AFP USA

US President Donald Trump and China’s leader Xi Jinping spoke by phone Friday with expectations that they were set to finalize the fate of the hugely popular and influential video app TikTok, as well as discussing trade.Chinese state broadcaster CCTV and the Xinhua news agency said the call had started.Trump previewed his talks on Thursday, telling Fox News that they would be discussing “TikTok and also trade.””And we’re very close to deals on all of it. And my relationship with China is very good,” he said.The call was their second since Trump began his second term in January.On June 5, the US president said Xi had invited him to visit China, and he issued a similar invitation for the Chinese leader to come to the United States. So far, no travel plans have been made, but several analysts expected Xi to repeat his offer Friday, playing on Trump’s enthusiasm for lavish receptions in foreign capitals.- TikTok -“Each leader will aim to signal that he has outmaneuvered the other” in trade talks focused on tariffs, Ali Wyne, an expert on US-China relations at the International Crisis Group, predicted in a note.The pair could settle the TikTok drama, after Trump repeatedly put off a ban under a US law designed to force Chinese parent company ByteDance to sell its US operations for national security reasons.Trump told reporters on Thursday that he hoped to “finalize something on TikTok.”Under the deal, TikTok’s US business would be “owned by all American investors, and very rich people and companies,” Trump said. He said he believes TikTok had boosted his appeal to younger voters and helped him win the 2024 election.The president on Tuesday again pushed back applying a ban on the app, which had been decided under his predecessor president Joe Biden.The Wall Street Journal raised the possibility of a consortium to control TikTok that would include tech giant Oracle and two California investment funds — Silver Lake and Andreessen Horowitz.- Tariffs -The telephone talks come as the world’s two biggest economies seek to find a compromise on tariffs.Both sides dramatically hiked tariffs against each other during a months-long dispute earlier this year, disrupting global supply chains.Washington and Beijing then reached a deal to reduce levies, which expires in November, with the United States imposing 30 percent duties on imports of Chinese goods and China hitting US products with a 10 percent tariff. The phone meeting also comes after Xi organized a major summit this month with the leaders of Russia and India — and invited North Korean leader Kim Jong Un to observe a major military parade in Beijing.”Please give my warmest regards to (Russian President) Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un as you conspire against the United States of America,” Trump wrote to Xi on his Truth Social platform. The US leader slammed India with punitive tariffs for its oil purchases from Moscow, and has called on European countries to sanction China for buying Russian oil, though Washington has not itself sanctioned Beijing. “If they did that on China, I think the war (in Ukraine) would maybe end,” Trump told Fox News. burs-sms/bgs

Late-night TV comics skewered US President Donald Trump and denounced “blatant censorship” after Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night show was pulled off air over his comments on the murder of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk.Network ABC’s decision to suspend Kimmel “indefinitely” came after Federal Communications Commission (FCC) chairman Brendan Carr threatened the licenses of ABC affiliates that broadcast his show.Trump, on his way back from a trip to Britain, again condemned evening shows on network television, saying “all they do is hit Trump.””I mean, they’re getting a license. I would think maybe their license should be taken away. It will be up to Brendan Carr,” Trump told reporters on Air Force One.Stephen Colbert — whose own Emmy-winning “Late Show” on CBS will be taken off the air next year — opened his Thursday program by saying “today, we are all Jimmy Kimmel.””After threats from Trump’s FCC Chair, ABC yanked Kimmel off their air indefinitely. That is blatant censorship,” Colbert said.”With an autocrat, you cannot give an inch, and if ABC thinks this is going to satisfy the regime, they are woefully naive,” he said.Colbert’s show was axed shortly after he criticized a decision by CBS’s parent company, Paramount Global, to settle a lawsuit brought by Trump over an interview with former vice president Kamala Harris.CBS said in July that cancelling Colbert’s program was a “purely financial decision.”Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart delivered his own response to Kimmel’s suspension, introduced on Thursday night as “your patriotically obedient host” of the “all-new government-approved Daily Show.””Some naysayers may argue that this administration’s speech concerns are merely a cynical ploy… to obscure an unprecedented consolidation of power and unitary intimidation,” Stewart said.”Some people would say that — not me though, I think it’s great.”Once a staple for American audiences, late-night talk shows on network TV have seen declining viewership and advertising revenue in recent years amid a trend of cord-cutting.Linear ad spending for late-night segments on ABC, CBS and NBC nearly halved between 2018 and 2024, falling from $439 million to $221 million, the New York Times reported in May citing data from advertising data firm Guideline.