US politics

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares135 Views

      in US Politics

      Parenting is not just for pronatalists: the progressive case for raising kids

      by

      A few months ago, I was at a playground just a couple of blocks from our home in Washington DC, when a mom I barely knew turned to me mid-conversation and said: “I think I might be the deep state.”It was mid-March. Doge was tearing through the city, dismantling federal agencies at dizzying speed. Donald Trump, re-elected on a promise to “shatter the deep state”, had fired thousands of longtime civil servants in his first weeks back in office.The job cuts have been top of mind in Washington. Most of my kids’ playdates these days begin with nap schedule updates and end in quiet dread.It isn’t just jobs. International students are being deported. Measles outbreaks are creeping closer. The climate crisis is at our doorstep: blizzards one week, wildfires the next. Every day brings fresh threats to public safety, democracy and the planet itself.“It makes you wonder,” she said as we pushed our daughters on the swings, “what kind of world did we bring our kids into?”View image in fullscreenIt’s a question I can’t stop thinking about. I’ve lived in and reported on parenting across five continents, and what continues to astonish me is how uniquely punishing early parenthood is in the west, especially for those most committed to building a fairer world. Progressives are rightly vocal about how hard it is to raise kids, but too often, we forget to make the case for why it’s still worth it.In the face of so many overlapping crises, the decision to have children can feel reckless, or worse, like an act of denial. But parenting can also be something else entirely: a stubborn act of hope.Raising children offers a crash course in progressive values. It’s a way of tying ourselves more deeply to the future, of feeling the stakes of climate change, inequality and injustice – not as distant headlines, but as urgent matters affecting someone whose lunch you just packed.By failing to make a case for children and families, the left has surrendered these issues to the pronatalist right. We’ve handed over the “family values” agenda, allowing it to be defined by a rigid, exclusionary vision of parenthood.Project 2025, the policy blueprint shaping much of Trump’s current agenda, pledges to “restore” a Christian nationalist view of the family unit as “the centerpiece of American life”.Figures such as JD Vance and Elon Musk, as well as the conservative Heritage Foundation, have declared childbearing a moral and civic duty. Some have even proposed medals and cash for mothers. At this year’s March for Life, Vance called for “more babies in the United States of America” and more “beautiful young men and women” to raise them.View image in fullscreenWhen we see child rearing as a private project, we forget that many of the movements that shaped the left – civil rights, labour, climate justice – were powered by people who looked at the next generation and decided they were worth fighting for. In his most well-known speech, Martin Luther King Jr didn’t just dream of a better world for himself, he dreamed that his four little children would grow up in a nation where they would be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. His vision was rooted in legacy.That’s what parenting does. It gives shape to our politics. It puts flesh on our ideals. It forces us to ask: what are we building and who is it for? Raising children doesn’t distract from that work; it clarifies it.Of course, parenthood isn’t the only path to caring about the future – but it makes it harder to look away. It compels us to feel the weight of policy decisions in our bones. It blows open our empathy and softens the edges of individualism. Suddenly, every child becomes your child. Every policy becomes personal. You start noticing the stroller-unfriendly sidewalks, the unaffordable summer camps, the lack of paid leave – not just for yourself, but for all parents.There’s science behind this shift. Researchers have found that becoming a parent activates a “parental caregiving network” in the brain, lighting up areas tied to empathy, emotional processing and social understanding. It happens in both mothers and fathers. For dads especially, the extent of this neurological change is closely tied to how much hands-on caregiving they do. In other words, caregiving rewires our brains to connect more, care more and notice the needs of others. At its best, parenting strengthens the very instincts progressives say they want to build society around.I’ve seen this empathy in action. Before I had kids, I was reporting on the Rio Olympics and walking the beach one night with a colleague, a mother of two, when we were approached by a group of children begging for money. I clutched my purse and walked faster. But my co-worker slowed down, took off her blazer and wrapped it around a shivering child about her son’s age. “Get home,” she said gently. “Your mom is probably looking for you.”I could tell right away we were operating on different levels of empathy. She saw that child as an extension of her own kids. I wasn’t there yet. But eventually, I got there, too.When I finally became a mother, I began to see stories I covered differently. Now, when I interview parents who’ve lost children to gun violence in Brazil’s favelas, I understand their grief in a new way. I report with deeper urgency and deeper care, seeing myself in their shoes, and my children in theirs.View image in fullscreenThis rewiring of the brain creates a political opening. It expands our sense of who counts as “us”. It softens the boundary between self and other. In doing so, it changes how we interpret harm, not as something happening “out there”, but as something