden, did? Here's a closer look. Golden embellishments Under Joe Biden, the Oval Office ceiling was simple, cream wallpaper with matching crown moulding and no extra flourishes. Donald Trump has taken that understated look in a very different direction. He added gold trim to the crown moulding, pairing it with the gold curtains that have hung in the office since Biden's term. US President Donald Trump shakes hands with Apple CEO Tim Cook in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC, on August 6, 2025. File image/AFP The greenery that once sat on the mantel, a potted Swedish ivy, was also removed. In its place now stand nine gold trophies, most of them made in Europe. Critics say the changes make the Oval Office resemble the royal palaces America once fought to break away from. But Trump sees it differently. Speaking to Fox News in March, he said the office 'needed a little life,' so he chose gold. 'They say angels bring good luck,' he explained. 'And we need a lot of luck in this country with what they have done over the last four years.' The greenery that once sat on the mantel, a potted Swedish ivy, was also removed. In its place now stand nine gold trophies, most of them made in Europe. By April, the gold touches were impossible to ignore. That's when Trump's 'gold guy,' John Icart, the same craftsman who worked on Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate, was flown in from South Florida. According to officials, Icart added gold accents to the mantel, walls, and mouldings, and even delivered golden cherubs that now sit on display. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Trump also brought in smaller gold details, such as coasters, branded with his name. A golden presidential seal The presidential seal on the Oval Office ceiling has been there for decades. Franklin D. Roosevelt first added the plaster relief during a 1934 renovation, and for years, it remained a subtle detail. Not anymore. In Trump's latest overhaul, the seal and the surrounding stars have been painted in gilded gold, making them stand out far more than before. The presidential seal on the Oval Office ceiling has been there for decades. In Trump's latest overhaul, the seal and the surrounding stars have been painted in gilded gold. AFP But to be fair, Trump's taste for gold is nothing new. His Trump Tower penthouse in New York is lined with gilded ceilings, furniture, and artwork. At Mar-a-Lago, his private club in Palm Beach, even the ballroom gleams with gold from floor to ceiling. Rugs, flags & portraits One of Trump's first moves after returning to the White House was to swap out the Oval Office rug and change up the portraits. Gone is the dark blue rug, originally made for Bill Clinton, that featured the presidential seal in the centre. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Gone is the dark blue rug, originally made for Bill Clinton, that featured the presidential seal in the centre. File image/ AFP In its place, Trump brought back a lighter rug once used by Ronald Reagan. The design still includes the presidential seal, but also features a sunbeam pattern and olive branches around the border, meant to symbolise peace. It's the same rug Trump used during his first term. Trump brought back a lighter rug once used by Ronald Reagan. AFP Trump's Oval Office also now feature the flags of the Army, the Marine Corps, and the Navy. Trump's Oval Office also now feature the flags of the Army, the Marine Corps, and the Navy. AFP The walls have had just as big a shake-up. Under Biden, the Entrance Hall displayed Barack Obama's official White House portrait, a hyper-realistic painting showing the former president in a navy suit. That's now gone, replaced by a painting of Trump himself. The new piece, by artist Marc Lipp, is based on a photo taken moments after the assassination attempt at Trump's rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, showing him with his fist raised. Barack Obama's portrait was replaced with Trump's after the assassination attempt at his rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, showing him with his fist raised. AFP Trump didn't stop there. He's added more portraits in ornate frames, turning one wall into a kind of gallery. He also replaced Biden's portrait of Franklin D Roosevelt with a portrait of George Washington. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The Rose Garden refresh The White House Rose Garden has been through many changes over the decades. Originally designed in 1913 by First Lady Ellen Wilson as a formal flower garden, it was later reimagined as a grassy lawn for press conferences and official events. In 2020, Melania Trump added a limestone border around the grass, but in his second term, Trump went much further. The lawn is now gone, replaced with concrete and stone tiles, giving the space the look and feel of a Mar-a-Lago-style patio. The White House Rose Garden has been through many changes over the decades. The lawn is now gone, replaced with concrete and stone tiles, giving the space the look and feel of a Mar-a-Lago-style patio. AFP Trump has been open about why he made the change. Speaking to Fox News in March, he said the grass was simply 'impractical' for big gatherings, especially when it rained. 'The grass just doesn't work,' he told host Laura Ingraham. 'It gets wet, and people in high heels can't walk on it. This way, it works for everyone.' A ballroom in the works Trump's taste for big, bold spaces isn't stopping at the Rose Garden. His next project is on a much grander scale: a $200 million state ballroom in the East Wing. The White House's current largest state room, the East Room, holds around 200 people. The planned ballroom will triple that, with a seating capacity of 650 and an expansive 90,000 square feet of space. The White House has called it a 'much-needed and exquisite addition.' Trump says the funding will come from himself and 'patriot donors,' not taxpayers. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD It's not hard to guess what kind of look he's going for, if his past projects are anything to go by, expect a lot of shine and a whole lot of spectacle. With input from agencies
Hans India
9 hours ago
- Hans India
Trump extends tariff moratorium on China till November as negotiations continue
New York: US President Donald Trump has extended the tariff moratorium for China that was to expire on Tuesday to November 10 as the two countries continue to negotiate. Trump said on Truth Social on Monday, hours before it was to expire, 'I have just signed an Executive Order that will extend the Tariff Suspension on China for another 90 days'. The US will continue to maintain the tariff rate of 30 per cent, and China will keep it at 10 per cent during this period. Earlier, Trump told reporters, 'We've been dealing very nicely with China'. 'The relationship is very good with President Xi (Jinping) and myself', he added. US and Chinese trade officials met in Sweden last month for a third round of direct talks, but didn't hammer out a deal satisfactory for Trump. While the trade war between the two countries was at its height in April, Trump imposed a 145 per cent tariff on China, and Beijing reciprocated with a 125 per cent tariff and a ban on the export of rare earths vital to US manufacturing in several areas. But next month, they agreed to a 90-day truce and reduced their tariffs, while China resumed some rare earth exports. Although Trump has threatened India with a 25 per cent tariff for buying Russian oil, so far, he has not made a similar threat against Beijing. Vice President JD Vance told Fox News that a similar penalty was 'on the table,' but Trump had not made a decision. Trump's deadline for imposing tariffs on all Russian energy buyers if Moscow did not make peace with Ukraine also passed off with no action as he prepared for a summit with Russia's President Vladimir Putin on Friday to discuss a solution to the Ukraine War. Trump has been grappling with how to reduce the goods trade deficit with China, which was $295 billion last year, according to the US Trade Representative. He suggested on Sunday that China increase its purchase of US soybeans fourfold. While China has a grip on the US with its near-monopoly on some rare earths, the US has advanced semiconductors that Beijing craves. Trump, who restricted the selling of advanced chips to China by companies like Nvidia, has offered to let them sell some versions of the semiconductors to Beijing under an unusual arrangement in which they would pay the US government 15 per cent of their profits from the sales.
