Evelyn Reynolds

More stories

  • 188 Shares88 Views

    in US Politics

    Elephants and rhinos at increased risk of poaching due to Trump funding cuts, groups say

    Environmentalists have urged the Trump administration to reverse its decision to cut off funding for key conservation work aimed at saving iconic at-risk species, including anti-poaching patrols for vulnerable rhinos and elephants.International conservation grants administered by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) have been frozen by Trump, throwing conservation non-profits around the world into disarray. These grants, amounting to tens of millions of dollars, help protect imperiled species in countries that lack the US’s financial muscle to combat threats such as poaching.An environmental group, the Center for Biological Diversity, said it would sue the FWS if the funding isn’t restored. It said the money is vital for patrols safeguarding rhinos in Africa, which have suffered a 94% population decline over the past century, as well as efforts to reduce human-elephant conflict and help conserve species such as freshwater turtles and monarch butterflies.“The Trump administration’s funding freeze for anti-poaching patrols and other international conservation work is maddening, heartbreaking and very illegal,” said Sarah Uhlemann, international program director at the center.“These Fish and Wildlife Service funds help protect elephants, rhinos and other animals across the globe that Americans love. No one voted to sacrifice the world’s most iconic wildlife to satisfy some unelected billionaire’s reckless power trip.”In a letter to the FWS, the center said that the funding halt violated the US Endangered Species Act, which requires the government to consider at-risk species in its decisions, and flouted proper agency procedure in rescinding funding. “This insanity has to stop or some of the world’s most endangered animals will die,” said Uhlemann.The freeze on grants is part of a broader crackdown on US foreign aid by Trump and his billionaire backer Elon Musk. A judge has ordered the freeze to be reversed, although the administration has yet to comply with the directive.In his previous term in office, Trump sought to weaken the Endangered Species Act and has set about trying to bypass the conservation law during his latest term. The president has demanded that a little-known committee, nicknamed “the God squad” due to its ability to decide if a species becomes extinct, help push through fossil fuel and logging projects in the US even if they doom a species.Experts have said that the use of the committee in this way is likely illegal. A court case may now unfold over the stymying of FWS grants for international conservation, too.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionAlongside illegal poaching, legal hunting tours in Africa are popular with some Americans, including Donald Trump Jr, who was pictured holding a severed elephant’s tail more than a decade ago.The FWS was contacted for comment on the potential lawsuit. More

  • 163 Shares74 Views

    in US Politics

    Democrats are acting sedate and silent during Trump’s worst excesses | Moira Donegan

