World news

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Kremlin says US foreign policy pivot ‘largely coincides with our vision’

      by

      The Kremlin said on Sunday that the dramatic pivot in the foreign policy of the US “largely” coincides with its own vision, with Donald Trump described as having “common sense”.The US president, who has often said he respects his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin, has worked to build ties with Moscow since taking office in January, including twice siding with Russia in UN votes.“The new administration is rapidly changing all foreign policy configurations,” the Kremlin spokesperson, Dmitry Peskov, told a reporter from state television. “This largely coincides with our vision.”Peskov added: “There is a long way to go, because there is huge damage to the whole complex of bilateral relations. But if the political will of the two leaders, President Putin and President Trump, is maintained, this path can be quite quick and successful.”Peskov made the comments on Wednesday but they were only made public on Sunday, two days after Trump defended Putin during a fiery clash with the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, at the Oval Office on Friday.Trump has upended US policy on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which marked its third anniversary last week. On Friday, he told Zelenskyy he was losing the war and had “no cards” to play.Russia’s foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, also praised Trump for his “commonsense” aim to end the war in Ukraine and accused European powers, who have rallied to support Zelenskyy and are meeting with the Ukrainian leader at a summit in London on Sunday, of seeking to prolong the conflict.Trump “is a pragmatist”, Lavrov told the Russian military newspaper Krasnaya Zvezda, according to a transcript released by the foreign ministry. “His slogan is common sense. It means, as everyone can see, a shift to a different way of doing things.”Lavrov said the US still sought to be the world’s most powerful country and that Washington and Moscow would never see eye to eye on everything, but they could resort to pragmatism when interests coincided.The Kremlin often rebuked the former US president Joe Biden, accusing him in November of “adding fuel to the fire” by allowing Kyiv to use long-range missiles for strikes against Russia.Lavrov said that after Biden’s administration, “people have come in who want to be guided by common sense. They say directly that they want to end all wars, they want peace. And who demands a ‘continuation of the banquet’ in the form of a war? Europe.”But, Lavrov said, “the goal is still Maga (Make America Great Again)”, referring to Trump’s political slogan. “This gives a lively, human character to politics. That’s why it’s interesting to work with him.” More

    • 188 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      The daylight savings debate misses the point: let’s make work hours flexible | Lynne Peeples

