World news

Subterms

    More stories

    • 188 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘A human rights disaster’: immigrants sent into Guantánamo black hole despite no proof of crime

      by

      Handcuffed and shackled, the men appear in government propaganda photos being herded towards military cargo planes that will carry them to an uncertain future in an infamous land.“These individuals are the worst of the worst that we have pulled off of our streets,” Donald Trump’s homeland security chief, Kristi Noem, thundered against the supposedly “criminal alien murderers, rapists, child predators and gangsters” being packed off to Guantánamo Bay.In interviews and on social media, Noem alleged those being sent to the notorious US naval base in Cuba included South American “child pedophiles”, drug traffickers and “vicious gang members” guilty of “heinous crimes”.But 10 days after the Trump administration began sending immigrants to Guantánamo, authorities have yet to provide proof of those claims as mystery continues to surround their identities and doubts grow over whether many have committed any crime at all.“It sounds like this picture the government is painting of them being people who are dangerous and violent is patently false,” said Jessica Vosburgh, a senior staff attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights, which is part of a coalition of rights groups that this week sued the Trump administration for access to the Guantánamo detainees. “It’s clear the folks who we suspect have been sent to Guantánamo are not, on the whole, dangerous people,” Vosburgh added, even if people in immigration detention “may have a mix of criminal backgrounds”.View image in fullscreenJ Wells Dixon, a lawyer with nearly two decades’ experience working with prisoners in a place critics call “America’s gulag”, said: “It is almost impossible to know exactly what is happening at Guantánamo at this moment. I’m not sure the Trump administration really understands what is happening.”The pictures US authorities have released of people they call “highly dangerous criminal aliens” have inadvertently shed some light on the identity of Trump’s Guantánamo internees.According to the website Migrant Insider, relatives identified one member of the first 10-member group flown to Guantánamo on 4 February as Luis Alberto Castillo Rivera. The 23-year-old Venezuelan was detained seeking asylum on the southern border on 19 January, one day before Trump took power vowing to return “millions and millions of criminal aliens back to the places from which they came”. “He’s innocent,” Castillo’s sister, Yajaira Castillo, told the Spanish news agency EFE, denying her brother was part of Venezuela’s Tren de Aragua gang.A second man spotted in the photos is Tilso Ramón Gómez Lugo, 37, a car mechanic from north-west Venezuela who had been sent to an immigration detention facility in Texas after being picked up on the border in April 2024. “I’ve known him since he was a child. He’s an educated boy who has no problems with anyone. He is someone with good parents, a hard worker and a good family – and very well-liked in the town we are from,” a friend, who asked not to be named, told the Guardian.“Trump had and has my support – but I do not agree with these extreme measures, especially against our compatriots,” added the friend, who like many fellow Venezuelans backed Trump believing he would take a hard-line stance on their home country’s authoritarian leader, Nicolás Maduro.A third detainee is reportedly 25-year-old Yoiker David Sequera, a Venezuelan barber who was reportedly picked up by border agents last September after making the perilous journey through the Darién jungles between Colombia and Panama to reach the US. “My son is no criminal,” one relative, who suspected Sequera had been targeted because of his tattoos, told Migrant Insider.For the most part, however, the life stories of the immigrants remain an enigma.View image in fullscreen“The US government has shared close to nothing … they’re being completely evasive with sharing names,” said Vosburgh, whose conversations with other detainees and relatives of those suspected to be in Guantánamo led her to believe that Noem’s descriptions of the detainees as “vicious” criminals were “bald-faced lies”.A senior Department of Homeland Security official said all of those sent to Guantánamo had “committed a crime by entering the United States illegally”. “In addition to holding violent gang members and other high-threat illegal aliens, Guantánamo Bay is also holding other illegal aliens with final deportation orders. Every single alien at Guantánamo Bay has a final deportation order,” the official added, without offering evidence that any of the detainees had links to gangs or crime.The official declined to disclose precisely how many detainees were being held at Guantánamo but said it was “less than 100”. “In total, there have been eight flights in eight days,” the official added on Wednesday. On Thursday the New York Times said 98 men had been sent to the island base by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) between 4 and 11 February.