SEOUL: South Korea and Saudi Arabia have agreed to join forces in containing the spread of the coronavirus epidemic, the presidential Blue House said on Tuesday.
The development follows a phone call between Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and President Moon Jae-in on Wednesday.
“Coronavirus has sweeping effects on the entire fields of economy, finance and society. Unified efforts by the international community are more important than at any other time,” said Moon.
On Wednesday, South Korea’s health authorities requested all passengers flying in from the US to self-isolate for two weeks, following an increase in the imported cases of the virus in recent weeks.
The country reported 100 new cases on Tuesday, bringing the total number of confirmed cases to 9,137, while the death toll rose to 126.
At present, the mortality rate stands at 1.38 percent, according to the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (KCDC).
The total number of imported cases jumped by 34 to 101 on Tuesday, the most significant single-day rise so far.
Meanwhile, according to the presidential office, in a separate phone call on Tuesday, US President Donald Trump asked South Korea to provide medical equipment support, including coronavirus-testing kits, to contain the spread of the virus.
Moon told Trump that he would support South Korean exports of critical supplies to the US if there were a domestic surplus.
He added that approval by the US Food and Drug Administration might be required, which Trump said would be resolved very soon.
“President Trump reiterated his commitment to employ the full weight of the United States government and work with global leaders to save lives and restore economic growth,” White House deputy press secretary, Judd Deere, said in a press release issued after the phone call between the two leaders.
Seoul, Riyadh pledge mutual support in tackling coronavirus
https://arab.news/nxtxx
Seoul, Riyadh pledge mutual support in tackling coronavirus
- On Wednesday, South Korea’s health authorities requested all passengers flying in from the US to self-isolate for two weeks
- Moon told Trump that he would support South Korean exports of critical supplies to the US if there were a domestic surplus
Trump approval rating dips; many wary of his wielding of power, Reuters/Ipsos poll finds
- Fifty-seven percent - including one-third of Republicans - disagreed with the statement that "it's okay for a U.S. president to withhold funding from universities if the president doesn’t agree with how the university is run"
WASHINGTON: President Donald Trump's public approval rating edged down to its lowest level since his return to the White House, as Americans showed signs of wariness over his efforts to broaden his power, a Reuters/Ipsos poll that closed on Monday found.
Some 42% of respondents to the six-day poll approved of Trump's performance as president, down from 43% in a Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted three weeks earlier, and from 47% in the hours after his January 20 inauguration.
The start of Trump's term has left his political opponents stunned as he has signed dozens of executive orders expanding his influence over both government departments and over private institutions such as universities and law firms.
HIGHLIGHTS
• Many Americans wary of Trump's power expansion efforts
• Majority oppose withholding university funds over disagreements
• Few support Trump running for a third term
While Trump's approval rating remains higher than the ratings seen during most of his Democratic predecessor's presidency, the results of the Reuters/Ipsos poll suggest many Americans are uncomfortable with his moves to punish universities he sees as too liberal and to install himself as the board chair of the Kennedy Center, a major theater and cultural institution in Washington.
Some 83% of the 4,306 respondents said that the U.S. president must obey federal court rulings even if he doesn't want to. Trump administration officials could face criminal contempt charges for violating a federal judge's order halting deportations of alleged members of a Venezuelan gang who had no chance to challenge their removals.
Fifty-seven percent - including one-third of Republicans - disagreed with the statement that "it's okay for a U.S. president to withhold funding from universities if the president doesn’t agree with how the university is run."
Trump, who has argued universities are failing to fight antisemitism on campus, has frozen vast sums of federal money budgeted for U.S. universities, including more than $2 billion for Harvard University alone.
A similar share of respondents - 66% - said they did not think the president should be in control of premier cultural institutions such as national museums and theaters. Trump last month ordered the Smithsonian Institution, the vast museum and research complex that is a premier exhibition space for U.S. history and culture, to remove "improper" ideology.
On a range of issues, from inflation and immigration to taxation and rule of law, the Reuters/Ipsos poll showed that Americans who disapproved of Trump's performance outnumbered those who approved on every issue in the poll. On immigration, his strongest area of support, 45% of respondents approved of Trump's performance but 46% disapproved.
The poll had a margin of error of about 2 percentage points.
Some 59% of respondents - including a third of Republicans - said America was losing credibility on the global stage.
Three-quarters of respondents said Trump should not run for a third term in office -- a path Trump has said he would like to pursue, though the U.S. Constitution bars him from doing so. A majority of Republican respondents -- 53% -- said Trump should not seek a third term.
