1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 c5 5.cxd5 Nxd5 6.e4 Nxc3 7.bxc3 cxd4 8.cxd4 Nc6 9.Bc4 b5 10.Bb3 Na5 11.Bc2 Bb4+ 12.Bd2 Bxd2+ 13.Qxd2 Nc4 14.Qb4 Qa5 15.Qxa5 Nxa5 16.O-O Ke7 17.Bd3 Bb7 18.Rfc1 Rac8 19.Kf1 a6 20.Ke2 Rxc1 21.Rxc1 Rc8 22.Rxc8 Bxc8 23.Kd2 h6 24.Kc3 Kd6 25.Nd2 Kc6 26.e5 Bb7 27.Ne4 Kb6 28.g3 Bd5 29.a3 Bxe4 30.Bxe4 Nc6 31.f4 Ne7 32.g4 Nd5+ 33.Bxd5 exd5 34.a4 bxa4 35.Kb4 a3 36.Kxa3 Kb5 37.f5 Kc6 38.Kb4 Kb6 39.Ka4 Kc6 40.Ka5 Kb7 41.h4 Kc7 42.Kxa6 Kc6 43.Ka5 Kc7 44.Kb5 Kd7 45.Kc5 Ke7 46.Kxd5 Kd7 47.e6+ fxe6+ 48.fxe6+ 1-0>

<The tech magnates who embraced Trump during his inauguration are facing colossal stock market losses. The Magnificent Seven have already seen a disappearance of 4.22 trillion dollars.

On January 20, 2025, a photograph made headlines worldwide: at Donald Trump's inauguration, the owners and founders of some of the most relevant companies in the country (and the world) shared a seat. Mark Zuckerberg (Meta), Jeff Bezos (Amazon), Sundar Pichai (Microsoft), and Elon Musk (Tesla) were part of the ceremony welcoming back the man who promised a new golden age for the United States.

Something paradoxical, no doubt, given the international nature of their companies and the never-hidden intentions of the new American president to reshape global trade with (his) measures and tariffs. This week, Wall Street experienced its worst drop in five years; a collapse equivalent to the disruption caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. Trump's tariff policy has been particularly focused on the Asian region, where many direct partners of the American giants are located. The losses on Wall Street have been significant, and the companies of the individuals in the photograph have grabbed the most negative headlines. So much so that the four companies (Tesla, Amazon, Meta, and Alphabet) have accumulated losses nearing 2.04 trillion dollars.

The evolution of the business damages starts from the left. Mark Zuckerberg, owner of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, and the reason he is mentioned in this text: CEO of Meta. Despite his disagreements with Trump (whom he banned from his platforms in 2021), both made peace in view of the new economic era of the country. The company, a member of the so-called Magnificent Seven, had a year-on-year growth in its market capitalization of 59.80% before the photo was taken (close to 580.179 billion dollars). These profits are now reduced due to the current stock market crisis: in yesterday's session, another dark day on Wall Street, Meta fell by 5.02% (the day before it dropped by 8.96%). Since the photo with Trump was taken, its stock has decreased by around 17.60% (approximately 272.809 billion dollars). According to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, Zuckerberg has seen his personal wealth diminish by 18.6 billion dollars so far this year.

In the photo, alongside Zuckerberg, are Lauren Sánchez and her partner, Jeff Bezos. The CEO of Amazon, the next character from the tech elite, as some media describe them, surprised the world when he appeared at the president's inauguration, with whom he had disagreements in the past but to whom he donated nearly a million dollars for the event (and closed a deal for a documentary about Melania Trump). In the year before Trump's return, Amazon grew by 45.45% (around 748.360 billion dollars). Now, the retail giant is suffering from Trump's tariff policy, with a reduction in its market capitalization of 22.87% (approximately 547.702 billion dollars). Amazon closed yesterday's session with a 10.6% drop....>

Whoosh! Hope they all choke on it!

<....Following Bezos is Sundar Pichai, CEO of Google. Google's parent company grew by 33.90% in the year before Trump's return, equivalent to around 604.867 billion dollars. Now, Alphabet is also among the fallen from grace, with losses in the stock market reaching 4.5% in the last session. Since the start of the trade war, its value has decreased by 27.6%, or around 615.473 billion dollars.

