President Joe Biden reportedly intervened in 2021 after reports surfaced of turmoil within Vice President Kamala Harris’s office, warning her staff to either support Harris or risk being fired.
In response to staff turnover and dysfunction, Biden emphasized the need for loyalty, leading to an eventual uptick in office stability and staff endorsements for her presidential bid, as The Independent explains.
The reports of internal strife in Harris’s office surfaced in mid-2021, during her first year in office. The vice president’s team experienced a high level of turnover, with more than 90% of her original staff departing by 2024. According to sources, frustrations over Harris’s leadership style, described as overly prosecutorial, contributed to the tension. Staffers expressed discomfort with Harris’s detailed questioning of her schedule and briefings.
In the face of these challenges, Biden reportedly stepped in to address the discontent within Harris’s team. According to sources familiar with the situation, he issued a stern warning to her staffers, making it clear that loyalty to Harris was non-negotiable. Those who could not adhere to this standard risked being removed from their positions.
This intervention was aimed at stabilizing the vice president’s office, which was increasingly seen as dysfunctional by both current and former staffers. In interviews with POLITICO in June 2021, several aides painted a picture of a negative working environment. Despite the intervention, tensions continued for some time, and turnover remained high.
By 2024, nearly all of Harris’s original team had departed, though her office had become more stable as she reportedly adapted her leadership approach.
Harris’s leadership style, particularly her tendency to ask pointed and specific questions, was a recurring theme in critiques from her staff. Some described her management as overly demanding, which contributed to the early instability in her office. The vice president’s scrutiny of every detail in her daily schedule and briefings frustrated some staff members, who found the approach exhausting.
However, over time, Harris’s office found a more sustainable path forward. The turnover rate, while still high, eventually began to slow. Harris adjusted her management style, contributing to a more cohesive and stable team environment by 2024.
High turnover in political offices is not unusual, especially in demanding and high-pressure environments. President Biden’s executive branch has seen a turnover rate of approximately 71%, a figure not far from Harris’s office. Comparatively, the turnover rate for former President Donald Trump’s senior-level staff was said to be about 91%, signaling the pressures of top-tier government positions.
In light of the similarities in turnover rates, the working environment in the Trump administration was also described as chaotic by former aides. Several of Trump’s staffers echoed the complaints that surfaced in Harris’s office, noting a similarly negative atmosphere during their time in the White House. As Harris’s office stabilized, it became evident that the vice president had managed to adapt and grow from the challenges that plagued her early tenure.
By the time the 2024 election season approached, the atmosphere in Harris’s office was said to have shifted notably. Staff turnover had slowed, and the overall working environment was reportedly much improved. Many of the vice president’s former aides expressed renewed confidence in her abilities, especially in light of her potential presidential bid.
A letter from staffers endorsing Harris highlighted her strength and resilience, qualities they said had been apparent even during the most challenging moments of her vice presidency. The former staffers pointed to what they said was her history of tackling tough issues and advocating for marginalized communities as proof of her readiness for higher office. “We have seen her take on bad actors and fight for those who are overlooked and left behind,” the letter stated. “And she has delivered results in every office she has ever held.”
As Harris moves closer to a potential presidential run, efforts to put the turmoil of her early days as vice president seem to have succeeded to a degree. Her office, once plagued by turnover and dysfunction, now claims to be ready to tackle the next challenge.
Federal investigations into top appointees of New York City Mayor Eric Adams’ administration have led to the postponement of his campaign kickoff, raising concerns about his political future.
A planned campaign event for Adams has been postponed after federal agents conducted raids on senior officials in his administration, prompting questions about the impact on his re-election prospects, as Politico reports.
The campaign event, originally set for September 14 at Gracie Mansion, was delayed after federal authorities executed search warrants targeting key figures in Adams’ administration. These include First Deputy Mayor Sheena Wright and NYPD Commissioner Edward Caban, both of whom are central to his governance team. The postponement came just days after invitees received an email notification about the change, which cited unspecified reasons for the delay.
