United News of Bangladesh

President Donald Trump pushes the Senate to confirm his federal judicial nominees, nearly half of them have revealed anti-abortion views or defended state abortion restrictions, raising concerns about the long-term impact on abortion access in the US. Several nominees have played key roles in defending abortion bans and challenging access to medication abortion. Among them are judges who have described abortion as a “barbaric practice” and called themselves “zealots” for the anti-abortion cause. Though Trump has publicly said abortion should be left to the states, his lifetime-appointed judicial picks could influence abortion laws nationwide for decades. Trump’s new tariffs take effect as US economy shows signs of strain Bernadette Meyler, a constitutional law professor at Stanford University, said judicial appointments are a way to shape abortion policy federally “without going through Congress or making a big, explicit statement.” In Trump’s second term, of the 17 judicial nominees, at least eight have argued for abortion restrictions. Many come from states with strict abortion laws such as Missouri and Florida. Notable nominees include Whitney Hermandorfer, who defended Tennessee’s near-total abortion ban; Maria Lanahan, involved in challenging FDA approval of the abortion pill mifepristone in Missouri; and Jordan Pratt, who called abortion a “barbaric practice” and supported Florida’s 15-week abortion ban. Other nominees have defended parental consent laws, ultrasound requirements, and efforts to defund Planned Parenthood. The White House defended the nominees, citing the 2022 Supreme Court ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade and emphasized states’ rights to decide abortion policy. Anti-abortion groups expressed optimism about the nominations, while abortion rights advocates warn Trump is embedding anti-abortion extremists throughout the judiciary, threatening access to abortion nationwide. Mini Timmaraju, president of Reproductive Freedom for All, said Trump’s approach “feeds into this larger strategy” of distancing himself publicly from abortion while appointing hardline judges.

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reposted a video Thursday night featuring a Christian nationalist church where pastors called for repealing women’s right to vote, highlighting his close ties to the church’s controversial views. The nearly seven-minute CNN report focused on Doug Wilson, cofounder of the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches (CREC). It included a pastor advocating to remove women’s voting rights from the Constitution, another proposing household-based voting, and a female church member expressing submission to her husband. Accompanying the video on social media platform X, Hegseth wrote, “All of Christ for All of Life.” His post received over 12,000 likes and 2,000 shares, drawing both support and criticism for promoting Christian nationalist ideology. Doug Pagitt, pastor and head of progressive evangelical group Vote Common Good, condemned the views as held by “small fringes of Christians” and described Hegseth’s amplification as “very disturbing.” US Defence Secy Hegseth grilled by Congress over troop deployment, Pentagon budget Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell told the Associated Press that Hegseth is “a proud member” of a church affiliated with CREC and values many of Wilson’s teachings. In May, Hegseth invited his personal pastor, Brooks Potteiger, to lead Christian prayer services at the Pentagon during working hours, sending official invitations to Defense Department staff and service members. Wilson told CNN, “I’d like to see the nation be a Christian nation, and I’d like to see the world be a Christian world.” Source: Agency

The death of New York City police officer Didarul Islam, the first Bangladeshi American member of the NYPD killed in the line of duty, has cast a spotlight on the growing presence of Bangladeshi immigrants in the department’s ranks. Islam, one of four people killed in the July 28 shooting at a Manhattan office tower housing the NFL’s headquarters, was remembered last week at a funeral service outside a Bronx mosque. Officers in navy blue uniforms unfurled a banner with his photograph alongside the emblem of the Bangladeshi American Police Association. Among the mourners were officers wearing traditional South Asian attire, their badges displayed around their necks. According to the association, more than 1,000 of the NYPD’s approximately 33,000 uniformed officers are Bangladeshi Americans, along with another 1,500 civilian employees of Bangladeshi heritage. This marks a dramatic increase from just a handful of officers a few decades ago — growth attributed to post-9/11 patriotism, targeted recruitment and word-of-mouth within the community. Bangladesh-origin police officer killed in Manhattan shooting praised as ‘hero’ “He uplifted our community in a way that was unimaginable before,” said Shamsul Haque, a co-founder of the Bangladeshi officers’ group. “His legacy will endure not only as a hero who gave his life protecting others, but also as a symbol of hope, integrity and the American dream.” Haque, who joined the force in 2004, recalled that many early recruits sought to challenge stereotypes about Muslims in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks. Over time, he said, perceptions among colleagues have improved, and Bangladeshi officers have risen through the ranks. Today, the NYPD counts 10 detectives, 82 sergeants, 20 lieutenants and four inspectors of Bangladeshi heritage. Many have followed a pathway starting with civilian roles such as school safety officers and traffic agents, which do not require U.S. citizenship. Islam himself began as a school safety officer after immigrating about 16 years ago. For newer recruits, Islam’s death has been sobering. “It made us think, what if it happens to me today? It can,” said Officer Ishmam Chowdhury, 26, who joined the NYPD in May. He moved from Bangladesh in 2019, driven by a desire to serve after experiencing armed robberies as a teenager. “That’s what makes this city, this country, great,” Chowdhury said. “It doesn’t matter where somebody comes from — if somebody works hard and truly wants to do something, they can do it.”

