Trump administration

Subterms

    More stories

    • 188 Shares67 Views

      in US Politics

      Republicans want corporate oligarchy. We need economic democracy | Rashida Tlaib and Michael A McCarthy

      by

      Families in the US are exhausted. They deserve a government that chooses them over billionaire donors. The Republican budget plan that passed the House last week calls for $4.5tn in tax giveaways for the ultra-rich and corporations. It will be paid for with enormous cuts to Medicaid, food assistance and other federal programs that serve our families and the working class. These are the folks Elon Musk refers to as the “parasite class”.The agenda of the billionaire president and the richest man in the world is crystal clear: making the rich richer while working families struggle.Our democracy is dominated by the ultra-rich because our economic system concentrates ownership and investment power into their hands. Extreme inequality is often addressed by doing one of two things: redistributing wealth, via taxes and social programs, or changing laws and policies to increase worker incomes, such as raising the minimum wage. While these strategies are certainly necessary, in both cases our economy’s core institutions – the multinational corporations, banks, pension funds and hedge funds – are left to run as usual. But this is where so much power in the US lies.There is a third option: creating a democratic economy that widely distributes the power that comes through ownership and decision-making.In a democratic economy, ownership is extended beyond the wealthy few, to public and private institutions, such as cooperatives and non-profits, driven by the interests of ordinary people. In many worker cooperatives, for example, the workers own the firm and elect the board on a one-member, one-vote basis. This makes power on the shop floor and pay scales much more equal.The groundwork of a more democratic economy can already be seen across our country, in community land trusts, community development corporations, multi-stakeholder cooperatives, community development credit unions, housing cooperatives, community solar arrays, municipal broadband and the public Bank of North Dakota, which has operated successfully for more than 100 years. Glimpses of a new economy are there within the cracks of our failing system.We have also seen political crises provide opportunities for larger scale public ownership. In the wake of the 2008 crisis, the US government became the largest shareholder of General Motors, Citigroup and American International Group. While these stakes were eventually sold back, the next time, instead of bailing out failed businesses, we should transition them into democratic public ownership at the municipal, state or national levels. Other firms might be converted into worker cooperatives or multi-stakeholder cooperatives, governed by workers, consumers and community representatives, ensuring those same groups benefit from the company’s operations. And monopolized banks and large asset managers can be converted into democratic regional and local public banks that serve communities rather than shareholders.Beyond crisis moments, which this government is sure to produce, new public options can be established or expanded in industries such as education, childcare, housing, pharmaceutical development, healthcare, asset management and more. These public options can provide needed goods and services at prices accessible to all, while injecting competition into monopolized industries.From Los Angeles to New York, for example, there are dozens of grassroots movements across our country building public options for finance. Democratic public banks and public asset managers are not run by a corporate board at the command of profit-driven shareholders lounging on yachts somewhere on the other side of the world. Instead, democratic finance draws people from across a community, through processes of random selection, election or appointment, to deliberate over and make binding decisions about how pools of assets should be allocated and invested. Without shareholders or marketing expenses, and often tax exempt, these forms of democratic finance can offer much lower-cost loans and services to working people.Powered by democratic mandates, they can make investments in renewable energy, affordable housing, community wealth-building and other institutions that meet people’s real needs. The Detroit Justice Center, for instance, is working to develop community land trusts, which are non-profits that establish community control of land and permanent affordability of housing. Democratic public banks, such as those promoted by the Public Banking Act of 2023, could provide a ready source of capital.In a democracy, power should be in the hands of workers, community members, and democratically accountable representatives – not billionaires who govern to enrich themselves. The Republican budget is the natural outcome of an economy that funnels power and wealth to elites, while leaving working people to fend for themselves. Let’s show the billionaires we can build a democratic alternative to their corporate oligarchy.