      by

      In a week, we will spring forward to daylight saving time. Donald Trump, Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy all recently shared their desires to end the biannual flip-flopping of our clocks. The Republican senator Rick Scott recently reintroduced the Sunshine Protection Act, which would lock our clocks on daylight saving time. Scientists, meanwhile, urge us to adopt the opposite: permanent standard time.The DST debate is heating back up. But all this chatter is, once again, largely missing the point–an omission particularly glaring for an administration that claims to be seeking greater efficiency.The time displayed on our walls and wrists carries only the meaning we attach. If we want to rein in our nation’s spending, if we want to make America healthy again, then we should turn attention to our inner clocks. For starters, we should nudge companies and schools to relax or revise rigid schedules – rather than, for example, reverting to pre-pandemic in-office requirements.We are all born with inner clocks, better known as our circadian rhythms. These biological drumbeats sync with our planet’s patterns to drive our bodies to do the right things at the right times: fall asleep, digest food, and fight pathogens, to name a few vital functions. But our internal timekeepers don’t all tick the same. Your 7am might be my 2pm.The upshot: a lot of money could be saved, and illness avoided, if we dropped the traditional one-schedule-fits-all that gives the clock-on-the-wall so much sway.More circadian-friendly schedules mean more people can wake, work, and learn in closer alignment with their inner clocks. They get more sleep. They take fewer sick days. This is especially true for night owls, whose circadian rhythms are most incongruous with the long-established early bird-biased schedules. Sleep loss alone is estimated to cost the US economy upwards of $400bn a year due to absenteeism, accidents, and reduced productivity. That’s around 1.5% of the country’s GDP – and far more than the approximately 1% of the GDP that pays the salaries of all federal civilian employees, whose jobs have been under attack.Impacts on sleep and sickness aside, it also pays to allow people to work or study during their peak hours of productivity and performance. Alertness, cognition, and learning fluctuate across the day. So does our ability to think critically, communicate effectively, and act morally. Risks of costly lapses of attention and reaction ride these waves, too. And, again, the ebbs and flows are unique for every person.A business’s market value is now about 90 percent intangible – tied to assets like IP, relationships and reputation. In other words, companies are investing primarily in employees’ brainpower. A few have begun optimizing those investments by taking advantage of our biological diversity.Magne Skram Hegerberg, secretary general for the Norwegian Association of Lawyers, told me he uses a curious tool to utilize peak brainpower: an army of plush frogs. During their personal power hours, employees will place one of these brightly colored plush animals on their desk or the door to their office. This signals others to “frog off”. Starting times among his workers also now range from 6.30am to 2.30pm. Meetings are held midday, when early birds and night owls overlap. After making these changes, he said, productivity in some areas doubled and, more broadly, innovation, creativity, and problem-solving improved.View image in fullscreenCamilla Kring, founder of the Copenhagen-based B-Society, has advised Hegerberg and other companies including medical giants Medtronic and AbbVie. She has watched job satisfaction rise and sick days plummet. Her end goal, she said, is to create a “new time architecture” that helps everyone better live by their inner clocks. And that includes B-persons, her term for night owls, an often-stigmatized club to which Trump and Musk belong. “You are born with this rhythm,” said Kring. “It’s not something you choose.”Among the few good things to come out of the Covid pandemic was a glimpse into a more sun-synced life. Some studies found that people, especially night owls, tended to get more sleep and maintain healthier circadian rhythms as school and work schedules were relaxed. But much of that greater flexibility is now being reversed. The Trump administration has issued an executive order to end remote work for federal workers, a mandate pushed by Musk, who enforces strict in-office policies at Tesla, SpaceX, and X. Amazon, too, made the move in January. JP Morgan and Dell plan to do the same in March. Emerging policies that restrict where an employee works also tend to define when. And that can result in wasted resources.Sure, there are benefits to having employees in the office. It can reduce loneliness, encourage teamwork, and inspire creativity. But workplaces can still foster flexibility. Business leaders can spread out work hours and schedule meetings, lunches, and other events for the middle of the day. Those gatherings would probably be more pleasant and productive, anyway, with fewer sleep-deprived and circadian-disrupted participants. And who wouldn’t also appreciate a means to stem the recent rebound in traffic congestion?Some secondary schools in Europe similarly offer students the choice of earlier or later electives while concentrating core subjects to midday periods. And a growing number of middle and high schools in the US have delayed their first bell, acknowledging that traditionally early start times are biologically backwards. Rhythms don’t just vary between us; they also change within us, drifting significantly later during adolescence. But overall progress remains slow.The consequences of permanent DST would disproportionately impact teens and other night owls. When required to arrive at a strict time for work or school, DST effectively forces them up an hour earlier than their already-late preference. The later sunrise also means they get less of the morning light that their rhythms rely on to avoid drifting even later. Some early birds, on the other hand, might appreciate the additional evening light with DST. It can nudge their bodies to postpone pumping out melatonin and let them enjoy a night out with friends.But rather than arguing over whether or how to lock the clock, a more efficient use of regulatory resources is to steer society away from strict schedules, as well as non-essential shift work and illogically drawn time zones. (For the record, there is still one wrong answer: Permanent DST would steal an hour of morning light and tack it onto the evening, further blurring the day-night contrast our inner clocks crave.)Neither Trump nor Musk appear conscious of the value and vulnerability of their inner clocks. Trump regularly posts on social media in the early hours of the morning; Musk wore sunglasses throughout last week’s CPAC conference. Still, it is in their power to help themselves and the American people better live and work with–rather than against–their inner clocks, regardless of whether the clock on the wall reads DST or standard time. It is a matter of efficiency that they would be foolish not to embrace.

      Lynne Peeples is a science journalist and author of the new book The Inner Clock: Living in Sync with Our Circadian Rhythms More

    • 238 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      In this dangerous age, Britain needs to exert soft power as well as the hard stuff | Andrew Rawnsley

      by

      Shortly before he flew to Washington, Sir Keir Starmer turned up in the Commons, put on his sombre voice and declared: “Everything has changed.” One of the more startling transformations has been to Sir Keir himself. The Labour leader came to office thinking, as did most of those who voted for him, that he was going to be a domestically orientated prime minister with primary ambitions to improve living standards, build lots of homes and rejuvenate public services. That’s what “change”, his one-word election slogan, was supposed to be about. When he originally selected his overriding “five missions”, the defence of the realm didn’t make the cut.His central definition today is as a geopolitically focused prime minister who is promising to spend more on guns, missiles and warplanes and less on international aid. More British bullets will be purchased at the expense of succour to the impoverished and desperate of the world. This shift gives a flintier profile to his leadership, but not in a way that either supporters or opponents anticipated during last summer’s election. Most Labour people don’t quarrel with the argument that Britain has to put up its guard, but a lot of them, including queasy members of the Starmer cabinet, are wriggling uncomfortably about taking the hatchet to the international development budget. In the days since the decision was announced, they have taken to wondering what manner of Labour government is this?The short explanation for this transmogrification is two words and an initial: Donald J Trump. The upheaval in the international order unleashed by the US president has shattered decades-old assumptions about the western alliance. This has had a more profound impact on Sir Keir than any other event. A prime minister who used to earn his living as a human rights lawyer has had a crash course in realpolitik from the nakedly transactional practitioner of great power games who resides on Pennsylvania Avenue.Sir Keir came away from his encounter at the White House on Thursday empty-handed when it came to securing a bankable guarantee that there will be US military cover for any British and French peacekeepers deployed to Ukraine. What the prime minister did win was an apparent blessing for the Chagos Islands deal, puncturing Nigel Farage’s repeated claims that the White House is opposed to it. There were encouraging noises that the UK may swerve US tariffs and pats on the head for Sir Keir from his host for being a “special man” and a “very tough negotiator”. The price was paid in the currency of ingratiation. This was at its most toe-curling when the prime minister delved into his jacket pocket to flourish an invite from the king for the US president to make an “unprecedented”, “truly historic” second state visit to the UK. Excuse me while I find something to retch into. The other tribute to the Maga King was setting a 2027 deadline for lifting British defence spending to 2.5% of GDP with 3% as the ultimate target.Boosting defence spending is both a response to Trump’s demands that Europe pulls its weight and an insurance policy against the withdrawal of American security guarantees. Downing Street reeled at the callous and chilling monstering of Volodymyr Zelenskyy, a democratically elected leader fighting for his country’s freedom against tyranny, at the White House on Friday. The shocking ugliness of the televised scene amplified Number 10’s unspoken fears that the Trump regime poses an existential challenge to European security.I’ve been among those anticipating this pivot. Given how menacing the world looked even before Trump’s return to the Oval Office, it was not sustainable to leave Britain’s armed forces in such a parlous condition that our own defence secretary describes them as “hollowed out”. The intelligence chiefs and the top brass have become increasingly clamourous about the growing scale and intensity of threats from a spectrum of malevolent adversaries.The issue then becomes whether the money will be spent well or wastefully. The Ministry of Defence has a rotten record when it comes to equipping the armed forces in a timely and cost-effective way. The onus is now on John Healey and the service chiefs to prove that they can get the maximum bang from the taxpayers’ extra bucks.The pain inflicted on the international aid budget will be brutal. Sir Keir was all crocodile tears when he intoned that regrettably “hard choices” had to be made, as if more money for defence could only be found by stealing it from aid programmes. There were many other options for a government that spends in excess of £1tn a year. These included being less generous towards other demands for spending, bearing down on escalating costs in areas of welfare or raising more from taxation. Though the prime minister claims he did not take this decision “lightly”, the international development budget was targeted because Downing Street and the Treasury reckoned it was the politically least painful option.This is the superficially clever and unashamedly cynical choice when it comes to electoral calculations. Polling suggests that cutting aid is a popular option with around two-thirds of voters. There’s an assumption among Labour strategists that aid is particularly resented by the kind of voter who supported Labour at the election and is now flirting with Reform or has already switched to it. There’s some truth in this analysis, but it is not the whole truth. There’s danger for Labour among the significant wedge of voters who chose the party at the election partly on the basis that it was more compassionate, enlightened and internationalist than the Tories. They didn’t expect Labour to outdo the last Conservative government in slashing the development budget.The case for spending on aid is easily made. On top of the humanitarian good it does, there’s the mitigation against instability, conflict and extremism. It also helps win friends and influence people in other countries who can be useful to the UK in the projection and protection of our national interests. These arguments will be highly familiar to Sir Keir and his cabinet because it was precisely the case they used to make themselves when they berated the Conservatives for raiding the budget. As Labour’s election manifesto put it, international aid helps make “the world a safer, more prosperous place”.The UK used to be able to make the claim that its record on helping the poorer parts of the planet made us a soft power superpower. As recently as 2020, the UK was one of only seven wealthy countries that met the UN target to spend 0.7% of gross national income on aid. The Conservatives cut that to 0.5% under Boris Johnson and it will now be slashed down to just 0.3%. Since a hefty chunk of the budget is being spent on asylum-seekers within Britain, the net amount supporting international development will be even more miserly. Programmes threatened include those alleviating poverty, tackling disease, improving the education of young people and addressing the climate crisis.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThis was a humiliation for Annaliese Dodds who was presented with a fait accompli just 24 hours before the cuts were announced. Number 10 clearly reckoned there was a slight risk that she would resign as international development minister, or decided it wasn’t terribly bothered even if she did. She has quit with the warning that denuding the international development budget will only encourage Russia’s aggressive effort to increase its presence worldwide. Blood must be rushing to the head of David Lammy. Justifying the cut has obliged the foreign secretary to stand on his head. It is only very recently that he was wagging a finger at the Americans by telling them it was a “big strategic mistake” to let Elon Musk eviscerate the US development budget. He accompanied that with the warning that China would exploit the vacuum to further its influence.I am being generous when I say that it is disingenuous of Sir Keir and his loyalists to suggest that they were faced with an either/or choice between defence spending in the name of national security and non-defence spending in troubled and distressed places abroad. The UK is an affluent country that likes to think it can punch above its weight. Even when money is tight, this nation is wealthy enough to wield both hard power and soft power.The face of Britain that the Starmer government is now presenting to the world is one that aspires to be more muscular while also looking meaner. Muscular is necessary in the scary new world order. Meaner is a myopic mistake that will render Britain less safe. More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘Bewildering’: US media and politicians react to Trump’s televised attack on Zelenskyy

      by

      One television star turned president visits another far more powerful one on a stage set and attempts to introduce a plot twist of sorts. What could go wrong?The high-stakes White House showdown that unfolded on Friday after the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, demanded US security guarantees was deemed a damaging setback to Donald Trump’s goal of forging a peace deal – and a win for Russian dictator Vladimir Putin – by some US political commentators.And others in the US who are closely aligned with Trump cast the president’s meeting with Zelenskyy as a win for his “America first” realignment goals.“It is bewildering to see Mr Trump’s allies defending this debacle as some show of American strength,” the conservative-leaning Wall Street Journal editorial board said on Saturday, noting that US aims of limiting Russian expansionism without the use of US forces was now “harder to achieve”.The outlet warned that “turning Ukraine over to Mr Putin would be catastrophic for that country and Europe, but it would be a political calamity for Mr Trump too.“Friday’s spectacle won’t make [Putin] any more willing to stop his onslaught” after invading Ukraine in 2022.The New York Times assessed that the derailed Oval Office meeting pointed to Trump’s “determination to scrap America’s traditional sources of power – its alliances among like-minded democracies – and return the country to an era of raw great-power negotiations.”“The three-year wartime partnership between Washington and Kyiv was shattered,” the paper added.Some conservative political figures also hit out at their fellow Republicans Trump and Vance for their handling over the meeting. “I hate to say this … but the United States right now is not the good guys in this,” said Adam Kinzinger, the former Republican congressman from Illinois who once served on a House committee that investigated Trump supporters’ attack on the US Capitol in early 2021.Whether diplomatic relations between Ukraine and the US can be repaired remained an open question Saturday. But the dispute points to the dangers of conducting diplomacy in public, despite the assessment from Trump – a former reality-TV host – that the clash with his Ukrainian counterpart, an ex-actor, made “great television”.“It is going to be incredibly hard to walk back from the kind of animosity we saw in that room today and to walk back some of those statements,” Republican strategist Karl Rove told Fox News. “It could have been done if cameras had not been running, but the only winner out of today is Vladimir Putin.”The US treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, revealed after the showdown that his meeting with Zelenskyy in Kviv days earlier resulted in a similar outburst. After Friday’s meltdown, Bessent called Zelenskyy’s approach “one of the great diplomatic own goals in history”.“Clearly it very difficult to do an economic deal with a leader that doesn’t want to do a peace deal,” Bessent told Bloomberg.“I’m not sure what he was thinking,” Bessent said of Zelenskyy, who was ultimately asked to leave the White House by the US secretary of state, Marco Rubio, after Ukrainian diplomatic aides texted that they were prepared to sign the agreed economic rare earth minerals deal.The White House deputy chief of staff for policy, Stephen Miller, called out what he termed Zelenskyy’s “impertinence” and described the showdown as “one of the great moments in the history of American diplomacy”.“Millions of American hearts swelled with overflowing pride today to watch President Trump put Zelenskyy in his place,” Miller said, without elaborating on what public opinion information he had to justify that belief.Foreign Policy’s Ravi Agrawal wrote: “For a former comedian used to the cameras, it was strange that Zelensky got the script wrong.” Agawal noted that Trump had been testing the boundaries of press attention all week with “freewheeling” discussions in front of the world’s cameras.Such commentary came as Fox News host Bret Baier asked Zelenskyy whether he wanted to apologize to Trump, to which the Ukraine president said: “I’m not sure we did something bad.”“I respect [the] president and I respect [the] American people, and … I think that we have to be very open and very honest,” Zelenskyy told Baier.But arriving in London on Saturday ahead of a summit of British and European leaders, Zelenskyy thanked the US and its leadership while voicing hope for strong relations. “We want only strong relations with America, and I really hope we will have them,” he said.European leaders have stood behind Zelenskyy, with the German president, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, saying he “would never have believed that we would one day have to protect Ukraine from the USA”.The French president, Emmanuel Macron, said if someone is gambling with the third world war – as Trump accused Zelenskyy of doing on Friday – it was not Zelenskyy.“If anyone is gambling with World War III, his name is Vladimir Putin,” said Macron, after Trump complained that Zelenskyy had been overly negative about the Russian dictator. More

    • 175 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘A bigger victory for Putin than any military battle’: Russia gleeful after Trump-Zelenskyy clash

      by

      Russian officials and Moscow’s media outlets reacted with predictable glee to the dramatic clash between Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Donald Trump at the White House on Friday.Posting on social media, Dmitry Medvedev, Putin’s deputy on the security council and former president, called the exchange “a brutal dressing-down in the Oval Office”.He wrote: “Trump told the … clown [Zelenskyy] the truth to his face: the Kyiv regime is playing with the third world war … This is useful. But it’s not enough – we need to stop military support [to Ukraine].”In recent days, concern grew in Moscow as Trump seemed to lean toward a more Zelenskyy-friendly position following visits to Washington by the leaders of Poland, France and Britain, who urged support for Ukraine. Trump had indicated a willingness to back European peacekeepers in Ukraine – a move Kyiv and European governments saw as essential to preventing Moscow from reigniting the war, as it had after previous ceasefires.But any worries the Kremlin may have had faded when Zelenskyy found himself ambushed by Trump and his vice-president, JD Vance.“How Trump and Vance held back from hitting that scumbag is a miracle of restraint,” wrote Maria Zakharova, Russia’s foreign ministry spokesperson, on Telegram.There has been no comment so far from Putin, who has instead taken a backseat, likely watching the fallout unfold with satisfaction. “Putin doesn’t have to say much right now,” said a source familiar with the Kremlin’s thinking.“It’s clear that he enjoyed the show and now believes he can push for even greater demands in Ukraine. That meeting was a bigger victory for Putin than any of his military battles since the start of the war.”The source predicted that Putin is likely to call Trump in the coming days to argue that Zelenskyy is not someone who can be reasoned with and must be replaced – a sentiment already echoed by some in Moscow as well as Washington.“The White House will now start looking more closely at other candidates for Ukraine’s presidency,” wrote Alexey Pushkov, a member of the upper house of the Russian parliament, on Telegram.View image in fullscreenRegime change in Ukraine has long been a goal for Putin, who has never hidden his desire to install a new leadership in Kyiv which is friendly to Moscow. On Telegram – the primary platform for political discourse in Russia – many influential pro-war bloggers echoed the rhetoric of Trump’s inner circle that portrayed Zelenskyy as an ungrateful child.“Overall, the meeting in the Oval Office once again revealed the true face of Zelenskyy: ungrateful, arrogant, brazen, and boundless,” wrote Rybar, a popular account with links to the Russian defence ministry.For Kremlin insiders, the incident also signified a fundamental shift in the global order, with a White House no longer seen as an enemy but rather as a partner to Moscow – one with whom business and politics can be conducted.“Volodymyr Zelenskyy underestimated the scale of the shift that took place in American politics after Donald Trump’s arrival,” said Fyodor Lukyanov, a prominent Russian foreign-policy analyst who heads a council that advises the Kremlin.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionLukyanov highlighted Friday’s moment when Trump declared that he was not on Ukraine’s side but viewed himself as a mediator in the conflict. “This is a fundamental shift,” Lukyanov added.But there were also warnings in Moscow that, given Trump’s unpredictable nature, it was too early to declare victory.“In the short term, this tragicomic exchange will undoubtedly weaken Zelenskyy’s position within Ukraine and give Russian diplomacy additional leverage in its dealings with the US,” said Anton Grishanov, a researcher at a thinktank affiliated with Russia’s foreign ministry.“That said, Moscow and Washington still have divergent views on the settlement process, and Trump’s unpredictable temperament could bring plenty of surprises on the path to ending the conflict,” he added.As the dust settles, it’s clear that Friday’s meeting delivered a major blow to Trump’s efforts to negotiate a peace deal between Kyiv and Moscow, while Russia prepares to escalate its offensive against a Ukraine on the verge of losing its most vital military support.“The war continues,” Lukyanov concluded. More

