Політика

Як стверджується, чоловік визнав провину та «дав вичерпні свідчення». Басманний районний суд Москви відправив його до СІЗО
…

Суму коштів, виведених з України, Офіс генпрокурора оцінює в понад 608 мільйонів гривень
…

…

Washington — Voters in Missouri cleared the way to undo one of the nation’s most restrictive abortion bans in one of seven victories for abortion rights advocates, while Florida, Nebraska and South Dakota defeated similar constitutional amendments, leaving bans in place. 

Abortion rights amendments also passed in Arizona, Colorado, Maryland and Montana. Nevada voters also approved an amendment, but they’ll need to pass it again it 2026 for it to take effect. Another that bans discrimination on the basis of “pregnancy outcomes” prevailed in New York. 

The results include firsts for the abortion landscape, which underwent a seismic shift in 2022 when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, a ruling that ended a nationwide right to abortion and cleared the way for bans to take effect in most Republican-controlled states. 

They also came in the same election that Republican Donald Trump won the presidency. Among his inconsistent positions on abortion has been an insistence that it’s an issue best left to the states. Still, the president can have a major impact on abortion policy through executive action. 

In the meantime, Missouri is positioned to be the first state where a vote will undo a ban on abortion at all stages of pregnancy, with an amendment that would allow lawmakers to restrict abortions only past the point of a fetus’ viability — usually considered after 21 weeks, although there’s no exact defined time frame. 

But the ban, and other restrictive laws, are not automatically repealed. Advocates now have to ask courts to overturn laws to square with the new amendment. 

“Today, Missourians made history and sent a clear message: decisions around pregnancy, including abortion, birth control, and miscarriage care are personal and private and should be left up to patients and their families, not politicians,” Rachel Sweet, campaign manager of Missourians for Constitutional Freedom, said in a statement. 

Roughly half of Missouri’s voters said abortion should be legal in all or most cases, according to AP VoteCast, a survey of more than 2,200 of the state’s voters. But only about 1 in 10 said abortion should be illegal in all cases; nearly 4 in 10 said abortion should be illegal in most cases. 

Bans remain in place in three states after votes 

Florida, Nebraska and South Dakota became the first states since Roe was overturned where abortion opponents prevailed on a ballot measure. Most voters supported the Florida measure, but it fell short of the required 60% to pass constitutional amendments in the state. Most states require a simple majority. 

The result was a political win for Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican with a national profile, who had steered state GOP funds to the cause. His administration has weighed in, too, with a campaign against the measure, investigators questioning people who signed petitions to add it to the ballot and threats to TV stations that aired one commercial supporting it. 

Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the national anti-abortion group SBA Pro-Life America, said in a statement that the result is “a momentous victory for life in Florida and for our entire country,” praising DeSantis for leading the charge against the measure. 

The defeat makes permanent a shift in the Southern abortion landscape that began when the state’s six-week ban took effect in May. That removed Florida as a destination for abortion for many women from nearby states with deeper bans and also led to far more women from the state traveling to obtain abortion. The nearest states with looser restrictions are North Carolina and Virginia — hundreds of miles away. 

“The reality is because of Florida’s constitution a minority of Florida voters have decided Amendment 4 will not be adopted,” said Lauren Brenzel, campaign director for the Yes on 4 Campaign said while wiping away tears. “The reality is a majority of Floridians just voted to end Florida’s abortion ban.” 

In South Dakota, another state with a ban on abortion throughout pregnancy with some exceptions, the defeat of an abortion measure was more decisive. It would have allowed some regulations related to the health of the woman after 12 weeks. Because of that wrinkle, most national abortion-rights groups did not support it. 

Voters in Nebraska adopted a measure that allows more abortion restrictions and enshrines the state’s current 12-week ban and rejected a competing measure that would have ensured abortion rights. 

