The police officer charged with the murder of Rayshard Brooks, who was killed on June 12, has been released from jail, a local television network WSBTV reported.

Garrett Rolfe, the officer in question, has been released on the condition of wearing an ankle monitor and obeying a curfew. The 27-year-old’s bond has been set at $500,000. He was charged with murder.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="/world/ex-atlanta-policeman-charged-with-felony-murder-of-rayshard-brooks-306662" hreflang="en">Ex-Atlanta policeman charged with felony murder of Rayshard Brooks</a>

Brooks, a black man was killed amid protests over the murder of George Floyd at the hands of the police. Protests escalated after news broke that Brooks was shot in the back twice by Atlanta police on June 12, outside of a fast-food restaurant.

Over the last month, protests across the United States soared again racist behaviour by police, with many analysts backing the view that black folks are more susceptible to police brutality in the country, and have a higher rate of dying in an altercation with the police.

<h6><img alt="A Wendy’s burns following a rally against racial inequality and the police shooting death of Rayshard Brooks, in Atlanta, Georgia, U.S" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="fda07367-db75-47e9-959d-fc89c295f261" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/Untitled%20design-6_5.jpg" /> 
A Wendy’s burns following a rally against racial inequality and the police shooting death of&nbsp;Rayshard&nbsp;Brooks, in Atlanta, Georgia, US | Reuters 
&nbsp;</h6>

A second officer involved in the murder, Devin Brosnan, 26, was put on administrative duty and charged with aggravated assault. Following the uproar, the city's police chief had resigned.

Protesters had torched the Wendy’s restaurant where Brooks was killed. The employees of the restaurant had called the police saying that a man had fallen asleep in the parking lot.

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="http://wionews.com/videos/gravitas-anti-racism-movement-another-black-man-killed-in-us-306137/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

Brooks was killed amid a national wave of protests in the US sparked by the murder of George Floyd, a black man who died after a white police officer, Derek Chauvin knelt on his neck for nine minutes. He was charged with second-degree murder and other three Minneapolis officers were charged with aiding and abetting.

Brooks was sleeping in his car when the police officer encountered him in the restaurant’s drive-through lane. Rolfe and Brosnan proceeded to administer a sobriety test, which led the situation to escalate.

In a video, Brooks was seen grabbing one of the officer’s Taser stun guns, and pointing it towards Rolfe before he was shot. However, investigators found that Rolfe had full knowledge of the fact that Taser had already been used twice, rendering it useless.

(With inputs from Reuters)

The police officer charged with the murder of Rayshard Brooks, who was killed on June 12, has been released from jail, a local television network WSBTV reported.

The police officer charged with the murder of Rayshard Brooks, who was killed on June 12, has been released from jail, a local television network WSBTV reported. Garrett Rolfe, the officer in question, has been released on the condition of wearing an ankle monitor and obeying a curfew. The 27-year-old’s bond has been set at $500,000. He was charged with murder. Also read: Ex-Atlanta policeman charged with felony murder of Rayshard Brooks Brooks, a black man was killed amid protests over the murder of George Floyd at the hands of the police. Protests escalated after news broke that Brooks was shot in the back twice by Atlanta police on June 12, outside of a fast-food restaurant. Over the last month, protests across the United States soared again racist behaviour by police, with many analysts backing the view that black folks are more susceptible to police brutality in the country, and have a higher rate of dying in an altercation with the police. A Wendy’s burns following a rally against racial inequality and the police shooting death of Rayshard Brooks, in Atlanta, Georgia, US | Reuters A second officer involved in the murder, Devin Brosnan, 26, was put on administrative duty and charged with aggravated assault. Following the uproar, the city's police chief had resigned. Protesters had torched the Wendy’s restaurant where Brooks was killed. The employees of the restaurant had called the police saying that a man had fallen asleep in the parking lot. Brooks was killed amid a national wave of protests in the US sparked by the murder of George Floyd, a black man who died after a white police officer, Derek Chauvin knelt on his neck for nine minutes. He was charged with second-degree murder and other three Minneapolis officers were charged with aiding and abetting. Brooks was sleeping in his car when the police officer encountered him in the restaurant’s drive-through lane. Rolfe and Brosnan proceeded to administer a sobriety test, which led the situation to escalate. In a video, Brooks was seen grabbing one of the officer’s Taser stun guns, and pointing it towards Rolfe before he was shot. However, investigators found that Rolfe had full knowledge of the fact that Taser had already been used twice, rendering it useless. (With inputs from Reuters)

Former officer charged with murdering Rayshard Brooks released from jail

More than 47,000 new cases have been reported in US in the last 24-hours, which is the highest single-day spike since the start of the pandemic.

US Coronavirus cases could reach new record: More than 47,000 cases in last 24-hours

The United States recorded 1,199 fatalities from the coronavirus over the past 24 hours, as the country's death toll began to climb again, AFP reported quoting Johns Hopkins University tally on Tuesday.

The United States recorded 1,199 fatalities from the coronavirus over the past 24 hours, as the country's death toll began to climb again, AFP reported quoting Johns Hopkins University tally on Tuesday. The daily number of deaths in the US has exceeded 1,000 for the first time since June 10. The country has suffered 127,322 deaths overall, according to the Baltimore-based institution as of 8:30 pm (0030 GMT Wednesday). The US also registered 42,528 new cases of coronavirus over the past 24 hours. Also read| US: California, Texas see record COVID-19 surges, Arizona clamps down Due to increased death tolls and case numbers, many US states, particularly in the south and west, have had to pause their reopening processes. On Tuesday, the state of Texas broke its daily record, reporting 6,975 new cases of COVID-19. Meanwhile, in California, more than a thousand inmates have tested positive for coronavirus in the state's oldest prison, San Quentin, according to local authorities. Also read: US top health expert Fauci warns of 100,000 new COVID-19 cases per day Clearly we are not in total control right now," infectious disease expert Anthony Fauci, a leading member of President Donald Trump's coronavirus task force, told Congress Tuesday. He reported that new coronavirus cases could more than double to 100,000 per day if authorities and the public fail to take steps to suppress the pandemic. Like other senior US officials, Fauci called on Americans, particularly young people, to cover their faces and avoid crowds in order to stem the pandemic.

US COVID-19 deaths on rise with more than 1,000 deaths in 24 hours

Industries hit hard by the coronavirus pandemic showed signs of life in June, hiring 2.4 million workers, payroll services firm ADP said Wednesday. 
 
The three million hires in May means that more than five million people&nbsp;are back at work of the 20 million who lost their jobs in March and April. 
 
However, the hiring gain was more than a million short of what economists had expected. 
 
A significant portion of the jobs were accounted for by small businesses of less than 50 workers, which added 937,000 jobs in the month, the data showed, while 961,000 were in leisure and hospitality -- a sector almost entirely shut down by the efforts to contain COVID-19. 
 
Construction added 494,000 workers.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/coronavirus-rekindles-global-trade-disputes-309310" hreflang="en">Coronavirus rekindles global trade disputes</a> 
 
Many businesses have been able to rehire workers with the help of the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) and other aid provided under the massive CARES Act that provides trillions of dollars in support. 
 
Shops and restaurants have reopened as many states have eased restrictions, but US cases have been surging in recent days, prompting states like Texas and Florida to roll back their reopening efforts. 
 
"As the economy slowly continues to recover, we are seeing a significant rebound in industries that once experienced the greatest job losses," said Ahu Yildirmaz, vice president and co-head of the ADP Research Institute.&nbsp;

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/chinese-companies-take-record-50-of-global-equity-raising-in-first-half-of-2020-309258" hreflang="en">Chinese companies take record 50% of global equity raising in first half of 2020</a> 
 
"In fact, 70 percent of the jobs added this month were in the leisure and hospitality, trade and construction industries." 
 
The ADP data are closely watched as a preview of the government employment report for June, due out Thursday. The consensus forecast is for a gain of 3.5 million jobs and a slight drop in the unemployment rate from the current 13.3 percent. 
 
Rubeela Farooqi of High Frequency Economics cautioned that even with the job gains, "The unemployment rate will likely remain high, signaling that conditions in the labor market remain weak with a renewed threat to activity and jobs from a resurgence in virus infections."

Industries hit hard by the coronavirus pandemic showed signs of life in June, hiring 2.4 million workers, payroll services firm ADP said Wednesday. The three million hires in May means that more than five million people are back at work of the 20 million who lost their jobs in March and April.

Industries hit hard by the coronavirus pandemic showed signs of life in June, hiring 2.4 million workers, payroll services firm ADP said Wednesday. The three million hires in May means that more than five million people are back at work of the 20 million who lost their jobs in March and April. However, the hiring gain was more than a million short of what economists had expected. A significant portion of the jobs were accounted for by small businesses of less than 50 workers, which added 937,000 jobs in the month, the data showed, while 961,000 were in leisure and hospitality -- a sector almost entirely shut down by the efforts to contain COVID-19. Construction added 494,000 workers. Also read: Coronavirus rekindles global trade disputes Many businesses have been able to rehire workers with the help of the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) and other aid provided under the massive CARES Act that provides trillions of dollars in support. Shops and restaurants have reopened as many states have eased restrictions, but US cases have been surging in recent days, prompting states like Texas and Florida to roll back their reopening efforts. "As the economy slowly continues to recover, we are seeing a significant rebound in industries that once experienced the greatest job losses," said Ahu Yildirmaz, vice president and co-head of the ADP Research Institute. Also read: Chinese companies take record 50% of global equity raising in first half of 2020 "In fact, 70 percent of the jobs added this month were in the leisure and hospitality, trade and construction industries." The ADP data are closely watched as a preview of the government employment report for June, due out Thursday. The consensus forecast is for a gain of 3.5 million jobs and a slight drop in the unemployment rate from the current 13.3 percent. Rubeela Farooqi of High Frequency Economics cautioned that even with the job gains, "The unemployment rate will likely remain high, signaling that conditions in the labor market remain weak with a renewed threat to activity and jobs from a resurgence in virus infections."

US private hiring rebounds, adding 2.4 mn jobs in June

The US Department of Homeland Security announce a special new task force Wednesday to protect historic monuments across the country, some of which have come under attack for glorifying the country's racist past. 
 
Acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf said in a statement that he was positioning "rapid deployment teams" around the country to protect monuments and statues during the July 4th Independence Day holiday.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="/world/four-men-charged-for-trying-to-pull-down-statue-outside-white-house-309230" hreflang="en">Four men charged for trying to pull down statue outside White House</a> 
 
Many monuments have come under attack, and some pulled down, in the past month as protestors against police abuse of African Americans target figures of the pro-slavery south in the 1860s Civil War and other symbols of the country's legacy of slavery. 
 
But the monument protests have extended to revered early presidents George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, both slave owners. 
 
In some cases, local governments under popular pressure have decided to remove the monuments themselves. 
 
President Donald Trump expressed outrage when on June 22 demonstrators attempted to pull down a statue directly in front of the White House of president Andrew Jackson, another slave owner who presided over the mass expulsion of Native Americans from their homelands in the 1830s.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="/world/trump-issues-wanted-poster-for-people-who-vandalized-statues-308903" hreflang="en">Trump issues 'wanted' poster for people who vandalized statues</a> 
 
Trump demanded US law enforcement arrest and prosecute anyone who damages a monument and imprison them for the maximum 10 years. 
 
"DHS is answering the president's call to use our law enforcement personnel across the country to protect our historic landmarks," Wolf said in the statement.&nbsp; 
 
"We won't stand idly by while violent anarchists and rioters seek not only to vandalize and destroy the symbols of our nation, but to disrupt law and order and sow chaos in our communities." 
 
The new "Protecting American Communities Task Force" will coordinate law enforcement and provide intelligence to protect monuments, he said.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="/world/trump-signs-executive-order-to-protect-statues-makes-it-twitter-official-308907" hreflang="en">Trump signs executive order to protect statues; makes it Twitter-official</a> 
 
Trump tweeted early Wednesday that his recent executive order to protect monuments and statues is now in effect, reminding that damaging federal property could bring more than 10 years in prison. 
 
"Please do not put yourself in jeopardy. Many people now under arrest!" he wrote.

The US Department of Homeland Security announce a special new task force Wednesday to protect historic monuments across the country, some of which have come under attack for glorifying the country's racist past.

The US Department of Homeland Security announce a special new task force Wednesday to protect historic monuments across the country, some of which have come under attack for glorifying the country's racist past. Acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf said in a statement that he was positioning "rapid deployment teams" around the country to protect monuments and statues during the July 4th Independence Day holiday. Also read: Four men charged for trying to pull down statue outside White House Many monuments have come under attack, and some pulled down, in the past month as protestors against police abuse of African Americans target figures of the pro-slavery south in the 1860s Civil War and other symbols of the country's legacy of slavery. But the monument protests have extended to revered early presidents George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, both slave owners. In some cases, local governments under popular pressure have decided to remove the monuments themselves. President Donald Trump expressed outrage when on June 22 demonstrators attempted to pull down a statue directly in front of the White House of president Andrew Jackson, another slave owner who presided over the mass expulsion of Native Americans from their homelands in the 1830s. Also read: Trump issues 'wanted' poster for people who vandalized statues Trump demanded US law enforcement arrest and prosecute anyone who damages a monument and imprison them for the maximum 10 years. "DHS is answering the president's call to use our law enforcement personnel across the country to protect our historic landmarks," Wolf said in the statement. "We won't stand idly by while violent anarchists and rioters seek not only to vandalize and destroy the symbols of our nation, but to disrupt law and order and sow chaos in our communities." The new "Protecting American Communities Task Force" will coordinate law enforcement and provide intelligence to protect monuments, he said. Also read: Trump signs executive order to protect statues; makes it Twitter-official Trump tweeted early Wednesday that his recent executive order to protect monuments and statues is now in effect, reminding that damaging federal property could bring more than 10 years in prison. "Please do not put yourself in jeopardy. Many people now under arrest!" he wrote.