personal, urgent and unacceptable.Yet, the demands of caregiving can pull us away from political life. A 2022 UK study found that parenthood temporarily reduces political participation among mothers. The reason is obvious: we’re exhausted. Calling your representatives between diaper changes feels impossible. I get it. Some days, I fantasize about deleting all my news apps, retreating into a cozy, apocalypse-adjacent bubble with my kids, and calling it a day.View image in fullscreen“Generally, I think parents are the worst at advocating for themselves because they are just too damn tired. It’s one more thing in the lives of people who already have too much expected of them,” Jennifer Glass, professor at the University of Texas’s department of sociology and Population Research Center and an expert on parental happiness, told me.But parenting doesn’t have to distract from political work. It can fuel it. When we do organize, our sharpened parental empathy can translate into political power. Around the world, it’s progressive movements, often driven by the demands of parents, that have expanded what family support can look like. In Sweden, it was working mothers who pushed for what became the world’s most generous parental leave system, eventually adding incentives for men to take their fair share. In Singapore, multigenerational bonds are built into policy: the government gives housing grants to families who live near grandparents and tax breaks to elders who help with childcare. In France, parents helped lead the 1968 protests that birthed a cooperative childcare system.But when progressives step back from family values, conservatives fill the void.This is not a uniquely American phenomenon. According to the United Nations, the share of countries with explicit pronatalist policies has nearly tripled since 1976. But these visions often center on traditional gender roles and narrow definitions of family, excluding anyone who doesn’t fit the mold. We shouldn’t let the only cultural narrative around parenting come from those who see it as a tool for enforcing hierarchy and control.Progressives must also fight for a say in the values shaping the next generation. A 2023 Pew survey found that 89% of teenagers raised by Democratic parents identify with or lean toward the Democratic party. For Republican parents, the number is nearly as high, at 81%.That suggests political identity is often passed down through environment and lived experience: what kids hear at the dinner table, what they see modeled at home and which communities shape their worldview.From there, each new generation brings fresh ideas about justice. Social progress doesn’t only happen by changing the minds of the old; it happens through generational renewal. Throughout the country, youth raised in the shadow of mass shootings are leading the charge for gun reform. In Montana, young people took the government to court over climate change and won. In Sweden, Greta Thunberg sparked a global climate movement at 15.These movements exist because someone raised those children to believe they had not just the right, but the responsibility, to shape the world around them. But if we step back from parenting, or treat it as apolitical, we leave that space wide open.View image in fullscreenThe right is more than ready to fill it. That’s why they’re fighting so hard to control what children are taught, which books they read, whose families are visible in their classrooms and which identities are allowed to exist.This is the moment for the left to reclaim family as a public good. Progressives shouldn’t just defend the right to abortion, we must fight for people’s ability to have families and raise them with dignity. That means paid leave, universal childcare, affordable healthcare and a livable planet.It also means rejecting the caricature that progressives are a party of “childless cat ladies” while conservatives corner the market on family values. We are, and always have been, the natural home of pro-family policy.After all, children tether us to the future, but also to each other. Progressive values thrive in that space of interdependence, where no one is expected to go it alone. Caring for kids – whether as parents, educators, neighbors or policymakers – demands a communal ethic of care.I’ve seen this ethic in action across the world. While writing my book, Please Yell at My Kids, I spent years studying how families around the world raise children in community. In the Netherlands, children as young as eight walk themselves to school. Parents trust that if they need help, a community member will step in. In Denmark, babies nap unattended in strollers outside cafes – not because parents are careless, but because they trust the society around them. In Mozambique, where formal support systems often fail, mothers rely on each other for food, childcare and safety, transforming neighborhoods into extended families. These cultures aren’t perfect, but they understand that raising a child isn’t a private endeavor. It’s a collective one.Some understandably hesitate to bring children into a world on fire. Others worry that parenting means stepping back from activism or ambition. But for many, becoming a parent doesn’t dilute that drive; it crystallizes it. Climate change isn’t just a policy failure – it’s the air your child will breathe. Gun violence isn’t abstract – it’s a possibility you carry every time you drop them off at school. The broken systems you tolerated suddenly become intolerable when your child has to navigate them, too.This isn’t about idealizing parenthood. It’s about refusing to surrender this human experience to those who would use it to divide us. So yes, the world is on fire. But refusing to bring children into it won’t put the flames out. What may, perhaps, is raising a generation bold enough to rebuild it.

