Search This Blog

Saturday, August 16, 2025

The Real House Dem Nightmare: Party could lose 10 seats in 2030 as voters flee blue states.

 California Gov. Gavin Newsom is promising a referendum in November to gerrymander five more Democratic House seats on top of the 43 of 52 they already have in the state. Even if it works, his victory may be short-lived. The real problem for Democrats is that progressive policies are driving population flight, which on current trend could cost their states 10 House seats after 2030.

Migration from blue to red states is one of the great stories of the age. It accelerated during the Covid lockdowns as Americans fled states with high taxes and living costs—and disorderly streets and lousy schools. Sayonara, San Francisco. Hello, Salt Lake City.

***

Start with the raw numbers. Between 2020 and 2024, California (-1,465,116), New York (-966,209) and Illinois (-418,056) lost the population equivalent of Kansas to other states. Texas (747,730) and Florida (872,722) gained the equivalent of West Virginia. Utah, Idaho, Arizona and North Carolina also experienced a rush of newcomers.

Births and foreign migration have somewhat lessened the population losses in Democratic-run states. But their populations are nonetheless aging as young people and families leave. Between 2020 and 2024, California’s population under the age of 18 shrank by 523,000, while New York’s fell by 250,000 and Illinois’s by 186,000.

School closures during the pandemic no doubt contributed to their loss of children, but maybe parents also don’t want their children learning about the varieties of sexual experience in third-grade or being taught that America was founded to preserve slavery. Just a thought. Texas gained 199,000 children and Florida 219,000 in the same period.

While slowing immigration under President Trump will dampen population growth in some Republican-led states like Texas and Florida, it will steepen losses in many Democratic states. Notable, though, is that many immigrants who initially come to New York, California and Illinois later leave for other states—for the same reasons native citizens do.

Only about one-third of immigrants who came to California between 2010 and 2023 on net stayed in the state. Immigrants who arrive in Florida and Texas are more likely to settle there. California’s foreign-born population increased by about 600,000 between 2010 and 2023, versus roughly 1.5 million for both Florida and Texas.

What do you know? Immigrants want good schools, affordable housing, safe neighborhoods and cheap energy too. It’s tough for day laborers to make a decent living in Brentwood when they’re paying $5 a gallon to fill up a truck and $2,500 a month for a one-bedroom apartment to house a family of four.

Oh, and good luck trying to start a taqueria or McDonald’s franchise in California or New York with their regulations, taxes, minimum-wage mandates and laws aiding plaintiff attorneys. Democratic Governors may hold their states out as “sanctuaries,” but their policies burden immigrants who come to America in search for opportunity.

Despite their policy failures, Democrats have used gerrymanders to entrench their power in statehouses in California, New York, Illinois, Maryland and elsewhere. Population flight cost Democratic states several House seats during the last Congressional reapportionment following the 2020 Census, but they lost fewer seats than expected.

That’s partly because Covid lockdowns increased the risk of miscounting college students and people with second homes. Perhaps Floridians with pied-à-terres in Manhattan were counted as New Yorkers. The Census Bureau in 2022 reported that New York’s population was over-counted by 3.4% while there were under-counts in Florida (3.5%) and Texas (1.9%).

Such inaccuracies may have cost Florida and Texas an additional House seat and given Rhode Island, New York and Minnesota one each they shouldn’t have received. Tough for GOP Speaker Mike Johnson. But if population trends continue, Republican states stand to gain at least 10 House seats in the 2030 reapportionment.

The left-leaning Brennan Center estimated in December that Texas and Florida would each gain four House seats while Utah, Idaho, North Carolina and Arizona would each add one. California would lose four, New York two, and Oregon, Minnesota, Illinois, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island one each.

GOP legislatures will draw favorable maps to give their new seats to Republicans, as they did in the last redistricting cycle. And if partisan trends hold, Republican-leaning states will gain 10 electoral votes in the 2032 presidential election, about as many as Arizona currently has. Republicans can thank Mr. Newsom and Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker.

Maybe if Democrats didn’t so heavily gerrymander their statehouse districts to prevent political competition, they might not be at risk of losing representation in Washington.

