Evelyn Reynolds

More stories

  • 163 Shares193 Views

    in US Politics

    Trump ambushes South African president with video and false claims of anti-white racism

    Donald Trump ambushed the South African president, Cyril Ramaphosa, by playing him a video that he falsely claimed proved genocide was being committed against white people under “the opposite of apartheid”.The hectoring stunt on Wednesday set up the most tense Oval Office encounter since Trump’s bullying of Volodymyr Zelenskyy in February. But Ramaphosa – who earlier said that he had come to Washington to “reset” the relationship between the two countries – refused to take the bait and suggested that they “talk about it very calmly”.Trump has long maintained that Afrikaners, a minority descended from mainly Dutch colonists who ruled South Africa during its decades of racial apartheid, are being persecuted. South Africa rejects the allegation. Murder rates are high in the country and the overwhelming majority of victims are Black.What began as a convivial meeting at the White House, including lighthearted quips about golf, took a sudden turn when Ramaphosa told Trump there is no genocide against Afrikaners.Trump said: “We have thousands of stories talking about it,” then ordered his staff: “Turn the lights down and just put this on.”Sitting next to Trump before the fireplace, Ramaphosa forced a smile and turned to look at a big TV screen as Trump’s South Africa-born billionaire ally Elon Musk, JD Vance, the defence secretary Pete Hegseth and diplomats and journalists from both countries looked on.The video included footage of former South African president Jacob Zuma and firebrand opposition politician Julius Malema singing an apartheid-era struggle song called “Kill the Boer”, which means farmer or Afrikaner, as supporters danced.Ramaphosa quietly but firmly pushed back, pointing out that the views expressed in the video are not government policy.There was also footage that Trump claimed showed the graves of more than a thousand white farmers, marked by white crosses. Ramaphosa, who had mostly sat expressionless, occasionally craning his neck to look, said he had not seen that before and would like to find out what the location was.Trump then produced a batch of newspaper articles that he said were from the last few days reporting on killings in South Africa. He read some of the headlines and commented: “Death, death, death, horrible death.”Ramaphosa acknowledged there is crime in South Africa and said the majority of victims are Black. Trump cut him off and said: “The farmers are not Black.”The conspiracy theory of a white genocide has long been a staple of the racist far right, and in recent years has been amplified by Musk and rightwing media personality Tucker Carlson.Trump kept returning to the theme during Wednesday’s televised meeting. He said: “Now I will say, apartheid: terrible. That was the biggest threat. That was reported all the time. This is sort of the opposite of apartheid.“What’s happening now is never reported. Nobody knows about it. All we know is we’re being inundated with people, with white farmers from South Africa, and it’s a big problem.”He added: “They’re white farmers, and they’re fleeing South Africa, and it’s a very sad thing to see. But I hope we can have an explanation of that, because I know you don’t want that.”But Ramaphosa maintained an even tone, observing: “We were taught by Nelson Mandela that whenever there are problems, people need to sit down around the table and talk about them. And this is precisely what we would also like to talk about.”The meeting came days after around 50 Afrikaners arrived in the US to take up Trump’s offer of “refuge”. Trump made the offer despite the US having halted arrivals of asylum seekers from most of the rest of the world as he cracks down on immigration.Relations between the countries are at their lowest point since the end of apartheid in 1994. The US has condemned South Africa’s case accusing Israel of genocide in Gaza at the international court of justice, slashed aid, announced 31% tariffs and expelled the South Africa ambassador for criticising Trump’s Make America great again (Maga) movement.But the biggest bone of contention has been a South African land-expropriation law signed in January that aims to redress the historical inequalities of white minority rule. Ramaphosa denied that the law will be used to arbitrarily confiscate white-owned land, insisting that all South Africans are protected by the constitution.But Trump falsely asserted: “You do allow them to take land – and then when they take the land, they kill the white farmer, and when they kill the white farmer, nothing happens to them. …“You’re taking people’s land away from them and those people in many cases are being executed. They’re being executed and they happen to be white.”Ramaphosa arrived at the White House with agriculture minister John Steenhuisen, who is white, two of South Africa’s top golfers, Ernie Els and Retief Goosen, and the country’s wealthiest person, Johann Rupert, in a bid to woo the golf-loving president. All weighed in during the Oval Office meeting and seemed to be well-received by Trump.Rupert said South Africa needs technological help in stopping deaths in the country, which he said were not just of white farmers but across the board. “We have too many deaths … It’s not only white farmers, it’s across the board, and we need technological help. We need Starlink at every little police station. We need drones,” Rupert said.South Africa will reportedly offer Musk, who was born in the country, a deal to operate his Starlink satellite internet network in the country. The Tesla and SpaceX boss has accused Pretoria of “openly racist” laws, a reference to post-apartheid Black empowerment policies seen as a hurdle to the licensing of Starlink.South Africa is one of the most unequal societies in the world. White people make up 7% of the country’s population but own at least half of South Africa’s land. They are also better off economically by almost every measure. More

