List of All Articles with Tag 'erica'

Mark Zuckerberg is being criticised by some for perceived hypocrisy, after the Facebook co-founder posted a 4th of July photo of his family but obscured the faces of his daughters. To celebrate Independence Day, the tech billionaire posted on one of the tech platforms he oversees, Instagram, sharing a photo of himself, his wife Priscilla Chan, and their three daughters, Aurelia, Maxima, and August. “Happy July 4th!” the caption on the post reads. “Lots to be grateful for this year. As the big girls get older, I love talking to them about why America is so great. Looking forward to discussing with little Aurelia soon too.” The post was met with mixed reactions, with some arguing it was hypocritical for Zuckerberg to seek to protect the privacy of his children, when Facebook and Instagram have been accused of violating people’s privacy in the past. One of the top comments on the photo came from an Instagram user who argued, “Even Zuck doesn’t trust his platforms to put his kids faces up.” Many agreed. As Shanon Palus wrote in Slate, “I almost feel some schadenfreude imagining Zuckerberg also agonizing over being public or private on social media. After all, he got us into this mess!” “Fascinated by Zuck’s choice to not have his kids’ faces on his social media platform,” added Bloomberg reporter Reyhan Harmanci in a post on Twitter. Zuckerberg companies have faced multiple high-profile settlements surrounding privacy in recent months. In May, the Federal Trade Commission accused Facebook of violating a 2020 order and misleading parents about their ability to control whom their children communicated with on the Messenger Kids app, as well as misrepresenting what kind of access developers had to private user data. “Facebook has repeatedly violated its privacy promises,” Samuel Levine, director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, told The Associated Press at the time. “The company’s recklessness has put young users at risk, and Facebook needs to answer for its failures.” Meta has said the FTC is incorrect and it will “vigorously fight” the allegations. That same month, the European Union fined Meta $1.3bn for transferring user data to the US, which the body said didn’t sufficiently protect users from US spy agencies. Meta has said it will appeal the fine. In 2022, the company paid $725m to settle a lawsuit alleging Facebook allowed millions of users’ personal data to be fed without consent to Cambridge Analytica, a firm which supported Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. Prior to that, the FTC fined the company $5bn for privacy violations and mishandling user data. The Independent has contacted Meta for comment. Read More Twitter threatens legal action against Meta over new ‘Threads’ app Mark Zuckerberg trolls Elon Musk by posting Spider-Man meme on Twitter after launching rival Threads What is Threads? All your questions about Meta's new Twitter rival, answered. Twitter threatens legal action against Meta over new ‘Threads’ app What is Threads? All your questions about Meta's new Twitter rival, answered. Mark Zuckerberg trolls Elon Musk with Spider-Man meme after launching Twitter rival

Rep Alexandria Ocasio Cortez tweeted that her account on Threads – Mark Zuckerberg’s Twitter rival app – was “bricked” after being on the app for just “5 minutes,” on the day of the app’s launch. Highlighting her move to Threads – on Twitter, no less – is perhaps the New York Democrat’s latest move in her feud with Twitter owner Elon Musk. Earlier on Wednesday, she wrote a thread, seemingly taking a jab at Twitter: “Alright, let’s do this thing! May this platform have good vibes, strong community, excellent humor, and less harassment.” It’s unsurprising that the New York congresswoman jumped on the opportunity to join the “Twitter killer” platform, as she hasn’t been shy about her gripes with Mr Musk and his platform. In May, Ms Ocasio-Cortez flagged an imposter account, which she said Mr Musk reacted to with a flame emoji, drawing more attention to the fake account. She tweeted at the time: “FYI there’s a fake account on here impersonating me and going viral. The Twitter CEO has engaged it, boosting visibility.” On other occasions, she has pointed out the dangers of circulating misinformation on Twitter and the problems with potential misinformation after Mr Musk removed checkmarks from official accounts. The New York Democrat also voiced opposition to Mr Musk’s move to make users pay for a blue check mark, tweeting: “Lmao at a billionaire earnestly trying to sell people on the idea that ‘free speech’ is actually an $8/mo subscription plan.” Read More AOC warns Elon Musk is ‘testing waters’ to interfere in 2024 election AOC threatens to leave Twitter after Elon Musk promotes ‘disgusting’ account impersonating her AOC jokes more people watched her gaming online than listened to glitch-ridden DeSantis launch

