Author: Danuta Wojciechowska

On Friday, NZT U.S. District Judge April M. Perry blocked Trump’s effort to send troops to and around Chicago, concluding it was “likely to lead to civil unrest.”

Illinois officials disputed the deployment, saying the Trump administration was illegally taking control of the state’s National Guard.

The deployment of Texas National Guard troops to the Chicago area was also a “serious intrusion on Illinois sovereignty,” Illinois officials wrote in court documents.

Perry, appointed by President Joe Biden, blocked the troop deployment. She described a “lack of credibility” in statements made by federal authorities in the case.

In a written order issued the next day, Perry said he also noticed “a concerning trend” in statements “equating protests with riots.”

The Defense Department declined to comment on the appeals court order. The White House, Department of Homeland Security and officials in Illinois and Chicago did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

In early September, the Trump administration launched an immigration enforcement mission in Chicago dubbed “Operation Midway Blitz.” This sparked ongoing protests outside an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Broadview, a suburb of Chicago.

Federal agents repeatedly fired tear gas and other projectiles into crowds.

The Trump administration said in court filings that authorities found “continuous and sustained attacks” in Chicago and said the deployment of troops was necessary to help protect federal personnel and property.

The Trump administration appealed Perry’s decision, writing that she “largely ignored the facts on the ground” and “impermissibly second-guessed the military judgments of the Commander in Chief.” The Justice Department asked the 7th Circuit to stay Perry’s order while she appeals.

Officials representing Illinois and Chicago said Perry’s “order was correct, appropriate and should not be suspended pending appeal.”

They said Perry was right to conclude there was no credible evidence showing the troops were necessary to allow the Trump administration to enforce federal law.

Perry’s decision came days after U.S. District Judge Karin J. Immergut in Oregon also blocked Trump from sending troops to Portland, another city where his administration tried to send the National Guard, despite objections from local and state authorities.

Immergut, who was appointed by Trump during his first term, wrote in her decision that her conclusion that troops were needed in Portland “was simply independent of the facts.”

The Trump administration appealed its decision to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has not yet issued a ruling.

Subscribe to Herald Premium Editor’s Picksdelivered straight to your inbox every Friday. Editor-in-chief Murray Kirkness picks the week’s best features, interviews and investigations. Subscribe to Herald Premium here.

Donald Trump’s latest threat to impose an additional 100% tariff on Chinese goods is “a typical example of US double standards”, China’s government said.

A Ministry of Commerce spokesperson also said China could introduce its own unspecified “countermeasures” if the US President follows through on his threat, adding that it is “not afraid” of a possible trade war.

On Friday, Trump reacted to Beijing’s decision to tighten rules on rare earth exports, accusing China of “getting very hostile” and trying to hold the world “captive.”

He also threatened to withdraw from a meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping scheduled for later this month.

Trump’s comments on Friday shook financial markets, with the S&P 500 stock index closing down 2.7%, the sharpest drop since April.

The president’s words renewed fears of a trade war between the US and China.

In May, the two sides agreed to reduce triple-digit tariffs on each other’s products. which raised the prospect of interruption of trade between the two countries.

This left US tariffs on Chinese goods facing an additional 30% tariff compared to the beginning of the year, while US goods entering China face a 10% tariff.

China’s latest remarks – released by the Ministry of Commerce in the form of written responses to journalists’ questions – echoed language at the height of the recent trade conflict.

They criticized U.S. export restrictions on chips and semiconductors, as well as defending China’s own export controls on rare earths as “normal actions” to safeguard national security and that of all nations.

The spokesperson said that for “a long time” the US “excessively stretched the concept of national security, abused export control measures” and “adopted discriminatory practices against China”.

“Resorting to tariff threats is not the right way to interact with China,” the spokesperson said.

“China’s position on a tariff war has always been consistent: we don’t want one, but we are not afraid of one.”

Last week, China announced it was tightening export controls on rare earths and other materials essential for advanced technology manufacturing.

This was seen as a fundamental move, as the country processes around 90% of the world’s rare earths, which are used in goods such as solar panels and smartphones.

Recent comments from Washington and Beijing are being seen by some as a means of strengthening positions ahead of future trade negotiations.

It is unclear whether a meeting between Donald Trump and Xi Jinping, scheduled for a summit in South Korea later this month, will still go ahead.

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                                                                                                   

Renamed French Prime Minister Sebastien Lecornu has warned that his mandate could be short-lived – once again – unless political conditions improve.

French President Emmanuel Macron reinstated Lecornu on Friday, just four days after the former armed forces minister resigned amid deep political instability.

Lecornu acknowledged that many were reluctant to take office and warned that his mandate could only last as long as he maintained the support necessary to govern.

