UK news

Subterms

    Latest story

    113 Shares54 Views

    Democrats investigating Epstein decry Andrew ‘silence’ over interview request

    by

    Two Democratic lawmakers involved in the US congressional investigation into the disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein on Friday condemned Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s “silence” in response to their request that he sit for a deposition.Robert Garcia, the ranking member of the House oversight committee, and Suhas Subramanyam, a member of the panel, were among the Democrats who earlier this month sent the former British prince a letter seeking his cooperation in their inquiry into Epstein, who died in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex-trafficking charges.“Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s silence in the face of the Oversight Democrats’ demand for testimony speaks volumes,” Garcia and Subramanyam said Friday, a day after the deadline they had set to receive Mountbatten-Windsor’s response.Documents the committee has obtained – many of which came from Epstein’s estate – along with testimony from abuse survivor Virginia Giuffre, “raise serious questions” the ex-prince “must answer, yet he continues to hide”, the lawmakers continued.“Our work will move forward with or without him, and we will hold anyone who was involved in these crimes accountable, no matter their wealth, status, or political party. We will get justice for the survivors.”Democrats on the investigative committee appear to have few options to compel Mountbatten-Windsor to talk. As the minority party, they lack the power to issue subpoenas, and the Republican chair James Comer has not commented on if he would take such a step against the former prince.Even if one was issued, Mountbatten-Windsor – who has strongly denied wrongdoing – could avoid the legal penalties for non-compliance by not coming to the United States.The lawmakers issued their statement days after Donald Trump had signed into law the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which will compel attorney general Pam Bondi to release documents related to the government’s handling of his case within 30 days.Trump, a one-time friend of Epstein, tried to stop the bill from moving through Congress, but backed down when it appeared clear it had the votes to pass the House of Representatives. However, the law includes exemptions for the release of documents that could undermine national security and jeopardize investigations.Critics have accused Bondi of being a Trump loyalist who has used the law enforcement agency’s powers to protect the president and retaliate against his allies. Last week, she announced that she would investigate ties between Epstein and Democrats, shortly after Trump demanded she do so.In a letter to Bondi on Friday, Garcia wrote that “politically motivated investigations are not a legitimate justification for withholding or redacting records” under the newly passed law.“There is already a concern president Trump will attempt, on dubious legal grounds, to exploit a provision which allows [the] DoJ to withhold information relevant to ongoing investigations,” Garcia said, echoing a concern expressed by Republican senators this week.He also noted that the committee is awaiting the justice department’s response to a subpoena they issued in August for documents related to Epstein, which Garcia said can be shared in their entirety with lawmakers, even if they are involved in an investigation.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“Any additional federal investigations launched by the DoJ or the president do not impact our subpoena,” Garcia wrote, while adding that “the identity of survivors and potential victims” can be protected.In September, the justice department turned over more than 33,000 documents to the committee in response to its subpoena, but most of them were already publicly available.A source familiar said that the justice department is “sitting on a mountain of information” that may total up to 300 gigabytes of files. These include interview transcripts, court documents and emails, as well as records from the investigation that led to Epstein’s 2008 guilty plea to sexual abuse charges in Florida, and the sex trafficking investigation that led to his 2019 arrest in New York, sources said.As he campaigned to return to the White House last year, Trump, alongside his allies, made statements indicating that there was more to be revealed about Epstein and his ties to global elites.But in July, the justice department and FBI released a memo saying that they had no further information to share about his activities or relationships, while concluding that his death was a suicide, despite conspiracy theories to the contrary.The announcement sparked an uproar among Trump’s supporters, leading to a drawn out congressional campaign to force release of government files related to the case that culminated in this week’s passage of the Epstein Files Transparency Act. More

    More stories

    • 125 Shares121 Views

      in US Politics

      London mayor sees parallels in Zohran Mamdani’s victory: ‘Hope won’