      Marina Lopes is the author of Please Yell at My Kids: What Cultures Around the World Can Teach You About Parenting in Community, Raising Independent Kids, and Not Losing Your Mind, out now More

    • 138 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Union leaders’ exit from DNC exposes ‘mind-boggling’ tensions inside Democratic party

      by

      As the Democratic party fights to rebuild from a devastating election defeat, the abrupt exit of the presidents of two of the nation’s largest labor unions from its top leadership board has exposed simmering tensions over the party’s direction.Randi Weingarten and Lee Saunders quit the Democratic National Committee, saying it isn’t doing enough to “open the gates” and win back the support of working-class voters. Ken Martin, the new DNC chair, and his allies told the Guardian that the party was focused on doing exactly that.Weingarten, president of the 1.8-million-member American Federation of Teachers, resigned after Martin did not renominate her to serve on the DNC’s important rules committee. In her resignation letter, Weingarten wrote that education, healthcare and public service workers were in “an existential battle” due to Donald Trump’s attacks and that she did not “want to be the one who keeps questioning why we are not enlarging our tent”.Saunders, the long-time president of the 1.3-million-member American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, also issued a critical statement. “These are new times. They deserve new strategies,” he said. “We must evolve to meet the urgency of the moment. This is not a time to close ranks or turn inward … It is our responsibility to open the gates [and] welcome others.”View image in fullscreenSeveral DNC officials asserted that the two departures were a “tempest in a teapot”, insisting that Martin is working to have the DNC welcome more people and battle against Trump. Weingarten and Saunders evidently felt sore that their candidate for DNC chair, Ben Wikler, the head of Wisconsin’s Democratic party, lost to Martin, the officials suggested.Steve Rosenthal, former political director of the AFL-CIO, the main US labor federation, said the resignations were an inarguable blow to the DNC.“When something like this becomes public, there’s clearly a spotlight on it,” he said. “Giving the longstanding leadership role that Randi and Lee have played in the Democratic party, and at a time when the party is trying to desperately improve its image with working-class voters and remake itself in a lot of ways, this is really unacceptable.”In an interview, Weingarten said she wished the DNC was conducting an all-out nationwide mobilization to defeat the Trump/GOP budget bill, which would throw an estimated 11 million Americans off health insurance, cut food stamps to millions of families and cause the federal debt to soar by over $3tn.DNC chair Martin told the Guardian that, under his leadership, the DNC was already doing what Weingarten and Saunders were calling for. “I’ve always called myself a pro-labor progressive,” Martin said, noting that he had been a union member and labor organizer. “My family grew up on programs that would be cut if Trump’s tax scam passes. Winning back the working class and stopping Trump from harming families is exactly where our focus is.”Martin added that in his nearly five months as DNC chair, the committee has held 130 town halls and launched an “aggressive war room” to take on Trump. “My first action as DNC chair was pledging to have strong labor voices at the table,” Martin said. “Our job is to win in 2025, 2026 and beyond.”But their resignation statements signal that Weingarten and Saunders have a very different view from Martin of what the DNC is doing on his watch. Several DNC officials said the pair might not be up to date with the DNC’s activities across the 50 states.Weingarten told the Guardian that Martin and the DNC are not showing nearly enough urgency in opposing the Trump/GOP budget bill. “The number one issue in the next two weeks is: how do we help fight the GOP budget bill that faces almost two-to-one public opposition,” she said, adding that the DNC should be going all out to help House and Senate Democrats torpedo the bill.“We can be the voice and be out there with stories about how the budget bill will hurt, and the DNC is a perfect place for doing that,” Weingarten said. “You got to win hearts and minds now, not in October 2026. That’s the kind of thing that we’ve been looking for since January. We have to be a party that wins on the ground.”Artie Blanco, a union activist and DNC vice-chair, said that under Martin, the DNC had been fighting hard against the budget bill.“There are over 16,000 Democratic volunteers making phone calls across the country in targeted congressional districts about the GOP budget, and how it will be devastating to working people,” Blanco said.Weingarten voiced dismay about not being renominated for the rules committee. “It was definitely a sign that my input was not sought any more and [not] appreciated,” she said, stressing that the AFT “will continue to be a leader in electing pro-public education, pro-working family candidates” and planned to be “especially engaged” in the 2025-26 elections.Jane Kleeb, president of the Association of State Democratic Committees, said that Weingarten’s and Saunders’s “claims that Ken and the DNC are not standing up for working people and not standing on the side of unions and union members is laughable”.“Ken has been on the front line to bring unions back to our party,” added Kleeb, who is also chair of the Nebraska Democratic party. “He has appointed more union leaders than any other [DNC] chair” – and put unions at the forefront while chair of the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor party, before he assumed the DNC’s helm, she said.Stuart Appelbaum, the DNC’s labor chair, and president of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, took issue with the statements Weingarten and Saunders made about Martin.“I am thrilled that Ken Martin is prioritizing the importance of having labor at the table and has ensured that there is strong labor representation in every part of the DNC,” Appelbaum said. He added that Martin “understands that working people are the backbone of the party”.Michael Podhorzer, a political strategist and former AFL-CIO political director, said the Democratic party has for decades not focused enough on working-class voters. He said Democrats would have a tough battle winning back blue-collar voters. “The experience of many American working people is they feel left off the radar,” Podhorzer said.Democrats, Podhorzer noted, have suffered the greatest loss of support in communities that were “gutted” after the 2008-09 recession; from the signing of Nafta, a trade deal with Canada and Mexico; and from normalized trade relations with China. Nafta and normalized trade with China were ratified under President Clinton, a Democrat.Arlie Russell Hochschild, a sociologist who has studied Trump’s success in wooing working-class voters, said the decline of US labor unions over the past 50 years has necessarily meant that unions have less sway in the Democratic party.Rosenthal, the former AFL-CIO official and also a former DNC deputy political director, called on the DNC and Democrats to work far more closely with unions.“Among working-class voters, support for unions is through the roof, and the Democratic party and the Republican party have no credibility with working-class voters,” he said. “They don’t trust the parties, but they trust the labor movement. It’s incumbent on the party to build bridges and put the labor movement front and center in everything it does.”“From that standpoint,” he continued, the tension that led to Weingarten and Sauders quitting “is mind-boggling”. Several labor leaders said Martin should have done more to keep prominent and powerful union leaders like Weingarten and Saunders satisfied and on the DNC, even if they backed one of his opponents for DNC chair.Responding to Weingarten and Saunders’ concerns, Martin said: “The DNC and our partners are leading the fight against Trump’s budget bill, investing unprecedented dollars into states so Democrats can win elections from the ground up, and reaching out to voters in working-class districts.”Martin told the Guardian that he’s trying hard to build bridges with the broader labor movement, and increase its role in the DNC and in the Democrats’ efforts. “Winning back the working class and stopping Trump’s budget bill isn’t a political goal, it’s personal,” he said. “Labor runs through my family’s veins.” More

