No immediate peace for Ukraine; UK avoids 50% aluminium tariff
Ata mārie and welcome to your Thursday overview of the business and political stories making headlines.
First up, Russian President Vladimir Putin has spoken to US President Donald Trump by phone and there appeared to be no immediate peace solution for Ukraine.
Putin said he was obligated to respond to Ukraine's weekend drone attack, setting up a potential escalation in the conflict, CNN reported.
Trump said the 75-minute conversation would not end the war in Ukraine immediately.
'We discussed the attack on Russia's docked airplanes, by Ukraine, and also various other attacks that have been taking place by both sides,' Trump said.
'It was a good conversation, but not a conversation that will lead to immediate peace. President Putin did say, and very strongly, that he will have to respond to the recent attack on the airfields.'
CNBC reported that Trump and Putin also discussed Iran, and that time was running out for Iran's decision about nuclear weapons. Earlier, the BBC said a report by the UN nuclear watchdog concluded Iran had increased production of enriched uranium, a key component in making nuclear weapons.
Elsewhere, the White House signalled that the UK could be spared from the fresh 50% steel and aluminium tariffs this week, the Guardian reported.
Trump said he had decided to 'provide different treatment' to the UK, after a trade deal was agreed but yet to be signed between the two countries.
UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer said that deal would be implemented 'within a very short time'.
US President Donald Trump.
Meanwhile, a provision in the more than 1000-page 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' concerned foreign investors, the BBC reported.
Section 899, known as the "revenge tax" by critics, could let the US introduce higher taxes on investors from countries with tax policies that the US did not like.
The BBC said that could include digital-services taxes on technology companies. The bill had passed narrowly in the House of Representatives but still faced Senate scrutiny.
If passed, Section 899 could raise tax burdens for multinationals, investors, and wealthy families, which could put US investment on ice, the BBC noted.
In Gaza, around 100 Palestinians had been killed and 440 injured after a series of attacks by Israel over the past 24 hours, Al Jazeera reported.
Israel's military warned starving people to avoid aid distribution sites run by the controversial Gaza Humanitarian Foundation. That was because of a planned closure for renovation and reorganisation, along with 'efficiency improvement' work.
The BBC also said that roads leading to the distribution centres were considered "combat zones" during the closures.
Destroyed homes in Gaza.
In business news, Nissan's new chief executive Ivan Espinosa was brushing off a tough global economy, competition from China, and trade tariffs, with the need to stay flexible, CNBC reported.
'Keep the optimism up, because the environment is very tough, and you don't want to get overwhelmed. You need to keep moving.
'It's a very turbulent environment we live in. In the past, some CEOs were very stubborn, very resistant to change. You need to stay open and stay flexible.'
He noted more collaboration in the automotive industry in the face of growing geopolitical tension and supply chain challenges. 'Sometimes, it's just not possible to go it alone.'
Finally, a story from the quirky files, after a large elephant entered a shop in Thailand in search of food, CNN reported.
CCTV footage revealed the hungry animal entered the convenience store and helped itself to snacks this week.
'The elephant just walked right up. I came out and tried to shoo it away. I told it not to come closer,' shop owner Khamploi Kakaew told CNN.
The shop is located northeast of the capital Bangkok, near the Khao Yai National Park.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
1News
4 hours ago
- 1News
Musk threatens to withdraw Dragon spacecraft, a key link for NASA
As US President Donald Trump and Elon Musk argued on social media today, the world's richest man threatened to decommission a space capsule used to take astronauts and supplies to the International Space Station. After Trump threatened to cut government contracts given to Musk's SpaceX rocket company and his Starlink internet satellite services, Musk responded via X that SpaceX "will begin decommissioning its Dragon spacecraft immediately'. It's unclear how serious Musk's threat was. But the capsule, developed with the help of government contracts, is an important part of keeping the space station running. NASA also relied heavily on SpaceX for other programmes including launching science missions and, later this decade, returning astronauts to the surface of the moon. The Dragon capsule SpaceX is the only US company capable right now of transporting crews to and from the space station, using its four-person Dragon capsules. ADVERTISEMENT Boeing's Starliner capsule has flown astronauts only once; last year's test flight went so badly that the two NASA astronauts had to hitch a ride back to Earth via SpaceX in March, more than nine months after launching last June. Starliner remains grounded as NASA decides whether to go with another test flight with cargo, rather than a crew. SpaceX also uses a Dragon capsule for its own privately run missions. The next one of those is due to fly next week on a trip chartered by Axiom Space, a Houston company. Cargo versions of the Dragon capsule are also used to ferry food and other supplies to the orbiting lab. NASA's other option: Russia Russia's Soyuz capsules are the only other means of getting crews to the space station right now. The Soyuz capsules hold three people at a time. For now, each Soyuz launch carries two Russians and one NASA astronaut, and each SpaceX launch has one Russian on board under a barter system. That way, in an emergency requiring a capsule to return, there is always someone from the US and Russian on board. ADVERTISEMENT With its first crew launch for NASA in 2020 — the first orbital flight of a crew by a private company — SpaceX enabled NASA to reduce its reliance on Russia for crew transport. The Russian flights had been costing the US tens of millions of dollars per seat, for years. NASA has also used Russian spacecraft for cargo, along with US contractor Northrup Grumman. SpaceX's other government launches The company has used its rockets to launch several science missions for NASA as well as military equipment. Last year, SpaceX also won a NASA contract to help bring the space station out of orbit when it is no longer usable. SpaceX's Starship mega rocket is what NASA has picked to get astronauts from lunar orbit to the surface of the moon, at least for the first two landing missions. Starship made its ninth test flight last week from Texas, but tumbled out of control and broke apart.
