GRUNGECAKE

Tag: United States

  • McDonald’s introduces cash rounding policy as United States prepares to phase out penny

    [media-credit name=”McDonald’s” link=”https://corporate.mcdonalds.com/corpmcd/our-stories/media-assets-library/media-article/mcdonald_s_wordmark.html” width=300 align=”center”][/media-credit]

    McDonald’s has quietly changed how it handles cash transactions in response to the forthcoming phase-out of the penny in the United States. Under the new policy, if a cash purchase ends in 1–2 ¢, the total is rounded down to 0 ¢; if it ends in 3–4 ¢, it is rounded up to 5 ¢; endings in 6–7 ¢ are rounded down to 5 ¢; and 8–9 ¢ are rounded up to 10 ¢. Totals ending in 0 or 5 ¢ remain unchanged.

    Importantly, prices listed on the menu stay the same. The change applies only to cash payments—card and digital payments still process the exact cents. ‌

    Why the shift? The United States Department of the Treasury will stop minting new pennies by early 2026 due to production costs that exceed the coin’s value. In 2024, the Treasury reportedly lost $85.3 million from minting over three billion pennies. With fewer pennies in circulation, retailers are beginning to adopt “cash-rounding” methods. Other businesses like Kwik Trip and Sheetz have already introduced similar policies.

    Reactions among customers have been mixed. Some argue the practice is confusing and feels like a hidden price increase, especially when rounding goes up.

    “Why not just change the damn prices?” one commenter asked.

    Others point out that countries such as Canada and Australia have operated with similar rounding systems for years and find the move practical.

    From your vantage, it raises interesting questions about cash, convenience and fairness. If you pay by cash at McDonald’s, you may pay as little as two cents less—or as much as one to four cents more—than the listed total. For card users, nothing changes. And given that cash usage is already declining, this shift might pass unnoticed for many. Yet for people paying in cash, especially frequent-small-amount customers, it’s something to keep an eye on.

  • US airlines ordered to ignore ‘X’ gender-neutral passport markers amid federal policy clash

    In a move that heightens tensions around gender identity and travel bureaucracy, the US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has instructed US airlines to ignore the “X” gender marker on passports, demanding instead that travellers hold a passport marked “M” or “F”.

    The “X” marker—introduced for non-binary or gender-neutral identification, actually introduced in 2022 during the Joe Biden administration—is being sidelined under an executive order from Donald Trump. The order—titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government”—lays down the policy that only the male and female sexes exist at the federal level.

    Existing passports bearing “X” remain technically valid, but the new policy creates a disparity: Those renewing or applying for a US passport must choose either “M” or “F”, based on what the administration designates as “biological sex at birth”.

    Legal advocates caution that the shift may sow confusion—especially at airline check-in desks or border crossings—since travellers holding an “X” marker could encounter questions even if their documents remain lawful.

    Critics argue the policy abandons practical recognition of non-binary and gender-diverse individuals in favour of a stricter binary framework.

    One attorney noted the effect: “They are trying to throw us into a state of reactivity so that we’re not able to focus on practical advocacy and the material needs of our communities.”

    For travellers and industry alike, the directive introduces a layer of uncertainty. Airlines must now align operationally with CBP’s guidance despite the international norm—and the personal reality for many—of non-binary gender markers. Meanwhile, the broader policy battle over how federal systems recognise gender continues.

  • White South Africans say “no thanks” to Trump’s immigration offer

    [media-credit name=”EPA” link=”https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy4mmrr7j8mo” width=1498 align=”none”][/media-credit]In a recent development, United States President Donald Trump extended an offer to resettle white South Africans, particularly Afrikaners, in the United States as refugees fleeing alleged persecution. This proposal, however, has been met with a lukewarm response from the intended beneficiaries, many of whom prefer to confront domestic challenges rather than emigrate. On Friday, President Trump signed an executive order to cut United States aid to South Africa, citing concerns over an expropriation act signed by South African President Cyril Ramaphosa. This act aims to redress historical land inequalities rooted in the nation’s apartheid past by facilitating state expropriation of land in the public interest. The executive order also provides for the resettlement of Afrikaners—descendants of early Dutch and French settlers who own a significant portion of South Africa’s farmland—in the United States as refugees facing unjust racial discrimination.

    Despite the offer, prominent Afrikaner organisations have expressed a commitment to addressing issues within South Africa. AfriForum, an Afrikaner-led group, acknowledged the recognition of injustices against Afrikaners but opposed the withdrawal of aid, emphasising that Afrikaners are indigenous and not leaving the country. Similarly, the Solidarity Movement, which includes AfriForum and the Solidarity trade union and claims to represent about 600,000 Afrikaner families, reiterated their dedication to the nation. “We may disagree with the ANC, but we love our country. As in any community, there are individuals who wish to emigrate, but repatriation of … stated.

    Individual Afrikaners have also voiced their perspectives. Neville van der Merwe, a … from Bothasig near Cape Town, remarked, “If you haven’t got any problems here … ? There hasn’t been any really bad taking … ?”

    The South African government has defended its land reform policies, asserting that they aim to address racial disparities in land ownership without resorting to forced seizures of white-owned land. President Ramaphosa has emphasised that the government has not confiscated any land and will not be bullied. In summary, while President Trump’s offer underscores international attention to South Africa’s internal policies, many Afrikaners appear resolute in their decision to remain in their homeland and address challenges from within.

  • Federal judge temporarily blocks Trump’s executive order redefining birthright citizenship

    On January 20, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship”, aiming to end birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to parents who are neither United States citizens nor lawful permanent residents. This move challenges the long-standing interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to all individuals born on United States soil.

    [media-credit name=”EPA” link=”https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy4mmrr7j8mo” width=1498 align=”center”][/media-credit]

    The executive order specifies that individuals born thirty days after its issuance, or on February 19, 2025, will not be granted United States citizenship if their mother was unlawfully present in the country, or in a temporary status such as a student or tourist visa, and their father was neither a United States citizen nor a lawful permanent resident at the time of birth. The order faced immediate legal challenges. Attorneys general from 22 states, along with civil rights and immigrant advocacy groups, filed lawsuits arguing that the executive order violates the 14th Amendment. On January 23, United States District Judge John C Coughenour in Seattle temporarily blocked the order, describing it as “blatantly unconstitutional”. This ruling prevents the order’s implementation for fourteen days, pending further hearings.

    The Department of Justice has announced plans to “vigorously defend” the executive order, setting the stage for a significant legal battle over the interpretation of the 14th Amendment and the future of birthright citizenship in the United States. This development has sparked widespread debate, with critics arguing that the order could render affected children stateless and strip them of their rights. Supporters, however, contend that it is a necessary measure to address unlawful immigration. Further hearings are scheduled, including one on February 6 to consider a preliminary injunction.

    The outcome of this legal battle will have profound implications for immigration policy and the interpretation of constitutional rights in the United States.