      by

      While the soon-to-be first Muslim mayor of New York, Zohran Mamdani, was in the final throes of his mayoral campaign on a brisk day in New York, Sadiq Khan, the first Muslim of mayor of London, was wrapping up a two-day climate summit in a steamy if overcast Rio de Janeiro.“Hope is not gone,” Khan told the 300 city mayors gathered in the Brazilian city’s museum of modern art.The London mayor was referring to the challenges faced by regional politicians in dealing with the climate emergency in the face of the scepticism or outright denial of the science by national governments – including that led by Donald Trump.But on hearing of Mamdani’s win, Khan suggested that this too had given him hope. London and its mayor have been repeatedly raised by figures such as Trump’s former chief of staff Steve Bannon as the disastrous outcome that New Yorkers had to avoid.“In recent years, there’s been a growing chorus of commentators and politicians on both sides of the Atlantic attacking London and New York for their liberal values,” Khan told the Guardian. “They paint a picture of a lawless dystopia in an attempt to sow fear and division. But ask most Londoners or New Yorkers, and you’ll find that this narrative falls on deaf ears.“Many of the challenges our cities face are similar, but they are not identical. But we are united by something far more fundamental: our belief in the power of politics to change people’s lives for the better.”He later tweeted: “New Yorkers faced a clear choice – between hope and fear – and just like we’ve seen in London – hope won.”Khan, 55, the London-born son of Amanullah and Sehrun Khan, a bus driver and seamstress respectively, who arrived in Britain from Pakistan in 1968, achieved a historic third term as mayor on the Labour ticket in May last year.Mamdani, the son of a Ugandan academic, Mahmood Mamdani, a specialist in colonial and post-colonial history, and Mira Nair, the acclaimed film-maker, made his own history on Tuesday as a Democrat picking up nearly 200,000 more votes in New York than his nearest rival, the former state governor Andrew Cuomo.“It’s never been more crucial for our cities to challenge those who weaponise our diversity and instead stand firm in the belief that no matter who you are, or where your family is originally from, you can achieve anything,” said Khan. “In our cities, hope and unity will always triumph over fear and division.”There are obvious, albeit superficial, similarities between the two men.For all that Mamdami, 34, has been characterised as a diehard socialist, his policy platform bears a distinct resemblance to that of Khan, who would describe himself as of the “soft left” on the British political spectrum – a flavour of progressive politics that is less enamoured of the munificence of market forces than politicians such as Bill Clinton and Tony Blair, but more sceptical about handing over the running of the economy to the state than the likes of former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.They have both proposed types of rent controls. Mamdani wants a $30 (£23) an hour minimum wage in the city, while Khan has long supported a voluntary London living wage, which at £14.80 ($19.30) per hour is more than £2 beyond the UK’s statutory minimum.Mamdani has proposed to impose a 2% levy on earnings above $1m year (affecting about 34,000 households), but that will involve negotiating with the New York state legislature and with Governor Kathy Hochul, who has said she opposes new income taxes. Khan does not have the powers to raise taxes, but he has sought such cash-raising powers to fund major transport projects.Making their cities affordable has also been central to both men’s policy prospectus: Mamdani proposed free bus transit while Khan has frozen fares for years. Both men have been outspoken on Gaza, condemning Hamas’s October 7 attacks but describing Israel’s war as genocidal. Khan was ahead of his party leader, the prime minister, Keir Starmer, in calling for the UK to recognise a Palestinian state.The context, though, is quite different. Mamdani terrifies and excites his party in equal measure, observers say. Unlike Khan, whose 2024 campaign mantra was a “London for everyone”, the New Yorker’s rhetoric draws up dividing lines, and is seen by some as making a bogey figure of the “billionaire”.Khan has been involved in Labour politics for over 30 years and is well-attuned to building electoral coalitions. Asked about warnings that the wealthy would leave New York if Mamdani won, he responded by inviting them to the UK.“If that is the case, come to London,” he said. “I am going to roll out a red carpet and welcome you.”Brett Bruen, a former US diplomat in the Obama administration, said that the major issue is that at 34 years of age, there is very little to go on when judging how Mamdani will actually govern.He said: “He’s certainly managed to stand out as a leader made for this moment, but that comes, obviously, with quite a lot of scrutiny. Some of it, I think, is warranted in questions about his résumé and whether or not he’s got like the requisite experience to lead this huge city.“It’s fair to say that he is on the outer extremities of the political spectrum, even in New York. And you know, we have seen, in the case of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and some others, that while they’ve done well in certain segments, they also become popular targets for Trump and the Republicans.“Those of us who are more in the centre of the party, face a problematic predicament. How do we talk about a party that can appeal to independents, that can even appeal to moderate Republicans, when some of our most vocal and visible voices are those that are out so far on the left?”If the two men differ in terms of experience, rhetoric and level of internal support within their respective parties, there are certainly parallels in the dog-whistle – and worse – politics that their candidatures provoked among their opponents.When Khan first stood for mayor in 2016, his Conservative rival Zac Goldsmith was accused of pursuing arguably the dirtiest campaign in British politics.Tamils, Hindus and Sikhs were sent letters warning that their jewellery was unsafe, because Khan planned to introduce a wealth tax.The Conservative then cabinet minister Michael Gove suggested that Khan would implement sharia law if elected.The campaign culminated in an article by Goldsmith in the Mail on Sunday accompanied by a photograph of a London bus blown up during the 7/7 terror attacks and a headline suggesting that a vote for Khan would put the city into the hands of a party that “thinks terrorists are its friends”.Trump, meanwhile, has described Khan as a “terrible, terrible mayor”, and falsely claimed that London was facing “sharia law”.Mamdani faced similar slurs. “God forbid, another 9/11, can you imagine Mamdani in the seat?” asked Cuomo at one stage to the conservative radio talkshow host Sid Rosenberg.“He’d be cheering,” Rosenberg replied. Cuomo, who had previously referred to Mamdani as “a terrorist sympathiser”, laughed, adding: “That’s another problem.”“Any Jewish person that votes for Zohran Mamdani, a proven and self professed JEW HATER, is a stupid person!!!” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post on Tuesday.Michelle Lujan Grisham, the Democratic governor of New Mexico, said that what united Khan and Mamdani was that they offered a positive vision of the future.“I think that is incredibly attractive to voters,” she said. “They want new ideas. They want innovation. They want optimism. They don’t want somebody who’s dark and negative and angry.“Mamdani is the opposite of dark, angry, moody and he’s very optimistic. So I think that’s the future of the Democratic party, identifying this enthusiasm and optimism for the future.”Leah Kreitzman, who was Khan’s director of external and international affairs until 2021, said that there was a clear parallel between the two men that explained much of the vicious backlash they endured.“The reason why [Sadiq] gets attacked, both by the far right and by Islamist extremists is that the very fact of him and his success means that they’re wrong,” she said.“He completely defies their ideology and worldview: that he can be a Londoner, a Brit, a Muslim, from immigrant parents, liberal in his politics, but religious in his beliefs. If that’s all true and it’s successful and popular, they’re wrong.“[Khan and Mamdani] are quite important people in that sense, because they’re living embodiments of the fact that you can be all of those things.”The two men, who have only spoken once after Mamdani won the Democrat ticket for the mayoral election, have clearly also recognised that there is electoral mileage in having a clear positive vision but also in being the anti-Trump candidate.Khan told the Guardian: “What do nativist populist leaders hate? They hate liberal democracies. They hate progressives. They hate multicultural society. And in London, we have all that, and it’s really successful. So you know, having a really successful liberal, progressive, multicultural city led by a mayor elected not once, not twice, three times who’s of Islamic faith and Pakistani origin must be a real sore to him, a running sore, but that’s his problem not mine.”On winning in New York, Mamdani, with typical swagger addressed the US president: “Donald Trump, since I know you‘re watching, I have four words for you – turn the volume up.” More

    • 213 Shares121 Views

      in US Politics

      Economic policy is one thing Nigel Farage can’t crib from the Donald Trump playbook | Rafael Behr

      by

      Nigel Farage loves a gamble. In his 2015 memoir, The Purple Revolution, a whole chapter is dedicated to the then Ukip leader’s appetite for risk, how he indulged it in the City and how that prepared him for a career in politics.He boasts of the time he “lost a seven-figure sum of money in the course of a morning on the zinc market” before breezing off to the pub. He waxes nostalgic about the halcyon days of freewheeling finance, before “ghastly regulators” spoiled the fun; when “terrible cock-ups” could be written off because “decimal points and all those zeros can be tricky after a three-hour lunch”.Farage the commodities trader was not a details guy. Farage the politician isn’t famously punctilious either, but the stakes are higher. He’s backing himself to be prime minister and it isn’t going to happen if voters see him as the kind of gambler who might blow the nation’s budget on a boozy bet.Dispelling that notion was the purpose of a speech by the Reform UK leader on Monday. Farage disposed of his party’s 2024 election manifesto and its promise of tax cuts worth £90bn because it was a tissue of fiscal fantasy. He didn’t put it quite like that. He observed that Britain’s sluggish growth and high debt demand sober management of public finances. He hinted that Treasury savings could one day be made by unpicking the sacred “triple lock” that guarantees perpetual real-terms rises in the state pension.Liz Truss was not named, but the new, parsimonious Farageonomics has been formulated to silence comparisons between Reform’s agenda and the budget misadventure of the Tory prime minister whose unfunded tax giveaway incinerated the nation’s financial credibility.By dabbling in macroeconomics, Farage also wants to show that he has range; that the policy repertoire extends beyond complaining about migrants. He can also complain about the Bank of England (too cautious over cryptocurrencies), the Financial Conduct Authority (captured by a “diversity agenda”), public sector pensions (“a massive liability”) and net zero (a burden on energy bills).Europe can’t be the scapegoat it once was, but the old moan can be retuned to a post-Brexit key: the opportunity of deregulation from Brussels red tape has been “squandered”. Killjoy regulators tame the animal spirits of the market. The bureaucratic state lavishes welfare on work-shy malingerers and banishes enterprising wealth-creators. The remedy is to slash disability benefits and use tax breaks to entice self-exiled non-doms back from Dubai. The fiscal details of how that might all add up – the decimal points and zeros – remain shrouded in post-prandial haze.View image in fullscreenThe trademark colour and name of Farage’s party has changed since The Purple Revolution, but the argument hasn’t evolved. The biggest difference is in his delivery, which has become less hectoring, more weary. Maybe Farage was deliberately sounding leaden to emphasise his commitment to fiscal responsibility, but he came across as a man who is boring even himself with the usual shtick.This may be why he regularly asserts that the next general election will come in 2027. There is no reason why Keir Starmer would choose to go to the country two years before the constitutional deadline, but Farage needs the vote to come as soon as possible. To complete the transition from protest vehicle to plausible prime minister, the Reform leader needs to woo uncertain voters who think he could be dangerous. That reassurance has a cost in radicalism.Momentum depends on the keenest supporters staying whipped up in a state of visceral outrage, while respectability means keeping a lid on Reform MPs’ and councillors’ most luridly racist, outlandish and violent opinions. Affecting mainstream seriousness and cultivating insurrection at the same time is a chore. The strain is showing.Economic policy poses a particular challenge because the US rightwing populist model, Farage’s inspiration in most areas, resists adaptation to British financial circumstances. Not that it hasn’t been tried. Kent county council, Reform UK’s flagship local authority, promised to implement Doge-style cuts to administrative waste, inspired by Elon Musk’s maverick assault on the US federal budgets. The result was a chaotic display of unprofessional political dysfunction.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionDoge was no triumph in Washington either, but the US context is very different. Normal rules of fiscal rectitude don’t apply – at least, not yet – to the country that issues the planet’s reserve currency and can always find buyers for its debt.This “exorbitant privilege” extended to the world’s richest and most powerful state is what allowed Donald Trump earlier this year to implement tax cuts that will drive the US deficit up into the region of $3tn-$4tn by the end of the decade. The White House claims the budget will be self-repairing with money generated by newly stimulated growth. That’s also what Truss said. The bond market was not convinced.Trump also thinks tariffs imposed on other countries will be a substitute for domestic tax revenue. He’s wrong both conceptually and arithmetically. Tariffs are an import tax paid ultimately by US consumers, not foreigners, and the Treasury income hardly dents the deficit. But for now the absurdity of it just hangs in the air, defying economic gravity.That trick is not available to a UK prime minister. Nor is Trump’s habit of shaking down US corporate giants for equity and cash. If Reform so much as flirted with Trumponomics in an election manifesto, markets would convulse at every opinion poll putting it in the lead. Labour would correctly warn that a vote for Reform is a vote to bankrupt Britain.Farage is a gambler, not a fool. He knows he has to moderate his tone and get across some budget details. But attention to detail has never been his thing and responsibility bores him. Maybe he can win without it. He might fancy the odds on Labour continuing to flounder, the Tories failing to get their act together and that combination being enough to put him in Downing Street. And yet it is revealing how vulnerable the Reform leader obviously feels on the economy. His old script is stale, and without the Maga playbook to crib from, he really has nothing new to say – and a long time to be exposed not saying it.

      Rafael Behr is a Guardian columnist More

    • 188 Shares183 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump feels ‘very badly’ for British royal family after Prince Andrew was stripped of titles

      by

      Donald Trump has said he feels “very badly” for the British royal family after King Charles stripped his brother, Andrew, of his titles over the former prince’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, the late, convicted sex offender.The ex-Duke of York, now known as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor, will also have to move out of his long-term residence at the Royal Lodge on the Windsor estate, Buckingham Palace announced on Thursday.The decision follows anxiety within the royal household about the damage caused by continual headlines concerning Mountbatten Windsor’s friendship with the paedophile financier. The former prince has also faced allegations of sexual assault against him by one of Epstein’s victims, Virginia Giuffre.Speaking to reporters onboard Air Force One on Sunday evening, Trump – who was friends with Epstein before winning his two US presidencies – was asked about King Charles’s decision to strip Andrew of his peerages and titles.“I feel very badly,” Trump said. “It’s a terrible thing that’s happened to the family. That’s been a tragic situation. It’s too bad. I feel badly for the family.”Trump has frequently spoken of his admiration for Britain’s royal family, including during his unprecedented second state visit to the UK in September. He hailed the so-called special relationship between the US and Britain as he paid a gushing tribute to King Charles.But Trump has faced his own political woes in recent months over his own alleged relationship with Epstein, who was found dead in a New York jail cell in 2019. Before Trump was greeted by King Charles during September’s visit, several images of the US president and Epstein were projected on to Windsor Castle, with an accompanying soundtrack questioning their relationship.Meanwhile, Mountbatten Windsor has been under renewed scrutiny over his ties to Epstein after the publication of newly released emails and a posthumous memoir by Giuffre, who died by suicide in April at the age of 41. In the book, she claimed she was forced to have sex with the former prince on three occasions, including when she was 17 and also during an orgy after being trafficked by Epstein. She claimed Mountbatten Windsor “believed that having sex with me was his birthright”.Mountbatten Windsor, 65, has always denied claims he had sex with Giuffre when she was 17. He settled a civil case with her for a reported £12m ($16m) with no admission of liability.In the latest fallout from the scandal, the UK defence secretary, John Healey, said on Sunday that Mountbatten Windsor would be stripped of his last remaining naval title, which he was given in 2015.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionHe was stripped of his other honorary military titles by his mother, the late Queen Elizabeth II, in 2022 after he was sued by Giuffre.On Friday, a Democratic congressman called for Mountbatten Windsor to testify before the US House of Representatives committee that is conducting an inquiry into the government’s handling of the Epstein case.Interest in the case flared in July, after the justice department announced a much-rumored list of Epstein’s sex-trafficking clients did not exist, and it would share nothing further on the case. More

    • 188 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Britain would do well to remember where its power over China lies | Simon Jenkins

      by

      The US has backed down in its tariff war with China. Thanks to Donald Trump’s egotistical diplomacy, rare earths can again flow one way, soya beans the other, and less of the chemicals used to make fentanyl in between. No matter that the war was Trump’s own idea and seems to have been a stunt. The stunt is over. Trump has played his favourite game of dealmaker, much to the discomfort of millions.Meanwhile Britain still cannot make up its mind if China is its enemy. In 2008 British officials visited the Beijing Olympics authorities to discuss the next games in London in 2012. The government told them to “raise” human rights issues, about which the British government was most concerned. I am told the Chinese reacted with sympathy at the Britons’ embarrassment at broaching the matter, and then everyone got down to business. Soon China was a friend, certainly to David Cameron and George Osborne.Not today. China is now a much-enhanced world power, and in the eyes of some, a threat to Britain’s national security. The recent confusion over whether two British officials were Chinese spies has largely and absurdly revolved around whether the Chinese “threat” was greater to a Tory government than to a Labour one. China was clearly recruiting spies everywhere, as do most countries. It sought a huge London embassy, befriended Prince Andrew and required Boris Johnson to send two aircraft carriers to patrol the South China Sea.Pompous countries crave enemies. They have large military empires heavily reliant on them, empires fiendishly resistant to dismantling. After the fall of the Soviet Union a senior advisor to Russian leader Mikhail Gorbachev joked to American officials: “We are going to do a terrible thing to you – we are going to deprive you of an enemy.”Who is the US’s new enemy? The answer is clearly China. But as Trump has found, it is an enemy with which it is hard to come to terms. It does not send its armies overseas. As it challenges the US for world economic supremacy, it snaps the bond once thought to hold capitalism in the arms of democracy. It gets richer and richer. China’s Brics-plus alliance with India and others has overtaken the G7 in world trade. The Beijing policy expert Henry Wang even mooted this week that a China-led Brics force could police a ceasefire border in Ukraine. It would be a sensational intervention.GK Chesterton wrote that “those who appeal to the head rather than the heart … are necessarily men of violence. We speak of ‘touching’ a man’s heart, but we can do nothing to his head but hit it.” Trump could yet be that blow to the head. He is forcing Nato to ask itself what it is really about. He is telling the world not to rely on the US to police its conflicts, in the manner trumpeted by Kennedy, Johnson and the two Bush presidents. Washington may be about to turn in on itself and deny its manifest destiny to set the world to rights. After all, it was founded to turn its back on the arguments infesting the outside world.Since Britain, too, enjoyed global fantasies, it of all nations should understand this. It cannot refuse to come to terms with the new Beijing. Yes, China does terrible things to its minorities. It denies freedom of speech and neurotically spies on foreign states. In the new age of artificial intelligence, China is clearly out to rival the US.Since this rivalry will probably encompass attacks on other countries’ cybersecurity, it makes sense for any country to guard its digital space. Whether that extends to embassy buildings is a matter for experts. But clearly, to locate a foreign embassy just five minutes’ walk from a centre of global financial intelligence is a bad idea. China must understand this. Would it let MI6 erect a headquarters overlooking Tiananmen Square?Britain is no longer a superpower and must deal with superpowers, as must all second-division states. But in one respect it is unique. Its soft power is probably equal to none, notably its cultural and teaching assets. It has educated more world leaders – apparently 50 – and takes in more Chinese students than any other country including the US. It also welcomes half a million Chinese tourists a year, many drawn by aspects of British popular culture. We do not measure soft power, but its influence cannot be negligible – and is certainly profitable.It is therefore absurd that the British government is planning to splurge billions more on defending Britain from a purely notional third world war. At the same time it is slashing the budget of its overseas cultural institution, the British Council. The council is being forced to withdraw from 60 countries and sell its entire property portfolio.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe message of current events in China is simple. The world has changed from the one on which Britain has long founded its foreign and defence policy. It needs to reassess the impact its limited power may still have on the world outside. That must include getting on well with China, and not hyping it as an enemy.

      Simon Jenkins is a Guardian columnist

      Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here. More

    • 225 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      Forget diplomatic niceties: it’s beyond time Europe denounced Trump’s trashing of democracy in the US | Paul Taylor

      by

      What do you do when you discover your best friend is abusive to their partner at home? That question, or something similar, should be addressed to European leaders – and indeed to all of us in the European public space, who are watching, often speechless, as Donald Trump takes a cudgel to the institutions of American democracy.For the last nine months, European leaders have bitten their tongues, looked the other way and engaged in flattery, appeasement and wild promises to keep the US president sweet and engaged in European security. The overwhelming imperative for Trump to stand with Europe against Russia over its war on Ukraine – or at least not against us and alongside Vladimir Putin – has led them to swallow unrealistic defence spending targets and unbalanced trade terms. For what gain?No European leader has publicly contradicted Trump’s inflated claims to have ended eight wars in eight months, nor criticised his demolition of the multilateral rules-based free trade order, his assault on the United Nations, or his selective use of tariffs to pursue political vendettas around the world.The only time European leaders briefly found their voices was when JD Vance used the stage of the Munich security conference to launch a fierce attack on European democracy. Vance accused US allies of suppressing free speech and said he was more worried by “the threat from within … the retreat of Europe from some of its most fundamental values” than by any threat from Russia or China to the continent’s freedom. To underline his support for freedom of anti-immigrant hate speech, he chose to meet the leader of the far-right German AfD Alice Weidel in Munich in the midst of an election campaign, and to snub Berlin’s then-chancellor, Olaf Scholz of the Social Democrats.With millions of Americans now taking to the streets to protest against Trump’s authoritarian drift at home, isn’t it time for European leaders to speak up and assert their moral autonomy by signalling Europe’s support for democracy in the US, and for those who are trying to defend it?This is not to suggest that an expression of European dismay would have any practical effect on the dismantling of checks and balances in the US political system, the abolition of the USAID foreign aid agency, the crackdowns on universities, law firms and science, the abuse of the justice system against political enemies, or the purging of the armed forces and, most alarmingly, the deployment of the military in American cities to combat the “enemy from within”.While the US can protect security in Europe and deserves our undying gratitude for having done so for the last 80 years, Europeans cannot protect democracy in the US. They can and must, however, protect liberal democracy in Europe, which risks becoming a collateral victim of Trump’s domestic and foreign policy agenda.What happens in America doesn’t stay in America. It is often a precursor for trends in Europe. Just as the #MeToo and “woke” movements spilled over from Hollywood studios and US campuses to European film sets and universities, so the tide of illiberalism and repression rising in Washington is already washing up on European shores in countries such as Hungary and Serbia. By speaking up about Trump’s assaults on the independence of the US civil service, judiciary, legal profession, media and armed forces, and his moves to criminalise dissent, European leaders would be asserting the values of the rule of law, the separation of powers and liberal democracy that they have a duty to preserve at home.If Elon Musk can use his social media platform and the world’s biggest fortune to intervene in German elections in favour of Weidel’s far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) – or in British politics in support of convicted anti-Islam extremist Tommy Robinson – then surely we, too, can make our voices heard in US politics. We can offer support and practical cooperation to states, cities and courts that share our values, and moral support to US freedom campaigners. Our governments and regions can build partnerships on climate action, civil rights and development assistance with like-minded US states and local authorities. We can offer jobs, visas and scholarships to US scientists and academics hit by Trump’s cuts to research funding. Europe stands only to gain from a self-inflicted American brain drain.The massive No Kings protests in towns and cities across the US were fortunately peaceful, despite Trump’s deployment of armed forces in Washington DC, Los Angeles, Memphis, Portland and other cities, and the attempted mobilisation of the National Guard across 19 states. But having branded his leftwing opponents “domestic terrorists”, the risk is growing that Trump will make good on his threat to invokethe 1807 Insurrection Act and claim sweeping powers to use the military against American protesters.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe last time the US military was used for domestic policing against demonstrations was under Richard Nixon in 1970, when the National Guard shot dead four students protesting, at Kent State University in Ohio, against the draft and the US military intervention in Cambodia. An earlier precedent for the deadly use of force against peaceful protesters was in Selma, Alabama in 1965, when state and local police violently broke up civil rights marches by black Americans demanding the unhindered right to vote. On both those historic occasions, European media criticised the use of force against peaceful demonstrators, but governments on this side of the Atlantic kept their mouths shut, motivated by the principle of non-interference in the affairs of an allied state.With the administration and its billionaire buddies intervening at will in support of hate speech and its proponents in Europe and against EU digital regulation, there is no longer any justification for staying silent. On the contrary, the defence of European liberal democracy starts by recognising when it is under threat in our closest ally.