Other states guaranteed abortion rights 

Arizona’s amendment will mean replacing the current law that bans abortion after the first 15 weeks of pregnancy. The new measure ensures abortion access until viability. A ballot measure there gained momentum after a state Supreme Court ruling in April found that the state could enforce a strict abortion ban adopted in 1864. Some GOP lawmakers joined with Democrats to repeal the law before it could be enforced. 

In Maryland, the abortion rights amendment is a legal change that won’t make an immediate difference to abortion access in a state that already allows it. 

It’s a similar situation in Missouri, where abortion is already legal until viability. 

The Colorado measure exceeded the 55% of support required to pass. Besides enshrining access, it also undoes an earlier amendment that barred using state and local government funding for abortion, opening the possibility of state Medicaid and government employee insurance plans covering care. 

A New York equal rights law that abortion rights group say will bolster abortion rights also passed. It doesn’t contain the word “abortion” but rather bans discrimination on the basis of “pregnancy outcomes, and reproductive healthcare and autonomy.” Sasha Ahuja, campaign director of New Yorkers for Equal Rights, called the result “a monumental victory for all New Yorkers” and a vote against opponents who she says used misleading parental rights and anti-trans messages to thwart the measure. 

The results end a win streak for abortion-rights advocates 

Until Tuesday, abortion rights advocates had prevailed on all seven measures that have appeared on statewide ballots since the fall of Roe. 

The abortion rights campaigns have a big fundraising advantage this year. Their opponents’ efforts are focused on portraying the amendments as too extreme rather than abortion as immoral. 

Currently, 13 states are enforcing bans at all stages of pregnancy, with some exceptions. Four more bar abortion in most cases after about six weeks of pregnancy — before women often realize they’re pregnant. Despite the bans, the number of monthly abortions in the U.S. has risen slightly, because of the growing use of abortion pills and organized efforts to help women travel for abortion. Still, advocates say the bans have reduced access, especially for lower-income and minority residents of the states with bans. 

The issue is resonating with voters. About one-fourth said abortion policy was the single most important factor for their vote, according to AP VoteCast, a sweeping survey of more than 110,000 voters nationwide. Close to half said it was an important factor, but not the most important. Just over 1 in 10 said it was a minor factor. 

The outcomes of ballot initiatives that sought to overturn strict abortion bans in Florida and Missouri were very important to a majority of voters in the states. More than half of Florida voters identified the result of the amendment as very important, while roughly 6 in 10 of Missouri’s voters said the same, the survey found. 
…

На Курахівському напрямку українські війська відбили 56 російських атак, загалом на фронті відбулося 140 бойових зіткнень
…

Двоє людей загинули в Харкові, на Харківщині та Херсонщині – по 5 поранених
…

Former U.S. President Donald Trump moved close to an election victory early Wednesday with wins in several key states, including Pennsylvania, leaving former Vice President Kamala Harris with a narrowing path to a White House term.

In the U.S. system, where the presidential election is tallied in a series of state-by-state contests, both Harris and Trump were quickly declared winners after polls closed Tuesday in states where their parties enjoy clear majority support. Meanwhile, seven so-called battleground states were expected to tip the balance and determine the winner.

Trump pushed ahead with important wins in those areas, combining his victory in Pennsylvania with wins in Georgia and North Carolina to give him at least 267 of the 270 electoral votes needed to clinch a majority. Harris would need to win all of the outstanding states, including Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada and Arizona.

In addition, the Republicans took control in the 100-member Senate late Tuesday, but it was not yet known which party would control the U.S. House.

Trump claimed victory early Wednesday as he thanked his supporters at a rally in Florida.

“This was a movement like nobody’s ever seen before, and, frankly, this was, I believe, the greatest political movement of all time,” Trump said.

He pledged to “fix our borders” and “fix everything in our country.”

Trump also said he would work to deliver a “strong, safe and prosperous America.”

A Harris campaign official told a crowd of her supporters in Washington that she would not address the gathering overnight but would speak later Wednesday.

The state-by-state electoral system includes different rules for how and when votes are counted, adding to the complexity of how results are reported.

