US news

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares18 Views

      in Elections

      Trump hints support for fringe theory that Venezuela rigged 2020 election

      by

      Donald Trump on Sunday appeared to endorse the discredited conspiracy theory that Venezuela’s leadership controls electronic voting software worldwide and caused his 2020 election defeat to Joe Biden.White House officials have previously said that Trump’s increasingly bellicose policy toward Venezuela is driven by concerns about migration and the drug trade. But the president’s new comment, made on Truth Social, hints that his hostility to Venezuela may also be based on an outlandish, implausible theory ruled to be false by a judge in 2023.Fox News paid $787m in 2023 to Dominion Voting to settle a lawsuit that was based in part on identical claims about Venezuela’s supposed role in the 2020 election.The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment about Trump’s remarks.Trump’s post came two days after the Guardian reported that Trump’s Department of Justice has been extensively interviewing conspiracists who are pushing the idea that Venezuela controls voting companies and flips votes to the candidates it favors.The US attorney in Puerto Rico, W Stephen Muldrow, has repeatedly interviewedthe former CIA officer Gary Berntsen and Venezuelan expatriate Martin Rodil, who claim to have proof of the scheme and the two have also briefed a taskforce out of Tampa. Berntsen, and author Ralph Pezzullo, were also guests on the podcast of far-right media personality Lara Logan on Friday.Trump on Sunday reposted the Logan podcast segment, and wrote:“We must focus all of our energy and might on ELECTION FRAUD!!”Trump did not specifically mention Venezuela, but the podcast was a rehash of the allegations and was built around a self published book called Stolen Elections, which recounts the theory.The post came as Trump has sent extensive military resources, including a navy aircraft carrier, to the region.On Monday the administration ramped up pressure, designating the Venezuelan-based so-called Cartel de los Soles as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. In July the treasury department had already named it a “specially designated global terrorist”.An indictment filed in 2020 alleged that the Venezuelan president, Nicolás Maduro, heads the reputed organization.“Who knows what the process is inside the White House,” said David M Rowe, a political science professor at Kenyon College who specializes in national security. “If it captures Trump’s attention, my understanding is it is part of the process. Trump needs to find justification in his own mind for war.”Rowe said that narcoterrorism claims about Venezuela have not resonated with Trump’s America First base, which has been reluctant to support overseas intervention. “As a kind of casus belli, a reason for war, narcoterrorism looks extremely weak. An attack on the American electoral system is stronger. If he can argue to the Maga movement that they did intervene in the US political system, it’s a stronger case for war,” he said.Berntsen, the ex-CIA officer promoting the theory, was asked by the Guardian on Monday about the president’s apparent affirmation of his theory, and replied: “The President knows this is NOT A CONSPIRACY THEORY, he knows the truth, evidence in possession of DOJ.”A Venezuelan opposition figure who supports strong action against Maduro but is dismissive of the election claims told the Guardian on condition of anonymity that proponents of the conspiracy theory are trying to take advantage of access to the administration. “I think there is someone inside the White House that these people have access to. They might be overselling this crap and there are people who refuse to let go of the 2020 election conspiracy bullshit.” More

    • 188 Shares23 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump wants to revive the Rush Hour franchise. Is he eyeing a return to Hollywood?

