This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
On the heels of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth calling the 2021 COVID-19 shot mandate "unlawful as implemented," Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem is being strongly encouraged to follow suit.
While the Department of Defense is the agency responsible for overseeing and directing the nation's military forces, the Coast Guard is the only military service within the Department of Homeland Security.
WorldNetDaily spoke to Rocky Rogers, a Coast Guard IT Chief with more than 20 years of faithful service. Rogers fought against the now-rescinded 2021 COVID-19 shot mandate until a pre-approved retirement came to fruition in August 2022.
Mere days after the mandate, said Rogers, the Coast Guard released its first-ever religious accommodation request policy: Commandant Instruction Manual (CIM)1000.15.
"In the past, the Coast Guard had always followed Navy medical manuals, so adopting their own policy was a red flag that something was about to happen," he told WorldNetDaily.
His instinct was right. On Aug. 24, 2021, then-Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin mandated that all service members receive the COVID-19 shot. Interestingly, the secretary of Defense is not in the Coast Guard's chain of command, as the nation's maritime security, search and rescue, and law enforcement service branch falls under the umbrella of DHS. Nevertheless, on Aug. 26, 2021, DHS adopted the same policy as DoD.
"The Coast Guard chose to follow DoD on this mandate, although it had no obligation to do so," Rogers pointed out. "Everybody was scrambling to follow the same agenda, and that's exactly what it was – an agenda."
"Many of us knew it was unlawful at the time, and now America knows it," he said, calling attention to the fact that "Pete Hegseth verbally said it was unlawful [in a video posted to the Secretary of Defense's official X account]."
"Knowing it was unlawful like Hegseth finally admitted," Rogers said, "many of us pushed back against the shot at the time, telling our chain of command they did not have to follow DoD." Their pleas fell on deaf ears, however, and many Coasties were forcefully separated, resigned under duress, or retired from service in the years to follow.
On Jan. 10, 2023, DoD finally rescinded the COVID-19 shot mandate for service members, while the active duty component of DHS's Coast Guard followed suit the very next day. However, Coast Guard Reserve did not rescind the shot mandate until March 16.
As Rogers told WND, "You can see that the Coast Guard chose to follow the SecDef rather than referencing direction coming from the DHS Secretary." For him, it begs the question: "Why did the Coast Guard choose to follow orders by an individual that is not in the Chain of Command of the Coast Guard?"
"All of us who were following Coast Guard policy (CIM)1000.15) to exercise our religious freedoms were referred to as 'insubordinate wrongdoers' by retired Commandant Paul Zukunft," he shared.
"My case in point is that if, in 2021, the Coast Guard acted on their own to follow the SecDef prior to the DHS Secretary giving direction, wouldn't that classify as insubordinate or defiant?" Rogers asked. "The same Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) articles 90, 91 and 92 that were referenced to force service members into submission are now proven by today's lack of action from the Coast Guard that interpretation precedes the violation of law and policy in our service."
Now that the mandate is no longer in effect, both DoD and DHS under President Donald Trump are welcoming its members to return to service. In an official letter sent from the Coast Guard to those discharged as a result of the COVID-19 shot mandate, an invitation to rejoin the service includes a few perks, including back pay, bonus payments and/or compensation.
According to Rogers, former Coasties are largely ignoring the invitation. "There aren't many that I know who would return. I wouldn't," he admitted. "It would take a lot to change my opinion."
"Trust has been broken, and the Coast Guard is in disarray right now," he explained. "They haven't even chosen a new commandant after the last one was fired." According to a DHS official, Admiral Linda Lee Fagan was firedas a result of "leadership deficiencies, operational failures, and inability to advance the strategic objectives of the U.S. Coast Guard." An "excessive" focus on DEI – Diversity, Equity and Inclusion – policies was also mentioned.
What's more, Rogers pointed out that "some Coast Guard boot camp recruits are still wearing masks that are proven to be ineffective."
"Why would anyone want to join or get back into that?" Rogers asked. "I would encourage that DHS Secretary Kristi Noem make a public announcement to essentially mirror SecDef Hegseth's statements on this unlawful order, as it would bring a lot of peace to those that stood firm."
What's more, he added, "This would also be so beneficial to the members who are still in the service."