Donald Trump is continuing to relish the news that cocaine was discovered at the White House, moving on from suggesting that it belonged to his successor Joe Biden and the latter’s son Hunter Biden, who has spoken out frankly about his past struggles with addiction, to claiming that the Biden administration is withholding the CCTV footage that might reveal the truth. “Where are the White House SECURITY TAPES, like the ones I openly and happily gave to Deranged Jack Smith, which will quickly show where the Cocaine in the White House came from???” he asked on his Truth Social platform on Wednesday evening. “They already know the answer, but probably don’t like it!” Meanwhile, the former president’s own son, Donald Trump Jr, has been branded “a big baby” by Australian home minister Clare O’Neil after he cancelled a planned speaking tour of the country, citing visa issues. “Geez, Donald Trump Jr is a bit of sore loser,” Ms O’Neill wrote in a series of posts on Twitter that were later deleted. “Donald Trump Jr has been given a visa to come to Australia. He didn’t get cancelled. He’s just a big baby, who isn’t very popular.” Read More Trump marks Independence Day by sharing vulgar attack on Biden and ominous 2024 warning Trump-appointed judge blocks Biden agencies from communicating with social media platforms Ex-New York congressman pardoned by Trump is planning to run again in Florida Truth Social’s merger partner reaches $18m settlement with SEC

Most presidents, current and former, typically spend America’s Independence Day celebrating the values of US society that bring its citizens together, joining in the festive and unifying themes of the national holiday. And then there’s Donald Trump. The former president spent July 4 fuming at his enemies on Truth Social, resharing a vulgar message aimed at President Joe Biden and the tens of millions of Americans who voted for him in 2020. ““F**k Biden and f**k you for voting for him”, read the post. Later, he continued his holiday rant by branding the president a “very dangerous idiot in the White House”. He also posted a bizarre image of himself imposed into the Revolutionary War, prompting social media users to suggest he is more like Benedict Arnold – the infamous US traitor – than the Founding Fathers. In other Trumpworld news, the company planning to merge with Truth Social has reached an $18m settlement with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Digital World Acquisition Corp (DWAC) announced the tentative settlement on Monday, ending an SEC probe looking into whether it held talks with Truth Social’s parent company before going public – a violation of regulations. Read More Trump marks Independence Day by sharing vulgar attack on Biden and ominous 2024 warning Trump-appointed judge blocks Biden agencies from communicating with social media platforms Ex-New York congressman pardoned by Trump is planning to run again in Florida Truth Social’s merger partner reaches $18m settlement with SEC

A popular left-wing Twitter account with thousands of followers, which often went viral and provoked the outrage of leading conservatives, may have been a fake all along, according to online researchers, using a provocative posts to generation attention in a tactic known as “rage-baiting.” Erica Marsh, a self-proclaimed “proud Democrat” from Washington, started her Twitter account in September of 2022, and quickly gained more than 130,000 followers, sometimes netting over 1,000 followers a day posting her quick-twitch takes on the day’s main political news. Her messages often read like a near-parody of an over-the-top, out-of-touch progressive. In a 29 June post, reacting to the recent Supreme Court decision striking down race-based affirmative action in college admissions, she wrote, “Today’s Supreme Court decision is a direct attack on Black people. No Black person will be able to succeed in a merit-based system which is exactly why affirmative-action based programs were needed. Today’s decision is a TRAVESTY!!!” The tweet quickly caught fire online, provoking the ire of leaders like Florida congressman Matt Gaetz, who told his followers, “I strongly disagree with this racist allegation.” However, despite her ability to win followers and stir the pot and attract online attention, Ms Marsh may never have been real, according to an analysis from The Washington Post. Ms Marsh doesn’t appear in phone or voting records, and past employers she claimed like the Biden campaign say they have no record of her. “I strongly suspect that this person doesn’t exist,” John Scott-Railton, a senior researcher at the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto, told the paper. “It’s as if she dropped from the moon and arrived fully formed with this narrative that makes liberals look like idiots.” Twitter officially does not comment on press requests, and Ms Marsh’s account has been suspended. Before buying the social media site last year, Elon Musk argued fake accounts were a serious problem on Twitter, at one point threatening not to carry out his acquisition over the matter. Twitter said last July it removes over 1 million fake accounts per day. Fakes have been a persistent issue. In November, the company temporarily suspended its Twitter Blue subscription service, after users bought Twitter verification status and used it to impersonate celebrities, politicians and brands. Read More ‘Rate limits’ and Twitter chaos: What exactly is Elon Musk doing? Elon Musk supports eliminating voting rights for people without children Greg Abbott mocked after falling for hoax story about Garth Brooks being booed off stage Judge blocks Biden agencies from communicating with social media platforms Elon Musk supports eliminating voting rights for people without children Outrage erupts in South Africa over video of deputy president's security officers stomping on man

