U.S. ESTA Travel Pass News

President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping will hold a summit at the White House in Washington, D.C., on the 24th. This meeting between the leaders of the two countries, who are engaged in a competition for global hegemony, comes a little over four months after their summit in Beijing last May. It is their third meeting since the launch of the Trump administration’s second term. The first was held in Busan, South Korea, last October. President Xi Jinping’s visit is a state visit. This marks his first visit to the United States as a state guest in 11 years, since 2015. President Xi arrived in the U.S. via Joint Base Andrews near Washington on the afternoon of the 23rd (Eastern Time), and President Trump personally visited the base to host a welcoming ceremony and greet President Xi, demonstrating exceptional courtesy. An official welcoming ceremony for the state guest is also scheduled to take place at the White House prior to the summit on the 24th, and this event is expected to be lavish and grand. The world’s attention is focused on this meeting, where the leaders of the world’s top two economies and military powers sit face-to-face. This is because the impact their dialogue or agreements will have on the global economy and political landscape is immense.

However, many predict that this summit will not result in a decisive agreement to fully resolve the friction and conflicts currently raging behind the scenes. Instead, it appears the two leaders will focus on stably managing bilateral relations, such as by temporarily extending the “trade truce” agreed upon at the end of last year’s tariff war. U.S. media outlets, including the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) and the Washington Post (WP), pointed out that the two leaders are seeking a flashy show and stability rather than concrete results at this summit. Analysts suggest that both President Trump, facing midterm elections, and President Xi, preparing for a fourth term, intend to leverage this summit to achieve their respective political objectives and enhance their domestic and international standing. U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Besant, who previously coordinated the summit agenda with Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng on the 20th (New York) and 23rd (Washington), appeared on Fox News today and announced that the two nations had agreed to extend the trade war truce between them, set to expire on November 10, for another two months until January 10 of next year.

Along with this, attention is focused on whether some form of agreement will be reached in the field of artificial intelligence (AI), where the U.S. and China are fiercely competing. Recently, the U.S. AI industry has seen the emergence of calls to slow down the pace of development, accompanied by warnings that rapidly advancing AI could lead to the extinction of humanity. In this regard, it is reported that the U.S. proposed to China the establishment of safeguards, such as mutual notification in the event of an AI model going out of control or a serious accident.

In addition, given that President Trump has recently expressed his determination to resume talks with North Korean Chairman Kim Jong Un and publicly pledged to meet him within the year, there is interest in whether discussions regarding this will take place during his meeting with President Xi. A state dinner for President Xi is scheduled to be held at the White House on the evening of the same day the summit takes place. After completing his schedule with President Trump in the U.S. until the 25th, President Xi will conclude his three-day state visit and depart the United States.

The Donald Trump administration has extended the measure imposing a $100,000 fee on professional work visa (H-1B) applications for another year, despite a federal court ruling that the measure was illegal. According to the White House, President Trump signed an executive order on the 18th extending the validity of the high H-1B fee policy for 12 months, until September 21, 2027. The $100,000 fee measure, first introduced last September, was set to expire this month. Previously, in June, a federal court in Massachusetts ruled to halt the implementation of the policy, stating that the Trump administration had infringed upon the authority of Congress and exceeded its constitutional powers by imposing the fee. In response, the Trump administration has appealed to the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston and intends to maintain the validity of the executive order even while the appeal trial is underway.

The Trump administration has argued that the H-1B program has been abused to hire low-wage foreign workers and suppress the wages of American employees. Accordingly, the administration maintains that the imposition of a $100,000 fee is effective in shifting the hiring structure toward one centered on highly skilled and high-wage talent. This fee imposition primarily targets new H-1B visa applicants seeking to enter the United States from overseas. It does not apply to H-1B status conversions for international students already residing in the U.S. or the extension of existing visas. However, the business and IT sectors are strongly protesting the enforcement of this high-fee policy amidst ongoing legal uncertainty. They warn that this measure will hinder U.S. companies from securing top overseas talent and will instead lead to the negative consequence of companies poaching jobs to their overseas subsidiaries.

