US Politics

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Vance says Russia asking ‘too much’ in ceasefire talks with Ukraine

      by

      JD Vance has said that Russia is asking for “too much” in its negotiations with Ukraine in the latest sign of growing frustration from Washington with ceasefire talks to end the war between the two countries.Speaking at a security conference of senior military and diplomatic leaders in Washington, the US vice-president said that the White House is focused on getting the two sides to hold direct talks and is ready to walk away if certain benchmarks are not reached.“I wouldn’t say that the Russians are uninterested in bringing this thing to a resolution,” Vance said during an onstage interview with the Munich security council president, Wolfgang Ischinger.“What I would say is, right now, the Russians are asking for a certain set of requirements, a certain set of concessions in order to end the conflict. We think they’re asking for too much. OK?”Asked about those comments later on Wednesday, Donald Trump said: “It’s possible that’s right.”“We are getting to a point where some decisions are going to have to be made,” said the US president. “I’m not happy about it … I’m not happy about it.”Senior administration officials, including Vance and the US secretary of state, Marco Rubio, are said to be growing more frustrated over Russia’s inflexibility in discussions to end the war. Steve Witkoff, Trump’s envoy, has held four rounds of direct talks with Putin, but those have not yielded concrete concessions from the Russian side.During his remarks, Vance reiterated the threat that the White House would “walk away if [Trump] thinks he’s not making progress”.“In particular, the step that we would like to make right now is we would like both the Russians and the Ukrainians to actually agree on some basic guidelines for sitting down and talking to one another,” he said. “Obviously, the United States is happy to participate in those conversations, but it’s very important for the Russians and the Ukrainians to start talking to one another. We think that is the next big step that we would like to take.”After meeting with Volodymyr Zelenskyy at the Vatican last month, Trump threatened Russia with secondary sanctions over the continued bombardments of Kyiv and other major Ukrainian cities despite talks to reach a permanent ceasefire.“There was no reason for Putin to be shooting missiles into civilian areas, cities and towns, over the last few days,” Trump wrote then. “It makes me think that maybe he doesn’t want to stop the war, he’s just tapping me along, and has to be dealt with differently.”Senior Russian officials have maintained a hardline position, demanding both a rollback of Nato as well as limits on Ukraine’s security and a degree of control over its internal politics.“Marco Rubio expressed yesterday, I think, also the assessment that they had the American team now is getting a better understanding of the Russian position and of the root causes of this situation,” said Sergei Lavrov, the foreign minister, during an interview on Meet the Press last week. “One of this root causes, apart from Nato and creation of direct military threats to Russia just on our borders, another one is the rights of the national minorities in Ukraine.”Joe Biden in his first interview since leaving office accused Trump of “modern-day appeasement”, saying the expectations that Ukraine ceding territory to Russia would end the war was “foolish”. More

    • 125 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      House panel on campus antisemitism likened to cold-war ‘un-American’ committee

