&w=3840&q=100)
Trump orders southern border wall painted black to deter migrant crossings
Bloomberg
President Donald Trump has ordered the entire southern border wall to be painted black to stop migrants from crossing because it'll be too hot to touch, according to Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.
Speaking near the border in New Mexico on Tuesday, Noem said crews have begun painting sections of the 30-foot steel bollards that make up the barriers. She said the directive came directly from Trump, under the expectation the dark paint will extend the steel's lifespan by slowing rust and discourage migrants to climb the wall by making it unbearably hot under the desert sun.
'We are going to be painting the entire border wall black,' Noem told reporters. Asked about criticism that the practice could make conditions harsher for migrants, she responded: 'Don't touch it. People have a choice.'
Noem didn't say how much the project will cost or how long it will take. She applied paint herself to a small section of a fence during the media appearance in Santa Teresa, New Mexico.
Noem's visit came as arrests at the southwest border have plunged to levels not seen in decades as the administration enacts stricter enforcement measures. It has also shut down the CBP One mobile app that had previously been a key way for migrants to schedule appointments to cross the border and seek asylum.
Walter Slosar, the interim chief patrol agent in the El Paso Sector, covering far West Texas and all of New Mexico, said the current seven-day arrest average is about 41 a day, with an additional nine migrants crossing daily without being stopped. A year ago the average was closer to 400 a day and it was roughly 2,300 in 2023.
Still, the administration has pressed ahead with wall construction, filling in gaps in Santa Teresa, where about seven miles of new barriers are being installed.
Trump's plan to build out a southern border wall has long been a lightning rod, dating back to Trump's first term when his administration added razor wire to some sections, while painting some areas black, but ultimately built far fewer miles of new barriers than initially promised. Despite that, Trump has kept the wall central to his immigration message, portraying it as a tool of enforcement.
Congress last month approved a budget bill that set aside almost $47 billion for continued border wall construction and maintenance, giving the administration a new stream of money to carry forward Trump's plans.
The clampdown is visible across the desert region. In Sunland Park, New Mexico, residents can see a Stryker armored combat vehicle perched on a mesa overlooking Mexico, an American flag fluttering from its rear. Border Patrol agents and military personnel patrol the area, part of an arrangement that has thousands of active-duty troops deployed under US Northern Command.
The troops have been authorized to briefly detain and search migrants in newly designated 'National Defense Areas' near the boundary, which the Pentagon says are effectively extensions of US military installations.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
9 minutes ago
- First Post
USAID didn't fund voter turnout in India: US embassy's data contradicts Trump
The data released by the US embassy has shown that no funds were granted for voter turnout-related activity in India. Earlier this year, US President Donald Trump had claimed that the USAID had spent $21 million to increase voter turnout in India. Donald Trump speaks to members of the media at Manhattan Supreme Court amid his hush money trial, in New York, US, May 7, 2024. (Photo: Curtis Means/Pool via Reuters) The US Embassy in India has contradicted President Donald Trump's claim about election-related funding in India. The data provided by the US embassy, and shared by the Union government in the parliament, shows that USAID did not provide any funds for any election-related activity in India. There was no entry of $21 million in the list of India-related grants. Earlier in February, Trump had claimed that USAID had given $21 million to increase voter turnout in Indian elections. The basis of the claim was a post on X by the Department of Government Efficiency (Doge) that said it had cancelled '$21M for voter turnout in India' among a host of other grants. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD US taxpayer dollars were going to be spent on the following items, all which have been cancelled: - $10M for "Mozambique voluntary medical male circumcision" - $9.7M for UC Berkeley to develop "a cohort of Cambodian youth with enterprise driven skills" - $2.3M for "strengthening… — Department of Government Efficiency (@DOGE) February 15, 2025 Trump had alleged that the previous Democratic Party's administration had interfered in Indian elections. He also questioned the basis of providing funds to a foreign country's elections and used it as a talking point in his campaign to dismantle government grants, departments, and programmes, including the USAID. '$21 million going to my friend Prime Minister Modi in India for voter turnout. We are giving $21 million for voter turnout in India. What about us? I want voter turnout too," said Trump on one occasion. US embassy contradicts Trump's claim After Doge on February 16 claimed that it had revoked grants for Indian elections, the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) reached out to the US embassy and requested to urgently furnish details of expenditure incurred on all USAID-assisted or funded projects in India over the last 10 years other than those being implemented under the seven run in partnership with the government, the government told the parliament in response to the question of CPI-M MP John Brittas. The answer, signed by Kirti Vardhan Singh, the Minister of State for External Affairs, said that the US embassy replied with the information on July 2. In its response, the US embassy provided the list of all funds provided by the USAID, Singh told the parliament. The list —see below— did not have any election-related grants. The US embassy further said that USAID would cease operations in India on August 15, as per Singh's answer. What did Trump say about Indian elections? Based on the Doge's claim, Trump said that the previous administration were trying to get someone other than Prime Minister Narendra Modi elected with their interventions in Indian elections. On one occasion, Trump said, 'Twenty-one million dollars in voter turnout — why do we need to spend 21 million for voter turnout in India? I guess they were trying to get somebody else elected. We have got to tell the Indian Government because when we hear that Russia spent about $2,000 in our country, it was a big deal. They took some internet ads for $2,000. This is a total breakthrough.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD On another occasion, Trump also called it a 'kickback scheme'.
Mint
9 minutes ago
- Mint
China acts to curb Nvidia chip sales after US Commerce Secretary's ‘insulting' remark: ‘We don't sell them our best…'
Beijing's decision to restrict sales of Nvidia's China-specific artificial intelligence processor came after US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick's remarks about chip exports that officials found 'insulting', according to a report by the Financial Times (FT). Chinese regulators have taken action to discourage domestic tech companies from purchasing the H20, a simplified processor commonly used for artificial intelligence in China. The Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC), the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), and the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) responded to Lutnick's comments, made last month, the report said, citing people aware of the development. 'We don't sell them our best stuff, not our second-best stuff, not even our third-best,' Lutnick told CNBC on July 15, the day after the Donald Trump administration lifted the export controls on H20 sales, which had been implemented in April. 'You want to sell the Chinese enough that their developers get addicted to the American technology stack, that's the thinking,' he added. A few senior Chinese leaders found the comments "insulting", prompting policymakers to explore options to restrict Chinese tech companies from purchasing the processors, two people told FT. Hence, Chinese tech groups delayed or considerably reduced their H20 orders, it added. The action is considered to be a setback to Nvidia, whose CEO Jensen Huang visited Beijing last month and pledged to remain competitive in China despite increasing geopolitical strains with the US. After Huang's well-received trip, Nvidia garnered enough interest from Chinese clients for TSMC to resume H20 production lines, the report noted. In recent years, Chinese regulators have encouraged greater use of domestic chips. However, major tech companies like Alibaba and ByteDance contended that their AI progress would suffer without Nvidia's chips, jeopardising China's ability to compete in the technology race against the US. 'Lutnick's speech gives the coalition [of regulators] one more reason to intensify its efforts to push tech firms to use China's own chips,' a person close to the policymakers told FT. A week after his remarks, China's internet regulator CAC issued an informal notice called 'window guidance' to major tech firms such as ByteDance and Alibaba, citing security concerns and advising them to halt new orders for Nvidia's H20 chips, the report added. The agency also summoned Nvidia executives on July 31 over alleged 'serious security issues'. The CAC alleged that US AI experts reported Nvidia's chips contain location tracking features and can be disabled remotely, a claim Nvidia strongly denies.