A federal judge has blocked key agencies within President Joe Biden’s administration from communicating with social media companies about certain online speech in an extraordinary ruling as part of an ongoing case that could have profound impacts on the First Amendment. The preliminary injunction granted by Donald Trump-appointed US District Judge Terry A Doughty in Louisiana on 4 July prohibits the FBI and the US Department of Health and Human Services, among others, from speaking with platforms for “the purpose of urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech.” The ruling – which could obstruct the administration’s attempts to combat false and potentially dangerous claims about vaccines and elections – is a victory for Republican attorneys general in Louisiana and Missouri who have alleged that the federal government was overreaching in its attempts to combat Covid-19 disinformation and baseless election fraud narratives. Judge Doughty, who has yet to issue a final ruling, stated in his injunction that the Republican plaintiffs “have produced evidence of a massive effort by Defendants, from the White House to federal agencies, to suppress speech based on its content.” He did make some exceptions that would allow the government to warn platforms about national security threats, criminal activity or voter suppression. The legal challenge follows ongoing allegations from right-wing officials and Republican lawmakers that the federal government – specifically, Democratic officials – have conspired with “Big Tech” to silence conservative voices, a long-running conspiracy theory that proponents will argue is substantiated by the latest decision. GOP attorneys general in the case have accused government agencies of a “systemic and systematic campaign” to control speech on social media platforms that accelerated during the Trump administration and experienced a “quantum leap” under President Biden. Attorneys for the Biden administration have disputed such claims and warned that an injunction could undermine national security efforts, pointing to the programs developed among government agencies to combat disinformation in the aftermath of the 2016 election. The Independent has requested comment from the White House. Missouri’s Attorney General Eric Schmitt, who originally filed the lawsuit with Louisiana’s Attorney General Jeff Landry, called the ruling a “big win for the First Amendment on this Independence Day.” Though the case originated with those Republican officials, several additional plaintiffs added their name to the case, arguing that they also were unfairly targeted after spreading disinformation online. Plaintiffs also include vaccine conspiracy theorist and presidential hopeful Robert F Kennedy Jr and Jim Hoft, the founder of the far-right conspiracy theory-fuelled website The Gateway Pundit and a defendant in a defamation lawsuit filed by election workers who faced death threats over false reporting about them in the 2020 presidential election. This is a developing story Read More Twitter applies temporary reading limits amid ongoing problems with platform Biden renews call for assault weapons ban after ‘tragic and senseless’ spate of July 4 shootings Ex-New York congressman pardoned by Trump is planning to run again in Florida Suspicious powder found at the White House when Biden was gone was cocaine, AP sources say Biden renews call for assault weapons ban after spate of July 4 shootings Watch live: Joe Biden addresses National Education Association

Days after the US Supreme Court struck down race-conscious university admissions, civil rights groups have filed a federal lawsuit targeting so-called “legacy” admissions at Harvard University. The lawsuit, alleging widespread discrimination at the college in violation of the Civil Rights Act, is the latest challenge to the practice of prioritising university admissions for the children of alumni. “There’s no birthright to Harvard. As the Supreme Court recently noted, ‘eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it.’ There should be no way to identify who your parents are in the college application process,” said Ivan Espinoza-Madrigal, executive director of Boston-based Lawyers for Civil Rights, which filed the complaint on 3 July. “Why are we rewarding children for privileges and advantages accrued by prior generations?” he said in a statement. “Your family’s last name and the size of your bank account are not a measure of merit, and should have no bearing on the college admissions process.” The group filed the lawsuit on behalf of the Chica Project, the African Community Economic Development of New England and the Greater Boston Latino Network. Last week, the conservative supermajority on the nation’s highest court ruled that private and public colleges and universities may not consider race as a factor in admissions, striking down the precedent affirmed in the 2003 ruling in Grutter v Bollinger. Civil rights advocates and justices who supported the decades-long precedent, intended to promote racially diverse college campuses, derided what they argue is the court’s ongoing perversion of the 14th Amendment and the foundational concept of equal protection. The latest lawsuit points to Harvard data finding that 70 per cent of the college’s donor-related and legacy applicants are white. So-called “legacy” applicants have a roughly six times greater chance of admission, according to records, pointing to a “custom, pattern and practice” that is “exclusionary and discriminatory” and “severely disadvantages and harms applicants of color,” plaintiffs argued. The complaint calls on the US Department of Education to initiate a federal investigation into Harvard’s application process and for the federal government to declare such practices illegal. “Harvard’s practice of giving a leg-up to the children of wealthy donors and alumni – who have done nothing to deserve it – must end,” Lawyers for Civil Rights litigation fellow Michael Kippins said in a statement accompanying the complaint. Following the Supreme Court ruling, Democratic lawmakers and President Joe Biden urged universities to reconsider their legacy admissions, which he said “expand privilege instead of opportunity.” The Independent has requested comment from Harvard. Read More Biden condemns Supreme Court striking down affirmative action: ‘This is not a normal court’ Biden reveals ‘new path’ to student debt relief after Supreme Court strikes down president’s plan Pence ‘doesn’t believe’ racial inequality exists in schools as he celebrates SCOTUS affirmative action ban