      by

      A congressional panel investigating antisemitism on US college campuses on Wednesday was accused of trying to chill constitutionally protected free speech and likened to a cold-war era committee notorious for wrecking the lives of people suspected of communist sympathies.The comparison was made by David Cole, a professor at Georgetown University law centre, who told the House education and workforce committee that its proceedings resembled those staged by the House un-American Activities Committee (Huac) during and after the second world war.Cole, a former national legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, accused the present-day committee of “broad-based charges of antisemitism without any factual predicate”.“These proceedings, with all due respect, have more in common with those of the House un-American Activities Committee,” he told committee members. “They are not an attempt to find out what happened, but an attempt to chill protected speech.”HUAC, originally formed in 1938 to investigate Nazi subversion, switched focus to communism after the war and grew infamous after its high-profile hearings – including into suspected communism in Hollywood – led to blacklists and people losing their jobs.Cole’s criticism came in the eighth hearing held by the committee, which has previously looked into antisemitism sparked by anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian protests at elite universities, including Harvard, Columbia and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.The Trump administration has demanded sweeping changes in the governance of some of the country’s leading universities, including Harvard – prompting a backlash from academics and administrators, who believe antisemitism is being used as a pretext to curtail academic freedom.Pervious hearings had led to the resignations of several university heads after they were deemed to have given legalistic responses to questions – mainly posed by Republicans – over whether certain anti-Israeli slogans were genocidal or protected by free speech.Wednesday’s hearing included presidents from Haverford College in Pennsylvania, DePaul University in Chicago and California Polytechnic State University in San Luis Obispo.Even before it began, questions were raised about how truly concerned some members of Congress were prejudiced against Jews.A memo signed by Haverford academics – most of them Jewish – and reported by the Guardian expressed concern that one had quoted Adolf Hitler, others had failed to condemn antisemitic activity in their districts, and Tim Walberg, the committee’s Republican chair, had links to a Christian group that “trains students to convert Jewish people to Christianity”.Jewish Voice for Peace, a leftwing group, took nine Jewish students from Columbia to Capitol Hill to meet members of Congress on Tuesday, while condemning the hearings as “McCarthyite” and more concerned with suppressing pro-Palestinian protest than antisemitism.Walberg told the hearing campus antisemitism “continues to traumatize students, faculty and staff”. He cited a letter from a group of Jewish students at Haverford who claimed to have been “marginalized, ostracized and at times, outright attacked. College officials reacted with “indifference”, he said.Cole, who had been called as a witness by the committee’s ranking Democrat, Bobby Scott, said the hearings were flawed on free speech grounds and for focusing on the 1964 Civil Rights Acts, which – under Title VI – outlaws discrimination in education on the grounds of race, colour or national origin in institutions receiving federal funding.“Antisemitic speech, while lamentable, is constitutionally protected, just like racist speech, sexist speech and homophobic speech,” he said, adding that the US supreme court had defended the rights of the Nazi party to march in a town where Holocaust survivors lived.On civil rights, he said: “Title VI does not prohibit antisemitic speech. An antisemitic slogan at a protest or online does not deny equal access to education any more than a sexist or a racist comment.”More broadly, Cole said, committee members had not conducted proper investigations into specific incidents.“Getting to the bottom of what happened requires fair hearings where both sides are heard about specific incidents,” he said. “This committee has not held a single hearing looking into a specific incident, having the perpetrator and the complainant testify.”Suzanne Bonamici, a Democratic representative from Oregon, who is Jewish, cited a letter from 100 Jewish faculty members at Northwestern University in Illinois expressing “serious concerns” about how the committee was addressing antisemitism.“We are united by the conviction that our Jewishness must not be used as a cudgel to silence the vigorous exchange of ideas that lies at the heart of university life,” she quoted them as saying.She added: “As an active member of my synagogue for more than 25 years, I can no longer pretend that this is a good-faith effort to root out antisemitism.”Elise Stefanik, a Republican representative from New York, who rose to prominence in December 2023 with a high-profile cross-examination that prompted the resignation of the former president of the University of Pennsylvania, Elizabeth Magill, tried a similar tack with Haverford’s head, Wendy Raymond.“Is calling for the genocide of Jews protected speech on your campus?” Stefanik asked.Raymond replied that it was not, but struggled to answer when asked if students or staff had been disciplined or investigated for using such language. Stefanik said: “Respectfully, president of Haverford, many people have sat in this position who are no longer in the positions as president of universities for their failure to answer straightforward questions.”She added: “For the American people watching, you still don’t get it. Haverford still doesn’t get it. It’s a very different testimony than the other presidents who are here today, who are coming with specifics. This is completely unacceptable. Higher education has failed to address this gorge of antisemitism, putting Jewish students at risk at Haverford and other campuses across the country.” More

    • 175 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Bernie Sanders urges Paramount not to ‘capitulate’ to Trump by settling 60 Minutes suit

      by

      The senator Bernie Sanders and his Democratic colleagues are urging Paramount Global not to settle Donald Trump’s $20bn lawsuit against 60 Minutes, saying such a decision would “capitulate to this dangerous move to authoritarianism”.In a letter co-signed by eight senators, Sanders urged controlling shareholder Shari Redstone and Paramount Global’s board to reconsider settling with Trump for as much as $75m to end his lawsuit against CBS News over its editing of last year’s 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris.Trump sued CBS News last November, alleging that the network’s interview with Harris during the 2024 presidential campaign was edited to frame her in a positive light and thus amounted to “election interference”.During the finalized interview, Harris was asked whether Benjamin Netanyahu listened to US advice. She replied of the Israeli prime minister: “We are not going to stop pursuing what is necessary for the United States – to be clear about where we stand on the need for this war to end.”An alternative edit shown in pre-broadcast promotions showed Harris delivering a longer response.In Trump’s court filing, his lawyers alleged that “CBS and other legacy media organizations have gone into overdrive to get Kamala elected”.In Tuesday’s letter, Sanders, alongside the Democratic senators including Dick Durbin, Sheldon Whitehouse, Richard Blumenthal, Peter Welch, Chris Murphy, Jeffrey Merkley, Elizabeth Warren and Edward Markey called Trump’s lawsuit “an attack on the United States Constitution and the First Amendment”.“It has absolutely no merit and it cannot stand,” they said, condemning Trump’s lawsuit as “a blatant attempt to intimidate the media and those who speak out against him”.The senators praised Paramount Global’s initial decision to file two motions to dismiss Trump’s case, which the company said “is without basis in law or fact”. However, the senators said that the company’s reported decision to settle with Trump is “unfortunately … a grave mistake”.“Rewarding Trump with tens of millions of dollars for filing this bogus lawsuit will not cause him to back down on his war against the media and a free press. It will only embolden him to shake down, extort and silence CBS and other media outlets that have the courage to report about issues that Trump may not like,” the senators wrote.“Stand up for freedom of the press and our democracy,” they added.Speaking to the Washington Post, a source familiar with the situation said that Redstone had recused herself from discussions about a potential settlement though she previously “shared her desire for some sort of resolution” with Paramount Global’s board.The senators’ letter comes as the Trump administration has escalated its attacks against US media, with the president denouncing CNN and MSNBC as “illegal” while ordering the US Agency for Global Media – the parent company of Voice of America – to be eliminated.Last week, Trump also signed an executive order seeking to cut public funding for National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service. In response to Trump’s accusations of the outlets’ having leftwing bias, NPR and PBS have both said they are looking at legal options. More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      UK officials land in Washington as talks over trade agreement continue

      by

      A team of senior British trade negotiators has landed in Washington as talks over a deal between the two countries gather pace.Officials from the business and trade department are in the US for much of this week, attempting to get an agreement signed before the planned UK-EU summit on 19 May.Downing Street did not deny reports the deal could be signed as early as this week, although government sources said the recent announcement by the US president, Donald Trump, of film industry tariffs had proved a significant setback.One person briefed on the talks said: “We have a senior team on the ground now, and it may be that they are able to agree something this week. But the reality is the Trump administration keeps shifting the goalposts, as you saw with this week’s announcement on film tariffs.”Another said Trump’s threat of 100% tariffs on films “produced in foreign lands”, which could have a major impact on Britain’s film industry, had “gone down very badly in Downing Street”.UK officials say they are targeting tariff relief on a narrow range of sectors in order to get a deal agreed before they begin formal negotiations with the EU over a separate European agreement. A draft deal handed to the US a week ago would have reduced tariffs on British exports of steel, aluminium and cars, in return for a lower rate of the digital services tax, which is paid by a handful of large US technology companies.The Guardian revealed last week the Trump administration had made negotiating a trade deal with the UK a lower-order priority, behind a series of Asian countries. UK officials said they have been able to continue talks with their US counterparts despite that, describing the Trump administration’s approach as “chaotic”.Officials from the trade department arrived in Washington this week hoping to reach an agreement on two outstanding issues, pharmaceuticals and films.Trump has said he will impose tariffs on both industries, mainstays of the British economy, but has not yet given details.This week, the US president said the US film industry was dying a “very fast death” because of the incentives other countries were offering to draw American film-makers, and promised to impose a 100% tariff on foreign-made films. Britain offers producers generous reliefs on corporation tax to locate their projects there, which help support an industry now worth about £2bn, with major US films such as Barbie having recently been shot in Britain.Trump also said that he planned to unveil tariffs on imports of pharmaceutical products “in the next two weeks”. The UK exported £6.5bn worth of such goods to the US last year.Keir Starmer, the prime minister, has ruled out reducing food production standards to enable more trade of US agricultural products, as officials prioritise signing a separate agreement with the EU, which is likely to align British standards with European ones.Officials are racing to sign the US agreement before the planned UK-EU summit, at which both sides will set out their formal negotiating positions. Leaked documents revealed on Wednesday the two remain far apart on their demands for a youth mobility scheme, with Britain demanding that visas issued under the scheme should be limited in number and duration, and should exclude dependents.EU ambassadors met in Brussels on Wednesday to discuss the progress of the deal. One diplomat said: “Negotiations are going well, the mood is still good but it is a bit early to see bold moves from one side or another.”This week Starmer also signed an agreement with India after giving way on a demand from Delhi for workers transferring to the UK within their companies to avoid paying national insurance while in the country.The concession has caused some unease in the Home Office, with Yvette Cooper, the home secretary, not having been told about it in advance.It was also criticised by Kemi Badenoch, who accused the prime minister of bringing in a “two-tier” tax system. The Tory leader denied reports, however, that she had agreed to the same concession when she was business secretary.The prime minister defended the deal on Wednesday, telling MPs at PMQs it was a “huge win” for the UK. Other senior Tories have also praised the deal, including Steve Baker, Oliver Dowden and Jacob Rees-Mogg, the latter of whom said it was “exactly what Brexit promised”.British officials say they have been surprised at the willingness of the Labour government to sign agreements which have been on the table for years but previously rejected by the Conservative government.With economists having recently downgraded the UK’s growth outlook, Starmer is understood to have decided to sign deals such as that with India, even though they do not include a number of British demands, such as increased access for services.One source said the approach was to clinch a less ambitious agreement and use that to build a fuller economic partnership in the coming years. More

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Federal Reserve warns of inflation and jobs risks amid Trump’s erratic trade strategy

      by

      The Federal Reserve kept interest rates on hold and called out growing dangers in the US economy amid Donald Trump’s erratic rollout of an aggressive trade strategy.Jerome Powell, the US central bank’s chair, cautioned that the president’s tariffs were likely to raise prices, weaken growth and increase unemployment if maintained.Fed policymakers cautioned that “the risks of higher unemployment and higher inflation have risen” as they opted to maintain the benchmark interest rate for the third time in a row. “Uncertainty about the economic outlook has increased further,” they said in a statement.With inflation expectations – how consumers think prices will move – rising,Powell, the Fed chair, said the “driving factor” appeared to be Trump’s tariffs.At a press conference, he said: “If the large increases in tariffs that have been announced are sustained, they are likely to generate a rise in inflation, a slowdown in economic growth, and an increase in unemployment.”The US president has repeatedly demanded in recent months that the Fed cuts rates – and even raised the prospect of firing Powell, before walking back the comments – as Trump’s tariffs plan appeared to knock the US economy.The Fed has been sitting on its hands for months, however, citing heightened uncertainty. It last cut rates in December, to a range of between 4.25% and 4.5%.As Trump pushed ahead last month with sweeping tariffs on imported goods from much of the world, Powell cautioned this would probably raise prices and slow growth – despite the administration’s pledges to revitalize the US economy and reduce the cost of living for millions of Americans.US gross domestic product (GDP) shrank for the first time in three years during the first quarter, raising fears of recession as Trump’s tariffs – and threats of tariffs – cast a shadow over the world’s largest economy.Asked whether he was trying to take responsibility for stronger parts of the economy, while blaming his predecessor, Joe Biden, for any sign of weakness, Trump told NBC’s Meet The Press: “I think the good parts are the Trump economy, and the bad parts are the Biden economy. Because he’s done a terrible job.”After Fed policymakers finished their latest two-day meeting on Wednesday, the central bank reiterated in its statement that they would “carefully assess incoming data, the evolving outlook, and the balance of risks” ahead of future meetings.Its callout of greater risks in the US economy amounted to “a thinly veiled critique of the new administration’s import tariffs”, said Samuel Tombs, chief US economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics, “and represents an assertion of independence”.Addressing reporters after the meeting, Powell said he could not provide a timeframe for rate cuts. “We are going to need to see how this evolves,” he said. “There are cases in which it would be appropriate for us to cut rates this year. There are cases in which it wouldn’t. And we just don’t know.”While concern over the economic outlook is mounting, Powell stressed there had been no “big economic effects” in the data so far. “People, they are worried now about inflation, they are worried about a shock from the tariffs,” he said. “But they really haven’t – that shock hasn’t hit yet.”Asked how Trump’s demand for rate cuts affected the Fed’s latest decision, and the difficulty of his job, Powell responded bluntly. “Doesn’t affect doing our job at all,” he said.He reserved perhaps his briefest response for when a reporter asked what he thought when Trump said last month he had “no intention” of firing him – days after saying his termination could not come fast enough. “I don’t have anything more for you on that,” said Powell. More

