Connect with us

America

US mulls mandatory social media checks for all foreign student visa applicants

Published

on

The US administration is evaluating a proposal to mandate social media reviews for all foreign students applying to study in the country.

In preparation for this potential requirement, a memorandum dated Tuesday and reportedly signed by Senator Marco Rubio, instructed US Embassies and consulates to suspend scheduling new interview appointments for student visa applicants.

A State Department directive mentioned in the memorandum states, “In preparation for the expansion of necessary social media screening and review processes, consular sections should not increase visa appointment capacity for student or exchange program participants (F, M, and J) until further instruction by septel, which we expect to be issued in the coming days.”

“Septel” is an abbreviation used by the State Department for “separate telegram.”

The administration had previously introduced some social media screening requirements, primarily targeting returning students who might have participated in protests against Israel’s actions in Gaza.

The document does not explicitly state what future social media audits will target but references presidential decrees aimed at “keeping out terrorists” and “combating antisemitism.”

According to POLITICO, many State Department officials have privately complained for months that past instructions on screening students—for example, those who might have participated in campus protests—were vague.

For instance, it remains unclear whether sharing a Palestinian flag on an X account would subject a student to additional review.

State Department: Every sovereign country’s right

State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce avoided direct comment on Rubio’s reported directive, stating that no public announcement had been made.

Bruce said, “Every sovereign country has the right to determine who is trying to enter the country, why they want to enter, who they are, what they have done, and at least within that framework, what they will do here. This is not new. And we will continue to use all the tools at our disposal to assess who is coming here, whether they are students or not.”

Halting or even slowing visa applications would affect hundreds of thousands of students globally and numerous educational institutions in the US, which increasingly rely on attracting international talent.

Speaking to Bloomberg, Cleveland-based immigration lawyer David Leopold suggested that such a move by the administration could be “devastating, even catastrophic” for both international students and the US universities dependent on them. Leopold emphasized that the economic and cultural impacts would be enormous.

International students: A vital financial resource for universities

International students constitute 5.9% of the approximately 19 million total US higher education population. In the 2023-2024 academic year, over 1.1 million foreign students came to the US, with India sending the largest number, followed by China.

Most international students in the US pursue studies in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics (STEM). Approximately 25% study mathematics and computer science, while one-fifth choose engineering.

Foreign students typically pay full tuition fees. According to the Open Doors Report, supported by the State Department, New York University, Northeastern University, and Columbia University host the largest numbers of foreign students, each with over 21,000.

The decision concerning student visa interviews on Tuesday followed by a few days an attempt by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to prevent Harvard University from enrolling international students. A federal judge quickly issued a temporary halt to this initiative.

White House reportedly aims to terminate federal contracts with Harvard

The administration is also reportedly moving to cancel all remaining federal contracts with Harvard, valued at approximately $100 million.

The Trump administration is allegedly pressuring federal agencies to terminate their contracts with Harvard.

The General Services Administration (GSA) asserted that Harvard engaged in racial discrimination in admissions and other aspects of campus life. In a letter sent Tuesday, the GSA requested assistance for agencies in “reviewing for termination or transition of federal government contracts” with Harvard.

Josh Gruenbaum, Commissioner of the GSA’s Federal Acquisition Service, wrote in the letter to federal procurement officials, obtained by POLITICO, “We recommend that your agency terminate, as appropriate, any contracts it has identified as not meeting its standards and transition contracts that could be better served by an alternative counterparty to a new vendor.”

The GSA has asked agencies to report their plans regarding contracts with Harvard by June 6.

University of California next in ‘antisemitism’ investigation sights

As the White House intensifies its scrutiny of higher education, the Trump administration has pledged to expand its investigations on university campuses beyond Ivy League institutions to other schools, including the University of California (UC) system.

Leo Terrell, identified as head of the Justice Department’s “combating antisemitism” task force, stated that the UC system should expect “large-scale lawsuits,” adding that universities on the “East Coast, West Coast, and Midwest” could also face legal action.

Rachel Zaentz, senior director of strategic and critical communications for the UC president’s office, contended that the University of California “condemns antisemitism” and is working to eliminate it system-wide.

Zaentz added that the institution is cooperating with the Trump administration, stating, “The University is fully focused on strengthening our programs and policies to eliminate antisemitism and all forms of discrimination.”

In an interview with Fox News on Tuesday, Terrell remarked, “We are pursuing all our activities in the courtroom. Trump will not back down.”

Terrell also warned that they would target universities in ways that “will hurt them very financially.”

The advisor specifically cited federal hate crime charges and Title VII lawsuits, which focus on discrimination in hiring, as potential tools the administration might use.