US creates force to protect monuments amid anti-racism protests

By Arie Perliger

As US&nbsp;politics heat up in advance of the November election, it’s not surprising that extremist groups across the political spectrum are becoming more active and engaged in acts of political violence.

A growing number of scholars and policymakers suggest this problem should be dealt with by designating violent groups as “domestic terrorist” organizations.

Like most students of American extremism, I agree that some members of domestic extremist groups do engage in terrorist acts – using violence to spread fear among targeted groups of people, with the aim of promoting political objectives. Nonetheless, as someone who has studied democracies’ response to domestic terrorism for almost 20 years, I believe that legally designating domestic extremist groups as terrorist organizations will have limited benefits, if any at all.

What is domestic terrorism 
 
There is not a formal legal definition of a domestic terrorist group, the way there is for international terrorism.

A federal law and a presidential executive order allow the government to designate groups as foreign terrorist organizations. Most scholars agree that some American far-right groups are involved in foreign conflicts, and others communicate with foreign groups. But that is not enough to be considered a foreign organization: American extremists do not have permanent logistical, operational and leadership apparatus abroad.

The law, or the executive order, could be revised or replaced in ways that would cover U.S.-based groups.

But the real problem is that designating specific groups as terrorists doesn’t actually curb terrorism.

Too little organization 
 
Many acts of far-right violence are perpetrated by individuals, not organized groups. These people may be loosely associated with, or perhaps supporters or online followers of, far-right movements. But they usually operate independently, without help or involvement from others. My research has shown that in many cases, the acts of violence aren’t even planned in advance.

In any case, the two major contemporary extremist movements which attracted calls to designate them as terrorist organizations, the “boogaloo” movement on the right and antifa on the left, both lack any hierarchy or central coordination and, therefore, don’t fit the criteria of a formal organization.

No real effect on operations 
 
There are several organizations that the U.S. has designated as “terrorists” over the years – including Hamas, Hezbollah, FARC, Lashkar-e-Taiba and the Islamic State group and its affiliates. Being named to the list subjects a group and its supporters to certain legal, administrative and financial sanctions: Americans who give them money, for instance, can be imprisoned. Non-Americans who are deemed members can be deported from the U.S. or denied permission to enter the country. Banks can be ordered to seize the group’s funds.

Despite decades on the list, though, many of these groups are still flourishing. Some are even powerful enough to be dominant political movements in their regions or hold territory outside the control of national governments.

Others of these groups appear to have disappeared, but really didn’t. Kahane Chai, for instance, was an Israeli organization that advocated violence against Palestinians in the West Bank in order to ensure Jewish control of what its members considered part of the Jewish homeland. The U.S. State Department designated it a terrorist group in 1997. Kahane Chai is no longer operating, but many of its members are active in other associations, promoting a similar ideology and engaging in violence.

Similar dynamics are also visible among American extremist movements. In my book on the American far right, I explain that after the Aryan Nations, the most prominent white supremacy group of its time, collapsed in the late 1990s, most of its members dispersed and joined other organizations. The American far-right community was largely unaffected.

Also in the late 1990s, many states passed anti-militia laws, seeking to limit the American militia movement in the wake of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing by Timothy McVeigh, who was linked to the Michigan Militia and similar groups in Arizona. The state laws banned people from gathering to practice military-style training, and had a limited effect for about a decade. But in the last 15 years, a second wave of militias has emerged, which actually seems to be more popular, more organized and more capable of mobilizing members than their predecessors.

Most domestic groups remain decentralized, small and without formal structure, even if they coordinate with like-minded people online. The few groups that are more organized tend to split, merge or change their names frequently. In my view, that’s too fragmented a situation for any formal terrorist designation to have much use. A better solution would be to advance policies that can slow political polarization and counter the development of extremist beliefs in the first place.

(Arie Perliger is Director of Security Studies and Professor, University of Massachusetts Lowell) 
 
(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-domestic-terrorist-designation-wont-stop-extremism-141258">original article</a>) &nbsp; 
&nbsp;

&nbsp;

By Arie Perliger As US politics heat up in advance of the November election, it’s not surprising that extremist groups across the political spectrum are becoming more active and engaged in acts of political violence.

By Arie Perliger As US politics heat up in advance of the November election, it’s not surprising that extremist groups across the political spectrum are becoming more active and engaged in acts of political violence. A growing number of scholars and policymakers suggest this problem should be dealt with by designating violent groups as “domestic terrorist” organizations. Like most students of American extremism, I agree that some members of domestic extremist groups do engage in terrorist acts – using violence to spread fear among targeted groups of people, with the aim of promoting political objectives. Nonetheless, as someone who has studied democracies’ response to domestic terrorism for almost 20 years, I believe that legally designating domestic extremist groups as terrorist organizations will have limited benefits, if any at all. What is domestic terrorism There is not a formal legal definition of a domestic terrorist group, the way there is for international terrorism. A federal law and a presidential executive order allow the government to designate groups as foreign terrorist organizations. Most scholars agree that some American far-right groups are involved in foreign conflicts, and others communicate with foreign groups. But that is not enough to be considered a foreign organization: American extremists do not have permanent logistical, operational and leadership apparatus abroad. The law, or the executive order, could be revised or replaced in ways that would cover U.S.-based groups. But the real problem is that designating specific groups as terrorists doesn’t actually curb terrorism. Too little organization Many acts of far-right violence are perpetrated by individuals, not organized groups. These people may be loosely associated with, or perhaps supporters or online followers of, far-right movements. But they usually operate independently, without help or involvement from others. My research has shown that in many cases, the acts of violence aren’t even planned in advance. In any case, the two major contemporary extremist movements which attracted calls to designate them as terrorist organizations, the “boogaloo” movement on the right and antifa on the left, both lack any hierarchy or central coordination and, therefore, don’t fit the criteria of a formal organization. No real effect on operations There are several organizations that the U.S. has designated as “terrorists” over the years – including Hamas, Hezbollah, FARC, Lashkar-e-Taiba and the Islamic State group and its affiliates. Being named to the list subjects a group and its supporters to certain legal, administrative and financial sanctions: Americans who give them money, for instance, can be imprisoned. Non-Americans who are deemed members can be deported from the U.S. or denied permission to enter the country. Banks can be ordered to seize the group’s funds. Despite decades on the list, though, many of these groups are still flourishing. Some are even powerful enough to be dominant political movements in their regions or hold territory outside the control of national governments. Others of these groups appear to have disappeared, but really didn’t. Kahane Chai, for instance, was an Israeli organization that advocated violence against Palestinians in the West Bank in order to ensure Jewish control of what its members considered part of the Jewish homeland. The U.S. State Department designated it a terrorist group in 1997. Kahane Chai is no longer operating, but many of its members are active in other associations, promoting a similar ideology and engaging in violence. Similar dynamics are also visible among American extremist movements. In my book on the American far right, I explain that after the Aryan Nations, the most prominent white supremacy group of its time, collapsed in the late 1990s, most of its members dispersed and joined other organizations. The American far-right community was largely unaffected. Also in the late 1990s, many states passed anti-militia laws, seeking to limit the American militia movement in the wake of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing by Timothy McVeigh, who was linked to the Michigan Militia and similar groups in Arizona. The state laws banned people from gathering to practice military-style training, and had a limited effect for about a decade. But in the last 15 years, a second wave of militias has emerged, which actually seems to be more popular, more organized and more capable of mobilizing members than their predecessors. Most domestic groups remain decentralized, small and without formal structure, even if they coordinate with like-minded people online. The few groups that are more organized tend to split, merge or change their names frequently. In my view, that’s too fragmented a situation for any formal terrorist designation to have much use. A better solution would be to advance policies that can slow political polarization and counter the development of extremist beliefs in the first place. (Arie Perliger is Director of Security Studies and Professor, University of Massachusetts Lowell) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL) (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article)

The ‘domestic terrorist’ designation won’t stop extremism

After reports of Russian military intelligence agencies offering bounties to militants for killing United States’ troops in Afghanistan, the Democrats and Republicans have united in pressurising the president to divulge more information.

"Congress and the country need answers now. I therefore request an interagency brief for all House Members immediately," Democratic US House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in a letter to Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe and CIA Director Gina Haspel on Monday.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="/world/russia-denies-paying-militants-to-kill-us-troops-in-afghanistan-309334" hreflang="en">Russia denies paying militants to kill US troops in Afghanistan</a>

"The questions that arise are: was the President briefed, and if not, why not, and why was Congress not briefed?" Pelosi asked.

She was joined by Republican’s top representative Mac Thornberry, alongside Democratic Representative Adam Smith, while asking the Department of Defense for a detailed briefing.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="/world/its-all-about-him-john-bolton-criticises-trumps-statement-on-russian-bounties-309243" hreflang="en">It's all about him: John Bolton criticises Trump's statement on Russian bounties</a>

"The American people – and our service members – deserve to know the truth about what the White House knew about these Russian operations that may have directly resulted in the deaths of American service members," Smith said.

Thornberry, while referring to the debacle, said that any delay "will not be acceptable”.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="/world/trump-says-he-wasnt-briefed-on-russia-taliban-bounty-intelligence-309193" hreflang="en">Trump says he wasn't briefed on Russia-Taliban bounty intelligence</a>

A closer worker with the US Congress revealed that the Republican-only meeting would take place in the White House on Monday. US Speaker’s Pelosi’s close aides, Chuck Schumer, along with other Democrats said that they don’t expect any Democrats to be invited.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump has dismissed the reports as “fake news”, and further suggested that this was an attempt to make the Republicans look bad.

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="http://wionews.com/videos/amid-anti-racist-protests-us-prez-trump-retweets-video-where-man-shouts-white-power-309281/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

Senator Marco Rubio, the Republican acting intelligence committee chairman, said that they would "continue to conduct vigorous oversight" of threats faced by the United States.

After reports of Russian military intelligence agencies offering bounties to militants for killing United States’ troops in Afghanistan, the Democrats and Republicans have united in pressurising the president to divulge more information.

After reports of Russian military intelligence agencies offering bounties to militants for killing United States’ troops in Afghanistan, the Democrats and Republicans have united in pressurising the president to divulge more information. "Congress and the country need answers now. I therefore request an interagency brief for all House Members immediately," Democratic US House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in a letter to Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe and CIA Director Gina Haspel on Monday. Also read: Russia denies paying militants to kill US troops in Afghanistan "The questions that arise are: was the President briefed, and if not, why not, and why was Congress not briefed?" Pelosi asked. She was joined by Republican’s top representative Mac Thornberry, alongside Democratic Representative Adam Smith, while asking the Department of Defense for a detailed briefing. Also read: It's all about him: John Bolton criticises Trump's statement on Russian bounties "The American people – and our service members – deserve to know the truth about what the White House knew about these Russian operations that may have directly resulted in the deaths of American service members," Smith said. Thornberry, while referring to the debacle, said that any delay "will not be acceptable”. Also read: Trump says he wasn't briefed on Russia-Taliban bounty intelligence A closer worker with the US Congress revealed that the Republican-only meeting would take place in the White House on Monday. US Speaker’s Pelosi’s close aides, Chuck Schumer, along with other Democrats said that they don’t expect any Democrats to be invited. Meanwhile, Donald Trump has dismissed the reports as “fake news”, and further suggested that this was an attempt to make the Republicans look bad. Senator Marco Rubio, the Republican acting intelligence committee chairman, said that they would "continue to conduct vigorous oversight" of threats faced by the United States.

Democrats and Republicans want answers from Trump on Russia bounty reports

US President Donald Trump has a long record of leaving musicians miffed by using their songs at his rallies.

The Rolling Stones

“You can’t always get what you want”, an enduring rock anthem by the&nbsp;Rolling Stones was a popular choice at many of Donald Trump's events.

It was played again at the close of Trump's recent rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma - an indoor event criticised for its potential to spread coronavirus.

This prompted the English rock band to issue a statement in which they have said that their legal team is working with BMI, a music rights organisation, to stop use of their material in Trump's reelection campaign. “If Donald Trump disregards the exclusion and persists, then he would face a lawsuit for breaking the embargo and playing music that has not been licensed”, the statement reads.

The legendary band had also objected to this during his 2016 campaign, accusing him of using their music to fire up his conservative base at rallies.

Tom Petty

The family of the late Tom Petty also filed a cease and desist notice to the Trump campaign. Petty's 1989 hit “I won't back down" was played at the rally in Tulsa.

Neil Young

In 2018, Grammy award-winning musician Neil Young lashed out at Trump after hearing one of his songs played against his wishes during Trump's pre-midterm campaign rallies.

The Canadian-born musician admonished Trump for using his 1990 single, “Rockin’ in the free world,” in spite of earlier warnings.

Rihanna

In 2018, Rihanna discovered her music was being played during one of his rallies via twitter. She quickly put an end to it, writing “me nor my people would ever be at or around one of those tragic rallies, so thanks for the heads up.”

Elton John

While running for president, Trump used Elton John's songs “Rocket man" and “Tiny dancer" as warm-up music to his campaign rallies. But the iconic British singer made it clear that he didn't want his music involved in American politics, going on to say, “I’m not a Republican in a million years."

Adele

In 2016, upon finding out that Trump was playing her music at his events, Adele's spokesperson announced that she had not given him permission to use her music. The singer went on to endorse Hillary Clinton during a concert.

US President Donald Trump has a long record of leaving musicians miffed by using their songs at his rallies. The Rolling Stones “You can’t always get what you want”, an enduring rock anthem by the Rolling Stones was a popular choice at many of Donald Trump's events.

