Feels like Groundhog Day? Tariffs, Epstein & "Woke" Grammys

The United States and India have agreed a new trade deal to ease a long-running tariff dispute. U.S. President Donald Trump announced the agreement after a phone call with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, saying that tariffs on Indian goods entering the U.S. will be reduced to 18% from much higher levels that had reached around 50%. In return, India has agreed to reduce its own trade barriers against U.S. imports and stop buying Russian oil, a key point in negotiations.

Indian Framing - Hindustan Times, Business Standard
From India’s point of view, the deal brings welcome clarity and relief to exporters who had been struggling under steep U.S. tariffs. Indian leaders, including Prime Minister Modi, thanked Trump publicly and said the cut to 18% will help “Made in India” products compete in the U.S. market. New Delhi also sees the agreement as part of a broader partnership with the U.S. that can boost trade and strengthen strategic ties, especially after the earlier 50% tariff situation caused concern.

US Framing - Reuters, Al Jazeera
The Trump administration frames the deal as a win for U.S. interests and leverage, lowering barriers while securing concessions from India on energy purchases and its own market access. Trump presented the tariff cut as part of broader efforts to rebalance trade and promote U.S. exports, especially energy and other sectors. Western commentators see this as part of Trump’s wider strategy of using tariffs and trade negotiations to extract concessions from major trading partners.

This deal matters because U.S.–India trade is massive. India has long been a major exporter of goods like textiles, engineering products, and software services to the U.S. High tariffs had threatened jobs and growth in those sectors. Reducing duties can boost trade and investment for both economies and ease diplomatic tensions after a period of escalation. It also shows how trade policy is now deeply tied to geopolitical issues like energy policy and supply chain partnerships, not just tariffs and quotas.

U.S. authorities have released a huge batch of Epstein-related files- over 3 million pages, including emails, photos, and videos, under a new transparency law. These documents include references to a number of prominent figures connected, in various ways, to Jeffrey Epstein and his social circle. The material shows email exchanges, social correspondence, and photos involving people like Prince Andrew, Sarah Ferguson, and Peter Mandelson, among others. As the files circulate, the individuals named have faced renewed media scrutiny and public reaction, including resignations, charity closures, and parliamentary pressure, even though no new criminal charges have been filed based solely on these disclosures.

Sarah Ferguson - BBC News, AOL, ABC
Sarah Ferguson, Prince Andrew’s ex-wife, has also been a major focus of the latest disclosures. New emails show her calling Epstein a “legend” and expressing warm sentiments, which have overtaken headlines and fuelled renewed criticism. In the wake of these revelations, her long-running charity Sarah’s Trust announced it will close “for the foreseeable future”, a move linked by media to the public backlash over her association.

Peter Mandleson- Sky News
A British former Labour politician, Peter Mandelson made headlines over the weekend as well: the latest files include material linked to him that prompted him to resign from the Labour Party, saying he did not want to cause further embarrassment. No.10 also calls for the House of Lords to remove him, and calls for the police to open investigations into his Epstein involvement. While details of the specific allegations remain unclear, his name appearing in the context of the releases has stirred significant political fallout.

Even though many of the new files are heavily redacted and context can be incomplete, the scope and scale of names and material now public mean the Epstein story continues to shape public discourse on power, privilege, accountability, and justice. The latest releases have pushed former royals, senior politicians, and influential figures back into the spotlight, with repercussions for their personal reputations, charities, and political careers, even without criminal charges.

Several artists used their acceptance speeches and stage time to speak about politics, especially ICE (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement). The biggest moment came from Bad Bunny, who, after winning Album of the Year, opened his speech by saying, “ICE out.” Other performers and winners like Olivia Dean and Kehlani made personal remarks about immigrant experiences and justice. Some artists also wore pins or symbols criticising immigration enforcement and calling for solidarity with immigrants. These moments quickly became a central topic of media and public discussion about the awards.

Supportive Framing - Time, AP News
Supporters argue that artists have every right to use their platforms to speak about issues affecting people’s lives, especially when they draw from their own experiences or communities. From this view, music and cultural events aren’t just entertainment; they reflect society. Supporters see speeches about immigration, identity, and social justice as amplifying voices often overlooked and encouraging empathy and awareness among audiences who might not otherwise engage with these issues.

Critical Framing - GB News, Fox News
Critics argue that the Grammys should focus on music and artistic achievement, not political statements. They say that pushing political messages at an awards show can alienate viewers who come for entertainment, not activism, and that mixing pop culture with partisan politics turns a cultural celebration into a political rally. Commentators like comedian Ricky Gervais, and others on social media have criticised these speeches as misplaced or “woke” grandstanding that detracts from the music being honoured.

The 2026 Grammys show how cultural platforms are increasingly arenas for political expression. When high-visibility events like the Grammys become venues for political messaging, it reflects broader social tensions and the way entertainers and audiences amplify public policy debates. Whether people see these moments as powerful expressions of conscience or as unwelcome politicisation, they spark conversation about the role of culture in public life and how artists engage with issues beyond their music.

A groundhog did what it always does. The story returned right on schedule.

Every year on February 2, people gather in Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania, to watch Punxsutawney Phil the groundhog emerge from his burrow. Tradition says that if Phil sees his shadow, there will be six more weeks of winter weather; if he doesn’t see his shadow, it’s taken as a sign of an early spring. The event always includes a small crowd of spectators, local officials dressed in formal attire, and live broadcast coverage. This year followed the same pattern: Phil was brought out at sunrise, made his “prediction,” and locals and media reacted. The tradition gets repeated each year and celebrated as a quirky piece of American cultural folklore.

Punxsutawney Phil saw his shadow, meaning, according to the tradition, there will be about six more weeks of winter before spring arrives!