Evelyn Reynolds

More stories

  • 188 Shares127 Views

    in US Politics

    Ukrainians who fled war fear deportation under Trump: ‘I am young, I want to live’

    Not long after Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, Danyil packed everything he could in a bag and traveled 15 hours by bus from the Zakarpattia region in western Ukraine to the Czech Republic.He fled the war at 17, just as the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, forbade men between the ages of 18 and 60 from leaving the country. Now aged 20, he watches from the US as the war drags on. In December, Zelenskyy said 43,000 Ukrainian soldiers have been killed and another 370,000 have been wounded in the war.“I didn’t want to die young,” said Danyil, whose last name the Guardian is withholding due to concerns for his safety if he returns to Ukraine now.His view of current, US-brokered negotiations are: “There are peace talks now but unless the Russian government is overthrown nothing is going to change. They will continue to bomb.”After 10 months of working in a Czech automobile plant in the northern region of Liberec, Danyil traveled to the US on 4 January 2023, thanks to a Biden administration program, Uniting for Ukraine, that offered a temporary sanctuary to Ukrainians fleeing the Russian aggression.But soon after Donald Trump took office again in January, he suspended the Uniting for Ukraine policy, pausing admissions under the program and barring those already in the US from renewing their two-year work permits and deportation protections.Weeks later, the Trump administration paused all immigration applications for further relief by those who arrived under Uniting for Ukraine and other Biden-era processes that relied on a policy known as parole and Trump has blocked pathways to permanent legal status.The moves have pushed hundreds of thousands into a state of insecurity after they were welcomed to a safe haven.As of December 2024, the US had 240,000 Ukrainians with US sponsors under the Uniting for Ukraine program, including Danyil, according to government figures obtained by the Guardian.Unable to renew their parole status or apply for another temporary legal status, Danyil and the other thousands of immigrants could lose their permits and could end up undocumented and vulnerable to deportation.Danyil said his parole status ended at the beginning of this year and while he has applied for renewal, he hasn’t received a response from the US Citizenship and Immigration Services.“I don’t want to stay here illegally but I don’t want to go back to Ukraine. I am afraid, I am young, I want to live,” he said.Because Ukrainian newcomers were only given permission to live in the US for two-year increments, many applied for other legal shelters, including Temporary Protected Status (TPS).Earlier in January, Joe Biden’s homeland security secretary, Alejandro Mayorkas, extended Ukraine’s designation for TPS through October 2026. As of September 2024, 63,425 Ukrainians had been granted TPS in the US.Danyil said he applied for TPS this March, but has not yet received a response.Trump has directed the Department of Homeland Security to re-evaluate TPS designations of all countries, and his administration has already announced it will phase out protections for hundreds of thousands of migrants from countries under ongoing armed conflicts.In response, the agency has said that it would revoke the temporary legal status of more than 530,000 Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans welcomed into the US under another Biden-era sponsorship known as CHNV.More recently, the US district judge Edward Chen in San Francisco blocked the Trump administration from terminating the temporary protection program for 350,000 Venezuelan migrants.But with continued administration efforts to repeal protection for immigrants in the country, advocates are worried that officials could also discontinue Ukraine’s TPS designation, leaving Ukrainians afraid to go back to a country still at war with no other valid status in the US.“That’s what has really threatened the safety of over 240,000 Ukrainians,” said Anne Smith, the executive director at Ukraine Immigration Task Force, a nonprofit organization that has helped families from Ukraine find refuge in the US.“There’s a great danger of being deported, and if not deported, then placed in detention for a long time. Given the majority of the Ukrainians who came here on Uniting for Ukraine under humanitarian parole, there really are no legal avenues available to them unless either the Department of Homeland Security lifts the processing of applications suspension or Congress decides to act,” she added.On the third anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Senator Dick Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, introduced a bill that would offer Ukrainians who were granted parole, like Danyil, a temporary guest status, regardless of when they arrived in the US.“When the war started, Republicans across the country opened their hearts and communities to desperately fleeing Ukrainians, even actively petitioning President Biden to protect them from deportation. So far, not a single Republican has cosponsored my bill. But I urge them to join this simple act of American compassion. Standing up to dictators and speaking out for victims of war should never be a partisan issue,” Durbin said in a recent press release.Illinois is now home to 57,000 Ukrainians brought to the US under Uniting for Ukraine and another 65,000 reside in New Jersey and New York.The Leonid Foundation, named after a Ukrainian man who was killed in Mariupol during the Russian assault of 2022, has helped more than 3,000 Ukrainian refugees relocate to New Jersey since the war started, according to Anna Move, the organization’s president.The foundation helped Danyil find a home in central New Jersey. He works mounting television sets in people’s homes and is saving money hopefully to go to college. Meanwhile, he assists wounded Ukrainian soldiers who come to the US to get their prosthetics.He said: “A lot of people like me dream of staying in the US because there’s an opportunity. I am afraid of going back, I’ve seen those soldiers.” More