US President Donald Trump has a long record of leaving musicians miffed by using their songs at his rallies. The Rolling Stones “You can’t always get what you want”, an enduring rock anthem by the Rolling Stones was a popular choice at many of Donald Trump's events. It was played again at the close of Trump's recent rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma - an indoor event criticised for its potential to spread coronavirus. This prompted the English rock band to issue a statement in which they have said that their legal team is working with BMI, a music rights organisation, to stop use of their material in Trump's reelection campaign. “If Donald Trump disregards the exclusion and persists, then he would face a lawsuit for breaking the embargo and playing music that has not been licensed”, the statement reads. The legendary band had also objected to this during his 2016 campaign, accusing him of using their music to fire up his conservative base at rallies. Tom Petty The family of the late Tom Petty also filed a cease and desist notice to the Trump campaign. Petty's 1989 hit “I won't back down" was played at the rally in Tulsa. Neil Young In 2018, Grammy award-winning musician Neil Young lashed out at Trump after hearing one of his songs played against his wishes during Trump's pre-midterm campaign rallies. The Canadian-born musician admonished Trump for using his 1990 single, “Rockin’ in the free world,” in spite of earlier warnings. Rihanna In 2018, Rihanna discovered her music was being played during one of his rallies via twitter. She quickly put an end to it, writing “me nor my people would ever be at or around one of those tragic rallies, so thanks for the heads up.” Elton John While running for president, Trump used Elton John's songs “Rocket man" and “Tiny dancer" as warm-up music to his campaign rallies. But the iconic British singer made it clear that he didn't want his music involved in American politics, going on to say, “I’m not a Republican in a million years." Adele In 2016, upon finding out that Trump was playing her music at his events, Adele's spokesperson announced that she had not given him permission to use her music. The singer went on to endorse Hillary Clinton during a concert.

The history of musicians chastising Trump for using their music at his rallies

Workers at California's Disneyland Resort protested from their cars on Saturday (June 27) arguing that the Walt Disney Co has not agreed to adequate protections for employees when the destination reopens to the public amid a pandemic.

Disneyland employees protest pandemic workplace safety at the "happiest place on earth"

The US&nbsp;Supreme Court defended abortion rights in a major ruling on Monday by striking down a Louisiana law placing restrictions on doctors who perform the procedure, dealing a blow to anti-abortion advocates.

The 5-4 ruling, with conservative Chief Justice John Roberts joining the four liberals justices in the majority, represented a victory for Shreveport-based abortion provider Hope Medical Group for Women in its challenge to the 2014 law. The measure had required doctors who perform abortions to have a sometimes difficult-to-obtain formal affiliation called "admitting privileges" at a hospital within 30 miles (48 km) of the clinic.

President Donald Trump's administration supported Louisiana in the case.&nbsp;

Anti-abortion advocates had hoped that the Supreme Court, with its 5-4 conservative majority, would be willing to permit abortion restrictions like those being pursued by Louisiana and other conservative states.

"Today's ruling is a bitter disappointment," said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony List.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/los-angeles-texas-close-bars-as-coronavirus-takes-very-dangerous-turn-309252" hreflang="en">Los Angeles, Texas close bars as coronavirus takes 'very dangerous turn'</a>

The decision, authored by liberal Justice Stephen Breyer, marked the second time in four years that the court ruled against an "admitting privileges" requirement

In 2016, the court struck down a Republican-backed Texas law that mandated admitting privileges and required clinics to have costly hospital-grade facilities, finding that the restrictions represented an impermissible "undue burden" on a woman's ability to obtain an abortion. Breyer wrote that the two laws are "almost word-for word identical" and that therefore the court had to reach the same result.

There is sufficient evidence to find that the Louisiana measure "would place substantial obstacles in the path of women seeking an abortion in Louisiana," Breyer added.&nbsp;

Roberts dissented in the 2016 case, which was called Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, but voted with the liberals in the Louisiana case based on the court's tradition of adhering to its precedents, he said.

"I joined the dissent in Whole Woman's Health and continue to believe that the case was wrongly decided. The question today however is not whether Whole Woman's Health was right or wrong, but whether to adhere to it in deciding the present case," Roberts wrote in a separate opinion.&nbsp;

At the same time, Roberts did question some of the court's analysis in the earlier ruling, suggesting he may side with his conservative colleagues in future challenges to abortion restrictions.

'WE'RE RELIEVED'

As a result, the positive reaction to the ruling from abortion rights group was muted.

"We're relieved that the Louisiana law has been blocked today but we're concerned about tomorrow," said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which represented the Louisiana clinic.

Two of Louisiana's three clinics that perform abortions would have been forced to close if the law went into effect, according to lawyers for Hope Medical Group.&nbsp;

In a dissenting opinion, conservative Justice Samuel Alito wrote that Louisiana and Texas rulings are similar only because "the abortion right recognized in this court's decisions is used like a bulldozer to flatten legal rules that stand in the way."

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/its-all-about-him-john-bolton-criticises-trumps-statement-on-russian-bounties-309243" hreflang="en">It's all about him: John Bolton criticises Trump's statement on Russian bounties</a>

Roberts also sided with the liberal justices in two other important rulings this month. One found that gay and transgender people are protected from workplace discrimination under federal civil rights law. The other blocked Trump's bid to end a program that protects from deportation hundreds of thousands of immigrants - often called "Dreamers" - who entered the United States illegally as children.

Several other cases involving legal challenges to abortion restrictions in other states are heading toward the justices that could provide other avenues for its conservative majority to roll back access to the procedure.

Trump, seeking re-election on Nov&nbsp;3, promised during the 2016 presidential race to appoint justices who would overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion nationwide. The Louisiana case marked the first major abortion dispute heard by the court since Trump appointed Brett Kavanaugh in 2018 and Neil Gorsuch in 2017 as justices. Both ruled in favor of the Louisiana abortion restrictions.

Abortion remains a divisive issue in the United States as it is in many countries. Christian conservatives - an important political constituency for Trump - are among those most opposed to it. The Republican president, who years earlier had supported abortion rights, attended an anti-abortion march in January and declared, "Unborn children have never had a stronger defender in the White House."&nbsp;

Abortion rights advocates have argued that restrictions such as admitting privileges are meant to limit access to abortion not protect women's health as proponents say. When the Supreme Court in 1992 reaffirmed the Roe v. Wade ruling, it prohibited laws that placed an "undue burden" on a woman's ability to obtain an abortion.&nbsp;

Baton Rouge-based U.S. District Judge John deGravelles cited the undue burden precedent when he struck down Louisiana's law in 2016. After Louisiana appealed, the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the law.

The US Supreme Court defended abortion rights in a major ruling on Monday by striking down a Louisiana law placing restrictions on doctors who perform the procedure, dealing a blow to anti-abortion advocates.

The US Supreme Court defended abortion rights in a major ruling on Monday by striking down a Louisiana law placing restrictions on doctors who perform the procedure, dealing a blow to anti-abortion advocates. The 5-4 ruling, with conservative Chief Justice John Roberts joining the four liberals justices in the majority, represented a victory for Shreveport-based abortion provider Hope Medical Group for Women in its challenge to the 2014 law. The measure had required doctors who perform abortions to have a sometimes difficult-to-obtain formal affiliation called "admitting privileges" at a hospital within 30 miles (48 km) of the clinic. President Donald Trump's administration supported Louisiana in the case. Anti-abortion advocates had hoped that the Supreme Court, with its 5-4 conservative majority, would be willing to permit abortion restrictions like those being pursued by Louisiana and other conservative states. "Today's ruling is a bitter disappointment," said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony List. Also read: Los Angeles, Texas close bars as coronavirus takes 'very dangerous turn' The decision, authored by liberal Justice Stephen Breyer, marked the second time in four years that the court ruled against an "admitting privileges" requirement In 2016, the court struck down a Republican-backed Texas law that mandated admitting privileges and required clinics to have costly hospital-grade facilities, finding that the restrictions represented an impermissible "undue burden" on a woman's ability to obtain an abortion. Breyer wrote that the two laws are "almost word-for word identical" and that therefore the court had to reach the same result. There is sufficient evidence to find that the Louisiana measure "would place substantial obstacles in the path of women seeking an abortion in Louisiana," Breyer added. Roberts dissented in the 2016 case, which was called Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, but voted with the liberals in the Louisiana case based on the court's tradition of adhering to its precedents, he said. "I joined the dissent in Whole Woman's Health and continue to believe that the case was wrongly decided. The question today however is not whether Whole Woman's Health was right or wrong, but whether to adhere to it in deciding the present case," Roberts wrote in a separate opinion. At the same time, Roberts did question some of the court's analysis in the earlier ruling, suggesting he may side with his conservative colleagues in future challenges to abortion restrictions. 'WE'RE RELIEVED' As a result, the positive reaction to the ruling from abortion rights group was muted. "We're relieved that the Louisiana law has been blocked today but we're concerned about tomorrow," said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which represented the Louisiana clinic. Two of Louisiana's three clinics that perform abortions would have been forced to close if the law went into effect, according to lawyers for Hope Medical Group. In a dissenting opinion, conservative Justice Samuel Alito wrote that Louisiana and Texas rulings are similar only because "the abortion right recognized in this court's decisions is used like a bulldozer to flatten legal rules that stand in the way." Also read: It's all about him: John Bolton criticises Trump's statement on Russian bounties Roberts also sided with the liberal justices in two other important rulings this month. One found that gay and transgender people are protected from workplace discrimination under federal civil rights law. The other blocked Trump's bid to end a program that protects from deportation hundreds of thousands of immigrants - often called "Dreamers" - who entered the United States illegally as children. Several other cases involving legal challenges to abortion restrictions in other states are heading toward the justices that could provide other avenues for its conservative majority to roll back access to the procedure. Trump, seeking re-election on Nov 3, promised during the 2016 presidential race to appoint justices who would overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion nationwide. The Louisiana case marked the first major abortion dispute heard by the court since Trump appointed Brett Kavanaugh in 2018 and Neil Gorsuch in 2017 as justices. Both ruled in favor of the Louisiana abortion restrictions. Abortion remains a divisive issue in the United States as it is in many countries. Christian conservatives - an important political constituency for Trump - are among those most opposed to it. The Republican president, who years earlier had supported abortion rights, attended an anti-abortion march in January and declared, "Unborn children have never had a stronger defender in the White House." Abortion rights advocates have argued that restrictions such as admitting privileges are meant to limit access to abortion not protect women's health as proponents say. When the Supreme Court in 1992 reaffirmed the Roe v. Wade ruling, it prohibited laws that placed an "undue burden" on a woman's ability to obtain an abortion. Baton Rouge-based U.S. District Judge John deGravelles cited the undue burden precedent when he struck down Louisiana's law in 2016. After Louisiana appealed, the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the law.

In major ruling, US Supreme Court strikes down strict Louisiana abortion law

Vice President Mike Pence has described the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement as a political agenda of "radical left", saying that it intends to defund the police and bringing down monuments.&nbsp;

"What I see in the leaders of the Black Lives Matter movement is a political agenda of the radical left that would defund the police, that would tear down monuments, that would press a radical left agenda," Pence said in an interview to CBS.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-tweets-then-deletes-video-of-a-man-chanting-white-power-wh-defends-309218">Trump tweets, then deletes, video of a man chanting 'white power'; WH defends</a>

Highlighting that "all lives matter", he also added that George Floyd's death was inexcusable.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-issues-wanted-poster-for-people-who-vandalized-statues-308903">Trump issues 'wanted' poster for people who vandalized statues</a>

The vice president said that he cherishes "the progress that we have made toward a more perfect union for African Americans throughout our history". Pence said that African American leaders have made it clear to the US administration "they want law and order" and "peace in our streets".&nbsp;

Black Lives Matter movement has gained prominence first in the US and then worldwide after the death of George Floyd, an African American, in Minneapolis, US after a police officer kneeled on his neck for several minutes.&nbsp;

Vice President Mike Pence has described the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement as a political agenda of "radical left", saying that it intends to defund the police and bringing down monuments.

Vice President Mike Pence has described the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement as a political agenda of "radical left", saying that it intends to defund the police and bringing down monuments. "What I see in the leaders of the Black Lives Matter movement is a political agenda of the radical left that would defund the police, that would tear down monuments, that would press a radical left agenda," Pence said in an interview to CBS. Also read | Trump tweets, then deletes, video of a man chanting 'white power'; WH defends Highlighting that "all lives matter", he also added that George Floyd's death was inexcusable. Also read | Trump issues 'wanted' poster for people who vandalized statues The vice president said that he cherishes "the progress that we have made toward a more perfect union for African Americans throughout our history". Pence said that African American leaders have made it clear to the US administration "they want law and order" and "peace in our streets". Black Lives Matter movement has gained prominence first in the US and then worldwide after the death of George Floyd, an African American, in Minneapolis, US after a police officer kneeled on his neck for several minutes.

Black Lives Matter political agenda of radical left: Mike Pence

The United States on Saturday surpassed the grim milestone of 2.5 million coronavirus cases, a tracker maintained by Johns Hopkins University showed. There were 2,500,419 confirmed cases in the US, according to the Baltimore-based university as of 5:30 pm (2130 GMT).

The United States on Saturday surpassed the grim milestone of 2.5 million coronavirus cases, a tracker maintained by Johns Hopkins University showed. There were 2,500,419 confirmed cases in the US, according to the Baltimore-based university as of 5:30 pm (2130 GMT). The country also recorded 43,121 new infections in 24 hours, concluding a week with the most newly reported cases since the start of the pandemic. Also read: New US coronavirus cases hit 45,242 for biggest one-day increase of pandemic With an additional 502 deaths recorded Saturday, the US has now seen 125,480 fatalities related to COVID-19, or approximately one-fourth the world total of over 495,000. The world's hardest-hit country grappled with a surge of infections in several states. Florida, Georgia, South Carolina and Nevada on Saturday reported new records in daily cases. Florida notched 9,585 cases in 24 hours as infections there spike, after the state's rapid reopening saw young adults flocking to beaches, boardwalks and bars. Also read: Over 2 million now infected with coronavirus in US More than half of US states, particularly in the South and West, are seeing increases in COVID-19 cases -- a dramatic setback to efforts to reopen and salvage badly battered economies. Texas and Florida, which both have Republican governors who resisted prolonged lockdowns, have announced new restrictions on bars.

United States surpasses 2.5 million coronavirus cases: Johns Hopkins

America's top infectious diseases expert has warned the United States is facing a "serious problem" from a resurgent coronavirus as the illness puts the brakes on reopening two of the country's largest states.

