Політика

У майбутньому це дозволить подавати позови для відшкодування збитків проти Росії, заявив представник інспекції
…

У справі фігуруть генерал-лейтенант Росії Валерій Солодчук, генерал-полковник Олександр Лапін і троє його підлеглих
…

Washington — Kash Patel, President Donald Trump’s pick to lead the FBI, portrayed himself Thursday as the right leader of a law enforcement agency he said had lost public trust and told senators he would commit himself to “due process and transparency” if confirmed as director.

At his confirmation hearing, Patel braced for deeply skeptical questioning from Senate Democrats about his loyalty to the president and stated desire to overhaul the bureau. He is a Trump loyalist who, before being nominated to lead the FBI, railed against the bureau over its investigations into the president and said that Jan. 6 rioters were mistreated by the Justice Department.

Sen. Dick Durbin, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the FBI is critical in keeping America safe from terrorism, violent crime and other threats, and the nation “needs an FBI director who understands the gravity of this mission and is ready on day one, not someone who is consumed by his own personal political grievances.”

Patel was picked in November to replace Christopher Wray, who led the nation’s premier federal law enforcement agency for more than seven years but was forced out of the job Trump had appointed him to after being seen as insufficiently loyal to him.

A former aide to the House Intelligence Committee and an ex-federal prosecutor who served in Trump’s first administration, Patel has alarmed critics with rhetoric — in dozens of podcasts and books he has authored — in which he has demonstrated fealty to Trump and assailed the decision-making of the agency he’s now been asked to lead.

He’s also identified by name officials he believes should be investigated.

In one such podcast interview last year, he said that if he oversaw the FBI, he would “shut down” the bureau’s headquarters building on Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington and “reopen it the next day as a museum of the ‘deep state.’”

“And I’d take the 7,000 employees that work in that building and send them across America to go chase down criminals. Go be cops,” he added.

In a Wall Street Journal opinion piece published Wednesday night, Patel did not address some of his more incendiary comments or criticism of the FBI, except to say that his time as a House staffer investigating flaws in the FBI’s Trump-Russia investigation had shown him how “the FBI’s immense powers can be abused.”

“I spearheaded the investigation that found the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act — a tool I had previously used to hunt down terrorists — had been unlawfully used to spy on political opponents,” he wrote. “Such misconduct is unacceptable and undermines public trust.”

Patel pledged to be transparent if confirmed as director and said he would keep the FBI out of prosecutorial decisions, keeping them instead with Justice Department lawyers.

“First, let good cops be cops,” Patel wrote in outlining his priorities. “Leadership means supporting agents in their mission to apprehend criminals and protect our citizens. If confirmed, I will focus on streamlining operations at headquarters while bolstering the presence of field agents across the nation. Collaboration with local law enforcement is crucial to fulfilling the FBI’s mission.”

Patel found common cause with Trump over their shared skepticism of government surveillance and the “deep state” — a pejorative catchall used by Trump to refer to government bureaucracy.

He was part of a small group of supporters during Trump’s recent criminal trial in New York who accompanied him to the courthouse, where he told reporters that Trump was the victim of an “unconstitutional circus.”

That close bond would depart from the modern-day precedent of FBI directors looking to keep presidents at arm’s length.

Several Democratic senators on the Judiciary Committee who have met with Patel, including Durbin of Illinois, have issued statements sounding the alarm and signaling their opposition to the pick. The lawmakers foreshadowed their interest in Patel by directing numerous questions about him to Pam Bondi, Trump’s pick for attorney general, when she had her own confirmation hearing this month.

Republican allies of Trump, who share the president’s belief that the FBI has become politicized, have rallied around Patel and pledged to support him, seeing him as someone who can shake up the bureau and provide needed change.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, the Republican chairman of the committee, sought to blunt attacks on Patel preemptively by focusing on the need to reform an FBI that he said had become weaponized.

The FBI in recent years has become entangled in numerous politically explosive investigations, including not just the two federal inquiries into Trump that resulted in indictments but also probes of President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter.

“It’s no surprise that public trust has declined in an institution that has been plagued by abuse, a lack of transparency, and the weaponization of law enforcement,” Grassley said. “Nevertheless, the FBI remains an important, even indispensable institution for law and order in our country.” 

