Oil prices rose sharply on Monday (Aug 17) after US President Donald Trump ruled out extending an interim ceasefire arrangement with Iran, deepening uncertainty over the conflict and the future of shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.Brent crude, the international benchmark, settled at $90.87 a barrel, while U.S. West Texas Intermediate rose to $84.50. The gains reflected renewed concern that stalled diplomacy could prolong disruptions to global energy supplies.President Trump said Monday that he did not want to extend the memorandum of understanding reached with Iran in June. The agreement had been intended to create a path toward a broader settlement, but negotiations have struggled over several issues, including Iran’s nuclear program and control of the Strait of Hormuz.Iran has also hardened its position. A senior Iranian official warned that Tehran could shift toward a more offensive military posture if diplomatic efforts fail.Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/uk-firm-joins-rescue-race-as-oil-spill-from-russian-shadow-fleet-tanker-spreads-along-oman-s-coast-1786690658895">'Extremely challenging situation': UK firm joins rescue race as oil spill from Russian shadow fleet tanker spreads along Oman's coast</a><h2>Why Hormuz matters</h2>The Strait of Hormuz remains the most important factor for oil markets. Before the conflict, around one-fifth of global oil supplies passed through the narrow waterway connecting the Persian Gulf to international markets.Traffic remains heavily disrupted. Only five commodity vessels crossed the strait on Saturday, compared with 31 the previous weekend, while no crossings were recorded on Sunday, according to shipping data cited by Reuters.Even without a complete shutdown, reduced tanker traffic can increase shipping and insurance costs and restrict supplies from major Gulf producers.Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/iran-s-alleged-nuclear-arsenal-no-longer-top-concern-for-us-vance-says-cheap-oil-is-priority-no-1-in-iran-war-nuclear-threat-goal-number-two-1786669765626">Iran's alleged nuclear arsenal no longer top concern for US? Vance says cheap oil is priority No. 1 in Iran war, nuclear threat 'goal number two'</a><h2>What’s next?</h2>The immediate focus will be on whether Washington and Tehran can maintain diplomatic contacts despite increasingly confrontational rhetoric.Sustained increases in crude prices can feed into gasoline and transportation costs, making the conflict increasingly relevant to American consumers.For oil markets, Hormuz will remain the key indicator.Any agreement that restores significant tanker traffic could quickly ease some of the geopolitical premium built into crude prices. Further attacks or a deeper disruption of the strait could push prices higher.For now, markets are pricing in a conflict with no clear diplomatic exit and an energy supply route that remains vulnerable to the next political or military move.&nbsp;

Brent crude, the international benchmark, settled at $90.87 a barrel, while U.S. West Texas Intermediate rose to $84.50. The gains reflected renewed concern that stalled diplomacy could prolong disruptions to global energy supplies.

Oil prices rose sharply on Monday (Aug 17) after US President Donald Trump ruled out extending an interim ceasefire arrangement with Iran, deepening uncertainty over the conflict and the future of shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. Brent crude, the international benchmark, settled at $90.87 a barrel, while U.S. West Texas Intermediate rose to $84.50. The gains reflected renewed concern that stalled diplomacy could prolong disruptions to global energy supplies. President Trump said Monday that he did not want to extend the memorandum of understanding reached with Iran in June. The agreement had been intended to create a path toward a broader settlement, but negotiations have struggled over several issues, including Iran’s nuclear program and control of the Strait of Hormuz. Iran has also hardened its position. A senior Iranian official warned that Tehran could shift toward a more offensive military posture if diplomatic efforts fail. Also read | 'Extremely challenging situation': UK firm joins rescue race as oil spill from Russian shadow fleet tanker spreads along Oman's coast Why Hormuz matters The Strait of Hormuz remains the most important factor for oil markets. Before the conflict, around one-fifth of global oil supplies passed through the narrow waterway connecting the Persian Gulf to international markets. Traffic remains heavily disrupted. Only five commodity vessels crossed the strait on Saturday, compared with 31 the previous weekend, while no crossings were recorded on Sunday, according to shipping data cited by Reuters. Even without a complete shutdown, reduced tanker traffic can increase shipping and insurance costs and restrict supplies from major Gulf producers. Also read | Iran's alleged nuclear arsenal no longer top concern for US? Vance says cheap oil is priority No. 1 in Iran war, nuclear threat 'goal number two' What’s next? The immediate focus will be on whether Washington and Tehran can maintain diplomatic contacts despite increasingly confrontational rhetoric. Sustained increases in crude prices can feed into gasoline and transportation costs, making the conflict increasingly relevant to American consumers. For oil markets, Hormuz will remain the key indicator. Any agreement that restores significant tanker traffic could quickly ease some of the geopolitical premium built into crude prices. Further attacks or a deeper disruption of the strait could push prices higher. For now, markets are pricing in a conflict with no clear diplomatic exit and an energy supply route that remains vulnerable to the next political or military move.

Brent crude, the international benchmark, settled at $90.87 a barrel, while U.S. West Texas Intermediate rose to $84.50. The gains reflected renewed concern that stalled diplomacy could prolong disruptions to global energy supplies.

Oil prices jump as Trump rules out extending Iran ceasefire. What comes next?

Wall Street climbed to a fresh record on Thursday as cooler-than-expected wholesale inflation eased concerns over another Federal Reserve interest rate hike, giving investors renewed confidence in U.S. markets.The S&amp;P 500 rose 0.65 per cent to close at a record 7,798.99, while the technology-heavy Nasdaq Composite gained 0.81 per cent. The Dow Jones Industrial Average edged 0.13 per cent higher. The S&amp;P 500 has gained roughly 14 per cent so far this year, according to Reuters.Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/who-bears-responsibility-iran-wants-polluter-pays-rule-for-strait-of-hormuz-as-oil-slick-plagues-qeshm-1786582552036">'Who bears responsibility?': Iran wants 'polluter pays' rule for Strait of Hormuz as oil slick plagues Qeshm</a>The rally followed fresh data showing that inflationary pressures at the producer level were softer than economists had expected.According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Producer Price Index, or PPI, was unchanged in July after falling a revised 0.1% in June.On an annual basis, producer prices rose 4.7 per cent, slowing from a 5.5 per cent increase in June. Prices for goods fell 0.7 per cent during July, while services prices increased 0.2 per cent.The PPI measures the prices that producers receive for goods and services and is closely watched for signs of inflation that could eventually be passed on to American consumers.Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/new-eia-report-warns-strait-of-hormuz-disruptions-could-keep-pressure-on-global-oil-markets-1786594753362">EIA warns Strait of Hormuz disruptions could keep pressure on global oil markets</a>Also, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, consumer prices increased 3.4 per cent in the 12 months through July.Together, the reports have reduced expectations that the Federal Reserve will raise interest rates at its September meeting.Traders now see around a 35 per cent chance of a September rate hike, down from about 55 per cent a week earlier, according to Reuters. The Fed held its benchmark interest rate at a range of 3.50 per cent to 3.75 per cent at its July meeting.However, uncertainty remains over whether inflation is cooling quickly enough to bring it sustainably back toward the Fed’s 2 per cent target.For Wall Street, Thursday’s data provided some relief. Softer producer inflation reduced the immediate pressure on the Fed to raise rates, while optimism surrounding technology and artificial intelligence stocks helped propel the broader market to another record.&nbsp;

Wall Street hit fresh records as softer US producer inflation eased concerns over a September Fed rate hike and boosted investor confidence.

Wall Street climbed to a fresh record on Thursday as cooler-than-expected wholesale inflation eased concerns over another Federal Reserve interest rate hike, giving investors renewed confidence in U.S. markets. The S&P 500 rose 0.65 per cent to close at a record 7,798.99, while the technology-heavy Nasdaq Composite gained 0.81 per cent. The Dow Jones Industrial Average edged 0.13 per cent higher. The S&P 500 has gained roughly 14 per cent so far this year, according to Reuters. Also read | 'Who bears responsibility?': Iran wants 'polluter pays' rule for Strait of Hormuz as oil slick plagues Qeshm The rally followed fresh data showing that inflationary pressures at the producer level were softer than economists had expected. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Producer Price Index, or PPI, was unchanged in July after falling a revised 0.1% in June. On an annual basis, producer prices rose 4.7 per cent, slowing from a 5.5 per cent increase in June. Prices for goods fell 0.7 per cent during July, while services prices increased 0.2 per cent. The PPI measures the prices that producers receive for goods and services and is closely watched for signs of inflation that could eventually be passed on to American consumers. Also read | EIA warns Strait of Hormuz disruptions could keep pressure on global oil markets Also, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, consumer prices increased 3.4 per cent in the 12 months through July. Together, the reports have reduced expectations that the Federal Reserve will raise interest rates at its September meeting. Traders now see around a 35 per cent chance of a September rate hike, down from about 55 per cent a week earlier, according to Reuters. The Fed held its benchmark interest rate at a range of 3.50 per cent to 3.75 per cent at its July meeting. However, uncertainty remains over whether inflation is cooling quickly enough to bring it sustainably back toward the Fed’s 2 per cent target. For Wall Street, Thursday’s data provided some relief. Softer producer inflation reduced the immediate pressure on the Fed to raise rates, while optimism surrounding technology and artificial intelligence stocks helped propel the broader market to another record.

Wall Street hit fresh records as softer US producer inflation eased concerns over a September Fed rate hike and boosted investor confidence.

Wall Street hits record high as cooling US inflation reshapes Fed rate outlook

A new U.S. government energy report is putting renewed focus on the Strait of Hormuz, as shipping through one of the world’s most important energy corridors remains constrained and uncertainty continues over how quickly oil flows will return to normal. The U.S. Energy Information Administration, or EIA, said in its latest Short-Term Energy Outlook that it expects severe constraints on shipping through the Strait of Hormuz to persist through August, before traffic gradually increases beginning in September. The agency said reduced shipments through the waterway are expected to further draw down global oil inventories in the coming months.Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/who-bears-responsibility-iran-wants-polluter-pays-rule-for-strait-of-hormuz-as-oil-slick-plagues-qeshm-1786582552036">'Who bears responsibility?': Iran wants 'polluter pays' rule for Strait of Hormuz as oil slick plagues Qeshm</a> The assessment comes as President Donald Trump has said the United States has “total control” of the Strait, while administration officials have pointed to improvements in the movement of oil from the region. The administration has also disputed some estimates of how limited current shipping traffic remains. The EIA report, however, focuses primarily on the economic consequences of the disruption and the expected pace of recovery rather than the question of who controls the waterway. The agency now forecasts Brent crude oil to average around $85 per barrel during the third quarter of 2026, $11 per barrel higher than it projected just one month ago. The EIA expects prices to ease to around $78 per barrel in the fourth quarter as shipping increases and more oil production comes back online.Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-sanctions-iran-s-crypto-network-after-strait-of-hormuz-attacks-offers-15m-bounty-for-intel-on-irgc-finance-1786150050092">US sanctions Iran’s crypto network after Strait of Hormuz attacks, offers $15m bounty for intel on IRGC finance</a> For the full year, the EIA forecasts Brent crude at an average of approximately $87 per barrel in 2026. It expects prices to decline further in 2027, averaging around $69 per barrel as inventories rebuild and supplies recover. The Strait of Hormuz is particularly important because it connects the Persian Gulf with the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea, providing a crucial export route for major Middle Eastern energy producers. Disruptions there can therefore have consequences well beyond the region, affecting global oil supplies, shipping costs, and ultimately prices paid by consumers. The latest EIA outlook also suggests that some effects of the conflict could persist even after shipping conditions improve. Around 5.5 million barrels per day of Middle Eastern oil production was offline in July, equivalent to more than 5% of global oil consumption. Although much of that production is expected to return, the EIA forecasts that approximately 600,000 barrels per day could remain offline through the end of 2027 as some producers face difficulties restoring output to pre-conflict levels. The outlook represents another shift in expectations for an oil market that has changed rapidly as conditions around Hormuz have evolved. In July, the EIA had expected Brent to average about $74 per barrel during the third quarter. Its new forecast of roughly $85 illustrates how continued restrictions through the Strait have altered the supply picture. The central question now is how quickly normal commercial traffic can resume. The EIA expects conditions to begin improving in September, but its latest forecast makes clear that the economic consequences of the disruption could continue long after more ships begin moving through the Strait.&nbsp;

The agency now forecasts Brent crude oil to average around $85 per barrel during the third quarter of 2026, $11 per barrel higher than it projected just one month ago. The EIA expects prices to ease to around $78 per barrel in the fourth quarter as shipping increases.