- ‘Not done yet’ -FCC chief Carr said on Thursday that the media ecosystem was experiencing a “very disruptive moment” and that more changes were to come.”We are in the midst of a massive shift in dynamics in the media ecosystem… including the permission structure that President Trump’s election has provided,” he said on a CNBC program.”I would simply say we’re not done yet with seeing the consequences of that.”Trump earlier urged NBC to remove satirists Jimmy Fallon and Seth Meyers, writing on his Truth Social platform that they were “total losers.”On The Tonight Show, Fallon praised Kimmel as a “decent, funny and loving guy and I hope he comes back.””A lot of people are worried that… we’ll be censored, but I’m going to cover the president’s trip to the UK just like I normally would,” Fallon told his audience.A voiceover was then played calling Trump “incredibly handsome.”Meyers said on Thursday that Trump’s administration is “pursuing a crackdown on free speech” at home.”And completely unrelated, I just want to say… I’ve always admired and respected Mr Trump,” he said.”If you’ve ever seen me say anything negative about him, that’s just AI.”Late-night legend David Letterman also defended Kimmel on Thursday, calling the ABC decision “ridiculous.””You can’t go around firing somebody because you’re fearful or trying to suck up to an authoritarian criminal administration in the Oval Office,” Letterman said at a New York event.Fox News host Greg Gutfeld said on Thursday Kimmel was not being “censored” after earlier calling him a clown.”While some say it’s an attack on free speech, others believe it’s an excuse to unload Jimmy due to his poor ratings and the cost to keep him on,” Gutfeld said.

There is a mixed crowd lining up outside the ICE recruitment fair in Utah, where hundreds of people are eager to join US President Donald Trump’s vast deportation effort.John Wolworth drove eight hours from neighboring Colorado, and was desperate to sign up to Immigration and Customs Enforcement.”I’m here to defend my country,” he said.”Our borders are a big deal, our culture is a big deal and we have a right, as a people, to uphold that culture,” the 33-year-old told AFP.An unemployed former soldier, Wolworth had with him his resume, a nursing diploma, army medals, a certificate of proficiency in shooting, and another in jujitsu. “I think I have the right profile,” he said. “As men, it is almost in our DNA to rise to the occasion.”With his “Big, Beautiful Bill,” Trump allocated $170 billion to border protection and the fight against illegal immigration. ICE, the federal agency tasked with carrying out the mass deportations the Republican promised on the election campaign trail, is one of the major beneficiaries of this extra cash, and says it wants to recruit 10,000 additional agents. – ‘We need YOU’ -The Department of Homeland Security, of which ICE is a part, has begun holding recruitment fairs like the one in Provo all across the United States.On ICE’s website, the WWI-era figure of Uncle Sam issues an urgent plea to potential recruits: “America has been invaded by criminals and predators. We need YOU to get them out.”The muscular rhetoric results in a crowd that slants heavily male, but runs across age groups.”We finally have a president who wants to make America great again, so this is why I’m here,” said a man in his 60s, who did not want to give his name.While perhaps the majority of those lining up for the recruitment fair were white men, the crowd also included a significant number of African-American and Hispanic candidates. Allan Marquez is an employee of a private security company who works in a prison where ICE regularly brings detainees. The mass deportations promised by Trump “are necessary,” said the 29-year-old American, who added that his Mexican grandparents immigrated legally to the United States decades earlier.”It’s part of the job of keeping the nation safe,” he said.Eddie — who did not want to give his full name –is also of Mexican descent and acknowledged qualms about the raids carried out by ICE this summer around Los Angeles. Footage showed masked agents bumrushing hardware stores, car washes and farms, in what appeared to be a sweep of anyone Hispanic. ICE officials said they were targeted actions.Official figures show the majority of those arrested by ICE had no criminal record.- Attractive bonus -Eddie said as a former child protective services officer, he hoped to be able to bring some humanity to the role of ICE agent.”I come from a Hispanic background, but it’s a job that has to be done. So I’d rather do it myself, to make sure that they’re treated properly, even though they’re getting deported,” he said.The 33-year-old, who is from Texas, admitted he has some concern about the explosive growth of ICE, which has shortened its mandatory training period by several weeks.But he was also attracted by the idea of “a stable job, with good benefits.”ICE is offering a bonus of $10,000 per year for recruits who work for five years, along with a guaranteed government salary, healthcare and other benefits.”I’d be lying if I said that doesn’t factor in my motivations,” said Walter Campbell, a former Marine. The 26-year-old added that he believed “immigration has been a huge issue in this country for 30 plus years” driving down American wages.He said he was unmoved by the handful of protestors who told him “don’t sell your soul to the Gestapo.”Trump’s electoral win means his deportation campaign has “a mandate from the people,” he tells them.To critics who say the agency is unselectively going after anyone who looks Hispanic, or who is speaking Spanish — including a number of US citizens who have been swept up — Campbell insists these are teething problems.”You’re going to have misfires, especially when you’re doing anything on this scale,” he said. “No one said that this is going to be the cleanest job in the world.”

