US politics

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares101 Views

      in US Politics

      Immigration agents turned away after trying to enter LA elementary schools

      by

      Immigration officials attempted to enter two Los Angeles elementary schools this week, but were turned away by school administrators. The incident appears to be the Trump administration’s first attempt to enter the city’s public schools since amending regulations to allow immigration agents to enter “sensitive areas” such as schools.At a Thursday press conference, the Los Angeles unified school district superintendent, Alberto Carvalho, confirmed that agents from the Department of Homeland Security were seeking five students in first through sixth grades.Officials attempted to enter two south Los Angeles schools, Lillian Street elementary and Russell elementary, but were turned away after the schools’ principals asked to see their identification. Los Angeles Unified is a sanctuary district and does not cooperate with federal immigration agencies.The news comes as the Trump administration has escalated its attacks against international students and ramped up efforts to deport undocumented and documented immigrants alike. In January, homeland security rescinded Biden administration guidelines preventing its agents from entering “sensitive areas” including schools and churches.“Criminals will no longer be able to hide in America’s schools and churches to avoid arrest,” former acting homeland security secretary Benjamine Huffman said in a statement announcing the new policy. “The Trump administration will not tie the hands of our brave law enforcement, and instead trusts them to use common sense.”In response, LA Unified began distributing “Know Your Rights” cards to students and the school police department issued a statement saying it would not “assist or engage in immigration compliance checks, immigration enforcement activity, or ICE-related task force operations”.“I’m still mystified as to how a first-, second-, third-, fourth- or sixth-grader would pose any type of risk to the national security of our nation,” Carvalho said. “Schools are places for learning. Schools are places for understanding. Schools are places for instruction. Schools are not places of fear.”The superintendent told reporters that the immigration agents who arrived at the Los Angeles elementary schools said they wanted to see the “students to determine their well-being” as unaccompanied minors, and that they had received authorization to speak with students from their caretakers. He added that the district later spoke with the students’ caretakers and learned that was untrue.“DHS is leading efforts to conduct welfare checks on these children to ensure that they are safe and not being exploited, abused, and sex trafficked,” the homeland security department said in a statement to Fox 11 Los Angeles.“Unlike the previous administration, President Trump and Secretary Noem take the responsibility to protect children seriously and will continue to work with federal law enforcement to reunite children with their families. In less than 70 days, Secretary Noem and Secretary Kennedy have already reunited nearly 5,000 unaccompanied children with a relative or safe guardian.”Carvalho contested that, and said as an educator who entered the United States without authorization at the age of 17 himself, he felt “beyond my professional responsibility, a moral responsibility to protect these students”.The incident has drawn attention from congressional lawmakers, including Pasadena Democrat Judy Chu.“I’m absolutely incensed that DHS agents would try to enter elementary schools this week, and I’m so grateful to the brave LAUSD administrators who denied them entry. These are children who should be learning to read and write, not cowering in fear of being ripped away from their homes,” she said.“I’m concerned parents may keep their children home rather than risk sending them to school. As Angelenos, we must lock arms together in moments like these to protect kids from deportation squads and protect schools from Trump’s campaign of terror.” More

    • 125 Shares96 Views

      in US Politics

      US House panel drops inquiry into Northwestern’s law school clinics

      by

      The US House education and workforce committee withdrew an investigation into Northwestern University’s law school clinics after professors there sued and alleged that the inquiry violated their constitutional free speech rights.The professors secured what amounted to a legal victory for them on Thursday, when the House committee withdrew its investigative requests with respect to the university and its law school’s Bluhm Legal Clinic program on Thursday.Citing reports of antisemitism on campus, House committee members had sought budget and personnel records over claims that the university was using “taxpayer-supported institutional resources for troubling purposes”.The mention of reported antisemitism on campus was contained in a 27 March letter that the committee sent to justify the investigation and was addressed to Northwestern University’s chairperson, Peter Barris, as well as its president, Michael Schill.“The Community Justice and Civil Rights Clinic at Northwestern’s Pritzker School of Law (Northwestern Law) is providing free legal representation in a civil suit to the organizers of an anti-Israel blockade of highway traffic to Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport,” the House committee’s letter said. “This blockade resulted in the arrest of 40 participants. The fact that Northwestern, a university supported by billions in federal funds, would dedicate its resources to support this illegal, antisemitic conduct raises serious questions.”The letter also alluded to “broader concerns about the institutionalization of leftwing political activism at Northwestern Law”, adding that the school’s Community Justice and Civil Rights Clinic, led by the law professor Sheila Bedi, was using “Northwestern’s name and resources to engage in progressive-left political advocacy”.According to the letter, the House committee demanded that the university provide all written policies, procedures and guidance related to the function of the law school’s legal clinics, a detailed budget for the Bluhm Legal Clinic, and a list of its sources of funding. The committee also demanded the university turn over a list of all the Community Justice and Civil Rights Clinic’s payments to people or groups not employed by Northwestern and any of its clinics and centers since 2020.In addition, the committee asked to review all hiring materials and performance reviews for Bedi.In response, Bedi and a fellow law professor, Lynn Cohn, sued the committee, asserting that its investigation violated their and their clients’ constitutional rights to free speech and due process, among others.The committee subsequently withdrew its request – a move that a Thursday press release from the Center for Constitutional Rights described as a “victory for academic freedom, the rule of law, and bedrock constitutional principles”.In a statement accompanying the press release, Bedi said: “I filed this suit to defend my clients’ rights to representation, my students’ rights to learn, and my right to teach. But today’s decision won’t stop the federal government’s attacks on universities and the legal profession.“Educators and institutions must stand united to protect our students, our communities, and each other … We teach, we advocate, and we stand with communities demanding justice. That’s why Congress is targeting us.”Echoing similar sentiments, Cohn said: “Uniting to support the fundamental rights of all people can still be done even in these turbulent times. We hope others will join this effort – this legal challenge is far from over. Clinical legal educators won’t back down. We will keep doing what we do best: centering students, defending our clients, and standing firm in defense of justice and the rule of law.”Donald Trump’s administration on Tuesday froze $790m for Northwestern University as part of the president’s increasing crackdowns on students and faculty members across US colleges who have expressed their opposition toward Israel’s deadly war on Gaza.In response to the federal crackdowns, more than 1,000 faculty members, alumni, students and attorneys have signed letters expressing their support for Northwestern University.One letter signed by hundreds of alumni in part said they were troubled “that the federal government would target legal scholars who have dedicated their careers to upholding constitutional liberties”, WWTW reports. More

    • 150 Shares85 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump insists tariff war is ‘doing really well’ as recession fears mount

      by

      Donald Trump insisted his trade war with much of the world was “doing really well” despite mounting fears of recession and as Beijing hit back and again hiked tariffs on US exports to China.As the US president said his aggressive tariffs strategy was “moving along quickly”, a closely watched economic survey revealed that US consumer expectations for price growth had soared to a four-decade high.The White House maintains that the US economy is on the verge of a “golden age”, however, and that dozens of countries – now facing a US tariff of 10% after Trump shelved plans to impose higher rates until July – are scrambling to make deals.“The phones have been ringing off the hook to make deals,” the press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, told reporters on Friday.Beijing raised Chinese tariffs on US products to 125% on Friday – the latest salvo of its escalating trade dispute with Washington – and accused Trump of “unilateral bullying and coercion”.“Even if the US continues to impose even higher tariffs, it would no longer have any economic significance, and would go down as a joke in the history of world economics,” the Chinese finance ministry said.Few investors were laughing. US government bonds – typically seen as one of the world’s safest financial assets – continued to be sold off, and were on course for their biggest weekly loss since 2019. The dollar also fell against a basket of currencies, and was down against the euro and the pound.Leading stock indices paused for breath on Friday after days of torrid trading. The FTSE 100 rose 0.6% in London. The S&P 500 increased 1.8% and the Dow Jones industrial average gained 1.6% in New York.The S&P 500 finished an extraordinarily volatile week for markets up 5.7%, its biggest weekly gain since November 2023.“We are doing really well on our TARIFF POLICY,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform. “Very exciting for America, and the World!!! It is moving along quickly. DJT”Some of Wall Street’s most influential figures were unconvinced. “I think we’re very close, if not in, a recession now,” Larry Fink, CEO of the investment giant BlackRock, told CNBC. Far from providing certainty, the 90-day pause on higher US tariffs on much of the world “means longer, more elevated uncertainty”, he added.Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase, the US’s largest bank, said the world’s largest economy was facing “considerable turbulence” as a key measure of consumer confidence tumbled to its lowest level since the Covid-19 pandemic – and the second-lowest level on record.US consumer sentiment has dropped 11% to 50.8 this month, ahead the pause announced by Trump earlier this week, according to a regularly survey compiled by the University of Michigan.Expectations for inflation meanwhile surged, with respondents indicating they are bracing for prices to rise by 6.7% over the coming year – the survey’s highest year-ahead inflation expectation reading since 1981.“There is great optimism in this economy,” Leavitt claimed at the White House briefing when asked about the survey. “Trust in President Trump. He knows what he’s doing. This is a proven economic formula.”Trump won back the White House last November by pledging to rapidly bring down prices – something he has claimed, in recent weeks, is already happening. US inflation climbed at an annual rate of 2.4% last month, according to official data.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“Consumers have spiralled from anxious to petrified,” observed Samuel Tombs, chief US economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics. He added, however, that a bipartisan divide – with Democrats growing more pessimistic, while Republicans become more upbeat – suggests that people are allowing their political views to cloud their economic confidence.The US’s top markets watchdog is facing demands from senior Democrats to launch an investigation into alleged insider trading and market manipulation after Trump declared on social media that it was “A GREAT TIME TO BUY!!!” hours before announcing Wednesday’s climbdown on tariffs.Days of erratic policymaking constructed a rollercoaster week for markets, with the S&P 500 dropping 12% in just four sessions, before surging back almost 10% in a single day after the administration pulled back from imposing higher tariffs on most countries, except China, which is facing a 145% tariff on exports to the US.In a letter to the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Senate Democrats including Elizabeth Warren and Chuck Schumer wrote: “It is unconscionable that as American families are concerned about their financial security during this economic crisis entirely manufactured by the President, insiders may have actively profited from the market volatility and potentially perpetrated financial fraud on the American public.”Tesla meanwhile stopped taking orders in China for two models it previously imported from the US, as companies scramble to adapt to prohibitive tariffs imposed in Trump’s trade war.The manufacturer, run by Trump’s close ally Elon Musk, removed “order now” buttons on its Chinese website for its Model S saloon and Model X sports utility vehicle.Tesla did not give any indication of why it had made the changes but it came after the rapid escalation of the trade war between the US and China.The border taxes make the goods trade between the two countries prohibitively expensive and mean cars imported from the US are now much less attractive in China than those produced locally.In the UK, economists warned that stronger than expected growth of 0.5% in February is likely to prove short lived as the impact of Trump’s trade war is felt throughout the global economy. More

