U.S. ​President Donald Trump is seeking to bring ‌a major part of national funding ​for health research under the control ⁠of his political appointees, Politico reported on Saturday (September 20, 2026).

Mr. Trump has directed his budget director, Russ Vought, ‌to draft an executive order to create a board that would ‌decide which grants would be funded ‌by ⁠the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the ⁠news outlet said, citing two administration officials familiar with the meeting.

The board would include NIH Director ​Jay Bhattacharya and Mr. Vought, ‌the director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, and would be required to reach unanimous decisions ‌on grant awards, the report said.

The ​proposed arrangement would give Mr. Vought a direct role in determining how ⁠the health research agency distributes its congressionally-appropriated money, the report added.

The Office of Management ‌and Budget, the White House and the Health and Human Services Department that oversees the NIH did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment outside regular business hours.

The reported move ‌comes amid mounting criticism of the U.S. government’s ​research funding cuts, undertaken last year to target federal spending at major ⁠universities, resulting in the freezing or cancellation ofgrants ⁠at numerous institutions.

The Trump administration says these cuts are necessary ‌to ensure the government funds only solid science and to reverse years of ​misguided priorities.

The Senate is expected to confirm Jay Clayton on Tuesday (July 28, 2026), to become head of the nation’s Intelligence Agencies, ensuring that a permanent Director is in place as the midterm elections approach.

Mr. Clayton is expected to be confirmed along party lines after a contentious hearing two weeks ago in which he repeatedly refused to say that former President Joe Biden won the 2020 election. Still, Democrats have said they have more confidence in Mr. Clayton than they do in Mr. Trump’s temporary pick for the job, Bill Pulte, who has no known intelligence experience and investigated the president’s perceived enemies in his previous post as a Federal housing regulator.

Senators from both parties have expressed concerns about Mr. Pulte, who took over on an interim basis last month after Tulsi Gabbard resigned. Mr. Pulte was in charge when Mr. Trump delivered a speech from the White House earlier this month doubling down on his false claims about the 2020 election, which he lost, and released classified documents that he said were relevant to his arguments.

Virginia Senator Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate intelligence committee, said he had worked in the past with Mr. Clayton, who is the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York and a former Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman. After the hearing, Mr. Warner said he would oppose Mr. Clayton’s nomination but acknowledged that Democrats are ‘between a rock and a hard place’ with Mr. Pulte in the job.

The Senate voted 51-43 along party lines on Monday (July 27, 2026), to advance Mr. Clayton’s nomination.

Clayton won’t say Biden won the election

The Democratic pushback on Mr. Clayton comes as Mr. Trump has made revisiting 2020 a primary focus, repeatedly trying to cast doubt on that election and amplifying debunked theories about Mr. Biden’s win.

Mr. Clayton told Senators that he had no involvement with Mr. Trump’s primetime speech, but he said repeatedly that the election was ‘certified’ for Mr. Biden, declining to say outright that the Democrat won.

Mr. Warner said at the end of the hearing that he was ‘bitterly disappointed.’ Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said he thought Mr. Clayton’s performance was ‘abysmal,’ and that ‘makes it much less likely that he will get Democratic votes.’

Republicans were hoping to confirm Mr. Clayton in June so he could replace Ms. Gabbard without Mr. Pulte serving as interim. But Mr. Trump delayed Mr. Clayton’s nomination before the Senate left for a two-week recess, allowing Mr. Pulte to take the job temporarily.

Mr. Clayton did not mention Mr. Pulte in the confirmation hearing. But he emphasised his own government and national security experience, attempting to assuage Senators in both parties.

“I saw firsthand how a strong national security apparatus depends on decisive judgment, discipline, integrity, and effective communication and cooperation across different branches of the government,” Mr. Clayton said. “If confirmed as Director of National Intelligence, I will commit to upholding these principles every day.”

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Tom Cotton, Republican from Arkansas, who expressed frustration last month when the hearing was delayed, said that Mr. Clayton has a reputation for operating with ‘morality, decency and integrity’ in his previous positions.

