{"id":46279,"date":"2026-09-27T01:50:19","date_gmt":"2026-09-26T23:50:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kaizen-blog.org\/?p=46279"},"modified":"2026-09-27T08:47:13","modified_gmt":"2026-09-27T06:47:13","slug":"27-september-2026-kurznachrichten","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/kaizen-blog.org\/en\/27-september-2026-kurznachrichten\/","title":{"rendered":"September 27, 2026 - Short News"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Today in the short news: Trump wants to cut $810 million without Congress, 5 days before the end of the fiscal year. After the Trump-Xi summit, 2 pandas are heading to Atlanta for 10 years.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Switzerland is voting on whether to tighten its neutrality rules so far that sanctions against Russia would effectively only be possible with approval from the United Nations. In Moscow, Vera Andreyeva ends up inside an election commission by mistake and documents how voters are pushed toward electronic voting.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

And Trump is spreading attacks on Republican Representative Mar\u00eda Elvira Salazar, 9 days after she publicly criticized his deportation policy.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Trump cuts $810 million without Congress - 5 days before the deadline<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Donald Trump wants to cancel $810 million in federal funding that has already been approved. Congress had authorized the money, but the administration submitted the request only on Friday, 5 days before the fiscal year ends on September 30. That clock is exactly what decides what happens here. The law normally provides 45 days of congressional review for requests like this. That time effectively no longer exists. If the fiscal year ends before the money can be spent, it is gone. The administration is relying on the Impoundment Control Act of 1974. That law was created after Richard Nixon tried to hold back spending approved by Congress on his own authority. It was meant to limit exactly that kind of presidential freedom. Now the White House is using the same law for a move that even Congress's nonpartisan watchdog considers illegal. In its view, a president cannot shorten the legally established period during which funds are available simply by waiting strategically. Otherwise, the executive branch could effectively change what Congress had decided.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The biggest cuts would hit programs for refugees and unaccompanied minors. $567 million would be eliminated there. Other cuts affect nonprofit assistance for migrants, including mental health and social services. Nearly $25 million for special education programs for children from migrant families is also on the list. The cuts also include housing counseling, $15 million for a Justice Department office focused on reducing racial tensions, and $10 million for an agency that supports minority entrepreneurs. The administration calls the spending wasteful and harmful and explicitly justifies some of the cuts by saying taxpayer money should no longer be used to support noncitizens.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Opposition is now coming from both parties. Republican Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Susan Collins calls the move illegal and accuses the budget office of holding back funds for months so they would expire just before the deadline. Democrat Patty Murray calls it theft from the American people and points out that many of these expenditures were approved with votes from both parties and then signed into law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Trump already used this method in 2025. Back then, $4.9 billion in foreign aid was supposed to disappear, including $3.2 billion for the U.S. development agency. The Supreme Court temporarily allowed billions to remain withheld at the time, but it did not issue a broader ruling on whether last-minute cancellations like these are legal. That is exactly why the fight is still open. Congress approves the money. The president waits. Then the clock runs out. And a budget decision made by Congress turns into a question of whether its decision still counts at all.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

After the summit, 2 pandas are heading to the United States - for 10 years in Atlanta<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Ping Ping and Fu Shuang are on their way. The 2 giant pandas left Chengdu early Sunday and are expected to arrive in Atlanta in the coming days. Xi Jinping had announced their transfer during his 3-day meeting with Donald Trump in Washington. Not much else concrete came out of the state visit. The old conflicts between China and the United States remained. For Zoo Atlanta, this ends a panda-free stretch that began in 2024. That was when the last pandas returned to China. The new agreement had already been announced in April, but without a date. Now it is clear: Ping Ping and Fu Shuang will be on loan for 10 years. Both were born in 2020 and had been living at the panda research base in Chengdu.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ping Ping is the male with the dark circles around his eyes, Fu Shuang the female with the slightly more pronounced forehead. It sounds like zoology, but it has also been politics for decades. China does not simply loan pandas like exhibition pieces. The animals go where relationships are supposed to be maintained. When relations deteriorate, those agreements sometimes expire and the pandas go home again. Xi described the program as a sign of friendship between the Chinese and American people. After days of big words and unresolved disputes, 2 bears now remain as one of the most visible results of the meeting. Diplomacy can be complicated. Sometimes it has fur.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Switzerland votes on stricter neutrality - Russia sanctions are right in the middle of the fight<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Switzerland is deciding this Sunday how far its neutrality should go in the future. Behind the proposal is the right-wing conservative Swiss People's Party, which holds the most seats in parliament. It accuses the government of moving too close to the European Union and NATO, especially since Russia's war against Ukraine. Joining European sanctions against Moscow is the clearest example for the party. In the future, the government would only be allowed to join sanctions against countries at war if those sanctions had first been approved by the United Nations. That is exactly where the fight begins. Russia has veto power on the Security Council and could block measures against itself. If the proposal passes, Switzerland would also no longer be allowed to cooperate with military alliances the way it has with NATO for around 30 years, including through joint exercises. An exception would only apply if the country itself were under threat. Supporters want to prevent Bern from being drawn step by step into foreign policy decisions that they believe are incompatible with traditional neutrality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The federal government and parliament disagree. They argue that the existing constitution already gives the government enough room to protect national interests without tying Switzerland to foreign parties in a war. So the vote is about far more than a legal question. It is about whether neutrality means staying away from sanctions even when one country attacks another. Swiss voters regularly decide political questions directly. This time, the country is deciding how tightly it wants to restrict its own freedom of action while war is being fought around Europe.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