In some states, ballots that are cast in-person before Election Day, or by mail, were allowed to be counted as they came in, leading to faster results. But in other states, those counts did not begin until polls closed Tuesday night, while some states also allowed ballots to be put in the mail as late as Tuesday, meaning final results in those areas will not come for days.

Looming over the eventual result was the prospect of legal challenges. Both the Trump and Harris campaigns were ready with legal experts to contest any irregularities they saw.

A Harris win would make her the country’s first female president. A Trump victory would make him the first U.S. leader since Grover Cleveland in the 1890s to serve non-consecutive terms.

The next president is set to be inaugurated for their four-year term on January 20. 

A key foreign policy focus in either a Trump or Harris administration will be relations between the United States and China, including subjects such as trade, Taiwan and China’s actions in the South China Sea.

Vincent Wang, dean of the college of arts and sciences at Adelphi University, told VOA Mandarin that China would approach the prospective presidents differently, including being potentially more aggressive toward the United States if Harris wins.

“China may create some events to give her (Harris) a show of force,” Wang said. “After all, the United States is tied up with wars in the Ukraine, and in Israel and Gaza. In the Taiwan Strait, China has already carried out so-called gray area strategy on a daily basis. I think China may expand its gray area strategy closer to Taiwan as a way to a test Harris.”

“If Trump is elected, I think China may not dare, because he doesn’t go through drafts, he has already said harsh words. If he wakes up today, he might say he’s going to raise tariffs by 200%. If he wakes up tomorrow, he might want to bomb Beijing. So I think this so-called this Trump-type deterrent, on the contrary, will make them a little bit more restrained.” 
…

Foreign adversaries used increasingly sophisticated meddling operations to target the November 5 U.S. presidential race between Democratic party candidate Vice President Kamala Harris and her Republican party opponent, former President Donald Trump.

Iran has sought to influence and interfere with the results of the poll by promoting disinformation narratives favorable to its own foreign policy goals.

The societal division in the U.S. and predictions of “post-election unrest,” as well as depictions of the United States’ support for Israel in the ongoing Israel-Hamas war as Americans’ historic “support for genocide,” dominated the Iranian state-controlled media coverage of the U.S. elections.

An Iran-operated network of social media accounts and fake news sites targeted U.S. voters on opposite ends of the political spectrum with polarizing messaging.

In the days before the election, Press TV, a state-owned English language outlet, has run analyses and news items depicting the United States as a “defunct” nation, which the presidential elections only amplified.

“As America heads to the polls, the only certainty seems to be that division, disunity, dissatisfaction and maybe even disfunction aren’t going away anytime soon,” Press TV analyst Ramin Mazaheri said in a November 4 report that exemplifies the overall coverage.

Iran has long accused Israel of committing genocide in the Gaza Strip. Israel says it is Iran who is responsible for the violence in Gaza and Lebanon, citing Tehran’s decades-long effort to destroy Israel via proxy forces.

Tehran-based commentator Alireza Akbar wrote for Press TV that in supporting Israel,  both Harris and Trump are no exception from their predecessors and that “US presidents have always been on the side of genocide, massacres and holocausts.”

Speaking with Press TV in October, U.S. academic and Libertarian presidential candidate Michael Rectenwald likewise said “[b]oth Harris and Trump will continue to support Israel’s psychopathic genocidal rampages.”

Press TV has repeatedly promoted the narrative that Harris’ support for Israel could cost her the election among Muslim voters, and repeated claims she is responsible for civilian deaths in the Gaza Strip.

In one November 4 report, Press TV correspondent Mazaheri said that “Vice President Kamala Harris’ participation in the Gaza genocide has shocked voters of all types,” adding “polls show Muslim Americans are capable of tipping the balance.”

The Israel-Hamas war, and its impact on civilians in the Gaza Strip, is a key issue for Arab and Muslim American voters, particularly in Michigan, a key swing state.