A new U.S. government energy report is putting renewed focus on the Strait of Hormuz, as shipping through one of the world’s most important energy corridors remains constrained and uncertainty continues over how quickly oil flows will return to normal. The U.S. Energy Information Administration, or EIA, said in its latest Short-Term Energy Outlook that it expects severe constraints on shipping through the Strait of Hormuz to persist through August, before traffic gradually increases beginning in September. The agency said reduced shipments through the waterway are expected to further draw down global oil inventories in the coming months. Also read | 'Who bears responsibility?': Iran wants 'polluter pays' rule for Strait of Hormuz as oil slick plagues Qeshm The assessment comes as President Donald Trump has said the United States has “total control” of the Strait, while administration officials have pointed to improvements in the movement of oil from the region. The administration has also disputed some estimates of how limited current shipping traffic remains. The EIA report, however, focuses primarily on the economic consequences of the disruption and the expected pace of recovery rather than the question of who controls the waterway. The agency now forecasts Brent crude oil to average around $85 per barrel during the third quarter of 2026, $11 per barrel higher than it projected just one month ago. The EIA expects prices to ease to around $78 per barrel in the fourth quarter as shipping increases and more oil production comes back online. Also read | US sanctions Iran’s crypto network after Strait of Hormuz attacks, offers $15m bounty for intel on IRGC finance For the full year, the EIA forecasts Brent crude at an average of approximately $87 per barrel in 2026. It expects prices to decline further in 2027, averaging around $69 per barrel as inventories rebuild and supplies recover. The Strait of Hormuz is particularly important because it connects the Persian Gulf with the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea, providing a crucial export route for major Middle Eastern energy producers. Disruptions there can therefore have consequences well beyond the region, affecting global oil supplies, shipping costs, and ultimately prices paid by consumers. The latest EIA outlook also suggests that some effects of the conflict could persist even after shipping conditions improve. Around 5.5 million barrels per day of Middle Eastern oil production was offline in July, equivalent to more than 5% of global oil consumption. Although much of that production is expected to return, the EIA forecasts that approximately 600,000 barrels per day could remain offline through the end of 2027 as some producers face difficulties restoring output to pre-conflict levels. The outlook represents another shift in expectations for an oil market that has changed rapidly as conditions around Hormuz have evolved. In July, the EIA had expected Brent to average about $74 per barrel during the third quarter. Its new forecast of roughly $85 illustrates how continued restrictions through the Strait have altered the supply picture. The central question now is how quickly normal commercial traffic can resume. The EIA expects conditions to begin improving in September, but its latest forecast makes clear that the economic consequences of the disruption could continue long after more ships begin moving through the Strait.

The agency now forecasts Brent crude oil to average around $85 per barrel during the third quarter of 2026, $11 per barrel higher than it projected just one month ago. The EIA expects prices to ease to around $78 per barrel in the fourth quarter as shipping increases.

New EIA report warns Strait of Hormuz disruptions could keep pressure on global oil markets

President Donald Trump’s latest move on immigration has set off alarm bells in the global tech community, particularly in India, which supplies the majority of H-1B visa holders in the United States. On September 19, 2025 Trump signed a proclamation requiring a $100,000 fee for new H-1B petitions filed from outside the United States, a dramatic change in how future applications will be handled.At first, the announcement generated panic. Would current H-1B holders be locked out of the US? Would renewals suddenly cost six figures? The White House has since clarified key details, which WION now lays out in full.<h2>The rule</h2>The proclamation, “Restriction on Entry of Certain Alien Nonimmigrant Workers,” states that petitions for H-1B workers outside the U.S. must include a $100,000 payment or risk denial.The rule takes effect at 12:01 am EDT on September 21, 2025.<h2>White House response</h2>Taylor Rogers, White House spokeswoman, tells WION: “President Trump promised to put American workers first, and this commonsense action does just that by discouraging companies from spamming the system and driving down wages. It also gives certainty to American businesses who actually want to bring high-skilled workers to our great country but have been trampled on by abuses of the system.” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt also posted a clarification on X, writing that: “This is NOT an annual fee. It’s a one-time fee that applies only to the petition.” “Those who already hold H-1B visas and are currently outside of the country right now will NOT be charged $100,000 to re-enter.” “H-1B visa holders can leave and re-enter the country as they normally would. Whatever ability they have to do that is not impacted.” “This applies only to new visas, not renewals, and not current visa holders. It will first apply in the next upcoming lottery cycle.Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/trending/can-trump-s-1m-gold-card-buy-you-us-citizenship-here-s-the-truth-1758358378289">Can Trump’s $1M ‘Gold Card’ buy you US citizenship? Here’s the truth</a><h2>Who is affected and who is not?</h2><ul><li>New Applicants: Anyone entering the next H-1B lottery cycle will face the $100,000 petition fee.</li><li>Current Visa Holders: If you already have an H-1B, whether in the US or abroad, you are exempt. Re-entry rules remain unchanged.</li><li>Renewals and Extensions: Not affected. Employers can renew status for existing workers without paying the new fee.</li><li>2025 Lottery Winners: Explicitly exempt. Those who already secured visas this year will not face retroactive costs.</li></ul><h2>Why the change?</h2>The Trump administration argues that the H-1B system has been abused by large outsourcing firms that flood the lottery with applications, then hire workers at lower wages. By raising the cost of entry, the White House hopes to:<ul><li>Deter mass filings by firms that overwhelm the system.</li><li>Level the playing field for smaller US companies seeking specialised talent.</li><li>Boost wages for both American and foreign workers by curbing low-cost hiring.</li></ul>Supporters see this as a way to protect the integrity of the program. Critics warn it could reduce the supply of skilled workers, slow innovation, and make U.S. firms less competitive globally.Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/trump-just-made-it-nearly-impossible-for-indians-to-work-in-the-us-here-s-how-us-hikes-h-1b-fee-to-100-000-or-90-lakh-1758336080621">Trump just made it nearly impossible for Indians to work in the US — Here's how</a><h2>Why was there confusion?</h2>The proclamation’s wording referred broadly to “aliens outside the United States.” It was not clear whether this included people who already held valid visas but were travelling abroad. Immigration lawyers urged caution, with some advising clients not to leave the US until more guidance was issued. The White House has now confirmed that existing visa holders are not affected. The fee applies only to future petitions, not to renewals, extensions, or re-entries.<h2>Impact on Indian H-1B Applicants &amp; Holders</h2>India accounts for nearly 70 per cent of H-1B approvals. That makes this policy especially significant for IT companies and professionals who depend on the visa pathway. Large outsourcing firms may feel the steepest impact, as mass filings become cost-prohibitive. Also, individual applicants may face fewer opportunities if firms cut back sponsorships. Meanwhile, US employers seeking niche skills may benefit from less crowded lotteries, improving their odds of securing talent.<h2>Legal questions</h2>Immigration experts are already debating whether the president has the authority to impose such a fee without congressional approval. Normally, visa fees are set by law or regulation, not presidential proclamation. Lawsuits could argue that the move violates the Administrative Procedure Act. Courts may examine whether the fee is effectively a tax that only Congress can authorise. However, until challenged in court, the rule remains in force.<h2>The political context</h2>For Trump, this is both policy and politics. He can argue that he is protecting American workers from foreign competition, delivering on a campaign promise to reform the H-1B system, and demonstrating toughness on immigration in the run-up to new domestic and international negotiations.For critics, it may be another example of executive overreach that could undermine America’s leadership in technology and innovation.<h2>What comes next</h2><ul><li>USCIS Guidance: Agencies are expected to release instructions on how the $100,000 payment must be submitted.</li><li>Upcoming Lottery Cycle: The first real test will be the FY2027 filings in early 2026.</li><li>Business Decisions: US and Indian firms will need to decide whether to absorb the new cost or change their hiring strategies.</li><li>Court Battles: Legal challenges could delay or overturn the policy.</li></ul><h2>Conclusion</h2>The $100,000 fee marks one of the most sweeping changes to the H-1B program in decades. By targeting new applications, the Trump administration is signalling that the era of mass low-cost filings is over. For American companies, the question is whether the higher price tag will still allow them access to the skills they need.

 Would current H-1B holders be locked out of the US? Would renewals suddenly cost six figures? The White House has since clarified key details, which WION now lays out in full.