The U.S. Coast Guard did not respond to WorldNetDaily's requests for comment.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
For years under Joe Biden, illegal aliens could enter the United States, even commit further crimes, with essentially no accountability. They often were given court dates, at which they didn't appear, and sent on their way.
Now, under President Donald Trump, criminal aliens are being tracked down, arrested, and deported.
And that has been causing near-riots when those arrests happen, a circumstance that a key federal prosecutor warns is a "significant public and officer safety risk."
Leah Foley, the U.S. attorney for the District of Massachusetts, made the comments after a video of a crowd reacting to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement operation in Worcester.
Those "disturbing" people obstructing ICE, and interfering in its law enforcement efforts, should be arrested, she said.
"The interference with ICE operations around Massachusetts has been disturbing, to say the least. This conduct poses significant public and officer safety risks. It is conduct that should be vilified rather than glorified," Foley explained.
"I will not stand idly by if any public official, public safety officer, organization or private citizen acts in a manner that criminally obstructs or impedes ICE operations. The United States Attorney's Office, along with our federal partners, will investigate any violations of federal law and pursue charges that are warranted by such activity."
The video triggering the concern showed a mob of some 25 people creating what police called a "chaotic incident."
"District Councilor for the City of Worcester [Etel] Haxhiaj pulled a political stunt and incited chaos by trying to obstruct law enforcement. ICE officers and local police regained control of the situation and ICE arrested Ferreira de Oliveira," said Tricia McLaughlin, Homeland Security assistant secretary. "The previous administration's open border policies allowed this criminal to illegally enter our country in August of 2022. Thanks to President Trump and Secretary Noem this criminal is off our streets."
Oliveira was described by authorities as a "violent criminal alien" who was arrested for assault and battery with a dangerous weapon and assault and battery on a pregnant woman.
The mob in the video, however, was shouting "No warrant!" and "Don't take the mother!"
They also tried physically to block the vehicle, and were screaming at officers.
The incident developed into a "shoving" match at one point, but it was de-escalated after the suspect was removed from the scene.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A court fight has developed that ultimately will decide whether pro-abortion state officials "can team up with abortion activists" to censor the speech of those who don't adhere to the ideology of killing the unborn.
"The state's conduct is not just discriminatory – it's unconstitutional," explained the American Center for Law and Justice.
"This case remains one of the most important pro-life and free speech battles in the country. The outcome could set national precedent on whether state governments can team up with abortion activists to suppress the voices of those who offer women hope, help, and life."
The ACLJ reported the fight focuses on a lawsuit filed on behalf of Your Options Medical, which is a pro-life pregnancy resource center run by Christians.
And it has been "targeted" by "a state-sponsored campaign to discredit and shut down life-affirming services for women."
Defendants are Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey, Health Commissioner Robbie Goldstein, abortion promoters Reproductive Equity Now Foundation and its chief, Rebecca Hart-Holder.
"Their actions were nothing less than the weaponization of government," the ACLJ has charged.
The state, with tax money, "launched an aggressive public misinformation campaign against pro-life pregnancy centers, accusing them of being 'deceptive' and 'dangerous,' and warned the public against visiting PRCs – even if they are not looking for abortions," the report said.
The misleading claims were all over, on websites, in videos, on posters, on buses, on benches, and included areas adjacent to the resource center's home.
A court recently rejected two separate motions by the defendants to dismiss the case, and instead is allowing the ACLJ to amend its complaint, which now will be expanded.
That's because the Massachusetts Liberty Legal Center, which also is working on the case, obtained documents, 8,000 pages, that confirm "a calculated effort by government officials, working hand-in-hand with pro-abortion activists, to silence and discredit Christian ministries that offer real alternatives to abortion."
The report continued, "The evidence is clear – the state's campaign wasn't just political rhetoric or support for abortion. It was an organized effort to suppress the viewpoints of pro-life organizations and intimidate them into silence."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The DEI ideology, for "diversity, equity, inclusion," largely was banished by President Donald Trump where he could because it bases hiring or qualification decisions on the sex, race or even "gender identity" of individuals.
Many schools and corporations divested themselves of the concept when Trump took office.
But it is coming back now, little bit at a time, and sneakily, according to a new survey.