  • 200 Shares151 Views

    in US Politics

    She’s a waitress raised on a farm – can Rebecca Cooke win a key Wisconsin seat?

    Wisconsin’s third congressional district has voted for Donald Trump every time he’s been on the ballot, but the moderate Democrat Rebecca Cooke, a waitress who grew up on a dairy farm, thinks she can flip the state’s most competitive seat next year.Last year, Cooke outperformed other Democrats when she tried to unseat incumbent Derrick Van Orden, a retired US Navy Seal who attended the January 6 “Stop the Steal” rally at the Capitol and shouted “lies” during Joe Biden’s 2024 state of the union address. She lost the race by less than three points.She’s trying again. She launched her 2026 campaign in March, amid constituent anger at Van Orden for refusing to face questions at in-person town halls. She is doubling down on the campaigning that worked for in November, hitting the pavement across the western Wisconsin district.In the soul-searching among Democrats over the future of their party, Cooke aligns with the moderate Blue Dog coalition led by Washington state representative Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, who told Mother Jones that after she endorsed Cooke, Van Orden “shoulder-checked me on the floor”.But Cooke rejects a label within the party, calling them “somewhat harmful” and polarizing in her district. She tells voters that she thinks lawmakers in DC are either too far left or too far right, and that there need to be more regular folks willing to work across the aisle to get things done. The idea resonates with people, who tell her they’re over the polarization and chaos. She needs votes from people across the political spectrum to win in the moderately right-leaning district.Cooke’s resumé is the kind often cobbled together in small towns across the US: she works as a waitress, she ran a retail business and an Airbnb business, she worked on Democratic campaigns, and she started a non-profit to support female entrepreneurs. She first ran for the congressional seat in 2022, losing in the Democratic primary, then again in 2024, beating out two other Democrats to take on Van Orden.She has been waitressing since she was a teenager, she said. “I love that work. I love the hospitality industry. I think there’s so much dignity in hospitality work, and it’s something that allows me being able to work at night, to be able to campaign all day.”She said her “more working-class” background aligns with the district but upsets her opponents, who have brought up her work on Democratic campaigns. The National Republican Congressional Committee has repeatedly called her a “sleazy political activist” and said she is lying about her background.“I’d love them to see the car that I drive around, and the place that I live,” she said. “Anybody that knows me knows that I’m not rolling in dough by any means.”Cooke grew up on a dairy farm, but her family had to sell their cows because of how competition affected the price of milk. Losing the farm wasn’t just losing a business, she said. “It’s just very much a part of our way of life, and we’ve lost thousands of dairy farms in Wisconsin.”In June, farmers around the state will host breakfasts to promote dairy farming. She said she’ll be at every dairy breakfast she can get to in the district, shaking hands and introducing herself.“I don’t know what people’s political background is, but when I’m shaking their hand, I’ll say: ‘I’m Rebecca Cooke, I grew up on a dairy farm,’ and I tell them a little bit about my background,” she said. “By the end of the conversation, they go: ‘So, what party are you from?’ And I would rather that question if they’re agreeing with me on similar values.”Cooke said she thinks Democrats need to bring people back into a big tent through pragmatism and detailing how their agenda would help Americans afford their housing and groceries.The party needs to create its own “prosperity gospel instead of just demonizing the right”, she said. “What are we going to do better? And how are we going to help people find their path to the middle class?” Democrats need to be bold, fresh and and willing to be “more uninhibited”.“I really think the change that we want to see has to come from the inside out and not from the outside in,” she said. “We need to look to our communities to solve these gaps and this vacuum and work to recruit people to be those strong voices and to run for office.“It shouldn’t be like, this is coming from the national party, and this is what you should think or do. It should be, this is what’s coming from our communities, and this is what we want the party to do.” More