Mike Pence cheered the end of affirmative action in US colleges and universities on Sunday in the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling outlawing the practice. The former vice president discussed the issue on CBS’s Face the Nation and said that the time for policies aimed at improving outcomes for minority students in general had passed. A candidate for the presidency in 2024, Mr Pence is gunning for the GOP nomination against his own former boss, Donald Trump, and other conservatives like Florida Gov Ron DeSantis and former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley. His comments came as activists and authorities in the higher education field vowed to keep fighting to ensure that diversity would remain a core value in student recruiting. “Fundamentally, do you believe that there are racial inequities in the education system in the United States?” asked host Margaret Brennan. “I really don’t believe there is [racial inequality in US schools]. I believe there was,” Mr Pence said. “I mean, it’s — there may have been a time when affirmative action was necessary simply to open the doors of all of our schools and universities, but I think that time has passed.” His response drew immediate backlash on Twitter, with many questioning whether Mr Pence’s children had attended schools and colleges with diverse student bodies. The three Pence children, Michael, Charlotte and Audrey, attended Purdue, DePaul, and Yale Universities. The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that universities and colleges may not consider race as a specific factor when choosing to admit individual students. They may, however, continue to take into account how race plays into the individual experiences that those prospective students describe in their applications, such as in personal essay prompts. “[T]he student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual—not on the basis of race,” wrote Chief Justice John Roberts for the majority. The suit was brought on behalf of a group of Asian American students who argued that they were discriminated against by admissions staff at Harvard University. Critics of the ruling say it will gut efforts to improve representation of minority students in college classes. College enrollment rates remain noticeably lower among Black and Hispanic students compared to white and Asian American students. In addition, an analysis of US education data has shown that about 40 per cent of Black children attend schools where 90 per cent or more of the students are nonwhite. President Joe Biden responded to the ruling on Thursday after news of the decision broke, telling reporters simply: “This is not a normal court.” Read More Biden reveals ‘new path’ to student debt relief after Supreme Court strikes down president’s plan The Supreme Court risks inflaming the prejudices that America sought to banish In 370 days, Supreme Court conservatives dash decades of abortion and affirmative action precedents Mike Pence claims Biden is rehabilitating the Iran nuclear deal Trump returns to campaign rallies, draws thousands to small South Carolina city ahead of July 4 Biden blames GOP for student loan ruling as 2024 political consequences loom

After the US Supreme Court struck down his administration’s plan to cancel federal student loan debts for millions of Americans, President Joe Biden has unveiled a “new path” for relief, one that he assured is “legally sound” but will “take longer”. In remarks from the White House on 30 June, the president hit out at Republican state officials and legislators who supported the lawsuit which enabled the nation’s highest court to strike down his student debt forgiveness initiative, accusing many of them of hypocrisy for taking money from pandemic-era relief programs while opposing relatively meager relief for student loan borrowers. “Some of the same elected Republicans, members of Congress who strongly opposed relief for students, got hundreds of thousands of dollars themselves ... several members of Congress got over a million dollars — all those loans are forgiven,” he said. “The hypocrisy is stunning,” he said. Accompanied by Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona, Mr Biden opened his remarks by acknowledging that there are likely “millions of Americans” who now “feel disappointed and discouraged or even a little bit angry about the court’s decision today on student debt”. “And I must admit, I do too,” he said. Still, Mr Biden reminded Americans that his administration has previously taken actions to reform student loan repayment programs to make them easier to access, and to keep borrowers from spending more than five per cent of disposable income on monthly repayments, and to strengthen loan forgiveness options for borrowers who take public service jobs. The president has directed Mr Cardona to “find a new way” to grant similar loan relief “as fast as we can” in a way that is “consistent” with the high court’s decision. On Friday, the Education Department