He later added: “Mr. Patel, should you be confirmed, you will take charge of an FBI that is in crisis.”
…

GENEVA — The U.N. human rights chief appealed on Thursday for $500 million in funding for 2025 to support its work, such as investigating human rights abuses around the world from Syria to Sudan, warning that lives hang in the balance.

The U.N. human rights office has been grappling with chronic funding shortages that some worry could be exacerbated by cuts to U.S. foreign aid by President Donald Trump. The annual appeal is for funds beyond the allocated U.N. funds from member states’ fees, which make up just a fraction of the office’s needs.

“In 2025, we expect no let-up in major challenges to human rights,” High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Turk told member states in a speech at the U.N. in Geneva.

“I am very concerned that if we do not reach our funding targets in 2025, we will leave people … to struggle and possibly fail, without adequate support,” he said.

He said any shortfall would mean more people remain in illegal detention; that governments are allowed to continue with discriminatory policies; violations may go undocumented; and human rights defenders could lose protection.

“In short, lives are at stake,” Turk said.

The human rights office gets about 5% of the regular U.N. budget, but the majority of its funding comes voluntarily in response to its annual appeal announced on Thursday.

Western states give the most, with the United States donating $35 million last year or about 15% of the total received in 2024, followed by the European Commission, U.N. data showed. Still, the office received only about half of the $500 million it sought last year.  
…

Україна посідає четверте місце за чисельністю Праведників народів світу після Польщі, Нідерландів, Франції
…

President Donald Trump is widely expected to impose tariffs on goods from Mexico and Canada as early as February 1 as part of a plan he says will boost the U.S. economy. But with much about the specifics still unknown, economists, business owners and everyday consumers are still trying to understand how it could impact them. Johny Fernandez reports from New York City. (Produced by: Bakhtiyar Zamanov)
…

Days after Chinese upstart DeepSeek revealed a breakthrough in cheap AI computing that shook the U.S. technology industry, the chief executives of Microsoft and Meta defended massive spending that they said was key to staying competitive in the new field.

DeepSeek’s quick progress has stirred doubts about the lead America has in AI with models that it claims can match or even outperform Western rivals at a fraction of the cost, but the U.S. executives said on Wednesday that building huge computer networks was necessary to serve growing corporate needs.

“Investing ‘very heavily’ in capital expenditure and infrastructure is going to be a strategic advantage over time,” Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg said on a post-earnings call.

Satya Nadella, CEO of Microsoft, said the spending was needed to overcome the capacity constraints that have hampered the technology giant’s ability to capitalize on AI.

“As AI becomes more efficient and accessible, we will see exponentially more demand,” he said on a call with analysts.

Microsoft has earmarked $80 billion for AI in its current fiscal year, while Meta has pledged as much as $65 billion towards the technology.

That is a far cry from the roughly $6 million DeepSeek said it has spent to develop its AI model. U.S. tech executives and Wall Street analysts say that reflects the amount spent on computing power, rather than all development costs.

Still, some investors seem to be losing patience with the hefty spending and lack of big payoffs.

Shares of Microsoft — widely seen as a front runner in the AI race because of its tie to industry leader OpenAI – were down 5% in extended trading after the company said that growth in its Azure cloud business in the current quarter would fall short of estimates.

“We really want to start to see a clear road map to what that monetization model looks like for all of the capital that’s been invested,” said Brian Mulberry, portfolio manager at Zacks Investment Management, which holds shares in Microsoft.

Meta, meanwhile, sent mixed signals about how its bets on AI-powered tools were paying off, with a strong fourth quarter but a lackluster sales forecast for the current period.

“With these huge expenses, they need to turn the spigot on in terms of revenue generated, but I think this week was a wake-up call for the U.S.” said Futurum Group analyst Daniel Newman.

“For AI right now, there’s too much capital expenditure, not enough consumption.”

There are some signs though that executives are moving to change that.

Microsoft CFO Amy Hood said the company’s capital spending in the current quarter and the next would remain around the $22.6 billion level seen in the second quarter.

“In fiscal 2026, we expect to continue to invest against strong demand signals. However, the growth rate will be lower than fiscal 2025 (which ends in June),” she said. 
…

A small Chinese company sent shockwaves around the tech world this week with news that it has created a high-performing artificial intelligence system with less computing power and at a lower cost than ones made by U.S. tech giants. Michelle Quinn reports.
…

The Russian lawmaker attributed to Trump a quote from a deepfake video created by Ukrainian bloggers and shared on the Telegram messaging platform.
…

A regional jet collided with a U.S. military helicopter late Wednesday as it approached a Washington airport, the Federal Aviation Administration said.

