internal-storyline-no

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      What the U.S. and Ukraine May Gain From Trump’s Rare Earth Diplomacy

      by

      The White House and Ukraine struck a deal on strategic resources, a pact that speaks volumes about President Trump’s geopolitical strategy.President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine won some major concessions in tense negotiations with the White House over a piece of the country’s mineral wealth.Agence France-Presse, via Ukrainian Presidential Press Service“They have very good rare earth”Ukraine has finally struck a deal to share revenue from mineral sources with the United States, following weeks of sometimes tense negotiations punctuated by insults and threats by President Trump.What Trump proclaimed as a “very big deal” is indeed noteworthy — both in terms of how his administration is looking to profit from supporting Ukraine and how he is increasingly focusing on strategic nonpetroleum resources as a geopolitical goal.What we know so far: Ukraine would contribute 50 percent of proceeds from the “future monetization” of mineral sales to a fund in which the United States would own a big — but as yet undetermined — stake. The joint venture would reinvest at least some of its revenue to rebuilding Ukraine.It doesn’t contain any security guarantees from Washington, something that President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine had sought. But it also doesn’t contain earlier Trump demands including that Kyiv contribute $500 billion or repay double any future aid from the United States.Trump has been fixated on snapping up minerals. He doesn’t just want Ukraine’s resources, which include lithium, titanium and uranium. He’s also interested in getting access to Russia’s geographical wealth, including so-called rare earth elements like neodymium and promethium. (He appears to mistakenly believe that Ukraine has big stores of rare earth minerals as well.)“I’d like to buy minerals on Russian land too if we can,” Trump said on Tuesday. “They have very good rare earth.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 50 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      One Nation, Under God

      by

      Americans have stopped leaving Christianity. And the country is overwhelmingly spiritual, a new report found.As religion in America declined, experts administered last rites.Churches were approaching “their twilight hour” as attendance fell, The Brookings Institution wrote in 2011. In his 2023 book, “Losing Our Religion,” the evangelical preacher Russell Moore asked: “Can American Christianity survive?”The answer appears to be yes. People have stopped leaving churches en masse, according to a new study released this morning by Pew Research. America’s secularization is on pause for now, likely because of the pandemic and the country’s sustained spirituality. Most Americans — 92 percent of adults — say they hold one or more spiritual beliefs that Pew asked about:Share of U.S. adults who believe … More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Pushback to Latest DOGE Demand May Signal Limits for Elon Musk

      by

      Pushback against Elon Musk’s latest demand to government employees reveals potential limits to his harsh approach to management and cost-cutting.Federal workers are on edge over Elon Musk’s latest demand that they justify their employment.Eric Lee/The New York TimesA clash over Musk’s latest missiveMonday could bring a standoff between Elon Musk and huge swaths of the federal government, including Trump-appointed agency leaders.The fate of the latest example of Musk’s brutal management style — having government workers justify their employment by midnight or risk being fired — may reveal the limits of President Trump’s cost-cutter-in-chief’s efforts.“For now, please pause any response,” a top Pentagon official told employees this weekend, adding that the Defense Department “will conduct any review in accordance with its own procedures.” Similar messages went out from Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence; Kash Patel, the director of the F.B.I.; the State Department; and more.What’s notable is that Trump loyalists lead many of those organizations. But The Times reports that many agency leaders are “tired of having to justify specific intricacies of agency policy and having to scramble to address unforeseen controversies” raised by Musk, especially after the billionaire’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency gained unprecedented access to government systems.It raises the prospect that the Musk approach has its limits. Yes, Musk made a similar move at the social network once known as Twitter. But the federal bureaucracy moves much more slowly than a private company — and has unions who can push back.The president of the American Federation of Government Employees, the largest such union, declared Musk’s missive “plainly unlawful” and added that the Office of Personnel and Management was being directed by “the unelected and unhinged Elon Musk.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 63 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      The Meaning of Germany’s Election

