Trump Administration - capitaltimesnews.com

US CONSIDERS EXPANDING TRAVEL BAN TO 36 NEW COUNTRIES, INCLUDING 25 AFRICAN NATIONS

CapitalTimesNews / 2 weeks

2 min read

The United States is reportedly considering expanding its travel ban to include citizens of 36 additional countries, with 25 African nations among those facing potential restrictions. According to a State Department memo reviewed by The Washington Post, countries such as Egypt and Djibouti, significant US partners, are included in the list. The memo identifies the countries facing scrutiny as: Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Benin, Bhutan, Burkina Faso, Cabo Verde, Cambodia, Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Egypt, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Malawi, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, South Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, Tonga, Tuvalu, Uganda, Vanuatu, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. A State Department spokesperson declined to comment on internal deliberations or communications, while the White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. This potential expansion would mark another escalation in the Trump administration’s aggressive crackdown on immigration. The travel ban would reportedly be in addition to the existing restrictions imposed on 19 countries earlier this month, which include full entry bans on 12 nations and partial restrictions on 7 others. The new list of countries would be required to meet new benchmarks and requirements established by the State Department within 60 days, or face potential travel restrictions.

NPR SUES TRUMP ADMINISTRATION OVER ATTEMPT TO DEFUND PUBLIC RADIO

CapitalTimesNews / 1 month

2 min read

National Public Radio (NPR) has filed a First Amendment lawsuit against the Trump administration, alleging that President Trump’s attempt to defund the network is a clear violation of the Constitution. The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Washington, DC, claims that Trump’s maneuvers against NPR violate the First Amendment’s guarantees of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of association. The lawsuit highlights the local impacts of taxpayer-funded media, with several NPR member stations from Colorado joining the national network in filing the suit. Trump’s executive order on May 1 targeted both NPR and PBS, accusing the public media outfits of bias. The White House has reiterated its claims of bias, saying the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) is creating media to support a particular political party on the taxpayers’ dime. However, public media executives say the White House is grossly mischaracterizing what NPR and PBS do. Theodore Boutrous, one of the veteran attorneys representing NPR in the suit, described Trump’s move as “pure viewpoint discrimination.” He added that the 1967 law creating public broadcasting was clearly meant to insulate the networks from precisely this type of political coercion. The CPB has filed its own lawsuit against the president’s attempt to fire three of its board members. Each year, the CPB disburses $535 million in taxpayer funds to public radio and TV stations nationwide and to producers of educational and cultural programming. Stations, in turn, provide free and universal access to news, emergency alerts, and a wide array of programming. NPR charges that Trump is usurping Congress, which allocated funds for public radio and TV as recently as March in a bill that Trump signed into law. “The White House is grossly mischaracterizing what NPR and PBS do,” Boutrous said, adding that the defunding order is “textbook retaliation” for the network’s perceived point of view. PBS has also been preparing to take legal action but has not yet filed suit. “PBS is considering every option, including taking legal action, to allow our organization to continue to provide essential programming and services to member stations and all Americans,” the network said.

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION HALTS HARVARD UNIVERSITY’S ABILITY TO ENROLL INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS

CapitalTimesNews / 1 month

2 min read

The Trump administration has revoked Harvard University’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification, effectively halting the university’s ability to enroll international students. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced the decision in a letter to Harvard President Alan M. Garber, stating that the certification is revoked “effective immediately.” The move comes after a back-and-forth between Harvard and the White House over the legality of a records request as part of the Department of Homeland Security’s investigation. Noem alleged that Harvard’s submission of disciplinary records was “insufficient” and failed to address “simple reporting requirements.” “We are fully committed to maintaining Harvard’s ability to host international students and scholars, who hail from more than 140 countries and enrich the University—and this nation—immeasurably,” a Harvard spokesperson said. “This retaliatory action threatens serious harm to the Harvard community and our country, and undermines Harvard’s academic and research mission.” The decision affects over 6,000 international students currently enrolled at Harvard, many of whom attend on F-1 or J-1 visas. Current international students may have to transfer, change their immigration status, or leave the country. Noem stated that Harvard’s actions “perpetuate an unsafe campus environment that is hostile to Jewish students, promotes pro-Hamas sympathies, and employs racist ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ policies.” Harvard has denied these allegations. The university is likely to challenge the decision in court. “This is devastating,” said Leo Gerdén, an international student from Sweden. “Harvard needs to fight the DHS decision as hard as we possibly can.”