      by

      It is said that by 328BC, having made empires kneel to him, Alexander the Great wept … for there were no more worlds to conquer.Similarly, having solved the Middle East and Ukraine issues with only a couple of technicalities to iron out and put an end to so many other wars as well, Donald Trump may also be tempted to sob at having run out of important tasks. And yet, just as he is about to kneel in anguish on the Oval Office carpet, he is apparently perking up at the thought of one more mighty challenge.He can revive the Rush Hour movie franchise!Larry Ellison, the largest shareholder of Paramount Skydance – which, earlier this year, as Paramount Global, settled a lawsuit with Trump not dissimilar to the one he’s recently threatened the BBC with – has reportedly been leant on by the commander in chief to revive the affectionately remembered Rush Hour films – the knockabout buddy cop adventures starring Chris Tucker and Jackie Chan.A fourth Rush Hour film is reportedly a central part of Trump’s second-term project – a dream of reintroducing some old-fashioned masculinity into Hollywood culture and it would moreover create some employment for that unlovely Tinseltown hombre who directed the first three Rush Hour films – Brett Ratner.Ratner was accused of sexual assault in 2017, allegations which he denied. But, with privileged access, has now directed a $40m documentary about Melania Trump – the kind of film that can only be described as “soft-hitting”.Does the world really need or want Rush Hour 4? If it did, surely we would have it by now? Market forces in the brutally commercial Darwinian jungle of franchise cinema would have created Rush Hour 4. Or at the very least rebooted it for streaming TV with a younger cast and maybe David Harbour as the glowering police chief.The idea of the Rush Hour series is a quirky odd-couple pairing of two cops: Chris Tucker’s James Carter from the LAPD and Jackie Chan’s Yan Naing Lee from the Hong Kong Police Force. They both get to play “fish out of water” comedy – the water being each other’s culture – with some very broad and arguably problematic sexual comedy. And, of course, there are plenty of fights, with Tucker giving us some all-American punch-ups and Chan busting out some uproarious martial arts moves.It’s all very undemanding, stereotypical stuff and Donald absolutely loves it. Could it be that Rush Hour 4 will feature one of his wooden cameos, or something more? Or it could be that the president is – like Arnold Schwarzenegger – starting to envision a post-political return to the glamorous world of show business. Perhaps he will wish to produce as well as star.But there is another possibility. Recently, Trump played host to New York’s Democratic socialist mayor-elect, Zohran Mamdani; the meeting that many thought could only end in the kind of tongue-lashing that the president notoriously gave Volodymyr Zelenskyy on their first encounter. But no. It was all smiles. A very unexpected bromance seemed to be in the offing. Could it be that Trump likes the idea of Rush Hour because it’s so … inclusive? A black guy and an Asian guy united under the American banner. Has Mamdani finally softened Trump’s worldview? If so, and if Rush Hour 4 is the result, well, it could have been worse. More

