WASHINGTON — U.S. President Donald Trump said on Wednesday that Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi told him that India will stop buying oil from Russia, a move Trump described as a “big step” in efforts to isolate Moscow economically. “So I was not happy that India was buying oil, and he assured me today that they will not be buying oil from Russia,” Trump told reporters during a White House event. “That’s a big step. Now we’re going to get China to do the same thing.” The Indian embassy in Washington did not immediately respond to emailed questions about whether Modi had made such a commitment to Trump. An Indian pledge to halt buying Russian oil would mark a potential turning point in global energy diplomacy, as Washington intensifies efforts to choke Moscow’s oil revenues amid its ongoing war in Ukraine. It would also signal a major shift by one of Moscow’s top energy customers and could reshape the calculus for other nations still importing Russian crude. It comes as Trump seeks to leverage bilateral relationships to enforce economic isolation, rather than relying solely on multilateral sanctions. During his comments to reporters, Trump added that India could not “immediately” halt shipments, calling it “a little bit of a process, but that process will be over soon.” (Reporting by Nandita Bose in Washington and Jarrett Renshaw in Philadelphia; additional reporting by Trevor Hunnicutt; Editing by Chris Reese and Rami Ayyub)

'If the gringos attack, we will respond'

'I don't have opinions'

'These are more disgusting smears'

not pushing social agendas

He was wanted for allegedly launching a violent attack against a person close to him

The Trump administration is fighting to block a global carbon tax that a United Nations (UN) agency is attempting to pass quietly this week. The International Maritime Organization (IMO), a UN body based in London, is meeting this week to adopt a so-called “Net-Zero Framework,” which would levy significant penalties on carbon dioxide emissions from […]

