William Blair downgrades Tesla, says key change in GOP spending bill dampens the stock's outlook
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Chicago Tribune
8 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Homer Glen man charged with threatening representative found unfit for trial
A Homer Glen man who was charged earlier this year with threatening state Rep. Nicole La Ha was found this week unfit to stand trial in Will County Circuit Court. Steven Brady, 41, of the 13100 block of Rado Drive, faces charges of threatening a public official, a felony, and harassment through electronic communications, a misdemeanor, for allegedly contacting La Ha through her website and saying he would harm the representative and her family. Brady was evaluated by a licensed psychiatrist and he was found unfit to stand trial, but he is likely to be restored to fitness within a year, according to court documents. Brady, who was ordered held after his arrest in May, has been remanded to the custody of the Illinois Department of Human Services for inpatient treatment, Laura Byrne, a spokesperson for the Will County state's attorney's office, said in an email. He will next appear in court Sept. 9 for a status hearing on his fitness. The case is still pending and charges have not been dropped, but the fitness issue needs to be addressed first, Byrne said. The Will County public defender's office, which is representing Brady, did not return a message seeking comment. A spokesman for La Ha released a statement on her behalf. 'I'm relieved this individual is getting the help he needs,' La Ha's statement said. 'My hope is that this leads to a safer outcome for everyone involved.' Illinois State Police arrested Brady May 19 after they were notified of the alleged threat made through La Ha's website on May 15 and 16. Messages contained expletives, accused La Ha of committing crimes, referenced her family and included threats such as 'say goodbye to your old friends and family' and 'orders have been delivered,' according to Will County court documents. When officers came into contact with Brady, he allegedly said 'you got my message' and informed police he wanted political figures arrested for stealing from him, according to court documents. He also confirmed the email address used to submit the threats belonged to him, court documents said. La Ha was a Homer Glen trustee from 2021-2023. She has represented the 82nd District, which includes areas of DuPage, Will and Cook counties, since 2023. La Ha, a Homer Glen Republican, was recognized by the National Foundation for Women Legislators with the '2024 Elected Women of Excellence Award.
The Hill
8 minutes ago
- The Hill
How to achieve the balanced immigration policy Americans want
Terrified employees are not showing up to work. Children who are American citizens are being deported without due process. Crops are being left to rot because farms can't find workers to pick them. The Trump administration has claimed this is the price of a secure border. But Americans are no longer buying it. A record-high 79 percent of Americans now say immigration is a good thing for the country — a growing majority clearly believes U.S. policy should address immigration's benefits, as well as its risks. A balanced policy is possible. By the end of its time in office, the Biden administration had brought order to the border. In our new research paper, we examine the successes and shortcomings of Biden's term, offering lessons for a more pragmatic migration policy — one that advances America's broad range of economic, security and humanitarian interests. We would be the first to acknowledge that the Biden administration's response to record migration flows was imperfect. The administration was slow to support cities struggling with unprecedented migrant arrivals, ceded the narrative to its critics by playing defense on communications and waited too long to ramp up its enforcement efforts. But by the end of 2024, total monthly encounters at the Southern border fell from a high of 300,000 to fewer than 100,000. In fact, the number of authorized encounters at ports of entry via programs, such as CBP One and the special program for for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans, exceeded the number of unauthorized encounters. Put another way, more than 80 percent of the current reduction we see in unauthorized border encounters occurred during the Biden administration. The Trump administration has reduced encounters from their prior levels by an additional 17 percent through costly and draconian measures. The immigration lessons from Biden's term are not always intuitive. First, enforcement and lawful pathways are not opposing strategies — they are interdependent. We have often heard the refrain of needing to crack down first, and only then consider expanding lawful pathways. But the data tells a different story. When the U.S. paired increased enforcement with credible legal alternatives, irregular crossings plummeted. It was this mix — not enforcement alone — that brought numbers down. Second, emergency parole programs were a key, if imperfect, tool. Humanitarian parole, including the CHNV process, allowed people to apply from where they were, enabling vetted migrants to join the U.S. labor force quickly, helping avoid a post-pandemic recession. That said, parole programs are not a durable solution. Congress must finally revisit decades-old visa caps and instead build a flexible and demand-driven approach that better matches migrants with labor needs across the skill spectrum. Third, regional cooperation mattered more than most