America's top infectious diseases expert has warned the United States is facing a "serious problem" from a resurgent coronavirus as the illness puts the brakes on reopening two of the country's largest states. "We are facing a serious problem in certain areas," leading US immunologist Anthony Fauci said at the first briefing in two months by the White House's Coronavirus Task Force. "The only way we're going to end it is by ending it together," he said of the outbreak. Also read: Coronavirus 'not yet' under control, lifting lockdown too soon: Anthony Fauci The US is recording more than 30,000 cases daily. With nearly 125,000 lives lost, it has by far the highest confirmed death toll in the world. Texas had been among the most aggressive states in easing curbs but its strategy has backfired with the nation's second most populous state seeing several daily records in the number of new infections. "It is clear that the rise in cases is largely driven by certain types of activities, including Texans congregating in bars," Governor Greg Abbott said. Also read: Top US health expert Anthony Fauci says 'empty stadiums' a way to restart sporting activities Texas and Florida closed bars and reimposed other curbs on Friday as the number of infections in the US hit a single-day record with increases in 16 states, mostly in the south and west. Meanwhile, the WHO on Friday called for another $27.9 billion in donations to speed up the development and production of tests, vaccines and other treatments, part of its ACT accelerator plan to pool international resources. About $3.4 billion has already been pledged, the global body said ahead of a major fundraising event in Brussels by the EU Commission on Saturday that will feature performances by celebrities including Shakira and Justin Bieber. More than 490,000 people worldwide have now died from the virus and the number of cases is expected to reach 10 million in the next week, according to an AFP tally.

Anthony Fauci says US has 'serious problem' as virus cases surge

Here's a glimpse of post-COVID movie experience as US plans to reopen theatres

By Amitrajeet A Batabyal&nbsp;

Trade tensions and mistrust are escalating between the US and China. Soon after US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced that China recommitted to its January trade deal obligations after a face-to-face meeting with Beijing’s top diplomat on June 17, he upbraided the country for using disinformation to drive a wedge between Europe and the US President Trump, meanwhile, is attempting to use his tough stance with Beijing as a foreign policy selling point.

Behind the headlines and politics, a basic question remains: How much benefit is the US getting out of its trade relationship with China? As a scholar in international trade theory and policy, I believe that answer must be looked at through a wider lens than just economics – one that includes national security.

A model where both countries benefit

Economists have long agreed that free international trade can benefit countries when it is based on the principle of comparative advantage. Popularised by the English economist David Ricardo, this means that countries should export goods they can make more efficiently and less expensively to other countries, and import goods the other country can make more efficiently.

Free trade theory states that such trade, as opposed to trade that uses tariffs and quotas, makes nations better off. That’s because it creates overall benefits for countries. There may still be individual losers in certain industries, but overall, all nations are deemed winners.

It is, in theory, possible to take some of the winners’ gains in a nation and give it to that country’s losers, and still have some surplus left over. The “losers” are typically the industries that compete with imports and its workers.

The practical problem with this line of reasoning is that the US typically either does not make compensatory payments to the losers from the trade or, when it does, the payments are puny. Uncle Sam provides assistance to those who lose out from free trade via the Department of Labor’s Trade Adjustment Assistance program.

As long as workers displaced by international trade enrol in a job training programme, the adjustment assistance provides relocation assistance, subsidised health insurance and extended unemployment benefits. However, the program has been severely criticized by workers themselves, even earning the nickname “burial insurance,” as in arriving just in time to bury the victims.

Credible statistics are hard to come by to show the true monetary gains from trade. However, the economists Arnaud Costinot and Andres Rodriguez-Clare have shed valuable light on this question. Their research shows that the share of spending on imports in the US is smaller than other countries. That is in large part because the US is a large country, and most trade occurs within the nation.

Costinot and Rodriguez-Clare point out that about 8 cents out of every dollar spent in the US is spent on imports.

We can now ask: How much would it cost US consumers if the country stopped trade with other nations? The answer to this question is known as the welfare cost of zero trade or, equivalently, the welfare gains from trade.

Because the US doesn’t trade that much, the welfare gains from international trade in the US are smaller than in many other countries. Costinot and Rodriguez-Clare estimate these gains from all trade for the US range from 2 per cent to 8 per cent of gross domestic product.

For a large and diversified nation such as the US, this is relatively small. The reason is that the share of all US spending that goes to imports is around 6 per cent-8 per cent. Put differently, the US&nbsp;is a lot less reliant on imports than many other more trade-reliant countries. To compare, Belgium – a much smaller but more trade-reliant nation – spends 30 per cent&nbsp;&nbsp;on imports.

If the US were to move to economic self-sufficiency by stopping all trade with other nations, then it would be worse off, but based on the previous research, not dramatically so.

While that may not be practical overall, it is worth looking at it through the lens of US-China trade specifically.

What COVID-19 shows us 
 
To manage the outbreak of the coronavirus, the Chinese government closed large numbers of factories and ports. Entire cities and even provinces were locked down. These stringent measures have caused significant disruptions to US firms with China-only supply chains. Even more significant is the extent to which the US&nbsp;is dependent on China for vital goods such as medicines.

More generally, in 2018, China supplied about 42 per cent&nbsp;of the world’s exports of personal protective equipment. Almost 75 per cent&nbsp;of Italy’s imported blood thinners came from China, and so did 60% of the ingredients for antibiotics imported by Japan.

This dependence poses a national security threat. For example, if relations with China were to deteriorate further, then China could hold back shipping on, for instance, vital pharmaceutical ingredients. China has been known to abuse its market power.

Most standard economic analyses about the gains and losses from trade typically do not take national security issues into account. However, some research exists on how to intervene in an economy to attain “noneconomic objectives.” The fact that trade can be weaponized was alluded to by the economist Adam Smith, who observed in 1776 that national security can trump free trade concerns.

This is because if certain goods are necessary for national security, then free trade in these goods may reduce a nation’s capacity to produce the goods, thereby making them scarce should a national emergency arise.

Given the increasing tensions and complexities around trade with China, I believe it may be time to selectively retreat from trading with the Chinese over supplies critical to national security. Such a retreat will have to involve, among other controls, setting procurement rules so that health care providers buy US products, reducing and ideally eliminating the dependence on China-only supply chains, and monitoring cross-border mergers and acquisitions. In other words, we would still have globalisation, but with diminished Chinese influence.

This will be difficult to implement on a practical level given the close relationships the US&nbsp;markets have with China – and the roughly $539.5 billion in goods it imports each year. But short-term pain from the transition may well result in long-term gain from protecting national security.

(Amitrajeet A Batabyal is Arthur J Gosnell Professor of Economics, Rochester Institute of Technology)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-selective-retreat-from-trade-with-china-makes-sense-for-the-united-states-141110">Read the original article</a>) &nbsp;

By Amitrajeet A Batabyal Trade tensions and mistrust are escalating between the US and China. Soon after US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced that China recommitted to its January trade deal obligations after a face-to-face meeting with Beijing’s top diplomat on June 17, he upbraided the country for using disinformation to drive a wedge between Europe and the US President Trump, meanwhile, is attempting to use his tough stance with Beijing as a foreign policy selling point.

By Amitrajeet A Batabyal Trade tensions and mistrust are escalating between the US and China. Soon after US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced that China recommitted to its January trade deal obligations after a face-to-face meeting with Beijing’s top diplomat on June 17, he upbraided the country for using disinformation to drive a wedge between Europe and the US President Trump, meanwhile, is attempting to use his tough stance with Beijing as a foreign policy selling point. Behind the headlines and politics, a basic question remains: How much benefit is the US getting out of its trade relationship with China? As a scholar in international trade theory and policy, I believe that answer must be looked at through a wider lens than just economics – one that includes national security. A model where both countries benefit Economists have long agreed that free international trade can benefit countries when it is based on the principle of comparative advantage. Popularised by the English economist David Ricardo, this means that countries should export goods they can make more efficiently and less expensively to other countries, and import goods the other country can make more efficiently. Free trade theory states that such trade, as opposed to trade that uses tariffs and quotas, makes nations better off. That’s because it creates overall benefits for countries. There may still be individual losers in certain industries, but overall, all nations are deemed winners. It is, in theory, possible to take some of the winners’ gains in a nation and give it to that country’s losers, and still have some surplus left over. The “losers” are typically the industries that compete with imports and its workers. The practical problem with this line of reasoning is that the US typically either does not make compensatory payments to the losers from the trade or, when it does, the payments are puny. Uncle Sam provides assistance to those who lose out from free trade via the Department of Labor’s Trade Adjustment Assistance program. As long as workers displaced by international trade enrol in a job training programme, the adjustment assistance provides relocation assistance, subsidised health insurance and extended unemployment benefits. However, the program has been severely criticized by workers themselves, even earning the nickname “burial insurance,” as in arriving just in time to bury the victims. Credible statistics are hard to come by to show the true monetary gains from trade. However, the economists Arnaud Costinot and Andres Rodriguez-Clare have shed valuable light on this question. Their research shows that the share of spending on imports in the US is smaller than other countries. That is in large part because the US is a large country, and most trade occurs within the nation. Costinot and Rodriguez-Clare point out that about 8 cents out of every dollar spent in the US is spent on imports. We can now ask: How much would it cost US consumers if the country stopped trade with other nations? The answer to this question is known as the welfare cost of zero trade or, equivalently, the welfare gains from trade. Because the US doesn’t trade that much, the welfare gains from international trade in the US are smaller than in many other countries. Costinot and Rodriguez-Clare estimate these gains from all trade for the US range from 2 per cent to 8 per cent of gross domestic product. For a large and diversified nation such as the US, this is relatively small. The reason is that the share of all US spending that goes to imports is around 6 per cent-8 per cent. Put differently, the US is a lot less reliant on imports than many other more trade-reliant countries. To compare, Belgium – a much smaller but more trade-reliant nation – spends 30 per cent on imports. If the US were to move to economic self-sufficiency by stopping all trade with other nations, then it would be worse off, but based on the previous research, not dramatically so. While that may not be practical overall, it is worth looking at it through the lens of US-China trade specifically. What COVID-19 shows us To manage the outbreak of the coronavirus, the Chinese government closed large numbers of factories and ports. Entire cities and even provinces were locked down. These stringent measures have caused significant disruptions to US firms with China-only supply chains. Even more significant is the extent to which the US is dependent on China for vital goods such as medicines. More generally, in 2018, China supplied about 42 per cent of the world’s exports of personal protective equipment. Almost 75 per cent of Italy’s imported blood thinners came from China, and so did 60% of the ingredients for antibiotics imported by Japan. This dependence poses a national security threat. For example, if relations with China were to deteriorate further, then China could hold back shipping on, for instance, vital pharmaceutical ingredients. China has been known to abuse its market power. Most standard economic analyses about the gains and losses from trade typically do not take national security issues into account. However, some research exists on how to intervene in an economy to attain “noneconomic objectives.” The fact that trade can be weaponized was alluded to by the economist Adam Smith, who observed in 1776 that national security can trump free trade concerns. This is because if certain goods are necessary for national security, then free trade in these goods may reduce a nation’s capacity to produce the goods, thereby making them scarce should a national emergency arise. Given the increasing tensions and complexities around trade with China, I believe it may be time to selectively retreat from trading with the Chinese over supplies critical to national security. Such a retreat will have to involve, among other controls, setting procurement rules so that health care providers buy US products, reducing and ideally eliminating the dependence on China-only supply chains, and monitoring cross-border mergers and acquisitions. In other words, we would still have globalisation, but with diminished Chinese influence. This will be difficult to implement on a practical level given the close relationships the US markets have with China – and the roughly $539.5 billion in goods it imports each year. But short-term pain from the transition may well result in long-term gain from protecting national security. (Amitrajeet A Batabyal is Arthur J Gosnell Professor of Economics, Rochester Institute of Technology) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL) (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article)

A selective retreat from trade with China makes sense for the United States

The 'Black Lives Matter' protest in the United States has unmasked the institutional brutality against the African Americans of the country. It has also unmasked that people have refused to remain mute spectators now. In the latest coming in from the State of Rhode Island, the Governor has signed an order stating that the state will be officially changing its name due to its ties to the history of slavery. Watch report.

