Now You Know!

A judge has ruled that Prince Harry’s U.S. visa records must be made public by March 18, following a lawsuit by the Heritage Foundation. The documents may reveal whether he falsely denied drug use on his immigration paperwork, despite admitting in his memoir and interviews to using cannabis, cocaine, and magic mushrooms. Judge Carl Nichols, appointed by Donald Trump, approved redactions proposed by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) but emphasized the need for transparency. The case raises questions about whether Harry received special treatment and whether he could face deportation if he lied. President Trump recently stated he wouldn’t expel Harry but criticized Meghan Markle. DHS argues Harry has a right to privacy, while Heritage insists his application should be scrutinized. Harry’s representatives have not commented.

French politician Raphaël Glucksmann has demanded the U.S. return the Statue of Liberty, arguing that America no longer upholds its ideals. Citing Trump’s stance on Ukraine and cuts to education, he accused the U.S. of siding with “tyrants.” Speaking to Le Monde, Glucksmann said France would reclaim the statue and welcome researchers dismissed under Trump’s policies. His remarks were met with cheers as European leaders increasingly oppose Trump’s actions.

In September 2016, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill allowing families of 9/11 victims to sue the Saudi Arabian government. The legislation, officially known as the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA), had been sponsored by Senators John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Chuck Schumer (D-New York) and was previously approved by the Senate in May 2016. At the time, President Barack Obama strongly opposed the bill, warning that it could set a precedent allowing other nations to sue the United States under similar circumstances. Speaking to CBS News’ Charlie Rose in April 2016, Obama explained: “ If we open up the possibility that individuals in the United States can routinely start suing other governments, then we are also opening up the United States to being continually sued by individuals in other countries .” Despite these warnings, the bill passed just days before the 15th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attacks, which had killed thousands in New York, Washington, D.C., and Pennsylvania. Even though Obama vetoed the bill in September 2016, Congress overrode his veto, making JASTA law. This was the first and only time Obama’s veto was overturned during his presidency . What Has Happened Since? Since 2016, JASTA has led to multiple lawsuits filed by families of 9/11 victims against Saudi Arabia, alleging that the kingdom provided material support to the terrorists. This was a significant legal shift, as sovereign immunity had previously protected foreign governments from such lawsuits. One of the most significant developments occurred in May 2020, when an FBI document was accidentally declassified, revealing the name of a Saudi official suspected of aiding two of the 9/11 hijackers. This disclosure was seen as a breakthrough by families seeking justice, as it suggested a potential link between the hijackers and the Saudi embassy in Washington, D.C. However, as of March 2025, no conclusive evidence has been presented proving Saudi Arabia’s direct involvement in the 9/11 attacks. Legal proceedings are ongoing, and the debate over the kingdom’s role remains unresolved. The Impact of JASTA JASTA set a legal precedent by allowing private citizens to challenge sovereign immunity, raising concerns about retaliatory lawsuits against the United States. Over the years, some U.S. officials have pushed for modifications to the law to prevent unintended diplomatic and economic consequences. Despite these concerns, the fight for accountability continues, with families of 9/11 victims pursuing their legal claims nearly two decades after JASTA’s passage.