Scoop
8 hours ago
- Scoop
Trump And Republicans Want Taxpayers To Fund Their Pet Project: Private Schools
When is a 'school choice' proposal not really about school choice? In the budget bill that Republicans rushed through the House on May 12, 2025, school choice is just a cover-up for tax relief for the rich. President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans are trying to ram through a major taxpayer-funded private school programme, according to education policy experts who appeared on an online 'town hall' on May 22, 2025, which was about a nationwide school voucher scheme that's buried deep in the text of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. On the surface, the bill promises to provide $5 billion annually in school voucher funds for parents to apply for and use to pay for private-school tuition, homeschooling, and for-profit online learning. 'Supporters [of school choice have] hailed the proposal as 'historic' and a 'huge win,'' reported Dana Goldstein of the New York Times in May. But that topline description of what the measure proposes is deceptive and hides what amounts to 'a tax shelter that serves to benefit only the most wealthy Americans,' said David R. Schuler in the town hall. Schuler is the executive director of AASA, the School Superintendents Association. Although Goldstein framed the measure in pure political terms as a way for Republicans to push through a bill Democrats oppose, it's not really about party politics, and opposition to the proposal is bipartisan. And like Goldstein reported, while it's true that the rhetoric of school choice is at the center of the fight over this measure, 'This is not about giving families or parents choice,' said Jacqueline Rodriguez, CEO of the National Center for Learning Disabilities, another speaker at the town hall. 'This is about giving schools choice to discriminate against kids.' Yet there is a reason for this deception, and it's got everything to do with what's at the core of the Trump administration's MAGA agenda. An 'Unprecedented Giveaway' to the Wealthiest It's telling that the measure, originally called the Educational Choice for Children Act of 2025 when it was introduced and in committee, is now called 'tax credit for contributions of individuals to scholarship granting organisations' and appears in the part of the bill devoted to 'Additional Tax Relief for American Families and Workers,' rather than grouped with other education proposals in the Committee on Education and Workforce section. But the subterfuge goes much deeper than the name, according to the speakers at the town hall, including Amy Hanauer, executive director of the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), who called the measure 'the quintessential definition of a tax shelter.' The tax advantages are derived from how the programme is funded. As Hanauer explained, school vouchers would be funded by a tax credit system and a federally mandated network of scholarship granting organisations (SGOs), one in every state. Each SGO is its own nonprofit that can grant vouchers to parents who apply. When private individuals and corporations donate to an SGO, they would, in turn, receive a tax credit from the federal government that's dollar-for-dollar equal to the amount of the donation—limited to 10 percent of a donor's income. The first advantage is that the reward for donating comes in the form of a credit rather than a tax deduction, which, as the Tax Policy Center pointed out, increases the value of the tax advantage because a credit is 'subtracted directly from a person's tax liability,' while the value of a deduction 'depends on the taxpayer's marginal tax rate, which rises with income.' Those specifics make the voucher program a more attractive system for giving than other charitable causes. Also, 'no other charity, not pediatric cancer research, not disaster relief, not assisting disabled veterans, nothing gets this level of tax incentive,' said Hanauer, 'no other charity has ever gotten this kind of one-for-one payback.' There's a ripple effect of savings on state tax, too. 'Because state income taxes largely piggyback on federal law,' Hanauer said, 'the bill would also reduce [a donor's] state tax.' Even more lucrative to donors is a provision in the proposal to allow stock donations and avoid capital gains taxes on what they earned from the stock. In other words, by donating to an SGO, wealthy donors can profit from their 'donations,' and the wealthier the donor, the higher the potential profit. 'Elon Musk would have cut his capital gains tax bill by $690 million alone, him personally, if this [provision] had been in effect in 2021,' Hanauer said. It's an 'unprecedented giveaway that would enrich the wealthiest people, particularly those whose incomes come from stock,' she said. Whose Choice? Perhaps all these tax-related shenanigans could be justified as a federal programme for 'kids and families,' but that's not really true of this proposal. As Rodrigues explained, parents who want to use voucher money to pull their children out of the public system and send them to a private school will find that these schools don't have to accept them. She and other speakers in the town hall pointed out that private schools, regardless of whether or not they get public funding through a voucher programme, will continue to have the freedom to screen out applicants who struggle with academic work, who aren't fluent in English, who have