This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
President Donald Trump is calling for a seat at the G7 table for Russia.
Trump, arriving in Alberta, Canada, for a meeting of the leaders of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the U.S., said, "The G7 used to be the G8. Barack Obama and a person named [then-Canadian Prime Minister Justin] Trudeau didn't want to have Russia in, and I would say that was a mistake, because I think you wouldn't have a war right now if you had Russia in."
Trump said removing Russia from the organization was a "big mistake."
That ousting came from Obama and other world leaders after Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine a decade ago.
"This was a big mistake. You wouldn't have that war. You know you have your enemy at the table, I don't even consider, he wasn't really an enemy at that time," Trump said, according to a report at the Daily Signal.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday said the Jewish state will "do what we need to do" to prevent a "second Holocaust," eliminating an existential threat posed by Iran in the escalating war between the two nations to protect not only Israel, but the entire world.
"We are absolutely resolute to remove this threat," Netanyahu told Bret Baier of Fox News, referring to the Islamic Republic's continued rapid development of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles.
He said Israel's ongoing military strikes against Tehran are "not only to protect ourselves but protect the world from this incendiary regime. We can't have the world's most dangerous regime have the most dangerous weapons. … By protecting ourselves, we're protecting many others."
Netanyahu said Israel's intelligence indicated Iranians were "working in a secret plan to weaponize the uranium. They were marching very quickly."
With estimates of a nuclear weapon between months and a year, Netanyahu noted, "Once they build that route, it's too late."
"We would have a second Holocaust, a nuclear holocaust. We already had one in the previous century. … Never again is now, and we have to act now."
"We saw enough uranium to weaponize nine bombs," Netanyahu continued. "It's like Hitler's nuclear scientists. Would you leave them? Of course not."
He said intel also revealed a dark scheme to provide such weapons to militant groups backed by Iran in other countries.
"Our intel showed that they intend to give their nuclear weapons to their Houthi proxies and others, and that's nuclear terrorism on a global scale. It threatens everyone."
The prime minister said this conflict is "a wider battle here against barbarism, of good against bad," saying Iran has "fomented evil everywhere."
"This is a forever war that Iran is doing without nuclear weapons. Imagine what they will do if they have them."
Netanyahu said he's been in "constant contact with President Trump" regarding Israel's military plan to eliminate Tehran's nuclear ambitions.
"He knew about it, of course," he explained. "He's standing up for good against evil. … President Trump will make the decisions that are best for America. That's the way it is. … That is a relationship of mutual respect and mutual confidence."
The prime minister said the fighting "will end when we remove those [nuclear] capacities, and we will."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A rescission package that installs into law President Donald Trump's agenda to cut spending on foreign aid and PBS has been adopted by the U.S. House.
The package cancels money that already had been allowed by Congress in furtherance of the savings plans launched by the Department of Government Efficiency.
Among the billions of dollars being cut is hundreds of millions for PBS and NPR, which Republicans have described as leftist propaganda machines.
A report from Just the News explains the total spending eliminated is $9.4 billion.
It was adopted on a 214-212 vote, and now must go to the Senate.
"The package includes $1.1 billion in cuts for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, as the White House has said that NPR and PBS have 'spread radical, woke propaganda disguised as 'news," and $8.3 billion for the United States Agency for International Development, as well as other international assistance programs," the report said.
It Rescissions Act of 2025 slashes not only PBS, NPR and USAID, but other aid programs.
There was concern for the funds being cut from PBS and NPR, with Rep. Mark Amodei, a Republican from Nevada worrying that while he understood cuts to "national stations for their editorial stances against the president," the funding cuts also hit local stations, the report said.
In the Senate, Trump's agenda will need only a simple majority of 50 votes to pass, and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., has explained his body will do a reconciliation package first, then address rescissions.
"For decades, Republicans have promised to cut NPR, but have never done it, until now," said Trump, on social media.
"NPR and PBS are a Radical Left Disaster, and 1000% against the Republican Party!"
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A recently proposed U.S. tax on remittances sent abroad by non-citizens has exposed a truth few Americans have been told – that the United States has become a primary financial engine of the Indian economy.
The provision, quietly included by the House Ways and Means Committee in a broader legislative package introduced on May 12, commonly referred to as the "One, Big, Beautiful Bill," initially proposed a 5% tax on international money transfers by non-citizen visa holders and green card recipients. The goal was straightforward: to recoup a small portion of the vast sums of untaxed income being sent out of America every year.
But the backlash from Indian government officials, media outlets, lobbying groups and diaspora advocates was swift and intense. Within weeks, the rate was reduced to 3.5%.
What triggered such fervent opposition? The answer lies in the numbers.
$1 trillion and counting: What Americans haven't been told
According to India's own financial disclosures and public-facing documents, over the past decade the country has received nearly $1 trillion in foreign remittances – that is, transfers of money from a migrant worker back to their home country. A disproportionate share of those remittances originate from Indian workers within the United States. In fiscal year 2023-24, India banked $125 billion in remittances, the U.S. contributing 27.7% or approximately $34.6 billion, making the U.S. India's single largest source of foreign income.
By comparison, India's Foreign Direct Investment inflows during the same period stood at just $62 billion and its entire national defense budget in 2024 was nearly $55 billion less than the remittances it received.
In short, Indian nationals working in the U.S. are sending home more money than India attracts in global investment and more than it spends defending itself.
Financial dependency with strategic implications
Indian officials have acknowledged what few in the U.S. government seem willing to: These remittances serve as a vital "cushion" to cover current account deficits and stabilize the value of the rupee against the dollar. In economic terms, this means India relies heavily on money earned by Indian nationals abroad – particularly in the U.S. – to maintain internal stability.
