India confirms ‘precision strike’; loud explosions reported in Pakistani Kashmir
Day: May 6, 2025
A six-judge majority ruled the Department of Defense can start to implement the ban immediately while a suit filed on behalf of trans soldiers moves through the federal courts.
One fan claims they have 100 million reasons to be upset over Shedeur Sanders’ stunning free fall in last month’s NFL draft.
A Sanders supporter identified as John Doe is suing the league for $100 million due to the “emotional distress and trauma suffered as a result of the NFL’s collusive practices and the harmful statements made regarding” the ex-Colorado quarterback, who shockingly slid to the Browns at No. 144 in the fifth round, according to court documents viewed by The Post.
In the court filing submitted last week, the plaintiff — described as a “dedicated fan of Colorado football and has closely followed Shedeur Sanders throughout the 2023 and 2024 seasons” — alleges “reports and leaked statements suggested that Sanders ‘tanked interviews,’ ‘wasn’t prepared,’ and ‘was too cocky,’ which contributed to a narrative that has unjustly harmed his reputation and potential as a player.”
Doe claims “these slanderous statements reflect biases that influenced the NFL’s decision-making process,” which in turn have caused “emotional distress and trauma to the Plaintiff as a fan and consumer.”
The plaintiff believes the NFL is in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, alleging “collusion among NFL teams to influence the drafting process and the subsequent low selection of Shedeur Sanders constitutes a conspiracy to restrain trade and limit competition within the league.”
Additionally, the lawsuit states the league violated the Civil Rights Act by claiming “the decisions made regarding Sanders may have been influenced by racial discrimination, violating his rights as a player.”
Beyond the nine-figure sum in “punitive damages,” Doe seeks “a formal acknowledgment from the NFL regarding the emotional distress caused by their actions and statements,” “a retraction of the slanderous statements made about Shedeur Sanders, along with an apology for any harm caused to his reputation,” as well as an “implementation of fairer practices in the drafting process to ensure that talented players are recognized and given opportunities based on merit.”
A league spokesperson did not respond to The Independent’s request for comment.
Sanders, the son of Hall of Famer Deion Sanders, was considered the most polarizing prospect of the 2025 class.
The former Buffaloes star was said to have rubbed some teams the wrong way at the NFL Scouting Combine in February, with an NBC Sports report alleging he “came off as unprofessional and disinterested.”
As the draft approached, analysts and experts struggled to pinpoint where Sanders would land with the quarterback-needy Giants, Saints and Steelers identified as possible destinations.
All those clubs passed on Sanders and instead drafted quarterbacks Jaxson Dart (Giants, No. 25), Tyler Shough (Saints, No. 40) and Will Howard (Steelers, No. 185).
Sanders, who was drafted by the Browns after they selected former Oregon QB Dillon Gabriel at No. 94, told reporters in late April he’s “ready to work.”
“The opportunity to see the real me and not stuff that might not be true,” Sanders said.
He and Gabriel join a crowded Browns QB room that includes veterans Joe Flacco and Kenny Pickett.
Just a few months ago, the crypto industry seemed unstoppable in Washington. It had the support of a pro-crypto president in Donald Trump, a slew of new pro-crypto legislators in both parties, and newly elevated regulators who pledged to not impede the industry’s growth. Many assumed the speedy passage of pro-crypto legislation as a foregone conclusion after Trump asked Congress to send him a stablecoin bill to sign by August.
That momentum hit a major snag over the last few days, as Trump’s expanding investment in the industry coincides with a revolt from Democrats who had previously supported the leading crypto legislation.
On Tuesday, California Rep. Maxine Waters, the ranking Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, objected to a hearing on crypto, effectively blocking it from taking place, and called for legislation that would ban Presidents and members of Congress from owning crypto assets and firms. Trump’s family owns and operates World Liberty Financial, which debuted a stablecoin this week that immediately shot into the top ten stablecoins by market capitalization.
In the Senate, a group of nine Democrats announced they would not support a stablecoin bill, called the GENIUS Act, without major changes, significantly narrowing its pathway to 60 votes. Meanwhile, Senate Banking Committee staff and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, the ranking Democrat on the committee, circulated a memo to her fellow Senate Democrats urging them to demand amendments that might address the bill’s national security concerns.
