Iran has signaled openness to compromise with the United States on its nuclear program, while maintaining that uranium enrichment remains a non-negotiable aspect of any potential agreement. The statement comes as both nations continue diplomatic efforts to resolve tensions surrounding Iran’s nuclear capabilities. 6g3r1b

Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei told CNN that Tehran is willing to provide assurances about the non-military nature of its nuclear program. “If the intention is to make sure that Iran’s nuclear program would not be weaponized, I think that’s something that we could simply do,” Baghaei said during an interview in Tehran on Monday.

Despite optimistic signals from negotiators, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei publicly expressed skepticism about the prospects of a deal. In a message posted on his official website last week, he addressed U.S. negotiators, telling them to “Try not to talk nonsense,” highlighting the complex nature of the ongoing negotiations.

Iran and US find common ground despite enrichment concerns  2s24e

The fifth round of negotiations in Rome has shown signs of progress, with President Donald Trump expressing hope for positive developments. Following the talks, Trump told reporters in New Jersey that good news might be forthcoming on the Iran front, citing productive discussions over the previous two days.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi described the recent negotiations as “one of the most professional rounds” to date, while acknowledging that key issues remain “too complicated to be resolved in two or three meetings.” The talks continue despite concerns raised by Rafael Grossi, head of the IAEA, about Iran’s growing stockpile of enriched uranium, which has increased by half in just three months.

The negotiating positions of both sides reveal significant challenges ahead. While the Trump istration has demanded a complete end to uranium enrichment, Iran maintains this is non-negotiable. However, Baghaei suggested that U.S. negotiators’ approach during talks indicates a potential softening of this stance, noting that continued discussions demonstrate some understanding of Iran’s position on peaceful nuclear energy.

The diplomatic efforts are taking place against a backdrop of regional tensions, with U.S. intelligence indicating that Israel may be preparing to strike Iranian nuclear facilities. In response, Baghaei emphasized Iran’s unity in the face of such threats, stating that “Iranians would not be conducive to any sort of pressure” and affirming their commitment to defending national security. Despite these challenges, Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson remained optimistic about the possibility of reaching a “win-win” agreement, suggesting there are “so many ways” to achieve a compromise while protecting Iran’s right to peaceful nuclear energy.

China has been issuing stronger warnings to countries considering trade deals with the United States under the Trump istration. These warnings include threats of retaliatory actions against any agreements China believes undermine its interests. This is a big new development in the ongoing trade war.

There has been a lot of back-and-forth exchange of tariffs between the two major economies and a concerted effort by the U.S. to pressure its allies to lessen their trade relationships with China. As reported by Investing, China’s main concern revolves around the U.S. strategy of providing tariff reductions to its trading partners in return for trade concessions against China.

Reports indicate that Washington has urged many countries to limit their economic ties with Beijing, especially in manufacturing and high technology sectors. China sees this as coercive behavior that violates global norms. The U.S. has also tried to prevent China from bying its tariffs by sending exports through other countries, leading places like Vietnam to increase border checks to stop such practices.

China is warning other countries not to US in trade war 272v37

Of course, the U.S. has considered implementing “secondary tariffs” on imports from nations seen as closely linked to China, per NairaMetrics. In response, China has taken various approaches. The Ministry of Commerce has clearly opposed trade agreements that disadvantage Chinese interests and has promised strong countermeasures.

This response is more than just talk; China has a history of retaliating against perceived cooperation with the U.S. For example, when South Korea deployed the US-developed THAAD missile defense system in 2016, it faced significant economic consequences from China, including restrictions on tourism and limits on South Korean businesses operating in China.

More recently, China has shown its readiness to use its control over critical raw materials as a tool for geopolitical power. Last year, it imposed restrictions on gallium and germanium exports, which are vital for semiconductor and defense technologies, affecting international companies and individuals. Following new U.S. tariffs, further limits on rare earth exports (important for many high-tech industries) were also introduced.

At the same time, China has increased diplomatic efforts to build better relationships in Southeast Asia and Europe. Like President Xi Jinping’s recent tours in the region, high-profile visits highlight China’s strategy to establish alternate trade partnerships and counter U.S. influence. Whether the U.S. can effectively create a united front against China is still debated. While some countries, including Japan and South Korea, have engaged in discussions with Washington to seek tariff relief, there are lingering concerns about the reliability and effectiveness of U.S. policy.

It is not certain whether the U.S. can maintain a cohesive strategy because that inconsistent policy could damage credibility and hinder efforts to present a united front against China.

We’re on week 368 of 2025, as Donald Trump‘s second presidential term prematurely ages every American — and every human who’s paying attention.

