Trump touts investments as he departs Middle East
President Trump departed the United Arab Emirates on Friday to head back to Washington, touting major investment agreements from his trip to the Middle East and telling reporters he planned to see his new grandchild upon his return.
'I have a nice grandchild waiting, which I'll see soon, but this was a fantastic moment for our country. I really believe that,' Trump told reporters moments before leaving on Air Force One. His daughter, Tiffany, had a baby on Thursday.
'Everyone's talking about it, and the respect shown to our country was incredible,' headed
Financial investments and business deals were front and center during Trump's trip.
The White House touted a $600 billion agreement with Saudi Arabia, though the specifics amounted to less than that number. The administration also cited an economic deal with Qatar that was expected to be worth more than $243 billion.
The deal with Qatar included an agreement for Qatari Airways to purchase 160 jets from Boeing.
Trump also signed a deal with the United Arab Emirates worth more than $200 billion, and the two sides agreed to strengthen their cooperation on artificial intelligence. On Friday, a UAE official announced plans to build an aluminum factory in the U.S.
'I will say I did that, and everyone will say, 'Meh.' But somebody's going to be cutting a ribbon and say — well, we're going to be finished long before that,' Trump told reporters. 'But somebody's going to be taking the credit for this. You remember, press, this guy did it.'
White House officials had sought to capitalize on the trip to the Middle East by announcing business deals and financial commitments to burnish the president's efforts to boost the U.S. economy, particularly as his tariff policies had caused uncertainty.
The trip was overshadowed at times by the donation of a Qatari luxury jet to be used as a new Air Force One. Democrats and Republicans raised ethics and security concerns about the gift, but Trump has repeatedly brushed them aside and argued it would be foolish not to accept the plane.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
22 minutes ago
- Axios
Scoop: Trump pressed to take hard line with Iran after Israel strikes
A group of pro-Israel members of Congress is urging President Trump to ensure "zero enrichment, zero pathway to a nuclear weapon" in negotiations with Iran, Axios has learned. Why it matters: The lawmakers — including a Republican, Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) — said Israel's strikes against Iranian nuclear sites and other military targets has created a "renewed sense of urgency" on the issue. "This decisive action comes after two months of unsuccessful diplomatic attempts and represents a critical chance to stop the Iranian regime from acquiring a nuclear weapon," they wrote in a letter to Trump first obtained by Axios. The White House did not immediately respond to Axios' Saturday afternoon request for comment on the letter. Driving the news: The letter is led by Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.), a staunchly pro- Israel centrist Democrat, and signed by seven other House Democrats, in addition to Bacon. The nine lawmakers noted that the two-month deadline which Trump set in March for reaching a nuclear deal arrived on Thursday — the day Israel launched its strike. They urged him to add "crushing diplomatic pressure ... to Israel's military pressure" by working with European countries to impose "Snapback" sanctions on Iran for being out of compliance with the 2015 nuclear deal. What they're saying: Trump told Axios' Barak Ravid on Friday that he believes Israel's strike improved the chance of reaching a nuclear agreement with Iran. "I couldn't get them to a deal in 60 days. They were close, they should have done it. Maybe now it will happen," he said. But Iran's foreign minister said that nuclear talks planned for Sunday have been cancelled, and Trump said Saturday that the war between Israel and Iran "should end."
