Barack Obama

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Obama breaks silence on Trump’s ‘outrageous’ call to prosecute him

      by

      Barack Obama has broken his silence on calls from Donald Trump for him to be prosecuted by unequivocally rejecting his successor’s accusations that he tried to engineer a “coup” following Trump’s 2016 election victory by “manufacturing” evidence of Russian interference.Obama’s office took the unusual step of issuing an emphatic refutation after Trump told reporters that his predecessor had “[tried] to lead a coup” against him and was guilty of “treason” over intelligence assessments suggesting that Russia had intervened to help Trump defeat Hillary Clinton in the campaign.“Out of respect for the office of the presidency, our office does not normally dignify the constant nonsense and misinformation flowing out of this White House with a response,” the statement said. “But these claims are outrageous enough to merit one. These bizarre allegations are ridiculous and a weak attempt at distraction.”The statement went on to criticize claims made in an 11-page document released last week by Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, who said she was passing evidence of what she claimed was a “treasonous conspiracy” among Obama national security officials to the justice department, recommending their prosecution.“Nothing in the document issued last week undercuts the widely accepted conclusion that Russia worked to influence the 2016 presidential election but did not successfully manipulate any votes,” it said.“These findings were affirmed in a 2020 report by the bipartisan senate Intelligence Committee, led by then-Chairman Marco Rubio.”Obama’s response followed a fusillade of accusations by Trump in the White House as he was meeting the president of the Philippines, Ferdinand Marcos Jr, the son of the country’s former autocratic president, who was ousted in a popular “people’s power revolution” in 1986.Asked by a reporter who should be the main target of the criminal investigation recommended in Gabbard’s report, Trump said: “Based on what I read, and I read pretty much what you read, it would be President Obama. He started it, and Biden was there with him. And [James] Comey [the former FBI director] was there, and [James] Clapper [the former director of national intelligence], the whole group was there.“It was them, too, but the leader of the gang was President Obama, Barack Hussein Obama. Have you heard of him?”He went on: “This isn’t like evidence. This is like proof, irrefutable proof that Obama was sedatious [sic], that Obama … was trying to lead a coup, and it was with Hillary Clinton, with all these other people, but Obama headed it up.“He’s guilty. This was treason. This was every word you can think of. They tried to steal the election. They tried to obfuscate the election. They did things that nobody’s ever even imagined.”Trump said Gabbard had told him she had “thousands of additional documents coming”.“It’s the most unbelievable thing I think I’ve ever read. So you want to take a look at that and stop talking about nonsense,” he said, in what appeared to be a coded appeal for supporters to drop their demands for the release of documents related to Jeffrey Epstein, the disgraced financier who was found dead in his prison cell in 2019 as he awaited trial on sex-trafficking charges.But the Gabbard report, which accused the Obama administration of forcing spy agencies to alter their conclusions, conflated and misrepresented different issues to discredit the intelligence community’s assessment in 2017 that Russia sought to simultaneously help Trump and damage Clinton.The assessment concluded that Russia did not engage in cyber-attacks against election infrastructure to change vote tallies, but found Moscow hacked and leaked documents from the Democratic National Committee to damage the Clinton campaign.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe Gabbard report used that first conclusion to suggest that a broader Russian influence operation did not occur, and cited Obama’s presidential daily brief in December 2016 that concluded there were no Russian hacks of election systems being pushed back as evidence of political interference in the assessment.Assertions of Russian interference were subsequently borne out in the report published by the special counsel Robert Mueller, in 2019, and the bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report published the following year, led by Rubio, now secretary of state in Trump’s administration.A former CIA analyst and national intelligence officer, Fulton Armstrong, told the Guardian in an email that Gabbard’s paper “was obviously written with a pre-ordained conclusion”.“Even a quick read shows how the confusion between confidence and probability [over intelligence assessments] – even if not deliberate – leads to sloppiness and manipulation,” Armstrong said.“The bigger problem is that Tulsi’s paper is such shit. Her reference to ‘deep state officials’ is amateurish, silly, and undercuts the whole damned document.“She’s clever to use crappy precedents and confusion to make her case, but an issue like Russian manipulation of US elections, with so many analysts from diverse organizational cultures, is almost certainly going to leave enough offal on the floor that anyone who wanted to make a one-sided political slam job can find enough to fill an 11-page paper.” More

    • 150 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Tulsi Gabbard calls for Obama to be prosecuted over 2016 election claims

      by

      Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, has called for Barack Obama and former senior US national security officials to be prosecuted after accusing them of a “treasonous conspiracy” intended to show that Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential election win was due to Russian interference.She said Obama and senior officials in his administration had “[laid] the groundwork for … a years-long coup” against Trump after his victory over Hillary Clinton by “manufacturing intelligence” to suggest that Russia had tried to influence the election. That included using a dossier prepared by a British intelligence analyst, Christopher Steele, that they knew to be unreliable, Gabbard claimed.The post-election intelligence estimates contrasted with findings reached before the election, which indicated that Russia probably was not trying to interfere.In extraordinary comments calling for prosecutions, she added: “The information we are releasing today clearly shows there was a treasonous conspiracy in 2016 committed by officials at the highest level of our government.“Their goal was to subvert the will of the American people and enact what was essentially a years-long coup with the objective of trying to usurp the President from fulfilling the mandate bestowed upon him by the American people.“No matter how powerful, every person involved in this conspiracy must be investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, to ensure nothing like this ever happens again. The American people’s faith and trust in our democratic republic and therefore the future of our nation depends on it.”Gabbard, a former Democratic member of Congress, said she was passing documents supporting her case to the justice department. They included a partially redacted intelligence community assessment from the Obama administration on cyber threats to the 2016 election and a series of previously classified memos, including some from the office of James Clapper, who served as Obama’s director of national intelligence.Clapper is one of several officials named by Gabbard as apparently implicated in the supposed conspiracy. Others include John Brennan, the former CIA director, John Kerry, the then secretary of state, Susan Rice, the national security adviser at the time, Andrew McCabe, the then deputy FBI director, who later fell foul of Trump, and Obama himself.View image in fullscreenThe attempt to return the spotlight back to the Russia investigation – long derided by Trump as a “hoax” – comes as the US president finds himself in the maelstrom of the lingering scandal over the disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein, who was found dead in his prison cell in 2019 while awaiting prosecution on sex-trafficking charges.The Trump administration has come under mounting pressure from the president’s make America great again (Maga) base to release files on the case, including a supposed list of Epstein’s influential clients.Trump, in response, has variously dismissed the existence of such files or said they were invented by Obama and members of his administration, including James Comey, the former FBI director, and Joe Biden, vice-president in the Obama administration.Commentary accompanying a series of Obama-era memos published by Gabbard’s office uses terms characteristic of Trump and his most ardent supporters to paint an alleged conspiracy to discredit his 2016 win.Following a meeting on 9 December 2016 of Obama’s most senior national security team, the document – entitled the Russia Hoax – says: “Deep State officials in the IC [intelligence community] begin leaking blatantly false intelligence to the Washington Post … claiming that Russia used “cyber means” to influence “the outcome of the election.“Later that evening, another leak to the Washington Post falsely alleges that the CIA “concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened” in the election to help President Trump.”On 6 January the following year, the document continues: “The Obama administration shares the unclassified ICA [intelligence community assessment] with the public. It falsely alleges, based in part on ‘further information’ that had ‘come to light’ since the election, that Putin directed an effort to help President Trump defeat Hillary Clinton. This ‘further information’ is later confirmed to be the Steele dossier.”The assessment “suppressed” previous pre-election assessments that Russia lacked the intent or means to successfully hack the poll, Gabbard’s report alleges.The Steele dossier, which contained salacious details of “kompromat” allegedly held by Russian intelligence on Trump, formed part of the basis for a lengthy investigation conducted by Robert Mueller, who was appointed as special counsel into the Russia affair. Mueller’s subsequent report concluded that Russia interfered “in sweeping and systematic fashion” in the election campaign but “did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated” with the Russian government’s activities.Gabbard’s nomination as national intelligence director was one of Trump’s most contentious. It drew criticism because of her lack of previous intelligence experience, having never even served on a congressional committee on the subject, and a track record of supportive comments about Russia’s President Vladimir Putin and repeating Kremlin talking points on the war with Ukraine. More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Obama’s former press secretary recalls ‘emotional’ mood in White House after Trump win

      by

      The hardest day on the job for the White House press secretary for most of Barack Obama’s second term was right after Donald Trump was first elected president, he recently revealed during a fireside chat at a journalism convention.Speaking at the 2025 National Association of Hispanic Journalists (NAHJ) conference in Chicago, Josh Earnest said it was grueling for the Obama administration to realize it would have to follow through on promises of a peaceful transfer of power despite spending the 2016 election cycle offering dire warnings “about what could or would happen if Donald Trump were given the keys to the Oval Office”.Those warnings stemmed in part from intelligence assessments that the US’s longtime geopolitical adversary Russia had interfered in the race in which Trump defeated former secretary of state Hillary Clinton. Earnest said the Obama administration suddenly found itself needing to defend the validity of those assessments while saying it would peacefully transfer over the nuclear launch codes – and other levers of power – to Trump.“Did [Obama] not mean how dangerous [Trump] could be?” Earnest asked rhetorically, referring to some of the questions he and fellow administration officials faced while briefing journalists at the time. “It was a tough message.”The remarks on Wednesday from Earnest – who was Obama’s press secretary from 2014 to 2017 – also offered a first-hand peek into the somber mood at the White House after Trump defeated Clinton. Like many, Earnest “was very surprised”. “I did not think he was going to win,” he said.Many Obama communications staffers were visibly demoralized, and Earnest said he and his aides decided to convene them, talk about Trump’s victory and try to refocus them for the final two months in office.During that conversation, Obama summoned Earnest to go over the logistics of a nationally televised speech he was planning to give in the White House’s Rose Garden. Earnest recalled Obama asking how it was going with the staff that morning – to which he replied that they were “emotional”.Obama then asked an assistant to call the staff into the Oval Office. He stood in front of the Resolute Desk near his vice-president, Joe Biden, who would later succeed Trump in the White House – and gave them an early version of the speech he ultimately delivered that day.“We have to remember that we’re actually all on one team,” part of that speech read. “We are Americans first. We’re patriots first. We all want what’s best for this country.”As Earnest noted, Obama’s official White House photographer, Pete Souza, captured the scene with his camera. He recalled how it was the first time many people in the room that day had been in the Oval Office.“It was very poignant,” Earnest told the chat’s host, the ABC7 Chicago news anchor Tanja Babich.One of Earnest’s most vocal critics in the aftermath of Trump’s victory was the president-elect himself. Trump called Earnest a “foolish guy” at a December 2016 rally.“He is so bad – the way he delivers a message,” Trump said of Earnest after the latter defended the US intelligence community’s assessment of Russia’s interference.Earnest has been a top spokesperson for United Airlines at the company’s Chicago headquarters since 2018. He spent some time being a media pundit early during the first of Trump’s two presidencies. But Earnest told Babich he did not find it “particularly fulfilling” given the way Trump’s unpredictable, chaotic style of governing can often disorient news outlets.“The questions could all be boiled down to, ‘Isn’t this outrageous what Trump is doing?” Earnest said. “And it became about finding different ways to say, ‘Yes.’“I wasn’t doing journalism. I was doing commentary. And it was pretty close to entertainment.” More

    • 188 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      If leaders stay silent, the US won’t survive Trump’s next 100 days | Robert Reich

      by

      We have witnessed the first 100 days of the odious Trump regime.The US constitution is in peril. Civil and human rights are being trampled upon. The economy is in disarray.At this rate, we will not make it through the second 100 days.Federal judges in more than 120 cases so far have sought to stop Trump – judges appointed by Republicans as well as Democrats, some appointed by Trump himself – but the regime is either ignoring or appealing their orders. It has even arrested a municipal judge in Milwaukee amid a case involving an undocumented defendant.Recently, Judge J Harvie Wilkinson III of the court of appeals for the fourth circuit – an eminent conservative Reagan appointee who is revered by the Federalist Society – issued a scathing rebuke to the Trump regime. In response to its assertion that it can abduct residents of the US and put them into foreign prisons without due process, Wilkinson wrote:
      If today the Executive claims the right to deport without due process and in disregard of court orders, what assurance will there be tomorrow that it will not deport American citizens and then disclaim responsibility to bring them home? And what assurance shall there be that the Executive will not train its broad discretionary powers upon its political enemies? The threat, even if not the actuality, would always be present, and the Executive’s obligation to ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed’ would lose its meaning.
      Wilkinson’s fears are already being realized. Ice recently deported three US citizens – aged two, four and seven – when their mothers were deported to Honduras. One of the children, who has stage 4 cancer, was sent out of the US without medication or consultation with doctors.Meanwhile, the regime continues to attack all the independent institutions in this country that have traditionally served as buffers against tyranny – universities, non-profits, lawyers and law firms, the media, science and researchers, libraries and museums, the civil service and independent agencies – threatening them with extermination or loss of funding if they do not submit to its oversight and demands.Trump has even instructed the Department of Justice to investigate ActBlue, the platform that handles the fundraising for almost all Democratic candidates and the issues Democrats support.Meanwhile, Trump is actively destroying the economy. His proposed tariffs are already raising prices. His attacks on the Fed chief, Jerome Powell, are causing tremors around the world.Trump wants total power, even at the cost of our democracy and economy.His polls are plummeting yet many Americans are still in denial. “He’s getting things done!” some say. “He’s tough and strong!”Every American with any shred of authority must loudly and boldly explain the danger we are in.A few Democratic members and progressives in Congress (Bernie Sanders, AOC, Cory Booker, Chris Van Hollen, Chris Murphy) have expressed outrage, but most seem oddly quiet. Granted, they have no direct power to stop what is occurring but they cannot and must not appear to acquiesce. They need to be heard, every day – protesting, demanding, resisting, refusing.Barack Obama has spoken up at least once, to his credit, but where is my old boss, Bill Clinton? Where is George W Bush? Where are their former vice-presidents – Al Gore and Dick Cheney? Where are their former cabinet members? They all must be heard, too.What about Republican members of Congress? Are none willing to stand up against what is occurring? And what of Republican governors and state legislators? If there were ever a time for courage and integrity, it is now. Their silence is inexcusable.Over 400 university presidents have finally issued a letter opposing “the unprecedented government overreach and political interference now endangering American higher education”. Good. Now they must speak out against the overreach endangering all of American democracy.Hundreds of law firms have joined a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the law firm Perkins Coie’s appeal of the regime’s demands. Fine. Now, they along with the American Bar Association and every major law school must sound the alarm about Trump’s vindictive and abusive use of the justice department.America’s religious leaders have a moral obligation to speak out. They have a spiritual duty to their congregations and to themselves to make their voices heard.The leaders of American business – starting with Jamie Dimon, the chair and CEO of JPMorgan Chase, who in normal times has assumed the role of spokesperson for American business – have been conspicuously silent. Of course they fear Trump’s retribution. Of course they hope for a huge tax cut. But these hardly excuse their seeming assent to the destruction of American democracy.We have witnessed what can happen in just the first 100 days. I’m not at all sure we can wait until the 2026 midterm elections and hope that Democrats take back at least one chamber of Congress. At the rate this regime is wreaking havoc, too much damage will have been done by then.The nation is tottering on the edge of dictatorship.We are no longer Democrats or Republicans. We are either patriots fighting the regime or we are complicit in its tyranny. There is no middle ground.Soon, I fear, the regime will openly defy the supreme court. Americans must be mobilized into such a huge wave of anger and disgust that members of the House are compelled to impeach Trump (for the third time) and enough senators are moved to finally convict him.Then this shameful chapter of American history will end.

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

    • 188 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Obama condemns Trump’s $2.3bn Harvard funding freeze as ‘unlawful and ham-handed’ – US politics live

      by

      Good morning and welcome to our US politics blog.Former US president Barack Obama has condemned the education department for freezing $2.3bn in federal funds to Harvard University after the elite college rejected a list of demands from the White House.In some of his most vocal criticism of this Trump administration, Obama praised Harvard, the country’s oldest university, for setting an example for other higher education institutions to reject federal overreach into its governance practices.He wrote in a post on X:
      Harvard has set an example for other higher-ed institutions – rejecting an unlawful and ham-handed attempt to stifle academic freedom, while taking concrete steps to make sure all students at Harvard can benefit from an environment of intellectual inquiry, rigorous debate and mutual respect. Let’s hope other institutions follow suit.
      His comments came after Harvard decided to fight the White House’s demands that it crack down on alleged antisemitism and civil rights violations. It is the first major US university to defy pressure from the White House to change its policies.In a letter to Harvard on Friday, the administration called for broad government and leadership reforms, a requirement that Harvard institute what it calls “merit-based” admissions and hiring policies as well as conduct an audit of the study body, faculty and leadership on their views about diversity.The demands, which are an update from an earlier letter, also call for a ban on face masks, which appeared to target pro-Palestinian protesters; 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”; and pressured the university to stop recognizing or funding “any student group or club that endorses or promotes criminal activity, illegal violence, or illegal harassment”.The administration also demanded that Harvard cooperate with federal immigration authorities.Harvard’s president said in a letter that 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,” Alan Garber, the university president, wrote, adding that Harvard had taken extensive reforms to address antisemitism.The department of education announced in March that it had opened an investigation into 60 colleges and universities for alleged “anti-Semitic harassment and discrimination”. It came after protests against Israel’s war on Gaza were put on across campuses last year, demonstrations that many Republicans framed as antisemitic.Harvard’s response to the White House’s demands was in sharp contrast to the approach taken by Columbia University, the epicentre of last year’s protests against Israel’s assault on Gaza.The Trump administration cut $400m in grants to the private New York school, accusing it of failing to protect Jewish students from harassment. The school caved in to demands and responded by agreeing to reform student disciplinary procedures and hiring 36 officers to expand its security team.Stay with us throughout the day as we have more reaction to this story and many others.Hugo Lowell is a reporter in the Washington bureau of the Guardian covering Donald Trump and the Justice DepartmentThe Trump administration on Monday misrepresented a US supreme court decision that compelled it to return a man wrongly deported to El Salvador, using tortured readings of the order to justify taking no actions to secure his release.The supreme court last week unanimously ordered the administration to “facilitate” the release of Kilmar Abrego García, 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 García 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 García…The remarks at the Oval Office meeting marked an escalation in the Trump administration’s attempts to claim uncertainty with court orders to avoid having to take actions it dislikes. In Abrego García’s case, officials appeared to manufacture uncertainty in particularly blatant fashion.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 García into US custody.The case started when Abrego García 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 García 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 García 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 García’s deportation to El Salvador was an “administrative error”. The supreme court also called his removal illegal.You can read the full story here:One of China’s lead officials overseeing Hong Kong has condemned punitive US tariffs on China as “shameless” and attacked American “hillbillies” amid a continuing trade war between Beijing and Washington that has caused turmoil in global markets.Xia Baolong, director of the Hong Kong and Macao Work Office, said Hong Kong has never levied taxes on imports and that the US enjoyed a $272 bn trade surplus in the city over the past decade.US President Donald Trump has increased the levies imposed on China to 145%, while Beijing has set a retaliatory 125 percent toll on American imports – a move not followed by Hong Kong.Imposing tariffs on the city is “hegemonic and shameless in the extreme”, and shows that the US does not want Hong Kong to thrive, Baolong said in a pre-recorded speech at an event to mark the 10th iteration of China’s annual national security education day.He said the US “is the greatest culprit in undermining Hong Kong’s human rights, freedom, rule of law, prosperity and stability.”“It is not after our tariffs – it wants to take our lives,” Baolong was quoted as saying.He added that the sweeping US tariffs would not shake the determination of Beijing and Hong Kong governments and that “victory must belong to the great Chinese people”.“Let those American ’hillbillies’ wail before the 5,000-year-old civilisation of the Chinese nation” he said, adding that anyone seeking to bring China into poverty was an “enemy”.Hong Kong is a former British colony that became a special administrative region of China in 1997. In theory, it is governed under a system known as “one country, two systems”, a constitutional arrangement that promised Hong Kong a high degree of autonomy and rights protections.But it is widely seen to have reneged on the deal, crushing pro-democracy protests and imposing a national security law in 2020 – targeting secession, subversion, terrorism and collusion with foreign forces – which has in effect silenced opposition voices among Hong Kong’s once-vibrant civil society.Hong Kong is subject to the high US tariffs imposed on China as it is no longer considered a separate trading entity by Washington so means is not entitled to favourable trading terms anymore. Trump ended Hong Kong’s preferential trade status following China’s security crackdown on Hong Kong in 2020.As my colleague Martin Belam reports in our UK politics live blog, JD Vance has said the US is optimistic it can negotiate a “great” trade deal with the UK.In an interview with online outlet Unherd, the US vice president told Sohrab Ahmari:
      We’re certainly working very hard with Keir Starmer’s government. The president really loves the UK. He loved the queen. He admires and loves the king. It is a very important relationship. And he’s a businessman and has a number of important business relationships in [the UK].
      But I think it’s much deeper than that. There’s a real cultural affinity. And of course, fundamentally America is an Anglo country. I think there’s a good chance that, yes, we’ll come to a great agreement that’s in the best interest of both countries.
      Unlike China, Britain was spared the most punitive treatment in Trump’s initial tariff announcement on 2 April, but British imports in the US still incur a 10% charge while its steel and car sectors incur a rate of 25%.The UK government has been hopeful of a deal to exempt the UK from Trump’s tariffs.The UK’s chancellor, Rachel Reeves, will aim to continue negotiations for an economic deal with the US later this month when she travels to Washington to attend the International Monetary Fund’s spring meetings with other finance ministers. You can read more about Vance’s comments today in this article by my colleague Rachel Hall.South Korea has announced plans to invest an additional $4.9bn in the country’s semiconductor industry, citing “growing uncertainty” over US tariffs.“An aggressive fiscal investment plan has been devised to help local firms navigate mounting challenges in the global semiconductor race,” the finance ministry said.“To foster a dynamic, private sector-led ecosystem for semiconductor innovation and growth, the government will increase its investment in the sector from 26 trillion won ($18.2bn) to 33 trillion won,” the ministry added.Semiconductors are tiny chips that power just about everything, including computers, mobile phones and cars. They are central to the global economy. The UK, the US, Europe and China rely heavily on Taiwan for semiconductors.But South Korea – Asia’s fourth largest economy – is also a major exporter to the US and concerns about the semiconductor sector have hit the Seoul-listed shares of the world’s largest memory chip maker Samsung, and largest memory chip supplier SK Hynix.The statement of extra investment from South Korea’s finance ministry comes after the Trump administration launched investigations into imports of pharmaceuticals and semiconductors on national security grounds.These industries – so far exempt from the 10% US import charges that began on 5 April – may face tariffs after the probes are complete.US President Donald Trump has directed the US commerce department to conduct a three-week investigation into the imports, during which time public comments on the issue will be heard before a decision is made.Trump said on Sunday he would be announcing a tariff rate on imported semiconductors over the next week, adding that there would be flexibility with some companies in the sector.On 2 April, Trump announced sweeping tariffs on global trading partners, including the 25 percent on South Korean goods, before backtracking and suspending their implementation for 90 days.Even so, “duties targeting specific sectors such as semiconductors and pharmaceuticals, remain on the horizon”, finance minister Choi Sang-mok said during a meeting.“This grace period offers a crucial window to strengthen the competitiveness of South Korean companies amid intensifying global trade tensions,” he added.Good morning and welcome to our US politics blog.Former US president Barack Obama has condemned the education department for freezing $2.3bn in federal funds to Harvard University after the elite college rejected a list of demands from the White House.In some of his most vocal criticism of this Trump administration, Obama praised Harvard, the country’s oldest university, for setting an example for other higher education institutions to reject federal overreach into its governance practices.He wrote in a post on X:
      Harvard has set an example for other higher-ed institutions – rejecting an unlawful and ham-handed attempt to stifle academic freedom, while taking concrete steps to make sure all students at Harvard can benefit from an environment of intellectual inquiry, rigorous debate and mutual respect. Let’s hope other institutions follow suit.
      His comments came after Harvard decided to fight the White House’s demands that it crack down on alleged antisemitism and civil rights violations. It is the first major US university to defy pressure from the White House to change its policies.In a letter to Harvard on Friday, the administration called for broad government and leadership reforms, a requirement that Harvard institute what it calls “merit-based” admissions and hiring policies as well as conduct an audit of the study body, faculty and leadership on their views about diversity.The demands, which are an update from an earlier letter, also call for a ban on face masks, which appeared to target pro-Palestinian protesters; 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”; and pressured the university to stop recognizing or funding “any student group or club that endorses or promotes criminal activity, illegal violence, or illegal harassment”.The administration also demanded that Harvard cooperate with federal immigration authorities.Harvard’s president said in a letter that 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,” Alan Garber, the university president, wrote, adding that Harvard had taken extensive reforms to address antisemitism.The department of education announced in March that it had opened an investigation into 60 colleges and universities for alleged “anti-Semitic harassment and discrimination”. It came after protests against Israel’s war on Gaza were put on across campuses last year, demonstrations that many Republicans framed as antisemitic.Harvard’s response to the White House’s demands was in sharp contrast to the approach taken by Columbia University, the epicentre of last year’s protests against Israel’s assault on Gaza.The Trump administration cut $400m in grants to the private New York school, accusing it of failing to protect Jewish students from harassment. The school caved in to demands and responded by agreeing to reform student disciplinary procedures and hiring 36 officers to expand its security team.Stay with us throughout the day as we have more reaction to this story and many others. More

    • 175 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Barack Obama calls on Americans to defend democratic values in face of Trump agenda

      by

      Barack Obama has called on US citizens, colleges and law firms to resist Donald Trump’s political agenda – and warned Americans to prepare to “possibly sacrifice” in support of democratic values.“It has been easy during most of our lifetimes to say you are a progressive or say you are for social justice or say you’re for free speech and not have to pay a price for it,” Obama said during a speech at Hamilton College in Clinton, New York, on Thursday.The two-term former Democratic president painted a picture of the Trump White House looking to upend the international order created after the second world war – and a domestic political reconfiguration in which ideological disagreement falling within mutual respect for free speech and the rule of law being eroded.“It is up to all of us to fix this,” Obama said, including “the citizen, the ordinary person who says: ‘No, that’s not right.’”Obama said he disagreed with some of the president’s economic policies, including widespread new tariffs. But the former president said he is “more deeply concerned with a federal government that threatens universities if they don’t give up students who are exercising their right to free speech”.That referred to decisions by the Trump administration to pull federal funding for top universities unless they agreed to abandon student diversity programs and implement guidelines on what it considered to be the line between legitimate protest in support of Palestinians and antisemitism.Obama also said schools and students should review campus environments around issues of academic freedom and to be prepared to lose government funding in their defense.“If you are a university, you may have to figure out: ‘Are we, in fact, doing things right?’” he said during the conversation at Hamilton College. “Have we in fact violated our own values, our own code, violated the law in some fashion?“If not, and you’re just being intimidated, well, you should be able to say: ‘That’s why we got this big endowment.’”Columbia University, in New York, has become the centerpiece of administration efforts to crack down via federal funding on what it contends were campus protests over the Israel-Hamas war that strayed into antisemitism.Federal immigration agents have arrested and sought to deport one graduate student whom they claimed violated immigration rules by engaging in pro-Palestinian demonstrations. Another student sued after immigration agents tried to arrest and deport her after she also engaged in such demonstrations.The university agreed to make policy changes, including hiring security officers with arrest powers and banning protests in academic buildings, after the Trump administration stripped it of $400m in federal grants. The administration says it may now reinstate the money.Harvard, Princeton University and other institutions are also under federal funding review over their policies on the issue.“Now we’re at one of those moments where, you know what? It’s not enough just to say you’re for something; you may actually have to do something,” Obama said.The former president went on to question deals between corporate law firms and the administration after they were hit by executive orders over their connection to attorneys involved in prosecution efforts against Trump during Joe Biden’s presidency – or for representing the current administration’s political opponents.“It’s unimaginable that the same parties that are silent now would have tolerated behavior like that from me or a whole bunch of my predecessors,” Obama said, going on to question a decision by the White House to restrict access of the Associated Press to official events over the news agency’s decision to reject Trump’s renaming of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America. More

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      What will it take for a former president to speak out against Trump?