    • 138 Shares50 Views

      in US Politics

      US judge rules Mahmoud Khalil can be deported for his views

      by

      Mahmoud Khalil, the Columbia University graduate and Palestinian organizer, is eligible to be deported from the United States, an immigration judge ruled on Friday during a contentious hearing at a remote court in central Louisiana.The decision sides with the Trump administration’s claim that a short memo written by the secretary of state, Marco Rubio, which stated Khalil’s “current or expected beliefs, statements or associations” were counter to foreign policy interests, is sufficient evidence to remove a lawful permanent resident from the United States. The undated memo, the main piece of evidence submitted by the government, contained no allegations of criminal conduct.During a tense hearing on Friday afternoon, Khalil’s attorneys made an array of unsuccessful arguments attempting to both delay a ruling on his eligibility for removal and to terminate proceedings entirely. They argued the broad allegations contained in Rubio’s memo gave them a right to directly cross-examine him.Khalil held prayer beads as three attorneys for the Department of Homeland Security presented arguments for his removal.Judge Jamee Comans ruled that Rubio’s determination was “presumptive and sufficient evidence” and that she had no power to rule on concerns over free speech.“There is no indication that Congress contemplated an immigration judge or even the attorney general overruling the secretary of state on matters of foreign policy,” Comans said.A supporter was in tears sat on the crowded public benches as the ruling was delivered.Following the ruling, Khalil, who had remained silent throughout proceedings, requested permission to speak before the court.Addressing the judge directly, he said: “I would like to quote what you said last time, that ‘there’s nothing that’s more important to this court than due process rights and fundamental fairness.’”He continued: “Clearly what we witnessed today, neither of these principles were present today or in this whole process.“This is exactly why the Trump administration has sent me to this court, 1,000 miles away from my family. I just hope that the urgency that you deemed fit for me is afforded to the hundreds of others who have been here without hearing for months.”Khalil, 30, helped lead pro-Palestinian protests at Columbia last year. He was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) officers in New York on 8 March and transferred to a detention facility in Jena, Louisiana, where he has been detained for over a month. His case was the first in a string of Ice arrests instigated by the Trump administration targeting pro-Palestinian students and scholars present in the US on visas or green cards.The ruling means that Khalil’s removal proceedings will continue to move forward in Jena, while a separate case being heard in federal court in New Jersey examines the legality of his detention and questions surrounding the constitutionality of the government’s claims it can deport people for first amendment-protected speech if they are deemed adverse to US foreign policy.Khalil’s legal team is asking the New Jersey judge to release him on bail so that he can reunite with his wife, who is due to give birth to their first child this month.His lawyers slammed the decision, which they said appeared to be prewritten. “Today, we saw our worst fears play out: Mahmoud was subject to a charade of due process, a flagrant violation of his right to a fair hearing, and a weaponization of immigration law to suppress dissent. This is not over, and our fight continues,” said Marc van der Hout, Khalil’s immigration lawyer.“If Mahmoud can be targeted in this way, simply for speaking out for Palestinians and exercising his constitutionally protected right to free speech, this can happen to anyone over any issue the Trump administration dislikes. We will continue working tirelessly until Mahmoud is free and rightfully returned home to his family and community.”During a short prayer vigil held outside the detention centre on Friday afternoon, a group of interfaith clergy read messages of support. A short statement from Khalil’s wife, Noor Abdalla, who is due to give birth this month, was also delivered in front of reporters.“Today’s decision feels like a devastating blow to our family. No person should be deemed ‘removable’ from their home for speaking out against the killing of Palestinian families, doctors, and journalists,” the statement read.It continued: “In less than a month, Mahmoud and I will welcome our first child. Until we are reunited, I will not stop advocating for my husband’s safe return home.”The New Jersey judge has ordered the government not to remove Khalil as his case plays out in federal court. A hearing in that case is set for later on Friday. More

    • 238 Shares50 Views

      in US Politics

      Musk thinks Trump’s pal Navarro is a ‘moron’. Who are we supposed to root for here? | Dave Schilling

      by

      I would like to dispel some rumors right up front. One, I did not receive a PhD in business from Harvard Business School. Hopefully this doesn’t make you think less of me, but I felt it necessary to be honest. Second, I did not even attend Harvard. I thought about it once; hopefully, thinking about something isn’t illegal yet.My point is that I am no elitist snob begging for your subservience. I’m a simple man, just trying to salvage the last of my meager wealth during the great trade war of 2025. I know absolutely nothing about global economic policy. As such, I must be worth listening to.I say all of this because Elon Musk, the owner of various companies such as Tesla, SpaceX, Weyland-Yutani, OCP, the Tyrell Corporation, etc, has made it abundantly clear that he can’t stand Peter Navarro.Peter Navarro, with his fancy degree from Harvard, is too much of an intellectual for the current zeitgeist that favors a complete lack of knowledge for just about anyone in a position of authority. The secretary of education never taught a single school class, but she has (poorly) received a Stone Cold Stunner. The secretary of health and human services has a problem with pasteurized milk. The secretary of transportation was on Road Rules, so at least he has a basic understanding of motorway etiquette. But for the most part, if you have only a layman’s understanding of your role, you are unequivocally qualified to lead.I am ill-suited to any cabinet position, unless there’s a secretary of cocktails, in which case, I make a mean dry gin martini with a twist of lemon. So I am paradoxically the perfect person to run our economic policy, based on the rhetoric of Elon Musk, who deemed Peter Navarro to be a “moron” because of his advanced degree, and his support for Donald Trump’s ruinous tariffs against global trade. Navarro stated that Musk’s Tesla plants are a prime example of the world’s trade imbalance. “In many cases, if you go to [Musk’s] Texas plant, a good part of the engines that he gets, which in the EV case are the batteries, come from Japan and come from China. The electronics come from Taiwan,” Navarro alleged.This statement set Musk off, causing him to turn on Navarro – whom he considers “dumber than a sack of bricks” – and by proxy, Trump’s stated aims of bringing manufacturing back to the US through onerous taxation. Musk said on X: “By any definition whatsoever, Tesla is the most vertically integrated auto manufacturer in America with the highest percentage of US content. Navarro should ask the fake expert he invented, Ron Vara.” The “Ron Vara” comment is in reference to the allegedly made-up expert that Navarro cited in his 2011 book Death by China, which warns the reader of nefarious Chinese economic policy. When called out about his charming little fib, Navarro said that the use of a fictional figure that is clearly an anagram of his own last name was a fun “inside joke” between him and … I suppose the basic tenets of ethics.This is, by any cogent estimation, a battle of the titans: Navarro, the Ivy League-educated garbage man for the current American president, and Musk, who managed to wield his immense wealth to convince said president that having a functioning government was beta-ass behavior, bruh. Is there a winner here? Probably not. We all lose when no one seems to care about anything but their own interests. Navarro is terrified to upset his boss. Musk clearly doesn’t want to endanger his own profits by allowing tariffs to squelch the free exchange of goods between nations that like electric cars. The rest of us, the chaff caught between these two gibbering hobbits, can fend for ourselves until they figure it out.This fight is expensive for us. The stock market, which is too esoteric and costly for most average people to participate in directly, shed trillions of dollars thanks to fears of Trump’s tariffs. That value bounced back after the president backed off his threats for a period of 90 days, but the psychological effect of that brinkmanship will be hard to shake. Those fluctuations are video game-like blips for the mega-rich, but they can cause real harm to the retirement funds of the average citizen. A tariff on pharmaceuticals could inhibit people from accessing life-saving medication. To people like Navarro and Musk, these are theoretical concerns, so far removed from their everyday lives that they might as well be the problems of the Klingon empire on Star Trek. Why should they care, when their own petty squabbles are so near and dear to them?But this is the grand thesis of Trump’s America. Personal grievance and retribution are paramount. Proving you are superior to your enemy means more than the fate of a stranger, or a neighbor. Why do we get out of bed every morning if not to smite our opponent on the virtual battlefield of social media? It means more to be right than to do right.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionIn some twisted way, Musk is correct. We do need some manner of global trade to survive, because the global economy is so bloody complicated and ridiculous that we have to keep some semblance of the status quo for now. That his calculus is related to his own personal wealth is an unfortunate aspect of this position. Navarro, on the other hand, understands Musk shouldn’t be involved in the economic policy of the entire planet. The White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, referred to this spat as a benign “boys will be boys” dust-up, but I think it’s more than that. This is Godzilla v Kong, if Godzilla was a sycophantic bureaucrat and Kong appeared to have very expensive hair transplants.In the aforementioned film, Godzilla and Kong beat the shit out of each other and destroyed an entire city in the process. This real-life fight could actually be more devastating if we do nothing about it.

      Dave Schilling is a Los Angeles-based writer and humorist More

    • 163 Shares65 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump was playing chicken with tariffs. Then he chickened out | Steven Greenhouse

