<p>Sometimes, war is good for business. American oil and gas firms would certainly agree, in the context of the Russia-Ukraine war. Since Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, Europe rushed to cut its historic dependence on Russian oil and gas. One of the biggest beneficiaries of this situation has been the United States. Fueled by the “Drill, Baby, Drill” approach on fossil fuels championed by President Donald Trump, American producers and marketers have found a new ‘gold rush’ amid the ruins of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Here is that story:</p><h2>Russia-Ukraine war and the energy shockwave that helped the US</h2><p>Before the war, Russia accounted for approximately 31 per cent of the European Union's crude oil imports and nearly 45 per cent of its natural gas imports. But after the war, bans on seaborne Russian crude oil (effective December 2022), restrictions on refined oil products (early 2023), and voluntary reductions in Russian gas imports left Europe scrambling to fill a massive energy gap.</p><p>Enter the United States, whose shale boom and ever-growing LNG export infrastructure positioned it as the top replacement supplier for Europe.&nbsp;</p><p>The result? American crude oil exports to Europe surged from roughly 0.6 million barrels per day (b/d) in 2021 to nearly 1.85 million b/d by 2023. American LNG export volumes to Europe rose from about 2.4 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d) in 2021 to over 7 Bcf/d by 2023, making the US Europe’s largest LNG supplier.</p><p>By mid-2025, Europe had reduced Russian energy imports by nearly 89 per cent, dramatically weakening Russia’s fossil fuel revenue stream, which fell by around 8 per cent year-on-year to nearly €847 billion since 2022.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/it-s-all-gas-why-trump-schools-europe-on-russian-oil-only-but-is-silent-on-gas-sales-to-europe-that-quietly-funds-russia-1758866696480">IT'S ALL GAS: Why Trump schools Europe on Russian oil only, but is silent on gas sales to Europe that quietly funds Russia</a></p><h2>Fishing in troubled waters: American firms find new markets in a war-torn world</h2><p>The success of ‘Drill, Baby, Drill,’ Trump’s hallmark policy to ramp up American fossil fuel production, depends on one critical factor: Buyers. Production growth alone doesn't guarantee profits. American oil and gas must be sold abroad to absorb the increased supply and sustain prices.</p><p>The Ukraine war created an ideal hunting ground for American producers. US crude oil and LNG exporters suddenly had a ready customer base, enabling them to sell record volumes at premium prices. The American crude oil export value to Europe soared to around $50–60 billion annually by 2023, while LNG exports generated an additional $40–50 billion per year.</p><p>New American LNG terminals like Plaquemines Phase 1 and a 35 per cent increase in EU regasification capacity helped sustain the boom in sales.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/-we-don-t-want-to-punish-india-us-tells-india-to-buy-oil-from-anywhere-just-not-russia-1758781214297">'We don’t want to punish India': US tells India to buy oil from 'anywhere, just not Russia'</a></p><h2>It doesn't end there: American oil firms are dealing with Russia too</h2><p>American oil companies have found ways to benefit from both sides of the war. The US is supplying Europe, whose erstwhile supply from Russia it is forcibly cutting through pressure tactic. At the same time, US firms continue to engage in energy trade with Russia itself.</p><p>Despite sanctions and price caps, Russian crude exports have not disappeared entirely and still reach some global markets, occasionally with involvement from US trading firms and middlemen. Russian President Vladimir Putin had signed a decree allowing foreign investors to potentially regain shares in the Sakhalin-1 oil and gas project. ExxonMobil, which had previously exited Sakhalin-1 due to sanctions, is reportedly interested in re-entering the Russian oil market. A Kremlin spokesperson noted that ExxonMobil is not the only American energy firm exploring re-entry.&nbsp;</p><p>Meanwhile, US energy giants like ExxonMobil, Chevron, and Cheniere reported record profits. Oil and gas majors globally have generated more than $281 billion in profits since February 2022, nearly half of which has flowed to American companies.</p><p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/russia-ukraine-war-ukraine-hits-russian-oil-moscow-unleashes-missiles-1758042311446/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/russia-ukraine-war-ukraine-hits-russian-oil-moscow-unleashes-missiles-1758042311446/embed</a></p><h2>Why Trump wants Europe to limit Russian oil purchases: A hidden agenda helping US firms</h2><p>Trump’s public calls for Europe to reduce and eventually stop purchasing Russian oil align with his broader agenda: to weaken Russia economically and bolster American energy dominance.</p><p>He has advocated for European allies to adopt ‘secondary sanctions’ and curtail Russian imports aggressively.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/eu-plans-to-increase-tariffs-on-russian-oil-imports-1758735386222">EU plans to increase tariffs on Russian oil imports</a></p><p>This strategy automatically positions America as the more “reliable” energy partner for Europe while ensuring sustained demand for US-made fossil fuels abroad.</p><p>Europe is effectively paying more for energy products from the US, such as LNG, even as increased fossil fuel purchases from the US run counter to its climate commitments. The phrase ‘renewable energy,’ once Europe’s clarion call, is not uttered as loudly anymore in the face of immediate energy security concerns.</p>

Trump’s ‘Drill Baby, Drill’ energy strategy is gaining from the Russia-Ukraine war, as US oil firms profit by replacing Russian supply in Europe—while quietly staying linked to Russian markets too. Wonder how? Read on:



Sometimes, war is good for business. American oil and gas firms would certainly agree, in the context of the Russia-Ukraine war. Since Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, Europe rushed to cut its historic dependence on Russian oil and gas. One of the biggest beneficiaries of this situation has been the United States. Fueled by the “Drill, Baby, Drill” approach on fossil fuels championed by President Donald Trump, American producers and marketers have found a new ‘gold rush’ amid the ruins of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Here is that story: Russia-Ukraine war and the energy shockwave that helped the US Before the war, Russia accounted for approximately 31 per cent of the European Union's crude oil imports and nearly 45 per cent of its natural gas imports. But after the war, bans on seaborne Russian crude oil (effective December 2022), restrictions on refined oil products (early 2023), and voluntary reductions in Russian gas imports left Europe scrambling to fill a massive energy gap. Enter the United States, whose shale boom and ever-growing LNG export infrastructure positioned it as the top replacement supplier for Europe. The result? American crude oil exports to Europe surged from roughly 0.6 million barrels per day (b/d) in 2021 to nearly 1.85 million b/d by 2023. American LNG export volumes to Europe rose from about 2.4 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d) in 2021 to over 7 Bcf/d by 2023, making the US Europe’s largest LNG supplier. By mid-2025, Europe had reduced Russian energy imports by nearly 89 per cent, dramatically weakening Russia’s fossil fuel revenue stream, which fell by around 8 per cent year-on-year to nearly €847 billion since 2022. Also read: IT'S ALL GAS: Why Trump schools Europe on Russian oil only, but is silent on gas sales to Europe that quietly funds Russia Fishing in troubled waters: American firms find new markets in a war-torn world The success of ‘Drill, Baby, Drill,’ Trump’s hallmark policy to ramp up American fossil fuel production, depends on one critical factor: Buyers. Production growth alone doesn't guarantee profits. American oil and gas must be sold abroad to absorb the increased supply and sustain prices. The Ukraine war created an ideal hunting ground for American producers. US crude oil and LNG exporters suddenly had a ready customer base, enabling them to sell record volumes at premium prices. The American crude oil export value to Europe soared to around $50–60 billion annually by 2023, while LNG exports generated an additional $40–50 billion per year. New American LNG terminals like Plaquemines Phase 1 and a 35 per cent increase in EU regasification capacity helped sustain the boom in sales. Also read: 'We don’t want to punish India': US tells India to buy oil from 'anywhere, just not Russia' It doesn't end there: American oil firms are dealing with Russia too American oil companies have found ways to benefit from both sides of the war. The US is supplying Europe, whose erstwhile supply from Russia it is forcibly cutting through pressure tactic. At the same time, US firms continue to engage in energy trade with Russia itself. Despite sanctions and price caps, Russian crude exports have not disappeared entirely and still reach some global markets, occasionally with involvement from US trading firms and middlemen. Russian President Vladimir Putin had signed a decree allowing foreign investors to potentially regain shares in the Sakhalin-1 oil and gas project. ExxonMobil, which had previously exited Sakhalin-1 due to sanctions, is reportedly interested in re-entering the Russian oil market. A Kremlin spokesperson noted that ExxonMobil is not the only American energy firm exploring re-entry. Meanwhile, US energy giants like ExxonMobil, Chevron, and Cheniere reported record profits. Oil and gas majors globally have generated more than $281 billion in profits since February 2022, nearly half of which has flowed to American companies. https://www.wionews.com/videos/russia-ukraine-war-ukraine-hits-russian-oil-moscow-unleashes-missiles-1758042311446/embed Why Trump wants Europe to limit Russian oil purchases: A hidden agenda helping US firms Trump’s public calls for Europe to reduce and eventually stop purchasing Russian oil align with his broader agenda: to weaken Russia economically and bolster American energy dominance. He has advocated for European allies to adopt ‘secondary sanctions’ and curtail Russian imports aggressively. Also read: EU plans to increase tariffs on Russian oil imports This strategy automatically positions America as the more “reliable” energy partner for Europe while ensuring sustained demand for US-made fossil fuels abroad. Europe is effectively paying more for energy products from the US, such as LNG, even as increased fossil fuel purchases from the US run counter to its climate commitments. The phrase ‘renewable energy,’ once Europe’s clarion call, is not uttered as loudly anymore in the face of immediate energy security concerns.

<p>Trump’s ‘Drill Baby, Drill’ energy strategy is gaining from the Russia-Ukraine war, as US oil firms profit by replacing Russian supply in Europe—while quietly staying linked to Russian markets too. Wonder how? Read on:</p><p>&nbsp;</p>

Drill Baby, Drill: How Trump’s Russia-Ukraine war mediation helps US oil deals on both sides

<p>It has almost become daily drama for Donald Trump to school Europe on the purchase of Russian oil, but he never talks about Russian gas. Why? Russian gas continues to flow into several European nations, and stopping the supply would mean winter woes for its citizens, who could revolt. In spite of the US president rapping China and India over Russian oil purchases and asking Europe to put sanctions on the same, he won't talk about gas purchases. Let us expose this hogwash.</p><h2>Why Europe still buys Russian gas in spite of the Ukraine war</h2><p>Since Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, the West has imposed sweeping sanctions on Russian fossil fuel imports, with the European Union (EU), G7, and UK blacklisting Russian crude oil. Refined products like diesel and jet fuel are also targeted with price caps and import bans. The UK and US no longer import Russian oil or gas. But one major energy stream remains flowing nearly uninterrupted to Europe: Russian gas.</p><p>As of 2024, Europe was still importing over 50 billion cubic metres of Russian gas per year. This means Russia remains one of the continent’s top suppliers. That may be the reason why Trump only ever mentions oil, but not gas.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/eu-plans-to-increase-tariffs-on-russian-oil-imports-1758735386222">EU plans to increase tariffs on Russian oil imports</a></p><h2>Russia’s grip on Europe’s gas supply remains unbroken</h2><p>Before the war, in 2021, Russia supplied nearly 155 billion cubic metres (bcm) of gas to the EU, which was nearly 45 per cent of the bloc’s total gas imports. After the war, most EU member countries diversified their energy sources: expanding to Norway, the US, Algeria, and Qatar. Pipeline routes like Nord Stream (which was sabotaged) and Yamal-Europe are shut. The Ukraine transit corridor (which used to facilitate the supply of Russian gas to Europe) ended operations in January this year.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/-we-don-t-want-to-punish-india-us-tells-india-to-buy-oil-from-anywhere-just-not-russia-1758781214297">'We don’t want to punish India': US tells India to buy oil from 'anywhere, just not Russia'</a></p><p>Despite all this, Russia still exported roughly 52 bcm of natural gas to Europe in 2024: around 31.6 bcm via pipelines and another 20 bcm as liquefied natural gas (LNG). The main gas pipeline is the TurkStream, operated via Turkey, and the LNG is shipped to terminals in France, Spain, Belgium, and the Netherlands. For context, Belgium hosts the EU headquarters, and France is at the forefront of opposing Russia and defending Ukraine rhetorically.</p><p>Russian gas still made up nearly 19 per cent of total EU gas imports in 2024, at the peak of anti-Russia rhetoric from Europe. Russia was only the second-largest supplier of gas to Europe, after Norway. In fact, EU imports of Russian LNG actually increased in 2024, up 14 per cent year-on-year, according to the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA) and European Commission data.&nbsp;</p><p>Are you getting the drift?</p><h2>Russian LNG: The loophole that Europe won’t close, because it can't</h2><p>Not just the war, but the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipeline and the expiration of transit contracts are the aspects that changed how Europe bought its energy. Interesting to note here that the Nord Stream pipeline investigation also appears practically sabotaged, with some reports pointing to Ukraine's involvement.</p><p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/russia-destroys-ukraine-s-military-site-iskander-ballistic-missiles-rain-fire-1758857759496/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/russia-destroys-ukraine-s-military-site-iskander-ballistic-missiles-rain-fire-1758857759496/embed</a></p><p>Liquefied Natural Gas, which is shipped by sea and not tied to fixed pipelines, has streamed into Europe from Russia unabated.</p><p>European countries continue to take delivery of Russian LNG at their top ports. France, in fact, received the largest share in 2024, while Spain and Belgium also maintained steady import volumes. The EU imported a total of around 17.5 million tonnes, or around 20 bcm, of Russian LNG in 2024.</p><p>Current EU sanctions have not made these LNG trades illegal. Russian gas imports are enabled by Western shipping and insurance firms. And, even though Britain stopped direct energy imports from Russia entirely, UK-based insurers and EU-flagged vessels remain heavily involved in facilitating Russian LNG shipments.</p><h2>Europe tried diversification, yet Russian gas still flows into it</h2><p>Since the Ukraine invasion, Europe has scrambled to diversify its supply of gas. As of 2024, Norway sold more than 91 bcm to the EU, which is roughly 33 per cent of total imports. American LNG made up about 48 per cent of the EU’s total LNG purchases. Algeria, Qatar, and Azerbaijan have also increased their exports to the EU.</p><p>But Europe is yet to be fully free of Russian gas imports. Central and Eastern European countries — mainly Austria, Hungary, and Slovakia — continue to receive pipeline gas via TurkStream, with these three nations alone accounting for the majority of Russian pipeline gas delivered to the EU in early 2025.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/-india-china-are-primary-funders-of-russia-s-war-against-ukraine-trump-s-sensational-claim-at-unga-1758639576307">'India, China are PRIMARY funders of Russia's war against Ukraine': Trump's sensational claim at UNGA</a></p><p>Germany, Poland, France, and the Baltic states have eliminated direct pipeline imports from Russia, but Germany and France still receive Russian LNG through terminals. In some cases, that LNG is later re-exported within the EU internal market. This is a kind of round-tripping, in which Russian gas molecules are still traded broadly across the European continent.</p><h2>Why Trump doesn’t talk about Russian gas while blowing his horn on Russian oil</h2><p>Trump has slammed European countries, especially Germany, for relying on Russian energy, often citing German dependence on Nord Stream, and blaming EU nations for "funding" the war in Ukraine through fossil fuel payments. But ever wondered why these attacks almost always focus on oil, but not on gas?</p><p>In fact, Russian oil has already been largely cut off by Europe, but not Russian gas. If Trump talked about gas, it would expose the uncomfortable truth: that Europe still sends billions of euros to Russia each year for energy.</p><h2>Why hasn't Europe sanctioned Russian gas?</h2><p>Clear answer: It's tough to replace gas supplies overnight. Gas remains a vital source of energy security for several EU countries. Gas is a politically sensitive issue. Russian gas is widely used for domestic heating, industrial manufacturing, electricity generation, and even fuelling buses and commercial vehicles in some regions. Western leaders, including Trump, are reluctant to confront its use head-on.</p><h2>Russia-Ukraine war is still funded through the gas pump</h2><p>Despite all the choreographed political drama by Trump and European leaders, the facts are clear: the EU still buys tens of billions of euros worth of gas from Russia every year. In 2024 alone, Russian pipeline gas generated around €11 billion to €13 billion in export revenue, while LNG added another €9 billion to €10 billion.</p><p>European energy policy would be vulnerable if it stops gas imports from Russia. This explains the selective silence around gas. As long as Russian gas continues to power European homes and factories, the West’s economic war on Putin remains only a paper tiger.</p><p>Hope you understood the hypocrisy.<br>&nbsp;</p>

Despite sanctions on Russian oil, Europe still imports billions of cubic metres of Russian gas. Billions of euros from this trade are quietly funding Russia's war in Ukraine. Trump attacks oil purchases but stays silent on gas. Let's expose this hypocricy