Polling by Resumetemplates reveala that one in seven business leaders now sees scaling back the ideological agenda as a mistake, made because of political pressure.
And one in five companies that "rolled back" the race- and sex-based processes are "quietly" bringing them back.
The pollsters explained, "In recent years, diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives have become highly politicized. What began as a widespread corporate commitment after the 2020 protests has faced growing backlash. Some critics have questioned the effectiveness of DEI efforts, while others have framed them as divisive or exclusionary. Facing political pressure, some companies have scaled back or eliminated their DEI programs."
The backlash from leftists who supported the programs, however, has brought concerns about "consequences" from the effort to minimize the agenda, the report said.
A survey of 750 U.S. business leaders has confirmed the nominal return of the ideologies.
"The plurality of respondents (30%) say the consensus among business leaders at their company is that the decision to scale back DEI was a necessary response to external pressures. Additionally, 23% say they see it as a positive move that aligns with company values, while 18% say the company's leaders overall consider it a neutral decision with minimal impact," the survey found.
But, "Fifteen percent say it's believed to be a mistake that created new challenges. The remaining say the company's leaders are either divided in their perspectives (9%) or unsure (4%)."
The reasons the agendas were ditched include political pressure, public scrutiny, budget limits and leadership turnover.
But two-thirds said they saw various "negative" results, such as damage to brand perception, loss of customers or boycotts, after they ditched the beliefs.
"Consumers, employees, and job seekers are more aware than ever of corporate policies and decisions, and they vote with their dollars and career choices," said ResumeTemplates' Chief Career Strategist Julia Toothacre. "When organizations dismantle DEI efforts, it sends a message that they don't care about being fair and equitable. For many customers and workers, that doesn't sit well. Word spreads fast, especially on social media, and I'm not surprised to see companies now rethinking those decisions."
It also speaks to the power of the leftists who are publicizing issues, spreading information, or disinformation, about the agendas, and those political and media people in key positions who lobby for the agendas.
Significant, 21% of those companies that left the DEI initiatives behind now are "quietly reintroducing or re-expanding them."
Another 12% are doing so publicly.
Just why go back to the sexism and racism?
"Of respondents, 75% say that whether or not their company has a DEI program ultimately comes down to what's best for the bottom line, rather than being rooted in values or social responsibility," the survey organizations said.
Toothacre claimed that DEI programs actually create "a safer, more respectful workplace," and that produces "higher morale, better productivity, and fewer HR complaints."
A report at WTOP said the results also show that companies are bringing back DEI, but are calling it "inclusive culture" or "culture of belonging" to get away from the stigma of DEI.
Also, 40% of companies said they are avoiding new DEI activism.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Sonia Sotomayor, one of the nine members of the Supreme Court bench, long has been known to be demanding.
She's complained that she's traumatized when her liberal agenda doesn't win at the court.
And she's known to try to influence factors outside the court's jurisdiction, recently telling lawyers at a leftist conclave meeting while President Donald Trump is in office that "we" cannot lose the battles "we are facing."
Such a public alignment with one side on multiple cases that will appear before the high court was a stunning alteration to the neutrality expected from judges.
Now, during a hearing on the constitutionality of the 600 federal judges across the nation all having the right to dictate and control executive branch decisions on the management of its agencies, she's even drawn a public reaction from Chief Justice John Roberts.
He had to rein her in, during the hearing that also addresses Trump's interpretation of birthright citizenship to mean that those children born of parents not legally entitled to residency in the United States are not automatically U.S. citizens.
Fox News noted it was after "repeated interruptions" by Sotomayor of lawyers arguing for the executive branch that Roberts had to interrupt, too.
"Can I hear the rest of his answer?" Roberts added to the conversation.
The report described Roberts has having "reined in" Sotomayor.
"Sotomayor dominated questioning for several minutes at the outset of Thursday's argument after taking over from Justice Clarence Thomas. She pressed U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer for President Donald Trump's administration on several points relating to the authority for federal courts to issue nationwide injunctions, often speaking over the lawyer and interrupting him."
The report said Sotomayor was actually arguing against the executive branch's constitutional authority, insisting that his order invalidating birthright citizenship violated four Supreme Court precedents.