  • 150 Shares154 Views

    in US Politics

    Is ‘chic’ political? In Trump 2.0, the word stands for conservative femininity

    The idea of “chic” is a fashion-world cliche. At best it is a know-it-when-you-see-it vibe, at worst a lazy adjective chosen by a writer to describe something that reminds her of Jane Birkin. It feels inoffensive enough. But now, “chic” has become something of a lightning rod online – a shorthand for a type of conservative-coded aesthetic.It began last month, when a creator named Tara Langdale posted a video to her TikTok following of just over 30,000 in which she sipped from a long-stemmed wine glass and read off a list of things she finds “incredibly UN-chic”. Wearing stacks of gold bracelets and a ballet-pink manicure, Langdale called out fashion choices like tattoos, Lululemon, visible panty lines, baggy denim and hunting camouflage as unchic, because, to her, these choices seemed “cheap”.“Remember, money talks, wealth whispers,” Langdale said.The not-entirely-serious video racked up views and sparked a conversation about how style preferences can carry political baggage. “This is giving mean girl,” one user wrote in the comments. “Classism isn’t chic, hope this helps,” wrote another. “Voting for Trump is unchic,” went a third. Many took particular issue with Langdale’s anti-tattoo stance, which they saw as stuffy or downright rude.View image in fullscreenSuch comments came with a strong dose of projection: Langdale, a lifestyle influencer, does not post about politics, sticking to fashion, makeup or motherhood. Nevertheless, many in the fashion TikTok community felt her commentary on “chic” aligned with the feminine aesthetic of Trump 2.0, where the rigid and airbrushed beauty standards of Maga officials such as Karoline Leavitt, Kristi Noem and Nancy Mace are celebrated.“Chic is starting to feel like a conservative dogwhistle that polices women’s looks,” said Elysia Berman, a creative director and content creator based in New York who posted a takedown of Langdale’s unchic list. “What chic has come to mean to a lot of people is a very narrow definition of elegance. It’s this thin, white, blonde woman who speaks softly and is basically Grace Kelly.”The ideal vision of womanhood from Donald Trump’s first term was caked foundation and clumpy mascara, as seen on the likes of Kimberly Guilfoyle and Lara Trump. But the facial augmentation and overly sexy aesthetic tied to the president’s inner circle – see “Ice Barbie” Noem, who posts full glam videos while deporting immigrants – does not necessarily match that of the president’s more social media savvy supporters, many of whom are now opting for a sleeker presentation.Momfluencers and tradwives celebrate RFK Jr’s “Make America Healthy Again” policies while wearing breezy milkmaid dresses. Evie Magazine, a politically conservative version of Cosmo, appropriates the trending visuals of feminist magazines with headlines that decry body positivity and promote vaccine skepticism. As the New York Magazine writer Brock Colyar described young Republicans at a post-election night party: “Many are hot enough to be extras in the upcoming American Psycho remake.”The word “chic” has always been tied to a French, or francophile, sense of femininity, usually in