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/the-real-house-democratic-nightmare-3002f098

Posobiec: Rise Of The "City Conservative" Changing Image Of The American Right

 "Human Events" editor Jack Posobiec talks about the rise of urban conservatism and the "coalition taking place between rural conservatives and city conservatives."


"City cons are not rural cons, because it’s simply like this: when you have seen hell, it changes you. A right-winger from a blue area just hits different," he said. "Right-wingers from blue areas are not the same. They’re not built the same. They are built different."

"There’s a new archetype that’s emerged on the new right, and that’s the city con: the city conservative, the disaffected conservative trapped behind enemy lines in a blue-state metropolis. And when it comes to law and order, mass immigration, and crime, the city con is often far more radical than his rural cousin."


JACK POSOBIEC: So you see this massive crackdown by President Trump coming in, also announcing that he wants to roll this out—National Guard and others—to various cities in the United States. And people are saying, “Why? Why does it matter? Who cares?”

I hear this a lot of times: “Who cares about the cities, the blue cities? Just let them go.” And I very famously, back in 2020, had this refrain: get out of cities. I always say this all the time: get out of cities, get out of cities.

Why did I say that? I said get out of cities in 2020 as a tactical retreat. We didn’t have the numbers, we didn’t have the ability, we didn’t have the response mechanisms. And then that continued during the Biden patriot crackdowns of the Biden era and the Biden regime.

However, we’re now presented with a new opportunity. Now we have President Trump firmly ensconced in power and firmly focused on this issue.

And so I wrote something on X earlier today that has just gone absolutely viral. It’s been something that I’ve been kind of rattling around in the little gray cells for a couple of years now. I was talking about the difference between “city cons” and “rural cons”—a city conservative or a rural conservative.

What does this mean? Here’s what I’ve said: it’s a coalition. There’s a coalition taking place between rural conservatives and city conservatives. City cons are not rural cons, because it’s simply like this: when you have seen hell, it changes you. A right-winger from a blue area just hits different.

In fact, right-wingers from blue areas are not the same. They’re not built the same. They are built different.

For decades, the American right has been dominated by this image of the rural conservative—the pickup-driving, small-town patriot with deep roots in red state soil. You love this guy. You can’t help but love this guy—the JD Vance kind of guy.

But there’s a new archetype that’s emerged on the new right, and that’s the city con: the city conservative, the disaffected conservative trapped behind enemy lines in a blue-state metropolis. And when it comes to law and order, mass immigration, and crime, the city con is often far more radical than his rural cousin.

Why is this? Because the rural con typically lives in a place where crime is relatively low—where immigration is minimal (though of course we know that’s rapidly changing), and the local sheriff probably knows his name. Problems are abstract; they’re filtered through national headlines. Rural support votes Republican, supports the police, waves the flag, goes to church, and daily life reinforces the idea that America is still salvageable without drastic change.

But then you have the city cons. And by the way, I’m not trying to say one is better than the other or anything like this—no, I’m talking about a situation and a dynamic that exists. The city con lives in another reality entirely. He has seen the tent city, the open-air drug markets, the unchecked shoplifting, the revolving-door justice system. He watches as waves of illegal immigration and Section 8 hordes transform entire neighborhoods in real time—not in theory.

You deal with DA offices that refuse to prosecute—the Soros types—the defunded police departments, and you see the media gaslighting you in front of your own eyes. So for the city conservative, this isn’t a debate about policy—it’s about survival.

He knows the system is not just broken—it’s hostile. And that lived experience breeds a harder edge: harsher penalties for criminals, zero tolerance for illegal entry, and a willingness to challenge sacred cows about policing, public order, and public cleanliness.

It is no accident that the MAGA movement was born on a golden escalator on 5th Avenue in New York City by a New York City billionaire. The city con is fighting for an America that has already been stolen in his own zip code—fighting for his home.

Now the situation has gotten so bad—or at least it had gotten so bad until President Trump returned—that many of these rural areas are now also under assault by these very same forces: the Obama administration and the Biden regime air-dropping migrants into places like Springfield, Ohio, or places like Dearborn, Michigan, and the rest.