Blood pressure monitors are about to be a necessity in every home, as Trump’s elementary school playground of a cabinet begins the work of dismantling this nation’s democracy. With each new appointment, global anxiety rises, but at least there’s some small amount of levity tossed into the tense situation rising between the U.S. and our northern neighbor.

Canada has been a target of Trump’s second term since before he actually took the oath of office, and his threats toward the country haven’t slowed down over his first month in the position. He, and of his istration, continue to falsely claim that Canada is set to become America’s “51st state,” despite consistent pushback from the country itself.

Not to mention its leaders. Justin Trudeau is on his way out, but he’s still Prime Minister of Canada for now, and he’s been extremely clear that Canada has no intent to the U.S. of A. What started as baffling claims have transformed into insidious threats, and Canada’s citizens aren’t taking it lying down. They’re preparing for an actual war — since that’s exactly what Trump is threatening — and they’ve got some ideas of how to break up territory once all is said and done.

Canada has exactly zero interest in becoming another U.S. state, but it’s not completely opposed to taking on some new land. Only a few states are on the table, since Canada wouldn’t touch Texas with a 10-foot pole, but a few northern states could get much better healthcare in exchange for some slightly longer vowels.

Trump’s threats are incredibly real, bafflingly damaging, and truly concerning. Canada’s, meanwhile, are closer to jokes than anything, as the nation’s citizens push back at Trump’s insane posturing with a mix between smirking taunt and tongue-in-cheek jest. That’s manifested in the form of a simple visual, which proposes breaking up the current U.S. into “Jesusland” and “The United States of Canada.”

Jesusland would only lose a few states in the exchange, and those states will almost certainly be better off under new ownership. Only 19 of the original 50 would be transferred to Canada, leaving many of the nation’s largest and most Republican-coveted states to make their own way under Team Trump. But a few lucky northern and western states — including California, Washington, Illinois, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, New York, and Vermont — might just get their shot at universal healthcare after all.

Canada is not being serious about absorbing more than a third of the United States, but its joking riposte with Trump is notable none-the-less. Trump’s 51st state chatter offers literally nothing of substance to Canadians — what, y’all don’t want terrible healthcare and guns in your schools? Why not?! — but Canada is more than willing to spread the wealth among its proposed new territory.

Should those 19 states go to Canada, the new USC would have a population topping 184 million, according to the graphic, and its GDP could top China’s at more than 11 trillion. That’s not to mention that said GDP would be double that of Jesusland — something that would undeniably rankle King Trump — and the energy self sufficiency, tech and media dominance, and incredible hockey skills that come with any Canadian port are a major bonus.

Sounds like a great deal if you ask me. As a resident of one such USC state, I only have one question: Where do I sign?

Politically speaking, this year’s Valentine’s Day wasn’t filled with expressions of love and solidarity from the United States. Instead, this Feb. 14 saw Vice President JD Vance‘s disparaging speech at the 61^st Munich Security Conference. It was truly historical, if only in the sheer weight of its heavy irony and layered hypocrisy.

With a tone suffused with theatrical self-righteousness, Vance lectured European leaders and their government for failing to act with democratic integrity – offering the example of the 2024 Romanian election and the attempt to prevent far-right ultranationalists from attaining power – claiming that, “for years,” the US was under the impression that “everything we fund and was in the name of our shared democratic values.” Of course, over the last 100 years, one finds no shortage of examples wherein the US threw money at, or sent troops and arms – or used other means like secret intelligence – to help foreign nations for the purely altruistic and philanthropic sake of upholding democracy abroad.

People who can unravel the sarcasm in the above sentence, would not find it surprising that while Vance preached about free speech and warned Europe of its “threat from within;” Pete Hegseth unequivocally suggested only Ukraine – and not Russia – would be making concessions to end the war; Trump’s special envoy to Ukraine Keith Kellogg indicated that European nations would not get a seat at the table during negotiations; and Trump – saying the quiet part out loud – demanded half a trillion dollars of Ukraine’s natural resources (per The Telegraph) to which Volodymyr Zelenskyy said, respectfully, “no.” Although Trump and his underlings keep boasting about all the money the US has spent on Ukraine throughout this conflict, European countries, collectively, have offered the heftiest overall aid to the war-torn country.

Although some – like Kellog – had claimed otherwise, talks between the US and Russia about setting conditions to end the war were hosted in Saudi Arabia on Tuesday, Feb. 18, without an invitation being sent to Zelenskyy or any Ukrainian representative, much less was a thought given to adding the EU’s presence.

Therefore, European leaders, motivated by far more than the prospect of acquiring enough resources to compete with China in an ongoing and frenzied technological race, scrambled to assemble faster than the Avengers.