      Rashida Tlaib represents Michigan’s 12th district. Michael A McCarthy is the director of community studies at the University of California Santa Cruz and author of The Master’s Tools: How Finance Wrecked Democracy (And a Radical Plan to Rebuild It). More

    • 288 Shares58 Views

      in US Politics

      The US embrace of Russia is an existential threat to the EU. Germany must step up to save it | Catherine De Vries

      by

      In February 1945, three world leaders – Winston Churchill, Franklin D Roosevelt and Josef Stalin – met in Crimea for the Yalta conference, to discuss the new world order they would implement after the soon-to-end second world war.Smaller nations were given no say in deciding their fate. The Soviet sphere of influence would infest eastern Europe for decades and US foreign policy dominated the second half of the 20th century. Churchill resisted the end of the UK’s global empire and independence for Britain’s colonies came piecemeal; they were let go with bitterness.Eighty years on, the logic present at Yalta – that large states can impose their will on smaller states – is back. Might is once again right. But history is repeating itself with a striking difference – for this time, there is no European leader at the table. Russian and US delegations have sat down to discuss Ukraine’s future without Ukraine or the EU’s input. Eighty years down the line, Europe is no longer seen as relevant by the great powers.The urgency of Europe’s shifting geopolitical landscape was laid bare last Sunday in London, where European leaders gathered with their counterparts from the UK, Canada, Turkey, the EU and Nato for a high-level defence summit. That meeting came as a result of the very public collapse of White House talks between Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Donald Trump, and Trump’s suspension of military aid to Ukraine.Even if a reported reconciliation between Washington and Kyiv materialises, European officials are still reeling from the rapidity of the transatlantic rupture so early in Trump’s second term. Trump’s defence secretary, Pete Hegseth, last month warned Europe it could no longer rely on US security guarantees. JD Vance, the US vice-president, went further at the Munich Security Conference, calling Europe – not Russia or China – the primary US threat.Pax Americana – the postwar period of relative peace in the western hemisphere, with the US as the dominant economic, cultural and military world power – is over. Europe will quickly have to adapt to the new reality, with the loss of its primary strategic and military partner. What part now will the EU’s largest member state, Germany, play?Despite large gains by the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), which doubled its support in the federal election on 23 February, Germany will be led by Friedrich Merz, head of the conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU). The chancellor-in-waiting lost no time in declaring that Europe, faced with an increasingly adversarial US, must take its fate into its own hands.“It is my absolute priority to strengthen Europe as quickly as possible so that we can actually become independent from the US step by step,” Merz said, hours after his election victory. Stark words from a politician who as recently as a few months ago was a bona fide Atlanticist.Merz wants to forge greater unity in Europe and establish an independent European defence capability. It remains to be seen how he will go about achieving this, but he clearly aims to put Germany back into the European driving seat.German leadership has been lacking in recent years. While Paris and Warsaw took increasingly assertive positions on European security, Berlin has remained cautious. After the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine, the chancellor, Olaf Scholz, spoke of a Zeitenwende – a turning point in German policy to reflect the new realities of the world. But, in the end, little but hot air was produced.Since the end of the second world war, Germany has invested relatively little in military capacity. Under the Nato umbrella, and with the close partnership with the US, this was not seen as a problem. But the world has fundamentally shifted, and Merz sees that Germany, finally, must change, too.However, an emboldened new Germany, at the head of the EU, faces a harsh world and an even harsher set of realities. The country will not only have to increase its military capacity, bring about bloc-wide military cooperation and perhaps even station troops in Ukraine, but it will also have to pay for all of this.This will require overhauling Germany’s strict ceiling on public borrowing, the so-called Schuldenbremse (debt brake) enshrined in the constitution. Merz has now begun that process; on Tuesday, his party struck agreement with its prospective coalition partners, the SPD, on the creation of a special €500bn (£390bn) fund to boost defence and infrastructure spending that would be exempt from the debt constraint. If approved by the German parliament, this would amount to a dramatic and some critics warn risky loosening of the budgetary straitjacket.Merz will also have to rally the EU (though Trump’s harrying of Europe and Zelenskyy is already pushing European leaders toward his vision), as well as face down Trump-friendly far-right parties, many of them in ascendence across the bloc.At a recent meeting in Madrid of the rightwing radical bloc of the European parliament, the Patriots for Europe, Geert Wilders, leader of the far-right PVV in the Netherlands, praised Trump as a “brother in arms”. Slovakia’s prime minister, Robert Fico, expressed his support for Trump’s pro-Russian policy at the rightwing Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Maryland last month. AfD co-leader Alice Weidel has said that “Trump is implementing the policies that the AfD has been demanding for years”.These rightist politicians seem willing to risk Europe’s security and prosperity for political gain. The US turn toward Russia and away from democracy will be an existential test for the European project and Europe’s commitment to law and democracy. The art of European cooperation has long been to achieve the possible in unforeseen circumstances. Germany, under chancellor-elect Merz, has a steep learning curve ahead. But the task of stepping up to save Ukraine – and Europe – falls to Berlin.