    • 225 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Head Start avoids Trump’s cuts, but advocates are ready to defend it: ‘There’s too much good in this’

      by

      Tanya Stanton felt a sense of relief when she heard last week that the Trump administration seems to have reversed course on eliminating the Head Start early education program. She directs early learning programs at You Thrive, a Florida non-profit that provides Head Start services to approximately 1,100 children in the central part of the state.On Friday, the Trump administration released an updated “skinny budget”, which lays out the executive office’s discretionary spending priorities. It doesn’t contain a proposal to shut down Head Start, as mentioned in an administration memo obtained by the Associated Press in April. And that means thousands of families can breathe easier; the program served 833,000 low-income students nationwide in fiscal year 2022.Relief, however, does not mean that Stanton wants to lessen the pace of the advocacy that followed the announcement. “If anything, this has taught us that you can’t sit idle,” she said. Too much is at stake.Florida currently has over 45,000 children enrolled in 860 Head Start sites, the third highest number of students in the country behind California and Texas. In 2024, it received over $544m in federal funds. The budget may no longer target Head Start funding, but the administration closed half of the program’s 10 regional offices and federal funding freezes have affected its programs, and it does propose eliminating other programs that Head Start families rely upon, including preschool development grants and community block grants.“Until Congress passes and the president signs a final funding bill, we urge all Head Start supporters to continue advocating for the preservation of this vital program,” said Wanda Minick, Florida Head Start Association’s executive director.View image in fullscreenFor You Thrive’s Stanton, it has been a surprise to realize how little many Americans understand the full impact and scope of the program. Head Start has served 39 million children and families since its inception in 1965, according to government statistics. At its most basic level, Head Start provides free childcare in a nation where households can pay more on average for childcare than on their housing. Access to childcare has a major economic impact on families and communities, since a US Chamber of Commerce study finds that states can lose up to $1bn a year when parents and guardians can’t find or afford childcare. That is not even counting the hundreds of thousands of Head Start employees, whose possible job losses would also have ripple effects on their households and communities.Head Start is actually multiple programs that do much more than education and childcare. Early Head Start is for infants to three-year-olds, and its staff work on parenting skills with families one-on-one. Children also receive medical care such as dental, vision and mental health screenings. Head Start serves kids from ages three to five, and there’s also a Migrant Head Start for children of agricultural workers.Building stronger familiesDoing away with Head Start would have immediate effects for affected families and their greater communities, but could also have long-term – even generational – consequences, said child and family policy expert Elliot Haspel, author of Crawling Behind: America’s Child Care Crisis and How to Fix It. He noted a 2022 study showing that the children of Head Start participants were more likely to graduate high school and enter college; less likely to be teen parents and enter the criminal justice system; and had higher self-esteem – all of which translated to a 6% to 11% increase in wages.In her book A Chance for Change: Head Start and Mississippi’s Black Freedom Struggle, Emory University historian Crystal R Sanders examined the impact Head Start had on economic opportunity in civil rights-era Mississippi. Through the Child Development Grant of Mississippi (CDGM), which ran from 1965-68, “federal money was going directly into the hands of working-class black people, something that had never happened in the state of Mississippi”, Sanders said.CDGM parents had the opportunity to work and go back to school. Many earned a GED or high-school equivalency, and some pursued college degrees, which resulted in better-paying jobs and even home ownership. “Head Start gave them a leg-up, too,” Sanders said. “That’s still true today.”For Lee Ann Vega, education manager at You Thrive, threats to Head Start are not just devastating – they’re personal. “It makes me sad for not only my families, but it makes me so sad for the children,” she said.Vega, 51, has Head Start to thank not only for a job but also for setting her on the right path in life. She and her brother were enrolled in Head Start after her mother abandoned the family due to substance abuse, and her father was working three jobs. The support she received inspires her passion for helping other children.“There’s so many days that I wake up and I thank God for allowing me to be a part of this process. Because Head Start works,” she said.Stanton of You Thrive said: “We are here to help the families achieve self-sufficiency.” To achieve this, staff work one-on-one with families to establish personalized goals. For some families, it means locating temporary or permanent housing. For some, it means entering higher education or learning new technical skills.View image in fullscreen“Some of them may not even know how to navigate on a laptop or computer,” Stanton said.Sometimes this leads to a job at Head Start itself, where former parents make up more than 20% of the program’s workforce. And while childcare as a whole pays low wages, Stanton noted that Head Start’s regulations, in a change made under the Biden administration, require that teachers earn as much as local public preschool or kindergarten teachers.