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION EXPLORES SUSPENDING HABEAS CORPUS FOR MIGRANTS

CapitalTimesNews / 2 months
0
2 min read

The Trump administration is considering suspending habeas corpus, a constitutional right that allows individuals to challenge their detention in court, as part of its efforts to expand its power to deport migrants who are in the United States illegally. White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller stated that the administration is “actively looking at” this option, citing the Constitution’s provision that allows for the suspension of habeas corpus in cases of invasion or rebellion. “The Constitution is clear, and that of course is the supreme law of the land, that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended in a time of invasion,” Miller said. “So, I would say that’s an option we’re actively looking at.” Miller argued that the US is facing an “invasion” of migrants, a term that has been used deliberately to justify the potential suspension of habeas corpus. However, this move would likely face significant legal challenges, with many questioning whether the country is truly facing an invasion or extraordinary threats to public safety. Federal judges have been skeptical of the Trump administration’s past efforts to use extraordinary powers to make deportations easier. The Constitution’s Suspension Clause states that habeas corpus “shall not be suspended, unless when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it.” While the US has suspended habeas corpus in the past, such as during the Civil War and after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, it would be challenging to do so today without Congressional authorization. Miller’s comments come as the Trump administration continues to face legal battles over its immigration policies, including its use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to speed up mass deportations. The administration’s efforts have been blocked by federal courts, which have questioned whether the country is truly facing an invasion. In response to criticism from judges, Miller argued that the judicial branch may not have a say in the matter, citing the Immigration Nationality Act, which he claims strips Article III courts of jurisdiction over immigration cases. However, legal scholars note that while the statute may funnel certain cases to immigration courts, most appeals would still be handled by the judicial branch. The Supreme Court has previously ruled on the importance of habeas corpus, including in 2008 when it ruled that Guantanamo detainees had a constitutional right to challenge their detention before a judge.

HARVARD UNIVERSITY DEFIES TRUMP ADMINISTRATION, BILLIONS IN FUNDING FROZEN

CapitalTimesNews / 3 months

2 min read

The Trump administration has frozen over $2.2 billion in grants and $60 million in contracts to Harvard University after the institution refused to comply with demands to limit activism on campus. This move marks the seventh time the administration has targeted an elite college, with six of the seven schools being Ivy League institutions. The demands, which Harvard President Alan Garber rejected, included broad government and leadership reforms, changes to admissions policies, auditing views on diversity, and stopping recognition of certain student clubs. The administration also called for “merit-based” admissions and hiring policies and a ban on face masks on campus, seemingly targeting pro-Palestinian protesters. “The University will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights,” Garber said in a letter to the Harvard community. “No government — regardless of which party is in power — should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.” The government argued that universities have allowed antisemitism to go unchecked at campus protests, but Garber said Harvard has made extensive reforms to address the issue. He added that the demands are an attempt to regulate “intellectual conditions” at Harvard, violating the university’s First Amendment rights and exceeding government authority. “Harvard stood up today for the integrity, values, and freedoms that serve as the foundation of higher education,” said Anurima Bhargava, a Harvard alumnus who supported the university’s decision. “Harvard reminded the world that learning, innovation and transformative growth will not yield to bullying and authoritarian whims.” The move has sparked protests and a lawsuit from the American Association of University Professors, challenging the cuts. The plaintiffs argue that the Trump administration failed to follow required steps before cutting funds, including giving notice to the university and Congress. Other universities targeted by the Trump administration include Columbia, University of Pennsylvania, Brown, Princeton, Cornell, and Northwestern. Columbia initially acquiesced to the demands under the threat of billions in cuts. The funding freeze is part of a broader effort by the Trump administration to pressure institutions to comply with its agenda.

