Trump administration presses states for voter data and machine access: Report
Separately, the Justice Department has requested voter rolls from at least nine states, with two states reportedly complying so far.A White House spokesperson, Harrison Fields, defended the effort, saying President Trump is committed to 'fighting for election integrity' and is confident in a legal victory.Although elections in the US are managed by state and local governments, Trump continues to challenge the legitimacy of the 2020 election, which he lost to Joe Biden. In a Truth Social post over the weekend, Trump doubled down on his claims of widespread voter fraud and called for renewed action over what he continues to label the "stolen election of 2020."- EndsTune InMust Watch
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
24 minutes ago
- Time of India
What's really behind Harvard's clash with the US government over federal funds?
Harvard challenges US funding cuts in $3 billion legal battle with Trump administration Harvard University is currently embroiled in a legal battle with the US government over the freezing of nearly $3 billion in federal funding. The dispute centers on allegations made by the Trump administration and the University's response through a federal lawsuit. The courtroom hearing, taking place in Boston's Seaport District, represents a key moment in the case. The proceedings involve oral arguments over whether Harvard can recover federal research funds that were withheld following the administration's imposition of specific conditions tied to hiring, admissions, and oversight. Background of the lawsuit and key issues at stake The legal conflict began in April when the Trump administration sent a letter to Harvard President Alan M. Garber outlining conditions for continued federal support. These included structural reforms to increase 'viewpoint diversity' and audits of various academic units, as reported by The Harvard Crimson. In response, Harvard filed a lawsuit arguing that the administration's demands violated the First Amendment and bypassed formal legal procedures for terminating federal funding. Following the University's legal challenge, the administration halted more than $2 billion in federal grants. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like What Happens When You Massage Baking Soda Into Your Scalp Read More Undo According to The Harvard Crimson, the government escalated further by adding hundreds of millions in additional cuts and warning that Harvard would no longer receive future grants. Federal agencies involved and legal grounds cited Eleven federal agencies are named as defendants, including the Department of Health and Human Services, the National Science Foundation, and the Department of Defense. Harvard argues that the Trump administration's funding freeze violated the First Amendment by attaching viewpoint-based conditions to funding. The University also cited the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, stating that the government failed to follow the necessary steps before terminating grants. Title VI typically requires a hearing, two formal notices, a 30-day pause, and a failed attempt at voluntary compliance. Harvard contends that none of these steps were followed before the April funding freeze. Key Information Details Amount frozen Over $2.2 billion Total funds at stake Nearly $3 billion Agencies involved 11 (including NSF, DOD, HHS) Legal claims First Amendment, APA, Title VI Judge Allison D. Burroughs Court location Boston, Massachusetts Allegations of antisemitism and racial bias According to the Trump administration, the cuts were prompted by Harvard's alleged failure to adequately address antisemitism and racial discrimination against white students. As reported by The Harvard Crimson, several federal agencies referenced findings from a task force on antisemitism, which described incidents of social isolation and discrimination faced by Jewish and Israeli students. Harvard, however, maintains that it has implemented significant measures, including the formalization of protest policies and expanded academic programs on Jewish and Israeli history. In a court filing cited by The Harvard Crimson, the University said the 2,000-page administrative record submitted by the government failed to show a proper investigation into antisemitism on campus. Ongoing impact and future implications The funding cuts have already disrupted research at Harvard, halting projects in cancer and rare disease treatment and prompting layoffs and hiring freezes. According to The Harvard Crimson, the University requested a summary judgment in early June to resolve the case before the federal government's September 3 deadline for fulfilling financial obligations related to canceled grants. The Trump administration has argued that the case belongs in the Court of Federal Claims, which could delay a final ruling. Meanwhile, discussions between Harvard and the White House have not resulted in a settlement. Judge Allison D. Burroughs is presiding over the case. Though a final ruling is not expected immediately, the court's decision will have significant implications for the University and federal oversight of higher education. TOI Education is on WhatsApp now. Follow us here . Ready to navigate global policies? Secure your overseas future. Get expert guidance now!