A series of shocking tragedies has occurred in Chatsworth, San Fernando Valley, resulting in five deaths and six injuries. These incidents took place within just two hours of each other, starting with a major collision between a Metro bus and an SUV, followed by the crash of a news helicopter covering the scene. The first accident occurred around 5 p.m. on the 15th near the intersection of Nordhoff Street and De Soto Avenue in Chatsworth. According to the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), a 2004 Ford Expedition SUV was driving against traffic in the northbound lane of De Soto Avenue, running a red light, and then struck the side of a Metro Bus No. 166 traveling eastbound. The collision killed two Metro bus passengers, 31-year-old Gage Weida and 46-year-old Daniel Castillo, and injured six others, who were transported to the hospital. The SUV driver, Bailey Lin Rios (36), was taken to the hospital for treatment after the accident and subsequently arrested on murder charges; his bail was set at $4 million.

The tragedy continued in the air while reporting from the scene of the accident. At approximately 6:57 p.m., about two hours after the initial incident, an NBC4 news helicopter covering the scene in real-time from the air crashed into the grounds of a commercial building on nearby Mason Avenue. NBC4 and Telemundo 52 reporter Eliana Moreno and pilot Jorge Maciniu were on board, and both died at the scene. Eddie Gutierrez Mejia, 29, who was on the ground where the helicopter crashed, also lost his life. Additionally, a fire that broke out immediately after the crash damaged four nearby vehicles and two storage containers. NBC4 announced during a live broadcast that they had lost contact with the helicopter, and after it was confirmed that their own news helicopter had crashed, they were forced to personally deliver the news of the deaths of their colleague and pilot.

At the time, the anchor and news crew shed tears during the broadcast as they mourned their deceased colleagues. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and California Governor Gavin Newsom also successively expressed their condolences to the victims and their families, and offered words of comfort to the colleagues of NBC4 and Telemundo 52. While the cause of the helicopter crash has not yet been determined, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) are investigating the crash site and wreckage to determine the exact circumstances and cause of the accident.

Hollywood actress Sydney Sweeney, dubbed “MAGA Barbie” due to various controversies surrounding her political leanings, is now embroiled in a controversy over the sexual objectification of women’s sports. According to the Associated Press and the New York Times, Sweeney has come under fire for appearing nearly naked in a recently released advertisement for the sports betting platform Novig. In the ad, Sweeney is seen covering her breasts with a rugby ball, climbing onto a basketball hoop, and lying on a pool table in lewd poses while stating that she only bets on sports. In the one-minute ad, scenes where Sweeney appears wearing even underwear lasted for only eight seconds. Female athletes have strongly protested this.

British track and field athlete Amy Hunt sharply criticized Sweeney on the BBC, stating, “Sydney Sweeney, the real face of women in sports is muscles, effort, sweat, blood, and tears.” Australian swimming gold medalist Ariarne Titmuss criticized the advertisement, asking, “Why is the commodification of women’s bodies and sports still tolerated?” and calling it an insult to women who have dedicated their lives to sports. However, Sweeney responded by posting past nude or semi-nude photos of famous female tennis player Serena Williams and soccer player Megan Rapinoe. As the controversy escalated, Sweeney’s followers on Instagram dropped by 200,000 in about a week.

A federal court has put the brakes on the executive order pushed by President Donald Trump to restrict birth tourism. With the executive order failing to clear the court even after a renewed attempt following the Supreme Court’s ruling of unconstitutionality, the legal battle over birthright citizenship is expected to intensify once again. On the 2nd, Judge Deborah Boardman of the Maryland U.S. Court granted a preliminary injunction filed by immigrant rights groups against the Trump administration to suspend the enforcement of the executive order restricting birth tourism.

