America

U.S. trade policy uncertainty has sent shockwaves through global markets, as President Donald Trump moved to impose a 15% tariff following the Supreme Court of the United States ruling invalidating his emergency trade levies. Investors reacted quickly, rotating out of risk assets and the dollar, while seeking shelter in gold, silver, and safe-haven currencies. The turbulence highlights the fragility of global investor confidence when policy reversals collide with high-stakes geopolitical and economic risks.

Wall Street and Currency Volatility

U.S. stock futures fell sharply, with S&P 500 futures down 0.5% and Nasdaq futures slipping 0.6%. The dollar weakened across major pairs, losing 0.21% versus the yen and 0.34% against the Swiss franc, while the euro gained 0.23%. European equities also reflected caution: the STOXX 600 fell 0.19%, Germany’s DAX slid 0.36%, and Britain’s FTSE 100 edged down 0.1%.

Asian markets, however, were mixed. The MSCI Asia index excluding Japan rose 0.83%, while Hong Kong’s Hang Seng surged 2.53% on expectations of lower tariffs for China. Japan’s Nikkei futures fell 0.4% ahead of a holiday, highlighting regional divergence driven by perceived winners and losers in U.S. tariff policy.

Safe-Haven Assets Rally

Amid the uncertainty, investors sought protection in gold and silver, which climbed 0.6% and 2% respectively. Safe-haven currencies, including the Japanese yen and Swiss franc, appreciated as risk-off sentiment grew. Government bonds saw slight gains, with the U.S. 10-year Treasury yield dipping to 4.077%, reflecting flight-to-quality buying. Brent crude prices fell 1.1% to $70.97 a barrel, reversing gains from earlier geopolitical risk sentiment linked to U.S.-Iran tensions.

Tariff Confusion and Its Economic Implications

Trump’s latest tariffs add layers of ambiguity. While the Supreme Court struck down his emergency powers, the new 15% levy relies on Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act, an untested statute. Questions remain over timing, exclusions, and applicability by country. Some nations, including the UK and Australia, had lower tariffs under prior rules, while many Asian exporters faced higher duties. The Yale Budget Lab estimates the average effective tariff rate at 13.7% following the announcement, down from 16% pre-ruling, with the 15% rate potentially dropping to 9.1% after 150 days.

“This circular process of tariff announcements, legal challenges, and revisions is creating profound uncertainty for markets,” said Rodrigo Catril, senior FX strategist at NAB.

Market Sentiment and Investor Behavior

The episode reflects broader structural concerns about U.S. trade policy’s unpredictability. Investors are no longer just reacting to tariffs themselves, but to the instability and volatility of policy enforcement. The uncertainty affects supply chains, corporate earnings forecasts, and capital allocation decisions. Nvidia’s upcoming earnings, for example, are being closely watched, given the company’s 8% weighting in the S&P 500, demonstrating how trade policy shocks can amplify market sensitivity to specific corporate results.

Analytical Outlook

Trump’s oscillating trade policy highlights a critical tension between political objectives and market stability. While tariffs are framed as instruments to advance domestic economic priorities, the resulting unpredictability imposes systemic costs: currency swings, equity market volatility, and flight to safe assets. The mixed regional responses Asian equities partially rallying, European markets cautious underscore how interconnected global trade and finance are, and how unevenly shocks are absorbed.

In essence, this episode illustrates a modern economic paradox: protective trade measures intended to strengthen domestic interests can, in practice, destabilize markets worldwide. Investors now must hedge not only against tariffs themselves but also against the policy volatility that accompanies them a scenario likely to persist as long as U.S. trade decisions are made unilaterally and unpredictably.

Trump’s approach has transformed trade from a predictable framework into a high-stakes, reactive arena, forcing global markets to continuously recalibrate. The lesson is clear: in today’s interconnected financial system, the cost of policy uncertainty often outweighs the intended protectionist benefit.

With information from Reuters.

Where are the statesmen when the state is under siege by the current head of state?

I’ve been mulling that question, hardly for the first time, but on three occasions just in the last few days.

On Monday, the federal holiday celebrating George Washington’s birth, former President George W. Bush posted an essay on the first U.S. president as part of a civic project commemorating the nation’s 250th year. Simply by hailing Washington for traits that Donald Trump utterly lacks — humility, integrity, dignity, self-restraint, willingness to forfeit power — the piece was widely read as a sneak attack on the current president. Bush never named Trump. He thus maintained his years-long, stupefying silence about the man who’s trashed him, his family, his party, his legacy PEPFAR program and, most of all, his country.

As Jonathan V. Last wrote for the right-of-center, anti-Trump Bulwark, if Bush’s words were a veiled attack on Trump, “the veil is so powerful that even light can’t escape it.”