First Post
29 minutes ago
- First Post
Trump's Indonesia Trade Deal: Relief or Exploitation? Vantage with Palki Sharma
Trump's Indonesia Trade Deal: Relief or Exploitation? | Vantage with Palki Sharma | N18G Trump's Indonesia Trade Deal: Relief or Exploitation? | Vantage with Palki Sharma | N18G Donald Trump's latest trade deal with Indonesia slashes threatened tariffs but imposes steep costs on Jakarta. The agreement keeps a 19% U.S. tariff on Indonesian goods — nearly four times last year's rate — while granting American exports free access to Indonesia. Jakarta also pledged billions in purchases of U.S. oil, agriculture, and Boeing jets. Indonesia's President Prabowo accepted the deal to avoid harsher penalties but admitted it was tough. Critics say the agreement showcases Trump's coercive approach: threaten extreme tariffs, then demand one-sided concessions. The deal raises questions about whether this is negotiation — or economic pressure disguised as diplomacy. See More
NDTV
40 minutes ago
- NDTV
India-US Free Trade 'Mini Deal' Likely By October: Sources
New Delhi: India is close to finalising an interim free trade agreement with the United States, sources told NDTV Monday evening, and said an announcement is expected by September or October. Indian negotiators returned from the US Saturday after a fifth round of talks. A team of American officials is expected in India in mid-August as both sides race to secure a provisional deal before President Donald Trump's August 1 deadline for imposition of fresh tariffs. That 'hard deadline' was underlined by the US' Commerce Secretary, Howard Lutnick last week; in a televised interview he said, "... nothing stops countries from talking to us after August 1... but that's a hard deadline. They're going to start paying the tariffs from August 1." Sources told NDTV a 'mini deal' might be worked out in time to avoid heavy tariffs on steel, automotive parts, and aluminium, which are among India's biggest exports to the US. However, sources said that even if a 'mini deal' is not possible and the Trump administration imposes the 26 per cent tariff announced on April 2, the impact on India will not be significant. Apart from the tariff on steel, issues related to agriculture and automobiles have also been discussed. And India, sources said, has hardened its position on the US' demand for duty concessions in the dairy sector. India has not given any FTA partner such concessions. India has also sought removal of the additional tariff of 26 per cent, as well as the base tariffs of 50 per cent on its steel and aluminium exports and the 25 per cent on the automotive sector. Concessions have also been sought for labour-intensive sectors like textiles. The US, meanwhile, wants relief on the import of certain industrial goods and automobiles, especially electric vehicles, as well as wines and petrochemical and agricultural products. Perhaps most significantly, sources said India has told the US it reserves the right, under World Trade Organisation norms, to impose retaliatory duties on American imports. India has not so far charged additional tariffs on US goods, unlike China and the European Union, which have also been hit with high tariffs as part of Trump's new administration. Last month Trump - after the US announced an agreement with Indonesia, which saw tariffs on that country reduced to 19 per cent - declared a trade deal with India is a matter of time. "We're going to have access to India... you have to understand, we had no access to any of these countries. Our people couldn't go in. We're getting access now because of the tariffs." Sources also dismissed media speculation the US had set India certain conditions. Officials told NDTV India's economic and business interests would be 'fully protected' at all times. India's merchandise exports to the US rose 22.8 per cent to $US 25.51 billion in the April-June quarter this fiscal year, while imports rose 11.68 per cent to $US 12.86 billion. Meanwhile, India's free trade deal with the United Kingdom is expected to be approved during Prime Minister Narendra Modi's visit to that country this week. Mr Modi, accompanied by Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal, will likely sign the agreement on his July 23-24 trip. The India-UK agreement includes duty cuts on nearly 99 per cent of products; i.e., 99 per cent of Indian exports will be duty free in the UK and 90 per cent of UK's imports will be exempted.