But this dependency is not passive. It is the product of deliberate policy. The GATI Foundation is one key initiative, which, as WND has reported in-depth, is a state-orchestrated program designed to export millions of Indian workers, skilled and semi-skilled, into high-income economies like America's, with the explicit objective of capturing jobs in the host country. A key purpose of this program is maximizing inward remittance flows to boost the remittance share of India's GDP from 2.5% to 4-5%, resulting in an increase of $300 billion annually.
Marketed as a solution to a projected "global labor gap," GATI seeks to institutionalize India's dominance over international labor markets, reshape global migration policy and position India as the world's "trusted migration partner."
The GATI Foundation and the government of India see this as an opportunity to offload India's mounting youth unemployment and domestic jobs crisis onto the labor markets of the U.S., U.K., Germany, Japan, and others, directly undermining native workers while driving huge remittance flows to fuel India's own growth.
A modest U.S. tax is met with international uproar
The legislative proposal in Washington was modest by any global standard. The reduced 3.5% remittance tax would apply only to non-citizens on temporary work visas or with lawful permanent residency sending money out of the U.S. Yet Indian media outlets, think tanks and government-linked analysts labeled it a "discriminatory measure targeting non-U.S. citizens," "politically motivated" and even an effort to force "self-deportation" among Indian professionals.
This dire narrative, amplified by both foreign and domestic lobbying efforts, suggests the very limited measure is xenophobic and unfairly targeting Indians. India's media outrage reveals the sense of entitlement of that nation and its elites, who believe they are owed unfettered access to U.S. wages, and that any attempt to recoup even a small portion of that wealth is a sure sign of their victimhood. Indian trade groups warned the tax would deter "global talent" and threaten bilateral relations between India and the U.S.
According to economic think tank Global Trade Research Initiative, the Republican-backed proposal to tax remittances would have severe economic impact to key allies to the U.S., like India, who has been the top recipient of U.S. remittances. GTRI further stated, "The proposed U.S. tax on remittances sent abroad by non-citizens is raising alarm in India, which stands to lose billions in annual foreign currency inflows if the plan becomes law."
In other words, the tax threatens a revenue stream that India has quietly come to depend on without compensation to the country that enables it.
An uncomfortable question: Who pays for India's gains?
While Indian nationals abroad are encouraged to remit money back to their homeland and often celebrated for doing so, the economic impact on the host nation remains largely unexamined.
Each dollar sent abroad is one not spent in the U.S. economy, not invested in American infrastructure and not taxed at the federal or state level once it leaves the U.S.
U.S. employers, many of whom sponsor temporary work visas, benefit from lower labor costs. But American workers bear the brunt of wage competition, job displacement and the broader economic hollowing that comes from capital flight through massive numbers of foreign workers in the U.S.
There is also the civic imbalance, with many of the individuals sending billions abroad being protected by American laws, benefiting from American services, and living in American communities while directing their earnings to a foreign government's macroeconomic agenda.
Beyond economics: The geopolitical dimension
India's policy toward its diaspora is not merely economic; it is political. As outlined in official documents from its Ministry of External Affairs, India encourages its overseas nationals to invest in Indian assets, vote in Indian elections, and lobby foreign governments, including the U.S,. to advance India's interests.
This creates a troubling duality where foreign nationals living and working in the U.S. are expected to function as de facto agents of India's domestic and foreign policy, while remaining outside the full obligations of American citizenship.
The remittance tax, then, is more than a financial issue; it is a test of sovereignty, accountability, and national interest.
What comes next? A national conversation is long overdue
The remittance debate has revealed a broader and more urgent question: How should the United States manage the intersection of immigration, labor, and outbound capital? India's response to the proposed tax has shown just how entrenched the expectation of American subsidization has become. But the larger issue is not India's behavior; it is America's inaction.
A trillion dollars in foreign transfers should not go unnoticed. Nor should the policy frameworks that enabled it.
It is time for U.S. lawmakers, economists, and voters to confront the reality that remittances are not neutral. They are not charities. And they are not free. They are a transfer of wealth, often untaxed, frequently unexamined, and increasingly misaligned with the long-term interests of the American people. If America is serious about protecting its economy, labor force, and global position, it must begin by asking a simple question:
How much more can America afford to give away before there's nothing left to protect?
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
In June 2023, under the Biden administration, the U.S. Department of Defense and India's Ministry of Defence launched the India-U.S. Defense Acceleration Ecosystem, or INDUS‑X, as part of the broader Initiative on Critical and Emerging Technology. Two months later, in August, a formal DoD factsheet publicly announced the mission: to catalyze partnerships between startups, academia and private capital for the development of artificial intelligence, so-called intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance platforms and autonomous systems.
However, beneath the glossy presentation, a one-sided dynamic emerged: India leveraged U.S. infrastructure, funding and know-how, while American firms saw little to no parallel opportunity.
In its first year, INDUS‑X underwrote innovation challenges that awarded more than $1.2 million in U.S. taxpayer dollars to Indian startups. The Defense Innovation Unit and India's iDEX jointly selected firms like Pixxel, Zeus Numerix and OceanComm to receive direct U.S. funding for defense-centric prototypes. As confirmed by the U.S. Department of Defense, "Indian winners were awarded direct U.S. funding for defense prototypes."
Asymmetrical access: Why U.S. startups are left out
INDUS-X has served not only as a platform for technological collaboration, but as a strategic funnel for U.S. capital and institutional support into India's defense startup ecosystem. Through a series of targeted initiatives, including investor strategy sessions in New Delhi, university-based workshops at the Indian Institutes of Technology and curated public-private matchmaking events, INDUS-X has helped channel American venture capital and innovation mentorship directly into Indian firms. These activities, facilitated by the U.S. Department of Defense and its innovation arms, are part of a coordinated effort to fast-track India's role in emerging defense technologies.