Last but not least, Elon Musk. Founder and CEO of Tesla and SpaceX, among other companies, he is, to date, part of the Trump Administration. In fact, in the year leading up to the inauguration, and as his prominence in the new America was becoming evident, the value of the vehicle companies surged by 101%, adding 690.078 billion dollars to their market capitalization. Despite the figures, among the Magnificent Seven, his is the most penalized in the course of events (which not only involve a trade war but also a decline in the magnate's popularity), with a cut in value approaching 44% (602.655.2 billion dollars).

At Trump's inauguration, perhaps not physically present but indirectly, was Microsoft. One of the curiosities of the president's inauguration was the million-dollar donation from major tech companies for the event.

Among them was Bill Gates' company, which increased its value by 7.62% (around 225.574 billion dollars) in the year before Trump's return. However, it also suffered a 2.6% drop on the last day of Wall Street, yesterday. In total, since the president's inauguration, it has lost 16.09% of its value (around 512.892 billion dollars).

Another member of the Magnificent Seven and also absent from the photo is Apple. This giant has experienced a Wall Street crash in recent days, as a significant portion of its device production is based in Asia, where Trump has imposed his most severe tariffs. While it managed to grow by 20% in the year before Trump's inauguration (around 583.984 billion dollars), in the following months, the tariff crisis has caused it to lose 18.09%, nearly 632.320 billion dollars. It dropped by 12% in yesterday's session, being one of the worst declines within the tech-heavy Nasdaq.

Also among the Magnificent Seven, the tech company Nvidia (which recently faced the Deepseek crisis) has not been able to escape a new crash. The value of the hardware and software manufacturer skyrocketed in the year before Trump's inauguration, multiplying its value by 131.48% (surpassing 1.908 trillion dollars). Yesterday, it suffered a 13.6% cut, another one of the most severe drops in the Wall Street trading session. In total, since Trump's arrival, its value has decreased by 31.49% (equivalent to 1.05 trillion dollars).

The photo comes at a cost: starting from Trump's inauguration, the Magnificent Seven have already accumulated losses of over 4.2 trillion dollars.>

<Republicans are growing anxious about an emerging Texas primary engulfing one of their longest-serving senators, fearful that a hugely expensive intraparty feud will have major ramifications across the map in next year’s midterms.

And they want President Donald Trump to stop it.

Behind the scenes, Senate GOP leaders have personally asked Trump to back Sen. John Cornyn, who has occupied his seat for more than two decades and narrowly lost his bid to become Senate majority leader last fall.

But the Texas attorney general, Ken Paxton, is sending loud signals that he plans to enter the race, endearing himself to MAGA loyalists who want Trump to back the controversial firebrand.

Adding to Cornyn’s challenges: Texas Rep. Wesley Hunt is now also making moves to enter the GOP primary and has privately contended to White House political advisers that he’s the only one who can win both a primary and a general election, according to a person involved in the discussion.

All that has added up to one overriding fear: that a Texas Senate GOP primary could end up costing their party at least $100 million, siphoning money from other critical battlegrounds, according to several Senate GOP sources. Plus, they worry that a wounded GOP nominee could end up giving Democrats a chance in what would otherwise be a long-shot pickup opportunity as former Rep. Colin Allred weighs another Senate run.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune confirmed to CNN that he’s spoken to Trump about it in recent weeks.

“I’m hoping that in the end, he can,” Thune said when asked about Trump supporting Cornyn. “Obviously we’re supporting Sen. Cornyn. He’s done a great job for Texas and for the country. And we need him back.”

The battle puts Trump at the center of the simmering feud between the party’s insurgent and establishment wings that has dominated GOP primary politics since the 2010 midterms, forcing him to pick sides and risk angering some of his most loyal supporters.

Cornyn, 73, a longtime fixture in Texas politics with deep ties to the business and donor community, has taken steps to try to align himself closely with the president, including a launch video featuring footage of Trump praising him from 2019 and even posting a photo on X of him reading “The Art of the Deal.”