The executive order that was halted this time was a revised plan issued with a narrowed scope after the Supreme Court previously ruled that the push to abolish birthright citizenship was unconstitutional. The core of the plan was to restrict the automatic granting of citizenship to specific cases, such as entry for the purpose of birth tourism or acquiring citizenship through commercial transactions. However, the court determined that this too lacked a constitutional basis.

In his ruling, Judge Boardman stated the reason for his decision, saying, “The Supreme Court’s precedent that a child born on U.S. territory is a U.S. citizen at birth, regardless of their parents’ immigration status, is clear,” and added, “Even if the administration changed the specific requirements to circumvent the Supreme Court ruling, it is highly likely to be unconstitutional.” The government countered that “the lawsuit itself is premature as the implementation guidelines for the executive order have not been finalized,” but the court rejected this argument, noting that “the legal uncertainty and harm to the parties would be severe merely by the issuance of the executive order.”

With this decision, the effect of the executive order has been immediately suspended, and enforcement will be completely halted until the outcome of the substantive lawsuit is determined. The Department of Justice immediately objected to the ruling and announced its intention to appeal. Consequently, the conflict between the executive and judicial branches over birthright citizenship is expected to be finally settled once again by the Supreme Court.

The Trump administration has issued a new legal interpretation mandating that state governments report information on undocumented immigrants, stating that federal aid could be suspended if they refuse. This is an all-out pressure measure aimed at involving state and local governments in immigration enforcement, and fierce legal battles are expected in the future.

According to an opinion released on the 1st by the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) of the U.S. Department of Justice, states participating in federal financial aid programs for low-income individuals must report information on residents deemed to be undocumented immigrants to the federal government. As all U.S. states participate in these programs, effectively state governments nationwide are subject to this regulation. The Department of Justice interpreted that the obligation to report undocumented immigrants applies to all state government agencies receiving federal funds, particularly regarding Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), a program supporting low-income families, and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) for the elderly and disabled.

Previous administrations had determined that the reporting obligation applied only to state government agencies directly implementing the relevant federal welfare programs. However, through this opinion, the Department of Justice has significantly expanded the scope of the reporting obligation to all state governments receiving federal funds. In a statement, Deputy Attorney General T. Elliott Geiser stated, “Congress has clearly defined this requirement,” adding that “if a state government chooses to participate in TANF, it is accepting the obligation to report undocumented immigrants within the United States.” He further argued, “Taxes intended to help vulnerable Americans should not encourage illegal entry but should contribute to strengthening the law and borders.”

This opinion, drafted by Deputy Assistant Attorney General Joshua Craddock, is part of the Trump administration’s hardline immigration enforcement policy. This could serve as a legal basis to cut off federal funding to state governments that do not cooperate with the administration’s large-scale deportation operations.

However, past attempts by the federal government to compel cooperation from state and local governments have been repeatedly blocked by the courts. This opinion officially retracts the previous interpretation issued by the Office of Legal Counsel in 1998 during the Clinton administration. That opinion narrowly interpreted the obligation to report undocumented immigrants, limiting it only to agencies enforcing federal welfare programs. The new interpretation does not bring about immediate changes to immigration enforcement operations.

Other federal agencies must devise concrete plans for how to actually enforce this, and there is a high likelihood that new legal battles with state governments will erupt during this process. The Department of Justice stated that the new policy applies only to federal funds allocated in the future. This means it cannot be applied retroactively to existing agreements concluded based on the past legal interpretation. Deputy Assistant Secretary Craddock explained, “Because the parties to the agreement at the time had differing understandings regarding the state governments’ reporting obligations, the administration cannot retroactively change that agreement.” State governments further added that they may reconsider whether to continue participating in TANF or SSI programs in the future, taking this opinion into account.

It is unclear on what grounds state governments will “recognize” a specific resident as an undocumented immigrant. Controversy is also expected regarding who will determine immigration status and on what level of evidence or suspicion. In 2000, several federal agencies interpreted the circumstances under which state governments could determine an individual’s undocumented status in an extremely limited manner. They considered that a report could only be made if an official legal judgment had been made following review and verification by federal immigration authorities.