Americans realize. Countries such as Colombia, Brazil, Ecuador and Peru gave legal status to over 4.5 million displaced Venezuelans, preventing an even larger surge north. The U.S. backed those efforts with foreign assistance and diplomacy. It paid off, as fewer people were forced to keep moving. It was far cheaper, too. Integration costs were estimated at $600 per migrant in Colombia, for instance, compared to the over $17,000 price tag to apprehend, detain and deport someone at the U.S. border. Western Hemisphere countries also worked together to increase migrant screening and vetting, coordinate on transit visa policies and investigate traffickers. Migration diplomacy under the Biden administration was a two-way street, with the U.S. encouraging countries to do more but also providing foreign assistance and political cover. When we recognize that migration is a hemispheric challenge, not just a U.S. one, we get better results. Finally, if we want to avoid the next migration surge, we need to understand what drove the last one. Yes, the Biden administration's shift in tone influenced flows at the border. But the deeper drivers were structural: a post-pandemic labor market desperate for workers; Title 42 expulsions that perversely encouraged repeated crossings; and the largest displacement crisis in the hemisphere's history, fueled mainly by Venezuela's economic collapse. Migration pressure doesn't simply disappear — it builds up. By slashing foreign aid, abandoning multilateralism and pouring resources almost exclusively into border security and internal enforcement, the Trump administration has bet everything on deterrence. If these tactics merely delay rather than prevent a future crisis, the administration may wish it had more tools available to respond. We share these lessons not to fight old battles but to shape a smarter way forward. Last month, a bipartisan group of House members reintroduced the Dignity Act, coupling a pathway to legal status for undocumented immigrants in the U.S. with stronger enforcement. There's a growing recognition in Congress that waiting for a 'grand bargain' has become an excuse for doing nothing. Narrow, targeted reforms — expediting work permits, closing asylum loopholes, expanding permanent and temporary lawful visas, creating a path to legal status for those who have lived here for many years, and promoting talent retention — are all achievable, necessary and in our national interest. Three decades of stalemate have made clear that inaction on immigration carries immense costs. Those who believe in a better way must seize the opportunity to pursue pragmatic policies, whenever it emerges.
The Hill
8 minutes ago
- The Hill
Harvard, Trump deal will cause chilling effect if there are no safeguards
Condemning antisemitism on campus is nonnegotiable. But what's happening at Harvard right now is about much more than confronting hate — it's about whether our universities are for sale to the highest political bidder. The Trump administration has dangled a $500 million settlement to end its feud with Harvard, but the fine print would reshape how the university operates — from what gets taught, to who oversees faculty, to how students are policed. If Harvard takes this deal without ironclad safeguards, it's not just selling out its students and professors. It's setting a precedent: that a White House can use funding as a weapon to force ideological compliance. We've already seen the playbook. Columbia University paid $200 million to make investigations disappear — and in return, accepted an independent monitor reporting directly to the administration, plus sweeping changes to campus governance. As one analysis warned, 'academic freedom is severely threatened with a provost hanging over Middle Eastern studies and another monitor constantly reporting back to Trump.' Translation: the chilling effect will last far longer than the headlines. Brown University fought for — and won — a better outcome. Its $50 million settlement came with guarantees that the administration wouldn't 'dictate Brown's curriculum or the content of academic speech' and no intrusive oversight. Harvard's lawyers are pushing for similar protections, but with 10 times more money on the line, the political pressure is far greater. More than a dozen Democratic members in Congress who attended Harvard cautioned against a settlement on Aug. 1st, warning the university it may warrant 'rigorous Congressional oversight and inquiry.' In a statement, Congressman Sam Liccardo says, 'We urge Harvard to defend its institutional independence and academic integrity from this blatant attempt at political intimidation.' And Congressman Dr. Raul Ruiz notes, 'Harvard must stand firm in defending academic freedom and institutional independence. This is a test of values—and the University has a chance to lead by example.' If Harvard capitulates under financial and political duress, future presidents — Republican or Democratic — will know they can bypass the courts and instead wield federal funding as a blunt instrument to reshape campus life. That path does not just punish one school; it chills scholarship and discourse nationwide. The truth is, research dollars can be recouped in time. But once universities signal they can be coerced into political compliance, reputations, credibility and intellectual freedom are far harder to restore. Harvard is right to be wary. The settlement it accepts now will not only define this chapter of its history, but it will also set the terms for how — and whether — higher education in America can resist political retaliation in the decades to come.