It has almost become daily drama for Donald Trump to school Europe on the purchase of Russian oil, but he never talks about Russian gas. Why? Russian gas continues to flow into several European nations, and stopping the supply would mean winter woes for its citizens, who could revolt. In spite of the US president rapping China and India over Russian oil purchases and asking Europe to put sanctions on the same, he won't talk about gas purchases. Let us expose this hogwash. Why Europe still buys Russian gas in spite of the Ukraine war Since Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, the West has imposed sweeping sanctions on Russian fossil fuel imports, with the European Union (EU), G7, and UK blacklisting Russian crude oil. Refined products like diesel and jet fuel are also targeted with price caps and import bans. The UK and US no longer import Russian oil or gas. But one major energy stream remains flowing nearly uninterrupted to Europe: Russian gas. As of 2024, Europe was still importing over 50 billion cubic metres of Russian gas per year. This means Russia remains one of the continent’s top suppliers. That may be the reason why Trump only ever mentions oil, but not gas. Also read: EU plans to increase tariffs on Russian oil imports Russia’s grip on Europe’s gas supply remains unbroken Before the war, in 2021, Russia supplied nearly 155 billion cubic metres (bcm) of gas to the EU, which was nearly 45 per cent of the bloc’s total gas imports. After the war, most EU member countries diversified their energy sources: expanding to Norway, the US, Algeria, and Qatar. Pipeline routes like Nord Stream (which was sabotaged) and Yamal-Europe are shut. The Ukraine transit corridor (which used to facilitate the supply of Russian gas to Europe) ended operations in January this year. Also read: 'We don’t want to punish India': US tells India to buy oil from 'anywhere, just not Russia' Despite all this, Russia still exported roughly 52 bcm of natural gas to Europe in 2024: around 31.6 bcm via pipelines and another 20 bcm as liquefied natural gas (LNG). The main gas pipeline is the TurkStream, operated via Turkey, and the LNG is shipped to terminals in France, Spain, Belgium, and the Netherlands. For context, Belgium hosts the EU headquarters, and France is at the forefront of opposing Russia and defending Ukraine rhetorically. Russian gas still made up nearly 19 per cent of total EU gas imports in 2024, at the peak of anti-Russia rhetoric from Europe. Russia was only the second-largest supplier of gas to Europe, after Norway. In fact, EU imports of Russian LNG actually increased in 2024, up 14 per cent year-on-year, according to the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA) and European Commission data. Are you getting the drift? Russian LNG: The loophole that Europe won’t close, because it can't Not just the war, but the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipeline and the expiration of transit contracts are the aspects that changed how Europe bought its energy. Interesting to note here that the Nord Stream pipeline investigation also appears practically sabotaged, with some reports pointing to Ukraine's involvement. https://www.wionews.com/videos/russia-destroys-ukraine-s-military-site-iskander-ballistic-missiles-rain-fire-1758857759496/embed Liquefied Natural Gas, which is shipped by sea and not tied to fixed pipelines, has streamed into Europe from Russia unabated. European countries continue to take delivery of Russian LNG at their top ports. France, in fact, received the largest share in 2024, while Spain and Belgium also maintained steady import volumes. The EU imported a total of around 17.5 million tonnes, or around 20 bcm, of Russian LNG in 2024. Current EU sanctions have not made these LNG trades illegal. Russian gas imports are enabled by Western shipping and insurance firms. And, even though Britain stopped direct energy imports from Russia entirely, UK-based insurers and EU-flagged vessels remain heavily involved in facilitating Russian LNG shipments. Europe tried diversification, yet Russian gas still flows into it Since the Ukraine invasion, Europe has scrambled to diversify its supply of gas. As of 2024, Norway sold more than 91 bcm to the EU, which is roughly 33 per cent of total imports. American LNG made up about 48 per cent of the EU’s total LNG purchases. Algeria, Qatar, and Azerbaijan have also increased their exports to the EU. But Europe is yet to be fully free of Russian gas imports. Central and Eastern European countries — mainly Austria, Hungary, and Slovakia — continue to receive pipeline gas via TurkStream, with these three nations alone accounting for the majority of Russian pipeline gas delivered to the EU in early 2025. Also read: 'India, China are PRIMARY funders of Russia's war against Ukraine': Trump's sensational claim at UNGA Germany, Poland, France, and the Baltic states have eliminated direct pipeline imports from Russia, but Germany and France still receive Russian LNG through terminals. In some cases, that LNG is later re-exported within the EU internal market. This is a kind of round-tripping, in which Russian gas molecules are still traded broadly across the European continent. Why Trump doesn’t talk about Russian gas while blowing his horn on Russian oil Trump has slammed European countries, especially Germany, for relying on Russian energy, often citing German dependence on Nord Stream, and blaming EU nations for "funding" the war in Ukraine through fossil fuel payments. But ever wondered why these attacks almost always focus on oil, but not on gas? In fact, Russian oil has already been largely cut off by Europe, but not Russian gas. If Trump talked about gas, it would expose the uncomfortable truth: that Europe still sends billions of euros to Russia each year for energy. Why hasn't Europe sanctioned Russian gas? Clear answer: It's tough to replace gas supplies overnight. Gas remains a vital source of energy security for several EU countries. Gas is a politically sensitive issue. Russian gas is widely used for domestic heating, industrial manufacturing, electricity generation, and even fuelling buses and commercial vehicles in some regions. Western leaders, including Trump, are reluctant to confront its use head-on. Russia-Ukraine war is still funded through the gas pump Despite all the choreographed political drama by Trump and European leaders, the facts are clear: the EU still buys tens of billions of euros worth of gas from Russia every year. In 2024 alone, Russian pipeline gas generated around €11 billion to €13 billion in export revenue, while LNG added another €9 billion to €10 billion. European energy policy would be vulnerable if it stops gas imports from Russia. This explains the selective silence around gas. As long as Russian gas continues to power European homes and factories, the West’s economic war on Putin remains only a paper tiger. Hope you understood the hypocrisy.

<p>Despite sanctions on Russian oil, Europe still imports billions of cubic metres of Russian gas. Billions of euros from this trade are quietly funding Russia's war in Ukraine. Trump attacks oil purchases but stays silent on gas. Let's expose this hypocricy</p>

IT'S ALL GAS: Why Trump schools Europe on Russian oil only, but is silent on gas sales to Europe that quietly funds Russia

<p>Current policies by the Trump administration—such as the H-1B visa fee hike and new trade tariffs—are being seen in some quarters as attempts to undermine sectors critical to India's economy, particularly information technology. These moves evoke memories of how another Republican administration tried to stall India's technological progress in the late 1980s. That attempt came not through open confrontation but a quiet act of denial: the refusal to sell India a high-performance supercomputer. What was seen then as a betrayal by a trusted partner ended up becoming one of the most important catalysts in India’s journey towards technological self-reliance. This is the story of how a rejection led to a revolution.</p><h2>The supercomputer India wanted—and was denied</h2><p>In 1987, India sought to purchase the Cray X-MP/24 supercomputer from the United States. The stated goal was to use it for advanced meteorological modelling, including monsoon forecasting—critical for Indian agriculture. Accurate predictions could enable timely sowing and help safeguard food security. But despite growing Indo-US cooperation, the United States blocked the sale. Under the Export Administration Act and the COCOM regime, the US classified supercomputers as dual-use technologies, citing the risk that they could aid military or nuclear programmes.</p><p>As a compromise, the US offered India the less powerful single-processor Cray X-MP/14, under strict conditions: it was to be used only for civilian purposes, with no technology transfer or re-export, and a US-appointed official was to monitor its usage. India reluctantly accepted the downgraded offer.</p><p>The decision was viewed in India as an unjust and short-sighted restriction—especially since the stated use was purely scientific and non-military.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/h-1b-visa-fee-hike-to-100-000-a-knockout-punch-for-us-tech-sector-to-sue-adapt-lay-off-or-wait-it-out-is-the-question-1758785623726">H-1B visa fee hike to $100,000 a knockout punch for US tech sector? To sue, adapt, lay off, or wait it out is the question. What are their options?</a></p><h2>A denial that ignited innovation: How India built its own supercomputers</h2><p>Rather than accept technological dependence, India responded with ambition. In 1988, the government established the Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (C-DAC), with the goal of developing an indigenous supercomputer. By 1991, C-DAC launched PARAM 8000, India’s first domestically built supercomputer. Parallel efforts were also underway: the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre developed the ANUPAM series, while the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), through its Advanced Numerical Research and Analysis Group, built the PACE series.</p><p>These supercomputers became foundational tools across sectors—weather modelling, seismic studies, defence simulation, nuclear research, and space technology. More than technical milestones, they symbolised a growing national confidence in homegrown innovation.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/elon-musk-sundar-pichai-and-satya-nadella-how-h-1b-visa-holders-shaped-the-us-tech-revolution-1758531026454">Elon Musk, Sundar Pichai and Satya Nadella: How H-1B visa holders shaped the US tech revolution</a></p><h2>Supercomputers and India’s 1998 nuclear tests</h2><p>India's capabilities in computational modelling matured by the late 1990s. When India conducted its Pokhran-II nuclear tests in 1998, supercomputers like PARAM and ANUPAM played a supporting role in design simulations and data analysis. These simulations enhanced test precision and reduced the need for multiple detonations. Following the tests, as international sanctions—led by the United States, again—curtailed further physical testing, India's advanced computing infrastructure allowed it to continue improving its arsenal through virtual modelling.</p><p>While it would be an overstatement to credit supercomputers alone for India’s nuclear capabilities, they significantly strengthened the country’s strategic preparedness and autonomy.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/bharat-os-bharat-tube-hindustani-flow-swadeshi-network-you-must-read-this-entrepreneur-s-post-amid-us-h-1b-visa-backstabbing-and-trump-tariffs-1758702845969">Bharat OS, Bharat Tube, Hindustani Flow, Swadeshi network: You MUST READ this entrepreneur's post amid US H-1B visa backstabbing and Trump tariffs</a></p><h2>Why the US denial of technology to India backfired</h2><p>The United States denied India access to the Cray X-MP/24 based on Cold War-era non-proliferation policies. But in this case, the denial failed to achieve its intended purpose. Instead of slowing India down, it spurred domestic innovation. Within a few years, India had matched—and in some respects surpassed—the computing power it had originally sought to import.</p><p>This episode is now frequently cited by historians as a textbook case of how excessive technological controls can accelerate indigenous development. The long-term effect was a strengthening of India's scientific capacity, and a weakening of US influence over India’s technological choices.</p><h2>Laying the groundwork for India’s IT boom</h2><p>While the Cray episode did not directly cause India’s software boom, it formed part of a broader shift towards self-reliance in technology. Following economic liberalisation in the early 1990s, India rapidly developed into a global hub for software services and engineering talent.</p><p>The early supercomputing efforts helped build technical expertise, inspired a generation of engineers, and established institutions that would go on to lead future technological initiatives.</p><p>PARAM was more than a machine—it was a message that India would not be held back.</p><p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/colossal-trump-visa-blunder-likely-to-boomerang-boost-tech-in-india-1758565334027/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/colossal-trump-visa-blunder-likely-to-boomerang-boost-tech-in-india-1758565334027/embed</a></p><h2>Echoes in 2025: Attempts at stifling India's IT sector&nbsp;</h2><p>Today, India again finds itself navigating an increasingly complex global tech landscape. Even as it collaborates with the US in fields like defence, space, and telecommunications, friction points remain—particularly around export controls, access to semiconductor technologies, and artificial intelligence systems.</p><p>The parallels with 1987 are striking. Then, as now, the message from Washington is mixed. Yet history shows that India has consistently responded to such obstacles by doubling down on domestic innovation.</p><h2>From rejection to resurgence: Time for India to reopen the playbook</h2><p>The denial of the Cray supercomputer was a pivotal moment in India’s technological history. It exposed the vulnerabilities of dependence, but also revealed the strength of resolve.</p><p>India’s supercomputing revolution should serve as a reminder: strategic capability cannot be outsourced. It must be built, protected, and owned. What was meant to be a roadblock turned out to be the launchpad. In an era where tech sovereignty is once again in the spotlight, the lessons from 1987 are more relevant now than ever.</p>

The US denial of a supercomputer to India in the 1990s sparked a tech revolution, leading to PARAM 8000 and other supercomputers being developed domestically. India turned rejection and humiliation into a milestone for scientific and strategic rise. The cycle repeats

Current policies by the Trump administration—such as the H-1B visa fee hike and new trade tariffs—are being seen in some quarters as attempts to undermine sectors critical to India's economy, particularly information technology. These moves evoke memories of how another Republican administration tried to stall India's technological progress in the late 1980s. That attempt came not through open confrontation but a quiet act of denial: the refusal to sell India a high-performance supercomputer. What was seen then as a betrayal by a trusted partner ended up becoming one of the most important catalysts in India’s journey towards technological self-reliance. This is the story of how a rejection led to a revolution. The supercomputer India wanted—and was denied In 1987, India sought to purchase the Cray X-MP/24 supercomputer from the United States. The stated goal was to use it for advanced meteorological modelling, including monsoon forecasting—critical for Indian agriculture. Accurate predictions could enable timely sowing and help safeguard food security. But despite growing Indo-US cooperation, the United States blocked the sale. Under the Export Administration Act and the COCOM regime, the US classified supercomputers as dual-use technologies, citing the risk that they could aid military or nuclear programmes. As a compromise, the US offered India the less powerful single-processor Cray X-MP/14, under strict conditions: it was to be used only for civilian purposes, with no technology transfer or re-export, and a US-appointed official was to monitor its usage. India reluctantly accepted the downgraded offer. The decision was viewed in India as an unjust and short-sighted restriction—especially since the stated use was purely scientific and non-military. Also read: H-1B visa fee hike to $100,000 a knockout punch for US tech sector? To sue, adapt, lay off, or wait it out is the question. What are their options? A denial that ignited innovation: How India built its own supercomputers Rather than accept technological dependence, India responded with ambition. In 1988, the government established the Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (C-DAC), with the goal of developing an indigenous supercomputer. By 1991, C-DAC launched PARAM 8000, India’s first domestically built supercomputer. Parallel efforts were also underway: the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre developed the ANUPAM series, while the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), through its Advanced Numerical Research and Analysis Group, built the PACE series. These supercomputers became foundational tools across sectors—weather modelling, seismic studies, defence simulation, nuclear research, and space technology. More than technical milestones, they symbolised a growing national confidence in homegrown innovation. Also read: Elon Musk, Sundar Pichai and Satya Nadella: How H-1B visa holders shaped the US tech revolution Supercomputers and India’s 1998 nuclear tests India's capabilities in computational modelling matured by the late 1990s. When India conducted its Pokhran-II nuclear tests in 1998, supercomputers like PARAM and ANUPAM played a supporting role in design simulations and data analysis. These simulations enhanced test precision and reduced the need for multiple detonations. Following the tests, as international sanctions—led by the United States, again—curtailed further physical testing, India's advanced computing infrastructure allowed it to continue improving its arsenal through virtual modelling. While it would be an overstatement to credit supercomputers alone for India’s nuclear capabilities, they significantly strengthened the country’s strategic preparedness and autonomy. Also read: Bharat OS, Bharat Tube, Hindustani Flow, Swadeshi network: You MUST READ this entrepreneur's post amid US H-1B visa backstabbing and Trump tariffs Why the US denial of technology to India backfired The United States denied India access to the Cray X-MP/24 based on Cold War-era non-proliferation policies. But in this case, the denial failed to achieve its intended purpose. Instead of slowing India down, it spurred domestic innovation. Within a few years, India had matched—and in some respects surpassed—the computing power it had originally sought to import. This episode is now frequently cited by historians as a textbook case of how excessive technological controls can accelerate indigenous development. The long-term effect was a strengthening of India's scientific capacity, and a weakening of US influence over India’s technological choices. Laying the groundwork for India’s IT boom While the Cray episode did not directly cause India’s software boom, it formed part of a broader shift towards self-reliance in technology. Following economic liberalisation in the early 1990s, India rapidly developed into a global hub for software services and engineering talent. The early supercomputing efforts helped build technical expertise, inspired a generation of engineers, and established institutions that would go on to lead future technological initiatives. PARAM was more than a machine—it was a message that India would not be held back. https://www.wionews.com/videos/colossal-trump-visa-blunder-likely-to-boomerang-boost-tech-in-india-1758565334027/embed Echoes in 2025: Attempts at stifling India's IT sector Today, India again finds itself navigating an increasingly complex global tech landscape. Even as it collaborates with the US in fields like defence, space, and telecommunications, friction points remain—particularly around export controls, access to semiconductor technologies, and artificial intelligence systems. The parallels with 1987 are striking. Then, as now, the message from Washington is mixed. Yet history shows that India has consistently responded to such obstacles by doubling down on domestic innovation. From rejection to resurgence: Time for India to reopen the playbook The denial of the Cray supercomputer was a pivotal moment in India’s technological history. It exposed the vulnerabilities of dependence, but also revealed the strength of resolve. India’s supercomputing revolution should serve as a reminder: strategic capability cannot be outsourced. It must be built, protected, and owned. What was meant to be a roadblock turned out to be the launchpad. In an era where tech sovereignty is once again in the spotlight, the lessons from 1987 are more relevant now than ever.

