More stories

  • in

    Trump’s crypto ventures may be his most dangerous moneymaking scheme | Mohamad Bazzi

    Throughout his business career, Donald Trump sought new ways to leverage his name to make easy money. He ran an airline, a university and a winery. Thanks to the Apprentice show that made him a reality TV star, the US president slapped his name on real estate projects around the world built by other companies – along with Trump-branded steaks, vodka, deodorant and bottled water. Many of these businesses ultimately failed, but Trump rarely invested his own funds and he still walked away with hefty licensing fees.Today, as the most powerful person in the world, Trump has found perhaps the easiest way to profit off his name: cryptocurrency. Days before his inauguration for a second term on 20 January, Trump’s family business launched a meme coin, called $Trump, which is a type of digital currency often connected to an online joke or mascot. It has no inherent value beyond speculation. The coin quickly soared in value up to $75 per token, but it crashed days later. No matter the ultimate price, Trump and his family rake in millions of dollars in fees as the coin is traded by speculators hoping to turn a quick profit, or those trying to curry favor with him.It’s difficult to keep up with all the ways that Trump is corrupting the US presidency and using it for personal profit, but his crypto ventures are among the most dangerous because they potentially allow him and his family to collect hundreds of millions of dollars from foreign investors and governments that would normally have a harder time funneling money to a US politician. Thanks to the memecoin and other deals, the Trump family’s wealth increased by nearly $3bn in the last six months. Trump has proven himself the most successful president – at monetizing the presidency.While he is exempt from conflict of interest laws that ban federal employees from profiting off their positions, every US president since the 1970s had voluntarily abided by these rules – until Trump. Previous occupants of the White House either sold their financial holdings or set them aside in blind trusts. But in his first term, Trump refused to divest from his business empire, which is mostly centered around the Trump Organization and is still managed by his sons.Since Trump’s first term, his family business has also evolved beyond a real estate conglomerate that licenses the Trump name to hotels, luxury towers and golf courses around the world, earning millions of dollars in branding and management fees without investing its own funds in most projects. The business now includes a portfolio of social media and crypto ventures, providing Trump with new ways to profit from being in office. And Trump is more emboldened to ignore norms set by past presidents, thanks to a compliant Congress led by Republicans and a US supreme court ruling last year which gave Trump “absolute immunity” from prosecution for his official acts as president.Trump’s foray into cryptocurrency underscores the ways he can leverage the presidency for personal gain by exploiting his sense of impunity and an industry that is notorious for fraud and a lack of transparency. After the value of his memecoin collapsed, Trump’s crypto venture announced in April that the 220 largest buyers of the token would be invited to a private gala dinner with the president at his Virginia golf club, while the top 25 buyers would get access to a VIP reception with Trump and a White House tour. Once that contest was under way, the $Trump coin got a new round of media attention and its value jumped by more than 50%. The more people bought the token, the more Trump and his family profited from crypto transactions that are usually shrouded in anonymity. Since the memecoin’s launch in January, Trump-affiliated businesses received $312m from crypto sales and $43m in other fees, according to a Washington Post analysis of trading data.Of course, US presidents for decades have used private dinners and gatherings to grant special access to wealthy donors and raise funds for their political parties or their own campaigns. But campaign contributions carry legal restrictions on how they can be spent, and US donors can’t remain anonymous and must disclose all of their donations to political candidates. The sweepstakes dinner organized by Trump’s crypto business was not a fundraiser or campaign event – it was a gathering arranged to directly enrich him and his family.Beyond the inherent conflict of Trump doing business within an industry that he has immense power to regulate as president, Trump also opened himself up to foreign influence as his memecoins became a vehicle for foreign actors to funnel money to his family. While Trump’s crypto business has refused to release a list of those invited to last month’s dinner at the Trump National Golf Club in Virginia, media organizations compiled lists of attenders that included foreign citizens who would normally be forbidden from donating funds to US politicians. (The Washington Post found that nearly half of the top 220 Trump memecoin holders purchased their coins from crypto exchanges that reject US-based customers, meaning they are probably foreign buyers. And 19 of the top 25 buyers, who were invited to a VIP reception with Trump before the dinner on 22 May, and a “special tour” the next day, had bought coins from similar exchanges.)The best-known foreign investor who attended Trump’s dinner was Justin Sun, a Chinese billionaire who founded the crypto platform Tron and had spent more than $20m on the president’s memecoins, earning him the distinction of being the contest’s top buyer. In 2023, the Securities and Exchange Commission, under Joe Biden’s administration, charged Sun with fraud and market manipulation. But a few weeks after Trump took office, the SEC asked a federal court to pause its lawsuit.What could be behind the SEC’s change of heart about pursuing charges against Sun under the second Trump administration? Sun is one of the top investors in World Liberty Financial, a crypto venture launched by Trump’s family in September. After Trump won the November election, Sun bought $75m in World Liberty tokens, and he was named an adviser to the company.World Liberty is at the heart of another foreign entanglement – and potential conflict of interest – for Trump and the crypto industry. On 1 May, the president’s son Eric and a business partner, Zach Witkoff (who is also the son of Steve Witkoff, Trump’s special envoy), announced that an investment fund backed by the government of Abu Dhabi would invest $2bn using a stablecoin – a form of digital currency – offered by World Liberty. That transaction could eventually generate hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue for the president and his family.Years before he got into the business, Trump had dismissed cryptocurrencies as “a scam” which have values that are “based on thin air”. But Trump changed his tune dramatically when he met with the highest-paying customers of his personal memecoin at last month’s dinner. “The past administration made your lives miserable,” Trump told his guests, referring to a Biden administration crackdown on crypto companies. And then the president promised to do things differently: “There is a lot of sense in crypto. A lot of common sense in crypto.”Already, the Trump administration has been pushing to deregulate the industry and in April instructed the justice department to disband a unit that focused on investigating crypto-related fraud. Last year, a federal judge sentenced Sam Bankman-Fried, who founded the now bankrupt FTX crypto exchange, to 25 years in prison for perpetuating one of the largest financial frauds in modern history, and bilking his customers out of billions of dollars.Once Trump dismantles regulation and law enforcement of the industry, he has promised to make the US the “crypto capital of the planet”. And the president will continue to enrich himself and his family along the way.