  • 225 Shares143 Views

    in US Politics

    Are Trump’s tariffs for real or an AI hallucination? I’m afraid the answer is both | Marina Hyde

    There’s a scene in the very first episode of Yellowstone where the casino-owning Native American chief explains the basic financial logic of all casinos to an uncomfortable politician: “The gamblers’ money is like a river – flowing one way. Our way.” Oh no, hang on, wait … Not all casinos. In fact, it could be that when all is said and done, the historians looking for that one key fact to illustrate the eventual legacy of Donald Trump will not go with his two stunning presidential election wins. Instead, they’ll point out that in the 90s, he literally managed to bankrupt casinos. To repeat: this is a man who somehow contrived to bankrupt multiple casinos. Is he the guy to reshape the entire global economic order of the past century? Let’s find out! Either way, only 45 months of his presidency left to go.Anyway: tariffs. Rather than using actual tariff data, the United States of America this week appeared to have genuinely used a basic ChatGPT-style model to calculate the tariffs it would immediately impose on friends/foes/arctic wildlife. This was called either “liberation day”, or the “declaration of economic independence” (sadly not abbreviated – yet – to DEI).It was hosted in the White House Rose Garden by ancient gameshow MC Donald Trump, who was accidentally wearing his indoors makeup outdoors. Like many, I’ve tried to mentally detach from the fact that we live in a time when the US defence secretary has a neck tattoo or whatever, but it makes me feel at least partially alive that the presidential paint job still occasionally retains the power to horrify. Trump leered his way through his tariff presentation while appearing to have been made up by the technique that provided the climax to Joe Wilkinson’s RNLI speech on Last One Laughing (If you saw it, you know). It’s not so much foundation any more as cosmetic bukkake.Forgive me, back to the economics. We know that Trump has always been obsessed with starkly simple numbers. Network TV ratings. The overall trade balance in goods (not services). And – before this week – the stock market. But now, like Bruno, we don’t talk about the stock market, no no no … Certainly not since it dropped 1,679 points in one day alone (the day after Trump announced the tariffs). Although please enjoy the pure hilarious happenstance of scheduling which meant that that day’s opening bell to signal the start of trading on Wall Street had been rung by the staff of wingnut media outlet Newsmax and Rudy Giuliani. Ding, dong – now just watch those stocks crap the bed. Seriously, Rudy – everything you touch! Then again we do have to remember that it was Trump himself who last year declared that “stock markets are crashing, jobs numbers are terrible, we are heading to World War III and we have two of the most incompetent ‘leaders’ in history. This is not good!!!”Is he still marking presidencies on the same metrics? Alas, reporters are going to need to shout that inquiry over the fairways, as Trump has now repaired to one of his Floridian golf courses to host the first domestic event of 2025 on the Saudi-owned LIV Golf tour. It’s called class: look it up. And no doubt it’ll be fun discussing falling oil prices with whoever is over from Riyadh for the event.Trump did offer one last comment on the tariffs before donning his big-boy golf pants. “The operation is over,” he said. “The patient lived, and is healing. The prognosis is that the patient will be far stronger, bigger, better and more resilient than ever before.” A speech I am positive I have heard delivered word-for-word on The Simpsons by ultra-shady physician Dr Nick. Meanwhile, in the back of shot, a Frankenfigure with a fish’s head grafted to a man’s body sits bolt upright, convulses wildly and dies within three foot of the operating table. Listen, you can’t save ‘em all.Incidentally, Trump is not the only one reaching for medical metaphors. Take the chief economist at UBS Global Wealth Management, who this morning observed mildly: “We often hear that when the US sneezes the global economy catches cold. This is not the US sneezing. This is the US cutting off its own arm. The self-inflicted economic cost naturally weakens the dollar.” Mm. One indication that an economic plan is going badly is that there’s no one responding to the above by going “ooh, but is cutting off your arm even a bad thing?”. Different circumstances, of course, but there was a similar mood in the air in the UK after Liz Truss’s “mini-budget”.Speaking of Blighty, Keir Starmer seems to have continued his policy of not poking the bear, and indeed to pretend to really enjoy it when the bear pokes you really hard somewhere really painful. According to Trump, Starmer is “very happy” about the 10% tariff kick he just took up the UK’s backside.Still, perhaps there are already signs of slight directional pivots in the West Wing. Having watched global markets tumble while the White House absolutely insisted that the tariffs were not lazy ChatGPT-assisted gambits to provoke immediate trade negotiations, it wasn’t too long before Trump’s son Eric was venturing on to X with a take. “I wouldn’t want to be the last country that tries to negotiate a trade deal with @realDonaldTrump,” gibbered Trump minor. “The first to negotiate will win – the last will absolutely lose,” he continued. “I have seen this movie my entire life …” Weird, because I don’t remember this particular scene in the aforementioned Trump casino movie – or indeed several epic flops in the franchise.Yet this was also a week where we were reminded that life is not just about the adult sons with whom we are saddled, but the adult sons we choose. Fire up the elegy muzak, then, for there is sadness in the air. Reports – hotly denied, which means nothing – suggest that Elon Musk will fairly soon be leaving his post at the “department of government efficiency” and returning to the private sector. Yeah, let that sink out. And then try to picture his Doge leaving party. “Sorry boys, tariffs mean we can only afford US beer. And, unfortunately, we eliminated spending on paper cups. On the plus side, the president’s makeup artist is just going to spray Bud Light in the general directions of your mouths, and she has a 30% accurate aim. Open wide, victors!”All of which would seem to conclude this week’s look at Trump’s river, which a) is a river of effluent and b) only flows one way. Our way. What can I tell you? Buy shares in paddles today.