reference to a woman who subscribes to Vogue and innately understands how to look good. But those turning it into a dirty word on TikTok, taking note of how it aligns with a changing conservative aesthetic, see it as having a more prescriptive, even oppressive, meaning for women’s fashion.Suzanne Lambert, a DC-based comedian whose “conservative girl” mock makeup tutorials went viral earlier this year, described the right’s obsession with all things ultra-feminine as “just this soulless, boring kind of fashion”.“Republicans are more focused on assimilating than we are on the left, so it makes sense that they all end up looking the same,” Lambert said.Ultimately, anyone who’s attempting to look chic – or wealthy – is probably neither of those things. Those TikTok imitators who equate chicness with pearls and a Leavitt-esque tweed shift dress? “They think it’s giving Reagan, but it’s really giving Shein,” said Lambert.(Ironically, some of the unchic pieces on Langdale’s list – Lululemon leggings, Golden Goose sneakers, a Louis Vuitton carryall bag – come with hefty price tags and could connote liberal elitism.)In an email, Langdale said that her definition of chic had nothing to do with politics. “Chic by definition means simplicity and timelessness,” she wrote. “Reading a neutral palette as ‘conservative’ conflates style choice with ideology. Conservatism as a moral or political stance varies widely across cultures and religious communities, so tagging a fitting tank top and trousers as ‘Republican’ is lazy stereotyping.”Langdale called chic “this year’s version” of “old money” dressing, a TikTok trend that prioritized subdued, luxury items over the loud, brash and individualistic. “You can own every item on my unchic list and still be considered chic,” she wrote. “Labeling an item chic or unchic speaks only to its aesthetic, not a person’s style or worth.The conversation around chic is ongoing. Other creators, inspired by Langdale’s video, posted about what they considered chic in their niches. A medical student said it was “incredibly chic” to color coordinate scrubs with personal accessories; an office worker considered not letting colleagues in on their personal lives the height of chicness.Kat Brown, a 25-year-old New Yorker who works in fashion PR, made a video talking about how it’s “not chic” to be overly trendy, with chicness coming from a more sustainable wardrobe. “Smart consumption is chic,” Brown said. “Chicness is more reflective of your resourcefulness and creativity, rather than any sort of socioeconomic element.”For all the angst on chic-Tok, true insiders probably aren’t paying much attention. Fashion editors often make lists of words they consider so dull and unspecific that they prohibit writers from using them in copy; “chic” is usually right at the top. And when a word like chic is so bland to begin with, who cares if its wielded as an insult? As a British couturier played by Daniel Day-Lewis in the 2017 period drama Phantom Thread bemoaned of “chic”: “That filthy little word. Whoever invented that ought to be spanked in public. I don’t even know what that word means.” More

  • 200 Shares183 Views

    in US Politics

    A huge Democratic victory in Omaha offers a lesson for the party | Katrina vanden Heuvel