Bush’s essay came two days after former President Obama finally responded to Trump’s week-old racist post that caricatured the first Black president and his wife as apes, thereby mainlining into the body politic one of the most toxic tropes against Black Americans. Asked about it in a podcast interview, Obama was, as usual, too cool. He called Trump’s behavior “deeply troubling” and said “there doesn’t seem to be any shame about this among people who used to feel like you had to have some sort of decorum and a sense of propriety and respect for the office.”

But, like Bush, he never named Trump. And it’s not even clear that Obama was referring to him. Certainly Trump never was one of those who, as Obama put it, “used to feel … some sort of decorum and a sense of propriety and respect for the office.”

Then there was the third trigger for my musings about America’s M.I.A. statesmen.

On Friday — ahead of the holiday honoring Washington, who as the first president and military commander established the indispensable tradition of a nonpartisan military — Trump yet again violated Washington’s precedent. At Ft. Bragg in North Carolina, he essentially pushed uniformed young troops to violate the military codes enshrining Washington’s legacy of nonpartisanship. Trump treated them like props at a MAGA rally, lauding Republican candidates and officeholders on hand, mocking past presidents and urging the troops to vote Republican in November.

“You have to vote for us,” the commander in chief ordered them.

This is unprecedented, except by Trump himself. In October, he prodded sailors at Norfolk, Va., to boo “Barack Hussein Obama.” In September, he told commanders summoned from around the world that the fight is here at home, a “war from within” American cities. In June, also at Ft. Bragg, Trump damned Democrats and sold MAGA merch, over Army objections.

There’s a darn good reason for the wall that Washington built between the military and civilian government. As the Army Field Manual instructs troops: “Nonpartisanship assures the public that our Army will always serve the Constitution and our people loyally and responsively.” Not just Republicans, and not just Trump.

But as multiple officers told the website Military.com, “holding troops to account when goaded by the president, who is ultimately the boss, would be impossible.” Commanders themselves are mute because, after all, Trump is the commander in chief. They’ve watched as one Pentagon purge has followed another, starting with Trump firing the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the nation’s top military officer. He chose instead an officer who, he often claims, once donned a MAGA cap and said, “I love you, sir. … I’ll kill for you, sir.”

It’s understandable that active-duty officers don’t make a stand. But what about America’s roughly 7,500 retired generals and admirals? As veteran ML Cavanaugh wrote in the Los Angeles Times after Trump’s Ft. Bragg performance last year, “The military profession’s nonpartisan ethic is at a breaking point.” Sure, individuals have spoken out. But as the military knows better than anyone, there’s strength in numbers.

It’s past time for a large, united front of veteran commanders to challenge Trump. Why wait for him to make good on his talk of invoking the Insurrection Act to deploy troops at the polls in this midterm election year, based on trumped-up conspiracies about Democrats’ fraud?

You know who could give the veteran and active commanders some political cover? The former commanders in chief.

Even more conspicuous than the brass by their silence and virtual invisibility in the face of Trump’s assaults — on the rule of law, civil rights, elections, foreign alliances and America’s global reputation — are the nation’s four living former presidents: Democrats Joe Biden, Obama and Bill Clinton, and Republican Bush.

It’s past time for the not-so-fab four to come together to publicly demand that Trump honor the oath of office that each man took, and to school the electorate on the many ways in which he’s dishonoring it — including by continuing to justify his refusal to peacefully transfer power in 2021. But each man is so observant of the norm that former presidents should not publicly criticize the incumbent one — again, a precedent from George Washington — that they self-muzzle.

This is Americans’ quandary in these Trump times: Presidents and high-ranking veterans who could speak truth to power are so constrained by their devotion to norms and traditions that they won’t confront a president who’s daily shattering the norms, traditions and laws that form the foundation of this democratic nation.

“This is the master alarm flashing for our democracy,” Sen. Mark Kelly, an Arizona Democrat and veteran, said last week of Trump’s targeting of him and other critics.

That takes us back to my original question: Where are the statesmen to answer that alarm?

Answer: They’re following ordinary rules despite these extraordinary times. And they must stop.

Bluesky: @jackiecalmes
Threads: @jkcalmes
X: @jackiekcalmes

Imagine if a candidate for, say, the California Assembly appeared at a political event and delivered the following remarks:

“No to kosher meat. No to yarmulkes. No to celebrating Easter. No, no, no.”

He, or she, would be roundly — and rightly — criticized for their bigotry and raw prejudice.

Recently, at a candidates forum outside Dallas, Larry Brock expressed the following sentiments as part of a lengthy disquisition on the Muslim faith.

“We should ban the burqa, the hijab, the abaya, the niqab,” said the candidate for state representative, referring to the coverings worn by some Muslim women. “No to halal meat. No to celebrating Ramadan. No, no, no.”

