World News
Congress faces fierce battle over Israel, Ukraine aid on November 19, 2023 at 7:00 pm

Congress is facing a fierce battle next month over military aid to Israel and Ukraine, which has been thrown into flux by divisions among Republicans over how to move forward.
While both chambers moved quickly last week to pass bipartisan legislation averting a government shutdown, they left assistance for the two war-torn countries up in the air.
The decision has highlighted the GOP divisions when it comes to America’s role in global affairs, and it’s raised questions about how, or if, lawmakers will get that emergency funding over the finish line before year’s end.
House Republicans passed $14.3 billion in Israel aid earlier this month, and newly installed Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has vowed to back separate legislation combining Ukraine assistance with tougher security measures at the U.S.-Mexico border.
But the Republicans’ Israel bill included cuts in IRS funding — a non-starter with Democrats in the Senate, where the proposal was dead on arrival. And the notion of providing more funding to Ukraine has grown increasingly unpopular within the House GOP conference, presenting Johnson with the dilemma of how — or whether — he intends to bring that bill to the floor.
Additionally, lawmakers are not facing any specific deadlines when it comes to either the Ukraine aid or the Israel assistance. And the must-pass package that might have acted as a legislative vehicle for those provisions in a typical year — the government funding bill — has already been signed into law and won’t need revisiting until late January.
The confluence of ticklish factors has created plenty of uncertainty about how Congress will proceed after lawmakers return from the long Thanksgiving break, when party leaders will have to decide where the aid bill will originate, how it will be structured and what exactly it will contain.
Leaving Washington for the recess, many lawmakers said those details are all unsettled.
“I don’t think there’s one simple way it’s going to move,” said Rep. Adam Smith (Wash.), senior Democrat on the Armed Services Committee. “It’s all in play.”
Kick-starting the debate last month, President Biden proposed a massive, $105 billion supplemental spending package featuring emergency assistance for both Ukraine and Israel, largely in the form of military amenities, as well as funding to provide humanitarian aid for Palestinian civilians in Gaza, boost security at the southern border and help America’s Indo-Pacific allies counter China’s growing influence.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) vowed last week that the upper chamber will move “immediately” to consider those issues. But the debate has been bogged down by partisan disagreements between Senate negotiators over the border security component, which is essential for winning GOP support in both chambers.
“We don’t know how it’s going to happen,” Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) said. “We’ve got to get back and do a lot of work.”
Amid the muddle, lawmakers in both parties laid out several competing tracks the debate might follow.
Because the House has already passed an Israel aid bill, it’s not expected to revisit the issue unbidden. But some top Republicans said they expect Johnson to make good on his word to consider legislation combining Ukraine funding with border security, if only to serve as a negotiating tool with Democrats in the Senate and White House.
“I think we’re going to have a Ukraine-border bill,” said Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. “And then the Senate, after Thanksgiving, will probably pass their Ukraine-Israel-border-Taiwan bill. And that will come over to us, and the Speaker’s going to have to make a decision.”
McCaul said the logical strategy would be for the House to combine everything into one big package, but acknowledged that the divisions within the GOP conference, particularly on Ukraine, might force Republican leaders into a piecemeal approach.
“I think all the threats are tied together, but I understand the Speaker’s got to manage our conference, and a lot of people don’t want it all tied together,” McCaul said.
Other Republicans predicted the House would wait for the Senate to act on both the Ukraine and Israel aid, if only to deflect some of the internal tensions within the GOP conference. A September vote to approve $300 million in military aid to Ukraine was opposed by 117 House Republicans — more than half of the GOP conference — sending a warning to party leaders that the group has soured on the issue.
“I suspect that we’re going to get both out of the Senate, and we’ve just got to find a way to get them onto the floor,” said Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.), a leader of the moderate Problem Solvers Caucus. “The question is: Will it be put on the floor? Because obviously, you-know-who will object to it.”
Still other lawmakers said that, while a Senate-passed bill would help rouse the House to act, they have no confidence in the upper chamber to move the various aid provisions efficiently. Instead, they’re suggesting that House leaders should be taking aggressive steps behind the scenes to iron out sticking points and grease the path to passage.
“It’d be enormously helpful if they’d just deliver something to us,” Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.) said of the Senate. “But the feeling I’m getting is that the Democrats on this side need to get our ducks in a row, maybe some kind of four corners conversation. … We’ve got to be taking steps that don’t count on the Senate.”
Smith, the ranking member of Armed Services, agreed, saying his “lack of faith in the Senate’s ability to do anything” means that House leaders — Johnson and Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) — should continue their talks; top appropriators in both chambers should be working behind the scenes; and the White House should engage with leaders of both parties at all levels.
“We’re not just going to sit back and go, ‘Well, I guess at some point the Senate will send us something,’” Smith said.
Jeffries, meanwhile, is stressing the urgency of getting an aid package passed before January.
“There is no circumstance where we should leave Congress this year without making sure that we have provided funding for Ukraine, funding for Israel, funding for humanitarian assistance for Palestinian civilians who are in harm’s way, and otherwise meeting the national security needs of the American people,” Jeffries told reporters in the Capitol last week.
But he’s also warning GOP leaders that the inclusion of conservative wish-list provisions — such as the IRS cuts — would immediately dissolve Democratic support and sink the underlying aid bills.
“There is nothing that will happen in the House of Representatives in a partisan fashion that has any shot of becoming law,” he said.
Heading into last week’s vote to fund the government, some Democrats had expressed a hope that Jeffries and other Democratic leaders would leverage the Democrats’ support for averting a shutdown to win assurances from Johnson that the Israel and Ukraine aid proposals would both reach the floor this year.
Jeffries has declined to characterize his talks with the Speaker, but some other lawmakers said squarely that it was an idea that was never realistic.
“I am not confident there’s any assurances,” Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Ill.) said. “You hear all kinds of rumors that Ukraine and border policy will be in one package, and Taiwan and Israel will be in another. And I want them all together. … I’m getting more concerned, not less.”
“Leverage is of degrees, and that leverage wasn’t going to work,” Smith said. “I mean, keeping the government open so that a shutdown is no longer on the table helps us now focus on both the appropriations bills and the supplemental.
“It’s a hard lift — it’s a hard lift for 1,000 different reasons,” he continued. “But it wasn’t going to be any easier if the government was shut down.”
Congress is facing a fierce battle next month over military aid to Israel and Ukraine, which has been thrown into flux by divisions among Republicans over how to move forward. While both chambers moved quickly last week to pass bipartisan legislation averting a government shutdown, they left assistance for the two war-torn countries up in…
Politics
Will Kim Ju Ae Become North Korea’s First Female Leader?