“If Congress is going to supercharge the use of stablecoins and other cryptocurrencies, it must include safeguards that make it harder for criminals, terrorists, and foreign adversaries to exploit the financial system and put our national security at risk,” read the memo, which was obtained by TIME.
The GENIUS Act is still headed for a vote in the Senate on Thursday, Politico reported. Senate Majority Leader John Thune said he was open to making changes to reach a compromise that addresses Democrats’ concerns. Here are some of the major objections to the bill, and how the fight may play out this week.
Conflict of interest concerns
Stablecoins are cryptocurrencies designed to hold the value of a U.S. dollar. For many lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, passing a stablecoin bill seemed more feasible this year than tackling a larger crypto market structure bill, especially because stablecoins are less volatile and their value is usually tied to actual money sitting in a bank.
Read More: What Are Stablecoins?
But in March, Trump’s World Liberty Financial announced a new stablecoin, leading to concerns that the new legislation would essentially give Trump even more oversight over his own financial product. (In February, Trump issued an executive order placing independent financial regulators like the FTC, FCC and SEC under his own control.)
Trump has only escalated his crypto dealings. Last week, World Liberty Financial announced that an Emirati company planned to use the firm’s new stablecoin for a $2 billion investment in Binance, the world’s largest cryptocurrency exchange. Trump also announced that he would host an exclusive dinner for top investors of his $TRUMP meme coin—which Republican Senator Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, a staunch Trump supporter and cryptocurrency advocate, admitted “gave [her] pause.”
Waters had been working on stablecoin legislation for years. But last month, she reversed course, saying that she opposed any bill that would allow Trump to own a stablecoin. On Tuesday, she walked out of a joint House hearing on crypto, later saying: “I’m deeply concerned that Republicans aren’t just ignoring Trump’s corruption. They are legitimatizing Trump’s and his family’s efforts to enrich themselves on the backs of average Americans.”
Waters then staged her own hearing on stablecoins. Notably, however, several Democrats remained at the original hearing, including Rep. Stephen Lynch of Massachusetts, the ranking member on a subcommittee focused on digital assets, and Rep. Angie Craig of Minnesota. “This is a really important conversation. I’m here because I think we need to be engaged, and part of the discussion,” Craig said.
Craig, however, agreed that Waters was raising important issues. “It’s important and it’s legitimate to call out the self-dealing from the Trump administration related to hawking meme coins from the White House,” she said. “It’s corrupt, it’s wrong, and it makes this process of coming together to regulate crypto more partisan.”
National Security Concerns
While some Democrats are focused on stopping Trump from owning a stablecoin while he’s in office, others are concerned that the current stablecoin bills in Congress could have unintended consequences. Warren, who has long been a crypto skeptic, has particularly honed in on the ripple effects on national security, arguing that the bill would make it easier for terrorists and malicious state actors to steal and cash out illicit funds.
In February, hackers backed by the North Korean government stole $1.5 billion in cryptocurrencies from the crypto exchange Bybit, as part of a larger continuing effort to steal crypto funds from around the world. The Bybit hack was the largest in crypto history—and foreign policy experts believe that the stolen funds are being used to fund the development of missile and nuclear weapons technology.
So Warren and Banking Committee staffers circulated a memo on Monday, which calls for changes to the GENIUS Act, including the implementation of strict anti-money laundering requirements on exchanges handling digital assets. It argues that the bill should extend U.S. sanctions laws to stablecoins, and that stablecoin issuers should be required to monitor blockchains and report criminal activity.
The nine Democrats who revoked their support of the GENIUS Act now hold significant leverage over the bill. It is not clear what changes to the bill would be enough to regain their support. “We’ve been very clear to our Republican colleagues for weeks about the changes that we need,” Virginia Sen. Mark Warner, one of those nine Democrats, told TIME on Tuesday.
Arizona Sen. Ruben Gallego, who led the Democrats’ statement opposing the bill, told TIME that his priorities were beefing up consumer protections and national security issues. “We can tighten up the ‘who can issue, what country can issue’ question,” he says. “It’s incredibly important when it comes to closing some of the Tether loopholes.”
Democratic Sen. Angela Alsobrooks of Maryland, a co-sponsor of the bill, told TIME she believes that the bill should require crypto companies dealing with stablecoins to adopt anti-money laundering (AML) and countering the financing of terrorism (CFL) rules. “We still have a little time, but everybody’s motivated, and we’re all working together to try to get to the best place we can,” she says. “We want to make sure that all of the concerns around national security are addressed.”