We all know the story—the Somalians at the Mall of America. So the time has come for a coalition of the willing, if you will—an alliance between the brethren of the city conservatives and the rural conservatives. We will take back America. And when I say America, I don’t mean just one part of it. I mean the whole thing.


 https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2025/08/15/posobiec_rise_of_the_city-con_changing_image_of_the_american_right.html

More Questionable Government Statistics, This Time From Justice

 On the heels of the recent controversy over major statistical revisions of unemployment data by the Labor Department, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) has just released a report containing highly questionable state violent crime rates. The report’s unreliable numbers are not the result of errors in calculation or any deliberate attempt to skew the results. Rather, they are the product of applying a methodology that is incapable of producing accurate results for the statistical categories in question. Indeed, they provide further evidence of the folly of parroting the mantra, “Trust the experts.”

I’m intimately familiar with the BJS, having served as its director during the first Trump administration. The bureau generally focuses on providing national, rather than state or local, statistics. The report in question, however, provides crime rates for each of the 22 largest states, comparing those rates for the three-year period spanning 2017 to 2019 and the three-year period spanning 2020 to 2022. The findings suggest that the BJS should have stuck to producing national statistics.

For example, the BJS report claims that the number of victims of violent crime in Arizona dropped nearly in half during those three-year periods, to just 20.0 per 1,000 people from 36.8 per 1,000. But the state’s largest law-enforcement agency, the Phoenix Police Department, reports that over those periods the city’s homicides rose 42 percent and its violent crime rate rose by 9 percent. It’s awfully hard, therefore, to believe the BJS numbers that claim violent crime fell precipitously statewide when statistics from the state’s dominant city say otherwise.

The report’s comparisons across other states are similarly suspect. The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting figures collected from police show that over the years in question Georgia had a higher rate of violent crime than did the state of Washington, by about 10 percent. The BJS report, however, maintains not only that it was Washington’s violent crime rate that was higher than Georgia’s, but higher by triple. Likewise, the FBI figures show that North Carolina had a 25 percent higher violent crime rate than Indiana from 2020–22, while the BJS report again skews the opposite direction, showing Indiana’s rate was more than double North Carolina’s.

While the FBI’s figures have their own problems—as I noted last year in City Journal—it strains credulity to believe that one state had two-to-three times the rate of violent crime as another state, when reporting from the police in the states in question found something closer to the opposite.

Nor are these discrepancies explainable by the fact that the FBI doesn’t include simple assault in their data (a charge that is pretty much the lowest rung on the violent-crime ladder), but BJS does; because BJS also publishes figures excluding simple assault (see Appendix Table 3), and these reflect similar discrepancies.

Two things are going on here. First, BJS is relying on the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which dates to the Nixon administration and is the largest crime survey in the country and one of the largest federal surveys on any topic. The NCVS is an indispensable resource because it collects crime data from actual victims, rather than relying merely upon police reports. But the NCVS was principally designed to capture national statistics, not state-by-state ones. Its sample size and methodology are much better suited to the former than the latter. If one doesn’t (or doesn’t adequately) survey a key, high-crime neighborhood in Atlanta, for instance, the results won’t have much of an effect on the national numbers, but it could have a big effect on the numbers from Georgia.

The Trump administration has not yet installed a political appointee to run BJS, as is statutorily authorized by Congress, so the bureau is currently being led by a career employee in an acting director position. When I was appointed and served as the BJS head from 2017 to 2021, our senior statistician—who by then had served under six presidents, starting with Ronald Reagan—was extremely skeptical that the NCVS could accurately summarize statewide crime statistics, and he thought that recently initiated efforts to use it to do so should therefore be abandoned. I agreed with him. This latest BJS report strongly suggests that our skepticism was warranted.  

