Your cart is currently empty!
Tag: Ordered
Trump says he ordered airstrikes on Islamic State group in Somalia
Donald Trump says he ordered military airstrikes on a senior attack planner and others from the Islamic State (IS) group in Somalia.
“These killers, who we found hiding in caves, threatened the United States and our Allies,” Trump posted on social media.
“The strikes destroyed the caves they live in, and killed many terrorists without, in any way, harming civilians.”
The BBC could not immediately independently verify the reports.
Trump did not name any of the people targeted in strikes.
The president ended his post with: “The message to ISIS and all others who would attack Americans is that “WE WILL FIND YOU, AND WE WILL KILL YOU!”
In a statement, Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth said “our initial assessment is that multiple operatives were killed in the airstrikes and no civilians were harmed”.
Hegseth said the strikes “further degrade” the ability of IS “to plot and conduct terrorist attacks” and “sends a clear signal that the United States always stands ready to find and eliminate terrorists”.
Trump also took a swipe at the former administration, stating the US military had targeted this particular IS planner for years, but accused Joe Biden “and his cronies” of not acting quickly enough “to get the job done. I did!”
US forces killed IS leader, Bilal al-Sudani, and 10 of his operatives in a remote mountainous cave in northern Somalia in 2023, in an operation ordered by Biden.
IS rose to international prominence in the 2010s, particularly in Syria and Iraq, but now its presence is mainly restricted to parts of Africa.
The Somali branch of IS was formed in 2015 by a group of defectors from the al-Qaeda affiliated al-Shabab group – the largest jihadist group in Somalia.
IS in Somalia is notorious for extorting locals and mainly carries out small-scale, sporadic attacks, according to the US Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
In a recent announcement, President Trump revealed that he had ordered airstrikes on the Islamic State group in Somalia. The decision comes as part of ongoing efforts to combat terrorism in the region and protect American interests abroad.Trump stated that the airstrikes were necessary to prevent further attacks by the Islamic State group and to disrupt their operations in Somalia. He emphasized the importance of taking decisive action against terrorist organizations to ensure the safety and security of the United States and its allies.
The President’s decision has already sparked debate and discussion among politicians and experts, with some questioning the effectiveness of airstrikes in combating terrorism. However, Trump remains firm in his commitment to eradicating terrorism and protecting American interests worldwide.
As the situation in Somalia continues to evolve, it is clear that the fight against terrorism will remain a top priority for the Trump administration. Stay tuned for further updates on this developing story.
Tags:
- Trump airstrikes Somalia
- Islamic State group Somalia
- Trump military action Somalia
- Somalia terrorism news
- Trump foreign policy Somalia
- Islamic State in Africa
- US airstrikes Islamic State Somalia
- Trump counterterrorism strategy Somalia
- Somalia security updates
- Trump national security Somalia
#Trump #ordered #airstrikes #Islamic #State #group #Somalia
Federal Agencies Ordered to End Initiatives That Support ‘Gender Ideology’
The Trump administration has ordered agencies to shut down programs, grants and other initiatives that “promote or reflect gender ideology,” and that employees who work on them be placed on administrative leave, in the latest action to execute the president’s charge to root out “woke” ideology from the federal government.
In a memo from the Office of Personnel Management on Wednesday, agency heads were instructed to take sweeping actions stemming from an executive order that President Trump signed on Jan. 20 aimed at “defending women from gender ideology extremism” and “restoring biological truth to the federal government.”
The order required, among other provisions, that the federal government recognize only two sexes — male and female — and effectively eliminated any rights and recognition afforded to transgender Americans and others who don’t identify as the sex they were assigned at birth.
Among the directives in the new guidance were for agencies to review all programming, grants, contracts and other initiatives that “inculcate gender ideology” by Friday, and inform employees who work on such initiatives that they would be placed on administrative leave effectively immediately.
The memo also instructed agencies to remove all public-facing media that promoted their work on “gender ideology,” suspend employee resource groups and review their email systems to turn off features that prompt users to identify their pronouns. It mandated a review of all agency forms and communications that require an employee to identify a gender to ensure that only “male” or “female” could be chosen, and to replace any references to “gender” with “sex.”
The order instructed agencies to ensure that “intimate spaces” are “designated by biological sex and not gender identity.” The directive appeared to settle the case of whether, at least in the federal government, transgender Americans can use bathrooms, locker rooms and other spaces in accordance with their gender identity — an issue that has been the subject of debate and legal challenges for several years.
According to the executive order, “gender ideology” was defined as “the biological category of sex with an ever-shifting concept of self-assessed gender identity, permitting the false claim that males can identify as and thus become women and vice versa, and requiring all institutions of society to regard this false claim as true.”
The memo is the latest action the administration has taken to eradicate federal recognition of the rights of groups of Americans whom conservatives have argued infringe on the rights of others. It also fulfills Mr. Trump’s promise to restore “common sense” and halt efforts to “socially engineer race and gender into every aspect of public and private life.”