    What was the point of Donald Trump’s address to Congress on Tuesday night? The annual speech – called the “State of the Union” address in every year except the one just after the president’s ascent to office – has long been a somewhat outdated bit of political theater, an event light on policy specifics and heavy on messaging in an era in which political messaging’s most effective venues have long since moved online.It’s perhaps even less clear what a speech to Congress is supposed to mean for this president, who has proven himself so indifferent to constitutional limits on his power – or for this Congress, which has shown itself so willing to abdicate its own constitutional responsibilities. It seems, like so many of the formalities of American politics do now, a bit like a phantom limb: something that Americans keep feeling for long after it has been excised. How long will it be, one wonders, until everyone stops bothering to go through the motions?But Trump, for one, seems to delight in any opportunity to make a spectacle of himself. On Tuesday, with a captive audience of all of Congress, many military leaders, about half of the US supreme court, and large swaths of the American public, he set about indulging all of his worst whims and lowest impulses. He repeatedly and extensively insulted his predecessor, the former president Joe Biden, by name and in strong terms. He relitigated old grievances, from his many prosecutions to his annoyance that not everyone likes him. He threatened the sovereignty of Panama and Greenland, went into extended discussions of the careers of various transgender athletes, boasted of ending “the tyranny of diversity, equity and inclusion” and removing “the poison of critical race theory”, and reminded his audience that he had renamed the Gulf of Mexico the “Gulf of America”. Occasionally, the gathered Republicans in the crowd would burst into grunting chants of “USA! USA!” It was worse than merely vulgar. It was stupid.Trump boasted of the rapid pursuit of his agenda in the weeks since he returned to power, declaring that the US was entering its “greatest, most successful era” and that “our country is on the verge of a comeback the likes of which the world has never seen, perhaps never will see”. In fact, the country is on the verge of an economic recession. Thousands of federal workers have been laid off, and Trump’s hefty tariffs on the US’s largest trading partners – namely Canada, Mexico and China – sent the stock market into a freefall earlier that day. In the past, Trump has got cold feet, and backed off his tariff threats. On stage in the House chamber, he doubled down on them, declaring that he would pursue his trade wars, and acknowledging: “There will be a little disturbance.”Trump spoke intensely and at length about his culture war grievances, touting his executive orders declaring English to be the United States’ official language and that the federal government would recognize “only two genders”. “Our country will be woke no longer,” he said.He also touted his record on immigration, boasting of his administration’s mass deportation plans and the decreased number of migrants and asylum seekers at the southern border. He dwelt at length on stories of violence by undocumented immigrants, pointing to the families of murdered Americans in the crowd and describing undocumented people as “savages”. Alluding to a fringe legal theory that could be deployed to support his unconstitutional effort to end birthright citizenship, he referred to the immigrant population as an “occupation”, and cast his own mass deportation effort as something like the expulsion of an invading army – which sounds a lot more noble than the chaotic and brutal humiliations and human rights abuses that have actually taken place as a part of Trump’s deportation effort.In a section on economic issues, he blamed Biden, specifically, for the price of eggs, which have soared in some places to nearly $20 a dozen. (According to reporting from NPR, some of Trump’s advisers have asked him to talk more about egg prices, which were a repeated talking point during his campaign but which he has mentioned rarely since taking office, though prices continue to climb.) He also repeated false claims by Elon Musk’s extra-constitutional government-slashing group, the “department of government efficiency”, that Musk’s band of sycophantic teenagers who are leading the decimation of government services have found “hundreds of billions of dollars in fraud and waste” in Musk-targeted programs, such as social security. They have not.In fact, he talked about Biden a lot. At times, when he seemed to get distracted or lose his place in the speech, Trump appeared to insert insults towards Biden almost as filler. “And think of where we were with Joe Biden,” he said, in one such non-sequitur. “Biden took us very low, the lowest we have ever been.” Other digressions included complaints about his own various grievances and mistreatment. “Nobody gets treated worse than I do online, nobody,” he said once, after a brief discussion of a bill to combat revenge porn.Where were the Democrats during all this? Mostly, they were quiet. A few high-profile Democratic leaders, like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the senator Patty Murray, skipped the speech. Others stayed and sat, sedate. Reportedly, word had gone out from Democratic leadership that party members should have a “dignified” presence at the speech, neither seizing the spotlight nor protesting against Trump out loud. The result was underwhelming.Democrats, who have told their voters that Trump represents a threat to democracy, sat silently, holding up ping-pong paddles printed with the word “false”. In an apparent nod to women’s eroded rights, some of them wore pink. Trump, for his part, used their silent presence to his advantage, turning them into props. Even if he cured a terrible disease, he jeered at the Democrats: “They will not stand, they will not jeer, they will not clap.” In fact, Trump has frozen virtually all federal funding of research into those terrible diseases, like cancer and Alzheimer’s, that American scientists were once working to cure. An opposition worth the name could have pointed that out; the one we have raised their ping-pong paddles a little higher.Trump is not the figure he used to be. He no longer seems to be quite in control of his own administration: he has delegated most spending policy to Musk, and has busied himself instead merely with turning the federal law enforcement agencies, such as the FBI and the broader justice department, into instruments of his petty revenge. He’s not funny any more. But he is also more comfortable in power: even less deferential to formality, even less reverent towards his office, even more inclined to turn the presidency into what was always his greatest passion, a TV show.In Trump’s hands, an old State of the Union convention – pointing out citizens who had been brought to Congress as special guests – was given a new twist: Trump set the people up for surprises. One child, a 13-year-old aspiring police officer with cancer, was gifted with an honorary membership in the Secret Service; the cameras on him, his sunken eyes widened with surprise. A teenager who aspired to go to West Point stood up to wave to the crowd, and was told by Trump himself that he’d gotten in; his jaw momentarily hung open. The genre was the gameshow, the carnivalesque kind where nobodies see if they can catch some luck amid the random dispensation of gifts by the glamorous and benevolent host. Think of Oprah, in her decadent generosity, yelling: “You get a car!” In these moments, Trump seemed to be having fun. At least somebody is.

    Moira Donegan is a Guardian US columnist More

  • 175 Shares83 Views

    in US Politics

    White House to overhaul $42.5bn Biden-era internet plan – probably to Elon Musk’s advantage