In an interview last week, the Texas senator told CNN he is “prepared” for a primary fight, but he would not comment on Paxton or Hunt until they formally enter the race. (He said he would speak “endlessly” about Paxton if he jumps into the race.)

Asked about Trump, Cornyn said he speaks to the president regularly and believes he will “make an endorsement when he’s ready.”

“I have a very good relationship; look forward to supporting him and his agenda as I always have,” Cornyn said of Trump. Asked whether the president’s backing could make a difference in the race, Cornyn said: “I think his endorsement would be important, yeah.”

But both Paxton and Hunt have tried to show daylight between Cornyn and Trump.

In perhaps the clearest sign of his intentions to run against Cornyn, Hunt argued the senior senator was ready to “move on” from Trump after the 2020 elections.

“Now, he’s scrambling to rewrite history — hoping voters will forget he ever turned his back on the very movement that built our momentum and delivered the majority for Republicans, specifically the Senate,” Hunt, a hard-right Republican and combat veteran, told CNN.

“The United States Senate is not a retirement community. It’s a battleground for the soul of this nation,” said Hunt, 43, who won his Houston-area House seat in 2022. “And in times like these, President Trump doesn’t need fence sitters — he needs warriors.”

And Hunt is now benefiting from a seven-figure ad buy from an outside group looking to bolster his name ID across the state, something that will be critical given how infrequently House candidates win statewide in Texas.

Behind the scenes, multiple conservatives are making the case to Trump’s political team to ditch the long-serving senator — some equipped with private polling showing Cornyn losing in a primary, according to three people familiar with the outreach. They argue Cornyn has lost the GOP base in recent years, after voting with most Republicans and all Democrats to certify Joe Biden’s election win and partnering with Democrats to pass a major gun safety bill, a move that came in the wake of the Uvalde school massacre in 2022.

“There are high-level people who are behind Paxton in a way they’re generally not in primary challenges,” said one Senate GOP operative....>

<....But this person also outlined a scenario that is worrying national leaders, describing Paxton as a “very rough general election candidate in what looks like could be a bad cycle.”

After previously criticizing Trump over the January 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol, Cornyn worked through the last election cycle to rebuild his ties with the president, appearing with him at a campaign event in Nevada — and waiting on the tarmac last October when the president arrived in Austin for a podcast interview with Joe Rogan. Cornyn often points to his work as the Republican whip during Trump’s first term to help usher through the 2017 tax law and many of his nominees, including to the Supreme Court, and boasts of voting with Trump more than 90% of the time in his first term.

Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina, who leads the National Republican Senatorial Committee, and his team have made this case to White House officials, according to a person familiar with the discussion. And Scott has made clear to Hunt that they are fully behind Cornyn as their nominee when the pair met in recent weeks, according to two people briefed on that meeting.

The goal: curtail GOP primaries and focus the party’s limited resources on critical pickup opportunities such as Georgia, Michigan and New Hampshire — while defending Republican seats in places like Maine and North Carolina.

“We worked hard to try to clear primaries to try to minimize the amount of money spent in Republican primaries, and that strategy proved effective and allowed us to pick up the United States Senate in the last cycle,” Sen. Steve Daines of Montana, who led the NRSC in the 2024 cycle, told CNN last week. “So any time we can try to minimize the impact of a primary like in Texas, that’s going to help us win the general election.”

Cornyn, for his part, recently told CNN he can defeat any possible challengers: “There’s a reason why I’ve won 19 contested elections: Always be prepared.”

Democrats, meanwhile, are salivating at the idea of running against Paxton, who is a lightning-rod figure in Texas. Paxton, 62, was nearly removed from office by fellow Texas Republicans less than a year ago amid a long-running federal corruption probe. (Those charges were dropped by the Biden administration in its final weeks in office, and Paxton has denied wrongdoing.)

But the cloud of allegations will undoubtedly give Paxton’s opponents ample fodder in a Senate campaign, according to GOP and Democratic operatives.

Allred, a former congressman who lost by 8 points to GOP Sen. Ted Cruz last year, is “seriously considering” another run and will make a decision this summer, according to a person familiar with his thinking.