Yet, while Indian startups are being actively embedded into the U.S. defense innovation infrastructure, American companies have not been afforded equivalent access to Indian government resources, funding mechanisms or procurement pathways. The disparity is stark.
There is no evidence of American defense startups receiving reciprocal integration into Indian programs such as iDEX, DPEPP or DRDO-backed accelerators, the flow of benefits, investment, exposure and development support remaining decisively one-way.
According to a Reuters report, INDUS-X directly supported seven Indian startups by offering them access to key U.S. defense institutions such as the Defense Innovation Unit, or DIU, and facilitating strategic connections with American defense contractors.
These firms, all privately held and Indian-owned, were elevated through a pipeline of mentorship and opportunity that would be difficult to replicate for any U.S. startup seeking a foothold in India's restricted defense marketplace.
The most visible outcomes of this strategic imbalance are seen in the rise of three Indian startups: Pixxel, PierSight and Zeus Numerix. Each has transitioned from early-stage ventures into internationally positioned defense contractors, thanks in large part to their direct integration into INDUS-X activities. Pixxel, which specializes in hyperspectral imaging satellites, won a five-year contract with the U.S. National Reconnaissance Office, followed by a NASA agreement to support Earth observation missions. With momentum from these engagements and continued visibility through INDUS-X channels, Pixxel went on to raise over $60 million in funding to expand its satellite constellation and defense service offerings.
These outcomes reflect more than just startup success; they signal a fundamental policy posture that prioritizes the integration of foreign firms into U.S. defense ecosystems while offering no structural path for reciprocal benefit. In doing so, the INDUS-X framework inadvertently positions U.S. defense innovation as a subsidy for a foreign competitor's strategic industrial growth.
In effect, American taxpayer-funded innovation, capital and infrastructure are being deployed to strengthen competitive Indian firms, with no structural obligations for India to return the favor.
American startups, in contrast, remain sidelined. They have no standing in India's major defense procurement streams, such as those backed by India's Defence Research and Development Organisation are shut out of Indian funding platforms, and cannot participate in critical Indian defense supply chains unless subsumed under Indian multinationals. No U.S. firm has received defense-offset considerations or procurement opportunities via India's Defence Production & Export Promotion Policy.
Moreover, there is no bilateral agreement requiring reciprocal access, no ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulations) equivalent audits, no harmonized export-control regime and no enforcement mechanism preventing the re-export or militarization of shared technology by India.
The result is a clear one-way transfer of U.S. innovation into India's defense industry, with no obligation or mechanism to ensure American firms receive comparable benefits. While U.S. companies must navigate rigorous compliance regimes and face sales restrictions, Indian companies are free to build and export U.S.-enhanced technologies, now in direct competition with American defense suppliers, aligned with India's long-term strategy of becoming a global defense leader.
India's global dominance ambitions: A strategic misalignment
India's deeper strategic agenda complicates its role in U.S. defense partnerships. Far from casual aspirations, India's vision of global leadership in technology and defense is formally embedded in national doctrine.
India's Defence Production & Export Promotion Policy (DPEPP) 2020 explicitly aims to transform that nation into a $25 billion defense manufacturing powerhouse, with $5 billion earmarked for exports this year, supported by a sharp pivot toward self-reliance, domestic R&D and foreign market penetration.
In 2021, the Confederation of Indian Industry and Indian think-tank NITI Aayog together unveiled Technology Vision 2047, explicitly envisioning India as a global leader in AI, defense technologies and manufacturing, and launching the country on a path to reshape global industrial and security architectures. That vision has found international voice through CII's influence at the G20, B20 and World Economic Forum, where it advocates global supply chain realignment under a "new digital order led by Indian innovation."
India's aspirations to emerge as a leading global power in defense manufacturing has clearly benefited from the expansion of collaboration from the U.S. and India, seen in increased private sector participation, growing exports and significant foreign direct investments in advanced technologies. India contributes this growth for enabling their global competitiveness against other major defense exporters like the U.S.
Rather than creating a "mutual acceleration ecosystem," INDUS-X has functioned as a quiet handover, transferring high-value American defense know-how to an unregulated foreign innovation base while U.S. startups are locked out and the U.S. loses its competitiveness – all in a space the U.S. has historically dominated.
Collectively, these initiatives make one thing clear: India does not perceive itself as a collaborative peer, but as a future global power rewriting rules in economics, security and technological governance. Integrating such a nation into core U.S. defense systems, without binding oversight, clear reciprocity or national security safeguards amounts to strategic overreach. While framed as mutual advancement, the current structure of INDUS‑X reflects strategic vulnerability for the U.S.
India's strategic end-run: From backdoor acquisition to open access
India's pursuit of U.S. defense and dual-use technology has never been accidental; it has been methodical, persistent and, above all, strategic. As far back as the 1980s, Indian military doctrine openly prioritized the acquisition of civilian technologies with latent military applications. This was not a secret. India's own policymakers declared space and commercial payloads should always be dual-capable, explicitly framing innovation as a means to military advancement.
Former Indian president and missile program architect Abdul Kalam repeatedly stressed the importance of artificial intelligence, robotics and nanotechnology, not merely for development, but as vital instruments of future warfare.
This backdoor acquisition strategy was not limited to rhetoric. On Sept. 9, 2008, the U.S. Justice Department announced a five-count indictment against Indian national Siddabasappa Suresh and Rajaram Engineering Corporation for illegally supplying India's government with high-performance testing equipment critical to ballistic missile systems and spacecraft development, technology tightly regulated under U.S. export control law. The items were covertly routed through shell companies and third parties, circumventing licensing requirements meant to safeguard national security.