However, Deputy Assistant Secretary Craddock pointed out that this interpretation raised the standard for “recognition” too high compared to what is required by law. He explained that state governments could be considered to “know” the situation even if the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) notified them, the relevant agency possessed records showing undocumented status, or the individual themselves admitted to being undocumented.

The Trump administration is pushing to completely eliminate the Employment Authorization Document (EAD) benefits that have been granted to spouses of professional work visa (H-1B) holders.

According to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), it has been confirmed that the administration is preparing new regulations to revoke the work eligibility of H-4 visa holders, who are the accompanying family members of H-1B visa holders. This measure is an extension of the recent series of policies aimed at tightening work visa regulations.

The DHS previously published a proposal in the Federal Register to impose a hefty fee of $103,265 on companies hiring new H-1B visa holders and began soliciting comments. In addition, the administration is also pursuing a plan to abolish the 60-day grace period granted after layoffs.

If this amendment is finally implemented, the work authorization system for H-4 visa holders, introduced in 2015, will be phased out after approximately 11 years. The H-4 visa is issued to accompanying family members, such as spouses, of H-1B visa holders; previously, spouses who had completed the initial stages of permanent residency processing could apply for an Employment Authorization Document (EAD) to work.

Some observers predict that the repercussions will be significant, given that a large number of H-4 EAD holders are highly educated professional women. The U.S. business community and major corporate organizations have also unanimously voiced their opposition.

Critics point out that blocking spouses’ economic activities will cause critical setbacks in U.S. companies’ ability to attract and secure top international talent.

Recently, the Consulate General of the Republic of Korea in San Francisco (Consul General Lim Jeong-taek) has been making various efforts to increase the registration rate of overseas Koreans. The Consulate has been actively promoting the necessity of overseas Korean registration by posting informational notices on its website and social media, and by distributing promotional materials at events where many overseas Koreans gather. According to Article 2 of the Overseas Korean Registration Act, Korean nationals who reside in a specific foreign region for more than 90 consecutive days or who intend to stay there must register as overseas Koreans. Registration is not merely a mandatory requirement.

When registering, applicants provide information such as their name, passport number, address, and phone number. This information serves as essential basic data for the Consulate to quickly identify the status and whereabouts of Korean nationals residing in the relevant region and take necessary protective measures in the event of incidents, accidents, or large-scale disasters abroad

. Registration as an overseas Korean is beneficial not only for personal safety but also for simplifying domestic administrative procedures. For example, registering allows one to omit the submission of a seal certificate—which is difficult to obtain—when applying for domestic real estate registration through an agent (replacing it with authentication from an overseas diplomatic mission). Additionally, the Overseas Korean Registration Register serves as supporting documentation when applying for admission to domestic universities through the overseas Korean admissions track.

Furthermore, registered overseas Koreans can obtain an Overseas Korean Certificate that enables identity verification using only a U.S. mobile phone number, without the need for a domestic carrier’s number. They can also obtain a mobile ID card that can be used as a physical ID at convenience stores, banks, and government offices, significantly improving administrative and financial convenience. Registration can be conveniently applied for online without visiting a Consulate General.

Through the Overseas Koreans 365 Civil Service Portal (www.g4k.go.kr), one can apply for registration as well as report changes or relocations. Consul General Lim Jeong-taek emphasized, “The registration of overseas nationals is a crucial system for safeguarding the safety of our citizens living abroad and providing necessary consular assistance.” He added, “While the necessity may not be keenly felt in normal times, it is paramount for the Consulate to swiftly locate our citizens and provide consular assistance in the event of large-scale disasters such as earthquakes or wildfires, or unexpected incidents and accidents.”