<p>The US denial of a supercomputer to India in the 1990s sparked a tech revolution, leading to PARAM 8000 and other supercomputers being developed domestically. India turned rejection and humiliation into a milestone for scientific and strategic rise. The cycle repeats</p>

The Great American Betrayal: When the US denied India a supercomputer (and why that was a good thing)

<p>The US tech industry, heavily dependent on foreign high-skilled talent on visas, is scrambling to respond to the Trump administration's $100,000 fee hike for new H‑1B visa applications. Firms are urgently plotting their next moves, as the policy hits at the core of their business models. Options include legal challenges, adapting to the new reality by moving more jobs offshore, or simply waiting it out. Despite its longstanding lobbying clout, the US tech sector was caught off guard by the sudden visa fee hike announcement. Here is a situation report.</p><h2>Silicon Valley's knee-jerk reaction to the H-1B visa fee shockwave</h2><p>Within hours of the announcement, American tech firms, their legal teams and HR departments—from San Francisco to Boston—scrambled to assess the damage and control the fallout. The White House later clarified that the hiked fee would apply only to new H‑1B petitions, not to renewals or existing visa holders, but by then, the damage had already been done. The writing on the wall was clear: the cost of employing skilled foreign workers in the US is about to skyrocket.</p><h2>H-1B visa was a pillar of US tech sector</h2><p>Capped at 85,000 new entrants per year, H‑1B visas have long been a cornerstone of the US technology workforce, with nearly 70 per cent historically going to Indian nationals. American companies have relied on the programme to hire highly specialised engineers, data scientists, AI researchers, and cybersecurity experts—often at lower costs compared to local talent. But with the new policy shift, US firms will now be forced to rethink both their hiring strategies and geographic footprint.</p><h2>Legal pushback is already underway against US H-1B visa fee hike</h2><p>California’s Attorney General is actively exploring a lawsuit against the federal government, questioning whether the executive branch has the authority to unilaterally impose such a significant surcharge without congressional approval. Legal scholars cited in US media say the move may be in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act and the Constitution’s separation of powers doctrine.</p><p>Meanwhile, immigration attorneys across the country are preparing injunctions and test cases, arguing that the policy is not only economically damaging but also legally unsound. Many expect legal filings to begin within weeks, with emergency relief motions likely timed to stop the new fees before the 2026 H‑1B visa filing cycle starts.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/india-us-flight-fares-soar-after-trump-s-sudden-h-1b-visa-fee-hike-airports-witness-chaos-1758371175372">India-US flight fares soar after Trump’s sudden H-1B visa fee hike; airports witness chaos</a></p><h2>Tech industry scrambles to mobilise its Washington lobbying muscle</h2><p>According to multiple reports, several tech majors—including leaders in AI, enterprise software, and cloud computing—are urgently seeking exemptions, especially for roles deemed vital to national interest. Many are requesting a phased rollout or the “grandfathering” of petitions already in progress. Even while some executives offer tepid support for limited reforms aimed at curbing abuse of the visa system, few endorse the sweeping approach taken by the Trump administration.</p><p>Lobbyists are also pushing for carve-outs for early-stage startups, university-affiliated researchers, and specialists working on federally funded innovation projects. But it remains unclear how much political will exists to soften the measure in an election cycle charged with immigration rhetoric.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/uae-visa-update-work-and-tourist-visas-suspended-for-these-9-countries-from-2026-what-you-should-know-1758622203017">UAE visa update: Work and tourist visas suspended for THESE 9 countries under 2026 ban. What you should know</a></p><h2>The irony: some companies are already thinking of moving work abroad or dodging the H-1B system entirely</h2><p>While the policy may bring an end to the practice of co-locating engineering teams in the US, companies are determined not to give up on cost efficiency. Several are already turning to global delivery models—hiring remote teams or expanding satellite offices in Europe and Canada. This is offshoring by other means, a strategy designed to offset the financial impact of the new visa policy.</p><p>Despite the “hire American” rhetoric, many US tech firms see no financial upside to hiring domestically for high-cost, specialised roles. Instead, they are looking to alternative visa categories such as the L‑1—used for intracompany transfers—which may allow them to bypass the H‑1B system entirely.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-proposes-to-scrap-h-1b-lottery-system-proposes-visa-process-favoring-better-paid-workers-1758651587890">Trump proposes to scrap H-1B lottery system, proposes visa process favouring better-paid workers</a></p><h2>Smaller firms and startups are scaling back on hiring</h2><p>Many reports suggest that smaller firms—especially those without deep financial reserves—are quietly scaling back their hiring plans. Strategies include delaying international recruitment, hiring green card holders who may not be US citizens, or restructuring teams to reduce dependency on H‑1B talent. But hiring based on availability rather than skill match comes with long-term risks to competitiveness and product quality.</p><p>For larger firms, the concern is less about immediate cost and more about innovation bottlenecks. If they’re blocked from hiring global talent, development timelines will slow, product roadmaps could be derailed. The US may eventually lose its edge in high-stakes fields like artificial intelligence, quantum computing, and next-generation biotech.</p><h2>Enormous economic stakes await US tech industry</h2><p>JPMorgan analysts estimated that the new fee could reduce H‑1B petition filings by up to 5,500 cases per month. This would affect not only software developers, but also researchers, educators, and healthcare professionals who rely on H‑1B visas in critical and often underserved areas. While the Trump administration has hinted at possible exceptions for healthcare, the broader tech industry remains the hardest hit—caught between legal opposition and operational paralysis.</p><p>Universities and hospitals—particularly those in rural states—have already begun lobbying for relief, arguing that the sudden cost spike will create workforce shortages in essential services. But unlike academia and healthcare, the tech industry must also navigate investor pressure, global competition, and product delivery cycles—all of which magnify the impact of talent disruption.</p><p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/global-work-visa-options-top-countries-opening-work-visas-for-indians-1758778533092/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/global-work-visa-options-top-countries-opening-work-visas-for-indians-1758778533092/embed</a></p><h2>Seeking a way out: will courts or government exemptions save the day for US tech?</h2><p>Some industry observers are hopeful that courts will intervene to delay, modify, or strike down the surcharge. Others believe the real battle will be fought through behind-the-scenes negotiations, regulatory tweaks, or last-minute compromises introduced during the 2026 budget cycle. However, several firms are already restructuring their operating models to prepare for a future where foreign labour is either too costly—or simply too politically fraught—to rely on.</p><h2>Will the Trump administration step back from the visa fee hike?</h2><p>The White House has said the surcharge is a temporary measure, subject to a 12-month review clause, but few in Silicon Valley believe that a quiet reversal is likely. Companies are building contingency plans, reworking budgets, and preparing for a prolonged fight. Even if the fee is softened later, the uncertainty it has already created is affecting recruitment, retention, and planning.</p><p>One thing is clear: the Trump administration’s unexpected and sweeping H‑1B surcharge has triggered a defining moment for the US tech industry. American firms now face a set of imperfect options: to sue, to seek exemptions, to move operations abroad, or to wait out the storm and hope for policy change.</p><p>In 2025, in an industry built on agility, the H‑1B visa fee has become a new kind of test—not of code, but of strategy, resilience, and political calculus.<br>&nbsp;</p>

If you think H-1B visa fee hike is going to affect only Indian tech firms and skilled professionals, read this. From Big Tech firms to startups, American IT industry is staring at massive disruptions and weighing their options for a fightback. What can they do to offset the visa fee impact?

The US tech industry, heavily dependent on foreign high-skilled talent on visas, is scrambling to respond to the Trump administration's $100,000 fee hike for new H‑1B visa applications. Firms are urgently plotting their next moves, as the policy hits at the core of their business models. Options include legal challenges, adapting to the new reality by moving more jobs offshore, or simply waiting it out. Despite its longstanding lobbying clout, the US tech sector was caught off guard by the sudden visa fee hike announcement. Here is a situation report. Silicon Valley's knee-jerk reaction to the H-1B visa fee shockwave Within hours of the announcement, American tech firms, their legal teams and HR departments—from San Francisco to Boston—scrambled to assess the damage and control the fallout. The White House later clarified that the hiked fee would apply only to new H‑1B petitions, not to renewals or existing visa holders, but by then, the damage had already been done. The writing on the wall was clear: the cost of employing skilled foreign workers in the US is about to skyrocket. H-1B visa was a pillar of US tech sector Capped at 85,000 new entrants per year, H‑1B visas have long been a cornerstone of the US technology workforce, with nearly 70 per cent historically going to Indian nationals. American companies have relied on the programme to hire highly specialised engineers, data scientists, AI researchers, and cybersecurity experts—often at lower costs compared to local talent. But with the new policy shift, US firms will now be forced to rethink both their hiring strategies and geographic footprint. Legal pushback is already underway against US H-1B visa fee hike California’s Attorney General is actively exploring a lawsuit against the federal government, questioning whether the executive branch has the authority to unilaterally impose such a significant surcharge without congressional approval. Legal scholars cited in US media say the move may be in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act and the Constitution’s separation of powers doctrine. Meanwhile, immigration attorneys across the country are preparing injunctions and test cases, arguing that the policy is not only economically damaging but also legally unsound. Many expect legal filings to begin within weeks, with emergency relief motions likely timed to stop the new fees before the 2026 H‑1B visa filing cycle starts. Also read: India-US flight fares soar after Trump’s sudden H-1B visa fee hike; airports witness chaos Tech industry scrambles to mobilise its Washington lobbying muscle According to multiple reports, several tech majors—including leaders in AI, enterprise software, and cloud computing—are urgently seeking exemptions, especially for roles deemed vital to national interest. Many are requesting a phased rollout or the “grandfathering” of petitions already in progress. Even while some executives offer tepid support for limited reforms aimed at curbing abuse of the visa system, few endorse the sweeping approach taken by the Trump administration. Lobbyists are also pushing for carve-outs for early-stage startups, university-affiliated researchers, and specialists working on federally funded innovation projects. But it remains unclear how much political will exists to soften the measure in an election cycle charged with immigration rhetoric. Also read: UAE visa update: Work and tourist visas suspended for THESE 9 countries under 2026 ban. What you should know The irony: some companies are already thinking of moving work abroad or dodging the H-1B system entirely While the policy may bring an end to the practice of co-locating engineering teams in the US, companies are determined not to give up on cost efficiency. Several are already turning to global delivery models—hiring remote teams or expanding satellite offices in Europe and Canada. This is offshoring by other means, a strategy designed to offset the financial impact of the new visa policy. Despite the “hire American” rhetoric, many US tech firms see no financial upside to hiring domestically for high-cost, specialised roles. Instead, they are looking to alternative visa categories such as the L‑1—used for intracompany transfers—which may allow them to bypass the H‑1B system entirely. Also read: Trump proposes to scrap H-1B lottery system, proposes visa process favouring better-paid workers Smaller firms and startups are scaling back on hiring Many reports suggest that smaller firms—especially those without deep financial reserves—are quietly scaling back their hiring plans. Strategies include delaying international recruitment, hiring green card holders who may not be US citizens, or restructuring teams to reduce dependency on H‑1B talent. But hiring based on availability rather than skill match comes with long-term risks to competitiveness and product quality. For larger firms, the concern is less about immediate cost and more about innovation bottlenecks. If they’re blocked from hiring global talent, development timelines will slow, product roadmaps could be derailed. The US may eventually lose its edge in high-stakes fields like artificial intelligence, quantum computing, and next-generation biotech. Enormous economic stakes await US tech industry JPMorgan analysts estimated that the new fee could reduce H‑1B petition filings by up to 5,500 cases per month. This would affect not only software developers, but also researchers, educators, and healthcare professionals who rely on H‑1B visas in critical and often underserved areas. While the Trump administration has hinted at possible exceptions for healthcare, the broader tech industry remains the hardest hit—caught between legal opposition and operational paralysis. Universities and hospitals—particularly those in rural states—have already begun lobbying for relief, arguing that the sudden cost spike will create workforce shortages in essential services. But unlike academia and healthcare, the tech industry must also navigate investor pressure, global competition, and product delivery cycles—all of which magnify the impact of talent disruption. https://www.wionews.com/videos/global-work-visa-options-top-countries-opening-work-visas-for-indians-1758778533092/embed Seeking a way out: will courts or government exemptions save the day for US tech? Some industry observers are hopeful that courts will intervene to delay, modify, or strike down the surcharge. Others believe the real battle will be fought through behind-the-scenes negotiations, regulatory tweaks, or last-minute compromises introduced during the 2026 budget cycle. However, several firms are already restructuring their operating models to prepare for a future where foreign labour is either too costly—or simply too politically fraught—to rely on. Will the Trump administration step back from the visa fee hike? The White House has said the surcharge is a temporary measure, subject to a 12-month review clause, but few in Silicon Valley believe that a quiet reversal is likely. Companies are building contingency plans, reworking budgets, and preparing for a prolonged fight. Even if the fee is softened later, the uncertainty it has already created is affecting recruitment, retention, and planning. One thing is clear: the Trump administration’s unexpected and sweeping H‑1B surcharge has triggered a defining moment for the US tech industry. American firms now face a set of imperfect options: to sue, to seek exemptions, to move operations abroad, or to wait out the storm and hope for policy change. In 2025, in an industry built on agility, the H‑1B visa fee has become a new kind of test—not of code, but of strategy, resilience, and political calculus.

<p>If you think H-1B visa fee hike is going to affect only Indian tech firms and skilled professionals, read this. From Big Tech firms to startups, American IT industry is staring at massive disruptions and weighing their options for a fightback. What can they do to offset the visa fee impact?</p>

H-1B visa fee hike a knockout punch for US tech sector? To sue, adapt, lay off, or wait it out is the question. What are their options?

<p>The moment of reckoning is approaching for Google for its monopoly across several of its tech businesses. The US Department of Justice (DOJ) this week formally requested that Alphabet Inc’s Google break up key parts of its digital advertising business. Meanwhile, Google has filed a petition with the US Supreme Court seeking to pause an injunction related to the Epic Games lawsuit, which poses a potential threat to its control over the Play Store and Android ecosystem. One piece of good news for Google came from an unlikely corner, as China quietly dropped its antitrust investigation into the tech giant. Here is a roundup of key recent developments.</p><h2>DOJ pushes for 'structural remedies' in Google's ad tech monopoly</h2><p>The US Department of Justice has launched a multi-week trial in the Eastern District of Virginia focused on Google’s alleged monopoly in the open-web digital advertising market. The case stems from an April 2025 liability ruling that found Google guilty of monopolising critical components of the online ad ecosystem, including its Ad Exchange (AdX) and Google Ad Manager platforms.</p><p>The DOJ is seeking a structural breakup of Google’s ad tech stack. Specifically, it wants Google to divest certain advertising products to restore competition among publisher tools and digital ad auctions. If implemented, such a remedy could lead to a 10–20 per cent reduction in digital advertising costs, benefiting both consumers and advertisers.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/technology/what-is-zoho-ashwini-vaishnaw-is-moving-from-microsoft-google-to-this-indian-platform-for-office-work-1758686698238">What is Zoho? Ashwini Vaishnaw is moving from Microsoft/Google to THIS Indian platform for Office Work</a></p><p>Google is strongly opposing this move, arguing that divesting core ad assets would harm innovation and market efficiency. The company warned that such “extreme” measures could destabilise the rapidly evolving AI and digital technology landscape. The trial is expected to conclude in October, with a final ruling likely before the end of 2025.</p><h2>Google’s search case appeal and legal manoeuvres continue</h2><p>In the related search monopoly case, Google already faces ‘behavioural remedies’ imposed by a court ruling on 2 September. These include a 10-year ban on exclusive search deals with partners and mandates to share key data with rival platforms.</p><p>However, the court did not order a breakup of Google’s Chrome browser or its Android operating system, as was widely expected. The court's decision was viewed as lenient, labelled a “slap on the wrist” by critics. Google has signalled its intention to appeal the ruling, which could extend the litigation through to 2027.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/amid-beijing-washington-talks-over-tiktok-china-to-discontinue-probe-against-google-report-1758199420980">Amid Beijing-Washington talks over TikTok, China to discontinue probe against Google: Report</a></p><h2>Google moves Supreme Court in Epic Games case that could disrupt its Play Store and Android app distribution dominance</h2><p>Google has also been entangled in a legal battle with Epic Games, which challenged the tech giant’s control over app distribution on Android. Epic alleged that Google’s policies around the Play Store, including its mandatory in-app billing system and restrictions on alternative app stores, violated antitrust laws.</p><p>On Thursday (Sep 25) Google filed a request with the US Supreme Court to stay an injunction issued in the Epic case, which could force it to allow greater competition in Android app distribution. The outcome could have far-reaching consequences for Google’s mobile software dominance.</p><p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/google-adds-gemini-to-chrome-browser-after-avoiding-antitrust-breakup-1758293439110/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/google-adds-gemini-to-chrome-browser-after-avoiding-antitrust-breakup-1758293439110/embed</a></p><h2>A sigh of relief for Google in China antitrust case</h2><p>Though Google exited mainland China’s consumer search market in 2010, it continues to operate parts of its Android ecosystem through partnerships with local phone makers. In this context, Chinese regulators had launched an antitrust probe examining Google’s influence over Android devices and related services.</p><p>But this week, &nbsp;China quietly ended that investigation, likely reflecting its shifting regulatory priorities. The move is seen as part of broader US-China trade diplomacy, with China reportedly turning its focus to other American tech firms such as Nvidia.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/technology/ai-talent-poaching-google-ceo-sundar-pichai-responds-to-global-ai-talent-war-1758102311889">AI talent poaching: Google CEO Sundar Pichai responds to global AI talent war</a></p><h2>What is the prognosis for Google?</h2><p>The US Justice Department is aggressively pursuing the breakup of Google’s ad tech business at a time when artificial intelligence and digital advertising are increasingly converging. A forced divestment of Google's advertising assets would mark one of the most significant antitrust structural remedies imposed on a major tech company in decades.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/google-fined-3-5-billion-by-eu-but-will-it-lead-to-breakup-of-the-advertising-monopoly-of-tech-giant-1757315687776">Google fined $3.5 billion by EU, but will it lead to breakup of the advertising monopoly of tech giant?</a></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Google’s simultaneous legal strategies—including appealing the search case ruling and challenging the Epic Games injunction—highlight its multi-front defence of its core platforms. The company is fighting to avoid structural damage that could reshape its business model and reduce its dominance in search, advertising, and mobile ecosystems.<br>&nbsp;</p>

Google monopoly news: DOJ seeks breakup of Google’s ad tech business, while Google appeals Epic Games injunction over Play Store. The only relief came from China, which ended an antitrust probe against Google, which still has major legal battles ahead