Rhode Island changes name over slavery ties | BLM protests

In the last fortnight, the Black Lives Matter movement has taken a rather objectionable turn which one cannot approve of. What started as a movement against hate, has begun spewing hate.&nbsp;

Statues have become the favourite target of protesters and the movement has turned into a structure removal brigade.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false"><iframe allow="autoplay; fullscreen" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" mozallowfullscreen="" scrolling="no" src="http://w3.cdn.anvato.net/player/prod/v3/anvload.html?key=eyJ1IjoiaHR0cHM6Ly92b2Rha20uemVlbmV3cy5jb20vdm9kLzI0MDZfV0lPTl9BbnRpLXJhY2lzbV9wcm90ZXN0c1RoZV9vYnNlc3Npb25fd2l0aF9zdGF0dWVzX1NLLm1wNC9pbmRleC5tM3U4Iiwic2hhcmVMaW5rIjoiaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cud2lvbmV3cy5jb20vdmlkZW9zL2dyYXZpdGFzLWFudGktcmFjaXNtLXByb3Rlc3RzLXRoZS1vYnNlc3Npb24td2l0aC1zdGF0dWVzLTMwODM3NCIsInBsdWdpbnMiOnsiZ29vZ2xlQW5hbHl0aWNzIjp7InRyYWNraW5nSWQiOiJVQS03ODQwMDgwOC0xIiwiZXZlbnRzIjp7IlBMQVlJTkdfU1RBUlQiOnsiYWxpYXMiOiJWaWRlbyBQbGF5IiwiY2F0ZWdvcnkiOiJBbnZhdG8gUGxheWVyIiwibGFiZWwiOiJBbnZhbnRvIFZpZGVvIFBsYXlpbmciLCJtZXRyaWMiOiIxIn0sIkJVRkZFUl9TVEFSVCI6eyJhbGlhcyI6IlZpZGVvIEJ1ZmZlciIsImNhdGVnb3J5IjoiQW52YXRvIFBsYXllciIsImxhYmVsIjoiQW52YW50byBWaWRlbyBCdWZmZXIgc3RhcnRzIiwibWV0cmljIjoiMiJ9LCJWSURFT19DT01QTEVURUQiOnsiYWxpYXMiOiJWaWRlbyBDb21wbGV0ZSIsImNhdGVnb3J5IjoiQW52YXRvIFBsYXllciIsImxhYmVsIjoiQW52YW50byBWaWRlbyBDb21wbGV0ZWQiLCJtZXRyaWMiOiI0In0sIkFEX0JSRUFLX1NUQVJURUQiOnsiYWxpYXMiOiJWaWRlbyBBZHZ0IEJyZWFrIiwiY2F0ZWdvcnkiOiJBbnZhdG8gUGxheWVyIn19fSwiZGZwIjp7ImNsaWVudFNpZGUiOnsiYWRUYWdVcmwiOiJodHRwczovL3B1YmFkcy5nLmRvdWJsZWNsaWNrLm5ldC9nYW1wYWQvbGl2ZS9hZHM%2FaXU9LzExNDQwNDY1L1dpb25ld3NfVmlkZW8vV2lvbmV3c19QcmVyb2xsJmRlc2NyaXB0aW9uX3VybD1bcGxhY2Vob2xkZXJdJmVudj12cCZpbXBsPXMmY29ycmVsYXRvcj0mdGZjZD0wJm5wYT0wJmdkZnBfcmVxPTEmb3V0cHV0PXZhc3Qmc3o9NjQweDQ4MCZ1bnZpZXdlZF9wb3NpdGlvbl9zdGFydD0xIn0sImxpYnJhcnlSZXF1ZXN0ZWQiOnRydWV9LCJoZWFsdGhBbmFseXRpY3MiOnt9fSwiaHRtbDUiOnRydWV9" webkitallowfullscreen="" width="640"></iframe></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

New York City announced that it would remove a statue of former US President Theodore Roosevelt from New York's Museum of Natural History. Protesters say the problem is with the symbolism of the Native American man and the African man, who stand beside him in that bronze statue.

In Washington, a statue of Confederate general Albert Pike was torn down last week. &nbsp;So many historical icons have been defaced, including that of former US President George Washington and British explorer James Cook. A structure of Christopher Columbus was thrown in a lake. In the UK, the statue of slave trader Edward Colston was among the first to be removed. 
 
<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/thousands-across-the-world-join-black-lives-matter-movement-303918">Also Read: Thousands across the world join 'Black Lives Matter' movement</a>

A wave of nationwide rallies calling for racial justice has swept the United States since the May 25 death of George Floyd, a 46-year-old black man killed by a white police officer in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

But the spotlight has begun to shift to figures of US history.&nbsp;

From India to the United States and Africa, people have been wronged, but the past is gone. We must draw lessons from it, but we cannot completely rewrite history.

Meanwhile, US President Donald Trump also on Tuesday announced via Twitter an authorization “effective immediately” to arrest anyone caught hurting a commemoration to an armed services member on federal land, even though the government already had that power under the 2003 Veterans Memorial Act. 
&nbsp;

In the last fortnight, the Black Lives Matter movement has taken a rather objectionable turn which one cannot approve of. What started as a movement against hate, has begun spewing hate.

In the last fortnight, the Black Lives Matter movement has taken a rather objectionable turn which one cannot approve of. What started as a movement against hate, has begun spewing hate. Statues have become the favourite target of protesters and the movement has turned into a structure removal brigade. × New York City announced that it would remove a statue of former US President Theodore Roosevelt from New York's Museum of Natural History. Protesters say the problem is with the symbolism of the Native American man and the African man, who stand beside him in that bronze statue. In Washington, a statue of Confederate general Albert Pike was torn down last week. So many historical icons have been defaced, including that of former US President George Washington and British explorer James Cook. A structure of Christopher Columbus was thrown in a lake. In the UK, the statue of slave trader Edward Colston was among the first to be removed. Also Read: Thousands across the world join 'Black Lives Matter' movement A wave of nationwide rallies calling for racial justice has swept the United States since the May 25 death of George Floyd, a 46-year-old black man killed by a white police officer in Minneapolis, Minnesota. But the spotlight has begun to shift to figures of US history. From India to the United States and Africa, people have been wronged, but the past is gone. We must draw lessons from it, but we cannot completely rewrite history. Meanwhile, US President Donald Trump also on Tuesday announced via Twitter an authorization “effective immediately” to arrest anyone caught hurting a commemoration to an armed services member on federal land, even though the government already had that power under the 2003 Veterans Memorial Act.

Black Lives Matter movement: Protesters target historical icons

Britain has no deadline to strike a trade deal with the United States, trade minister Liz Truss said on Wednesday, criticising the US&nbsp;administration for talking a good game on free trade while restricting import access.

Britain left the European Union earlier this year and is now in the process of negotiating bilateral trade deals with major partners like the United States - something the government has cited as a major benefit of leaving the EU.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/beware-second-wave-of-coronavirus-medics-warn-britain-308318" hreflang="en">Beware second wave of coronavirus, medics warn Britain</a>

"We're not going to rush into a deal and there is no deadline. We will be tough in pressing our interests," Truss told a parliamentary committee.&nbsp;

"The US&nbsp;talk a good game about free trade and low tariffs. But the reality is that many UK products have been kept unfairly out of their markets," she added.

Earlier, a spokesman for Prime Minister Boris Johnson said talks were continuing at a good pace and that the current round was due to end this week. Truss said she expected a couple of chapters of the deal to be finalised during the next round, but did not specify which.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/pubs-restaurants-and-hotels-to-reopen-from-july-4-as-england-eases-social-distancing-308116" hreflang="en">Pubs, restaurants and hotels to reopen from July 4 as England eases social distancing</a>

Nevertheless, she struck a combative tone, citing US&nbsp;tariffs on British steel, the threat of further tariffs on cars and US-centric procurement schemes which restrict access to government contracts. She said a US&nbsp;ban on lamb exports amounted to protectionism.&nbsp;

"Let me be clear. I am not going to strike a trade deal with the US, unless all these points are dealt with," she said. "No deal is better than a bad deal."

Britain has no deadline to strike a trade deal with the United States, trade minister Liz Truss said on Wednesday, criticising the US administration for talking a good game on free trade while restricting import access.

Britain has no deadline to strike a trade deal with the United States, trade minister Liz Truss said on Wednesday, criticising the US administration for talking a good game on free trade while restricting import access. Britain left the European Union earlier this year and is now in the process of negotiating bilateral trade deals with major partners like the United States - something the government has cited as a major benefit of leaving the EU. Also read: Beware second wave of coronavirus, medics warn Britain "We're not going to rush into a deal and there is no deadline. We will be tough in pressing our interests," Truss told a parliamentary committee. "The US talk a good game about free trade and low tariffs. But the reality is that many UK products have been kept unfairly out of their markets," she added. Earlier, a spokesman for Prime Minister Boris Johnson said talks were continuing at a good pace and that the current round was due to end this week. Truss said she expected a couple of chapters of the deal to be finalised during the next round, but did not specify which. Also read: Pubs, restaurants and hotels to reopen from July 4 as England eases social distancing Nevertheless, she struck a combative tone, citing US tariffs on British steel, the threat of further tariffs on cars and US-centric procurement schemes which restrict access to government contracts. She said a US ban on lamb exports amounted to protectionism. "Let me be clear. I am not going to strike a trade deal with the US, unless all these points are dealt with," she said. "No deal is better than a bad deal."

UK says no deadline for US trade deal, talks tough on terms

Nothing could keep New York resident Susan Warren away from her favorite hair salon, Julien Farel Restore Salon & Spa on Manhattan's Upper East Side, when it reopened on Monday (June 22).

With 1,200 people on the waiting list, $1,000 haircut salon reopens in New York

After more than 100 days of a coronavirus lockdown, New York City residents on Monday (June 22) celebrated the lifting of more restrictions by getting their first haircuts in months, shopping at reopened stores, and dining at outdoor cafes.

As outdoor dining reopens in New York, cafe owner says: 'We suffered a lot'

Dr Robert Redfield, director of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has said that the country is probably about to spend $7 trillion because of coronavirus outbreak during a House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing held on Tuesday.&nbsp;

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/the-room-where-it-happened-a-tell-all-book-or-just-exaggerated-memoir-308093" hreflang="en">The room where it happened: A tell-all book or just exaggerated memoir</a>

According to Redfield, the virus has "brought this nation to its knees."

Redfield made these statements as some US states are witnessing a spike in coronavirus cases and as per the health officials it is not because of increased testing.&nbsp;

The former acting director of CDC, Dr Richard Bresser told CNN that no state has effectively transitioned from stay-at-home orders "to a public health model of testing, tracking, isolating and quarantining."

"We have to figure out how to make that transition in a successful way, or every state that reopens -- even those that have done a really good job at tamping this down -- are going to see pretty dramatic rises," he added.&nbsp;

According to Dr Fauci, the United States must get control of the pandemic by fall or else it will be like "chasing after a forest fire."

The director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Fauci said that the major goal as of now is to control the virus instead of mitigating it, which is happening right now.&nbsp;

Redfield said that it is time to fix the broken system as the coronavirus pandemic has highlighted decades of underinvesting in the "core capabilities of public health data."

"This needs to be a partnership. It's not all the burden of the federal government to invest in public health at the local level," Redfield said. In reality, "if your funding of CDC was to go away tomorrow, public health infrastructure across this nation would just crash."

"We're right now the backbone of it."

Coronavirus pandemic continues to grip the American country with over 2.31 million cases of the virus. Out of these cases, 640,000 have been cured and discharged, whereas, over 120,000 deaths have been recorded in the country.&nbsp;

"The next couple of weeks are going to be critical in our ability to address those surgings that we're seeing in Florida, in Texas, in Arizona and other states -- they're not the only ones having difficulty," Fauci said.

During the hearing, Dr Fauci made a plea to the Americans and said: "Plan A: Don't go in a crowd. Plan B: If you do, make sure you wear a mask."

Dr Robert Redfield, director of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has said that the country is probably about to spend $7 trillion because of coronavirus outbreak during a House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing held on Tuesday.

Dr Robert Redfield, director of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has said that the country is probably about to spend $7 trillion because of coronavirus outbreak during a House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing held on Tuesday. Also read: The room where it happened: A tell-all book or just exaggerated memoir According to Redfield, the virus has "brought this nation to its knees." Redfield made these statements as some US states are witnessing a spike in coronavirus cases and as per the health officials it is not because of increased testing. The former acting director of CDC, Dr Richard Bresser told CNN that no state has effectively transitioned from stay-at-home orders "to a public health model of testing, tracking, isolating and quarantining." "We have to figure out how to make that transition in a successful way, or every state that reopens -- even those that have done a really good job at tamping this down -- are going to see pretty dramatic rises," he added. According to Dr Fauci, the United States must get control of the pandemic by fall or else it will be like "chasing after a forest fire." The director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Fauci said that the major goal as of now is to control the virus instead of mitigating it, which is happening right now. Redfield said that it is time to fix the broken system as the coronavirus pandemic has highlighted decades of underinvesting in the "core capabilities of public health data." "This needs to be a partnership. It's not all the burden of the federal government to invest in public health at the local level," Redfield said. In reality, "if your funding of CDC was to go away tomorrow, public health infrastructure across this nation would just crash." "We're right now the backbone of it." Coronavirus pandemic continues to grip the American country with over 2.31 million cases of the virus. Out of these cases, 640,000 have been cured and discharged, whereas, over 120,000 deaths have been recorded in the country. "The next couple of weeks are going to be critical in our ability to address those surgings that we're seeing in Florida, in Texas, in Arizona and other states -- they're not the only ones having difficulty," Fauci said. During the hearing, Dr Fauci made a plea to the Americans and said: "Plan A: Don't go in a crowd. Plan B: If you do, make sure you wear a mask."

'Coronavirus pandemic has brought the United States on its knees': CDC director

US President Donald Trump on Tuesday signed an executive order to stop the issuing of H-1B visa and other work visas for the rest of the year.

This move will not impact existing visa holders, but doors to the American dream for new applications are shut for now.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-trump-freezes-foreign-worker-visas-places-curbs-on-vande-bharat-308095/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbsp;

H-1B visas are designed for certain skilled workers such as those employed in science, engineering, and information technology fields, while H-2B visas are given to seasonal workers such as hotel and construction staff.

L-1 visas are meant for executives who work for large corporations and J-1 visas are issued to research scholars, professors and other cultural and work-exchange programs. 
 
<a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/how-will-h1-b-visa-suspension-impact-indian-companies-307963">Also Read:&nbsp;How will H1-B visa suspension impact Indian companies</a>

After visa curbs, the Trump administration slapped restrictions on India's Vande Bharat Mission as well. Air India flights sent to America to bring back Indians have been restricted by the US, accusing India of "unfair and discriminatory practices" by barring American airlines from operating similar flights.

The order said, "We are taking this action because the Government of India (GoI) has impaired the operating rights of US carriers and has engaged in discriminatory and restrictive practices with respect to US carrier services to and from India."&nbsp;

The US President recently kicked off his re-election campaign. Last week, he held a rally amid the coronavirus fear and called his voter base 'warriors', for stepping out of their homes.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/president-donald-trump-signs-executive-order-to-suspend-h-1b-visas-307833">Also Read: President Donald Trump signs executive order to suspend H-1B visas</a>

"We begin our campaign and you just want to thank all of you, you are warriors. I've been watching, I've been watching the fake news for weeks now and everything is negative: 'Don't go. don't come. don't do anything.' Today it was like I've never seen anything like it. I've never seen anything like it. You are warriors. Thank You."

Trump's immigration bans have been a hallmark of his presidency and now, his curbs on skilled Indian professionals has brought the immigration debate on the election agenda.