    Mohamad Bazzi is director of the Hagop Kevorkian Center for Near Eastern Studies, and a journalism professor, at New York University More

  • in

    Trump’s tariffs have become his Vietnam – and the right is breaking ranks | Sidney Blumenthal

    Donald Trump’s trade war has become his quagmire: legal, economic and political. On 28 May, the court of international trade ruled his tariffs exceeded his constitutional authority. Point by point, the decision decimated Trump’s arguments as flimsy and false, implicitly castigated the Republican Congress for abdicating its constitutional responsibility, and reminded other courts, not least the supreme court, of the judicial branch’s obligation to exercise its authority regardless of the blustering of the executive and the fecklessness of the legislative branches.Trump’s tariffs, along with his withdrawal of active support for Ukraine and passivity toward his strongman father figure Vladimir Putin, have broken the western alliance, forcing the west to make its own arrangements with China, and cementing the idea for a generation to come that the United States is an untrustworthy and unstable partner.On the economic front, Trump’s tariffs have already begun to increase inflation, shutter trade, devalue the dollar, and undermine manufacturing. They will soon create shortages of all sorts of goods, ruin small business, and force layoffs that bring about stagflation that has not been seen since the 1970s, which was then the result of an external oil shock, not self-harm. On 3 June, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development reported that as a result, principally, of Trump’s tariffs, the US will suffer a decline in the rate of growth from what had been forecast this year. “Lower growth and less trade will hit incomes and slow job growth,” the OECD stated.As a political matter, besides being unpopular, Trump’s tariffs, in combination with his assaults on the institutions of civil and legal society, have drawn out the most intelligent and skillful members of the conservative legal establishment, who themselves have been some of the most crucial players in the rise of the right wing, to man the ramparts against him. These are not the familiar Never Trumpers, but newly engaged and potentially more dangerous foes.While corporate leaders uniformly abhor Trump’s tariffs, they have stifled themselves into a complicit silence on the road to serfdom. But Trump’s new enemies coming from the conservative citadel of the Federalist Society are filing brief after brief in the courts, upholding the law to halt his dictatorial march.Trump naturally cannot help but turn everything he touches into sordid scandal. After announcing his “Liberation Day” tariffs, which tanked the stock market, Trump declared a pause during which he promised he would sign, seal and deliver 90 deals in 90 days. But he has announced only a deal with Britain. Most of the deals Trump has seen have been with the Trump Organization. Under the shadow of a threatened 46% tariff, Vietnam, after a visit from Eric Trump, granted a $1bn Trump Tower in Ho Chi Minh City and a $1.5bn golf club and resort near Hanoi with “two championship golf courses”, relative crumbs alongside the billions the Trump family has accrued from across the Middle East, not to mention the $400m jet that his team solicited from Qatar to serve as his palatial Air Force One.Standing before the white marble plinth of the Unknown Soldier at Arlington national cemetery on Memorial Day, 26 May, after reading prepared remarks about “our honored dead” to a gathering of Gold Star families, Donald Trump fell into a reverie about his divine destiny. “I have everything,” he said. He spoke about the parade of troops and tanks he has ordered for 14 June, his 79th birthday, which happens to coincide with the date that George Washington created the Continental army. “Amazing the way things work out. God did that, I believe that too. God did it.”Two days after Trump had mused about his election by heaven to possess “everything”, the court of international trade issued what the Wall Street Journal called the “ruling heard ‘round the world … proving again that America doesn’t have a king who can rule by decree’”.The US court of appeals for DC then temporarily stayed the ruling while it considered the case. But the trade court’s decision to deny Trump his toys was comprehensive, blistering and devastating. Now, Trump’s trade war is his Vietnam, a quagmire of his own.Trump’s entire program dances on the head of his tariffs. By fiat, without congressional approval, he has willfully invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act as cover for his helter-skelter gyrations to reshape the global economy according to his desire for domination of the Earth. He has further explained that his tariffs are necessary to pay for the vast tax cuts for the wealthy in his budget bill that would increase deficits. He claims that the tariffs will replace the revenue raised from income tax, fixed in the constitution by the 16th amendment, ratified in 1913. Without tariffs on the scope he projects his dream house of cards collapses. With his tariffs even as his stated minimal goal he blows up the world.The court of international trade, a court based on specialized expertise, whose judges have lifetime appointments, flatly stated that Trump’s use of the emergency law under which he claimed his authority does “not permit the president to impose tariffs in response to balance-of-payments deficits”, “exceeds any tariff authority delegated to the president”, “would create an unconstitutional delegation