A New Face of Power in Pyongyang
In a country defined by secrecy and dynastic rule, the recent emergence of Kim Ju Ae—the daughter of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un—on the national and international stage has sparked intense speculation about the future of the world’s most isolated regime. For the first time since North Korea’s founding in 1948, the possibility of a female leader is being openly discussed, as state media and public ceremonies increasingly feature the teenage girl at her father’s side.

Kim Ju Ae’s Rise to Prominence
Kim Ju Ae, believed to be around 12 or 13 years old, first came to the world’s attention in 2013 when former NBA star Dennis Rodman revealed he had held Kim Jong Un’s daughter during a visit to Pyongyang. However, she remained out of the public eye until November 2022, when she appeared beside her father at the launch of an intercontinental ballistic missile—a powerful symbol in North Korean propaganda.

Since then, Ju Ae has become a regular fixture at high-profile events, from military parades and weapons launches to the grand opening of a water park and the unveiling of new naval ships. Her repeated appearances are unprecedented for a member of the Kim family so young, especially a girl, and have led South Korean intelligence officials to suggest she is being groomed as her father’s successor.
The Power of Propaganda
North Korea’s state media has shifted its language regarding Ju Ae, referring to her as “beloved” and, more recently, “respected”—a term previously reserved for the nation’s highest dignitaries. Analysts believe this is part of a carefully orchestrated campaign to build her public profile and legitimize her as a future leader, signaling continuity and stability for the regime.

Presenting Ju Ae as the face of the next generation serves several purposes:
- Demonstrating dynastic continuity: By showcasing his daughter, Kim Jong Un assures elites and the public that the Kim family’s grip on power will persist.
- Minimizing internal threats: A young female successor is less likely to attract rival factions or pose an immediate threat to the current leadership.
- Projecting a modern image: Her presence at both military and civilian events signals adaptability and a potential shift in North Korea’s traditionally patriarchal leadership structure.

