Business

Ukraine funding request sets up battle when Congress returns on August 10, 2023 at 8:55 pm Business News | The Hill

Published

2 years ago

August 10, 2023

The White House’s latest request for additional funding for Ukraine is likely to add fuel to the already contentious spending debate when Congress returns in September.

The White House on Thursday asked Congress for $13.1 billion in supplemental funding for the Department of Defense in response to the war in Ukraine. That includes funding for equipment, military and intelligence support.

The White House additionally requested $8.5 billion in funding for the State Department and the United States Agency for International Development, which includes $7.3 billion in “economic, humanitarian, and security assistance” for Ukraine and other impacted countries.

The White House is seeking the dollars to be greenlit as part of a potential short-term funding bill, also known as a continuing resolution (CR), that many lawmakers expect Congress needs to pass by the end of September to prevent a government shutdown.

“I think there’s a very good chance that we’ll see a CR, but I know there’s a lot of work to get a CR done,” Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-Ala.), who serves on the House Appropriations Committee, recently told The Hill, noting there are “a lot of members who don’t want CRs that are tired of them.”

The Ukraine funding is likely to add a complication.

Some conservatives have expressed opposition to any short-term bill that keeps funding at fiscal 2023 levels, and some have also opposed sending additional money to Ukraine. In a narrowly divided House, their opposition could be enough to sink any partisan spending bill.

The request could also widen the rift between the House and Senate, which are already crafting bills at different spending levels after hard-line conservatives in the House pushed back on a deal struck between President Biden and Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.).

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has insisted the limits agreed to for defense spending were too low, while McCarthy signaled earlier this year that further funding for Ukraine would need to come through the annual appropriations process as opposed to a separate funding bill.

“The question to me is … why would you do a supplemental? We just passed an agreement. You work through the [appropriations process]. They’re trying to go around the agreement,” McCarthy said in June.

“If anyone thinks at the end of the day, ‘Ukraine needs money,’ you’re gonna have to show: What did we spend our money on? What is the plan for victory? And what do you need the money for? You don’t just go say, ‘Oh, go vote for some supplemental,’” he added.

In a letter to McCarthy last month, a group of 21 conservatives called on the Speaker to “publicly reject” the possibility of a supplemental Ukraine appropriations bill, while also pressing for GOP negotiators to mark up overall funding bills at far lower levels than the caps agreed upon between Biden and McCarthy.

At the same time, Senate Appropriations Chairwoman Patty Murray (D-Wash.) last month announced a deal struck with Republicans to add $13.7 billion in additional emergency funding on top of their appropriations bills. The proposal included $8 billion for defense programs and $5.7 billion for nondefense programs.

Senate appropriators on both sides of the aisle defended the move, with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) citing Russia’s ongoing war against Ukraine.

“It’s really an emergency, what Russia is doing, and Ukraine, with grain production,” Graham said then. “Wait until it hits the developing world. About half the developing world gives their grain needs from Ukraine.”

“There is a tsunami of problems flowing from the lack of food and this war caused by Russia and the money in this bill helps some,” he said at an appropriations hearing last month. “And it will encourage other countries to do more.”

The roughly $47 billion in direct security aid for Ukraine approved by Congress last year is drying up.

The latest packages in June and July have inched closer and closer to the end of the pile of approved money, even as Ukraine’s war with Russia continues in full force.

Ukrainian forces are in the midst of one of the hardest battles in the war yet, struggling to overcome entrenched Russian lines in the southeastern Zaporizhzhia region.

The slow pace of Ukraine’s counteroffensive might add to the tensions expected to play out on the House floor from more conservative lawmakers who are opposed to funding Ukraine’s military needs.

But House Republicans have maintained there is still strong support for Ukraine in the lower chamber.

Republican leaders in the House Armed Services and House Foreign Affairs committees have also called for more advanced weapons to Ukraine, including Army Tactical Missile System and F-16 fighter jets.

Several GOP-backed efforts aimed at reining in U.S. involvement in the war through an annual defense policy bill also failed after a majority of the conference voted against the initiatives.

Still, public support for Ukraine has dropped since last year, with a CNN poll last week that found 55 percent of Americans don’t approve of sending more aid to Ukraine.

Republicans in the poll were less supportive of sending more aid to Ukraine than Democrats, with 71 percent in the GOP against and 38 percent of Democrats who said the same.

Appropriations, Business, Defense, Policy The White House’s latest request for additional funding for Ukraine is likely to add fuel to the already contentious spending debate when Congress returns in September. The White House on Thursday asked Congress for $13.1 billion in supplemental funding for the Department of Defense in response to the war in Ukraine. That includes funding for…

Business

How Trump’s Tariffs Could Hit American Wallets

Published

22 hours 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.