of power”, and is “contrary to law”.Having ruled that Trump’s worldwide tariffs are illegal, the court deemed his “trafficking tariffs” imposed on Canada and Mexico also lawless. Trump has asserted them on a contrived national security rationale of preventing the importation of fentanyl. But the court stated that Trump’s “use of tariffs as leverage … is impermissible not because it is unwise or ineffective but because … [the federal law] does not allow it”. Thus, the court concluded in both instances, “the worldwide and retaliatory tariff orders exceed any authority granted to the president … to regulate importation by means of tariffs. The trafficking tariffs fail because they do not deal with the threats set forth in those orders.”The trade court’s ruling suddenly exposed the extent to which Trump’s relationship with the conservative legal movement is unraveling. The fissure runs deeper and wider than name-calling. Trump’s trade war has morphed into a widespread civil war within the right with the core of the conservative legal establishment resisting him.Trump’s venomous social media posts against Leonard Leo, the Federalist Society co- chairman and rightwing powerhouse, reads like a memoir of an ingenue taken advantage of in the big city by strangers. “I was new to Washington,” Trump explained, “and it was suggested that I use The Federalist Society as a recommending source on Judges. I did so, openly and freely, but then realized that they were under the thumb of a real ‘sleazebag’ named Leonard Leo, a bad person who, in his own way, probably hates America, and obviously has his own separate ambitions.”Slowly, Trump has come to the realization that this Leonard Leo “openly brags how he controls Judges, and even Justices of the United States Supreme Court”. Trump was revealing that Leo understood his power beyond his influence over Trump on appointments. “Backroom ‘hustlers’ must not be allowed to destroy our Nation!” He is victim of a con, Donald Chump.“Talk about friendly fire,” editorialized the Wall Street Journal. But there was more to the story than Trump revealed, which the Journal’s editorial page, Leonard Leo’s friend in court as it were, happily provided. The judge on the trade court whom Trump appointed and blames on Leo, Timothy Reif, was in fact, according to the Journal, “recommended to the White House by Robert Lighthizer, who was Mr Trump’s first-term trade representative. Mr Leo had nothing to do with it.” Perhaps Trump is suffering from memory loss.Trump bellowed that the reason for the trade court’s ruling must be “purely a hatred of ‘TRUMP’? What other reason could it be?” “Well,” suggested the Journal, “how about the law and the constitution?” After Leo had been the one to give Trump the names of the three justices he appointed to the supreme court who made possible the infamous decision granting him “absolute immunity” for “official acts” that enabled his evasion of prosecution during the 2024 campaign, this was a thick and rich ragu.The Journal also rushed to Leo’s side with a podcast featuring John Yoo, who as deputy assistant attorney general under George W Bush and the author of the notorious Torture Memos. Yoo said it was “truly outrageous to accuse Leonard Leo, one of the stalwarts or the conservative movement, of being something like a traitor”. Yoo stated: “Why would President Trump turn his back on one of his greatest, if not his greatest achievements from the first term, appointing three justices?” Indeed, Yoo was right that Leo had dictated Trump’s choices, exactly as Trump confessed. What neither disclosed is that it was the price Trump paid for a political armistice with the mighty rightwing Koch political operation. Some deal, some art.And Yoo added in an admission of truth-telling about the supreme court’s invention of absolute presidential immunity for “official acts”: “If it weren’t for Federalist Society judges, he would be in jail right now because it was the Roberts court that said former presidents just can’t be prosecuted for crimes.”But to Trump, the betrayal is cutting. The trade court’s ruling against him echoed the amicus brief filed by a bipartisan group of legal eminences that included leading conservative lights. There was Steven Calabresi, professor at Northwestern Law School, the co-founder and co-chairman of the Federalist Society, and the chief theorist of the conservative doctrine of the “unitary executive”. There was Michael W McConnell, former federal judge, Stanford law professor, and a chief defender of religious right lawsuits. There was Michael Mukasey, former federal judge and George W Bush’s attorney general. There was Peter Wallison, President Reagan’s White House counsel. They all signed the brief stating: “The president’s tariff proclamations bypass the constitutional framework that lends legitimacy and predictability to American lawmaking.”The breaking of ranks on the right is not isolated. Other well-known members of the conservative legal establishment have done more than submit an amicus brief. They have become counsels to some of the most important institutions in Trump’s crosshairs – Harvard University, National Public Radio and the WilmerHale law firm.William Burck and Robert Hur are co-counsels representing Harvard in its suit against the Trump administration order denying its enrollment of international students unless the university submits to his draconian control over its academic processes.Burck, former deputy White House counsel to George W Bush and a current member of the board of directors of the Fox Corporation, is the head of “one of a few top US firms that