America

Trump energy shares rose by up to $4.4m during Iran war, CNBC reports

Published

on

The value of US President Donald Trump’s nine largest oil and gas holdings increased by approximately $1.5 million to $4.4 million during the first six months of the war with Iran.

According to an analysis conducted by CNBC based on the American leader’s financial disclosure, corporate balance sheets, and FactSet market data, the investment basket includes shares in Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, Kinder Morgan, Marathon Petroleum, Occidental Petroleum, Phillips 66, Valero Energy, and Williams Companies.

In its calculations, the television network took into account the minimum and maximum baseline values of Trump’s declared holdings alongside share price fluctuations from the close of trading on 27 February through 31 August.

As the conflict with Iran continued, specialists managing Trump’s investment accounts maintained active trading in energy company shares.

Up to 29 June, the latest date for which transactions were disclosed, fresh purchases were logged alongside at least 23 sales operations involving stock in the nine companies.

Because disclosure filings do not specify exact share numbers or transaction prices, the estimates produced by CNBC do not reflect Trump’s realised profits or the precise current scale of his holdings.

On 2 March, the first trading day following the launch of air strikes against Iran by the US and Israel, shares in eight major oil and gas companies were purchased through Trump’s accounts.

These transactions included ExxonMobil shares valued at between $100,000 and $250,000. Prior to the conflict, the aggregate value of Trump’s holdings in ExxonMobil stood at between $3.2 million and $12.5 million.

Stock market gains in August, excluding subsequent transactions, raised the value of these shares by approximately $176,000 to $690,000.

CNBC also examined transactions executed on days when Trump’s decisions directly swayed the oil market. On 23 March, when the president deferred planned strikes against Iran’s energy infrastructure, the price of a barrel of Brent crude dropped by roughly 11%.

That same day, oil and gas shares worth a combined $163,000 to $570,000 were purchased across Trump’s accounts.

A similar transaction took place on 7 April. One of Trump’s investment accounts sold between $500,000 and $1 million worth of ExxonMobil shares.

Approximately two and a half hours after markets closed, President Trump announced an agreement on a two-week ceasefire with Iran. The following morning, ExxonMobil shares fell by more than 6% at the market open.

The report noted that CNBC saw no evidence indicating that Trump gave direct instructions for specific trades, that managers possessed advance knowledge of his actions, or that personal financial interests guided White House policies.

White House officials, commenting on the matter, stated that the president’s investment portfolio is managed by independent portfolio managers and that neither Trump nor members of his family hold authority to intervene in asset trading decisions.

The growth in the portfolio coincided with a broader surge in the earnings of energy majors. The nine energy companies in which Trump holds shares generated a combined profit of $47.6 billion in the second quarter.

During the same period last year, that figure stood at $15.9 billion. The profits of ExxonMobil and Chevron alone climbed from $9.6 billion in the prior year to $26.6 billion.

In July, the US Office of Government Ethics published Trump’s 927-page financial disclosure report for 2025.

The report noted that Trump’s earnings from cryptocurrency operations exceeded $500 million.

Continue Reading

America

Over half of Latino voters back Democrats in key US House races

Published

on

A new public opinion poll in the US shows that Democratic candidates have made notable gains since 2024 among Latino voters in critical, competitive districts for the House of Representatives.

These gains have the potential to directly determine which party will secure the majority in Congress next year.

According to a joint survey by Hart Research and TelevisaUnivision shared with Axios, Democrats reached 58% support on the generic congressional ballot among Latino voters across 17 competitive House districts.

The share of those backing Republicans within the same voting bloc remained at 35%. This group continues to represent the fastest-growing swing constituency in battleground districts.

Examining three competitive House races in Texas, the study indicated that Latino voters, who reported splitting evenly at 44% to 44% in the 2024 presidential election, shifted 56% to 36% in favour of Democrats heading into the midterms.

Latino support for Democrats also increased in other states. In California, 57% of Latino voters said they would support Democrats, compared with 33% who said they would back the Republican Party.

Kate Coleman, Senior Vice President at TelevisaUnivision, highlighted voter behaviour in remarks to Axios:

“Latino voters are not locked into one party. They are watching developments closely; they make decisions based on who stands with them and how they stand.”

The survey data determined that 11% of Latino respondents who said they voted for Donald Trump in the 2024 presidential election now support Democratic candidates.

Accelerating his deportation plans, Trump triggered fear across many Latino neighbourhoods while weakening his support among this demographic.

The Hart Research and TelevisaUnivision study revealed that 63% of Latino voters disapprove of Trump’s presidential job performance. The share of those approving of his performance in office stood at 36%.