The other thing going on is that the 2020 and 2021 versions of the NCVS were rendered essentially useless by a decision made during COVID by the Census Bureau (which administers the NCVS), to suspend the in-person interviews upon which the survey relies. The NCVS is extremely valuable but its data is also rather fragile. Changes in how it is administered can change its results, often dramatically. Thus, while the FBI reported a nearly 30 percent murder spike in 2020—an all-time record—the NCVS, which was prevented from being conducted in its usual manner for many months, indicated that violent crime actually dropped that year, a statistic contradicted both by Americans’ shared observed experience and by police forces’ own numbers.

As a result, the current BJS report compares an era of reliable NCVS figures (2017–19) with an era (2020–22) in which only one of the three years—2022—is reliable. The results, therefore, are essentially meaningless. Even if the NCVS could produce accurate state-level estimates—which it has shown no ability to do—the only meaningful comparisons would be between 2019 or earlier and 2022 or later, when COVID-era alterations couldn’t noticeably skew the numbers.

In short, statistical agencies’ unwillingness to question their own methodologies or execution can lead to problematic results. When groupthink takes over, such agencies often fail to examine whether the figures produced by a given methodology or process are believable.

We recently saw this at the Labor Department, where revising job-growth figures downward by 87 percent for May and 90 percent for June—in what economists at Goldman Sachs called “the largest two-month downward revision to the jobs numbers since 1968”—was summarily dismissed with just one uninformative, parenthetical sentence in a press release. When only 13 percent and 10 percent of the prior estimated job-growth remains after revisions, it should raise major red flags about the accuracy of the original estimates.

Yet the Bureau of Labor Statistics didn’t seem curious or concerned. Nor did it feel the need to provide any substantial explanation for these historic revisions. The American public was left with nothing but a plain assertion that it should accept that there was nothing unusual or interesting about something that hadn’t previously happened since before Nixon took office and we first landed on the moon.

Federal statistics deserve neither universal trust nor universal distrust. To paraphrase President Reagan, the appropriate way to view such statistics is to trust, but verify. When the methodology or execution clearly isn’t producing accurate statistics, as in the case of the latest BJS report, the “experts” need to get back to work and fix the flawed processes that led to the flawed results.


Jeffrey H. Anderson is president of the American Main Street Initiative, a think tank for everyday Americans, and served as director of the Bureau of Justice Statistics at the U.S. Department of Justice from 2017 to 2021.


https://chroniclesmagazine.org/web/more-questionable-government-statistics-this-time-from-the-justice-department/

How Protein Supports Your Nervous System



When Colin Cooper, a 45-year-old business expert, started experiencing brain fog and low energy in his 30s, he brushed it off as stress or just part of getting older. He felt moody for no clear reason, often forgot where he’d placed things, and sometimes noticed a strange tingling in his hands that made him feel uneasy.With a background in neuroscience and human behavior, Cooper eventually decided to look into what might be going on. That’s when he discovered he was consistently falling short on protein, and things began to make sense.



Protein isn’t just essential for building muscle. From the earliest stages of development, it supports the structure and function of the nervous system, helping a child reach their full cognitive potential later in life. And throughout adulthood, protein continues to fuel critical brain processes such as neurotransmitter production, cellular signaling, neuroplasticity, and nerve cell repair.




“Subclinical protein deficiencies may show up as reduced attention span, poorer working memory, slower processing speed, and overall impaired cognitive performance—signs of what’s known as executive dysfunction,” said Timothy Frie, a neuronutritionist and founder of the National Academy of Neuronutrition.
Research shows that protein deficiency early in life may lead to lower levels of key brain chemicals. Eating enough protein, on the other hand, has been linked to a lower risk of developing subjective cognitive decline later in life.
Neurotransmitter Production

Protein provides amino acids, which are the building blocks for neurotransmitters such as serotonin and dopamine, as well as for neuromodulators—chemicals that modulate neuron activity over time. Unlike neurotransmitters, which transmit fast, direct signals between neurons, neuromodulators affect broader networks of neurons and have longer-lasting effects. Some neuromodulators can also function as hormones depending on their actions in the body.

These chemicals are necessary for nerve signaling and brain function, helping nerve cells communicate with each other and with the rest of the body. This communication allows us to move, think, and feel.