President Donald Trump’s latest move on immigration has set off alarm bells in the global tech community, particularly in India, which supplies the majority of H-1B visa holders in the United States. On September 19, 2025 Trump signed a proclamation requiring a $100,000 fee for new H-1B petitions filed from outside the United States, a dramatic change in how future applications will be handled. At first, the announcement generated panic. Would current H-1B holders be locked out of the US? Would renewals suddenly cost six figures? The White House has since clarified key details, which WION now lays out in full. The rule The proclamation, “Restriction on Entry of Certain Alien Nonimmigrant Workers,” states that petitions for H-1B workers outside the U.S. must include a $100,000 payment or risk denial. The rule takes effect at 12:01 am EDT on September 21, 2025. White House response Taylor Rogers, White House spokeswoman, tells WION: “President Trump promised to put American workers first, and this commonsense action does just that by discouraging companies from spamming the system and driving down wages. It also gives certainty to American businesses who actually want to bring high-skilled workers to our great country but have been trampled on by abuses of the system.” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt also posted a clarification on X, writing that: “This is NOT an annual fee. It’s a one-time fee that applies only to the petition.” “Those who already hold H-1B visas and are currently outside of the country right now will NOT be charged $100,000 to re-enter.” “H-1B visa holders can leave and re-enter the country as they normally would. Whatever ability they have to do that is not impacted.” “This applies only to new visas, not renewals, and not current visa holders. It will first apply in the next upcoming lottery cycle. Also read | Can Trump’s $1M ‘Gold Card’ buy you US citizenship? Here’s the truth Who is affected and who is not? New Applicants: Anyone entering the next H-1B lottery cycle will face the $100,000 petition fee. Current Visa Holders: If you already have an H-1B, whether in the US or abroad, you are exempt. Re-entry rules remain unchanged. Renewals and Extensions: Not affected. Employers can renew status for existing workers without paying the new fee. 2025 Lottery Winners: Explicitly exempt. Those who already secured visas this year will not face retroactive costs. Why the change? The Trump administration argues that the H-1B system has been abused by large outsourcing firms that flood the lottery with applications, then hire workers at lower wages. By raising the cost of entry, the White House hopes to: Deter mass filings by firms that overwhelm the system. Level the playing field for smaller US companies seeking specialised talent. Boost wages for both American and foreign workers by curbing low-cost hiring. Supporters see this as a way to protect the integrity of the program. Critics warn it could reduce the supply of skilled workers, slow innovation, and make U.S. firms less competitive globally. Also read | Trump just made it nearly impossible for Indians to work in the US — Here's how Why was there confusion? The proclamation’s wording referred broadly to “aliens outside the United States.” It was not clear whether this included people who already held valid visas but were travelling abroad. Immigration lawyers urged caution, with some advising clients not to leave the US until more guidance was issued. The White House has now confirmed that existing visa holders are not affected. The fee applies only to future petitions, not to renewals, extensions, or re-entries. Impact on Indian H-1B Applicants & Holders India accounts for nearly 70 per cent of H-1B approvals. That makes this policy especially significant for IT companies and professionals who depend on the visa pathway. Large outsourcing firms may feel the steepest impact, as mass filings become cost-prohibitive. Also, individual applicants may face fewer opportunities if firms cut back sponsorships. Meanwhile, US employers seeking niche skills may benefit from less crowded lotteries, improving their odds of securing talent. Legal questions Immigration experts are already debating whether the president has the authority to impose such a fee without congressional approval. Normally, visa fees are set by law or regulation, not presidential proclamation. Lawsuits could argue that the move violates the Administrative Procedure Act. Courts may examine whether the fee is effectively a tax that only Congress can authorise. However, until challenged in court, the rule remains in force. The political context For Trump, this is both policy and politics. He can argue that he is protecting American workers from foreign competition, delivering on a campaign promise to reform the H-1B system, and demonstrating toughness on immigration in the run-up to new domestic and international negotiations. For critics, it may be another example of executive overreach that could undermine America’s leadership in technology and innovation. What comes next USCIS Guidance: Agencies are expected to release instructions on how the $100,000 payment must be submitted. Upcoming Lottery Cycle: The first real test will be the FY2027 filings in early 2026. Business Decisions: US and Indian firms will need to decide whether to absorb the new cost or change their hiring strategies. Court Battles: Legal challenges could delay or overturn the policy. Conclusion The $100,000 fee marks one of the most sweeping changes to the H-1B program in decades. By targeting new applications, the Trump administration is signalling that the era of mass low-cost filings is over. For American companies, the question is whether the higher price tag will still allow them access to the skills they need.

&nbsp;Would current H-1B holders be locked out of the US? Would renewals suddenly cost six figures? The White House has since clarified key details, which WION now lays out in full.

Trump administration’s $100,000 H-1 B visa fee: What it means and what it doesn’t

The United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has informed a federal court in New York that it is still awaiting delivery of summons to billionaire industrialist Gautam Adani and his nephew, Sagar Adani, nearly six months after requesting assistance through official channels.In a status report filed on August 11, 2025&nbsp;and obtained by WION, SEC attorney Christopher M. Colorado&nbsp;wrote that the defendants are “located in India and the SEC’s efforts to serve them are ongoing, including a request for assistance from Indian authorities to effect service under the Hague Service Convention.”Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/-us-applauds-pakistan-s-successes-to-contain-terrorism-us-lauds-pakistan-s-crackdown-on-terrorist-entities-extends-condolences-over-attacks-1755036078768">'US applauds Pakistan’s successes to contain terrorism': US lauds Pakistan’s crackdown on 'terrorist entities'; extends condolences over attacks</a>The summons stems from a November 20, 2024 complaint&nbsp;accusing the Adanis of violating U.S. federal securities laws by making “false and misleading representations” about Adani Green Energy Ltd.&nbsp;during a September 2021 debt offering. The SEC alleges that these misrepresentations were part of a broader scheme that also involved bribery and fraud.According to the filing, service in India is governed by Rule 4(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which allows for “any internationally agreed means reasonably calculated to give notice, such as the Hague Service Convention.” The SEC says it has:<ul><li>Sent Notices of Lawsuit and Requests for Waiver of Service of Summons, including the complaint, directly to the defendants and their counsel.</li><li>Communicated with India’s Ministry of Law &amp; Justice&nbsp;under Article 5(a) of the Hague Convention.</li></ul>However, the Commission acknowledged that “those authorities have not yet effected service.”The case, officially titled SEC v. Adani, et al. is before Magistrate Judge James R. Cho&nbsp;in the Eastern District of New York. On Tuesday, Judge Cho ordered the SEC to file its next update by October 13, 2025.Legal experts say delays in serving defendants abroad are common, but in high-profile matters like this one, the holdup has wider implications. Without proper service, the case can’t move forward to discovery or trial.The Adani Group has consistently denied wrongdoing in response to U.S. allegations, calling them “false” and “baseless” in earlier statements.The SEC’s latest update suggests it will continue pressing Indian authorities until service is completed. “The SEC intends to continue communicating with the India MoLJ and pursue service … and will keep the Court apprised of its efforts,” the filing said.For now, the case remains stalled, a procedural limbo that underscores the complexity, and at times fragility, of cross-border enforcement when powerful business and political interests are at stake.

The summons stems from a November 20, 2024 complaint accusing the Adanis of violating U.S. federal securities laws by making “false and misleading representations” about Adani Green Energy Ltd. during a September 2021 debt offering.

The United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has informed a federal court in New York that it is still awaiting delivery of summons to billionaire industrialist Gautam Adani and his nephew, Sagar Adani, nearly six months after requesting assistance through official channels. In a status report filed on August 11, 2025 and obtained by WION, SEC attorney Christopher M. Colorado wrote that the defendants are “located in India and the SEC’s efforts to serve them are ongoing, including a request for assistance from Indian authorities to effect service under the Hague Service Convention.” Also read: 'US applauds Pakistan’s successes to contain terrorism': US lauds Pakistan’s crackdown on 'terrorist entities'; extends condolences over attacks The summons stems from a November 20, 2024 complaint accusing the Adanis of violating U.S. federal securities laws by making “false and misleading representations” about Adani Green Energy Ltd. during a September 2021 debt offering. The SEC alleges that these misrepresentations were part of a broader scheme that also involved bribery and fraud. According to the filing, service in India is governed by Rule 4(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which allows for “any internationally agreed means reasonably calculated to give notice, such as the Hague Service Convention.” The SEC says it has: Sent Notices of Lawsuit and Requests for Waiver of Service of Summons, including the complaint, directly to the defendants and their counsel. Communicated with India’s Ministry of Law & Justice under Article 5(a) of the Hague Convention. However, the Commission acknowledged that “those authorities have not yet effected service.” The case, officially titled SEC v. Adani, et al. is before Magistrate Judge James R. Cho in the Eastern District of New York. On Tuesday, Judge Cho ordered the SEC to file its next update by October 13, 2025. Legal experts say delays in serving defendants abroad are common, but in high-profile matters like this one, the holdup has wider implications. Without proper service, the case can’t move forward to discovery or trial. The Adani Group has consistently denied wrongdoing in response to U.S. allegations, calling them “false” and “baseless” in earlier statements. The SEC’s latest update suggests it will continue pressing Indian authorities until service is completed. “The SEC intends to continue communicating with the India MoLJ and pursue service … and will keep the Court apprised of its efforts,” the filing said. For now, the case remains stalled, a procedural limbo that underscores the complexity, and at times fragility, of cross-border enforcement when powerful business and political interests are at stake.

The summons stems from a November 20, 2024 complaint&nbsp;accusing the Adanis of violating U.S. federal securities laws by making “false and misleading representations” about Adani Green Energy Ltd.&nbsp;during a September 2021 debt offering.

US SEC still unable to serve summons to Gautam Adani in bribery and securities fraud case

When President Donald Trump issued a dramatic message to Iran this week: “UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!” it wasn’t just a policy threat. It was a phrase deeply rooted in American military history, one that has only been invoked during the most extreme wartime confrontations: the Civil War and World War II.&nbsp;The United States has demanded “unconditional surrender” only a handful of times, and when it has, it meant complete capitulation; no negotiations, no guarantees for the losing side. Trump’s use of the phrase now, in the midst of escalating conflict between Iran and Israel, raises the stakes far beyond the usual bounds of diplomacy.&nbsp;Where the Phrase Comes From&nbsp;The first prominent American use of “unconditional surrender” came during the Civil War. In 1862, Union General Ulysses S. Grant demanded the unconditional and immediate surrender of Confederate forces at Fort Donelson, Tennessee. The phrase became so closely associated with him that he earned the nickname “Unconditional Surrender” Grant. However, even later in that war, terms of surrender, such as those offered to Robert E. Lee at Appomattox, were far more lenient and aimed at reconciliation. But the term entered global politics in a more lasting way during World War II. At the Casablanca Conference in January 1943, President Franklin D. Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill announced that the Allied powers would accept nothing less than the unconditional surrender of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. The message was simple: the Axis powers would not be allowed to bargain their way out of defeat.&nbsp;That commitment was reaffirmed in the 1945 Potsdam Declaration, which demanded that Japan surrender unconditionally or face “prompt and utter destruction.” Japan initially rejected the demand, prompting the U.S. to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Days later, Japan did surrender, fully and without conditions. Germany had already done so in May 1945, bringing an end to the European theater.&nbsp;What About Modern Conflicts?&nbsp;In the decades since World War II, the United States has fought numerous wars, but it has almost never used the phrase “unconditional surrender.”&nbsp;In Korea, Vietnam, and both Iraq wars, U.S. policy objectives were more limited. The Korean War ended in a ceasefire. Vietnam ended in withdrawal. In 1991, after pushing Iraqi forces out of Kuwait, the U.S. allowed Saddam Hussein to remain in power under ceasefire terms. Even in the 2003 Iraq War, which resulted in the fall of Saddam, the U.S. did not formally demand or receive an unconditional surrender. Instead, Saddam was given an ultimatum to leave the country, and the invasion proceeded when he refused.The language of modern warfare has emphasized diplomacy, strategic deterrence, and negotiated transitions; not total, no-conditions defeat. President Trump’s revival of the phrase&nbsp;&nbsp;That’s what makes Trump’s use of “unconditional surrender” in 2025 so significant and so rare. The message came shortly after a Situation Room meeting with national security advisers, as the U.S. weighed options in response to Iran’s confrontation with Israel. While the administration has remained vague on next steps, Trump’s public language was blunt: Iran must surrender completely, or face the consequences.&nbsp;President Trump’s use of the phrase may be designed to project strength. But its historical weight cannot be ignored.&nbsp; &nbsp;

The United States has demanded “unconditional surrender” only a handful of times, and when it has, it meant complete capitulation; no negotiations, no guarantees for the losing side. 