    • 175 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Zohran Mamdani offered New Yorkers a political revolution – and won | Bhaskar Sunkara

      by

      Zohran Mamdani’s triumph in New York City’s Democratic primary represents more than just an electoral upset. It’s a confirmation that progressive politics, when pursued with discipline, vision, and vigor, can resonate broadly – even in a city known for its entrenched power structures.This was no ordinary primary. Andrew Cuomo, a former governor whose political fall from grace seemed irreparable only a few years ago, had positioned himself as the overwhelming favorite. Backed by millions from corporate interests, super PACs, and billionaire donors such as Michael Bloomberg and Bill Ackman, Cuomo relied heavily on institutional inertia and top-down endorsements. Yet Tuesday night, it became clear that this alone couldn’t carry him across the finish line.Mamdani, a 33-year-old legislator from Queens, ran a relentlessly disciplined campaign built around cost-of-living issues, zeroing in on essentials such as housing, transport, childcare and groceries. Repeated attempts to define Mamdani as merely a “Muslim socialist” with radical ideas, to force divisive identity politics to the fore, or to make the election a referendum on Israel, failed.But it wasn’t simply messaging discipline that made Mamdani successful. Mamdani has a political talent rooted in genuine charisma. His fluency with language, clarity of purpose, and authenticity allowed him to speak convincingly to voters from many different backgrounds. He wasn’t just another activist-politician; he proved himself to be a natural leader – someone capable of communicating moral truths without sounding moralistic.Meanwhile, Cuomo’s attempt to reinvent himself in New York City politics was flawed from the outset. His candidacy was perceived by many voters as an arrogant power grab, a rehabilitation project rather than a serious commitment to addressing the city’s challenges. He neglected to engage seriously with New York’s relatively new ranked-choice voting system, stubbornly isolating himself rather than building coalitions, even among centrist figures.The difference in campaign styles was stark and instructive. Mamdani’s campaign was fundamentally grassroots, driven by committed volunteers, including young activists from the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). It was also modern and intelligent, recognizing that an ever-growing share of the electorate forms its opinions through social media and finding innovative ways to communicate policy proposals. Remarkably, almost one quarter of the early vote in this primary came from first-time voters in New York elections.Yet the results make clear that his voting base wasn’t limited to young, college-educated voters most engaged by his campaign. Notably, Mamdani succeeded in neighborhoods like Bay Ridge, Bensonhurst, Dyker Heights, Sunset Park, and Brighton Beach — all areas that swung rightward in the 2024 presidential election.This was a reward for his consistent efforts to reach out to young, working-class voters who felt alienated by the Democratic party; Mamdani’s first viral video of this campaign came in November, when he interviewed New Yorkers who had voted for Trump about their cost-of-living frustrations. In the face of a skeptical public, Mamdani was even able to communicate democratic socialism as a universal politics rather than a niche identity or a dangerous ideology.Yet coalition-building factored in just as much as political resolve. Crucial to Mamdani’s broad success was the principled support of progressive figures like Comptroller Brad Lander. Lander advocated for himself as the person best suited to be mayor but accepted the nature of rank-choice voting and the imperative of defeating Cuomo by cross-endorsing Mamdani. Lander’s approach helped forge a coherent, united front — something increasingly rare in fractious progressive circles — and it proved decisive.Voters, for their part, proved that they were ready for change. They refused to succumb to cynical fearmongering about a supposed tide of crime and antisemitism that would come from a Mamdani victory. Instead, they took a clear-eyed look at their lives, assessed the failings of the Democratic party, and chose something fresh, new, and fundamentally different over a failed political establishment.Still, Tuesday’s results carry deeper questions about the future. Mamdani’s victory in this primary, significant as it is, must now be tested against Eric Adams and likely Cuomo again in the November election. Beyond that lies a far more challenging test: governing. Progressives across America have watched closely as Chicago’s Brandon Johnson, another promising left-wing mayor, has stumbled against entrenched opposition and due to his own administrative failings. Mamdani will need to navigate obstacles better if elected.Historical precedent may offer some reassurance for those who wish New York’s mayoral frontrunner well. The tradition of successful municipal socialism in America, including in cities like Milwaukee under the “sewer socialists” and, more recently, in Burlington under Bernie Sanders serve as real examples of socialist governance marked by competence, effectiveness and popularity. Sanders’s legacy in Burlington, especially, stands as a template Mamdani could follow: pragmatic yet deeply principled governance that steadily builds broader legitimacy among skeptics and opponents.New York mayors have traditionally been considered men who come from nowhere and go nowhere, politically speaking. But Mamdani could break that mold, following Sanders’s trajectory from effective municipal leadership to becoming a durable voice in national politics.However, to succeed, Mamdani must trust his own judgment — one that has already proved incisive and strategically sound. He must maintain independence from two city establishments: the corporate one, which opposed him at every turn, and the NGO-driven progressive establishment, whose political instincts failed them in recent election cycles.Mamdani’s platform, which couples a supply-side focused “abundance agenda” with demands for equitable redistribution and expansive public-sector investment, offers precisely the kind of social-democratic governance model New York desperately needs. There’s nothing fundamentally radical about these demands; rather, what’s genuinely radical is the excitement they have inspired among voters, including many who previously disengaged from local politics altogether.Tonight, Mamdani has undoubtedly delivered a major victory in America’s largest city. But we must be sober about the challenges ahead. Electoral wins are meaningful only if they translate into tangible improvements in people’s lives, and political momentum can dissipate quickly if governance falls short. Mamdani faces an enormous responsibility – not only to his immediate constituency but also to a broader progressive movement watching closely from across the country and the world.