      by

      By imposing punitively high tariffs, Donald Trump was playing a high-stakes game of chicken with the US’s trading partners – but it was Trump who chickened out and suspended his tariffs just hours after they took effect. The president couldn’t ignore the worldwide economic havoc that he had caused singled-handedly – stock markets were plunging, business executives were panicking and consumers were seething.Eager to persuade manufacturers to build new plants in the US, Trump said on Monday that many of his tariffs would be permanent. But for Trump, permanent evidently meant two days.Once again, Trump showed that his second term is one of fiat, flub and flip-flop, of bluster and blunder, of shooting first and aiming later. It’s also a mix of cutting, gutting and cruelty.And foolery. Trump’s tariffs are worse than, as the Wall Street Journal put it, the “dumbest trade war in history”: they are the dumbest economic policy that any US president has ever adopted. His tariffs quickly caused vast and totally unnecessary damage to stock markets, industries and diplomatic relations across the globe. Before Trump unexpectedly suspended the tariffs, US stock markets had lost more than $10tn in value, and stock markets overseas plummeted, too. Millions of retirees had seen their 401(k)s plunge in value, consumers were facing substantially higher prices and many workers were already losing their jobs as Trump’s tariffs sent shockwaves through the global economy.Trump’s embarrassing climbdown on tariffs was one of the rare times he bowed to common sense. If only he would do the same when it comes to his dangerously myopic cuts to scientific research, environmental protection and foreign aid.Trump has not climbed down, however, in his showdown with China. In a fit of pique over China’s retaliatory tariffs, Trump has imposed stratospheric 145% tariffs on China. Attention Walmart shoppers: that is going to more than double the price of many things you buy.When it came to tariffs, Trump made some basic political fumbles. Not only did he go golfing and speak at a million-dollar-a-head fundraiser as this economic disaster unfolded, but he failed to give a coherent explanation for his screw-everyone-else tariffs. Trump and his team pointed to a potpourri of often-conflicting goals: to erase trade deficits, to collect trillions of dollars for the treasury, to bring back manufacturing jobs, to give Trump negotiating leverage to crack down on fentanyl and immigration and reduce other countries’ tariffs.Let’s not delude ourselves. There are two main reasons for Trump’s tariffs: first, to satisfy his never-ending thirst for vengeance against those he feels have wronged him (which seems to mean every country in the world except Russia) and second, to fulfill his desire to wield a club over everyone and everything. By using staggeringly high tariffs as a weapon, Trump has been acting like a mob enforcer, telling every business in town: I’m going to clobber you with my baseball bat unless you do what I want.There’s another reason for Trump’s tariffs: his ignorance about how the world’s economy works. Trump’s “liberation day” speech on tariffs gave the looney, but unmistakable, impression that he believes that Vietnam, for instance, is looting and pillaging the US by selling more sneakers and other goods to the US than the US sells to Vietnam. Trump thinks this even though millions of Americans are delighted to buy well-made sneakers from Vietnam (which would cost consumers far more if they were made in the US).With his grievance-driven, zero-sum worldview, Trump no doubt believes that other countries are unfairly taking advantage of the US whenever we trade with them – and he wants to get even.Trump thinks that trade deficits are evil. If Trump had taken a class with Robert Solow, a Nobel Prize-winning economist at MIT, he might have heard Solow’s wisdom about why there’s no big worry about bilateral trade deficits: “I have a chronic deficit with my barber, who doesn’t buy a darned thing from me.”That Trump got to impose his calamitous tariffs at 12.01am on Wednesday reflects the dismal quality of his cabinet and advisers. Too many are lackeys who automatically cheer whatever he does, while some others, like the treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, no doubt realized that his tariffs were dumb and disastrous, but they’re too cowardly to tell the Tariff King. The tariffs would inevitably increase inflation and probably push the US into recession. Even though Republicans have vowed never to raise taxes, Trump’s tariffs are unarguably a tax, a regressive tax and the largest tax increase in 60 years. Trump’s tariffs were bound to destroy smoothly running supply chains and hurt untold numbers of US companies. They were also a disaster for relations with our allies. They were already triggering massive retaliation.If Trump had some smart, principled advisers, they might explain to him that many obstacles might prevent his tariffs from achieving their goals. With the nation’s low 4% unemployment rate, it will be hard to find workers to do the manufacturing jobs that Trump wants to bring back, especially when he’s rounding up and expelling many immigrant workers. Moreover, US corporations have largely lost the technological knowhow to compete in various industries and that complicates hopes to bring back far more factories.Then there’s another big problem – the chaotic Trump is the worst possible president to persuade companies to build factories in the US to produce goods they now obtain from abroad. King Donald the Capricious does not exactly exude the air of stability that executives insist on before they decide to make big investment decisions, like building new factories.Trump trumpeted his tariffs in part to show strength, but he ended up in an embarrassing retreat (he did maintain a 10% tariff on many countries). Trump is eager to get China to heed his wishes, but China, the world’s leading manufacturing country, can now see that Trump will back down when the heat is too great.China doesn’t have clean hands on trade. It improperly subsidizes many industries to help them outcompete manufacturers in the US and elsewhere. China also has ambitions to vastly increase its manufacturing capacity – a strategy that could kill off important industries in the US, Canada, Europe, Japan and other countries. If Trump were smart and strategic, he – instead of alienating those countries with his tariffs – would have formed an alliance with those countries to pressure China. But now those countries are too angry at the Trump to do that.Trump, never one to admit defeat, insists that his climbdown was a victory, that the mess he made was marvelous strategy. He says many countries are eager to make deals with him. “I’m telling you, these countries are calling us up, kissing my ass,” he said on Wednesday. “They are dying to make a deal.”Our allies are no doubt furious with Trump. Not only were they already angry that he stabbed Ukraine in the back and sidled up to Putin, but they’re unhappy that his tariff foolishness violated numerous international agreements and sought to blow up a smoothly running trade system. And then Trump ridicules them by saying they were rushing to kiss his behind.I hardly ever agree with Elon Musk, but he was right that Trump’s tariffs were the work of morons who were “dumber than a sack of bricks”.