Despite this clear pattern of circumvention, India has remained outside the bounds of international nonproliferation agreements. It is one of just three nations, including Israel and Pakistan, that has never signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Yet in 2008, the United States granted India an unprecedented exception. Under intense lobbying pressure and in pursuit of "strategic alignment," the Bush administration overturned decades of U.S. and global policy by approving the U.S.-India nuclear cooperation agreement, giving New Delhi access to American nuclear technology without requiring the full safeguards or disarmament commitments imposed on treaty-bound states.
The outcome was immediate and consequential. India continued developing nuclear weapons outside international inspection. It maintains an arsenal of an estimated 164 plutonium-based warheads and refuses to permit full-scope International Atomic Energy Agency inspections of its facilities. India has never signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and continues to reject legally binding commitments to halt fissile material production.
The cost of these decisions continues to mount. In May 2025, the U.S. Department of Energy approved Holtec International to transfer sensitive nuclear reactor technology to three Indian entities: Holtec Asia, Tata Consulting Engineers and Larsen & Toubro. The authorization was granted under 10 CFR Part 810, a regulation governing the transfer of nuclear know-how to foreign nations. That this approval came despite India's unresolved proliferation risks and lack of disarmament transparency is, as one former Pentagon official put it, a case of "policy dressed up as progress."
The Biden administration's 2025 guidance easing Missile Technology Control Regime restrictions now allows for expanded exports of long-range missile and space-launch technologies to "trusted partners," including India. According to Breaking Defense, this shift was justified under the banner of deterring adversaries and boosting U.S. defense exports. But it also opens the door to foreign actors with well-documented histories of diversion and repurposing.
Political capture, willful blindness: A history of theft, threat and subversion
This historical pattern of exploitation has not only gone unaddressed, it has been codified into policy.
What began as selective leniency in the name of diplomacy has now matured into institutional complicity. By extending high-trust privileges to a state that refuses to adhere to basic international nonproliferation norms, the United States has paved a pathway for systemic abuse. The U.S.-India technology partnership, once envisioned as a strategic hedge, has become a liability, one where national security, industrial advantage and the integrity of American innovation are quietly traded for geopolitical optics and corporate appeasement.
What began as a so-called innovation partnership has rapidly become a dangerous channel for uncontrolled technology transfer. Under the INDUS-X framework, Indian firms have been granted access to some of America's most sensitive defense research and infrastructure ranging from DARPA-aligned R&D to U.S. university test ranges and federally funded laboratories without the legal guardrails normally required to protect national security.
Through the INDUSWERX consortium, American academic institutions like Penn State, Texas A&M and the University of Maryland opened their doors to Indian startups, giving them exposure to dual-use technologies in artificial intelligence, autonomous systems and next-gen sensing. These are not symbolic gestures, they are accelerants. Yet, this access was not governed by traditional safeguards like International Traffic in Arms Regulations, end-use monitoring agreements or export-control compliance. The lack of enforcement mechanisms means that once U.S.-origin innovations are handed over, they can be replicated, commercialized or militarized by Indian entities with no legal consequences.
This arrangement is not happening in a vacuum. India remains on the U.S. Trade Representative's "Priority Watch List" for chronic intellectual property violations, technology theft and forced localization policies. India has a long and well-documented record of diverting sensitive foreign technologies for military use ranging from missile guidance systems to satellite surveillance components. And yet, despite past sanctions and espionage cases involving Indian defense agencies and shell companies, the U.S. government is now proactively facilitating access.
At its core, INDUS-X is not collaboration, it is capitulation. America is extending defense-grade access and taxpayer-funded innovation to a foreign government that refuses binding transparency, evades nonproliferation norms and has openly weaponized its diaspora and corporate networks to manipulate U.S. policy. This is not a strategic hedge against China; it is the quiet erosion of America's technological edge and security autonomy enabled by leaders too compromised or complacent to draw the line.
If the United States fails to reverse course, the outcome will not be shared prosperity or mutual deterrence; it will be the outsourcing of America's future, one critical system at a time. Congress must act now, not with more memoranda, but with investigation, suspension and enforcement before this bilateral subversion is fully inside the gates.
Blindness or sanctioned sabotage?
This is not a story of collaboration gone awry, but is the final chapter in a long play of exploitation disguised as alliance. What began decades ago as selective engagement has metastasized into a full-scale erosion of American sovereignty, carried out not by an enemy at the gates, but by a partner inside the wire. The INDUS-X initiative has handed India the keys to America's most sensitive defense technologies, research labs, dual-use innovations and taxpayer-funded programs, while asking for nothing in return. There are no export controls. No reciprocal access. No legal enforcement. And no strategic rationale that justifies this level of vulnerability, other than political cowardice or captured leadership.
India has never concealed its ambitions. Its officials say it openly: All innovation must serve national defense. All collaboration must support industrial supremacy. All foreign partnerships must feed domestic dominance. From satellite surveillance to missile guidance to AI warfare, India has converted foreign technology into military advantage and now, under INDUS-X, it has found its clearest, most direct channel yet, funded, facilitated and fast-tracked by the United States government.
This is not accidental; it is orchestrated. It is not innovation sharing; it is industrial surrender. And while Indian firms scale globally with American tools, American startups are locked out of Indian markets, buried under bureaucracy and blocked from basic procurement access.
Americans are subsidizing their competitor and mentoring their replacement. And in so doing, America is inadvertently undermining the very foundation of its own defense-industrial base.
Let it be said clearly: India is not a passive recipient of American generosity, but an aggressive and calculated competitor with a proven record of technology diversion, nuclear opacity, IP theft and economic coercion. It has refused to sign every major nonproliferation treaty, violated export laws and used shell entities to evade restrictions. It sits on the U.S. Trade Representative's Priority Watch List for intellectual property theft – and yet is being granted unfettered access to next-generation U.S. defense innovation through universities, incubators and federal labs with no strings attached.