    Marina Hyde is a Guardian columnist More

  • 150 Shares79 Views

    in US Politics

    Digested week: The world spins on as I cope with Mum’s loss

    MondayGrief is an unnerving companion. Continually nudging me off centre. Even though the world appears much as it did before my mum, Rosemary, died, everything feels slightly out of kilter. Not quite right. Not as I remembered it. Sometimes, I even have to double-check the chair is where I thought it was. The physical merges into the metaphysical. Most of the time I feel OK. Tell myself that it was the right time for her time to die and that no one can feel cheated at 101. That it is a blessing she is no longer subject to the terrors of her dementia. That she is at peace. I just get on with my work and spend time with family and friends.At other times, I feel overwhelmed with sadness. Struggling to come to terms with the finality. Unable to quite believe that the only time I will see my mum again is in my dreams. Consumed with regrets for the things I was never able to say, before and after the Alzheimer’s took hold. In the meantime, we get on with the death admin, of which there is surprisingly little. My sisters have registered her death and organised the small cremation service but there is no house to pack up and sell. We did all that years ago when she moved into the care home.Everything my mum owned was tucked away in the single room of the home where she lived. Just a few chairs and a small bookcase, some clothes and old photo albums. I felt in something of a daze as we went through my mum’s belongings. Now I regret some of the decisions I made. I found a small folder of random letters I had sent her, mostly ones I had written to her as a child. I found them too painful to re-read so I chose to throw them away. I wish I had hung on to them. As a mark of respect, both to her and to my younger self.TuesdayThere have been an increasing number of articles written warning Britons not to visit the US. I don’t feel as if I have a choice in this. My daughter lives in Minneapolis and I want to be able to visit her over the next four years. Or longer, if Donald Trump somehow manages to tear up the constitution and award himself a third term. As things stand, I have no idea if I have any reason to be worried. I’m certainly not about to stop making fun of the Sun-Bed King or commenting on his influence on global politics. I can imagine border security have more important things to do than prevent a Guardian journalist going on holiday to visit his family.But maybe I’m being naive. After all, even the UK government is going out of its way not to rock the boat. Keir Starmer has been desperate not to do anything to upset The Donald, even when the US administration was about to impose tariffs. He doesn’t even fight back when JD Vance and Marco Rubio suggests the UK is stifling free speech. The irony. Rachel Reeves has gone further still. In her spring statement last week, she couldn’t even bring herself to mention Trump by name. In her section on “global headwinds”, she was happy to call out Vladimir Putin. But the section on tariffs was rather garbled, with no references to Trump in person; nor are any other members of the cabinet prepared to do so. Trump is He Who Must Not Be Named. For the time being, then, I will just carry on as normal. I’m due to renew my ESTA in a few months’ time so we’ll see how that goes. One step at a time.WednesdayI have a feeling the four Beatles biopics that director Sam Mendes announced in Los Angeles this week may not be for me. One, maybe, out of curiosity. But four, each devoted to one member of the band, seems like overkill. It’s not as if the music is going to change much from film to film, though I guess Mendes will have prepared separate soundtracks, and the bottom line is I can’t see myself sitting through a film dedicated to Ringo.I’m just not a Beatles obsessive. I was well drilled by my eldest sister, Veronica. Back in 1964, when I was eight years old, she told me there was a choice to make. You were either a Beatles fan or a Rolling Stones fan and there was no crossing the divide. Veronica was a Stones girl through and through. She bought all their LPs and singles and was allowed out to see the band play at Longleat. My dad was a curate in nearby Westbury and the gig was a short drive away. I