25 minutes ago
The GOP's big bill would bring changes to Medicaid for millions
WASHINGTON -- WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican Sen. Josh Hawley has been clear about his red line as the Senate takes up the GOP's One Big Beautiful Bill Act: no Medicaid cuts. But what, exactly, would be a cut? Hawley and other Republicans acknowledge that the main cost-saving provision in the bill – new work requirements on able-bodied adults who receive health care through the Medicaid program -- would cause millions of people to lose their coverage. All told, estimates are 10.9 million fewer people would have health coverage under the bill's proposed changes to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act. That includes some 8 million fewer in the Medicaid program, including 5.2 million dropping off because of the new eligibility requirements. 'I know that will reduce the number of people on Medicaid,' Hawley told a small scrum of reporters in the hallways at the Capitol. 'But I'm for that because I want people who are able bodied but not working to work.' Hawley and other Republicans are walking a politically fine line on how to reduce federal spending on Medicaid while also promising to protect a program that serves some 80 million Americans and is popular with the public. As the party pushes ahead on President Donald Trump' s priority package, Republicans insist they are not cutting the vital safety net program but simply rooting out what they call waste, fraud and abuse. Whether that argument lands with voters could go a long way toward determining whether Trump's bill ultimately ends up boosting — or dragging down — Republicans as they campaign for reelection next year. Republicans say that it's wrong to call the reductions in health care coverage 'cuts.' Instead, they've characterized the changes as rules that would purge people who are taking advantage of the system and protect it for the most vulnerable who need it most. House Republicans wrote the bill with instructions to find $880 billion in cuts from programs under the purview of the Energy and Commerce Committee, which has a sprawling jurisdiction that includes Medicaid. In the version of the bill that the House passed on a party-line vote last month, the overall cuts ended up exceeding that number. The Kaiser Family Foundation projects that the bill will result in a $793 billion reduction in spending on Medicaid. Additionally, the House Ways & Means Committee, which handles federal tax policy, imposed a freeze on a health care provider tax that many states impose. Critics say the tax improperly boosts federal Medicaid payments to the states, but supporters like Hawley say it's important funding for rural hospitals. 'What we're doing here is an important and, frankly, heroic thing to preserve the program so that it doesn't become insolvent,' Speaker Mike Johnson said on NBC's 'Meet the Press.' House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries, meanwhile, has denounced the bill as an 'assault on the healthcare of the American people' and warned years of progress in reducing the number of uninsured people is at risk. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the GOP's proposed changes to federal health programs would result in 10.9 million fewer people having health care coverage. Nearly 8 million fewer people would be enrolled in Medicaid by 2034 under the legislation, the CBO found, including 5.2 million people who would lose coverage due to the proposed work requirements. It said 1.4 million immigrants without legal status would lose coverage in state programs. The new Medicaid requirements would apply to nondisabled adults under age 65 who are not caretakers or parents, with some exceptions. The bill passed by the U.S. House stipulates that those eligible would need to work, take classes, or record community service for 80 hours per month. The Kaiser Family Foundation notes that more than 90% of people enrolled in Medicaid already meet those criteria. The legislation also penalizes states that fund health insurance for immigrants who have not confirmed their immigration status, and the CBO expects that those states will stop funding Medicaid for those immigrants altogether. Republicans have cited what they call the out-of-control spending in federal programs to explain their rationale for the changes proposed in the legislation. 'What we are trying to do in the One Big Beautiful Bill is ensuring that limited resources are protected for pregnant women, for children, for seniors, for individuals with disabilities,' said Rep. Erin Houchin, R-Ind., in a speech on the House floor. Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso argued that Medicaid recipients who are not working spend their time watching television and playing video games rather than looking for employment. Republicans also criticize the CBO itself, the congressional scorekeeper, questioning whether its projections are accurate. The CBO score for decades has been providing non-partisan analysis of legislation and budgetary matters. Its staff is prohibited from making political contributions and is currently led by a former economic adviser for the George W. Bush administration. While Republicans argue that their signature legislation delivers on Trump's 2024 campaign promises, health care isn't one of the president's strongest issues with Americans. Most U.S. adults, 56%, disapproved of how Trump was handling health care policy in CNN polling from March. And according to AP VoteCast, about 6 in 10 voters in the November election said they wanted the government 'more involved' in ensuring that Americans have health care coverage. Only about 2 in 10 wanted the government less involved in this, and about 2 in 10 said its involvement was about right. Half of American adults said they expected the Trump administration's policies to increase their family's health care costs, according to a May poll from KFF, and about 6 in 10 believed those policies would weaken Medicaid. If the federal government significantly reduced Medicaid spending, about 7 in 10 adults said they worried it would negatively impact nursing homes, hospitals, and other health care providers in their community. For Hawley, the 'bottom lines' are omitting provisions that could cause rural hospitals to close and hardworking citizens to lose their benefits. He and other Republicans are especially concerned about the freeze on the providers' tax in the House's legislation that they warn could hurt rural hospitals. 'Medicaid benefits for people who are working or who are otherwise qualified,' Hawley said. 'I do not want to see them cut.'
