Rubio recasts long-held beliefs with cuts to U.S. human rights reports
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Palantir Nears Record High As Trump's $175 Billion Missile Defense Plan Opens Door To Massive SHIELD Contracts
Defense contractor Palantir Technologies' (NASDAQ:PLTR) stock trended on Wednesday as it traded close to its 52-week high of $190. President Donald Trump's $175 billion Golden Dome missile defense plan could create new contract opportunities for companies like Palantir by opening bids under the Scalable Homeland Innovative Enterprise Layered Defense (SHIELD) initiative. Palantir's software could support missile tracking, cybersecurity, and data integration across the system's satellite and ground-based defense layers, aligning with the Pentagon's push to strengthen national security by 2028. Also Read: Palantir stock gained over 147% year-to-date, driven by its performance in the AI sector and increased government contracts. Also this week, Palantir expanded its long-term partnership with SOMPO Holdings through a new multi-year deal via Palantir Technologies Japan KK, deepening the use of its Foundry platform across multiple SOMPO subsidiaries. The integration now spans elder care, insurance claims, and underwriting, with AI-driven tools streamlining fraud detection, claims processing, and risk evaluation. By embedding Foundry deeper into core operations, SOMPO expects to boost efficiency, accuracy, and annual financial results by about $10 million. Analysts expect Palantir's growth to accelerate after its strong second-quarter results and guidance that topped expectations. Piper Sandler's Brent Bracelin cited record revenue gains in government and commercial segments, including a $10 billion Army deal and 93% year-over-year U.S. commercial growth. Bank of America's Mariana Perez Mora noted that Palantir remains best in class for operationalizing AI in enterprises and aligns with the Trump administration's 'Winning the Race' AI plan. Both analysts view Palantir as uniquely positioned to capture share in two $1 trillion-plus markets. Price Action: PLTR shares are trading 1.11% higher at $189.02 as of the last check on Wednesday. Read Next:Image: Shutterstock UNLOCKED: 5 NEW TRADES EVERY WEEK. Click now to get top trade ideas daily, plus unlimited access to cutting-edge tools and strategies to gain an edge in the markets. Get the latest stock analysis from Benzinga? PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES (PLTR): Free Stock Analysis Report This article Palantir Nears Record High As Trump's $175 Billion Missile Defense Plan Opens Door To Massive SHIELD Contracts originally appeared on © 2025 Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Court Lets Trump Block Billions of Dollars in Foreign Aid
(Bloomberg) -- The Trump administration can cut billions of dollars in foreign assistance funds approved by Congress for this year, a US appeals court ruled. Sunseeking Germans Face Swiss Backlash Over Alpine Holiday Congestion To Head Off Severe Storm Surges, Nova Scotia Invests in 'Living Shorelines' New York Warns of $34 Billion Budget Hole, Biggest Since 2009 Crisis Five Years After Black Lives Matter, Brussels' Colonial Statues Remain For Homeless Cyclists, Bikes Bring an Escape From the Streets In a 2-1 decision on Wednesday, the appellate panel reversed a Washington federal judge who found that US officials were violating the Constitution's separation of powers principles by failing to authorize the money to be paid in line with what the legislative branch directed. The ruling is a significant win for President Donald Trump's efforts to dissolve the US Agency for International Development and broadly withhold funding from programs that have fallen out of favor with his administration, regardless of how Congress exercised its authority over spending. Trump's critics have assailed what they've described as a far-reaching power grab by the executive branch. The nonprofits and business that sued could ask the all of the active judges on the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit to reconsider the three-member panel's decision. Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson wrote in the majority opinion that the challengers lacked valid legal grounds to sue over the Trump administration's decision to withhold the funds, also known as impoundment. The US Comptroller General — who leads an accountability arm of Congress — could sue under a specific law related to impoundment decisions, Henderson wrote, but the challengers couldn't bring a 'freestanding' constitutional claim or claim violations of a different law related to agency actions. Henderson, appointed by former President George H.W. Bush, was joined by Judge Greg Katsas, a Trump appointee. The court didn't reach the core question of whether the administration's unilateral decision to refuse to spend money appropriated by Congress is constitutional. Judge Florence Pan, nominated by former President Joe Biden, dissented, writing that her colleagues had turned 'a blind eye to the 'serious implications' of this case for the rule of law and the very structure of our government.' The two consolidated cases before the appeals court only deal with money that Congress approved for the 2024 fiscal year, which ends on Sept. 30. Grantees are poised to lose access to funds if they haven't yet been approved to be spent by federal officials — a precursor to actual payouts — or unless a court order is in place. The administration lost one of its few battles before the US Supreme Court earlier this year in the foreign aid fight. In March, a majority of justices refused to immediately stop US District Judge Amir Ali's injunction taking effect while the legal fight went forward. Since then, however, the challengers have filed complaints with Ali that the administration is failing to obligate or pay out the funds. They've rebuffed the government's position that the delay is part of a legitimate effort to 'evaluate the appropriate next steps' and accused officials of angling to use a novel tactic to go around Congress in order to cut