“We don’t know who these individuals are yet. In that sense, it is reminiscent of Guantánamo’s past,” said Dixon, recalling the base’s post-9/11 conversion into a prison for “enemy combatants” captured in the “war on terror”.“People may forget [that] after Guantánamo opened in early 2002, it took quite a long time to learn who was detained [there], why they were there and what had happened to them. That information only started to become public when lawyers like me started traveling to Guantánamo to meet these individuals.”Back then, US authorities also called those held at Guantánamo “the worst of the worst”, recalled Dixon.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“The reality was something very different. The reality was that you had people like the Uyghurs [Turkic Muslims] who had fled persecution in China and were rounded up in the aftermath of the US invasion of Afghanistan … and ended up in Guantánamo … The reality was something very different from the propaganda – and I think that’s undoubtedly what you’re going to see here.”Lee Gelernt, a lawyer from the American Civil Liberties Union, said all of the detainees were thought to be Venezuelan men. “But until we’re down there, we can’t be sure. And the government’s … threatening to send thousands [of people, so] I suspect at some point it’ll move beyond Venezuelans,” he added.If the identities of the Guantánamo detainees remain cloaked in secrecy, activists say there is little doubt over the conditions that await them at an isolated island base that has become synonymous with human rights abuses and torture.Fifty-three of the 98 detainees have reportedly been sent to a medium- to high-security military prison called Camp 6. It has previously been used to house “war on terror” prisoners, in some cases for years. The other 45 people are being held in “a lower-security building” on the other side of the base and being guarded by members of the US Coast Guard, according to the New York Times.A 2007 Amnesty International report painted a dire picture of life inside Camp 6, which was originally built to house 178 detainees. The US government claimed the facility combined “humane treatment with security needs” but activists called conditions there “unacceptably harsh”.The cells had no access to natural light or air and were lit by fluorescent lighting 24 hours a day, Amnesty said. Detainees “consistently complained of being too cold in the steel cells” as a result of air conditioning controlled by guards.Five Uyghur prisoners cited in the report told lawyers Camp 6’s strict regime left them feeling “despair, crushing loneliness, and abandonment by the world”. One previously smiley, “gentle and pleasant” man now “appeared to be in despair” and said he was “beginning to hear voices”.Dixon said it was possible detainees could be held in isolation for 22 hours each day.Yael Schacher, the director for the Americas and Europe at Refugees International, said the Guantánamo detainees had fallen into “a legal black hole”.“You can’t call your relatives and you can’t get contact with your lawyers. So it’s really, really isolated. It’s basically just like warehousing away people without recourse … and the inability to contact the outside world is intense,” she said, calling for an end to Trump’s transfers.Schacher believes the Guantánamo transfers were designed to please Trump’s base. “It’s political theater … cruelty theater … harsh-on-immigrants theater,” she added.“All we really know is that the Trump administration is trying to evoke the terrible images of Guantánamo in order to appear tough on illegal immigration in the United States. That’s what this is about,” said Dixon. “This is not about law or policy … It’s a catastrophic human rights disaster.”Additional reporting by Clavel Rangel More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Vance to meet Zelenskyy as European leaders call for unity over Ukraine