      Paul Taylor is a senior visiting fellow at the European Policy Centre More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      ICE detains British journalist after criticism of Israel on US tour

      by

      British journalist Sami Hamdi was reportedly detained on Sunday morning by federal immigration authorities at San Francisco international airport, and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (Cair) says that action is apparent retaliation for the Muslim political commentator’s criticism of Israel while touring the US.A statement from Cair said it was “a blatant affront to free speech” to detain Hamdi for criticizing Israel’s ongoing military campaign in Gaza while he engaged on a speaking tour in the US. A Trump administration official added in a separate statement that Hamdi is facing deportation.“Our attorneys and partners are working to address this injustice,” Cair’s statement said. The statement also called on US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) “to immediately account for and release Mr Hamdi”, saying his only “‘crime’ is criticizing a foreign government” that Cair accused of having “committed genocide”.The press secretary for the Department of Homeland Security, Tricia McLaughlin, wrote of Hamdi in a social media post: “This individual’s visa was revoked, and he is in ICE custody pending removal”.McLaughlin’s post also said: “Those who support terrorism and undermine American national security will not be allowed to work or visit this country.”During his tour, Hamdi spoke on Saturday at the annual gala for Cair’s chapter in Sacramento. He was expected to speak on Sunday at the gala for the Florida chapter of Cair.McLaughlin’s post about Hamdi’s detention was shared by Trump administration ally Laura Loomer, who took credit for his being taken into custody.Loomer, who has called herself a “white advocate” and a “proud Islamophobe”, has often peddled conspiracy theories such as endorsing claims that the September 11 terrorist attacks in 2001 were an “inside job”.In 2018, she infamously chained herself to Twitter’s headquarters in New York City in protest of her account being banned. Billionaire businessman Elon Musk reinstated her account after he bought the social media platform in 2022.“As a direct result of … my relentless pressure on the [state department] and Department of Homeland Security, US officials have now moved to take action against Hamdi’s visa status, and his continued presence in this country,” Loomer posted on social media.Hamdi is the latest of numerous immigrants who have been arrested and deported by ICE over pro-Palestinian views. Earlier in October, journalist Mario Guevara was deported to El Salvador after having been detailed while live streaming the massive, anti-Trump No Kings protest in June.On 30 September, a federal judge appointed during Ronald Reagan’s presidency ruled the administration’s policy to detain and deport foreign scholars over pro-Palestinian views violates the US constitution and was designed to “intentionally” chill free speech rights.The ruling is bound to be appealed, possibly all the way to the US supreme court, which is dominated by a conservative supermajority made possible by three Trump appointments. The state department, meanwhile, has said it will continue revoking visas under the policy. More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Would a written constitution save Britain from the far right? | Letters