In a recent memo obtained by CNN, the Texas Democratic Party praised Allred’s race against Cruz, in which Allred overperformed the 2024 presidential nominee, Kamala Harris, in “nearly every county, demographic and metric” and did “particularly well” in the competitive turf along the Texas border that would be critical to a 2026 race....>

<....New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, who leads the Senate Democrats’ campaign arm, said her party is building a “blue wave” because of “anger” toward Trump.

“A large blue wave can affect any state,” she told CNN when asked last week about her party’s chances to pick up the Texas seat.

But many conservatives discount talk that Allred could win in a state that hasn’t elected a Democrat statewide since 1994. And given that, they argue Texas should elect an unyielding conservative firebrand — like Paxton, dismissing his political baggage.

Indeed, as conservatives flocked to Washington in February for the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, a small band of MAGA supporters arrived early to hear Trump’s longtime political ally Caroline Wren talk about the right’s potential 2026 primary targets.

In her view, moderate GOP Sen. Susan Collins wasn’t a worthy target because of Maine’s blue tilt: “Let’s just leave her alone. Don’t waste your time.”

Then she turned to Texas. “But how about John Cornyn in Texas? He’s up. Who would like to see a Sen. Ken Paxton?” she said as the crowd cheered.

It’s that burst of right-wing enthusiasm that has put Republicans on Capitol Hill in an awkward spot when asked about Cornyn’s reelection bid.

A number of Republicans in the delegation refuse to say whether they will back Cornyn, with some clearly waiting for Trump to tip his hand and others unsure how the primary fight will shape up.

“I’m gonna stay out of that minefield,” Rep. Keith Self, a Texas GOP member of the House Freedom Caucus, told CNN.

Cruz has been noticeably silent — even though Cornyn raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for Cruz’s reelection bid last year. Cruz’s initial silence is reminiscent of Cornyn’s 2014 reelection, when the senior senator faced a tea party-inspired challenger whom he vanquished in the primary. Cruz stayed neutral in the primary before backing Cornyn in the 2014 general election.

Twice in recent weeks, Cruz refused to respond when asked whether he’d back Cornyn. Asked by CNN last week whether he would endorse Cornyn, Cruz said: “Call the press office.” And then he let the elevator doors close when asked whether he had spoken to Paxton or Hunt about their potential bids.

But a Cruz spokesperson didn’t respond to requests for comment.>

<President Donald Trump declared his willingness to send American citizens to a notorious prison in El Salvador where his administration has sent alleged gang members.

The president has cut a deal with that nation's president, Nayib Bukele, to send suspect gang members who were deported from the U.S., and he told reporters Sunday evening on Air Force One that he was receptive to an invitation to send additional detainees there – including American citizens.

"I love that," Trump said. "If we could take some of our 20 time wise guys that push people into subways and hit people over the back of the head and purposely run people over in cars, if he would take them, I would be honored to give them.

“I don't know what the law says on that," he added. "I'm all for it. If they can house these horrible criminals for a lot less money than it costs us, I’m all for it.”

The administration sent three planes filled with Salvadoran and Venezuelan deportees to a "Terrorism Confinement Center," claiming without evidence they were all members of the Tren de Aragua gang.

However, U.S. District judge James E. Boasberg issued an order temporarily blocking the government from using the 1798 Alien Enemies Act while their actions were challenged in the courts, and Trump's statements caused alarm.

"He wants to send American citizens to a foreign gulag," posted podcaster Jon Favreau, a former speechwriter for Barack Obama.

"Real talk for a minute," said Stephanie Slade, senior editor for Reason. "I've been having some fun on this site over the last few days, but I sincerely believe this is an even bigger deal than what's that's happening with the markets, and Americans ignore it at our existential peril."

U.S. District judge Paula Xinis issued a scathing opinion against the Trump administration Sunday after officials admitted to mistakenly deporting a man living legally in the U.S. to the prison and demanded they bring him back, but Trump officials argue they lack the authority to remove him from the El Salvador facility.

"A reminder: the Trump administration has revealed NO DETAILS of the pact with El Salvador," posted Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow with the American Immigration Council. "We literally know nothing about it, other than we're paying them $6 million. No law in the United States authorizes us to pay another country to imprison people. And yet! They're doing it.">

<Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) delivered a dire warning to American consumers still digesting the effects of President Donald Trump’s massive set of tariffs as he painted a doomsday scenario he said the country is at “a very real risk of.”

