Business

Public health groups alarmed at White House delay of menthol cigarette ban on December 6, 2023 at 10:48 pm Business News | The Hill

Published

2 years ago

December 6, 2023

The Biden administration is delaying a decision on whether to ban menthol flavored cigarettes amid intense lobbying from critics including the tobacco industry, industry-backed groups and some Black criminal justice advocates.

The delay is alarming public health groups, which fear that the White House could cave to pressure and delay the rule indefinitely, especially against the backdrop of President Biden’s reelection bid.

The target date for releasing the rule was initially August, which was then pushed back to the end of the year. The White House in its regulatory agenda released Wednesday set a new target for March 2024.

“Any delay in finalizing the FDA’s [Food and Drug Administration’s] menthol rule would be a gift to the tobacco industry at the expense of Black lives,” said Yolanda Richardson, CEO of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. “We urge the administration to keep its promise and issue a final rule by the end of this year.”

The Obama administration solicited comments for potential regulation of menthol cigarettes in 2013, but it never proposed a rule. Then, in 2018, the Trump administration revisited the issue under former FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb.

But Trump’s FDA also failed to issue a formal rule. So when the Biden administration’s April 2022 proposals for a ban on menthol and flavored cigars were released, they represented a significant step forward.

Public health groups said based on past history, they’re worried the delay will go beyond March.

“We were expecting to see final rules in August this year. It’s now December. And so an additional delay to March certainly begs the question, how much longer are we gonna have to wait? How many times are we going to punt this?” asked Emily Holubowich, national senior vice president of federal advocacy at the American Heart Association.

“The science is clear. The rules need to be released now,” Holubowich said.

The FDA said it remained committed to issuing the rule “as expeditiously as possible.”

“At this stage in rulemaking, the FDA is limited from further discussions about the rules before they are published,” an agency spokesman said.

A menthol ban has been more than a decade in the making and would be one of the most consequential policies from the FDA since it began regulating tobacco in 2009. Health officials and tobacco control advocates have said such a move could save hundreds of thousands of lives, particularly among Black smokers.

An estimated 85 percent of Black smokers use menthols, according to the FDA, compared with 30 percent of white smokers. About 40 percent of excess deaths due to menthol cigarette smoking in the U.S. between 1980 and 2018 were among African Americans, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

David Margolius, director of public health for Cleveland, said the delays in issuing the ban have left him frustrated.

“What it says to us is that cities like Cleveland are being left behind,” Margolius said, adding that the city’s smoking rate is 35 percent. The national average is around 11 percent.

“Every month that they kick the can down the road, more lives are lost in places like Cleveland. The right time to do this was as many years ago as possible. We’ve got to right the wrongs of the past. And so pushing this further along, that doesn’t help anybody,” Margoulis said.

The White House has been reviewing the ban since October, typically the final step before the rules get released.

But the White House Office of Management and Budget has been holding dozens of meetings with outside groups about the policy since October, including retailers, civil rights groups and law enforcement officials. According to records, almost all the meetings have been with groups that oppose the ban.

Representatives from Rev. Al Sharpton’s National Action Network along with civil rights attorney Ben Crump, tobacco companies, former lawmakers and leaders of a Black law enforcement group attended a Nov. 20 meeting with senior Biden administration officials — including FDA Commissioner Robert Califf, Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra and White House domestic policy advisor Neera Tanden — to lobby against the ban.

Sharpton has faced criticism for taking money from the tobacco industry. The New York Times reported in 2019 that tobacco giant Reynolds American enlisted him to lobby against a New York City ban on menthol tobacco products.

The National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, which requested the meeting, has also received funding from tobacco companies, including Reynolds.

The groups argue a menthol ban will lead to more over-policing in communities of color, similar to the war on drugs campaign of the 1980s and 1990s.

The ban would only apply to companies that manufacture, distribute or sell menthol cigarettes, not individuals who possess or use them. And public health advocates have pointed out tobacco companies also make similar arguments about racial justice.

Tobacco companies are also using economic arguments to warn against a menthol ban.

“A menthol ban would fuel yet another extensive illicit market for unregulated and potentially more dangerous products in the U.S.,” R.J. Reynolds said in a statement.

“The economic consequences as consumers move to an illicit market will be severe, including adverse impacts on small businesses and on government revenues used to support public health programs.”

But tobacco control advocates and criminal justice experts said that while there is always a concern about over policing, they are skeptical that a menthol ban would compound the problem.

In a speech on the Senate floor Wednesday, Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) criticized the delays and addressed potential White House concerns that a menthol ban would cause Biden to lose Black voters.

“I think that’s greatly exaggerated,” Durbin said. “And I want to make it clear, they’re peddling stories — Big Tobacco is — that we’re going to go out and arrest African Americans if they use menthol cigarettes. But that’s not the case at all.”

Health Care, Administration, Business, CDC, Cigarettes, fda, menthol ban, Tobacco The Biden administration is delaying a decision on whether to ban menthol flavored cigarettes amid intense lobbying from critics including the tobacco industry, industry-backed groups and some Black criminal justice advocates. The delay is alarming public health groups, which fear that the White House could cave to pressure and delay the rule indefinitely, especially against…

Business

How Trump’s Tariffs Could Hit American Wallets

Published

2 days 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

4 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

4 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.