And now, through U.S. government initiatives, all of this has been normalized, legitimized and institutionalized. Whether willful blindness or sanctioned sabotage, no serious government and no president committed to protecting American security would allow such a lopsided framework to exist, unless their hand was forced or their knowledge or will were absent. This is the Biden administration's most dangerous export: not a product, but permission for a foreign rival to hollow out America's military advantage under the banner of partnership.
Americans must care. Because what's at stake is not just technology or trade; it's their national defense, their economic future and their global leadership. Every satellite launched with stolen specs, every drone built on borrowed code, every AI model trained on American innovation but wielded by foreign interests is a threat that the U.S. helped fund. Americans are not deterring their adversaries, but are supplying them. Instead of building resilience, they are outsourcing it.
If Congress fails to act, and if the American people stay silent, then what comes next will not only be betrayal; it will be defeat by design. The U.S. must immediately investigate, defund and unwind INDUS-X. And it must impose binding oversight, restore compliance standards and reassert control over its own innovation systems.
Because if that does not happen, then the next great leap in military power will not be made in America. It will be made with American tools under a foreign flag.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Hundreds of Marines are being dispatched to Los Angeles to help quell the anti-ICE riots there, leading President Donald Trump to assure Americans that the situation is "now heading in the right direction."
Over the weekend hundreds rioted, burning cars and throwing rocks as federal officers who were making arrests in connection with criminal cartel cases, not issues involving illegal immigration.
The Washington Examiner reported sources said about 500-700 Marines from nearby Camp Pendleton would be tasked with protecting federal property and personnel.
And, the report noted, various government officials explained to the Wall Street Journal that the Marines were being assigned to assist law enforcement in the city.
"An official speaking with the Wall Street Journal suggested that the Marines would not be directly engaging with protesters. The Marines, like the National Guard members already stationed in the city, cannot arrest protesters unless President Donald Trump invokes the Insurrection Act, with the president saying roughly an hour before the deployment that he did not consider the protests an insurrection, a reversal of a comment he made the night before that those protesting were 'paid insurrectionists,'" the report said.
Trump said the situation now appears to be "well under control."
"I think it would have been a very bad situation. It was heading in the wrong direction. It's now heading in the right direction," he said.
The report noted the situation developed on Friday, and since had "spiraled out of control."
Democrat Gov. Gavin Newsom earlier reacted to the idea of having Marines suppress violence in the city with the commented it was "deranged."
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said riots and attacks on ICE facilities and federal officers actually were a national security threat.
"The @DeptofDefense is mobilizing the National Guard IMMEDIATELY to support federal law enforcement in Los Angeles," he said in a post on X at the time. "And, if violence continues, active duty Marines at Camp Pendleton will also be mobilized — they are on high alert."
Fox News reported the addition of the Marines followed Trump's dispatch of about 2,000 National Guardsmen to the riot-racked city over the weekend.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
It's no secret that massive layoffs are currently devastating American workers. While industries across the spectrum are affected, from retail to manufacturing, the hardest-hit area is America's tech sector, with companies from Amazon to Microsoft to Meta cutting hundreds of thousands of jobs, over 23,400 tech jobs cut in April alone.
While automation and AI are conveniently blamed, hardcore reality comes into view when companies routinely cite "cost-cutting" and "corporate restructuring" – phrases that are often euphemisms for laying off American workers while hiring more foreign workers at lower wages.
At the same time, the government of India is openly celebrating the launch of its latest scheme to supercharge the export of Indian workers to the U.S. and other "high-income economies." Its goal is to facilitate the global mobility and employment of millions of migrant Indian workers directly at the expense of jobs for Americans.
Not just immigration, but a global labor-export campaign
India's "Global Access to Talent from India" initiative, or GATI, launched May 6, was personally championed by India's External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar and other officials who essentially describe it as a once-in-a-generation opportunity to redirect jobs, wages and even long-term industry trends away from Americans and into the pockets of India's government, its outsourcing giants and their international partners.
Calling this a "now or never" moment, India warns that the window of demographic advantage could close as competition mounts from African nations, the Philippines, Indonesia, Egypt, Vietnam, and Brazil, all vying for their own share of the global labor market.
Referring to a November 2024 think-tank report by two India-based entities, which projects a "global labor gap" of 45-50 million jobs in high-income countries by 2030, GATI sees a huge opportunity to flood foreign markets with its mass population to enter the global workforce. The document outlines a goal of doubling or even tripling the annual outflow of Indian workers, aiming for a "potential stock" of millions of Indian migrant workers overseas.
But the ambition doesn't end there. India is positioning itself as a "geostrategic partner" for major economies, hoping to be recognized as the world's "trusted migration partner" and rebranding its citizens as a global "talent brand." GATI predicts that this "talent gap" could expand dramatically over the next two decades.
Behind this bold new push, India has developed a structured and aggressive multi-horizon strategy to unlock its overseas labor potential. Through a combination of diaspora influence, bilateral negotiations, demand-side positioning, skill alignment, and financing mechanisms, India calls for a "whole-of-nation" effort to coordinate the mass movement of workers abroad, treating its citizens as a strategic export. At the same time, Jaishankar demands that destination countries eliminate their own protections and reshape their laws to accommodate this outflow.
This is not about mutual benefit, but about using foreign labor markets to solve India's unemployment and economic growth crises.
Outbound movement, remittance inflow
Thus, by its own admission, GATI has engineered a massive, state-backed campaign to export Indian labor on a scale never before seen. This isn't just about creating new job opportunities for Indians, it's about systematically opening foreign markets, expanding India's labor supply, and building a permanent ecosystem that channels workers – and wages – out of America and into India. According to a leader of one of the report's contributors, the India-based Boston Consulting Group, India's labor exports could grow to as many as 2.5 million workers per year.