“Jay Clayton is a highly qualified nominee with a deep experience combating a wide range of national security threats,” Mr. Cotton said.

A U.S. federal appeals court has refused to stay a lower court order striking down the Trump administration’s decision to impose a $100,000 fee on H-1B visas for highly skilled foreign workers.

The three-judge Bench at the Boston-based First Circuit Court of Appeals denied the federal government’s motion to stay U.S. District Judge Leo T Sorokin’s June 8 ruling that struck down the fee, terming it an unlawful tax not authorised by Congress.

“…we deny the defendants’ motion to stay pending appeal to this Court, the district court’s June 8, 2026, Memorandum and Order and accompanying Judgment,” the Bench ruled on Friday (July 24, 2026).

The judges agreed with the plaintiffs — 20 Democrat-ruled States — that “the question here is not whether Congress may delegate the authority in question. It is whether Congress has done so”.

President Donald Trump had issued a proclamation in September last year imposing a $100,000 fee for obtaining new H-1B visas.

The H-1B visa is a non-immigrant visa that allows U.S. companies to employ foreign workers in speciality occupations that require theoretical or technical expertise. American technology companies depend on it to hire tens of thousands of employees each year from countries like India and China.

Citing a 1989 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, the appeals court said the executive must show that Congress had spoken “clearly” in conferring discretionary authority to impose financial burdens, whether described as “fees” or “taxes”.

“However, the Trump administration has not explained why that clear standard isn’t required in this case,” the order said.

The court also said the administration had failed to show why the plaintiff states would not suffer substantial injury if the stay was denied.

The defendants “cursorily assert that the plaintiffs would face ‘minimal’ harm without developing that argument — if it does constitute an argument as to the plaintiffs’ lack of substantial injury — further,” the order said.

The U.S. issues 65,000 H-1B visas annually, along with an additional 20,000 visas for foreign workers holding advanced educational qualifications. These visas usually cost between $2,000 and $5,000 in fees.

Mexican drug cartel drones entered American airspace but were intercepted by the U.S. military, officials said on Wednesday (February 11, 2026), explaining the brief but mysterious closure of El Paso airport in Texas.

But Mexico said it had “no information” on drones at the border, and the Trump administration’s version of events has been questioned by lawmakers as well as sources cited by U.S. media who suggested the shutdown was triggered by U.S. military drone or counter-drone activity.

The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) said on late Tuesday (February 10, 2026) the airspace over the Texas metropolis would be shut to all aircraft for 10 days, citing unspecified national “security reasons”, only to lift the closure after less than 24 hours.

The report of a drone breach comes some five months into a U.S. military campaign targeting alleged drug-smuggling boats and could provide a pretext for President Donald Trump to follow through on his threats to expand the strikes to land, potentially in Mexico.

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said in a post on X that the FAA and the Defence Department “acted swiftly to address a cartel drone incursion”, adding: “The threat has been neutralised, and there is no danger to commercial travel in the region.”

A U.S. administration official, meanwhile, said the breach was by “Mexican cartel drones”, and that U.S. forces “took action to disable the drones”, without specifying how they did so.

But top Democratic lawmakers from the House Committee on Transportation suggested the Pentagon may have been responsible for the situation, saying that language in defence policy legislation allowed the U.S. military to “act recklessly in the public airspace”.

The lawmakers called for a solution that ensures that “the Department of Defence will not jeopardise safety and disrupt the freedom to travel.”

U.S. media reported that the El Paso airport closure may have been the result of U.S. military drones or anti-drone testing rather than a cartel threat.

War against ‘narco-terrorists’

The Pentagon referred questions on the closure to the FAA, which said when it announced the move that “no pilots may operate an aircraft in the areas” covered by the restrictions and warned of potentially “deadly force” if aircraft were deemed a threat.

It updated its guidance on Wednesday morning (February 11, 2026), saying on X that the closure was lifted.