    The Trump administration is preparing to overhaul a $42.5bn Biden-era program designed to connect tens of millions of rural Americans to reliable and affordable high-speed internet, in a move that is expected to benefit billionaire Elon Musk.Howard Lutnick, the commerce department secretary who has oversight of the federal program, recently told senior officials inside the department that he wants to make significant changes to the federal program, sources with knowledge of the matter told the Guardian.Instead of promoting an expensive buildout of fiber optic networks – as the Biden administration sought to do – Lutnick has said he wants states to choose the internet technology that would be low cost for taxpayers.That, experts agree, would favor satellite companies like Musk’s Starlink. Musk, whose company owns about 62% of all operating satellites, has not hidden his disdain for Biden-era program, telling voters last year that he believed it should be brought down to “zero”.Sources spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter.Experts generally agree that using satellite services costs less to connect difficult-to-reach homes than fiber. But fiber also provides a more reliable, faster and less expensive option for consumers.Any change to the program could face substantial pushback from states and Congress, including Republican senators who have previously sought assurances from administration officials that the federal program, which is expected to generate billions of dollars in long-term economic growth across some of the poorest states in the US, would largely be left alone.The so-called Bead program (which stands for “Broadband Equity Access and Deployment”) was passed with bipartisan support in 2021 and aimed to connect 25 million Americans to high-speed internet. Under the Biden plan, states were left to make their own plans, request federal funding and hold competitive bids for internet service providers that would build the network. Given different choices of how to connect homes to high-speed internet, the Biden administration said it wanted states to build fiber optic networks, which are expensive to set up but are considered reliable and can offer affordable rates to consumers. In cases where fiber optic networks were too expensive to build, states could opt for cheaper options, like using satellite.“I don’t think there is doubt that Bead will continue,” said Blair Levin, policy advisor to New Street Research, a telecommunications and technology analysis firm. “What is in doubt is whether people get a long-term solution or something that is definitely good for Elon Musk.”Lutnick has told commerce officials that he wants Bead to be “tech neutral”, which means not favoring one technology over another. It is unclear whether Lutnick would try to force states to choose satellite service over others.Such changes – which would probably be challenged by individual states – would radically alter a program that has faced some criticism but has generally been embraced by both Republican and Democratic governors across the US, who have been expecting to receive billions of dollars in federal funding. The funds would provide an economic lifeline that would connect an estimated 56m household in mostly rural communities who are unserved or underserved to high-speed internet. It is estimated that the program, as it stands now, would generate at least 380,000 new jobs and fuel more than $3tn in economic growth.The commerce department did not respond to a request for comment.“The driving force behind Bead was parity. Can you get internet service in rural Wyoming what you can get in suburban Denver?” said one analyst who requested anonymity because they are providing advice to some states on the issue. “Fiber is utterly critical. If the internet is the most important infrastructure asset a state has, and you are using satellite, then it means you are not building something in your state. It can be turned on and off by the satellite provider.”Any dramatic change to the federal program also raises legal questions. States have spent years planning for Bead, including holding competitive bids for companies to build fiber networks. It is unclear whether the commerce department can force these states to restart their planning from scratch. The overriding criticism of the Biden program is that the bureaucracy took too long, and that not a single household has yet been connected to high-speed internet yet. The Trump administration might argue that states may as well start again to benefit taxpayers.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionFor states like Louisiana, which was poised to receive $1.355bn under the Biden program and was the first state to get full approval for its plan, any change could upend estimates that the fiber optic build-out would drive $2bn to $3bn in economic growth for the state and between 8,000 and 10,000 new jobs. Planned investments, like a $10bn AI center that is poised to be built by Meta in Richland parish, a poor farming region in the north-east corner of the state, would depend on fiber optic connections. In a recent letter to Lutnick, the Louisiana governor, Jeff Landry, said the state would be ready to break ground on its fiber optic network within the first 100 days of the administration.The top Louisiana official working on the program, Veneeth Iyengar, has said about 95% of the state’s funds will be used to build fiber, and the remaining 5% will be used for cable, fixed wireless and satellite.Trump administration officials have balked at the program’s price tag.Musk made his views about the program clear at a town hall meeting in Pittsburgh last October, before the election. When he was asked about what he would do to help make the government more efficient, Musk immediately raised Bead as an example of a program he would cut.“I would say that program should be zero,” he quipped at the time, while also suggesting that his own satellite company, Starlink, could provide internet connectivity to rural homes at a fraction of the connectivity cost.Starlink did not immediately respond to a request for comment.Some Republican senators asked Lutnick about his views on Bead during his confirmation hearing, but he offered no promises. When Republican senator Dan Sullivan of Alaska asked Lutnick whether he could assure him that commerce would not rely on Starlink “as a solution to all of our problems”, Lutnick declined to answer, saying only that he would work to pursue the “most efficient and effective solutions for Alaskans”.Do you have a tip on this story? Please message us on Signal at +1 646 886 8761 More