      by

      The US vice-president, JD Vance, will face calls for greater consultation and coherence when he meets European leaders, including the president of Ukraine, at a security conference in Munich.The timing of Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s meeting with US officials, initially scheduled for Friday morning, remained unclear because the US secretary of state, Marco Rubio, had to change his flight from Washington when the plane experienced a mechanical fault.The expected showdown came after 48 hours in which senior members of the Trump administration, including the president, unleashed a volley of contradictory positions on how and when negotiations with Russia about Ukraine’s future would be conducted.In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Vance tried to quell criticism that Donald Trump had made a series of premature and unilateral concessions in a phone call with Vladimir Putin on Wednesday.He said the US would still be prepared to impose sanctions on Russia if Moscow did not accept a satisfactory deal. “There are any number of formulations, of configurations, but we do care about Ukraine having sovereign independence,” he said.Vance added the option of sending US troops to Ukraine if Moscow failed to negotiate in good faith remained “on the table”. He said there were “economic tools of leverage, there are of course military tools of leverage” the US could use against Putin.Before being nominated as vice-president, Vance said he did “not really care about Ukraine’s future, one way or the other”.Rubio added that the US had an interest in the long-term independence of Ukraine, remarks intended to imply some form of security guarantee for Ukraine.Trump has also insisted that any deal would be in consultation with Ukraine, but he has been less emphatic about the involvement of Europeans – an omission that has infuriated leaders of the continent, who believe any Ukrainian settlement will have profound consequences for European security.Trump reiterated that it would not be possible for Ukraine to ever join Nato since Putin would not accept it. In his view, Ukraine is aware of this. “I think that’s how it will have to be,” Trump said.Instead, he foresaw Russia rejoining the G7 group of wealthy countries as part of its reintegration into western economies.The US defence secretary, Pete Hegseth, who was due to meet his Polish counterpart in Warsaw on Friday, said the US was not making premature concessions.European leaders have long expected Trump would slash US support for Ukraine, but have been shocked by the lack of planning by the administration and the absence of consultation with allies.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe French president joined the chorus of politicians demanding the US adopt a more careful and coordinated approach. “A peace that is a capitulation is bad news for everyone,” Emmanuel Macron said.“The only question at this point is whether President Putin is sincerely, sustainably … prepared for a ceasefire on that basis,” he said, adding that Europe would have a “role to play” in regional security discussions.The most angry response from a senior European politician came from Kaja Kallas, the new EU foreign policy chief and former Estonian president.“Why are we giving them [Russia] everything they want even before the negotiations have started? It’s appeasement. It has never worked,” she said, adding that Nato membership for Ukraine was the “strongest” and “cheapest” security guarantee available.She suggested the war would continue with European support if Zelenskyy was cut out of the talks. “If there is agreement made behind our backs, it simply will not work,” Kallas said. “The Ukrainians will resist and we will support them.”Hegseth also downplayed the relevance of European values to security policy: “We can talk all we want about values. Values are important. But you can’t shoot values. You can’t shoot flags and you can’t shoot strong speeches. There is no replacement for hard power.” More

    • 113 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      Oh, Canada! Can Trump just take it? – podcast

      by

      Archive: 10 News First, BBC News, CBC News, CTV News, Fox News, NBC News, CNN, CBS News
      Listen to The Audio Long Read on Trump’s tariff plan with China
      Send your questions and feedback to politicsweeklyamerica@theguardian.com
      Help support the Guardian by going to theguardian.com/politcspodus More

    • 163 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      The heartlessness of the deal: how Trump’s ‘America first’ stance sold out Ukraine