      Steven Greenhouse is a journalist and author focusing on labor and the workplace, as well as economic and legal issues. More

    • 150 Shares85 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘A huge cudgel’: alarm as Trump’s war on universities could target accreditors

      by

      Advocates for academic freedom are bracing for what they expect to be the next phase of the government’s effort to reshape higher education: an overhaul of the system accrediting institutions of higher learning.Donald Trump has made no secret of such plans. During the campaign, he boasted that accreditation would be his “secret weapon” against colleges and universities the right has long viewed as too progressive.“I will fire the radical left accreditors that have allowed our colleges to become dominated by Marxist maniacs and lunatics,” Trump said last summer. “We will then accept applications for new accreditors who will impose real standards on colleges once again and once for all.”In recent weeks, the government has taken aggressive actions against US universities in the form of funding cuts, a ban on diversity initiatives, and the targeting of international students. Dismantling the accreditation system would be a powerful tool to further erode the separation between the government’s political ideology and what US students are taught.While it’s unlikely that Trump can delist currently recognized accreditation agencies, which are controlled by a bipartisan body enshrined in federal law, there are several ways in which the administration could weaken their authority to enforce schools’ compliance with a series of standards. Project 2025 and efforts to curtail accreditors’ power in some conservative states offer a blueprint for what several education professionals who spoke to the Guardian, along with officials at the Department of Education, fear may be an impending executive action on the issue.Targeting accreditation – the peer-review system guaranteeing quality assurance on learning institutions – is part of the right’s broader strategy to undermine higher education as a whole, advocates warn. Because accreditation by a recognized agency is required for students to be eligible for federal financial aid, the government has huge financial sway over how the system works.“The Trump administration unfortunately doesn’t care about quality assurance in higher education,” said Tariq Habash, a former education department official. “If colleges and universities do not align with this administration on diversity policies, on immigrants’ or trans rights, or on speech supporting Palestinian rights, Donald Trump wants them to suffer the consequences, by illegally cutting off access to federal funds.”Getting rid of the guardrailsAccreditation has been in place for centuries, but the government tied it to federal funding in the aftermath of the GI bill of 1944, when countless veterans were essentially defrauded by sham schools. Since the 1960s, degree-granting institutions have been overseen by a so-called “triad” regulatory mechanism involving federal and state authorities and independent accrediting agencies. Today, there are dozens of accreditors recognized by the Department of Education, including many specialised in technical subjects and six major regional accreditation agencies.One way in which Trump may seek to undermine the current system – and one of several proposed by Project 2025 – would give states the authority to approve institutions for federal aid purposes, bypassing accreditors altogether. That’s a troubling prospect for the ability of universities to remain independent of political pressure.“If a state wanted to force institutions to act in certain ways to achieve accreditation, this would be a huge cudgel that could be used to make really fine-level changes in colleges and universities across the state,” said Timothy Cain, a professor of higher education at the University of Georgia who has researched accreditation practices. “At the core of it, it’s a real problem for American democracy.”Project 2025 also outlines how the government could prohibit accreditors from requiring universities to adopt diversity policies, from “intruding” upon the governance of state schools, and from enforcing standards that “undermine religious beliefs”. Such prohibitions would severely weaken accreditors’ authority to ensure quality and serve as guardrails for education institutions’ autonomy from government.Trump is also expected to expand long-existing conservative attacks on the accreditation apparatus, which rightwing activists and legislators have often referred to as a “cartel”.In 2023, Florida’s Republican governor, Ron DeSantis, argued in a lawsuit against the Biden administration that the government had “ceded unchecked power” to accrediting agencies. Florida and North Carolina have passed legislation seeking to weaken accreditation standards. And during Trump’s first term, the then secretary of education, Betsy DeVos, loosened accreditation regulation in the name of free-market competition, introducing policies that critics said would give schools an option to “shop” for more friendly accreditors.Some Republican senators, including Marco Rubio before Trump appointed him secretary of state, also introduced legislation at the federal level seeking to prevent accreditors from requiring universities to adopt what Rubio called “woke standards”.“The endgame is always about controlling the curriculum, and controlling what takes place within the classroom,” said Isaac Kamola, a political science professor at Trinity College, whose research focuses on conservative efforts to undermine higher education. “In order to remake the institution, you need to get rid of the guardrails that would prevent you from exerting that much external interference.”But there is an additional risk in Trump’s suggestion that he would pave the way for “new accreditors” more aligned with the administration, Kamola noted.“You’re going to see a bunch of fly-by-night, grifty, Trump University-style colleges that are going to appear,” he said.“And without accreditation, and federal funding being tied to accreditation, you’re going to see a massive exodus of federal funds into the hands of a higher education mass grift economy. Student loan money will be spent in institutions that under the current regime would never be accredited.” More