      Catherine De Vries is professor of political science at Bocconi University in Milan More

    • 288 Shares41 Views

      in US Politics

      Starmer is at his best right now – but he must accept there is no going back with Trump’s US | Martin Kettle

      by

      Keir Starmer, it turns out, is at his best in a crisis. He has faced two since he became prime minister last year, one domestic, the other international. The first came with the riots that followed the Southport killings, when Starmer’s response was impressive and effective. The second is Donald Trump’s attempt to stitch up Ukraine, where Starmer has been surefooted in trying to hold the line against a sellout to Russia. In both cases, he has looked like the right person in the right place at the right time.There was another example of this deftness on Wednesday in the Commons, when Starmer went out of his way to mark the anniversaries of the deaths of UK service personnel in 2007 and 2012. A total of 642 died in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars alongside their US allies. They would not be forgotten, he said. The name of JD Vance was not mentioned. Nor was the US vice-president’s contemptuous “some random country” insult this week. But Starmer’s reprimand was unerring.It is far too soon to say whether Starmer’s response to Trump’s embrace of Russia and to the US administration’s denunciations of Europe will be effective in the long run. What can be said is that, in public and private, the prime minister has so far led with tact and clarity and has scored one or two apparent successes against the run of play. Nevertheless, these are very early days. Trump boasted to Congress on Tuesday night that he was “just getting started”.Starmer’s ability in a crisis is an unexpected contrast with his leadership in the ordinary business of politics. Since July 2024, Starmer’s calm, methodical, long-game approach has succeeded only in squandering much of Labour’s election-winning goodwill, and in making him seem out of his political depth. But his deployment of these same unflashy tactics at moments of acute crisis, as in the case of Ukraine, could be gold dust. It has at least given the prime minister’s ratings a boost. There are echoes here of the rallying around Boris Johnson at the start of Covid. But remember where that ended up.It is useful to note that this low-key approach marks a notable break. Throughout the postwar period, British leaders faced with international crisis modelled themselves on Winston Churchill in 1940. Margaret Thatcher saw herself this way during the Falklands war. Tony Blair echoed it after 9/11 and over Iraq. Johnson pretended he was Churchill when Russia invaded Ukraine. Starmer’s calm approach evokes Clement Attlee more than Churchill. In every way he is unTrump.Yet Starmer has not got much to be calm about. The world of 2024 no longer exists. Trump has triggered a crisis in the North Atlantic alliance. At stake are two epochal things. First, whether Russia’s main western border will henceforward be with Ukraine, with Poland or with Germany. Second, whether the US accepts any role in ensuring future European stability. These are not small questions.There are three levels on which Starmer can try to deal with Trump, both now and for the coming four years. All of them tacitly and sometimes openly recognise the vast seriousness of the moment. All of them are predicated on the undesirability of what Trump is doing and the need to create alternatives. All of them, however, also rest on a determination not to make an enemy of the US.The first is to firefight the immediate problems that Trump creates. This involves constantly engaging with the US administration by whatever means are available to prevent or mitigate crises. It means building up defence spending. It means working with allies and so-called coalitions of the willing. It means using any leverage to earn a hearing. Essentially, it is an attempt to manoeuvre Trump to follow a different or less extreme course, while avoiding confrontation or denunciation. But it is all done under the pretence that nothing fundamental has changed.View image in fullscreenThis is essentially the strategy that Starmer is now pursuing on Ukraine. It is why he keeps talking to Trump – three times in the past week, perhaps contributing to Trump’s relatively polite mention of Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the speech to Congress. It is why he deploys King Charles’s soft power. It is why, perhaps, he will soon return to Washington with Zelenskyy and Emmanuel Macron in an overwhelmingly important effort to restore military aid and intelligence support to Ukraine.The second approach is to decide to suck it all up for four years, in the hope that things will then get easier. This means accepting the likelihood, though never saying so publicly, that Trump is always going to be destructive and mean-spirited. At the same time, it means working to keep US links – especially military and intelligence links – strong enough to be revived more effectively after 2028, when Trump is due to step down.For Starmer, this could mean a lot of firefighting over the next four years, without any certainty of a post-Trump dividend or British public approval. Such fires could break out on any number of issues, including not just Ukraine but also the Middle East, bilateral trade, Nato, US-EU relations and, judging by this week’s speech, Canada, Greenland and the Panama canal. Much will depend on Friedrich Merz and on Macron’s 2027 successor, too. Starmer and his national security adviser, Jonathan Powell, are also likely to have an intense under-the-radar interest in the candidates vying to succeed Trump.Which leaves the third strategy. This is to accept that Trump’s approach is now the US’s new normal and that there will be no comforting return to past arrangements. Whoever comes after Trump may be friendlier, more rational and less rude. Either way, US exceptionalism, isolationism and disengagement from Europe are likely to be here to stay. So too are the immensely tough consequences for countries like Britain, which can no longer rely on a US security and intelligence shield against Russia or any other hostile states. Rearmament is back. This will require something close to a war economy, and it cannot be created overnight.At present, Starmer has one foot in the first approach and another in the second. But it is the third approach that will loom largest as an option as the next four years unfold. None of these is a soft option, and all of them overlap. Starmer is right, for example, to oppose false binary choices between Europe and the US.Nevertheless, if Trump’s speech to Congress is to be taken seriously, this is a president who has changed sides in the battle of values between democracy and authoritarianism. Starmer may feel he has to tell Europe that Trump will still “have our backs”. But Trump could just as soon stab Europe in the back too. After all, that’s exactly what he just did.