    For the last several months, the Trump administration’s reckless use of executive power, trade policy, gutting federal agencies and defying court orders has gone largely unchecked. National Democrats have limited means of opposition – so the best hope for accountability will be electoral accountability.This may help explain why last Tuesday’s election results in America’s 41st biggest city generated such outsized excitement from progressives. John Ewing Jr, a longtime county treasurer, was elected the first Black mayor of Omaha, defeating the incumbent Jean Stothert, who was seeking a fourth term after holding that office since 2013. More than that, Ewing won big, by nearly 13 points, marking a huge shift after Stothert won her last race by 30.Ewing ran a substantive, highly localized campaign that built upon decades of credibility he earned as a public servant – supplemented by the longstanding work of the Nebraska Democratic party to build coalitions in a traditionally deep-red state. In swinging this race by 43 points, they have both inspired hope that the political winds may be shifting, and provided a model for Democrats to succeed in 2026 and beyond.The results in Omaha are meaningful not for the scale of the city, but for how it may reflect the country as a whole. Omaha’s congressional seat – Nebraska’s second – is a true swing district, one of only three in the country that voted for Kamala Harris in 2024 while also electing a Republican to Congress. It’s a diverse, medium-sized, midwestern city – and if that isn’t enough to convey its heartland status, it’s nearly in the geographic center of the contiguous United States.For all of these reasons, it’s instructive for Democrats to understand the strategy of the chair of the Nebraska Democratic party, who now serves as president of the Association of State Democratic Committees (ASDC) and a DNC vice-chair: Jane Kleeb. In a moment when so much media attention has been focused on internal procedural drama surrounding certain other vice-chairs, Kleeb and the Nebraska Democratic party have continued their longstanding focus on the day-to-day work.In the waning days of the Omaha mayoral election, Stothert attempted to negatively polarize voters against Ewing by nationalizing the race – and, in particular, hammering the GOP’s favorite wedge issue target of late: trans people. As my colleague John Nichols wrote about last week for the Nation, this did not work. Instead, Ewing refused to take the bait and kept his focus on tangible municipal issues – such as housing, street paving and even a struggling streetcar project. In a simple graphic released three days before the election, the Nebraska Democratic party proudly declared: “Jean is focused on potties. John is focused on fixing potholes.”As thousands of Democrats across the country seek election up and down the ballot in 2026, they too could decline to debate on Republican terms and instead run campaigns relentlessly focused on improving their constituents’ lives.Successful as this campaign was, it also builds upon statewide efforts from the Nebraska Democratic party to compete in unfavorable territory. Kleeb has long advocated for Democrats to perform direct outreach to rural voters – and it’s not the same thing as pandering. Instead, it means recognizing real problems that, say, farmers are experiencing and offering practical solutions.In her words: “In rural and small towns we may not use the word ‘climate change’ in the first five sentences, but everything we’re doing is talking about protecting the land and water.”And progressives in Nebraska know a thing or two about the value of avoiding toxic political labels. When the navy veteran, mechanic and union leader Dan Osborn ran a populist, independent campaign for Senate last year, the Nebraska Democratic party stepped aside and chose not to run a candidate. While Osborn and the state party had their differences – and he ultimately lost – this unorthodox strategy showed serious upside. Osborn came closer to defeating the incumbent Republican than any other challenger in the 2024 cycle; now he’s looking at a 2026 run in much more favorable circumstances.With lessons to learn from the success in Nebraska, it is encouraging that Kleeb now holds a prominent leadership position in the national Democratic party – the same role that Ken Martin held before he became chair. As head of the ASDC, Kleeb is well positioned to work with all 50 state chairs to get them the resources they need – and it will be all 50, as she and the DNC recently announced that the national organization will be contributing more to state parties as part of a re-emerging 50 state strategy.But even if Kleeb’s ascendance only meant that the Democratic party got better at competing in Nebraska, it could prove decisive. Given that the House is currently held by Republicans by a handful of seats (give or take whatever disgraced resignations happen between now and next November), the race in Nebraska’s second district could very well be the tipping point for control of the lower chamber. Representative Don Bacon, who held on to his seat by less than 2 points last cycle, may well retire before he has a chance to lose.Whether the race for Congress in 2026 comes down to Omaha itself or someplace like it, Democratic victories will depend on a nationwide effort to invest as deeply in local concerns as Kleeb and Ewing have. That strategy can be summed up with a mantra that Kleeb has repeated time and time again – what you may call Jane’s refrain: “When we organize everywhere, we can win anywhere!”