      Bhaskar Sunkara is the president of The Nation, the founding editor Jacobin, and the author of The Socialist Manifesto: The Case for Radical Politics in An Era of Extreme Inequalities More

    • 188 Shares95 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump is angry with a world that won’t give him easy deals | Rafael Behr

      by

      It was as close as Donald Trump might get to a lucid statement of his governing doctrine. “I may do it. I may not do it,” the president said to reporters on the White House lawn. “Nobody knows what I’m going to do.”The question was about joining Israeli air strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Days later, US bombers were on their way. Some expected it to happen. Others, including Keir Starmer, had gone on record to say they didn’t. No one had known. The unpredictability doctrine wouldn’t have been violated either way.It applies also in economic and domestic policy. Trump’s boast of inscrutability could have been made about tariff rates, or a decision to deploy marines against US citizens who defy his immigration agency.Volatile inconsistency is a trait of the presidential personality, but also a learned management technique. Keeping everyone around you guessing, lurching from charm to menaces, swapping and dropping favourites on a whim – these are methods of coercive control. They generate disorientation and vulnerability. People who are braced for sudden mood swings must hang on the leader’s every word, looking for cues, awaiting instruction. Individual agency is lost, dependency is induced. It is something cult leaders do.A method that works with a quasi-monarchical entourage is poorly suited to international affairs. Foreign leaders are not White House courtiers. They might seek the US president’s favour in trade or fear his military wrath, but always with competing national interests in the background. On the world stage, Trump will never feel the unalloyed devotion he gets from worshippers at a Maga rally, which is one reason why he hates to travel.That tension is palpable at this week’s Nato summit in The Hague. Trump makes no secret of his disdain for European democracies. He resents their reliance on the Pentagon for security. He is unconvinced that defending their continent, especially the corner of it under violent assault from Russia, is the US’s problem. The threat he briefly made in his first term to pull out of Nato if other members didn’t start paying their way still hangs over the alliance. European leaders must strive to keep Trump onside while contingency planning for the day he decides to abandon them.Matthew Whitaker, the US’s permanent representative at Nato, tried to be reassuring on that point at the summit, declaring that it “has never been more engaged”. But he also conceded ignorance of what Trump might actually do. “I don’t want … to claim to be able to read his mind and know what he’s going to say.”That is the doctrine: nobody knows. This forces Nato members into an awkward dance, performing for Trump’s benefit while also working around him. They want to impress him with their financial ambition, pledging to spend 5% of their national GDP on defence by 2035. But they know also not to expect any reciprocal commitment, or none that can be trusted.War in the Middle East ramps the uncertainty up to new heights. European leaders need to stay focused on Ukraine and the prospect of Russia turning its territorial aggression on some other portion of Nato’s eastern flank. Vladimir Putin sees no legitimacy in borders that were drawn by the collapse of the Soviet Union. He has also geared Russia’s economy, political apparatus and propaganda machinery to assume perpetual war with the west. One lesson from Ukraine’s plight is to assume that when Putin says he is going to fight, he means it. Another is that, while deterrence is expensive, it is cheaper than the war that comes when the Kremlin feels confidently undeterred.These calculations keep Europeans up at night, but not Trump. He doesn’t recognise Russia as the aggressor in Ukraine and would happily see the war end on terms that leave Nato humiliated and Putin emboldened, and signal an epoch-defining shift in the balance of global power away from democracy.But framing the choice in grand geostrategic terms obscures pettier motives, which are often the salient ones with Trump. He doesn’t want to take Kyiv’s side because that is what Joe Biden did. It isn’t his cause and so he thinks it is dumb.This is not the case with Iran. US allies are required, in public at least, to judge Trump’s military intervention as though it were made according to a conventional diplomatic and strategic calculus: the prospect of Tehran wielding powers of nuclear apocalypse is truly abhorrent; negotiation was not bearing fruit. Maybe there was reason to dispute US intelligence assessments that said the threshold of weapons-readiness was not imminent. Maybe the time to act really was at hand.But those are rationalising arguments, retrofitted to a choice that Trump made as much from vanity as any more sophisticated motive. He was bounced into war by Benjamin Netanyahu. The Israeli prime minister appears to have gamed the US president’s aversion to looking weak and his limitless appetite for glory. Early Israeli success – an extraordinary feat of military intelligence that took out senior Iranian commanders and assets – offered Trump the prospect of climbing aboard a winning operation and grabbing credit for victory.Hints that regime change was on the agenda may have prodded Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, towards a ceasefire on the basis that early capitulation with some power retained, while unpalatable, is preferable to assassination. Senior White House officials insisted the war aims were limited to containment of the nuclear threat, but since they hadn’t even known a war was coming their authority on the matter is questionable.Trump’s supporters say this is proof that his volatile style works. In strategic studies it is known as the “madman theory”. Discarding guardrails, looking ready to do something irrational, forces an enemy to choose caution. The obvious risk is that it also teaches the rest of the world the merit of madness. Iran’s rulers will be more convinced than ever that only nuclear weapons can guarantee their sovereignty. (That view would persist through regime change, since none of the viable scenarios result in a flowering of pro-western democracy in the region. Tehran’s atomic ambitions may be set back by years, but the cause of negotiated, multilateral non-proliferation is also in tatters.)That doesn’t interest Trump. He thinks in terms of easy wins, not complex consequences. Hence his palpable irritation with Israel and Iran for violating the ceasefire and generally not knowing “what the fuck they’re doing”. He is aware that he looks played by Netanyahu, much as he once showed a flicker of frustration with Putin for “tapping” him along in negotiations to end the war in Ukraine. He promised US voters deals. He gets cross when the world withholds them from him.This is a natural function of the unpredictability doctrine. Telling other countries they can never know what you’ll do makes them less responsive to diplomacy; less biddable to the whim of a US president. A vicious cycle then begins. Trump relies on his volatile persona to assert control in situations that he doesn’t understand, generating chaos that exposes his impotence, which in turn provokes him to tug in more arbitrary fury at his levers of power.For European democracies this is debilitating. It is hard to coordinate defence against external threats when the paramount power in your alliance is the origin of so much instability. But Nato leaders will get no respite from the uncertainty as long as Trump sits in the White House. The thing they most need from him – reliability – is the one thing he is destined by personality and doctrine never to provide.