pleaded with my mum to be allowed to go as well, but was firmly put in my place.My first ever gig would have to wait a month or so. The Hollies were scheduled to also play Longleat and by now my mum had been ground down. I was in. Sadly, I had to make do with Heinz and the Wild Boys because the Hollies cancelled. But, from the age of eight I, too, was a Stones fan. The Beatles were the safe choice. The Stones had an air of danger. I lived out a parallel life to my middle-class childhood through Mick Jagger and Keith Richards. It never occurred to me they would be still going 60 years later and that the Stones and the Beatles would both become about as establishment as you can get.View image in fullscreenThursdayOne of the less-reported knock-on effects of Labour’s landslide victory last July has been on select committees. In theory, these are where ministers and officials are held to account. Far more so than in parliament, where questions are so easily left unanswered. When I first started political sketch writing, there were three standout committees. There was the home affairs committee, where Theresa May was time and again put under scrutiny as home secretary, and the public accounts committee. Heaven forbid anyone tried to pull the wool over the eyes of its chair, Margaret Hodge. But best of all was the Treasury committee under the forensic Andrew Tyrie, aided and abetted by his attack dogs, Rachel Reeves and Wes Streeting. It was always box office, no more so than when Dominic Cummings was completely exposed as a fraud. Chancellors used to be genuinely anxious before an appearance, unsure if their budgets were about to unravel in real time.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThis is no longer the case. Because Labour have such a massive majority, they get to take the lion’s share of the places on every committee. And, inevitably, many of the committee members are also new MPs. Men and women who don’t quite know yet how the system works; who are reluctant to properly interrogate senior ministers from their own party.A case in point was the chancellor’s appearance before the Treasury committee to answer questions on her spring statement this week. The last person Reeves would have wanted to face was her former self, because then she would have been forced to defend her benefits cuts and say what she would do if her fiscal headroom again went awol. But Reeves had no such worries. All the Labour MPs asked tame question – “Have you thought about this?” “Yes, I have” – and the two Tories were more spaniel than rottweiler. Rachel went into the hearing with a smile on her face. She came out laughing. You couldn’t blame her.FridayNext Tuesday is my mum’s cremation. It will be a small affair with just my sisters and me, partners, and Anna and Robbie. For the music, we have chosen two piano pieces that my mum used to play: a Schubert Impromptu and Chopin’s Raindrop prelude. As her wicker basket leaves the chapel, Richard Strauss’s Morgen! will be playing: a beautiful song she loved and passed on to us. There will be tears.We are planning a bigger service to inter her ashes next to my dad some time in May, though we’re not sure how many people to expect. Mum outlived almost all her family and friends, though maybe a few of the younger generation will come. It’s a tough time, made worse by the illness of my dog, Herbert Hound. We had hoped to have him around for the summer at least, but he is fading fast and I fear his life is measured in weeks at best.He spends most of his time asleep, hardly eats and has trouble weeing. The only upside is that he doesn’t appear to be in any pain. It feels as if Herbie is looking at us in a different way. Distant, yet strangely intimate. As if he knows his time is short. One of the few consolations in all this loss has been you, the readers. Over the past two weeks, I have received so many kind emails from strangers. Too many to reply to them all, but greatly appreciated, nonetheless. I thank you all. It has also been wonderful to meet so many of you at events I have been doing round the country. I have three more upcoming. At the Marine Theatre in Lyme Regis on Good Friday, the Bloomsbury Theatre in London on 24 April and at the Norwich Arts Centre on 1 May. Please do come. I would love the chance to talk to you and thank you in person. More