    Katrina vanden Heuvel is editorial director and publisher of the Nation, she is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and she has contributed to the Washington Post, the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times More

  • 225 Shares173 Views

    in US Politics

    The US credit rating has been downgraded. But there’s an easy fix for our debt | Robert Reich

    On Friday, the credit rating of the United States was downgraded. Moody’s, the ratings firm, announced that the government’s rising debt levels would grow further if the Trump Republican package of new tax cuts were enacted. This makes lending to the US riskier.Moody’s is the third of the three major credit-rating agencies to downgrade the credit rating of the United States.So-called “bond vigilantes” have already been selling the US government’s debt, as the Republican tax package moves through Congress. They’re expected to sell even more, driving long-term interest rates even higher to make up for the growing risk of holding US debt.Some rightwing Republicans in Congress are using the Moody’s downgrade to justify deeper spending cuts in Medicaid, food stamps and other social programs that lower-income Americans depend on.But, hello? There’s a far easier way to reduce the federal debt. Just end the Trump tax cuts that mainly benefit the wealthy and big corporations – and instead raise taxes on them.I’m old enough to remember when the US’s super-rich financed the government with their tax payments. Under Dwight Eisenhower – hardly a leftwing radical – the highest marginal tax rate was 91%. (Even after all tax credits and deductions were figured in, the super-rich paid way over half their top marginal incomes in taxes.)But since the Reagan, George W Bush and Trump 1 tax cuts, tax rates on the super-rich have plummeted.So instead of financing the government with their taxes, the super-rich have been financing the US government by lending it money.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion(You may have heard that the US’s debt is held mainly by foreigners. Wrong. More than 70% of it is held by Americans – and most of them are wealthy.)This means that an ever-increasing portion of the taxes from the rest of us are dedicated to paying ever-increasing interest payments on the debt – payments that go largely to the super-rich.So when the debt of the United States is downgraded because Trump Republicans are planning another big tax cut mainly benefiting the rich and big corporations, most Americans could end up paying in three different ways:

    They’ll pay even more interest on the growing debt – to the super-rich.

    They’ll pay higher interest rates on all other long-term debt. (As higher rates on treasury bonds waft through the economy, they raise borrowing costs on everything from mortgages to auto loans.)

    The debt crisis will give Republicans even more excuse to do what they’re always wanting to do: slash safety nets. So many Americans could lose benefits they rely on, such as Medicaid and food stamps.
    The “bond vigilantes” are not the cause of this absurdity. Neither is Moody’s or the other credit-rating agencies. Nor, for that matter, is the growing national debt.What’s the underlying cause? Just follow the money. It’s the growing political power of the super-rich and big corporations to lower their taxes at the expense of most Americans.

    Robert Reich, a former US secretary of labor, is a professor of public policy emeritus at the University of California, Berkeley. He is a Guardian US columnist. His newsletter is at robertreich.substack.com More

  • 250 Shares154 Views

    in US Politics

    Maga Catholics are on a collision course with Leo XIV. They have good reason to fear him | Julian Coman