  • 113 Shares55 Views

    in US Politics

    ‘The relationship is broken’: Canadians respond to Trump’s tariffs

    “Since Donald Trump began his tariff threats against Canada and his ‘jokes’ about making Canada the 51st US state, I have not bought a single product originating in the US,” said Lynne Allardice, 78, a retired business owner from New Brunswick, Canada.“Not a single lettuce leaf or piece of fruit. I have become an avid reader of labels and have adopted an ‘anywhere but the US’ policy when shopping. I will not visit the States while Trump remains in office, and most of the people I know have adopted the same policy.”Acquaintances, Allardice added, were selling US holiday properties they had owned for many years.View image in fullscreenMany Canadians have responded to Trump’s economic tariffs and political messaging with a consumer boycott of US products and services – no more California wines or American Bourbon; local shopping instead of Amazon Prime; analogue entertainment and cable TV instead of Netflix; holidays in the Kootenays instead of Disney World.Hundreds of people from across Canada shared with the Guardian their reactions to Washington’s political and economic gear change, and how they may be affected personally.Many expressed defiance and anger over what they saw as a hostile new US administration that was no longer an ally and, voicing economic fears and a sense of permanent loss, said they would no longer buy US goods nor cross the border again – at least while Trump was in office.Pam, a 64-year-old retired woman from British Columbia, said she and her husband had cancelled a five-week trip to Palm Springs, losing their $5,000 (£3,900) deposit. They were planning, she said, to buy a Honda truck now instead of a Ford.Many said their local supermarkets had displayed labels marking Canadian products and that they were happy to pay significantly more for non-US goods, for example 50% more for Mexican lemons; others said they hoped Canadian companies would expand offerings and services after cancelling Amazon Prime and streaming platform subscriptions.One woman from British Columbia who lives a 10-minute drive from the US border and is participating in the boycott pointed to the irony of having joined several Facebook groups promoting Buy Canadian campaigns – one of which had now ballooned to 1.2 million members.View image in fullscreenAmid fiery pledges to stand up to the US government, hundreds of Canadians shared grave concerns about the impact of the trade tariffs on their personal finances.Many said they were anxious about their retirement savings amid the market turmoil and economic uncertainty that have followed what they referred to as Trump’s “economic warfare”.Scores said hiring and budget freezes were already happening in the companies they worked for, while a number of business owners highlighted a loss of sales since Trump’s election that was likely to worsen.People working in sectors including hospitality, tourism, retail, entertainment, the wider service industry, manufacturing, the auto industry, aviation, property and construction, agriculture, marketing and financial services, among others, shared concerns about their business or line of work being negatively affected by the tariffs and resulting economic uncertainty.Ian Hallett, the owner of an architectural bureau, from Seaforth, Ontario, said: “With steel, wood and aluminum tariffs, the construction industry will be hit hard and fast, which means a slowdown in building. We will likely have to lay off staff.”The owner of a landscaping business in Calgary, Alberta, said his sector would be “highly impacted” by the tariffs. “People won’t spend money to maintain or redesign their lawn. I may have to reduce my workforce and potentially shut down the season early. This will have a domino effect,” he said.View image in fullscreenAdrian, a business owner from Northern Ontario, said: “The tariffs have created chaos, anxiety and depression, a loss of hope. My US sales have dropped and if the tariffs [stay in place], I will have to close my business, as American customers are half my sales.”A 65-year-old support worker at an elementary school from Toronto said: “I’m worried my husband may lose his manufacturing job because the company he works for has a lot of American customers. Tariffs may make the building materials products his company makes too expensive.”Various business owners who were expecting a collapse in North American sales predicted that it would be impossible to make up the difference by increased exports to Europe or other parts of the world, where the markets were either saturated or shipping was too expensive.“I’m stressed about my investments and the financial markets, and I’m concerned about prices going up,” said Susan, an accountant from Toronto, mirroring the fears of many.While most of those who got in touch were outraged by Trump’s America First protectionism, scores of Canadians signalled an appetite for an isolationist approach for Canada, too.