Harvard sues Trump administration to stop the freeze of more than $2 billion in grants
- Harvard President Alan Garber said the university would not bend to the government’s demands
BOSTON: Harvard University announced Monday that it was suing the Trump administration to halt a freeze on more than $2.2 billion in grants after the institution said it would defy the Trump administration’s demands to limit activism on campus.
In a letter to Harvard earlier this month, the Trump administration had called for broad government and leadership reforms at the university as well as changes to its admissions policies. It also demanded that the university audit views of diversity on campus, and stop recognizing some student clubs.
Harvard President Alan Garber said the university would not bend to the government’s demands. Hours later, the government froze billions of dollars in federal funding.
“The Government has not — and cannot — identify any rational connection between antisemitism concerns and the medical, scientific, technological, and other research it has frozen that aims to save American lives, foster American success, preserve American security, and maintain America’s position as a global leader in innovation,” the university wrote in its lawsuit.
“Nor has the Government acknowledged the significant consequences that the indefinite freeze of billions of dollars in federal research funding will have on Harvard’s research programs, the beneficiaries of that research, and the national interest in furthering American innovation and progress,” it added.
The Trump administration, in the April 11 letter, told Harvard to impose tougher discipline on protesters and to screen international students for those who are “hostile to the American values.”
It also called for broad leadership reforms at the university, changes to admissions policies and the removal of college recognition for some student clubs. The government also demanded Harvard audit its faculty and student body to ensure wide viewpoints in every department and, if necessary, diversify by admitting additional students and hiring new faculty.
Last Monday, Harvard said it would not comply, citing the First Amendment. The following day, Trump took to his Truth Social platform, questioning whether the university should lose its tax-exempt status “if it keeps pushing political, ideological, and terrorist inspired/supporting ‘Sickness?’”
The Trump administration also threatened to block the university from enrolling international students.
The university frames the government’s demands as a threat not only to the Ivy League school but to the autonomy that the Supreme Court has long granted American universities.
For the Trump administration, Harvard presents the first major hurdle in its attempt to force change at universities that Republicans say have become hotbeds of liberalism and antisemitism.
The conflict is straining the longstanding relationship between the federal government and universities that use federal money to fuel scientific breakthroughs. Long seen as a benefit to the greater good, that money has become an easy source of leverage for the Trump administration.
“Today, we stand for the values that have made American higher education a beacon for the world,” Garber wrote Monday to the Harvard community.
“We stand for the truth that colleges and universities across the country can embrace and honor their legal obligations and best fulfill their essential role in society without improper government intrusion,” he wrote. “That is how we achieve academic excellence, safeguard open inquiry and freedom of speech, and conduct pioneering research— and how we advance the boundless exploration that propels our nation and its people into a better future.”
US Supreme Court appears likely to uphold Obamacare’s preventive care coverage mandate
- The plaintiffs argued that requirements to cover those medications and services are unconstitutional because a volunteer board of medical experts that recommended them should have been Senate- approved
WASHINGTON: The Supreme Court seemed likely to uphold a key preventive-care provision of the Affordable Care Act in a case heard Monday.
Conservative justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, along with the court’s three liberals, appeared skeptical of arguments that Obamacare’s process for deciding which services must be fully covered by private insurance is unconstitutional.
The case could have big ramifications for the law’s preventive care coverage requirements for an estimated 150 million Americans. Medications and services that could be affected include statins to prevent heart disease, lung cancer screenings, HIV-prevention drugs and medication to lower the chance of breast cancer for high-risk women.
The plaintiffs argued that requirements to cover those medications and services are unconstitutional because a volunteer board of medical experts that recommended them should have been Senate- approved. The challengers have also raised religious and procedural objections to some requirements.
The Trump administration defended the mandate before the court, though President Donald Trump has been a critic of the law. The Justice Department said board members don’t need Senate approval because they can be removed by the health and human services secretary.
A majority of the justices seemed inclined to side with the government. Kavanaugh said he didn’t see indications in the law that the board was designed to have the kind of independent power that would require Senate approval, and Barrett questioned the plaintiff’s apparently “maximalist” interpretation of the board’s role.
“We don’t just go around creating independent agencies. More often, we destroy independent agencies,” said Justice Elena Kagan said about the court’s prior opinions.
Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas seemed likely to side with the plaintiffs. And some suggested they could send the case back to the conservative US 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. That would likely leave unanswered questions about which medications and services remain covered.