During a rally in Michigan on Sunday, Harris vowed to do “everything in her power” to stop the Israel-Hamas war if elected president.

Sources told The Times of Israel in late October that Trump wanted the war in Gaza to conclude before he returns to office if he wins the election.

Researchers at Microsoft found disinformation narratives similar to those on Press TV being amplified by covert news sites and social media accounts.

Microsoft Threat Analysis Center (MTAC) reported on October 23, that its researchers discovered an “Iranian operated cyber persona” called “Bushnell’s Men,” named after Aaron Bushnell, who died after setting himself on fire outside Israel’s embassy in Washington, D.C., in February.

Microsoft reported ‘’Bushnell’s Men’’ attempted to foment anti-Israeli protests in the United States and Europe, and had called on call on Americans to “sit out the elections.”

Microsoft also reported that “four websites masquerading as news outlets are actively engaging US voter groups on opposing ends of the political spectrum with polarizing messaging on issues such as the US presidential candidates, LGBTQ rights, and the Israel-Hamas conflict.”

One of those websites with a left-leaning bent, called Nio Thinker, published an article criticizing the “democratic party’s deafening silence on Palestine,” Al Monitor reported.

While Harris features prominently in more recent Press TV reports, U.S. intelligence agencies and the Microsoft researchers earlier documented how Iranian cyber-enabled influence operations have sought to undermine the campaign of Trump in this and previous elections.

That included what the Department of the Treasury in September called Iranian state-sponsored “spear-phishing” and “hack-and-leak operations” intended to “undermine confidence in the United States’ election processes and institutions and to interfere with political campaigns.”

A September New York Times report found that Iran’s targeting of President Joe Biden and Harris along with Trump may reflect “a wider goal of sowing internal discord and discrediting the democratic system in the United States more broadly in the eyes of the world.”

That report cited two Iranian officials who said Tehran was “unconcerned” over who won the presidential race, claiming “Washington’s animosity transcends either political party.”

In July, U.S. Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines warned that Iran “is seeking to stoke discord and undermine confidence in our democratic institutions,” and “opportunistically take advantage of ongoing protests regarding the war in Gaza.”
…

Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump have spent the past few months battling for the White House, and experts say that votes for third party candidates could be a deciding factor for who will become the next president of the United States.  

With the latest polls showing Harris and Trump in a dead heat in battleground states around the country, ballots cast for third-party candidates Jill Stein of the Green Party, independent Cornel West and Libertarian Chase Oliver could be enough to tip the scales.  

VOA Persian spoke with all three of them. Their responses have been edited for length and clarity.  

Green Party candidate Jill Stein 

VOA: During one of his final campaign rallies in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, former President Donald Trump praised you, saying he loved the Green Party and that you might be one of his favorite politicians. What do you make of this?  

Jill Stein: I make of that about as much as I make of Donald Trump’s assessment of climate change, which is that he sort of believes the opposite of reality. I am in this race to provide an alternative to the two parties that are bought and paid for, that are serving Wall Street and the war contractors and definitely not the American people. So I don’t have a lot of high regard for Donald Trump’s political strategies or his values.  

VOA: How much support do you expect to receive in battleground states like Michigan? There were some polls that suggested you have support of over 40% of the Arab American population there.  

Stein: Exactly what the numbers will turn out to be, it depends how many people are turning out to vote. It depends how strong the vote of the, not only the Muslim population, but also many African Americans and Hispanics and young people who feel like they do not have a future under Kamala Harris, and they do not have a future under Donald Trump. At this point, it’s too soon to say. We ourselves do not strictly work based on polls. We’re really in this based on principle and for the long haul. We would be delighted if we make the 5% cut in the national poll in the national results, but it’s very hard to say at this point.  

VOA: What would be your position regarding the government of Iran?  