    In the outer reaches of the Magasphere, it would be fair to say the advent of the first pope from the US has not been greeted with unbridled enthusiasm. Take Laura Loomer, the thirtysomething influencer and conspiracy theorist, whose verdict on Leo XIV was as instant as it was theologically uninformed: “Anti-Trump, anti-Maga, pro-open Borders, and a total Marxist like Pope Francis.” Also doing the rounds on X was a short summary of Leo’s supposed transgressions before ascending to St Peter’s chair: “Trashed Trump, trashed Vance, trashed border enforcement, endorsed DREAMer-style illegal immigration, repeatedly praised and honored George Floyd, and endorsed a Democrat senator’s call for more gun control.”So far, so tedious. The comic-book casting of the new pope as a globalist villain in the US culture wars is traceable back to his predecessor’s impact on liberal opinion a decade ago. Pope Francis’s sometimes lonely championing of progressive causes, such as the rights of migrants, gave him a kind of liberal celebrity and led Time magazine to name him “person of the year” in 2013. Pope Leo, born in Chicago, has been pre-emptively caricatured by much of the Maga right as a continuity pontiff who will, in effect, front up the religious wing of the Democratic party.Leaving the simplistic conflation of religious perspective and political positioning aside, the truth is far more interesting than that. It may also be more challenging for Catholic Maga luminaries such as the vice-president, JD Vance, the secretary of state, Marco Rubio, and Donald Trump’s sometime adviser Steve Bannon if they are serious about their faith.Bannon and Vance – a Catholic convert – are representatives of a traditionalist movement in the church, which sought to undermine Francis’s papacy at every turn and has become a kind of theological vanguard for the “America first” era. In January, Vance notoriously invoked St Augustine to justify the Trump administration’s decision to cut international aid and impose a brutal immigration crackdown. One of Francis’s last acts was to refute the vice-president’s reduction of the Augustinian concept of neighbourly love to a version of “charity begins at home” (though delivering a papal rebuke was not enough to spare him from a visit from Vance the day before he died).But it would be too easy (and too reminiscent of their own performatively aggressive approach) to simply dismiss the Maga Catholics as theologically beyond the pale. Many Catholics might, for example, legitimately sympathise with Bannon’s analysis of the neglect of working-class interests in 21st-century western liberal democracies. The deepening inequality and corrosive individualism of our times is seriously at odds with Catholic social teaching, which has historically promoted the dignity of labour, social solidarity and a just wage.The problem is that, in the absence of a leftwing economic populism to challenge the injustices of the globalised era, a rightwing version has filled the gap in the US and beyond. Its form of solidarity is nationalistic and insular, its cultural outlook is xenophobic and its political style is authoritarian and deliberately confrontational. The Maga critique of “globalism” is not limited to the neoliberal economic world order, also condemned by the last three popes; it extends to a repudiation of the foundational Catholic commitment to universality, expressed through compassion for the stranger and a sense of the world as a shared common home.Enter Pope Leo. The most geographically diverse conclave in church history was surely aware that in choosing an American to succeed Francis, it was setting up a potential showdown between the Vatican and Trumpian nationalism. The new pope’s choice of name is a sign that he recognises the scale and the novelty of the challenge that the rightwing populist turn represents.The last Leo, a patrician Italian elected to the papacy in 1878, made it his mission to confront the ruthless laissez-faire economics unleashed by the Industrial Revolution and the emerging Marxist response to its cruelties. In Rerum Novarum, his groundbreaking 1891 papal encyclical, Leo XIII laid out swingeing criticisms of the greed that placed profit before people and allowed extreme divides in wealth to undermine the common good. At the same time, in terms that were to prove tragically prescient, he identified in early communist movements a dangerous idolatry of the state and a lack of respect for individual autonomy and rights.Last weekend, before his first mass in St Peter’s Square, Leo XIV explicitly set himself the task of following in his 19th-century predecessor’s footsteps. That would mean, he told a Rome conference, addressing “the dramatic nature of our own age, marked by wars, climate change, growing inequalities, forced and contested migration, stigmatised poverty, disruptive technological innovations, job insecurity and precarious labour rights”.The daunting length of that list, and the interlocking, global nature of its crises, should be viewed as an early critique of the Maga worldview. In Leo XIII’s day, the burgeoning Marxist movement incubated a totalitarian strain that would go viral in the 20th century. The success of Trumpian nationalism is also in part a response to the depredations of capitalism, this time in the context of globalisation. But its authoritarian evangelists have hijacked the working-class cause to inflict new injustices on migrant “invaders” and have lost sight of the need for global cooperation to prevent an environmental catastrophe that threatens the poor most of all. The strategy has proved electorally astute. But as Leo will surely make clear, it has nothing to do with Catholicism.In a column published at the weekend, the American Catholic commentator Sohrab Ahmari referenced a sermon by Leo from last year, in which the future pope acknowledged that the issue of migration “is a huge problem, and it’s a problem worldwide” that needed to be solved. This recognition, Ahmari suggested, could at least open up the possibility of fruitful future dialogue with the Maga Catholics in and around the White House.He failed, however, to quote the sermon’s next passage: “Every one of us, whether we were born in the United States of America or on the North Pole, we are all given the gift of being created in the image and likeness of God, and the day we forget that is the day we forget who we are.” Words for Vance and Rubio, who met Leo after Sunday’s inaugural mass in Rome, to ponder.