While Democrats describe their nominee for Virginia governor, Abigail Spanberger, as a moderate, she voted for a slate of unpopular leftist causes in Congress, from opposing voter ID requirements to amnesty for illegal aliens, from men in girls’ bathrooms to profligate federal spending. “I have tried to get ‘passionate pragmatist’ to become a thing,” Spanberger told The Washington Post late last year when discussing her image as a problem-solver who can work with Republicans. “Too many politicians talk when they should listen and divide instead of unite,” she said in her first TV ad of the cycle. Spanberger’s campaign shared a Wall Street Journal report describing her as the “anti-Mamdani,” a moderate counterpoint to Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic Socialist candidate who won the Democratic Party primary for New York Mayor. While the Virginia Democrat may not be as radical as the Gothamite, critics say she’s no moderate, either. “Abigail Spanberger is not the moderate she pretends to be,” Stephanie Kreuz, director of sentinel strategy at Heritage Action, told The Daily Signal. “You don’t have to take my word for it—Spanberger’s record speaks for itself.” “Abigail Spanberger voted for legislation to allow men to access women’s bathroom and locker rooms, opposed widely supported voter ID laws, denied law enforcement tools to keep violent illegal aliens off Virginia’s streets, supported removing protections for underage women against rapists and traffickers, prevented basic health and safety standards for abortions, and attacked Virginians’ Second Amendment rights,” Kreuz added. The Heritage Action organizer also faulted Spanberger for having “voted for trillions in unnecessary COVID spending that has driven up inflation and made everything from groceries to buying a vehicle more expensive.” “Spanberger is in lock-step with the extreme Leftists in her party—and far too Left for Virginia,” Kreuz concluded. Rave Reviews From the Left Leftist groups have given Spanberger high ratings for her votes in Congress. Americans for Democratic Action rated her 75% for 2020 and 2021, for example. The LGBTQ activist group Human Rights Campaign gave her a 100% rating for 2019-2022, and the pro-abortion Planned Parenthood Action Fund also gave her a perfect score for 2019-2024. She received perfect scores from the American Civil Liberties Union (2019-2022) and from unions like the National Education Association (2019-2024), and the American Federation of Government Employees (2019-2023). Unsurprisingly for a Democrat, she does not rank well with conservative groups like Heritage Action (she scored between 0% and 10%), Americans for Prosperity (between 0% and 19%), or the American Conservative Union (between 3% and 11%). She also received occasional zero ratings from the pro-energy American Energy Alliance, the socially conservative Family Research Council Action, and the anti-tax Club for Growth. Men in Girls’ Bathrooms While Spanberger has claimed it is a “lie” to say she voted for men to have access to girls’ bathrooms, she repeatedly sponsored and voted for legislation that would require it. Spanberger co-sponsored HR 5, “The Equality Act,” in 2019, 2021, and 2023. She voted for the legislation each time the House considered it. The Equality Act would amend federal civil rights legislation to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, inserting new language into the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which desegregated public schools. Federal Spending While Spanberger is running on a platform of making Virginia more affordable, she voted for trillions in spending during the COVID-19 pandemic and in its aftermath, a massive spending surge that arguably triggered the inflation of the Biden years. She supported the $1.9 trillion Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act in March 2020 (it passed by voice vote so there is no record of her vote); a supplemental funding package with $900 billion in COVID-19 spending in December 2020; and the $2.1 trillion American Rescue Plan Act in February 2021. These COVID-era bills cost nearly $5 trillion, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. Critics have claimed only a small fraction of the funds went to health care. She also voted for the Inflation Reduction Act, which Biden later celebrated as “the largest climate investment in history.” While Democrats at the time said the bill would pay down the deficit and combat inflation, a Cato Institute study estimated that the bill will cost between $936 billion and $1.97 trillion over the next ten years. Spanberger also voted for the November 2021 infrastructure law, which authorized more than $500 billion of direct spending and tax breaks. Opposing Voter ID Polls repeatedly show that most Americans support requiring voters to present proof of identification to vote. An October 2024 Gallup poll found that 84% of Americans support voter ID, for example. Yet Spanberger repeatedly voted for legislation that would undermine such a requirement. She repeatedly voted for H.R. 1, the “For the People Act,” which would have eviscerated state voter ID laws, have prevented states from updating their voter registration rolls, forced states to automatically register voters, and set up a public funding program for candidates running for Congress. She voted for H.R. 4, the “John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act,” which would have allowed the Justice Department to veto state voter ID requirements. Last year, she voted against the SAVE Act, which would prohibit states from registering people to vote in federal elections unless they first prove they are American citizens. Opposing Border Security During both the first Trump administration and under President Joe Biden, as the country experienced an influx of millions of illegal aliens, Spanberger repeatedly voted for legislation to grant legal status to illegal aliens and against legislation to secure the border. In 2019, she voted for H.R. 5038, the Farm Workforce Modernization Act, which would have created a new pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens who work on farms. She repeatedly voted to codify President Barack Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which aimed to give amnesty to illegal aliens. She voted against H.R. 2, the Secure the Border Act, which would have beefed up border security under the Biden administration. Gun Control Spanberger also repeatedly voted for restrictions on Second Amendment rights. She repeatedly voted for the “Bipartisan Background Checks Act,” which would have required universal background checks for firearm ownership. She voted for the “Assault Weapons Ban Act,” which would arbitrarily restrict firearm ownership by banning “high-capacity magazines” for civilians. Abortion Spanberger has also taken a strong stance against limits on abortion. She voted for the Women’s Health Protection Act, which would have repealed state laws regulating abortion, such as informed consent requirements and parental involvement, and would have directed federal tax dollars to support abortion. She repeatedly refused to sign a discharge petition to bring the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act to the House floor. George Floyd Act Finally, while Spanberger presents herself as an advocate for law enforcement, she voted for the “George Floyd Justice in Policing Act,” which would have put police at increased risk of harm when carrying out their duties. The Spanberger campaign did not respond to The Daily Signal’s request for comment by publication time. The post Is Spanberger the ‘Anti-Mamdani’? Not So Fast… appeared first on The Daily Signal.