The moment of reckoning is approaching for Google for its monopoly across several of its tech businesses. The US Department of Justice (DOJ) this week formally requested that Alphabet Inc’s Google break up key parts of its digital advertising business. Meanwhile, Google has filed a petition with the US Supreme Court seeking to pause an injunction related to the Epic Games lawsuit, which poses a potential threat to its control over the Play Store and Android ecosystem. One piece of good news for Google came from an unlikely corner, as China quietly dropped its antitrust investigation into the tech giant. Here is a roundup of key recent developments. DOJ pushes for 'structural remedies' in Google's ad tech monopoly The US Department of Justice has launched a multi-week trial in the Eastern District of Virginia focused on Google’s alleged monopoly in the open-web digital advertising market. The case stems from an April 2025 liability ruling that found Google guilty of monopolising critical components of the online ad ecosystem, including its Ad Exchange (AdX) and Google Ad Manager platforms. The DOJ is seeking a structural breakup of Google’s ad tech stack. Specifically, it wants Google to divest certain advertising products to restore competition among publisher tools and digital ad auctions. If implemented, such a remedy could lead to a 10–20 per cent reduction in digital advertising costs, benefiting both consumers and advertisers. Also read: What is Zoho? Ashwini Vaishnaw is moving from Microsoft/Google to THIS Indian platform for Office Work Google is strongly opposing this move, arguing that divesting core ad assets would harm innovation and market efficiency. The company warned that such “extreme” measures could destabilise the rapidly evolving AI and digital technology landscape. The trial is expected to conclude in October, with a final ruling likely before the end of 2025. Google’s search case appeal and legal manoeuvres continue In the related search monopoly case, Google already faces ‘behavioural remedies’ imposed by a court ruling on 2 September. These include a 10-year ban on exclusive search deals with partners and mandates to share key data with rival platforms. However, the court did not order a breakup of Google’s Chrome browser or its Android operating system, as was widely expected. The court's decision was viewed as lenient, labelled a “slap on the wrist” by critics. Google has signalled its intention to appeal the ruling, which could extend the litigation through to 2027. Also read: Amid Beijing-Washington talks over TikTok, China to discontinue probe against Google: Report Google moves Supreme Court in Epic Games case that could disrupt its Play Store and Android app distribution dominance Google has also been entangled in a legal battle with Epic Games, which challenged the tech giant’s control over app distribution on Android. Epic alleged that Google’s policies around the Play Store, including its mandatory in-app billing system and restrictions on alternative app stores, violated antitrust laws. On Thursday (Sep 25) Google filed a request with the US Supreme Court to stay an injunction issued in the Epic case, which could force it to allow greater competition in Android app distribution. The outcome could have far-reaching consequences for Google’s mobile software dominance. https://www.wionews.com/videos/google-adds-gemini-to-chrome-browser-after-avoiding-antitrust-breakup-1758293439110/embed A sigh of relief for Google in China antitrust case Though Google exited mainland China’s consumer search market in 2010, it continues to operate parts of its Android ecosystem through partnerships with local phone makers. In this context, Chinese regulators had launched an antitrust probe examining Google’s influence over Android devices and related services. But this week, China quietly ended that investigation, likely reflecting its shifting regulatory priorities. The move is seen as part of broader US-China trade diplomacy, with China reportedly turning its focus to other American tech firms such as Nvidia. Also read: AI talent poaching: Google CEO Sundar Pichai responds to global AI talent war What is the prognosis for Google? The US Justice Department is aggressively pursuing the breakup of Google’s ad tech business at a time when artificial intelligence and digital advertising are increasingly converging. A forced divestment of Google's advertising assets would mark one of the most significant antitrust structural remedies imposed on a major tech company in decades. Also read: Google fined $3.5 billion by EU, but will it lead to breakup of the advertising monopoly of tech giant? Google’s simultaneous legal strategies—including appealing the search case ruling and challenging the Epic Games injunction—highlight its multi-front defence of its core platforms. The company is fighting to avoid structural damage that could reshape its business model and reduce its dominance in search, advertising, and mobile ecosystems.

<p><strong>Google monopoly news:</strong> DOJ seeks breakup of Google’s ad tech business, while Google appeals Epic Games injunction over Play Store. The only relief came from China, which ended an antitrust probe against Google, which still has major legal battles ahead</p><p>&nbsp;</p>

Google monopoly news: DOJ seeks to split its ad business; firm moves SC to avert Epic Games injunction that can hurt Play Store and Android dominance

<p>Sometimes, it takes an insult to spark innovation. India and its tech workforce are at such an inflexion point, with the unjustified H-1B visa fee hike proposal and Trump tariffs meant to break the back of key sectors of the Indian economy. A US-based entrepreneur made a social media post that should make every policymaker in India sit up and take note. Balaji Vishwanathan's bold proposals are not yet in existence, but are uniquely innovative. What can be done by India, for India, to emerge as a global technology hub? Based on Vishwanathan’s post, here is an expanded vision document that includes what he calls BharatOS mandate, SSRI and swadeshi social networks.</p><h2>Can the Reserve Bank of India help the nation build tech sovereignty?</h2><p>The LinkedIn post said it’s time for the Indian tech sector to reinvent itself to utilise the returning expats “in a GI Joe kind of programme” as well as build its long-term tech sovereignty.</p><p>It suggested that India’s central bank, the Reserve Bank of India, send ‘₹12 trillion surplus’ to build India’s full tech stack from the ground up. While this amount is not rooted in reality, the RBI does transfer a surplus, or “dividend,” to the central government. For instance, in FY 2023-24, the RBI approved a transfer of ₹2.1 trillion to the Union Government, and in FY 2024-25, a record surplus transfer of ₹2.69 trillion was approved. The post raises a key question: Can this surplus transfer of RBI be used to help India’s tech sovereignty?</p><p>Also read:<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/-afraid-of-our-talent-says-piyush-goyal-after-us-h-1b-visa-fee-hike-urges-indians-to-return-innovate-in-india-1758458036830"> ‘Afraid of our talent,’ says Piyush Goyal after US H-1B visa fee hike, urges Indians to return, innovate in India</a></p><h2>BharatOS: Can India ‘fork’ Android (AOSP) and make it the default for all devices sold in India?</h2><p>A key suggestion made in the post is the forking of AOSP, or the Android Open Source Project. AOSP is the publicly available and modifiable source code for the Android operating system, developed and maintained by Google. Developers and device manufacturers can customise the code — also known as forking — to create their own Android-based products, such as custom mobile devices.</p><p>The post raises a crucial question: Can India develop an AOSP-based operating system for all devices, like TVs, phones and laptops?</p><p>Vishwanathan wants such an OS to be made a public good like UPI — India’s ubiquitous digital payments architecture. He urged using the HarmonyOS playbook, referring to the proprietary operating system developed by Chinese tech giant Huawei from the ground up.</p><p>Vishwanathan suggested that local device manufacturers using BharatOS should get subsidies, while those clinging to Android/iOS should pay heavy duties. “Let the iPhone 17 crowd pay luxury prices,” he added in the post.</p><p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/trump-administration-s-new-h-1b-visa-process-lottery-system-to-be-scrapped-1758696631993/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/trump-administration-s-new-h-1b-visa-process-lottery-system-to-be-scrapped-1758696631993/embed</a></p><h2>A ₹100 billion fund for developers and a Desi code depository,to get away from Google Play Store and GitHub</h2><p>The post suggested an architecture backed by a ₹100 billion fund for developers, to help migrate out of the Google Play Store, with built-in UPI/Aadhaar integration. The post also mooted the idea of a Sovereign Source Repository of India, or SSRI, to replace dependency on the software development hosting platform GitHub.</p><p>It calls for building a “massive Open Source foundation” that supports Indian languages and problems better, operating under Indian law with no DMCA takedowns or Western IP restrictions. (DMCA is the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and IP stands for Intellectual Property.)</p><p>The post suggested that government contracts should mandate SSRI usage, and that startups should get tax breaks for hosting critical code in SSRI.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-administration-s-100-000-h-1-b-visa-fee-what-it-means-and-what-it-doesn-t-explained-1758415588544">Trump administration’s $100,000 H-1 B visa fee: What it means and what it doesn’t</a></p><h2>Hindustani Flow and Swadeshi Network: Time for ‘Desi’ Artificial Intelligence models&nbsp;</h2><p>The post also suggested what Vishwanathan called ‘Hindustani Flow.’ The idea is to make AI “Indian,” to address the content shortage in Indian languages.</p><p>The Swadeshi Network, mentioned in the post, envisions social media, video, and streaming platforms that Vishwanathan termed ‘BharatConnect, BharatVideo, and BharatTube.’</p><p>It also asked for a creator fund of ₹1.5 billion to make top influencers to migrate to Indian platforms.&nbsp;</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-proposes-to-scrap-h-1b-lottery-system-proposes-visa-process-favoring-better-paid-workers-1758651587890">Trump proposes to scrap H-1B lottery system, proposes visa process favouring better-paid workers</a></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>“Start it like AIR/Doordarshan kind of model with public-funded top-notch content [like we did in the 1980s–90s],” said the post. “Eventually, the private sector can take it and fly it.” &nbsp;AIR, or All India Radio, and Doordarshan are India’s public broadcasters for radio and TV.&nbsp;</p><p>The post highlighted that India has the capital, labour that includes returning high-tech talent, and a market of 1.4 billion users.</p><p>“Time to stop weak-minded responses and completely rebuild our tech foundation. This isn’t about fighting America — it’s about building an India that doesn’t need anyone’s permission to innovate,” it concluded.</p>

In a social media post, an Indian entrepreneur proposed a bold vision for India's tech sovereignty, which includes BharatOS, SSRI, Desi Artificial Intelligence, and digital platforms. Could this be the blueprint for India to reduce dependency on foreign tech giants?



Sometimes, it takes an insult to spark innovation. India and its tech workforce are at such an inflexion point, with the unjustified H-1B visa fee hike proposal and Trump tariffs meant to break the back of key sectors of the Indian economy. A US-based entrepreneur made a social media post that should make every policymaker in India sit up and take note. Balaji Vishwanathan's bold proposals are not yet in existence, but are uniquely innovative. What can be done by India, for India, to emerge as a global technology hub? Based on Vishwanathan’s post, here is an expanded vision document that includes what he calls BharatOS mandate, SSRI and swadeshi social networks. Can the Reserve Bank of India help the nation build tech sovereignty? The LinkedIn post said it’s time for the Indian tech sector to reinvent itself to utilise the returning expats “in a GI Joe kind of programme” as well as build its long-term tech sovereignty. It suggested that India’s central bank, the Reserve Bank of India, send ‘₹12 trillion surplus’ to build India’s full tech stack from the ground up. While this amount is not rooted in reality, the RBI does transfer a surplus, or “dividend,” to the central government. For instance, in FY 2023-24, the RBI approved a transfer of ₹2.1 trillion to the Union Government, and in FY 2024-25, a record surplus transfer of ₹2.69 trillion was approved. The post raises a key question: Can this surplus transfer of RBI be used to help India’s tech sovereignty? Also read: ‘Afraid of our talent,’ says Piyush Goyal after US H-1B visa fee hike, urges Indians to return, innovate in India BharatOS: Can India ‘fork’ Android (AOSP) and make it the default for all devices sold in India? A key suggestion made in the post is the forking of AOSP, or the Android Open Source Project. AOSP is the publicly available and modifiable source code for the Android operating system, developed and maintained by Google. Developers and device manufacturers can customise the code — also known as forking — to create their own Android-based products, such as custom mobile devices. The post raises a crucial question: Can India develop an AOSP-based operating system for all devices, like TVs, phones and laptops? Vishwanathan wants such an OS to be made a public good like UPI — India’s ubiquitous digital payments architecture. He urged using the HarmonyOS playbook, referring to the proprietary operating system developed by Chinese tech giant Huawei from the ground up. Vishwanathan suggested that local device manufacturers using BharatOS should get subsidies, while those clinging to Android/iOS should pay heavy duties. “Let the iPhone 17 crowd pay luxury prices,” he added in the post. https://www.wionews.com/videos/trump-administration-s-new-h-1b-visa-process-lottery-system-to-be-scrapped-1758696631993/embed A ₹100 billion fund for developers and a Desi code depository,to get away from Google Play Store and GitHub The post suggested an architecture backed by a ₹100 billion fund for developers, to help migrate out of the Google Play Store, with built-in UPI/Aadhaar integration. The post also mooted the idea of a Sovereign Source Repository of India, or SSRI, to replace dependency on the software development hosting platform GitHub. It calls for building a “massive Open Source foundation” that supports Indian languages and problems better, operating under Indian law with no DMCA takedowns or Western IP restrictions. (DMCA is the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and IP stands for Intellectual Property.) The post suggested that government contracts should mandate SSRI usage, and that startups should get tax breaks for hosting critical code in SSRI. Also read: Trump administration’s $100,000 H-1 B visa fee: What it means and what it doesn’t Hindustani Flow and Swadeshi Network: Time for ‘Desi’ Artificial Intelligence models The post also suggested what Vishwanathan called ‘Hindustani Flow.’ The idea is to make AI “Indian,” to address the content shortage in Indian languages. The Swadeshi Network, mentioned in the post, envisions social media, video, and streaming platforms that Vishwanathan termed ‘BharatConnect, BharatVideo, and BharatTube.’ It also asked for a creator fund of ₹1.5 billion to make top influencers to migrate to Indian platforms. Also read: Trump proposes to scrap H-1B lottery system, proposes visa process favouring better-paid workers “Start it like AIR/Doordarshan kind of model with public-funded top-notch content [like we did in the 1980s–90s],” said the post. “Eventually, the private sector can take it and fly it.” AIR, or All India Radio, and Doordarshan are India’s public broadcasters for radio and TV. The post highlighted that India has the capital, labour that includes returning high-tech talent, and a market of 1.4 billion users. “Time to stop weak-minded responses and completely rebuild our tech foundation. This isn’t about fighting America — it’s about building an India that doesn’t need anyone’s permission to innovate,” it concluded.

<p>In a social media post, an Indian entrepreneur proposed a bold vision for India's tech sovereignty, which includes BharatOS, SSRI, Desi Artificial Intelligence, and digital platforms. Could this be the blueprint for India to reduce dependency on foreign tech giants?</p><p>&nbsp;</p>

Bharat OS, Bharat Tube, Hindustani Flow, Swadeshi network: You MUST READ this entrepreneur's post amid US H-1B visa backstabbing and Trump tariffs

<p>Indian high-skilled professionals are facing a moment of reckoning as the US hiked the much-used H-1B visa fees to $100,000. The anger and frustration have evolved into a call for Indians to return, to build back at home. One country that has succeeded in repatriating its high-tech professionals is China. Over the past decades, it has used incentives as well as punishments to bring back the Chinese from foreign lands to start innovations and businesses in China. Many of the top tech startup CEOs had been abroad at some point in their lives. But now they are building back at home, helping China emerge as a global innovation hub that currently challenges the US and the West.</p><h2>How China reversed brain drain</h2><p>China is home to tech giants like Huawei, ByteDance (owner of TikTok), BYD and DJI. In past decades, a meticulous strategy combining generous incentives with subtle, and sometimes coercive, punishments, was used by the Chinese government to bring back its high-skilled tech talent.</p><p>China wants its brightest minds, especially those educated or working in the West, to return and contribute to building China’s domestic innovation ecosystem.&nbsp;</p><p>The approach combined financial carrots with legal, social, and political sticks.</p><p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/colossal-trump-visa-blunder-likely-to-boomerang-boost-tech-in-india-1758565334027/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/colossal-trump-visa-blunder-likely-to-boomerang-boost-tech-in-india-1758565334027/embed</a></p><h2>Thousand Talents: How China’s talent repatriation campaign offered world-class incentives</h2><p>Scientists and entrepreneurs were promised grants of up to ¥200 million, preferential access to housing, healthcare, subsidies, and priority in securing venture capital. Programmes like the Thousand Talents Plan (TTP), the Young Thousand Talents (YTT), and the Qiming Plan aggressively recruited top-tier Chinese professionals abroad, especially in strategic fields like artificial intelligence, semiconductors, biotech, and electric vehicles.</p><p>With the state offering rent subsidies, tax breaks, and startup support, cities like Shenzhen and Shanghai became magnets for Chinese returnees.<br>Startup incubators like Zhongguancun in Beijing provided infrastructure and mentorship, while institutions like Tsinghua Holdings fostered deep integration between academia and enterprise.</p><p>The result? Chinese returnees now make up a reported 70 per cent of Shenzhen’s tech workforce and have founded 80 per cent of the country’s AI startups.</p><p>China also streamlined its immigration and residency systems to support this return flow of emigrants.</p><p>High-end talent visas, fast-tracked household registration known as 'hukou', and priority schooling and housing for families made it easier for skilled professionals to resettle in major innovation hubs.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/indians-on-h-1b-visas-come-back-home-as-a-mark-of-protest-and-a-matter-of-pride-time-to-make-india-greater-1758519570677">Indians on H-1B visas, COME BACK HOME, as a mark of protest, and a matter of pride. Time to Make India Greater</a></p><h2>Disincentives designed to make staying abroad increasingly unattractive</h2><p>State-sponsored students, particularly those funded by the China Scholarship Council (CSC), were bound by contracts requiring them to return to China. Failing this would lead to penalties that include repayment of full tuition and living costs that run up to $100,000, or even legal action.<br>This made the price of staying abroad prohibitively high for many Chinese expats.</p><p>The Chinese Social Credit System also played a role. Those who failed to return or started 'unauthorised ventures' abroad could be blacklisted. This then led to restrictions in their access to credit, travel, or even schooling for their children back in China.<br>Families of non-returnees also faced social stigma, amplified by state media campaigns promoting national service and loyalty.</p><p>Moreover, returnees who attempted to collaborate with or join foreign tech firms often risked violating Chinese National Security and Cybersecurity laws. Sharing sensitive technology with foreign entities was criminalised, and data localisation was required for Chinese firms.&nbsp;</p><p>In effect, these curbs created high barriers for overseas engagement for Chinese tech professionals.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/will-doctors-not-pay-100-000-fee-on-h-1b-visas-report-claims-case-by-case-exemptions-1758561658463">Will doctors not pay $100,000 fee on H-1B visas? Report claims ‘case-by-case exemptions’</a></p><h2>Losing citizenship and access to startup ecosystem: Hidden cost of not returning for Chinese</h2><p>Chinese citizens holding foreign passports were further disincentivised by the country's ban on dual citizenship.&nbsp;</p><p>Choosing to remain abroad meant losing access to China’s domestic startup ecosystem, government funding, and even property rights.&nbsp;</p><p>This led many to forgo foreign nationality in order to keep their foothold in the Chinese market.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/h1-b-visa-fee-hike-is-a-trade-barrier-legal-argument-for-india-to-sue-the-us-at-the-wto-in-a-world-first-under-mode-4-of-gats-1758608807223">H1-B visa fee hike is a trade barrier: Legal argument for India to sue the US at the WTO in a world-first under Mode 4 of GATS</a></p><h2>China's strong state control over its startup ecosystem</h2><p>Companies that did not align with state-defined strategic goals, especially post-2018 tech tensions with the US, faced the withdrawal of subsidies, funding, or market access.&nbsp;</p><p>Hundreds of ventures that failed to deliver results were excluded from major incubators and denied participation in government contracts.</p><p>China also ramped up investment in strategic areas, such as the $48 billion Big Fund III.&nbsp;</p><p>Launched in 2024, this financial initiative funnelled capital into chip manufacturing.&nbsp;</p><p>Programmes like the Qiming Plan gave semiconductor firms generous funding.</p><h2>Staggering results: Millions of Chinese return</h2><p>As per data from 2023, more than one million Chinese students have returned annually.<br>Some global brands emerged from this reverse migration.&nbsp;</p><p>For instance, DJI now dominates the global drone market with a 70 per cent share.&nbsp;</p><p>BYD accounts for 20 per cent of global electric vehicle sales.&nbsp;</p><p>SenseTime, a major AI player, has reached a valuation of $3 billion.<br>China now ranks first globally in patent filings and accounts for 30 per cent of global unicorn value.</p><h2>Reverse brain drain helped China become innovation hub</h2><p>China has not only reversed its brain drain. It used its talent as a lever to assert technological sovereignty and economic resilience amid global decoupling trends and protectionism from America.&nbsp;</p><p>China blended opportunity and obligation, incentives and punishments, in its long march towards self-reliance in the technology sector. It is a controversial, yet powerful model for national innovation.</p><p>The global tech race is intensifying. For Indian policymakers, China's example underscores a broader truth: attracting talent is no longer just about offering a better salary or lab.&nbsp;</p><p>It is about building an entire ecosystem that makes leaving the homeland the harder—not the easier—choice, and returning an attractive option.&nbsp;</p><p>India can avoid the punishment-disincentive part of this system, and concentrate on the incentives and ecosystem-building aspects of the Chinese model.</p><p>Because it is high time.</p>