    Julian Coman is a Guardian associate editor More

  • 200 Shares126 Views

    in US Politics

    Trump news at a glance: president unveils Golden Dome project – and claims Canada is interested

    Donald Trump has announced that his administration will move forward with developing a multibillion-dollar missile defense system, called “Golden Dome”, and claimed that Canada was interesting in being part of it.“Once fully constructed, the golden dome will be capable of intercepting missiles even if they are launched from other sides of the world, and even if they are launched from space,” Trump said. “Forever ending the missile threat to the American homeland.”The US space force general Michael Guetlein will oversee implementation of the project, Trump said. The selection of Guetlein, vice-chief of space operations at the space force, means the elevation of a four-star general widely seen at the Pentagon to be competent and deeply experienced in missile defense systems and procurement.Here are the key stories at a glance:Trump rolls out Golden Dome missile defense project Flanked by the US defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, Trump announced the Golden Dome missile defense project on Tuesday in the Oval Office. The president said he wanted the project to be operational before he left office, and added that Republicans had agreed to allocate $25bn in initial funding and Canada had expressed an interest in taking part.What exactly Golden Dome will look like remains unclear. Trump said on Tuesday evening that he had settled on architecture for the project and suggested the total cost of putting it into service would reach $175bn. He provided no further details.Read the full storyTrump officials ‘illegally deport’ Vietnamese and Burmese migrants Immigrant rights advocates have accused the Trump administration of deporting about a dozen migrants from countries including Myanmar and Vietnam to South Sudan in violation of a court order, and asked a judge to order their return.Read the full storyRubio clashes with Democrats over Afrikaner ‘refugee’ statusMarco Rubio, the US secretary of state, has defended the Trump administration’s decision to admit 59 Afrikaners from South Africa as refugees after Tim Kaine, a Democratic senator from Virginia, said they were getting preferential treatment because they were white.The clash between Rubio and Kaine, Hillary Clinton’s former running mate, came a day before South Africa’s president, Cyril Ramaphosa, was due to meet Donald Trump at the White House in an encounter that promises to be highly charged thanks to the controversy surrounding the Afrikaner arrivals.Read the full storyTrump bangs drum for tax bill as some still hold outDonald Trump traveled to the Capitol on Tuesday to insist that the fractious House Republican majority set aside their differences and pass his wide-ranging bill to enact his taxation and immigration priorities.In a speech to a closed-door meeting of Republican lawmakers, the president pushed holdouts to drop their objections, afterwards saying: “I think we have unbelievable unity. I think we’re going to get everything we want, and I think we’re going to have a great victory.”But it is unclear if the president’s exhortations had the intended effect as at least one lawmaker said afterwards they still do not support the bill.Read the full storyMusk claims he won’t spend as much on politicsElon Musk claimed that he would decrease the amount of money he spends on politics for the foreseeable future. If true, the reduction would represent a significant turnaround after the world’s richest person positioned himself as the US Republican party’s most enthusiastic donor over the last year.Read the full story‘Plenty of time’ to fix climate crisis, says Trump aideThe US has “plenty of time” to solve the climate crisis, the interior secretary, Doug Burgum, told a House committee on Tuesday.The comment came on his first of two days of testimony to House and Senate appropriators in which he defended Donald Trump’s proposed budget, dubbed the “one big, beautiful bill”, that would extend tax reductions enacted during Trump’s first term, while cutting $5bn of funding for the Department of the Interior.Read the full storyMost US companies say tariffs causing higher pricesA majority of US companies say they will have to raise their prices to accommodate Trump’s tariffs in the US, according to a new report. More than half (54%) of the US companies surveyed by the insurance company Allianz said they will have to raise prices to accommodate the cost of the tariffs.Read the full storyPatel scraps FBI watchdog teamThe FBI director, Kash Patel, has scrapped a watchdog team set up to scrutinise a warrantless surveillance law he previously claimed was being abused to target supporters of Donald Trump.Read the full storyWhat else happened today:

    Charles Kushner, the father of Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared, has secured US Senate confirmation to serve as the nation’s ambassador to France.