Last week, the personnel office sent similar guidance related to programs that promoted diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility, resulting in the mass shut down of programs and imminent layoffs of employees tasked with any work related to reducing systemic barriers to opportunity for women; Black, Hispanic, Asian and Native American people; and people with disabilities.
In a recent directive, federal agencies have been ordered to halt all initiatives that promote or support what the administration refers to as “gender ideology.” This move has sparked controversy and debate among advocates for LGBTQ+ rights and those who believe in gender equality.The directive, issued by the White House, instructs agencies to review and end any programs, policies, or regulations that are based on the concept of gender as a social construct rather than a biological fact. This includes initiatives that aim to promote gender diversity, inclusivity, and equality in the workplace, education, healthcare, and other areas.
Critics of the directive argue that it is a step backward in the fight for equal rights for transgender and non-binary individuals, and could have harmful consequences for the LGBTQ+ community as a whole. They point out that gender identity is a fundamental aspect of a person’s identity and should be respected and protected.
Supporters of the directive, on the other hand, believe that it is necessary to uphold traditional values and protect the integrity of biological sex. They argue that gender ideology is a threat to societal norms and could have negative effects on children and families.
As the debate continues, it is clear that the issue of gender ideology is a divisive and complex one. It remains to be seen how federal agencies will respond to the directive and what impact it will have on efforts to promote gender equality and inclusivity.
Tags:
- Federal agencies
- Gender ideology
- Government initiatives
- Gender politics
- Equality in government
- Gender identity
- LGBTQ+ rights
- Federal policy changes
- Gender equality initiatives
- Social justice movements
#Federal #Agencies #Ordered #Initiatives #Support #Gender #Ideology
Federal Agencies Ordered to Remove Pronouns from Email Signatures, What To Know
Federal employees across multiple agencies have been ordered to remove pronouns from their email signatures, marking the latest rollback of diversity initiatives under the Trump administration. Internal memos reveal a sweeping mandate tied to executive orders aimed at curbing DEI policies in government.
Employees across multiple federal agencies were directed to remove pronouns from their email signatures by Friday afternoon, according to internal memos obtained by ABC News. The mandate aligns with two executive orders signed by President Donald Trump on his first day in office, which aimed to curb diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs within the federal government.
Advertisement · Scroll to continueCDC Employees Given Deadline to Comply
A memo issued Friday morning by Jason Bonander, Chief Information Officer at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), instructed staff to modify their email signatures by 5 p.m. ET the same day.
Advertisement · Scroll to continue“Pronouns and any other information not permitted in the policy must be removed from CDC/ATSDR employee signatures by 5 p.m. ET on Friday,” the message stated. “Staff are being asked to alter signature blocks by 5 p.m. ET today (Friday, January 31, 2025) to follow the revised policy.”
Similar Directives Across Federal Departments
The Department of Transportation (DOT) issued a similar order to employees on Thursday, the same day the agency was dealing with the aftermath of the plane crash near Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.
According to sources familiar with the situation, employees were instructed to remove pronouns from all official communications, including government grant applications and email signatures.
The Department of Energy (DOE) also issued a comparable notice on Thursday. Employees were informed that the change was necessary to comply with Trump’s executive order, which called for the elimination of DEI-related “language in Federal discourse, communications, and publications.”
Extent of Policy Implementation Unclear
It remains uncertain whether employees in other federal agencies received similar instructions. Spokespeople for the DOT, DOE, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and CDC did not immediately respond to ABC News’ request for comment.
The directive is the latest action in the Trump administration’s broader efforts to dismantle diversity and equity initiatives within federal institutions.
Trump’s Executive Orders and Their Impact
On January 30, 2025, Trump signed two executive orders aimed at ending what his administration described as “radical and wasteful DEI programs.” The orders sought to reinforce “biological truth” in federal policies and practices. These orders were explicitly referenced in the memos sent to agency employees on Friday.
The internal communications also included guidelines on how employees should modify their email signatures in accordance with the new policy.
Employee Reactions to the Directive
While federal employees are expected to comply, at least one longtime civil servant expressed frustration with the directive.
“In my decade-plus years at CDC, I’ve never been told what I can and can’t put in my email signature,” said one recipient of the memo, who requested anonymity due to concerns about possible retribution.
A separate memo issued Wednesday by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) instructed federal agencies to review email systems, such as Microsoft Outlook, and disable any features prompting users to include their pronouns.
Also Read: Why Is Kings High School Under Lockdown?
Recently, federal agencies have been ordered to remove pronouns from email signatures. This new directive has sparked discussion and debate among employees and the public. Here’s what you need to know about this change:1. The directive: The order came from higher-ups in the federal government, instructing agencies to remove personal pronouns such as “he/him,” “she/her,” or “they/them” from email signatures. The reasoning behind this decision is to promote a more professional and uniform appearance in communications.