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
James River Group Holdings, Ltd. (NASDAQ:JRVR) is largely controlled by institutional shareholders who own 80% of the company
Given the large stake in the stock by institutions, James River Group Holdings' stock price might be vulnerable to their trading decisions The top 7 shareholders own 51% of the company Recent purchases by insiders Trump has pledged to "unleash" American oil and gas and these 15 US stocks have developments that are poised to benefit. To get a sense of who is truly in control of James River Group Holdings, Ltd. (NASDAQ:JRVR), it is important to understand the ownership structure of the business. We can see that institutions own the lion's share in the company with 80% ownership. Put another way, the group faces the maximum upside potential (or downside risk). Because institutional owners have a huge pool of resources and liquidity, their investing decisions tend to carry a great deal of weight, especially with individual investors. As a result, a sizeable amount of institutional money invested in a firm is generally viewed as a positive attribute. In the chart below, we zoom in on the different ownership groups of James River Group Holdings. Check out our latest analysis for James River Group Holdings Institutional investors commonly compare their own returns to the returns of a commonly followed index. So they generally do consider buying larger companies that are included in the relevant benchmark index. James River Group Holdings already has institutions on the share registry. Indeed, they own a respectable stake in the company. This can indicate that the company has a certain degree of credibility in the investment community. However, it is best to be wary of relying on the supposed validation that comes with institutional investors. They too, get it wrong sometimes. It is not uncommon to see a big share price drop if two large institutional investors try to sell out of a stock at the same time. So it is worth checking the past earnings trajectory of James River Group Holdings, (below). Of course, keep in mind that there are other factors to consider, too. Since institutional investors own more than half the issued stock, the board will likely have to pay attention to their preferences. James River Group Holdings is not owned by hedge funds. The company's largest shareholder is Gallatin Point Capital LLC, with ownership of 13%. T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. is the second largest shareholder owning 10% of common stock, and BlackRock, Inc. holds about 6.6% of the company stock. Furthermore, CEO Frank D'Orazio is the owner of 0.5% of the company's shares. We did some more digging and found that 7 of the top shareholders account for roughly 51% of the register, implying that along with larger shareholders, there are a few smaller shareholders, thereby balancing out each others interests somewhat. While it makes sense to study institutional ownership data for a company, it also makes sense to study analyst sentiments to know which way the wind is blowing. Quite a few analysts cover the stock, so you could look into forecast growth quite easily. The definition of company insiders can be subjective and does vary between jurisdictions. Our data reflects individual insiders, capturing board members at the very least. The company management answer to the board and the latter should represent the interests of shareholders. Notably, sometimes top-level managers are on the board themselves. Most consider insider ownership a positive because it can indicate the board is well aligned with other shareholders. However, on some occasions too much power is concentrated within this group. Shareholders would probably be interested to learn that insiders own shares in James River Group Holdings, Ltd.. In their own names, insiders own US$5.3m worth of stock in the US$268m company. Some would say this shows alignment of interests between shareholders and the board. But it might be worth checking if those insiders have been selling. With a 18% ownership, the general public, mostly comprising of individual investors, have some degree of sway over James River Group Holdings. This size of ownership, while considerable, may not be enough to change company policy if the decision is not in sync with other large shareholders. While it is well worth considering the different groups that own a company, there are other factors that are even more important. For instance, we've identified 1 warning sign for James River Group Holdings that you should be aware of. But ultimately it is the future, not the past, that will determine how well the owners of this business will do. Therefore we think it advisable to take a look at this free report showing whether analysts are predicting a brighter future. NB: Figures in this article are calculated using data from the last twelve months, which refer to the 12-month period ending on the last date of the month the financial statement is dated. This may not be consistent with full year annual report figures. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned. Inicia sesión para acceder a tu portafolio