“Head Start is an economic boon for communities, whether it’s the jobs it creates at those centers or the jobs that allow Head Start parents to work,” said Sanders, the Emory historian.The Trump administration budget proposal from April stated that eliminating Head Start aligned with its “goals of returning control of education to the states and increasing parental control”. That argument, Sanders said, “would suggest that they are actually not familiar with Head Start because Head Start prioritizes parental involvement”. Head Start standards require each agency to include parents on policy councils that decide or approve everything from enrollment and curriculum criteria to staffing.Tocra Waters is co-president of the policy council at Verner Early Learning Center in Asheville, North Carolina, where her three-year-old son Sincere has been enrolled in the county’s only Early Head Start program since the summer of 2023.The program provided crucial support at an unsettled time in her life. Waters and her two children had transitioned to a new home after spending time in a shelter, where Waters had gone after leaving an abusive partner. Sincere was “closed off” around people he didn’t know, she said.In home-based visits, Waters learned how to set boundaries and rules for Sincere, while he learned colors and improved his motor skills. Now in a classroom at Verner, Sincere has made friends and interacts more with others in all settings. “He’ll say, ‘Hi, morning, have a nice day,’ and it just melts my heart,” Waters, 32, said.Waters has seen her own confidence increase through her participation in the policy council. She values “that opportunity to be able to bring suggestions to the table … being an African American or a Black woman, in spaces, it seemed like we were not heard at times,” she said. She trusts Verner to care for her son and said its services “allowed me to be able to provide for my kids and still chase my dreams”.A future without funding?Verner, a non-profit center, received $3.2m, or 60% of its $5.3 operating budget this year from Head Start funding to support 139 children. Although the administration’s plans to eliminate Head Start funding gave CEO Marcia Whitney “heart palpitations”, she noted that “we as an organization would not cease to exist” if funding disappeared.However, they would start charging tuition for many of its programs, a move that would price out most of their Early Head Start families and force some to leave their jobs to stay at home with their children.The situation is far more critical for centers like those run by You Thrive Florida, where 98% of their funding comes from Head Start; the rest comes from the United Way and the state.While the Trump administration said eliminating Head Start would allow state and local governments to have control over education, Haspel said “states are absolutely not prepared to make that kind of shift”. He pointed out that states struggled to distribute pandemic stabilization grants to childcare programs because they lacked the staff and technological infrastructure to transfer funds as quickly and easily as the federal government.According to Minick, Florida would need to invest $688m to replace Head Start services. Florida already has its own version of Early Head Start, the School Readiness program. But it has stricter eligibility requirements; parents must work up to 20 hours a week and contribute co-pays. Minick estimates that those rules mean that only 13,000 of the more than 40,000 students in Head Start could now enroll (the state’s voluntary pre-kindergarten program currently has no waiting list). And Florida’s legislature is considering slashing its funding for state-run early learning programs by up to 8%.View image in fullscreenView image in fullscreenFor Sanders, the question is less whether the state governments can administer these programs but whether they are willing to do so, especially in states with a history of educational and racial segregation. “Historically, when we have left complete control of education to states, that has created inequality,” she said. When the CDGM received federal funding as one of the nation’s first Head Start programs, she noted, “the segregationist governor of Mississippi could not take away money from working-class Black people”.Even with an annual budget of $12bn, Head Start at best serves half of eligible children. “I don’t envision Americans truly saving any money by doing away with Head Start,” because it is so underfunded, Sanders said.Because the program has enjoyed bipartisan support since its inception, Haspel “would be somewhat surprised” if Congress agreed to the administration’s initial request to eliminate it completely. The American Civil Liberties Union sued the government on 28 April on behalf of a coalition of Head Start providers and parents, alleging that the executive branch does not have the power to impact Head Start’s funding without congressional approval.Stanton, for one, is hopeful. Longtime Head Start staff across the nation – people who have worked for the program for 30 or 40 years – told her that they have experienced tough moments like this before, though perhaps not of this magnitude.“I’m just a believer. I’m like, there’s too much good in this,” she said. More