issued the first step in the process of issuing new regulations under this so-called “negotiated rulemaking” process. In the mean time, Mr Biden said his administration is creating a temporary year-long “on-ramp repayment programme” under which conditions will remain largely the same as they have during the three-year pandemic-era pause in payments which is set to expire this fall. The department’s 12-month “on ramp” to begin repayments, from 1 October through 30 September, aims to prevent borrowers who miss repayments in that time period from delinquency, credit issues, default and referral to debt collection agencies. “During this period if you can pay your monthly bills you should, but if you cannot, if you miss payments, this on-ramp temporarily removes the threat of default,” he said. “Today’s decision closed one path. Now we’re going to pursue another — I’m never gonna stop fighting,” the president continued, adding that he will use “every tool” at his disposal to get Americans the student debt relief they need so they can “reach [their] dreams”. “It’s good for the economy. It’s good for the country. It’s gonna be good for you,” he said. Asked by reporters whether he’d given borrowers false hope by initiating the now-doomed forgiveness plan last year, Mr Biden angrily chided the GOP for having acted to take away the path to debt relief for millions. “I didn’t give any false hope. The question was whether or not I would do even more than was requested. What I did I felt was appropriate and was able to be done and would get done. I didn’t give borrowers false hope. But the Republicans snatched away the hope that they were given and it’s real, real hope,” he said. The Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling from the conservative majority argues that the president does not have the authority to implement sweeping relief, and that Congress never authorised the administration to do so. Under the plan unveiled by the Biden administration last year, millions of people who took out federally backed student loans would be eligible for up to $20,000 in relief. Borrowers earning up to $125,000, or $250,000 for married couples, would be eligible for up to $10,000 of their federal student loans to be wiped out. Those borrowers would be eligible to receive up to $20,000 in relief if they received Pell grants. Roughly 43 million federal student loan borrowers would be eligible for that relief, including 20 million people who stand to have their debts cancelled completely, according to the White House. Lawyers for the Biden administration contended that he has the authority to broadly cancel student loan debt under the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003, which allows the secretary of education to waive or modify loan provisions following a national emergency – in this case, Covid-19. Since March 2020, with congressional passage of the Cares Act, monthly payments on student loan debt have been frozen with interest rates set at zero per cent. That pandemic-era moratorium, first enacted under Donald Trump and extended several times, was paused a final time late last year. Over the last decade, the student loan debt crisis has exploded to a balance of nearly $2 trillion, most of which is wrapped up in federal loans. The amount of debt taken out to support student loans for higher education costs has surged alongside growing tuition costs, increased private university enrollment, stagnant wages and GOP-led governments stripping investments in higher education and aid, putting the burden of college costs largely on students and their families. Read More Supreme Court strikes down Biden’s plan to cancel student loan debts Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action, banning colleges from factoring race in admissions Biden condemns Supreme Court striking down affirmative action: ‘This is not a normal court’ Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson delivers searing civil rights lesson in dissent to affirmative action ruling

The US Supreme Court has struck down President Joe Biden’s plan to cancel student loan debts for millions of Americans, reversing his campaign-trail promise as borrowers prepare to resume payments this summer. Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the 6-3 decision from the court’s conservative majority. The ruling, which stems from a pair of cases challenging the Biden administration and the US Department of Education, argues that the president does not have authority to implement sweeping relief, and that Congress never authorised the administration to do so. Within 30 minutes on the last day of its term, the court upended protections for LGBT+ people and blocked the president from a long-held promise to cancel student loan balances amid a ballooning debt crisis impacting millions of Americans. Under the plan unveiled last year, millions of people who took out federally backed student loans would be eligible for up to $20,000 in relief. Borrowers earning up to $125,000, or $250,000 for married couples, would be eligible for up to $10,000 of their federal student loans to be wiped out. Those borrowers would be eligible to receive up to $20,000 in relief if they received Pell grants. Roughly 43 million federal student loan borrowers would be eligible for that relief, including 20 million people who stand to have their debts canceled completely, according to the White House. Roughly 16 million already submitted their applications and received approval for debt cancellation last year, according to the Biden administration. The long-anticipated plan