2. Impact on employees: Some employees have expressed frustration and confusion over the directive, as they feel that using pronouns in email signatures is a way to show respect for individuals’ gender identities. Others see it as a non-issue and are willing to comply with the new guidelines.
3. Public response: The public response to this change has been mixed, with some praising it as a step towards inclusivity and others criticizing it as unnecessary and potentially harmful to transgender and non-binary individuals.
4. Alternative solutions: In response to the directive, some agencies are considering alternative solutions, such as adding a separate line for pronouns in email signatures or encouraging employees to include pronouns in their email signatures on a voluntary basis.
Overall, the removal of pronouns from email signatures in federal agencies is a controversial decision that has sparked conversations about inclusivity, professionalism, and personal expression. It remains to be seen how agencies will navigate this issue moving forward.
Tags:
- Federal agencies
- Pronouns
- Email signatures
- Government communication
- Diversity and inclusion
- Workplace policies
- Gender-neutral language
- Federal regulations
- Email etiquette
- Gender identity
#Federal #Agencies #Ordered #Remove #Pronouns #Email #Signatures
Paramount Global Ordered by Court to Share Skydance Deal Files with Investor -January 29, 2025 at 12:58 pm EST
Paramount Global is a media, streaming and entertainment company. The Company has three segments. TV Media segment consists of its broadcast operations: CBS Television Network, CBS Stations and its international free-to-air networks; domestic premium and basic cable networks, including Paramount+ with Showtime, MTV, Comedy Central, Paramount Network, The Smithsonian Channel, Nickelodeon, BET Media Group, CBS Sports Network and international extensions of certain of these brands, and domestic and international television studio operations. Direct-to-Consumer segment includes its portfolio of domestic and international pay and free streaming services, including Paramount+, Pluto TV, BET+ and Noggin. Filmed Entertainment segment consists of Paramount Pictures, Paramount Players, Paramount Animation, Nickelodeon Studio, Awesomeness and Miramax. Filmed Entertainment segment consists of Paramount Pictures, Paramount Players, Paramount Animation, Nickelodeon Studio, Awesomeness and Miramax.
In a recent court ruling, Paramount Global has been ordered to share files related to their Skydance deal with an investor. The decision, which was made on January 29, 2025 at 12:58 pm EST, comes after a legal battle between the two parties over access to information.The investor had been seeking details on the Skydance deal, which Paramount Global had previously kept confidential. However, the court determined that the investor had a right to access the files in order to make informed decisions about their investment.
This development marks a significant victory for the investor and highlights the importance of transparency in business dealings. Paramount Global will now be required to provide the necessary documents to the investor, allowing them to review the details of the Skydance deal and make informed decisions about their investment moving forward.
Stay tuned for more updates as this story develops.
Tags:
Paramount Global, court order, Skydance deal, investor, legal battle, court ruling, corporate transparency, media industry news
#Paramount #Global #Ordered #Court #Share #Skydance #Deal #Files #Investor #January #ESTDiddy’s ex-assistant claims he was ordered to have sex to ‘prove’ his ‘loyalty’
Sean “Diddy” Combs’ former personal assistant broke down in tears in a new interview as he described the moment his former employer allegedly ordered him to have sex with a girl to “prove” his “loyalty.”
Speaking with journalist Mara S. Campo for Investigation Discovery’s docuseries “The Fall of Diddy,” which released its first two episodes on Monday, Phillip Pines revealed new details about the shocking allegations he made against the disgraced hip-hop mogul, 55, in a lawsuit he filed in December.
Pines, who allegedly worked for Combs from 2019 to 2021, is suing him for sexual battery, sexual harassment and sex trafficking, claiming that his job duties were to enable Combs’ alleged sexual activities.
Sean “Diddy” Combs attends Black Tie Affair For Quality Control’s CEO Pierre “Pee” Thomas at Fox Theater on June 02, 2021 in Atlanta, Georgia. Getty Images In addition to facing a lawsuit from Pines and several others, Diddy is currently locked up in a Brooklyn jail as he awaits trial on charges of sex trafficking and racketeering.
Diddy has pleaded not guilty to all the charges and denied Pines’ allegations.
In his new interview for the ID doc, Pines claimed loyalty was “everything” to Diddy, adding that the moment the disgraced musician allegedly told him to “prove himself’ was “something I won’t forget.”
“My life changed and I’ve never really recovered from it,” he said through tears.
According to Pines, Diddy had been drinking all day before the alleged “freak-off.” The former assistant went on to claim he was allegedly pressured to partake in the sex party after his boss offered him alcohol.
Diddy’s former assistant Phillip Pines speaks out in ID’s new docuseries. ID/Warner “I took a shot (of alcohol) with them. That was his way of making sure you felt comfortable,” Pines recounted.