  • 125 Shares103 Views

    in US Politics

    Harvard faculty organize amid anxiety university will capitulate to Trump

    The day after the Trump administration announced a review of $9bn in federal contracts and grants with Harvard University due to what it claimed was the university’s failure to combat antisemitism on campus, the university’s president, Alan Garber, sent an email to the Harvard community titled: Our resolve.“When we saw the Garber statement’s subject line, everybody thought: ‘Oh, great, Harvard’s going to stand up!” said Jane Sujen Bock, a board member of the Coalition for a Diverse Harvard, a group of alumni founded in 2016 amid a legal battle over affirmative action.But the actual body of the message indicated no such thing. In the email, Garber briefly touted academic freedom while pledging to “engage” with the administration to “combat antisemitism”, which he said he had experienced directly, and listed a series of measures the university had already taken. “We still have much work to do,” he wrote. He offered no detail about what Harvard would do to protect its independence from the Trump administration.It was “a statement of abdication”, said Kirsten Weld, a history professor and the president of the Harvard chapter of the American Association of University Professors, a national group advocating for faculty. “It basically says: ‘Yes, we have been bad and we deserve to be punished.’”The email, along with a string of actions recently taken by Harvard against academic programmes, faculty and student groups who have been accused of being pro-Palestinian, have fueled anxieties throughout US campuses that the Ivy League school will be following in the footsteps of Columbia University, which recently bowed to a string of demands from the Trump administration in an effort to retain federal funding.On Thursday, the Trump administration wrote in a letter to Harvard that federal funding would be conditional on the university banning diversity and inclusion initiatives, restricting protests on campus, cooperating with the Department of Homeland Security, reviewing its academic programs “to address bias”, and installing leaders to implement the president’s demands.Dozens more universities are under investigation for allegedly failing to protect Jewish students from pro-Palestinian protests, with Brown University on Thursday becoming the latest to face the risk of losing hundreds of millions of dollars in funding. They are all paying close attention to how Harvard and others weigh the financial costs of standing up to Donald Trump against the moral and academic costs that come with appeasing him.‘We have to be willing to stand up’Some signs of more muscular pushback are starting to emerge.On Tuesday, in response to the administration’s announcement that it would suspend $210m in funding to Princeton University, its president, Christopher Eisgruber, indicated that he had no intention of making concessions to the administration. At Harvard, the student newspaper reported that Rakesh Khurana, the dean of Harvard College, drew applause from his colleagues on Tuesday when he accused the Trump administration of weaponising concerns about campus antisemitism to justify its ongoing attacks against higher education. (Eisgruber and Khurana did not respond to requests for comment; several Harvard faculty only agreed to speak off the record, citing a repressive climate.)View image in fullscreenKhurana’s comments followed days of upheaval at Harvard, after 600 members of the faculty signed a letter calling on the university to publicly condemn the US president’s attacks and “legally contest and refuse to comply with unlawful demands”. The Harvard Academic Workers union, which represents non-tenure-track researchers and lecturers, wrote in a statement on Wednesday: “The Trump’s administration attack on Harvard has nothing to do with antisemitism” and called on the university to “resist this intimidation with us”.So far, Eisgruber and Christina Paxson, Brown’s president, have signaled they may take a different path and resist.