President Donald Trump, who recently accused Xi Jinping of working to “conspire” against the United States, hopes to finalize the fate of video-sharing app TikTok and make progress on trade talks in a phone call with the Chinese leader on Friday.”I’m speaking with President Xi, as you know, on Friday, having to do with TikTok, and also trade,” Trump said Thursday in an interview with Fox News.”And we’re very close to deals on all of it. And my relationship with China is very good.”The call will be the second between the two men since Trump returned to the White House in January, and the third since the start of the year.On June 5, the US president said Xi had invited him to visit China, and he issued a similar invitation for the Chinese leader to come to the United States. So far, no travel plans have been made, but several analysts expect Xi to repeat his offer, especially knowing that Trump is always keen to be received with diplomatic fanfare. – TikTok -“Each leader will aim to signal that he has outmaneuvered the other” in trade talks focused on tariffs, Ali Wyne, an expert on US-China relations at the International Crisis Group, predicted in a note.The pair could settle the TikTok drama, after Trump repeatedly put off a ban under a law designed to force Chinese parent company ByteDance to sell its US operations for national security reasons.Trump told reporters on Thursday that he hoped to “finalize something on TikTok.”Under the deal, TikTok’s US business would be “owned by all American investors, and very rich people and companies,” Trump said. He said he believes TikTok had boosted his appeal to younger voters and helped him win the 2024 election.The president on Tuesday again pushed back applying a ban on the app, which had been decided under his predecessor Joe Biden.The Wall Street Journal raised the possibility of a consortium to control TikTok that would include tech giant Oracle and two California investment funds — Silver Lake and Andreessen Horowitz.- Tariffs -The telephone talks come as the world’s two biggest economies seek to find a compromise on tariffs.Both sides dramatically hiked tariffs against each other during a months-long dispute earlier this year, disrupting global supply chains.Washington and Beijing then reached a deal to reduce levies, which expires in November, with the United States imposing 30 percent duties on imports of Chinese goods and China hitting US products with a 10 percent tariff. The phone meeting also comes after Xi organized a major summit this month with the leaders of Russia and India — and invited North Korean leader Kim Jong Un to observe a major military parade in Beijing.”Please give my warmest regards to (Russian President) Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un as you conspire against the United States of America,” Trump wrote to Xi on his Truth Social platform. The US leader slammed India with punitive tariffs for its oil purchases from Moscow, and has called on European countries to sanction China for buying Russian oil, though Washington has not itself sanctioned Beijing. “If they did that on China, I think the war (in Ukraine) would maybe end,” Trump told Fox News. 