      by

      We examine the role of immigration in the outcome.Germany yesterday became the latest country where voters rejected a left-leaning government largely because of their unhappiness over immigration and the economy.Germany’s next chancellor is likely to be Friedrich Merz, a former corporate lawyer who has promised to crack down on migration, cut taxes and regulation and adopt a hawkish policy toward Russia. Merz leads a center-right alliance that finished first in yesterday’s election, with 29 percent of the vote. A far-right party, Alternative for Germany, that promises even tougher immigration policies — but is friendly toward Russia — finished second, with 21 percent of the vote.The center-left Social Democrats, who led the government for the past four years, tumbled to third place, with 16 percent of the vote. It was their worst showing in a national election since at least 1890.Merz now faces the challenge of putting together a coalition that includes more than half of the seats in the German Parliament. Like other mainstream politicians, he has vowed to exclude the far right from his coalition because of its extremism, including its embrace of slogans and symbols with Nazi overtones. You can read more about the coalition scenarios here. You can also read more about Merz.Two big issuesThe campaign was dominated by two issues that have also shaped recent politics in the United States and many other parts of Europe: immigration and the economy.In Germany, the share of the population born in another country has reached nearly 20 percent, up from 12.5 percent in 2015. The increases have brought rapid change to communities. And although many recent immigrants have fared well in school and in the job market, many others have not.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 25 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Censoring Games

      by

      What China’s influence over Marvel Rivals reveals about censorship.Marvel Rivals is one of the biggest video games in the world. Since its launch in December, more than 40 million people have signed up to fight one another as comic book heroes like Iron Man and Wolverine.But when players used the game’s text chat to talk with teammates and opponents, they noticed something: Certain phrases, including “free Hong Kong” and “Tiananmen Square,” were not allowed.While Marvel Rivals is based on an iconic American franchise, it was developed by a Chinese company, NetEase Games. It has become the latest example of Chinese censorship creeping into media that Americans consume.You can’t type “free Tibet,” “free Xinjiang,” “Uyghur camps,” “Taiwan is a country” or “1989” (the year of the Tiananmen Square massacre) in the chat. You can type “America is a dictatorship” but not “China is a dictatorship.” Even memes aren’t spared. “Winnie the Pooh” is banned, because people have compared China’s leader, Xi Jinping, to the cartoon bear.The restrictions are largely confined to China-related topics. You can type “free Palestine,” “free Kashmir” and “free Crimea.”Why does all of this matter? Video games are not just sources of entertainment; they are also social platforms. Every day, hundreds of millions of children and adults log on to games like Fortnite, World of Warcraft and, yes, Marvel Rivals to play together and hang out. For many young people, these games are as social as Facebook or X.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Comparing Elon Musk and Jack Welch as Influential Cost-Cutters

      by

      Elon Musk’s hyperfocus on the bottom line has made him influential in Washington and Silicon Valley. How does that compare with the last famous cost-cutter, Jack Welch?Elon Musk is perhaps the most influential corporate cost-cutter since Jack Welch led General Electric.Eric Lee/The New York TimesA tale of the cost-cutting tapeThere’s no disputing that Elon Musk is one of the leading businessmen of our era. He has a net worth of around $400 billion these days and leads prominent businesses including Tesla, SpaceX, X, Neuralink and xAI. And he has become known for moving fast, cutting costs and pushing the workers who remain beyond what they thought possible.In many ways, that recalls a previous titan of industry, Jack Welch, who 25 years ago was considered the greatest businessman of his generation. It raises an intriguing question: Is Musk as influential a business leader as the former General Electric chief? Are the two men even comparable?By some lights, the two aren’t remotely the same. Welch was no entrepreneur but instead was the ultimate corporate chameleon, the son of a train conductor who started his career in G.E.’s plastics division and spent his whole career at the conglomerate.Musk, on the other hand, hailed from a prominent South African family, before emigrating to Canada and then to the United States as a serial entrepreneur.And while the two were both politically conservative, Welch was more of a country-club Republican, partial to golf and no fan — at least earlier on — of Donald Trump. While a savvy political operator, Welch was unlikely to have decamped to Mar-a-Lago to personally and intensely cozy up to the president-elect, as Musk did. (In 2016, Welch withdrew his support for Trump as the Republican presidential nominee, writing on social media, “Unfortunately, wrong messenger…Party must change nominee now.”)But the two shared a common business philosophy: Cut as much fat as possible.Welch believed G.E. had become too bureaucratic and bloated. He slashed billions of dollars in costs, and prided himself on weeding out employees who just weren’t making it. He became an apostle of the Six Sigma approach, inspiring other C.E.O.s. Corporate profits — and G.E.’s stock price — exploded under his watch.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 75 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      One Month into the Trump Presidency