A federal judge will decide Friday on a Trump administration bid to end a nearly 30-year-old policy that guarantees safe and sanitary conditions for immigrant children in U.S. custody. U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee in Los Angeles will hear arguments on whether to dissolve the Flores agreement, which limits Customs and Border Protection (CBP) from holding immigrant children for more than 72 hours, requires them to be kept in safe conditions, and allows independent inspections of CBP facilities. Advocates want the protections to remain, citing accounts from detained families that describe children competing with adults for clean water, distressed toddlers, and a child with swollen feet denied medical care. The Trump administration argues the policy is outdated, saying conditions have “substantially improved” since the 1997 agreement, with new standards and laws now in place. The settlement, named after a teenage plaintiff, covers all immigrant children, whether traveling alone or with family. After 72 hours, children are transferred to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Trump administration deports immigrants despite court order halting removals Last year, the Biden administration partially rolled back the agreement, with Judge Gee allowing court supervision to end once HHS takes custody, except for facilities housing children with special needs. Child advocates say the government is still violating time limits. In March and April, CBP reported holding 213 children for over 72 hours, including 14 — some toddlers — for more than 20 days in April. If the settlement ends, detention centers would no longer face independent inspections. The government is also planning to expand immigration detention, including facilities like one in Florida nicknamed “Alligator Alcatraz,” where detainees allege their constitutional rights are being violated.

The Justice Department has issued subpoenas to New York Attorney General Letitia James as part of an investigation into whether she violated President Donald Trump’s civil rights, sources familiar with the matter said Friday. The subpoenas seek records connected to a lawsuit James filed against Trump over alleged fraud in his personal business dealings, as well as a separate case involving the National Rifle Association. The sources, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed the subpoenas relate to a civil rights probe. This move escalates the Trump administration’s ongoing scrutiny of perceived political opponents, including figures like James who investigated Trump prior to his 2024 election victory. A spokesperson for James’s office, Geoff Burgan, did not confirm the subpoenas but stated, “Any weaponization of the justice system should disturb every American. We stand strongly behind our successful litigation against the Trump Organization and the National Rifle Association, and we will continue to stand up for New Yorkers’ rights.” Advocacy group files lawsuit against Justice Department and FBI seeking Epstein case records James’s personal attorney, Abbe D. Lowell, called the investigation an “improper tactic” and “the most blatant and desperate example” of political retribution by the administration. Lowell said, “Weaponizing the Department of Justice to punish an elected official for doing her job is an attack on the rule of law and a dangerous escalation by this administration.” Advocacy group files lawsuit against Justice Department and FBI seeking Epstein case records Justice Department spokesperson Natalie Baldassarre declined to comment. James, a Democrat, has filed numerous lawsuits against Trump and his administration over policies and his private business activities. Trump is appealing a multimillion-dollar judgment won by James in a fraud case, which alleges he provided banks and lenders with inflated financial statements for properties including golf clubs and his Trump Tower penthouse. Trump denies wrongdoing, claiming his financial statements understated his wealth and that any errors were harmless and did not influence lending decisions. He and his legal team have accused James of engaging in politically motivated “lawfare,” a charge she denies. The subpoenas come amid a broader Justice Department investigation linked to the Trump-Russia probe from his first term, alongside a reported purge of law enforcement officials involved in investigations of Trump and his allies.