Despite returning to the role, Lecornu stated that “I had no agenda”, while answering questions from the press on Saturday. “I have no other ambitions than to get out of this moment, which is objectively very difficult for everyone”, he said.

Lecornu’s reappointment came after his previous administration collapsed within weeks due to a lack of viable alliances in a divided National Assembly.

In his public statements, Lecornu called on parties to end what he called “ridiculous spectacle” of partisan impasse. He emphasized the urgent need to approve a state and social security budget before the end of the year to help manage France’s growing fiscal deficit.

Lecornu’s first term as prime minister lasted just 27 days, making it the shortest in modern French history. He resigned hours after presenting his cabinet, explaining that the conditions to govern were no longer present.

“I resigned last Monday because the conditions were no longer met,” the Prime Minister promised. “If the conditions were no longer met, I would leave,” he warned.

Lecornu now faces a hostile parliament. The main left- and right-wing opposition blocs committed to voting against him, and the main centrist and right-wing groups refused to join his cabinet, offering only conditional legislative support.

In addition to his warnings, Lecornu must immediately guide the 2026 budget through this fragmented legislature. He also signaled openness to debating controversial reforms – notably pension changes – as long as discussions remain realistic.

You can share this story on social media:

A store in Sudbury, northern Ontario, was at the center of a social media meltdown in Canada this week when the store, Chardikala Turban Store, sells turbans and items of the Sikh faith, including traditional head coverings, ceremonial cloths, jewelry and accessories such as hairpins and hygiene items. Gurpreet Singh Broca, who came to Canada from India to study and now works at a Canadian bank, opened the store with the demands of Northern Ontario’s Sikh community in mind so they don’t have to travel to Brampton to buy their traditional clothing. “I just didn’t want to do it for myself, but also for my friends and the community,” Broca said. The Sudbury Star. “When we go to the gurdwara, the Sikh temple, we talk to people who are in the same boat, who depend on people who come from India or Brampton, because there is no other choice. Those are your only options.”The story of Chardikala Turban Store went viral with social media ‘Canada First’ melting down with the increase in Indian population in the country. “We need remigration before Canada becomes the New India,” wrote one.

‘It was a 95% white city’

In the meltdown, a specific post from an account named Jill went viral as the person claimed that Sudbury has always been a 95% white city. “My parents are from Sudbury. My whole family is from Sudbury. I worked for CTV Sudbury.I can say that as someone who spent my entire life traveling to that cold, icy northern tundra (and living there for 2 years), it has ALWAYS been a 95% white town. The fact that so many Indians live there and need a turban shop is mind-blowing,” the post read. “But turning lily-white Sudbury into northern India has been the government’s plan for years. That is why it was targeted for destruction by the Federals as part of the “rural immigration program”. This lethal ethnic cleansing scheme also destroyed North Bay, Thunder Bay and Sault Ste. Marie with biological weapons from Africa and India,” he said.

‘Imagine being so fragile’

The racist post sparked strong reactions on social media, with some claiming that Sudbury still remains a white town, with just 300 Sikhs, likely representing just 0.3% of Sudbury’s population.”Imagine having a meltdown over a Sikh guy selling turbans – someone who makes an honest living, doesn’t deal drugs or cause trouble like the losers we let in from Punjab – in a town where there are only 300 Sikhs, representing just 0.3% of Sudbury’s population, while 95% of the town is white. Left,” one wrote. “Imagine being so fragile that a turban shop in Sudbury makes you scream “ethnic cleansing”. That’s not patriotism, it’s racism disguised as a conspiracy theory. Immigrants aren’t “destroying” Northern Ontario, but their paranoia certainly destroys their credibility,” wrote another.

The Auburn Tigers were the target of a goal line controversy in the second quarter of their game against the No. 10 Georgia Bulldogs on Saturday night.

Tigers quarterback Jackson Arnold tried to sneak into the end zone over a pile of offensive linemen and defensive linemen in the second quarter when the ball was forced out of his hands by linebacker Raylen Wilson. Arnold was very close to the goal line before the fumble was scored.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE SPORTS COVERAGE ON FOXNEWS.COM

A Georgia defender caught the ball and was intent on returning it for a touchdown, but the play was blown. The referees ruled that Arnold lost the ball before crossing the goal line. Auburn coach Hugh Freeze was irate. Auburn athletics director John Cohen was seen berating officials as the team entered the locker room for halftime.

This sparked a debate on social media.

Freeze spoke about the debacle after the game.

“All you have to do is get the nose of the ball to break the plane,” Freeze said. “It didn’t go our way.”

Arnold would have put the Tigers up 16-0 with the score, but the turnover helped spark Georgia’s comeback. The Bulldogs would keep the Tigers’ offense in check for the rest of the game. The team scored 20 unanswered points and won 20-10.