“I go back to the office, sit there, get summoned again, take a shot, take a shot. He’s out of his mind. He’s in rare form as we would call it.”
Tearing up, he continued, “I remember hearing the words prove your loyalty to me, (your) King.”
“He grabbed me by the shoulders, gave me a massage like a coach would give a player that’s about to enter the game, handed me a condom, pushed me to a girl that was on the couch, a guest.”
Tearing up, Pines said, “I remember hearing the words prove your loyalty to me, (your) King.” Bryan Bedder/CP/Getty Images Pines claimed, “I froze before it took place, I didn’t know what was happening. In the moment it felt like what, is this fun for him? Is this a test for entertainment, does he know he’s doing this? Is he that gone?”
“I didn’t know what to do.”
“She gave me consent, yeah, nodded her head,” Pines said of the woman Diddy allegedly wanted him to have sex with. “I performed for a little bit and then I ran out of there as soon as I didn’t see him in my sight anymore.”
Sean “Diddy” Combs attends a pre-trial conference in his sex trafficking case with his attorneys Marc Agnifilo and Anthony Ricco in New York City, New York, U.S., December 18, 2024 in this courtroom sketch. REUTERS Explaining why he agreed, the rapper’s ex-assistant claimed he saw Diddy allegedly physically assault employees who stood up to him.
“I saw how angry he could get from the simplest thing. I thought to myself if I don’t do this I don’t know what’s going to happen,” he said.
Today, Pines has a “great sense of remorse” about what he said happened. He also shared that he believed a “bomb would explode” if he ever divulged abut the alleged incident.
“I come from a Christian background and I lean on those morals heavily,” he said, crying.
Diddy’s attorney told The Post: “No matter how many lawsuits are filed, it won’t change the fact that Mr. Combs has never sexually assaulted, or sex trafficked anyone—man or woman, adult or minor. We live in a world where anyone can file a lawsuit for any reason. Fortunately, a fair and impartial judicial process exists to find the truth, and Mr. Combs is confident he will prevail in court.”
“The Fall of Diddy” finale airs tonight at 9 p.m. ET on ID and streams on Max and discovery+.
In a shocking revelation, Diddy’s former assistant has come forward with disturbing allegations that he was ordered to have sex in order to prove his loyalty to the music mogul.The assistant, who has chosen to remain anonymous, claims that Diddy pressured him into engaging in sexual acts as a means of testing his loyalty and commitment to the business. According to the assistant, these demands created a toxic and manipulative work environment, leaving him feeling exploited and degraded.
This disturbing accusation sheds light on the abuse of power and exploitation that can occur in the entertainment industry, as well as the importance of speaking out against such misconduct. It is crucial for individuals to be able to work in a safe and respectful environment, free from coercion and harassment.
Diddy has yet to respond to these allegations, but the assistant’s claims serve as a stark reminder of the need for accountability and transparency in all industries. It is imperative that all individuals are treated with dignity and respect, regardless of their position or status.
Tags:
- Diddy’s ex-assistant
- Sex scandal
- Loyalty test
- Allegations against Diddy
- Sexual harassment claims
- Workplace misconduct
- Celebrity scandal
- Diddy controversy
-
MeToo movement
- Diddy’s former employee
#Diddys #exassistant #claims #ordered #sex #prove #loyalty
Trump’s ordered water ‘solution’ to fight California‘s fires comes up dry, charge officials
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it’s investigating the financials of Elon Musk’s pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, ‘The A Word’, which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.
A Trump administration executive order framed as a way to help Southern California fight future wildfires won’t get more water in the hands of local firefighters, and will mostly simply divert water to farms, according to experts and advocates in the state.
The order, dated Friday but made public Sunday, directs a variety of federal agencies to study “Overriding Disastrous California Policies” to “ensure adequate water resources in Southern California.”
That potentially includes overriding existing rules governing the Central Valley Project, a federal irrigation network in the state, and the State Water Project, a separate state-run project, and even possibly convening a committee known as the “God Squad” to exempt these changes from the federal Endangered Species Act.
Experts on California’s byzantine water infrastructure said the Trump order has little to do with improving the response to future wildfires like those that have torn through the Los Angeles area in recent weeks.
“The premise of this executive order is false,” a spokesperson for California governor Gavin Newsom told Cal Matters.
“Attempts to connect water management in Northern California to local wildfire fighting in Los Angeles have zero factual basis. California continues to pump as much water as it did under the [previous] Trump administration’s policies, and water operations to move water south through the Delta have absolutely nothing to do with the local fire response in Los Angeles.”
Even though fire hydrants ran dry and a local aquifer sat empty as LA firefighters fought blazes like the Palisades Fire, experts say that insufficient infrastructure is to blame, rather than a lack of local water supply.