This latest development has added to the pressure on Adams, who is already facing multiple federal investigations. Reports from NBC New York revealed two additional probes involving alleged profiteering by individuals connected to the mayor, bringing the total number of federal investigations to four. These allegations threaten to overshadow Adams' reelection campaign and could diminish public confidence in his leadership.
Amid these legal challenges, the mayor’s allies have suggested that the investigations are politically and racially motivated. Bishop Mitchell Taylor, a prominent community leader, argued that Adams is being unfairly targeted because of his race. "This is racially infused," Taylor remarked, questioning whether similar investigations would have been pursued under different circumstances. Taylor emphasized the lack of concrete charges so far, stating, “The public deserves to know what we’re talking about.”
Other prominent voices in New York have echoed these sentiments. Assemblymember Rodneyse Bichotte Hermelyn and former Gov. David Paterson have both hinted at the possibility of political retribution, with Paterson, in particular, cautioning against prematurely drawing conclusions about the investigations. Still, as Paterson noted in a WABC radio interview, political motives cannot be ruled out, given the high stakes for Adams in his battle to retain office.
Adding to this speculation, some have linked Adams' recent criticism of President Joe Biden’s handling of the migrant crisis to potential political payback from the federal government. Adams has been outspoken about the strain of Biden’s migrant policy on New York City, leading to tensions between City Hall and the White House.
Despite Adams' efforts to downplay the federal probes, his political opponents are seizing the moment to challenge his leadership. Comptroller Brad Lander and other mayoral contenders have raised concerns about the mayor’s ability to focus on the city’s pressing issues while under federal scrutiny. In a post on X, Lander emphasized the need for “steady leadership,” a sentiment echoed by progressive activists and former city officials.
Former Comptroller Scott Stringer, another potential candidate, has also been vocal in his criticism of Adams. Stringer questioned Adams' focus in light of the federal raids, suggesting that the mayor might not be fully attuned to the city's needs. "If this is what his focus looks like, he needs new lenses," Stringer remarked, reflecting growing discontent among the city’s progressive base. Calls for resignations within Adams’ administration have also gained momentum, with activists from New York Communities for Change and other political groups pressuring the mayor to clean house.
However, not all voices are calling for immediate action against Adams. Bishop Taylor and Assemblymember Bichotte Hermelyn have urged caution, warning against making assumptions before all the facts are known. They have pointed out the lack of formal charges or specific accusations against the mayor himself, suggesting that the investigations may ultimately prove to be unfounded.
State Sen. Zellnor Myrie, while refraining from directly criticizing Adams, has instead chosen to focus on policy initiatives that resonate with his constituents. Myrie, for example, has highlighted his work on free afterschool programs, sidestepping the political drama surrounding Adams while still presenting an alternative vision for the city. Meanwhile, former Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who has been rumored to be weighing another run for public office, has remained notably silent on the matter.
While the investigations have undoubtedly complicated Adams’ reelection bid, political analysts believe that the outcome remains uncertain. A political consultant commented that Adams could still win reelection, particularly if the federal investigations fail to produce clear evidence of wrongdoing.
“I’m innocent, I haven’t been accused of anything,” Adams could argue, the consultant suggested, positioning the probes as an attack on his character and leadership.
House Republicans have intensified their investigation into the Biden administration’s chaotic exit from Afghanistan, a subject that is heating up as the 2024 election draws near.
The expanding inquiry, focused on military and political failures, has become a major point of criticism from Republicans, especially former President Donald Trump, as Vice President Kamala Harris faces scrutiny on the campaign trail, as the Washington Post reports.
Congressional Republicans, led by Rep. Michael McCaul, are seeking testimony from key military figures involved in the August 2021 evacuation from Kabul, which followed the collapse of the Afghan government.
The military officers under the spotlight are Army Lt. Gen. Christopher Donahue, Navy Rear Adm. Peter Vasely, and Marine Corps Brig. Gen. Farrell Sullivan. All three played critical roles during the hasty evacuation and have reportedly expressed frustration with how the Biden administration handled the situation.