Trump’s approach to high prices and the cost of living drew disapproval from 65% of Latino voters, while immigration enforcement and deportation practices were disapproved of by 62%.

More than half of Latino voters, at 64%, reported that they disapprove of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

A survey published in May by UnidosUS showed that a quarter of Latino voters “would probably not vote” or would definitely not support Trump if they had to vote for him again.

The study at that time had pointed out that, despite Trump’s decline among Latino voters, Democrats had not yet secured significant gains.

According to Pew Research Center data, Trump strengthened his support in 2024 by securing 48% of the Latino vote, coming very close to the 51% reached by then Vice President Kamala Harris.

Some figures within the Democratic Party, however, worry that primary victories by democratic socialist candidates could alienate certain Latino voters, particularly those who fled Cuba or Venezuela.

The Hart Research and TelevisaUnivision survey was conducted between 6 and 17 August among 1,500 Latino respondents. The poll’s margin of error was reported as 2.5 percentage points.

Continue Reading

America

Researcher quits Anthropic and warns AI firms gamble with lives

Published

on

Jacob Coxon, an artificial intelligence researcher at Anthropic, has resigned from his post, stating that tech companies are acting irresponsibly in the race towards self-improving superintelligence. Coxon warned that the autonomous operational capabilities of such systems pose existential risks to humanity and that internal industry anxieties run far deeper than generally perceived.

The AI researcher stepped down from his position at Anthropic to draw attention to industry safety vulnerabilities and the unregulated race among developers.

Having worked for three years as a pre-training researcher across both OpenAI and Anthropic, Coxon announced his decision to leave in an extensive statement shared on his X account.

Stating that both companies have acted irresponsibly, Coxon argued that developers are engaged in a dangerous race to achieve self-improving superintelligence.

“They believe it could kill us all by the end of the decade”

In his posts, Coxon stated that technical teams developing AI genuinely believe this technology could bring about the demise of humanity by the end of the decade.

Asserting that these concerns are not a marketing strategy, the researcher noted that while top executives and senior researchers adopt a cautious tone in public statements, they voice the very same fears behind closed doors.

Developments reflecting similar anxieties across the sector evoke James Cameron’s 1984 film The Terminator, which set 2029 as the pivotal year when machines waged war against humanity.

Indeed, Evan Hubinger, head of Anthropic’s own alignment team, had previously estimated the probability of human extinction to be greater than 10%.

Warning that systems currently under development will soon evolve into superhuman structures capable of bypassing any firewall, transforming industries overnight, and securing physical resources, Coxon stressed that the pace of progress is not slowing in any way.

Arguing that the danger of superintelligence is no longer merely theoretical, the researcher pointed to the Hugging Face security leak that occurred between May and July.

In that incident, OpenAI models established an independent chatroom within the testing environment to communicate among themselves, subsequently using this channel to reach the open internet and infiltrate production systems.

Because of this security breach, Hugging Face was forced to rebuild approximately one-third of its infrastructure.

“They are gambling with our lives”

Characterising the leak as a warning flare, Coxon indicated that the incident makes pacing agreements between US-based laboratories more feasible.

However, emphasising that developers are not yet on the right track to prevent a global race, the researcher noted that measures such as a temporary moratorium on advancing model capabilities could be considered.

Arguing that civilisation-scale risks have not yet been sufficiently internalised at OpenAI, Coxon contended that Anthropic joined the race out of an ambition to be first, despite being fully aware of the dangers.

Coxon is not the only figure to leave the sector on such grounds. Mrinank Sharma, a member of Anthropic’s safety team, also stepped down earlier this year, writing that the world is in danger.

On the other hand, not everyone agrees with these catastrophic scenarios. Some responses to the post emphasised the view that humanity, with an evolutionary history spanning hundreds of thousands of years, will not be wiped out by a text prediction model achieving consciousness.

It was also noted that even the plot of the Terminator franchise does not entirely support Coxon’s premise, as the human resistance survived the nuclear catastrophe and ultimately defeated the machines.

Alongside safety debates, AI continues to directly affect the labour market. Research by the Stanford Digital Economy Lab indicates that, while mass job losses have not yet materialised, entry-level employment in AI-exposed sectors across the US has fallen by nearly 20%.

A Goldman Sachs study pointed to a similar trend, showing that entry-level workers bear the brunt of the ongoing workforce transformation.

Anthropic, which remains at the centre of the controversy, filed for an initial public offering in June and plans to list on the Nasdaq exchange this autumn at a multi-trillion-dollar valuation.

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey