US Politics

Subterms

    Latest story

    150 Shares12 Views

    Trump officials step up defiance over man wrongly deported to El Salvador

    by

    The Trump administration escalated its stubborn defiance against securing the release of a man wrongly deported to El Salvador on Monday, advancing new misrepresentations of a US supreme court order.The supreme court last week unanimously ordered the administration to “facilitate” the release of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was supposed to have been protected from deportation to El Salvador regardless of whether he was a member of the MS-13 gang.But at an Oval Office meeting between Trump and El Salvador’s president Nayib Bukele, Trump deferred to officials who gave extraordinary readings of the supreme court order and claimed the US was powerless to return Abrego Garcia to US soil.“The ruling solely stated that if this individual at El Salvador’s sole discretion was sent back to our country, we could deport him a second time,” said Trump’s policy chief Stephen Miller, about an order that, in fact, upheld a lower court’s directive to return Abrego Garcia.Miller’s remarks went beyond the tortured reading offered by the US attorney general, Pam Bondi, who also characterized the supreme court order as only requiring the administration to provide transportation to Abrego Garcia if released by El Salvador.“That’s up to El Salvador if they want to return him. That’s up to them,” Bondi said. “The supreme court ruled that if El Salvador wants to return him, we would ‘facilitate’ it, meaning provide a plane.”The remarks at the Oval Office meeting marked an escalation by Trump officials to resist complying with a supreme court order by manufacturing uncertainty in the ruling that reiterated deportations were subject to judicial review.And the fact that the US is paying El Salvador to detain deportees it sends to the notorious Cecot prison undercut the notion that the administration lacked the power to return Abrego Garcia into US custody.The case started when Abrego Garcia was detained by police in 2019 in Maryland, outside a Home Depot, with several other men, and asked about a murder. He denied knowledge of a crime and repeatedly denied that he was part of a gang.Abrego Garcia was subsequently put in immigration proceedings, where officials argued they believed he was part of the MS-13 gang in New York based on his Chicago Bulls gear and on the word of a confidential informant.The case went before a US immigration judge, who suggested that Abrego Garcia could be a member of MS-13 and agreed to a deportation order but shielded him from being sent to El Salvador because he was likely to face persecution there by a local gang.The Trump administration did not appeal against that decision, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement has since said in a court filing that Abrego Garcia’s deportation to El Salvador was an “administrative error”. The supreme court also called his removal illegal.In earlier remarks to reporters on Monday morning, Miller expressly demonstrated he knew the administration had made a mistake because the immigration judge had issued a so-called withholding order, which meant he could not be deported to El Salvador.“When you have a withholding order, to be clear, that is not ‘pause your deportation’. In other words, in the worst-case scenario, it means you get deported to another country,” Miller said.That concession evaporated hours later when he joined Trump, Bukele and a dozen senior officials in the Oval Office and suggested that bringing back Abrego Garcia to the US would be tantamount to kidnapping a citizen of El Salvador.Miller appeared to be suggesting that the US could not force the actions of El Salvador, a sovereign nation. But he then said the supreme court said neither the president nor the secretary of state could forcibly retrieve a citizen of El Salvador from El Salvador – which the order did not say. More

    More stories

    • 125 Shares

      in US Politics

      Trump administration sued over tariffs in US international trade court

      by

      A legal advocacy group on Monday asked the US court of international trade to block Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs on foreign trading partners, arguing that the president overstepped his authority.The lawsuit was filed by the Liberty Justice Center, a legal advocacy group, on behalf of five US businesses that import goods from countries targeted by the tariffs.“No one person should have the power to impose taxes that have such vast global economic consequences,” Jeffrey Schwab, Liberty Justice Center’s senior counsel, said in a statement. “The Constitution gives the power to set tax rates – including tariffs – to Congress, not the President.”The Liberty Justice Center is the litigation arm of the Illinois Policy Institute, a free market thinktank. It was instrumental in the supreme court case Janus v AFSCME in which it successfully fought to weaken public labor unions collective bargaining power.According to the group’s statement, the tariffs case was filed on behalf of five owner-operated businesses who have been severely harmed by the tariffs. The businesses include a New York-based company specializing in the importation and distribution of wines and spirits, an e-commerce business specializing in the production and sale of sportfishing tackle, a company that manufactures ABS pipe in the United States using imported ABS resin from South Korea and Taiwan, a small business based in Virginia that makes educational electronic kits and musical instruments, and a Vermont-based brand of women’s cycling apparel.Representatives of the White House did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment.The Trump administration faces a similar lawsuit in Florida federal court, where a small business owner has asked a judge to block tariffs imposed on China. More