In a ‘turbulent world’ we ‘work together and strengthen our ties‘ 326p1s

After JD Vance’s outrageous speech, German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius came on stage to say his part. However, differently than originally intended, he started by describing the VP’s comments as unacceptable, prompting a roar of applause to erupt in the room. If there is one thing that will unite European nations and leaders – who have not always been on the same page, and struggle to even now – it is the threat of an arrogant megalomaniac trying to gaslight everyone and throwing his weight around as if he owns this communal stage that is the world.

Before French President Emmanuel Macron organized an emergency meeting in Paris as a reaction to Ukraine and the EU being left out of the Saudi Arabia peace talks, European leaders were already posting outspoken shows of for Zelenskyy and the Ukrainian people, many of which also highlighted the now-imminent need for Europe to become more self-sufficient, particularly in of its defense.

These social media posts are not just for show. Europe has been putting its money where its mouth is and sending new aid packages to Ukraine. The continent’s virtually unanimous had President Zelenskyy thanking “Europe [for not having] lost faith in Ukraine or in the prospect of a lasting peace.”

As Dutch PM Dick Schoof put it, “everyone feels a great sense of urgency ” on how best to Ukraine and the sovereignty the country has fought for while not disregarding the importance of American cooperation. The need for an “urgency mindset” was something emphasized by Ursula von der Leyen, who’s in her second term as European Commission president, and also attended the “crucial talks.”

Chancellor Olaf Scholz, like other European leaders, has advocated for Ukraine to the EU, a wish shared by the Ukrainians. According to POLITICO, Dmitry Peskov, a Kremlin spokesperson, asserted on Tuesday that while Ukraine has a right to the European Union, the same does not apply to NATO.

Once the emergency assembly was concluded, Spanish PM Pedro Sánchez wrote on X:

“The talks for peace in Ukraine represent an opportunity. But they must not lead to a false closure. The goal must be to achieve a just and lasting peace. It must include the active involvement of Ukraine and Europe and must strengthen the multilateral order and international law.”

That same evening, Macron posted about speaking to the Ukrainian and American Presidents after the meeting:

After bringing together several European leaders, I have just spoken with President @realDonaldTrump and then with President @ZelenskyyUa.

We seek a strong and lasting peace in Ukraine. To achieve this, Russia must end its aggression, and this must be accompanied by strong…

— Emmanuel Macron (@EmmanuelMacron) February 17, 2025

A little over an hour before the French President’s post, Zelenskyy made a few remarks on his conversation with Macron, writing:

“We share a common vision: security guarantees must be robust and reliable. Any other decision without such guarantees—such as a fragile ceasefire—would only serve as another deception by Russia and a prelude to a new Russian war against Ukraine or other European nations. Emmanuel also briefed me on his talks with other leaders, not just European ones. We agreed to stay in constant as major decisions are being made. Ensuring a robust and lasting peace is a must. And that can only be achieved through strong security guarantees.”

There you go, JD. While you refused to say whether Trump “lost the 2020 election” in your Vice Presidential debate, the same leaders you brazenly scolded are uniting to take a stance against tyranny. To be fair, we cannot expect the same law graduate who shamelessly denounced the judicial branch’s constitutionally guaranteed powers to enact its role as part of the US government’s system of checks and balances to be able to tell what acting with democratic integrity looks like.

There’s been renewed interest around the meaning of an upside-down U.S. flag, after one was apparently spotted on a flag pole outside of the State Department offices earlier this month. An image of the upside-down flag was shared on social media in early February, promptly going viral as onlookers speculated about both the authenticity of the images, as well as why the American flag might be flown facing down in the first place.

Some social media s quickly theorized that the flag was flown upside down as a political statement in the wake of Donald Trump’s presidential inauguration, and the massive governmental upheaval that has followed. Others called on the State Department, an agency that has long caught the ire of Trump and is responsible for carrying out US foreign policy, to respond to the viral images. So what’s the story, and what does an upside-down flag even mean?

Images of an apparent upside-down flag took off on social media.  b4356

On February 5, one image purported to depict an upside-down U.S. flag flying outside the State Department was shared on Reddit. The originator of that post claimed in a statement to Newsweek that they spotted the upturned flag at 2 pm, adding that it stayed upside down for about 20 minutes before it was changed. By that point, the image had made its way to X, where s assumed it was authentic and took it as evidence of an anti-Trump statement initiated by a State Department employee.

“From mass firings of federal employees to abrupt policy changes, the istration’s actions have led to widespread confusion and concern,” one caption of a viral image of the upside-down flag read. The spotting of the flag also came at a time when employee morale in government was reportedly low, fueling speculation that the upturned flag was a direct message against the newly established Trump istration. 