Republican Sen. Bill Hagerty of Tennessee, one of the bill’s authors, appeared unfazed by the challenges. “I’m beyond optimistic. I’m confident it will pass,” he told TIME.
Independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders announced that he would host a livestream with other critics of the GENIUS Act on Wednesday to discuss how it “threatens the stability of our financial system.”
The crypto industry is continuing to push for the bill’s passage. Dante Disparte, a leader at the stablecoin issuer Circle, tells TIME that more harms come from the absence of legislation. “Past failures to pass bipartisan stablecoin legislation have harmed U.S. consumers, markets, national security, and dollar competitiveness,” he wrote in an email, citing the failure of the foreign stablecoin project Terra-Luna in 2022.
US stocks dropped Tuesday after Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent confirmed that trade talks with China haven’t started — and President Trump later said the US doesn’t “have to sign” any trade deals.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average lost 389 points, or 1%, while the S&P 500 and Nasdaq fell 0.8% and 0.9%, respectively.
Bessent’s remarks appeared to contradict repeated claims over the past few weeks from Trump, who has said China negotiations have been ongoing and that Chinese President Xi Jinping had called him.
Major stock indexes got a midday boost on Tuesday after Bessent signaled the US has received several “good offers” from other nations on trade deals.
Bessent, during his testimony before a House subcommittee on financial services, said he “would be surprised” if the US doesn’t have 80% or 90% of deals with its largest trading partners wrapped up by the end of the year.
“And that may be much sooner, I would think that perhaps as early as this week, we will be announcing trade deals with some of our largest trading partners,” he continued.
But Trump sent stocks on another slide during a high-stakes meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, when he told reporters that the US doesn’t “have to sign” any deals.
“We don’t have to sign deals. They [foreign nations] have to sign deals with us. They want a piece of our market, we don’t want a piece of their market,” Trump said.
It’s the latest indication that Trump isn’t in a hurry to ease tariffs, telling Time just a couple weeks ago that if the US still has high taxes on foreign imports a year from now, he would consider it a “total victory.”
Trump called the meeting with Carney “friendly,” unlike other meetings, including a “little blow up,” an apparent dig at his explosive meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in February.
Canada’s newly-elected prime minister struck back at Trump’s desire to annex the country and make it a 51st state, saying, “It’s not for sale. It won’t be for sale, ever.”
Trump replied, “Never say never.”
Keep up with today’s most important news
Stay up on the very latest with Evening Update.
Thanks for signing up!
“The markets continue to have daily schizophrenia based upon the day’s events of tariffs, leadership clashes and potential military conflicts,” Ted Jenkin, president of Exit Stage Left Advisors, told The Post.
As long as this widespread uncertainty continues, so will market swings, Jenkin said.
Market jitters continued throughout the day as drastic new trade data and suspended guidance from several major companies did little to quell investors’ fears.
Data released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis on Tuesday showed the US trade deficit soared to a record $140.5 billion in March — a 92.6% jump so far this year as companies rushed to import goods ahead of Trump’s tariffs.
The US took in $17.8 billion more imports in March than the month before, while exports from the US increased by just $500 million – worsening investors’ fears of a recession.
Meanwhile, Ford and Mattel joined the growing list of companies suspending their annual forecasts amid heightened economic uncertainty.
Ford said it estimated Trump’s tariffs will cost the automaker $1.5 billion, while Mattel warned of a $270 million hit – saying it could raise toy prices in the US to counter the additional costs.
“When many companies have a hard time giving future guidance on their earnings, it’s going to make people suspect as to whether the broad stock market is the best place for their money and [that’s] why you’ve seen gold go up as of late,” Jenkin told The Post.
By
Kate Nalepinski is a Newsweek journalist based in New York City. Kate joined Newsweek in May 2024. She is a graduate of Ithaca College.
Digital Media Journalist
🎙️ Voice is AI-generated. Inconsistencies may occur.
The Trump administration is poised to eliminate the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Energy Star program, a measure that would reverberate through millions of U.S. households and businesses that rely on it for energy efficiency guidance and tax benefits.
The Washington Post reported the cuts on Tuesday, citing sources familiar with the move. Officials in President Donald Trump‘s administration announced during a meeting on Monday at the EPA’s Office of Atmospheric Protection that the office would be dissolved and the Energy Star program discontinued.