      by

      In Donald Trump’s world, everything has its price.There is no place for sentiment in his politics. Common values cannot secure loans for military aid. And the US president does not care who controls the blood-soaked soils of east Ukraine, so long as he can access the rare earth minerals that lie beneath.The peace Trump will negotiate is not about justice. There is no deeper moral or morality here except for who “got it done”, and Trump has signaled that he is ready to pressure Ukraine and Europe to provide concessions to entice Russia to sign on the dotted line.All that’s left for him is to hash out a price.“I’m just here to try and get peace,” Trump said in the Oval Office, where he riffs out policy daily. “I don’t care so much about anything other than I want to stop having millions of people killed.”It is difficult to put into words what an about-face this is for US support for Ukraine, which for years was built on helping the country defend itself, though not win the war.The Biden administration helped manage the symptoms of Russian aggression. Now, Trump says he’s going to provide the cure. But it is an unwelcome one: stop resisting.Since Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022, the adage in the Oval Office had been “nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine”. Biden officials regularly said in public that Ukraine itself would decide when it was ready to negotiate.But that was before the US election. It wasn’t the issue of Ukrainian manpower or the supply of weapons that ultimately brought us to this point; it was the price of eggs in Pennsylvania. The Biden administration’s biggest betrayal of Ukraine may have been to lose the US elections, effectively surrendering Ukraine’s second front to “America first”.“We’re the thing that’s holding it back, and frankly, we’ll go as long as we have to go, because we’re not going to let the other happen,” said Trump, in what may be the only silver lining of his remarks on Monday, indicating he wouldn’t allow Ukraine to collapse completely. “But President Putin wants that peace now, and that’s good, and he didn’t want to have peace with Biden.”Some Ukrainian and Russian observers may believe the US president has a deeper plan here, perhaps to consolidate Europe and then pressure Russia as a united front while sinking the oil price. But judging by his actions in Gaza, or in the United States, there is likely to be no deeper plan.Assigning Steve Witkoff, his go-to dealmaker who negotiated the Gaza ceasefire-for-hostages deal, rather than the hawkish Gen Keith Kellogg, indicates that the process will be maximally unsentimental. Just another real estate deal.Now, much of Europe is wondering whether Trump is about to deliver them a fait accompli on their eastern flank, seeking to commit European troops with no Nato protection to Ukraine in a security agreement negotiated exclusively between Moscow and Washington.“What’s left to negotiate?” read one text message from a European official, who called it a “surrender”.In fact, that was just Trump’s opening offer.Russia has indicated it wants him to go further. In a communique, the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, said he wanted the deal to address the “origins of the conflict”, which he has previously said include Ukraine’s pro-western stance and the Nato expansions of the 2000s and 1990s.He may seek to turn back the clock, said another European official, and demand that US forces stationed in the Baltics, Poland and other former communist countries return, raising concerns about further Russian land grabs without American troops there to guarantee their defense.Such an outcome seemed even more possible on Thursday, when Trump’s defence secretary, Pete Hegseth, told his Nato counterparts that a reduction of US troop levels in Europe could be part of any deal.In effect, Trump is negotiating with Europe, not Russia. Europe has issued its counteroffer: treat us as a partner and give us a seat at the table.“We shouldn’t take anything off the table before the negotiations have even started,” said Kaja Kallas, the EU’s foreign policy chief, before the Nato meeting on Thursday. “It is clear that any deal behind our backs will not work. You need the Europeans, you need the Ukrainians.”That depends what Trump plans to do next, as Hegseth made clear. “Everything is on the table,” he said. “In his conversations with Vladimir Putin and Zelenskyy, what he decides to allow or not allow is at the purview of the leader of the free world: President Trump.”The question is who is in that free world now, and what is the price of entry. More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump proposes nuclear deal with Russia and China to halve defense budgets

