2025 Kentucky Derby horses, odds, futures, date, preview: Expert who hit 11 Derby-Oaks Doubles releases picks

House Republicans narrowly passed a bill to strip $9.4 billion in already-approved federal funding, targeting foreign aid and public broadcasting (including NPR and PBS). The vote was incredibly tight—214 to 212—and reflects ongoing tensions over government spending priorities.

Editor’s Note: This isn’t just about dollars—it’s a political flashpoint. Cutting foreign aid could strain diplomatic relationships, while slashing funds to NPR and PBS reignites debates over public media’s role. The razor-thin vote margin shows how divided Congress is, and it signals more budget battles ahead. For everyday folks, it might mean shifts in what programs get funded (or axed) down the line.

House Republicans have pushed through a plan to cut $9.4 billion from foreign aid and public broadcasting, targeting programs they label as "woke." The biggest reductions hit USAID ($8.3 billion) and public broadcasting ($1 billion+), including NPR funding. The proposal now heads to the Senate, where it’s likely to face stiff opposition.

Editor’s Note: This isn’t just about budgets—it’s a political fight over priorities. Supporters argue it reins in "wasteful" spending, but critics warn these cuts could weaken global diplomacy and gut trusted public media. The real showdown happens next in the Senate, where Democrats will likely push back hard. For now, it’s another flashpoint in the culture wars hitting Washington’s wallet.

The article explains that former President Trump has significant leeway to withhold or "impound" federal funds, particularly when it comes to foreign policy and defense spending. This means he could effectively freeze certain budgets without Congress's approval, shaping policy by controlling the purse strings in these key areas.

Editor’s Note: Budget impoundment isn’t new, but Trump’s approach could have real-world consequences—delaying military aid, stalling diplomatic efforts, or redirecting priorities without lawmakers' input. It’s a reminder of how much power the presidency holds over spending, even when Congress thinks they’ve had the final say.

The article suggests that President Biden's tech policies, which some view as restrictive, initially pushed Silicon Valley leaders toward supporting Trump. Now, there's speculation that these same policies might backfire, pushing tech execs back toward the Democrats—if the party can recalibrate its approach.

Editor’s Note: Silicon Valley's political leanings aren't set in stone. This tug-of-war between Biden and Trump for tech industry support could shape future policy, funding, and innovation—making it a big deal for both politics and the tech world. If Democrats adjust their strategy, they might regain influence in a sector that's increasingly shaping the economy.

This piece reflects on Fischer Black, the brilliant but unconventional economist best known for co-creating the Black-Scholes model—a groundbreaking formula for pricing financial options. What made Black unique was his relentless skepticism; he even challenged his own work, embodying the spirit of intellectual humility. The story paints him as a thinker who valued curiosity over dogma.

Editor’s Note: Fischer Black’s legacy isn’t just about equations—it’s a reminder that even the smartest ideas should be questioned. In a world where experts often cling to their theories, his willingness to doubt his own work is refreshing. For anyone in finance, tech, or science, it’s a nudge to stay open-minded, because progress thrives on scrutiny.