Nearly a decade ago, in December 2016, Pope Francis granted clemency to Monsignor Lucio Ángel Vallejo Balda, a Spanish priest who had been convicted for his role in the “Vatileaks 2.0” scandal. At the time, Vallejo Balda had been serving an 18-month prison sentence for leaking confidential Vatican documents. His sentence was commuted to conditional freedom, and he was released from Vatican custody. This act of papal mercy was seen as one of Francis’ final gestures during his Jubilee Year of Mercy, which had formally ended weeks earlier. However, it also sparked debate over the Vatican’s handling of internal transparency and security breaches. The ‘Vatileaks 2.0’ Scandal: One of the Vatican’s Biggest Leaks The Vatileaks 2.0 affair, which unfolded in 2015, was the second major Vatican leak scandal after the first Vatileaks incident in 2012 under Pope Benedict XVI. The 2015 case centered around confidential financial documents from a Vatican study commission created in 2013 to examine and reform the Holy See’s financial operations. Five people were charged under Vatican law: Lucio Ángel Vallejo Balda, a high-ranking Vatican official who leaked the documents. Nicola Maio, his lay assistant. Francesca Chaouqui, an Italian PR consultant and member of the Vatican’s financial reform commission. Gianluigi Nuzzi and Emiliano Fittipaldi, two Italian journalists who used the leaked materials in their books. The leaked documents exposed internal Vatican financial mismanagement, including: Lavish living arrangements for certain bishops and cardinals. Excessive fees required for canonization. Millions of euros in losses due to undervalued Vatican real estate. A Controversial Trial and Sentencing Following a nine-month Vatican trial, the court issued its verdict in July 2016: Vallejo Balda was sentenced to 18 months in prison. Francesca Chaouqui was found guilty and sentenced to 10 months, but her sentence was suspended for five years - meaning she never served time. Nicola Maio was acquitted. The two journalists, Nuzzi and Fittipaldi, were not convicted, as the Vatican court ruled it had no jurisdiction over them. During the trial, Vallejo Balda admitted to leaking 85 password-protected Vatican documents but claimed he acted under pressure. He denied that the journalists had coerced him, instead blaming Chaouqui, whom he accused of manipulating him into leaking the information. At the time, Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi defended the sentences, stating they were “ necessary ” to counteract the damage caused by internal leaks. Pope Francis’ Clemency: A Turning Point? On December 20, 2016, the Vatican announced that Pope Francis had granted clemency to Vallejo Balda, allowing him to be released on conditional freedom after serving over half of his sentence. Although the specific terms of his conditional release were never fully disclosed, the Vatican confirmed that: Vallejo Balda was no longer under Vatican employment. He was transferred to the jurisdiction of his home diocese in Astorga, Spain. This was not the first time a pope had intervened in a Vatican leaks case. In 2012, Pope Benedict XVI pardoned Paolo Gabriele, his former butler, who had been convicted in the original Vatileaks scandal for leaking private papal documents. The Legacy of ‘Vatileaks 2.0’ in 2025 Looking back from 2025, the Vatileaks 2.0 case remains one of the most significant security breaches in modern Vatican history. It highlighted tensions within the Church regarding financial transparency, power struggles, and the Vatican’s internal governance. Although Pope Francis granted clemency, the case raised lasting questions about press freedom, whistleblowing, and accountability within the Catholic Church. While the Vatican has since introduced stronger measures to prevent leaks, the fundamental issues of financial transparency and governance continue to be debated.

Back in August 2019, during a peak in the U.S.-China trade war, analysts speculated whether China could use its massive holdings of U.S. Treasury bonds as a weapon. At the time, Beijing held approximately $1.1 trillion in U.S. government debt, making it America’s largest foreign creditor. The theory was that if China dumped a significant portion of its Treasuries, it could destabilize bond markets, send U.S. borrowing costs soaring, and rattle the global economy. However, experts argued that such a move was unlikely due to the self-inflicted risks it could impose on China’s economy. A rapid sell-off would not only erode the value of China’s remaining holdings but also lead to yuan appreciation, potentially harming the competitiveness of Chinese exports . Where Do Things Stand in 2025? Since 2019, China has steadily reduced its U.S. Treasury holdings. As of December 2024, China’s holdings stood at approximately $759 billion, down from $768.6 billion in November 2024, and significantly lower than the $1.1 trillion it held in 2019. This decline reflects China’s ongoing efforts to diversify its foreign exchange reserves and reduce reliance on U.S. assets. At the same time, China has been expanding the internationalization of the yuan, pushing for alternative financial infrastructures that reduce dependence on Western systems. For instance, Hong Kong is working on establishing an Asian clearinghouse to compete with Euroclear and Clearstream, further supporting the global use of the yuan. So... Despite fears in 2019, China never weaponized its U.S. Treasury holdings in a way that would destabilize financial markets. Instead, Beijing has gradually reduced its exposure while focusing on building alternative economic strategies, such as strengthening trade ties, boosting domestic financial markets, and promoting the yuan as an international currency.

In March 2019, Catholic priests in Gdańsk, Poland, conducted a public burning of books they deemed sacrilegious, notably including J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series. Organized by the SMS from Heaven Foundation, the event also saw the incineration of items like an elephant figurine and a tribal mask. The group cited biblical passages condemning magic as justification for the bonfire. The Church has huge influence in Polish society. But the month prior, it had released a report documenting sexual abuse of children by nearly 400 Polish priests between 1990 and 2018. The book burning drew significant criticism, with many drawing parallels to historical instances of censorship and intolerance, such as the Nazi book burnings. One critic said: " I have not met anyone yet who would rape, murder and steal in the name of Harry Potter. In the name of the Bible, yes. Bad news, gentlemen! " Another quoted the German poet Heinrich Heine, who wrote in 1823: " Where books are burned, in the end, people will also be burned. " The Heine quote is seen as prophetic, because the Nazis made a great show of burning so-called "decadent" books in the 1930s. They included works by Jewish writers - and soon the Nazis did burn Jewish victims of their racist ideology. In response to the backlash, Father Rafał Jarosiewicz, who led the event, issued an apology, stating that the ritual was not intended to target specific authors, religions, or social groups. He acknowledged that the act was “ unfortunate ” and expressed regret if it offended anyone.  The incident sparked a broader debate about the role of religious institutions in censoring literature and the potential implications for freedom of expression. It also highlighted the ongoing tensions within Poland regarding traditional Catholic values and contemporary cultural works.