SUPREME COURT REJECTS TRUMP ADMINISTRATION’S REQUEST TO FREEZE FOREIGN AID

CapitalTimesNews / 4 months

2 min read

In a 5-4 decision, the US Supreme Court has rejected the Trump administration’s request to keep billions of dollars in foreign aid approved by Congress frozen. The ruling, although not specifying when the funds must be released, allows lower courts to proceed with enforcing the release of the aid. The majority opinion, supported by Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, noted that the lower courts should “clarify what obligations the government must fulfill to ensure compliance with the temporary restraining order” since the deadline to spend the money had already passed. Justice Samuel Alito, one of the four conservative justices who dissented, expressed strong opposition to the ruling, calling it “stunning.” Alito argued that a federal court should not overstep its authority by enforcing the release of the funds. The case revolves around billions in foreign aid allocated by Congress through the State Department and the US Agency for International Development (USAID). The Trump administration froze the funds in January, citing efforts to cut spending and realign foreign aid with its policy agenda. Nonprofit groups that rely on the funding for global health and other programs challenged the administration’s move, arguing that it usurped Congress’s power to control government spending and violated federal law. The Supreme Court’s decision has been hailed by Democrats as a reaffirmation of congressional authority over federal spending. Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York stated, “That money had already been appropriated, things were already in action, and so I think the Supreme Court ruled the right way, and now the administration needs to unfreeze them and allow those contractors and the work to be done”.

FEDERAL JUDGE BLOCKS TRUMP ADMINISTRATION’S BID TO DENY CITIZENSHIP TO CHILDREN OF UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS

Nicolas Adekeye / 5 months

1 min read

A federal judge has dealt a significant blow to the Trump administration’s immigration agenda, ruling that its attempt to deny citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants is unconstitutional. The decision, which cites a landmark 1898 case, reaffirms the principle of birthright citizenship enshrined in the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution. According to the amendment, adopted in 1868 to ensure former slaves received citizenship and equal protection under the law, “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” This provision guarantees automatic citizenship to anyone born on US soil, regardless of their parents’ immigration status. The judge’s ruling is a major setback for the Trump administration’s immigration initiatives, which have faced widespread criticism for perceived discrimination and constitutional violations. The decision underscores the enduring principle that birthright citizenship is a fundamental entitlement safeguarded by the US Constitution. This ruling is likely to have significant implications for the administration’s immigration policies, which have been marked by controversy and legal challenges. The Trump administration has sought to restrict immigration and tighten border control, but its efforts have been met with resistance from civil rights groups, immigration advocates, and the courts.

DEFENCE MINISTER BADARU ADVOCATES...

SENATE GETS NEW SUBSTANTIVE...

PROMINENT KANO BUSINESSMAN AND...

PRESIDENT TINUBU CONGRATULATES NIGERIAN...

PANDEF MOURNS DEATH OF...

LEADERSHIP IN CRISIS: HOW...

DEFENCE MINISTER BADARU ADVOCATES...

SENATE GETS NEW SUBSTANTIVE...

PROMINENT KANO BUSINESSMAN AND...

PRESIDENT TINUBU CONGRATULATES NIGERIAN...

PANDEF MOURNS DEATH OF...

LEADERSHIP IN CRISIS: HOW...

US CONSIDERS EXPANDING TRAVEL BAN TO 36 NEW COUNTRIES, INCLUDING 25 AFRICAN NATIONS

NPR SUES TRUMP ADMINISTRATION OVER ATTEMPT TO DEFUND PUBLIC RADIO

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION HALTS HARVARD UNIVERSITY’S ABILITY TO ENROLL INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION EXPLORES SUSPENDING HABEAS CORPUS FOR MIGRANTS

HARVARD UNIVERSITY DEFIES TRUMP ADMINISTRATION, BILLIONS IN FUNDING FROZEN

SUPREME COURT REJECTS TRUMP ADMINISTRATION’S REQUEST TO FREEZE FOREIGN AID

FEDERAL JUDGE BLOCKS TRUMP ADMINISTRATION’S BID TO DENY CITIZENSHIP TO CHILDREN OF UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS

PRESIDENT TINUBU CONGRATULATES NIGERIAN CUSTOMS SERVICE.

PANDEF MOURNS DEATH OF GEN PAUL.

LEADERSHIP IN CRISIS: HOW IBAS TURNED.

DEFENCE MINISTER BADARU ADVOCATES FOR PERFORMANCE-ORIENTED.

Pages

Categories

Recent Posts

GIRL CHILD EDUCATION AND SANITARY PAD SENSITIZATION CRUCIAL FOR FUTURE – PRINCESS JOY IDAM

Friday Lines (37) With: Dr Abubakar Alkali. An Open Letter to Ms Kemi Badenoch