Reality check: This is not a workforce solution for the United States. Indian officials publicly celebrate the higher wages their workers earn overseas, calling it "transformative" for India's economy, while U.S. companies line up to replace Americans with cheaper, more compliant foreign labor. The result is a hollowing out of America's middle class, not a win-win for both countries. What's unfolding in America is not an isolated series of layoffs, but rather a deliberate, top-down overhaul of the U.S. labor market, designed by Indian policymakers, embraced by corporate America, and propelled by relentless lobbying for ever more visas.
In fact, the GATI Foundation openly targets $300 billion in annual remittances, money siphoned from American paychecks and communities, to be spent and invested back in India. India's leaders make no secret of their endgame to use public-private partnerships to streamline recruitment, training, and job placement for Indian nationals, maximizing remittance flows and strengthening India's economic influence abroad.
These remittance inflows have become a critical pillar of India's economic strategy, pumping billions back into the country every year. Through GATI, India now aggressively markets itself as the world's "reliable labor supplier," positioning outbound migration as a strategic national asset.
Unfortunately, the true impact of all this is that every job handed to an Indian guest worker is one lost to an American family. Through the GATI Foundation's deep network of corporate partners, India is lobbying for looser visa rules and making Indian worker preference the "new normal" in major U.S. industries. Meanwhile, American companies are increasingly outsourcing everything from recruitment to training directly to Indian partners, ensuring that foreign nationals fill key roles while qualified U.S. citizens are left behind.
Thus, at its core, the GATI Foundation's blueprint is not about helping Americans or remedying genuine labor shortages, but about exploiting loopholes in U.S. immigration policy and leveraging global labor narratives to cement India's rise, at the direct expense of the American workforce.
The real agenda behind 'Global Talent Shortage'
The GATI Foundation was created to exploit what India calls a "demand-supply mismatch" in global labor markets. Citing projections that labor shortages in high-income countries could reach 250 million in 25 years, India pitches itself as the answer, if only Western nations open their doors to millions of Indian workers. The GATI Report frames this supposed crisis as an economic certainty, pushing the narrative that countries like the U.S. and Europe must ramp up labor migration or face disaster.
But this narrative falls apart on closer inspection.
These "shortage" projections ignore millions of Americans and Westerners who have been forced out of the workforce by layoffs, offshoring, and corporate cost-cutting. The "labor gap" is little more than an accounting trick, counting open positions that employers refuse to fill at fair wages and normal working conditions. Instead of investing in local workers, companies push for visas to import cheaper labor. And India stands ready to supply it.
The contradiction is glaring: GATI and its supporters claim automation and "Gen AI" are both eliminating jobs and creating labor shortages at the same time. It's a manufactured crisis, a narrative designed to benefit global corporations and foreign governments, but not American families.
In truth, India's campaign isn't about filling genuine labor gaps, but about lobbying for new visa categories, higher caps, and direct government-to-government deals to force open "mature" markets like the U.S., UK, Canada, Germany, and Japan. The GATI Report itself concedes that in these countries, mass inflows are possible only if their governments change laws and visa policies, not because the market demands it, but because India's lobby demands it.
After all, if there truly were a dire worker shortage, existing visa programs would be flooded with qualified applicants, and positions would fill quickly. Instead, India is manufacturing demand by lobbying for new pathways and is using its diplomatic muscle to export its unemployment crisis and the "remittance gold rush" that comes with it into Western economies.
As detailed in India's own 2024 Employment Report, India's job creation is not keeping pace with its exploding youth population. Far from being a demographic advantage, this so-called dividend is a growing liability, with millions of educated young Indians unable to find work at home.
But Jaishankar and the rest of India's leadership are not merely describing labor trends; they're demanding permanent, government-backed pipelines to move Indian workers into foreign markets, shifting the costs and consequences onto the United States and its citizens. The so-called "global talent shortage" is not a fact of economics, but a tool of policy propaganda crafted to dismantle labor protections, depress American wages, and entrench the power of foreign governments and multinationals, all at the expense of the American worker.
The skills Mirage: India's talent shortage cover-up
India promotes its vast, English-speaking workforce as the solution to the so-called global talent shortage, marketing the GATI scheme as a direct pipeline of world-class professionals. In truth, GATI is engineered to move as many people abroad as possible, papering over the persistent problems of quality, skills and employability that continue to plague India's workforce. Leaders like Jaishankar champion "skill development" and "global mobility," but India's own data reveals the reality: Fewer than half of Indian postgraduates are employable by international standards, according to India's Skill Reports. This isn't about quality; it's about numbers.
Thus, billions are funneled into crash courses, language bootcamps, and certifications, not to build genuine expertise, but to create a façade of qualification, often after jobs have already been promised overseas. Even in crucial sectors like healthcare, where Jaishankar boasts India can "solve" Western shortages, the fact remains: India struggles to meet its own domestic needs. Skill reports and experts like Dr. Lekha Chakraborty confirm that Indian training programs consistently fail to prepare graduates for real-world demands, leaving millions underserved and resources misallocated. Yet, rather than closing the skill gaps at home, the focus is on exporting as many workers as possible, regardless of whether they actually meet international standards.
The reality is, India isn't overflowing with world-class professionals; it's overflowing with people. Thus, the Indian government's real objective is to wedge as many Indian nationals as possible into good-paying American jobs, often regardless of true qualification or the local impact. Meanwhile, capable American workers are left behind, not due to a lack of ability, but because U.S. policymakers and corporations have bought into India's narrative and abandoned investment in the American workforce.
The hidden cost of investing in India's labor supply strategy
India has built a vast financial infrastructure to facilitate outbound migration, offering bridging loans, insurance, and rotating funds, all subsidized by public and private grants. For employers, it's cheaper to bring in Indian nationals than to invest in their own workforce.