    • 175 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      Colbert on Trump administration’s ethos: ‘Take full responsibility and dump it on somebody else’

      by

      Late-night hosts dug into the chaos at Newark airport leading to a cascade of cancellations, Donald Trump’s alleged Hollywood tariffs and the visit of the Canadian prime minister, Mark Carney, to the White House.Stephen ColbertOn Tuesday’s Late Show, Stephen Colbert looked into the cascade of delays at Newark airport this week, causing the cancellation of hundreds of flights. The culprit was a terrifying 90-second blackout during which air traffic controllers temporarily lost radar and communications with the aircraft under their control, making them unable to see, hear or talk to them. “Those are three fairly important things,” Colbert deadpanned.The blackout was caused by a fried piece of copper wire. “Unlike the other blackouts at Newark, which are caused by the grand coconut margarita at terminal A Chili’s Too,” Colbert joked.In response to the crisis, Trump’s transportation secretary, Sean Duffy, went on Fox News to, as Colbert put it, “take full responsibility and dump it on somebody else”.Duffy criticized old infrastructure in the US that hasn’t been updated in “30 or 40 years”, but said “this should’ve been dealt with in the last administration. They did nothing.”“Yes, this problem has been going on for years,” Colbert agreed. “Biden should’ve done something about it. Or really, the guy before him should’ve done something about it.”In truth, Biden did do something about it; in the 2021 infrastructure bill, he approved $25bn to improve airports. The upgrades began, but were partially derailed by Trump’s “department of government efficiency” (Doge) laying off more than 400 staffers at the Federal Aviation Administration shortly after taking office, including maintenance mechanics and employees who work on electrical issues. “Those are the people who do the stuff!” Colbert exclaimed. “There are plenty of useless people you could’ve fired, like the TSA agent who says you can’t bring in a snow globe. I hate having to chug my snow globe right before security.”Duffy claimed that he was going to spend the money on a new system, but warned that it would take three to four years. “Not exactly what you want to hear in a crisis,” Colbert noted.And it’s a crisis that probably won’t get better soon, as many air traffic controllers are now out on a 45-day trauma leave following the blackout. “Wait a second, there’s such a thing as trauma leave?” Colbert wondered. “Bye! I’m off to the tropics.”Jimmy KimmelIn Los Angeles, Jimmy Kimmel recapped the visit of the new Canadian prime minister, Mark Carney, to the White House, where Donald Trump insisted that “regardless of anything, we’re going to be friends with Canada”.“Poor Mark Carney had a helluva job today,” said Kimmel, noting that Trump keeps referring to Canada as the “51st state”. “It was like an Ewok going to a meeting on the Death Star.”But Carney “handled it well”, according to Kimmel. “In a friendly way, he made sure Trump knows they have no intention of becoming our 51st state.” Carney diplomatically told Trump that Canada is “not for sale, won’t be for sale”, to which Trump interjected: “But never say never!”“He doesn’t take no for an answer – in fact, he was found liable for it in a court of law,” Kimmel said, referring to a May 2023 verdict in which a New York court found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation of the writer E Jean Carroll, and ordered him to pay $5m.Kimmel also addressed Trump’s threat to (somehow) slap a 100% tariff on any movie made outside the US, “which caused every studio executive in Hollywood to double up on their Ativan yesterday,” he quipped. “No one seems to know what’s going on with these tariffs, including our own secretary of the treasury.“Remember how everyone said the main requirement to get a spot in his cabinet was to be good on TV? Well, here is our treasury secretary, Scott Bessent,” Kimmel continued before a clip of Bessent struggling to answer the basic question “who pays tariffs?” before Congress.“Try unplugging him and plugging him back in,” Kimmel laughed. “Scott Bessent has the demeanor of a headmaster at an all-boys school that’s under investigation.”Seth MeyersAnd on Late Night, Seth Meyers opened with Trump’s Truth Social post on Monday in which he claimed that he would order the government to reclaim and reopen the infamous Alcatraz prison. “I love that you can tell from his social media post what movie he watched on the plane,” said Meyers, referring to Clint Eastwood’s 1979 film Escape from Alcatraz, which played on public television in Florida while he was at Mar-a-Lago.Trump also joked with reporters about the possibility of becoming pope and said: “I would not be able to be married, though.”“And it looks like Melania has voted,” Meyers quipped next to a photo of white smoke.The Vatican’s conclave to elect a new pope is set to begin on Wednesday. “So just remember, black smoke means no decision, white smoke means a new pope and pink smoke means it’s a girl!” Meyers joked.The Late Night host also touched on reports that the US army is planning a parade to honor its 250th anniversary as well as Trump’s 79th birthday, including military vehicles, aircraft and nearly 7,000 soldiers. “And to honor Trump’s military service, he won’t be there,” Meyers quipped. More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Culture wars, political polarization and deepening inequality: the roots of Trumpism

      by

      More than 100 days into his return to the White House, the conclusion is stark: Donald Trump is no longer the same president he was during his first term. His familiar nationalist and populist rhetoric is now openly paired with an authoritarian turn – one without precedent in US history. He has adopted a neo-imperial view of the economy, treating the global order as a zero-sum contest of winners and losers. In this worldview, cooperation gives way to domination: what matters is power and the accumulation of wealth.