And she was arguing on behalf of the challengers to the president's policy that that justified a federal judge granting an injunction stopping executive branch actions nationwide.
"You are claiming that not just the Supreme Court, that both the Supreme Court and no lower court, can stop an executive from universally violating holdings by this court," she charged.
"We are not claiming that because we're conceding that there could be an appropriate case only in class only," Sauer said.
"But I hear that …," Sotomayor interrupted.
Then Roberts stepped in.
Sauer then elaborated on the president's position that federal courts can intervene on behalf of specific plaintiffs before them, but not nationwide, except that the Supreme Court can do that in some circumstances.
Trump's lawyers have argued nationwide injunctions exceed the authority of the district courts, which are the entry level courts to the federal system.
They violate equitable authority and create a wide range of problems, he said.
Universal injunctions "require judges to make rushed, high-stakes, low-information decisions," Sauer said. "They operate asymmetrically, forcing the government to win everywhere," and "invert," in the administration's view, the ordinary hierarchical hierarchy of appellate review. They create the ongoing risk of conflicting judgments," Fox explained.
The decision in the fast-tracked case, expected in weeks or even days, could impact the more than 310 federal lawsuits that leftists and others have launched against Trump during his second term in office.
WND has reported on Sotomayor's well-established reputation as a leftist on the court, supporting all manner of Democrat causes and opposing Trump.
Her activism moved into new territory recently when she told a leftist conference, "Right now we can't lose the battles we are facing."
Without identifying specific "battles," she said, "In all of the uncertainty that exists at this moment, this is our time to stand up and be heard."
"If you're not used to fighting losing battles, don't become a lawyer. Our job is to stand for people who can't do it themselves," she said.
Actually, according to constitutional expert Jonathan Turley, who not only has testified before Congress as an expert on the Constitution but has represented members in court in constitutional disputes, Sotomayor previously has been scorched for "making public comments that some viewed as overly political or partisan."
That topic included her demands that law students organize to support abortion rights, a subject that has been before the court many times and undoubtedly will appear there again.
Turley noted Sotomayor's blasts "presumably" targeted President Trump.
"Sotomayor made a number of inspiring comments to encourage lawyers to pursue justice despite the odds or challenges," Turley explained.
But they "appeared to veer into more partisan territory."
Her reference to "we" was a surprise, he said, and many viewed it as a rallying cry for "the left."
He explained, "Clearly, such comments are subject to different interpretations. Newspapers like the New York Times made the obvious connection, stating that it was made 'against the backdrop of immense stress on lawyers and the legal system from the Trump administration.'"
Leftist lawyer Marc Elias, a key part of the fabricated 2016 conspiracy theory assembled by Democrats that alleged "Russia collusion" on the part of Trump's campaign then, credited Sotomayor with "solidarity" with leftist ideals.
"She understands that while we must bring difficult cases and be willing to lose, we must always fight to win. And by lending her voice in 'solidarity,' she affirmed that it is 'our time to stand up and be heard," he said.
Turley noted that Sotomayor previously lobbied publicly for abortion, telling students, "You know, I can't change Texas' law, but you can, and everyone else who may or may not like it can go out there and be lobbying forces in changing laws that you don't like. I am pointing out to that when I shouldn't because they tell me I shouldn't. But my point is that there are going to be a lot of things you don't like" and require public action.
He said Sotomayor's calls to "fight this fight" were injudicious.
"The court is set to hear a number of key cases on the Trump policies, including a key argument next week on the rapidly expanding number of national injunctions imposed by district courts. This is not the time to be seen as speaking in 'solidarity' with one side," he said.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Jeffrey Epstein's Caribbean island residence library has been invaded and recorded on video, and O'Keefe Media Group is releasing those images.
The newest shows a library "full of bizarre statues, unusual objects and even cryptic messages left by Epstein," according to the Gateway Pundit.
Evidence suggests crimes committed by the convicted sex offender, who died in a New York jail while awaiting further court hearings on new charges, happened at the structures on the private Little St. James island in the Caribbean.
OMG's James O'Keefe pointed out on a chalkboard were the words "Power," "Deception," "Mirror in Face" and "Dank Brain," and he explained, ""Handwriting analysis reveals strong similarities between these markings and the note recovered from Epstein's prison cell, prior to his death."