But the GATI strategy doesn't stop at financing. India is demanding that host countries overhaul their own labor systems to accommodate and protect incoming foreign workers. Grievance mechanisms, legal mandates, and resource centers lock in rights for migrants, while incentives, including low-interest business loans and reskilling support, are used to tilt hiring toward foreign workers.
The hidden costs are staggering. American workers are not only undercut by lower-paid foreign labor, but are forced to compete with a workforce backed by another nation's government and a web of corporate allies. Meanwhile, U.S. training standards and credential requirements are undermined, eroding the value of American education and experience.
This isn't a temporary fix. It is a permanent, self-reinforcing system, channeling billions of dollars in remittances to India and institutionalizing foreign-worker preference in advanced economies. The outcome is inevitable: falling wages, lost jobs, and a steady erosion of America's sovereignty over its own workforce. Every dollar invested in this supply strategy is a dollar stolen from the American economy. It's time to demand a course correction, one that puts American skills, livelihoods and interests first.
Hiring from India is like signing a contract riddled with hidden clauses; by the time the consequences are clear, the damage is done. The American workforce deserves better. Those jobs belong to American workers, not a foreign government's export strategy.
A blueprint for displacement: India's cold, calculated framework
India's own analysis admits Indian certifications often aren't recognized overseas due to mismatched skill requirements and quality standards – a clear sign that many of the workers being pushed abroad are not actually qualified for the jobs at hand.
To get around these constraints, India's plan is to "harmonize demand-centric skilling," lobbying for international recognition of Indian credentials and pushing for government-backed loans to subsidize outbound migration. The goal isn't to meet genuine needs, but to bypass local standards and flood foreign markets, regardless of the consequences for host countries.
Every time a visa barrier is lowered or a new guest worker program is launched, it opens the door for India to embed even more of its surplus labor in Western economies. But the ambitions don't stop with white-collar tech jobs. India's leaders are playing a much longer and more aggressive game, openly targeting blue-collar visa categories like H-2A and H-2B, sectors that have long provided stability for American families and local communities.
Their policy documents make this crystal clear: India's strategy is to steadily lobby for the removal of visa caps, to institutionalize so-called "circular migration" so Indian workers can cycle through U.S. jobs indefinitely and to push for changes in immigration law that make Indian labor the default option for both high- and low-skill roles. This is not a temporary workforce solution; it's a step-by-step plan to permanently transform the American labor market in ways that serve India's interests while sidelining American workers at every level.
America's future: At a crossroads
Bottom line: As American companies outsource everything from recruitment to onboarding to Indian partners, foreign nationals are funneled into critical roles across tech, healthcare, engineering, and more, frequently at the direct expense of U.S. citizens. Accreditation standards are diluted. Worker protections are eroded. The playing field is tilted.
India's GATI initiative does not represent an invitation for partnership; it serves as a stark warning. As Indian leaders openly coordinate, lobby, and strategize to gain a foothold in U.S. job markets, too many American officials remain silent or, worse, actively complicit. Every so-called "strategic migration partnership" and each new visa pipeline laid is another brick in the wall separating American families from their own economic future.
The stakes could not be higher. This is not a tale of isolated layoffs or routine workforce shifts, but a deliberate, foreign-led transformation of the U.S. labor market. It is sold as progress but experienced as loss in every community facing layoffs, stagnant wages, and vanishing careers. Each time an American worker is replaced by a lower-paid Indian "guest worker," it marks another victory for India's national agenda and another defeat for the American middle class.
Unless action is taken, this pattern will only accelerate. American laws, corporations, and policymakers risk becoming tools for India's economic ascent while the American dream is steadily outsourced and rewritten. Americans must demand that their leaders defend their interests by rejecting foreign lobbying, putting an end to corporate collusion that enables mass visa fraud, and restoring a workforce system that prioritizes American citizens in their own country.
The choice is clear. Either the United States reclaims its labor market, its laws, and its future, or the nation will continue down a path where its greatest export is its own prosperity. History will not be kind to those who allowed this nation to be given away. Now is the time to draw the line: America first, in every job, every industry, and every decision. Otherwise, America's children will no longer compete with the "world" for the American dream – because that dream will belong to India.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Wyoming has vast miles of open range inhabited by antelopes and rabbits, towering mountains, huge coal reserves, Grand Teton National Park, Devil's Tower, the Cheyenne Frontier Days rodeo, and mostly conservative neighbors, except for the leftists in Colorado to the south.
But it is a state with a tiny population, only one representative among the 435 in the U.S. House of Representatives, and it is heavily Republican.
When its former congresswoman, Liz Cheney, from a longtime Republican family that includes her father, former Vice President Dick Cheney, joined Democrats in their attacks on President Donald Trump during and after his first term, voters in the state unceremoniously booted her from office in a tally that went way beyond landslide proportions.
So, perhaps the status of the Democratic Party there isn't indicative of the situation Democrats are facing nationwide after their candidate, Kamala Harris, was blown out of the race by Trump in the 2024 presidential election, and they failed to gain a majority in either the U.S. Senate or House.
But then…
It is a report from Cowboy State Daily, whose reporter was in attendance at a recent meeting of party officials, who reported the party is losing about $5,000 per month.
And the report confirmed Democrats there formally adopted a vote that asked the publication to keep the details secret.
The online report, however, decided to go forward with information that it deemed the public should have.
The report explained the Democrats' treasurer confirmed the party is losing $5,000 a month, and in all accounts, as of May, had only about $36,000.
Already in 2025, the party has spent nearly $22,000 more than it has taken in.
Treasurer Dudley Case said, "Needless to say, that's an unsustainable loss. So we have to do some fundraising this year, some serious fundraising."
Officials said the party has taken in about $76,000 for the year.
But monthly expenditures are averaging more than $27,000.
When the Democrats realized their information and comments were in public, former Wyoming Democratic Party Vice-Chair Erin O'Doherty moved to order the press not to publish details.