Energy Star, known for its blue label and yellow EnergyGuide sticker found on appliances and homes, certifies products and buildings that meet certain energy-efficiency standards. Since its inception in 1992, the program has helped consumers save energy and money on utility bills, per the Energy Star website.
sheilasay/Getty Images
Newsweek has contacted the EPA and Energy Star for comment on Tuesday.
What Is the Energy Star Program?
First launched by the EPA, the Energy Star program identifies and promotes energy-efficient products and practices. Goods from refrigerators to air conditioners, as well as entire buildings and homes, can receive the Energy Star label when they meet energy efficiency benchmarks.
According to the Department of Energy, in 2010, Americans saved nearly $18 billion on utility bills by way of the program.
Trump first suggested canceling or privatizing Energy Star in his first term.
How Does Energy Star Work?
First, Energy Star creates guidelines. From there, manufacturers voluntarily submit products for certification to earn the Energy Star label. Products must meet energy performance guidelines established by the EPA, and third-party certification is involved to ensure credibility of the label.
According to Energy Star, thousands of manufacturers and retailers have partnered with the EPA to sell these products.
How Could Energy Star Affect Tax Credits?
Beyond savings on energy bills, the Energy Star program ties directly into federal tax credits, which many homeowners use to offset costs of upgrading to energy-efficient equipment.
As it stands now, through 2032, federal income tax credits are available to homeowners that allow up to $3,200 annually, to lower the cost of energy efficient home upgrades by up to 30 percent, according to Energy Star’s tax credit page.
Through the program, some homeowners can save $2,000 on costs just to upgrade air source heat pumps, heat pump water heaters, and biomass stoves and boilers to eco-friendly options.
Consumers can also claim credits for other Energy Star-certified systems, including insulation, windows and solar energy systems. These credits were expanded under the Inflation Reduction Act 2022.
Paula Glover, president of nonprofit Alliance to Save Energy, told CNN: “Eliminating the Energy Star program would directly contradict this administration’s promise to reduce household energy costs.”
Glover continued: “For just $32 million a year, Energy Star helps American families save over $40 billion in annual energy costs. That’s a return of $350 for every federal dollar invested.”
A portion of the Inflation Reduction Act does reference Energy Star requirements in defining eligible improvements. But it’s unclear how federal tax credits under the act would change if the program gets cut.
If the program is axed, it’s possible that consumers who opted for eco-friendly appliances could be denied tax benefits for which they may have budgeted. If Energy Star is eliminated before the end of the 2025 tax year, homeowners who purchase upgrades in anticipation of tax credits could also face challenges down the line.
fairness meter
Click On Meter To Rate This Article
About the writer
Kate Nalepinski is a Newsweek journalist based in New York City. Kate joined Newsweek in May 2024. She is a graduate of Ithaca College.
Kate Nalepinski is a Newsweek journalist based in New York City. Kate joined Newsweek in May 2024. She is a …
Read more
Categories
Trump meets Canada’s new leader
President Trump had three little words for newly-elected Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney on May 6 after the commander in chief again said he wanted Canada to be America’s 51st state.
“I say, ‘Never say never,’” the 78-year-old said. “I’ve had many, many things that were not doable and ended up being doable.”
Trump was responding to Carney, 60, telling him that Canada is “not for sale” and that the Canadian view on becoming part of the US “is not going to change.” NY Post reporter Diana Glebova shares this story.
Landlord turned screenwriter Christian Carter has backed off from using anti-stalking laws to stop an RTÉ reporter writing stories about him, but has been hit with a €5,000 legal bill.
Dublin man Carter had secured interim restraining orders on April 9th, temporarily stopping Amy Molloy, the Irish Independent’s Social Affairs Correspondent, and Maura Fay, a Today with Claire Byrne reporter on RTÉ Radio 1, from publishing stories about him.
Both of the journalists resisted his attempts to extend the interim order for five-years.
However, last month at Dublin District Court, Judge Anthony Halpin threw out Carter’s bid to “silence” Amy Molloy before lifting reporting restrictions and landing him with an order to pay €10,000 to cover expenses incurred by Mediahuis, the publishers of the Irish Independent, in fighting the case.
On Tuesday, Carter’s case against Ms Fay was listed again for hearing. However, during the call-over of the day’s cases, his barrister, Stephen Wilson, instructed by solicitor Alex Rafter, said he was instructed to withdraw the matter.
