More stories

  • in

    Trump’s Ukraine envoy pick proposed forcing peace talks by withdrawing US weapons

    Donald Trump’s plan to tap the retired US lieutenant general Keith Kellogg as US envoy to Ukraine and Russia has triggered renewed interest in a policy document he co-authored that proposes ending the war by withdrawing weapons from Ukraine if it doesn’t enter peace talks – and giving even more weapons to Ukraine if Russia doesn’t do the same.Trump is said to have responded favorably to the plan – America First, Russia & Ukraine – which was presented to him in April and was written by Kellogg and the former CIA analyst Fred Fleitz, who both served as chiefs of staff in Trump’s national security council from 2017 to 2021.The document proposes halting further US weapons deliveries to Kyiv if it does not enter peace talks with Moscow, while simultaneously warning Moscow that, should it refuse to negotiate, US support for Ukraine would increase.It blames “unserious and incoherent” US foreign policy under Joe Biden for the three-year conflict, including what it describes as a “precipitous” US withdrawal from Afghanistan, the supposed antagonization of US allies including Israel and Saudi Arabia, and a policy to China described as “weak and confusing”.The paper further accuses the Biden administration of putting “the idealistic agendas of the global elite ahead of a working relationship with Russia” – a “hostile policy” that it claims “made it an enemy of the US, drove Russia into the arms of China and led to the development of a new Russia-China-Iran-North Korea axis”.Kellogg and Fleitz criticize what they said was a decision to scold Vladimir Putin and threaten “unprecedented” sanctions as it prepared to invade Ukraine, “instead of using negotiations to de-escalate tensions”.“An America First approach could have prevented the invasion,” they write.Trump’s vice-president-elect, the Ohio senator JD Vance, has aired comparable views, arguing in effect that US support for Ukraine is a drain on resources necessary to counter Washington’s principal security threat with China.The selection of Kellogg comes as the Biden administration pushes to complete more weapons transfers to Ukraine before the president’s term ends. A decision to approve the use of US-made Atacms missiles on targets inside Russia was met by Russia’s use of a powerful intermediate range missile, Oreshnik, on the Ukrainian city of Dnipro.In an interview with Fox News, Kellogg said Biden’s decision to approve Ukrainian strikes inside Russia has given Trump “more leverage”.“It gives president Trump more ability to pivot from that,” he said.On Tuesday, Moscow responded to a New York Times report that unidentified western officials had suggested Biden could give Ukraine nuclear weapons before he steps down. The Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said discussions in the West about arming Ukraine with nuclear weapons was “absolutely irresponsible”.But the Kellogg-Fleitz plan, though lacking in details, appears to mirror the counsel of Gen Mark A Milley, Biden’s former chief military adviser who argued that since neither Russia nor Ukraine could win the conflict, a negotiated settlement was the sole route to peace.Under the plan, Moscow would also be coaxed to the table with the promise of Nato membership for Ukraine being delayed or abandoned.“We tell the Ukrainians, ‘You’ve got to come to the table, and if you don’t come to the table, support from the United States will dry up,’” Kellogg told Reuters in June. “And you tell Putin, ‘He’s got to come to the table and if you don’t come to the table, then we’ll give Ukrainians everything they need to kill you in the field.’”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionIn that interview, Fleitz said Ukraine would not need to formally cede territory to Russia, but would come to recognize that it would not be able to regain effective control of all its territory.“Our concern is that this has become a war of attrition that’s going to kill a whole generation of young men,” Fleitz said, adding that a lasting peace in Ukraine would require additional security guarantees, including “arming Ukraine to the teeth”.But in the policy paper the pair acknowledged that it would be hard for Ukraine to accept a peace deal “that does not give them back all of their territory or, at least for now, hold Russia responsible for the carnage it inflicted on Ukraine”.Asking whether he endorses Kellogg’s position paper, the president-elect told NBC News: “I’m the only one who can get the war stopped. It should have never started in the first place.”Trump said that European nations should contribute more aid, a position echoed by Vance at the Republican national convention in July. “We will make sure our allies share in the burden of securing world peace,” he said. “No more free rides for nations that betray the generosity of the American taxpayer.”Trump chose Kellogg, an 80-year-old retired army lieutenant general, to be his top adviser on defense issues. He served as national security adviser to Vice-president Mike Pence, was chief of staff of the national security council, and then stepped in as an acting security adviser for Trump after Michael Flynn resigned.During the Vietnam war he served in the 101st airborne division, also known as the Screaming Eagles, and after the first Iraq war he was named commander of special operations command Europe (SOCEUR). He retired in 2003 as a lieutenant general.During the January 6 Capitol riot, Kellogg demanded that the Secret Service not evacuate Pence from the building, which would have prevented the vice-president from certifying Biden’s electoral victory. “Leave him where he’s at. He’s got a job to do. I know you guys too well. You’ll fly him to Alaska if you have a chance. Don’t do it,” he reportedly said.After naming Kellogg as envoy to Ukraine and Russia, Trump said Kellogg “was with me right from the beginning”! More

  • in

    Mark Zuckerberg dines with Trump at Mar-a-Lago despite former feud

    Mark Zuckerberg has become the latest former Donald Trump critic to make his way Mar-a-Lago to break bread with the incoming US president.The tech mogul had banned Trump from the social media sites Instagram and Facebook, which he owns, following the January 6 riot that the president-elect egged on in an attempt to overthrow the results of the 2020 election.On Wednesday, however, the incoming White House deputy chief of policy, Stephen Miller, told Fox News that Zuckerberg, 40, had dined with Trump at his Florida compound.“Mark, obviously, he has his own interests, and he has his own company, and he has his own agenda,” Miller said. “But he’s made clear that he wants to support the national renewal of America under President Trump’s leadership.”Zuckerberg, whose personal fortune is estimated at $200bn, has previously indicated a thawing of relations between himself and the president-elect.After Trump survived an assassination attempt in July and pumped his fist saying “fight, fight, fight”, Zuckerberg called it “one of the most badass things I’ve ever seen in my life”.A month later, in a book called Save America, Trump still accused Zuckerberg of “plotting” against him during the 2020 election by “steering” Facebook against his campaign. He threatened Zuckerberg that if it happened again he would “spend the rest of his life in prison”.In the book Trump also noted that Zuckerberg would visit him at the White House “with his very nice wife, be as nice as anyone”, but then claimed the CEO turned Facebook against his 2020 campaign – possibly referring to a $420m donation Zuckerberg’s charity made to fund election infrastructure in 2020.“He told me there was nobody like Trump on Facebook. But at the same time, and for whatever reason, steered it against me,” Trump wrote in the book. “We are watching him closely, and if he does anything illegal this time he will spend the rest of his life in prison – as will others who cheat in the 2024 Presidential Election.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionA spokesperson for Meta, Facebook’s parent company, told the BBC: “Mark was grateful for the invitation to join President Trump for dinner and the opportunity to meet with members of his team about the incoming administration.“It’s an important time for the future of American Innovation,” the statement added.Meta is among several of the tech giants to hold contracts with the federal government. Earlier this month, the company announced it had approved a collaboration to integrate its Llama AI division into government operations. More

  • in

    Elon Musk calls to ‘delete’ US finance consumer watchdog agency

    Elon Musk has said he wants to “delete” the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), a federal watchdog that helps protect consumers from predatory financial practices.The tech billionaire, who has been tapped to run a “Department of Government Efficiency” in the incoming Donald Trump administration, posted “Delete CFPB” on X, the social media site he owns. He added a declaration that the agency, which employs 1,700 people and has an annual budget of close to $700m, is an example of “too many duplicative regulatory agencies” in Washington.The CFPB is an independent watchdog agency with oversight over banks and other financial institutions, created after the financial crash of 2008 and charged with overseeing consumer protection in the industry.Musk’s post came in response to a recent podcast clip from the venture capitalist Marc Andreessen, a significant Trump donor, who said the agency’s primary purpose is to “terrorize financial institutions”.But it was soon reported that Andreessen’s venture capital firm, Andreessen Horwitz, was among other investors who had backed LendUp, an online consumer payday lender, that was shut down by the CFPB in 2018.The CFPB director, Rohit Chopra, said the company’s lending operations were shuttered “for repeatedly lying and illegally cheating its customers”.Trump announced a plan for Musk and fellow entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy to run a new advisory agency, known by the acronym Doge, earlier this month. Musk has said he would like the newly formed commission to cut $2tn from federal government running costs – approximately a third of all government spending.Trump has said Doge and its new “efficiency” tsars would “provide advice and guidance from outside of Government” to “restructure Federal Agencies”.Ramaswamy and Musk – whose X bio is now headlined: “the people voted for major government reform” – outlined plans for a “drastic reduction” in regulations and “mass head-count reductions” last week in the Wall Street Journal.The men said they would rely on two recent US supreme court rulings that limited the authority of federal regulatory agencies to “liberate individuals and businesses from illicit regulations never passed by Congress”.They said Doge would target more than $500bn “authorised by Congress or being used in ways that Congress never intended”, including $535m in funding for public broadcasting, $1.5bn in grants to international organisations and nearly $300m given to progressive groups including Planned Parenthood.DOoge would also carry out audits of government contracts to “yield significant savings” and “identify the minimum number of employees required at an agency for it to perform its constitutionally permissible and statutorily mandated functions”.“Critics claim that we can’t meaningfully close the federal deficit without taking aim at entitlement programs like Medicare and Medicaid, which require Congress to shrink,” they wrote, referring to the healthcare programs covering more than 150 million Americans.How far Ramaswamy and Musk will be able to influence cuts to federal programs and spending before running into legislative opposition is yet to be determined. Many have warned them that cutting bureaucracy is difficult and time-consuming.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionOn Wednesday, Musk asked in a poll on X what should happen to the budget for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the agency responsible for collecting federal taxes. The most popular result was to have its budget “deleted”. He later replied positively to a post that called for the IRS itself to be audited by Doge.But dismantling the CFPB would be a signal of broader plans for disruption. The agency was formed after the financial crash of 2008, which was caused by insecure or predatory lending to “subprime” mortgage borrowers.Safeguards to prevent a repeat of the disaster included regulatory financial reforms and the formation of CFPB. The agency reports that its work has resulted in over $20.7bn in compensation, cancelled debt and other forms of monetary relief for consumers and has requested responses from companies involved in more than 5.6m consumer complaints.It has also drawn the attention of the conservative policy blueprint known as Project 2025, which called for CFPB to be abolished.“The CFPB is a highly politicized, damaging, and utterly unaccountable federal agency. It is unconstitutional,” the document said. “The next conservative President should order the immediate dissolution of the agency”.Musk last week also posted on social media naming several specific people and jobs that he aims to eliminate, targeting relatively obscure posts and otherwise unknown government employees.“These tactics are aimed at sowing terror and fear at federal employees,” said Everett Kelley, president of the American Federation of Government Employees, which represents more than 800,000 of the 2.3 million civilian federal employees, told CNN. “It’s intended to make them fearful that they will become afraid to speak up.” More

  • in

    Trump victory not a mandate for radical change, top election forecaster says

    Despite Donald Trump’s decisive victory in the presidential election, a political scientist who developed a model that correctly predicted his sweep of battleground states warns that voters have not necessarily given the president-elect a mandate to make radical changes.In a paper released with little fanfare three weeks before the vote, Cornell University professor of government Peter Enns and his co-authors accurately forecast that Trump would win all seven swing states, based on a model they built that uses state-level presidential approval ratings and indicators of economic health.In an interview with the Guardian, Enns said his model’s conclusions suggest voters chose Trump not because they want to see his divisive policies implemented, but rather because they were frustrated with the state of the economy during Joe Biden’s presidency, an obstacle Kamala Harris was not popular enough to overcome.“If this election can be explained by what voters thought of Biden and Harris and economic conditions, it really goes against the notion of a mandate for major change from Trump,” said Enns.“If Trump was looking to maximize support, being cautious about changes that are massive changes would be what the model suggests is the optimal strategy.”On the campaign trail, Trump promised norm-shattering measures to accomplish his objectives, ranging from deploying the military to carry out mass deportations of undocumented immigrants to levying trade tariffs against allies that do not cooperate with his administration.On 5 November, voters responded by giving Trump an overwhelming victory in the electoral college, and also by making him the first Republican to win the popular vote in 20 years.Both outcomes were predicted in the paper released on 15 October by Enns, Jonathan Colner of New York University, Anusha Kumar of Yale University School of Medicine and Julius Lagodny of German media firm El Pato. At the time, polls of the seven swing states showed Trump and Harris tied, usually within their margin of error, signaling that the election was either’s to win.Rather than focusing on the candidates’ support nationwide or in the swing states, Enns and his co-authors built a model that combines two types of data: presidential approval ratings from all 50 states using data from Verasight, the survey firm he co-founded, among others, and a Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia index measuring state-level real income, manufacturing and labor market conditions. Both sets of data were compiled more than 100 days before the vote.Enns first deployed the model in the 2020 presidential election, where it correctly predicted the outcome in 49 states, with the exception of Georgia. This year, Enns and his co-authors wrote that Harris, who took over as the Democratic nominee for Biden in late July, was on track to lose both the popular vote and the electoral college, including battleground states Michigan, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Nevada, Wisconsin, North Carolina and Georgia.“If Harris wins the election, we will not know exactly why, but we will know her victory surmounted conditions so disadvantageous to the Democratic party that the incumbent president dropped out of the race. She will have added major momentum to the Democratic campaign and/or Trump and the Republican party will have squandered a sizable advantage,” Enns and his co-authors wrote.The forecast wound up being accurate, though, with ballot counting continuing in a few states, Trump seems set for a plurality victory in the popular vote, not the 50.3% majority they predicted.Then there’s the question of whether Biden would have done better if he had stayed in the race. The 82-year-old president has been unpopular through most of his term as Americans weathered the highest inflation rate since the 1980s, even as the labor market recovered strongly from the Covid pandemic. Biden was also dogged by concerns about his age and fitness for office, which culminated in a terrible debate performance against Trump in June that led him to drop out of the race weeks later.“Given Biden’s low approval ratings and economic conditions, our model forecasted less than a one in 10 chance of a Biden victory if he had stayed in the race. Even after accounting for Harris’s approval ratings, which are notably higher than Biden’s, the Democrats face an uphill battle,” the authors wrote.If Harris had a chance to overcome the disadvantages she entered the race with, Enns said it would have required convincing voters she would be a very different president than her boss – which it appears she failed to do.“There’s some economic headwinds, there’s the Biden incumbency headwinds. And what I think that suggests is, given these headwinds that Harris faced, the optimal strategy would have been to differentiate herself more from Biden,” Enns said.But the vice-president’s fate may have been sealed in the years that preceded her bid for the White House, when she failed to build the sort of public profile that would have pushed her approval ratings up to the level that she needed them to be.“If she had been more popular, you can think about what could have happened to make our forecast wrong. So the fact that 100 days out, our forecast was so accurate, that really enhanced the campaign, had minimal effect on the outcome,” Enns said.“The task at hand was to outperform the forecast, and her campaign wasn’t able to do that.” More

  • in

    Trump Pentagon pick Pete Hegseth’s books foreground anti-Muslim rhetoric

    Donald Trump’s defense secretary pick Pete Hegseth, who has the crusader motto “deus vult” tattooed on his arm, has put bigoted anti-Muslim rhetoric at the center of several of his published books, according to a Guardian review of the materials.Hegseth, especially in 2020’s American Crusade, depicts Islam as a natural, historic enemy of the west; presents distorted versions of Muslim doctrine in “great replacement”-style racist conspiracy theories; treats leftists and Muslims as bound together in their efforts to subvert the US; and idolises medieval crusaders.Experts say that Hegseth’s view of Islam is riven with falsehoods, misconceptions and far-right conspiracy theories. Yet Hegseth, if his nomination is successful, will head the world’s largest military force at a time of conflict and instability in the Middle East.The Guardian emailed Hegseth and the Trump transition team for comment and received no response.The Guardian has previously reported that in his 2020 book Hegseth calls for an “American Crusade”, targeting both “internal” or “domestic enemies” and the enemies of Israel. Hegseth also connected the two, writing: “We have domestic enemies, and we have international allies … it’s time to reach out to people who value the same principles, relearn lessons from them, and form stronger bonds.”‘False, totally wrong’In American Crusade, Hegseth presents the medieval crusades as a model for Christian-Muslim relations, but one historian of the period says his presentation of the history of that period is “just totally wrong”.In a chapter entitled Make the Crusade Great Again, Hegseth writes: “By the eleventh century, Christianity in the Mediterranean region, including the holy sites in Jerusalem, was so besieged by Islam that Christians had a stark choice: to wage defensive war or continue to allow Islam’s expansion and face existential war at home in Europe,” adding: “The leftists of today would have argued for ‘diplomacy’ … We know how that would have turned out.”Hegseth continues: “The pope, the Catholic Church, and European Christians chose to fight – and the crusades were born,” and “Pope Urban II urged the faithful to fight the Muslims with his famous battle cry on their lips: ‘Deus vult!,’ or ‘God wills it!’”Hegseth has a tattoo of the same crusader slogan, which is also associated with Christian nationalism, white supremacist and other far-right tendencies.For Hegseth, the crusaders’ short-lived victories in the Holy Land means they can be credited with safeguarding modern values. “Enjoy Western civilization? Freedom? Equal justice under the law? Thank a crusader,” having written the same thing again earlier in the chapter.Matthew Gabriele is a professor of medieval studies in the Department of Religion and Culture at Virginia Tech, and the author, with David Perry, of Bright Ages: A New History of Medieval Europe.In a telephone conversation, he said that Hegseth’s picture of Muslim encroachment in the 11th century was misplaced.“There were absolutely no incursions into mainland Europe,” he said, adding “If anything, Islam was kind of on the retreat in Iberia and other places as well. So there was no large geopolitical shift or any kind of immediate threat of Islam taking over Europe.”On Hegseth’s presentation of the crusades as a victory for the west against Islam, Gabriele said: “The Crusaders lost. They lost everything.“The idea that they kind of like emerged victorious is absolutely false.“This narrative of the crusades as a defensive war, where if the Christians didn’t launch this offensive towards Jerusalem that Europe would be overrun has been a bog-standard narrative on the right: it’s something that was espoused by Anders Breivik, the Norwegian mass murderer, in 2011 and by the Christchurch shooter a few years ago.”On Hegseth drawing a direct line between the crusaders and the modern west, Gabriele said: “It’s the worst kind of simplistic thinking,” adding: “Anybody who tells you these simple stories is selling something.”“The British were invaded, and they didn’t even know it”Elsewhere in American Crusade, Hegseth repeatedly characterizes Muslim immigration to Europe as an “invasion” in a way that mimics racist “great replacement”-style conspiracy theories about immigrants displacing white populations.At one point he tries to connect – an expert says falsely – an aspect of Islamic history with the purported “capture” of Europe.Hegseth writes: “In Islamist circles, there’s a principle known as hegira,” and then claims: “This term refers to the nonviolent capture of a non-Muslim country.”Hegseth writes: “Hegira is a cultural, physical, psychological, political, and eventually religious takeover. History is replete with examples of this; and because history is not over, it’s happening in the most inconceivable places right now.”Hegseth posits the US as an example where, he claims: “Radical mosques and schools are allowed to operate. Religious police control certain sections of many towns. Sharia councils dot the underground landscape. Pervasive political correctness prevents dissent against disastrous policies such as open borders and nonassimilation.”Adducing proof, Hegseth bizarrely writes: “Take the British cities of London, Birmingham, Leeds, Blackburn, Sheffield, Oxford, Luton, Oldham, and Rochdale. What do they all have in common? They have all had Muslim mayors.