histories of discipline problems, or who have learning disabilities. Although the bill includes language about holding voucher receiving schools accountable for ensuring federally required supports—IEPs or Individual Education Programs—for students with learning disabilities, there's no enforcement mechanism included, according to Rodriques, and the bill 'doesn't enforce or ensure any dispute resolution' when a parent doesn't agree with how a school is treating their child. Another speaker at the town hall, Amanda Tyler, executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, noted that because the vast majority of private schools are religious, the voucher programme would fund religion with tax dollars. Religious private schools 'cannot separate their faith from their teaching, and nor should they,' she said, but that condition creates problems for kids and families when practicing religious faith means excluding LGBTQ+ families and students or barring enrollment of families who do not share the school's religious faith. Passage of a federal voucher program would be especially detrimental to rural families, said Ginny Mott, vice president of the Maine State Parent Teacher Association, who also spoke at the meeting. There are very few private schools in rural parts of her state, she pointed out. 'For rural working families, limited availability, distance, lack of transportation, and cost of tuition beyond what the voucher system will cover means for many families there is no realistic choice,' she said. While a voucher programme with limited choice would provide benefits for a very select group of families, it would inflict serious harm on the public schools that 83 percent of families send their children to, according to 2024 figures provided by Pew Research Center. 'Rural communities, children, and families will be especially hard hit by a voucher school system which would divert funding away from their public schools,' Mott said. '[I]mposing a new national voucher program would simply drain… resources away from our existing schools.' Indeed, public schools everywhere would feel the impact, according to ITEP's Hanauer, as public coffers that pay for education and other services lose funds to tax credits taken by donors. 'We estimate that this bill would reduce federal tax revenue by $23.2 billion over the next decade,' she said. States would take a revenue hit too, losing $459 million to voucher tax credits, according to Hanauer. AASA's Schuler also noted that '[private schools] can also kick kids out whenever they want.' And when they do, the voucher funds the school collected don't follow the child back to the public school. The Worst Possible Scenario for Our Children Given all the negatives in the bill, numerous speakers questioned why it was pushed through. True, President Trump and his Secretary of Education Linda McMahon are openly hostile to public schools, and many in the Republican party have long campaigned to privatize education by expanding school voucher programs and enticing parents to pursue education options other than their local public schools. Town hall participant Denise Forte, President and CEO of the Education Trust, echoed this theme when she called the voucher proposal 'part of the great American heist on public education.' But politics alone doesn't explain the design of this particular bill. Kentucky parent Maria Clark, who also spoke at the town hall, described her state's rejection of a school voucher referendum in the 2024 November election, noting that 'voters in all 120 counties' voted against vouchers in a state where Trump won the popular vote in 118 of those counties. Voters also gave thumbs down to vouchers in Nebraska in November 2024, another conservative state where Trump won overwhelmingly. 'Why is Congress,' Clark asked, 'specifically a Republican Congress, voting to force a voucher program on our state?' Hanauer likely put her finger on the primary motivation when she said the bill 'is something that's as much about increasing inequality as it is about undermining our public schools.' Public education, after all, has long been an engine for equality, so any effort to undermine it is an effort to undo the public system's equalizing force. Such an outcome makes sense in the minds of Trump and his MAGA followers, who see the world in terms of a 'zero-sum' struggle with winners and losers. In this worldview, proposing a federal voucher system with an accompanying budget to fund it is not enough. The program must come at the expense of the public school system. It's not enough that beneficiaries of this bill—primarily well-to-do, white Christian parents who already can afford to send their children to private schools—get a boost; the rest of us who remain in the public system must make do with less. That goal might sound fine to Trump and his supporters, but it's a governing philosophy that will result in the worst possible outcomes for our children. Author Bio: This article was produced by Our Schools. Jeff Bryant is a writing fellow and chief correspondent for Our Schools. He is a communications consultant, freelance writer, advocacy journalist, and director of the Education Opportunity Network, a strategy and messaging center for progressive education policy. His award-winning commentary and reporting routinely appear in prominent online news outlets, and he speaks frequently at national events about public education policy. Follow him on Bluesky @jeffbinnc.