Buffalo quarterback Josh Allen threw for three touchdowns and the Bills extended their dominance of the Miami Dolphins with a 31-21 victory on Thursday to remain unbeaten in the young NFL season.Reigning NFL Most Valuable Player Allen threw for 213 yards and three touchdowns and linebacker Terrel Bernard picked off Miami quarterback Tua Tagovailoa with three minutes remaining to help seal a game in which the Dolphins had kept it close.”I thought their offense did a good job of sustaining drives and really limiting our opportunities,” Allen said. “I thought we had opportunities on the offensive side and we didn’t take advantage of some of them, but at the end of the day we got the win.”Buffalo running back James Cook rushed for 108 yards, including a two-yard touchdown as the Bills notched a seventh straight victory over their AFC East division rivals Miami.Tagovailoa had hit Tyreek Hill with a five-yard touchdown pass early in the fourth quarter to knot the score at 21-21.It looked like the Bills would come up empty on their first chance to respond.But Miami’s Zach Sieler was called for roughing the punter and the penalty kept alive a Bills drive that ended with Khalil Shakir’s 15-yard touchdown that pushed the Bills to a 28-21 lead with 7:17 remaining.The Dolphins were within scoring range when Bernard stepped across to grab a pass Tagovailova intended for Jaylen Wade.”I thought I was in rhythm, in timing of the play,” Tagovailoa said, adding: “think that was a really good play by the defender.”Matt Prater added the final dagger with a 48-yard field goal on Buffalo’s next possession.”That was a heck of a game, high-level competition,” Bills coach Sean McDermott said.”The Dolphins played a real good game and our guys made a couple more plays and I thought the grit, the mental toughness of our football team was on display throughout the game, in particular in the fourth quarter there.”The Bills improved to 3-0 while Miami were left in search of a first win of the season.Tagovailoa connected on 23 of 34 passes for 146 yards and two touchdowns.Ollie Gordon had put the Dolphins up 7-0 with a two-yard TD run in the first quarter. But Miami’s late miscues will keep the pressure on Dolphins coach Mike McDaniel, despite a livelier performance from his team than they showed in their previous two defeats.”We knew we had to not turn the ball over and we had to play good football and make some plays,” McDaniel said.”We had a turnover in a critical situation, we had a critical penalty on a punt and those types of things, that’s how these types of games are decided,” he added.

Young Americans challenging President Donald Trump’s fossil fuel agenda say they were proud to have their day in court — even if it meant fielding tough, sometimes perplexing questions from government lawyers.”I don’t think the gravity of that situation has permeated through my brain yet,” 19-year-old Joseph Lee told AFP at the close of a two-day hearing in Lighthiser v. Trump.”I’m going to wake up and realize, ‘Wow, I really did that.’ I testified in court against my own federal government, and it’s just such a meaningful thing to be part of this process.”The case challenges three executive orders that the plaintiffs say trample their inalienable rights to life and liberty by seeking to “unleash” fossil fuels while sidelining sources of renewable energy. The plaintiffs also seek to reverse the administration’s dismantling of climate science — from suppressing a key national climate report to proposing to shut down a critical carbon dioxide monitoring site in Hawaii. Judge Dana Christensen is now weighing whether to grant a preliminary injunction that could pave the way to trial — or throw the case out, as the government has urged.- ‘It’s not about ACs’ -Despite the gravity of the issues at the center of the case, the plaintiffs said they found themselves questioning the seemingly insignificant details raised in court. Lee, from California, testified that a case of heat stroke left him hospitalized on the brink of organ failure.During cross-examination, Justice Department attorney Erik Van de Stouwe asked whether he had sued the University of California, San Diego over its lack of air conditioning in dorms, implying that — and not climate action — was the remedy.”It’s not about ACs,” Lee later told AFP. “Minimizing it to something as trivial just goes to show” that the government’s case lacks merit, he added.At another point, Van de Stouwe questioned whether Lee could prove Trump’s climate cuts cost him opportunities to gain a research position at university — even though a university-wide letter, entered into evidence, explicitly cited the executive actions for reducing such positions. When pressed on how he could be certain, Lee replied that as a student he lacked the power to investigate the matter beyond all doubt.”But you did have the capacity to investigate the government’s executive orders?” the lawyer shot back. Lee responded he had the ability to read their plain language — a remark that drew murmurs of approval from the packed and supportive federal courtroom in Missoula, Montana.- ‘Really empowering’ -In another strange exchange, 20-year-old Avery McRae of Oregon was asked whether the anxiety she linked to climate change might stem from having spent half her life suing the federal government.And when 17-year-old Jorja McCormick of Livingston, Montana took the stand, she recalled the day a firefighter knocked on her family’s door and ordered them to evacuate as flames closed in, a moment, she said, that left her traumatized. Under cross examination, government attorney Miranda Jensen asked: “You just testified you have three horses, right? You’re aware that raising horses contributes to global warming?”Speaking after the hearings wrapped up, McCormick said she had mulled over the exchange. “There’s coal trains going through my downtown every day,” spewing toxic dust, she told AFP. “So I think my horses being out on open property minding their own business compared to coal trains hurting the entire community is quite different.”Despite the grilling, McCormick described testifying as cathartic. “Being on the stand was really empowering — telling my story, getting it out into the world like that was almost healing.”Whatever the outcome of Lighthiser v. Trump, she said she plans to continue her activism.”A better future is possible,” added Lee. “If a decision isn’t favorable, we’ll keep fighting.”