“These are the chemicals that regulate our mood, motivation, focus, and resilience to stress,” Kacy Shea, a functional diagnostic nutrition practitioner, neuronutritionist, and certified brain health coach, told The Epoch Times in an email. “When we don’t get enough protein, we risk harming our cognition, mental health, and both short- and long-term brain function.”
For example, tryptophan, found in protein, helps make serotonin, which regulates mood and sleep. Researchers conducting an online study involving 482 participants found that those who ate more tryptophan-rich foods felt less depressed and performed better on tasks measuring their ability to understand others’ emotions.

Tryptophan also supports the production of melatonin, a hormone that helps regulate the sleep-wake cycle and promotes restful sleep.

Another important amino acid, tyrosine, helps produce dopamine and norepinephrine. Dopamine is involved in movement, motivation, pleasure, and attention, while norepinephrine regulates alertness, blood pressure, and is also part of the stress response.




“When you consume the amino acid tyrosine, you’re supporting the brain chemicals that help you feel excited to start your day, motivated to work and exercise, more sociable, more focused, and able to experience desire and enjoyment in all areas of life,” Frie said.
Nerve Cell Structure and Repair

Protein is a major building block of nerve cells. From their protective outer covering (membrane) to the long extensions that send signals (axons), protein helps form and maintain the structure of neurons.

“Protein supplies the raw nutritional ingredients that our brain needs to repair, adapt, and stay strong as we age,” Shea said. “Neurodegeneration begins decades before diagnosis, and protein plays an important role in warding it off.”
This repair process happens through amino acids, which the body uses to heal nerve fibers and rebuild lost connections. Scientific evidence shows that branched-chain amino acids found in protein may help protect the brain both before and after a traumatic brain injury.

Moreover, protein is a stabilizing macronutrient that can help reduce post-meal blood sugar spikes and support insulin regulation, which may lower oxidative stress linked to chronic conditions such as insulin resistance.






“This is one of the most prevalent paths to neurodegeneration—so much so that Alzheimer’s disease has been nicknamed Type 3 diabetes,” Shea said. “The good news is, you can control these factors through diet.”
Protein acts as both a building block and a buffer, supporting brain function and protecting it from stress, inflammation, and blood sugar swings that harm cognition over time.
Myelin Sheath Maintenance

The myelin sheath is a protective layer that wraps around nerves, helping electrical signals travel faster and more efficiently through the nervous system. Protein plays an important role here, too.
When dried, the myelin sheath contains mostly fats (about 70 percent to 85 percent) and less protein (about 15 percent to 30 percent). In comparison, a regular cell membrane has a more balanced mix—about half protein and half fat. Maintaining it requires sufficient dietary protein intake.

“Early signs of compromised myelin integrity may include tingling, numbness, muscle weakness, delayed reflexes, trouble with coordination, and changes in gait,” Frie said. “Cognitive issues like poor memory, slowed thinking, and difficulty with planning can also emerge—often subtly, especially in the early stages.” These symptoms could indicate the presence of neuropathy or other neurological conditions interfering with the myelin sheath.





Though the central nervous system has a limited ability to regenerate, certain amino acids help maintain and repair the myelin sheath, especially as we age or face stressors such as illness or poor nutrition.
Serine, an important amino acid, helps produce sphingolipids, which are major components of myelin. Low levels of serine have been linked to myelin damage in certain neurological disorders. Other amino acids such as glycine, cysteine, methionine, and arginine also support the maintenance of the myelin sheath.
“Even in developed countries, ongoing low protein intake may gradually weaken the myelin sheath, particularly in vulnerable groups,” Frie said. Therefore, a diet lacking in these building blocks may affect how well one’s nerves function over time.
Neuroplasticity and Learning

Your brain is always adapting. This flexibility, known as neuroplasticity, is what enables you to learn new things, form memories, and recover from injuries. To keep this system running smoothly, your body needs protein.
A 2022 study published in Alzheimer’s & Dementia has shown that proteins linked to neuroplasticity may help the brain stay more resilient in early Alzheimer’s disease. Researchers examined brain scans and spinal fluid protein levels in people with early Alzheimer’s and compared them with healthy people. They found that those with stronger brain networks had higher levels of certain proteins, especially those involved in neuroplasticity.