The bleak outlook from the Republican senator came Friday on an episode of his podcast, “Verdict with Ted Cruz,” where he turned the tables on Trump and threw a veiled shot at his fellow Republicans.

“Virtually every trading partner of America is reeling right now,” Cruz said, adding that it would be “great” if the tariff plan leads to more American exports and doesn’t spark a global trade war.

“Let me give you the downside: there’s another way this could play out, which is other countries get p----d off, and they jack up tariffs, and they impose retaliatory tariffs on American goods, and the tariffs Trump put in place remain in place,” Cruz said.

He went on to tell listeners that if the country finds itself in a scenario in the next three months “with massive American tariffs and massive tariffs on American goods and every other country on earth – that is a terrible outcome. It’s terrible for Texas – which obviously I care about deeply – and it’s terrible for America. It will hurt jobs and hurt America and there is a very real risk of that.”

He added that if Trump’s plan ends up unleashing a trade war that accelerates tariffs “everywhere,” that in turn “would destroy jobs here at home and do real damage to the U.S. economy.”

Cruz left listeners with a parting message as he jabbed MAGA Republicans who remain faithful to Trump despite the gloomy economic forecast and global uncertainties surrounding the president’s tariffs.

“I’m seeing a lot of Republican cheerleaders who are kind of reflexively defending what the White House is doing,” Cruz said. “But here’s one thing to understand: a tariff is a tax, and it is a tax principally on American consumers.”

The Texas lawmaker concluded that the immediate impact of the tariffs is that the prices Americans will pay for goods “will go up significantly.”

“And that is painful,” Cruz said.>

<[Event "19th World Open"] [Site "Philadelphia PA"]
[Date "1991.07.??"]
[EventDate "1991"]
[Round "4"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Blankenau, Mike P"]
[Black "Remlinger, Larry"]
[ECO "E67"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]

<When President Donald Trump told NBC News he was "not joking" about a third term, he wasn't floating a trial balloon; he was announcing the next phase in Project 2025's 900+ page plan to destroy constitutional constraints.

It won't be that hard to achieve. The constitutional "methods" Trump casually referenced is actually brutally simple arithmetic. He already has the two-thirds of a Republican-dominated Congress necessary to rip the 22nd Amendment to shreds with terrifying efficiency. Same with securing three-fourths of Republican-dominated state legislature. And voilà—America's chief constitutional bulwark against autocracy dissolves.

For those who, against all evidence to the contrary, dismiss these ambitions as mere delusions, that's exactly what the British Empire—the mightiest global force of its day—said when 13 fractious colonies issued the Declaration of Independence almost 250 years ago this July. The British didn't dignify it as a "revolution;" they dismissed it as a "rebellion." It took Washington eight bloody years before they accepted the new reality—the exact number of years it'll take Trump, if he makes it to a third term, to end the American experiment.

The nation's leading scholars of fascism see it. That's why they're abandoning American universities for positions in Canada and Europe. They recognize what's unfolding with clinical precision. Their exodus leaves behind a populace that, like in the Weimar Republic, dismisses each authoritarian advance as temporary, necessary—or even more astonishing, somehow contained.

At first, term limits were a precedent, but they weren't codified. George Washington, the subject of my last book, left office after two terms because, in part, he believed that America should never be dependent on one man; there would be no king, religious leader, military dictator, or despot. The only reason to stay in power would be for power's sake—which is exactly what he warned us about in his Farewell Address.

The Founders weren't superhuman predictors of the future, but they sometimes sound like it. "The danger is that the indulgence and attachments of the people will keep a man in the chair after he becomes a dotard," Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1805, "that reelection through life shall become habitual, and election for life follow that."

Trump will be older than Joe Biden was at the end of his second term, the oldest president in American history, and it'll show—more than it already does. But the stability we felt during Biden's diminished state was in part thanks to the people he deputized. Three months in, Signalgate is just one of many signs that's not a luxury this administration will afford us. A third term will surely leave us with JD Vance's iteration of Elon Musk–Peter Thiel's technological surveillance state. At best.