      Martin Kettle is a Guardian columnist More

    • 200 Shares84 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump administration briefing: president threatens Hamas, leaves Ukraine in the dark and flip flops on tariffs

      by

      Donald Trump posted a fresh ultimatum to Hamas, telling the group to “release all of the Hostages now, not later, and immediately return all of the dead bodies of the people you murdered, or it is OVER for you”.“‘Shalom Hamas’ means Hello and Goodbye,” he wrote in a social media post on Wednesday, in an apparent reference to the beginning of direct talks with the group.The post came just hours after the White House confirmed that the US had entered direct negotiations with Hamas, potentially to bypass Israel in securing the release of the remaining US hostages.Trump tells Hamas ‘release all of the hostages now’Trump posted a fresh ultimatum to Hamas and reinforced his support for Israel on Truth Social on Wednesday. He also referred to a recent decision to provide billions more in support for Israeli arms sales.“I am sending Israel everything it needs to finish the job, not a single Hamas member will be safe if you don’t do as I say,” Trump wrote.“This is your last warning! For the leadership, now is the time to leave Gaza, while you still have a chance,” he wrote. “Make a SMART decision. RELEASE THE HOSTAGES NOW, OR THERE WILL BE HELL TO PAY LATER!”Read the full storyUS stops sharing intelligence on Russia with UkraineThe US has stopped sharing intelligence with Ukraine after Donald Trump’s suspension of military aid on Monday, in another serious blow to Kyiv in the war with Russia. White House officials indicated that both bans could be lifted if progress is made on peace talks.Ukrainian officials suggested the US would no longer provide information about targets inside Russia, hindering Ukraine’s ability to carry out effective long-range drone strikes.Read the full storyTrump exempts carmakers from Canada-Mexico tariffsDonald Trump has temporarily spared carmakers from sweeping US tariffs on goods from Canada and Mexico, one day after an economic strike on the US’s two biggest trading partners sparked warnings of widespread price increases and disruption. The decision came after companies appealed to the White House.A separate call between Trump and Justin Trudeau, the Canadian prime minister, did not lead to any larger breakthrough, however. The tariffs were predicted to raise US prices almost immediately, raising questions about Trump’s promises to “make America affordable again”.Read the full storyAgriculture workers to get jobs backThe US Department of Agriculture has been ordered to temporarily reinstate nearly 6,000 employees who were fired as part of Donald Trump’s efforts to downsize the federal workforce. The probationary employees are to be reinstated for a period of 45 days while a federal board continues to investigate the firings.Read the full storyWhite House rejig of Biden internet plan may benefit MuskThe Trump administration is preparing to overhaul a $42.5bn Biden-era program designed to connect tens of millions of rural Americans to reliable and affordable high-speed internet, in a move that is expected to benefit billionaire Elon Musk.Read the full storyImmigration hearing backfires on RepublicansA congressional hearing designed to criticise sanctuary city policies unexpectedly shifted on Wednesday, as a planned attack by Republican lawmakers instead dissolved into a platform that amplified Democratic mayors’ arguments about immigration and urban safety.The House oversight committee sought to portray sanctuary cities – which protect undocumented migrants – as havens for criminal activity and foreign gangs. But instead of cornering the mayors, Republican lawmakers seemed to inadvertently provide them with a national megaphone to sell their approaches to immigration.Read the full storyGreenland hits back at Trump takeover commentsDonald Trump’s claim in his address to Congress that the US will acquire Greenland “one way or the other” was widely condemned in Nuuk as “disrespectful” and was said to present an “unacceptable view of humanity”.Read the full storyPentagon official condemned over tweet about historical lynching of Jewish man The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has condemned a past social media post by Pentagon spokesperson Kingsley Wilson that disputed the innocence of Leo Frank, a Jewish businessman whom most historians agree was wrongfully convicted of killing a 13-year-old factory worker and lynched in 1915 during a wave of antisemitism in the US.Read the full storyHundreds of US diplomats decry dismantling of USAid in letter to RubioHundreds of diplomats at the state department and US Agency for International Development (USAid) have written to the secretary of state, Marco Rubio, protesting against the dismantling of USAid, saying it undermines US leadership and security and leaves power vacuums for China and Russia to fill.Read the full storyCanada goose fights off bald eagle in rare, symbolism-laden battle on iceFor the second time in weeks, a Canadian icon has emerged as the unlikely victor in an existential battle on the ice.Read the full storyWhat else happened today:

      Senate Democrats introduced resolutions condemning Russia for the invasion of Ukraine, and daring Republicans to object. A statement from the office of Senator Bernie Sanders, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, said: “The senators’ resolutions are statements of fact and principle, backed by evidence and long-standing American foreign policy.”

      Trump’s veterans affairs chief has defended ‘extraordinarily difficult’ plans to cut 80,000 staff. Doug Collins said the cuts were necessary to make the agency more efficient – though they are likely to affect healthcare for veterans – as the largest federal employee union denounced the plan in a stinging rebuke.

      The administration is dropping an emergency abortion case in Idaho in one of the administration’s first moves on the issue. The justice department filed a motion to dismiss the Biden administration lawsuit in a reversal that could have national implications for urgent care. The lawsuit had argued that emergency-room doctors treating pregnant women had to provide terminations if needed to save their lives or to avoid serious health consequences in Idaho, which has one of the country’s strictest abortion bans.

      The US court of appeals for the District of Columbia sided with the administration on Wednesday, in a ruling that allows the immediate removal of Hampton Dellinger as head of the Office of Special Counsel to proceed while the court battle continues. Dellinger is likely to appeal to the US supreme court.

      “I want to believe that the United States will stand by us. But we have to be ready if that is not the case,” French president Emmanuel Macron said in a TV address on the eve of an EU defence summit in Brussels. In a sign of the gravity of the moment, Macron said France was open to discussing extending the protection offered by its nuclear arsenal to its European partners and said European forces could be deployed after a peace deal was agreed. More