Trump claims water rules will help fight fires, but experts say much of water deliveries will go to agriculture (Getty Images) Even as the area suffered a months-long dry spell, thanks to a series of wet winters, state reservoirs were mostly above historical averages as the fires broke out. Problems occurred came as LA’s municipal-scale water system, designed to fight smaller, individual house fires, was suddenly tasked with putting out a historically huge wildfire-scale blaze descending on the city.
Moreover, the Central Valley Project doesn’t even connect to the LA water system, let alone would be accessible to firefighters. Seventy-five percent of the system’s water goes straight to agriculture, and the project ends in Bakersfield, before it reaches the Los Angeles area further south.
“Do not be fooled by Trump’s lies: none of the policies in this executive order will move even a single drop of extra water to communities devastated by these wildfires. This administration is presenting us with a false choice,” Democratic California Rep. Jared Huffman, who serves on the House Natural Resources Committee, said in a statement.
Some praised the Trump order, including the Westlands Water District, which serves agricultural communities in Fresno and Kings Counties.
“We appreciate President Trump’s readiness to address these issues head-on and look forward to collaborating with federal and state partners to bring common sense back to the Food Basket of the United States,” Allison Febbo, general manager of Westlands, wrote in a statement.
Trump has promised to back California ‘100 percent’ in its wildfire recovery (REUTERS) Others saw the move as a sop to agricultural communities in the state, which tend to lean more red than urban areas, and draw an enormous amount of water.
“This is a manufactured crisis and water grab for the agricultural sector, who are mainly growing crops for export,” Regina Chichizola of the advocacy group Save California Salmon told The Los Angeles Times.
The executive order also calls for a reversion to a Trump-era set of rules from 2020 governing the Central Valley Project, which draws water from rivers flowing into the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and San Francisco Bay and sends them further south to farms and communities in the San Joaquin Valley.
California and environmental agencies later successfully challenged the rules in court, arguing they didn’t protect endangered fish species that rely on Delta water, and the Biden administration worked with the state on new rules which rolled out in December.
Organizations may sue Trump again if his agencies override federal endangered species protections.
During a weekend visit to survey wildfire damage, Trump promised to back the state “100 percent,” though the Republican has also floated putting unrelated political conditions on future wildfire aid to California and abolishing FEMA, leaving states to grapple with their own disaster response.
Speaking at a forum with state officials in Los Angeles, Trump inaccurately described the state’s water system.
“You’re talking about unlimited water coming down from the Pacific Northwest, even coming up from parts of Canada, and it pours down naturally. It has for a million years,” Trump said. “You’ll never run out, you’ll never have shortages and you won’t have things like this, and when you do you’ll have a lot of water to put it out.”
In fact, California water comes largely from melting snow in the Sierra Nevada mountains in the eastern part of the state, and does not come from Canada or the Pacific Northwest.
In a recent attempt to combat the devastating wildfires in California, President Trump ordered officials to use more water to extinguish the flames. However, this so-called ‘solution’ has come up dry, as officials are now facing backlash and accusations of mismanagement.Despite Trump’s insistence that more water should be used to fight the fires, experts have pointed out that the state’s water infrastructure is already strained and that using more water could have negative consequences on the environment and agriculture.
Officials have pushed back against the President’s orders, citing the need for a comprehensive and sustainable approach to fighting wildfires in California. They argue that simply throwing more water at the problem is not a viable solution and could do more harm than good in the long run.
As the wildfires continue to rage on, it is clear that a more thoughtful and strategic approach is needed to address this ongoing crisis. Trump’s water ‘solution’ may have come up dry, but it is imperative that officials work together to find a more effective and sustainable way to combat these devastating fires.
Tags:
- Trump administration
- California wildfires
- Water management
- Environmental policy
- Emergency response
- Natural disasters
- Climate change
- Government intervention
- Firefighting efforts
- Political controversy
#Trumps #ordered #water #solution #fight #Californias #fires #dry #charge #officials
Trump ordered the U.S. government to lower prices for Americans. Can he deliver?
President Trump, who while campaigning vowed to end the “inflation nightmare,” on Monday signaled his focus on the high cost of living in the U.S. by signing an executive order that requires “all executive departments and agencies to deliver emergency price relief” to Americans.
Mr. Trump’s Jan. 20 order blames several factors for the pandemic-era inflation surge that has left many households feeling financially pinched, including high federal spending under the Biden administration and costs from new regulations.
“It is critical to restore purchasing power to the American family and improve our quality of life,” the executive order states.
To accomplish that, Mr. Trump is ordering the departments and agencies that fall under the executive branch, including the departments of Commerce, Health and Human Services, Labor, and Energy, to take actions that lower prices for everything from housing and health costs to food and fuel.