Today's enabling class transcends familiar political boundaries—a bizarre pantheon of economically anxious voters, "family values" crusaders, Second Amendment absolutists, cryptocurrency evangelists, anti-vaccine wellness influencers, and historical revisionists who applaud the whitewashing of America's racial past. They're united only by their willingness to trade democratic norms for sectarian victories. Washington warned us about this, too, in lines he maddeningly cut from his Farewell Address: "Partial combinations of men, who though not in Office, from birth, riches or other sources of distinction, have extraordinary influence & numerous adherents" would subvert the very foundations of the republic, Washington warned. They fail to recognize that their incremental "wins" follow, with mechanical precision, the blueprint used by history's most effective autocrats. The mortgage on tyranny comes due after all the papers are signed—and by then, the property has already been foreclosed.

Let's remember why the 22nd Amendment exists. Even Franklin Roosevelt—a president who won four elections while defeating fascism abroad—alarmed Americans enough to codify presidential term limits after his death. This country recognized that even good men with noble causes shouldn't be the exception. Trump has no world war to win, yet hungers for the emergency powers such crises provide. He demands national unity while systematically degrading at least half the country's population—a fundamental contradiction that reveals his authoritarian instincts.

The Founders understood what we've forgotten—constitutions don't enforce themselves. When Washington voluntarily relinquished power after the revolution, King George III reportedly remarked, "If true, then he is the greatest man in the world." Washington's greatest legacy wasn't military victory but voluntary retirement—just as Trump's will be failing to evade it. Whether it'll be once or twice depends on us.

<Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued a seething dissent Monday to the court’s ruling allowing the Trump administration to use an 18th-century wartime law to deport Venezuelan migrants.

“The President of the United States has invoked a centuries-old wartime statute to whisk people away to a notoriously brutal, foreign-run prison,” wrote the court’s newest justice. “For lovers of liberty, this should be quite concerning.”

The statute in question is the rarely used Alien Enemies Act of 1798, which President Franklin Roosevelt invoked in 1941 to justify the incarceration of Japanese Americans in camps during World War II. The Supreme Court upheld the incarceration three years later when it ruled in Korematsu v. United States. It took the court nearly 75 years to admit that was a “gravely wrong” mistake.

What’s especially concerning, Jackson wrote regarding the current deportation case, is that the conservative-dominated Supreme Court ruled under its emergency docket, or “shadow docket,” without hearing any arguments or reviewing any briefings.

“At least when the Court went off base in the past, it left a record so posterity could see how it went wrong,” Jackson wrote, pointing to the Korematsu ruling.

“With more and more of our most significant rulings taking place in the shadows of our emergency docket, today’s Court leaves less and less of a trace,” she continued. “But make no mistake: We are just as wrong now as we have been in the past, with similarly devastating consequences. It just seems we are now less willing to face it.”

Jackson argued that it sets a dangerous precedent that the court quickly struck down the injunction from U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg, whose earlier ruling put a temporary halt on such deportations and ordered planeloads of Venezuelan migrants be returned to the United States. The Trump administration has claimed the migrants are dangerous gang members — without providing specific evidence — while lawyers for a number of the men have said they have no criminal history. Some were allegedly detained and sent to a notorious El Savladoran prison solely because they have tattoos.

“Surely, the question whether such Government action is consistent with our Constitution and laws warrants considerable thought and attention from the Judiciary,” Jackson wrote, adding: “But this Court now sees fit to intervene, hastily dashing off a four-paragraph per curiam opinion discarding the District Court’s order based solely on a new legal pronouncement that, one might have thought, would require significant deliberation.”

The court has gotten too comfortable moving forward with shadow docket rulings, she said.

“I lament that the Court appears to have embarked on a new era of procedural variability, and that it has done so in such a casual, inequitable, and, in my view, inappropriate manner,” Jackson wrote.>

<It seems that Vice President JD Vance has forgotten all about his tumultuous childhood in Appalachia that was riddled with poverty, hardships and curious stains on his family’s couch — but social media users did not.