      Having withstood two impeachment procedures, numerous lawsuits and at least one assassination attempt, Trump now governs with what can appear to be unchecked authority. To his followers, he has become a hero, a martyr – almost a messianic figure. He no longer sees democracy as a framework to be honoured, but as a tool to legitimize his hold on power. His decisive electoral victory now serves as a mandate to cast aside institutional limits.

      A weekly e-mail in English featuring expertise from scholars and researchers. It provides an introduction to the diversity of research coming out of the continent and considers some of the key issues facing European countries. Get the newsletter!

      Three key features define his style of governance: a radical centralization of executive power grounded in the theory of the “unitary executive”; the politicization of the Department of Justice, used as a weapon against rivals; and the manipulation of federal authority to target cultural, media and educational institutions. His playbook is chaos: unsettle opponents, dominate the media narrative and blur the boundaries of democratic norms. Impulsive and reactionary, Trump often governs in response to Fox News segments or trending posts on Truth Social. Instability has become a strategic tool.

      But Trump is not a historical anomaly. While his 2016 victory may have seemed unlikely, his re-election reflects a deeper, long-term transformation rooted in the post-Cold War era.

      From an external to an internal enemy

      The collapse of the USSR – a structuring external enemy – redirected political confrontation toward the designation of an internal enemy. The culture war has become the dominant ideological battleground, driven by two closely linked forces. On one side, a religious radicalization led by nationalist Christian movements – such as the New Apostolic Reformation – seeks to roll back social progress and promote the vision of an outright theocracy. On the other, growing racial anxiety is fueled by fears of white demographic decline and resistance to civil rights gains.

      The commentator Pat Buchanan saw it coming as early as the 1990s. Speaking at the 1992 Republican National Convention, he warned: “There is a cultural war going on for the soul of America… as critical as the Cold War itself.” Too radical for his time, Buchanan championed a white, Christian, conservative US hostile to cosmopolitan elites. Though marginalized then, his ideas laid the groundwork for what would become Trumpism.

      Newt Gingrich, who served as Speaker of the House from 1995 to 1999, played a pivotal role in reshaping both the Republican party and US politics. A Republican group he chaired famously distributed a pamphlet to Republican candidates titled “Language: A Key Mechanism of Control”, advising them to use uplifting language to describe themselves, and inflammatory terms like “corrupt”, “immoral” and “traitor” to describe their opponents. This aggressive rhetoric redefined political rivals as enemies to be defeated – helping pave the way for a right-wing politics in which winning trumps democratic norms.

      At the same time, the rise of a new conservative media ecosystem intensified polarization. The launch of Fox News in 1996, the growth of right-wing talk radio shows like Rush Limbaugh’s and the later explosion of social media gave the US right powerful tools to shape and radicalize public opinion. Today, algorithm-driven information bubbles trap citizens in alternate realities, where misinformation and outrage drown out reasoned debate. This has deepened polarization and fractured society as a whole.

      Channeling anger

      This ideological and media realignment has unfolded alongside a broader crisis: the unraveling of the post-Cold War neoliberal consensus. Promises of shared prosperity have been replaced by deindustrialization, deepening inequality and widespread resentment. Successive traumas – from 9/11 and the 2008 financial crash to the Covid-19 pandemic – and foreign wars without real victories have eroded public trust in the establishment.

      Trump channels this anger. He offers a vision of a restored and idealized America, a rollback of recent social gains, and a reassertion of national identity grounded in religion and race. His populism is not a coherent ideology but an emotional response – born of perceived injustice, humiliation and loss.

      Trump is more than a symptom of America’s democratic crisis: he is its most vivid manifestation. He embodies the legacy of the 1990s – a foundational decade of identity grievance, culture wars and media deregulation. Viewed as a political outsider, he has never been judged as a traditional politician, but rather embraced, by some, as the archetypal “self-made man” – a successful businessman and reality TV celebrity.

      His rhetoric – transgressive, provocative and often cruel – gives voice to what had been repressed. The humiliation of opponents becomes part of the performance. For his supporters, it’s exhilarating. It breaks taboos, flouts political correctness and feeds the fantasy of reclaiming a lost America.

      And he’s no longer alone. With the vocal support of economic and tech elites like Elon Musk – now a central figure in the radicalized right on X – Trumpism has entered a new phase. Together, they’ve outlined a new kind of authoritarian, cultural and digital power, where influence matters more than institutions.

      The US re-elected not just a man, but a style, an era and a worldview built on dominance, disruption and disdain for rules. Still, history is unwritten: intoxicated by hubris and undermined by incompetence, Trumpism may yet crash into the wall of reality – with consequences far beyond America’s borders. More