Trump issues series of pardons for politicians, union leader, rapper
WASHINGTON: US President Donald Trump issued a series of pardons on Wednesday, awarding them to a former New York congressman, a Connecticut governor, a rapper known as NBA YoungBoy", a labour union leader and a onetime Army officer who flaunted safety measures during the Coronavirus pandemic.
His actions mixed Trump's willingness to pardon high-profile Republicans and other supporters, donors and friends with the influence of Alice Marie Johnson, whom Trump recently named his pardon czar after he offered a pardon to her in 2020.
Johnson was convicted in 1996 on eight criminal counts related to a Memphis-based cocaine trafficking operation.
Trump commuted her life sentence in 2018 at the urging of celebrity Kim Kardashian West, allowing for Johnson's early release.
Johnson then served as the featured speaker on the final night of the 2020 Republican National Convention, and Trump subsequently pardoned her before more recently naming her as his point person for pardons.
Among those receiving the latest round of Trump pardons was Louisiana rap artiste NBA YoungBoy, whose real name is Kentrell Gaulden and whose stage moniker stands for "Never Broke Again".
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
21 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Elon Musk denies taking drugs after White House appearance with black eye
Elon Musk on Saturday denied a report that he used ketamine and other drugs extensively last year on the 2024 campaign trail. The New York Times reported Friday that the billionaire adviser to President Donald Trump used so much ketamine, a powerful anesthetic, that he developed bladder problems. The newspaper said the world's richest person also took ecstasy and mushrooms and traveled with a pill box last year, adding that it was not known whether Musk also took drugs while heading the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) after Trump took power in January. In a post Saturday on X, Musk said: "To be clear, I am NOT taking drugs! The New York Times was lying their a** off." He added: "I tried 'prescription' ketamine a few years ago and said so on X, so this not even news. It helps for getting out of dark mental holes, but haven't taken it since then." Musk first dodged a question about his drug use at a bizarre farewell appearance Friday with Trump in the Oval Office in which the Tesla and SpaceX boss sported a noticeable black eye as he formally ended his role as Trump's main cost-cutter at DOGE, which fired tens of thousands of civil servants. News of the injury drew substantial attention as it came right after the Times report on his alleged drug use. The daily recalled erratic behavior such as Musk giving an enthusiastic Nazi-style salute last year. Musk said he got the injury while horsing around with his young son, named X, when he told the child to hit him in the face. "And he did. Turns out even a five-year-old punching you in the face actually is..." he added, before tailing off. Later Friday, when a reporter asked Trump if he was aware of Musk's "regular drug use," Trump responded: "I wasn't." "I think Elon is a fantastic guy," he added. Musk has previously admitted to taking ketamine, saying he was prescribed it to treat a "negative frame of mind" and suggesting his use of drugs benefited his work.
The Print
21 minutes ago
- The Print
India's all-party delegations show a problem with our embassies
Governments regularly send foreign affairs ministers or senior officials to convey important and special messages. But the use of all-party parliamentary delegations is a rare practice in diplomacy. I cannot recall any recent example of a country taking such a step. That such delegations were needed to convey India's position on terrorism reflects the limitations of Indian missions abroad in performing this task effectively. My view is that the government was compelled to send these delegations because Indian missions abroad are unable to aggressively promote India's national interests. The decision of the Modi government to send all-party parliamentary delegations to different countries for mobilising support against terrorism, following the ceasefire with Pakistan, has attracted significant public attention. As these delegations are reaching various countries, questions are being raised about why such a step was necessary in the first place. This situation can be attributed to two interrelated factors. One is that successive governments have failed to carry out necessary reforms in the Indian missions abroad. The other is that officials working in Indian embassies get little public recognition back home, which impacts their performance. As a result, the government has to resort to temporary mechanisms such as sending all-party delegations. However, the long-term solution lies in the structural reform of India's missions abroad. Also Read: Sanskrit to satellites, embassies in Delhi are using culture to show ties, get close to India Decolonising the structure of Indian embassies The Indian missions abroad, called high commissions in Commonwealth countries and embassies in others, are primarily responsible for conveying the message of the Indian government. Increasing the efficiency of these missions is crucial, but unfortunately, successive governments have not paid any attention in this regard. Reforms are needed in two directions—decolonisation of the structure of Indian embassies, and the promotion of active over passive leadership. First, the structure of Indian embassies. For example, the Indian High Commission in London still seems to be organised along colonial lines. Presently, six of its officials are designated as ministers. They are minister (counsellor), minister (audit), minister (economic), minister (coordination), and minister (Nehru Centre). Interestingly, the designation of minister is not used by the Indian High Commissions in Australia, New Zealand, or Canada. And only India, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh have this designation in their London-based high commissions. This practice appears to have been