    • 163 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump’s ‘bald power grab’ could set US on path to dictatorship, critics fear

      by

      Unusually for him, Donald Trump made no great fuss as he signed one drily worded executive order last Tuesday.Public attention was distracted that day – by the headline-grabbing drama of Elon Musk bludgeoning his way through the federal bureaucracy, by immigrants deported to Guantánamo Bay, and by the torrent of other directives Trump has issued since his inauguration last month.But Trump’s 69th executive order of his second presidency, under the deceptive title of “Ensuring accountability for all agencies”, has been denounced as a “bald power grab” that advances a political doctrine intended to make a dictator of the president.The order, wedged between the signing of a directive to end Covid vaccine mandates in schools and another expanding access to in vitro fertilisation, also contains a single paragraph that permits the president to decide the law and who should obey it.The paragraph has alarmed even some constitutional conservatives who otherwise agree with many of Trump’s actions. Other critics characterise it as another step toward an American brand of despotism.Frank Bowman, a law professor and former federal prosecutor who authored High Crimes and Misdemeanors: A History of Impeachment for the Age of Trump, described the executive order as “breathtaking”.“The essence of it is that Donald Trump is trying, quite consciously, to make himself an elected dictator,” he said.“It has big implications. The order basically says, ‘The law is determined by my will, period, and anyone who disagrees either has to fall in line or, by implication, we can fire you because you’re not permitted to express opinions about the law contrary to mine.’ So welcome to either monarchy or dictatorship.”The order ostensibly seeks to enhance transparency and accountability within those federal agencies that act with a degree of independence, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Trade Commission, by bringing them under more direct oversight by the White House.“Previous administrations have allowed so-called ‘independent regulatory agencies’ to operate with minimal presidential supervision. These regulatory agencies currently exercise substantial executive authority without sufficient accountability to the president, and through him, to the American people. Moreover, these regulatory agencies have been permitted to promulgate significant regulations without review by the president,” the order said.But the detail of the order gives the president powers far beyond mere oversight.Joe Morelle, the top congressional Democrat on the committee on house administration, wrote to Trump on Wednesday denouncing the order as “an unprecedented violation of American rule of law” that “opens the floodgates to political corruption and immeasurable money in politics”.View image in fullscreenIf the order stands, it potentially opens the way for Trump to serve his political and business interests by favouring funders and allies, such as Musk – for example, by ruling that they are not bound by financial regulations, or that immigration judge rulings are invalid.But critics have further warned that, taken with other measures, the directive poses a more fundamental threat to democracy as it advances the Republican right’s “unitary executive theory”, which casts aside the constitution’s checks and balances in favour of a claim that the president’s authority is paramount.The executive order seeks to exploit the complexities of modern government. In the 1930s, Congress delegated the setting of detailed regulations for agencies that require particular expertise – such as finance and technology – to officials with specialist knowledge. The legislature still set broad parameters, but officials were charged with deciding the detail of administrative law.Congress made these regulatory agencies a step removed from the presidency to protect their independence. It only permitted the president to dismiss those leading the agencies under specified circumstances.Although most modern governments have similar systems, Trump has characterised the process as a usurpation of presidential powers and therefore unconstitutional.Trump’s executive order stripped agencies of their independence by making them directly accountable to a part of the presidency: the office of management and budget (OMB). The OMB is led by Russell Vought, founder of the rightwing Center for Renewing America (CRA) thinktank and one of the primary authors of the Project 2025 plan for an authoritarian takeover of government.Vought is behind other measures to enhance Trump’s control on the basis of unitary executive theory, including a move to allow the president to override Congress’s spending decisions by blocking or reallocating funds, a dramatic shift in power if it is allowed to stand. Vought has also spoken about driving civil servants out of work by so traumatising them that they do “not want to go to work because they are increasingly viewed as the villains”.Bowman said the true intent of the order was revealed by the president’s decision to exempt some actions of the Federal Reserve from OMB oversight.“The reason plainly is that he is afraid that if he were to simply declare that the Federal Reserve is no longer independent, that would drive the markets crazy and risk a financial panic,” he said.“But it puts the lie to the notion that this is some sort of constitutionally based declaration, because if independent agencies are in their nature unconstitutional then, if you’re the president, you don’t get to pick and choose which ones you’re going to leave independent. Either it’s constitutional to have independent agencies, or it’s not.”Even some conservatives who support some of Trump’s measures are alarmed by a provision in the executive order that declares that the president, or the attorney general under the president’s control, shall make the final interpretation of the law for the executive branch in everything from issuing regulations to positions on litigation.Gregg Nunziata, executive director of the conservative Society for the Rule of Law which has been strongly critical of some of Trump’s actions, said the president had a point about the constitutional legality of the independent agencies, even if he questioned his motives in wanting to take control of them.But Nunziata is disturbed by “the increasing suggestions from the White House that the law is what the president says it is”.“The law is what Congress passes and the supreme court interprets, and the president has an obligation to obey the law. He has an obligation to hire lawyers who make a good faith efforts to interpret what the law requires, not to hire lawyers who are going to be writing him permission slips to do whatever he might like,” he said.Bowman said the section amounted to a declaration that the president’s opinion on the law overrides everyone else in government.“That’s just crazy stuff because, in essence, what it’s saying is if the president wakes up one morning and says, ‘I think all these statutes that criminalise bribery really shouldn’t apply to me, my family, my friends or executive branch officials at all, and that’s my legal opinion,’ the justice department would have to adopt an interpretation of federal bribery laws that is completely at odds with their obvious meaning,” he said.Yet again, Trump’s actions raise the question of whether the executive order will stand. Bowman is not confident that the other pillars of the US’s system of checks and balances will do their job to protect democracy.He said conservatives on the supreme court have already demonstrated their sympathy for the unitary executive theory by ruling that the president has immunity for acts in his official capacity.“The principal check against executive overreach is the power of Congress, but right now he has utterly squelched Republicans in Congress. They have a plethora of tools they could use to stop this but, at present, they are utterly terrified of using them,” he said.“The normal checks against dictatorial actions have already been suppressed or are in the process of being so.” More