An earlier video release disclosed images from Epstein's kitchen, including a disturbing image in a photograph of a nude infant sitting in a sink.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A judge in Wisconsin who was caught helping an illegal alien escape arrest by federal authorities now has said in federal court she's innocent.
She claims her actions in helping the illegal escape from Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers trying to arrest him were part of her official judicial duties.
A report at Fox News documents that Hannah Dugan, arrested and indicted by a grand jury on federal charges of concealing a person from arrest and obstruction of justice, had her legal team file a motion to dismiss the case triggered by her help for Eduardo Flores-Ruiz.
Her plea in court follows by only days her indictment by a grand jury on the federal counts, and a trial date has been set for July 21.
She's been relieved of her court duties for the interim.
The indictment accuses Dugan of "falsely" telling federal officials in April that they needed a warrant to come into her courtroom during a scheduled appearance by Flores-Ruiz, an illegal alien from Mexico who himself was accused of battery.
Dugan ordered the immigration officers to go check with the chief judge in his office to get a warrant, and then she "escorted Flores-Ruiz through a side door to evade federal agents."
He, in fact, was caught after a foot chase, the report said.
Dugan could face sentencing of up to six years in jail and $350,000 in fines if convicted.
Her lawyers claimed that she is "entitled to judicial immunity for her official acts."
They said that means the prosecution against her for her actions to help a suspected criminal evade arrest is "barred."
WND previously reported that the illegal alien had been deported twice already.
In an interview on "American Reports," Attorney General Pam Bondi explained how the Trump administration will handle judges who obstruct and block federal efforts to secure the border and remove illegal aliens.
"We are going to prosecute you, and we are prosecuting you. I found out about this the day it happened," she said.
"We could not believe, actually, that a judge really did that. We looked into the facts in great depth… You cannot obstruct a criminal case. And really, shame on her. It was a domestic violence case of all cases, and she's protecting a criminal defendant over victims of crime."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
One of the Democrats' lawfare goals in their coordinated campaign of criminal and civil cases against President Donald Trump over the last eight or nine years has been to make it so costly for him that he'd walk away.
The "fraud" case brought against Trump by leftist New York Attorney General Letitia James, in which the "victims" said they lost no money and would like to do business with Trump again, is a case in point.
That case resulted in a penalty, from a leftist judge whose family ties to the issue never have been resolved, of a penalty of nearly half a billion dollars, despite there being no damages in the case.
That's on appeal at this point. Meanwhile, James has come under federal investigation for possible fraud herself.
But now a Courthousenews report confirms that Trump might be able to recoup the legal expenses that one case cost him.
That would be the Georgia case in which leftist officials accused Trump of interfering in the 2020 elections.
The report confirmed that Georgia's Republican Gov. Brian Kemp signed two tort reform bills into law that were supported by the general assembly's Republican majority and business leaders from across the state.
"Senate Bill 244 allows criminal defendants to recover attorney fees and legal costs if the prosecutor of their case is disqualified for misconduct and the case is dismissed," the report noted.
In the "interference" case, a panel from the Georgia Court of Appeals decided that Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis and her office should be removed from prosecuting the president's case.
There's no current activity in the case as Georgia Supreme Court has been asked to take up an appeal by Willis.
"If the high court upholds the disqualification of Willis — which was ordered due to an 'appearance of impropriety' stemming from her relationship with the case's former special prosecutor, Nathan Wade — the costly reimbursements would fall on local taxpayers' pockets," the report noted.
Its cause would further be traced back to Willis' case, and the actions she took regarding her lawfare against Trump.
The report explained Kemp's signature also set up a new process for people who have been exonerated for crimes they did not commit, calling for administrative law judges to rule on wrongful conviction compensation cases.
The reported noted Trump's campaign spent about $2.7 million in the case in which he was wildly accused of racketeering and a long list of other felonies.
The Georgia Republican Party also reportedly paid $2 million in fees for Trump's co-defendants.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A school district and a foundation launched by a late Hollywood director have been ordered to pay millions of dollars to students and their families for forcing their pagan religious beliefs on students.
It is the Chicago Board of Education and the David Lynch Foundation for Consciousness-Based Education and World Peace that must pay $2.6 million after students, including a Christian and a Muslim, were forced to take part in a "ceremony" that participants charge invoked Hindu deities.