Indian Express
9 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Anti-defection law and Supreme Court's order for Telangana speaker: When the custodian refuses to act
Written by Shashank Maheshwari and Anmol Jain 'The evil of political defections has been a matter of national concern. If it is not combated, it is likely to undermine the very foundations of our democracy.' These words from the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Constitution (Fifty-Second Amendment) Bill, 1985, capture the spirit of the Tenth Schedule. Yet, four decades on, the anti-defection law is being weakened and bypassed not only by defections and resignations but also by omissions by the Speakers — the constitutional authority responsible for deciding anti-defection petitions. The Supreme Court's ruling in Padi Kaushik Reddy v. State of Telangana (2025) exemplifies this challenge. The case came up after three Bharat Rashtra Samithi MLAs defected to the ruling Congress in 2024. Petitions seeking their disqualification were filed before the Speaker of the Telangana Assembly, who kept them pending, allegedly for political reasons. A single judge bench of the High Court directed the Assembly Secretary to place the petitions before the Speaker and ensure a hearing schedule. Disagreeing, the division bench quashed the order, holding — contrary to the prevailing Indian jurisprudence — that courts cannot fix timelines for the Speaker under the Tenth Schedule. By the time the matter reached the Supreme Court, significant time had passed. This very fear of delay was foreseen during the parliamentary debates of 1985. Parliament chose to vest decision-making power in the Speaker, not the Courts or the Election Commission, to ensure the swift disposal of petitions. The worry was that judicial procedures would consume time and deny rightful representation to the electorate. Yet, no statutory limits were set on the Speaker's discretion, perhaps because the law's immediate purpose — when it was introduced — was to prevent the elected members of the Congress party from defecting to the opposition, a pattern that gave a blow to Congress in several states. Even so, Congress leader Priya Ranjan Dasmunsi had cautioned: 'Now, in regard to a dispute regarding a member, the matter will be referred to the Presiding Officer, but no time limit has been fixed. I would request that in the next session, the time limit be fixed within which the Speaker has to announce his decision. If he keeps it pending for three to four months, it should not be allowed.' His words now seem to be prophetic. Across the country, Speakers have used inaction to shield defectors, hollowing out the law itself. In Padi Kaushik Reddy, the SC revisited its precedents. Referring to Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992), it reiterated that while the Speaker's procedural role and actions are immune from judicial review under Articles 122 and 212 of the Constitution, decisions on disqualification petitions are judicial in nature and subject to review on limited grounds such as mala fides, perversity, or jurisdictional error. Relying on Rajendra Singh Rana & Ors v. Swami Prasad Maurya & Ors (2007), the Court stressed that failure to exercise jurisdiction cannot excuse inaction. In the above-mentioned case, given excessive delay and the impending dissolution of the Assembly, the Court directly decided disqualification without remanding the matter back to the Speaker. Similarly, in Keisham Meghachandra Singh v. Speaker, Manipur Legislative Assembly (2020), the Court had imposed a four-week limit for deciding petitions, recognising that delay itself defeats the law. The Court also observed that Speakers should normally conclude matters within three months. Against this backdrop, paragraphs 93 to 95 of the Padi Kaushik judgment are telling. The Court reaffirmed that while it cannot mechanically dictate timelines, indefinite silence renders the Tenth Schedule meaningless. The Speaker is under a constitutional duty to act within a reasonable time. Where this duty is breached, judicial review may not prescribe rigid deadlines but can intervene to ensure that the law's very purpose of curbing defections is not frustrated. The judgment lays bare the core dilemma. The Tenth Schedule vests power in the Speaker on the assumption that constitutional morality will guide him. But as the 1985 debates and repeated judicial interventions reveal, this assumption has not held. The Speaker's inaction, warned against four decades ago by parliamentarians like Dasmunsi, remains the law's Achilles' heel. The Supreme Court has once again underlined the problem, while exercising restraint so as not to encroach upon the legislature's domain. Unless parliament amends the law to fix a clear timeline or shifts adjudication to an independent authority, the anti-defection regime will continue to be hollowed out by seemingly partisan Speakers. The 'evil of political defections' that the framers sought to eradicate thus survives — not because the law is absent, but because its custodian refuses to act. The writers teach law at Jindal Global Law School