    • 175 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      Ukraine war briefing: ‘Not good for both sides’ says Zelenskyy of stunning Trump exchange

      by

      After an extraordinary exchange with US president Donald Trump at the White House, Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy made an appearance on Fox News in which he said the public row was “not good for both sides.” But Zelenskyy said Trump – who insists Putin is ready to end the three-year grinding war – needs to understand that Ukraine can’t change its attitudes toward Russia on a dime. Zelenskyy added that Ukraine won’t enter peace talks with Russia until it has security guarantees against another offensive. “It’s so sensitive for our people,” Zelenskyy said. “And they just want to hear that America (is) on our side, that America will stay with us. Not with Russia, with us. That’s it.”

      After the tense exchange and shortly before departing for his Mar-a-Lago resort in South Florida for the weekend, Trump told reporters that he wanted an “immediate ceasefire” between Russia and Ukraine, but expressed doubt that Zelenskyy was ready to make peace. Trump also posted on his social media site that he had “determined” that Zelenskyy “is not ready for Peace.” “He disrespected the United States of America in its cherished Oval Office. He can come back when he is ready for Peace,” Trump wrote. US military support for Ukraine now appears to be hanging in the balance, while talks over a minerals deal have collapsed.

      On CNN US Secretary of State Marco Rubio called for Zelenskyy to “apologize for wasting our time for a meeting that was going to end the way it did.”

      European leaders have rushed to defend Zelenskyy, after the clash with US president Donald Trump played out in front of the global media. German chancellor Olaf Scholz said that “No one wants peace more than the citizens of Ukraine! That is why we are jointly seeking the path to a lasting and just peace. Ukraine can rely on Germany – and on Europe.” French president, Emmanuel Macron, said: “Russia is the aggressor, and Ukraine is the aggressed people,” while Kaja Kallas, the EU foreign policy chief, declared that “the free world needs a new leader”.