That’s because neuroplasticity depends on constant communication between brain cells, the reshaping of connections (called synapses), and even the growth of new ones. All of this requires proteins—structural proteins that support cell shape or signaling proteins that help neurons communicate.
“Any sort of nutritional insufficiency of essential amino acids can reduce synaptic protein turnover, impair dendritic remodeling, and impair long-term potentiation,” Frie said. “This connection is especially critical during periods of heightened neuroplasticity, such as childhood, adolescence, recovery from injury, or during therapeutic intervention.”
Stress Response and Mood Regulation

We tend to think of mental health as a psychological issue requiring a psychological approach, but it is both mind and body. Anyone with anxiety can back this up—you feel the anxiousness everywhere, in your stomach, your arms, and not just in your mind, Shea stated. It is physiological in nature, requiring a full physiological treatment. This is where nutrition is extremely valuable.
Your brain’s ability to manage stress and regulate emotions depends largely on neurotransmitters, chemical messengers made from amino acids. Getting enough protein in your diet might help protect your mental health and lower your risk of depression. In a large U.S. study of approximately 18,000 adults, those who ate the most protein had a 66 percent lower risk of depressive symptoms compared with those who ate the least. Protein from milk and dairy products was especially linked to fewer symptoms, with people in the moderate- and higher-intake groups showing 39 percent to 63 percent lower odds of depression, even after adjusting for other health and lifestyle factors.

Shea noted that most clients she sees who are dealing with anxiety, depression, or even attention-deficit disorder are low in some or all neurotransmitters.




“Another major dietary factor in managing mood and mental health is blood sugar regulation, and ensuring you’re eating protein with every meal and snack can help keep you steady throughout the day,” she said.
Increasing Protein for Brain Health

Cooper, who first suspected a protein deficiency through self-observation and later confirmed it with blood tests, reflected on his experience in an interview with The Epoch Times.

“My diet was often a mix,“ he said, ”a lot of coffee, meals in between meetings and calls, often on the run. It wasn’t a great diet. When I increased my protein intake at every meal, starting with breakfast and throughout the day, I started tracking that and found I would need less sleep, had deeper sleep with the change in diet, felt less fatigued and more motivated.”

As we age, not only do our appetites and food preferences change, but our digestive capacity decreases, as well.

According to Shea, protein is highly important during all phases of life, but especially during major life shifts such as adolescence, pregnancy, postpartum, perimenopause, and aging.





“You likely feel the shifts in your body at these times, but your brain is also remodeling.”
To help support brain health, Shea shares these easy and realistic ways to increase daily protein intake:Center Your Meals Around Protein:

 When meal planning or eating out, start by choosing your protein source first, then build the rest of your plate around it with foods you enjoy.
Rethink Your Snacks: 

Swap sugar-laden granola bars or chips for simple, protein-rich options such as jerky sticks, hard-boiled eggs, deli meat, or a handful of nuts. If you prefer carbs, pair them with a protein.
Fortify Your Grains: 

Cook rice or other grains in bone broth instead of water to add protein and gut-friendly nutrients without changing your routine.
Add Protein to Your Drinks: Stir collagen peptides or protein powder into your coffee or matcha in the morning, and into herbal tea or hot chocolate at night for a calming, protein-rich treat.
Focus on Ease, not Perfection: 

Sneak in protein consistently without overthinking it; small changes add up.
For vegans, it’s important to eat a wide variety of plant-based proteins in larger amounts to get all the essential amino acids. Since most plant proteins are incomplete, Shea recommends combining different sources, such as beans and grains, to fill in the gaps.

“Your best bet is to get into the habit of eating protein evenly throughout the day, so you’re effortlessly meeting the needs of your ever-changing body,” she said.

For Cooper, increasing his protein intake at every meal, starting with breakfast, made a noticeable difference. He typically eats three protein-rich meals a day and adds one to two protein shakes. With this routine, he noticed improvement in his symptoms and a better quality of life.

“Even if I waver for a day or two, once I get back on track, everything feels good again.”


