Business

Advocates fear compensation for radiation victims could end with defense bill deal on December 5, 2023 at 11:00 am Business News | The Hill

Published

2 years ago

December 5, 2023

Advocates fear a bipartisan provision of the Senate’s National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that expands compensation for victims of radiation poisoning may be a casualty of the conference process.

It’s already behind in its reach: In many cases, those who could have benefited from the expansion have limited time, or are already dead.

The Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA), first passed three decades ago, compensates Americans who were exposed to radiation from atomic testing or uranium mining. The law covers people who were residents of Utah, Nevada and Arizona at the time of nuclear testing and World War II-era uranium mining. It is set to expire in May, after the Biden administration extended it for two years last summer.

However, it does not cover several states that were also on the front lines of such activity, including New Mexico, the site of the 1945 Trinity atomic bomb test, or Missouri, where nuclear waste from the Manhattan Project was stored in multiple parts of St. Louis.

A bipartisan amendment to the Senate version of the NDAA, which passed with a supermajority in August, would expand the law to cover Idaho, Missouri, Montana, New Mexico, Guam and Colorado, as well as extending it for a further 19 years.

The Senate amendment was not part of the House’s version of the NDAA, and amid what’s likely to be a broader battle over the bill’s final form, it’s not clear whether the amendment will make it into the conference bill.

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), who co-sponsored the amendment with Sens. Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.), Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.) and Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), in November vowed to block any version of the NDAA that does not include it.

“I’ve got my fingers crossed,” Hawley told The Hill on Thursday. His colleagues, he added, are “concerned about cost … to which my response is, we seem to have unlimited sums of money to pay defense contractors and give to foreign countries. Can we not make whole the people of this nation who have been poisoned by their own government?”

Hawley did not identify by name anyone who has raised cost concerns over the amendment, but the fiscally conservative nonprofit Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget said in October that “Congress should … consider whether to move forward with this proposal, how it could be modified or scaled back, and – importantly – how it should be fully paid for.”

None of Hawley’s co-sponsors would commit to joining him in blocking the NDAA if the amendment is not included, but reaffirmed their support of including it in the final bill.

“Senator Schmitt will continue to have conversations with other members that remedy the consequences of the radiation exposure that occurred right in his own backyard and have had lasting health impacts on countless St. Louis residents,” Schmitt press secretary Will O’Grady told The Hill in an email. ”The Senator met with an advocacy group on Wednesday and will continue to push for a solution for those impacted by negligence of the federal government.”

Lujan’s office referred The Hill to a tweet sent Thursday by the New Mexico Democrat in which he said “all options are on the table” to ensure the amendment is signed into law. “We cannot turn a blind eye to those who sacrificed for our national security,” Lujan wrote.

Crapo’s office had not responded to The Hill as of this writing.

In the affected states, where residents have lobbied their members for years to extend and expand the compensation, the question is both time-sensitive and a matter of life and death. Maggie Billiman, a member of the Sawmill Chapter of the Navajo Nation, said that at the time of her father’s death from stomach cancer in 2001, neither of them was even aware of RECA.

Shortly before his death, Billiman’s father, Howard, a World War II-era Navajo “code talker,” asked her to research cancer treatments in hopes of finding easier ways of accessing care than his own experience.

“So that was put on me. … I just wanted to return and help my siblings [and] the whole reservation to go forward with not only the money but for RECA to be extended,” she said. “A lot of people don’t know about the bomb testing, the cancer risk.” Billiman’s family has an extended history of cancer, including her sister, who was recently diagnosed with bladder cancer.

The effect of the radiation “is genetic; I was probably born with it,” she said, noting, “I’d never done anything like drink or smoke. I stayed away from all that.”

“I’m just hoping they can extend it or do something because this has been [going on] a long time, and Native people didn’t even know they were exposed,” she told The Hill.

The stakes are also high for atomic veterans, those exposed to radiation as part of active duty.

Keith Kiefer, national commander of the National Association of Atomic Veterans (NAAV) and a veteran of the cleanup of Enewetak Atoll, described RECA as “one of the least bureaucratic programs I have seen in the government.” He added that atomic veterans could be forced to navigate the unfamiliar bureaucracy of Veterans Affairs care without RECA, which is administered by the Justice Department. Nuclear testing occurred on the atoll in the 1950s; cleanup took place from 1977-80.

Veterans exposed to radiation, he added, frequently suffer from cancers that make a full-time job difficult or impossible, making the RECA compensation that much more important.

Atomic veterans, he said, are an important part of illustrating the stakes of the fight, because while senators like Luján and Hawley are responding to specific needs of their constituents, atomic veterans may live anywhere.

The NAAV has also called for an expansion of RECA eligibility to include veterans affected by three cleanup sites: the Enewetak Atoll islands, a 1968 fire onboard a bomber carrying nuclear weapons over Greenland, and a 1966 bomber crash in Palomares, Spain. The amendment passed by the Senate does not include those veterans.