El Paso has a population of about 700,000 and is one of the 25 largest cities in the United States. Almost 3.5 million passengers passed through the airport between January and November 2025, according to data on its website.

Mr. Trump’s administration insists it is effectively at war with “narco-terrorists”, carrying out strikes on alleged traffickers in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific, while the US president has repeatedly said he plans to expand the strikes to land.

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum opposes U.S. military intervention in her country but has so far managed to negotiate a fine diplomatic line with Mr. Trump.

She has stepped up the extradition of cartel leaders to the United States and reinforced border cooperation amid tariff threats from Trump, for whom curbing illegal migration from Mexico was a key election promise.

Ms. Sheinbaum told a news conference on Wednesday (February 11, 2026) that she had “no information on the use of drones at the border” but that her government was investigating the airport closure.

The United States began carrying out strikes on alleged drug-trafficking boats in September, a campaign that has killed at least 130 people and destroyed dozens of vessels in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean.

U.S. officials have not provided definitive evidence that the vessels are involved in drug trafficking, prompting heated debate about the legality of the operations, which experts say amount to extrajudicial killings.

Mr. Trump also ordered a shocking special forces raid in Caracas at the beginning of January to capture Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro, whom Washington accused of leading a drug cartel.

President Donald Trump’s administration is planning to withhold some public health and transportation money from a group of Democratic-led states.

Full details have not been released, including whether the states could take any steps to avoid losing the funding. The federal government cited concerns over fraud and mismanagement of taxpayer dollars, but has not presented evidence beyond remarks from Mr. Trump and others in his administration.

The approach has become a familiar one for the administration, and this time focuses on frequent targets: California, Colorado, Illinois and Minnesota.

Courts have so far temporarily blocked other similar efforts by this administration to restrict funds.

The latest effort targets some public health and transportation funds

Latest effort targets public health and transportation funds

An Office of Management and Budget official confirmed to The Associated Press that the office is telling the U.S. Department of Transportation and the U.S. Centres for Disease Control and Prevention to cancel grants totalling more than $1.5 billion, as first reported last week by the New York Post. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorised to discuss the cuts on the record.

The official did provide a partial list of programmes facing cuts; some appeared to be targeted because they are not in line with the administration’s policies opposing protections for transgender people and diversity, equity and inclusion programmes.

Among the transportation funds targeted are money for electric vehicle chargers in all four states, funds to research translating the test for Illinois commercial driver’s licenses into Spanish, and money for California to adapt to climate change.

The health research money includes projects aimed at studying the health impact of specific populations. Among them is one studying groups in Chicago disproportionately affected by sexually transmitted infections: “adolescents, racial and ethnic minorities, and men who have sex with men,” and a grant for California universities focused on ”reducing social isolation among older LGBTQ adults.”

A $7.2 million grant for the American Medical Association, which is based in Chicago, was also on the list, noting its support for gender-affirming care for minors, which a Trump executive order opposes.

States say they haven’t received notice

The offices of the governors of all four states said Tuesday (February 10, 2026) that they had not received any communication from the Trump administration about the plans.

Also Read |Trump administration cutting 90% of USAID foreign aid contracts, documents show

“Time and time again, the Trump Administration has attempted to politicise and punish certain states President Trump does not like,” Jillian Kaehler, a spokesperson for Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker, said in a statement. “It’s wrong and often illegal, so Illinois will always fight for the resources and services our taxpayers are owed.”

The administration has targeted funding in Democratic states before. The same states — all of which have Democratic governors — have been targeted by other federal cuts.

A judge last week ruled that the Trump administration cannot stop child care subsidies and other social service programmes aimed at lower-income people in those states, plus New York, for now. The states said the federal programmes in that effort provide them more than $10 billion a year collectively.

Also Read | How will Trump’s fund cuts hit the US’s technological competitiveness?

There’s also a legal challenge over the administration’s effort to withhold administrative money for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP food aid, from 22 states that have not provided information on recipients, including their immigration status. Those states include nearly all with Democratic governors. A judge has been asked to decide whether cutting off funding would violate an existing court order that bars the government from collecting the data for now.