    • 138 Shares18 Views

      in US Politics

      The Trump administration trapped a wrongly deported man in a catch-22

      by

      It is difficult to find a term more fitting for the fate of the Maryland father Kilmar Abrego García than Kafkaesque.Abrego García is one of hundreds of foreign-born men deported under the Trump administration to the Cecot mega-prison in El Salvador as part of a macabre partnership with the self-declared “world’s coolest dictator”, Nayib Bukele.The US government has admitted it deported Abrego García by mistake. But instead of “facilitating” his return as ordered by the supreme court, the administration has trapped Abrego García in a catch-22 by offshoring his fate to a jurisdiction beyond the reach of legality – or, it would seem, basic logic or common decency.The paradox is this: the Trump administration says it cannot facilitate the return of Abrego García because he is in a prison in El Salvador. El Salvador says it cannot return him because that would be tantamount to “smuggling” him into the US.The absurdity of the position played out on Monday during an Oval Office meeting between Donald Trump and Bukele where the two men appeared to enjoy mocking the powerlessness of the US courts to intervene in the fate of anyone caught in the maws of the Trump administration’s deportation machine.“How can I smuggle a terrorist into the United States? I’m not going to do it,” Bukele said when asked about whether he would help to return Abrego García.There is no evidence that Abrego García is a terrorist or a member of the gang MS-13 as the Trump administration has claimed. But that is not really important here.“I don’t have the power to return him to the United States,” Bukele said during a meeting with the US president on Monday. “They’d love to have a criminal released into our country,” Trump added.Trump’s lieutenants also jumped in on Monday, arguing that they could not intervene in the case because Bukele is a foreign citizen and outside of their control.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“He is a citizen of El Salvador,” said Stephen Miller, a top Trump aide who regularly advises the president on immigration issues. “It’s very arrogant even for American media to suggest that we would even tell El Salvador how to handle their own citizens.”A district court injunction to halt the deportation was in effect, he added, an order to “kidnap a citizen of El Salvador and fly him back here”.Marco Rubio, the secretary of state, repeated one of the Trump administration’s mantras: that US courts cannot determine Trump’s foreign policy. Increasingly, the administration is including questions of immigration in that foreign policy in order to defy the courts.Monday’s presentation was in effect a pantomime. Both sides could quickly intervene if they wanted to. But this was a means to an end. Miller said this case would not end with Abrego García living in the US.More broadly, it indicates the Trump administration’s modus operandi: to move quickly before the courts can react to its transgressions and, when they do, to deflect and defy until the damage done cannot be reversed. More

    • 175 Shares

      in US Politics

      Harvard says it will not ‘yield’ to Trump demands over $9bn in funding cuts

      by

      Harvard University said on Monday that it will not comply with a new list of demands from the Trump administration issued last week that the government says are designed to crack down on antisemitism and alleged civil rights violations at elite academic institutions.In a message to the Harvard community, the university president, Alan Garber, vowed that the school would not yield to the government’s pressure campaign. “The university will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights,” Garber said.The Trump administration said it would review $9bn of federal grants and contracts, including Harvard’s research hospitals, as part of its effort to “root out antisemitism”.In a letter last week from the government’s antisemitism taskforce, the university was accused of having “failed to live up to both the intellectual and civil rights conditions that justify federal investment”.The Trump administration has also demanded that Harvard ban face masks and close its diversity, equity and inclusion programs, which it says teach students and staff “to make snap judgments about each other based on crude race and identity stereotypes”. The administration also demanded that Harvard cooperate with federal immigration authorities.The administration further asked Harvard to reform its admissions process for international students to screen for students “supportive of terrorism and anti-Semitism” – and to report international students to federal authorities if they break university conduct policies.University faculties are also under the government’s microscope as it has called for “reducing the power held by faculty (whether tenured or untenured) and administrators more committed to activism than scholarship”.Harvard’s announced resistance to the administration’s demands comes as Trump’s federal government pits itself against several Ivy League universities over intellectual and political freedoms. The dispute has been playing out in the courts over efforts by the administration to deport several postgraduate students holding provisional citizenship or student visas over pro-Palestinian demonstrations that the government alleges were shows of support for terrorism.On Friday, a federal judge in Louisiana ruled that the Columbia University graduate student and Palestinian organizer Mahmoud Khalil, 30, can be deported despite having been granted legal permanent residence in the US. The government contended that Khalil’s presence in the US posed “potentially serious foreign policy consequences”, satisfying requirements for deportation, according to the judge.After that ruling, Khalil’s immigration attorney Marc Van Der Hout told the court that his client would appeal.The letter from Harvard’s president said the university would not comply with the Trump administration’s demands to dismantle its diversity programming and to limit student protests in exchange for its federal funding.“No government – regardless of which party is in power – should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue,” Garber wrote in the message.Garber said the government’s demands were a political ploy.“It makes clear that the intention is not to work with us to address antisemitism in a cooperative and constructive manner,” he wrote. “Although some of the demands outlined by the government are aimed at combating antisemitism, the majority represent direct governmental regulation of the ‘intellectual conditions’ at Harvard.”The new approach by the university, which sits on an endowment valued at over $52bn, comes in contrast to Columbia University. Columbia, which holds an endowment of $14bn, largely acceded to the administration demands after it was threatened with $400m in federal funding cuts.But Jewish advocacy groups are divided on the administration’s efforts. Some say they are an innovative and muscular way to combat what they see as campus antisemitism. Others maintain that the government is weaponizing antisemitism to pursue wider intellectual crackdowns.“The gun to the head and shutting down all science seems like a counterproductive way to handle the particular problems of antisemitism,” Steven Pinker, a Harvard psychology professor, told the Boston Globe earlier in April. More

    • 150 Shares19 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump memo outlines plan to slash US state department budget in half

      by

      The Trump administration is reportedly proposing to slash the state department budget by nearly half in a move that could drastically reduce US international spending and end its funding for Nato and the United Nations, according to an internal memorandum.The memo based on spending cuts devised by the White House office of management and budget envisions the total budget of the state department and USAID, the main foreign assistance body which has been largely dismantled by Elon Musk’s “department of government efficiency”, or Doge, being reduced to $28.4bn, a reduction of $27bn or 48% from what Congress approved for 2025.The cuts would mean drastic decreases in funding for humanitarian assistance, global health and international organizations. Humanitarian assistance programs and global health funding would be slashed by 54% and 55% respectively, according to the memo, which was first reported by the Washington Post.The memo assumes that USAID, previously an independent agency before it was targeted by Doge, would be encompassed fully under the state department umbrella.There would also be drastic reductions to the state department workforce, which currently stands at 80,000.The memo proposes the elimination of 90% of support for international organizations, with financing for some 20 bodies – including the Nato alliance and the UN – eliminated.Targeted funding for the International Atomic Energy Agency and the International Civil Aviation Authority would continue but backing for international peacekeeping missions would end, according to the memo, citing unspecified “recent mission failures”.The cuts would also see the foreign service travel budget and benefits for staff severely curtailed, while the Fulbright scholarship, established by Congress in 1946 and which has facilitated educational exchanges involving more than 40 future heads of state or government, would be eliminated.So too would Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations, which aims to anticipate and prevent wars around the globe.The cuts are yet to be agreed within the administration and would need to be approved by Congress, where they would be likely to encounter stiff resistance, even among many Republicans.The memo, dated 10 April, is signed by Douglas Pitkin, director of budget and planning at the state department, and Peter Marocco, who was until recently the department’s director of foreign assistance and acting deputy director of USAID.Marco Rubio, the secretary of state – who has hitherto favored an activist US role in international affairs – has until Tuesday to respond, the memo says.Chris Van Hollen, the ranking Democrat on the state department and USAID subcommittee of the Senate foreign relations committee, criticized the proposals as “an unserious budget”.“I predict it will hit a wall of bipartisan opposition,” he told the Post.The American Foreign Service Association called on Congress to reject any budget proposing cuts outlined in the memo, which it called “reckless and dangerous”. The cuts suggested “would empower adversaries like China and Russia who are eager to fill the void left by a retreating United States”, the association said. More

    • 175 Shares17 Views

      in US Politics

      Why weakening U.S. bank regulators could repeat the mistakes of the 2008 financial crisis

      by

      As United States President Donald Trump’s tariff announcements wreak havoc on stock markets, concerns are mounting over the possibility of a global financial crisis.

      These concerns have intensified amid reports that the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), headed by Tesla founder Elon Musk, has set its sights on the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) — the U.S. agency responsible for protecting deposits and administering bank insolvencies.

      The targeting of the FDIC appears to mark an escalation in the Trump administration’s efforts to rein in regulatory agencies. In February, an executive order issued issued by Trump expanded his control over independent regulators, including the FDIC.

      What sets the FDIC apart from other agencies targeted by DOGE is that it’s not under direct executive authority and it isn’t funded by the U.S. government. Instead, the FDIC is funded through levies on the banks it monitors — a structure designed to insulate it from political pressure.

      An escalating campaign over regulation

      In February, the FDIC cut 1,000 new and temporary staff as part of DOGE’s broader cuts to the federal bureaucracy. According to a regulatory official, DOGE has reportedly been reviewing the agency’s contracts and staffing.

      In December, Trump administration officials reportedly floated abolishing the FDIC with prospective nominees for various bank regulatory appointments.

      U.S. President Donald Trump holds an executive order in the Oval Office of the White House on April 9, 2025 in Washington, D.C.
      (Pool via AP)

      More recently, in February, DOGE and U.S. administration officials attempted to dismantle the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a separate regulator that was established after the 2008 financial crisis. A judge moved to block this process in late March after finding the administration had acted “completely in violation of law.”

      There are also reports suggesting the FDIC’s regulatory and intervention functions could be transferred to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). Unlike the FDIC, the OCC is under the authority of the Treasury Department, therefore lacking the same degree of operational independence. This risks further politicizing decisions on bank regulation or intervention.

      Any of these reforms would be a disaster for the stability of the global financial system.

      What the FDIC does and why it matters

      Deposit insurers like the FDIC cover losses for deposits in the event of a bank failure. In theory, this coverage is capped at $250,000 in the U.S. and $100,000 in Canada. In practice, as the failure of Silicon Valley Bank in 2023 made clear, there is no upper limit to this insurance.

      This insurance serves two main purposes. First, it protects everyday people and small businesses from risks taken by their banks. Two, it prevents panic, as it means depositors have no reason to rush to withdraw their money before a bank collapses.

      The FDIC and its Canadian equivalent, the Canadian Deposit Insurance Corporation, have the authority to intervene when banks fail, ensuring they are wound down in an orderly fashion without a bailout or broader economic disruption.

      During the 2008 financial crisis, few mechanisms other than taxpayer-funded bailouts existed to rescue the financial system. Post-crisis reforms, like the Dodd–Frank Act, granted the FDIC more power help address systemically important bank failures with a broader set of tools. Many of these reforms were negotiated at the international level.

      U.S. President Barack Obama, centre, signs the Dodd Frank-Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act in a ceremony in the Ronald Reagan Building in Washington, D.C., in 2010.
      (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

      Project 2025, a Heritage Foundation plan that has supported many of DOGE’s interventions, has called to repeal these reforms. Dismantling or undermining the FDIC would strip the U.S. of one of its most effective ways to respond to a financial crisis.

      The FDIC also plays a role in monitoring large banks, alongside the Federal Reserve and the OCC. At the international level, the FDIC works with foreign regulators to plan for the possibility of a crisis, and to implement solutions if one occurs.

      Global financial system at risk

      In 2023, the FDIC failed to prevent the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank largely due to two key reasons: deregulation enacted during the first Trump administration and staffing shortages that existed even before the February cuts.

      However, once the FDIC did intervene, it was able to contain the crisis and prevent wider fallout. Weakening the FDIC, as has occurred with other U.S. federal agencies, would greatly reduce its ability to perform this function in the future. Fewer regulators means less oversight and more risk-taking behaviour by financial institutions.

      Read more:
      What Canada can learn from the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank

      Limiting the FDIC’s capacity to intervene would effectively return the U.S. to a pre-2008 world in which large banks operated with the expectation of public bailouts. This is a hazard made more dangerous by the fact that many of those banks are much larger and more interconnected than they were back then.

      Foreign regulators also rely heavily on the FDIC for information on the health of U.S. banks and U.S.-based subsidiaries of foreign banks. This co-operation was crucial to ensuring a smooth resolution when global bank Credit Suisse failed in 2023. Without a reliable, independent FDIC, these relationships may fall apart, leaving the world with few options to avoid another financial meltdown.

      Global financial stability depends, in large part, on U.S. leadership. But recent developments indicate the current administration no longer believes this responsibility is in its best interests. If this view extends to the FDIC’s role in regulating and resolving too-big-to-fail banks, the world faces risks far greater than just volatility in the stock market. More

    • 200 Shares25 Views

      in US Politics

      The Guardian view on Friedrich Merz’s grand coalition: gambling on a new centre ground | Editorial

      by

      Some years ago, hundreds of German finance ministry staff dressed in black and formed a giant zero to salute their boss, Wolfgang Schäuble, as he left office. It was a tribute to Mr Schäuble’s extreme fiscal conservatism, which had delivered Germany’s first balanced budget in the postwar period. Amid resurgent prosperity in the Angela Merkel years, the so-called black zero – symbolising a constitutional prohibition on public debt – had gradually acquired cult status.As a new administration prepares to take power in Berlin, it seems unlikely that human euro signs will welcome the latest politician to take on Mr Schäuble’s former role. But in dramatic fashion, the spending taps are set to be turned on. Via a swiftly staged March vote in the outgoing Bundestag, “debt brake” dogma was consigned to history by the chancellor‑elect, Friedrich Merz. The way was thus paved for groundbreaking expenditure on defence, and the overhaul of an economy being left behind in a changed, suddenly menacing world.So much for the theory – now for the practice. Mr Merz, the centre-right leader of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), last week concluded the fastest set of coalition talks since 2009. Pending approval of the deal by Social Democratic party (SPD) members, he is expected to be sworn in as chancellor in by early May. In office, the “grand coalition” agreed between the CDU and the SPD – handed seven ministries including finance and defence – will immediately be confronted by challenges that dwarf those faced by almost all its predecessors.The US under Donald Trump, whether as economic partner or military ally, can no longer be relied upon – an era-defining shift whatever the outcome of the current tariff wars and Mr Trump’s negotiations with Moscow over Ukraine. China, once a vast outlet for the exports which fuelled growth, has morphed into a fearsome competitor, including on German soil. A stagnant economy, combined with a post-Merkel backlash against migration, has accelerated the rise of Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), one of the most extreme far‑right parties in Europe. Last week, a poll fatefully placed the AfD in the lead for the first time.The pressure from the right – both from within his own party and from the AfD – is having an impact. Mr Merz’s Trumpian promise to turn asylum seekers away at German borders from his “first day”, along with other draconian measures, will only allow the far right to up the ante still further. Meanwhile, he also appears to be looking for wriggle room on agreed coalition commitments to the less well off and to climate targets.Nevertheless, the broad economic thrust of the deal remains right for troubling times. The European Central Bank must play its part – by keeping yields on a leash. As Germany’s neighbours deal with similar geopolitical threats and uncertainties, the ability of the EU’s most powerful member state to show leadership and forge a path through the crisis will be crucial. With short-term growth acutely vulnerable to mood swings in the White House, the effects of spending will take time to be felt in people’s everyday lives. But the prospect of a transformative increase in public investment offers the hope of industrial renaissance and a restoration of voters’ trust in the political centre.Alongside his SPD counterparts last week, Mr Merz confidently announced that Germany was “back on track”. Europe badly needs him to be right.

      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

    • 188 Shares24 Views

      in US Politics

      Barbara Lee forged a historic path in Congress. Does Oakland want her back for mayor?

      by

      Barbara Lee represented Oakland in Congress for a quarter-century. Now, in what would probably be the capstone of her storied political career, the 78-year-old progressive icon is vying for the chance to lift the “city I love” out of crisis.“I’m always ready to fight for Oakland,” Lee said, announcing her bid to lead the city of roughly 440,000 residents, known for its liberal politics and deep legacy of civil rights activism. When she entered the mayoral race in January, she was widely seen as the presumptive frontrunner.But in the months since, the race has tightened considerably, as her leading opponent, the former city council member Loren Taylor, gains ground. The 47-year-old engineer is aiming for an upset in Tuesday’s special election, tapping into a wave of discontent with progressive leadership that has swept the San Francisco Bay Area in recent years – and led to the recall of Oakland’s mayor, Sheng Thao, in November.“It’s not about whether or not we appreciate her service in Congress,” Taylor said in an interview as he made his final pitch to voters in east Oakland over the weekend. “It’s about what we need right now to fix Oakland’s problems – and particularly with the urgency that Oaklanders need.”The next mayor of Oakland must immediately confront a gaping budget deficit as well as a housing crisis that has given rise to sprawling homeless encampments. While violent crime fell sharply in 2024, persistently high rates of property crime – coupled with the widespread perception that Oakland is unsafe – continue to take a toll on the city.Over the last decade, Oakland has seen an exodus of its professional sports teams. Many businesses and retailers have left town, citing safety concerns. In-N-Out closed its only Oakland location last year, a first in the burger joint’s history. Kaiser Permanente, one of the city’s largest employers, has scaled back its downtown presence. Adding to the turmoil, Thao was recently indicted on federal bribery charges; she has pleaded not guilty.View image in fullscreenIn her homecoming pitch, Lee has presented herself as a unifying force, steeled by a decades-long political career that began in Sacramento and took her to Washington, where she championed racial justice and antiwar causes that set her apart – and sometimes at odds with her own party. Her most famous stand came in 2001, when she cast the sole vote in Congress against the authorization for the use of military force following the 9/11 terrorist attacks – a decision that resulted in hate mail and death threats but is now seen as prescient. And yet she built a reputation as a principled collaborator beloved by Democrats, with a record of working across the aisle with Republicans.Lee, who retired from Congress in January after an unsuccessful run for the US Senate last year, is now promising to bring that experience home. On the campaign trail, she has pledged to bridge Oakland’s political divides and improve public safety, while securing the city’s “fair share” of state and federal funding and partnering with civic and business leaders to spur economic growth.“I believe Oaklanders are tired of division and distraction, and are ready to move forward. They are looking for a leader who can bring all corners of the city together to solve our toughest challenges,” Lee said in a statement, citing her broad base of support, which includes nearly every member of the Oakland city council, the city’s interim mayor, several former mayors – Jerry Brown and Libby Schaaf, among them – as well as organized labor, faith leaders and key members of the business community.Describing herself as a “tested and proven leader who has built the coalition needed to govern in Oakland on day one,” Lee said: “Talk is cheap; leadership is what matters.”Tuesday’s special election, which will use ranked choice voting, has drawn hundreds of thousands of dollars in spending. Yet Ernestine Nettles, the president of the League of Women Voters of Oakland, worries that the off-cycle timing and low morale could dampen turnout. She said she had heard voters say the election “doesn’t matter” because the winner will only serve for a short time before having to run for re-election next year.A recent survey by the city of Oakland found that satisfaction with local government had fallen to a record low. An October poll by the Oakland chamber of commerce showed that voters were “more pessimistic than ever” about the direction of the city.“People have lost a lot of hope,” she said. But a packed crowd at a recent weeknight candidate forum left her hopeful that the city was tuning in. “People need to turn out to vote so that a handful of people will not be making decisions about what happens in our city,” she said.Many progressive activists view the contest as part of a broader regional fight against the growing influence of Silicon Valley wealth that is transforming Bay Area politics. The movement has already succeeded in elevating more moderate, tech-friendly leaders in nearby San Francisco and San Jose, and progressives are determined to prevent a similar shift in Oakland.