Stein: I think we need to open the door to negotiations with Iran. Iran has elected a new president who is said to be moderate and interested in improving relations with the West, and we need to explore that. I think the most critical thing in the Middle East right now is resolving this expanding war and the intention of Bibi [Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu to create a wider war and drag the U.S. into it. I think that is the greatest threat to peace in the Middle East right now and has the potential to grow into a conflict that’s even bigger than the Middle East. 

Independent candidate Cornel West 

VOA: How many states allowed you to have your name on the ballot and why did others not?    

Cornel West: We’ve got 16 states where we have direct ballot access. We have 24 states where we have write-in access, and that did require petitions and signatures. So that required a lot of work on behalf of magnificent volunteers. But it was very difficult. There’s been a tremendous struggle, but we come up swinging.  

VOA: How different will your policy be compared to what we hear from Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump?  

West: Martin Luther King [Jr.] said, militarism, racism, poverty and materialism are the four forces that are sucking the democratic energy out of the American social experiment. I take very seriously his critique of militarism. I see that as a criticism of American foreign policies in which we are so eager to create these lethal armed forces rather than engage in wise diplomatic processes. And so there would be no genocide. I would have had an embargo on any kind of military or financial support of Israel as it was very clear that they were laying bare this kind of massive massacre on innocent people, especially innocent children and women and men.  

The same would be true in terms of being able to bring an end to the war in Ukraine. Same would be true in terms of trying to be more diplomatic with China. I see Kamala Harris as a militarist, Black woman. That is to say she’s willing to not just provoke, but to push [Russian President Vladimir] Putin. And I think Putin himself is still very much a gangster and a war criminal in his own way, but he has a right — Russia has a right to security. And the same is true with China. There’s too much provocation, and I think that moves us toward World War III in the same way that Trump moves us towards Civil War II at home. And that was one reason why I wanted to provide some kind of alternative to Trump and [U.S. President Joe] Biden.

And then when Biden had his LBJ moment [referring to Biden’s poor debate performance] something that we talked about many, many months ago, we just predicted that Harris now is following through on the same militarism in Gaza. And of course, genocide, the crime of genocide, is a litmus test of morality of any nation, any country, and if you deny it, if you enable it, it’s a sign that you don’t have a moral fiber in your military policy.  

VOA: Many people in the occupied West Bank are disturbed by Tehran’s support for militants in Gaza. How do you see this considering the moral aspects of your vision, your doctrine and your policy?    

West: Malcolm X used to say, I’m for truth, no matter who’s for it, and justice, no matter who supports it. People can actually support just movements for motivations that themselves are highly suspicious. When the French supported the American revolutionaries, when Lafayette came to the United States, it was partly because the French were over against the British in Europe, they didn’t have a whole lot of solidarity with these colonists responding against the British Empire. … The Soviet Union supported the freedom struggles in Africa. It wasn’t always because they just love Africans so much. It was anti-United States. They had a Cold War going on, and their policies were strategic and tactical in that way. The same would be true for Iran vis-a-vis Palestinians.

So I think we have to be very truthful about the ways in which the motives might not always be attractive, but when you’re a people like Palestinians this moment, whose backs are against the wall, they need help from anybody, and it’s very important that people highlight their plight so that their babies are not crushed. But that doesn’t mean that those who are supporting them always have the right motives, and therefore we can still be critical of what those motives are.  

Libertarian Party candidate Chase Oliver 

VOA: In your platform, you mentioned that Libertarians seek the United States at peace with the world. How different will your foreign policy be?

Chase Oliver: It would be a drastic difference than what the status quo has been, certainly since I’ve been an adult. Since I’ve been an adult, let’s just call it the post-9/11 War on Terror kind of foreign policy mindset that we’ve had, which I think is rooted in ideas that are very black and white. You’re either with us or you’re with the terrorists.

The best way to solve a problem is through a preemptive war or through increasing our military presence in the region, to flex our muscle. And what I think that has done is actually created further instability, particularly in the Middle East, which I don’t think has been a success despite the trillions of dollars we’ve spent in both Iraq and Afghanistan. I don’t think you can say either of those nations are particularly bastions of democracy, or that the region itself is now more stable than it was.