seemed well placed not only to avoid Donald Trump’s wrath but also benefit from connections to the president’s inner circle”, according to the Financial Times. He was hired to be an ethics adviser to the Trump Organization – that is, until he chose to represent Harvard. Trump ranted against him: “Harvard is a threat to Democracy, with a lawyer, who represents me, who should therefore be forced to resign, immediately, or be fired. He’s not that good, anyway, and I hope that my very big and beautiful company, now run by my sons, gets rid of him ASAP!” Eric Trump, who had previously called Burck “one of the nation’s finest and most respected lawyers”, wielded the executioner’s axe for his father.Hur had been appointed the US attorney for Maryland by Trump and served as the special counsel investigating President Biden’s alleged mishandling of classified documents stored in boxes in his home’s garage. Hur filed no charges, but said of Biden that he was “a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory”.In Harvard’s suit against the Trump administration, Burck and Hur state that its actions against the university are “a blatant violation of the first amendment, the due process clause, and the Administrative Procedure Act. It is the latest act by the government in clear retaliation for Harvard exercising its first amendment rights to reject the government’s demands to control Harvard’s governance, curriculum, and the ‘ideology’ of its faculty and students. The government’s actions are unlawful for other equally clear and pernicious reasons.”For its representation in its suit against the Trump administration, which seeks to slash its funding, National Public Radio has hired Miguel Estrada, a star of the conservative legal firmament, whose nomination to the federal bench by George W Bush was blocked by Senate Democrats in 2002. According to the NPR complaint, Trump’s action “violates the expressed will of Congress and the first amendment’s bedrock guarantees of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of association, and also threatens the existence of a public radio system that millions of Americans across the country rely on for vital news and information”.When Trump issued executive orders against big law firms that had somehow offended him, coercing their surrender to his whim, one of those firms, WilmerHale, subject to such an order for having had as a senior partner Robert Mueller, the former FBI director who headed the investigation into Russian influence in the 2016 election, did not cave. Instead, it hired Paul Clement, George W Bush’s solicitor general, who has argued on behalf of many of the most controversial conservative causes before the supreme court, including against the Defense of Marriage Act and against the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare.Citing the example of John Adams, who defended British soldiers in the Boston Massacre, Clement argued against the Trump administration that “British monarchs’ practice of punishing attorneys ‘whose greatest crime was to dare to defend unpopular causes’ – which threatened to reduce lawyers to ‘parrots of the views of whatever group wields governmental power at the moment’ – helped inspire the Bill of Rights”.Then, Ed Whelan, who holds the Antonin Scalia chair in constitutional studies at the rightwing Ethics and Public Policy Center, and is a close surrogate for Leonard Leo, savaged Trump’s nomination of Emil Bove, who was his personal attorney in the New York hush-money trial and whom he had appointed as deputy attorney general, to be a judge on the US court of appeals for the third circuit.Bove ordered corruption charges dropped against the New York City mayor, Eric Adams, which a federal judge said “smacks of a bargain: dismissal of the indictment in exchange for immigration policy concessions”. The US attorney for Manhattan, Danielle Sassoon, a conservative Republican, resigned in protest, stating that the deal “amounted to a quid pro quo” and that Bove had ordered her not to take notes during meetings. Seven members of the public integrity section of the justice department also resigned.Whelan, writing in the conservative magazine National Review, called Bove Trump’s “henchman”, decried his “bullying mishandling” of the Adams case, and suggested he might be put on the federal bench to “position him well for the next supreme court vacancy. A rosier possibility is that Bove is tired of being Stephen Miller’s errand boy.”Now, Trump is worried about what conservatives on the supreme court might rule when presented with the trade court’s decision. He rails in private against Justice Amy Coney Barrett, whom he appointed to the supreme court, for her unexpected occasional independence. The Journal, with the inside track, writes that “the White House boasts it will win at the supreme court, but our reading of the trade court’s opinion suggests the opposite. Mr Trump’s three court appointees are likely to invoke the major-questions precedent” – which would uphold the trade court and force Trump either to bring his policy before the Congress or drop it.Trump is enraged that his betrayers from the Federalist Society have claimed roles in the resistance. He has no loyalty to anyone or thing, but demands personal fealty, certainly now above any ideological litmus tests. The only ideological tests are to be imposed on universities. Trump has learned his lesson. In his insistence on obedient judges, Trump is returning to his first principle as he was taught in the beginning by his mob attorney Roy Cohn, who said: “Don’t tell me what the law is, tell me who the judge is.”