    • 150 Shares41 Views

      in US Politics

      Hundreds of US diplomats decry dismantling of USAid in letter to Rubio

      by

      Hundreds of diplomats at the state department and US Agency for International Development have written to the secretary of state, Marco Rubio, protesting against the dismantling of USAid, saying it undermines US leadership and security and leaves power vacuums for China and Russia to fill.In a cable expected to be filed with the department’s internal “dissent channel”, which allows diplomats to raise concerns about policy anonymously, the diplomats said the Trump administration’s 20 January freeze on almost all foreign aid also endangers American diplomats and forces overseas while putting at risk the lives of millions abroad that depend on US assistance.More than 700 people have signed on to the letter, a US official speaking on the condition of anonymity said.“The decision to freeze and terminate foreign aid contracts and assistance awards without any meaningful review jeopardizes our partnerships with key allies, erodes trust, and creates openings for adversaries to expand their influence,” said the cable, a copy of which was seen by Reuters.The Republican president, pursuing what he has called an “America first” agenda, ordered a 90-day pause on all foreign aid on his 20 January return to office. The order halted USAid operations around the world, jeopardizing delivery of life-saving food and medical aid, and throwing global humanitarian relief efforts into chaos.“The freeze on life-saving aid has already caused irreparable harm and suffering to millions of people around the world,” the letter said, adding that despite statements on waivers being issued for life-saving programs, the funding remained shut.The president tasked billionaire and adviser Elon Musk with dismantling USAid as part of an unprecedented push to shrink the federal government over what both say is wasteful spending and abuse of funds.“Foreign assistance is not charity. Instead, it is a strategic tool that stabilizes regions, prevents conflict, and advances US interests,” the letter said.A state department spokesperson, when asked about the cable, said: “We do not comment on leaked internal communication.”In fiscal year 2023, the United States disbursed $72bn of aid worldwide, on everything from women’s health in conflict zones to access to clean water, HIV/Aids treatments, energy security and anti-corruption work.Upon evaluating 6,200 multiyear awards, the administration decided to eliminate nearly 5,800 of them worth $54bn in value, a 92% reduction, according to a state department spokesperson. USAid fired or put on administrative leave thousands of staff and contractors.The cable said the government’s failure to pay outstanding invoices to contractors and implementing partners has severe economic repercussions.“The resulting financial strain not only undermines confidence in the US government as a reliable partner, it also weakens domestic economic growth at a time of mounting global competition,” the cable said.Organizations and companies that contract with USAid last month sued the administration, calling the dismantling of the agency unlawful and saying funding had been cut off for existing contracts, including hundreds of millions of dollars for work that was already done.The US supreme court declined on Wednesday to let the administration withhold payments to foreign aid organizations for work they had already performed for the government, upholding a district judge’s order that called on the administration to promptly release payments to contractors. More

    • 150 Shares71 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump’s NIH pick makes pitch for good science – in this administration?