      Ukrainians have also rallied around Zelenskyy as a defender of his country’s interests. The meeting is likely to have delighted officials in Moscow, the Associated Press reports, but many Ukrainians seemed unfazed, instead expressing a sense that the Ukrainian leader had stood up for their country’s dignity and interests. Nataliia Serhiienko, 67, a retiree in Kyiv, said she thinks Ukrainians approve of their president’s performance in Washington, “because Zelenskyy fought like a lion.”

      UK prime minister Keir Starmer has invited more than a dozen European and EU leaders to a Sunday summit to “drive forward” action on Ukraine and security, his office said. Ahead of the main summit, Starmer will chair a morning call with Baltic nations, before welcoming Zelenskyy to Downing Street to discuss the war with Russia, it said on Friday. Leaders from around continental Europe including France, Germany, Denmark and Italy as well as Turkey, Nato and the European Union have been invited to the summit.

      Two Russian drone strikes hit a medical facility and other targets in Ukraine’s second largest city, Kharkiv, injuring at least five people late on Friday, local officials said, according to Reuters. Regional governor Oleh Syniehubov, writing on the Telegram messaging app, said Russian drones had hit civilian areas in three central districts of the city, a frequent target of Russian attacks. Syniehubov said five people were hurt, while Mayor Ihor Terekhov put the injury toll at seven. In the Black Sea port of Odesa, another frequent Russian target in southern Ukraine, a drone attack triggered fires in a private home and a business, killing one person and injuring another.

      Moscow is using infantry to storm the Ukrainian border from the Russian region of Kursk, which is partially controlled by Ukrainian forces, Kyiv said on Friday. Ukraine launched a surprise offensive into the Kursk region in August last year hoping the territory it captured could eventually be swapped for Ukrainian territory under Russian control. The Kremlin has deployed a significant force including North Korean forces to try to dislodge Ukrainian troops holding on to stretches of the territory, including the town of Sudzha. More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Zelenskyy admits Trump White House meeting ‘not good for both sides’

      by

      Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy expressed regret that an Oval Office meeting with Donald Trump devolved into a shocking display of acrimony between the leaders of two historically allied nations, while insisting that their relationship could be salvaged.Hours after the public confrontation in which Trump and Vice-President JD Vance berated Zelenskyy, accusing him of “gambling with world war three,” the Ukrainian leader defended himself during an in-studio interview on Fox News, while also agreeing that the dispute was “not good for both sides”.Asked by the host, Bret Baier, if he felt like he owed the US president an apology, as many of Trump’s Republican allies have demanded, Zelenskyy did not directly answer. Baier pressed, and asked again whether he owes Trump an apology. Zelenskyy again did not answer, saying instead: “I think that we have to be very open and very honest. And I’m not sure that we did something bad.”Zelenskyy was in Washington for a high-stakes meeting with Trump to discuss a controversial minerals deal the Ukrainians hoped would be a step toward unlocking security guarantees from the US as part of a ceasefire agreement to end the grueling war, which began three years ago when Russia invaded.But after the disastrous on-camera dispute, Zelenskyy left the White House early, and a press conference to announce the minerals deal was scrapped. The appearance on Trump’s preferred network was scheduled before the Oval Office meeting deteriorated, and Baier announced on Twitter that Zelenskyy intended to sit for the 30-minute interview despite cancelling his other engagements in Washington.European leaders rallied around Zelenskyy, pledging their continued support for Ukraine while Trump’s allies applauded the US president for what they described as a display of “America First”.During the Fox interview, Zelenskyy repeatedly thanked the American people for supporting Ukraine in its war with Russia. “From the very beginning, during three years of full-scale innovation, you helped us to survive,” he said.Asked if he believed the meeting was an ambush, as some Democrats have suggested, Zelenskyy said he did not know. “It was just a really tough situation,” he said. Appearing on the network, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, said it was “absolutely not true” that the Oval Office spat was pre-planned by Trump or Vance.Before departing the White House for his Mar-a-Lago resort, Trump kept up the pressure on Zelenskyy. “All of a sudden he’s a big shot because he has the US on his side,” Trump told reporters at the White House. “Either we’re going to end it or let him fight it out, and if he fights it out, it’s not going to be pretty. Because without us, he doesn’t win.”Zelenskyy concluded the interview with an appeal to the American people. “We are thankful and sorry for this,” he said, adding that he was confident he could salvage his relationship with Trump. More