    • 238 Shares75 Views

      in US Politics

      The power and pitfalls of protest: how to speak out without falling victim to Trump’s playbook | Jonathan Smucker

      by

      On Saturday I was heartened to be one of millions of Americans who took to the streets in cities and towns across the United States to stand against “the most brazen power grab in modern history”. While no official total tally of “Hands Off!” participants is yet available, the anti-Donald Trump, anti-Elon Musk actions on Saturday were certainly among the largest single-day protests in US history, with rallies in all 50 states.As we seem to be entering a new stage of popular protest movements, it’s worth assessing the strategic value of protest, as well as the limits and potential liabilities. History is full of powerful examples of consequential bottom-up protest movements. The women’s suffrage movement secured voting rights after decades of struggle. The civil rights movement dismantled Jim Crow segregation. The labor movement won the eight-hour workday, the weekend and much more. Protest was an essential tool for each of these movements. It can take many different forms, including mass demonstrations, boycotts, strikes, unruly disruption and civil disobedience.Protest is often negatively framed as naive, utopian or merely self-expressive. But it can be profoundly pragmatic. When part of a larger power-building strategy, protest can play an essential role in forcing issues onto the public agenda, changing popular opinion, delegitimizing powerholders, shifting the balance of forces and even toppling regimes. Protest movements don’t always win, of course, but history is full of stories of “Davids” defeating “Goliaths”.Only weeks into Trump’s second term, as we seek to limit the damage and, ultimately, to defeat authoritarianism and oligarchy, protest is as necessary and important as ever. How can we make our voices as powerful as possible?How Trump frames protestersProtest is also rife with peril. When powerful people and institutions feel threatened, they tend to fight dirty, using every tool at their disposal, including police and legal repression. In addition to facing threats to safety and freedom, social movement participants are characteristically slandered and stereotyped by their opponents, with slanted news coverage often parroting the messages or sharing the assumptions of the ruling class.Before exploring some pitfalls of protest (and how to avoid them), let’s get a few things clear. First, it is brave and worthy to engage in protest for just causes, against powerful actors; not only that, it’s necessary if we want to have a democracy. Second, our opponents have a vested interest in disparaging and caricaturing our protests and they will attempt to slander us no matter what we do (but this doesn’t mean we have no ability to counter their attacks). Third, peril and pitfalls cannot be completely avoided: a protest where everything goes perfectly is rare, and the likelihood of errors and excesses is a poor excuse for inaction.That said, organizers of protests do have a responsibility to do everything in our power to ensure that collective action is as effective as possible. The sociologist Max Weber argued that those who seek to intervene in politics have a responsibility not only for our own intentions, but also for the counter-responses to our actions. In other words, we have a responsibility to think a few chess moves ahead and to craft a strategy that can win.A central constraint today is the dominant narrative about protest itself. In the US, this narrative casts protesters as a special type of person, with some combination of the following features: loud, shrill, naive, counter-cultural, speaking in jargon, Marxist, anti-American, violent and economically and/or educationally privileged (AKA “elitist”). The purpose of this dominant narrative is straightforward: inoculate millions of Americans against protest movements by otherizing “protesters”. In other words, there’s a well-worn caricature of a protester that holds many everyday working people back from aligning with protest movements.Ultimately it’s on us to get more people to see us differently. To be clear, I’m not talking about our hard opponents. The point of protest is never to be palatable to everyone. I’m talking here about the millions of Americans who have a high potential to join, support or at least sympathize with protest movements.Trump didn’t invent this disparaging story, but he grafts these negative tropes about protest and protesters on to his larger pseudo-populist “anti-elite” narrative. I put “anti-elite” in quotes because Trump strategically names cultural elites as culprits, intentionally diverting attention away from the concentrated economic power (eg Wall Street, huge corporations and billionaires like Elon Musk) that is actually to blame for the hardships of tens of millions of working-class Americans. Trump’s favorite “elite” targets include academia, the news media, Hollywood and Democratic politicians. “Woke protesters” take their place alongside the rest of this elite cast in Trump’s play. Opposed to these hoity-toity, overeducated, condescending elites, Trump presents himself as hero and champion of “ordinary Americans”.This framing is effective because it taps into a real and deepening class-based cultural divide in America – between a highly educated professional class occupying roughly the top 10-20% of the spectrum, and the bottom 80% below. In his book Dream Hoarders, Richard Reeves lays out how this upper stratum has pulled away from the majority of Americans – not just economically, but socially and culturally. The complex US tax code, legacy college admissions, and housing, zoning and other policies have benefited the already advantaged. As distinct from the ultra-rich “one per cent”, many in this larger upper strata see themselves as progressive, even as they benefit from invisible moats around their neighborhoods, schools and social networks. This deepening class-based insularity creates the cultural disconnect that Trump exploits. He directs populist anger toward these cultural elites, while diverting attention away from far more powerful and destructive economic culprits, offering working-class Americans cultural revenge rather than policies that could make a real positive difference in their lives.View image in fullscreenTrump’s exploitation of this cultural-economic backdrop – and Democrats’ failure to even comprehend it, let alone come up with a counter-strategy – was central to his electoral victories in both 2016 and 2024. This same backdrop should also be of great concern to protest movements. We who are attempting to organize people into collective action must recognize how easily our movements can be portrayed as extensions of this privileged class and work intentionally to break out of that framing (and, sometimes, that reality).At