      by

      Donald Trump said that he wants to restart nuclear arms control talks with Russia and China and that eventually he hopes all three countries could agree to cut their massive defense budgets in half.Speaking to reporters in the Oval Office on Thursday, Trump lamented the hundreds of billions of dollars being invested in rebuilding the nation’s nuclear deterrent and said he hopes to gain commitments from the US adversaries to cut their own spending.“There’s no reason for us to be building brand-new nuclear weapons. We already have so many,” Trump said. “You could destroy the world 50 times over, 100 times over. And here we are building new nuclear weapons, and they’re building nuclear weapons.”“We’re all spending a lot of money that we could be spending on other things that are actually, hopefully, much more productive,” Trump said.While the US and Russia have held massive stockpiles of weapons since the cold war, Trump predicted that China would catch up in their capability to exact nuclear devastation “within five or six years”.He said that if the weapons were ever called to use, “that’s going to be probably oblivion”.Trump said he would look to engage in nuclear talks with the two countries once “we straighten it all out” in the Middle East and Ukraine.“One of the first meetings I want to have is with President Xi of China, President Putin of Russia. And I want to say: ‘Let’s cut our military budget in half.’ And we can do that. And I think we’ll be able to.”Trump in his first term tried and failed to bring China into nuclear arms reduction talks when the US and Russia were negotiating an extension of a pact known as New Start. Russia suspended its participation in the treaty during the Biden administration, as the US and Russia continued on massive programs to extend the lifespans of or replace their cold war-era nuclear arsenals.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionOutlining his vision for a shake-up in the world order, Trump also said he would “love” to have Russia back in the G7, from which it was suspended in 2014 after Moscow annexed Ukraine’s Crimea peninsula.“I think it was a mistake to throw him out,” Trump said, referring to the Russian president, Vladimir Putin.In his first term, Trump also called for Russia to be readmitted, but he found little support among other western countries.Trump revealed Wednesday he expected to meet Putin separately for Ukraine peace talks, in a sudden thaw in relations.In their first confirmed contact since Trump’s return to the White House, the US president said he had held a “highly productive” conversation with his Russian counterpart, who ordered the bloody 2022 invasion of Ukraine. More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Robert F Kennedy Jr sworn in as health secretary after Senate confirmation