When President Donald Trump issued a dramatic message to Iran this week: “UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!” it wasn’t just a policy threat. It was a phrase deeply rooted in American military history, one that has only been invoked during the most extreme wartime confrontations: the Civil War and World War II. The United States has demanded “unconditional surrender” only a handful of times, and when it has, it meant complete capitulation; no negotiations, no guarantees for the losing side. Trump’s use of the phrase now, in the midst of escalating conflict between Iran and Israel, raises the stakes far beyond the usual bounds of diplomacy. Where the Phrase Comes From The first prominent American use of “unconditional surrender” came during the Civil War. In 1862, Union General Ulysses S. Grant demanded the unconditional and immediate surrender of Confederate forces at Fort Donelson, Tennessee. The phrase became so closely associated with him that he earned the nickname “Unconditional Surrender” Grant. However, even later in that war, terms of surrender, such as those offered to Robert E. Lee at Appomattox, were far more lenient and aimed at reconciliation. But the term entered global politics in a more lasting way during World War II. At the Casablanca Conference in January 1943, President Franklin D. Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill announced that the Allied powers would accept nothing less than the unconditional surrender of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. The message was simple: the Axis powers would not be allowed to bargain their way out of defeat. That commitment was reaffirmed in the 1945 Potsdam Declaration, which demanded that Japan surrender unconditionally or face “prompt and utter destruction.” Japan initially rejected the demand, prompting the U.S. to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Days later, Japan did surrender, fully and without conditions. Germany had already done so in May 1945, bringing an end to the European theater. What About Modern Conflicts? In the decades since World War II, the United States has fought numerous wars, but it has almost never used the phrase “unconditional surrender.” In Korea, Vietnam, and both Iraq wars, U.S. policy objectives were more limited. The Korean War ended in a ceasefire. Vietnam ended in withdrawal. In 1991, after pushing Iraqi forces out of Kuwait, the U.S. allowed Saddam Hussein to remain in power under ceasefire terms. Even in the 2003 Iraq War, which resulted in the fall of Saddam, the U.S. did not formally demand or receive an unconditional surrender. Instead, Saddam was given an ultimatum to leave the country, and the invasion proceeded when he refused. The language of modern warfare has emphasized diplomacy, strategic deterrence, and negotiated transitions; not total, no-conditions defeat. President Trump’s revival of the phrase That’s what makes Trump’s use of “unconditional surrender” in 2025 so significant and so rare. The message came shortly after a Situation Room meeting with national security advisers, as the U.S. weighed options in response to Iran’s confrontation with Israel. While the administration has remained vague on next steps, Trump’s public language was blunt: Iran must surrender completely, or face the consequences. President Trump’s use of the phrase may be designed to project strength. But its historical weight cannot be ignored.

The United States has demanded “unconditional surrender” only a handful of times, and when it has, it meant complete capitulation; no negotiations, no guarantees for the losing side.&nbsp;

Trump revives rare wartime rhetoric: The history of ‘unconditional surrender’ and what it means now

New York: President Trump is intensifying efforts to bring an end to the war between Russia and Ukraine—a war now entering its third year.This past week, Trump publicly expressed deep frustration with both Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. In a recent interview, he sharply criticized Putin for questioning Zelenskyy’s legitimacy. At the same time, he warned Zelenskyy against backing out of a critical rare earth minerals deal with the United States, implying that such moves could threaten the broader diplomatic process.Despite these tensions, talks are ongoing. The U.S. has proposed a 30-day ceasefire, starting with energy and infrastructure sectors. Some limited agreements have been reached—especially on maritime activity and energy—but enforcement has already been shaky.&nbsp;The Kremlin has called the entire peace process “drawn-out.” Is this proving to be a long, difficult negotiation?&nbsp;One of the most closely watched elements of U.S. strategy comes from retired General Keith Kellogg, now serving as Trump’s special envoy to Ukraine. Though it’s unclear whether the White House is officially following his roadmap, Kellogg outlined a three-step approach:First, pressure Zelenskyy to agree to a ceasefire.Second, if Putin refuses to engage, apply tough sanctions.And third, if diplomacy fails—infuse Ukraine with military support to change the calculus on the ground.Kellogg initially gave himself 100 days to find a solution. By February, he extended that deadline to 180. But in recent weeks, the negotiations have shifted to other senior figures—Secretary of State Marco Rubio, National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, and Special Envoy for Russia Steve Witkoff—each taking a more active role in shaping the outcome.And now, the clock is ticking. Several target dates are circulating inside the administration.One is April 20th—Easter Sunday—a symbolic deadline reportedly communicated to European leaders. Another is April 29th, the end of Trump’s first 100 days back in office. And a third is May 9th, Victory Day in Russia. There’s speculation that Putin is pushing for that date to mark the war’s end in a way that would resonate with the Russian public.Adding to the complexity is China’s involvement. Just days ago, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi visited Moscow to discuss the U.S. ceasefire proposal, signaling that Beijing is closely watching—and may be trying to influence—the path forward.Still, the most difficult issues remain unresolved: Russia has so far refused to halt strikes on Ukrainian cities, claiming its negotiators lack the mandate. And the future of the front lines—the actual territorial boundaries—hasn’t even been formally discussed.There’s a growing concern that the more the U.S. ties itself to fixed deadlines, the more leverage it gives away.<h2>So the question is: what happens next?</h2>Will Trump move to the third phase of Kellogg’s plan and significantly ramp up arms to Ukraine? Or will the current negotiations—however fragile—somehow hold?What’s clear is this: the next few weeks could reshape not only the future of Ukraine, but the entire post-war security order in Europe. End&nbsp;&nbsp;

World news: Despite these tensions, talks are ongoing. The U.S. has proposed a 30-day ceasefire, starting with energy and infrastructure sectors. Some limited agreements have been reached—especially on maritime activity and energy—but enforcement has already been shaky.

New York: President Trump is intensifying efforts to bring an end to the war between Russia and Ukraine—a war now entering its third year. This past week, Trump publicly expressed deep frustration with both Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. In a recent interview, he sharply criticized Putin for questioning Zelenskyy’s legitimacy. At the same time, he warned Zelenskyy against backing out of a critical rare earth minerals deal with the United States, implying that such moves could threaten the broader diplomatic process. Despite these tensions, talks are ongoing. The U.S. has proposed a 30-day ceasefire, starting with energy and infrastructure sectors. Some limited agreements have been reached—especially on maritime activity and energy—but enforcement has already been shaky. The Kremlin has called the entire peace process “drawn-out.” Is this proving to be a long, difficult negotiation? One of the most closely watched elements of U.S. strategy comes from retired General Keith Kellogg, now serving as Trump’s special envoy to Ukraine. Though it’s unclear whether the White House is officially following his roadmap, Kellogg outlined a three-step approach: First, pressure Zelenskyy to agree to a ceasefire. Second, if Putin refuses to engage, apply tough sanctions. And third, if diplomacy fails—infuse Ukraine with military support to change the calculus on the ground. Kellogg initially gave himself 100 days to find a solution. By February, he extended that deadline to 180. But in recent weeks, the negotiations have shifted to other senior figures—Secretary of State Marco Rubio, National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, and Special Envoy for Russia Steve Witkoff—each taking a more active role in shaping the outcome. And now, the clock is ticking. Several target dates are circulating inside the administration. One is April 20th—Easter Sunday—a symbolic deadline reportedly communicated to European leaders. Another is April 29th, the end of Trump’s first 100 days back in office. And a third is May 9th, Victory Day in Russia. There’s speculation that Putin is pushing for that date to mark the war’s end in a way that would resonate with the Russian public. Adding to the complexity is China’s involvement. Just days ago, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi visited Moscow to discuss the U.S. ceasefire proposal, signaling that Beijing is closely watching—and may be trying to influence—the path forward. Still, the most difficult issues remain unresolved: Russia has so far refused to halt strikes on Ukrainian cities, claiming its negotiators lack the mandate. And the future of the front lines—the actual territorial boundaries—hasn’t even been formally discussed. There’s a growing concern that the more the U.S. ties itself to fixed deadlines, the more leverage it gives away. So the question is: what happens next? Will Trump move to the third phase of Kellogg’s plan and significantly ramp up arms to Ukraine? Or will the current negotiations—however fragile—somehow hold? What’s clear is this: the next few weeks could reshape not only the future of Ukraine, but the entire post-war security order in Europe. End

The clock is ticking: Trump’s plan to end the Ukraine war

US President-elect Donald Trump has ignited controversy with remarks suggesting that the United States should consider demanding the return of the Panama Canal. Speaking at a recent event, Trump criticised the high tolls imposed by the Panama Canal Authority and expressed concerns over growing Chinese influence in Panama, which he argued could pose a strategic risk to US interests.

Panama’s President, José Raúl Mulino, swiftly rejected the remarks, calling the canal an integral part of Panama’s sovereignty. As this issue gains attention, it is worth exploring the history of the Panama Canal, its importance in global trade, and the implications of Trump’s proposal.

<h2>The History of the Panama Canal</h2>

The Panama Canal, completed in 1914, is one of the most significant engineering achievements in history. Stretching approximately 50 miles across the Isthmus of Panama, the canal connects the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, dramatically reducing maritime travel times by eliminating the need to navigate around South America’s Cape Horn. This shortcut transformed global trade, enabling faster and more efficient movement of goods.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/panama-rubbishes-trumps-promise-to-take-control-of-canal-786198">Panama rubbishes Donald Trump's threat to take control of Canal</a>

The canal’s construction was originally attempted by French engineers in the late 19th century but failed due to financial mismanagement, engineering challenges, and deadly tropical diseases like malaria and yellow fever. In the early 20th century, the United States stepped in, purchasing the French assets and securing the rights to complete the canal.

The US&nbsp;role in the canal’s construction was closely tied to Panama’s independence from Colombia. In 1903, the US supported Panama’s bid for independence, and shortly after, the newly established Panamanian government signed the Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty, granting the US control over the canal zone in perpetuity. The canal opened in 1914, operated and maintained by the US, and became a cornerstone of American strategic and economic power.

<h2>The Struggle for Panamanian Sovereignty</h2>

While the canal was a point of pride for American engineering, it became a source of resentment in Panama. The canal zone, a US-controlled territory, created economic disparities and fuelled anti-American sentiment among Panamanians. Calls for sovereignty over the canal grew louder in the mid-20th century, culminating in the signing of the Torrijos-Carter Treaties in 1977.

