US President Donald Trump signed a new travel ban Wednesday targeting 12 countries, saying it was spurred by an attack on a Jewish protest in Colorado that authorities blamed on a man they said was in the country illegally.The ban, which strongly resembles a similar measure taken in his first presidency, targets nationals of Afghanistan, Burma, Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen.It will go into effect on June 9, the White House said.Trump also imposed a partial ban on travelers from seven countries: Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela, the White House said.”The recent terror attack in Boulder, Colorado has underscored the extreme dangers posed to our country by the entry of foreign nationals who are not properly vetted,” Trump said in a video message from the Oval Office posted on X.”We don’t want them.”Trump compared the new measures to the “powerful” ban he imposed on a number of mainly Muslim countries in his first term, which he said had stopped the United States suffering attacks that happened in Europe.”We will not let what happened in Europe happen in America,” Trump said.”We cannot have open migration from any country where we cannot safely and reliably vet and screen. That is why today I am signing a new executive order placing travel restrictions on countries including Yemen, Somalia, Haiti, Libya, and numerous others.”Rumors of a new Trump travel ban had circulated following the attack in Colorado, with his administration vowing to pursue “terrorists” living in the US on visas.Suspect Mohammed Sabry Soliman is alleged to have thrown fire bombs and sprayed burning gasoline at a group of people who had gathered on Sunday in support of Israeli hostages held by Hamas.US Homeland Security officials said Soliman was in the country illegally, having overstayed a tourist visa, but that he had applied for asylum in September 2022.”President Trump is fulfilling his promise to protect Americans from dangerous foreign actors that want to come to our country and cause us harm,” White House Deputy Press Secretary Abigail Jackson said on X.”These commonsense restrictions are country-specific and include places that lack proper vetting, exhibit high visa overstay rates, or fail to share identity and threat information.” 

The US government threatened Wednesday to strip New York’s Columbia University of its accreditation for allegedly ignoring harassment of Jewish students, putting all of its federal funding and prestige at risk.With the move, the administration of President Donald Trump appeared to be doubling down on its efforts to bring several prestigious universities to heel over claims they tolerated campus anti-Semitism during protests against Israel’s war in Gaza.Several top institutions, including Columbia University, have already bowed to far-reaching demands from the Trump administration, which claims that the educational elite is too left-wing.”Columbia University looked the other way as Jewish students faced harassment,” US Education Secretary Linda McMahon said on X.She accused the reputable Ivy League school of “breaking Title VI protections,” referring to a national law that prohibits recipients of federal funding from discriminating on the basis of race, color, or national origin.”After Hamas’ October 7, 2023, terror attack on Israel, Columbia University’s leadership acted with deliberate indifference towards the harassment of Jewish students on its campus,” McMahon said in a statement.- ‘Immoral’ -“This is not only immoral, but also unlawful.”In the statement, the US Education Department said its civil rights office had contacted Columbia’s accreditor about the alleged violation.It said it had notified the Middle States Commission on Higher Education that “its member institution, Columbia University, is in violation of federal antidiscrimination laws and therefore fails to meet the standards for accreditation set by the Commission.” Withdrawing Columbia’s accreditation would see it lose access to all federal funds.Students attending the university would also not be able to receive federal grants and loans towards tuition.Critics accuse the Trump administration of using allegations of anti-Semitism to target educational elites and bring universities to their knees.The Trump administration has already put $400 million of Columbia’s funding under review, prompting the university in March to announce a package of concessions to the government around defining anti-Semitism, policing protests and conducting oversight for specific academic departments.Following Wednesday’s announcement, a Columbia spokesperson said the university “aware of the concerns” raised by the government with its accreditor.”We have addressed those concerns directly with Middle States,” the spokesperson said, adding that “Columbia is deeply committed to combating anti-Semitism on our campus.””We take this issue seriously and are continuing to work with the federal government to address it.”Columbia found itself at the center of a firestorm last year over claims of anti-Semitism triggered by campus protests against the war in Gaza.Some Jewish students claimed they were intimidated and that authorities did not act to protect them.The protests that roiled Columbia and other US schools culminated in members of Trump’s Republican party grilling higher education leaders before Congress about anti-Semitism accusations.Columbia’s former president Minouche Shafik resigned last August just weeks before the start of the new school year, citing scrutiny she faced over her handling of the demonstrations.