Trump said that the step was essential to help millions of Americans who have lost their jobs due to the economic crisis amidst the COVID-19 pandemic.&nbsp;

Meanwhile, major US businesses have slammed the new orders. Trump's critics say he is using the pandemic to push his long-delayed immigration overhaul. To add to that, President Trump, with his erratic policies and the latest proclamations, has also damaged America's relationship with India.

&nbsp;

US President Donald Trump on Tuesday signed an executive order to stop the issuing of H-1B visa and other work visas for the rest of the year. This move will not impact existing visa holders, but doors to the American dream for new applications are shut for now.

US President Donald Trump on Tuesday signed an executive order to stop the issuing of H-1B visa and other work visas for the rest of the year. This move will not impact existing visa holders, but doors to the American dream for new applications are shut for now. × H-1B visas are designed for certain skilled workers such as those employed in science, engineering, and information technology fields, while H-2B visas are given to seasonal workers such as hotel and construction staff. L-1 visas are meant for executives who work for large corporations and J-1 visas are issued to research scholars, professors and other cultural and work-exchange programs. Also Read: How will H1-B visa suspension impact Indian companies After visa curbs, the Trump administration slapped restrictions on India's Vande Bharat Mission as well. Air India flights sent to America to bring back Indians have been restricted by the US, accusing India of "unfair and discriminatory practices" by barring American airlines from operating similar flights. The order said, "We are taking this action because the Government of India (GoI) has impaired the operating rights of US carriers and has engaged in discriminatory and restrictive practices with respect to US carrier services to and from India." The US President recently kicked off his re-election campaign. Last week, he held a rally amid the coronavirus fear and called his voter base 'warriors', for stepping out of their homes. Also Read: President Donald Trump signs executive order to suspend H-1B visas "We begin our campaign and you just want to thank all of you, you are warriors. I've been watching, I've been watching the fake news for weeks now and everything is negative: 'Don't go. don't come. don't do anything.' Today it was like I've never seen anything like it. I've never seen anything like it. You are warriors. Thank You." Trump's immigration bans have been a hallmark of his presidency and now, his curbs on skilled Indian professionals has brought the immigration debate on the election agenda. Trump said that the step was essential to help millions of Americans who have lost their jobs due to the economic crisis amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. Meanwhile, major US businesses have slammed the new orders. Trump's critics say he is using the pandemic to push his long-delayed immigration overhaul. To add to that, President Trump, with his erratic policies and the latest proclamations, has also damaged America's relationship with India.

Trump administration targets foreign workers, places restrictions on Vande Bharat Mission

China today completed the deployment of its own global navigation system. The last of 35 satellites to power China’s homegrown navigation system are now in space.&nbsp;The historic launch took 30 minutes until it was confirmed as a successful mission.

However, over 100 countries are fighting COVID-19 right now, but China had other plans. China calls this group of satellites the “Beidou” navigation satellite system.

Beidou is the Mandarin name for the the big dipper constellation and caters to Chinese plans that seek to end dependence on foreign GPS systems.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-why-china-has-built-its-own-gps-308098/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Beidou is made for all purposes, from map based navigation on smartphones for civilians, to even guiding the weapons of the People's Liberation Army.

History of Beidou

Back in 1996, China lost its missiles fired across the Taiwan strait, to prevent the country from seeking independence. However, it lost track of two missiles.&nbsp;Later, the Chinese blamed their failure on a sudden disruption of GPS.

The event may have been the guiding principle for the development of this homegrown GPS which has cost the country over 10 billion Dollars.

Before Beidou, China was dependent on the American GPS system, even for its military pursuits. The countries are currently locked in repeated diplomatic rows.

In case of a military conflict with the United States, Beidou will keep the chinese military online.

“The [launch of the final satellite] marks the completion of the global constellation deployment. As I mentioned before, it also marks the full completion of our country's three-step strategy for the navigation satellite system. In the meantime, it is also of paramount significance as one of the key indicators showing our country has taken a step further towards becoming an aerospace power”, said Yang Changfeng, Chief Designer, Beidou navigation satellite system.

The new Chinese global navigation system will help China cement its place in the global technological race, considering there are only a few players in the global GPS game.

Several countries use the American GPS right now. Russia has its own system called “Glonass”. The europeans have the Galileo system. India has its own regional system, called the Indian Regional Navigation Satellite System or IRNSS. Similarly, Japan has the quasi-zenith satellite system or QZSS.

However, China has no plans to sell the technology. Last week, the Chinese state media described the navigation system as “a gold key of your home, that should only be kept in your own hands”.

China today completed the deployment of its own global navigation system. The last of 35 satellites to power China’s homegrown navigation system are now in space.

China today completed the deployment of its own global navigation system. The last of 35 satellites to power China’s homegrown navigation system are now in space. The historic launch took 30 minutes until it was confirmed as a successful mission. However, over 100 countries are fighting COVID-19 right now, but China had other plans. China calls this group of satellites the “Beidou” navigation satellite system. Beidou is the Mandarin name for the the big dipper constellation and caters to Chinese plans that seek to end dependence on foreign GPS systems. × Beidou is made for all purposes, from map based navigation on smartphones for civilians, to even guiding the weapons of the People's Liberation Army. History of Beidou Back in 1996, China lost its missiles fired across the Taiwan strait, to prevent the country from seeking independence. However, it lost track of two missiles. Later, the Chinese blamed their failure on a sudden disruption of GPS. The event may have been the guiding principle for the development of this homegrown GPS which has cost the country over 10 billion Dollars. Before Beidou, China was dependent on the American GPS system, even for its military pursuits. The countries are currently locked in repeated diplomatic rows. In case of a military conflict with the United States, Beidou will keep the chinese military online. “The [launch of the final satellite] marks the completion of the global constellation deployment. As I mentioned before, it also marks the full completion of our country's three-step strategy for the navigation satellite system. In the meantime, it is also of paramount significance as one of the key indicators showing our country has taken a step further towards becoming an aerospace power”, said Yang Changfeng, Chief Designer, Beidou navigation satellite system. The new Chinese global navigation system will help China cement its place in the global technological race, considering there are only a few players in the global GPS game. Several countries use the American GPS right now. Russia has its own system called “Glonass”. The europeans have the Galileo system. India has its own regional system, called the Indian Regional Navigation Satellite System or IRNSS. Similarly, Japan has the quasi-zenith satellite system or QZSS. However, China has no plans to sell the technology. Last week, the Chinese state media described the navigation system as “a gold key of your home, that should only be kept in your own hands”.

While the world grapples with COVID-19, China completes its homegrown GPS system 'Beidou' with new launch

By George Rennie

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was a sense history had ended, and that the United States represented a supreme endpoint.

Today, the US is not dominant, it is in crisis: convulsed by riots and protest, riven by a virus that has galloped away from those charged with overseeing it, and heading into a presidential election led by a man that has possibly divided the nation like no other before him.

Using the most common metrics available to political scientists, there are signs the United States is failing.

Until very recently, this idea was extraordinary, unthinkable to all but the most radical critics. But, the US is increasingly performing poorly on key predictors of state failure: ethnic and class conflict, democratic and institutional backsliding, and other socioeconomic indicators including healthcare and inequality.

Ethnic and class conflict

Comparative politics pays great attention to the role of ethnic conflict as a predictor of state failure. Those who study African countries, where most of the flare-ups are currently taking place, often observe that ethnic conflicts are closely correlated with battles to secure key resources, such as water and arable land. This closely relates the study of so-called “grievance studies”, which typically regards deep-seated inequalities as causing resource conflicts.

However, it would be a mistake to think this is because of different ethnic groups per se. It is more to do with how inequality and poverty exacerbate perceived racial and cultural fissures. The US reflects this problem, where the experience of many black Americans is telling: they feel “criminalised at birth”, and when this perception reaches a critical mass among a large enough population, states fail.

The global conflict zones that political scientists largely focus on are where groups are fighting for basic resources. These include water, mineral, and other basic economic rights.

So, areas that are deeply impoverished, such as Flint, Michigan, or almost any other recent area of profound socio-economic distress, are highly analogous to failed countries. They have also been some of the biggest challenges to the “united” part of the United States.

Signs of increased economic inequality 
 
Yet, the economic indicators are not only dire for minority groups. America’s economy has grown at a good clip for decades, but the wealth has been taken up almost entirely by the wealthiest. For example, CEOs’ pay went from 20 times the average workers’ salary in 1965 to 278 times their salary in 2018.

In real terms, only college graduates have seen their pay increase as a group since 1979, and this occurs while 21 per cent&nbsp;of American children live in poverty. Moreover, health outcomes for Americans are very poor compared to other OECD countries, despite having the highest per capita healthcare costs in the world.

Disproportionately, this is a problem affecting black Americans. This might go some way to explaining recent riots, but is far from a complete picture. All poor Americans are getting relatively poorer, which may also explain why poor white Americans seem increasingly likely to fight against the perceived injustices of other ethnic groups. They do this by pitting themselves against similarly politically and economically disenfranchised groups, rather than the power system that keeps them dispossessed.

Adding to this, a major historical study by Thomas Piketty showed the disconnect between the poorest and wealthiest Americans is getting exponentially worse, the middle class is shrinking, and the wealth of the top 1% is taking up an increasing share of the pie.

Is there a democratic deficit? 
 
This wealth disconnect is increasingly represented as a deficit in democracy. As one study showed, America’s democracy is being seriously undermined.

In fact, “undermined” is putting it mildly: after a rigorous analysis of voting from 1982 to 2002, Gilens and Page showed the preferences of the top 10% routinely trumped those of average voters.

It would be a mistake to underestimate the importance of these findings. As analyses of the 2016 general election showed, the US states that flipped from Democrat to Republican (supposedly part of Hillary Clinton’s “firewall”) were almost exclusively part of the so called “rust belt”. Once part of America’s all-powerful manufacturing base, they are now people who feel forgotten, and increasingly angry.

The black and white, racial narrative of America’s woes misses an important, but even more consequential point: while there is no doubt black Americans are disproportionately suffering, an increasing majority is losing out, regardless of race.

American hope 
 
The American revolution centred on the very sensible idea there should be no taxation without representation. Yet, there is now significant evidence that a majority of citizens are not being represented.

The US has one advantage: for all of its flaws, it remains an at least semi-functional democracy. This may well mean blame for state failure can exist with individuals or parties, rather than the entire system.

However, the democratic institutions of the United States continue to break down, and successive governments have proved unable to respond and listen to their citizens. Bizarrely, by the most important indicators available to political scientists, the United States is failing.

Even among its most ardent critics, few would consider America’s failure to be anything other than a catastrophe. The domestic deterioration of the world’s biggest nuclear and military superpower would prove unprecedented and frightening beyond rational analysis — rhetoric suggesting this is merely the new “fall of Rome” is almost glib.

The challenge now is whether the world’s oldest continuous democracy can live up to its own ideals.

(George Rennie os Lecturer in Politics, University of Melbourne)

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read <a href="https://theconversation.com/is-america-a-failing-state-how-a-superpower-has-been-brought-to-the-brink-139680">the original article</a>) &nbsp;

By George Rennie After the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was a sense history had ended, and that the United States represented a supreme endpoint. Today, the US is not dominant, it is in crisis: convulsed by riots and protest, riven by a virus that has galloped away from those charged with overseeing it, and heading into a presidential election led by a man that has possibly divided the nation like no other before him.

By George Rennie After the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was a sense history had ended, and that the United States represented a supreme endpoint. Today, the US is not dominant, it is in crisis: convulsed by riots and protest, riven by a virus that has galloped away from those charged with overseeing it, and heading into a presidential election led by a man that has possibly divided the nation like no other before him. Using the most common metrics available to political scientists, there are signs the United States is failing. Until very recently, this idea was extraordinary, unthinkable to all but the most radical critics. But, the US is increasingly performing poorly on key predictors of state failure: ethnic and class conflict, democratic and institutional backsliding, and other socioeconomic indicators including healthcare and inequality. Ethnic and class conflict Comparative politics pays great attention to the role of ethnic conflict as a predictor of state failure. Those who study African countries, where most of the flare-ups are currently taking place, often observe that ethnic conflicts are closely correlated with battles to secure key resources, such as water and arable land. This closely relates the study of so-called “grievance studies”, which typically regards deep-seated inequalities as causing resource conflicts. However, it would be a mistake to think this is because of different ethnic groups per se. It is more to do with how inequality and poverty exacerbate perceived racial and cultural fissures. The US reflects this problem, where the experience of many black Americans is telling: they feel “criminalised at birth”, and when this perception reaches a critical mass among a large enough population, states fail. The global conflict zones that political scientists largely focus on are where groups are fighting for basic resources. These include water, mineral, and other basic economic rights. So, areas that are deeply impoverished, such as Flint, Michigan, or almost any other recent area of profound socio-economic distress, are highly analogous to failed countries. They have also been some of the biggest challenges to the “united” part of the United States. Signs of increased economic inequality Yet, the economic indicators are not only dire for minority groups. America’s economy has grown at a good clip for decades, but the wealth has been taken up almost entirely by the wealthiest. For example, CEOs’ pay went from 20 times the average workers’ salary in 1965 to 278 times their salary in 2018. In real terms, only college graduates have seen their pay increase as a group since 1979, and this occurs while 21 per cent of American children live in poverty. Moreover, health outcomes for Americans are very poor compared to other OECD countries, despite having the highest per capita healthcare costs in the world. Disproportionately, this is a problem affecting black Americans. This might go some way to explaining recent riots, but is far from a complete picture. All poor Americans are getting relatively poorer, which may also explain why poor white Americans seem increasingly likely to fight against the perceived injustices of other ethnic groups. They do this by pitting themselves against similarly politically and economically disenfranchised groups, rather than the power system that keeps them dispossessed. Adding to this, a major historical study by Thomas Piketty showed the disconnect between the poorest and wealthiest Americans is getting exponentially worse, the middle class is shrinking, and the wealth of the top 1% is taking up an increasing share of the pie. Is there a democratic deficit? This wealth disconnect is increasingly represented as a deficit in democracy. As one study showed, America’s democracy is being seriously undermined. In fact, “undermined” is putting it mildly: after a rigorous analysis of voting from 1982 to 2002, Gilens and Page showed the preferences of the top 10% routinely trumped those of average voters. It would be a mistake to underestimate the importance of these findings. As analyses of the 2016 general election showed, the US states that flipped from Democrat to Republican (supposedly part of Hillary Clinton’s “firewall”) were almost exclusively part of the so called “rust belt”. Once part of America’s all-powerful manufacturing base, they are now people who feel forgotten, and increasingly angry. The black and white, racial narrative of America’s woes misses an important, but even more consequential point: while there is no doubt black Americans are disproportionately suffering, an increasing majority is losing out, regardless of race. American hope The American revolution centred on the very sensible idea there should be no taxation without representation. Yet, there is now significant evidence that a majority of citizens are not being represented. The US has one advantage: for all of its flaws, it remains an at least semi-functional democracy. This may well mean blame for state failure can exist with individuals or parties, rather than the entire system. However, the democratic institutions of the United States continue to break down, and successive governments have proved unable to respond and listen to their citizens. Bizarrely, by the most important indicators available to political scientists, the United States is failing. Even among its most ardent critics, few would consider America’s failure to be anything other than a catastrophe. The domestic deterioration of the world’s biggest nuclear and military superpower would prove unprecedented and frightening beyond rational analysis — rhetoric suggesting this is merely the new “fall of Rome” is almost glib. The challenge now is whether the world’s oldest continuous democracy can live up to its own ideals. (George Rennie os Lecturer in Politics, University of Melbourne) Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL) (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article)

Is America a ‘failing state’? How a superpower has been brought to the brink

United States President Donald Trump, who is currently campaigning for his reelection to White House in the upcoming 2020 Presidential polls has hit out at former US President Barack Obama.