These agreements, negotiated by US President Jimmy Carter and Panamanian leader Omar Torrijos, set a timeline for the gradual transfer of the canal to Panama. Over 22 years, control was handed over step by step, with Panama officially taking full ownership of the canal on December 31, 1999. Today, the Panama Canal is a vital economic asset for Panama, generating billions of dollars annually and serving as a symbol of national pride.

<h2>Trump’s Remarks and Panama’s Response</h2>

During his recent remarks, President-elect Trump criticised the tolls charged by the Panama Canal Authority, arguing that they disproportionately harm American businesses. He also raised concerns about Chinese investments in Panama, including infrastructure projects near the canal. These comments align with Trump’s broader “America First” philosophy, which prioritises US economic and strategic dominance.

Panama’s President José Raúl Mulino quickly responded, rejecting Trump’s comments as a challenge to Panamanian sovereignty. Mulino emphasised that the canal is a non-negotiable part of the country’s independence and identity. “The Panama Canal is ours. It represents our sovereignty and is not up for debate,” Mulino stated in an official press release.

Trump’s remarks highlight growing US concerns about China’s expanding presence in Latin America. Beijing has invested heavily in Panamanian infrastructure, including port facilities near the canal, as part of its broader Belt and Road Initiative. According to the Council on Foreign Relations, China is now one of Panama’s largest trading partners, sparking fears in Washington that Beijing’s economic influence could translate into strategic leverage.

Watch:&nbsp;Donald Trump Threatens to Reassert US Control Over Panama Canal

<iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/donald-trump-threatens-to-reassert-us-control-over-panama-canal-786102/embed" width="560"></iframe>

<h2>The Modern Role of the Panama Canal</h2>

The Panama Canal remains a critical artery for global commerce, facilitating the passage of approximately five per cent of the world’s maritime trade. Its strategic importance extends beyond economics, serving as a vital link in supply chains for goods ranging from oil to consumer electronics. For Panama, the canal is an economic lifeline, generating billions of dollars in revenue and supporting thousands of jobs.

In 2016, the canal underwent a $5.25 billion expansion, adding a third set of locks to accommodate larger ships, known as Neopanamax vessels. This upgrade has reinforced the canal’s relevance in a rapidly changing global trade landscape.

For the United States, the canal remains a strategic asset. While the Torrijos-Carter Treaties formalised the transfer of ownership, the canal’s efficient operation and neutrality are essential for US shipping and military logistics. However, China’s investments in Panama have added a layer of complexity to this dynamic, raising questions about the balance of power in the region.

Despite a significant decline in ship crossings due to water shortages and a sharp drop in rainfall in 2023, the Panama Canal saw a remarkable 15 per cent&nbsp;revenue increase to nearly $5 billion, buoyed by higher tolls and special auction fees that reached up to $4 million per passage, according to the New York Times.&nbsp;

The canal authority introduced significant toll increases before the water crisis, which helped offset the financial impact of reduced ship traffic caused by low water levels.&nbsp;

Shipping companies were willing to pay substantial sums, up to $4 million per passage, to secure one of the limited crossings. However, continued delays and rising costs may prompt shipping companies to explore alternative routes, such as the Suez Canal or circumnavigating Africa.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-accuses-panama-of-ripping-off-the-us-with-excessive-fees-threatens-to-take-back-control-786029">Trump accuses Panama of 'ripping off' the US with excessive fees, threatens to take back control</a>

<h2>Legal and Diplomatic Challenges</h2>

Trump’s suggestion to demand the return of the Panama Canal faces significant legal and diplomatic obstacles. The Torrijos-Carter Treaties are internationally recognised agreements, and any attempt to renegotiate or reverse them could strain US-Latin American relations, which have already been tested in recent years.

Moreover, demanding the canal’s return risks alienating Panama, a key regional partner. Analysts argue that such rhetoric could push Panama closer to China, undermining US efforts to counter Beijing’s growing influence in the Western Hemisphere.

<h2>Geopolitical Implications</h2>

The Panama Canal’s importance goes beyond trade. In an era of heightened US-China competition, control of critical infrastructure like the canal has taken on new strategic significance. While Trump’s concerns about China’s investments are shared by many policymakers in Washington, experts caution that provocative demands could backfire, weakening US influence in Latin America.

Instead, analysts suggest that the US focus on strengthening partnerships with Panama and other Latin American nations. By investing in regional development and fostering economic ties, the US can counterbalance China’s presence without resorting to contentious demands.

<h2>Conclusion</h2>

The Panama Canal has become a symbol of sovereignty, cooperation, and global trade for Panama. While Donald Trump's remarks may resonate with many, any attempt to reclaim it would face significant opposition and risk destabilising US-Latin American relations. Ultimately, the US would need to carefully weigh whether reasserting control over the canal is worth the potential costs and consequences, considering the fragile balance of regional diplomacy and the canal's enduring importance in global commerce.

US President-elect Donald Trump has ignited controversy with remarks suggesting that the United States should consider demanding the return of the Panama Canal. Speaking at a recent event, Trump criticised the high tolls imposed by the Panama Canal Authority and expressed concerns over growing Chinese influence in Panama, which he argued could pose a strategic risk to US interests.

US President-elect Donald Trump has ignited controversy with remarks suggesting that the United States should consider demanding the return of the Panama Canal. Speaking at a recent event, Trump criticised the high tolls imposed by the Panama Canal Authority and expressed concerns over growing Chinese influence in Panama, which he argued could pose a strategic risk to US interests. Panama’s President, José Raúl Mulino, swiftly rejected the remarks, calling the canal an integral part of Panama’s sovereignty. As this issue gains attention, it is worth exploring the history of the Panama Canal, its importance in global trade, and the implications of Trump’s proposal. The History of the Panama Canal The Panama Canal, completed in 1914, is one of the most significant engineering achievements in history. Stretching approximately 50 miles across the Isthmus of Panama, the canal connects the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, dramatically reducing maritime travel times by eliminating the need to navigate around South America’s Cape Horn. This shortcut transformed global trade, enabling faster and more efficient movement of goods. Also read | Panama rubbishes Donald Trump's threat to take control of Canal The canal’s construction was originally attempted by French engineers in the late 19th century but failed due to financial mismanagement, engineering challenges, and deadly tropical diseases like malaria and yellow fever. In the early 20th century, the United States stepped in, purchasing the French assets and securing the rights to complete the canal. The US role in the canal’s construction was closely tied to Panama’s independence from Colombia. In 1903, the US supported Panama’s bid for independence, and shortly after, the newly established Panamanian government signed the Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty, granting the US control over the canal zone in perpetuity. The canal opened in 1914, operated and maintained by the US, and became a cornerstone of American strategic and economic power. The Struggle for Panamanian Sovereignty While the canal was a point of pride for American engineering, it became a source of resentment in Panama. The canal zone, a US-controlled territory, created economic disparities and fuelled anti-American sentiment among Panamanians. Calls for sovereignty over the canal grew louder in the mid-20th century, culminating in the signing of the Torrijos-Carter Treaties in 1977. These agreements, negotiated by US President Jimmy Carter and Panamanian leader Omar Torrijos, set a timeline for the gradual transfer of the canal to Panama. Over 22 years, control was handed over step by step, with Panama officially taking full ownership of the canal on December 31, 1999. Today, the Panama Canal is a vital economic asset for Panama, generating billions of dollars annually and serving as a symbol of national pride. Trump’s Remarks and Panama’s Response During his recent remarks, President-elect Trump criticised the tolls charged by the Panama Canal Authority, arguing that they disproportionately harm American businesses. He also raised concerns about Chinese investments in Panama, including infrastructure projects near the canal. These comments align with Trump’s broader “America First” philosophy, which prioritises US economic and strategic dominance. Panama’s President José Raúl Mulino quickly responded, rejecting Trump’s comments as a challenge to Panamanian sovereignty. Mulino emphasised that the canal is a non-negotiable part of the country’s independence and identity. “The Panama Canal is ours. It represents our sovereignty and is not up for debate,” Mulino stated in an official press release. Trump’s remarks highlight growing US concerns about China’s expanding presence in Latin America. Beijing has invested heavily in Panamanian infrastructure, including port facilities near the canal, as part of its broader Belt and Road Initiative. According to the Council on Foreign Relations, China is now one of Panama’s largest trading partners, sparking fears in Washington that Beijing’s economic influence could translate into strategic leverage. Watch: Donald Trump Threatens to Reassert US Control Over Panama Canal The Modern Role of the Panama Canal The Panama Canal remains a critical artery for global commerce, facilitating the passage of approximately five per cent of the world’s maritime trade. Its strategic importance extends beyond economics, serving as a vital link in supply chains for goods ranging from oil to consumer electronics. For Panama, the canal is an economic lifeline, generating billions of dollars in revenue and supporting thousands of jobs. In 2016, the canal underwent a $5.25 billion expansion, adding a third set of locks to accommodate larger ships, known as Neopanamax vessels. This upgrade has reinforced the canal’s relevance in a rapidly changing global trade landscape. For the United States, the canal remains a strategic asset. While the Torrijos-Carter Treaties formalised the transfer of ownership, the canal’s efficient operation and neutrality are essential for US shipping and military logistics. However, China’s investments in Panama have added a layer of complexity to this dynamic, raising questions about the balance of power in the region. Despite a significant decline in ship crossings due to water shortages and a sharp drop in rainfall in 2023, the Panama Canal saw a remarkable 15 per cent revenue increase to nearly $5 billion, buoyed by higher tolls and special auction fees that reached up to $4 million per passage, according to the New York Times. The canal authority introduced significant toll increases before the water crisis, which helped offset the financial impact of reduced ship traffic caused by low water levels. Shipping companies were willing to pay substantial sums, up to $4 million per passage, to secure one of the limited crossings. However, continued delays and rising costs may prompt shipping companies to explore alternative routes, such as the Suez Canal or circumnavigating Africa. Also read | Trump accuses Panama of 'ripping off' the US with excessive fees, threatens to take back control Legal and Diplomatic Challenges Trump’s suggestion to demand the return of the Panama Canal faces significant legal and diplomatic obstacles. The Torrijos-Carter Treaties are internationally recognised agreements, and any attempt to renegotiate or reverse them could strain US-Latin American relations, which have already been tested in recent years. Moreover, demanding the canal’s return risks alienating Panama, a key regional partner. Analysts argue that such rhetoric could push Panama closer to China, undermining US efforts to counter Beijing’s growing influence in the Western Hemisphere. Geopolitical Implications The Panama Canal’s importance goes beyond trade. In an era of heightened US-China competition, control of critical infrastructure like the canal has taken on new strategic significance. While Trump’s concerns about China’s investments are shared by many policymakers in Washington, experts caution that provocative demands could backfire, weakening US influence in Latin America. Instead, analysts suggest that the US focus on strengthening partnerships with Panama and other Latin American nations. By investing in regional development and fostering economic ties, the US can counterbalance China’s presence without resorting to contentious demands. Conclusion The Panama Canal has become a symbol of sovereignty, cooperation, and global trade for Panama. While Donald Trump's remarks may resonate with many, any attempt to reclaim it would face significant opposition and risk destabilising US-Latin American relations. Ultimately, the US would need to carefully weigh whether reasserting control over the canal is worth the potential costs and consequences, considering the fragile balance of regional diplomacy and the canal's enduring importance in global commerce.