On a call with reporters Monday, Hawley said negotiations were ongoing but expressed frustration at what he said has been their emphasis on cost and offsets rather than a “moral imperative” to provide compensation.

“I think the idea that we need to come forward and show exactly why we even need this program to begin with, which I have to say has in the attitude of some of the negotiators, I think is misplaced and frankly a little offensive,” Hawley said. Despite this, he said, the proponents of the amendment had submitted potential budgetary offsets to the cost of the reauthorization and expansion. “We have done everything we have been asked to do,” he said.

Energy & Environment, Administration, Business, House, News, Senate, Technology, NDAA, radiation Advocates fear a bipartisan provision of the Senate’s National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that expands compensation for victims of radiation poisoning may be a casualty of the conference process. It’s already behind in its reach: In many cases, those who could have benefited from the expansion have limited time, or are already dead. The Radiation Exposure Compensation Act…

Business

How Trump’s Tariffs Could Hit American Wallets

Published

1 day ago

July 11, 2025

Bolanle Media Staff

As the debate over tariffs heats up ahead of the 2024 election, new analysis reveals that American consumers could face significant financial consequences if former President Donald Trump’s proposed tariffs are enacted and maintained. According to a recent report highlighted by Forbes, the impact could be felt across households, businesses, and the broader U.S. economy.

The Household Cost: Up to $2,400 More Per Year

Research from Yale University’s Budget Lab, cited by Forbes, estimates that the average U.S. household could pay an additional $2,400 in 2025 if the new tariffs take effect and persist. This projection reflects the cumulative impact of all tariffs announced in Trump’s plan.

Price Hikes Across Everyday Goods

The tariffs are expected to drive up consumer prices by 1.8% in the near term. Some of the hardest-hit categories include:

Apparel: Prices could jump 37% in the short term (and 18% long-term).
Footwear: Up 39% short-term (18% long-term).
Metals: Up 43%.
Leather products: Up 39%.
Electrical equipment: Up 26%.
Motor vehicles, electronics, rubber, and plastic products: Up 11–18%.
Groceries: Items like vegetables, fruits, and nuts could rise up to 6%, with additional increases for coffee and orange juice due to specific tariffs on Brazilian imports.

A Historic Tariff Rate and Economic Impact

If fully implemented, the effective tariff rate on U.S. consumers could reach 18%, the highest level since 1934. The broader economic consequences are also notable:

GDP Reduction: The tariffs could reduce U.S. GDP by 0.4% annually, equating to about $110 billion per year.
Revenue vs. Losses: While tariffs are projected to generate $2.2 trillion in revenue over the next decade, this would be offset by $418 billion in negative economic impacts.

How Businesses Are Responding

A KPMG survey cited in the report found that 83% of business leaders expect to raise prices within six months of tariff implementation. More than half say their profit margins are already under pressure, suggesting that consumers will likely bear the brunt of these increased costs.

What This Means for Americans

The findings underscore the potential for substantial financial strain on American families and businesses if Trump’s proposed tariffs are enacted. With consumer prices set to rise and economic growth projected to slow, the debate over tariffs is likely to remain front and center in the months ahead.

For more in-depth economic analysis and updates, stay tuned to Bolanlemedia.com.

Business

U.S. Limits Nigerian Non-Immigrant Visas to Three-Month Validity

Published

3 days ago

July 9, 2025

Bolanle Media Staff

In July 2025, the United States implemented significant changes to its visa policy for Nigerian citizens, restricting most non-immigrant and non-diplomatic visas to a single entry and a maximum validity of three months. This marks a departure from previous policies that allowed for multiple entries and longer stays, and has important implications for travel, business, and diplomatic relations between the two countries.

Key Changes in U.S. Visa Policy for Nigerians

Single-Entry, Three-Month Limit: As of July 8, 2025, most non-immigrant visas issued to Nigerians are now valid for only one entry and up to three months.
No Retroactive Impact: Visas issued prior to this date remain valid under their original terms.
Reciprocity Principle: The U.S. cited alignment with Nigeria’s own visa policies for U.S. citizens as the basis for these changes.
Enhanced Security Screening: Applicants are required to make their social media accounts public for vetting, and are subject to increased scrutiny for any signs of hostility toward U.S. institutions.

Rationale Behind the Policy Shift

Security and Immigration Integrity: The U.S. government stated the changes are intended to safeguard the immigration system and meet global security standards.
Diplomatic Reciprocity: These restrictions mirror the limitations Nigeria imposes on U.S. travelers, emphasizing the principle of fairness in international visa agreements.
Potential for Further Action: The U.S. has indicated that additional travel restrictions could be introduced if Nigeria does not address certain diplomatic and security concerns.