Mr. Trump has also threatened to halt federal money to sanctuary cities and their states, and followed that up with an order for government agencies to compile data on 14 mostly Democratic-controlled states and the District of Columbia. All four of the states in the latest effort were on that list, too.

Other federal money for Minnesota and Minneapolis has also been targeted.

The new year has brought little change in the geopolitical turmoil unleashed by the Trump administration, beginning with the U.S.’s unlawful action in Venezuela, followed by its threats to carry out similar regime-changing operations in South America and stated plans to annex Greenland. The U.S. Congress is now expected to discuss a new law that mandates up to 500% in tariffs on countries purchasing oil or uranium from Russia. The U.S. also stepped up its rhetoric against Iran for crackdowns against protesters, imposing more sanctions and threatening to attack it. In a social media post, Mr. Trump said that he would levy an additional 25% tariff on trade with any country doing business with Iran and the U.S. is pushing India to wind up operations at Chabahar port, where India has invested billions of dollars. In the face of such aggressive and unilateral actions, New Delhi’s responses have been muted, when not weak. The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) has expressed “deep concern” over events in Venezuela, but did not mention the U.S.’s egregious action of kidnapping the Venezuelan President and his wife, nor did it refer to the violation of basic tenets of international law. No statement has been made on the threats against the other countries (Cuba and Colombia), presumably as they are not in India’s immediate vicinity. On Iran, however, which is a close neighbour and has a historical relationship with India, the government’s reaction has been the most puzzling. It has not commented on the street protests or the U.S.’s threats of strikes and tariffs. The MEA has, however, issued travel advisories for Iran and Israel and is preparing evacuation plans for Indian students in Iran. Government officials also say India will reduce its trade with Iran further from current low levels.

The government’s motivations in not naming the U.S. for its obvious overreach can be explained. After a tense year in ties and a failure to conclude the India-U.S. Bilateral Trade Agreement, there is some hope of some movement on relations soon. U.S. Ambassador to India Sergio Gor has painted an optimistic future for ties, beginning with the trade agreement and the inclusion of India in the U.S.’s high-technology partnership ‘Pax Silica’ next month. Officials may argue that little can be gained by speaking up now and risking another downturn in ties. However, each new threat by the U.S. is hurting ordinary Indians and the Indian economy. Above all, India stands to lose economically, reputationally and in terms of its other relationships as well, in a year where it hopes to host the BRICS+ Summit. The Modi government’s experience from 2019, when it gave up buying Iranian and Venezuelan oil under U.S. pressure should be a signal lesson — appeasement of a global power, however strong, cannot ensure India’s interests, only an assertion of its strategic autonomy can do that.

President Donald Trump’s administration appealed to the Supreme Court again on Wednesday (August 27, 2025) in its bid to keep billions of dollars in foreign aid funding frozen.

The Justice Department filed an emergency appeal seeking quick intervention to halt lower court decisions that have kept the money flowing, including for global health and HIV and AIDS programs.

The justices rebuffed the Trump administration on the issue earlier this year, but the court was divided 5-4. The justices have since sided with the administration in several high-profile cases.

The Republican administration says the funding at issue includes around $12 billion that would need to be spent by September 30 if the lower court orders remain in place. A judge’s March order requiring the funding to continue wrongly interferes with negotiations between the president and Congress over the cuts, they argued.

Mr. Trump has portrayed the foreign aid as wasteful spending that does not align with his foreign policy goals.

A divided three-judge panel of the appeals court in Washington allowed the administration to suspend the funding earlier this month, but the full court declined to let the freeze snap into place immediately.

Non-profit organisations that sued the government have said the funding freeze breaks federal law and has shut down funding for even the most urgent lifesaving programs abroad. Attorney Lauren Batemen said it’s been more than five months since the original order, and the court should “see through the ruse” that the government would be harmed by having to comply with it.