President-elect Trump threatens to demand return of Panama Canal: History and significance explained

New York, United States
US President-elect Donald Trump has ignited controversy with remarks suggesting that the United States should consider demanding the return of the Panama Canal. Speaking at a recent event, Trump criticised the high tolls imposed by the Panama Canal Authority and expressed concerns over growing Chinese influence in Panama, which he argued could pose a strategic risk to US interests.
Panama’s President, José Raúl Mulino, swiftly rejected the remarks, calling the canal an integral part of Panama’s sovereignty. As this issue gains attention, it is worth exploring the history of the Panama Canal, its importance in global trade, and the implications of Trump’s proposal.
<h2>The History of the Panama Canal</h2>
The Panama Canal, completed in 1914, is one of the most significant engineering achievements in history. Stretching approximately 50 miles across the Isthmus of Panama, the canal connects the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, dramatically reducing maritime travel times by eliminating the need to navigate around South America’s Cape Horn. This shortcut transformed global trade, enabling faster and more efficient movement of goods.
Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/panama-rubbishes-trumps-promise-to-take-control-of-canal-786198">Panama rubbishes Donald Trump's threat to take control of Canal</a>
The canal’s construction was originally attempted by French engineers in the late 19th century but failed due to financial mismanagement, engineering challenges, and deadly tropical diseases like malaria and yellow fever. In the early 20th century, the United States stepped in, purchasing the French assets and securing the rights to complete the canal.
The US role in the canal’s construction was closely tied to Panama’s independence from Colombia. In 1903, the US supported Panama’s bid for independence, and shortly after, the newly established Panamanian government signed the Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty, granting the US control over the canal zone in perpetuity. The canal opened in 1914, operated and maintained by the US, and became a cornerstone of American strategic and economic power.
<h2>The Struggle for Panamanian Sovereignty</h2>
While the canal was a point of pride for American engineering, it became a source of resentment in Panama. The canal zone, a US-controlled territory, created economic disparities and fuelled anti-American sentiment among Panamanians. Calls for sovereignty over the canal grew louder in the mid-20th century, culminating in the signing of the Torrijos-Carter Treaties in 1977.
These agreements, negotiated by US President Jimmy Carter and Panamanian leader Omar Torrijos, set a timeline for the gradual transfer of the canal to Panama. Over 22 years, control was handed over step by step, with Panama officially taking full ownership of the canal on December 31, 1999. Today, the Panama Canal is a vital economic asset for Panama, generating billions of dollars annually and serving as a symbol of national pride.
<h2>Trump’s Remarks and Panama’s Response</h2>
During his recent remarks, President-elect Trump criticised the tolls charged by the Panama Canal Authority, arguing that they disproportionately harm American businesses. He also raised concerns about Chinese investments in Panama, including infrastructure projects near the canal. These comments align with Trump’s broader “America First” philosophy, which prioritises US economic and strategic dominance.
Panama’s President José Raúl Mulino quickly responded, rejecting Trump’s comments as a challenge to Panamanian sovereignty. Mulino emphasised that the canal is a non-negotiable part of the country’s independence and identity. “The Panama Canal is ours. It represents our sovereignty and is not up for debate,” Mulino stated in an official press release.
Trump’s remarks highlight growing US concerns about China’s expanding presence in Latin America. Beijing has invested heavily in Panamanian infrastructure, including port facilities near the canal, as part of its broader Belt and Road Initiative. According to the Council on Foreign Relations, China is now one of Panama’s largest trading partners, sparking fears in Washington that Beijing’s economic influence could translate into strategic leverage.
Watch: Donald Trump Threatens to Reassert US Control Over Panama Canal
<iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://cdn.thepublive.com/wion/static/kaltura_player/wion_video_player_iframe.html?thumbnail=wion/media/post_attachments/files/2024/12/23/2312_panama_930am-1734930610-00000003.jpg&videourl=https://vodakm.zeenews.com/vod/WION/2312_panama_930am.mp4/index.m3u8&duration=195&tags=Donald Trump,US,Panama,Panama canal" width="560"></iframe>
<h2>The Modern Role of the Panama Canal</h2>
The Panama Canal remains a critical artery for global commerce, facilitating the passage of approximately five per cent of the world’s maritime trade. Its strategic importance extends beyond economics, serving as a vital link in supply chains for goods ranging from oil to consumer electronics. For Panama, the canal is an economic lifeline, generating billions of dollars in revenue and supporting thousands of jobs.
In 2016, the canal underwent a $5.25 billion expansion, adding a third set of locks to accommodate larger ships, known as Neopanamax vessels. This upgrade has reinforced the canal’s relevance in a rapidly changing global trade landscape.
For the United States, the canal remains a strategic asset. While the Torrijos-Carter Treaties formalised the transfer of ownership, the canal’s efficient operation and neutrality are essential for US shipping and military logistics. However, China’s investments in Panama have added a layer of complexity to this dynamic, raising questions about the balance of power in the region.
Despite a significant decline in ship crossings due to water shortages and a sharp drop in rainfall in 2023, the Panama Canal saw a remarkable 15 per cent revenue increase to nearly $5 billion, buoyed by higher tolls and special auction fees that reached up to $4 million per passage, according to the New York Times. 
The canal authority introduced significant toll increases before the water crisis, which helped offset the financial impact of reduced ship traffic caused by low water levels. 
Shipping companies were willing to pay substantial sums, up to $4 million per passage, to secure one of the limited crossings. However, continued delays and rising costs may prompt shipping companies to explore alternative routes, such as the Suez Canal or circumnavigating Africa.
Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-accuses-panama-of-ripping-off-the-us-with-excessive-fees-threatens-to-take-back-control-786029">Trump accuses Panama of 'ripping off' the US with excessive fees, threatens to take back control</a>
<h2>Legal and Diplomatic Challenges</h2>
Trump’s suggestion to demand the return of the Panama Canal faces significant legal and diplomatic obstacles. The Torrijos-Carter Treaties are internationally recognised agreements, and any attempt to renegotiate or reverse them could strain US-Latin American relations, which have already been tested in recent years.
Moreover, demanding the canal’s return risks alienating Panama, a key regional partner. Analysts argue that such rhetoric could push Panama closer to China, undermining US efforts to counter Beijing’s growing influence in the Western Hemisphere.
<h2>Geopolitical Implications</h2>
The Panama Canal’s importance goes beyond trade. In an era of heightened US-China competition, control of critical infrastructure like the canal has taken on new strategic significance. While Trump’s concerns about China’s investments are shared by many policymakers in Washington, experts caution that provocative demands could backfire, weakening US influence in Latin America.
Instead, analysts suggest that the US focus on strengthening partnerships with Panama and other Latin American nations. By investing in regional development and fostering economic ties, the US can counterbalance China’s presence without resorting to contentious demands.
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
The Panama Canal has become a symbol of sovereignty, cooperation, and global trade for Panama. While Donald Trump's remarks may resonate with many, any attempt to reclaim it would face significant opposition and risk destabilising US-Latin American relations. Ultimately, the US would need to carefully weigh whether reasserting control over the canal is worth the potential costs and consequences, considering the fragile balance of regional diplomacy and the canal's enduring importance in global commerce.

As this issue gains attention, it is worth exploring the history of the Panama Canal, its importance in global trade, and the implications of Trump’s proposal



New York, United States US President-elect Donald Trump has ignited controversy with remarks suggesting that the United States should consider demanding the return of the Panama Canal. Speaking at a recent event, Trump criticised the high tolls imposed by the Panama Canal Authority and expressed concerns over growing Chinese influence in Panama, which he argued could pose a strategic risk to US interests. Panama’s President, José Raúl Mulino, swiftly rejected the remarks, calling the canal an integral part of Panama’s sovereignty. As this issue gains attention, it is worth exploring the history of the Panama Canal, its importance in global trade, and the implications of Trump’s proposal. The History of the Panama Canal The Panama Canal, completed in 1914, is one of the most significant engineering achievements in history. Stretching approximately 50 miles across the Isthmus of Panama, the canal connects the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, dramatically reducing maritime travel times by eliminating the need to navigate around South America’s Cape Horn. This shortcut transformed global trade, enabling faster and more efficient movement of goods. Also read | Panama rubbishes Donald Trump's threat to take control of Canal The canal’s construction was originally attempted by French engineers in the late 19th century but failed due to financial mismanagement, engineering challenges, and deadly tropical diseases like malaria and yellow fever. In the early 20th century, the United States stepped in, purchasing the French assets and securing the rights to complete the canal. The US role in the canal’s construction was closely tied to Panama’s independence from Colombia. In 1903, the US supported Panama’s bid for independence, and shortly after, the newly established Panamanian government signed the Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty, granting the US control over the canal zone in perpetuity. The canal opened in 1914, operated and maintained by the US, and became a cornerstone of American strategic and economic power. The Struggle for Panamanian Sovereignty While the canal was a point of pride for American engineering, it became a source of resentment in Panama. The canal zone, a US-controlled territory, created economic disparities and fuelled anti-American sentiment among Panamanians. Calls for sovereignty over the canal grew louder in the mid-20th century, culminating in the signing of the Torrijos-Carter Treaties in 1977. These agreements, negotiated by US President Jimmy Carter and Panamanian leader Omar Torrijos, set a timeline for the gradual transfer of the canal to Panama. Over 22 years, control was handed over step by step, with Panama officially taking full ownership of the canal on December 31, 1999. Today, the Panama Canal is a vital economic asset for Panama, generating billions of dollars annually and serving as a symbol of national pride. Trump’s Remarks and Panama’s Response During his recent remarks, President-elect Trump criticised the tolls charged by the Panama Canal Authority, arguing that they disproportionately harm American businesses. He also raised concerns about Chinese investments in Panama, including infrastructure projects near the canal. These comments align with Trump’s broader “America First” philosophy, which prioritises US economic and strategic dominance. Panama’s President José Raúl Mulino quickly responded, rejecting Trump’s comments as a challenge to Panamanian sovereignty. Mulino emphasised that the canal is a non-negotiable part of the country’s independence and identity. “The Panama Canal is ours. It represents our sovereignty and is not up for debate,” Mulino stated in an official press release. Trump’s remarks highlight growing US concerns about China’s expanding presence in Latin America. Beijing has invested heavily in Panamanian infrastructure, including port facilities near the canal, as part of its broader Belt and Road Initiative. According to the Council on Foreign Relations, China is now one of Panama’s largest trading partners, sparking fears in Washington that Beijing’s economic influence could translate into strategic leverage. Watch: Donald Trump Threatens to Reassert US Control Over Panama Canal The Modern Role of the Panama Canal The Panama Canal remains a critical artery for global commerce, facilitating the passage of approximately five per cent of the world’s maritime trade. Its strategic importance extends beyond economics, serving as a vital link in supply chains for goods ranging from oil to consumer electronics. For Panama, the canal is an economic lifeline, generating billions of dollars in revenue and supporting thousands of jobs. In 2016, the canal underwent a $5.25 billion expansion, adding a third set of locks to accommodate larger ships, known as Neopanamax vessels. This upgrade has reinforced the canal’s relevance in a rapidly changing global trade landscape. For the United States, the canal remains a strategic asset. While the Torrijos-Carter Treaties formalised the transfer of ownership, the canal’s efficient operation and neutrality are essential for US shipping and military logistics. However, China’s investments in Panama have added a layer of complexity to this dynamic, raising questions about the balance of power in the region. Despite a significant decline in ship crossings due to water shortages and a sharp drop in rainfall in 2023, the Panama Canal saw a remarkable 15 per cent revenue increase to nearly $5 billion, buoyed by higher tolls and special auction fees that reached up to $4 million per passage, according to the New York Times. The canal authority introduced significant toll increases before the water crisis, which helped offset the financial impact of reduced ship traffic caused by low water levels. Shipping companies were willing to pay substantial sums, up to $4 million per passage, to secure one of the limited crossings. However, continued delays and rising costs may prompt shipping companies to explore alternative routes, such as the Suez Canal or circumnavigating Africa. Also read | Trump accuses Panama of 'ripping off' the US with excessive fees, threatens to take back control Legal and Diplomatic Challenges Trump’s suggestion to demand the return of the Panama Canal faces significant legal and diplomatic obstacles. The Torrijos-Carter Treaties are internationally recognised agreements, and any attempt to renegotiate or reverse them could strain US-Latin American relations, which have already been tested in recent years. Moreover, demanding the canal’s return risks alienating Panama, a key regional partner. Analysts argue that such rhetoric could push Panama closer to China, undermining US efforts to counter Beijing’s growing influence in the Western Hemisphere. Geopolitical Implications The Panama Canal’s importance goes beyond trade. In an era of heightened US-China competition, control of critical infrastructure like the canal has taken on new strategic significance. While Trump’s concerns about China’s investments are shared by many policymakers in Washington, experts caution that provocative demands could backfire, weakening US influence in Latin America. Instead, analysts suggest that the US focus on strengthening partnerships with Panama and other Latin American nations. By investing in regional development and fostering economic ties, the US can counterbalance China’s presence without resorting to contentious demands. Conclusion The Panama Canal has become a symbol of sovereignty, cooperation, and global trade for Panama. While Donald Trump's remarks may resonate with many, any attempt to reclaim it would face significant opposition and risk destabilising US-Latin American relations. Ultimately, the US would need to carefully weigh whether reasserting control over the canal is worth the potential costs and consequences, considering the fragile balance of regional diplomacy and the canal's enduring importance in global commerce.