While the officers have provided testimony in the past, the Republican-led House Foreign Affairs Committee is pushing for more, seeking to uncover deeper insights into the withdrawal process. The chaos surrounding the withdrawal has remained a flashpoint for GOP criticism, particularly focusing on the deaths of 13 U.S. service members in a suicide bombing near Kabul’s airport during the evacuation.
Pentagon spokesman James Adams confirmed that while the officers have previously voiced their views on the situation, no new congressional requests for testimony have been officially submitted. However, the House committee’s actions suggest that a report condemning the Biden administration is likely in the works.
Rep. McCaul and his fellow Republicans are determined to paint the Biden administration's handling of the withdrawal as a failure, hoping to make it a key issue in the upcoming election. “It is up to the American people to determine if they believe these things should disqualify Vice President Harris from continuing the Biden-Harris administration another four years,” McCaul stated.
In response, Democrats argue that the investigation is being used as a political weapon. They emphasize that Trump’s February 2020 deal with the Taliban, which established the framework for the U.S. withdrawal, is often overlooked in the current inquiry. An independent report by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction in 2022 highlighted that Trump’s agreement significantly weakened the Afghan government’s ability to resist the Taliban.
Rep. Jason Crow, a Democrat from Colorado, voiced concern that the investigation is ignoring the broader context of the 20-year war, focusing instead on a brief period under the Biden administration. “Ultimately, they decided to take a partisan approach to this, and weaponize the investigation, and make it just about a one-month period of an over-20-year war,” Crow said. White House spokeswoman Sharon Yang echoed these sentiments, criticizing the GOP-led investigation as offering nothing new and merely rehashing old partisan talking points.
As Trump prepares to challenge Harris in the 2024 race, the Afghanistan withdrawal is becoming a central theme in his attacks. Some families of the service members who died in the Kabul bombing have joined Trump in criticizing the Biden administration's role in the evacuation. Jim McCollum, the father of one Marine who died in the bombing, believes the National Security Council bears significant responsibility for the event.
While Republicans build their case against the Biden-Harris administration, some within the committee have expressed concerns over how the investigation is being handled. Conservative journalist Jerry Dunleavy, who worked on the probe, resigned out of frustration, citing mismanagement and accusing the investigation of becoming overly partisan. Even with criticism from within, Republicans are expected to push forward, using the investigation as a tool to sway voters.
As the committee continues its work, the final outcome will likely include two opposing reports. Republicans are expected to release a scathing condemnation of the administration’s handling of the withdrawal, while Democrats will likely counter with a defense of the decision to end the two-decade war in Afghanistan.
For Republicans, the investigation serves not only as a way to scrutinize the Biden-Harris record but as a potent tool in the 2024 campaign. Trump’s focus on the withdrawal, particularly the tragedy of the Kabul bombing, is expected to resonate with a portion of the electorate, especially those who have been critical of how the war ended.
Former President Donald Trump took aim at his own legal team during a press conference in New York City on Friday, expressing dissatisfaction with their handling of the case involving writer E. Jean Carroll.
Trump voiced his frustration with his attorneys after a hearing related to a potential retrial in the case, questioning their strategies and criticizing key decisions, as Newsweek reports.
During the event, Trump made several remarks critical of his attorneys, claiming they mishandled his defense against Carroll's accusations. In 2023, a jury found Trump guilty of sexual abuse, awarding Carroll $5 million in damages. He spent much of the press conference venting his disappointment and addressing aspects of the case that he felt were inadequately handled by his legal team.
The press conference, which was initially billed as part of Trump's campaign for the 2024 election, quickly turned into a platform for the former president to air his grievances regarding his legal battles. Trump called out his attorneys for not pushing back hard enough in the case, referencing specific evidence he believed should have been highlighted.