“University presidents and leaders have to understand that the commitment to allow academics – including our faculty, including our students – to pursue the truth as best they see it is fundamental to what our universities do,” Eisgruber said in an interview with Bloomberg this week. “We have to be willing to stand up for that.”Brown has not announced how it plans to respond to threats it will lose more than $500m in funding, but last month, Paxson outlined how the university would respond to federal attacks on its academic freedom. “I know that many in our community have been gravely concerned about persistent media reports of some of our peers experiencing encroachments on their freedom of expression and the autonomy necessary to advance their mission, she wrote. “If Brown faced such actions directly impacting our ability to perform essential academic and operational functions, we would be compelled to vigorously exercise our legal rights to defend these freedoms.”Faculty across the country have also begun to organize. The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) has filed three lawsuits: over the funding cuts at Columbia, the targeting of international students by immigration authorities, and Trump’s efforts to ban diversity, equity and inclusion programmes on campuses. Meanwhile, faculty at Rutgers University have proposed a “mutual defence compact” within the “Big Ten” consortium, which includes some of the largest state universities in the country, to support one another in the face of political attacks.“The attacks that are coming from the federal government might be directed toward Columbia University last week, and Harvard University this week, and who knows which other university next week, but if we allow them to proceed, then we will be picked off one by one,” said Weld. “The only way forward for any individual institution in the higher-education sector right now is to join forces.”‘We have our voices’Harvard had tried to get ahead of the administration’s attack. The university was one of the first to come under scrutiny following 7 October 2023 and protests over Israel’s war in Gaza. Allegations that it had failed to address antisemitism on campus contributed, in part, to last year’s resignation of Claudine Gay, Harvard’s first Black president.This year, Harvard adopted a controversial definition of antisemitism in a legal settlement over complaints brought by Jewish students. In the days leading up to Trump’s threats, it forced out two leaders of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies and suspended a public health partnership with Birzeit University, in the Israeli-occupied West Bank. This week, the university also suspended a “religion, conflict and peace initiative” at the divinity school that the Jewish Alumni Association had accused of focussing “entirely on the Palestinians”, and banned the Undergraduate Palestine Solidarity Committee from hosting events on campus.View image in fullscreenBut if the repression of programmes targeting spaces sympathetic to Palestinians was meant to appease the Trump administration and avert threats of funding cuts, it didn’t work.A fraction of Harvard’s $53bn endowment – the world’s largest for a university – is liquid or free of restrictions, but several faculty said that this is the time for the university to tap into it to defend its core values. While the administration’s cuts threaten hundreds of jobs on campus, Harvard is uniquely placed to withstand the impact, they say.“We’re constantly told that the endowment is not a piggy bank, it’s not a slush fund, and that we need to protect it because it ensures the success of our initiatives over the long term and for future generations,” Maya Jasanoff, a history professor at Harvard, said. “But if we lose the independence of universities from political interference, then we’re sacrificing something for future generations that is truly priceless.”Others noted that Harvard is also in a position to forcefully defend itself in court, much like it did when affirmative action came under attack, although the US supreme court ultimately ruled against the university in that case.So far, the university administration hasn’t shown signs it will put up a fight. Several faculty members believe that Trump’s efforts have the tacit support of some university leaders and trustees.“There is a strategic alliance among segments of the professoriate and university administrations, particularly boards of trustees, who agree that pro-Palestine activism on US college campuses needs to be shut down,” said Weld. “Whether those voices understand what the collateral damage of their participation in that alliance is going to be, I don’t know.”Harvard faculty in recent months have ramped up organizing efforts, including by launching the AAUP chapter on the heels of the Gaza encampment last spring and the university’s response.“One of the perversely brighter things to come out of last year is that I saw the faculty organizing and working together to an extent that outstripped anything I had seen in my academic career,” said Jasanoff. “We have our voices, and we can use our voices together.” More