The leaders of Canada and Mexico on Thursday defended their three-way free-trade deal with the United States, while agreeing to try and make it “fairer” in the face of tariff pressure from President Donald Trump.After talks in Mexico with President Claudia Sheinbaum, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said the pair were “committed” to the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), saying it had “helped make North America the economic envy of the world.”Sheinbaum said she was “optimistic” about the future of the accord, which Trump wants to renegotiate on terms more favorable to US manufacturers.”I believe that the USMCA will prevail,” she told a joint press conference with Carney.The agreement, in place since 2020, is up for review next year. It is critical to the economies of both Mexico and Canada, which send around 80 percent and 75 percent of their exports to the United States, respectively.Trump has already imposed tariffs on some exports from Canada and Mexico that don’t fall under the agreement and threatened further punishment if they fail to curb cross-border migration and drug trafficking.The USMCA replaced the North American Free Trade Agreement signed in the 1990s.The successive deals fundamentally reshaped North America’s economy over three decades, creating a high degree of interdependence between the three partners.However, Trump’s trade war has already significantly disrupted cross-border supply chains.He has hit Canadian goods that fall outside the agreement with 35-percent duties and similar Mexican goods with 25-percent levies.The tariffs are hurting Canada’s crucial auto, steel and aluminum sectors, leading to job losses, and also causing pain for Mexico’s auto and steel industries.”We complement the United States, we make them stronger, we are all stronger together,” Carney said.The fact that Washington was already reviewing UMSCA was “a good thing,” he added, arguing that it meant decisions on tariffs and local content could be “taken in a calm, deliberate manner.”- ‘Move forward together’ -Both Sheinbaum and Carney have been attempting to reach side deals with Trump.  But on Thursday they insisted they were not in competition with each other.”We will move forward together,” said Carney, holding up next year’s FIFA World Cup, to be jointly hosted by the United States, Canada and Mexico as an expression of the countries’ synergies.Anxious to diversify their exports, Carney and Sheinbaum also announced plans to boost bilateral trade and investment, using Canadian and Mexican ports rather than shipping goods across the United States.Trade between the two countries last year totaled under $32 billion — more than 20 times less than the amount each has with the United States.   Mexico is Canada’s third-largest partner and Canada is Mexico’s fifth-largest.The two leaders also announced plans to cooperate more closely on foreign affairs, agriculture, the environment and security, among other areas.Some Canadian politicians have complained that Trump unfairly lumped their country, a small player in the global drug trade, with Mexico in terms of fentanyl trafficking.”The unfortunate fact is that there are gangs from one country in another country but also vice-versa,” Carney said.

For Americans, the words are practically sacred: the First Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees freedom of speech. But that right is now the subject of bitter debate, following the assassination of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk.On Thursday, several high-ranking Democrats accused President Donald Trump of waging war on free speech, after he celebrated ABC’s suspension of talk show host Jimmy Kimmel, who accused the political right of using Kirk’s death to score points.The American Civil Liberties Union, a rights advocacy group, accused the Trump administration of operating outside constitutional safeguards to target its opponents, likening it to the Red Scare of the late 1940 and 1950s under senator Joseph McCarthy.”This is beyond McCarthyism. Trump officials are repeatedly abusing their power to stop ideas they don’t like, deciding who can speak, write, and even joke,” said Christopher Anders, director of the ACLU’s democracy and technology division.So what does the First Amendment say? And why is it up for debate?- ‘How we identify ourselves’ -Ratified in 1791, the Bill of Rights comprises the first 10 amendments to the US Constitution, protecting the fundamental rights of Americans.”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,” the First Amendment says.For David Super, a professor at Georgetown University’s law school, the amendment is “really how we identify ourselves as a nation.”Beyond the varied ethnicities and background of the nation’s 340 million people, “we are thought to be drawn together by a belief in open discussion and a belief that the government can’t shut any of us up,” Super told AFP.The First Amendment even protects speech that is “morally repulsive,” explained Eugene Volokh, a professor of law at the University of California, Los Angeles.Volokh however emphasized that the history of the United States has been marked by attempts to stifle dissident voices.