Brock, whose comments were reported by the New York Times, is plainly a bigot. (He’s also a convicted felon, sentenced to two years in prison for invading the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6. No to hand-slaughtered lamb. Yes to despoiling our seat of government.)

Brock is no outlier.

For many Texas Republicans running in the March 3 primary, Islamophobia has become a central portion of their election plank, as a longtime political lance — illegal immigration — has grown dull around its edges.

Aaron Reitz, a candidate for attorney general, aired an ad accusing politicians of importing “millions of Muslims into our country.”

“The result?” he says, with a tough-guy glower. “More terrorism, more crime. And they even want their own illegal cities in Texas to impose sharia law.” (More on that in a moment.)

One of his opponents, Republican Rep. Chip Roy — co-founder of the “Sharia-Free America Caucus” — has called for amending the Texas Constitution to protect the state’s tender soil from Islamification by “radical Marxists.”

In the fierce GOP race for U.S. Senate, incumbent John Cornyn — facing a potentially career-ending challenge from state Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton — has aired one TV spot accusing his fellow Republican of being “soft on radical Islam” and another describing radical Islam “as a bloodthirsty ideology.”

Paxton countered by calling Cornyn’s assertions a desperate attack “that can’t erase the fact that he helped radical Islamic Afghans invade Texas,” a reference to a visa program that allowed people who helped U.S. forces — in other words friends and allies — to come to America after being carefully screened.

There hasn’t been such a concentrated, sulfurous political assault on Muslims since the angst-ridden days following the Sept. 11 attacks.

In just the latest instance, Democrats are calling for the censure of Florida Republican Rep. Randy Fine after he wrote Sunday on X: “If they force us to choose, the choice between dogs and Muslims is not a difficult one.” He’s since doubled down by posting several images of dogs with the words “Don’t tread on me.”

In Texas, the venom starts at the top with Republican Gov. Greg Abbott, who’s waltzing toward reelection to an unprecedented fourth term.

In November, Abbott issued an executive order designating the Muslim Brotherhood and the Council on American-Islamic Relations — the latter a prominent civil rights group — as terrorist organizations.

Not to be out-demagogued, Bo French, a candidate for Texas Railroad Commission, called on President Trump to round up and deport every Muslim in America. (French, the former Tarrant County GOP chair, gained notoriety last year for posting an online poll asking, “Who is a bigger threat to America?” The choice: Jews or Muslims.)

Much of the Republican hysteria has focused on a proposed real estate development in a corn- and hayfield 40 miles east of Dallas.

The master-planned community of about 1,000 homes, known as EPIC City, was initiated by the East Plano Islamic Center to serve as a Muslim-centered community for the region’s growing number of worshipers. (Of course, anyone could choose to live there, regardless of their religious faith.)

Paxton said he would investigate the proposed development as a “potentially illegal ‘Sharia City.’ ” The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development last week jumped in with its own investigation — a move Abbott hailed — after the Justice Department quietly closed a probe into the project, saying developers agreed to abide by federal fair housing laws. That investigation came at the behest of Cornyn.

The rampant resurgence of anti-Muslim sentiment hardly seems coincidental.

For years, Republicans capitalized on the issues of illegal immigration and lax enforcement along the U.S. -Mexico border. With illegal crossings slowed to a trickle under Trump, “Republicans can’t run on the border issue the way [they] have in the past,” said Jim Henson, director of the Texas Politics Project at the University of Texas at Austin.

What’s more, cracking down on immigration no longer brings together Republicans the way it once did.

General support for Trump’s get-tough policies surpasses 80% among Texas Republicans, said Henson, who’s spent nearly two decades sampling public opinion in the state. But support falls dramatically, into roughly the high-40s to mid-50s, when it comes to specifics such as arresting people at church, or seizing them when they make required court appearances.

“Republicans need to find something else that taps into those cultural-identity issues” and unifies and animates the GOP base, said Henson.

In short, the fearmongers need a new scapegoat.

Muslims are about 2% of the adult population in Texas, according to the Pew Research Center’s Religious Landscape Study, completed in 2024. That works out to estimates ranging from 300,000 to 500,000 residents in a state of nearly 32 million residents.

Not a huge number.

But enough for heedless politicians hell-bent on getting themselves elected, even if it means tearing down a whole group of people in the process.

NewsFeed

Brazil became the first South American country to win gold at the Winter Olympics with Lucas Pinheiro Braathen securing victory in the giant slalom event in Italy. At the press conference afterwards, Braathen said hearing Brazil’s national anthem was a proud moment after growing up watching its football team triumph.

The Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Bainbridge is deployed in support of the U.S. Southern Command mission, The USS Truxtun, a warship of the same class, collided with a Navy supply ship in South America on Wednesday, injuring two people. File Photo by PO2 Triniti Lersch/U.S. Navy/UPI | License Photo

Feb. 12 (UPI) — Two U.S. Navy ships collided during a refueling operation in South America, injuring two people, U.S. Southern Command said.