      Rafael Behr is a Guardian columnist More

    • 125 Shares151 Views

      in US Politics

      Doge employee ‘Big Balls’ has resigned, says White House official

      by

      One of the US so-called “department of government efficiency” (Doge) service’s best-known employees, 19-year-old Edward Coristine, has resigned from the US government, a White House official said on Tuesday, a month after the acrimonious departure of his former boss Elon Musk.The White House official gave no further details on the move and Coristine did not immediately return an email seeking comment.Coristine worked at Musk’s brain connectivity company Neuralink before joining the tech billionaire as he led Doge established by the Trump administration earlier this year. Doge has overseen job cuts at almost every federal agency but is starting to see losses itself. Key Musk lieutenant Steve Davis, who was in charge of day-to-day running of Doge, has also left, along with others.The White House has said that Doge’s mission will continue.Coristine’s youth and online moniker “Big Balls” became a pop-culture meme as Doge swept through the US government, seizing data and firing employees en masse.Last month, Reuters reported that Coristine was one of two Doge associates promoting the use of AI across the federal bureaucracy. Media outlets, including Wired which first reported his departure, revealed that Coristine had been active in a chat room popular with hackers and previously had been fired from a job following an alleged data leak.In March, Reuters reported that Coristine had provided tech support to a cybercrime gang that had bragged about trafficking in stolen data and harassing an FBI agent.Beginning around 2022, while still in high school, Coristine ran a company called DiamondCDN that provided network services, according to corporate and digital records reviewed by Reuters and interviews with half a dozen former associates.Among its users was a website run by a ring of cybercriminals operating under the name “EGodly”, according to digital records preserved by the internet intelligence firm DomainTools and the online cybersecurity tool Any.Run.The digital records reviewed by Reuters showed the EGodly website, dataleak.fun, was tied to internet protocol addresses registered to DiamondCDN and other Coristine-owned entities between October 2022 and June 2023, and that some users attempting to access the site around that time would hit a DiamondCDN “security check”.In 2023, EGodly boasted on its Telegram channel of hijacking phone numbers, breaking into unspecified law enforcement email accounts in Latin America and Eastern Europe, and cryptocurrency theft.Early that year, the group distributed the personal details of an FBI agent who they said was investigating them, circulating his phone number, photographs of his house, and other private details on Telegram.EGodly also posted an audio recording of an obscene prank call made to the agent’s phone and a video, shot from the inside of a car, of an unknown party driving by the agent’s house in Wilmington, Delaware, at night and screaming out the window: “EGodly says you’re a bitch!“Reuters could not independently verify EGodly’s boasts of cybercriminal activity, including its claims to have hijacked phone numbers or infiltrated law enforcement emails. But it was able to authenticate the video by visiting the same Wilmington address and comparing the building to the one in the footage.The FBI agent targeted by EGodly, who is now retired, told Reuters that the group had drawn law enforcement attention because of its connection to swatting, the dangerous practice of making hoax emergency calls to send armed officers swarming targeted addresses. The agent didn’t go into detail. Reuters is not identifying him out of concern for further harassment.“These are bad folks,” the former agent said. “They’re not a pleasant group.” More