Last week, Vance went on “Fox & Friends” to defend President Donald Trump’s seemingly nonsensical but globally devastating tariffs. During Vance’s word salad of an argument, he made the claim that if Americans are forced to be less dependent on global imports, it’ll prompt a revival of American manufacturing. Vance then attempted to stress America’s need for self-sufficiency by using a pretty loaded word to describe a nation the U.S. is currently indebted to, and provides Americans with a good portion of its imported goods.

“We borrow money from Chinese peasants to buy the things those Chinese peasants manufacture,” Vance told the Fox News show.

When clips of Vance’s “peasants” remark made its way on to X, formerly Twitter, some users were stunned by Vance’s hypocrisy due to his upbringing.

“Hey, You forget where you come from …Now you’re a noble new American aristocrat? Or have you always been a hypocrite 👑?” a user said.

“From someone who has used his ‘American peasant’ roots to craft his political image,” one user pointed out.

“He says ‘Chinese peasants’ with such venom and condescension. You would think the poverty in which he grew up would give him some empathy, but instead it did the opposite,” another user said.

Others decided to just point out the obvious.

“how do the chinese have money to lend you if they are peasants?” another user pointed out.

Yet most were completely perplexed by a world leader casually using such a dehumanizing word.

“genuinely how does a vice president get away with calling chinese people ‘peasants’ in 2025. holy @#$%,” one shocked user said.

“Racism, imperialism, arrogance and ignorance,” another user wrote of Vance’s choice of word.

“This language is unnecessarily provocative and offensive coming from such a high ranking politician,” another user said.

“I like Vance but why on earth does he need to use the word ‘peasant’. The rhetoric needs to change,” a user noted.

“with each passing day, you really do understand vance’s mother choosing percs over him,” a final user joked brutally.>

<A U.S. appeals court on Monday declined to lift an order blocking the Trump administration from sending people with final deportation orders to countries not cited in earlier proceedings without first letting them make a case for humanitarian protection.

The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a request by President Donald Trump's administration to put on hold a nationwide temporary restraining order issued by a judge on March 28.

The order has hobbled its ability to fast-track deportations of thousands of migrants who could not be removed to the countries they originated from for reasons including that the individuals had already won protections against being sent back.

Immigrant legal rights groups sued last week to prevent the administration from deporting migrants with final orders of removal to countries that were not previously raised in their immigration proceedings.

Their lawsuit, filed last week on behalf of a group of migrants, took aim at a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement policy designed to fast-track the deportations of thousands of migrants who had been released from detention.

The migrants' lawyers argue the policy exposed an untold number of people to the risk of being sent to countries they did not originate from and that were not listed in their final deportation orders as potential locations for deportation.

They said that lack of notice from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security deprived them of the ability to raise claims that they feared they could suffer persecution, torture or death if deported to those newly identified countries.

U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy, an appointee of Trump's Democratic predecessor Joe Biden, concluded on March 28 that the plaintiffs had established a likelihood of showing that the administration's practice violated their due process rights.

The judge, in a subsequent written version of his decision, said the administration had shown no concern that without a court order, deportations in violation of the Convention Against Torture could regularly and immediately occur.

"Due process requires that an individual be given notice of where they are being taken and a meaningful opportunity to show that, if taken there, they will likely be subject to persecution, torture, or death," he wrote.

The Trump administration swiftly appealed what it called an "unlawful" order by Murphy, saying the judge lacked jurisdiction and abused his discretion to issue a nationwide restraining order that would interfere with the president's immigration authority.

The U.S. Department of Justice said in a brief on Saturday that Murphy "has potentially prevented the execution of possibly thousands of pending removal orders and may have irreparably harmed the executive's ability to negotiate the return of aliens to countries of which they are not a citizen."

While the appeal was pending, the Department of Homeland Security issued new guidance on Sunday providing that, before a migrant can be deported to a third country, that country needed to state that it had provided diplomatic assurances that migrants would not be persecuted or tortured.

The Justice Department last week asked Murphy to advise whether he would dissolve his restraining order in light of the guidance. The judge asked the plaintiffs to respond to that request by March 28.

Trina Realmuto, a lawyer for the migrants at the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, in a statement faulted the new policy, saying a promise from a foreign government to not torture people "is neither legal nor enforceable.">