While that narrative is alluring, it’s important to note that the authenticity of the image — despite the insistence of its originator to Newsweek — remains unconfirmed. With the State Department yet to comment on the viral photo, and its genuineness unproven, we don’t know whether the upturned flag was a sign of protest from an employee, a simple error, or if it was even flying upside down to begin with. However, an upturned U.S. flag would not be without precedent.  

Upside-down flags are mentioned under the U.S. Flag Code.  4h4k4p

BREAKING: The US State Department flag reportedly has been spotted flying upside down, a universal signal of distress.

From mass firings of federal employees to abrupt policy changes, the istration’s actions have led to widespread confusion and concern. It’s almost as if… pic.twitter.com/gEdsVRq7aw

— Brian Krassenstein (@krassenstein) February 5, 2025

According to the U.S. Flag Code, the stars and stripes of the national flag should never be flown upside down, except “as a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life or property.” Unlike flags flown at half-mast — which are a sign of mourning — an upside-down flag is used to signal an emergency, though it is considered disrespectful to upturn a flag for no apparent reason. 

There have been some instances, for example, when maritime ships in distress will signal their emergency by flying their flags upside down. Elsewhere, the U.S. flag was spotted flying upside down throughout the 1960s, in protest of America’s involvement in the Vietnam War. Alongside that signal of an upside-down U.S. flag, some outlets state that using it upturned can be a form of protest, which is protected by the First Amendment on the grounds of free speech. 

At first, and soon after Donald Trump won the 2024 election, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau perceived the President-elect’s comments about Canada becoming the 51st state as a mere jest. That posture soon gave way to concern and the need to make judicious preparations as it became clear that Trump is truly embracing his imperialist era.

For months now, Trump has been doubling and tripling down on his intentions to annex the sovereign country, be it while speaking to the media or posting on Truth Social:

If one were to listen to real Canadians speak on the issue, it would become apparent that claiming Canadians “LOVE” the idea is a gross misrepresentation. Reactions are, in fact, quite the opposite of what the President makes it seem:

Trump implied in a post shared on Dec. 30 that annexing Canada would lead to Canadians and Americans obtaining “common currency,” “open trade,” and an “EU-type port.” He’s also publicly stated that Canada’s universal healthcare system would somehow – he did not specify – improve.

The U.S. President is trying to make it seem like this imperialistic initiative is motivated by the moral imperative; fighting the fentanyl boogeyman coming across both borders – a “national security threat” — justifies his drastic measures. However, a Canadian woman with the TikTok handle @money.coach.canada argues that the reasons Trump gives for the annexation of Canada and what he truly wants out of it are not the same. Of course, she’s not the only one aware of the President’s obvious motivations.

“Not happening. Thank you very much,” says Canada. 165c3t

The commander-in-chief has already made clear that “economic force” could be used to compel Canada into submission. He’s already tried to impose tariffs, which lasted about two days before an agreement was reached resulting in a 30-day postponement. But, unfortunately, he has not given up.

On Feb. 7, during the Canada-U.S. Economic Summit with a hundred business executives present, PM Justin Trudeau made another eloquent speech that reasserted Canada’s unwillingness to part with its autonomy. Moreover, his inspiring monologue — and the whole event — revolved around how the nation and its citizens could adapt to the United States’ threats and sanctions.

However, it was when the media was asked to leave that the Prime Minister spoke most candidly, indicating he has an inkling as to why the current U.S. President is pushing for annexation. Two outlets, including CBC, were able to stay in the room and record his follow-up words: “I suggest that not only does the Trump istration know how many critical minerals we have, but that may be even why they keep talking about absorbing us and making us the 51st state.”

After the direct tariffs on Canadian goods were paused, Trump announced a 25% tariff on steel and aluminum which would affect every exporting country. But – coincidentally, of course – which country does the US import the most steel and aluminum from? Yup. You’ve guessed it. Trump had already imposed tariffs on these metals during his first term. All it did was make the price of cars, canned drinks, and appliances skyrocket while benefiting American aluminum and steel barons.

In a Fox News interview on Sunday, Feb. 9, Trump said: “Canada would be much better off becoming the 51st state because we lose 200 billion dollars a year with Canada.” Contrary to what the President implies, this money is not paid as a form of “subsidy,” but is the result of the United States’ massive reliance on Canadian resources like oil and indispensable minerals – a fact which gives unequivocal credence to Trudeau’s remarks.