Donald Trump’s sweeping domestic policy bill has careened into an Elon Musk-shaped brick wall, complicating its passage into law and risking a schism between the most powerful man in the world and the wealthiest.The US president’s “big, beautiful bill” — the centerpiece of his domestic agenda — could define his second term and make or break Republican prospects in the 2026 midterm elections.But the package is getting a rough ride in Congress over proposals to fund an extension of his 2017 tax cuts by piling on debt and cutting social welfare for the poorest Americans.  Enter tech billionaire Musk, who dropped a nuclear bomb on the 1,100-page blueprint at a crucial stage in negotiations Tuesday, calling it a “disgusting abomination.”And on Wednesday he called for Republicans to “kill the bill,” and for an alternative plan that “doesn’t massively grow the deficit.”In its latest estimate released Wednesday, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office said the bill would add $2.4 trillion to US debt by 2034.Musk, who last week ended his brief advisory tenure as Trump’s cost-cutter-in-chief, tore into the bill in a prolonged denouncement.The South African-born tycoon has voiced concerns before, but his language was much more combative, coming across as a declaration of war on the Republican Party, if not Trump himself.The White House brushed off the criticism, saying Trump “already knows where Elon Musk stood,” but the remarks will likely have gotten under the president’s skin.- ‘Lennon and McCartney’ -The stakes could hardly be higher for Trump, who has made clear, with signature hyperbole, that he sees his bill as “arguably the most significant piece of legislation that will ever be signed.”He has yet to respond personally to Musk’s social media rant — sustained over six hours and 13 posts on Tuesday and still going well into Wednesday.But Washington watchers aren’t necessarily expecting a public falling-out. Behind the scenes, a careful circling of the wagons is underway, with pro-Trump pundits under orders to refrain from trashing Musk and to instead frame his broadside as what Politico called “principled self-interest.”Still, for analysts contacted by AFP, there may be choppier waters ahead.”It’s the Lennon and McCartney of modern politics. Two egos, one spotlight, and a fragile alliance built on mutual benefits,” said Evan Nierman, the founder and CEO of global crisis PR firm Red Banyan.”The moment either one sees more upside in conflict than cooperation, the breakup goes public.”But political consultant and former Senate aide Andrew Koneschusky, a key player in negotiations over Trump’s 2017 tax cuts, believes the Republican leader has nothing to gain by biting back.”Musk has more money. Musk’s megaphone, X, is bigger than Trump’s. And Musk was deeply embedded in the administration for months,” he told AFP. “There’s no telling what Musk heard or saw that could be embarrassing or problematic for the administration if the two were to go to war.”- ‘Bromance’ -Crucially, Musk slammed right-wing lawmakers who voiced concerns over debt but cleared the bill for Senate consideration anyway — almost the entire 220-strong House Republican group.Musk, who spent around $280 million getting Trump elected, undoubtedly has the cash to make his mark on the midterms. And the de facto leader of America’s “tech bro” community demonstrated his political firepower with a single tweet in December that blew up a government funding bill that had enjoyed bipartisan support.His take on the deficit implications of Trump’s proposals is evidenced by copious independent research and he was immediately backed by some fiscal hawks in the Senate. Continued interventions by Musk could be an ongoing headache for Trump, as he bids to shepherd his policy priorities through razor-thin Republican majorities in Congress.But cheerleaders of the package — and independent analysts contacted by AFP — believe the Tesla magnate may discover that his celebrity in Trumpworld relies on the say-so of its mercurial chieftain. “Musk may have had influence in December when his bromance with Trump was in full bloom,” said Donald Nieman, a political analyst and professor at Binghamton University in New York state. “But his break with Trump and his massive unpopularity with voters makes it easy for lawmakers to ignore him. If anything, it helps Trump by distancing him from a man who has become a pariah.”

A prosecutor told jurors at Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein’s rape and sexual assault trial Wednesday that “no means no” as they prepared to consider his fate.A New York state appeals court had thrown out Weinstein’s 2020 convictions after irregularities in the presentation of witnesses at his original trial, forcing two victims of his alleged abuse to testify a second time.”He raped three women, they all said no,” said prosecutor Nicole Blumberg as she recounted the evidence of the three alleged victims of Weinstein who testified at this trial.The Hollywood powerbroker had “all the power” and “all the control” over the alleged victims which is why jurors should find him guilty, she said.”The defendant thought the rules did not apply to him, now it is the time to let him know that the rules apply to him.”There is no reasonable doubt, tell the defendant what he already knows — that he is guilty of the three crimes.”Weinstein’s defense attorney insisted the sexual encounters were consensual, pointing to a “casting couch” dynamic between the movie mogul and the women.”We don’t want to police the bedroom” — except in cases of rape, Blumberg fired back.Judge Curtis Farber indicated that he would give his instructions to the jurors Thursday morning, the final step before they withdraw behind closed doors to deliberate.- ‘MeToo’ movement -Weinstein, the producer of box-office hits “Pulp Fiction” and “Shakespeare in Love,” has never acknowledged wrongdoing.The cinema magnate, whose downfall in 2017 sparked the global #MeToo movement, has been on trial again since April 15 in a scruffy Manhattan courtroom.He is serving a 16-year prison sentence after being convicted in California of raping and assaulting a European actress more than a decade ago.Two of the accusers in this case — onetime production assistant Miriam Haley and then-aspiring actress Jessica Mann — testified at Weinstein’s original trial.Their accounts helped galvanize the #MeToo movement nearly a decade ago, but the case is being re-prosecuted at a new trial in New York.His 2020 convictions on charges relating to Haley and Mann, and his 23-year prison term, were overturned last year by the New York Court of Appeals.The tribunal ruled that the way witnesses were handled in the original trial was unlawful.Some 20 years after the earliest incidents were alleged to have taken place, Weinstein’s defense team have sought to cast doubt on the credibility of the accusers. Weinstein has appeared daily in a wheelchair, physically subdued, but laughing and joking with his legal team.He did not speak at his trial, which also featured a new charge of sexual assault committed against former Polish model Kaja Sokola.