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionFor Hegseth, this shows: “The British were invaded, and they didn’t even know it. In one generation – absent radical policy change – the United Kingdom will be neither united nor a Western kingdom. The United Kingdom is done for.”He adds: “The same can be said across Europe, especially following the disastrous open-borders, pro-migrant policies of the past few decades. Countries such as Germany, France, Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands threw open their doors to Muslim ‘refugees’ and will never be the same because of it.”According to Hegseth, countries that do not restrict Muslim immigration ignore that “Islam itself is not compatible with Western forms of government. On the other hand, countries that want to stay free … are fighting like hell to block Islam’s spread.”Jasmin Zine is professor of Sociology and Muslim Studies at Wilfrid Laurier University, and the author of a book-length report, The Canadian Islamophobia Industry: Mapping Islamophobia’s Ecosystem in the Great White North.Zine said Hegseth’s narrative appeared to be an “Islamophobic conspiracy theory distorting the practice of ‘hijra’ or the migration of the Prophet Muhammad and early Muslims from Mecca to Medina in 622 AD looking for safety from persecution”, which “is now being used to promote the xenophobic idea of a Muslim ‘takeover’ of the west”.Zine added: “These ideas are also linked to white nationalist demographic replacement conspiracies about Muslim birth rates in the west (AKA ‘demographic jihad’) and scare stories about ‘creeping shariah’, which have spawned retaliatory ‘crusader’ narratives in far-right subcultures.”‘Hard-core leftism provides the best gateway for Islamism’At other points in American Crusade, Hegseth appears to try to scapegoat Muslims for familiar conservative grievances, in narratives that suggest Muslims and leftists are colluding to undermine the US.In case of a Biden victory in 2020, Hegseth predicted that an “anti-Israel and pro-Islamist foreign policy” would be introduced along with “speech codes instead of free speech, bye-bye Second Amendment” and “naked socialism, government-run everything, Common Core education for everyone, a tiny military, and abortion on demand – even postbirth”.Hegseth also tries to connect his narrative with gripes about supposed censorship on social media platforms. “Who are the first people being banned on social media?” he asks, answering: “Not intolerant jihadists or filthy leftists but outspoken conservatives.”At times he seems to admire what he imagines to be the thoroughgoing religious zealotry of Muslims compared with an increasingly secular west.“Almost every single Muslim child grows up listening to, and learning to read from, the Quran,” Hegseth writes. “Contrast this with our secular American schools – in which the Bible is nowhere to be found – and you’ll understand why Muslims’ worldview is more coherent than ours.”At another point in the book he engages in a lengthy diatribe about the Council for American Islamic Relations (Cair), which has been a bugbear for US conservatives since the “war on terror”, and claims Democrats are helping the organization cement a radical “Islamist” agenda.“Groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood and [Cair] have advanced the radical mission of Islamism for decades,” Hegseth claims, adding: “In the past two years alone, more than one hundred members of Congress – including Ilhan Omar, Adam Schiff, Rashida Tlaib, Elizabeth Warren, and Amy Klobuchar – have signed letters endorsing CAIR.”Hegseth then singles out “Socialist Bernie Sanders”, who he claims is “a favorite among Muslim Americans due to his support for Palestinian causes and distaste for Israel”.Sanders has repeatedly publicly supported Israel’s right to defend itself, even after the commencement of the current war in Gaza, while also saying: “Innocent Palestinians also have a right to life and security,” and calling for humanitarian pauses and ceasefires, and last week leading efforts to restrict the sale of offensive weapons to Israel on the grounds that it was in violation of the international laws of war.Some of Sanders’s positions since 7 October 2023 have drawn criticism from the left, who have seen them as insufficiently critical of Israel and insufficiently supportive of Palestine.Hegseth meanwhile, as previously reported in the Guardian, is unconditionally supportive of Israel, and has appeared to argue that the US military should ignore the Geneva conventions in favor of “winning our wars according to our own rules”.According to Hegseth in American Crusade, though: “Leaders of CAIR speak very highly of Bernie because his hard-core leftism provides the best gateway for their Islamism.” More