One point of contention involved a dress that Carroll claimed to have worn during the alleged incident. Trump said the dress contained an unknown man’s DNA, yet his attorneys did not submit his DNA for testing. He expressed frustration over this decision, suggesting that it could have played a significant role in his defense.
Trump also attacked the judiciary system, accusing the judges of bias. He pointed out that the jury pool in the trial came from a predominantly Democratic area, with only 4 percent of the jurors identifying as Republican. This, Trump argued, made it impossible for him to receive a fair trial.
During the event, Trump invited his attorney, Will Scharf, to speak. Scharf described Carroll's allegations as "utterly implausible" and claimed that there was no corroborating evidence to support her story. He emphasized that the case was essentially a "he said-she said" situation, and questioned how Trump could be held accountable without more substantial proof.
Trump himself continued to denounce Carroll’s accusations. At one point, he criticized a former lawyer from his team for not allowing him to attend key parts of the first trial. Trump maintained that he had no involvement with Carroll and suggested that his absence at the trial played a role in the outcome. “So, I didn’t show up, and I was found guilty for something I did not do,” Trump said during the press conference, reiterating his claim that he had never had any interaction with Carroll. He went further, dismissing her completely by stating, “I would not want to be involved with her.”
Beyond his criticism of how the Carroll case was handled, Trump voiced frustration with other legal teams working on his behalf. He complained that his attorneys were not acting aggressively enough in his other legal battles, including the cases related to the Capitol unrest and the handling of classified documents. Trump framed these legal challenges as politically motivated, referring to them as part of a broader "witch hunt" against him. He argued that political forces were using these cases as a means to interfere with his bid for the White House in 2024.
The press conference, which began with a focus on the legal hearing, soon expanded to include Trump's attacks on various witnesses and individuals involved in the cases against him. He repeatedly asserted that the judicial system was biased and unfairly targeting him.
In addition to the $5 million awarded to Carroll in 2023, Trump’s comments during the press conference could reignite further legal consequences. Carroll had previously filed a defamation suit over Trump's public remarks, and in early 2024, she was awarded an additional $83.3 million in damages.
Despite these financial penalties, Trump continued to criticize Carroll openly during the press conference, potentially risking another round of legal repercussions. He dismissed her claims outright, continuing to attack her character and the legitimacy of her accusations.
Trump’s remarks did little to address the specifics of his defense strategy moving forward. Instead, they painted a picture of a frustrated defendant who believes the system is rigged against him, and that his legal teams have not done enough to protect him.
In a significant legal development, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has been removed from the presidential ballots in both North Carolina and Michigan, following appeals court decisions in both states.
These rulings have prompted delays in absentee ballot distribution as state officials scramble to adjust their election processes to fit the final slate of candidates, as NBC News reports.
In North Carolina, an appeals court on Friday reversed a previous lower court ruling and ordered Kennedy’s name to be removed from the ballot. The ruling came just a day after the lower court had denied the request, setting off a chain of actions among election officials to halt the mailing of ballots to voters.
The North Carolina State Board of Elections quickly responded to the ruling, emailing county election officials to stop the mailing of ballots. According to Paul Cox, general counsel for the state election authority, officials are now reviewing the order to determine the next steps. "Obviously, this will be a major undertaking for everyone," Cox said.
As a result of the court decision, North Carolina counties are required to reprint ballots, an action that is expected to significantly delay the mailing process. This could especially affect military personnel and overseas voters who rely on receiving their ballots in a timely manner to cast their votes.
In Michigan, a similar scenario is unfolding. An appeals court ruled to remove Kennedy from the state’s ballot, a decision that clashes with the stance taken by Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson. Benson had supported keeping Kennedy on the ballot, but now faces an uphill battle in appealing the ruling.
Angela Benander, spokesperson for Benson, announced that an appeal will be filed immediately. With military and overseas ballots needing to be mailed by Sept. 21, Michigan is working under tight deadlines. Absentee ballots for the general public are scheduled for release on Sept. 26, further compounding the urgency of the situation.