Breaking with Tradition?
If Ju Ae is indeed being positioned as the next leader, it would mark a historic break from North Korea’s deeply patriarchal system. The country has never had a female ruler, and its military and political elite remain overwhelmingly male. However, her growing public profile and the respect shown to her by senior officials suggest that the regime is preparing the nation for the possibility of her ascension.
The only other woman with significant visibility and influence in the regime is Kim Yo Jong, Kim Jong Un’s younger sister, who has become a powerful figure in her own right, especially in matters of propaganda and foreign policy.
A Nation Divided, a Dynasty Endures
While the Kim family’s hold on North Korea appears unshakable, the country remains divided from South Korea by a heavily militarized border. Many families have been separated for generations, with little hope for reunification in the near future. As the Kim dynasty prepares its next generation for leadership, the longing for family reunions and peace persists on both sides of the border.
The Road Ahead
Kim Ju Ae’s future remains shrouded in mystery, much like the country she may one day lead. Her carefully managed public appearances, the reverence shown by state media, and her father’s apparent efforts to secure her place in the succession line all point to a regime intent on preserving its legacy while adapting to new realities. Whether North Korea is truly ready for its first female leader is uncertain, but the groundwork is clearly being laid for a new chapter in the Kim dynasty.
Business
Pros and Cons of the Big Beautiful Bill

The “Big Beautiful Bill” (officially the One Big Beautiful Bill Act) is a sweeping tax and spending package passed in July 2025. It makes permanent many Trump-era tax cuts, introduces new tax breaks for working Americans, and enacts deep cuts to federal safety-net programs. The bill also increases spending on border security and defense, while rolling back clean energy incentives and tightening requirements for social programs.

Pros
1. Tax Relief for Middle and Working-Class Families
- Makes the 2017 Trump tax cuts permanent, preventing a scheduled tax hike for many Americans.
- Introduces new tax breaks: no federal income tax on tips and overtime pay (for incomes under $150,000, with limits).
- Doubles the Child Tax Credit to $2,500 per child through 2028.
- Temporarily raises the SALT (state and local tax) deduction cap to $40,000.
- Creates “Trump Accounts”: tax-exempt savings accounts for newborns.
2. Support for Small Businesses and Economic Growth
- Makes the small business deduction permanent, supporting Main Street businesses.
- Expands expensing for investment in short-lived assets and domestic R&D, which is considered pro-growth.
3. Increased Spending on Security and Infrastructure
- Allocates $175 billion for border security and $160 billion for defense, the highest peacetime military budget in U.S. history.
- Provides $12.5 billion for air traffic control modernization.
4. Simplification and Fairness in the Tax Code
- Expands the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and raises marginal rates on individuals earning over $400,000.
- Closes various deductions and loopholes, especially those benefiting private equity and multinational corporations.

Cons
1. Deep Cuts to Social Safety Net Programs
- Cuts Medicaid by approximately $930 billion and imposes new work requirements, which could leave millions without health insurance.
- Tightens eligibility and work requirements for SNAP (food assistance), potentially removing benefits from many low-income families.
- Rolls back student loan forgiveness and repeals Biden-era subsidies.
2. Increases the Federal Deficit
- The bill is projected to add $3.3–4 trillion to the federal deficit over 10 years.
- Critics argue that the combination of tax cuts and increased spending is fiscally irresponsible.
3. Benefits Skewed Toward the Wealthy
- The largest income gains go to affluent Americans, with top earners seeing significant after-tax increases.
- Critics describe the bill as the largest upward transfer of wealth in recent U.S. history.
4. Rollback of Clean Energy and Climate Incentives
- Eliminates tax credits for electric vehicles and solar energy by the end of 2025.
- Imposes stricter requirements for renewable energy developers, which could lead to job losses and higher electricity costs.