    Sidney Blumenthal, a former senior adviser to President Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton, has published three books of a projected five-volume political life of Abraham Lincoln: A Self-Made Man, Wrestling With His Angel and All the Powers of Earth. He is a Guardian US columnist and co-host of The Court of History podcast More

  • in

    Companies that spinelessly follow Trump’s cuts to DEI will pay a heavy price | Miriam González Durántez

    Organising a women’s networking event in the US has become an act of defiance. Companies with equality-driven agendas risk losing government contracts. Some are receiving McCarthy-like letters asking them to confirm that they have no diversity policies. Activities designed to support women, including healthcare research, are being threatened, and companies are backtracking on former commitments. Women’s networking events, the gathering of diversity data and targeted training are being questioned. And some companies are requesting that charities focused on women and girls consider changes to their programmes in order to navigate the current climate. The one I founded, Inspiring Girls, has already been asked to “include men as role models”.This anti-diversity wave isn’t just a social backlash to the many excesses of wokeness – it is politically orchestrated and driven. It crystallised in 2021, when the senator Josh Hawley devoted his entire keynote speech at the second National Conservatism Conference to “reclaiming masculinity”, calling for boys (not girls) to be taught competitiveness, strength, honesty and courage – as if those were only male values. Since then, the movement has reached the highest offices of power: the White House is its headquarters and its commander-in-chief is Trump’s deputy chief of staff, Stephen Miller, who promised last year to tackle “anti-white racism” if Trump won a second term.The anti-diversity brigade has no shortage of money or allies: several “tech bros” (whether out of conviction or FOMO) have joined in – as have tech venture capitalists and other Maga financiers. These are men who operate in fields dominated almost exclusively by other men and who wield enormous wealth and influence, yet they often cast themselves as victims. They hide their anti-diversity stance under the disguise of meritocracy.On the progressive side, there is a movement claiming that it is actually boys – particularly white working-class ones – rather than girls who are “in crisis”. It is led by the American Institute for Boys and Men, which last week received a $20m grant from Melinda French Gates. They argue that boys lag behind girls in education and employment. It is true, of course, that many of the manufacturing jobs that many young men used to rely on are vanishing due to automation and tech (ironically, for the benefit of mostly male tech moguls). Unfortunately, however, this well-meaning movement is fuelling the anti-diversity brigade’s narrative – because they can now claim that even progressives admit it is white men who are suffering.The Trump administration has not yet imposed specific obligations on businesses to withdraw diversity programmes beyond companies who have contracts with the government – including, now, some companies across the EU, but many are taking spontaneous actions. Some companies are doing so because their diversity policies were just for show, while others are simply acting out of fear. The trend is clear: many are eliminating references to diversity and equality from their websites and in their reporting; others are reneging from aspirational targets, stopping data-gathering on recruitment and promotions, and dismantling training programmes.Some of the companies that are backtracking have headquarters in the UK or Europe. And many of the US tech companies and funds that are leading the diversity backlash have subsidiaries and offices on this side of the Atlantic. Their actions are in straightforward conflict with the letter and the spirit of British and EU legislation on equality, such as EU corporate sustainability reporting rules or equal opportunities and equal pay directives.And yet the equality ministries in the British and other European governments – and in the European Commission – have remained largely silent. Most equality ministries and agencies are led by herbivorous politicians and officials who favour performative programmes over meaningful action. Confronting Trump is far too scary for them, which is why they have not set the limits of what companies can and cannot do, whether specifically or in general guidelines.Over time, it is possible the anti-diversity movement will yield some positives, as it could drive companies who continue to believe in diversity towards more meaningful, effective and data-based policies. Besides, in a litigation-led country such as the US, it is only a matter of time before the courts impose some limits on government-led anti-diversity intimidation. When they do, the backlash against companies that have acted spinelessly will have its own consequences.But the UK and the rest of Europe cannot be passive spectators waiting for the pendulum to swing again. Our equality authorities should counteract Trump’s raid on diversity by providing clear official guidance to companies on what they can and cannot do – it is their legal and moral duty to do so. America First should not mean America Everywhere when it comes to the fundamental principles of diversity, equality and inclusion.