An FAA statement said the jet operated by American Airlines was traveling from Wichita, Kansas, and was approaching its landing runway at Reagan National Airport when it collided with the Sikorsky H-60 helicopter around 9 p.m.

There was no immediate information about casualties.

Video of the crash captured from a camera at the nearby Kennedy Center shows two sets of lights converging before a fireball erupts.

American Airlines said it was aware of the incident, but did no immediately provide more information.

The crash prompted a large emergency response, including boats in the Potomac River, which planes fly over to make landings at the airport.
…

Russian disinformation narratives about illicit organ harvesting and biological experiments in Ukraine have no basis in fact. Russia intentionally distorts Ukrainian law intended to support vital medical procedures.
…

WASHINGTON — U.S. President Donald Trump’s budget office on Wednesday rescinded a memo freezing spending on federal grants, less than two days after it sparked widespread confusion and legal challenges across the country.

The Monday evening memo from the White House Office of Management and Budget sparked uncertainty over a crucial financial lifeline for states, schools and organizations that rely on trillions of dollars from Washington and left the White House scrambling to explain what would and wouldn’t be subject to a pause in funding.

The reversal was the latest sign that even with unified control of Washington, Trump’s plans to dramatically and rapidly reshape the government has some limits.

The White House confirmed that OMB pulled the memo Wednesday in a two-sentence notice sent to agencies and departments but said that Trump’s underlying executive orders targeting federal spending in areas such as diversity, equity and inclusion and climate change remained in place.

Administration officials said the notice to halt loans and grants was necessary to conduct a review to ensure that spending complies with Trump’s recent blitz of executive orders. Agencies had been directed to answer a series of yes or no questions on each federal program by Feb. 7. The questions included “does this program promote gender ideology?” and “does this program promote or support in any way abortion?”

Still, the vaguely worded memo, combined with incomplete answers from the White House throughout the day, left lawmakers, public officials and average Americans struggling to figure out what programs would be affected by the pause. Even temporary interruptions in funding could cause layoffs or delays in public services.

The freeze was scheduled to go into effect at 5 p.m. Tuesday but was stayed by a federal judge until at least Monday after an emergency hearing requested by nonprofit groups that receive federal grants. An additional lawsuit by Democratic state attorneys general was also pending.

“The Executive Orders issued by the President on funding reviews remain in full force and effect and will be rigorously implemented by all agencies and departments,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said, blaming the confusion on the courts and news outlets, not the administration. “This action should effectively end the court case and allow the government to focus on enforcing the President’s orders on controlling federal spending.”

Administration officials insisted that despite the confusion, the order still had its intended effect by underscoring to federal agencies their obligations to abide by Trump’s executive orders.

Although Trump had promised to turn Washington upside down if elected to a second term, the effects of his effort to pause funding were being felt far from the nation’s capital. Organizations such as Meals on Wheels, which receives federal money to deliver food to the elderly, and Head Start, which provides early childcare in lower-income communities, were worried about getting cut off.

On Tuesday, Trump administration officials said programs that provide direct assistance to Americans, including Medicare, Social Security, student loans and food stamps, would not be affected. But they sometimes struggled to provide a clear picture.

Leavitt initially would not say whether Medicaid was exempted from the freeze, but the administration later clarified that it was.

Democratic critics of the order moved swiftly to celebrate the action.

“This is an important victory for the American people whose voices were heard after massive pressure from every corner of this country — real people made a difference by speaking out,” said Senator Patty Murray. “Still, the Trump administration — through a combination of sheer incompetence, cruel intentions and a willful disregard of the law — caused real harm and chaos for millions over the span of the last 48 hours which is still ongoing.”

Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said, “Americans fought back, and Donald Trump backed off.”
…

За даними агентства, в січні 2025 року АРМА продало хлорид калію на суму 112,6 мільйона гривень
…

Документ, серед іншого, передбачає продовження терміну для обовʼязкового проходження ВЛК ще на чотири місяці – до червня червня 2025 року
…

Washignton — President Donald Trump’s executive order to end birthright citizenship in the U.S. has ignited a legal and political debate, raising questions about the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the extent of presidential power.

The amendment guarantees citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil.