The incident occurred on Wednesday when a Navy warship collided with a Navy supply vessel. Two people suffered minor injuries and are in stable condition.

The warship is the Arleigh Burke-class USS Truxtun guided missile destroyer. The other vessel is a Supply-class fast combat support ship, USNS Supply. Both ships remain operational and have continued to sail following the collision.

U.S. Southern Command did not specify the exact location where the crash took place. The cause of the crash was not specified either.

The supply ship has been recently posted in the Caribbean which falls under the purview of U.S. Southern Command. Southern Command presides over military operations throughout South America, Central America and the Caribbean.

The United States has increased its presence in Southern Command’s region in recent months as operations against alleged drug smuggling vessels have intensified.

Last month, President Donald Trump and members of his cabinet presided over the abduction of Venezuelan President Nicholas Maduro and his wife.

It is rare for U.S. Navy vessels to crash into each other. In 2017, 17 sailors were killed in two separate crashes between Navy ships in the Pacific Ocean. The U.S. Navy determined both crashes were avoidable.

Global Finance is proud to announce the winners of the Best Trade Finance Banks for 2026.

This year’s recipients—Standard Bank, DBS, Banreservas, Raiffeisen Bank International, BBVA, Bank ABC, BNY Mellon, and UniCredit—distinguished themselves by leveraging innovative digital platforms, expanding global and regional connectivity, and developing specialized solutions to navigate increasingly complex trade environments. From supporting key economic corridors in Asia-Pacific to pioneering sustainable finance across Africa and the CEE, these institutions are setting the standard for efficiency, compliance, and client service in the global trade ecosystem.

Best Trade Finance Bank in Latin America

BBVA

BBVA has consistently been recognized as the Best Trade Finance Bank in Latin America due to its comprehensive strategy, strong regional network, and commitment to digital innovation. BBVA’s strategic goal is to become a gateway to Latin America, focusing on SMEs by leveraging its connections between the region, Europe, and Asia. As the leading trade finance bank in this area, covering Mexico, Venezuela, Colombia, Brazil, Peru, Chile, Argentina, and Uruguay, BBVA maintains local Trade Finance units in each country. The bank also employs structuring experts for implementation, client support, advice, and after-sales management, alongside a central execution office.

BBVA NY’s centralized trade finance team handles global transactions for Corporates and Financial Institutions throughout the Latin American (Latam) region. They provide a comprehensive range of trade finance products. These include traditional trade products such as international guarantees, letters of credit (e.g., UPAS), silent guarantees, import and export financing, and trade loans. They also offer Receivable/Supply Chain Finance, which covers factoring, reverse factoring, vendor factoring, and forfaiting.

Finally, their Structured & Syndicated Finance offerings encompass A/B Loans and other syndicated loans, as well as structured products like prepayment, borrowing base facilities, and inventory finance.

In recent years, BBVA has invested in enhancing the DIY traceability of its trade finance products in the Latam Region, which is further supported by digital advancements, such as the deployment of Pivot, a global BBVA platform divided into Pivot Net (a web channel and app) and Pivot Connect (direct channels including API, H2H, and Swift).

Both platforms are designed to offer consistent services to clients across all corresponding countries. The platform provides direct access to the digital interfaces for cash management, global trade finance, and Comext Online, and a substantial volume of transactions are executed through these channels.

John Mayer calls it “adult day care”: the historic recording studio behind the arched gates on La Brea Avenue where famous musicians have been keeping themselves — and one another — creatively occupied since the mid-1960s. Known for decades as Henson Studios — and as A&M Studios before that — the 3-acre complex in the heart of Hollywood has played host to the creation of some of music’s most celebrated records, among them Carole King’s “Tapestry,” Joni Mitchell’s “Blue,” Guns N’ Roses’ “Use Your Illusion” and D’Angelo’s “Black Messiah.” Charlie Chaplin, who was born in London, began building the lot in 1917 in a white-and-brown English Tudor style; he went on to direct some of his best-known films, including “Modern Times” and “The Great Dictator,” on the property. In 1966, Herb Alpert and Jerry Moss bought the place and made it the base for their A&M Records; they converted two of the lot’s soundstages into high-end recording studios that drew the likes of Sergio Mendes, the Carpenters, Stevie Nicks, U2 and John Lennon.

In 1985, A&M’s parquet-floored Studio A was where Quincy Jones gathered the all-star congregation that recorded “We Are the World” in a marathon overnight session; in 2014, Daft Punk evoked the studios’ wood-paneled splendor in a performance of “Get Lucky” with Stevie Wonder at the 56th Grammy Awards.