    • 150 Shares103 Views

      in US Politics

      Judge blocks Trump from withholding EV charger funds awarded to 14 states

      by

      A US district judge has blocked the Trump administration from withholding funds previously awarded to 14 states for electric vehicle charger infrastructure.Seattle-based judge Tana Lin, who was appointed to the bench by Joe Biden in 2021, granted a partial injunction to the states that filed suit against Trump’s Department of Transportation.She ruled that the states’ lawsuit – led by attorneys general in California, Colorado and Washington – would likely succeed. Her ruling did not apply to the District of Columbia, Minnesota and Vermont, which she found did not provide evidence that they would suffer immediate harm. The injunction will go into effect on 1 July, unless the Trump administration files an appeal blocking it.In February, the Trump administration ordered states not to spend $5bn in funds allocated under the Biden administration as part of the national electric vehicle infrastructure (Nevi) program.The program provided up to 80% of eligible project costs to deploy electric vehicle charges. Currently, 16 states have at least one operational EV station, according to EV States Clearinghouse.“The new leadership of the Department of Transportation … has decided to review the policies underlying the implementation of the Nevi formula program,” Emily Biondi, associate administrator for planning, environment and realty at the transportation department’s Federal Highway Administration, wrote in a memo.“As result of the rescission of the Nevi formula program guidance, the FHWA is also immediately suspending the approval of all state electric vehicle infrastructure deployment plans for all fiscal years. Therefore, effective immediately, no new obligations may occur under the Nevi formula program until the updated final Nevi formula program guidance is issued and new state plans are submitted and approved,” she added.In May, the Government Accountability Office found that the Trump administration violated the law when it withheld the funding. The administration “must continue to carry out the statutory requirements of the program”, it said.The White House challenged those findings, which it called “wrong and legally indefensible”, and ordered the transportation department to ignore them. The department is expected to release a draft of its updated electric vehicle guidance this month.During a hearing before the Seattle judge earlier this month, Leah Brown, of Washington’s attorney general’s office said, “This passing reference to revised guidance and to changed priorities is simply insufficient to override congressional intent.” She added that the states aren’t “challenging the ability to revise guidance, but we are arguing that doing so simply is not a sufficient explanation for the actions that they’ve taken,” the Washington State Standard reported.“The agency has no intent to withhold funds from the states,” justice department attorney Heidy Gonzalez said. “It just wants the opportunity to review past guidance and to promulgate guidance that comports with the current administration’s policies and priorities.”During his campaign for the presidency, Donald Trump voiced a hatred for electric vehicles that ran counter to his growing friendship with Tesla CEO Elon Musk.At one point in the campaign, Trump said supporters of the vehicles should “rot in hell” and that Biden’s support of EVs would bring a “bloodbath” to the US’s automotive industry.Although he later appointed Musk to serve as head of the “department of government efficiency”, Musk and Trump have since parted ways. More