Scoop
9 hours ago
- Scoop
The Inevitable Souring: Elon Musk Falls Out With Donald Trump
Trumps response to Musks latest gobbet of accusation proved almost melancholic. I dont mind Elon turning against me, but he should have done so months ago. He went on to praise one of the Greatest Bills ever presented to Congress. Sandpit politics is rarely edifying and grown toddlers taking their fists to each other is unlikely to interest. But when they feature US President Donald Trump and the world's wealthiest man, the picture alters. Disputes are bound to be on scale, rippling in their consequences. No crystal ball was required regarding the eventual sundering of the relationship between Trump and Elon Musk. Here were noisy, brash egos who had formed a rancid union in American politics, with Musk lending his resources and public machinery to The Donald knowing he could also have sway in the Trump administration as a 'special government employee'. That sway took the form of DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency), a crude attempt to right the wrongs of misspending in government while politicising the public service. Awaking from a narcotised daze, Musk decided to focus on his floundering companies, notably Tesla, and step back from the inferno. In doing so, he expected 'to remain a friend and adviser, and if there's anything the president wants me to do, I'm at this service.' Gazing at the raging inferno that is Trumpian policy, that convivial attitude has all but evaporated. For one thing, Trump's proposed tax breaks and increases in defence spending, espoused in his One Big Beautiful Bill Act, seemed to undermine the very premise of DOGE and its zealous mission of reducing government spending. The legislation promises to slash $1.5 trillion in government spending but increase the debt limit by $4 trillion. 'I was disappointed to see the massive spending bill, frankly,' Musk said in an interview with CBS Sunday Morning last month. Such a plan merely inflated, not reduced, the budget deficit. 'I think a bill can be big or beautiful. I don't know if it can be both.' This month, Musk got even tetchier. His temper had frayed. 'I'm sorry, I just can't stand it anymore,' he barked on his X platform on June 3. 'This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination.' He continued to heap shame on members of Congress 'who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it.' On June 5, Trump expressed his disappointment 'because Elon knew the inner workings of this bill', leaving open the possibility that the billionaire might be suffering from 'Trump derangement syndrome.' Musk had 'only developed the problem when he found out that we're going to have to cut the [electric vehicle] mandate.' A blow was in the offing, coming in the form of a post on Truth Social: 'The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts. I was always surprised Biden didn't do it!' Musk's embittered retort: 'Such an obvious lie. So sad.' He also proposed, in light of the President's announcement, the decommissioning of Space X's Dragon spacecraft, vehicles used by NASA to transport astronauts to and from the International Space Station. The ripples were finally getting violent. Musk then decided to do what he called dropping 'the really big bomb'. Trump, he revealed, 'is in the Epstein files. This is the real reason they have not been made public.' Given Musk's estranged relationship with reality and its facets, this can only be taken at face value. It's a matter of record that Trump, along with a fat who's who of power, knew the late Jeffrey Epstein, financier and convicted sex offender, for many years. The trove of government documents known as The Epstein Files has offered the easily titillated some manna but, thus far, few bombs. On February 27, US Attorney General Pamela Bondi released what were described as the 'first phase' of files relating to the financier and 'his exploitation of over 250 underage girls at his homes in New York and Florida, among other locations.' In an interview with Fox News on February 21, Bondi revealed that Epstein's client list lay 'on my desk right now.' Trump's response to Musk's latest gobbet of accusation proved almost melancholic. 'I don't mind Elon turning against me, but he should have done so months ago.' He went on to praise 'one of the Greatest Bills ever presented to Congress.' In characteristically bratty fashion, Musk went on to share a post agreeing with the proposition that Trump be impeached and replaced by the Vice President, J.D. Vance, advocate 'a new political party in America that actually represents the 80% in the middle' (a touching billionaire's wish), and predict 'a recession in the second half of this year' caused by Trump's global tariff regime. In the scheme of things, Trump has survived impeachments, prosecutions, litigation, crowned by a divided US electorate that gave him a majority in both the Electoral College and the popular vote. Like a Teflon coated mafia don, he has made compromising people a minor art. Musk, compromised in his support and having second thoughts, can only go noisily into the confused night.