“I think that we should take a tip from Trump and build our own wall to keep the USA out,” said a 56-year-old single mother from Montreal. Scores of Canadians said they felt Canada needed to strengthen its military.Sarah from Nova Scotia said the Trump administration’s tactics and “threats against sovereignty, water, resources and territory” had “fired people up to be less dependent and integrated economically”.Antoine Delorme, a 43-year-old self-employed heavy machinery mechanic from Montreal, who has to order parts and material from the US every week, appeared to blame globalisation for Canada’s perceived vulnerability.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“With free trade, we lost a lot of economic independence. Many distributors are centralised south of the border [and] no longer need to keep Canadian facilities,” he said. Like many others, he felt Canada was now exposed, economically and militarily. “If the USA turns into a hostile neighbour, no one will be in a position to meaningfully help us,” he said.View image in fullscreenJean Whieldon, a retired journalist from Ontario, said: “We have become too dependent upon America – Trump is right about that. Who can we turn to for help and protection? Nato? The UK? Don’t make me laugh, it hurts too much.”Hundreds of people expressed fury over a perceived lack of solidarity from allied nations and were particularly critical of the British prime minister, Sir Keir Starmer, and King Charles.“Canada’s relationship with the rest of the world has changed for ever,” said Katy, a finance professional from Toronto. “We just came to the stark realisation that allies are an illusion. As we endure the Maga onslaught, our supposed ‘allies’, including Britain, remain silent. Our ‘head of state’, King Charles, remains silent. Nato countries remain silent. We will weather the economic storm, but [I am] not so sure about our relationships with other nations.”Canada, Katy added, could leave international partnerships as it was “blessed with innumerable natural resources”. “If things don’t change, then Canada needs to extricate itself and consider becoming a neutral country. Dismantling the constitutional monarchy is now a must. The Commonwealth is dead.”Hundreds of Canadians reported a palpable, freshly ignited rise of patriotism, as well as a kind of nationalism usually frowned upon in Canada.“Canadians have become much more nationalistic,” said a woman from Ontario. “Some of us have been booing at the US national anthem at hockey games, which is not typical Canadian behaviour. We are furious about the tariffs that will deeply hurt Canadian businesses and quite likely see other companies move their operations south of our border.”View image in fullscreenDonna, a retired woman living in a small city in British Columbia, said: “We have lost our trust in the USA as a friendly country. Patriotism was never something that Canadians celebrated enthusiastically. Today I see more Canadian flags than I have ever seen – in front yards, hanging from porches and hedges, and adorning cars. Both sides of the political spectrum and a majority of citizens are much more united than before.”A woman in her 40s from British Columbia who works in tech agreed: “There’s a huge sense of national unity around the country, and a lot of focused action to build our nation up.” She said she had “quit the US cold turkey”.“This is a shift unlike any I have seen in my lifetime, and unlike anything my parents have seen either. Canada is turning away from the US – if not forever, at least for a long time. Goodbye America, we’ll miss what we had, but not what you have become.”While some people said they were differentiating between the Trump administration and their American neighbours, others shared feelings of personal hostility towards the American population, saying they wanted to “stick it to” their “poorly educated neighbours to the south”, as one woman from British Columbia put it, echoing the remarks of many.Scores of Canadians said they had fallen out with American friends and even family members over the political tensions between the two countries and ideological disagreements over American and Canadian democracy, freedoms and Trump himself.View image in fullscreenA silver lining to the economic upheaval, various people pointed out, were renewed efforts to improve intra-Canadian trade between provinces.Matt, 41, a university employee from Vancouver Island, said: “Having a common opponent in the USA is drawing many people of my vast country together in ways that were seemingly impossible just a year ago. The work being done to dismantle inter-provincial trade barriers, with the potential to add tens to hundreds of billions of dollars to our economy, would never have had the political backing without Canada facing a significant external threat.”Most Canadians who got in touch felt that ties between Canada and the US had been permanently damaged.“The relationship is broken,” said Allardice, the pensioner from New Brunswick. “A great many Canadians hate the USA now. How can you remain on good terms with a neighbour who threatens your economy and jokes about bringing you to your knees?” More