      by

      Robert F Kennedy Jr has taken control of America’s vast healthcare apparatus, after the Senate voted on Thursday to confirm the controversial anti-vaccine campaigner’s nomination as health secretary.The Senate voted 52 to 48, with all Republicans other than the veteran Kentucky senator and former majority leader, Mitch McConnell, backing the former environmental lawyer.Kennedy was sworn in later on Thursday by US supreme court justice Neil Gorsuch.Kennedy abandoned his independent presidential bid last year after a weak campaign and endorsed Donald Trump.The vote installs one of America’s most prominent vaccine skeptics to run its federal health infrastructure, granting oversight of the very agencies – including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration – that he has spent years battling through lawsuits and public campaigns. Kennedy will wield sweeping authority over the nation’s $2tn health system, including drug approvals for Medicare, the government health insurance scheme for older Americans.His path to the top crystallized after securing backing from the Republican senator Bill Cassidy, a physician who extracted what he called “unprecedented” commitments for collaboration from both Kennedy and the Trump campaign. The key moderate Senate Republicans Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski also fell in line this week, having previously expressed doubts over Trump’s nomination.McConnell, the lone Republican defection, cited his own experience battling childhood polio as a primary reason for his vote against Kennedy.“I’m a survivor of childhood polio,” McConnell said. “In my lifetime, I’ve watched vaccines save millions of lives from devastating diseases across America and around the world. I will not condone the re-litigation of proven cures.”At his confirmation hearing, Kennedy equivocated and said he just wanted to ensure vaccine safety and would not stop vaccines from being available. But he has long peddled conspiracy theories and debunked claims, including that vaccinating babies against measles, mumps and rubella is linked to autism, and had previously said that “no vaccine is safe and effective”.He also tried to persuade the US government to rescind authorization for the newly developed coronavirus vaccine in 2021, despite the world having desperately waited for the shots to be developed while millions died during the pandemic. At the hearing he said “I don’t think anybody can say that” the Covid-19 vaccines saved millions of lives.McConnell said: “Individuals, parents, and families have a right to push for a healthier nation and demand the best possible scientific guidance on preventing and treating illness. But a record of trafficking in dangerous conspiracy theories and eroding trust in public health institutions does not entitle Mr Kennedy to lead these important efforts.”This was the second time in as many days that McConnell has opposed one of Trump’s nominees. On Wednesday, he voted against confirming Tulsi Gabbard as director of national intelligence, again the sole Republican to do so.Democrats – the party historically aligned with the Kennedy family legacy – have, on the other hand, totally disavowed RFK Jr as a nominee, chiefly based on his lack of subject area expertise.“Robert F Kennedy Jr is not remotely qualified to become the next secretary of health and human services,” the Senate minority leader, Chuck Schumer, said on the floor on Wednesday. “In fact, I might go further. Robert F Kennedy Jr might be one of the least qualified people the president could have chosen for the job.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionMost of the wider Kennedy political clan disowned RFK Jr, the son of the former US attorney general Robert F Kennedy and the nephew of US president John F Kennedy, during his presidential campaign last year.JFK’s daughter Caroline Kennedy, the former US ambassador to Australia, wrote to lawmakers ahead of the confirmation process and called her cousin a predator, saying he had enriched himself through his anti-vaccine “crusade”, while making victims of sick children and their families. She also noted that he had vaccinated his own children, something Kennedy says he now regrets having done.Kennedy has been at the center of numerous other controversies, including being accused of sexual misconduct, staging pranks with roadkill, including a dead bear cub, and claiming a previous illness was caused by having a worm in his brain, which prompted some opponents to call him a laughing stock. Kennedy has talked about his own recovery from heroin addiction. Through it all, Trump stuck with his nomination and on Thursday the Republican-controlled Senate acquiesced.Kennedy has in the past, however, been admired by Democratic leaders for his environmental advocacy. He has pledged to take on the big food manufacturers to try to loosen their grip on America’s over-processed diet and has become the face of the Trump administration’s offshoot motto “Maha”, or Make American Healthy Again.During the Senate finance committee hearing, Elizabeth Warren had raised alarm over Kennedy’s financial ties to anti-vaccine litigation, including a fee-sharing arrangement with the law firm Wisner Baum that earned him $2.5m over three years – an arrangement he initially planned to maintain while serving as secretary before amending his ethics agreement under pressure.Post-confirmation, the Democratic senator from Massachusetts, who had her own run for president in 2020, reiterated her dismay, calling the vote in favor of the incoming secretary of health and human services “a huge mistake”.“When dangerous diseases resurface and people can’t access lifesaving vaccines, all Americans will suffer,” Warren said in a statement. “And thanks to his serious, unresolved conflicts of interest, RFK Jr’s family could continue getting richer from his anti-vaccine crusade while he’s in office.”The Republican senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, defended his vote for Kennedy. “Every president deserves their team,” Graham said, adding: “I look forward to working with RFK Jr to improve our quality of life and health in America.” More

    • 213 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      The #Resistance is no more. But a quieter fightback to Trump 2.0 is growing | Jon Allsop