Could annexation come by direct force? 5d6s51

Any antidemocratic enforcement of Canada’s annexation could be seen as an act of aggression, both by Canada itself, and by the entire international pro-democracy community. If the U.S. were to use unwarranted force, other NATO could well mobilize in Canada’s defense, offering aid to the latter and imposing sanctions on the former.

Furthermore, per the Constitution, Congress would have to approve the measure to include a new state. But Trump already made clear that he only cares about the parts of the founding document that benefit his agenda. As rooted in the 10th Amendment, the people of Canada would have to agree to become a state. Well, on the bright side, such an eventuality – which, according to POLITICO, would result in 45 congressional seats for Canada – would significantly benefit the Democratic Party when it comes to the Electoral College and future elections.

During the Economic Summit, which took place in Toronto, Labour Minister Steven MacKinnon responded to a question saying: “I think I would be reflecting the spirit in the room, and more importantly, the spirit across this country: Canada is free. Canada is sovereign. Canada will choose its own destiny – thank you very much. But Canada is forever. So, Canada will make its choices.”

Rather than becoming a U.S. state, Canadians would rather maintain their independence and a friendlier (and less colonialism-inclined) crowd:

When there’s a bully in the playground, the most efficient way to deal with them is to show there’s strength in unity and cooperation. Canada is already taking steps to strengthen alliances and economic partnerships with countries and coalitions like the European Union, to hopefully show that there are no main characters when it comes to nations.  

Speaking as a European, while the U.S. President wants to forcefully erase a whole country’s dignity all the while antagonizing the rest of the globe, I’d say to Canadians: “Let’s be besties.” It’s how we — Canada and EU alike — can keep the threat of a deranged megalomaniac at bay, while forging a destiny that proves diplomacy and alliances can overcome Trump’s egocentric “me first” political approaches and policies.

Fox News seems to be a catch-all for the absolute worst the world of journalism has to offer, but no one on the planet (save maybe Piers Morgan) can outdo the impossibly irritating and utterly brainless Jesse Watters.

This is the same man who said a vote for Kamala Harris would miraculously turn men into women. The same pathetic pinecone who said generals would “have their way” with Harris if she became president. Even his own mother is sick of the toxic, misogynist shtick, but the rest of us still have to endure his idiotic takes every time that sneering face appears on screen.

Related: ‘She has to do her duty’: A Fox News host whines about a former First Lady skipping Trump’s inauguration on The Mary Sue

Desperately clinging to his crown as Fox’s premier truth-hating gasbag, Watters has a new incorrect and insane take on politics. This time, he’s claiming everyone in the world — literally everyone — is foaming at the mouth for a chance at American citizenship. All this in response to Trump’s repeated threats to take over various territories, from Canada to Greenland.

Speaking with Ontario Premier Doug Ford on his own segment, “Jesse Watters Primetime,” Watters whined over Canada’s extremely warranted offense at Trump’s comments. Starting off nice and combative by claiming that Canadians clearly have an issue with Americans, a clip of Watters’ interaction with Ford proceeds to veer into true insanity when he claims that Canadians “have a problem with us.”

“If I were a citizen of another country and I was a neighbor of the United States, I would consider it a privilege to be taken over by the United States of America,” Watters said. “That’s what everybody else in the world wants — American citizenship.”

Watters is clearly taking his new job as the void where intelligence goes to die very seriously. He even had the gall to add that “for some reason,” the idea of being seized by its southern neighbor is “repellant” to Canadians — who doesn’t pray to be conquered, after all? — and noted that he finds that “personally offensive.”

The entire tangent is utterly insane, which makes it perfectly on-brand for the patently pigheaded Watters. Somehow this man is twisting the very real reactions of other countries, when faced with actual threats from an incoming U.S. president, as insulting to the nation? Honey, I’m going to hold your hand when I say this, but you should not be allowed to live alongside intelligent life.

Canada is an independent country. Greenland is an independent territory. The Panama Canal belongs to Panama. And America just proved itself to be perhaps the worst decision-maker on the planet, since we elected perhaps the least-electable person in existence to lead our nation. Why on Earth would anyone, anywhere, celebrate being conquered by anyone, let alone the globe’s brainwashed, edge lord big brother? We have literally nothing to offer almost every other nation, and yet Watters thinks people should be celebrating in the streets at the thought of a hostile takeover?

It’s truly unbeatably brainless, and it genuinely boggles one’s mind to think Watters felt bold enough to say it out loud, let alone to Ford’s face. Thankfully, the Premier had exactly the reaction one would expect — baffled laughter — to Watters’ tangent, proving that intelligent life still exists out there, and sometimes it’s even featured on Fox News.

Concerns about TikTok were first raised in 2019, with then-president Donald Trump having expressed the intention to ban it in the United States. But it wasn’t until Mar. 13, 2024, that real, concrete steps were taken in that direction.