New York, United States
The United States is on the brink of another government shutdown, sparking concerns about the impact on federal services, the economy, and Americans' daily lives. With the deadline for a new spending bill fast approaching, lawmakers are scrambling to reach a compromise to avoid another shutdown.
<h2>A look at recent history</h2>
The US has experienced several government shutdowns in recent years. In 2018-2019, the longest shutdown in US history lasted 35 days, sparked by disputes over border security and President Trump's demand for a border wall. In 2013, a 16-day shutdown occurred during the Obama administration, caused by disagreements over the Affordable Care Act. Additionally, two consecutive shutdowns in 1995-1996, totaling 26 days, took place during the Clinton administration, stemming from conflicts over budget cuts.
<h2>What's at stake?</h2>
A government shutdown would have far-reaching consequences, including:
- Federal services: National parks, museums, and monuments would close, affecting tourism and local economies.
- Government payments: Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid payments could be delayed.
- Military and defense: Troops would continue to work, but without pay.
- Economy: A shutdown could cost billions, affecting businesses and financial markets.
- Healthcare: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and National Institutes of Health (NIH) would be impacted.
Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-house-rejects-republican-funding-bill-government-shutdown-looms-785424">US House rejects Trump-backed funding bill, government shutdown looms</a>
<h2>What's next?</h2>
Lawmakers have several options:
- Short-term continuing resolution: A temporary extension of current funding levels. 
- Omnibus spending bill: A comprehensive bill funding all federal agencies. 
- Minibus spending bill: A smaller bill funding select agencies.
- Executive actions: President Biden could use executive powers to mitigate the shutdown's impact.
- Emergency funding: Congress could pass emergency funding bills. 
Watch | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/biden-wants-to-work-gaza-truce-before-trump-inauguration-785637">Biden Wants To Work Gaza Truce Before Trump Inauguration</a>
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://cdn.thepublive.com/wion/static/kaltura_player/wion_video_player_iframe.html?thumbnail=wion/media/post_attachments/files/2024/12/20/2012_gaza_730pm_wion-1734708314-00000003.jpg&videourl=https://vodakm.zeenews.com/vod/WION/2012_gaza_730pm_wion_.mp4/index.m3u8&duration=250&tags=israel,Hamas,war" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
<h2>The road ahead </h2>
The recent rejection of a Trump-backed funding proposal underscores the deep divisions within Congress. Some factions insist on strict spending cuts, while others refuse to compromise on essential domestic programs. 
As negotiations continue, the next few hours and days are critical. Will Congress find a way to keep the lights on, or will the nation once again witness the fallout of political dysfunction? For millions of Americans, the answer will have immediate and lasting consequences.

The US has experienced several government shutdowns in recent years. In 2018-2019, the longest shutdown in US history lasted 35 days, sparked by disputes over border security and President Trump's demand for a border wall. 



New York, United States The United States is on the brink of another government shutdown, sparking concerns about the impact on federal services, the economy, and Americans' daily lives. With the deadline for a new spending bill fast approaching, lawmakers are scrambling to reach a compromise to avoid another shutdown. A look at recent history The US has experienced several government shutdowns in recent years. In 2018-2019, the longest shutdown in US history lasted 35 days, sparked by disputes over border security and President Trump's demand for a border wall. In 2013, a 16-day shutdown occurred during the Obama administration, caused by disagreements over the Affordable Care Act. Additionally, two consecutive shutdowns in 1995-1996, totaling 26 days, took place during the Clinton administration, stemming from conflicts over budget cuts. What's at stake? A government shutdown would have far-reaching consequences, including: - Federal services: National parks, museums, and monuments would close, affecting tourism and local economies. - Government payments: Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid payments could be delayed. - Military and defense: Troops would continue to work, but without pay. - Economy: A shutdown could cost billions, affecting businesses and financial markets. - Healthcare: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and National Institutes of Health (NIH) would be impacted. Also read: US House rejects Trump-backed funding bill, government shutdown looms What's next? Lawmakers have several options: - Short-term continuing resolution: A temporary extension of current funding levels. - Omnibus spending bill: A comprehensive bill funding all federal agencies. - Minibus spending bill: A smaller bill funding select agencies. - Executive actions: President Biden could use executive powers to mitigate the shutdown's impact. - Emergency funding: Congress could pass emergency funding bills. Watch | Biden Wants To Work Gaza Truce Before Trump Inauguration The road ahead The recent rejection of a Trump-backed funding proposal underscores the deep divisions within Congress. Some factions insist on strict spending cuts, while others refuse to compromise on essential domestic programs. As negotiations continue, the next few hours and days are critical. Will Congress find a way to keep the lights on, or will the nation once again witness the fallout of political dysfunction? For millions of Americans, the answer will have immediate and lasting consequences.

Explained: US lawmakers scramble to avert govt shutdown. Here's what's at stake

The United States is on the brink of another government shutdown, sparking concerns about the impact on federal services, the economy, and Americans' daily lives. With the deadline for a new spending bill fast approaching, lawmakers are scrambling to reach a compromise to avoid another shutdown.

<h2>A look at recent history</h2>

The US has experienced several government shutdowns in recent years. In 2018-2019, the longest shutdown in US history lasted 35 days, sparked by disputes over border security and President Trump's demand for a border wall. In 2013, a 16-day shutdown occurred during the Obama administration, caused by disagreements over the Affordable Care Act. Additionally, two consecutive shutdowns in 1995-1996, totaling 26 days, took place during the Clinton administration, stemming from conflicts over budget cuts.

<h2>What's at stake?</h2>

A government shutdown would have far-reaching consequences, including:

- Federal services: National parks, museums, and monuments would close, affecting tourism and local economies.

- Government payments: Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid payments could be delayed.

- Military and defense: Troops would continue to work, but without pay.

- Economy: A shutdown could cost billions, affecting businesses and financial markets.

- Healthcare: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and National Institutes of Health (NIH) would be impacted.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-house-rejects-republican-funding-bill-government-shutdown-looms-785424">US House rejects Trump-backed funding bill, government shutdown looms</a>

<h2>What's next?</h2>

Lawmakers have several options:

- Short-term continuing resolution: A temporary extension of current funding levels.&nbsp;

- Omnibus spending bill: A comprehensive bill funding all federal agencies.&nbsp;

- Minibus spending bill: A smaller bill funding select agencies.

- Executive actions: President Biden could use executive powers to mitigate the shutdown's impact.

- Emergency funding: Congress could pass emergency funding bills.&nbsp;

Watch |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/biden-wants-to-work-gaza-truce-before-trump-inauguration-785637">Biden Wants To Work Gaza Truce Before Trump Inauguration</a>

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/biden-wants-to-work-gaza-truce-before-trump-inauguration-785637/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

<h2>The road ahead&nbsp;</h2>

The recent rejection of a Trump-backed funding proposal underscores the deep divisions within Congress. Some factions insist on strict spending cuts, while others refuse to compromise on essential domestic programs.&nbsp;

As negotiations continue, the next few hours and days are critical. Will Congress find a way to keep the lights on, or will the nation once again witness the fallout of political dysfunction? For millions of Americans, the answer will have immediate and lasting consequences.

The United States is on the brink of another government shutdown, sparking concerns about the impact on federal services, the economy, and Americans' daily lives.

The United States is on the brink of another government shutdown, sparking concerns about the impact on federal services, the economy, and Americans' daily lives. With the deadline for a new spending bill fast approaching, lawmakers are scrambling to reach a compromise to avoid another shutdown. A look at recent history The US has experienced several government shutdowns in recent years. In 2018-2019, the longest shutdown in US history lasted 35 days, sparked by disputes over border security and President Trump's demand for a border wall. In 2013, a 16-day shutdown occurred during the Obama administration, caused by disagreements over the Affordable Care Act. Additionally, two consecutive shutdowns in 1995-1996, totaling 26 days, took place during the Clinton administration, stemming from conflicts over budget cuts. What's at stake? A government shutdown would have far-reaching consequences, including: - Federal services: National parks, museums, and monuments would close, affecting tourism and local economies. - Government payments: Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid payments could be delayed. - Military and defense: Troops would continue to work, but without pay. - Economy: A shutdown could cost billions, affecting businesses and financial markets. - Healthcare: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and National Institutes of Health (NIH) would be impacted. Also read: US House rejects Trump-backed funding bill, government shutdown looms What's next? Lawmakers have several options: - Short-term continuing resolution: A temporary extension of current funding levels. - Omnibus spending bill: A comprehensive bill funding all federal agencies. - Minibus spending bill: A smaller bill funding select agencies. - Executive actions: President Biden could use executive powers to mitigate the shutdown's impact. - Emergency funding: Congress could pass emergency funding bills. Watch | Biden Wants To Work Gaza Truce Before Trump Inauguration The road ahead The recent rejection of a Trump-backed funding proposal underscores the deep divisions within Congress. Some factions insist on strict spending cuts, while others refuse to compromise on essential domestic programs. As negotiations continue, the next few hours and days are critical. Will Congress find a way to keep the lights on, or will the nation once again witness the fallout of political dysfunction? For millions of Americans, the answer will have immediate and lasting consequences.