Benander emphasized the critical nature of adhering to these deadlines to ensure that all eligible voters, especially those serving abroad, have the opportunity to participate in the 2024 election. “Benson plans to appeal immediately, as military and overseas ballots must go out soon,” Benander said in a statement.
Kennedy’s removal from the ballot comes after the presidential candidate withdrew from the race and endorsed former President Donald Trump. Initially running as a third-party candidate, Kennedy’s presence on the ballot had been seen as potentially weakening support for the Republican nominee.
The legal battles over ballot access are not expected to end with these decisions. In both North Carolina and Michigan, election authorities are reviewing their options, and additional appeals could arise in the coming days. Officials in both states are grappling with how to move forward while balancing legal requirements and voter access.
For voters, particularly those who are serving overseas, these delays could present obstacles to receiving and returning ballots in time. The pressure is now on state officials to rectify the situation quickly, ensuring minimal disruption to the election process.
While the cost of reprinting ballots is one major concern, the implications for the broader election timeline are just as pressing. States must balance the need to follow court rulings with the need to ensure a fair and accessible election process for all citizens, including those abroad.
As the November 2024 election approaches, these ballot issues add another layer of complexity to what is already shaping up to be a contentious election season. With appeals likely, the situation in North Carolina and Michigan will continue to develop in the coming weeks.
The 2024 presidential race faces growing questions over the health transparency of both former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris.
With just two months until Election Day, neither candidate has provided comprehensive, recent medical records, as CBS News reports.
As voters prepare to cast their ballots, the lack of detailed health updates from both Trump and Harris has raised curiosity about the respective physical fitness to lead the country.
At 78 years old, former President Donald Trump’s health is under intense scrutiny. During an interview on Aug. 20, Trump stated that he had recently undergone an annual physical and would release the results “very gladly,” yet no detailed records have emerged. Instead, a brief letter from his doctor, Bruce Aronwald, declared Trump’s overall health to be “excellent” following a September 2023 examination. Specifics, however, were not disclosed.
Concerns about Trump’s health aren’t new. In 2020, he was hospitalized after contracting COVID-19 and has previously been considered obese based on a June 2020 health summary. His past records listed his weight at 244 pounds, and his blood pressure was recorded at 121/79. Trump also underwent cognitive tests in the past, though the results were never made public. Despite the lack of current detailed health updates, the former president insists his health is robust.
At 59 years old, Vice President Kamala Harris has also faced scrutiny for not releasing updated medical records. Although Harris tested positive for COVID-19 in April 2022 and recovered after using Paxlovid, no recent comprehensive physical results have been shared with the public. Requests from CBS News for such records have gone unanswered.
Harris did visit Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in July 2021 for a routine checkup, but the details of that appointment remain largely unknown. Since becoming the Democratic nominee just last month, Harris has yet to provide a letter from her physician, a point of surprise among some political observers. While it’s worth noting that Harris is 19 years younger than Trump, political analysts like Matt Dallek suggest that her lack of transparency may hinder her campaign.
In recent decades, presidential candidates have faced increasing pressure to disclose their health status. Since the 1980s, it has become customary for nominees to release at least some medical information to reassure voters of their fitness for office. Both Trump and President Joe Biden made their health records public by this time during the 2020 election cycle.
In contrast, Harris’ delay in sharing her health details is unusual for a candidate of her stature. Dallek acknowledges that the relatively short time Harris has been in the race may be a factor, but he still finds the absence of information concerning. He suggests that even limited details could quell some voter anxiety.
Gene Healy, a political analyst, echoes this sentiment. Healy expresses doubt about the accuracy of health summaries provided by candidates and advocates for independent medical evaluations. He argues that history has shown how many presidents’ true health conditions were obscured while they were in office, leading to public mistrust.
While voters may expect transparency, there is no legal requirement for candidates to release their medical records. The U.S. does not mandate health disclosures from presidential nominees or sitting presidents, leaving it up to the discretion of the candidates themselves.
Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin has proposed a bill that would require future presidents to undergo independent medical evaluations. This proposal stems from growing concerns about the physical and cognitive abilities of aging leaders. However, the bill has not yet gained significant traction in Congress.
In the absence of a legal obligation, candidates like Trump and Harris may continue to withhold detailed health information. Despite public pressure, both campaigns have remained largely silent on the issue as Election Day approaches.
As millions of Americans struggle to find time for vacations, President Joe Biden’s bountiful time off stands in sharp contrast.
Many Americans leave paid vacation days unused, while Biden has taken over 500 days off during his presidency, as the Washington Examiner reports, seemingly confirming rumors that he would be permitted to carry out the last months of his term as he saw fit, provided he ended his re-election campaign, as the Washington Examiner reports.
Americans are well-known for being hesitant to take vacation days. Despite having an average of 12 paid days off each year, most workers don’t use all of them. In fact, Americans take an average of just 11 vacation days annually, according to recent data. Some workers say they’re simply too busy to take a break from their jobs.
This reluctance to take vacations places Americans behind many of their global counterparts. For example, Japanese employees take an average of 12 vacation days each year. Despite everyday Americans' hesitation, President Biden has reportedly taken a staggering 532 days off in less than four years.
Biden’s vacation habits are a stark contrast to the American worker’s reality. Using data from travel company Expedia, Biden’s time off is equivalent to more than 48 years of vacation time for the average American employee. This comparison highlights the disparity between the president’s time off and the typical work-life balance experienced by many in the U.S.
The president frequently spends his vacations at his Wilmington, Delaware, home or at the beach in Delaware. Despite his time away from the White House, he remains on call for national matters and has been seen using his cellphone during these vacations. His vacations are regular, yet Biden is often spotted conducting presidential business during his time off.
Though the president’s frequent vacations raise eyebrows, the reality is that many Americans are overworked. A significant 32% of U.S. workers go a year or more without taking a single vacation, according to one report. In contrast, the global average is much lower, at around 18% of workers worldwide experiencing such long gaps between vacations.
For many, the idea of taking time off simply isn’t realistic. Whether due to demanding jobs or economic pressures, workers in the U.S. continue to struggle with the concept of work-life balance. With only 12 paid vacation days on average, it’s not uncommon for workers to forgo taking time off entirely.
This problem is compounded by the fact that American workers report feeling too busy to step away from their jobs. For some, the risk of falling behind or missing out on opportunities at work makes taking a break seem like a luxury rather than a necessity. This attitude toward vacation time creates a culture where workers are continually grinding, even at the expense of their well-being.
Meanwhile, the president’s approach to vacationing presents a stark contrast to that of the everyday worker. While many Americans hesitate to take time off, Biden has been able to spend more than 500 days on vacation, mostly at his Delaware properties.
President Biden’s extensive vacation time has not gone unnoticed by the public. As he continues to work remotely during his time off, many question the optics of such frequent vacations during a time when the average American is struggling to maintain a healthy work-life balance.
Although Biden stays in communication and is available for urgent matters, his lengthy periods away from the White House have raised concerns among some critics. These vacations, however, are in line with the tradition of presidents taking time away from Washington, D.C., to manage the stresses of the office.
Still, the comparison between Biden’s time off and the average American worker’s vacation habits remains stark. While Americans are twice as likely as their global counterparts to go a year or more without a break, the president has enjoyed more than a year’s worth of vacations in just three years.
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s incoming class is less diverse this year, following a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling on affirmative action in college admissions.
The 2024 data reveals a shift in the composition of UNC Chapel Hill’s student body, with a notable decline in minority enrollment and an increase in white and Asian students, as NC Newsline reports.
The university’s latest data shows that students identifying as white or Asian now make up 89.6% of first-year and transfer students, compared to 88.5% in 2023. Meanwhile, students from Black, Hispanic, and Native American backgrounds have seen a decrease, now comprising 19% of the class, down from 22.9% last year.
This marks the first academic year since the Supreme Court struck down the use of race-based considerations in admissions. The June 2023 decision, a 6-3 decision made along ideological lines, found that these policies violated the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause.