    • 175 Shares18 Views

      in US Politics

      Why did young men move left in this month’s US elections? | Cory Alpert

      by

      Just a few months ago, it seemed that the political landscape was changing permanently, with young people shifting right – especially young men. Democrats spun up a vortex of efforts to win them back, but they often appeared to be flailing. This month’s elections, however, told a different story.Young men in the US face a political identity crisis. It should not be controversial to say that the world that many were promised as children has not come to fruition. Two decades of war and a turbulent economy have combined with a massively changing workforce. Young men’s disaffection should come as no real surprise.An entire ecosystem of hucksters has emerged to take advantage of these young people, peddling a dark vision that offers violence and control as a response to a changing world. Meanwhile, the Democratic party failed to imagine a political future that included these young men. In Democrats’ parlance, anyone who took one step in that direction was hopelessly lost, unable to see the beautiful egalitarian future that we could create together.There is a fine line here. I am not arguing for the redemption, welcome, or whitewashing of the people who have peddled this bleak reality. But we can and should build a political coalition that includes this generation, that doesn’t leave them out in the cold, only to find a home in the most bleak fringes of a political movement that tells them that a lust for control over other people, especially women, is the only way to find meaning.On the left, we tell ourselves the story of our own vaunted sympathy, and yet we assign only blame to the young men who do something similar, looking for community and only finding it among the most opportunistic and dangerous political movements. We have done little to welcome them in.And while Democrats had solid policies and economic plans, Republicans, backed by an army of digital content, were able to take the mantle of running on the economy and framing the left as cultural warriors out of touch with the majority of Americans.But the good news is that this month’s elections in Virginia, New Jersey and New York City show Democrats have learned a lesson.The three marquee campaigns of this year were all remarkably similar, despite coming from different parts of the ideological spectrum. Their messaging was relentlessly focused on affordability – how expensive and difficult life has become for the working and middle-class people of their communities. Their solutions covered a wide ideological range, but the focus remained the same.Most young men, like most trans people and Black people and immigrants and everyone else, are dealing with housing that has skyrocketed in price, especially compared with our parents’ generations. Instead of having one career in our lifetimes, we now have to continually seek new jobs. Living independently as an adult is much more expensive and complicated now than it has been. These affordability campaigns gave young men something to do about those pressures rather than ceding that frustration to the most cynical actors.Undoubtedly this conversation is easier to have when Donald Trump is taking three steps every day to dismantle the economy. There’s a real sense that the economy is getting worse. That it’s more difficult to pay bills and keep food on the table, especially when Republicans are, quite literally, ensuring that 42 million people cannot afford to keep food on their table by refusing to fund Snap during their government shutdown.Republicans got distracted, trying to defend Trump and also trying to repeat his playbook of tying Democrats to the culture war of the moment. But without Trump’s singular ability to control a media narrative, Republicans with far less political talent and capital floundered, making themselves look weak and silly in the process.The political miracle is that this ruthless focus on affordability and cost of living may have brought in many of those same young men who had followed Trump a year ago. In Virginia and New Jersey, men under 30 broke for their new Democratic governors, with about six in 10 supporting Spanberger, according to the AP. In New York, young men went for Zohran Mamdani over Andrew Cuomo by a margin of nearly 40 points, according to a Tufts Circle analysis.It turns out that these young men are not completely lost to us. We just failed to imagine a reality where they could be in our camp.Affordability broke through amid the longest government shutdown in US history, as consumer prices were rising ever higher thanks in part to Trump’s tariffs. For all of his bluster, eventually the economic reality becomes an unavoidable political crisis for anyone not far gone in his cult of personality who has to pay their bills.Mikie Sherrill in New Jersey, Abigail Spanberger in Virginia, and Mamdani in New York City showed us that the frustration that every working and middle-class person feels could be directed into a political coalition that sees marginalized people as people also affected by the greed and corruption that has made life unaffordable for so many.Young men, like everyone else, are looking for a politics that can make life a little better. Democrats are finally figuring out how to offer them that chance.

      Cory Alpert is a PhD researcher at the University of Melbourne looking at the impact of AI on democracy. He served in the Biden-Harris administration for three years More

    • 150 Shares27 Views

      in US Politics

      Epstein survivors fighting for document release find themselves caught in party war