    Miriam González Durántez is an international trade lawyer and the founder and chair of Inspiring Girls

    Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here. More

  • in

    Jewish Americans of all stripes reconsider safety protocols – but disagree on roots of recent violence

    On the first night of Passover, it seemed like a one-off – an arson attack on the mansion of the Pennsylvania governor, Josh Shapiro. The arsonist, per police, took issue with Shapiro’s stance on Israel and Palestine.Then, in late May, outside an American Jewish Committee young professionals’ event for young Jews in the DC area to meet young diplomats, two Israeli embassy staffers were shot and killed; the shooter yelled, “Free Palestine.” Roughly a week and a half later, in Boulder, Colorado, a rally in solidarity with hostages held in Gaza was firebombed; the attacker also reportedly yelled, “Free Palestine.”The string of events have deeply unnerved Jewish Americans of all stripes. Despite a wide range of political views, there exists a measure of consensus among Jewish institutions that they need to reconsider their safety protocols. There is less unity on the root causes of the violence, and what policy solutions should address it.“I don’t know anyone who isn’t rethinking their security and the security of the Jewish institutions that they visit,” said Halie Soifer, CEO of the Jewish Democratic Council of America.Many synagogues have recently heightened security, whether in the form of armed guards, metal detectors, surveillance systems or some combination.Rabbi Joe Black is a senior rabbi of Temple Emanuel, a Reform congregation in Denver, Colorado, a Jewish community he described as “closely linked” to Boulder’s. He said that his synagogue has in recent years upped its spending on security in response to rising antisemitism, putting in place guards, cameras and security systems.View image in fullscreenThe last several weeks have also seen a change of protocols. “I never liked the thought of having armed guards in the synagogue. I do now. And I hate that,” Black said. Meanwhile, Eric Fingerhut, president and CEO of the Jewish Federations of North America, recently called for Congress to increase funding for security at Jewish institutions.The American Jewish community is deeply divided over thorny questions around when calls for Palestinian rights cross over into antisemitism. Many view the string of attacks as part of a rising wave of antisemitism fueled by the pro-Palestinian movement. Some on the left, on the other hand, object to conflations of anti-Zionism with antisemitism that are used to suppress protest against Israel’s US-backed war in Gaza. The recent acts of violence all involved targets associated to varying degrees with Jewish life but also with Israel – though it is not entirely clear what the perpetrators knew about them or, in the case of the latter two, precisely how they selected their targets.For some, particularly more conservative voices, the issue is one of speech that has gotten out of hand. Jonathan Greenblatt, head of the Anti-Defamation League, has singled out the Twitch streamer Hasan Piker and university graduation speakers who have spoken out in support of Palestinian rights, whom he accused of spreading “blood libel” against Jews. “We’ve got to stop it once and for all,” he said on Fox News.“We were told over and over again that this was just freedom of speech being exercised. It should not be misunderstood at this point: when someone says ‘Free Palestine,’ what they mean is ‘kill Jews,’” Dr Nolan Lebovitz, senior rabbi at California’s Valley Beth Shalom, one of the largest conservative synagogues in the country, told the Guardian. He pointed as an example to a protest on 8 October 2023 that included some voices that appeared to celebrate the Hamas attacks from the day before, referring to it as a “terror parade”.Others see a different kind of predictability, arguing that if Jewish institutions themselves blur the lines between Judaism and support for Israel – particularly as Israel wages a war in Gaza that has killed by a conservative estimate of more than 50,000 Palestinians since the 7 October attacks – it is inevitable that others will, too.“When you have the main [Jewish] institutions … consistently hammering home that Zionism and Judaism are entirely equivalent, that you can’t have Judaism without Zionism, and that 90% of American Jews are Zionist – how do you expect people outside of the community to not just take that for granted?” asked Rabbi Andrue Kahn, the executive director of the American Council for Judaism, which is devoted to promoting Jewish life “free from Zionist and other nationalist ideologies”.The backdrop to all of this is the Trump administration, which has spent the last several months cracking down on universities and detaining and trying to deport students involved in pro-Palestinian protests, all in the name of fighting antisemitism. In the wake of the attack in Washington DC, the secretary of state, Marco Rubio, denounced the term “free Palestine” and vowed to continue a crackdown on foreign nationals. Meanwhile, Donald Trump, in a social media statement following the Boulder firebombing, did not explicitly mention Jews, but did blame his predecessor Joe Biden’s border policies for the attack, suggesting he would use the attack as further justification for his anti-immigrant crackdown.View image in fullscreen“I think one of the things that we’ve been seeing over the past several months is a weaponization of antisemitism by the current administration in order to promote policies that are contrary to my values, contrary to Jewish values,” said Black, the Reform rabbi from Denver. “That doesn’t mean antisemitism is not real. It needs to be addressed in a sane, clear, logical way.”Black believes that the attacks were a consequence of the term “Zionism” being warped in public discourse to become synonymous with oppression. (He calls himself a “proud Zionist” who supports Israel’s right to defend itself but questions the motives of the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, in prosecuting the war.) Asked what steps he wanted to see taken, he, too, said he wanted more funding for non-profit security – and also for politicians to avoid using the attacks to justify their own political ends.“There’s disagreement about what it will take for the current administration to really take on antisemitism,” said Rabbi Rick Jacobs, president of the Union for Reform Judaism. Law enforcement needed to work with and be responsive to Jewish communities, he said, and there needed to be a national conversation about distinguishing between free speech and incitement to violence. “But at the same time, we don’t want to dismantle our democracy and the rule of law and constitutional rights. It’s a delicate balance,” he continued.“We have a wider Jewish community that’s fearful,” he said. “No one is surprised when they get the news flash that there’s been yet another attack on the Jewish community.”There is one point of agreement: the answer is not for Jews to drop out of engaging civically and as Jews. Jacobs insisted: “We will not accept a reality where people are just too afraid to participate in Jewish life.” More