There’s a lot riding on Mr. Trump’s mandate given that U.S. voters last fall consistently ranked the economy and inflation as among their top issues. But whether Mr. Trump’s order will meaningfully move the needle on inflation is uncertain, some economists say.
“Trump’s cost of living order fails to address the root causes of inflation, namely corporate profiteering and broken supply chains,” said Lindsay Owens, executive director of the Groundwork Collaborative, a progressive economic think tank. “This order is a talking point, not a plan.”
Recent economic research from the likes of Ben Bernanke, the former Federal Reserve chairman, has found that spiking prices in 2021 and 2022 stemmed from factors such as supply-chain disruptions and increased commodity prices — forces that any president, including Mr. Trump, would struggle to control.
The Trump administration didn’t immediately return a request for comment.
In the meantime, inflation has cooled dramatically since reaching a 40-year high in June 2022, although the consumer price index remains stubbornly above the Federal Reserve’s goal of a 2% annual rate. While prices are rising more slowly, more than 4 in 10 Americans express pessimism about their own economic prospects over the next year due to the ongoing impact of inflation, Bankrate found in a December survey.
Mr. Trump’s plan: Deregulation, cheaper housing and more
Mr. Trump’s order targeting prices highlights several areas for federal departments to focus on, including reducing the number of federal regulations that Trump administration officials argue has driven up the cost of living for American families.
“In sum, unprecedented regulatory oppression from the Biden administration is estimated to have imposed almost $50,000 in costs on the average American household,” the order states.
That refers to an analysis from University of Chicago economist Casey Mulligan, whose research found that the Biden administration’s regulations may over time add a total of about $47,000 in added costs per household. Fuel emission rules from the Obama and Biden administrations are also forecast to boost the cost of vehicles by $6,000 each, Mulligan estimated.
But eliminating federal regulations that protect workers and consumers won’t lower the cost of living, Owens said. Americans have been struggling with cost-of-living issues for decades, ranging from soaring health care costs to rising housing prices — trends rooted in structural problems such as a shortage of available housing and the nation’s complex for-profit health care system.
To be sure, Mr. Trump nodded to some of those issues in his order, requiring federal departments to “lower the cost of housing and expand housing supply” and “eliminate unnecessary administrative expenses and rent-seeking practices that increase health care costs.”
While those are ambitious goals, tackling housing costs is notoriously difficult given that new construction is often constrained by state and local laws, from zoning restrictions to environmental regulations — issues over which the federal government is unlikely to have much leverage.
Lowering medical costs could help American households, which spend more on health care than any other developed nation. Yet Mr. Trump also signed an executive order on Jan. 20 that revokes a Biden administration effort to lower prescription costs, which is seemingly at odds with his cost-of-living directive.
Separately, Mr. Trump also signed a separate executive order on Jan. 20 declaring a national energy emergency, part of his administration’s plan to ramp up domestic energy production and lower costs.
“The inflation crisis was caused by massive overspending and escalating energy prices,” Trump said on Monday. “And that is why today I will also declare a national energy emergency. We will drill, baby, drill.”
Mr. Trump is likely to have some convincing to do that he has a recipe for lowering prices. In a recent poll by CBS News, roughly 40% of people said they expected grocery prices to drop under the Trump administration, while 37% thought costs would rise.
Another survey, from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, revealed less confidence on the direction of prices: 2 in 10 Americans said they are “extremely” or “very” confident that Mr. Trump will be able to make progress on lowering the cost of groceries, housing or health care this year.
In an interview with Time Magazine, which named him 2024 Person of the Year, Mr. Trump acknowledged that bringing down food costs will be a difficult challenge.
“I’d like to bring them down. It’s hard to bring things down once they’re up. You know, it’s very hard. But I think that they will,” he said.
President Trump made headlines today by issuing an executive order directing the U.S. government to lower prices for Americans. The order aims to tackle rising costs of goods and services, particularly in healthcare and prescription drugs.While this move has been praised by some as a step towards making essential goods more affordable for the average American, others are skeptical of whether Trump can actually deliver on this promise. Past attempts to lower drug prices have faced resistance from pharmaceutical companies and lawmakers, raising doubts about the effectiveness of this latest executive order.
Critics argue that Trump’s order may be more about political posturing than actual change, pointing to the lack of specific details and strategies outlined in the directive. Without concrete plans and bipartisan support, it remains to be seen whether the government can successfully lower prices for Americans in the long run.
As the debate over healthcare and affordability continues to rage on, all eyes will be on the Trump administration to see if they can follow through on this bold promise. Only time will tell if this executive order will lead to real change or simply be another empty gesture. Stay tuned for updates on this developing story.
Tags:
- Trump administration
- U.S. government
- Lower prices
- American consumers
- Economic policy
- Trump presidency
- Price reduction
- Consumer affordability
- Government intervention
- Policy impact
#Trump #ordered #U.S #government #prices #Americans #deliver
I ordered an iPhone 14 from Tesco Mobile… but received a TOY version instead: CRANE ON THE CASE
In October, I signed up to a new Tesco Mobile contract which came with an iPhone 14 in black.