And so for me, I would say let’s remove our military footprint and start flexing our diplomatic muscle. Let’s start meeting with world leaders directly, one on one. Let’s start forming coalitions around peaceful ideas and free trade and voluntary exchange to tear down barriers between our nations so that we can have cultural exchanges with one another. I think these are the ideas that we really need to be pushing, and not a militarized foreign policy that’s ruined the idea that the United States must be the world’s enforcer.   

VOA: So you don’t see America as the leader of the free world with its responsibilities?    

Oliver: I absolutely see America as a leader in terms of the markets of the world, the economic engine of the world, the diplomatic arm of the world. But it doesn’t need to be coming, using the military might of the world. Teddy Roosevelt said, “Speak softly and carry a big stick.” We have a very powerful military that can defend ourselves, and ultimately, if there were a need and if Congress declared a war, fight a war anywhere in the world with absolute certainty that we could dominate our opponent. But you don’t flex your muscle like that around the world. That’s not a position of strength. When you use that military might to push your agenda, that’s actually a position of weakness, because good ideas should not require force, and you should be able to diplomatically work throughout the world.

And I recognize the world is not perfect. The world does not lack violence. The world is not lacking for bad people, particularly governments around the world who represent good people. And Iran is no different. The government of Iran is abhorrent. They’re abusive to their people. They curtail their rights. But the people of Iran are good, innocent people who don’t deserve to have things like airstrikes and missiles raining down upon them because of the evils of their government. And I hope that ultimately, we can liberalize the world more towards more liberalized things like free speech, freedom of movement and freedom of religion. But that’s not going to come just from us beating people down. 

VOA: How difficult is it to run as a third-party candidate?    

Oliver: Running as an alternative party candidate has a lot of challenges because the two mainstream parties have a lot of built-in incumbency power, both in the number of elected officials they have as well as things like taxpayer-funded primaries. So they basically take taxes out of my wallet to fund primaries that help promote the candidates that are Republicans and Democrats.

And as a Libertarian, we’re kind of left in the lurch there. So there’s a lot of challenges, especially around things like ballot access. There’s a lot of solutions. And actually a big part of my platform is a thing called the voter bill of rights that will open up this process, not just for Libertarians like myself, but all sorts of other alternative parties that really need to have their voices heard. 
…

washington — A U.S. Army soldier who was injured in May while working on the American-built pier to deliver humanitarian aid to Gaza has died. 

Sargeant Quandarius Stanley, 23, was a motor transport operator and was critically injured when high winds and heavy seas damaged the pier, causing four Army vessels to become beached. Two other service members also were injured but later returned to duty. 

U.S. military officials have not provided details on how exactly Stanley was injured but have noted it was not in combat. He died last Thursday and had been assigned to the 7th Transportation Brigade Expeditionary at Joint Base Langley-Eustis in Virginia. 

“Sergeant Quandarius Stanley was an instrumental and well respected first-line leader in the 7th Transportation Brigade Expeditionary (TBX), especially during the mission to provide humanitarian assistance to the people of Gaza. We will continue to provide support to his family during this difficult time,” said Colonel John “Eddie” Gray, brigade commander. “Our entire unit mourns alongside his family.” 

Captain Shkeila Milford-Glover, spokesperson for the 3rd Expeditionary Sustainment Command, said Stanley had recently retired and was receiving treatment in a long-term care medical center. 

The massive pier project was hampered by unexpected bad weather and security issues, as well as persistent safety issues involving Israeli forces that prompted aid agencies to halt distribution of the supplies out of fear of being injured and killed. 

The Defense Department formally pulled the pier from the Gaza shore on June 28 and declared an end in mid-July to the mission to bring aid into the territory besieged by the war between Israel and Hamas. 

The military moved nearly 20 million pounds of aid onto the Gaza shore in what officials said was the “largest volume of humanitarian assistance” ever delivered into the Middle East. 

But aid agencies had difficulty moving the food brought ashore to areas farther into Gaza where it was needed most because humanitarian convoys came under attack. 
…

A caravan of approximately 3,000 migrants set off on Tuesday from southern Mexico, headed toward the United States on the day when U.S. voters were deciding between U.S. presidential candidates Kamala Harris and Donald Trump.

Immigration has been a key issue in the U.S. election campaign.

Before heading northward, the migrants gathered in Tapachula, the capital of the southern Chiapas state, carrying banners with messages such as “NO MORE MIGRANT BLOOD” and images of the Virgin of Guadalupe, an important religious and cultural symbol in Mexico, according to Reuters witnesses.

“We want U.S. authorities to see us, to see that we are people who want to work, not to harm anyone,” said Honduran migrant Roy Murillo, who joined the caravan with his two children and his pregnant wife.

In recent years, several caravans with people hoping to enter the United States have attempted to reach the U.S.-Mexican border, traveling in mass groups for safety. Most have dispersed along the way.

“I’m afraid to travel alone with my family. Here, the cartels either kidnap you or kill you. … That’s why we’re coming in the caravan,” Murillo said.

Murillo recounted his unsuccessful attempts to secure an asylum appointment through a mobile app developed by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency.

Tapachula, a mandatory crossing point for tens of thousands of migrants, has become one of Mexico’s most violent cities in recent months, with migrants frequently targeted by organized crime, according to official data.

“I feel suffocated here. That’s why we decided to leave,” said 28-year-old Venezuelan migrant Thais, who spoke on condition that her surname not be used due to safety concerns.

She joined the caravan with her husband and 3-year-old daughter.

“I wish Mr. Trump and Ms. Kamala would see that we are human beings, that we want to live and support our families,” she added.

Voters cast ballots on Tuesday in the race between Vice President Harris, a Democrat seeking to become the first female U.S. president, and Trump, a Republican immigration hard-liner aiming to regain the presidency.
…

The U.S. Department of Agriculture announced that students eligible for free or reduced price school meals cannot be charged processing fees beginning in 2027.

School districts currently work with processing companies to offer cashless payment systems for families. But the companies can charge “processing fees” for each transaction. By law, students who are eligible for reduced price meals cannot be charged more than 30 cents for breakfast and 40 cents for lunch. With processing fees, however, families can end up paying 10 times that amount. Processing companies charge as much as $3.25 or 4% to 5% per transaction, according to a recent report from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

For families with lower incomes who can’t afford to load large sums in one go, processing fees can arrive weekly or even more frequently, increasing costs disproportionately. Families that qualify for free or reduced lunch pay as much as 60 cents per dollar in fees when paying for school lunches electronically, according to the report.

The Agriculture Department’s new policy becomes effective starting in the 2027-2028 school year. With this rule, the USDA will lower costs for families with income under 185% of federal poverty guidelines, which equals $57,720 for a family of four.

“USDA and schools across America share the common goal of nourishing schoolchildren and giving them the fuel they need to learn, grow and thrive,” said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack in a statement Friday. “While today’s action to eliminate extra fees for lower-income households is a major step in the right direction, the most equitable path forward is to offer every child access to healthy school meals at no cost. We will continue to work with Congress to move toward that goal so all kids have the nutrition they need to reach their full potential.”

The decision by the USDA follows a CFPB report that found online school meal payments predominantly affect low-income families. School lunch fees collectively cost families upwards of $100 million each year, according to the report.

The USDA has mandated since 2017 that school districts inform families of their options, but even when parents are aware, having to pay by cash or check to avoid fees can be burdensome.

“It’s just massively inconvenient,” said Joanna Roa, 43, who works at Clemson University in South Carolina as a library specialist and has two school-aged children.

Roa said that when her son was in first grade and she saw the $3.25-per-transaction fee for lunch accounts, she and her husband decided to send him to school with packed lunches instead.