More than two weeks into the federal government shutdown, Republicans are intent on hammering their message home to pressure Democrats into voting to end the impasse. The chairman of the House Republican Conference, Rep. Lisa McClain, R-Mich., a member of Republican leadership tasked with coordinating the team’s messaging, has been appearing alongside top Republicans almost every single day of the shutdown, blasting Democrats for voting against a stopgap spending continuing resolution. McClain told The Daily Signal on a press call Wednesday that she hopes that bombarding Democrats in these press conferences can create some movement in the shutdown standoff. “We have the facts. We don’t talk in hyperboles. We talk about the actual facts of the matter. And I think we have faith in the American people, that if we are transparent with the American people, if we tell the American people the truth and not just headlines, that the American people will understand why this is happening, or why the government is not opening,” McClain said.  Democrats “are putting $1.5 trillion and taking it back into the budget,” she said. “I think if the American people understand the truth, they will put pressure on their Democratic senators to stop putting [illegal immigrants] over them and actually open up the government. So, that’s the goal with the press conferences.” Throughout the shutdown, Democrats have put the focus on health care, demanding the extension of boosted COVID-era premium tax credits and the repeal of all of the cost-saving health care provisions in the July budget reconciliation bill. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. (Nathan Posner/Anadolu via Getty Images) As Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., told the press shortly before the shutdown began, Democrats are “making this debate a debate on health care.” McClain was joined on the press call by members of the House Freedom Caucus, a fiscally conservative faction of House Republicans. Many of them said they welcome Democrats making the shutdown a debate about health care. “I am delighted with the Democrats trying to put the focus on Obamacare, the COVID-era temporary subsidies … . Remember, Prohibition was the law of the land for 13 years, and then it was repealed. And I got to tell you, now Obamacare is older than Prohibition was. It’s time to take a good, hard, serious look at it,” said Rep. Keith Self, R-Texas. Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas., was similarly dismissive of Democrats’ messaging. “Radical Democrats are totally fine shutting the government down. Why? So they can enrich insurance companies and give health care to illegal aliens,” Roy said. “I look forward to them putting that out on the campaign trail.” Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call via Getty Images) Some Republicans think the tide is turning, citing polls showing Americans increasingly blaming Democrats for the shutdown. “The polling is breaking our way,” Rep. Eric Burlison, R-Mo., said. “Recent polls that were posted by The Hill and Politico all indicate that the American people are starting to see this for what it really is, and that the Democrats are the ones owning this shutdown.” A new poll from YouGov/The Economist shows that Americans are increasingly blaming Democrats for the shutdown, with 33% now blaming Democrats in Congress—up from 30% last week. A higher percentage, 39%, blame Trump and congressional Republicans for the shutdown, down from 41% last week. Historically, the party that controls the White House tends to take the blame for shutdowns among the general public. The post Can the GOP’s Messaging Offensive Force an End to Shutdown? appeared first on The Daily Signal.