    A participant in the January 6 attack pardoned by Trump was recently arrested for burglary and vandalism in Virginia.

    The Trump administration lifted a stop work order on a $5bn windfarm off the New York coast after negotiations – but cancelled plans for a gas pipeline could be revived.
    Catching up? Here’s what happened on 19 May 2025. More

  • 150 Shares195 Views

    in US Politics

    What is temporary protected status and who is affected by Trump’s crackdown?

    Millions of people live legally in the United States under various forms of temporary legal protection. Many have been targeted in the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown.The latest move has been against people who have what’s known as “temporary protected status” (TPS), which grants people the right to stay in the US legally due to extraordinary circumstances in one’s home country such as war or environmental catastrophe.The Trump administration has in recent weeks announced its plan to end TPS for Haitians, Venezuelans, Afghans and Cameroonians. The move may force more than 9,000 Afghan refugees to move back to the country now ruled by the Taliban. The administration also is ending the designation for roughly half a million Haitians in August.Here’s what to know about TPS and some other temporary protections for immigrants:What is temporary protected status?Temporary protected status allows people already living in the United States to stay and work legally for up to 18 months if their homelands are unsafe because of civil unrest or natural disasters.The Biden administration dramatically expanded the designation. It covers people from more than a dozen countries, though the largest numbers come from Venezuela and Haiti.The status does not put immigrants on a long-term path to citizenship and can be repeatedly renewed. Critics say renewal has become effectively automatic for many immigrants, no matter what is happening in their home countries. According to the American Immigration Council, ending TPS designations would lead to a significant economic loss for the US. The non-profit found that TPS households in the country earned more than $10bn in total income in 2021, and paid nearly $1.3bn in federal taxes.What is the latest supreme court ruling on Venezuelans?On Monday, the supreme court allowed the administration to end protections that had allowed some 350,000 Venezuelan immigrants to remain in the United States.Many Venezuelans were first granted TPS in 2021 by the Biden administration, allowing those who were already in the US to apply for protection from deportation and gain work authorization. Then, in 2023, the Biden administration issued an additional TPS designation for Venezuelans, and in January – just before Trump took office – extended those protections through October 2026.The Trump administration officials had ordered TPS to expire for those Venezuelans in April. The supreme court’s decision lifted a federal judge’s ruling that had paused the administration’s plans, meaning TPS holders are now at risk of losing their protections and could face deportation.What other forms of legal protection are under attack?More than 500,000 people from what are sometimes called the CHNV countries – Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela – live in the US under the legal tool known as humanitarian parole, which allows people to enter the US temporarily, on the basis that they have an urgent humanitarian need like a medical emergency. This category, however, is also under threat by the Trump administration.In late March, the Trump administration announced plans to terminate humanitarian parole for approximately 530,000 Venezuelans, Nicaraguans, Cubans and Haitians. In April, a federal judge issued a temporary order barring the elimination of the humanitarian parole program.But last week, the administration took the issue to the supreme court, asking it to allow it to end parole for immigrants from those four countries. The emergency appeal said a lower-court order had wrongly encroached on the authority of the Department of Homeland Security.US administrations – both Republican and Democratic – have used parole for decades for people unable to use regular immigration channels, whether because of time pressure or bad relations between their country and the US.The case now returns to the lower courts. For the California-based federal court, the next hearing is on 29 May. For the Massachusetts case, no hearings are scheduled and attorneys are working on a briefing for the motion to dismiss filed by the government, according to WGBH, a member station of National Public Radio in Massachusetts. The appeals court hearing will be the week of 11 July. More