On Monday, Trump said Obama had committed treason by spying on his campaign along with his Democratic rival Joe Biden. He, however, offered no evidence for the same.

This isn’t the first time Trump has hit out at Obama. Since the beginning of his term, he has called Obama an outsider and falsely claimed that he was born outside of the US.

Currently, polls show Trump trailing behind his rival Biden by 13 per cent in the bid for US presidency. Both Biden and Obama are set to hold a fundraiser which has already amassed $4 million.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/biden-obama-fundraiser-has-amassed-4-million-ahead-of-joint-appearance-308071" hreflang="en">Biden-Obama fundraiser has amassed $4 million ahead of joint appearance</a>

Obama is the first Black American president ever. Ironically, the US Justice Department is currently reviewing Trump’s election as president in 2016, suspecting foreign interference in the elections. Earlier, Trump had claimed that Obama was spying on his campaign, but had not accused him of treason until now.

Trump recently told a local TV network, “It's treason. Look, when I came out a long time ago, I said they've been spying on our campaign ... Let's see what happens to them now."

"(William) Barr is doing a great job as attorney general, let's see what they come up with," he added.

However, Barr has claimed that he does not expect any charges against either Obama or Biden.

Recently, US intelligence agencies claimed that Russia played some role in Trump’s race to the White House in 2016. Robert Mueller, former Special Counsel discovered that Russia had peddled propaganda to harm the reputation of his rival Hillary Clinton. During his 21-month long investigation, he also found that both the parties had reached out to each other on multiple occasions.

You might also like:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-likened-his-relationship-with-north-koreas-kim-to-dating-wanted-to-be-the-one-to-break-up-308053" hreflang="en">Trump likened his relationship with North Korea's Kim to 'dating', 'wanted to be the one to break-up'</a>

Trump has been in the centre of another controversy owing to the book released by his ex-aide. The book is titled “The Room Where It Happened”, and has been at the centre of controversy in terms of its content. According to Bolton, Trump had sought political favours from Chinese President Xi Jinping and had allegedly not raised any red flags with China’s treatment of Uighur Muslims, who are reportedly kept in concentration camps.

Recently, Trump held his first post-coronavirus rally in Tulsa, which saw lesser turnout than expected.&nbsp;Reportedly, thousands of tickets were reserved by TikTok and K-pop fans who had no plans of going to the rally.

(With inputs from Reuters)

United States President Donald Trump, who is currently campaigning for his reelection to White House in the upcoming 2020 Presidential polls has hit out at former US President Barack Obama.

United States President Donald Trump, who is currently campaigning for his reelection to White House in the upcoming 2020 Presidential polls has hit out at former US President Barack Obama. On Monday, Trump said Obama had committed treason by spying on his campaign along with his Democratic rival Joe Biden. He, however, offered no evidence for the same. This isn’t the first time Trump has hit out at Obama. Since the beginning of his term, he has called Obama an outsider and falsely claimed that he was born outside of the US. Currently, polls show Trump trailing behind his rival Biden by 13 per cent in the bid for US presidency. Both Biden and Obama are set to hold a fundraiser which has already amassed $4 million. Also read: Biden-Obama fundraiser has amassed $4 million ahead of joint appearance Obama is the first Black American president ever. Ironically, the US Justice Department is currently reviewing Trump’s election as president in 2016, suspecting foreign interference in the elections. Earlier, Trump had claimed that Obama was spying on his campaign, but had not accused him of treason until now. Trump recently told a local TV network, “It's treason. Look, when I came out a long time ago, I said they've been spying on our campaign ... Let's see what happens to them now." "(William) Barr is doing a great job as attorney general, let's see what they come up with," he added. However, Barr has claimed that he does not expect any charges against either Obama or Biden. Recently, US intelligence agencies claimed that Russia played some role in Trump’s race to the White House in 2016. Robert Mueller, former Special Counsel discovered that Russia had peddled propaganda to harm the reputation of his rival Hillary Clinton. During his 21-month long investigation, he also found that both the parties had reached out to each other on multiple occasions. You might also like: Trump likened his relationship with North Korea's Kim to 'dating', 'wanted to be the one to break-up' Trump has been in the centre of another controversy owing to the book released by his ex-aide. The book is titled “The Room Where It Happened”, and has been at the centre of controversy in terms of its content. According to Bolton, Trump had sought political favours from Chinese President Xi Jinping and had allegedly not raised any red flags with China’s treatment of Uighur Muslims, who are reportedly kept in concentration camps. Recently, Trump held his first post-coronavirus rally in Tulsa, which saw lesser turnout than expected. Reportedly, thousands of tickets were reserved by TikTok and K-pop fans who had no plans of going to the rally. (With inputs from Reuters)

Trump accuses Obama of 'treason' for 'spying', offers no evidence

United States Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden’s first fundraiser with former President Barack Obama&nbsp;in view of the upcoming elections&nbsp;has raised over $4 million from 120,000 people.

Biden’s campaign announced the same ahead of Obama and Biden’s joint appearance on Tuesday.

This may be Biden’s largest haul from small donors in the country. For the first time ever in May, Biden’s collection had amassed more money than his rival Trump - $80 million vs $74 million.

You might also like:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-likened-his-relationship-with-north-koreas-kim-to-dating-wanted-to-be-the-one-to-break-up-308053" hreflang="en">Trump likened his relationship with North Korea's Kim to 'dating', 'wanted to be the one to break-up'</a>

Donald Trump announced plans to stand for elections again in 2017. He has a lot of edge over Biden in terms of fudnds. Throughout the course of his presidency, he has collected $265 million in cash by the end of May. On the other hand, Biden and the Democrats have $122 million.

Way before the campaigning kick-started, Biden had weak fundraising numbers, which stirred trouble among the Democrats, who were worried about his nomination. However, over the last few weeks, given emerging dialogue about racial injustice and the delayed response to coronavirus which Trump is accused of, Biden’s support has grown tremendously. Most polls show Biden leading the charts, with Trump falling to second place.

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="http://wionews.com/videos/its-time-for-racial-justice-says-joe-biden-via-video-message-at-george-floyds-funeral-304730/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

Former US president Obama’s endorsement of Biden may also have fuelled this response, as the former Prez enjoys a lot of a support among the American masses. Obama had planned to campaign for Biden more formally but all plans were halted owing to COVID-19, which has killed more people in the US than it has anywhere else in the world.

You might also like:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/apple-google-amazon-take-aim-at-trump-visa-ban-308029" hreflang="en">Apple, Google, Amazon take aim at Trump visa ban</a>

With the lesser amount in reserve for campaign, Biden’s campaigning may not be able to allot more money to advertising and other operations that promote coming out to vote, especially given the paranoia around COVID-19.

Just last week, a fundraiser hosted by Elizabeth Warren, a senator was able to amass $6 million, the highest for Biden’s campaign.

Recently, Trump held his first post-coronavirus rally in Tulsa, which saw lesser turnout than expected.&nbsp;Reportedly, thousands of tickets were reserved by TikTok and K-pop fans who had no plans of going to the rally.

Trump has been in the centre of another controversy owing to the book released by his ex-aide. The book is titled “The Room Where It Happened”, and has been at the centre of controversy in terms of its content. According to Bolton, Trump had sought political favours from Chinese President Xi Jinping and had allegedly not raised any red flags with China’s treatment of Uighur Muslims, who are reportedly kept in concentration camps.

United States Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden’s first fundraiser with former President Barack Obama in view of the upcoming elections has raised over $4 million from 120,000 people.

United States Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden’s first fundraiser with former President Barack Obama in view of the upcoming elections has raised over $4 million from 120,000 people. Biden’s campaign announced the same ahead of Obama and Biden’s joint appearance on Tuesday. This may be Biden’s largest haul from small donors in the country. For the first time ever in May, Biden’s collection had amassed more money than his rival Trump - $80 million vs $74 million. You might also like: Trump likened his relationship with North Korea's Kim to 'dating', 'wanted to be the one to break-up' Donald Trump announced plans to stand for elections again in 2017. He has a lot of edge over Biden in terms of fudnds. Throughout the course of his presidency, he has collected $265 million in cash by the end of May. On the other hand, Biden and the Democrats have $122 million. Way before the campaigning kick-started, Biden had weak fundraising numbers, which stirred trouble among the Democrats, who were worried about his nomination. However, over the last few weeks, given emerging dialogue about racial injustice and the delayed response to coronavirus which Trump is accused of, Biden’s support has grown tremendously. Most polls show Biden leading the charts, with Trump falling to second place. Former US president Obama’s endorsement of Biden may also have fuelled this response, as the former Prez enjoys a lot of a support among the American masses. Obama had planned to campaign for Biden more formally but all plans were halted owing to COVID-19, which has killed more people in the US than it has anywhere else in the world. You might also like: Apple, Google, Amazon take aim at Trump visa ban With the lesser amount in reserve for campaign, Biden’s campaigning may not be able to allot more money to advertising and other operations that promote coming out to vote, especially given the paranoia around COVID-19. Just last week, a fundraiser hosted by Elizabeth Warren, a senator was able to amass $6 million, the highest for Biden’s campaign. Recently, Trump held his first post-coronavirus rally in Tulsa, which saw lesser turnout than expected. Reportedly, thousands of tickets were reserved by TikTok and K-pop fans who had no plans of going to the rally. Trump has been in the centre of another controversy owing to the book released by his ex-aide. The book is titled “The Room Where It Happened”, and has been at the centre of controversy in terms of its content. According to Bolton, Trump had sought political favours from Chinese President Xi Jinping and had allegedly not raised any red flags with China’s treatment of Uighur Muslims, who are reportedly kept in concentration camps.

Biden-Obama fundraiser has amassed $4 million ahead of joint appearance

Joel Schumacher, the director of 'The Lost Boys', 'St. Elmo's Fire' and two of the 'Batman' franchise, has died aged 80 in New York City from cancer, according to a Hollywood publicist.

'Batman', 'The Lost Boys' director Joel Schumacher dies aged 80

United States President Donald Trump likened his diplomacy with North Korean Kim Jong-un to “dating”.

His ex-security adviser John Bolton’s upcoming book which has made headlines for its controversial nature apparently mentions the bizarre details.

The book is titled “The Room Where It Happened”, and has been at the centre of controversy in terms of its content. According to Bolton, Trump had sought political favours from Chinese President Xi Jinping and had allegedly not raised any red flags with China’s treatment of Uighur Muslims, who are reportedly kept in concentration camps.

Bolton also revealed that Trump “always wanted to be the one who broke up with the girl first”.

Related story:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/apple-google-amazon-take-aim-at-trump-visa-ban-308029" hreflang="en">Apple, Google, Amazon take aim at Trump visa ban</a>

The memoir was published on Tuesday, and is perhaps the first of its kind in the entire US history. Trump had attempted to block the release of the book, which was denied by US court. According to Trump, the book contains sensitive details pertaining to national security, which is why, according to him it ought to be banned. This request was rejected.

Trump intends to drag Bolton to court and will reportedly seek a share of profits made from the book.

Bolton claims that he had resigned last September after first-handedly witnessing denuclearisation efforts in the Korean peninsula.

<h6><img alt="North Korea's leader Kim Jong Un and US President Donald Trump cross south of the Military Demarcation Line that divides North and South Korea, after Trump briefly stepped over to the northern side, in the Joint Security Area (JSA) of Panmunjom in the Demilitarized zone (DMZ) on June 30, 2019. " data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="facc88e3-f2ff-4d9a-8424-9875f48013a4" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/Untitled%20design-4_9.jpg" /> 
North Korea's leader Kim Jong Un and US President Donald Trump cross south of the Military Demarcation Line that divides North and South Korea, after Trump briefly stepped over to the northern side, in the Joint Security Area (JSA) of Panmunjom in the Demilitarized zone (DMZ) on June 30, 2019 | AFP</h6>

 
“Well, he said that he always, back in the day, as they say, he always wanted to be the one who broke up with the girl first,” Bolton said. “He didn’t want the girl to break up with him. And he used that to describe whether he would cancel the summit with Kim Jong-un first or whether we would risk the North Koreans cancelling it”.

“And I thought it was an insight into the president, candidly given, that showed how he approached this. As opposed to looking at it from the perspective of what our ultimate strategic interest was, in my view, would have been better not to agree to the summit to begin with.”