appropriated money. The Trump administration has dramatically scaled back the US government's humanitarian work overseas, slashing spending and personnel and merging the US Agency for International Development into the State Department. The challengers say the foreign aid freeze has created a global crisis, and that the money is critical for malaria prevention, to address child malnutrition and provide postnatal care for newborns. The groups argued that the president and agency leaders couldn't defy Congress' spending mandates and didn't have discretion to decide that only some, let alone none, of the money appropriated by lawmakers should be paid. The president can ask Congress to withdraw appropriations but can't do it on his own, the challengers argued. The Justice Department argued Ali's order was an 'improper judicial intrusion into matters left to the political branches' and that the judge wrongly interfered in the 'particularly sensitive area of foreign relations.' The government also said that the Impoundment Control Act, which restricts the president from overruling Congress' spending decisions, wasn't a law that the nonprofits and business could sue to enforce. The challengers countered that Ali's order blocking the funding freeze was rooted in their constitutional separation-of-powers claim, not the impoundment law. The cases are Global Health Council v. Trump, 25-5097, and AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition v. US Department of State, 25-5098, US Court of Appeals, DC Circuit. (Updated with details from the opinion.) Bessent on Tariffs, Deficits and Embracing Trump's Economic Plan Why It's Actually a Good Time to Buy a House, According to a Zillow Economist Dubai's Housing Boom Is Stoking Fears of Another Crash The Social Media Trend Machine Is Spitting Out Weirder and Weirder Results A $340 Million New York Office Makeover Is Converting Boardrooms to Bedrooms ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
CNN
31 minutes ago
- CNN
US says human rights have ‘worsened' in UK in past year
The Trump administration has published a report claiming that human rights in the United Kingdom 'worsened' over the past year. The annual report, part of the US State Department's global survey of human rights, criticized what it said were 'serious restrictions' on free speech and threats of violence motivated by antisemitism. Although other reports in the series claimed human rights also regressed in countries like France and Germany, the list of grievances in the UK was far longer, underscoring the supposed backsliding in the age of social media. Specifically on freedom of speech in the UK, the US report said that 'the government generally respected this right' but that 'there were specific areas of concern, including involving restrictions on political speech deemed 'hateful' or 'offensive.'' A UK government spokesperson said that free speech is 'vital for democracy,' and that 'we are proud to uphold freedoms whilst keeping our citizens safe.' Speaking at the Munich Security Conference in February, Vice President JD Vance – who is currently on vacation in England's rural Cotswolds – claimed that free speech across Europe is 'in retreat' and singled out Britain as the country where the 'basic liberties' of citizens had been caught 'in the crosshairs.' The report singled out the response by what was then the young government of Prime Minister Keir Starmer to the murder of three schoolgirls by Axel Rudakubana, the British son of Rwandan migrants, in the northern English town of Southport last year. The murders – and misinformation about the identity of the perpetrator – sparked anti-immigration riots across the country, prompting some to set fire to a hotel used to house asylum seekers while people were inside. In the wake of the Southport killings, government officials 'repeatedly intervened to chill speech as to the identity and motives of the attacker,' the report said. Although the report implied nefariousness on the part of the British government, prosecutors applied existing laws, such as the Public Order Act 1986 and the Communications Act 2003, to punish speech deemed 'indecent or grossly offensive.' To stem the rioting, Starmer – a former director of public prosecutions – pledged that those involved would face the 'full force of the law.' That summer, nearly 2,000 people were arrested and more than 1,000 people were charged. Although the riots swiftly died down after the initial spasm of outrage, many on the British right criticized the government's response as heavy-handed, designed to throttle conservative views. 'While many media observers deemed 'two-tier' enforcement of these laws following the Southport attacks an especially grievous example of government censorship, censorship of ordinary Britons was increasingly routine, often targeted at political speech,' the report said. It cited the sentencing in July of Lee Joseph Dunn to eight weeks in prison for 'posting a meme suggesting a link between migrants and knife crime.' Dunn pleaded guilty to sending messages that were 'grossly offensive,' which prosecutors said risked 'worsening community tensions.' Dunn's case was not unusual. In another high-profile instance, Lucy Connolly, a mother and former nanny, was sentenced to 31 months in prison after calling for mass deportation and urging hotels housing immigrants to be set on fire. 'If that makes me racist so be it,' she posted on X at the time. While the UK maintains it is striking a balance between protecting speech and keeping citizens safe, Vance claims the UK has got that balance wrong. During a meeting last week with UK Foreign Minister David Lammy, the vice president said he did not want other countries to 'follow us down what I think was a very dark path under the Biden administration' by censoring conservative views. Following Vance's Munich speech, and his more recent interventions, many in Britain have accused him of hypocrisy and cited the Trump administration's detention of students over pro-Palestinian speech and taking legal action against broadcasters for what it deems hostile news coverage.