  • in

    Trump signs proclamation to restrict foreign student visas at Harvard

    Donald Trump signed a proclamation to restrict foreign student visas at Harvard University, the White House said on Wednesday.The order would suspend for an initial six months the entry into the US of foreign nationals seeking to study or participate in exchange programs at Harvard. Trump declared that it would jeopardize national security to allow Harvard to continue hosting foreign students.The proclamation is the US president’s latest attempt to choke the Ivy League school from an international pipeline that accounts for a quarter of the student body, and a further escalation in the White House’s fight with the institution.“I have determined that the entry of the class of foreign nationals described above is detrimental to the interests of the United States because, in my judgment, Harvard’s conduct has rendered it an unsuitable destination for foreign students and researchers,” Trump wrote in the order.Trump’s proclamation also directs the US state department to consider revoking academic or exchange visas of any current Harvard students who meet his proclamation’s criteria.Harvard in a statement called Trump’s proclamation “yet another illegal retaliatory step taken by the Administration in violation of Harvard’s First Amendment rights.”“Harvard will continue to protect its international students.”Trump singled out Harvard’s connections with China as reason for cutting off the university from foreign students. The proclamation said Harvard was linked to research that “could advance China’s military modernisation”.The statement also said Harvard was considered the top “party school” for Chinese Communist party bureaucrats and noted that the daughter of Xi Jinping, China’s leader, attended in the early 2010s.In the early 2000s, Harvard ran a “China Leaders in Development” programme in conjunction with Tsinghua University in Beijing for Chinese government officials.“I don’t think this is going to benefit US universities at all,” said a Chinese undergraduate student with an offer to study at Harvard on a master’s degree starting next term who asked that his name be withheld. “It’s causing normal people, us students, a lot of anxiety.”The Trump administration has been engaged in a tense standoff with Harvard, the US’s oldest and wealthiest university, freezing billions of dollars in grants and other funding and proposing to end its tax-exempt status, prompting a series of legal challenges.Harvard argues the administration is retaliating against it for refusing to accede to its demands to control the school’s governance, curriculum and the ideology of its faculty and students.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionHarvard sued after the homeland security secretary, Kristi Noem, on 22 May announced her department was immediately revoking Harvard’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification, which allows it to enrol foreign students.Her action was almost immediately temporarily blocked by a Boston court. On the eve of a hearing before her last week, the department changed course and said it would instead challenge Harvard’s certification through a lengthier administrative process.Trump’s order on Wednesday invokes a different legal authority than the earlier move by the Department of Homeland Security. The legal justification for the ban, Trump said, are sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act, “which authorize the President to suspend entry of any class of aliens whose entry would be detrimental to the interests of the United States”.Trump officials have repeatedly raised the stakes and sought new fronts to pressure Harvard, cutting more than $2.6bn in research grants and moving to end all federal contracts with the university. The latest threat has targeted Harvard’s roughly 7,000 international students, who account for half the enrolment at some Harvard graduate schools.“President Trump wants our institutions to have foreign students, but believes that the foreign students should be people that can love our country,” the White House said in a fact sheet about the proclamation.Wednesday’s two-page directive said Harvard had “demonstrated a history of concerning foreign ties and radicalism” and had “extensive entanglements with foreign adversaries” including China.As well as the spat with Harvard, the White House has pledged to “aggressively revoke” visas for Chinese students across the country, especially those with links to the CCP or in “critical fields”. More