      by

      In January 2017, the day after Donald Trump was first inaugurated as US president, hundreds of thousands of protesters descended on Washington for a “Women’s March” that was actually a broader-based vessel for popular rage. Not that the atmosphere was uniformly angry: I covered the march for a US radio network and found pockets of joy among the crowd. “It’s really exciting,” a teenager from New York told me. “It’s democracy in action.”The march, and parallel events around the country, was emblematic of what came to be known as the #Resistance, a loud liberal movement in opposition to Trump that took the form not only of mass protests, but court fights, adversarial media coverage (and increased consumption thereof) and grassroots organising. The movement made cult figures (not to mention merchandise) of figures seen as standing up for institutions, from the Trump-probing special counsel Robert Mueller to the supreme court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.Now though, as Trump’s second term is under way, a consensus has formed that the #Resistance is dead. Almost as soon as Trump won in November, media leaders swore off the term, and liberal news consumers appeared to tune out. Titans of tech and culture who criticised Trump last time around either openly backed him or grovelled at his feet; even staunch Democrats suggested that they would find areas of common ground with his new administration. Protests around the inauguration were much smaller. Ross Barkan argued recently in the New York Times Magazine that the era of “hyperpolitics” – or politics as an all-consuming social battleground – is now over.Why? The principal answer might simply be fatigue. Trump is an exhausting figure, and American politics has now revolved around him for nearly a decade. And hopes that the burst of first-term energy against him would exile him from public life proved forlorn.The opposition to Trump also appears rudderless. The institutional Democratic party might technically have a new leader – Ken Martin, a little-known apparatchik – but for now, it lacks towering political talents. Many supporters doubtless feel disillusioned after watching Joe Biden cast the last election in existential terms, then fail to do everything in his power to ensure that the Democrats won it, before welcoming Trump back with warm words and a cuppa.And, if the Democrats are palpably diminished, there is a sense that Trump stands astride the political landscape as a colossus. In 2016, he won the electoral college but lost the popular vote by nearly 3 million, making room for the conclusion that his win was a fluke or somehow illegitimate. This time, the country knew the threat he posed, and he won decisively anyway. Trump and his allies have seized on that fact to claim a huge mandate.As the influential New York Times columnist Ezra Klein has noted, Trump’s victory has percolated down into US culture. Big tech firms and other industries may have submitted to Trump’s will this time out of fear that he would otherwise use the power of the state against them. But it seems equally likely that they are using the clarity of his victory as a permission slip to distance themselves from pesky liberal imperatives (diversity! Workers’ rights!) that they never liked, while seizing on areas of interest alignment and ideological affinity. For all his populist rhetoric, Trump has always been a slasher of tax and red tape at heart.The vibes, as the saying goes, have shifted since 2017. Trump has proved to be a lasting reflection of deep currents in American public opinion, not an accident. Peppy Obama-era liberalism is discredited. The #Resistance really does appear to be dead.Get rid of the hashtag and capital letter, however, and a small “r” resistance to Trump is still visible, as the Washington Post’s Perry Bacon Jr and New York magazine’s Rebecca Traister have argued. In-person protests are kicking back into gear – albeit still on a smaller scale – as are Democratic blocking moves in Congress. There’s evidence that liberals are tuning back into the news.None of this matches the mass energy and ubiquitous liberal iconography of 2017. But the less flashy work that undergirded the #Resistance – civil society groups suing to block Trump’s policies; local-level organising – is very much in evidence again this time. The Women’s March was a headline-grabbing show of force, but the courts were the most important brake on Trump in the early days of his first term. That’s already been the case again.And Trump is more vulnerable than he might appear to be, for two main reasons. First, if it was an overreaction to think that his 2017 win was an aberration, it’s also an overreaction to see him as an electoral Goliath now; he won the popular vote last year only narrowly and with a plurality, not a majority. Second, he might be enjoying a honeymoon, but his radical and chaotic early moves in office are already likely eating up his political and cultural capital.In part, this is by design. Trump and his allies want to overwhelm their opponents, as has been well documented. But I think they also want to provoke them. Trumpism as a political project is about conquest, yes, but it’s also about conflict – it needs resistance in order to thrive. It is a politics that will keep on pushing until opponents can’t not fight back.The past few weeks might have heralded the death of a specific brand or aesthetic of oppositional politics. But the underpinning idea is alive. It might not feel exciting any more, but democracy is still in action.

      Jon Allsop is a freelance journalist. He writes CJR’s newsletter The Media Today More

    • 250 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump and Musk’s attack on USAid is causing global chaos. Millions of lives are now at risk | Devi Sridhar