  • 125 Shares151 Views

    in US Politics

    TikTok ban deadline looms in US amid last-minute takeover bids

    Once again, the future of TikTok in the US is at stake. After a years-long tussle over whether or not to ban the app in the country, the deadline for the company to divest or sell its assets to a non-Chinese owner is up again on 5 April.A handful of potential buyers have said they’re interested in the tremendously popular social media app and various news reports have floated other types of deals, including an investment from the Donald Trump-friendly venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz or a bid from Amazon. Trump signed an executive order in January to postpone a ban-or-divest deadline until April; earlier this week he said he would “like to see TikTok remain alive”. But the path forward for TikTok, and its 170 million US users, remains murky.ByteDance, the Chinese company that owns TikTok, has said it has no plans to sell the app and in court filings said that divestiture “is simply not possible: not commercially, not technologically, not legally”. ByteDance and TikTok did not return requests for comment.The idea of banning TikTok originated with Trump in 2020, who said the Chinese-owned app posed a danger to national security. It quickly became a bipartisan issue and Congress overwhelmingly voted to ban the app last year. In January, the US supreme court sided with Congress and unanimously upheld a federal law requiring TikTok divest or be banned. The deadline was initially set for 19 January.The night before the deadline, TikTok shuttered the app with a message that read: “Sorry, TikTok isn’t available right now.” Apple and Google also removed it from their app stores, because under the federal law they would be penalized for distributing it. In its message, the social media company said: “We are fortunate that President Trump has indicated that he will work with us on a solution to reinstate TikTok once he takes office. Please stay tuned!”On 20 January, Trump’s first day in office, he issued the executive order that extended the ban-or-divest deadline by 75 days. Now that cutoff date is looming.While initially proposing to ban TikTok, Trump made an about-face last year while campaigning for president, having joined the app and amassed millions of followers. In September, he posted to his Truth Social account “FOR ALL THOSE THAT WANT TO SAVE TIK TOK IN AMERICA, VOTE TRUMP!” Since then, he’s been working to make good on that pledge.On Tuesday, CBS reported that Trump has been considering final proposals for TikTok. Those include plans from a long list of investors in the private equity, venture capital and tech industries. Among those investors are asset manager Blackstone, business software company Oracle, e-commerce giant Amazon, a crypto foundation and the founder of OnlyFans. Oracle is reportedly leading a coalition bid with several investors, including Andreessen Horowitz, according to the FT.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionOracle, which was co-founded by Trump ally Larry Ellison, has been looking to buy a lucrative stake in TikTok for years. The software company already houses all of TikTok’s US user data on its cloud infrastructure platform, a deal that came about in 2022 to address security concerns.“It is highly unlikely that TikTok will go dark again. All signs point to a deal or another extension,” said Kelsey Chickering, a principal analyst for Forrester. “If TikTok divests in the US, the real question is whether its algorithm comes with the sale. TikTok without its algorithm is like Harry Potter without his wand – it’s simply not as powerful.” More

  • 113 Shares119 Views

    in US Politics

    Trump’s ‘Liberation Day’ and Musk’s bad week – podcast

    This week Donald Trump announced a blanket 10% tariff on all goods imported into the US from Saturday, and higher ‘reciprocal’ tariffs on countries taxing US exports from next Wednesday.Meanwhile, the Trump administration was forced to deny that Elon Musk would be leaving his role as a special government employee soon. The reports came a day after a Democrat defeated a Musk-backed Republican for a seat on the Wisconsin supreme court.Archive: ABC News, NBC News, CBS News, WFRC Local, WHAS11, 6abc PhiladelphiaBuy a ticket to The Guardian’s special event, looking at 100 days of Trump’s presidency, with Jonathan Freedland More