Following this decision, many universities, including UNC Chapel Hill, had to adjust their admissions processes. The university has acknowledged that it is still too early to determine long-term trends from a single year of data. “It’s too soon to see trends with just one year of data,” said Rachelle Feldman, the university’s vice provost for enrollment, in a statement.
Of the specific demographic changes, the largest drop was among Black students, whose enrollment decreased from 10.5% in 2023 to 7.8% in 2024. Hispanic enrollment also fell from 10.8% to 10.1%, and Native American students now make up just 1.1% of the class, down from 1.6% the previous year.
While the overall number of minority students decreased, the percentage of Asian students grew from 24.8% in 2023 to 25.8% this year. White students saw a slight increase, moving from 63.7% to 63.8% of the student population. Other smaller demographic groups, like Pacific Islanders, also saw modest growth, with their numbers increasing from 0.2% to 0.3% this year.
Despite these shifts, UNC Chapel Hill is committed to ensuring access for students from all backgrounds, according to Feldman. The university continues to welcome students from all 100 counties of North Carolina and beyond.
“We are committed to following the new law,” Feldman stated. She emphasized that UNC remains dedicated to making students from all parts of the state feel welcome and supported on campus, despite the changes in admissions policies. Feldman added that the university strives to ensure all students have confidence in the affordability and accessibility of a UNC education.
Despite the changes in diversity, interest in the university remains high. The school received a record number of applications for the fall 2024 semester, with 73,192 students applying, a 15.8% increase from the previous year.
The incoming class includes 4,641 first-year students and 983 transfer students, with 4,608 of them hailing from North Carolina. Another 1,016 students are from out-of-state or international locations. Students in the 2024 class come from all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and 79 countries, showing a broad geographic reach even as the racial diversity within the U.S. portion of the student body has shifted.
As the first-year post-affirmative action ruling landscape unfolds, many observers will be watching how the demographic trends at UNC Chapel Hill evolve. While some groups have seen enrollment declines, the university's leadership is focused on ensuring that students from every background can find a place at the institution.
Looking ahead, UNC Chapel Hill will likely continue to adapt its admissions strategies in light of the Supreme Court ruling, as schools across the country face similar challenges. The full impact of these changes may only become clear in future years. The drop in Black, Hispanic, and Native American enrollment stands in contrast to an increase in white and Asian students, reflecting the broader effects of the court's decision.
A New York judge has delayed former President Donald Trump’s sentencing in the hush money case led by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.
Justice Juan Merchan rescheduled the sentencing -- in which Trump could receive prison time -- for Nov. 26, moving it beyond the presidential election, as Just the News reports.
The sentencing stems from Trump’s conviction earlier this year on 34 counts of falsifying business records. These charges are related to a 2016 payment made by Trump’s former attorney, Michael Cohen, to adult film star Stormy Daniels. The payment was made in an effort to keep Daniels from publicly discussing her alleged affair with Trump, a claim the former president has consistently denied.
The sentencing was originally scheduled for July 11, but was first postponed to Sept. 18. Now, in a second delay, the new date has been set for November 26. This timing moves it to just after the upcoming presidential election, in which Trump is once again seeking to win the White House.
Trump’s legal team had sought to delay the sentencing further while filing motions to dismiss the charges. His attorneys argue that the former president’s actions should have been protected under presidential immunity, given that the payment to Daniels was made during his 2016 campaign. This legal strategy has sparked debate among legal experts and political commentators.
A hearing was also scheduled for Sept. 16 to address Trump’s claims to immunity, but that has also been postponed. The hearing could play a significant role in the trajectory of the case moving forward.
In addition to seeking delays, Trump has asked the court to dismiss the guilty verdict entirely. His legal team contends that critical evidence and testimony should have been excluded, citing a recent ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court that could influence the former president's claims of presidential immunity.