Hadia Zainab is a health journalist and doctor of physical therapy candidate at Sialkot Medical College. Her experience managing health conditions such as strokes, paralysis, pediatric care, and ICU rehabilitation informs her writing.


Where ChatGPT Is Currently Banned

 Governments around the world are taking different stances on artificial intelligence tools like ChatGPT.

While some embrace the technology, others have restricted or outright banned access due to political, cultural, or security concerns.

In 2025, ChatGPT remains unavailable in 20 countries.

In this visualization, Visual Capitalist's Marcus Lu highlights where ChatGPT is banned, as well as places where OpenAI does not offer service.

Data & Discussion

The data for this visualization comes from a list compiled by Cybernews, which we referenced with an official OpenAI list of supported countries.

Government-Imposed Bans

Many of the bans are found in countries with strict internet control, such as ChinaNorth Korea, and Iran. These governments limit access to foreign digital platforms, often citing information control and political stability as reasons.

In China, for example, users have access to several LLMs that were developed by domestic companies, including Alibaba’s Qwen, DeepSeek, Baichuan, and Tencent-backed Hunyuan.

Meanwhile, in conflict zones like SyriaAfghanistan, and Yemen, bans are linked to both security concerns and limited infrastructure.

Unsupported Regions

Not all countries on the list have active bans. In places like Hong Kong and Belarus, the service is unavailable because OpenAI does not support accounts there. These exclusions are often due to business, regulatory, or legal complexities rather than explicit censorship.

If you enjoyed today’s post, check out the AI “Big Bang” Study 2025 on Voronoi, the new app from Visual Capitalist.

https://www.zerohedge.com/ai/heres-where-chatgpt-currently-banned

US cancels India trade talks scheduled for August, NDTV Profit says

 A planned visit by U.S. trade negotiators to New Delhi from August 25-29 has been canceled, delaying talks on a proposed bilateral trade agreement, Indian business and financial news network NDTV Profit reported on Saturday, citing people familiar with the matter.

Reuters could not immediately verify the report.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-cancels-india-trade-talks-171555706.html

US stops visitor visas for people from Gaza

 The U.S. State Department on Saturday said it was halting all visitor visas for individuals from Gaza while it conducts "a full and thorough" review, a move that has been condemned by pro-Palestine groups.

The department said "a small number" of temporary medical-humanitarian visas had been issued in recent days but did not provide a figure.

The U.S. issued more than 3,800 B1/B2 visitor visas, which permit foreigners to seek medical treatment in the United States, to holders of the Palestinian Authority travel document so far in 2025, according to an analysis of monthly figures provided on the department's website. That figure includes 640 visas issued in May.

The PA issues such travel documents to residents of the Israeli-occupied West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The department’s website did not include a breakdown for the two territories.

The State Department's move to stop visitor visas for people from Gaza comes after Laura Loomer, a far-right activist and an ally of President Donald Trump, said on social media on Friday that the Palestinian "refugees" had entered the U.S. this month.

Loomer's statement sparked outrage among some Republicans, with U.S. Representative Chip Roy, of Texas, saying he would inquire about the matter and Representative Randy Fine, of Florida, describing it as a "national security risk".

The Council on American-Islamic Relations condemned the move, saying it was the latest sign of the "intentional cruelty" of the Trump administration.

The Palestine Children’s Relief Fund said the decision to halt visas would deny access to medical care to wounded and sick children in Gaza .

"This policy will have a devastating and irreversible impact on our ability to bring injured and critically ill children from Gaza to the United States for lifesaving medical treatment—a mission that has defined our work for more than 30 years," it said in a statement.

Gaza has been devastated by a war that was triggered on October 7, 2023, when Palestinian militant group Hamas launched an attack on Israel, killing 1,200 people and taking 251 hostages, according to Israeli figures.

Israel's offensive against Hamas in Gaza since then has killed more than 61,000 Palestinians, according to local health officials.

The U.S. has not indicated that it would accept Palestinians displaced by the war. However, sources told Reuters that South Sudan and Israel are discussing a plan to resettle Palestinians.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/us-stops-visitor-visas-people-141038536.html