Fatal Florida Crash By Illegal Immigrant Truck Driver Sparks Team Trump Vs California Governor
A semi-truck driver, who is an illegal immigrant, attempted a U-turn on the Florida turnpike, resulting in the trailer jackknifing and colliding with a minivan.
The illegal immigrant truck driver accused of causing a crash that killed three people in Florida has become the latest flashpoint between the Donald Trump administration and California Governor Gavin Newsom.
A semi-truck driver, who is an illegal immigrant, attempted a U-turn on the Florida turnpike, resulting in the trailer jackknifing and colliding with a minivan.
Following this, it turned out that the Sikh man was an Indian national, identified as Harjinder Singh, was issued a commercial driver's license by the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), despite his illegal status.
The finding gave ammunition to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which posted on X, 'How many more innocent people have to die before Gavin Newsom stops playing games with the safety of the American public?"
DHS is working around the clock to protect the public and get these criminal illegal aliens out of America, it said.
Under California's law, one gets a commercial driver's license only when they have a lawful presence in the country, Newsom's office said.
Singh allegedly crossed the California border illegally in September 2018 and was arrested by Border Patrol. He was then processed for fast-track deportation, but he 'claimed fear of going back to India", after which he was released on a $5,000 immigration bond in January 2019 after being given a Notice to Appear. The man has remained in immigration proceedings ever since.
'The illegal alien is an Indian national who was granted a commercial driver's license by the so-called 'sanctuary state' of California, whose reckless policies put the lives of American citizens at risk every single day," said the White House in a statement.
Attacking Newsom, who has in past clashed with the US President, the White House said, 'But instead of acknowledging the tragedy, criminal illegal alien sympathiser Gavin Newsom callously doubled down, claiming that giving driver's licenses to illegals 'improves public safety'."
According to the Florida Highway Patrol, the semi-truck, which was towing a box trailer, was in the outer lane when it tried to do a U-turn into a section of the turnpike designated as 'official use only."
According to the agency, the minivan, in the inside lane, was 'unable to avoid" the semi tractor-trailer as it crossed 'over all northbound travel lanes" to make the U-turn on the access road. The minivan crashed into the trailer and became jammed beneath its left side.
Singh was arrested by US Marshals in California on Saturday on a warrant for three counts of vehicular homicide, and he is now facing deportation.
Trump and Newsom have clashed on multiple issues in past, including immigration and economic strategies. They have feuded several times on public platforms as well.
Click here to add News18 as your preferred news source on Google. Get breaking news, in-depth analysis, and expert perspectives on everything from geopolitics to diplomacy and global trends. Stay informed with the latest world news only on News18. Download the News18 App to stay updated!
view comments
Location :
Washington D.C., United States of America (USA)
First Published:
August 19, 2025, 09:20 IST
News world Fatal Florida Crash By Illegal Immigrant Truck Driver Sparks Team Trump Vs California Governor
Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Loading comments...