A divided appeals court panel on Friday overturned a contempt ruling against President Donald Trump’s administration in a case involving deportations to a prison in El Salvador. The case arose after planes carrying Venezuelan migrants landed at the prison despite a U.S. district judge’s order to return them to the United States. U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg had found probable cause to hold the Trump administration in criminal contempt, marking a significant clash between the judiciary and the executive branch. However, a split three-judge panel in Washington ruled that Boasberg had overstepped his authority and infringed on the executive branch’s power over foreign affairs. Judges Gregory Katsas and Neomi Rao, both appointed by Trump during his first term, supported the majority opinion, with Rao stating the contempt threat aimed to force the executive to engage diplomatically for custody over individuals held by a foreign government. Judge Cornelia Pillard, appointed by former President Barack Obama, dissented, criticizing the majority for undermining the judge’s efforts to uphold judicial authority. Intel CEO reacts to Trump’s demand for resignation The Trump administration has denied violating the court order. The 250 migrants were sent back to their home country as part of a prisoner exchange after months of detention at El Salvador’s Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT). Boasberg had accused the administration of hastily deporting individuals under the Alien Enemies Act before they could challenge their removals and ignoring his order for planes already in flight to return. Last month, the Justice Department filed a rare judicial misconduct complaint against Boasberg, seeking to remove him from the case pending investigation, citing comments he allegedly made during a closed judges’ meeting and his handling of the deportations case. Attorney General Pam Bondi hailed the appeals court decision as a “major victory” defending Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act and pledged to “continue fighting and winning in court.”

Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan said he has “always operated within the highest legal and ethical standards” following calls for his resignation by President Donald Trump. On Thursday, Trump posted on his Truth Social platform that “The CEO of Intel is highly CONFLICTED and must resign, immediately. There is no other solution to this problem.” The controversy arose after Senator Tom Cotton sent a letter to Intel Chairman Frank Yeary raising concerns about Tan’s investments and connections to semiconductor companies reportedly linked to the Chinese Communist Party and the People’s Liberation Army. Cotton asked whether Tan had divested from these interests to avoid conflicts. Intel slashes workforce, trims spending in bid to regain market footing It was not clear on Thursday if Tan, who became Intel’s CEO in March, had taken steps to divest. The economic and political rivalry between the U.S. and China increasingly centers on semiconductor chips, artificial intelligence, and other digital technologies critical to future economies and security. Intel said in a statement that it is “deeply committed to advancing U.S. national and economic security interests” and making significant investments aligned with President Trump’s America First agenda. Tan addressed the issue in a message to employees, dismissing misinformation about his past roles at Walden International and Cadence Design Systems, and reaffirmed his adherence to proper standards. He added that Intel is in contact with the Trump administration to address concerns and provide accurate information. “I fully share the President’s commitment to advancing U.S. national and economic security. I appreciate his leadership to advance these priorities, and I’m proud to lead a company central to these goals,” Tan said. Intel’s stock saw a slight rise in premarket trading Friday.  

President Donald Trump’s latest round of import tariffs took effect early Thursday, targeting goods from over 60 countries and the European Union, even as signs of economic strain are beginning to emerge in the United States. Goods from the EU, Japan, and South Korea are now subject to 15% tariffs, while products from Taiwan, Vietnam, and Bangladesh face 20%. Trump has also announced 25% additional tariffs on India over its Russian oil purchases, bringing the total to 50%. Switzerland faces a 39% tariff, with high duties imposed on drugs and computer chips. Despite Trump’s assertion that the U.S. is “taking in hundreds of billions of dollars,” economic indicators show potential setbacks. Hiring has slowed, inflationary pressures have increased, and key housing markets are experiencing a decline in property values. Trump’s newly announced tariffs come into effect “The economy has become less productive,” said John Silvia, CEO of Dynamic Economic Strategy. “Higher tariff prices lower workers’ real wages.” Germany's industrial output dropped 1.9% in June, while Indian exporters warned that 55% of their U.S.-bound shipments would be hit, risking client loss. Trump invoked a 1977 law declaring an economic emergency to implement the tariffs, a move facing legal challenges. Critics, including former House Speaker Paul Ryan, have called the move arbitrary. Nevertheless, the S&P 500 has risen over 25% since April, and recent tax cuts have boosted White House confidence in continued growth. But economists caution that the full impact of the tariffs will be felt gradually. “There’s one person who can afford to be cavalier about the uncertainty—that’s Donald Trump,” said Rachel West, a senior fellow at The Century Foundation. “The rest of Americans are already paying the price.”