Now, with an eye on preserving the spot at a moment of widespread upheaval in the entertainment industry, Mayer and his business partner, the filmmaker McG, have finalized a purchase of the lot, which they bought for $44 million from the family of the late Muppets creator Jim Henson and which they’ve renamed Chaplin Studios in honor of the silent-film giant who broke ground on it more than a century ago.

President Trump told the New York Post that music artist Bad Bunny was a “terrible choice” to headline the 2026 Super Bowl halftime show and that the NFL’s selection of the Puerto Rican singer and rapper sows “hatred.”

Department of Homeland Security adviser Corey Lewandowski suggested that Bad Bunny loathes the U.S. “It’s so shameful that they’ve decided to pick somebody who just seems to hate America so much to represent them at the halftime game,” he told conservative podcaster Benny Johnson.

Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) said on Monday that Bad Bunny disseminates “anti-American propaganda.”

The upshot: Bad Bunny (aka Benito Antonio Martínez Ocasio) is an enemy of the state. An outsider who doesn’t possess American values. A Super Bowl wrecker.

Heated debate around who is worthy to perform the halftime show is an American tradition (Prince, yes. The Red Hot Chili Peppers, no). But now, unsurprisingly, politics are part of that debate, so the mere fact that Bad Bunny is brown and Latino and sings in Spanish is seen by some as an affront to the right. Clearly the “Woke Bowl” is disrespecting the tough-on-immigration president, and in Español, no less.

But Bad Bunny is an American citizen, as are most people born in Puerto Rico after 1898, thanks to the Jones-Shafroth Act of 1917. Bad Bunny, born in 1994, made the deadline with 96 years to spare. If the fear is that foreigners are coming here to take our jobs and ruin beloved American traditions, there are plenty of nonnative artists to grouse about.

For decades, outsiders have foisted their foreign music upon us at the Super Bowl between commercials for Doritos and Budweiser.

The United Kingdom’s Phil Collins played the 2000 Super Bowl XXXIV Halftime Show, as did Enrique Iglesias, who is from Spain. The Irishmen of U2 stole jobs away from Americans when they played the 2002 Super Bowl. The following year it was sneaky Canadian Shania Twain and a sus character from England referred to only as Sting.

Then came bad hombre after bad hombre from the UK: Paul McCartney, the Rolling Stones, the Who, Coldplay. And don’t even get me started on Shakira, gyrating her Colombian self into 2020’s Super Bowl LIV Halftime Show, or the following year, the Weeknd using his sweet voice to distract from the fact he’s Canadian.

Remember all the anti-immigrant furor around those aforementioned performances? Of course not — because there was none. And this year, if the delicately reunited U.K. duo Oasis was to pull things together for 2026 and play the Super Bowl, it most certainly wouldn’t inspire the same kind of vitriol.

The right remembers that Bad Bunny criticized the Trump administration for its handling of Puerto Rico’s hurricane recovery, and that that he has spoken out against ICE’s inhumane treatment of immigrants. But calling Bad Bunny a dissenter is too direct, too Stalinist. It’s better to cast doubt upon the singer’s loyalty to America via thinly veiled racist rhetoric.

Turning Point USA, the right-wing group founded by Charlie Kirk and helmed by his wife, Erika Kirk, following his assassination, has organized its own counter-concert called the “All-American Halftime Show”. It will star rap-rocker Kid Rock and country artists Brantley Gilbert, Lee Brice and Gabby Barrett. The show is counter-programmed to compete with the Super Bowl halftime show, airing on X and conservative networks such as TBN and OAN around the same time as Bad Bunny’s set.

When the “alternative” show’s lineup was announced this week, Kid Rock took a jab at Bad Bunny in a statement: “He’s said he’s having a dance party, wearing a dress, and singing in Spanish? Cool. We plan to play great songs for folks who love America.”

Kid Rock isn’t known to wear dresses on stage, as Bad Bunny has done, but it’s unclear which songs of his he’ll play in the name of “loving America.”

Turning Point spokesman Andrew Kolvet said the show will reflect conservative values such as “faith, family, and freedom,” so Kid Rock likely won’t perform his 2001 track “Cool, Daddy Cool,” where he sings “Young ladies, young ladies, I like ‘em underage see / Some say that’s statutory, but I say it’s mandatory.” It’s also unlikely he’ll bust out his 2007 song “Lowlife (Living the Highlife)”: “I make Black music for the white man / Keep cocaine upon my nightstand.”

One thing is certain: He’ll continue to sing Trump’s praises, in English.

MEXICO CITY — Historians and observers accused the Trump administration of trying to rewrite American history to justify its own foreign policy decisions toward Latin America by posting a “historically inaccurate” version of the Mexican-American war.