The committee ultimately passed a motion formally requesting the outlet to keep the details secret.
"After consulting with its attorney and editors, Cowboy State Daily has opted to publish the party's budget issues as it believes them to be of public interest and political importance," the report explained.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
While some businesses this month are choosing not to fall into line with the tradition of marking June as "Pride Month" – like the Idaho bar that instead is celebrating "Heterosexual Awesomeness Month" – Air Canada has dived into the alphabet soup with a special flight designated as "all-2SLGBTQIA+."
The recent flight was trumpeted via a promotion on X: "Our first all-2SLGBTQIA+ flight was a heartfelt celebration reflecting our unwavering commitment to inclusivity and equality, in the air and on the ground."
The "2S" stand for "two-spirit," a designation now getting top billing in the airline's efforts.
The X video shows crew members, both onboard and on the ground, who identify with one of the letter designations, or has a loved one who does.
"I thought it was a great initiative for the whole community," Jean-François, identified as a station attendant, said in the video. "It's somewhat of a thrill being on this flight today."
Another station attendant, René JR, felt similarly. "I'm here to support my daughter," he said. "One of my four children is part of this community. When I saw there was an opportunity to support her even more, I signed up for it right away."
Responses on X, however, noted the irony of the fact that excluding employees who are not "2SLGBTQIA+" is by its very nature "not inclusive."
Posted "Siobhan": "How is this a commitment to inclusivity & equality when straight people are excluded on purpose? You're ridiculous."
As reported by Fox News, Curtis Houck, managing editor of NewsBusters, posted on X, "This is a parody, right?"
Canadian blogger Mark Slapinski said, "Air Canada has gone FULLY WOKE. Raise your hand if you'll never fly on their airlines AGAIN."
The Daily Mail reported that many commenters expressed frustration that sexual identity, rather than professional competency and ability, was being showcased.
"When booking flights I know my first concern is the sexuality of the flight crew. LGB arent you sick of being used?" said one.
At one point, Air Canada was forced to stop accepting comments on its controversial post.
"Nothing screams 'inclusion' like blocking most of the public from commenting on your company's post," said an X user.
Another posited: "As a gay man, I find it absolutely terrifying you put people in the cockpit based on their identity rather than their skill to fly a plane. …"
As Breitbart reported, this is not the first time Air Canada has been thrust into the public eye for reasons it did not foresee.
In 2019, it parted with tradition by dropping "ladies and gentlemen" or the French "mesdames et messieurs" when greeting passengers aboard its aircraft.
Instead, crew were ordered to use gender-neutral greetings such as "good morning everybody" in a bid to spare the feelings of gender fluid passengers.
A company memo stated, "we want to ensure an inclusive space for everyone, including those who identify with gender X."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Multiple lawsuits have erupted in recent years filed by plaintiffs who demand their local libraries provide them with pornographic material, or other titles that many find offensive.
They claim a constitutional right to have taxpayers provide such materials, but a decision from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has destroyed that argument.
To plaintiffs who wildly claim that, "Where they burn books, they will ultimately burn people," the ruling said such "over-caffeinated arguments" should stop, and parties "take a deep breath … No one is banning (or burning) books."
The solution is clear, the judges wrote in an opinion in the case Little v. Llano County: "If a disappointed patron can't find a book in the library, he can order it online, buy it from a bookstore, or borrow it from a friend. All that Llano County has done here is what libraries have been doing for two centuries: decide which books they want in their collections. This is what it means to be a library – to make judgments about which books are worth reading and which are not, which ideas belong on the shelves and which do not."
It is the American Center for Law and Justice that contributed to the arguments with a friend-of-the-court brief, and explained, "For over a year, the ACLJ has been fighting to protect children from far-Left groups that want to expose children to sexually explicit content without your knowledge. School districts have been inundated with far-Left lobbying, demands, and lawsuits seeking to force them to include reprehensible and disturbing content in the children's sections of school libraries. We've been working with school districts around the country to fight back and allow school officials – who represent the parents of the school children they serve – to empower parental rights and protect children from sexualized and Marxist indoctrination. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals just issued a decision that will assist us in this fight."
The decision, "unprecedented," according to the ACLJ, resulted in two significant factors.
"First, [individuals and groups] cannot invoke a right to receive information to challenge a library's removal of books. … Second, a library's collection decisions are government speech and therefore not subject to Free Speech challenge," the ACLJ said.
"This means that school libraries cannot be forced to house inappropriate material no matter how many lawsuits radical librarians and far-Left groups like the ACLU file."
In this case, some people from Llano County sued the Texas library for removing 17 books because of their sexual and/or racial themes.
"The plaintiffs in this case argued that they had a 'right to receive information' – even sexually explicit information – under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment and that the public library (and taxpayers) must supply them with whatever books they desire," the ACLJ charged.
"The plaintiffs disingenuously argued that the removal of the inappropriate books constituted a book ban reminiscent of 'totalitarian regimes.'"
The 5th Circuit said, "It is one thing to tell the government it cannot stop you from receiving a book. The First Amendment protects your right to do that. It is another thing for you to tell the government which books it must keep in the library. The First Amendment does not give you that right to demand that."
The ACLJ said, "The Fifth Circuit's ruling is a breath of fresh air and represents a long, overdue, legally sound, and commonsense approach to this issue. As the Fifth Circuit noted, the plaintiffs incorrectly 'demand to receive information from the government itself.'"
"If – as the groups we've battled have been arguing – '[P]eople can challenge which books libraries remove, they can challenge which books libraries buy. . . . Suppose a patron complains that the library does not have a book she wants. The library refuses to buy it, so she sues.' Where would it end? It wouldn't, and groups like the ACLU wouldn't stop until you, the taxpayer, are forced to fund and stock pornography and other inappropriate content on every children's library shelf in America."