      by

      As the Jeffrey Epstein scandal has once again become a millstone around the neck of the Trump administration and forced a rare split between the US president and his Maga base, one group has gained little attention for its steadfast commitment to keeping the story alive beyond politics: Epstein’s victims.Despite the frequent efforts of lawmakers to harness the scandal for political purposes, the victims of Epstein’s sex-trafficking operation have been a strong voice in keeping the focus on the impact of sexual abuse and on Epstein’s wide circle of allies across all sides of the US political and cultural landscape.Their effort was clearly on display last week when more than a dozen women visited the US Capitol to advocate for a vote to release the federal government’s files on the disgraced financier and convicted sex offender. Trump had opposed the vote but reversed position in the face of a rebellion in his own party.In a video from World Without Exploitation, they held up photos of themselves as young women. Some recited their ages when they first met Epstein. “It’s time to bring the secrets out of the shadows. It’s time to shine a light into the darkness,” they said, adding in a text message: “Five administrations and we’re still in the dark.”In the event, the measure passed both houses of Congress and was quickly signed into law by Trump, giving the justice department 30 days to make all of its unclassified records, documents, and communications related to Epstein and co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell publicly available.But, despite the efforts of the victims, politics is still being played with the issue.Some Epstein survivors who spoke at the Capitol were unconvinced that Trump’s turnaround to support the Epstein Files Transparency Act was genuine. “I can’t help but to be skeptical of what the agenda is,” Haley Robson said. “So with that being said, I want to relay this message to you: I am traumatized. I am not stupid.”Faced with a rebellion on the release issue by congressional Republican representatives Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert and Nancy Mace, the president soon returned to the theme that Epstein is an issue that should scare Democrats. “The Democrats were Epstein’s friends, all of them,” Trump said prior to the vote. “And it’s a hoax, the whole thing is a hoax.”In a video announcing her surprise decision to leave Congress, Greene explicitly referred to the Epstein drama as an example of entrenched political forces that shaped her decision. “ Standing up for American women who were raped at 14 years old, trafficked and used by rich, powerful men should not result in me being called a traitor and threatened by the president of the United States,” she said, referring to Trump.There have emerged dissenting voices on whether either political party can be trusted on the Epstein issue and if either truly serves the purpose of exposing and preventing the exploitation of women, including the politically active Epstein victims. When one Democrat in Congress was revealed to have been texting with Epstein during a hearing, she escaped censure as her party strongly opposed any measure to punish her.“All you have to do is close your eyes, wake up, the wind blows in the other direction, and suddenly it’s the other party that claims to the party of women that cares about abuse,” said Wendy Murphy, a former sex crimes prosecutor who serves as a professor of sexual violence law at New England Law Boston.“There is zero consistency because we know it’s across party lines where the abuse comes from. This is really a male problem and not party or political problem. Neither party actually cares about women and neither party actually cares about victims.”Epstein victim Rina Oh, who attended the Capitol gathering last week, said: “I feel stuck in the middle. Everyone is pulling me from each side and I refuse to side with anyone.“I just want criminals who prey on children brought to justice, and that’s apolitical, because I don’t think predators pick out victims based on what political party they belong to,” she added.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionIn a post on X last week, Murphy stated it plainly: “Anyone who thinks this is a left-right issue is a fool.”After all, one of the main consequences of a recent release of an Epstein document trove was that former Bill Clinton treasury secretary Larry Summers was forced to step back from board positions and teaching at Harvard after damaging correspondence with the sex abuser was released.And, of course, misogyny crosses party lines very easily.Murphy points to incidences including the Anita Hill hearings when Democrats, under committee chair Joe Biden, worked to smear her during confirmation hearings for then supreme court nominee Clarence Thomas in 1991.In the ongoing partisan political morass of the Epstein case, there is a political benefit to keeping the pot boiling because both sides are in trouble, Murphy says.When the government-held documents are released sometime over the next month, she predicted, “the odds of the public getting what it thinks it’s getting are effectively zero. Continuing to boil the pot should make all of us wonder what’s actually going on behind the scenes.”She added: “We’ll probably never know. Anyone who thinks they know is just naive.” More

    • 200 Shares27 Views

      in US Politics

      The ‘war on terror’ has killed millions. Trump is reviving it in Venezuela | Daniel Mendiola