Judge Halpin noted two similar previous attempts against Ms Fay had failed. Following an application by Rebecca Tierney BL for Ms Fay, he ordered Carter to pay her legal costs of €5,000.
Furthermore, he again lifted the in-camera rule, allowing the parties to be named.
The businessman’s U-turn follows a resounding courtroom defeat on April 16th in his action against the Irish Independent journalist.
In that case, Judge Halpin criticised Carter’s use of the process, saying it was not the purpose of the civil restraining orders introduced last year.
The judge had heard that Amy Molloy had broken stories and covered court cases about Carter’s days as a landlord and his tax affairs.
“I was just doing my job,” the journalist emphasised when she testified at the hearing.
Judge Halpin dismissed that case: “I never envisaged that this forum would be used to dilute journalistic freedom or restrict publication of certain matters.”
He held that Carter endeavoured to use this legal remedy to “suppress” the legitimate publication of facts he did not want in the public domain.
Ronan Lupton SC for the newspaper described that civil restraining order application as a collateral attack that tramples on the right of freedom of expression.
In evidence, the journalist rejected suggestions from the applicant’s solicitor that she had stepped over the line, telling Judge Halpin she was simply seeking a comment, offering Carter the right to reply, which was a fundamental part of journalism, and “I was just doing my job”.
Carter claimed that she had written 50 articles and had rehashed stories about him since 2017.
In response to his claims, Ms Molloy said since 2017, she had written 17 or 18 articles concerning properties Carter rented out and when he appeared on the tax defaulters list last year.
One of the properties featured in her work was a Cabinteely property, which she alleged had 70 tenants, while Carter claimed it was a 6,000 sq ft 25-roomed mansion with 40 tenants. The Circuit Court had ordered him to pay €20,000 to some of his tenants.
The court heard he was also featured in a 2017 RTÉ Investigates broadcast called Nightmare to Let.
Ms Molloy explained she had written about his issues with the Residential Tenancies Board, a council and the Revenue Commissioners.
Ireland
Richard Satchwell told detective he thought wife w…
Read More
The journalist said that a source informed her that Carter had recently travelled to various destinations, including South America, Canada, and Hawaii.
Ms Molloy asserted that in light of that, she attempted to reach out to him for a comment on whether he had paid up following his settlement of nearly one million euro with the Revenue Commissioners after under-declaring income tax.
She stated, “If Mr Carter had paid his taxes and had not dangerously overcrowded houses, I would never have had to write about him”.
Breaching a civil restraining order can result in a €4,000 fine, a criminal conviction and a 12-month prison sentence.
The director of the clinic where Diego Maradona had surgery two weeks before his death testified that the Argentine football star requested alcohol during the post-operative period and was difficult to deal with – which made his subsequent recovery in home care inadvisable.
Pablo Dimitroff, medical director of the Olivos Clinic, said that neurosurgeon Leopoldo Luque – one of the seven health professionals on trial – requested “a place” so the former player could undergo surgery in early November 2020.
Maradona had surgery for a haematoma that formed between his skull and brain and stayed in intensive care at Olivos between November 4-11.
He then was sent recover to a private home where he died on November 25 of 2020 at the age of 60.
The deficiencies in Maradona’s home care are one of the prosecution’s key pieces of evidence against the defendants.
A cardiologist testified that he was against moving Maradona from the Olivos Clinic.
Mr Dimitroff said the surgery was not “an emergency”, although there were indicators “that it was necessary at some point”.
The operation was performed by a neurosurgeon at that centre and it was routine, according to the medical director.
After the surgery, the former player displayed a “difficult” temperament during his stay in intensive care and “did not understand that he had to stay still”, Mr Dimitroff said.
He added that on November 6, Maradona had “a complex psychomotor excitation episode” that resembled alcohol withdrawal, which was what he was demanding, the manager indicated.
“We were dealing with an aggressive patient who tore out his own IVs; he was a very difficult patient to take home,” Mr Dimitroff stated.
Mr Dimitroff explained that he discussed the situation with Mr Luque and Agustina Cosachov — Maradona’s psychiatrist, who is also on trial — and with the former player’s family.
According to Mr Dimitroff, both Mr Luque and Ms Cosachov requested sedation for Maradona which was carried out at the clinic for approximately 24 hours.