As India faces a moment of reckoning amid H-1B fee visa fee hike, it is time to look at how China reversed its brain drain. It combined incentives and disincentives to repatriate high-skilled tech talent. Two decades later, China is an innovation hub full of booming startups



Indian high-skilled professionals are facing a moment of reckoning as the US hiked the much-used H-1B visa fees to $100,000. The anger and frustration have evolved into a call for Indians to return, to build back at home. One country that has succeeded in repatriating its high-tech professionals is China. Over the past decades, it has used incentives as well as punishments to bring back the Chinese from foreign lands to start innovations and businesses in China. Many of the top tech startup CEOs had been abroad at some point in their lives. But now they are building back at home, helping China emerge as a global innovation hub that currently challenges the US and the West. How China reversed brain drain China is home to tech giants like Huawei, ByteDance (owner of TikTok), BYD and DJI. In past decades, a meticulous strategy combining generous incentives with subtle, and sometimes coercive, punishments, was used by the Chinese government to bring back its high-skilled tech talent. China wants its brightest minds, especially those educated or working in the West, to return and contribute to building China’s domestic innovation ecosystem. The approach combined financial carrots with legal, social, and political sticks. https://www.wionews.com/videos/colossal-trump-visa-blunder-likely-to-boomerang-boost-tech-in-india-1758565334027/embed Thousand Talents: How China’s talent repatriation campaign offered world-class incentives Scientists and entrepreneurs were promised grants of up to ¥200 million, preferential access to housing, healthcare, subsidies, and priority in securing venture capital. Programmes like the Thousand Talents Plan (TTP), the Young Thousand Talents (YTT), and the Qiming Plan aggressively recruited top-tier Chinese professionals abroad, especially in strategic fields like artificial intelligence, semiconductors, biotech, and electric vehicles. With the state offering rent subsidies, tax breaks, and startup support, cities like Shenzhen and Shanghai became magnets for Chinese returnees. Startup incubators like Zhongguancun in Beijing provided infrastructure and mentorship, while institutions like Tsinghua Holdings fostered deep integration between academia and enterprise. The result? Chinese returnees now make up a reported 70 per cent of Shenzhen’s tech workforce and have founded 80 per cent of the country’s AI startups. China also streamlined its immigration and residency systems to support this return flow of emigrants. High-end talent visas, fast-tracked household registration known as 'hukou', and priority schooling and housing for families made it easier for skilled professionals to resettle in major innovation hubs. Also read: Indians on H-1B visas, COME BACK HOME, as a mark of protest, and a matter of pride. Time to Make India Greater Disincentives designed to make staying abroad increasingly unattractive State-sponsored students, particularly those funded by the China Scholarship Council (CSC), were bound by contracts requiring them to return to China. Failing this would lead to penalties that include repayment of full tuition and living costs that run up to $100,000, or even legal action. This made the price of staying abroad prohibitively high for many Chinese expats. The Chinese Social Credit System also played a role. Those who failed to return or started 'unauthorised ventures' abroad could be blacklisted. This then led to restrictions in their access to credit, travel, or even schooling for their children back in China. Families of non-returnees also faced social stigma, amplified by state media campaigns promoting national service and loyalty. Moreover, returnees who attempted to collaborate with or join foreign tech firms often risked violating Chinese National Security and Cybersecurity laws. Sharing sensitive technology with foreign entities was criminalised, and data localisation was required for Chinese firms. In effect, these curbs created high barriers for overseas engagement for Chinese tech professionals. Also read: Will doctors not pay $100,000 fee on H-1B visas? Report claims ‘case-by-case exemptions’ Losing citizenship and access to startup ecosystem: Hidden cost of not returning for Chinese Chinese citizens holding foreign passports were further disincentivised by the country's ban on dual citizenship. Choosing to remain abroad meant losing access to China’s domestic startup ecosystem, government funding, and even property rights. This led many to forgo foreign nationality in order to keep their foothold in the Chinese market. Also read: H1-B visa fee hike is a trade barrier: Legal argument for India to sue the US at the WTO in a world-first under Mode 4 of GATS China's strong state control over its startup ecosystem Companies that did not align with state-defined strategic goals, especially post-2018 tech tensions with the US, faced the withdrawal of subsidies, funding, or market access. Hundreds of ventures that failed to deliver results were excluded from major incubators and denied participation in government contracts. China also ramped up investment in strategic areas, such as the $48 billion Big Fund III. Launched in 2024, this financial initiative funnelled capital into chip manufacturing. Programmes like the Qiming Plan gave semiconductor firms generous funding. Staggering results: Millions of Chinese return As per data from 2023, more than one million Chinese students have returned annually. Some global brands emerged from this reverse migration. For instance, DJI now dominates the global drone market with a 70 per cent share. BYD accounts for 20 per cent of global electric vehicle sales. SenseTime, a major AI player, has reached a valuation of $3 billion. China now ranks first globally in patent filings and accounts for 30 per cent of global unicorn value. Reverse brain drain helped China become innovation hub China has not only reversed its brain drain. It used its talent as a lever to assert technological sovereignty and economic resilience amid global decoupling trends and protectionism from America. China blended opportunity and obligation, incentives and punishments, in its long march towards self-reliance in the technology sector. It is a controversial, yet powerful model for national innovation. The global tech race is intensifying. For Indian policymakers, China's example underscores a broader truth: attracting talent is no longer just about offering a better salary or lab. It is about building an entire ecosystem that makes leaving the homeland the harder—not the easier—choice, and returning an attractive option. India can avoid the punishment-disincentive part of this system, and concentrate on the incentives and ecosystem-building aspects of the Chinese model. Because it is high time.

<p>As India faces a moment of reckoning amid H-1B fee visa fee hike, it is time to look at how China reversed its brain drain. It combined incentives and disincentives to repatriate high-skilled tech talent. Two decades later, China is an innovation hub full of booming startups</p><p>&nbsp;</p>

H-1B visa fee hike and call for Indians to return: What India can learn from China's efforts to repatriate its high-skilled talent

<p>The Trump administration has proposed a hike in H-1B visa fees to $100,000 in a sudden, arbitrary and confusing move that primarily targets Indian high-tech professionals. This constitutes a non-tariff barrier to market access and reflects a form of US trade protectionism. Both the US and India are signatories to the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), a key framework under the World Trade Organisation (WTO). Mode 4 of GATS deals with the ‘movement of natural persons’. India has been a long-standing advocate of Mode 4, which is crucial to its strength in global trade in services. No country has ever legally challenged another under the WTO specifically over Mode 4. If India were to do so against the US, it would be a world first. But will it? What is the legal argument? What are the pros and cons of a potential India–US dispute at the WTO over arbitrary visa regulations? Let's break it down.</p><h2>Why Mode 4 of WTO on movement of natural persons is important for India</h2><p>India is one of the largest exporters of services globally, for which it heavily relies on the temporary movement of natural persons. Mode 4 under the WTO’s GATS ensures this cross-border trade in services, especially in IT, consulting, and professional sectors. The US is a key destination for such movement of people, offering visa categories such as H-1B and L-1, which broadly correspond to its Mode 4 commitments under GATS.</p><p>An arbitrary and disproportionate increase in visa fees, such as the proposed hike to $100,000 for H-1B visas, would in effect restrict access of the Indian IT industry to the US market, severely impacting Indian service providers and other foreign service suppliers.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/do-you-have-h-1b-visa-us-official-says-indians-don-t-need-to-rush-here-s-why-1758387383378">Do you have H-1B visa? US official says Indians DON’T NEED to rush. Here’s why</a></p><h2>Legal basis under WTO/GATS on the movement of persons as part of trade</h2><p>Under Article XVI, which deals with market access, and Article XVII, which deals with national treatment, GATS prevents WTO members from imposing measures that nullify or impair the commitments made on trade in services, including those related to Mode 4. The US is committed to allowing temporary entry for specific categories of natural persons. However, the arbitrary rise in visa fees and harsh immigration regulations targeting specific countries would make entry into the US prohibitively expensive or impossible for Indian professionals and other service suppliers. This can be construed as quantitative restrictions or non-tariff barriers that violate WTO provisions.</p><p>Visa fees are not explicitly regulated by GATS, but they are an essential part of immigration and market access conditions. Excessive or arbitrary fee hikes constitute non-tariff barriers by effectively restricting the entry of service providers, undermining the principles of reasonable, transparent, and non-discriminatory access enshrined in WTO commitments.</p><p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/china-floats-k-visa-amid-trump-s-h1-b-chaos-1758559833186/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/china-floats-k-visa-amid-trump-s-h1-b-chaos-1758559833186/embed</a></p><h2>US visa fee hikes as de facto quantitative restrictions on trade</h2><p>A visa fee hike of an extreme magnitude like the $100,000 for H-1B visas can arguably act as a de facto quantitative limitation, as it deters applicants, effectively capping the number of natural persons who can access the American market. This, in spirit, violates GATS’ emphasis on progressive trade liberalisation. This, along with other immigration restriction measures, can be viewed as actions nullifying or impairing expected benefits under Article XXIII (non-violation complaints) of GATS.</p><p>Visa fees inherently discriminate against foreign nationals, potentially breaching national treatment principles, particularly if fees are arbitrary or disproportionately high compared to the cost of processing visas for domestic or other categories of workers.</p><h2>But what are the challenges in pursuing a legal case on visa restrictions and high fees?</h2><p>Mode 4 annexes and provisions explicitly permit WTO members to regulate the entry and stay of natural persons for public order, security, or administrative reasons. The US is likely to invoke these exceptions under Article XIV, arguing immigration sovereignty and administrative cost recovery. However, in the case of H-1B visa fees, the American rationale is to bring jobs back to US citizens, not because visa holders are a threat to public order or security. In simple terms, it is a matter of economic protectionism.</p><p>The US’s Mode 4 commitments are limited and selective, covering specific categories such as intra-company transferees and certain professionals. Many sectors remain “unbound.” Therefore, it is quite possible for the US to argue that the visa fee changes fall outside its commitments and may be beyond WTO scrutiny.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/will-doctors-not-pay-100-000-fee-on-h-1b-visas-report-claims-case-by-case-exemptions-1758561658463">Will doctors not pay $100,000 fee on H-1B visas? Report claims ‘case-by-case exemptions’</a></p><h2>How it could set a precedent if India sues the US at the WTO under Mode 4</h2><p>That said, a WTO dispute initiated by India against the US over visa fee hikes could set a precedent. If India proceeds, it would be the first-ever case focusing explicitly on visa fees under Mode 4. It could compel the WTO to clarify its role in regulating the balance between immigration control and trade commitments on services, and address artificial barriers to trade.</p><p>Such a case, if it materialises, would affirm that negative-effect immigration rules constitute non-tariff barriers. It would prompt a determination as to whether such measures are subject to WTO disciplines, particularly when they impair trade commitments—especially for developing countries like India that are dependent on Mode 4 exports.</p><h2>Practical considerations of a case against the US by India over immigration restrictions</h2><p>While the argument that visa fee hikes constitute trade barriers violating GATS commitments is legally sound, it would face significant hurdles. For example, proving that visa fees exceed legitimate immigration control and amount to disguised protectionism would be challenging.</p><p>WTO members generally enjoy broad flexibilities and exceptions regarding immigration, as it is a politically sensitive subject involving national sovereignty and domestic rule-making. Navigating this political sensitivity in an untested legal space would be a challenge for India.</p><p>As noted, the US has only limited Mode 4 commitments. The key question is whether a WTO dispute panel would defer to sovereign immigration policy, or adopt an objective view based on how such measures affect agreed trade principles under Mode 4.</p><p>Also read: <a href="UK to scrap visa fee after Trump’s $100,000 hike for H-1B? Report claims Starmer considering reform">UK to scrap visa fee after Trump’s $100,000 hike for H-1B? Report claims Starmer considering reform</a></p><h2>India has a strong legal foundation for pursuing a case at the WTO over visa fee hikes, despite the challenges involved</h2><p>It is legally sound for India to argue that sudden visa fee hikes and immigration reforms affecting Indian professionals amount to restricting market access and discriminating against foreign service providers. A WTO panel ruling in India’s favour would set a landmark precedent, making clear that WTO members cannot use protectionist immigration policies or excessive visa fees to bypass their trade commitments. It could strengthen the enforceability of Mode 4 and advance fairer global trade in services.</p><p>If pursued, this case would not only address a critical trade barrier impacting India’s service exports, but also clarify the relationship between immigration regulations and international trade law under the WTO framework.&nbsp;</p><p>But will India bite the bullet on this? That’s a 100,000 dollar question.<br>&nbsp;</p>

In theory at least, it is possible for India to approach the WTO over the arbitrary $100,000 H-1B visa fee hike by the US. Such a case has never happened, but would fall under GATS Mode 4 that deals with transnational movement of people. But will India make such a move?