“The tech bros, the oligarchy, crypto bros, all of that stuff that we’re starting to see here – it came from San Francisco politics,” said Pamela Drake, a longtime activist and progressive political commentator who is supporting Lee. She pointed to the outside support Taylor’s campaign has received, including backing from some of the wealthy investors, real-estate developers and tech executives who have poured money into defeating progressive incumbents as well as the recalls of former mayor Thao and the former Alameda county district attorney, Pamela Price.Drake said she feared a “tech takeover” of the city’s politics. “That is what we see as a real threat,” she said, “that it is no longer going to be Oaklanders deciding what we want done.”In the interview, Taylor, who narrowly lost the 2022 mayor’s race to Thao, called the claim that his campaign was driven by outside money “inaccurate” and emphasized his fundraising strength among grassroots Oakland-based donors.“What’s resonating with everyone is the fact that when Oakland does better, we all do better,” Taylor said.San Jose’s mayor, Matt Mahan, a former tech entrepreneur who has clashed with labor unions and progressives in his liberal city, endorsed Taylor at a recent press conference, praising him as a leader with “fresh ideas” and drawing parallels between his own 2022 insurgent win and Taylor’s challenge to what he called “an establishment that has become complacent”.Lee rejects the suggestion that her progressive politics are out of step with the people she served, in a place she proudly called the “wokest” district in the nation”. “I believe my values are Oakland values,” she said in a statement.On Saturday, the representative Maxine Waters, a longtime friend and progressive ally who serves a Los Angeles-area congressional district, joined Lee on the campaign trail. Waters praised Lee’s deep devotion to the city of Oakland – which last elected her to Congress with more than 90% of the vote – and said she was moved to hear residents still use the slogan “Barbara Lee speaks for me”.“People in the city are going to need someone like Barbara Lee more than ever,” Waters said. With Donald Trump slashing agencies that the city relies on for housing and public health services, she said Lee would be a “powerhouse of information” for residents navigating the disruptions.Lee is “well-experienced in handling bullies” like the president, Waters said. Trump targeted Oakland during his first administration and has vowed again to retaliate against liberal cities that resist his policies on immigration, LGBTQ+ equality and diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. Some Lee supporters say they relish a clash between the hometown hero and Trump, in defense of the city where Kamala Harris was born and launched her political career.As for those calling for generational change, the 86-year-old Waters was confident they would not be disappointed: “Barbara Lee as the leader of the city of Oakland will absolutely have them thinking a bit differently.”Both Taylor and Lee agree the city is at a crossroads. And both candidates have made public safety a top campaign issue, while promising to rein in government spending to stabilize city finances.Yet they offer starkly different visions. Taylor has cast himself as a pragmatic “problem-solver” who can “fix” a city he says is “broken”. Lee rejects the notion that Oakland is broken. Instead, she argues the city needs a “unifier” to heal the divisions deepened by the recent recalls.View image in fullscreenTaylor has put forward a series of data- and technology-driven proposals – such as the use of drones to fight crime – to improve public safety and restore good governance to city hall. His campaign’s promise to shake up city hall earned the endorsement of the San Francisco Chronicle’s editorial board, who wrote that Taylor had the “ideas and the will to lead Oakland into the future”.On the campaign trail, Lee calls for more crime prevention solutions, as well as more police, highlighting the need for expanding community services and affordable housing.But part of her pitch is being Barbara Lee. Supporters hail her as an “uplifted elder” with the gravitas and experience to marshal resources for the beleaguered city and build consensus where none seems achievable. “Lee has the political clout needed to unify the city’s fractured leadership,” the East Bay Times editorial board wrote in its endorsement.Still, not all voters are convinced that experience in Washington prepares someone to lead at city hall. Some critics point to Los Angeles, where mayor Karen Bass, also a former member of Congress, has taken heat for her handling of the deadly wildfires. And many Oakland residents remember the late former mayor Ron Dellums – Lee’s political mentor and a longtime representative – as largely absent while the city struggled during the onset of the Great Recession.In a recent radio interview, Lee noted that Oakland had a history of electing mayors without prior local government experience. She highlighted Brown – the former California governor – who leveraged his political clout to help rebuild Oakland’s downtown during his time as mayor.View image in fullscreenAt a mayoral forum hosted by the non-profit news site Oaklandside, the candidates were asked why they were vying for what many consider the daunting, even unenviable, task of leading the city through one of its most challenging chapters. Lee, as she so often has throughout her political career, saw it differently.“I don’t think that being mayor of Oakland is an impossible, thankless job,” she replied. “I recognize the challenges, but I also recognize the opportunities.” More