      by

      George Monbiot is right that having a written constitution would be better than not having one if the far right takes power (We must act now: without a written constitution, Reform UK will have carte blanche to toxify our nation, 23 October). But, as he points out, it’s not a guarantee of sane government. At least 75% of what Donald Trump is doing is unconstitutional, but it’s permitted by a compliant Congress and a rubber-stamp supreme court that is suddenly discovering presidential powers in the constitution that its framers never intended. The true problem is that a large proportion of the US electorate is content to let this happen.Marina Hyde noted the same trend here – too many people are so dischuffed (some with good cause, some not) that they are willing to press the “F you” button and smash the system. In 1795, as the first US government was getting under way, the writer Samuel Miller commented that “political prosperity resides, not in the words and letters of the constitution; but in the temper, the habits, and the practices of the people”. With or without a constitution, there needs to be peaceful civic resistance to a future extremist regime until more people are persuaded that a humane and tolerant government is worth having.Peter Loschi Oldham, Greater Manchester George Monbiot advocates a written constitution to defend against the threat of Reform UK. Do we really believe that it will win 40%-plus of votes and a majority of seats in a general election? I know it may be dangerous to dismiss it as a protest vote, but I can’t believe that.I was reading an entry from Alan Bennett’s Writing Home recently, where he opined that if Labour fought an election on the state of the NHS alone it would surely win hands down. Still true. Yet it is desperate to engage Reform on its home ground. I can’t believe people think that migration and cutting public services are the country’s biggest priorities.Ray FloodDundee George Monbiot calls for a written British constitution to be created through “a citizens’ constitutional convention”, with “participatory events all over the country”. But such events are likely to be dominated by people like him – educated, activist-minded liberals – whose values would then shape the constitution. Views that clash with theirs would be excluded by a process controlled by similar voices. In wanting to make his own values permanent, Monbiot shows an instinct not unlike Nigel Farage’s – both seek to enshrine their worldviews as the national default.Nathon RaineBradford George Monbiot says we urgently need constitutional change – there is an immediate opportunity for citizens to contribute to this agenda. The public bill committee reviewing the English devolution and community empowerment bill is welcoming submissions right now. In the evidence I submitted, published on the parliamentary website, I point out how the rise of far-right extremist groups gives renewed urgency to the importance of providing constitutional protection for all elected local authorities in England.It is a simple step for such a clause to be added to the bill. I explain how countries that outperform the UK on economic, social and environmental indicators, for example, Sweden, already enjoy such protections.Robin HambletonEmeritus professor, University of the West of England More

    • 188 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Proposed UK cuts to global aid fund could lead to 300,000 preventable deaths, say charities

      by

      The UK is expected to slash its contribution to a leading aid fund combating preventable diseases, with charities warning this could lead to more than 300,000 otherwise preventable deaths.If confirmed, the anticipated 20% cut in the UK contribution to the Global Fund to Fight Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria, would be announced on the sidelines of next month’s G20 summit in South Africa, which Keir Starmer is due to attend.Aid groups said such a reduction, on top of a 30% cut to the UK contribution at the previous funding round for the group three years ago, would further risk years of progress in combating the disease after Donald Trump slashed US aid.No decision has been publicly announced before the Global Fund’s “replenishment” summit, covering 2027-29, and one government official said this did not recognise the extent of the cut predicted.However, aid groups say a proposed reduction in UK funding from £1bn to £800m is being widely discussed by senior government officials.If confirmed, it would follow a 25% reduction in UK money towards another aid organisation seen as being highly efficient in saving lives, the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation (Gavi). The eventual £1.25bn commitment over five years to Gavi was nonetheless higher than many aid agencies had feared.The Switzerland-based Global Fund is credited with helping to save tens of million of lives in combating the three diseases. One aid agency estimated a £200m cut could lead to up to 340,000 avoidable deaths and nearly 5.9 million avoidable infections over the three-year funding period.Gareth Jenkins, an executive director at Malaria No More UK, said: “The world stands on the brink of a malaria resurgence, which will be so much more likely triggered if the UK makes a cut to its contribution to the Global Fund.“In this scenario many more children will lose their lives, health systems will be overwhelmed and economies dragged down – with huge knock-on effects for UK trade and health security.”Mike Podmore, the chief executive of StopAids, said the cut “would send a terrible message”, particularly as the UK is officially co-hosting next month’s funding event.Podmore said: “Not only did the UK already make a 30% cut three years ago, but to date no host has ever reduced their commitment from their previous pledge. This would represent a serious lack of leadership and undermine the UK’s reputation and soft power.”Adrian Lovett, the UK head of the development campaign One, said the cut would “put at risk decades of progress in the fight against Aids, TB and malaria – and as diseases do not stop at borders, it would jeopardise our own health security here at home too”.Monica Harding, the Liberal Democrats’ international development spokesperson, said cutting funding as co-host would be “an indictment of our global leadership in diplomacy and development”.She said: “Stepping back now and reducing our contribution to the fund at a time when the United States is abandoning vaccination programmes wholesale would be devastating to some of the world’s most vulnerable people. It would risk undoing much of the progress we have made in the global fight against disease.”A Foreign Office spokesperson said: “The UK has not yet decided what its pledge to the Global Fund will be. We will announce this in due course.” More