The Monday statement from the White House commemorating the anniversary of the war described the conflict as a “legendary victory that secured the American Southwest, reasserted American sovereignty, and expanded the promise of American independence across our majestic continent.” The statement drew parallels between the period in U.S. history and its own increasingly aggressive policies toward Latin America, which it said would “ensure the Hemisphere remains safe.”

“Guided by our victory on the fields of Mexico 178 years ago, I have spared no effort in defending our southern border against invasion, upholding the rule of law, and protecting our homeland from forces of evil, violence, and destruction,” the statement said, though it was unsigned.

In the post, the White House makes no mention of the key role slavery played in the war and glorifies the wider “Manifest Destiny” period, which resulted in the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Native Americans from their land.

Sparking criticism

Alexander Aviña, Latin American history professor at Arizona State University, said the White House statement “underplays the massive amounts of violence that it took to expand” the U.S. to the Pacific shore at a time when the Trump administration has stuck its hand in Latin American affairs in a way not seen in decades, deposing Venezuela’s president, meddling in elections and threatening military action in Mexico and other countries.

“U.S. political leaders since then have seen this as an ugly aspect of U.S. history, this is a pretty clear instance of U.S. imperialism against its southern neighbor,” Aviña said. “The Trump administration is actually embracing this as a positive in U.S. history and framing it – inaccurately historically – as some sort of defensive measure to prevent the Mexico from invading them.”

On Tuesday, criticisms of the White House statement quickly rippled across social media.

Asked about the statement in her morning news briefing, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum guffawed, quipping and noting “we have to defend sovereignty.” Sheinbaum, who has walked a tight rope with the Trump administration, has responded to Trump with a balanced tone and occasionally with sarcasm, like when Trump changed the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America.

Historical sticking point

The Mexican-American war (1846–1848) was triggered by long-running border disputes between the U.S. and Mexico and the United States’ annexation of Texas in 1845. For years leading up to the war, Americans had gradually moved into the then-Mexican territory. Mexico had banned slavery and U.S. abolitionists feared the U.S. land grab was in part an attempt to add slave states.

After fighting broke out and successive U.S. victories, Mexico ceded more than 525,000 square miles of territory — including what now comprises Arizona, California, western Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas and Utah — to the U.S.

The moment turned Texas into a key chess piece during the U.S. Civil War and led former President Ulysses S. Grant to write later that the conflict with Mexico was “one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation.”

The Associated Press was formed when five New York City newspapers funded a pony express route through Alabama to bring news of the Mexican War — as it is sometimes known in the U.S. — north faster than the U.S. Post Office could deliver it.

The war continues to be a historical sticking point between the two countries, particularly as Sheinbaum repeatedly reminds Trump that her country is a sovereign nation whenever Trump openly weighs taking military action against Mexican cartels and pressures Mexico to bend to its will.

Rewriting history

The White House statement falls in line with wider actions taken by the Trump administration to mold the federal government’s language around its own creed, said Albert Camarillo, history professor at Stanford University, who described the statement as a “distorted, ahistorical, imperialist version” of the war.

Aviña said the statement serves “to assert rhetorically that the U.S. is justified in establishing its so-called ‘America First’ policy throughout the Americas,” regardless of the historical accuracy.

The Trump administration has ordered the rewriting of history on display at the Smithsonian Institution, saying it was “restoring truth and sanity to American history.”

The administration has scrubbed government websites of history, legal records and data it finds disagreeable. Trump also ordered the government to remove any signs that “inappropriately disparage Americans past or living,” including those making reference to slavery, destruction of Native American cultures and climate change.

“This statement is consistent with so many others that attempt to whitewash and reframe U.S. history and erase generations of historical scholarship,” Camarillo said.

Janetsky writes for the Associated Press.

Tulsi Gabbard’s political journey has been anything but straightforward.

As a teenager, she worked for her father, a prominent anti-gay activist, and his political organization, which opposed same-sex marriage. In 2002, she was elected to Hawaii’s House of Representatives, becoming — at age 21 — the youngest person to serve in the Legislature.

Gabbard was a Democrat and remained so for two decades, as she cycled from the statehouse to Honolulu’s City Council to the U.S. House of Representatives.

In 2020, she ran for president, renouncing her anti-LGBTQ views and apologizing for her earlier stance. She was a Bernie Sanders acolyte and a fierce critic of Donald Trump and, especially, his foreign policy. She denounced him at one point for “being Saudi Arabia’s bitch.”

Now, Gabbard is MAGA down to her stocking feet.

Despite no obvious qualifications — save for her fawning appearances on Fox News — Trump selected her to be the director of national intelligence, the nation’s spymaster-in-chief. Despite no earthly reason, Gabbard was present last week when the FBI conducted a heavy-handed raid at the Fulton County elections office in Georgia, pursuing a harebrained theory the 2020 election was stolen from Trump.