A report in the Washington Stand said the ruling came from a federal judge who confirmed 773 former Chicago students will be affected by the ruling.
Chicago school officials had agreed to pay $170,000 to the leftist foundation to "provide Quiet Time Program services."
It happened at the Daniel Hale Williams Prep School of Medicine and Gage Park High School during 2018.
"The contract states the program would consist of 'two restful 15-minute periods providing a counterbalance to the hyper-stimulating tension of urban culture. The key component of Quiet Time is an evidenced-based stress reduction and cognitive development technique known as Transcendental Meditation."
One plaintiff, Kaya Hudgins, confirmed she was forced into what school officials claimed was "quiet time," but in reality was a worship of a "Hindu 'Puja.'"
It included religious paraphernalia and chanting of mantras citing Hindu gods.
She told the Washington Stand, "I was just a teenager when I was pressured into a program I didn't understand and wasn't allowed to question. No student should ever be forced into a religious practice against their will — especially not in a public school. This settlement is a step toward accountability and a reminder that our constitutional rights don't stop at the classroom door."
The terms of the agreement required students who chose not to "meditate" to be allowed to read or rest.
But Hudgins, a Muslim at the time, explained school officials refused.
"Her case became a class action lawsuit open to every single student in the troubled Chicago Public Schools system herded into the 'Quiet Time' program from Fall 2015 through Spring 2019, and who turned 18 on or after January 13, 2021," the report said.
Lawyer John Mauck fought the case and told the Washington Stand, "We hope this settlement will deter those who exploit young people and that it will encourage the Chicago Board of Education to be wary of harming students by allowing wolves to prey on the sheep they are obligated to protect."
A ruling in a previous court case awarded $150,000 in legal fees to Mariyah Green, a Christian who made the same claims.
The report noted, "The Biden-Harris administration encouraged public schools to carry out non-Christian religious practices such as Transcendental Meditation as a way to promote equity. A report promulgated by the Biden-Harris administration in December 2023 titled 'Promoting Mental Health and Well-Being in Schools' states, 'Classroom-based mindfulness education' should include '[e]xperiential practice of mindful breathing, meditation, and mindful movement, such as yoga,' as well as holding class 'discussion[s] about how to practice mindfulness in everyday situations.'"
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Already multiple trillions in foreign investment in the United States had been secured by the administration of President Donald Trump, most of that in his first 100 days in office.
Then this week there was announced an economic plan with Saudi Arabia worth about $600 billion.
Then on Wednesday the White House announced a pact with Qatar worth "at least $1.2 trillion."
It's "another win for America" in Trump's campaign promises to bring back "Made in America" and his predicted "new Golden Age of prosperity."
Already, his tariffs program has secured a long-term agreement with the United Kingdom and a promising temporary agreement with China.
"By securing these investments, President Trump is spurring a manufacturing renaissance, driving economy growth, and creating high-paying jobs across the nation," the White House stated.
While critics and other doomsayers predicted Trump would trigger, immediately, a recession with his economic actions in pursuit of a fair world trade market for Americans, the nation's stock market today is just about where it was before the campaign was launched.
Several parts of Trump's deal with Qatar involve manufacturing, as there is a $96 billion agreement for Qatar to acquire up to 210 American-made Boeing 787 Dreamline and 777X aircraft powered by GE Aerospace engines.
The report said it's Boeing's largest-ever widebody order, and the White House calculated that it will support 154,000 U.S. jobs annually.
Other deals involve liquid natural gas production, and quantum technologies.
It also "advances" Qatar's defense investment in the U.S., locking in its procurement of state-of-the-art equipment from two leading U.S. defense contractors, Raytheon and General Atomics.
Both of those deals involve drone technology.
Further, the two nations agreed on a statement of intent "to further strengthen our security partnership, outlining over $38 billion in potential investments including support for burden-sharing at Al Udeid Air Base and future defense capabilities related to air defense and maritime security."
Other chapters of the agreement involve goals in the Qatar National Vision 2030 which opens opportunities for U.S. businesses in a number of ways.
Billions also are forecast to be invested in U.S. hotels and tourism, information technology, advanced manufacturing, financial services, and oil and gas.