      by

      For the last two months, US forces have amassed outside Venezuela and carried out a series of lethal strikes on civilian boats. The Trump White House has ordered these actions in the name of fighting “narco-terrorists” – a label apparently applicable to anyone suspected of participating in drug trafficking near Latin American coastlines. More than 80 people have already been killed in these pre-emptive strikes, and war hawks are calling for expanded military action to depose the Venezuelan president, Nicolás Maduro.Watching this play out, I am reminded of a passage from the geographer Stuart Elden’s award-winning 2009 book, Terror and Territory. In discussing how to study the “war on terror”, Elden observed that it did not make sense to study terrorism as something unique to non-state actors.“States clearly operate in ways that terrify,” Elden said. “The terrorism of non-state actors is a very small proportion of terrorism taken as a whole, with states having killed far more than those who oppose them.”A large body of research supports this claim.Researchers with Brown University’s Costs of War project, for example, have found that US-led interventions in the “war on terror” from 2001 to 2023 killed over 400,000 civilians in direct war violence. They also show evidence that when considering indirect deaths – for example, people in war zones dying from treatable medical conditions after clean water or medical infrastructure was destroyed – death toll estimates rise to at least 3.5m. Moreover, even beyond direct war zones, a recent study in the Lancet found that sanctions during the same period were also extremely deadly, causing as many as 500,000 excess deaths per year from 2010 to 2021.In short, we have already spent decades terrorizing civilian populations around the world in the name of fighting terror. This is well known, and yet the Trump White House is reinvigorating the “war on terror” anyway. Still more, it is trying to do it with even less oversight on the president’s license to kill than has been exercised in the past.While on the surface Trump’s second term has been characterized by a disorienting barrage of executive orders and culture war polemics, the administration has in fact been running a cohesive authoritarian playbook aimed at conferring near limitless powers to the presidency. These concerted efforts have played out in numerous policy arenas from immigration, to higher education, to economics, to even determining who is a citizen.Consistent with this pattern, Trump is asserting the same unchecked authority over the violent capacities of the US military.As I have written previously, a key tactic of the Trump White House has been eviscerating the oversight of the courts, making it impossible to impede the executive branch from continuing to break the law, even when it gets caught red-handed. However, another frequent strategy – perhaps less visible, though equally anathema to a system of limited government – has been to simply sidestep oversight by asserting that, even when law in theory places limits on presidential power, the exercise of this power is still “unquestioned”; according to this thinking, the executive branch apparently has the prerogative to interpret what those limits are.Of course, in a serious constitutional system, this would be preposterous. In practice, there would be no limits to presidential powers, rendering the constitution moot. Nonetheless, this is exactly the type of power that Trump is asserting over the military, both at home and abroad.The court case related to Trump’s efforts to suppress protests in Chicago using troops sheds critical light on how this strategy works. Federal law allows a president to deploy troops domestically if there is a “rebellion” that is making it impossible to “execute the laws of the United States”. Accordingly, some lower court judges have reasonably blocked the deployment of troops, finding that the administration has been unable to prove that these conditions were met. Just look at the facts: protests had on average only been about 50 people at a time, and they have clearly not made law enforcement impossible since ICE – the federal agency being protested – has vastly increased arrests during this time.True to form, however, Trump’s lawyers have argued that these details are irrelevant. In their view, there is actually no need to prove a rebellion is happening because the president has the authority to define rebellion anyway. In other words, the law might impose limits on how the president can use the military, but the president gets to decide what those limits are.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionWhile lower courts have so far prevented this nakedly authoritarian legal theory from taking hold, the argument itself is still massively consequential: first, because an extremely Trump-friendly supreme court will hear the case soon and could very well endorse these claims; and second, because this is essentially the same logic that the Trump administration has used to justify killing civilians off the Latin American coast. Indeed, just as the Trump administration is asserting the exclusive right to define “rebellion” regardless of the facts on the ground – thus eliminating any real limits on the power to deploy troops domestically – the Trump White House is similarly asserting the unencumbered right to define “terrorist”, along with the corresponding right to take deadly action with virtually no outside oversight.In public statements, Trump has defended treating drug smugglers as terrorists by citing the harm done by drug overdoses, in effect suggesting that drug traffickers are directly killing US citizens. Ignoring the fact that Venezuela doesn’t produce fentanyl, the main driver of overdoses in the US, Trump has even gone so far as to float the mathematically impossible claim that each boat strike has saved 25,000 lives. Of course, officials have provided zero public evidence that the boats attacked were carrying drugs at all, much less tried to explain how blowing up boats would have any impact at all on drug abuse in the US.But again, why would they? The whole point of the argument is that such facts don’t matter because Trump simply has the unchecked authority to use lethal force. In fact, the justice department has suggested that officials do not even have to publicly list which foreign organizations are classified as killable terrorists, much less provide evidence to support this designation.Ultimately, Trump’s actions in and around Venezuela are best understood as a new phase in the “war on terror” – an ongoing tragedy that has already had deadly consequences for millions – though now with even fewer guardrails. The bottom line: Venezuela is not just some chess piece in an abstract game of geopolitics, and we are doing a disservice to humanity if we let war hawks in government and media spin it this way. We are talking about real people, and as very recent history shows, countless lives are at stake.