Trump has recently not made any comments on North Korea, especially after North’s violent transgressions whereby it blew up a shared liaison office across the border, which was seen as a symbol of North-South unity.

Related story:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-negotiates-nuclear-arms-treaty-with-russia-wants-chinas-inclusion-in-talks-307961" hreflang="en">US negotiates nuclear arms treaty with Russia, wants China's inclusion in talks</a>

Bolton said “this entire two-year-long effort with North Korea ended in diplomatic failure. But that allowed the North Koreans the time that they need to continue to pursue nuclear weapons and ballistic missile delivery systems.”

Trump told a rally in West Virginia earlier while alluding to Kim, “He wrote me beautiful letters, and they’re great letters. We fell in love."

Recently, Trump held his first post-coronavirus rally in Tulsa, which saw lesser turnout than expected. Reportedly, thousands of tickets were reserved by TikTok and K-pop fans who had no plans of going to the rally.

United States President Donald Trump likened his diplomacy with North Korean Kim Jong-un to “dating”. His ex-security adviser John Bolton’s upcoming book which has made headlines for its controversial nature apparently mentions the bizarre details.

United States President Donald Trump likened his diplomacy with North Korean Kim Jong-un to “dating”. His ex-security adviser John Bolton’s upcoming book which has made headlines for its controversial nature apparently mentions the bizarre details. The book is titled “The Room Where It Happened”, and has been at the centre of controversy in terms of its content. According to Bolton, Trump had sought political favours from Chinese President Xi Jinping and had allegedly not raised any red flags with China’s treatment of Uighur Muslims, who are reportedly kept in concentration camps. Bolton also revealed that Trump “always wanted to be the one who broke up with the girl first”. Related story: Apple, Google, Amazon take aim at Trump visa ban The memoir was published on Tuesday, and is perhaps the first of its kind in the entire US history. Trump had attempted to block the release of the book, which was denied by US court. According to Trump, the book contains sensitive details pertaining to national security, which is why, according to him it ought to be banned. This request was rejected. Trump intends to drag Bolton to court and will reportedly seek a share of profits made from the book. Bolton claims that he had resigned last September after first-handedly witnessing denuclearisation efforts in the Korean peninsula. North Korea's leader Kim Jong Un and US President Donald Trump cross south of the Military Demarcation Line that divides North and South Korea, after Trump briefly stepped over to the northern side, in the Joint Security Area (JSA) of Panmunjom in the Demilitarized zone (DMZ) on June 30, 2019 | AFP “Well, he said that he always, back in the day, as they say, he always wanted to be the one who broke up with the girl first,” Bolton said. “He didn’t want the girl to break up with him. And he used that to describe whether he would cancel the summit with Kim Jong-un first or whether we would risk the North Koreans cancelling it”. “And I thought it was an insight into the president, candidly given, that showed how he approached this. As opposed to looking at it from the perspective of what our ultimate strategic interest was, in my view, would have been better not to agree to the summit to begin with.” Trump has recently not made any comments on North Korea, especially after North’s violent transgressions whereby it blew up a shared liaison office across the border, which was seen as a symbol of North-South unity. Related story: US negotiates nuclear arms treaty with Russia, wants China's inclusion in talks Bolton said “this entire two-year-long effort with North Korea ended in diplomatic failure. But that allowed the North Koreans the time that they need to continue to pursue nuclear weapons and ballistic missile delivery systems.” Trump told a rally in West Virginia earlier while alluding to Kim, “He wrote me beautiful letters, and they’re great letters. We fell in love." Recently, Trump held his first post-coronavirus rally in Tulsa, which saw lesser turnout than expected. Reportedly, thousands of tickets were reserved by TikTok and K-pop fans who had no plans of going to the rally.

Trump likened his relationship with North Korea's Kim to 'dating', 'wanted to be the one to break-up'

Singer Justin Bieber has denied an accusation he sexually assaulted a woman in 2014, producing receipts and other evidence he said made it "factually impossible" he was staying in the Texas hotel where the incident is alleged to have taken place.

Justin Bieber says sexual assault accusation 'factually impossible'

US President Donald Trump's move&nbsp;to stop issuing of H-1B visa and other work visas for the rest of the year may hurt the Indian IT industry's margins.

The proclamation that comes into effect on June 24, is expected to impact Indian IT professionals and several American and Indian companies who were issued H-1B visas by the US government for the fiscal year 2021 beginning October 1.

A Goldman Sachs Equity Research report said that Indian IT outsourcing companies have been consistently working towards reducing their reliance on H-1B/L1 visas since 2017, and focusing on the locally hired workforce to create more jobs in the US economy.

The Goldman Sachs report said local hires account for as much as 45-70 per cent of the employees in the US for the top 5 Indian IT service firms, reducing the dependence on H1-B visas. 
 
<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/president-donald-trump-signs-executive-order-to-suspend-h-1b-visas-307833">Also Read: President Donald Trump signs executive order to suspend H-1B visas</a>

Meanwhile, industry body Nasscom has termed the proclamation as "misguided" and "harmful to the US economy" and said this could possibly force more work to be performed offshore since the local talent is not available in the country.&nbsp;

H-1B visas are designed for certain skilled workers such as those employed in science, engineering, and information technology fields, while H-2B visas are given to seasonal workers such as hotel and construction staff.

L-1 visas are meant for executives who work for large corporations and J-1 visas are issued to research scholars, professors and other cultural and work-exchange programs. 
 
<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/reform-h-1b-visa-system-move-towards-merit-based-immigration-trump-to-officials-307865">Also Read: Reform H-1B visa system; move towards merit-based immigration: Trump to officials</a>

Sundar Pichai, Indian-American CEO of Google, expressed disappointment over the proclamation, saying that immigration has contributed immensely to America''s economic success, making it a global leader in tech, and also Google, the company it is today.

Meanwhile, Indian-American Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi said the H-1B programme, in particular, plays a crucial role in addressing the dangerous shortage of health care professionals while also providing other key sectors of our economy with talent from around the world to not only fill jobs, but create new ones.

Trump said that the step was essential to help millions of Americans who have lost their jobs due to the economic crisis amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. 
 
(With inputs from PTI) 
&nbsp;

US President Donald Trump's move to stop issuing of H-1B visa and other work visas for the rest of the year may hurt the Indian IT industry's margins. The proclamation that comes into effect on June 24, is expected to impact Indian IT professionals and several American and Indian companies who were issued H-1B visas by the US government for the fiscal year 2021 beginning October 1.

US President Donald Trump's move to stop issuing of H-1B visa and other work visas for the rest of the year may hurt the Indian IT industry's margins. The proclamation that comes into effect on June 24, is expected to impact Indian IT professionals and several American and Indian companies who were issued H-1B visas by the US government for the fiscal year 2021 beginning October 1. A Goldman Sachs Equity Research report said that Indian IT outsourcing companies have been consistently working towards reducing their reliance on H-1B/L1 visas since 2017, and focusing on the locally hired workforce to create more jobs in the US economy. The Goldman Sachs report said local hires account for as much as 45-70 per cent of the employees in the US for the top 5 Indian IT service firms, reducing the dependence on H1-B visas. Also Read: President Donald Trump signs executive order to suspend H-1B visas Meanwhile, industry body Nasscom has termed the proclamation as "misguided" and "harmful to the US economy" and said this could possibly force more work to be performed offshore since the local talent is not available in the country. H-1B visas are designed for certain skilled workers such as those employed in science, engineering, and information technology fields, while H-2B visas are given to seasonal workers such as hotel and construction staff. L-1 visas are meant for executives who work for large corporations and J-1 visas are issued to research scholars, professors and other cultural and work-exchange programs. Also Read: Reform H-1B visa system; move towards merit-based immigration: Trump to officials Sundar Pichai, Indian-American CEO of Google, expressed disappointment over the proclamation, saying that immigration has contributed immensely to America''s economic success, making it a global leader in tech, and also Google, the company it is today. Meanwhile, Indian-American Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi said the H-1B programme, in particular, plays a crucial role in addressing the dangerous shortage of health care professionals while also providing other key sectors of our economy with talent from around the world to not only fill jobs, but create new ones. Trump said that the step was essential to help millions of Americans who have lost their jobs due to the economic crisis amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. (With inputs from PTI)

How will H1-B visa suspension impact Indian companies?

The United States&nbsp;has shared a draft resolution with members of the United Nations Security Council that would extend an arms&nbsp;embargo&nbsp;on Iran indefinitely, according to diplomats.

The embargo, put in place as part of a nuclear accord signed with Tehran in 2015, is set to expire in October, but Washington has been working to extend the ban as tensions with its arch-rival remain high.

On Friday, France, the UK&nbsp;and Germany, all signatories to the deal, issued a joint statement arguing against lifting the ban as scheduled, saying it could have ''major implications for regional security and stability.''

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/france-britain-and-germany-regret-us-end-to-iran-nuclear-waivers-301999">France, Britain and Germany regret US end to Iran nuclear waivers</a>

With the ban on arms transactions with Iran set to expire in October under terms of the 2015 nuclear deal, the US&nbsp;draft calls on all countries to ''prevent the direct or indirect supply, sale, or transfer''&nbsp;of weapons to and from the Islamic Republic unless a Security Council committee approves it at least 30 days in advance on a case-by-case basis.

The US&nbsp;proposal Monday came after Russia and China, two veto-wielding members of the council, have already said they won’t support extending the&nbsp;embargo&nbsp;because they blame President Donald Trump for exiting the nuclear accord unilaterally. Diplomats expect a clash at the council over the next few months because the&nbsp;US&nbsp;is threatening&nbsp;that it will invoke a ''snapback''&nbsp;provision in the 2015 deal if it doesn’t get its way, which would reimpose all UN sanctions against Tehran.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/france-germany-uk-accessories-to-trump-netanyahu-iran-foreign-minister-zarif-307236">France, Germany, UK 'accessories' to Trump, Netanyahu: Iran Foreign Minister Zarif</a>

The Security Council is set to begin negotiations on the resolution on Wednesday, diplomats said. Earlier this month, US&nbsp;Ambassador Kelly Craft told reporters that the resolution had already been shared with close allies and Russia, and that the text would be circulated among the rest of the council soon.

<aside data-state="ready">
The American resolution cites the conclusion by UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres in his most recent report that missiles and drones used in several attacks against Saudi Arabia in 2019&nbsp;originated&nbsp;in Iran.

The draft expresses ''grave concern about the risk that these attacks posed to global energy supplies, to freedom of navigation in the region, to the safety of persons working in the energy and maritime transportation sectors and to the environment.''

It adds that ''such attacks and continued proliferation of arms and related material by Iran constitute a threat to international peace and security.''
</aside>

Iran ''categorically''&nbsp;rejected the UN findings, saying in a&nbsp;statement&nbsp;earlier this month that the secretariat ''lacks the capacity, expertise, and knowledge to conduct such a sophisticated and sensitive investigation.''

The expiration of the arms&nbsp;embargo&nbsp;theoretically would let Iran move ahead with purchases of conventional weapons from Russia and China. Iran could modernize its forces by buying advanced weapons systems that it has mostly been unable to acquire for decades, including fighter aircraft and main battle tanks, the Pentagon warned in November.

The issue takes on added political emphasis for Trump, with the October expiration coming just weeks before the US&nbsp;presidential election.

The United States has shared a draft resolution with members of the United Nations Security Council that would extend an arms embargo on Iran indefinitely, according to diplomats.

The United States has shared a draft resolution with members of the United Nations Security Council that would extend an arms embargo on Iran indefinitely, according to diplomats. The embargo, put in place as part of a nuclear accord signed with Tehran in 2015, is set to expire in October, but Washington has been working to extend the ban as tensions with its arch-rival remain high. On Friday, France, the UK and Germany, all signatories to the deal, issued a joint statement arguing against lifting the ban as scheduled, saying it could have ''major implications for regional security and stability.'' Also read: France, Britain and Germany regret US end to Iran nuclear waivers With the ban on arms transactions with Iran set to expire in October under terms of the 2015 nuclear deal, the US draft calls on all countries to ''prevent the direct or indirect supply, sale, or transfer'' of weapons to and from the Islamic Republic unless a Security Council committee approves it at least 30 days in advance on a case-by-case basis. The US proposal Monday came after Russia and China, two veto-wielding members of the council, have already said they won’t support extending the embargo because they blame President Donald Trump for exiting the nuclear accord unilaterally. Diplomats expect a clash at the council over the next few months because the US is threatening that it will invoke a ''snapback'' provision in the 2015 deal if it doesn’t get its way, which would reimpose all UN sanctions against Tehran. Also read: France, Germany, UK 'accessories' to Trump, Netanyahu: Iran Foreign Minister Zarif The Security Council is set to begin negotiations on the resolution on Wednesday, diplomats said. Earlier this month, US Ambassador Kelly Craft told reporters that the resolution had already been shared with close allies and Russia, and that the text would be circulated among the rest of the council soon. The American resolution cites the conclusion by UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres in his most recent report that missiles and drones used in several attacks against Saudi Arabia in 2019 originated in Iran. The draft expresses ''grave concern about the risk that these attacks posed to global energy supplies, to freedom of navigation in the region, to the safety of persons working in the energy and maritime transportation sectors and to the environment.'' It adds that ''such attacks and continued proliferation of arms and related material by Iran constitute a threat to international peace and security.'' Iran ''categorically'' rejected the UN findings, saying in a statement earlier this month that the secretariat ''lacks the capacity, expertise, and knowledge to conduct such a sophisticated and sensitive investigation.'' The expiration of the arms embargo theoretically would let Iran move ahead with purchases of conventional weapons from Russia and China. Iran could modernize its forces by buying advanced weapons systems that it has mostly been unable to acquire for decades, including fighter aircraft and main battle tanks, the Pentagon warned in November. The issue takes on added political emphasis for Trump, with the October expiration coming just weeks before the US presidential election.

US seeking indefinite extension in Iran arms embargo via UN Resolution

united-states

United States, News on United States, stories on United States, articles on United States, United States stories at Wion, United States news, United States latest news

united states