5. Potential Harm to Healthcare and Rural Hospitals
- Reduces funding for hospitals serving Medicaid recipients, increasing uncompensated care costs and threatening rural healthcare access.
- Tightens verification for federal premium subsidies under the Affordable Care Act, risking coverage for some middle-income Americans.
6. Public and Political Backlash
- The bill is unpopular in public polls and is seen as a political risk for its supporters.
- Critics warn it will widen the gap between rich and poor and reverse progress on alternative energy and healthcare.
Summary Table
Pros | Cons |
---|---|
Permanent middle-class tax cuts | Deep Medicaid and SNAP cuts |
No tax on tips/overtime for most workers | Millions may lose health insurance |
Doubled Child Tax Credit | Adds $3.3–4T to deficit |
Small business support | Benefits skewed to wealthy |
Increased border/defense spending | Clean energy incentives eliminated |
Simplifies some tax provisions | Threatens rural hospitals |
Public backlash, political risk |
In summary:
The Big Beautiful Bill delivers significant tax relief and new benefits for many working and middle-class Americans, but it does so at the cost of deep cuts to social programs, a higher federal deficit, and reduced support for clean energy and healthcare. The bill is highly polarizing, with supporters touting its pro-growth and pro-family provisions, while critics warn of increased inequality and harm to vulnerable populations.
Business
Trump Threatens to ‘Take a Look’ at Deporting Elon Musk Amid Explosive Feud

The escalating conflict between President Donald Trump and Elon Musk reached a new peak this week, as Trump publicly suggested he would consider deporting the billionaire entrepreneur in response to Musk’s fierce criticism of the president’s signature tax and spending bill.

“I don’t know, we’ll have to take a look,” Trump told reporters on Tuesday when asked directly if he would deport Musk, who was born in South Africa but has been a U.S. citizen since 2002.
This threat followed a late-night post on Trump’s Truth Social platform, where he accused Musk of being the largest recipient of government subsidies in U.S. history. Trump claimed that without these supports, Musk “would likely have to shut down operations and return to South Africa,” and that ending such subsidies would mean “no more rocket launches, satellites, or electric vehicle production, and our nation would save a FORTUNE”.
Trump also invoked the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)—a federal agency Musk previously led—as a potential tool to scrutinize Musk’s companies. “We might have to put DOGE on Elon. You know what DOGE is? The DOGE is the monster that might have to go back and eat Elon,” Trump remarked, further intensifying the feud.

Background to the Feud
The rupture comes after Musk’s repeated attacks on Trump’s so-called “Big, Beautiful Bill,” a comprehensive spending and tax reform proposal that Musk has labeled a “disgusting abomination” and a threat to the nation’s fiscal health. Musk, once a Trump ally who contributed heavily to his election campaign and served as a government advisor, has called for the formation of a new political party, claiming the bill exposes the need for an alternative to the current two-party system.
In response, Trump’s allies have amplified questions about Musk’s citizenship and immigration history, with some suggesting an investigation into his naturalization process. However, legal experts note that deporting a naturalized U.S. citizen like Musk would be extremely difficult. The only path would involve denaturalization—a rare and complex legal process requiring proof of intentional fraud during the citizenship application, a standard typically reserved for the most egregious cases.
Political Fallout
Musk’s criticism has rattled some Republican lawmakers, who fear the feud could undermine their party’s unity ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. Meanwhile, Musk has doubled down on his opposition, warning he will support primary challengers against Republicans who back Trump’s bill.
Key Points:
- Trump has publicly threatened to “take a look” at deporting Elon Musk in retaliation for Musk’s opposition to his legislative agenda.
- Legal experts say actual deportation is highly unlikely due to the stringent requirements for denaturalizing a U.S. citizen.
- The feud marks a dramatic reversal from the pair’s earlier alliance, with both men now trading barbs over social media and in public statements.
As the dispute continues, it has become a flashpoint in the broader debate over government spending, corporate subsidies, and political loyalty at the highest levels of American power.
- Business1 week ago
Pros and Cons of the Big Beautiful Bill
- Advice3 weeks ago
What SXSW 2025 Filmmakers Want Every New Director to Know
- Film Industry3 weeks ago
Filming Yourself and Look Cinematic
- News2 weeks ago
Father Leaps Overboard to Save Daughter on Disney Dream Cruise
- Health2 weeks ago
McCullough Alleges Government Hid COVID Vaccine Side Effects
- Advice2 weeks ago
Why 20% of Us Are Always Late
- Advice2 weeks ago
How to Find Your Voice as a Filmmaker
- Entertainment1 week ago
Juror 25’s Behavior Sparks Debate Over Fairness in High-Profile Diddy Trial