The Trump administration has proposed a hike in H-1B visa fees to $100,000 in a sudden, arbitrary and confusing move that primarily targets Indian high-tech professionals. This constitutes a non-tariff barrier to market access and reflects a form of US trade protectionism. Both the US and India are signatories to the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), a key framework under the World Trade Organisation (WTO). Mode 4 of GATS deals with the ‘movement of natural persons’. India has been a long-standing advocate of Mode 4, which is crucial to its strength in global trade in services. No country has ever legally challenged another under the WTO specifically over Mode 4. If India were to do so against the US, it would be a world first. But will it? What is the legal argument? What are the pros and cons of a potential India–US dispute at the WTO over arbitrary visa regulations? Let's break it down. Why Mode 4 of WTO on movement of natural persons is important for India India is one of the largest exporters of services globally, for which it heavily relies on the temporary movement of natural persons. Mode 4 under the WTO’s GATS ensures this cross-border trade in services, especially in IT, consulting, and professional sectors. The US is a key destination for such movement of people, offering visa categories such as H-1B and L-1, which broadly correspond to its Mode 4 commitments under GATS. An arbitrary and disproportionate increase in visa fees, such as the proposed hike to $100,000 for H-1B visas, would in effect restrict access of the Indian IT industry to the US market, severely impacting Indian service providers and other foreign service suppliers. Also read: Do you have H-1B visa? US official says Indians DON’T NEED to rush. Here’s why Legal basis under WTO/GATS on the movement of persons as part of trade Under Article XVI, which deals with market access, and Article XVII, which deals with national treatment, GATS prevents WTO members from imposing measures that nullify or impair the commitments made on trade in services, including those related to Mode 4. The US is committed to allowing temporary entry for specific categories of natural persons. However, the arbitrary rise in visa fees and harsh immigration regulations targeting specific countries would make entry into the US prohibitively expensive or impossible for Indian professionals and other service suppliers. This can be construed as quantitative restrictions or non-tariff barriers that violate WTO provisions. Visa fees are not explicitly regulated by GATS, but they are an essential part of immigration and market access conditions. Excessive or arbitrary fee hikes constitute non-tariff barriers by effectively restricting the entry of service providers, undermining the principles of reasonable, transparent, and non-discriminatory access enshrined in WTO commitments. https://www.wionews.com/videos/china-floats-k-visa-amid-trump-s-h1-b-chaos-1758559833186/embed US visa fee hikes as de facto quantitative restrictions on trade A visa fee hike of an extreme magnitude like the $100,000 for H-1B visas can arguably act as a de facto quantitative limitation, as it deters applicants, effectively capping the number of natural persons who can access the American market. This, in spirit, violates GATS’ emphasis on progressive trade liberalisation. This, along with other immigration restriction measures, can be viewed as actions nullifying or impairing expected benefits under Article XXIII (non-violation complaints) of GATS. Visa fees inherently discriminate against foreign nationals, potentially breaching national treatment principles, particularly if fees are arbitrary or disproportionately high compared to the cost of processing visas for domestic or other categories of workers. But what are the challenges in pursuing a legal case on visa restrictions and high fees? Mode 4 annexes and provisions explicitly permit WTO members to regulate the entry and stay of natural persons for public order, security, or administrative reasons. The US is likely to invoke these exceptions under Article XIV, arguing immigration sovereignty and administrative cost recovery. However, in the case of H-1B visa fees, the American rationale is to bring jobs back to US citizens, not because visa holders are a threat to public order or security. In simple terms, it is a matter of economic protectionism. The US’s Mode 4 commitments are limited and selective, covering specific categories such as intra-company transferees and certain professionals. Many sectors remain “unbound.” Therefore, it is quite possible for the US to argue that the visa fee changes fall outside its commitments and may be beyond WTO scrutiny. Also read: Will doctors not pay $100,000 fee on H-1B visas? Report claims ‘case-by-case exemptions’ How it could set a precedent if India sues the US at the WTO under Mode 4 That said, a WTO dispute initiated by India against the US over visa fee hikes could set a precedent. If India proceeds, it would be the first-ever case focusing explicitly on visa fees under Mode 4. It could compel the WTO to clarify its role in regulating the balance between immigration control and trade commitments on services, and address artificial barriers to trade. Such a case, if it materialises, would affirm that negative-effect immigration rules constitute non-tariff barriers. It would prompt a determination as to whether such measures are subject to WTO disciplines, particularly when they impair trade commitments—especially for developing countries like India that are dependent on Mode 4 exports. Practical considerations of a case against the US by India over immigration restrictions While the argument that visa fee hikes constitute trade barriers violating GATS commitments is legally sound, it would face significant hurdles. For example, proving that visa fees exceed legitimate immigration control and amount to disguised protectionism would be challenging. WTO members generally enjoy broad flexibilities and exceptions regarding immigration, as it is a politically sensitive subject involving national sovereignty and domestic rule-making. Navigating this political sensitivity in an untested legal space would be a challenge for India. As noted, the US has only limited Mode 4 commitments. The key question is whether a WTO dispute panel would defer to sovereign immigration policy, or adopt an objective view based on how such measures affect agreed trade principles under Mode 4. Also read: UK to scrap visa fee after Trump’s $100,000 hike for H-1B? Report claims Starmer considering reform India has a strong legal foundation for pursuing a case at the WTO over visa fee hikes, despite the challenges involved It is legally sound for India to argue that sudden visa fee hikes and immigration reforms affecting Indian professionals amount to restricting market access and discriminating against foreign service providers. A WTO panel ruling in India’s favour would set a landmark precedent, making clear that WTO members cannot use protectionist immigration policies or excessive visa fees to bypass their trade commitments. It could strengthen the enforceability of Mode 4 and advance fairer global trade in services. If pursued, this case would not only address a critical trade barrier impacting India’s service exports, but also clarify the relationship between immigration regulations and international trade law under the WTO framework. But will India bite the bullet on this? That’s a 100,000 dollar question.

<p>In theory at least, it is possible for India to approach the WTO over the arbitrary $100,000 H-1B visa fee hike by the US. Such a case has never happened, but would fall under GATS Mode 4 that deals with transnational movement of people. But will India make such a move?</p><p>&nbsp;</p>

H1-B visa fee hike is a trade barrier: Legal argument for India to sue the US at the WTO in a world-first under Mode 4 of GATS

<p>The UK, Canada and Australia became the latest nations to recognise Palestine statehood, while several are going to do the same at the United Nations General Assembly. Israel has called the moves a threat to its existence, while its key ally the US called it “performative.” But the real question is, will anything change on the ground for Palestinians as they reel under the Israeli occupation, entering the third year since the Hamas terror attack of 2023?</p><h2>Palestinian statehood: What’s the status? Who recognises, who is about to do so?</h2><p>A little over 151 of the 193 UN member states have recognised, or are in the process of recognising, the State of Palestine. This means an overwhelming majority of the international community wants to see the formal state of Palestine become a reality.</p><p>The UK, Canada, Australia, and Portugal have recently formally recognised Palestine. France intends to formally recognise Palestine during or around the UN General Assembly. European Union member states like Belgium, Luxembourg, Malta, and possibly others are expected to follow suit.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/-to-revive-hope-for-peace-uk-canada-australia-formally-recognise-state-of-palestine-1758448390402">'To revive hope for peace': UK, Canada, Australia formally recognise State of Palestine amid Israel's Gaza takeover plan</a></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>But it really does not matter, given that the most important power, the United States, is yet to recognise Palestine, with President Donald Trump saying in his recent UK visit that it is "an area of divergence" for him with UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer.<br>Japan, South Korea, and some other European countries are also yet to recognise Palestine.</p><h2>Is Palestinian statehood recognition merely a show? What the US means by “performative”</h2><p>The State Department called the Palestinian statehood recognition by some Western countries “performative.” It could very well be right. These recognitions have largely been symbolic, and not backed by accompanying changes in policy.</p><p>There are not many concrete steps that alter power dynamics or outcomes on the ground. Mere statehood recognition without resolving conflicts over territory, security, governance, refugees, and borders does not by itself create a functioning state that changes the Palestinian people’s day-to-day realities.<br>Amid the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza, the US is making its priorities clear: release of Israeli hostages, security of Israel, broader peace and stability for the region. Recognition of Palestine, in their view, doesn’t by itself guarantee those things.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/palestine-welcomes-courageous-decisions-of-uk-canada-and-australia-to-recognise-its-statehood-1758461899754">Palestine welcomes ‘courageous decisions’ of UK, Canada, and Australia to recognise its statehood</a></p><h2>Palestinian statehood: What might be the positive changes? &nbsp;</h2><p>The positive outcomes from the recognition could include some legal, diplomatic, and political advantages. Recognised states can use international bodies like the UN, the International Criminal Court, and treaty regimes with more leverage. It allows diplomacy and specific claims in front of these bodies to be made more explicitly.</p><p>The ability of Palestine to establish formal diplomatic relations, and embassies, is another positive outcome from the recognition. They can enter into treaties, possibly including trade deals and diplomatic exchanges. Palestine would be able to get more foreign aid and cooperation from countries with diplomatic ties.</p><p>The recognition elevates the Palestinian cause, gaining a higher profile in international negotiations. Statehood could help Palestine garner more legitimacy in global public opinion, and it can fight cases in international courts or in global fora more effectively. The recognition can also put greater diplomatic pressure on Israel, including trade sanctions or shifts in international public opinion.<br>Palestine can get international funding and membership in international organisations, like transitioning from the current status as a “non‑member observer state” to a member state of the UN, which comes with certain privileges.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/uk-to-recognise-palestine-today-despite-israel-slamming-move-as-rewarding-terrorism-was-the-move-delayed-by-trump-visit-1758428851590">UK to recognise Palestine today despite Israel slamming move as 'rewarding terrorism'. Was it delayed by Trump's visit?</a></p><h2>Palestinian statehood and ground realities: What probably won’t change for Palestinians</h2><p>A state’s recognition, by itself, will not ensure any control over territory or borders. The Palestinian Authority, which rules the West Bank, and Hamas, which rules the Gaza Strip, might not have full control over these territories. There are issues to be resolved on East Jerusalem and borders, especially given the ongoing war, and the Israeli settlements in the West Bank, much of it forced and state-backed by Israel.</p><p>Palestine is yet to have a formal military. While theoretically, Palestine could procure arms as a state, it could complicate the already worsening war situation. Israel—though already much more capable and dominant militarily—could seek more arms to defend against a Palestinian state that has a formal army. Israel currently has its forces at border controls and checkpoints. Recognition of Palestine is not going to change any of this overnight.</p><p>Israel still manages the checkpoints, restrictions, settlers, occupation policies, and internal governance.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/-no-palestinian-state-will-be-established-netanyahu-vows-to-expand-jewish-settlements-in-west-bank-as-hamas-hails-victory-1758471246164">‘No Palestinian state will be established’: Netanyahu vows to expand Jewish settlements in West Bank as Hamas hails ‘victory’</a></p><h2>Daily life of Palestinians under siege. Will anything change after state recognition?</h2><p>The Gaza war and Israeli occupation of Gaza City are ongoing even as the Palestinian statehood declarations are being made. For people living in Gaza, issues like electricity, water, schooling, taxes, freedom of movement, infrastructure, and health care are not going to change immediately. Israeli occupation, blockades, funding, and administrative capacity will determine how the humanitarian situation evolves, not any diplomatic recognition.</p><p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/breaking-netanyahu-on-palestinian-recognition-huge-reward-to-terrorism-1758476139316/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/breaking-netanyahu-on-palestinian-recognition-huge-reward-to-terrorism-1758476139316/embed</a></p><h2>Contentious issues like Jerusalem and refugees will remain</h2><p>Core contentious issues like Jerusalem and East Jerusalem’s status require longer negotiation or international legal/political enforcement.&nbsp;</p><p>Under the current hostile situations, these are going to take a lot more time. A simple statehood recognition is not going to settle these issues.</p><p>Without those being reinforced, recognition might have more symbolism than practical effect.<br>&nbsp;</p>

More than 150 nations now recognise Palestine or will do so soon. But without US backing, or the Israeli control over land continuing, the move remains mostly symbolic. Daily life for Palestinians under occupation is unlikely to change dramatically. Here is why



The UK, Canada and Australia became the latest nations to recognise Palestine statehood, while several are going to do the same at the United Nations General Assembly. Israel has called the moves a threat to its existence, while its key ally the US called it “performative.” But the real question is, will anything change on the ground for Palestinians as they reel under the Israeli occupation, entering the third year since the Hamas terror attack of 2023? Palestinian statehood: What’s the status? Who recognises, who is about to do so? A little over 151 of the 193 UN member states have recognised, or are in the process of recognising, the State of Palestine. This means an overwhelming majority of the international community wants to see the formal state of Palestine become a reality. The UK, Canada, Australia, and Portugal have recently formally recognised Palestine. France intends to formally recognise Palestine during or around the UN General Assembly. European Union member states like Belgium, Luxembourg, Malta, and possibly others are expected to follow suit. Also read: 'To revive hope for peace': UK, Canada, Australia formally recognise State of Palestine amid Israel's Gaza takeover plan But it really does not matter, given that the most important power, the United States, is yet to recognise Palestine, with President Donald Trump saying in his recent UK visit that it is "an area of divergence" for him with UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer. Japan, South Korea, and some other European countries are also yet to recognise Palestine. Is Palestinian statehood recognition merely a show? What the US means by “performative” The State Department called the Palestinian statehood recognition by some Western countries “performative.” It could very well be right. These recognitions have largely been symbolic, and not backed by accompanying changes in policy. There are not many concrete steps that alter power dynamics or outcomes on the ground. Mere statehood recognition without resolving conflicts over territory, security, governance, refugees, and borders does not by itself create a functioning state that changes the Palestinian people’s day-to-day realities. Amid the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza, the US is making its priorities clear: release of Israeli hostages, security of Israel, broader peace and stability for the region. Recognition of Palestine, in their view, doesn’t by itself guarantee those things. Also read: Palestine welcomes ‘courageous decisions’ of UK, Canada, and Australia to recognise its statehood Palestinian statehood: What might be the positive changes? The positive outcomes from the recognition could include some legal, diplomatic, and political advantages. Recognised states can use international bodies like the UN, the International Criminal Court, and treaty regimes with more leverage. It allows diplomacy and specific claims in front of these bodies to be made more explicitly. The ability of Palestine to establish formal diplomatic relations, and embassies, is another positive outcome from the recognition. They can enter into treaties, possibly including trade deals and diplomatic exchanges. Palestine would be able to get more foreign aid and cooperation from countries with diplomatic ties. The recognition elevates the Palestinian cause, gaining a higher profile in international negotiations. Statehood could help Palestine garner more legitimacy in global public opinion, and it can fight cases in international courts or in global fora more effectively. The recognition can also put greater diplomatic pressure on Israel, including trade sanctions or shifts in international public opinion. Palestine can get international funding and membership in international organisations, like transitioning from the current status as a “non‑member observer state” to a member state of the UN, which comes with certain privileges. Also read: UK to recognise Palestine today despite Israel slamming move as 'rewarding terrorism'. Was it delayed by Trump's visit? Palestinian statehood and ground realities: What probably won’t change for Palestinians A state’s recognition, by itself, will not ensure any control over territory or borders. The Palestinian Authority, which rules the West Bank, and Hamas, which rules the Gaza Strip, might not have full control over these territories. There are issues to be resolved on East Jerusalem and borders, especially given the ongoing war, and the Israeli settlements in the West Bank, much of it forced and state-backed by Israel. Palestine is yet to have a formal military. While theoretically, Palestine could procure arms as a state, it could complicate the already worsening war situation. Israel—though already much more capable and dominant militarily—could seek more arms to defend against a Palestinian state that has a formal army. Israel currently has its forces at border controls and checkpoints. Recognition of Palestine is not going to change any of this overnight. Israel still manages the checkpoints, restrictions, settlers, occupation policies, and internal governance. Also read: ‘No Palestinian state will be established’: Netanyahu vows to expand Jewish settlements in West Bank as Hamas hails ‘victory’ Daily life of Palestinians under siege. Will anything change after state recognition? The Gaza war and Israeli occupation of Gaza City are ongoing even as the Palestinian statehood declarations are being made. For people living in Gaza, issues like electricity, water, schooling, taxes, freedom of movement, infrastructure, and health care are not going to change immediately. Israeli occupation, blockades, funding, and administrative capacity will determine how the humanitarian situation evolves, not any diplomatic recognition. https://www.wionews.com/videos/breaking-netanyahu-on-palestinian-recognition-huge-reward-to-terrorism-1758476139316/embed Contentious issues like Jerusalem and refugees will remain Core contentious issues like Jerusalem and East Jerusalem’s status require longer negotiation or international legal/political enforcement. Under the current hostile situations, these are going to take a lot more time. A simple statehood recognition is not going to settle these issues. Without those being reinforced, recognition might have more symbolism than practical effect.

<p>More than 150 nations now recognise Palestine or will do so soon. But without US backing, or the Israeli control over land continuing, the move remains mostly symbolic. Daily life for Palestinians under occupation is unlikely to change dramatically. Here is why</p><p>&nbsp;</p>

Palestine statehood recognition merely for show? What will change, what might not, for Palestinians on the ground

<p>The Trump administration has acted on its threat to target high-skill visas as part of recent punishments of India in the ongoing trade war, with a decision to impose a staggering $100,000 fee on H-1B visa applications. While it disproportionately hits Indian professionals, who constitute over 70 per cent of H-1B visa holders, this unjustifiable hike would be a financial burden on both the Indian tech firms that pay for these visas, and roil the lives of thousands who went chasing the “American Dream”. But it's time to stop this exploitation, to turn this setback into a &nbsp;historic opportunity for Indian talent abroad to reclaim dignity, pride, and purpose by returning home. If Indians return in large numbers, it could usher in the dawn of a reverse brain drain era. Indian leaders have already made a clarion call, inviting Indians on H-1B visas to return and lead the next wave of innovation from India.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/from-america-strong-because-of-h1b-to-broken-program-musk-s-flip-flop-on-us-visa-program-resurfaces-on-x-1758452671777">From ‘America strong because of H1B’ to ‘broken program’: Musk’s flip-flop on US visas resurfaces</a></p><h2>H-1B visa fee hike: Turn this challenge into opportunity, say industry leaders and experts</h2><p>For decades, Indian IT professionals have powered the American tech ecosystem, often navigating uncertainty, cultural alienation, racism and an exploitative visa system. It is time to stop living in fear, &nbsp;but to embrace the chance to build world-class companies in India.</p><p>Sridhar Vembu, founder of Zoho Corporation, is among tech leaders calling this a time to “not live in fear”. He encouraged Indian skilled professionals in the US to view the fee hike move as a chance to contribute to India’s growth without compromising dignity. Radhika Gupta, CEO of Edelweiss Asset Management, said that when one door closes abroad, it opens new pathways to meaningful work and pride in India’s booming economy.</p><p>Dilip Kumar from Rainmatter said: “America just put a $100,000 price tag on the Indian dream. Never been a better time than now for Indian engineers to build at home… Come back home. Time to build for India and from India.”&nbsp;</p><p>Returning home might be a reboot to a new life, one without uncertainty clouding one’s best work, and filled with dignity rather than outsider status.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-administration-s-100-000-h-1-b-visa-fee-what-it-means-and-what-it-doesn-t-explained-1758415588544">Trump administration’s $100,000 H-1 B visa fee: What it means and what it doesn’t</a></p><h2>H-1B visa fee hike: Assessing the economic impact amid industry shifts</h2><p>The fee hike is more than an individual hurdle, but it would impact entire industries. India’s IT sector, which clocked in some $250 billion in exports, is facing an added immigration cost estimated between $150 million and $550 million due to the fee increase. This financial strain is pushing companies to explore alternative visa strategies, like the L-1 visa (that applies to transfers), or to entirely rethink offshore talent deployment.</p><p>Recent surveys revealed that nearly half of Indian H-1B holders are considering returning to India amid growing job market uncertainties and deportation fears in the US. The Indian government recognises the humanitarian consequences of the policy, including family disruptions, and is actively encouraging professionals to return and contribute to nation-building.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/-afraid-of-our-talent-says-piyush-goyal-after-us-h-1b-visa-fee-hike-urges-indians-to-return-innovate-in-india-1758458036830">‘Afraid of our talent,’ says Piyush Goyal after US H-1B visa fee hike, urges Indians to return, innovate in India</a></p><h2>Indians on H1-B can help India's emergence as a global innovation hub</h2><p>Outsourcing of IT work was what once built India's robust tech industry. But today, India is far from the outsourcing hub it was decades ago. Amid Indian government initiatives like ‘Atmanirbhar Bharat’ (self-reliant India), robust digital infrastructure, and a youthful entrepreneurial spirit, cities like Bengaluru, Hyderabad, and Pune have become global tech hubs.</p><p>Narayan Kulkarni, a digital transformation leader, called this moment a “Reverse Brain Drain”. He asked: “Is this the end of the Indian dream abroad—or the start of India’s greatest tech era at home?”&nbsp;</p><p>The X handle, Crypto Fundamentalist, echoed this sentiment: “This isn’t 'brain drain'… it’s reverse… Time to build at home.”</p><p>There is already hope that the influx of returning talent is projected to boost India’s startups, Artificial Intelligence labs, and technology ecosystems. Together, these could potentially generate $50 billion in economic gains by fueling local innovation, job creation, and wealth generation.</p><p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/nasscom-on-h1b-visa-fee-hike-us-will-feel-a-ripple-effect-1758368126063/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/nasscom-on-h1b-visa-fee-hike-us-will-feel-a-ripple-effect-1758368126063/embed</a></p><h2>Indians on H1-B visas should return: A call for dignity, pride and progress</h2><p>This moment is a collective call to action — not in anger but through purposeful choice. By returning, Indian professionals can turn a policy designed to exclude them into a catalyst for national empowerment.&nbsp;</p><p>CA Hrishikesh Naik said that building in India is “the smarter move,” leveraging a maturing ecosystem over costly and uncertain US pathways.</p><p>Echoing this sentiment, marketing professional Tee said: “The US just made the Indian dream $100k more expensive… India is the smarter launchpad—cheaper, faster, and full of opportunity.”</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/-do-not-live-in-fear-make-the-bold-move-zoho-founder-urges-indians-on-h1b-visas-to-return-home-1758464534936">‘Do not live in fear. Make the bold move’: Zoho founder urges Indians on H1B visas to return home</a></p><h2>Indians on H1-B visas, the time to return is NOW</h2><p>This is not to dismiss the disruptions in personal, professional and family lives of Indians who would be weighing their options. Many of them started families in the US, hoping to stay there and transition into permanent residents and citizens there. But the tide is shifting.&nbsp;</p><p>Indians on H-1B visas, this is your moment to turn uncertainty into opportunity. The visa fee hike starkly revealed the limits of dependence on foreign systems and underscores the value of self-reliance. As Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi put it, the greatest enemy is our dependence on foreign countries.</p><p>Returning to India is more than a relocation; it is a profound assertion of dignity, pride, and national commitment. It’s a chance to build companies that reflect Indian values, solve local and global problems, and lead the world’s next wave of innovation, from India, for the world.</p><p>Come back home.&nbsp;</p><p>Not as a retreat, but as a march forward toward making India greater than ever before.<br>&nbsp;</p>