Nigeria’s Updated Visa Policy

Nigeria Visa Policy 2025 (NVP 2025): Introduced in May 2025, this policy features a new e-Visa system for short visits and reorganizes visa categories:
- Short Visit Visas (e-Visa): For business or tourism, valid up to three months, non-renewable, processed digitally within 48 hours.
- Temporary Residence Visas: For employment or study, valid up to two years.
- Permanent Residence Visas: For investors, retirees, and highly skilled individuals.
Visa Exemptions: ECOWAS citizens and certain diplomatic passport holders remain exempt.
Reciprocal Restrictions: Most short-stay and business visas for U.S. citizens are single-entry and short-term, reflecting reciprocal treatment.

Impact on Travelers and Bilateral Relations

Nigerian Travelers: Face increased administrative requirements, higher costs, and reduced travel flexibility to the U.S.
U.S. Travelers to Nigeria: Encounter similar restrictions, with most visas limited to single entry and short duration.
Diplomatic Tensions: Nigerian officials have called for reconsideration of the U.S. policy, warning of negative effects on bilateral ties and people-to-people exchanges.

Conclusion

The U.S. decision to limit Nigerian non-immigrant visas to three months highlights the growing complexity and reciprocity in global visa regimes. Both countries are tightening their policies, citing security and fairness, which underscores the need for travelers and businesses to stay informed and adapt to evolving requirements.

Business

Nicki Minaj Demands $200 Million from Jay-Z in Explosive Twitter Rant

Published

3 days ago

July 9, 2025

Bolanle Media Staff

Nicki Minaj has once again set social media ablaze, this time targeting Jay-Z with a series of pointed tweets that allege he owes her an eye-popping $200 million. The outburst has reignited debates about artist compensation, industry transparency, and the ongoing power struggles within hip-hop’s elite circles.

The $200 Million Claim

In a string of tweets, Minaj directly addressed Jay-Z, writing, “Jay-Z, call me to settle the karmic debt. It’s only collecting more interest. You still in my top five though. Let’s get it.” She went further, warning, “Anyone still calling him Hov will answer to God for the blasphemy.” According to Minaj, the alleged debt stems from Jay-Z’s sale of Tidal, the music streaming platform he launched in 2015 with a group of high-profile artists—including Minaj herself, J. Cole, and Rihanna.

When Jay-Z sold Tidal in 2021, Minaj claims she was only offered $1 million, a figure she says falls dramatically short of what she believes she is owed based on her ownership stake and contributions. She has long voiced dissatisfaction with the payout, but this is the most public—and dramatic—demand to date.

Beyond the Money: Broader Grievances

Minaj’s Twitter storm wasn’t limited to financial complaints. She also:

Promised to start a college fund for her fans if she receives the money she claims is owed.
Accused blogs and online creators of ignoring her side of the story, especially when it involves Jay-Z.
Warned content creators about posting “hate or lies,” saying, “They won’t cover your legal fees… I hope it’s worth losing everything including your account.”

She expressed frustration that mainstream blogs and platforms don’t fully cover her statements, especially when they involve Jay-Z, and suggested that much of the coverage she receives is from less reputable sources.

Satirical Accusations and Industry Critique

Minaj’s tweets took a satirical turn as she jokingly blamed Jay-Z for a laundry list of cultural grievances, including:

The state of hip-hop, football, basketball, and touring
The decline of Instagram and Twitter
Even processed foods and artificial dyes in candy

She repeatedly declared, “The jig is up,” but clarified that her statements were “alleged and for entertainment purposes only.”

Political and Cultural Criticism

Minaj also criticized Jay-Z’s political involvement, questioning why he didn’t campaign more actively for Kamala Harris or respond to President Obama’s comments about Black men. While Jay-Z has a history of supporting Democratic campaigns, Minaj’s critique centered on more recent events and what she perceives as a lack of advocacy for the Black community.

The Super Bowl and Lil Wayne

Adding another layer to her grievances, Minaj voiced disappointment that Lil Wayne was not chosen to perform at the Super Bowl in New Orleans, a decision she attributes to Jay-Z’s influence in the entertainment industry.

Public and Industry Reaction

Despite the seriousness of her financial claim, many observers note that if Minaj truly believed Jay-Z owed her $200 million, legal action—not social media—would likely follow. As of now, there is no public record of a lawsuit or formal complaint.

Some fans and commentators see Minaj’s outburst as part of a larger pattern of airing industry grievances online, while others interpret it as a mix of personal frustration and performance art. Minaj herself emphasized that her tweets were “for entertainment purposes only.”

Conclusion

Nicki Minaj’s explosive Twitter rant against Jay-Z has once again placed the spotlight on issues of artist compensation and industry dynamics. Whether her claims will lead to further action or remain another dramatic chapter in hip-hop’s ongoing soap opera remains to be seen, but for now, the world is watching—and tweeting.