  • in

    Trump and Mexican president offer differing accounts of migration talks amid tariff threats

    US president-elect Donald Trump declared a win on stopping illegal immigration through Mexico on Wednesday after talking with Mexican president Claudia Sheinbaum. But Sheinbaum suggested Mexico was already doing its part and would not close its borders.The two spoke just days after Trump threatened to impose sweeping new tariffs on Canada and Mexico as part of his effort to crack down on illegal immigration and drugs.Trump said Sheinbaum “agreed to stop migration through Mexico.” Sheinbaum indicated separately on social media that she told Trump that Mexico is already “taking care of” migrant caravans, calling it an “excellent conversation.”“We reiterate that Mexico’s position is not to close borders but to build bridges between governments and between peoples,” Sheinbaum added.While the state of the proposed tariffs remained unclear, Trump said in a post on his Truth Social account that this was “effectively closing our southern border.” He called it a “very productive conversation.”The exchange between the two leaders appeared to confirm for Trump the value of threatening to disrupt trade with import taxes. His initial social media post moved financial markets and gave him a response he was quick to describe as a win. Even if the proposed tariffs fail to materialise, Trump can tell supporters that the mere possibility of them is an effective policy tool and continue to rely on tariff threats.Sheinbaum wrote on social media that the leaders “discussed Mexico’s strategy on migration issues, and I told him the caravans are not reaching the northern [US] border, because Mexico is taking care of them.”“We also talked about reinforcing cooperation on security issues, within the framework of our sovereignty, and the campaign we are carrying out to prevent fentanyl consumption,” she said.Illegal migration across the Mexico border is down in part because the Biden administration secured some stepped-up cooperation from Mexico – the sort Trump seems to be celebrating.Arrivals at the US-Mexico border have dropped 40% from an all-time high in December. US officials mostly credit Mexican vigilance around rail yards and highway checkpoints.Driven by mounting pressure from the US to block migrants going north, in the past few years Mexican authorities have turned to rounding them up across the country and sending them to southern Mexico, in a strategy seen by experts as an attempt to wear migrants out until they give up.Neither side clarified the status of the tariffs. But their implementation could fuel higher prices and slow economic growth, potentially blowing up the trade agreement among the US, Canada and Mexico that was finalized in 2020 during Trump’s previous time in the White House.Trump on Monday said he would impose a 25% tax on all products entering the country from Canada and Mexico as one of his first executive orders upon taking office on 20 January. He also proposed an additional 10% tariff on China tied to its exporting of materials used in the production of fentanyl.In announcing his plans, he railed against the flow of fentanyl and migrants crossing into the US illegally, even though southern border apprehensions have been hovering near four-year lows.On Wednesday, Trump also posted that he plans a large scale ad campaign to explain “how bad fentanyl is for people to use,” predicting it would educate people on “how really bad the horror of this drug is.”The dangerously powerful opioid was developed to treat intense pain from ailments like cancer but has increasingly been mixed with other drugs in the illicit drug supply.Through September, the United States has imported $378.9bn in goods from Mexico, $322.2bn from China and $309.3bn from Canada. More