Trump has consistently denied any wrongdoing, maintaining that the payment to Daniels was a personal matter and not a violation of campaign finance laws. He has framed the case as politically motivated, suggesting that the charges were part of a broader effort to derail his 2024 campaign.
The delay in sentencing gives Trump more time to focus on his presidential run without the immediate distraction of a legal ruling hanging over his head. However, the ongoing legal battles ensure that the case will remain a significant part of the political landscape.
The Manhattan District Attorney’s office, under Bragg, has indicated it will continue to pursue the case vigorously. Bragg has faced significant pressure from both political supporters and detractors, many of whom argue that the case has broader implications for the rule of law and the accountability of elected officials.
For Trump, the delay represents both a temporary reprieve and an ongoing challenge. While he avoids immediate sentencing, the legal questions surrounding the case will likely remain a focus as his campaign progresses.
As the Nov. 26 sentencing date approaches, the intersection of Trump’s legal troubles and his political ambitions will continue to be a topic of significant public interest. Both his critics and supporters will be watching closely to see how the case unfolds and what impact, if any, it has on the broader election campaign.
The former president’s future, both in the courtroom and on the campaign trail, remains uncertain as legal battles continue to swirl around him.
Former President Donald Trump has expressed his opinions following a decision to delay his sentencing in the New York v. Trump case until after the 2024 presidential election.
Judge Juan Merchan agreed to postpone the sentencing, responding to a request from Trump's legal team to avoid impacting the electoral process, as Fox News reports.
Merchan set the new date for Nov. 26. The sentencing had already been rescheduled twice, first from July 11 to Sept. 18. Trump's lawyers argued that a sentencing during the election season would unduly influence and disrupt the proceedings.
Trump has harshly criticized the case in its entirety, claiming his innocence and assertingthat the subsequent delays indicate the lack of grounds for his conviction.
"The case should be dead," Trump stated, emphasizing that he committed no wrongdoing and describing the case as politically charged. He added: "The public understands that and so does every legal scholar that has looked at it and studied it."
Judge Merchan justified the delay by stating the public's trust in the judicial system necessitated a distraction-free sentencing, should it be required. He emphasized the complexity of the current period and the need for a focused sentencing hearing.
Merchan explained, "The public's confidence in the integrity of our judicial system demands a sentencing hearing that is entirely focused on the verdict of the jury and the weighing of aggravating and mitigating factors free from distraction or distortion." Explaining the depth of the situation, he remarked, "We are now at a place in time that is fraught with complexities rendering the requirements of a sentencing hearing, should one be necessary, difficult to execute."
Trump's appeal is based on arguments related to presidential immunity, which he says are supported by a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling. He continues to challenge the verdict and questions the impartiality of the judicial process.
Adding to the controversy, Trump suggested a conflict of interest connected to Judge Merchan’s daughter, who has worked with Democratic candidates, further implying political motivation behind his conviction. Trump maintained, "The case was delayed because everyone realizes there was no case and I did nothing wrong."
Steven Cheung, a spokesperson for Trump, echoed the president’s sentiments, calling the case an "election interference witch hunt" and criticizing the judicial proceedings.
"There should be no sentencing in the Manhattan DA’s election interference witch hunt," Cheung declared, referencing what he views as politically motivated attacks against Trump. Cheung added, "As mandated by the United States Supreme Court, this case, along with all of the other Harris-Biden hoaxes, should be dismissed."
Judge Juan Merchan granted former President Donald Trump's request to delay his sentencing, now scheduled for Nov. 26. The delay follows Trump's appeal of the verdict resulting from a six-week trial led by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. Trump continues to claim his innocence and criticizes the case as politically motivated, raising questions about judicial impartiality.
Merchan asserts that public trust in the judicial system necessitates a focused and distraction-free sentencing hearing if it occurs. The trial's evidence included official communications from Trump’s administration, and the president’s legal team has invoked presidential immunity in its appeal. Trump's statements and the involvement of Judge Merchan’s daughter in Democratic campaigns have fueled ongoing political and legal debates.