In 2019, two years after TikTok burst into our collective market of attention, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), which reviews the country’s investments abroad, launched an investigation into TikTok’s parent company ByteDance and its direct association with China. ByteDance had tried to circumvent these concerns by basing its headquarters on US soil, which didn’t seem to hold off scrutiny for long. These concerns stem from the app’s suspected ability to send data on over a hundred million Americans directly to the Chinese government.

The potential beginning of the end of the social platform (arguably) kicked off when the House of Representatives ed a bill in March 2024, giving TikTok and ByteDance an ultimatum: either sell to a U.S. company (or a company owned by a nation that is not an adversary) or face –  what is pretty much, but not outright –  a ban in the country.

Before it reached the Senate 68i6d

During a congressional hearing in February, TikTok’s CEO Shou Zi Chew – a Singaporean, not a Chinese national, something some lawmakers had a hard time wrapping their heads around –  said the company has plans to maintain all US data on servers managed by the Oracle Corporation, one of the largest software companies in the entire world.

The CEO replied “Not yet” when questioned about applying for US citizenship which means he has some intention to do so – as his wife and children are US citizens. Chew has also been vocal about his dismay with the vote taken by the House, having defended since the start that TikTok s’ security has always come first and that data has not been stored in China but in his native country of Singapore.

A total of 65 representatives, including politicians as unlike and opposed as Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Marjorie Taylor Greene, voted against the bill, whereas an overwhelming 352 voted in favor of it. The bill called Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, which tries to massively curb the app’s influence and ability to collect data, then moved to the upper house, the Senate.

The bill was ed and it landed on Biden’s desk the next day 154lt

On this Tuesday, 79 senators voted for it with 18 voting against it. The bill was expeditiously handed out to President Biden’s desk, who signed it Wednesday, April 24. In his statement, the President referred to and emphasized the need to lend monetary aid to foreign allies, which was simultaneously approved in the recent bill, while not offering his thoughts on the TikTok ban (per WIRED). In response, and on the same day, TikTok CEO posted a two-minute response on the platform.

The bill’s authors have argued that it does not constitute a ban per se, but, if put into effect, app stores like Google’s or Apple’s would be legally barred from ing TikTok on their platforms. TikTok has rejected the notion that it isn’t a total ban, and has actively taken steps to mobilize its s to help prevent the bill from taking place, a significant number of whom, including many Gen Zers, have called their states’ Representatives to voice their distaste for the bill.

TikTok was given up to a year to either sell or face the bill’s restrictions, with the current deadline – which could be expanded – falling on January 2025, unless President Biden decides to extend it by 90 days before leaving office. China has previously stated it does not look favorably upon a sale. ByteDance, estimated to be worth around $300 billion, is fighting the bill in court, having sued the U.S. Government in May. The company is resting its defense largely on the First Amendment and the right to free speech and expression, and arguing that the government does not have sufficient national security reasons to excuse the ban’s enactment.

What will happen to TikTok now that Trump was reelected? 2d4an

As has happened with other issues, President-elect Donald Trump has flip-flopped in his intentions – at least, the intentions he claims he has – towards the social media app. While in office, he tried to take executive action against TikTok, but during his 2024 campaign, he expressed concern over the way the ban could increase the power of other social media companies like Meta, also adding that, if people wanted to save TikTok, they ought to vote for him – not to mention that, true to his humongous ego, the then-nominee seemed pretty taken by the fact that, after ing as an active , he became a bit of a “star” on the platform.

In a hearing at the D.C. Court of Appeals in September, a three-judge heard TikTok’s lawyer Andrew Pincus’ arguments about the company’s defense that the ban is unconstitutional. The judges are expected to rule on the matter by December. If they decide that ByteDance is right, and the law does not abide by constitutional parameters, it will be made void and many deem it unlikely to be appealed under the Trump istration. However, if the courts rule in Congress’ favor, Trump alone, even as president, will not have the absolute power to overturn the ban.

The 4th of July is a day of celebration. We celebrate the unanimous adoption of the Declaration of Independence, the colonies’ separation from Great Britain, and the founding fathers who signed and recognized independence as a given right. But where does Reese Witherspoon enter the picture?

On the surface, Reese Witherspoon doesn’t have much in common with any of the founding fathers, other than being a patriot. We know and love her as Elle Woods in Legally Blonde and as Madeline McKenzie in the mystery-murder series Big Little Lies. She’s an actress known for some of the most iconic titles in Hollywood — she’s an icon in her own right. While she may be a staple in Hollywood, perhaps the only connection she might have with the founding fathers might end with sharing a certain last name. Let’s clear everything up, though.