If you notice an increasing number of people around you suddenly coughing, you may need to suspect a COVID-19 infection. With the terrible memories of the pandemic that struck the globe still fresh, signs of a resurgence of the virus are appearing across the United States this year. According to the latest modeling by the Federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), “COVID-19 infections are increasing or likely to increase in all states except Iowa, which was excluded due to insufficient data.”

In particular, the Washington region, including Virginia and Maryland, is also showing an upward trend in infections, raising vigilance regarding a resurgence of COVID-19 ahead of the autumn and winter respiratory season.

According to the CDC’s infectious disease trend analysis as of August, no states showed a decrease in COVID-19 infections, but the virus announced that it is not spreading to the level of a large-scale pandemic seen in the past. The CDC stated that COVID-19-related emergency room visits remain at a “very low” level, and the incidence of severe cases also remains low. Although the Washington area has also been classified as being at a “very low level,” it is too early to be complacent amidst a nationwide upward trend.

In particular, given the nature of metropolitan areas where people travel between states, there is a possibility that an increase in infections in one region could rapidly spread to neighboring areas. The CDC is also tracking the spread of major respiratory viruses, including COVID-19, influenza, and RSV. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) plans to supply an updated COVID-19 vaccine starting this fall to address the currently circulating XFG variant.

A law requiring employers in Virginia to disclose the wage or salary range for a position when posting job advertisements went into effect on July 1. According to the Virginia Department of Labor and Industries (DOLI), the new law mandates that employers disclose the wage, salary, or wage and salary range for the position in all public and internal job postings.

Therefore, even when posting job advertisements in newspapers or online media, the compensation level for the position must be specified. This involves presenting the hourly wage range for part-time jobs and the annual salary range for full-time positions. The wage and salary range defined by the law refers to the minimum and maximum amounts for the position. For example, it can be indicated as “$18 to $22 per hour” for part-time employees and “$50,000 to $60,000 per year” for full-time employees.

Virginia law §40.1-28.7:12(B)(5) mandates that employers disclose the wage, salary, or wage and salary range for the position in public and internal postings regarding each job, promotion, transfer, or other employment opportunity. This provision does not specify separate restrictions based on business size, such as “employers with a minimum number of employees.” The Virginia Department of Labor and Industry also advises that all job postings and recruitment advertisements in Virginia must include wage or salary ranges. Accordingly, it is interpreted that small businesses employing two or three people—such as laundromats, delis, Korean restaurants, and cleaning companies—must also indicate wage or salary ranges when posting job advertisements.

Attorney Park Sang-geun stated, “This law applies not only to micro-enterprises but also to non-profit organizations, including churches,” adding, “When posting a job advertisement, you must disclose the hourly wage or annual salary.”

This law goes beyond simply disclosing wages; it also restricts employers from requesting a job applicant’s past wage or salary history or using this information for hiring and salary determination. Furthermore, it is prohibited to penalize a job applicant during interviews or hiring simply because they requested their wage or salary range. Attorney Park stated, “Employers cannot ask job applicants how much they were paid at their previous jobs,” adding, “However, job applicants are permitted to voluntarily disclose the salary they received from their previous workplaces.”

If the law is violated, the Virginia Attorney General can enforce it through civil litigation, and civil fines of up to $1,000 may be imposed for the first violation and up to $5,000 for subsequent violations. Job applicants or workers who have suffered damages can also file lawsuits in court. However, regarding violations related to the disclosure of wage and salary ranges in job postings, the law stipulates that employers must first be given an opportunity to rectify the situation. According to the law, if an employer who receives written notification of the issue with the posting corrects it at the location where the original posting was posted within 15 business days, no lawsuit can be filed regarding that violation. This measure follows the implementation in Virginia, which has already mandated the disclosure of wage ranges starting in October 2024. Maryland also requires the disclosure of wage ranges in various forms of job postings, including newspaper ads, flyers, social media, and email. The Virginia Department of Labor and Industry advises that “starting July 1, 2026, all job postings and recruitment advertisements in Virginia must include the wage or salary range for the relevant position.”