      by

      Amid the daily troubling news coming from the United States are the ongoing and increasingly damaging efforts by President Donald Trump, supported by secretary of state Marco Rubio and Elon Musk, to shut down the US Agency for International Development (USAid). Musk has called it a “criminal organization” and said that it was “time for it to die”. The agency website is down, so little official information is available. But in the week since funding to the agency was frozen, and the majority of staff placed on leave, thousands of public health and development programmes worldwide have been thrown into turmoil, and now face an uncertain future.USAid is the main federal agency that works to provide foreign aid assistance to the poorest countries and people in the world. On Friday, a US judge prevented around 2,000 USAid employees from being placed on leave, and ordered the reinstatement of about 500 more. But Trump and Musk appear to want to move forward with a plan that would see its global workforce reduced from about 10,000 staff and contractors, to just over 600.It’s hard to overstate how disruptive this has already been to humanitarian work worldwide: most programmes have just been shut overnight with staff laid off, drugs and food left in warehouses, and patients and others not able to access services. The people affected live in some of the most vulnerable countries like Ukraine, Jordan, Ethiopia, Somalia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Afghanistan.Although we don’t know the full extent of the damage, specific reports suggest that vital services have been thrown into chaos. Some walk-in sexual health and HIV services in South Africa shuttered overnight without notice, Ethiopia’s health ministry has reportedly laid off 5,000 healthcare professionals who were hired with US funding, and nearly half a billion dollars worth of food aid overseen by the agency and currently in ports, transit or storage is destined to spoil.USAid’s overall contribution is immense. It is the largest humanitarian operator globally – in 2023, the US provided 42% of all humanitarian assistance or about $68bn (£55bn), of which USAid spending made up about $40bn. And yet at the same time, both foreign aid and USAid specifically make up a tiny fraction of federal government spending: less than 1%. Cutting back makes little difference to overall US government spending, but is massively destructive to programmes reliant on this funding to deliver their on-the-ground work.What does that less than 1% of federal spending buy the US public? This argument has been re-hashed in presidency after presidency, and the answers are clear.Foreign aid can reduce instability, conflict and extreme poverty, which are major causes of mass displacement. Supporting programmes that keep more places safe and stable means fewer people needing to flee persecution, dire poverty or violence. With all the concerns over illegal immigration, reducing aid could make this challenge even harder to manage. Foreign aid can support countries to grow economically and create new markets and opportunities. Think of places like India, which have managed to create a vibrant and growing middle class.In the world of global health, foreign aid is vital to support countries in managing health challenges, including outbreaks of infectious diseases. Just think back to the west Africa Ebola outbreak in 2014. Liberia, Guinea and Sierra Leone struggled to contain Ebola spreading and were reliant on international partners to assist them. It was in the interest of all countries to help them given that the global spread of Ebola was imminent. In addition, the US builds vital soft power and influence in countries in which it provides help. Russia and China have learned this lesson – and will probably step into the aid vacuum left by the US.And beyond any of those “enlightened self-interest” arguments above is the simple fact that foreign aid helps other human beings who are struggling, including some of the poorest and most vulnerable in the world. It’s good to do because it’s simply good to do. Cutting programmes overnight means that women who might have lived are more likely to die in childbirth; those with HIV face not having access to clinics for lifesaving antiretroviral treatment; and hungry children no longer get nutritional supplements and food.Foreign aid shouldn’t be a partisan issue. The largest global health programme for a single disease, Pepfar, was launched by a Republican president, George W Bush, and is estimated to have prevented 25 million Aids deaths since its creation. I think back to a poll of Americans in 2016 by the Kaiser Family Foundation, where more than 60% of respondents said that the US was spending either the right amount or too little on global health, and only about 30% thought it was spending too much. It’s not clear that the US public actually supports these drastic cuts and freezes.Perhaps many now think that the US needs to worry more about its own domestic financial troubles than sending money overseas. A recent study found that the US economy is performing better than any of its peer countries, but performs worse on other metrics like health, happiness and social trust. “Wealthy but unhappy” is what the study’s authors found. Maybe the lesson here is that Americans need to reject Trump’s discourse and embrace being part of a global community and engaging with the world through agencies like USAid. That could lead to an America that is still wealthy, but just a bit more healthy and happy.

      Prof Devi Sridhar is chair of global public health at the University of Edinburgh More