Is Reese Witherspoon a descendant of founding father John Witherspoon? 2s1l4n

Long story short: yes, the actress Reese Witherspoon is allegedly a direct descendant of John Witherspoon, one of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence. According to a 2004 interview with The Independent, Witherspoon affirmed her mother, Laura Jean Reese Witherspoon, was indeed a descendant of the Scottish Calvinist John Knox and the founding father John Witherspoon. This would make John Witherspoon Reese’s first cousin nine times removed, and John Knox her 12th great-grandfather.

Despite the actress’s claim, however, her lineage has not yet been verified by the Society of the Descendants of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence genealogists. If proven true, Witherspoon could have easily been a part of the 2017 descendant reunion that recreated John Trumbull’s iconic painting, “The Declaration of Independence,” showing Thomas Jefferson presenting the first draft to Congress. We would’ve loved to see it.

Who was John Witherspoon, the founding father and ancestor of Reese Witherspoon? 2f263l

For those who may not recognize John Witherspoon’s name off the top of your head, he was the only clergyman to sign the Declaration of Independence on July 2, 1776. He was born in Yester, Scotland, on February 5, 1722 (or 1723, depending on the Gregorian calendar). After years of studying, he left Scotland with a Master of Arts degree, a Doctorate in Theology, and a license to preach. He was recruited by the trustees of the College of New Jersey — which now known as Princeton University — to become the President of the college.

In 1768, Witherspoon accepted the proposition, and his family sailed and settled in Philadelphia. Under his direction, the College of New Jersey thrived. He then became an advocate for resistance to the Crown, representing New Jersey in the provincial assembly, and ed the Continental Congress until 1782. He is described by scholars as “remarkably active and influential.” Witherspoon ed away in Princeton on November 15, 1794, and is ed as one of the Founding Fathers of the United States, and perhaps now, for being Reese Witherspoon’s first cousin nine times removed.

The Declaration of Independence, written, approved, and signed in 1776, is symbolic of America’s core values that still resound today, such as the ideal of all men being born equal and with unalienable rights. The Fourth of July, Independence Day, serves as a reminder of how far the independent nation has come from its roots as economically disadvantaged colonies under British rule, the shared values that ought to unite instead of divide, and the collective cry for freedom that came from the hearts of a people.

Although it is celebrated every year, some may not know the details surrounding the g of the Declaration of Independence, which was not on July 4 but on August 2. July 4 was the day Congress adopted the Declaration. Even John Adams, part of the Committee of Five who drafted the Declaration, assumed the date to be celebrated for generations to come would be July 2, the day when the vote was decided in favor of the legal act of separation, not July 4, when, after discussing the text for almost two days, Congress approved it and soon after ordered it to be printed.

“I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary Festival,” Adams wrote to his wife, Abigail, “It ought to be commemorated, as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward, forevermore.”

Adams was not wholly wrong. The festivities remain to this day. Only on July 4.

So, on August 2, where did the founders meet to sign the Declaration?

Meeting up at a central location 4f3v5l

To be clear, not everyone signed the Declaration on August 2, 1776, but most did. The first signature was that of the President of the Congress, John Hancock, at the Pennsylvania State House, now known as Independence Hall. It is suspected that a few of the 56 signatures were added after the fact.

Among the 13 colonies, Philadelphia was a central and practical location for the delegates. At the time, the city was considered to be one of the safest and a hub for various social activities with adequate facilities for such historically significant actions to be taken. It was also an already established meeting place for the First and Second Continental Congress.

The g of the Declaration was, in great part, an unmistakable act of courage from those who put down their signatures, as this was considered a treasonous act against the British Crown and punishable by death. The names were made known to the public early the next year, in January 1777 (via National Geographic).

Joe Biden has always made a point of praising the United States military. He’s singled out the bravery that the men and women who have served displayed, and is quick to honor veterans with lavish ceremonies.

The question of whether or not President Biden served, however, has been a point of contention. Donald Trump once claimed that Biden lied about his military service, which is something that has been propagated and used against the President by his detractors. The truth, however, is far less complicated. It is, however, slightly more tragic.

Why didn’t Joe Biden serve in the military? i3o6j

Joe Biden came of age during the Vietnam War, but he never officially served in the military. The future President received five student draft deferments as an undergraduate at the University of Delaware and later on as a law student at Syracuse University. These deferments were released to the public courtesy of the Selective Service System in 2008. Biden was running for Vice President at the time (in a race he’d eventually win), and wanted to clarify the circumstances that led to him not serving.