In a closely watched case that could have a significant impact on which party controls Congress and that could have national consequences when it comes to drawing congressional maps, the Supreme Court heard a second round of arguments Wednesday pertaining to a congressional redistricting case out of Louisiana. Liberal groups are sounding the alarm that the forthcoming ruling in Louisiana v. Callais could net Republicans up to 19 new seats nationwide in the U.S. House of Representatives, as the decision could impact parts of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.  The dispute began after the 2020 Census when Louisiana redrew six congressional districts with just one majority-minority black congressional district. The state had one majority-black district from the 2010 Census, but the groups contend that the black population shifted and grew, resulting in the need for a second district.  The NAACP and others sued, alleging the new map resulting from the 2020 Census violated Section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act, which bans race-based gerrymandering of districts.  In 2022, U.S. District Chief Judge Shelly Dick sided with the NAACP and ordered the state to redraw the map with two majority black districts.  After the state created a new map, other state voters sued, asserting the new map violated the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment, since the boundary lines of the second district had been drawn based on race. The U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the new map.  A final decision from the court is anticipated before the 2026 midterm elections next fall, according to the Louisiana Attorney General’s Office. However, varying news reports suggest it may not come in time to affect state laws next year.  The ruling will affect how all state legislatures can draw their district maps. Based on their questions during Wednesday’s arguments, the justices seemed to mostly break along predictable lines, with the three Democrat appointees most favorable to the map with the two minority-majority districts. Here are the key takeaways from the second round of oral arguments in the case.  1. ‘Chaos,’ ‘Catastrophic,’ and ‘Sky-Is-Falling’ NAACP Legal Defense Fund President and Director-Counsel Janai Nelson said during her opening statement before the justices that brushing aside past precedent “would throw maps across the country into chaos.” Justice Elena Kagan later asked Nelson, “What could happen? What would the results on the ground be?” “I think the results would be pretty catastrophic,” Nelson replied. “If we take Louisiana as one example, every congressional member who is black was elected from a VRA [Voting Rights Act] opportunity district. We only have the diversity that we see across the South, for example, because of litigation that forced the creation of opportunity districts under the Voting Rights Act.” Politico first reported that an analysis by two liberal groups, Fair Fight Action and Black Voters Matter Fund, found that states could use redistricting to pick up 27 total seats nationwide for Republicans. Of those, 19 would come from changing the application of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act to allow state legislatures to not consider race in drawing congressional maps. However, during the arguments Wednesday, Louisiana Solicitor General Ben Aguiñaga argued gerrymandering has its practical limits. He argued that if a state legislature, such as the Republican-controlled Legislature in Louisiana, wanted to draw a new legislative map that would completely favor electing Republicans, it would encounter complications. For example, redrawing a map could end up turning some “safe” red districts into purple (toss-up) ones as voters are drawn out of one district into another. “There has been a lot of sky-is-falling rhetoric from the other side in this case,” Aguiñaga said. “Remember what has to happen with the hundreds of thousands of Democrat voters that currently exist in the majority-Democrat districts, District 2 and District 6,” he said. “They have to go somewhere.” He said if the Legislature was intent on mass overhaul of the political maps, it would be politically risky. He said Republican incumbents wouldn’t seek to make their own districts more competitive.  “That, I think, is a very dangerous political risk,” he said.  2. Race-Based Remedies ‘Indefinite’ or ‘Endpoint’ “Race-based remedies are permissible for a period of time, sometimes for a long period of time—decades, in some cases. But they should not be indefinite and should have an endpoint,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh said, noting past high court determinations. Kavanaugh asked if there would ever be an endpoint to using race to create congressional or legislative districts.  Nelson replied that race-based redistricting may never need to expire. “A race-based remedy can and should and usually does have a time limit and a durational limit,” Nelson said. “What is not grounded in case law is the idea that an entire statute should somehow dissolve simply because race may be an element of the remedy.” Kavanaugh responded, “I don’t think it’s the statute. It’s the particular application of the statute that entails the intentional, deliberate use of race to sort people into different districts.” “I think you might be saying there shouldn’t be a time limit,” Kavanaugh inquired.  Nelson replied, “I am saying that. I’m saying there should not be a time limit.” She added that Section 2 doesn’t always require a race-based remedy.  The Supreme Court first heard arguments in the case in March, however, justices were not ready to rule and ordered a new round of arguments to focus specifically on whether Louisiana’s intentional creation of a second black district violated the 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal treatment of people under the law, or the 15th Amendment, which guarantees a citizen’s right to vote regardless of race. Aguiñaga argued to the court that “race-based redistricting is fundamentally contrary to our Constitution.” “It requires striking enough members of the majority race to sufficiently diminish their voting strength, and it requires drawing in enough members of a minority race to sufficiently augment their voting strength,” he told the justices.  “Embedded within these expressed targets are racial stereotypes that this court has long criticized,” Aguiñaga continued. “They assume, for example, that a black voter, simply because he is black, must think like other black voters, share the same interests, and prefer the same political candidates—and this stereotyping system has no logical endpoint.” “It’s a simple issue. The lower court found the plan was done for racial purposes and, therefore, the plan should die under the 15th Amendment,” J. Christian Adams, president of the Public Interest Legal Foundation, told The Daily Signal after the arguments. His organization filed a brief in the case.  “There won’t be more than three justices that vote to keep the extra district. This ought to be unanimous,” he said. “The lower court and sponsors have said this was done for racial purposes. That should be the end of the story.” 3. ‘Like a Tape Measure’ Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson stressed that it is not easy to bring an argument under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act regarding districts. “It’s like a tool, it’s like a tape measure that we’re looking as to whether or not certain circumstances exist, and those circumstances that Congress is worried about is unequal access to electoral opportunity. And Section 2 tells you we have to look for those circumstances, and then the court says, yep, they exist in this situation under Section 2, and so now, a remedy is required,” Jackson said. “That’s right, and its usage becomes less and less as we see racially polarized voting and residential segregation decreasing,” Nelson said.  Jackson added, “Because the plaintiffs can’t make the showing [of fact].” That’s because, Jackson said, it’s difficult for a plaintiff to make a clear case of unequal treatment under voting laws. 4. ‘Compact Districts’ During the first oral arguments in March, Chief Justice John Roberts said the second-drawn black district looked like a “snake” that stretched more than 200 miles. Justice Samuel Alito on Wednesday talked about whether the district for the intentionally-drawn black district made any sense.  Alito noted that past court precedent stated that in order to create a majority-minority district, a minority group must be sufficiently large enough to constitute a majority in number. Further, he said, the district much be “reasonably configured.” “What the district court did there was not to ask whether the minority group was sufficiently compact but whether the district itself was sufficiently compact,” Alito said.  Aguiñaga agreed with Alito’s assessment.  “If you look at the black population in Louisiana, I mean, it is all over the place,” he said. “You can identify pockets of black voters, but they are dispersed across the state. There’s no way you can conceive of that population as compact.” The post 4 Takeaways From SCOTUS Redistricting Case That Could Shape Who Controls Congress appeared first on The Daily Signal.