- ‘Malicious writings’ -In 1798, America’s second president John Adams signed into law the Sedition Act, which forbade “any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States.”Then during World War I, the expression of pacifist ideology was banned.From the 1920s to the 1950s, anyone expressing support for communist ideals risked serious repercussions. And in the 1960s, officials in several southern US states battled to silence the civil rights movement.One of the key pillars of Trump’s political movement has been to eviscerate “cancel culture” — the process of criticizing someone for voicing an opinion seen as unacceptable, to the point of that person being ostracized or fired. Trump has often called “cancel culture” a scourge of leftist progressives, claiming that it has been used to silence conservative pundits and politicians.But Democrats have turned the tables on Trump, accusing him of doing the same to US media organizations, major universities and, now, Kimmel — a frequent target of Trump’s ire.”After years of complaining about cancel culture, the current administration has taken it to a new and dangerous level,” Democratic former president Barack Obama wrote Thursday on X.- Conservative push-back -US Attorney General Pam Bondi sparked controversy among conservatives by saying earlier this week that the Justice Department would pursue anyone guilty of “hate speech” linked to the slain influencer.Republican Senator Ted Cruz quickly countered that the Constitution “absolutely protects hate speech.” Bondi then said she meant to refer to “threats of violence that individuals incite against others.”Conservative commentator Tucker Carlson called for “civil disobedience” should Kirk’s murder result in an uptick in laws limiting free speech.And some voices on the far right have criticized a decree signed by Trump in August that makes burning the American flag punishable by up to a year in prison. The US Supreme Court ruled in 1989 that burning the Stars and Stripes indeed amounted to free speech, and was protected by the First Amendment.”I would never in a million years harm the American flag,” conservative radio host Jesse Kelly wrote on X.”But a president telling me I can’t has me as close as I’ll ever be to lighting one on fire. I am a free American citizen. And if I ever feel like torching one, I will.”

The suspension by Disney-owned ABC of talk show host Jimmy Kimmel is the latest surrender by a US media giant to pressure from the Trump administration, putting the bottom line over free speech.ABC’s decision to pull Kimmel off the air comes two months after CBS announced plans to cancel “The Late Show” featuring Stephen Colbert, another unsparing critic of President Donald Trump.Kimmel, 57, was suspended “indefinitely” by ABC because of remarks the comedy show host made about last week’s murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.In a similar vein, the Emmy-winning Colbert was canned shortly after he criticized a decision by CBS’s parent company, Paramount Global, to pay $16 million to settle a lawsuit brought by Trump over an interview with former vice president Kamala Harris.ABC also came in for criticism after it agreed in December to donate $15 million to Trump’s eventual presidential library to settle a defamation suit instead of fighting it out in court.Kimmel’s departure came after Federal Communications Commission (FCC) chairman Brendan Carr openly threatened the licenses of ABC affiliates that broadcast his show.Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One on his return from a visit to Britain, Trump complained about the late night shows and networks, saying “all they do is hit Trump.””They are licensed. They are not allowed to do that,” he claimed.Democratic lawmakers and media analysts condemned the FCC threats to revoke broadcast licenses and said media and entertainment corporations were placing their economic interests over free speech rights.”What we are witnessing is an outright abuse of power,” Harris wrote on X.”This administration is attacking critics and using fear as a weapon to silence anyone who would speak out. Media corporations — from television networks to newspapers — are capitulating to these threats.”For Senator Richard Blumenthal, “Jimmy Kimmel is off-the-air because of an unprecedented act of gov’t censorship.””The FCC has now proven that its sole mission is to be the speech police for Trump, punishing his perceived opponents & rewarding his cronies,” Blumenthal wrote on X.- ‘Coercion’ -Jeffrey McCall, a professor of media studies at DePauw University, said Kimmel’s ratings have been “questionable for a long time.””ABC and Disney at some point just had to make a decision that was based more on the marketplace,” McCall said. “They’ve just decided that, from a corporate ratings and revenue standpoint, he’s no longer viable.”Ken Paulson, director of the Free Speech Center at Middle Tennessee State University, said the “problem lies in corporations that apparently make decisions based solely on financial considerations and cannot be trusted to protect the public.”The Colbert cancellation came as the FCC was considering a multi-billion-dollar deal between Paramount Global and Skydance, a company owned by the son of Trump billionaire ally Larry Ellison.The FCC gave the green light to the merger a few days after CBS pulled the plug on Colbert.It also obtained an extraordinary pledge from Skydance that it will “adopt measures that can root out the bias that has undermined trust in the national news media.”In the Kimmel case, the Nexstar group — which controls more than 200 local television stations in the United States — was the first to announce it would no longer air Kimmel’s show after FCC chair Carr’s remarks Wednesday.The Texas company is currently seeking FCC approval of a bid to acquire rival Tegna.Some right-wing commentators have condemned Kimmel’s silencing, comparing it to the 2023 firing of conservative darling Tucker Carlson by Fox News or the 2018 booting of sitcom star Roseanne Barr over tweets seen as racist.Paulson said the situations are not comparable.”In this case, the head of the Federal Communications Commission is targeting the on-air talent,” he said. “Others have lost their jobs because of public outrage.”When the public is angry, networks can take that into account,” he said. “But when the government is angry, that’s coercion.”