By mistake inside Putin's election machine - Vera Andreyeva watches for 3 days as paper ballots are pushed aside<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Vera Andreyeva originally wanted to work as an election observer in 2024. Then, in the summer of 2026, she got a call: She was a member of a Moscow election commission and was supposed to come in for training. Apparently, someone had appointed her by mistake. Andreyeva went and stayed through all 3 days of voting. The polling station had 3 machines for electronic voting and just 1 ballot box for traditional paper ballots. Nearly every voter was reportedly directed to the machines. When Andreyeva herself began openly asking people whether they wanted to vote electronically or on paper, a colleague pulled her aside. She should avoid mentioning paper if possible. Older voters could be told about 1,000 bonus points and a lottery. \u201cJust do what you're told. Don't make the commission's job harder,\u201d he reportedly told her. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

An elderly man with a cane reportedly said clearly that he wanted to vote on paper because he did not know how to use computers. Even so, he was again offered the electronic option, along with money and a lottery. Staff then reportedly took him to the machine. Later, a visually impaired woman and her daughter asked for paper ballots. They too were initially told that getting them would take a very long time. At the machine, the daughter reportedly took her mother's finger, pressed it against the screen and told her: \u201cMom, vote for United Russia, that's who you want.\u201d Andreyeva was then removed from the entrance. The chairwoman reportedly ordered that only people who specifically asked for paper should be told about it. Later, when a voter called the whole process a \u201ccircus\u201d and Andreyeva agreed with him, a colleague told her: \u201cYou are a member of the election commission.\u201d Then: \u201cAnd is a commission member allowed to criticize the system?\u201d Finally, just: \u201cThen keep quiet.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

There was also conflict during the count. Ballots had reportedly already been sorted before the computer system had produced the final number of voters. The work was only stopped after objections were raised. One ballot with a single mark for the Communist Party and an additional handwritten note was still placed with the invalid ballots after consultation with the higher-level commission. Later, the paper ballots at that polling station showed strong results against the ruling party's candidate. By 2:20 a.m., the data had been submitted. Then the chairwoman asked Andreyeva for her name. She had to decide \u201cwho you are and who you're with.\u201d Either she was an observer making trouble for the commission, or she was one of them and should behave accordingly. Vera Andreyeva spent 3 days by accident in the place where the public is usually kept outside. What she describes does not need a grand theory. You only have to read what voters were told there. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Trump shares attacks on Salazar - 9 days after she publicly criticized his deportation policy<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Donald Trump on Saturday shared more than a dozen posts attacking Republican Representative Mar\u00eda Elvira Salazar of Florida. One called on Trump to withdraw his endorsement of her, another demanded a \u201cnew Republican\u201d for her seat. Salazar is up for re-election in November. 9 days earlier, she had released an ad in which she unusually openly criticized Trump's immigration policy. The measures had \u201cgone too far,\u201d she said, and many of his Hispanic voters felt \u201cbetrayed.\u201d One day later, Trump said in the Oval Office that Salazar had gotten \u201ca little soft\u201d on the border. He said he understood her position, though. The 2 spoke by phone shortly afterward. Salazar later described the conversation as excellent and said Trump had been courteous and receptive. She said she had again urged him to reconsider his approach to immigration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Now the president is publicly spreading posts attacking a member of his own party who supports him on most issues. Former Republican congressman Carlos Curbelo of South Florida reacted sharply. Trump was demanding absolute loyalty from a politician who had strongly supported him and was now fighting for her seat. In Curbelo's assessment, Salazar stands with Trump on roughly 90 percent of issues. Even so, the president appeared more willing to risk Democrats winning the district than to accept disagreement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The dispute comes at a time when other Republicans are cautiously putting some distance between themselves and Trump ahead of the midterm elections. Salazar's district is now considered more competitive than before. Byron Donalds, the Republican candidate for governor of Florida, had also recently made Trump's endorsement less prominent on his campaign website. Trump responded publicly to that as well and said Saturday that he had already scheduled campaign rallies for Donalds. With Salazar, the conflict runs deeper: She challenged him specifically on immigration policy, one of his most important political issues. 9 days later, Trump is handing his own supporters the criticism of her himself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n