Trump rallies during his 2016 campaign, I observed how he would deliberately draw attention to protesters, utilizing them as characters in his story, encouraging the crowd to chant and jeer as security removed the disruptive “outside agitators”.So it was striking to watch how dramatically Trump changed his tack when military veterans spoke out at some of these same rallies. He completely ignored them, refusing to acknowledge their presence, strategically avoiding even looking in their direction. These veterans later learned from active-duty friends that Trump had gotten quite upset by their actions, because they didn’t fit into his narrative; military veterans could easily overcome Trump’s “woke protester” framing.Breaking out of Trump’s playbookIn the first several weeks of Trump’s second term, we again see powerful examples of veterans speaking out, for example, publicly confronting their representatives about Doge cuts to the benefits they earned. Grassroots organizations of veterans, like Common Defense, are helping to prepare, support and amplify the efforts of fellow veterans as they use their powerful voices to speak up in this critical moment. Protagonists in the story of America, veterans bring a unique authority and credibility that is very difficult for their powerful opponents to caricature or disparage.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionSimilarly, the federal workers who are organizing and showing the real-life impacts of Musk’s reckless cuts are very effective spokespeople right now. From park rangers to USPS employees, these workers are protesting threats to their livelihoods and to the valued public services they provide, speaking up as workers about the devastation wrought by Musk’s “chainsaw” on their lives and the communities they serve. Importantly, they represent a cross-section of America: diverse in race, geography, education and political leanings. They are relaying their experiences and connecting with millions of Americans who see themselves in their stories. Using plainspoken language rather than jargon, they present themselves not as “protesters” but as parents, neighbors and workers who have a stake in their country’s future.The lesson isn’t that you have to be a military veteran or federal worker if you want to effectively protest against Trump and Musk. But if our opponents are determined to otherize us as unrelatable “protesters”, what are the familiar aspects of our identities that we can emphasize instead? The story of a worker who is so fed up that she decides to join with others in collective action is very different from the dominant story about generic protesters.It’s important to also grasp and grapple with other elements of Trump’s attack narrative; his use of “protester” tropes is not the only means he uses to otherize and dehumanize. He also attacks vulnerable people because of their immigration status, their advocacy for Palestine and their gender identity, among other pretenses. Each of these attacks warrants its own strategic counter-response and it’s vitally important that we show solidarity and narrate Trump’s targeting of any of us as an attack on all of us and on our shared values and rights – as has been on display in the popular outpouring of support for the detained Columbia graduate student Mahmoud Khalil.Another important way today’s protests are breaking out of Trump’s playbook is by consistently punching up, especially at Musk as an unelected billionaire who has taken oligarchy in America to new heights. When we name powerful economic culprits, it takes the wind out of Trump’s fake populist sails. Billionaires who rigged our economy and political system make for a more convincing culprit to millions of Americans than vulnerable scapegoats (eg immigrants, trans people, or “woke”). A central reason we got into this mess is that Democrats have been so tepid and inconsistent in picking visible fights with billionaires, Wall Street and corporate power.It’s important that we consistently punch up at billionaires and the politicians doing their bidding and refrain from punching down at people who voted for Trump. To break out of Trump’s story of the “smug and condescending affluent liberal protester”, we should avoid messages that are, indeed, smug and condescending (eg, “In this house, we believe science is real”) or that mock people for their economic struggles (eg, “How are you feeling about voting for cheaper eggs now?”). Such messages are self-indulgent and counterproductive, and we can do so much better.Organizing for powerFinally, if we are to make our protests as effective as possible, we should recognize protest for what it is: a tactic. Protest is not an end in itself. Tactics require larger long-term power-building strategies. Absent strategy, protest can sometimes still hold some short-term strategic value (eg, showing that dissent exists), but if we want to accomplish more than a flash in the pan – if we genuinely intend to shape history, as powerful movements before us have done – then we need to figure out what to do after the protest ends and everyone goes home.The key is organization. Organizations transform episodic moments of outrage into sustained campaigns that can win concrete victories. Without organization, we’re no match for the powerful forces we’re up against. It’s no accident that the five decades when labor unions and other participatory organizations have declined are the same decades when capital consolidated control of our political system and inequality grew worse and worse.To rebuild people power, we need to build organizations with structure, leadership development and capacity for sustained campaigns and struggle. There are all kinds of organizations: labor unions, place-based (local and statewide), issue-based, faith and congregation-based, and more (check out the list of partner organizations that helped plan the 5 April “Hands Off!” protests). If you’re showing up to the protest as a lone individual, let it be your on-ramp to longer-term collective action. Figure out where you fit in, what capacity you can add, what skills you can develop, how much time you can give. Even just a few hours a month, when multiplied by millions, can amount to a formidable force – the kind of people power we need to defeat authoritarianism and oligarchy.Because ultimately we’re not trying to build “protest movements”, we’re trying to build people’s movements; movements that use protest as one tool among many, whose ultimate aim is to win a real voice for working people in determining the policies that impact our lives and communities – and to make an America that works for all of us.

      Jonathan Smucker is a political organizer, campaigner and strategist who co-founded Popular Comms Institute, PA Stands Up, Lancaster Stands Up, Common Defense, Beyond the Choir and Mennonite Action. He is the author of Hegemony How-To: A Roadmap for Radicals. More