Preity Zinta Charms London: Fans Can't Get Enough
Donald Trump's recent Club World Cup appearance has sparked a frenzy online after viewers noticed his swollen ankles and apparent bruising on his right hand. Is it just poor circulation—or something being covered up? Social media is flooded with theories, from heart issues to hidden medication. With the 2024 election looming, questions about Trump's fitness are once again center stage. We break down the viral photos, public reaction, and what it could really mean for his health.
2.1K views | 1 day ago
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
4 hours ago
- Time of India
Greenhouse gases aren't harmful? Donald Trump administration likely to make shocking announcement
President Donald Trump 's administration is preparing to upend a foundational scientific determination about the harms of greenhouse gases that underpins the US government's ability to curb climate change. A proposal from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to change the so-called "Endangerment Finding" was sent to the White House on June 30, a spokesperson told AFP. An announcement is expected imminently. Here's what to know -- and what's at stake if the finding is overturned. What is the Endangerment Finding? Explore courses from Top Institutes in Please select course: Select a Course Category Healthcare Cybersecurity Artificial Intelligence Management Data Science MBA Degree Project Management Public Policy Design Thinking PGDM healthcare Others Leadership others Product Management Data Analytics Digital Marketing Technology MCA CXO Finance Data Science Operations Management Skills you'll gain: Financial Analysis in Healthcare Financial Management & Investing Strategic Management in Healthcare Process Design & Analysis Duration: 12 Weeks Indian School of Business Certificate Program in Healthcare Management Starts on Jun 13, 2024 Get Details The Clean Air Act of 1970 empowered the EPA to regulate "air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare." For decades, the law applied to pollutants like lead, ozone and soot. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Costco Shoppers Say This Fat-Burning Patch Triggers Weight Loss "Unlike Any Other" Health Advice Today Undo But as climate science around the dangers of heat-trapping greenhouse gases advanced in the 2000s, a coalition of states and nonprofit groups petitioned the EPA to include them under the law, focusing on motor vehicles. The issue reached the Supreme Court, which in 2007 ruled that greenhouse gases qualify as air pollutants and directed the EPA to revisit its stance. Live Events That led to the 2009 Endangerment Finding, which declared greenhouse gases a threat to public health and welfare, based on overwhelming scientific consensus and peer-reviewed research. "That 2009 finding formed the basis for all of EPA's subsequent regulations," Meredith Hankins, a senior attorney on climate and energy for the activist Natural Resources Defense Council, told AFP. "They've issued greenhouse gas standards for tailpipe emissions from motor vehicles, smokestack emissions from power plants -- all of these individual rulemakings trace themselves back to the 2009 Endangerment Finding." What is the Trump administration doing? The Endangerment Finding has withstood multiple legal challenges, and although Trump's first administration considered reversing it, they ultimately held back. But the finding is now a direct target of Project 2025, a far-right governance blueprint closely followed by the administration. In March, the EPA under Administrator Lee Zeldin announced a formal reconsideration of the finding. "The Trump Administration will not sacrifice national prosperity, energy security, and the freedom of our people for an agenda that throttles our industries, our mobility, and our consumer choice while benefiting adversaries overseas," he said. The government is expected to undo the earlier finding that greenhouse gases endanger public welfare. It will argue that the economic costs of regulation have been undervalued -- and downplay the role of US motor vehicle emissions in climate change. In fact, transportation is the largest source of US greenhouse gas emissions. Since 1970, the United States has emitted more vehicle-based greenhouse gases than the next nine countries combined, according to an analysis by the Institute for Policy Integrity that will soon be published in full. FAQs Q1. Who is President of USA? A1. President of USA is Donald Trump. Q2. Which is largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in US? A2. The largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in US is transportation
Time of India
13 hours ago
- Time of India
US-funded contraceptives for poor nations to be burned in France, sources say
U.S.-funded contraceptives worth nearly $10 million are being sent to France from Belgium to be incinerated, after Washington rejected offers from the United Nations and family planning organisations to buy or ship the supplies to poor nations, two sources told Reuters. A spokesperson for the U.S. State Department confirmed to Reuters on Wednesday that a decision had been taken to destroy the stock. The supplies have been stuck for months in a warehouse in Geel, a city in the Belgian province of Antwerp, following President Donald Trump's decision to freeze U.S. foreign aid in January. They comprise contraceptive implants and pills as well as intrauterine devices to help prevent unwanted pregnancies, according to seven sources and a screengrab shared by an eighth source confirming the planned destruction. The U.S. government will spend $167,000 to incinerate the stocks at a facility in France that handles medical waste, the U.S. State Department confirmed. The spokesperson said that a preliminary decision had been made to destroy certain products from terminated U.S. Agency for International Development contracts. "Only a limited number of commodities have been approved for disposal," the spokesperson said via email, adding that no condoms or HIV medications would be destroyed. U.S. lawmakers have introduced two bills this month to prevent the destruction of the supplies following Trump's decision to shut down USAID, but aid groups say the bills are unlikely to be passed in time to stop the incineration. The Belgian foreign ministry said Brussels had held talks with U.S. authorities and "explored all possible options to prevent the destruction, including temporary relocation." "Despite these efforts, and with full respect for our partners, no viable alternative could be