In 1968, Biden was designated “1-Y,” which meant he’d only be drafted in the event of a national emergency. The primary reason why he received this designation was because he suffered from asthma as a teenager. Joe Biden’s lack of military experience was actually a talking point in the lead up to the 2020 election. Journalists pointed out that Biden’s victory made him one of only nineteen men who were elected President without having served in the military in some form.

Despite his lack of experience, Biden has maintained that the Vietnam War had a profound impact on his worldview. During a 2024 interview with Univision, the President claimed that Vietnam has informed his desire to avoid global conflicts:

I hope the legacy is that I kept my word, that – I said that the reason I was running was to help the life of ordinary people and reduce the prospect of war and… Because of Vietnam.

Did Joe Biden’s family serve in the military? 1o3x69

Joe Biden did not serve in the military, but his oldest son, Beau, did. Beau ed the Delaware Army National Guard in 2003, according to the Los Angeles Times. He eventually achieved the rank of major in Judge Advocate General’s Corps, and was sent to Texas for deployment training on October 3, 2008. The day before, Joe Biden participated in a Vice Presidential debate against Sarah Palin. The elder Biden did not want to see Beau head into combat, but he did not attempt pulling strings to protect his son. He respected Beau’s wishes, and was praised by many for his decision.

Beau Biden was deployed to Iraq in January 2009, where he would serve a 7 month stint in the combat zone. He returned in September, and was awarded the Bronze Star Medal for his service. Beau planned to follow in his dad’s footsteps, and run as the Democratic nomination for governor of Delaware, but his plans were cut short by a Glioblastoma diagnosis in 2015. Glioblastoma is the most aggressive form of cancer found in the brain, according to the National Library of Medicine. Beau died on May 30, 2015 at the age of 46.

Biden made reference to his late son during a 2024 presidential rally. He criticized his opponent, Donald Trump, for making disparaging comments about those who served in the military. “They asked [Trump] to go visit American gravesites,” Biden told the crowd. “He said, ‘No.’ He wouldn’t do it… That man doesn’t deserve to have been the commander in chief for my son.”

Unsurprisingly, the jury in the Donald Trump hush money trial ended the first day of jury deliberations without reaching a verdict. These twelve men and women have a hefty responsibility on their hands, which is further complicated by the ins and outs of the case, such as the unreliability of the prosecution’s star witness, Michael Cohen, the Trump ex-CFO and lawyer, who could otherwise neatly tie the State’s argument together.

It is more than fair to say that, in this highly political case, the possibilities of a hung jury and a subsequent mistrial are nowhere close to zero. This brings many to the question of what actually a hung jury means, what a mistrial is, and what distinguishes the two and outcomes.

What is a mistrial? 413jd

A mistrial is a trial which is legally invalidated. A mistrial can happen for multiple reasons, and at any given time throughout the trial. In the ongoing Donald Trump New York hush-money case, since the jury is already deliberating at the time of this writing, it means that a mistrial could only occur after the jury emerges from the deliberation room, after having exhausted all debate.

But in cases whose progress hasn’t advanced yet to jury deliberation, a mistrial could be declared due to a Prejudicial Error, which Black’s Law Dictionary defines as “a mistake that is made in handling a trial resulting in harm to the complaining party.” In this criminal case, such an error would not have been too surprising, judging by how difficult it was to find an unbiased jury for Trump in New York. At this point, it is unlikely, unless a juror its they have been exposed to evidence or coverage they should not have been.

A Procedural Error could also have taken place, meaning the Court had not followed proper legal procedure; in Trump’s current case, for example, a mistrial could be declared had any of the lawyers displayed inissible behavior that compromised the integrity of the proceedings. Although unlikely, Juror Misconduct could also take place, were any of the jurors to be caught chit-chatting about the case outside the courtroom.

What is a hung jury? 3l4l1v

A hung jury, also called a deadlocked jury, is a jury unable to reach a unanimous decision. In the Donald Trump hush money case, they must, as Judge Juan Merchan instructed, hand out an agreed upon “guilty” or “not guilty” verdict on each of the 34 counts. All it takes is one juror to dig intheir heels and not lend their consensus for the jury to be considered hung.

When there is a hung jury, a mistrial occurs. In Trump’s case, Judge Merchan may instruct jurors to deliberate further in the event that the jury comes out of the room deadlocked. But there is only so much the judge can do, especially in the case of a judge being as scrutinized by the Right, as the presiding judge is in this case.

If a mistrial were to occur, the prosecution may choose to retry the case with a different jury, since the Double Jeopardy standard does not apply in case of a hung jury. This turn of events, although not as great as an acquittal, could benefit Trump, since it avoids an immediate conviction, and there is no telling when a new trial date might be set.