  • 175 Shares74 Views

    in US Politics

    Packed Pacs: how billionaires in the US are bankrolling Republicans at the state level

    Billionaires are increasingly bankrolling Republican candidates in state legislative races across the US to push a rightwing agenda and gain long-term hegemony.The concerted effort shows that Donald Trump ally Elon Musk, currently throwing his weight behind a candidate for Wisconsin’s state supreme court, is far from alone in seeking to build influence at the grassroots.According to a research document obtained by the Guardian, the contributions are not limited to federal elections but extend to state-level campaigns and aim to influence policy at the state level. Priorities include dismantling government, targeting “culture war” issues – particularly abortion – and advancing school privatisation.In Virginia, for example, donors Thomas Peterffy and Jeff Yass contributed significantly to Governor Glenn Youngkin’s political action committee (Pac) Spirit of Virginia. Peterffy gave $3m while Yass added $2m. Spirit of Virginia spent more than $8m supporting Republican candidates in the 2023 Virginia general assembly elections.Democratic state house leader Don Scott was quoted by the Axios website as saying that Republicans were relying on “nameless, faceless, out-of-state mega-donors who have been pouring millions into the Commonwealth to push right-wing policies with no regard to what Virginians actually want”.In Michigan, the DeVos family, including former education secretary Betsy DeVos, donated more than $4.4m to state Republican candidates and causes in 2024. More than $1m combined went to the Michigan house and senate Republican Pacs.The DeVos family is known for promoting “school-choice policies”, specifically the expansion of charter schools. The Bridge Michigan news site reported “no individual has shaped school policy as much as Betsy DeVos”, contributing to Michigan having “some of the nation’s highest concentrations of charter schools run by for-profit companies”.In Wisconsin, Diane Hendricks and Elizabeth Uihlein contributed a combined $7m to Republican legislative campaign committees in 2024. Hendricks has a long history of influencing Wisconsin politics, including pushing for “right-to-work” legislation. The Uihleins have backed efforts to make it harder to receive unemployment benefits, oppose Medicaid expansion and create barriers to voting.In Pennsylvania, Yass, who is the state’s wealthiest billionaire, funded Pacs that reportedly spent nearly $4.4m to unseat Pennsylvania house Democrats. Yass-affiliated Pacs supported candidates who sponsored a near-total abortion ban. Since the 2018 cycle, these Pacs gave “$370,000 to bill sponsors and cosponsors” of such legislation.Yass also prioritises spending public funds on private education and is Pennsylvania’s biggest “school choice” donor. He told Philadelphia Magazine last year that it would be a “good thing” if public schools “shut down”, adding: “There is no possible way a government monopoly could be a better approach to schools than market competition.”Republicans in Pennsylvania pushed a constitutional amendment to ban abortion in 2021 and 2022 but without success.In Arizona, Earl “Ken” Kendrick (owner of the Arizona Diamondbacks baseball team) and his family contributed more than $200,000 to Republican legislative candidates and Pacs during the 2024 cycle. The Kendrick family supported the retention of far-right, anti-choice judges on the state’s supreme court. Legislative Republicans referred a proposal to the ballot to attempt to make these positions lifetime appointments.State legislative chambers, once regarded as sleepy backwaters, have become partisan battlegrounds in recent years as they have a huge impact on issues ranging from book banks to transgender rights to voting laws.On an otherwise disastrous election night last November, Democrats held their own at state level, emerging with more legislative majorities than they managed in 2016 or 2020. In Pennsylvania, for example, they held off a red wave to defend a one-seat majority in the state house.But that appears to be spurring on a small group of super-rich donors aiming to reshape state-level politics with a focus on issues including abortion, education and labour rights. Critics say such contributions raise questions about the role of money in politics and the influence of billionaires on the democratic process.Bernie Sanders, an independent senator currently on a “Fighting Oligarchy Tour” across the country, told last year’s Democratic national convention in Chicago: “Billionaires in both parties should not be able to buy elections, including primary elections. For the sake of our democracy we must overturn the disastrous Citizens United supreme court decision and move toward public funding of elections.” More