for debt cancellation was met almost immediately with litigation threats from conservative legal groups and Republican officials, arguing that the executive branch does not have authority to broadly cancel such debt. Six GOP-led states sued the Biden administration to stop the plan altogether, and a federal appeals court temporarily blocked any such relief as the legal challenges played out. Since March 2020, with congressional passage of the Cares Act, monthly payments on student loan debt have been frozen with interest rates set at zero per cent. That Covid-19-pandemic era moratorium, first enacted under Donald Trump and extended several times, was paused a final time late last year – until the Education Department is allowed to cancel debts under the Biden plan, or until the litigation is resolved, but no later than 30 June. Payments would then resume 60 days later. The amount of debt taken out to support student loans for higher education costs has surged within the last decade, alongside growing tuition costs, increased private university enrollment, stagnant wages and GOP-led governments stripping investments in higher education and aid, putting the burden of college costs largely on students and their families. The crisis has exploded to a total balance of nearly $2 trillion, mostly wrapped up in federal loans. Millions of Americans also continue to tackle accrued interest without being able to chip away at their principal balances, even years after graduating, or have been forced to leave their colleges or universities without obtaining a degree at all while still facing loan repayments. Borrowers also have been trapped by predatory lending schemes with for-profit institutions and sky-high interest rates that have made it impossible for many borrowers to make any progress toward paying off their debt, with interest adding to balances that exceed the original loan. One analysis from the Education Department found that nearly 90 per cent of student loan relief would support people earning less than $75,000 per year. The median income of households with student loan balances is $76,400, while 7 per cent of borrowers are below the poverty line. That debt burden also falls disproportionately on Black borrowers and women. Black college graduates have an average of $52,000 in student loan debt and owe an average of $25,000 more than white graduates, according to the Education Data Initiative. Four years after graduating, Black student loan borrowers owe an average of 188 per cent more than white graduates. Women borrowers hold roughly two-thirds of all student loan debt, according to the American Association of University Women. Mr Biden’s announcement fulfilled a campaign-trail pledge to wipe out $10,000 in student loan debt per borrower if elected, though debt relief advocates and progressive lawmakers have urged him to cancel all debts and reject means-testing barriers in broad relief measures. In November 2020, the president called on Congress to “immediately” provide some relief for millions of borrowers saddled by growing debt. “[Student debt is] holding people up,” he said at the time. “They’re in real trouble. They’re having to make choices between paying their student loan and paying the rent.” This is a developing story Read More Supreme Court allows Colorado designer to deny LGBT+ customers in ruling on last day of Pride Month Biden condemns Supreme Court striking down affirmative action: ‘This is not a normal court’ Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson delivers searing civil rights lesson in dissent to affirmative action ruling

Melania Trump is launching a collection of $50 non-fungible tokens (NFTs) featuring US landmarks in time for the 4th of July. The former first lady’s “1776 Collection” includes images of Mount Rushmore, the Statue of Liberty and the Liberty Bell, set to patriotic-themed music. Ms Trump’s office said in a statement that each NFT was designed to celebrate the “foundations of American ideals”. “The 1776 Collection of artwork draws inspiration from several iconic landmarks of our nation, which I had the privilege of visiting during the time I served as first lady,” Ms Trump said. “I am proud to celebrate our great nation and remain inspired by the words contained within the Declaration of Independence.” An NFT is a blockchain-based certificate verifying ownership. The 1776 Collection was created on the Solana blockchain, and went on sale on Thursday. Ms Trump’s office said a portion of the sale price would go to support foster children. The site did not immediately respond to a request for further details about what percentage of the proceeds would be donated. Ms Trump has previously dabbled in NFTs since leaving the White House. In 2021, she launched a digital watercolour painting of her eyes for $180 each. Then in 2022, Ms Trump faced accusations of bidding $185,000 in an auction for her “Head of State Collection 2022.” An analysis of Solana blockchain transactions by Bloomberg found the winning bid of 1800 SOL came from a wallet that belonged to the entity that originally listed the project for sale. Read More Trump news - live: DOJ prepares to hit Trump with new charges as ex-official cooperates in 2020 election probe Trump lashes out at ‘fake’ Jake Tapper after CNN host cuts away from arraigned ex-president meeting fans Meet Jesse Watters, the Fox News host helming Tucker Carlson’s primetime slot Prosecutors are prepared to hit Trump and his allies with new charges, sources say