“A dollar here and there, I expected,” she said. “But $3.25 per transaction, especially here in rural South Carolina where the cost of living is a lot lower — as are the salaries — is a lot.”

Roa said packing lunch for two kids every day became a burden in both time and effort for two working parents. For the past two years, thanks to surplus funds, her school district has been providing free school lunches, which has changed the equation, but Roa said that could end at any point.

In its review of the 300 largest public school districts in the U.S., the CFPB found that 87% of sampled districts contract with payment processors. Within those districts, the companies charge an average of $2.37, or 4.4% of the total transaction, each time money is added to a child’s account.

While payment companies maintain that school districts can negotiate fees and rates before they agree to contracts, the CFPB found that complex company structures “may insulate companies from competition and make school districts less likely to negotiate.” Just three companies — MySchoolBucks, SchoolCafe and LINQ Connect — dominate the market, according to the report.

Without the ability to choose which company to work with, “families have fewer ways to avoid harmful practices,” the agency said, “including those that may violate federal consumer protection law.”
…

Millions of U.S. voters are set to cast their ballots Tuesday as they decide whether Vice President Kamala Harris or former President Donald Trump will be the country’s next leader.
…

Генштаб ЗСУ вказує на те, що жовтень став рекордним із кількості пусків ударних безпілотників РФ
…

Засуджені – мешканець Харкова та двоє киян, які були завербовані до початку повномасштабного вторгнення
…

Оператор відзначає скорочення споживання електроенергії: на 9:30 у вівторок воно на 4,5% нижче, ніж напередодні
…

SEATTLE — Unionized machinists at Boeing voted Monday to accept a contract offer and end their strike after more than seven weeks, clearing the way for the aerospace giant to resume production of its bestselling airliner and generate much-needed cash.

Leaders of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers district in Seattle said 59% of members who cast ballots agreed to approve the company’s fourth formal offer and the third put to a vote. The deal includes pay raises of 38% over four years, and ratification and productivity bonuses.

However, Boeing refused to meet strikers’ demand to restore a company pension plan that was frozen nearly a decade ago.

The contract’s ratification on the eve of Election Day clears the way for a major U.S. manufacturer and government contractor to restart Pacific Northwest assembly lines that the factory workers’ walkout have idled for 53 days.

Boeing CEO Kelly Ortberg said in a message to employees Monday night that he was pleased to have reached an agreement.

“While the past few months have been difficult for all of us, we are all part of the same team,” Ortberg said. “We will only move forward by listening and working together. There is much work ahead to return to the excellence that made Boeing an iconic company.”

According to the union, the 33,000 workers it represents can return to work as soon as Wednesday or as late as Nov. 12. Boeing’s CEO has said it might take “a couple of weeks” to resume production in part because some could need retraining.

The contract decision is “most certainly not a victory,” said Eep Bolaño, a Boeing calibration specialist based in Seattle who voted in favor of ratification. Bolaño said she and her fellow workers made a wise but infuriating choice to accept the offer.

“We were threatened by a company that was crippled, dying, bleeding on the ground, and us as one of the biggest unions in the country couldn’t even extract two-thirds of our demands from them. This is humiliating,” Bolaño said.

Leaders of IAM District 751 had endorsed the latest proposal, saying they thought they had gotten all they could though negotiations and the strike.

“It is time for our members to lock in these gains and confidently declare victory,” the union district said before Monday’s vote. “We believe asking members to stay on strike longer wouldn’t be right as we have achieved so much success.”

The average annual pay of Boeing machinists is currently $75,608 and eventually will rise to $119,309 under the new contract, according to the company.

A continuing strike would have plunged Boeing into further financial peril and uncertainty.

CEO Kelly Ortberg, an outsider who started at Boeing only in August, has announced plans to lay off about 10% of the workforce, about 17,000 people, due to the strike and a series of other factors that diminished the company’s reputation and fortunes this year.
…