      by

      Donald Trump’s nominee to run the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Jay Bhattacharya, told senators he was committed to ensuring scientists “have the resources they need” – even as the $48bn agency he hopes to lead has become a focus of the administration’s ideological war and cost-cutting efforts.At a confirmation hearing on Wednesday, Bhattacharya made a pitch for free scientific inquiry and an examination of the chronic disease epidemic, now a cornerstone of Republican health rhetoric, while hoping to serve in an administration that has frightened scientists into self-censorship.“Science should be an engine for freedom – knowledge and freedom. It shouldn’t be pushing mandates for vaccines,” said Bhattacharya, referring to pandemic-era mandates, and articulating a vein of libertarian thinking that has rejuvenated Republican health rhetoric in the time since. “If science is a force for freedom and knowledge, it will have universal support.”Bhattacharya ignored the Republican party’s role in sowing distrust of the scientific establishment, argued “good data” would change minds and, in the words of one senator, strained credulity by asserting the US president would not ask him to do anything illegal.For a man whose pandemic-era rise was built on questioning authority, some assertions landed between wishful thinking and willful blindness. But for all of Bhattacharya’s remarkable answers, dissent was muted.Some in academia now see Bhattacharya as the least bad option to run the NIH. And, after confirming Robert F Kennedy Jr, the nation’s leading vaccine critic, to lead the department of health, there is little doubt Republicans have the votes.“Maybe I’m naive, senator,” Bhattacharya said in response to a question about vaccine skepticism, “but I believe very fundamentally that research, if replicable, if done right, is so persuasive will move people to take actions.”Bhattacharya was at one time a low-profile researcher at Stanford University, himself receiving $3.7m in NIH grants, according to an agency database. His star rose among conservatives when he advocated against lockdowns in 2020. He was ostracized by the scientific establishment and blacklisted by Twitter – only to be invited to the platform’s headquarters by the billionaire Elon Musk.In turn, he became a darling of the right: hosting his own podcast devoted to questioning medical consensus, working as an expert witness in courts (even if courts did not always find him convincing) and often appearing on Catholic radio programs.But Bhattacharya’s pitch for free scientific inquiry is in striking conflict with the administration’s actions. His nomination comes as the research world has been rattled by mass firings, funding freezes, censorship and a measles outbreak that claimed the first American life in nearly a decade.Some of the most pressing questions came from the Republican senator Bill Cassidy, a physician from Louisiana who has steadfastly refused to engage in the anti-vaccine conspiracy theories peddled by some colleagues.“There is now a child who died of a vaccine preventable disease in Texas,” Cassidy said about the measles outbreak.Would the nominee spend even more taxpayer dollars to research a link between vaccines and autism when the idea has been “exhaustively” debunked?“I don’t think there’s a link between the [measles, mumps and rubella] vaccine and autism,” said Bhattacharya. “The only reason I’m not saying wholeheartedly yes” – that federal dollars could be better spent elsewhere – is “there are people who might disagree with me.”“There are people who disagree that the world is round,” Cassidy retorted. “People still think Elvis is alive.”“My sense, my inclination is to give people good data,” said Bhattacharya. “That’s how you address those concerns.”“I’m not sure at what end point we say we have good data,” said Cassidy, appearing unsatisfied.At the NIH alone, the Musk-led “department of government efficiency” (Doge) fired roughly 1,200 workers. Bhattacharya characterized this as “personnel decisions” to which he was not privy. The administration has also frozen grant funding in a probably illegal scheme, is still gumming up orders to thaw funding and is seeking to cut $4bn from grants that primarily go to universities and colleges.Trump touted his campaign to end “the tyranny of diversity, equity and inclusion policies all across the entire federal government” in his state of the union speech only the evening before – a policy that in practical terms is an ideological review of NIH grants.“I wasn’t involved in any decision making at the NIH up to this point,” was a common refrain for Bhattacharya when questioned about whether he would protect research funding.More broadly, the funding freezes and proposed cuts have sown chaos in the research world – academic institutions have frozen hiring, postgraduate researchers are struggling to find placements amid budget cuts, and delayed funding has many researchers worried their projects are on the verge of shuttering.Arguably the most pointed question of the hearing came from the Democratic senator Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire: “If directed by the president to take action that would break the law, would you follow the law or would you follow the president’s directive?”“Senator, I don’t believe the president will ever ask me to break the law,” said Bhattacharya.Hassan said: “Well, that strains credulity given, especially the last few weeks, and it’s a disappointing answer.” More

    • 113 Shares50 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump ordered to reinstate thousands of agriculture department employees

      by

      An independent federal board has ordered the US Department of Agriculture to temporarily reinstate nearly 6,000 employees who were fired as part of Donald Trump’s efforts to reduce the size of the federal workforce.The decision, issued on Wednesday by Cathy Harris, chair of the Merit Systems Protection Board – responsible for reviewing federal employee firings – orders the USDA to reinstate the roughly 5,600 terminated probationary employees for a period of 45 days while it continues to investigate the firings.The order applies to probationary workers who received identical termination letters, which stated that based on their performance, they had not demonstrated that their further employment “would be in the public interest”.Harris wrote in the order that during the 45-day period, the recently fired workers will be “placed in the positions that they held prior to the probationary terminations”.Harris indicated that she had found reasonable grounds to believe that the agency terminated the employees in violation of federal laws and procedures.The “45-day stay will minimize the adverse consequences of the apparent prohibited personnel practice”, Harris said.J Ward Morrow, the assistant general counsel at the American Federation of Government Employees, which represents some of the reinstated workers, described the order to Reuters as “great news”.Morrow also emphasized the need for similar action to be done “with all impacted agencies with similarly situated employees as fast as possible”.Tens of thousands of government workers have been laid off since Trump took office at the end of January, largely as a result of directives from billionaire Elon Musk’s unofficial “department of government efficiency” (Doge), aimed at reducing the federal workforce.While this order issued on Wednesday specifically applies to the USDA, it may have the potential to set a precedent for additional rulings that could impact other agencies, according to Politico.But, this ruling may not be the final word on the legality of the federal mass terminations, Politico reports. The news site notes that the administration might have options to put reinstated workers on leave or terminate them once more during a formal “reduction in force”.The merit systems board’s ruling on Wednesday follows a similar decision from last week that temporarily blocked the Trump administration from ordering the US defense department and other agencies to carry out the mass firings of workers including probationary employees who typically have less than a year of experience.There are an estimated 200,000 probationary workers across federal agencies.The ruling on Wednesday also emerged as the merit systems board is currently dealing with its own suspension issues and legal battles, as Trump is attempting to dismiss Harris, who is a Democrat from her position.A federal judge intervened on Tuesday and blocked Trump from firing Harris and from removing her from the board without just cause before her term expires in three years, according to Reuters. The administration is currently appealing that decision. More