PENN STATE DROP THIRD CONSECUTIVE GAME, STRUGGLES WITH STAR PLAYER DREW ALLAR’S SEASON-ENDING INJURY

“A tale of two halves,” Georgia coach Kirby Smart said. “Our kids never gave up. I’m as proud of this team as I’m probably any team.”

Arnold was 19 of 31 and had 137 passing yards. He had 55 rushing yards and one rushing touchdown. Auburn had 278 yards of total offense and was penalized 11 times for 103 yards.

“It’s very clear that we find ways to not win football games, and that’s what needs to change,” Freeze said. “That locker room is a good enough football team to play and win games.”

Georgia quarterback Gunner Stockton was 24 of 37 with 217 passing yards and one rushing touchdown. Chauncey Bowens also had a rushing touchdown.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Georgia moved to 5-1 with the win. Auburn fell to 3-3.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Follow Fox News Digital sports coverage on X and sign up the Fox News Sports Huddle newsletter.

 

 

1. Rescuing children from all struggles

2. Trying to model perfection

3. Silence big feelings

4. Realization of prizes

5. Accumulation power

6. Making children feel responsible for their emotions

7. Glorifying burnout

Australian household energy bills will halve by 2050 as solar panels, batteries, cars and electric appliances become the norm, reducing pressure on the federal government over living costs and creating space for more climate action, a think tank study suggests.

Modeling by the Grattan Institute concludes that reducing greenhouse gas emissions from electricity production, in line with the goal of achieving net-zero emissions by 2050, will reduce average household energy costs from around $5,800 today to around $3,000.

The report states that a drop of approximately this magnitude will occur under existing policies, as households use less gas and gasoline and more clean energy. The biggest savings are expected in gas-dependent Victoria, where modeling suggests average annual spending on petrol, gas and electricity could fall from $6,036 to $2,767.

The report states that emissions cuts in the energy sector are not happening fast enough and that the mid-century net-zero target will not be achieved without a policy that requires cuts in pollution from electricity.

The Grattan Institute has called on the government to consider expanding a policy applied to major polluting industrial sites – the safeguard mechanism – to include power stations. It claims this would limit household energy savings compared to what would happen otherwise, but only marginally – by around 3%.

It claims the safeguard mechanism is already a form of carbon pricing – language the Labor government has avoided since losing a bitter political fight that culminated in the abolition of the coalition government under Tony Abbott. a functional carbon pricing scheme in 2014. The director of the institute’s energy and climate change program, Alison Reeve, said the way people use energy has changed since then “and carbon pricing policy should change too.”

“For too long, federal governments of both political colors have avoided pricing carbon because they feared higher electricity prices,” Reeve said. “Our report shows that the source of this fear is becoming obsolete.”

The Coalition introduced the safeguard mechanism and Labor renewed it in 2023. It takes around 200 industrial sites that release more than 100,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide in Australia every year – including liquefied natural gas plants, coal mines, smelters and factories – to reduce emissions intensity by 4.9% every year by 2030.

Cuts can be made on-site or through the purchase of carbon offsets. Companies that reduce emissions below a benchmark also receive “safeguard mechanism credits” that they can sell to polluters who do not meet their benchmark.

Government data suggests that total direct pollution from installations covered by the safeguard mechanism fell by almost 2% in the first year after Labor’s renewal. But the scheme has been criticized for allowing unlimited use of offsets, despite peer-reviewed studies suggesting it is not delivering what was promised.

A review of the safeguard mechanism is planned for next year.

Reeve said the institute’s modeling assumed electricity companies would make direct emissions cuts and could not rely on Australian carbon credits created through methods that include better coverage of nature.

skip newsletter promotion

after newsletter promotion

She said a carbon tax or a “pure” emissions trading scheme would be better than current policies including the safeguard mechanism – a point also made by former Labor climate and economics adviser Ross Garnaut – but Grattan had focused on what was politically achievable.

“None of those horses are in the race right now,” she said. “You can only bet on the horses that are in the race.”

The Labor Party has faced criticism for delays in rolling out solar and wind farms needed to meet its target of 82% of electricity coming from renewable sources by 2030.

Renewable energy in homes has grown since the introduction of a battery subsidy in July. But investment in large-scale developments – especially wind farms – has slowed, in part due to delays in planning approvals, the construction of transmission links and supply chains.

Federal Minister for Climate Change and Energy Chris Bowen said the government is focused on implementing existing policies, including an underwriting program for major solar, wind and battery developments (known as the capacity investment scheme), the $20 billion “reconnecting the nation” program and the battery subsidy. He said he was “looking at a range of post-2030 settings” but had no plans to include electricity in the safeguard mechanism.

Renewable energy supplied 42% of electricity in the country’s main electrical grid last year.