Instead of, say, poring over the latest intelligence gleanings from Ukraine or Gaza, Gabbard stood watch as a team of flak-jacketed agents carted off hundreds of boxes of ballots and other election materials.

That’ll keep the homeland safe.

But as bizarre and unaccountable as it was, Gabbard’s presence outside Atlanta did make a certain amount of sense. She’s a longtime dabbler in crackpot conspiracies. And she’ll bend, like a swaying palm, whichever way the prevailing winds blow.

Some refer to her as the “Manchurian candidate,” said John Hart, a communication professor at Hawaii Pacific University, referring to the malleable cipher in the famous political thriller. In a different world, he suggested, Gabbard might have been Sanders’ running mate.

“It does take a certain amount of flexibility to think that someone who could have been the Democratic VP is now in Trump’s cabinet,” Hart observed.

The job of the nation’s director of national intelligence — a position created to address some of the failings that led to the 9/11 attacks — is to act as the president’s top intelligence adviser, synthesizing voluminous amounts of foreign, military and domestic information to help defend the country and protect its interests abroad.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with re-litigating U.S. elections, or tending to the bruised feelings of an onion-skinned president.

The job is supposed to be nonpartisan and apolitical, which should go without saying. Except it needs to be said in this time when all roads (and the actions of each cabinet member) lead to Trump, his ego, his whims and his insecurities.

There were ample signs Gabbard was a spectacularly bad pick for intelligence chief.

She blamed NATO and the Biden administration for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. She claimed the U.S. was funding dangerous biological laboratories in the country — “parroting fake Russian propaganda,” in the words of then-Utah Sen. Mitt Romney.

She opposed U.S. aid to the rebels fighting Bashar Assad, met with Syria’s then-dictator and defended him against allegations he used chemical weapons against his own people.

She defended Edward Snowden and Julian Assange, who were indicted for masterminding two of the biggest leaks of intelligence secrets in U.S. history.

Still, Gabbard was narrowly confirmed by the Senate, 52 to 48. The vote, almost entirely along party lines, was an inauspicious start and nothing since had dispelled lawmakers’ well-placed lack of confidence.

Trump brushed aside Gabbard’s congressional testimony on Iran’s nuclear capabilities — “I don’t care what she said” — and bombed the country’s nuclear facilities. The putative intelligence chief was apparently irrelevant in the administration’s ouster of former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.

Her bizarre presence in Georgia — where Gabbard reportedly arranged for FBI agents to make a post-raid call to the president — looks like nothing more than a way to worm her way back into his good graces.

(Separately, the Wall Street Journal reported this week that a U.S. intelligence official has filed a whistleblower complaint against Gabbard, which is caught up in wrangling over sharing details with Congress.)

California Sen. Adam Schiff said it’s “patently obvious to everyone Gabbard lacks the capability and credibility” to lead the country’s intelligence community.

“She has been sidelined by the White House, ignored by the agencies, and has zero credibility with Congress,” the Democrat wrote in an email. She’s responded by parroting Trump’s Big Lie “complete with cosplaying [a] secret agent in Fulton County and violating all norms and rules by connecting the President of the United States with line law enforcement officers executing a warrant. The only contribution that Tulsi Gabbard can make now would be to resign.”

Back in Hawaii, the former congresswoman has been in bad odor for years.

“It started with the criticism of President Obama” — a revered Hawaii native — over foreign policy “and a sense in Hawaii that she was more interested in appearing on the national media than working for the state,” said Colin Moore, a University of Hawaii political science professor and another longtime Gabbard watcher.

“Hawaii politicians have, with a few exceptions, tended to be kind of low-drama dealmakers, not the sort who attract national attention,” Moore said. “The goal is to rise in seniority and bring benefits back to the state. And that was never the model Tulsi followed.”

In recent years, as she sidled into Trump’s orbit, Hawaiian sightings of Gabbard have been few and far between, according to Honolulu Civil Beat, a statewide nonprofit news organization. Not that she’s been terribly missed in the deeply Democratic state.

“I’ve heard some less-charitable people say, ‘Don’t let the door hit your [rear end] on the way out,” said Hart.

But it’s not as though Gabbard’s ascension to director of intelligence was Hawaii’s loss and America’s gain. It’s been America’s loss, too.

You may have read recently how minions of the Trump administration removed an exhibit about slavery from the President’s House in Philadelphia (where George Washington lived, with slaves) as part of its ongoing sop to MAGA sensitivities and campaign to erase history in favor of a fairy tale in which the worst thing Washington ever did was chop down a cherry tree.

The study of history is by nature messy, replete with conflicting interpretations and incomplete puzzles, but it’s what you need to know in order not to repeat it. PBS, lately defunded by conservatives but not disassembled, is among the institutions working to bring it to the people — indeed, the only television outlet seriously devoted to it. (History Channel is just a name.) Premiering Tuesday and continuing weekly is the four-part series “Black and Jewish America: An Interwoven History,” presented by Henry Louis Gates Jr., at the start of what happens to be Black History Month.