  • 150 Shares78 Views

    in US Politics

    ‘We’re going backwards’: the Black student unions being defunded on US campuses

    For Nevaeh Parker, the president of the Black student union (BSU) at the University of Utah, Black History Month is usually a buzzing time on campus.The school’s BSU hosts several events – kickback parties and movie screenings – throughout the month. The Black cultural center, where students would usually congregate and attend activities, would be full. And the month’s crown jewel would typically be a conference at the college for Black high schoolers in the area.But in July 2024, the center was shut down and turned into offices. The BSU budget, previously a guaranteed $11,000 a year to fund various gatherings to support the school’s marginal Black population, has been slashed. And the group has been forced to officially disassociate from the university in order to keep Black students at the center of their programming, all thanks to a new anti-DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) law passed in Utah last year.“It really hurts my soul to feel like we’re going backwards,” Parker, 19, told the Guardian. “We aren’t able to be as strong of a resource as we could be to Black students here.”View image in fullscreenBlack student unions at US colleges are fighting to stay in operation as state laws targeting DEI initiatives threaten their existence. Founded largely in the 1960s and 1970s, the campus groups support Black students at predominantly white universities by securing additional educational and financial resources, demanding more Black faculty, and building spaces for Black students to socialize. Activism by Black student unions helped spur the creation of African American studies programs across the US.BSUs are often the first line of response to racial discrimination on campus, organizing protests and holding universities accountable. Dozens of the groups held demonstrations after George Floyd’s murder in 2020.But anti-DEI bills are restricting what BSUs can do on campus, and how universities are legally allowed to support them. Since 2023, at least 11 states have passed laws targeting DEI initiatives in higher education. And conservative lawmakers in more than 30 states have also introduced such bills. At the federal level, Donald Trump ordered US universities and schools to eliminate DEI measures, threatening to withhold federal funding from those that do not comply.DEI programming at the collegiate level was initially conceived to support marginalized students, who are disproportionately affected by discrimination, financial hardship and feelings of alienation. But Republican legislators have argued that such initiatives are unfair and discriminate against white students. The flurry of anti-DEI bills, which have sharply increased since 2022, comes after the US supreme court struck down affirmative action, or the practice of race-conscious student admissions, in June 2023.Anti-DEI legislation and culture as a whole has had a chilling effect on colleges. Several universities have cancelled scholarships specifically aimed at students of color. Multicultural and LGBTQ+ student centers have been shuttered. And staff overseeing DEI initiatives have been terminated or reassigned.In January 2024, the Utah legislature passed House bill 261, known as the Equal Opportunity Initiatives. The law prohibits state schools and public offices from engaging in “differential treatment”, essentially banning DEI efforts centered around a particular identity.In response to the new legislation, the University of Utah closed its Black cultural center, a major loss for Black students on campus looking for a physical location to socialize, especially as only 3% of Utah students are Black. “It was a home away from home for a lot of students, especially those who lived out of state,” said Parker. “[The state of] Utah is less than 2% Black, [so] obviously, you are going to need spaces that are safe.”View image in fullscreenUtah’s BSU lost its adviser, as administrators either were reassigned to different parts of the university or resigned altogether. Notably, the words “diversity, equity and inclusion” cannot be used on any events sponsored by the university. “It basically took away our voice and took away what things that we wanted to talk about,” said Parker of the new limitations.In a comment to the Guardian, university officials said that identity-centered student groups are still able to gather as “affiliated” or “registered” organizations. “The University of Utah preserves and defends the rights of all registered student organizations – including the Black Student Union – to organize, gather and sponsor events on campus. Universities are marketplaces of diverse viewpoints and ideas, and that includes within our student clubs. Changing their status from ‘sponsored’ to ‘registered’ preserves their independence to continue working with a community of students, faculty and staff without limitation on their communication and activities.”The school said it has since opened the Center for Community and Cultural Engagement (CCE) and the Center for Student Access and Resources, which are “open to all students, whose dedicated staff still provide the same level of support – in advising, scholarship preparation, resource referrals and mentorship”. It has “redistributed the funds that were originally dedicated to BSU to efforts that work toward supporting all students”.Parker noted that the missions of these centers are broad and “not centered on student organization and affinity groups. It’s felt like their ability to support us in the ways that we need have not been met.”In October, the BSU publicly announced that it would forgo official sponsorship in order to fight censorship attempts. Some events at Utah have had to be cancelled, Parker said, as students try and preserve funds they crowdsource across school years. The group has had to meet less as well, especially without a designated space. Club meetings are now held in various campus classrooms.Black students at the University of Alabama have also found themselves in a similar position. Their BSU had its funding revoked and was forced to relocate after a state bill restricting DEI went into effect in October 2024. “It’s been hard for freshmen especially to find their community and find like-minded people that look like them,” said Jordan Stokes, the BSU president.If the BSU wants university support, particularly funding for student events, the groups would be forced to “partner with another organization”, Stokes, 20, said, so the event is not solely focused on Black students and is in compliance with state law. The BSU has since successfully reached out to outside sponsors and alumni to finance Black History Month events, including its annual BSU week which features a number of celebratory gatherings. But that fundraising is finite compared to the university’s resources.The BSU office, which is now sitting empty, also held a significant amount of civil rights artifacts from past events at the university, said Stokes, and students are working to preserve its archives amid the closing. Posters highlighting important Black figures used to hang around the office. Yearbooks past were available for perusal.Now, much of that history is sitting in storage, Stokes said. “We had writing on our wall and on the window where you could read about our history and everything,” she said. “It’s pretty sad for folks who [aren’t Black] to not see this history and learn and explore different cultures.” The University of Alabama did not reply to the Guardian’s request for comment.Both Parker and Stokes said that they are extremely frustrated with lawmakers who are going after their communities and other students of color. Watching the university comply with state demands has been hard, Parker added, especially amid concerns that directly protesting from the anti-DEI policies could have their organizations punished or removed from campus altogether.But both BSUs have continued hosting events to make sure that Black students feel supported. Attendance at BSU events has remained steady, said Stokes, with students becoming more interested in voting and learning more about these policies.Parker said that she and other BSU leaders are focusing on individuals, students who need the organization in whatever way it can exist. That means continuing to celebrate and gather, even under the threat of erasure. “It’s really sad,” she said, “that we as students, who are not politicians, have to take the responsibility to continuously fight every single day for our existence on campus.” More

  • 225 Shares46 Views

    in US Politics

    While our eyes are on the welfare state’s destruction, Trump is building a police state | Judith Levine