  • in

    Canada leaders agree to unite against Trump tariff threat amid reports of retaliatory measures

    Canada’s federal government and the premiers of the 10 provinces have agreed to work together against a threat by US president-elect Donald Trump to impose sweeping tariffs on Canadian imports, with one official saying the country was already examining possible retaliatory measures.“We agreed that we need to be smart, strong and united in meeting this challenge,” deputy prime minister Chrystia Freeland told reporters on Wednesday after a virtual meeting with the premiers called by the prime minister, Justin Trudeau.Trump has threatened to impose tariffs on products from Canada and Mexico if the countries do not stop what he called the flow of drugs and migrants across southern and northern borders. He said he would impose a 25% tax on all products entering the US from Canada and Mexico as one of his first executive orders.Canada is already examining possible retaliatory tariffs on certain items from the United States should president-elect Donald Trump follow through on his threat, the Associated Press reported, citing a senior official.Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum said on Wednesday that her administration is already working up a list of possible retaliatory tariffs “if the situation comes to that”.The Canadian official said Canada was preparing for every eventuality and has started thinking about what items to target with tariffs in retaliation. The official stressed no decision has been made and spoke on condition of anonymity as they were not authorised to speak publicly.The pledge to impose tariffs on Canada would drive up fuel prices for Americans as it would upend decades-old oil trade from its top crude supplier, analysts said on Wednesday, with Canadian oil imports not exempt under a free-trade deal from the levies.Even as surging oil output to record highs has made the US the world’s largest producer in recent years, more than a fifth of the oil processed by US refiners is imported from Canada.In the landlocked US midwest, where refineries process 70% of Canadian crude imports, consumers could see pump prices jump by 30 cents per gallon or more, or about 10%, based on current prices, GasBuddy analyst Patrick De Haan said.Cheaper gasoline was among Trump’s priorities during his re-election campaign as he sought to connect with consumers frustrated by sky-high fuel prices in the aftermath of the coronavirus pandemic, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the war in Gaza and other supply disruptions.When Trump imposed higher tariffs during his first term in office, other countries responded with retaliatory tariffs of their own. Canada, for instance, announced billions of new duties in 2018 against the US in a tit-for-tat response to new taxes on Canadian steel and aluminium.Many of the US products were chosen for their political rather than economic impact. For example, Canada imports $3m worth of yoghurt from the US annually and most comes from one plant in Wisconsin, home state of then-House speaker Paul Ryan. That product was hit with a 10% duty.Another product on the list was whiskey, which comes from Tennessee and Kentucky, the latter of which is the home state of then-Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell.Trump made the tariff threats on Monday while railing against illegal migrants, even though the numbers at Canadian border pale in comparison with the southern border. The US Border Patrol made 56,530 arrests at the Mexican border in the month of October – and 23,721 arrests at the Canadian one between October 2023 and September 2024.Canadian officials say lumping Canada in with Mexico is unfair but say they are happy to work with the Trump administration to lower the numbers arriving from Canada. The Canadians are also worried about an influx north if Trump follows through with his plan for mass deportations.Trump also railed about fentanyl from Mexico and Canada, even though seizures from the Canadian border pale in comparison to the Mexican border. US customs agents seized 43lb (19.5kg) of fentanyl at the Canadian border last fiscal year, compared with 21,100lb (9,570kg) at the Mexican border.Canadian officials argue their country is not the problem and that tariffs will have severe implications for both countries.Canada is the top export destination for 36 US states. Nearly $3.6bn (US$2.7bn) worth of goods and services cross the border each day. About 60% of US crude oil imports are from Canada, and 85% of US electricity imports are from Canada. Canada is also the largest foreign supplier of steel, aluminium and uranium to the US and has 34 critical minerals and metals that the Pentagon is eager for and investing in for national security.“Canada is essential to the United States’ domestic energy supply,” Freeland said.America’s top oil trade groups, the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers group and the American Petroleum Institute, said imposing the tariffs would be a mistake – exposing a rare moment of discord between the industry and Trump.“Across-the-board trade policies that could inflate the cost of imports, reduce accessible supplies of oil feedstocks and products, or provoke retaliatory tariffs have potential to impact consumers and undercut our advantage as the world’s leading maker of liquid fuels,” AFPM said on Tuesday.With Associated Press and Reuters More