Imagine a firearm with no serial number, no background check, and no way to trace its origin. Welcome to the world of ghost guns, a growing phenomenon that's prompting states to take action and raising questions about the balance between public safety and individual rights.

<h2>What are ghost guns?</h2>

Ghost guns are homemade firearms assembled from parts purchased online or created using 3D printers. They lack serial numbers, making them untraceable by law enforcement. This anonymity appeals to individuals seeking to bypass background checks and other legal restrictions.

The components used to assemble ghost guns are often sold online or at gun shows and do not meet the federal definition of a firearm until fully assembled. As a result, they can be sold without serial numbers or background checks. Advancements in 3D printing technology have further simplified the creation of these untraceable weapons. Due to their lack of serial numbers, it is impossible to know exactly how many exist, but thousands of ghost guns have been recovered from crime scenes in recent years.

Also read:&nbsp;<a data-ved="2ahUKEwjJ4M3E1aGKAxXh4zgGHeBWGbw4ChDF9AEoAHoECAwQAQ" href="https://www.wionews.com/world/china-unveils-electromagnetic-gun-that-fires-coin-shaped-bullets-to-be-used-for-riot-control-report-582949" jsname="YKoRaf" ping="/url?sa=t&amp;source=web&amp;rct=j&amp;opi=89978449&amp;url=https://www.wionews.com/world/china-unveils-electromagnetic-gun-that-fires-coin-shaped-bullets-to-be-used-for-riot-control-report-582949&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjJ4M3E1aGKAxXh4zgGHeBWGbw4ChDF9AEoAHoECAwQAQ">China unveils electromagnetic gun that fires coin-shaped bullets, to be used for riot control: Report</a>

The rise of ghost guns has prompted various U.S. state-level regulatory responses, each navigating the complexities of the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (the right to bear arms).

<h2>US&nbsp;state-level regulatory responses</h2>

As of November 2024, 15 U.S. states have enacted regulations to address the proliferation of ghost guns. These measures vary but generally include requirements for serial numbers, background checks, and restrictions on undetectable or 3D-printed firearms.&nbsp;

1. California

Mandates serial numbers and background checks for firearm components. All ghost guns must be reported to authorities. The state also bans the production of undetectable plastic guns.

2. Colorado

Requires serial numbers for firearm components. The state focuses on ensuring that all firearm parts are serialized to aid in traceability.

3. Connecticut

Imposes serial numbers and background checks for components. All ghost guns must be reported to officials. Bans plastic undetectable guns.

4. Delaware

Requires serial numbers and background checks for components. Bans plastic undetectable guns and 3D-printed firearms. Prohibits the distribution of 3D printing instructions for guns.

5. Hawaii

Mandates serial numbers and background checks for components. All ghost guns must be reported. Bans 3D-printed firearms.

6. Illinois

Requires serial numbers and background checks for all firearms and components.&nbsp;

7. Maryland

Mandates serial numbers and background checks for all firearms and components. All ghost guns must be reported.

8. Massachusetts

&nbsp;Requires serial numbers and background checks for all firearms and components. All ghost guns must be reported.

9. Nevada

Mandates serial numbers and background checks for components.

10. New Jersey

Imposes serial numbers and background checks for components. All ghost guns must be reported. Bans 3D-printed guns and distribution of 3D printing instructions. Prohibits plastic undetectable guns.

11. New York

&nbsp;Requires serial numbers and background checks for components. All ghost guns must be reported. Bans plastic undetectable guns.

12. Oregon

&nbsp;Prohibits undetectable firearms, including 3D-printed guns. Requires serialization of all firearms, frames, and receivers.

13. Rhode Island

Mandates serial numbers and background checks for components. Bans 3D-printed guns.

14. Vermont

Requires serial numbers and background checks for all firearms and components.

15. Washington

Mandates serial numbers and background checks for components. Bans plastic undetectable guns.

<h2>Balancing regulations with second amendment rights</h2>

The regulation of ghost guns intersects with Second Amendment rights, leading to legal challenges and debates. Proponents of strict regulations argue that untraceable firearms pose significant public safety risks and that measures like serialization and background checks are reasonable controls. Opponents contend that building firearms at home is a longstanding tradition protected by the Second Amendment and that such regulations infringe upon individual rights.

The US&nbsp;Supreme Court has engaged with cases related to ghost gun regulations, reflecting the ongoing national debate over balancing public safety with constitutional rights. The outcomes of these cases will significantly influence future legislative efforts and the legal landscape surrounding ghost guns.

Also read:&nbsp;<a data-ved="2ahUKEwjXvtil1aGKAxXQyqACHTQqGTsQxfQBKAB6BAgHEAE" href="https://www.wionews.com/world/all-about-ghost-gun-an-untraceable-firearm-connected-to-killing-of-ceo-brian-thompson-782901" jsname="YKoRaf" ping="/url?sa=t&amp;source=web&amp;rct=j&amp;opi=89978449&amp;url=https://www.wionews.com/world/all-about-ghost-gun-an-untraceable-firearm-connected-to-killing-of-ceo-brian-thompson-782901&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjXvtil1aGKAxXQyqACHTQqGTsQxfQBKAB6BAgHEAE">All about ghost gun, an untraceable firearm connected to the killing of CEO Brian Thompson</a>

Finally, ghost guns present complex challenges at the intersection of technology, law, and individual rights. State-level regulations aim to address public safety concerns by imposing measures like serialization and background checks. However, these efforts must carefully navigate the protections afforded by the Second Amendment. As legal battles continue and technology evolves, the discourse on ghost guns remains a critical aspect of the broader conversation on gun control and constitutional rights in the United States.

Imagine a firearm with no serial number, no background check, and no way to trace its origin. Welcome to the world of ghost guns, a growing phenomenon that's prompting states to take action and raising questions about the balance between public safety and individual rights.

Imagine a firearm with no serial number, no background check, and no way to trace its origin. Welcome to the world of ghost guns, a growing phenomenon that's prompting states to take action and raising questions about the balance between public safety and individual rights. What are ghost guns? Ghost guns are homemade firearms assembled from parts purchased online or created using 3D printers. They lack serial numbers, making them untraceable by law enforcement. This anonymity appeals to individuals seeking to bypass background checks and other legal restrictions. The components used to assemble ghost guns are often sold online or at gun shows and do not meet the federal definition of a firearm until fully assembled. As a result, they can be sold without serial numbers or background checks. Advancements in 3D printing technology have further simplified the creation of these untraceable weapons. Due to their lack of serial numbers, it is impossible to know exactly how many exist, but thousands of ghost guns have been recovered from crime scenes in recent years. Also read: China unveils electromagnetic gun that fires coin-shaped bullets, to be used for riot control: Report The rise of ghost guns has prompted various U.S. state-level regulatory responses, each navigating the complexities of the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (the right to bear arms). US state-level regulatory responses As of November 2024, 15 U.S. states have enacted regulations to address the proliferation of ghost guns. These measures vary but generally include requirements for serial numbers, background checks, and restrictions on undetectable or 3D-printed firearms. 1. California Mandates serial numbers and background checks for firearm components. All ghost guns must be reported to authorities. The state also bans the production of undetectable plastic guns. 2. Colorado Requires serial numbers for firearm components. The state focuses on ensuring that all firearm parts are serialized to aid in traceability. 3. Connecticut Imposes serial numbers and background checks for components. All ghost guns must be reported to officials. Bans plastic undetectable guns. 4. Delaware Requires serial numbers and background checks for components. Bans plastic undetectable guns and 3D-printed firearms. Prohibits the distribution of 3D printing instructions for guns. 5. Hawaii Mandates serial numbers and background checks for components. All ghost guns must be reported. Bans 3D-printed firearms. 6. Illinois Requires serial numbers and background checks for all firearms and components. 7. Maryland Mandates serial numbers and background checks for all firearms and components. All ghost guns must be reported. 8. Massachusetts Requires serial numbers and background checks for all firearms and components. All ghost guns must be reported. 9. Nevada Mandates serial numbers and background checks for components. 10. New Jersey Imposes serial numbers and background checks for components. All ghost guns must be reported. Bans 3D-printed guns and distribution of 3D printing instructions. Prohibits plastic undetectable guns. 11. New York Requires serial numbers and background checks for components. All ghost guns must be reported. Bans plastic undetectable guns. 12. Oregon Prohibits undetectable firearms, including 3D-printed guns. Requires serialization of all firearms, frames, and receivers. 13. Rhode Island Mandates serial numbers and background checks for components. Bans 3D-printed guns. 14. Vermont Requires serial numbers and background checks for all firearms and components. 15. Washington Mandates serial numbers and background checks for components. Bans plastic undetectable guns. Balancing regulations with second amendment rights The regulation of ghost guns intersects with Second Amendment rights, leading to legal challenges and debates. Proponents of strict regulations argue that untraceable firearms pose significant public safety risks and that measures like serialization and background checks are reasonable controls. Opponents contend that building firearms at home is a longstanding tradition protected by the Second Amendment and that such regulations infringe upon individual rights. The US Supreme Court has engaged with cases related to ghost gun regulations, reflecting the ongoing national debate over balancing public safety with constitutional rights. The outcomes of these cases will significantly influence future legislative efforts and the legal landscape surrounding ghost guns. Also read: All about ghost gun, an untraceable firearm connected to the killing of CEO Brian Thompson Finally, ghost guns present complex challenges at the intersection of technology, law, and individual rights. State-level regulations aim to address public safety concerns by imposing measures like serialization and background checks. However, these efforts must carefully navigate the protections afforded by the Second Amendment. As legal battles continue and technology evolves, the discourse on ghost guns remains a critical aspect of the broader conversation on gun control and constitutional rights in the United States.

The rise of ghost guns in US: What you need to know 

Author

Zee News Rajasthan

Editor

Susan Tehrani

Home

Live Tv

Latest

World

India

Business

Entertainment

Sports

Opinions

Videos

Photos

Gravitas

Lifestyle

Science

Tech

Rajasthan News in Hindi: In-depth coverage of Rajasthan Crime, Political News, Education, Rajasthan Weather Update and Latest Rajasthan News on Zee News Rajasthan.