  • in

    Trump orders inquiry into Biden’s actions as president over ‘cognitive decline’ reports

    Donald Trump has ordered an investigation into Joe Biden’s actions as president, alleging top aides masked his predecessor’s “cognitive decline”.The investigation will build on a Republican-led campaign already under way to discredit the former president and overturn some of his executive actions, including pardons and federal rules issued towards the end of his term in office.Biden issued a statement dismissing the idea of a cover-up as “ridiculous”. “Let me be clear: I made the decisions during my presidency. I made the decisions about the pardons, executive orders, legislation, and proclamations. Any suggestion that I didn’t is ridiculous and false.”GOP lawmakers on Wednesday sought testimony from five of Biden’s top aides and advisers, including his first chief of staff, about his “mental and physical faculties”. The House oversight committee headed by the Republican representative James Comer of Kentucky was already speaking to four others, according to reports from CBS News.A separate inquiry was launched on Tuesday by Ed Martin, a justice department attorney, into clemencies Biden issued in his final days in office to family members as well as death row inmates.Biden’s cognitive abilities during his presidency have been a Republican talking point for several years and Trump has frequently suggested that some of Biden’s actions are invalid because his aides were usurping presidential authority to cover up what Trump claims is Biden’s cognitive decline.Biden, 82, is not significantly older than Trump who turns 79 this month and has also faced questions about cognitive decline. But scrutiny about Biden’s health intensified after a disastrous debate performance going into the 2024 election that led to him dropping out.Concerns about his age and mental acuity have come into sharper focus in recent weeks following the disclosure that the former president was diagnosed with an aggressive form of prostate cancer. Reporting in numerous US media outlets and a recent book co-authored by Jake Tapper, a CNN host, have also revealed that top Democrats and people in Biden’s inner circle had serious misgivings about his ability to do the job of president. The book is referenced in an announcement about the House oversight committee’s expanded inquiry.In a memo, Trump took aim at Biden’s use of an autopen – a mechanical device that is used to replicate a person’s authentic signature, as used by presidents for decades – to sign executive actions. The administration’s investigation will focus on “who ran the United States while President Biden was in office”, according to the memo.“This conspiracy marks one of the most dangerous and concerning scandals in American history,” Trump wrote. “The American public was purposefully shielded from discovering who wielded the executive power, all while Biden’s signature was deployed across thousands of documents to effect radical policy shifts.”Trump directed Pam Bondi, the attorney general, and David Warrington, the White House counsel, to handle the investigation.Comer requested transcribed interviews with five Biden aides, alleging they had participated in a “cover-up”.“These five former senior advisers were eyewitnesses to President Biden’s condition and operations within the Biden White House,” Comer said in a statement. “They must appear before the House oversight committee and provide truthful answers about President Biden’s cognitive state and who was calling the shots.”Interviews were requested with White House senior advisers Mike Donilon and Anita Dunn, former White House chief of staff Ron Klain, former deputy chief of staff Bruce Reed and Steve Ricchetti, a former counsellor to the president.Comer reiterated his call for Biden’s physician, Kevin O’Connor, and former senior White House aides Annie Tomasini, Anthony Bernal, Ashley Williams and Neera Tanden to appear before the committee. He warned subpoenas would be issued this week if they refused to schedule voluntary interviews.Democrats have called the investigations a distraction from issues with the current administration. In an interview with CBS Sunday Morning, the former president Bill Clinton said he believed Biden was mentally sound.“The only concern I thought he had to deal with was: ‘Could anybody do that job until they were 86?’” Clinton said. “We’d had several long talks. I had never seen him and walked away thinking ‘He can’t do this any more.’”With Associated Press More