      by

      The stadium announcer called on the crowd to give a warm welcome to “a very special guest”. A cheer went up as basketball fans realised that Barack Obama was in their midst. The former US president rose to his feet, smiled and waved before watching the Los Angeles Clippers take on the Detroit Pistons on Wednesday night.It was a jarringly normal scene at a profoundly abnormal time. The previous evening, Donald Trump had delivered the longest-ever presidential address to Congress, a dark, divisive tirade strewn with lies and insults – he called Joe Biden the “worst president in American history” and the senator Elizabeth Warren “Pocahontas”.Yet Biden did not respond and Obama remained silent. Former presidents Bill Clinton and George W Bush were similarly mute. Six weeks into a Trump second term that has shattered democratic norms and ruptured diplomatic alliances, it remains unclear what – if anything – might prompt the former presidents to speak out.Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, said: “Let’s look only at Clinton and Obama: it’s almost as though they’ve washed their hands of it.View image in fullscreen“I’ve been calling them Pontius and Pilate,” he said, referring to the Roman governor who allowed Jesus to be crucified. “You can understand why because when you challenge Trump, he goes after you and never lets up. It’s hell every single day, multiple times a day.”Trump’s barnstorming first six weeks in office have left millions of Americans reeling. He has pardoned January 6 insurrectionists, punished journalists, imposed tariffs, sided with Russia over Ukraine, expanded presidential power and unleashed the tech billionaire Elon Musk to slash the federal government. Critics say it is time to break the emergency glass.Struggling to find a coherent strategy, Democrats used delaying tactics to stall Trump’s cabinet nominees and heckled his address to Congress. Grassroots activists have expressed their anger and fear at town halls while demanding more direct action. Notably, former senior government officials have gone public with their concerns.Last month, a group of five former treasury secretaries wrote a joint essay for the New York Times warning that the nation’s payment system was under attack by political actors from Musk’s so-called “department of government efficiency”, or Doge.Then, five former defence secretaries signed a joint letter calling on Congress to hold immediate hearings on Trump’s recent firings of the chair of the joint chiefs of staff and several other senior military leaders.The presidents’ club has its own etiquette, however. The five men have gathered twice recently, first at the Washington national cathedral for Jimmy Carter’s state funeral, where Obama and Trump were seen conversing and even sharing a joke. Then, they reunited at Trump’s inauguration, where Biden was forced to listen to his presidency being described as “a horrible betrayal”.Since then, all the ex-presidents have resisted the temptation to stage a significant intervention. Sabato believes that one factor is an awareness that Trump – and his vituperative supporters – would be sure to strike back, including at family members such as Hillary Clinton, a former first lady and secretary of state who ran against Trump in the 2016 election.“Bill Clinton is close to 80 and he’s been attacked a lot in his lifetime,” Sabato said. “I’m not sure he wants any more of it and then there’s Hillary – he has to realise that Trump would go after her, too. With Obama, the more I think about it, the more I believe that little friendly chat at Jimmy Carter’s funeral either was part of Obama’s plan or, once it happened, he decided to capitalise on it and keep his mouth shut so that he wouldn’t be the target again.”He added: “It’s unpleasant. Trump unleashes this army of assholes and we’ve all experienced them on Twitter and in other ways. I get it. But I think they have an obligation to do more.”View image in fullscreenCertainly the former presidents’ feeds on the X social media platform do not convey a sense of a nation in crisis. Bill Clinton has posted tributes to political figures who died in recent weeks, although Hillary Clinton has been more combative – for example, by responding to the suspension of offensive cyber operations against Russia with sarcasm: “Wouldn’t want to hurt Putin’s feelings.”Bush does not have an X account, although his Texas-based presidential centre this week posted an article headlined, “America First should not put Russia second”, condemning Trump and JD Vance for attacking Volodymyr Zelenskyy.Obama’s X account, which has more than 130 million followers, did post a New York Times article by Samantha Power, former administrator of USAid, decrying Trump’s cuts to the international development agency. But it then offered congratulations to the Philadelphia Eagles on their Super Bowl win and a Valentine’s Day message to his wife, Michelle, who did not accompany him to Carter’s funeral, the inauguration or Wednesday’s basketball game in California.Biden has kept a low profile since flying out of Washington on 20 January apart from signing with a Los Angeles talent agency. His X feed includes congratulations to the new Democratic National Committee chair, Ken Martin, reactions to the release of Hamas hostages, a Valentine’s message to wife Jill, reflections on Black History Month, a picture of his beloved Amtrak train service and a tribute to the late representative Sylvester Turner.It is not hard to imagine how Biden must have seethed as Trump bullied and berated Zelenskyy in the Oval Office last week and threatened to tear up the 80-year transatlantic alliance that Biden had striven to renew. Yet he offered no public reaction.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionDavid Litt, an author and former Obama speechwriter, said: “There’s the question of, is this protocol or is this patience. Protocol is pretty clearly out the window at this point, including Trump spending a good chunk of his address to Congress bashing Joe Biden. That is just not done and yet it’s done now.“Certainly Trump was not shy about criticising the current administration when he was an ex-president. I suspect that in 2029, if he is still physically able to tweet what he thinks about whoever’s in office, he will do so.”View image in fullscreenThe death of George HW Bush in 2018 left his son, George W Bush, as the only living Republican president apart from Trump himself, raising the question of when Bush could join Clinton, Obama and Biden in a powerfully symbolic show of bipartisanship.Litt added: “You get one moment when that has the greatest impact so you want to pick that moment carefully. Trump going further in selling out our allies and also forging a new alliance with Putin and Russia to me sounds like the kind of thing that might cross a line where a bipartisan group of former presidents would say this isn’t right.”There is traditionally reluctance among presidents to criticise a successor, especially during the opening honeymoon period. However, history is littered with exceptions to the rule.Theodore Roosevelt lambasted William Taft in a series of speeches, even though Roosevelt had promoted Taft as his successor in 1909. Carter eviscerated Ronald Reagan, who beat him in 1980, for sending arms to Iran in hopes that Americans held captive in Lebanon would be released.Clinton had a dig at his successor, George W Bush, for failing to achieve democratic progress in Iraq, saying in a 2007 interview: “The point is, that there is no military victory here.” Bush, in turn, reportedly told a closed-door meeting in 2015 that Obama’s decision to lift sanctions on Iran was a mistake.Obama denounced his successor Trump’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic in 2020 as an “absolute chaotic disaster” during a conversation with ex-members of his administration. He also warned that the “rule of law is at risk” under the 45th president.But none of it compared with Trump’s constant and vicious attacks on Biden during the Democrat’s four years in the White House. Trump mocked his successor as “Crooked Joe” and “Sleepy Joe” and claimed that he had caused “more damage than the last 10 worst presidents combined”.Whether a return of fire from Biden, who left office with an approval rating in the 30s and could be accused of being a sore loser, would benefit his party at this moment is questionable. Kurt Bardella, a Democratic strategist, said: “The answer for Democrats is not backwards. It’s not in the past. It’s got to be somewhere forward-looking and that’s what they’ve got to figure out here.”Bardella said of the former presidents: “If I were them, I would get behind someone right now and say this is the guy or girl that I believe in. Stop playing the: ‘I don’t want to step on anyone’s toes or prematurely step out of line.’ We don’t have time for that crap. Get in the game or don’t ever talk again. If you don’t have anything to say now, while this is going before our very eyes, I don’t want to hear from you ever again.” More