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
29 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Breaking down the Chinese wall
As India and China commemorate 75 years of diplomatic engagement this year, strong signs of a diplomatic thaw have emerged. The meeting between Defence Minister Rajnath Singh and his Chinese counterpart, Admiral Dong Jun, on the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation Defence Ministers' meeting in January; resumption of the Kailash Manasarovar Yatra in June; and Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi's two-day visit to India this week all offer glimpses of warmth. A meeting point for two worlds Long before modern diplomacy took shape, and borders were established and redrawn, the relationship between India and China was nurtured by something more enduring: the shared pursuit of knowledge. As early as the first millennium CE, Chinese monks such as Faxian, Xuanzang, and Yijing journeyed across treacherous landscapes to reach Indian centres of learning. At the heart of this exchange stood Nalanda, where ideas flowed more freely than goods, and religious belief and secular inquiry coexisted in harmony. Nalanda was a meeting point of the two worlds, where cultural and intellectual connections flourished far beyond the concerns of modern statehood. In the quest to revive Nalanda today, there is more than nostalgia; there is hope to rebuild the kind of meaningful, respectful engagement that once defined our ties. Nalanda, both as an institution and as a philosophy, has long embodied a commitment to peace, dialogue, and intellectual diplomacy. It's enduring spirit lives on in its motto — 'Aa no bhadra kratavo yantu viśvata (let noble thoughts come to us from all directions).' This same spirit lives on in the idea of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam (the world as one family). This way of thinking has, for centuries, held together the threads of exchange between India and China. Since the time of Xuanzang, scholars, teachers, and students from both nations have engaged in meaningful interaction, unimpeded by the boundaries that define the modern state. Today, the space for such academic and cultural exchange seems to be narrowed. Should contemporary political complexities necessarily limit the flow of ideas between two ancient civilisations? Stalling of trade, recurring military confrontations, and hundreds of academic or people-to-people connections awaiting bureaucratic clearance have created a kind of stillness, one that feels far removed from the natural flow of exchange that once defined our ties. Why must scholars on either side require permission to engage in dialogue, or students hesitate before considering an academic exchange with institutions of global standing across the border? There is immense potential for mutual learning. India can look to China's initiatives in areas such as food security, local infrastructure development, or grassroots entrepreneurship. And China's academic and policy community may find value in studying India's democratic decentralisation, open civil society engagement, or digital public goods framework. These are not points of comparison, but possible pathways of collaborative learning. In this light, one wonders: why does India's engagement with China remain so carefully limited? Why does strategic ambiguity continue to define a relationship rooted in shared intellectual history? How can we move from reactive diplomacy towards a more confident, future-facing framework that honours the depth of our civilisational ties, while meeting the complexities of the present? How do we deal with the emergence of 'the gatekeeper states,' limiting the range of possibilities? The Nalanda way Just as Nalanda once created space for dialogue and learning between civilisations, perhaps today too, we can draw from that spirit to shape how we engage with China. There will always be areas where our paths differ: on the border, in trade, or in the way we see the region around us. But Nalanda reminds us that disagreement does not have to mean disengagement. It is possible to hold firm where we must, and still stay open to conversations where they matter. This approach also calls for some reflection on how we prepare ourselves. We don't need to change our principles, but we may need to adapt how we practice them. Investing in stronger academic and policy research on China, allowing smoother academic exchanges in areas such as environment, health, and culture, and building long-term people-to-people connections are quiet but important steps. Nalanda drew its strength from more than just being a beacon of knowledge. At the heart of Nalanda's tradition were values that still feel close to us: curiosity, compassion, and the transformative power of knowledge. Scholars such as Śīlabhadra, who taught the Chinese monk Xuanzang, showed that learning could also be a form of diplomacy. Nalanda wasn't just India's; it was also a place of deep importance to generations of Chinese scholars who carried its teachings home and helped shape the intellectual and spiritual fabric of East Asia. Today, perhaps these principles matter even more. If India and China can draw from this shared legacy with genuine intention, they may find a way to engage with each other more thoughtfully. Curiosity without fear, dialogue without suspicion, and clarity without aggression could be the beginning of a steadier path built on understanding and mutual respect. We need to break down our Chinese wall to move beyond the paranoia that sustains our China policy. Rajeev Ranjan Chaturvedy, Associate Professor heading the School of International Relations and Peace Studies, and founding coordinator of the Centre for Bay of Bengal Studies; Anushka Padmanabh Antrolikar, Postgraduate scholar at Nalanda University, Rajgir