  • in

    Republican senator introduces bill to abolish US Department of Education

    A bill that would accomplish Donald Trump’s goal of abolishing the federal Department of Education has been introduced into the US Senate.The Republican senator Mike Rounds of South Dakota introduced the bill, called the Returning Education to Our States Act, on Thursday. If passed, the bill would see $200bn in funding and the work of the education department redistributed to other federal agencies and states.“The federal Department of Education has never educated a single student, and it’s long past time to end this bureaucratic department that causes more harm than good,” Rounds said in a statement announcing the bill.He added: “For years, I’ve worked toward removing the federal Department of Education. I’m pleased that president-elect Trump shares this vision, and I’m excited to work with him and Republican majorities in the Senate and House to make this a reality. This legislation is a roadmap to eliminating the federal Department of Education by practically rehoming these federal programs in the departments where they belong, which will be critical as we move into next year.”Major responsibilities of the Department of Education would be rerouted to other offices: the administration of federal student loans would become the responsibility of the treasury department; the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which enforces protections for the 7.5 million students with special needs, would fall under the Department of Health and Human Services; the Fulbright-Hays Program would be overseen by the Department of State.The bill would require a supermajority of 60 votes in the soon-to-be Republican-controlled Senate to get passed. Notably, Rounds believes he can pass the bill with 50 votes, according to the Argus Leader. That feat would happen through reconciliation, a congressional loophole which allows the enactment of legislation on taxes and spending with only a majority. Despite Rounds’s ambition, reconciliation does not look promising as Democrats and some independents who oppose eliminating the department are still in control of the Senate and White House.Rounds could reintroduced the bill next term, when Republicans take control, but it would still require 60 votes to pass the Senate.Education and policy experts have expressed their concerns should the bill pass and for what else is ahead in another Trump administration.David DeMatthews, a professor in the University of Texas’s department of educational leadership and policy, said he did not think the education department “will be abolished ultimately, but I do have a lot of fears”.Education is one subject that “really cut[s] across the political divide”, he said.“People who are Republicans who voted for Trump, they may have a child with a disability or a traumatic brain injury that is in a special program that would cost that family $50-60,000. They want their child to be in a high-quality program that’s evaluated by the state. They want rights if the state is not doing a good job, and all of that comes from the federal special education law ‘Idea’ [the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act], and all of that is monitored and enforced by the US Department of Education.”It has long been a key objective of the Republican party to abolish the Department of Education since it was launched in 1980 by then president Jimmy Carter. Within that same year, Carter’s successor, Ronald Reagan, even campaigned on eliminating the newly formed department – though that desire was quashed after Reagan’s first education secretary, Terrel Bell, penned a report that “advocated for a strong federal role to ensure students received a high-quality education”, according to ChalkBeat.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionSince then, the department has seen a push and pull depending on the party in office. Under Democratic administrations, the department has leaned more progressive. A recent example was the Biden administration issuing new Title IX rules in April that offered more protections for LGBTQ+ students, victims of sexual misconduct and pregnant students; in July, House Republicans blocked it.In his campaign, Trump repeatedly emphasized that one of his education policies was to shutter the Department of Education and “create a new credentialing body that will be the gold standard anywhere in the world to certify teachers who embrace patriotic values support our way of life and understand that their job is not to indoctrinate children”.He has also pledged to return school choice to the states and cut federal funding for any school or program that teaches “critical race theory, gender ideology or other inappropriate racial, sexual or political content”.Shortly after winning the 2024 presidential election, Trump baselessly claimed the education department was staffed by many people who “in many cases, hate our children” and said “we want states to run the education of our children, because they’ll do a much better job of it” in a video.Earlier this month, Trump chose the former World Wrestling Entertainment executive Linda McMahon to serve as his as secretary of education, tasked with running the department he has vowed to close – a move DeMatthews calls “concerning”.“Across the board, what we’re seeing is already people in the Trump administration and some Republicans really trying to walk back some basic civil rights victories that happened in the 60s and 70s to support students with disabilities, low-income families, English learners,” DeMatthews said. “I think if the public understood it and knew about it, they wouldn’t be for taking away supports to help some of the most marginalized children in our country.” More