A ruling is expected by the end of June.
The case came before the Supreme Court after the appeals court struck down some preventive care coverage requirements. It sided with Christian employers and Texas residents who argued they can’t be forced to provide full insurance coverage for things like medication to prevent HIV and some cancer screenings.
They were represented by well-known conservative attorney Jonathan Mitchell, who represented Trump before the high court in a dispute about whether he could appear on the 2024 ballot.
Not all preventive care was threatened by the ruling. A 2023 analysis prepared by the nonprofit KFF found that some screenings, including mammography and cervical cancer screening, would still be covered without out-of-pocket costs.
The appeals court found that coverage requirements were unconstitutional because they came from a body — the United States Preventive Services Task Force — whose members were not nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate.
Homeland Security Secretary Noem’s purse stolen at DC restaurant, officials say
- The department said Noem had cash in her purse to pay for gifts, dinner and other activities for her family on Easter
WASHINGTON: Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s purse was stolen at a Washington, D.C. restaurant Sunday night, according to department officials.
The department in an email said Noem had money in her purse to buy gifts for her children and grandchildren and to pay for Easter dinner and other activities.
The department in an email didn’t specify what was stolen, but CNN — which was first to report the story — said the thief took about $3,000 in cash, as well as Noem’s keys, driver’s license, passport, checks, makeup bag, medication and Homeland Security badge. The department said Noem had cash in her purse to pay for gifts, dinner and other activities for her family on Easter.
The Homeland Security Secretary is protected by US Secret Service agents. The Secret Service referred questions about the incident to Homeland Security headquarters.
US lawmakers in new push to free wrongly deported migrant
- Yassamin Ansari: ‘I’m in El Salvador to shine a light on Kilmar’s story and keep the pressure on Donald Trump to secure his safe return home’
- Maxwell Frost: ‘Trump is illegally arresting, jailing, and deporting people with no due process’
SAN SALVADOR: A delegation of Democratic lawmakers arrived in El Salvador on Monday in a new push to secure the release of a wrongly deported US resident at the center of a mounting political row.
Kilmar Abrego Garcia was sent back to his country and remains imprisoned despite the Supreme Court ordering the administration of President Donald Trump to facilitate the man’s return to the United States.
“I’m in El Salvador to shine a light on Kilmar’s story and keep the pressure on Donald Trump to secure his safe return home,” congresswoman Yassamin Ansari of Arizona said on social media.
“We want to make sure that Kilmar is still alive. We want to make sure that he has access to counsel,” added Ansari, who was accompanied by fellow US House Democrats Robert Garcia, Maxwell Frost and Maxine Dexter.
“Trump is illegally arresting, jailing, and deporting people with no due process,” Frost wrote on X.
“We must hold the Administration accountable for these illegal acts and demand Kilmar’s release. Today it’s him, tomorrow it could be anyone else,” the Florida representative added.
The visit comes days after Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen managed to meet with Abrego Garcia, though only after a considerable effort.
Van Hollen, who represents Maryland where Abrego Garcia and his family have lived for years, accused the Central American nation of staging a photo of him supposedly sipping margaritas with Abrego Garcia.
Trump’s administration has paid El Salvador President Nayib Bukele millions of dollars to lock up nearly 300 migrants it says are criminals and gang members — including Abrego Garcia.
The 29-year-old was detained in Maryland last month and expelled to El Salvador along with 238 Venezuelans and 22 fellow Salvadorans who were deported shortly after Trump invoked a rarely used wartime authority.
The Trump administration admitted that Abrego Garcia was deported due to an “administrative error,” and the Supreme Court ruled that the government must “facilitate” his return.
But Trump has since doubled down, insisting Abrego Garcia is in fact a gang member.
Bukele, who was hosted at the White House last week, said he did not have the power to return Abrego Garcia.
The migrant’s supporters note he had protected legal status and no criminal conviction in the United States.
“My parents fled an authoritarian regime in Iran where people were ‘disappeared’ — I refuse to sit back and watch it happen here,” Ansari said in a statement.
“What happened to Kilmar Abrego Garcia is not just one family’s nightmare — it is a constitutional crisis that should outrage every single one of us,” said Dexter, a congresswoman from Oregon.
Abrego Garcia told Van Hollen that he was initially imprisoned at the Terrorism Confinement Center, a mega-prison for gang members, but was later transferred to a jail in the western department of Santa Ana.