    • 138 Shares71 Views

      in US Politics

      Republicans haul sanctuary city mayors over the coals at immigration hearing

      by

      A congressional hearing designed to criticize sanctuary city policies unexpectedly shifted on Wednesday, as a planned attack by Republican lawmakers instead dissolved into a platform that amplified Democratic mayors’ arguments about immigration and urban safety.Before a packed room on Capitol Hill, the House oversight committee, led by its Republican chair, James Comer of Kentucky, sought to portray sanctuary cities – a city that touts municipal laws that protect undocumented migrants – as havens for criminal activity and foreign gangs.“The point that we’ve got to iron out today is that we have to have cooperation with federal law to turn over those illegal criminals to Ice and we’ve heard reports and many of you have said publicly that you are going to obstruct that,” Comer said. “That is against the law. And we’re going to hear more about that today.”But instead of cornering the mayors, Republican lawmakers seemed to inadvertently provide them a national megaphone to sell their approaches to local governance and immigration.“If you wanted to make us safe, pass gun reforms,” Boston mayor Michelle Wu said. “Stop cutting Medicaid. Stop cutting cancer research. Stop cutting funds for veterans. That is what will make our cities safe.”Along with Wu, Mayors Eric Adams of New York, Brandon Johnson of Chicago, and Mike Johnston of Denver were put at the center of the national debate about local governance, immigration enforcement and the balance between federal mandates and municipal discretion.In opening statements, each mayor offered a defense of their sanctuary policies. Adams emphasized that such classifications do not shield criminals, but instead ensure immigrant communities can trust local authorities. Johnson argued that welcoming city ordinances do not impede criminal investigations, while Johnston framed the issue through a moral lens of humanitarian responsibility.Wu, who brought her one-month old infant, said it was the Trump administration’s over-the-top tactics that jeopardized safety for Americans – and that the border czar, Tom Homan, should be the one that should face Congress.“This federal administration is making hard-working, tax-paying, God-fearing residents afraid to live their lives,” Wu said. “A city that’s scared is not a city that’s safe, a land ruled by fear is not the land of the free.”The hearing took a turn when Representative Nancy Mace of South Carolina demanded mayors answer inflammatory yes-or-no questions, including whether they “hated President Trump more than they loved their country”.A shouting match then erupted between Representative Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts and Comer, with Pressley attempting to enter critical headlines about the Trump administration into the official record. Comer had been generally receptive to her prior requests up until that moment.The hearing occurred amid heightened national tensions around immigration, with Trump and Republican rhetoric focusing on linking immigrant populations to crime – a narrative sharply contested by the Democratic mayors and civil liberties advocates.Comer suggested that sanctuary policies “create sanctuary for criminals” and directly endanger public safety. He called for potentially withholding federal funding from cities that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities and pressed each Mayor on whether they will turn over undocumented migrants to Ice.The hearing comes as Adams faces a potential congressional investigation into the justice department’s efforts to dismiss corruption charges against him.The Democratic representatives Jamie Raskin and Jasmine Crockett – who is a member of the House oversight committee – have accused the department of attempting an improper quid pro quo, alleging that federal prosecutors have looked to drop corruption charges in exchange for Adams’s cooperation with the Trump administration’s immigration policies.At one point, Robert Garcia, the Democratic congressman of California, publicly called for Adams’s resignation, declaring he was “confident that Adams committed the crimes with which he is charged”, though Adams – who has been ducking local media on the question – firmly denied any wrongdoing. More