inherited from the office of the Secretary of India during colonial rule. While the positions of secretary and deputy secretary may have been replaced with High Commissioner and Deputy High Commissioner, the remaining designations are unchanged. The designation of minister also creates confusion when Union or state ministers officially visit London. Usually, the embassy 'ministers' receive and accompany them. It causes great confusion for those unfamiliar with the bureaucratic hierarchy. The second issue relates to leadership style. The government needs to ensure that Indian embassies show active rather than passive leadership. Presently, embassies tend to act only after receiving instructions from the government, and their engagement remains very formal. However, they need to be encouraged to engage with the Indian diaspora and other stakeholders informally. Based on my six years of experience in London, I have noticed that purely bureaucratic appointments reduce such engagement. Therefore, the government needs to diversify its officials in Indian missions. It should incorporate professors, journalists, writers, and other young leaders into the pool. I have found, for instance, that the appointment of Amish Tripathi as the Chair of the Nehru Centre in London significantly increased social activities. The centre acts as the cultural wing of the Indian High Commission in London, and it emerged as a premier institution engaged in India's cultural interface with the UK. Coming from a literary background, Tripathi, who served until October 2023, did not concern himself with bureaucratic protocols and met people both formally and informally. This led to a rise in cultural activities and social gatherings at the Nehru Centre. The appointment of diverse professionals in Indian missions abroad is needed for two further reasons. First, the missions increasingly need to engage with the Indian diaspora, which is itself diverse in terms of region, ideology, caste, and profession. A broader mix of professionals in missions will improve outreach. Second, the appointment of diverse professionals will provide them with exposure to foreign policy and diplomacy, which would be beneficial for developing future leaders. Also Read: Countering Pakistan isn't India's only challenge. We need doctrinal clarity on China factor The problem of invisibility The lack of public recognition for the good work done in Indian embassies also discourages officials from showing active leadership. For example, the current Indian High Commissioner in London, Vikram Doraiswami, is the most active one I have seen in comparison with his predecessors. He frequently meets people and actively participates in community events. Yet most Indians would not know his name. Similarly, the security officer of the Commission, Kiran Bhosale, was injured while protecting the Tricolour during a Khalistan protest in 2023. Yet this news found no space in the media. All of these point to a lack of recognition for the work being done in the Indian mission. This too acts as a disincentive to active leadership. To sum up, decolonising Indian missions, promoting active leadership through professional diversification, and increasing recognition for officials would go a long way in making embassies better equipped to fulfil the role they were set up for. Arvind Kumar is a Visiting Lecturer in Politics & International Relations at the University of Hertfordshire, UK. He tweets @arvind_kumar__. Views are personal. (Edited by Asavari Singh)
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
36 minutes ago
- First Post
India may impose retaliatory duty as US rejects its WTO notice on Trump tariffs: Report
India issued a formal notice to the US at the WTO proposing retaliatory action, but the US rejected the move, stating that its tariffs were not 'safeguard' measures and ruled out any talks on the matter. read more India may impose retaliatory duty as US rejects its WTO notice on Trump tariffs: Report. Reuters/File Photo The US has rejected India's 9 May notice at the World Trade Organization (WTO), which proposed retaliatory action over high US import tariffs on steel and aluminium, Hindustan Times reported. Washington stated that the tariffs were not safeguard measures, and therefore it would not engage in discussions with New Delhi on the issue, sources said on Sunday. Given the situation, India may respond by suspending certain trade benefits for US goods—such as almonds and walnuts—and by increasing customs duties on American metal imports, sources told Hindustan Times. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD India's notice challenged the US decision of 10 February to impose a 25 per cent tariff on all steel and aluminium imports, effective from 12 March. The matter escalated further on 30 May, when the Trump administration doubled the tariffs to 50 per cent, effective 4 June, citing national security. More from World Mexicans elect judges in historic polls engulfed by the shadow of crime, corruption In response to the US raising import duties on steel and aluminium to protect its domestic metal industry, India formally informed the WTO on 9 May that it could withdraw trade benefits granted to the US after 30 days, beginning 8 June. In reaction to India's notice, the US informed the WTO on 22 May that India's proposed retaliation was not in line with global trade rules. Washington argued that its tariffs on metals were not 'safeguard' measures. 'Accordingly, there is no basis for India's proposal to suspend concessions or other obligations under Article 8.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards with respect to these measures,' it said in its latest communication to the WTO. Claiming the tariffs are not safeguard measures, the US declined to hold talks with India to resolve the issue, effectively putting the next move in New Delhi's hands. 'The United States will not discuss the Section 232 tariffs under the Agreement on Safeguards as we do not view the tariffs as a safeguard measure,' the American communication to the multilateral body added. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