The $100,000 H-1B visa fee hike by the US is a pivotal moment for Indian skilled professionals. The choice is between staying in US under humiliation, or return home with pride, fueling India’s innovation, startups, and economy through a historic reverse brain drain.



The Trump administration has acted on its threat to target high-skill visas as part of recent punishments of India in the ongoing trade war, with a decision to impose a staggering $100,000 fee on H-1B visa applications. While it disproportionately hits Indian professionals, who constitute over 70 per cent of H-1B visa holders, this unjustifiable hike would be a financial burden on both the Indian tech firms that pay for these visas, and roil the lives of thousands who went chasing the “American Dream”. But it's time to stop this exploitation, to turn this setback into a historic opportunity for Indian talent abroad to reclaim dignity, pride, and purpose by returning home. If Indians return in large numbers, it could usher in the dawn of a reverse brain drain era. Indian leaders have already made a clarion call, inviting Indians on H-1B visas to return and lead the next wave of innovation from India. Also read: From ‘America strong because of H1B’ to ‘broken program’: Musk’s flip-flop on US visas resurfaces H-1B visa fee hike: Turn this challenge into opportunity, say industry leaders and experts For decades, Indian IT professionals have powered the American tech ecosystem, often navigating uncertainty, cultural alienation, racism and an exploitative visa system. It is time to stop living in fear, but to embrace the chance to build world-class companies in India. Sridhar Vembu, founder of Zoho Corporation, is among tech leaders calling this a time to “not live in fear”. He encouraged Indian skilled professionals in the US to view the fee hike move as a chance to contribute to India’s growth without compromising dignity. Radhika Gupta, CEO of Edelweiss Asset Management, said that when one door closes abroad, it opens new pathways to meaningful work and pride in India’s booming economy. Dilip Kumar from Rainmatter said: “America just put a $100,000 price tag on the Indian dream. Never been a better time than now for Indian engineers to build at home… Come back home. Time to build for India and from India.” Returning home might be a reboot to a new life, one without uncertainty clouding one’s best work, and filled with dignity rather than outsider status. Also read: Trump administration’s $100,000 H-1 B visa fee: What it means and what it doesn’t H-1B visa fee hike: Assessing the economic impact amid industry shifts The fee hike is more than an individual hurdle, but it would impact entire industries. India’s IT sector, which clocked in some $250 billion in exports, is facing an added immigration cost estimated between $150 million and $550 million due to the fee increase. This financial strain is pushing companies to explore alternative visa strategies, like the L-1 visa (that applies to transfers), or to entirely rethink offshore talent deployment. Recent surveys revealed that nearly half of Indian H-1B holders are considering returning to India amid growing job market uncertainties and deportation fears in the US. The Indian government recognises the humanitarian consequences of the policy, including family disruptions, and is actively encouraging professionals to return and contribute to nation-building. Also read: ‘Afraid of our talent,’ says Piyush Goyal after US H-1B visa fee hike, urges Indians to return, innovate in India Indians on H1-B can help India's emergence as a global innovation hub Outsourcing of IT work was what once built India's robust tech industry. But today, India is far from the outsourcing hub it was decades ago. Amid Indian government initiatives like ‘Atmanirbhar Bharat’ (self-reliant India), robust digital infrastructure, and a youthful entrepreneurial spirit, cities like Bengaluru, Hyderabad, and Pune have become global tech hubs. Narayan Kulkarni, a digital transformation leader, called this moment a “Reverse Brain Drain”. He asked: “Is this the end of the Indian dream abroad—or the start of India’s greatest tech era at home?” The X handle, Crypto Fundamentalist, echoed this sentiment: “This isn’t 'brain drain'… it’s reverse… Time to build at home.” There is already hope that the influx of returning talent is projected to boost India’s startups, Artificial Intelligence labs, and technology ecosystems. Together, these could potentially generate $50 billion in economic gains by fueling local innovation, job creation, and wealth generation. https://www.wionews.com/videos/nasscom-on-h1b-visa-fee-hike-us-will-feel-a-ripple-effect-1758368126063/embed Indians on H1-B visas should return: A call for dignity, pride and progress This moment is a collective call to action — not in anger but through purposeful choice. By returning, Indian professionals can turn a policy designed to exclude them into a catalyst for national empowerment. CA Hrishikesh Naik said that building in India is “the smarter move,” leveraging a maturing ecosystem over costly and uncertain US pathways. Echoing this sentiment, marketing professional Tee said: “The US just made the Indian dream $100k more expensive… India is the smarter launchpad—cheaper, faster, and full of opportunity.” Also read: ‘Do not live in fear. Make the bold move’: Zoho founder urges Indians on H1B visas to return home Indians on H1-B visas, the time to return is NOW This is not to dismiss the disruptions in personal, professional and family lives of Indians who would be weighing their options. Many of them started families in the US, hoping to stay there and transition into permanent residents and citizens there. But the tide is shifting. Indians on H-1B visas, this is your moment to turn uncertainty into opportunity. The visa fee hike starkly revealed the limits of dependence on foreign systems and underscores the value of self-reliance. As Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi put it, the greatest enemy is our dependence on foreign countries. Returning to India is more than a relocation; it is a profound assertion of dignity, pride, and national commitment. It’s a chance to build companies that reflect Indian values, solve local and global problems, and lead the world’s next wave of innovation, from India, for the world. Come back home. Not as a retreat, but as a march forward toward making India greater than ever before.

<p>The $100,000 H-1B visa fee hike by the US is a pivotal moment for Indian skilled professionals. The choice is between staying in US under humiliation, or return home with pride, fueling India’s innovation, startups, and economy through a historic reverse brain drain.</p><p>&nbsp;</p>

Indians on H-1B visas, COME BACK HOME, as a mark of protest, and a matter of pride. Time to Make India Greater

<p>There is increasing pressure on the UK to recognise the statehood of Palestine, with reports even suggesting that Prime Minister Keir Starmer is likely to do so. If it happens, it would be an act of natural justice, because Britain’s colonial-era actions directly contributed to the creation of Israel, leading to the displacement of Palestinian populations from their land.</p><h2>The Legacy of Empire: Britain's direct role in Palestine and the creation of Israel&nbsp;</h2><p>Between 1920 and 1948, Britain governed Palestine under a League of Nations Mandate following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. The Mandate system was formally intended to prepare the territory for self-governance. However, Britain embedded within it the Balfour Declaration of 1917 — a statement issued by Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour promising to support the establishment of a "national home for the Jewish people" in Palestine. The declaration also vaguely stated that “nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities,” who at that time formed the overwhelming majority of the population.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/-palestinian-state-what-is-the-only-disagreement-trump-had-with-uk-pm-1758216100921">'Palestinian state...': What is the only 'disagreement' Trump had with UK PM</a></p><h2>Palestine and Israel: A demographic re-engineering by Britain for economic reasons</h2><p>Palestinian Arabs comprised over 85 per cent of the population in the early 1920s. Yet, their national aspirations were sidelined as Britain facilitated and legitimised waves of Jewish immigration and land acquisition under the terms of the Mandate. These policies were informed by a range of motives, including post-war diplomacy, geopolitical strategy, and the desire to maintain influence over critical trade routes such as the Suez Canal and emerging oil infrastructure in the Middle East. By 1947, Jewish ownership of land had increased to about 6.6 per cent — up from less than 3 per cent in 1918. Jews became roughly one-third of the total population, mostly concentrated in urban and coastal areas such as Tel Aviv, Haifa, and parts of Jerusalem.</p><p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/trump-says-he-disagrees-with-starmer-over-recognising-palestine-1758217841269/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/trump-says-he-disagrees-with-starmer-over-recognising-palestine-1758217841269/embed</a></p><h2>Partition, War, and the ‘Nakba’ exodus: How Israel came into being</h2><p>The 1936–1939 Arab Revolt fiercely challenged British rule and protested the acceleration of Jewish immigration and land dispossession. The British response was brutal and involved the deployment of tens of thousands of troops, mass arrests, and executions. The revolt was eventually crushed. It left the Palestinian national movement weakened. After the Second World War, Britain, now exhausted and facing increasing violence from both Arab and Jewish armed groups, referred the issue of Palestine to the newly formed United Nations.</p><p>In 1947, the UN General Assembly proposed a Partition Plan (Resolution 181), which sought to divide Palestine into two states: a Jewish state covering approximately 56 per cent of the territory, and an Arab state covering about 43 per cent, with Jerusalem placed under international administration. This plan marked the first official two-state framework, though it was deeply contested. At the time, Jews constituted about one-third of the population and owned a small fraction of the land, yet were allocated the larger portion.&nbsp;</p><p>Britain, torn by internal disagreements and wary of taking sides, abstained from the UN vote on the partition.&nbsp;</p><p>By May 1948, Britain fully withdrew its forces, leaving behind a power vacuum and worsening instability.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/israel-s-ministry-of-culture-decides-to-withdraw-funds-for-israeli-oscars-after-a-film-on-palestine-wins-top-award-1758188639708">Israel's Ministry of Culture decides to withdraw funds for 'Israeli Oscars' after a film on Palestine wins top award</a></p><h2>Israel declares independence, wins war, and controls most of Palestinian territory</h2><p>On 14 May 1948, Israel declared independence. The next day, 15 May, neighbouring Arab armies — including Egypt, Jordan (then Transjordan), Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq — launched a military intervention, leading to the first Arab-Israeli war.</p><p>Despite being newly established, Israel was far from defenceless. It inherited a well-organised paramilitary structure, chiefly the Haganah, which was transformed into the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF). Israel also received significant arms shipments from erstwhile Czechoslovakia, and benefited from international fundraising and the support of thousands of Jewish volunteers from abroad, known as Mahal.&nbsp;</p><p>Britain did not support Israel militarily during the war, and maintained an arms embargo on both sides. However, its earlier policies under the Mandate had laid much of the institutional and demographic groundwork that made Israel’s military success possible.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/who-is-mahmoud-khalil-us-judge-rules-for-deportation-of-pro-palestinian-activist-to-syria-or-algeria-1758196738933">Who is Mahmoud Khalil? US judge rules for deportation of pro-Palestinian activist to Syria or Algeria</a></p><h2>How Israel managed to control most of Palestine&nbsp;</h2><p>By the end of the war, Israel controlled 78 per cent of historic Palestine, far beyond what had been allocated under the UN plan. This included key cities like Jaffa, Haifa, and Acre.</p><p>More than 750,000 Palestinians were expelled or fled their homes during this period, a mass displacement known as the Nakba — Arabic for “catastrophe”.&nbsp;</p><p>Over 400 Palestinian villages were depopulated and many were deliberately destroyed. During and after the Nakba, large numbers of Palestinian refugees were forced into camps in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, which today constitute the core Palestinian territories.&nbsp;</p><p>These two territories, now governed individually and fragmented by decades of conflict, are separated by around 70 kilometres of Israeli land, as you can see from the map in the picture.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/india-joins-142-nations-in-backing-un-declaration-votes-for-palestinian-state-1757705925445">India joins 142 nations in backing UN declaration, votes for Palestinian state</a></p><h2>Britain built the imperial geography of Palestine with maps drawn abroad</h2><p>Even today, the effects of Britain’s colonial architecture remain etched into the physical and political geography of the Palestinian question — from the configuration of settlements and roads to the demarcation of borders and land registries.&nbsp;</p><p>Many of the railways, road networks, and administrative boundaries still trace their origins back to maps drawn in London or Geneva.&nbsp;</p><p>These imperial-era lines continue to define the contours of division, dispossession, and control.</p><p>The Nakba was not merely an unintended side effect of conflict. It was the result of a decades-long process of settler colonialism — a political project supported, at various points, both tacitly and overtly by British imperial policy.&nbsp;</p><p>Britain had committed to facilitating the establishment of a Jewish national home while promising to protect the rights of the Arab majority.</p><p>But in practice, this dual obligation produced systemic inequity. Palestinians were excluded from meaningful sovereignty by a system designed to serve imperial and settler interests.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/palestine-president-abbas-writes-to-pm-modi-seeks-support-on-gaza-ambassador-shawesh-1753208673231">Palestine President Abbas writes to PM Modi, seeks support on Gaza: Ambassador Shawesh</a></p><h2>British recognition of Palestine would be a form of restorative justice</h2><p>As outlined here, Britain bears direct historical responsibility for a colonial process that denied Palestinians the very statehood it now hesitates to acknowledge. This responsibility is not merely rhetorical — it is deeply embedded in decades of policy choices that shaped the dispossession, disempowerment, and displacement of an entire people.</p><p>No amount of warfare is going to solve this problem. Can talks succeed where violence has failed? One side would argue — and international law supports this — that Palestinians have a right to sovereignty, dignity, and territorial integrity. But others argue that recognising Palestinian statehood would be incompatible with Israel’s right to exist and secure its borders — a view that has underpinned decades of political stalemate.</p><p>Yet Britain, the state most historically responsible for the roots of the conflict remains on the sidelines.&nbsp;</p><p>Meanwhile, European allies such as Spain, Ireland, and Norway have already extended formal recognition of Palestine. France, Belgium, Slovenia, and Malta have expressed strong support and are reportedly considering similar steps.</p><h2>Britain’s recognition of Palestine would be the closing of the colonial loop. But will it solve the problem?</h2><p>If it happens, Britain’s recognition of Palestine would be a "full circle" moment in the tumultuous history of the region. It would require the difficult but necessary admission that Britain helped enable one people’s independence while obstructing another’s. Britain cannot undo the past, but recognition would symbolically confront that legacy.&nbsp;</p><p>It would represent a form of justice long delayed — an attempt to restore some measure of balance in a region still shaped by the consequences of imperial borders and colonial betrayals.</p><p>For Britain, recognising Palestine is not merely a symbolic act — it is a moral reckoning long overdue.&nbsp;</p><p>It would not by itself resolve the conflict, but it would affirm the principle that historical injustice cannot be left unaddressed forever: justice, after all, begins with acknowledgement.&nbsp;</p><p>And for Palestinians, that acknowledgement is now more than a century overdue.&nbsp;</p><p>Whether it will lead to peace, or provoke yet another war, is a question no one can answer.&nbsp;</p><p>But without justice, peace will remain a distant dream</p>

If it happens, Britain's recognition of Palestine would be an act of historical justice, acknowledging its colonial-era role in Palestinian displacement and the creation of Israel during the Mandate era. It is essential not to forget the baggage of history that continues to bleed people