      Daniel Mendiola is a professor of Latin American history and migration studies at Vassar College More

    • 175 Shares32 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump news at a glance: Democrats say they won’t be intimidated by president’s threats

      by

      Democratic senator Mark Kelly has said he refuses to be intimidated after US president Donald Trump accused a group of Democrats of “seditious behaviour punishable by death” in a series of social media posts.Kelly, one of several Democrats who released a message to military and intelligence personnel that they are not obligated to follow “illegal orders”, reiterated his call on Sunday, saying that Trump was “trying to intimidate us”. Kelly called on congressional Republicans to reject Trump’s threats.Minnesota Democrat Amy Klobuchar condemned what she said was a “dangerous” response from the president.“What is dangerous is the president of the United States threatening these members of Congress with death,” she told Meet the Press on Sunday. “Literally, saying that they should be executed.”Here are the key stories at a glance.US senator slams Republicans’ silence on Trump’s violent threats to DemocratsSenator Mark Kelly on Sunday urged congressional Republicans to publicly reject Trump’s threats against him and five other Democratic lawmakers who stated that military personnel are not obligated to follow illegal commands.“We’ve heard very little, basically crickets, from Republicans in the United States Congress about what the president has said about hanging members of Congress,” Kelly, of Arizona, said on CBS’s Face the Nation.Read the full storyMamdani reiterates Trump is a ‘fascist’ days after cordial meetingZohran Mamdani has reiterated his view that the US president is a “fascist” and a “despot” just days after the pair had a surprisingly cordial meeting at the White House.Speaking to NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday, the New York City mayor-elect was asked if he still considered Trump a threat to democracy. “Everything that I’ve said in the past I continue to believe,” Mamdani replied. “I think it is important in our politics that we don’t shy away from where we have disagreements.”Read the full storyMany prominent Maga personalities on X are based outside US, new tool revealsMany of the most influential personalities in the “Make America great again” (Maga) movement on X are based outside of the US, including in Russia, Nigeria and India, a new transparency feature on the social media site has revealed.The new tool – called “about this account” – became available on Friday to users of the Elon Musk-owned platform. It allows anyone to see where an account is located, when it joined the platform, how often its username has been changed and how the X app was downloaded.Read the full story‘That doesn’t exist’: Doge reportedly quietly disbanded ahead of scheduleThe “department of government efficiency” (Doge) has apparently been dissolved with eight months still remaining on its contract, ending a drawn-out campaign of invading federal agencies and firing thousands of federal workers.“That doesn’t exist,” the office of personnel management (OPM) director Scott Kupor told Reuters earlier this month when asked about Doge’s status, adding that it was no longer a “centralized entity”.Read the full storyWhat else happened today:

      Jeffrey Epstein survivor condemns Trump for calling file release fight a “hoax”.

      ICE detained teenaged US citizen during school lunch break, family says
      Catching up? Here’s what happened on 22 November 2025. More