President Joe Biden on Thursday said he “strongly, strongly disagree[d” with the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the use of affirmative action programmes in college admissions decisions and condemned the six-justice majority that did so as “not a normal court”. Mr Biden’s harsh words for the highest court in the land came in response to a reporter’s query on whether the court was acting as a “rogue court,” just after he addressed the landmark decision in brief remarks before departing the White House for New York. Speaking from the Roosevelt Room in the West Wing, the president echoed the dissenting Justices, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, in his reaction to the ruling, which ends the long-standing precedent that allowed colleges and universities to use affirmative action to help establish a diverse group of accepted students. “Discrimination still exists in America. Today’s decision does not change that,” Mr Biden said in a brief press conference. He added: “I believe our colleges are stronger when they’re racially diverse. Our nation is stronger because we are tapping into the full range of talent in this nation. We cannot let this decision be the last word.” The rulings come from two consolidated cases, Students for Fair Admissions v University of North Carolina and Students for Fair Admissions v Harvard College. Both cases were brought forth by the anti-affirmative action organisation Students for Fair Admissions. That group, which is headed by conservative legal strategist Edward Blum, has for years made attempts to give the court’s GOP-appointed majority a chance to gut previous court precedents which have been used to justify limited use of race-based preferences in college admissions. While the court upheld such programmes in a decision nearly two decades, ago, the newly-emboldened conservative majority swept away any legal justification for them in Thursday’s opinions. In a 6-3 and 6-2 decision, the Court’s conservative majority sided with Students for Fair Admissions claiming the use of race-conscious admissions was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Now, higher education institutions will no longer be allowed to consider race as a factor in admissions. Instead, students who wish to have their race or culture considered in their application will have to volunteer the information like in their personal essay. At the end of the press conference, Mr Biden responded to a question about the court’s decision to strike down a long-standing precedent: “This is not a normal Court.” Leaders from Harvard said in a letter that they would “comply” with the court’s decision but emphasised that “deep and transformative teaching, learning, and research depend upon a community comprising people of many backgrounds, perspectives, and lived experiences.” Mr Biden said he is directing the Department of Education to analyse best practices for high education institutions to create more inclusive and diverse student bodies without using race as a conscious factor in admissions and recruiting. The Harvard Black Students Association called the court’s decision, “detrimental”, adding that it “poses a significant threat to the future of the Black community on and beyond our campus.” “It is evident that the college application system cannot maintain holistic evaluation without taking into consideration how race profoundly influences our experiences, perspectives, and identities in multifaceted ways,” the Harvard Black Students Association wrote. Derrick Johnson, the president and CEO of the NAACP, said in a statement: “In a society still scarred by the wounds of racial disparities, the Supreme Court has displayed a willful ignorance of our reality.” Discussions around affirmative action have generated debate among Republicans and Democrats for years. Those in support of it believe it is necessary to create fair and equal opportunity for students of color because higher education institutions have failed at creating diverse student bodies. Those against affirmative action believe it puts other students, like white or Asian American students, at a disadvantage. Former president Donald Trump celebrated the ruling calling it “everyone was waiting for” in a post on Truth Social. “We’re going back to all merit-based – and that’s the way it should be!” Mr Trump wrote. Mr Trump appointed three of the six conservative Justices on the Court while serving as President of the United States – Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. Mr Trump’s former vice president, Mike Pence, also expressed support for the Court’s decision, writing on Twitter, “I am honored to have played a role in appointing three of the Justices that ensured today’s welcomed decision.” He added: “There is no place for discrimination based on race in the United States, and I am pleased that the Supreme Court has put an end to this egregious violation of civil and constitutional rights in admissions processes, which only served to perpetuate racism.” The ruling will likely have repercussions beyond higher education institutions, extending to elementary, middle and high schools as well as workplaces and more as it opens a door for challenges to racial diversity programs. Read More Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson delivers searing civil rights lesson in dissent to affirmative action ruling How the government that promised to ‘stop the boats’ has lost control of its immigration policy Clarence Thomas says he doesn’t have a ‘clue’ what diversity means as Supreme Court takes aim at affirmative action One year after the anti-abortion ruling, the White House keeps a spotlight on the issue