The United States on Thursday officially began enforcing new tariffs on imports from over 60 countries, following President Donald Trump’s sweeping announcement four months ago to impose broad trade duties while negotiating fresh trade agreements. According to the White House, imports from the European Union, Japan and South Korea will now face 15% tariffs, while products from Taiwan, Vietnam, and Bangladesh will be taxed at 20%. Some African countries and others, such as Switzerland, will see even steeper rates, with tariffs reaching as high as 39% or more. The Trump administration said it expects these measures will encourage foreign investment into the U.S., estimating hundreds of billions of dollars from the EU, Japan and South Korea. Officials believe the tariffs will bring clarity to economic direction and trigger renewed investments and job creation in the domestic manufacturing sector. However, data so far indicate that the U.S. economy has slowed since the first wave of tariffs was introduced in April. African Leaders Seek Reprieve South African President Cyril Ramaphosa said he held a phone conversation with Trump ahead of a 30% tariff on some South African exports taking effect. His office noted that both leaders agreed to continue talks. Neighbouring countries Botswana and Lesotho also expressed hopes of negotiating better terms. Lesotho, which originally faced a 50% rate, saw it reduced to 15%, but the government warns the rate still threatens its clothing industry and thousands of jobs linked to exports to the U.S. Swiss Industry Sounds Alarm Swiss tech association Swissmem decried the imposition of a 39% tariff on its goods, calling it a “horror scenario” for Switzerland’s economy. The group said tens of thousands of jobs could be at risk and warned that the higher duties put Swiss exporters at a disadvantage compared to EU and Japanese competitors. Swiss President Karin Keller-Sutter held meetings in Washington in a last-ditch effort to halt the tariffs, but the rate took effect as scheduled. The Swiss Federal Council held an emergency session to assess the economic fallout. South Korea Eyes Long-Term Strategy Despite securing a last-minute deal to lower its tariff rate from 25% to 15%, South Korean Trade Minister Hankoo Yeo warned of continued global trade uncertainty. He urged swift action to support vulnerable sectors and diversify trade partnerships. South Korea also committed to purchasing $100 billion in U.S. energy and investing $350 billion in the U.S., though details remain under discussion. Yeo confirmed that South Korean chipmakers like Samsung and SK Hynix will be exempt from the looming 100% semiconductor tariffs due to Seoul’s new trade designation. Economic Impact Spreads Japanese automaker Toyota reported a 37% drop in quarterly profits, largely attributing the slump to new U.S. tariffs. The company estimated that 15% duties cost it $3 billion last quarter. In contrast, Sony reported a 23% rise in profit, saying the tariff impact was lower than expected. In India, the Federation of Indian Export Organisations warned that 55% of exports to the U.S. would be affected. President S.C. Ralhan said exporters cannot absorb the added costs, risking business losses. Meanwhile, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi reaffirmed his commitment to protect farmers' interests, amid U.S. demands for wider access to India’s agriculture market. Trump has also announced a fresh 25% tariff on India over its Russian oil purchases, bringing total duties to 50%. Source: Agency

The United States on Wednesday marks 60 years since President Lyndon B. Johnson, joined by civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr., signed the historic Voting Rights Act into law — a measure that many consider a cornerstone of American democracy. Enacted in 1965, the law aimed to eliminate racial discrimination in voting, particularly targeting longstanding barriers faced by Black voters. However, legal experts and rights groups warn that the landmark legislation is facing growing threats. The act's gradual erosion began with a 2013 Supreme Court decision that removed the requirement for federal approval before certain states with histories of voter suppression could change their election laws. Within hours, some states introduced restrictive measures. The trend has continued, especially after the 2020 election and unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud by former President Donald Trump. In 2023, the Supreme Court upheld a key provision of the act. However, the upcoming term includes cases that could weaken those protections further. Voting rights advocates say the outcomes could determine the law’s future relevance. “We’re at a critical juncture,” said Demetria McCain of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, warning of persistent attacks on voting rights for communities of color. One recent legal victory for Native American communities in North Dakota may be short-lived. In 2024, the Turtle Mountain and Spirit Lake tribes successfully argued for a new legislative map that gave them better representation. However, a federal appeals court later ruled that private individuals and groups cannot file such lawsuits — a significant departure from decades of precedent. The Supreme Court has put the ruling on hold while it considers whether to hear the case. Advocates note that nearly 87% of claims under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act have been brought by individuals or private organizations, not the federal government. Meanwhile, another key case related to congressional districting in Louisiana is also pending before the court. It could alter or reverse a 2022 decision that preserved a majority-Black district in Alabama. Legal experts say the court’s request for additional arguments indicates uncertainty among justices. Under the current administration, the U.S. Justice Department has reportedly scaled back its focus on voting rights enforcement, drawing criticism from civil liberties groups. Federal legislative efforts to restore protections — including the John Lewis Voting Rights Act — have stalled in Congress. Former President Trump, seeking to reshape voting regulations, signed an executive order earlier this year that would require proof of citizenship to vote, although much of it has been blocked by courts. Experts say the patchwork of voting laws across states now threatens equal access to the ballot. “Increasingly, the experiences of voters depend on where they live,” said Sean Morales-Doyle of the Brennan Center for Justice. Source: Agency