      by

      The president has moved swiftly to remake Washington. But for business leaders, that volatility has often been hard to navigate. In his first month back in office, President Trump has rapidly begun to remake Washington. But with that has come big questions about what’s next.Al Drago for The New York TimesThe good, bad and puzzlingCorporate leaders and investors expected a bit of volatility to accompany President Trump’s second term. In many ways, that’s exactly what has happened one month in, with the radical cutting of the federal government, threats of trade wars and more.But amid a flurry of unexpected announcements — talks over a possible Ukraine peace plan that exclude Kyiv, the retention of tough Biden-era deal guidelines and a potential Elon Musk-enabled stimulus plan, for starters — and a lack of clarity over where Trump stands on a host of issues, many executives are asking themselves: How do we navigate this?Trump has made good on some of his campaign promises. He has vowed to impose tariffs to bolster American manufacturing. He has waged war on diversity, equity and inclusion programs, and more and more companies have fallen into line.And most notably, he has unleashed subordinates and Musk to raze huge portions of the Washington bureaucracy, with some courts refusing to stand in the way. The latest on that: The I.R.S. fired 6,700 workers on the eve of tax-filing season; Trump claimed the power to dismiss administrative law judges at will; and he reportedly plans to take control of the U.S. Postal Service, according to The Washington Post.But there’s a lot that business leaders and others are trying to figure out:Where does Trump actually stand on tariffs? He has spoken of a potential wide-ranging trade deal with China, even as he threatens Europe with huge levies.Trump’s position on Ukraine is increasingly unclear, as he publicly embraces Russia and castigates Kyiv and Europe. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is said to have pressured President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine to hand over billions’ worth of Ukrainian mineral resources, according to The Wall Street Journal, while Secretary of State Marco Rubio privately told European leaders that Washington wasn’t looking to disrupt the diplomatic status quo.The administration’s antitrust cops have kept in place Biden era merger rules, dampening hopes for a deal resurgence. And despite efforts by tech companies like Meta to forge closer ties to Trump, the Federal Trade Commission’s new chief is weighing a scrutiny of Big Tech over censorship concerns.Trump’s efforts to gain more control over independent agencies may reach further into the Fed, with Musk vaguely promising an audit of the central bank.The president’s floating of potentially inflationary taxpayer payouts, funded by Musk’s government cost-cutting (whose true extent appears to change frequently), is drawing lukewarm support from congressional Republicans.Trump’s legislative agenda is in limbo, with the president splitting Republican lawmakers over matters like the budget.For now, corporate America appears to be along for the ride. A new survey by the Conference Board found that C.E.O. confidence recently reached a three-year peak, reflecting “confident optimism.”Whether that will persist — Americans appear increasingly worried about rising inflation and the Musk cost-cutting — remains to be seen. Stay tuned.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 63 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      The Influence of Foreign Aid

      by

      America is losing a diplomatic tool the government has relied on for decades.Foreign aid isn’t just charity. It’s power. That was the original idea behind the United States Agency for International Development, which J.F.K. set up in the early 1960s to win the support of developing countries that might have otherwise drifted into the Soviet sphere. Elon Musk dismantled it in recent weeks. For now, most of its work has stopped and its worldwide staff has been called home.President Trump and his team have criticized a few progressive State Department programs, like a Colombian opera about a trans character and a D.E.I. music event in Ireland. But the core of U.S.A.I.D.’s mission has been helping the world’s poor, and it was a means to an end. “You have to understand,” a veteran American diplomat told me, “we didn’t do this work because we’re all a bunch of bleeding-heart liberals. We did it for influence.”In today’s newsletter, we’ll examine that effort — and the results it got.Good worksHow do you measure influence abroad? Experts have come up with the acronym DIME — diplomacy, information, military, economic — to describe the traditional levers of power. U.S.A.I.D. covers every aspect but the military one. More