    • 225 Shares23 Views

      in US Politics

      Tariff turmoil to continue as Trump warns nobody ‘off the hook’ amid smartphone exemption – US politics live

      by

      Good morning and welcome to our US politics blog.In an announcement made late on Friday evening, Donald Trump’s presidential administration exempted smartphones and computers from the 125% levies imposed on imports from China as well as other “reciprocal” tariffs.The devices would be excluded from the 10% global tariff that Trump recently imposed on most countries, along with the much heftier import tax on China, in what seemed like a softening of the president’s trade positioning towards Beijing.US stock markets were expected to stage a recovery after the announcement. Shares in Apple and chip maker Nvidia were on course to surge after tariffs on their products imported into the US were lifted for three months.China’s commerce ministry said the exemption demonstrated the US taking “a small step toward correcting its erroneous unilateral practice of ‘reciprocal tariffs’,” and suggested the American administration cancel the whole punitive tariff regime.However, Trump’s commerce secretary, Howard Lutnick, said on Sunday that critical technology products from China would face separate new duties along with semiconductors within the next two months.“He’s saying they’re exempt from the reciprocal tariffs, but they’re included in the semiconductor tariffs, which are coming in probably a month or two,” Lutnick said in an interview on ABC. “These are things that are national security, that we need to be made in America.”Amid the confusion over the White House’s tariff policy, Trump said he would provide more details on his administration’s approach on semiconductor tariffs later today.But he suggested any tariff exemption for China-made smartphones would be short-lived, writing on his social media: “Nobody is getting off the hook for unfair trade balances”. Stay with us throughout the day as we bring you the latest tariff developments and other US political stories.Spain’s economy minister, Carlos Cuerpo, is expected to meet the US treasury secretary, on Tuesday as he aims to bolster bilateral ties between the two countries.The Trump administration has slapped a 10% tariff on imports of most European goods, including olive oil, although it announced a 90-day pause last week on higher, 25% “reciprocal” duties.Spain is the world’s top exporter of olive oil and also sells important quantities of auto parts, steel and chemicals to the US. The country’s prime minister, Pedro Sánchez, has announced a €14.1bn (£12.2bn; $16bn) government aid package to industry to lessen the domestic impact of Trump’s levies.Maya Yang, a breaking news reporter and live blogger for Guardian US, has filed this story about a warning over the potential consequences of Trump’s erratic economic policies:Billionaire investor Ray Dalio said that he is worried the US will experience “something worse than a recession” as a result of Donald Trump’s trade policies.Speaking to NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday, the 75-year-old hedge fund manager said: “I think that right now we are at a decision-making point and very close to a recession. And I’m worried about something worse than a recession if this isn’t handled well.”He went on to add: “A recession is two negative quarters of GDP and whether it goes slightly there. We always have those things. We have something that’s much more profound. We have a breaking down of the monetary order. We are going to change the monetary order because we cannot spend the amounts of money.”Dalio’s comments come in response to a tumultuous week across the global stock markets following the US president’s tariffs policies that include a 145% tariff raise on China. The billionaire also said there are “profound changes in our domestic order … and world order”, comparing current times with the 1930s.“I’ve studied history and this repeats over and over again. So if you take tariffs, if you take debt, if you take the rising power challenging existing power, if you take those factors and look at the factors, those changes in the orders, the systems, are very, very disruptive. How that’s handled could produce something that is much worse than a recession. Or it could be handled well,” he said.Dalio, who correctly predicted the 2008 recession, also said the current economic state of the US is “at a juncture”.“Let’s take the budget. If the budget deficit can be reduced to 3% of GDP, it will be about 7% if things are not changed. If it could be reduced to about 3% of GDP, and these trade deficits and so on are managed in the right way, this could all be managed very well,” he said.He went on to urge congressional members to take what he calls the “3% pledge”, adding that if they don’t, there will be a supply and demand problem for debt with results that will be “worse than a normal recession.”You can read the full story here:Chinese President Xi Jinping will be welcomed by Vietnam’s President Luong Cuong today as he seeks to strengthen economic ties in south-east Asia amid a trade war with Washington that has caused turmoil in global markets.In an article for the Nhan Dan newspaper, Xi called for more regional cooperation, saying China and Vietnam were “friendly socialist neighbours sharing the same ideals and extensive strategic interests”.He added that a “trade war and tariff war will produce no winner, and protectionism will lead nowhere”, without explicitly mentioning the US.The visit, planned for weeks, comes as Beijing faces 145% US duties, while Vietnam is negotiating a reduction of threatened US tariffs of 46%. China is Vietnam’s biggest trading partner; Hanoi has a good relationship with both Washington and Beijing.As my colleague Rebecca Ratcliffe notes in this story, officials in Hanoi were shocked when Vietnam was hit with the 46% tariff, even after various efforts to appease the Trump administration. The tariff, which has been paused, threatens to devastate the country’s ambitious economic growth plan.Xi will visit Vietnam, a manufacturing powerhouse, from 14 to 15 April, and Malaysia and Cambodia from 15 to 18 April. He last visited Cambodia and Malaysia nine and 12 years ago, respectively.Xi’s trip to Hanoi, his second in less than 18 months, aims to consolidate relations with a strategic neighbour that has received billions of dollars of Chinese investments in recent years as China-based manufacturers moved south to avoid tariffs imposed by the first Trump administration.Good morning and welcome to our US politics blog.In an announcement made late on Friday evening, Donald Trump’s presidential administration exempted smartphones and computers from the 125% levies imposed on imports from China as well as other “reciprocal” tariffs.The devices would be excluded from the 10% global tariff that Trump recently imposed on most countries, along with the much heftier import tax on China, in what seemed like a softening of the president’s trade positioning towards Beijing.US stock markets were expected to stage a recovery after the announcement. Shares in Apple and chip maker Nvidia were on course to surge after tariffs on their products imported into the US were lifted for three months.China’s commerce ministry said the exemption demonstrated the US taking “a small step toward correcting its erroneous unilateral practice of ‘reciprocal tariffs’,” and suggested the American administration cancel the whole punitive tariff regime.However, Trump’s commerce secretary, Howard Lutnick, said on Sunday that critical technology products from China would face separate new duties along with semiconductors within the next two months.“He’s saying they’re exempt from the reciprocal tariffs, but they’re included in the semiconductor tariffs, which are coming in probably a month or two,” Lutnick said in an interview on ABC. “These are things that are national security, that we need to be made in America.”Amid the confusion over the White House’s tariff policy, Trump said he would provide more details on his administration’s approach on semiconductor tariffs later today.But he suggested any tariff exemption for China-made smartphones would be short-lived, writing on his social media: “Nobody is getting off the hook for unfair trade balances”. Stay with us throughout the day as we bring you the latest tariff developments and other US political stories. More