secured. Nevertheless, Belgium continues to actively seek solutions to avoid this regrettable outcome," it said in a statement shared with Reuters on Tuesday. "Sexual and reproductive health must not be subject to ideological constraints," it added. The supplies, worth $9.7 million, are due to expire between April 2027 and September 2031, according to an internal document listing the warehouse stocks and verified by three sources. Sarah Shaw, Associate Director of Advocacy at MSI Reproductive Choices, told Reuters the non-profit organisation had volunteered to pay for the supplies to be repackaged without USAID branding and shipped to countries in need, but the offer was declined by the U.S. government. "MSI offered to pay for repackaging, shipping and import duties but they were not open to that... We were told that the U.S. government would only sell the supplies at the full market value," said Shaw. She did not elaborate on how much the NGO was prepared to pay, but said she felt the rejection was based on the Trump's administration's more restrictive stance on abortion and family planning. "This is clearly not about saving money. It feels more like an ideological assault on reproductive rights, and one that is already harming women." She added that many countries in sub-Saharan Africa had relied on USAID for access to contraception and that the aid cuts would lead to a rise in unsafe abortions. The United Nations' sexual and reproductive health agency, UNFPA, also offered to buy the contraceptives outright, three sources told Reuters, without disclosing the financial terms of the proposal. 'DOZENS OF TRUCKLOADS' However, negotiations broke down, a source with knowledge of the talks said, in part due to a lack of response from the U.S. government. UNFPA declined to comment. One of the sources with knowledge of the issue said that the Trump administration was acting in accordance with the Mexico City policy, an anti-abortion pact in which Trump reinstated U.S. participation in January. The pact forbids the U.S. government from contributing to or working with organisations providing funding or supplies that offer access to abortions. The source said there was no way for the U.S. government to ensure that UNFPA would not share the contraceptives with groups offering abortions, violating the Mexico City policy. The State Department also told Reuters these were factors in their decision on Wednesday, and added that it had avoided $34.1 million in costs by cancelling other orders placed under the Biden administration. The source also said the matter was complicated by the fact that the contraceptives in Belgium were embossed with the USAID trademark and Washington did not want any USAID-branded supplies to be rerouted elsewhere. UNFPA did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the concerns raised by the source. One of the two sources who told Reuters the stocks of contraceptives were being trucked to France said it would likely take dozens of truckloads and at least two weeks to move the supplies out of the Geel warehouse, with a third source also confirming the scale of the operation. The French government did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Time of India
13 hours ago
- Time of India
Trump administration asks US Supreme Court to allow NIH diversity-related cuts
New York: Donald Trump's administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday to allow the government to proceed with sweeping cuts to National Institutes of Health grants as part of the Republican president's crackdown on diversity initiatives. The Justice Department asked the justices to lift Boston-based U.S. District Judge William Young's June ruling that halted the plan as a violation of federal law and required the government to reinstate access to the grant funds. The judge acted in a legal challenge by researchers and 16 U.S. states, led by Democratic-governed Massachusetts. The NIH is the world's largest funder of biomedical research. The cuts are part of Trump's wide-ranging actions to reshape the U.S. government, slash federal spending and end government support for diversity, equity and inclusion programs and transgender healthcare. The administration repeatedly has sought the Supreme Court's intervention to allow implementation of Trump policies impeded by lower courts. The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has sided with the administration in almost every case that it has been called upon to review since Trump returned to the presidency in January. In June, dozens of scientists, researchers and other NIH employees signed an open letter criticizing the agency's actions and spending cuts under Trump that they said politicize research and "harm the health of Americans and people across the globe." Young's ruling came in two lawsuits challenging the cuts. One was filed by the American Public Health Association, individual researchers and other plaintiffs who called the cuts an "ongoing ideological purge" of projects with a purported connection to gender identity, DEI "or other vague, now-forbidden language." The other was filed by the states, most of them Democratic-led. Young, an appointee of Republican former President Ronald Reagan, invalidated the grant terminations in June. The judge wrote that every new administration is entitled to make policy changes but that these must be reasonable and reasonably explained. Instead, according to the judge, the steps taken by Trump administration officials were "breathtakingly arbitrary and capricious," violating a federal law governing the actions of agencies. Young criticized administration officials for not offering any definition of DEI while disparaging studies they deemed low-value and unscientific that the officials claimed were used to unlawfully discriminate on the basis of race and other protected characteristics. "There is not a shred of evidence supporting any of these statements in the record," Young wrote. Many U.S. conservatives contend that DEI policies discriminate against white people. The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on July 18 denied the administration's request to put Young's decision on hold. The administration has argued that the litigation should have been brought in a different judicial body, the Washington-based Court of Federal Claims, which specializes in money damages claims against the U.S. government. That reasoning was also the basis for the Supreme Court's decision in April that let Trump's administration proceed with millions of dollars of cuts to teacher training grants also targeted under the DEI crackdown.