    • 138 Shares24 Views

      in US Politics

      US senator slams Republicans’ silence on Trump’s violent threats to Democrats

      by

      Senator Mark Kelly on Sunday urged congressional Republicans to publicly reject Trump’s threats against him and five other Democratic lawmakers who stated that military personnel are not obligated to follow illegal commands.“We’ve heard very little, basically crickets, from Republicans in the United States Congress about what the president has said about hanging members of Congress,” Kelly, of Arizona, said on CBS’s Face the Nation.Kelly noted that both Donald Trump and Republican legislators had previously asked Democrats to moderate their language after the fatal shooting of conservative activist Charlie Kirk in September, asking: “What happened to that?”“His words carry tremendous weight, more so than anybody else in the country, and he should be aware of that, and because of what he says, there is now increased threats against us,” Kelly said of Trump’s accusations.Earlier in the week, Kelly and five other Democratic members of Congress released a video on X directed toward active-duty military and intelligence workers, stating: “Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders.” All six participants have backgrounds in military or intelligence service. Kelly spent 25 years in the navy.Trump reacted on social media on Thursday, writing that the lawmakers should be arrested and tried for “seditious behavior”. In another post, he declared “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!” and reposted a message saying “HANG THEM, GEORGE WASHINGTON WOULD!”In response, House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries, Democratic whip Katherine Clark, and Democratic caucus chair Pete Aguilar issued a joint statement condemning Trump’s remarks, emphasizing that “political violence has no place in America.”Kelly reiterated on Sunday that the president is “trying to intimidate us” and added: “I’m not going to be intimidated.”Minnesota Democrat Amy Klobuchar, in an interview on Meet the Press on Sunday, condemned Trump’s “dangerous” posts. “What is dangerous is the president of the United States threatening these members of Congress with death. Literally, saying that they should be executed,” Klobuchar said.Vice-president JD Vance also weighed in on Sunday, posting on X: “If the president hasn’t issued illegal orders, then members of Congress telling the military to defy the president is by definition illegal.” More

    • 138 Shares32 Views

      in US Politics

      Mamdani reiterates Trump is a ‘fascist’ just days after cordial meeting

      by

      Zohran Mamdani has reiterated his view that Donald Trump is a “fascist” and a “despot” just days after the pair had a surprisingly cordial meeting at the White House.Speaking to NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday, the New York City mayor-elect was asked if he still considered Trump a threat to democracy. “Everything that I’ve said in the past I continue to believe,” Mamdani replied. “I think it is important in our politics that we don’t shy away from where we have disagreements.”In his victory speech on 4 November, Mamdani said New York had demonstrated it could be the “light” in a “moment of political darkness”, taking aim at the president. “If there is any way to terrify a despot, it is by dismantling the very conditions that allowed him to accumulate power,” Mamdani said. “So, Donald Trump, since I know you’re watching, I have four words for you: turn the volume up.”Given the intense rhetoric Trump has used against Mamdani in recent months, including calling him a “communist lunatic”, the White House meeting was highly anticipated and expected to be contentious. Instead, it produced warm words, with Trump even saying, “I feel very confident that he can do a good job” and adding, “I think he’s going to surprise some conservative people, actually.”The pair agreed to work together on housing, food prices and cost-of-living concerns, and bonded over a mutual love for New York. “We agreed a lot more than I would have thought,” Trump said in the Oval Office, sometimes jumping in to shield Mamdani from aggressive questioning from the press.“It was a conversation where we spoke about the need to deliver on this agenda,” Mamdani told NBC on Sunday, saying that he appreciated how the president took the time to tour him around the cabinet and point out the portraits of previous presidents. “We were not shy about the places of disagreement about the politics that has brought us to this moment and we also wanted to focus on what it could look like to deliver on.”Mamdani also addressed questions about his decision to retain police commissioner Jessica Tisch, initially hired by former mayor Eric Adams. “She has driven down crime across the five boroughs while starting to uproot corruption that was endemic in the top echelons of that department under Mayor Adams,” Mamdani said.Kevin Hasset, director of the National Economic Council, which works with the treasury secretary to push forward Trump’s economic agenda, praised the move on Sunday and said the White House was pleased with it.“We are really reassured that [Mamdani has] kept the police commissioner. In previous administrations in New York, we have seen law and order really go south,” Hassett told host Jake Tapper on CNN’s State of the Union.“Do the mayor-elect and I agree on everything? No, we don’t,” wrote Tisch in an email to rank-and-file officers, according to the New York Times. She has supported Adams’s plan to hire 5,000 more uniformed officers, whereas Mamdani has said he wants to keep the head count the same. More