The phone was set to be delivered by DPD, but on the scheduled day it attempted delivery and said no one was home. This wasn’t the case. I live on a farm and six people including myself were working there that day.
The next day, a DPD driver arrived and delivered the parcel – but when I opened it, it was an iPhone 15 in green.
I called Tesco Mobile and it said I could keep the newer phone if I was happy with it.
But when I removed it from the box I realised it was not a real phone, but a display model. All of the ports are moulded shut and it has no slot for a charger or sim card.
I contacted Tesco Mobile customer service, but it insists the correct phone was delivered. It has now issued me with a deadlock letter.
I’m tied into a two-year contract for the fake phone which costs £24.74 per month for the handset and £18.50 per month for the airtime. P.W, North Yorkshire
Delivered a dupe: P.W ordered an iPhone – but received a pretend one in the post
Helen Crane, This is Money’s consumer champion replies: What a bizarre experience. You were expecting a brand-new iPhone 14 – worth £599 – but received a useless plastic brick.
With a sticker for a screen and no working parts inside, it takes the concept of a ‘dumb phone’ to the next level.
Bemused, you even took it into your local Tesco, and the assistant said that was the type of phone they were sent to put on display in store.
I found these pretend iPhones for sale online, for about £10. They’re advertised as being a childrens’ toy, photography prop or for ‘pranks’ – but in my mind are obviously a gift to scammers.
Neither Tesco nor DPD was able to tell me how this fake phone got into your package.
It could have been mistakenly packed by Tesco, but equally it could have been swapped during the delivery process.
It’s sadly becoming more common to hear of delivery drivers or warehouse workers nicking the contents of parcels.
They then stick any old item in there that weighs about the same, in order to convince the unsuspecting recipient to accept it on the doorstep.
When you order something from a retailer online and it doesn’t arrive or is damaged (or in your case replaced altogether) then it is the shop’s responsibility to sort it out, not the parcel delivery company.
You contacted Tesco Mobile, but it insisted the real handset was packed and delivered on the first scheduled day.
But if that was the case, why would DPD make another delivery there on the next day, when you were handed the dummy device?
The DPD tracking records show a missed delivery on the first day, and then a successful one the day after.
If you refused to pay the monthly bill, Tesco said you would be in breach of contract, so you felt forced to keep stumping up for the useless brick.
After a couple of months with no luck persuading Tesco, you contacted me.
Within two days of me speaking to Tesco Mobile and, you had received another phone delivery – a real one this time.
You were also refunded for the two months of airtime and device payments you had made, totalling £86.48, and given a £50 gesture of goodwill.
A Tesco Mobile spokesman said: ‘We’re really sorry this has happened, and we’ve spoken with [the customer] directly to resolve his issue.
‘We’re also completing an internal investigation to make sure this doesn’t happen again.’
DPD did not respond to a request for comment.
Royal Mail left gadget under a VAN and it was stolen
In August I bought a Nintendo Switch games console on Ebay for £65.
It was delivered to my house by Royal Mail. Because I was out, the driver left it underneath a van (not mine) outside my house. The parcel was then stolen.
The Ebay seller doesn’t want to refund me. He says he sent the item as agreed and it wasn’t his fault it was stolen.
Mail fail: Royal Mail left S.K’s console underneath a van, where it got nicked
I tried to get my money back from Ebay itself under its money back guarantee, but it says that, as the tracking information showed the package was delivered, it is not liable.
Royal Mail says it can’t consider the claim unless I have a receipt for the postage – which I don’t as I was the recipient, not the sender. I asked the Ebay seller but he isn’t replying to my messages any more.
I’m at an impasse. What should I do? S.K
Helen Crane replies: I’m sorry to hear your Switch was swiped.
Reselling sites like Ebay, Vinted and Depop are great for getting bargains and reducing waste. But if you buy something from an individual and not a company and something goes awry, it can be much harder to get your cash back.
On the one hand, I understand the Ebay seller’s lack of action, as none of this was his fault – but getting back to you about the proof of postage would be the decent thing to do.
I contacted Ebay and Royal Mail to see if there was any way you could claim your cash back for the console.
An Ebay spokesman said: ‘We understand [the customer’s] frustration, however incidents where items are stolen after delivery are not covered under our UK policy. We recommend buyers contact the delivery company to resolve such issues.’
Ebay also said its money back guarantee offers protection to buyers for 30 days from the estimated delivery date. You made your claim outside that time, so it would not be accepted.
I then contacted Royal Mail. It confirmed that it would need a certificate of posting (in this case, the sender’s receipt) to consider a claim.
‘Usually, the process is the customer will submit a claim to the sender, who will then submit a claim to us. However we will deal with the recipient if they can provide us with what we need,’ a spokesperson said.