A US medical panel handpicked by President Donald Trump’s health secretary made its first alteration to the standard childhood vaccine schedule on Thursday, as public health experts fear more changes that flout prevailing medical advice are in the pipeline.The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) was revamped to reflect anti-vax advocate Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s ideals — and among its initial moves was voting to advise that no child under four should receive the combination MMRV shot, which covers measles, mumps, rubella and varicella.Parents should instead be offered the alternative of separate MMR and chicken pox injections for their children, members decided.The combination shot has a small risk of causing temporary, non-life-threatening febrile seizures. But in a call with journalists, Sean O’Leary, chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Infectious Diseases, said the debate was settled years ago and that today parents already have a choice of both options.”I’m still puzzled by why this came back as a point of discussion,” he said. “The only thing I can think of is it’s another strategy to scare parents.”Kennedy has spent decades promoting vaccine misinformation, including the widely debunked claim that the MMR shot causes autism.After his appointment to the federal government, he sacked every person from ACIP, and replaced them with figures whose anti-vaccine views track more closely with his own.That skepticism bled into Thursday’s discussion: the committee’s methods were scrutinized by medical professionals in attendance who can’t vote but can offer input.”You’re not looking at all of the aspects of how we evaluate vaccine implementation,” said Jason Goldman, president of the American College of Physicians.”You’re looking at very small data points and misrepresenting how it works in the real world and how we take care of our patients.”- ‘Illegitimate’ -Following much head-scratching over language, the committee voted that the combination shot would still be covered under the Vaccines for Children federal program — which helps fund many immunizations in the United States — even though they were no longer recommending that shot for kids under four.A couple of members abstained — because they said they weren’t sure what they were voting for.The decision means some federal programs will cover the shot but others won’t, creating a patchwork system that public health experts fear could sow widespread confusion among parents.”Parents like me depend on a childhood vaccine schedule built on science and trust. Every change should strengthen, not weaken, the safety net — that keeps our kids healthy,” epidemiologist Syra Madad told AFP.She said Thursday’s committee discussions “risk eroding protections we know work.”Committee members put off until Friday a closely watched vote on whether to scrap the longstanding standard of immunizing newborns against Hepatitis B within the first 24 hours of life.That move has been met with widespread alarm by public health experts, including from some voices on the panel.Swift vaccination has proven the best way to prevent any maternal transmission of the incurable, highly contagious disease that can cause severe liver damage and cancer later in life, said Adam Langer, a CDC scientist who presented to the panel.Amending the advice could amount to a “devastating decision,” said O’Leary of the AAP, a body that did not attend the committee meeting despite a past history of collaboration. “This is in the midst of a growing wave of what we’re seeing with rumors, falsehoods, inaccurate information surrounding our country’s immunization efforts,” he said.”This committee is illegitimate.”In opening the two-day meeting, ACIP chair and biostatistician Martin Kulldorff insisted that the panel was, despite much criticism and fear to the contrary, “pro-vaccine” and will “welcome scientific critique of any of our votes, as there are gray areas.”But Wilbur Chen, an infectious disease physician, cast that defensiveness as disingenuous.”They do not intend to debate using sound, rigorous, reproducible science; they are echoing poor and falsified information,” he told AFP.Along with the Hepatitis B vote on Friday, the committee will reconvene and consider this season’s Covid-19 shot, including who should get it and who should pay for it.