    Last week, the federal human resources department sent out a seven-page memo ordering agencies to submit detailed plans on how they will work with the so-called “department of government efficiency” (Doge) to slash their payrolls. To do this, they were to eliminate whole job categories – except one. Untouchable were positions “necessary to meet law enforcement, border security, national security, immigration enforcement, or public safety responsibilities”.While we’ve had our eyes on the wrecking ball–Doge pulverizing social services, environmental protection and scientific research, we’ve hardly taken notice of what is being constructed. In the footprint of the already shabby, now half-demolished US welfare state, the Trump administration is building a police state.In spite of Doge’s cuts to the FBI, the agency’s director, Kash Patel, is gearing up to turn the agency – whose job has always been to spy on US citizens, including enemies of the state as identified by the government in power – into Donald Trump’s personal secret police. At the state level, lawmakers are compiling their own enemies lists and filing bills to reward those who snitch on abortion seekers, transgender people, undocumented immigrants and school librarians suspected of harboring the wrong books.The Republican House budget includes $300bn in new funding for defense and border control. Among the Senate budget committee’s announced priorities are finishing the border wall, increasing the number of immigrant detention “beds”, hiring more border patrol agents, and investing in state and local law enforcement to assist in “immigration enforcement and removal efforts”. While no figures are provided in the attached budget, the Senate budget committee assures Americans that any new spending will be offset by reductions.Some of those reductions involve firing immigration judges and cutting federal supports to local police. Clearly, the right hand doesn’t know what the other right hand is doing. Still, cuts are not always cuts. Defense secretary Pete Hegseth has instructed senior staff to shave 8% off the department’s $850bn annual expenditures. Programs addressing the climate crisis and “excessive bureaucracy” are high on the list, of course. But, as the Intercept points out, savings will be repurposed for the president’s pet projects. For instance: the Iron Dome, an enormously complex, costly – and, critics say, unfeasible, unnecessary and even futile – space-based missile-defense and “warfighting” system that has been a fantasy of tech-drunk Republican presidents since Ronald Reagan. In keeping with Trumpian décor and his “golden age of America”, the Iron Dome has recently been rechristened the Golden Dome.The Golden Dome might also be a symbol of what a state devoted to protecting itself from enemies real and imagined offers corporate America. Because as the civil service shrinks, private industry – particularly the overlapping defense and tech sectors – will fill in the blanks. Project 2025, which is essentially being cut and pasted into Trump’s executive orders, calls on the administration to “strengthen the defense industrial base”, stockpile ammunition and “modernize” the nukes, while streamlining procurement from private contractors and involving them in decisions about what to produce. With Tesla and SpaceX contracts worth $38bn and of course, control of Doge, Elon Musk is already at the table. SpaceX practically owns Nasa’s rocket launch and space travel programs, freaking out engineers familiar with its bargain-basement manufacturing practices – and failures. Next up: artificial intelligence to replace human expertise.Trump’s war on immigrants also promises a windfall. During his first term, and Joe Biden’s as well, the creation and operation of a “smart” border wall – comprising mobile towers, autonomous drones, thermal imaging, biometric data collection and artificial intelligence – funneled billions of taxpayer dollars to Silicon Valley and Wall Street. A 2022 report by the National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights on border militarization and corporate outsourcing called border security a “for-profit industry”, which perpetuates itself by lobbying for ever more draconian crackdowns on migrants.Those profits are about to explode. “The border security market is projected to reach $34.4 billion by 2029, from $26.8 billion in 2024,” with Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics the biggest beneficiaries, according to the market research firm MarketsandMarkets.Private prison companies – the two largest contractors are GEO Group and CoreCivic – anticipate unprecedented revenues too. Implementation of the Laken Riley Act, which mandates locking up undocumented people charged not just with violent crimes but with offenses as trivial as shoplifting, will require a huge buildout of detention facilities; Project 2025 recommends 100,000 available beds daily. Flying deportees to their home countries could generate $40m to $50m of business, according to GEO’s executive chairperson. “We believe the scale of the opportunity before our company is unlike any we’ve previously experienced,” crowed the chief executive officer, J David Donahue, on the company’s quarterly earnings call.The removal of millions of migrants will necessitate more than software, planes and prisons. It will need personnel. And wouldn’t you know it, an enterprising group of military contractors including the CEO of Blackwater has submitted a proposal to the Trump administration to deputize a mercenary border patrol of 10,000 private citizens. The plan also recommends payments to bounty hunters. Estimated cost: $25bn.These surveillance technologies and tactics are not targeted solely at foreign and extraterrestrial invaders, however. Government drones kept watch over the Black Lives Matter protests of 2017; at a protest against Israel’s war on Gaza at New York University, a student called my attention to a police drone circling above. In 2021 SpaceX signed a $1.8bn contract with the Pentagon’s National Reconnaissance Office for a network of low-orbiting spy satellites called Starshield. “A US government database of objects in orbit shows several SpaceX missions having deployed satellites that neither the company nor the government have ever acknowledged” but were identified by experts as Starshield prototypes, Reuters reported. It is unclear whether the network will be used for military or domestic spying, but its reach is vast. Said one Reuters source: “No one can hide.”The transformation of the US government is not just a matter of replacing an accountable civil service with self-interested private contractors. “It seems like they are using [Doge] to reshape the purpose of the government rather than execute it more efficiently,” Max Stier, president of the non-partisan Partnership for Public Service, told the Washington Post.That purpose, Trump tells us, is public safety from threats without and within. But a capitalist police state redefines public safety. Safety does not include housing or food security, disease prevention or disaster relief. The state protects companies, not workers, consumers or the environment. The “public” in “public safety” also attains new meaning: it embraces only native-born practitioners of the state religion, political loyalists and favored profiteers.As this inner circle shrinks, the outside expands. There are citizens and what the Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben calls “margizens”, those who live in a country but do not benefit from its rights or protections. Not only are the margizens denied safety; they are deemed dangerous. To keep the nation “proud and prosperous and free”, as Trump described his America, the state will need to humiliate, impoverish, pursue, imprison and punish almost everyone.

    Judith Levine is a Brooklyn journalist and essayist and the author of five books. Her Substack is Poli Psy More