“We’re the only country in the world that does this with birthright, as you know. And it’s just absolutely ridiculous. But, you know, we’ll see. We think we have very good grounds and certain people have wanted to do this for decades,” Trump said while signing the executive order on his first day in office.

The United States is one of about 30 countries that grant automatic citizenship to individuals born on their soil, including Brazil, Mexico, and Canada, among others. The practice is known as jus soli (Latin for “right of the soil”). But the U.S. remains notable for its broad application of unconditional jus soli, as enshrined in the 14th Amendment.

Are there limits to 14th Amendment?

The amendment, ratified in 1868, was designed to address citizenship questions following the U.S. Civil War and to overrule the Supreme Court’s 1857 Dred Scott decision, which denied African Americans citizenship.

The text reads: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

“This language ratifies the traditional understanding that anyone born in the United States is automatically a citizen,” John Yoo, a professor at University of California Berkeley Law School and visiting fellow at the Hoover Institute, told VOA in a phone intervie

However, critics argue that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” implies that at least one parent must be a U.S. citizen for a child to be granted citizenship.

According to Yoo, this interpretation aligns more closely with the European jus sanguinis, or “law of blood” approach, which ties citizenship to parentage rather than birthplace.

“To me, that just doesn’t make sense of the language of the 14th Amendment and historical practice,” Yoo said. “The Supreme Court, in cases like United States v. Wong Kim Ark, has consistently interpreted the amendment to mean birthright citizenship.”

Critics of Trump’s executive order say the 14th Amendment is a cornerstone of civil rights in the United States.

“The 14th amendment, it was created to give birthright citizenship. … Constitutional rights cannot be taken away by a president. They can only be taken away by Congress, and thus the executive order is illegal,” said Tuyet Duong, an immigration lawyer and policy expert with the National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum.

However, supporters of the executive order argue a more limited interpretation of the amendment is warranted.

“President Trump has made it clear that restoring fairness to our immigration system and defending the true intent of the 14th Amendment are central to his vision of making America great again,” Republican Congressman Brian Babin of Texas, told reporters during a press conference last Thursday.

Amy Swearer, a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, wrote in a report in 2019 that there is good reason for the United States to reconsider its long-standing policy of automatically granting citizenship to everyone born on U.S. soil.

Swearer argued that the 14th Amendment was intended to give birthright citizenship only to those U.S.-born children whose parents were “like the freed slaves, subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States. In a modern immigration context, this would mean that the Constitution only mandates birthright citizenship for the U.S.-born children of citizens, nationals, and lawful permanent residents.”

Legal challenges

Trump’s executive order is facing significant legal challenges, with multiple lawsuits in progress. Twenty-two Democratic-led states have filed a lawsuit arguing the order violates the 14th Amendment.

A federal judge in Seattle has temporarily stopped the birthright citizenship order from taking effect. Last Thursday, U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour of Seattle temporarily blocked it, describing it as “blatantly unconstitutional.”

But if the case reaches the Supreme Court, the outcome could reshape the nation’s understanding of citizenship.

If the court were to side with Trump, the most immediate impact will be on newborns and those yet to receive birth certificates and Social Security numbers. And questions about retroactive application would arise.

“Figuring out how this rule would operate retroactively is extremely complex. Would it deny citizenship to people born here historically without citizen parents? How far back would it go? These are precisely the issues the 14th Amendment was designed to avoid,” Yoo told VOA.

While much of the focus is on judicial challenges, Yoo pointed out that Congress could settle the issue legislatively.

“Congress could extend birthright citizenship by statute, reaffirming the traditional understanding. But it’s unclear what Congress might do in this politically charged environment,” Yoo said.

Still, he believes the Supreme Court would uphold birthright citizenship.

“The text of the 14th Amendment, its history, and consistent Supreme Court rulings all point to birthright citizenship,” he said.
…

Washington — The Trump administration has ended extended protections for Venezuelans with Temporary Protected Status, TPS, in the United States, U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem told Fox News in an interview on Wednesday. 

Noem said Homeland Security would not follow a Biden-era move that gave Venezuelans in the U.S. with the TPS program an additional 18 months of protections, adding: “We are going to follow the process, evaluate all of these individuals that are in our country, including the Venezuelans that are here.” 
…

Реєстр збирає відомості про збитки, завдані російською армією українським організаціям та приватним особам, а також культурній спадщині та довкіллю
…