There is increasing pressure on the UK to recognise the statehood of Palestine, with reports even suggesting that Prime Minister Keir Starmer is likely to do so. If it happens, it would be an act of natural justice, because Britain’s colonial-era actions directly contributed to the creation of Israel, leading to the displacement of Palestinian populations from their land. The Legacy of Empire: Britain's direct role in Palestine and the creation of Israel Between 1920 and 1948, Britain governed Palestine under a League of Nations Mandate following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. The Mandate system was formally intended to prepare the territory for self-governance. However, Britain embedded within it the Balfour Declaration of 1917 — a statement issued by Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour promising to support the establishment of a "national home for the Jewish people" in Palestine. The declaration also vaguely stated that “nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities,” who at that time formed the overwhelming majority of the population. Also read: 'Palestinian state...': What is the only 'disagreement' Trump had with UK PM Palestine and Israel: A demographic re-engineering by Britain for economic reasons Palestinian Arabs comprised over 85 per cent of the population in the early 1920s. Yet, their national aspirations were sidelined as Britain facilitated and legitimised waves of Jewish immigration and land acquisition under the terms of the Mandate. These policies were informed by a range of motives, including post-war diplomacy, geopolitical strategy, and the desire to maintain influence over critical trade routes such as the Suez Canal and emerging oil infrastructure in the Middle East. By 1947, Jewish ownership of land had increased to about 6.6 per cent — up from less than 3 per cent in 1918. Jews became roughly one-third of the total population, mostly concentrated in urban and coastal areas such as Tel Aviv, Haifa, and parts of Jerusalem. https://www.wionews.com/videos/trump-says-he-disagrees-with-starmer-over-recognising-palestine-1758217841269/embed Partition, War, and the ‘Nakba’ exodus: How Israel came into being The 1936–1939 Arab Revolt fiercely challenged British rule and protested the acceleration of Jewish immigration and land dispossession. The British response was brutal and involved the deployment of tens of thousands of troops, mass arrests, and executions. The revolt was eventually crushed. It left the Palestinian national movement weakened. After the Second World War, Britain, now exhausted and facing increasing violence from both Arab and Jewish armed groups, referred the issue of Palestine to the newly formed United Nations. In 1947, the UN General Assembly proposed a Partition Plan (Resolution 181), which sought to divide Palestine into two states: a Jewish state covering approximately 56 per cent of the territory, and an Arab state covering about 43 per cent, with Jerusalem placed under international administration. This plan marked the first official two-state framework, though it was deeply contested. At the time, Jews constituted about one-third of the population and owned a small fraction of the land, yet were allocated the larger portion. Britain, torn by internal disagreements and wary of taking sides, abstained from the UN vote on the partition. By May 1948, Britain fully withdrew its forces, leaving behind a power vacuum and worsening instability. Also read: Israel's Ministry of Culture decides to withdraw funds for 'Israeli Oscars' after a film on Palestine wins top award Israel declares independence, wins war, and controls most of Palestinian territory On 14 May 1948, Israel declared independence. The next day, 15 May, neighbouring Arab armies — including Egypt, Jordan (then Transjordan), Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq — launched a military intervention, leading to the first Arab-Israeli war. Despite being newly established, Israel was far from defenceless. It inherited a well-organised paramilitary structure, chiefly the Haganah, which was transformed into the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF). Israel also received significant arms shipments from erstwhile Czechoslovakia, and benefited from international fundraising and the support of thousands of Jewish volunteers from abroad, known as Mahal. Britain did not support Israel militarily during the war, and maintained an arms embargo on both sides. However, its earlier policies under the Mandate had laid much of the institutional and demographic groundwork that made Israel’s military success possible. Also read: Who is Mahmoud Khalil? US judge rules for deportation of pro-Palestinian activist to Syria or Algeria How Israel managed to control most of Palestine By the end of the war, Israel controlled 78 per cent of historic Palestine, far beyond what had been allocated under the UN plan. This included key cities like Jaffa, Haifa, and Acre. More than 750,000 Palestinians were expelled or fled their homes during this period, a mass displacement known as the Nakba — Arabic for “catastrophe”. Over 400 Palestinian villages were depopulated and many were deliberately destroyed. During and after the Nakba, large numbers of Palestinian refugees were forced into camps in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, which today constitute the core Palestinian territories. These two territories, now governed individually and fragmented by decades of conflict, are separated by around 70 kilometres of Israeli land, as you can see from the map in the picture. Also read: India joins 142 nations in backing UN declaration, votes for Palestinian state Britain built the imperial geography of Palestine with maps drawn abroad Even today, the effects of Britain’s colonial architecture remain etched into the physical and political geography of the Palestinian question — from the configuration of settlements and roads to the demarcation of borders and land registries. Many of the railways, road networks, and administrative boundaries still trace their origins back to maps drawn in London or Geneva. These imperial-era lines continue to define the contours of division, dispossession, and control. The Nakba was not merely an unintended side effect of conflict. It was the result of a decades-long process of settler colonialism — a political project supported, at various points, both tacitly and overtly by British imperial policy. Britain had committed to facilitating the establishment of a Jewish national home while promising to protect the rights of the Arab majority. But in practice, this dual obligation produced systemic inequity. Palestinians were excluded from meaningful sovereignty by a system designed to serve imperial and settler interests. Also read: Palestine President Abbas writes to PM Modi, seeks support on Gaza: Ambassador Shawesh British recognition of Palestine would be a form of restorative justice As outlined here, Britain bears direct historical responsibility for a colonial process that denied Palestinians the very statehood it now hesitates to acknowledge. This responsibility is not merely rhetorical — it is deeply embedded in decades of policy choices that shaped the dispossession, disempowerment, and displacement of an entire people. No amount of warfare is going to solve this problem. Can talks succeed where violence has failed? One side would argue — and international law supports this — that Palestinians have a right to sovereignty, dignity, and territorial integrity. But others argue that recognising Palestinian statehood would be incompatible with Israel’s right to exist and secure its borders — a view that has underpinned decades of political stalemate. Yet Britain, the state most historically responsible for the roots of the conflict remains on the sidelines. Meanwhile, European allies such as Spain, Ireland, and Norway have already extended formal recognition of Palestine. France, Belgium, Slovenia, and Malta have expressed strong support and are reportedly considering similar steps. Britain’s recognition of Palestine would be the closing of the colonial loop. But will it solve the problem? If it happens, Britain’s recognition of Palestine would be a "full circle" moment in the tumultuous history of the region. It would require the difficult but necessary admission that Britain helped enable one people’s independence while obstructing another’s. Britain cannot undo the past, but recognition would symbolically confront that legacy. It would represent a form of justice long delayed — an attempt to restore some measure of balance in a region still shaped by the consequences of imperial borders and colonial betrayals. For Britain, recognising Palestine is not merely a symbolic act — it is a moral reckoning long overdue. It would not by itself resolve the conflict, but it would affirm the principle that historical injustice cannot be left unaddressed forever: justice, after all, begins with acknowledgement. And for Palestinians, that acknowledgement is now more than a century overdue. Whether it will lead to peace, or provoke yet another war, is a question no one can answer. But without justice, peace will remain a distant dream

<p>If it happens, Britain's recognition of Palestine would be an act of historical justice, acknowledging its colonial-era role in Palestinian displacement and the creation of Israel during the Mandate era. It is essential not to forget the baggage of history that continues to bleed people</p>

Palestinian statehood recognition is UK’s moral responsibility. The British colonial legacy behind creation of Israel, displacement of Palestinians

<p>A key US vaccine advisory panel has recommended against giving a combined vaccine that protects against preventable diseases like measles and chickenpox to children aged four or under. This recommendation comes just days after reports emerged that the Trump administration plans to link 25 child deaths to Covid vaccines. The move aligns with the anti-vaccine stance of current Health Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr, even as medical experts warn that such actions could cause confusion, reduce vaccine uptake, and lead to a resurgence of preventable childhood diseases across America.</p><h2>What did the vaccine panel say about the MMRV vaccine?</h2><p>The MMRV vaccine is a combination shot that protects against measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella (chickenpox). On Thursday (Sep 18), the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) — an expert panel under the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) — voted 8-3 to recommend that children aged four and under not receive the combined MMRV vaccine. Instead, they recommended giving separate MMR and varicella (chickenpox) shots. The panel cited a slightly increased risk of febrile seizures in children aged 12 to 23 months when given the combined MMRV shot, compared to receiving the MMR and varicella vaccines separately. While these seizures are rare and typically not dangerous, the panel used this data to support their recommendation.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-administration-planning-to-link-covid-vaccine-shots-to-child-deaths-in-controversial-anti-vax-push-1757746954672">Trump administration planning to link COVID vaccine shots to child deaths in controversial anti-vax push</a></p><p>They also proposed reconsidering the timing of other childhood vaccinations, including the hepatitis B vaccine, which is usually given at birth, and delaying its administration where possible.</p><p>The seizure risk associated with MMRV has been acknowledged in prior CDC guidance, though the risk is rare—about one additional seizure per 2,300 to 2,600 vaccinated children.</p><h2>US plans to link Covid-19 vaccines to child deaths</h2><p>These changes came just days after multiple US media outlets reported that the Trump administration plans to present data allegedly linking 25 child deaths to Covid-19 vaccines at an upcoming ACIP meeting. The claims are said to be based on the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a national vaccine safety surveillance programme in the US. However, public health experts have repeatedly cautioned that VAERS reports do not prove causality. Anyone can submit a VAERS report, and these reports are not verified. The existence of a report does not mean the vaccine caused the death or adverse event.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/trending/cancer-immunotherapy-breakthrough-russian-vaccine-enteromix-demonstrates-100-per-cent-efficacy-in-trials-ready-for-rollout-1757226810346">Cancer immunotherapy breakthrough: Russian vaccine Enteromix demonstrates 100 per cent efficacy in trials, ready for rollout</a></p><h2>Public health experts warn of eroding trust in vaccines</h2><p>Experts warn that these anti-vaccine shifts risk undermining decades of public health progress. Altering long-standing vaccine schedules—particularly under political influence—could fuel vaccine hesitancy. If uptake drops due to confusion or fear, diseases like measles, mumps, and chickenpox—which mainly affect children—could resurge. Measles is particularly contagious and had been nearly eradicated in parts of the world due to widespread immunisation.</p><p>While the CDC’s Vaccines for Children (VFC) programme will still cover MMRV in many cases, there is concern that insurance coverage, Medicaid, and logistics (more clinic visits, more injections) may complicate vaccine uptake.</p><p>Meanwhile, amid allegations of politicising the CDC, critics have noted that the composition of the ACIP panel has recently changed, with several vaccine-sceptic members added—raising concerns about the scientific rigour of decisions being made.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/america-to-lose-covid-vaccine-trump-rfk-jr-planning-to-pull-covid-vaccine-from-us-market-within-months-report-1756121006138">America to lose COVID vaccine? Trump, RFK Jr. planning to pull COVID vaccine from US market 'within months': Report</a></p><h2>How risky is replacing MMRV with separate shots?</h2><p>The medical risk of switching from MMRV to separate MMR and varicella vaccines is small. The cited seizure risk, while slightly elevated with MMRV, is rare (roughly 1 in 2,500) and almost all children recover fully.</p><p>However, logistical challenges arise with more appointments and injections, increasing the likelihood that children miss or delay one of the shots. These delays can reduce immunity and increase vulnerability to outbreaks.</p><p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-scientists-express-concern-over-russias-new-cancer-vaccine-785420/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-scientists-express-concern-over-russias-new-cancer-vaccine-785420/embed</a></p><h2>Policy confusion could reduce protection for American children</h2><p>Restricting or de-prioritising combined vaccines like MMRV could result in fewer children receiving timely and complete immunisation. This increases the likelihood of outbreaks of serious, preventable illnesses. Similarly, misleading the public by citing unverified VAERS reports to link vaccines to child deaths—without scientific evidence—could influence parents to delay or skip vaccinations.</p><p>There is no established causal link between Covid vaccines and child deaths as claimed. Official reviews from the CDC, FDA (Food and Drug Administration), and independent panels have not validated such a link.</p><p>Historical data shows that when vaccine uptake drops or schedules are disrupted, outbreaks of diseases like measles or whooping cough follow—often with serious consequences for children.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/science-tech/cancer-treatment-with-just-one-vaccine-nhs-rolls-out-5-minute-super-jab-that-will-truly-transform-livescancer-treatment-with-just-one-vaccine-nhs-rolls-out-5-minute-super-jab-that-will-truly-transform-lives-9021485">Cancer treatment with just one vaccine: NHS rolls out 5-minute ‘super-jab’ that will ‘truly transform lives’</a></p><h2>Politics is the biggest disease affecting Americans</h2><p>There is growing concern that recent actions by the Trump administration—particularly through the restructured CDC advisory panel and its vaccine recommendations—may be prioritising political ideology over medical science.</p><p>While individual risk factors should always be carefully considered, public health experts stress that these policy changes may lead to lower immunisation rates, greater public confusion, and preventable disease outbreaks—effectively putting American children at greater risk.</p><p>&nbsp;</p>

A CDC panel under Trump administration has advised against MMRV vaccine for kids aged under four. This is sparking fears of lower vaccine uptake and disease outbreaks. The move came amid reports that CDS is going to link Covid vaccines to children's deaths.



A key US vaccine advisory panel has recommended against giving a combined vaccine that protects against preventable diseases like measles and chickenpox to children aged four or under. This recommendation comes just days after reports emerged that the Trump administration plans to link 25 child deaths to Covid vaccines. The move aligns with the anti-vaccine stance of current Health Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr, even as medical experts warn that such actions could cause confusion, reduce vaccine uptake, and lead to a resurgence of preventable childhood diseases across America. What did the vaccine panel say about the MMRV vaccine? The MMRV vaccine is a combination shot that protects against measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella (chickenpox). On Thursday (Sep 18), the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) — an expert panel under the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) — voted 8-3 to recommend that children aged four and under not receive the combined MMRV vaccine. Instead, they recommended giving separate MMR and varicella (chickenpox) shots. The panel cited a slightly increased risk of febrile seizures in children aged 12 to 23 months when given the combined MMRV shot, compared to receiving the MMR and varicella vaccines separately. While these seizures are rare and typically not dangerous, the panel used this data to support their recommendation. Also read: Trump administration planning to link COVID vaccine shots to child deaths in controversial anti-vax push They also proposed reconsidering the timing of other childhood vaccinations, including the hepatitis B vaccine, which is usually given at birth, and delaying its administration where possible. The seizure risk associated with MMRV has been acknowledged in prior CDC guidance, though the risk is rare—about one additional seizure per 2,300 to 2,600 vaccinated children. US plans to link Covid-19 vaccines to child deaths These changes came just days after multiple US media outlets reported that the Trump administration plans to present data allegedly linking 25 child deaths to Covid-19 vaccines at an upcoming ACIP meeting. The claims are said to be based on the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a national vaccine safety surveillance programme in the US. However, public health experts have repeatedly cautioned that VAERS reports do not prove causality. Anyone can submit a VAERS report, and these reports are not verified. The existence of a report does not mean the vaccine caused the death or adverse event. Also read: Cancer immunotherapy breakthrough: Russian vaccine Enteromix demonstrates 100 per cent efficacy in trials, ready for rollout Public health experts warn of eroding trust in vaccines Experts warn that these anti-vaccine shifts risk undermining decades of public health progress. Altering long-standing vaccine schedules—particularly under political influence—could fuel vaccine hesitancy. If uptake drops due to confusion or fear, diseases like measles, mumps, and chickenpox—which mainly affect children—could resurge. Measles is particularly contagious and had been nearly eradicated in parts of the world due to widespread immunisation. While the CDC’s Vaccines for Children (VFC) programme will still cover MMRV in many cases, there is concern that insurance coverage, Medicaid, and logistics (more clinic visits, more injections) may complicate vaccine uptake. Meanwhile, amid allegations of politicising the CDC, critics have noted that the composition of the ACIP panel has recently changed, with several vaccine-sceptic members added—raising concerns about the scientific rigour of decisions being made. Also read: America to lose COVID vaccine? Trump, RFK Jr. planning to pull COVID vaccine from US market 'within months': Report How risky is replacing MMRV with separate shots? The medical risk of switching from MMRV to separate MMR and varicella vaccines is small. The cited seizure risk, while slightly elevated with MMRV, is rare (roughly 1 in 2,500) and almost all children recover fully. However, logistical challenges arise with more appointments and injections, increasing the likelihood that children miss or delay one of the shots. These delays can reduce immunity and increase vulnerability to outbreaks. https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-scientists-express-concern-over-russias-new-cancer-vaccine-785420/embed Policy confusion could reduce protection for American children Restricting or de-prioritising combined vaccines like MMRV could result in fewer children receiving timely and complete immunisation. This increases the likelihood of outbreaks of serious, preventable illnesses. Similarly, misleading the public by citing unverified VAERS reports to link vaccines to child deaths—without scientific evidence—could influence parents to delay or skip vaccinations. There is no established causal link between Covid vaccines and child deaths as claimed. Official reviews from the CDC, FDA (Food and Drug Administration), and independent panels have not validated such a link. Historical data shows that when vaccine uptake drops or schedules are disrupted, outbreaks of diseases like measles or whooping cough follow—often with serious consequences for children. Also read: Cancer treatment with just one vaccine: NHS rolls out 5-minute ‘super-jab’ that will ‘truly transform lives’ Politics is the biggest disease affecting Americans There is growing concern that recent actions by the Trump administration—particularly through the restructured CDC advisory panel and its vaccine recommendations—may be prioritising political ideology over medical science. While individual risk factors should always be carefully considered, public health experts stress that these policy changes may lead to lower immunisation rates, greater public confusion, and preventable disease outbreaks—effectively putting American children at greater risk.

<p>A CDC panel under Trump administration has advised against MMRV vaccine for kids aged under four. This is sparking fears of lower vaccine uptake and disease outbreaks. The move came amid reports that CDS is going to link Covid vaccines to children's deaths.</p><p>&nbsp;</p>

Trump govt putting American kids in danger? CDC panel suggests curbs to vaccine that prevents measles and chickenpox, amid 'Covid shot deaths' probe

Author

Zee News Rajasthan

Editor

Vinod Janardhanan

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.