News18
39 minutes ago
- News18
White House Briefing Trump Says U.S. Won't Send Peacekeeping Troops To Ukraine US News
President Trump said that no American troops would be placed on the ground to protect Ukraine as part of any peace agreement with Russia, as European leaders met for urgent talks over what a postwar security arrangement could look like. News18 Mobile App -
Deccan Herald
an hour ago
- Deccan Herald
The rhetoric and real costs of trade wars
India misread the tariffs brought on by the United States and, at a broader level, the Trump administration. We were one of the first to approach the US on this matter, and we continued to believe that we would have a favourable deal till recently, given what we felt was a great rapport between Modi and Trump. Mainstream electronic media houses were complicit in driving this narrative. To understand why India got it wrong, it would be useful to connect two disparate data dots. Top that with India's misreading of Trump's desire to be seen as a look at the first irritant and its impact. India exports roughly $90 billion, paying approximately 2 per cent tariffs currently, and imports roughly $45 billion at 12 per cent tariffs. The trade deficit of $45 billion carries a tariff differential of $5 billion per year in India's favour after adjusting for exempted products. We should have seen this imbalance in America's trade deficit and tariffs long ago and proactively addressed this. Modi is now overhauling the tax rates in a bid to boost the economy. This is expected to cost $20 billion, four times the tariff differential India was enjoying. .The other irritant is oil imports. In 2021/22, India imported roughly 2.5 million barrels of oil every day. Under the tacit approval of the West, India's imports from Russia grew from 2 per cent then to 40 per cent today. India buys 45 per cent of the exported oil from Russia, a growth of 1900 per cent from pre-war levels. China buys the same percentage, a growth of 50 per cent from pre-war levels. So why did India need this extra oil suddenly? It was because we processed this extra oil and sold it for a profit overseas. Therefore, the rhetoric is misplaced, as we are profiting and fuelling the Russian war machine. Predicting the flow of events, we should have scaled down our offtake back to the 2022 levels and with that, justify our need to fuel the Indian economy and keep inflationary tendencies in check. We have now started to do this, drawing a balance between the US and predict that the impact of tariffs at 25 per cent is likely to be in the region of $11-12 billion per annum on tariffed goods and about 0.25 per cent on GDP. In the earliest days of cranking up our imports of oil, the difference was around $30 a barrel, leading to a gain of $16 billion. That has now come down to around $5 a barrel after accounting for logistics, etc. The benefit we get is estimated today to be only $3.5 billion, a delta of $8.5 billion from what we lose out on with the long commentators have suggested many responses, ranging from the knee-jerk to keeping the long-term in mind. The real issue is what we do now. There is no pattern in the madness. Why have the four treatments of the BRIC countries been different? Because there is a different playbook with each one. With Brazil, the US has a trade surplus. Why then, do they have tariffs of 50 per cent, which is higher than China and equal to India? Bolsonaro? With China, 150 per cent was brought down to 30 per cent; here, it is about the rare earths. For the quantities required, the ecosystem is expensive, and the returns don't work out for a commercial operation. The CCP subsidised this for leverage and their long-term plans to pursue electric mobility and clean energy. This leverage on supplies was used to resolve the $650 billion of trade at stake between the US and China. .India made public its hypocritical treatment at the hands of the US, as it bought palladium, uranium, etc. from Russia. However, the reality is that US imports from Russia were at best $3 billion, down some 45 per cent from the previous year. India's imports from Russia stood at $70 billion, almost twice what it imports from the must now not get caught in the whirlpool of its rhetoric. And it certainly must not seek to appease China and Russia in a hurry and on the rebound. One can expect that this is short-term. There are many moving parts – Russia and Ukraine could arrive at a truce as early as next month. India has already started to demonstrate it is willing to reduce its import of Russian oil while not displeasing Russia. The midterms in the US could go against Trump, and the US courts could reverse Trump's executive decisions. Importantly, Trump does not define the long-standing US relationship with India. Trump himself may not have a long-term view on this the US, it seems clear. The average tariff on its imports has seen inflows of $28 billion, three times post these levies were collected in June. This aggregates to $350 billion. Add to this DOGE cuts and some others, and we have $500 billion being saved or added to the US treasury. This pays half its annual interest cost of $1 trillion, which, if left alone, is not sustainable. This is good for no one, as it is the world's biggest market by the short term, one sees no harm in subtly managing the relationships and dynamics at play and being practical. In the long term, anyway, as economist John Maynard Keynes said, we are all dead..(The writer is the former managing director of a Tata Company and now runs a Bengaluru-headquartered corporate finance practice)