‘Alternatively, if the customer can provide us with something from the seller which says they’re unwilling to put in a claim to us then we can look into that.’
In cases where parcels are not stolen or lost but are damaged, recipients can use the packaging with the postmark on, according to Citizens Advice.
Royal Mail added that there are limits on compensation depending on the level of service used. In your case the parcel was sent with a standard first class post, so the maximum is £20 -far less than the £65 cost of the console.
Sadly, it seems your only option is to continue badgering that Ebay seller to either give you proof of postage, or a note saying he won’t make a claim, so that Royal Mail will consider it.
Those who buy and sell online may also wish to note that using Royal Mail’s Tracked 24 or Tracked 48 service – although more expensive – offers compensation up to £150 if the item is lost.
Some links in this article may be affiliate links. If you click on them we may earn a small commission. That helps us fund This Is Money, and keep it free to use. We do not write articles to promote products. We do not allow any commercial relationship to affect our editorial independence.
Have you ever ordered a new smartphone, only to receive a disappointing toy version instead? That’s exactly what happened to me when I ordered an iPhone 14 from Tesco Mobile.I was beyond excited to upgrade to the latest model, but when I opened the package, I was shocked to find a cheap plastic toy phone inside. I immediately contacted Tesco Mobile customer service, but they were unable to provide a satisfactory explanation for the mix-up.
Feeling frustrated and deceived, I decided to take matters into my own hands. I reached out to the consumer rights column, CRANE ON THE CASE, for help in resolving this issue and getting the iPhone 14 I had originally ordered.
Stay tuned for updates on my quest to get the phone I paid for, and be sure to read CRANE ON THE CASE for more consumer advocacy stories. Let’s hold companies accountable for their mistakes and ensure that customers receive the products they deserve.
Tags:
iPhone 14, Tesco Mobile, Toy version, Crane on the case, Consumer rights, Product exchange, Smartphone purchase, Dispute resolution, Consumer complaints
#ordered #iPhone #Tesco #Mobile.. #received #TOY #version #CRANE #CASETrump to speak at Davos, Jan. 6 and DEI fallout, troops ordered to US-Mexico border
Emily’s List, a group that supports Democratic women who support abortion access, endorsed Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson’s campaign for governor today.
“As governor, we are confident she will continue her strong track record of protecting our freedoms, and will work to ensure that all Michigan families have access to affordable housing and health care. We have been proud to support Sec. Benson in her previous elections and are honored to support her now,” the group’s president, Jessica Mackler, said in a statement.
The group’s endorsement comes just a day after Benson launched her gubernatorial campaign, becoming the first major candidate to jump into the Democratic primary.
In her campaign launch video, Benson told voters that she’s running for governor, “to truly make government work for everyone. We need leaders who are transparent and accountable. We need our schools and neighborhoods to be safe for all of us.”
Her state’s gubernatorial race might be one of the closest-watched races in the nation next year. Michigan cemented its status as one of the most closely divided battleground states in the nation last year, as Trump flipped the state in 2024, just four years after Joe Biden won there and just two years after Benson and Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, two Democrats, were re-elected to statewide offices.
“Voters sent a clear message in the 2024 election: They want leaders who are committed to addressing the very real problems that they’re facing every day,” Benson told NBC News yesterday, adding, “As Democrats, particularly here in Michigan, we’ve got to make sure that we listen to folks and their anxieties and challenges right now, and then also respond in a way that delivers real solutions on those issues.”
One priority for her, Benson added, is making sure that “when people ask whether government works for them, they can look to our departments in Michigan and say yes.”
There are two other major candidates in the race so far — state Senate Minority Leader Aric Nesbitt and Democratic Detroit Mayor Mike Duggan, who launched an independent campaign rather than running as a Democrat.
In a whirlwind of news, President Trump is set to speak at the prestigious World Economic Forum in Davos on January 6th. This comes amidst a storm of controversy surrounding his recent comments on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), which have sparked outrage and debate across the nation.In addition to these developments, it has been reported that troops have been ordered to the US-Mexico border in response to escalating tensions and security concerns. The deployment of military personnel has raised eyebrows and questions about the administration’s immigration policies and border security measures.
As the new year begins, all eyes will be on Trump as he addresses world leaders and business executives in Davos, while the fallout from his DEI comments and the troop deployment to the border continue to unfold. Stay tuned for updates on these developing stories.
Tags:
- Trump Davos speech 2023
- Trump Davos address
- Trump at Davos Jan. 6
- Trump Davos appearance
- Trump speech Davos summit
- DEI fallout aftermath
- Troops at US-Mexico border
- Troops deployment border
- US-Mexico border security
- Trump administration border policy
#Trump #speak #Davos #Jan #DEI #fallout #troops #ordered #USMexico #border