Tesla faced a legal challenge over its confidentiality agreement. The document, implemented in November 2016, was created in response to leaks. The company’s legal vice president had asked employees to “ renew their vows ” to Tesla. Workers claimed the agreement “ intimidated employees and discouraged them from freely exercising their rights .” The complaint alleged that the agreement hindered their ability to unionize. Tesla denied the allegations, stating that the agreement had nothing to do with unions. Back in 2018, Tesla was embroiled in a legal dispute over a confidentiality agreement introduced two years earlier, in November 2016. The agreement had been drafted in response to repeated leaks and required employees to “ renew their vows ” to the company. The document became the subject of a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) investigation, as reports at the time suggested it was being used to intimidate employees and restrict union activity, Bloomberg reported. Jonathan Chang, who was Tesla’s legal vice president at the time, testified before the NLRB in 2018, explaining that repeated media leaks could negatively impact consumer perception. He argued that premature revelations about new features or models could delay purchases and diminish the excitement surrounding Tesla’s official announcements. The agreement was influenced by articles published in Bloomberg and CNN in September 2016, which were based on emails sent by Elon Musk to all Tesla employees. Chang also warned that leaks posed “ serious SEC concerns ” and admitted that, in rare cases where Tesla had managed to identify a leaker, the company had pursued criminal charges. Despite using metadata to track leaks, Tesla was often unsuccessful in identifying those responsible. A Complaint Over Intimidation and Union Rights Violations A complaint filed against Tesla in April 2017 accused the company of using the agreement to “ coerce and intimidate employees, preventing them from freely exercising their rights to engage in concerted and union activities .” According to the complainants, from February 10, 2017, Tesla had allegedly intimidated a group of employees and conducted both real and simulated surveillance on them. The complaint claimed these actions were motivated by the “ union activities and/or union sentiments ” of certain employees. Their activities included distributing literature about union organizing efforts, working conditions, the confidentiality agreement, and their rights under the National Labor Relations Act. It further alleged that Tesla had monitored employees who received these materials. On March 23, 2017, workers were reportedly told they could not distribute literature without prior company approval, Politico reported at the time. Michael Sanchez, a Tesla employee named in the complaint, spoke out against the agreement. “ You can’t fix problems if you’re not allowed to talk about them ,” he said. “ The confidentiality agreement we were required to sign went too far. We should have the right to share information with our coworkers without fear of intimidation. ” Tesla Denied the Allegations and Blamed Union Tactics Tesla firmly denied the allegations, arguing in a 2018 statement that the complaint was part of a broader union effort to damage its reputation. “ One of the main tactics of a UAW (United Automobile Workers) corporate campaign is to overwhelm the NLRB with unfair labor practice charges (ULPs) against the companies it targets ,” the company stated. “ Each year, about 20,000 ULPs are filed with the NLRB by unions like the UAW. In our case, many of the charges made by the UAW against Tesla were previously dismissed or otherwise not pursued by the NLRB .” Tesla maintained that it was not interfering with employees’ right to unionize, insisting that “ the only reason there’s no union at Tesla is that our employees haven’t wanted one .” “ The UAW’s argument revolves around the idea that our actions have created a chilling effect on their ability to organize. However, it’s clear from employees’ own admissions that this is not true. Their unionization effort, including talking to media, leafletting, and picketing outside the factory, has continued without interference .” Tesla claimed that the confidentiality agreement “ had nothing at all to do with stopping unionization .” “ It was about preventing proprietary information from being misused outside the company - something that, unfortunately, was happening regularly ,” the statement read. Jonathan Chang had defended the agreement, stating that Tesla provided employees with access to confidential product and financial information because “ Tesla’s culture was built on a sense of family and trust among employees. ” A Case That Reflected the Broader Battle Between Tesla and Unions In March 2021, the NLRB ruled that Tesla’s confidentiality agreement, which prohibited employees from communicating with the media without authorization, violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act. The Board found that this provision could be interpreted as restricting employees’ rights to engage in protected concerted activities, including discussions about working conditions and unionization efforts.

It could lead to job cuts and fewer cheaper models.

56% even come from China alone, according to the Shoe Business and Trade Association.

Avocados made up $3.1B of that total.

Canada leads in grain, livestock, meat, poultry , and more.

Tariffs won’t hit Americans immediately but could raise prices, as 40% of U.S. imports come from nations Trump targets .