Gates, who also hosts the PBS genealogy series “Finding Your Roots,” has presented such documentaries as “Africa’s Great Civilizations” and “Great Migrations: A People on the Move,” has made cameo appearances in HBO’s “Watchmen” series and “The Simpsons.” He teaches at Harvard and is a well-known public figure — a history communicator, scholar and storyteller and a minor TV star the world also knows as “Skip.” Even-tempered and even-handed, he’s a good guide through the minefields of racial history — he keeps you from blowing up. You might find yourself angry at the material, but not with Gates.

“Under the floorboards of Western culture run two streams, continuously,” he says. “One is antisemitism, one is anti-Black racism,” whose purpose here is to explore “the areas of overlap.” They aren’t the only victims of bigotry in American history and modern America; Italians and Irish immigrants had their turn, too. White supremacy, which is very much alive in the land — turn on the news — disdains every people of color. But as people who shared the experience of being “mocked and feared, blamed and banished, envied and imitated,” often allied, sometimes antagonists, theirs is a special case.

Gates has assembled a stimulating, illuminating, maddening, saddening, but often inspiring, story of their relations with the world and one another. (Here and there he reaches a little outside his theme.) At 75, he’s lived through a good slice of the history illuminated here, including “our brief golden age” of the 1960s Civil Rights Movement, and though he structures his series as a pendulum swinging between worse and better news, he scrupulously bookends it in a hopeful mood, with a Seder to start and a discussion with students to end. His insistence that no one is safe until everyone is safe, can seem to portend a future in which no one will ever be safe, though as a teacher I assume he’s more sanguine. His manner, at least, is encouraging.

The Seder, which begins with a singing of “Go Down Moses (Let My People Go),” gathers a tableful of Black, white and biracial Jews — each distinguished enough to have their own Wikipedia pages — in a roundtable discussion. Participants include New Yorker editor David Remnick, author Jamaica Kincaid, journalist Esther Fein, rabbi Shais Rishon, Angela Buchdahl (the first East Asian American to be ordained as a rabbi); and culinary historian Michael Twitty, who provides the doubly meal — kosher salt collard greens, West African brisket and potato kugel with sweet and white potatoes and Creole spice.

Though both Jews and Black people faced (and face) discrimination, their American journeys were launched, says Gates, “on different trajectories,” one group chased from nominally Christian countries, the subject of durable medieval superstitions, the other dragged from their homes. Though the mass of Jewish migration, escaping Russian pogroms and Nazi Germany in succeeding waves, occurred in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, some arrived before the revolution; but the Constitution, which enshrined religious freedom, granted them legal rights. (This presumably did not help the Jews of African descent Gates says were present here early on.) Black people, kidnapped and enslaved, had none, and as freedom was gained, new laws were written to hold them in place.

Gates posits a sympathy between immigrant and first- and second-generation Jewish Americans in the 20th century and disadvantaged Black people, based on a common experience of oppression; Jewish newspapers used the word “pogrom” to describe violence against Black people in the South. And Jews, many raised with a sense of social justice, were disproportionately represented among white activists in the Civil Rights Movement. This would change: Where Martin Luther King declared “I’m more convinced than ever before that our destiny is tied up with the destiny of our Jewish brothers and vice versa, and we must work together,” later Black activists, like Stokely Carmichael preferred to go it alone, promoting self-determination and even separation.

Still, many of the stories here are based on Black and Jewish friendships. We learn of W. E. B. Du Bois and Joel Spingarn, who sat together on the board of the NAACP and to whom Du Bois dedicated his 1940 autobiography “Dusk of Dawn.” Of Tuskegee Institute founder Booker T. Washington and philanthropist Julius Rosenwald, a president of Sears, Roebuck and Co., who built schools — more than 5,000 nationally, eventually — for systemically disadvantaged Black students. (Graduates included Maya Angelou and John Lewis.) Of Chicago rabbi Abraham Heschel, bringing 15 other white rabbis down to Selma, Ala., in 1964 at the request of King, where their arrest made headlines — which translated to political pressure.

In music, we meet Louis Armstrong, who as a boy worked and stayed with a Jewish family, and wore a Star of David, and his manager Joe Glaser. We’re told the story of Billie Holiday‘s lynching ballad “Strange Fruit,” written by Abel Meeropol (under his pseudonym Lewis Allan), recorded by Milt Gabler for his Commodore label and performed regularly by Holiday at Barney Josephson’s Cafe Society, New York’s first truly integrated nightclub. And we hear Paul Robeson, daring to sing in Yiddish in a concert in Moscow, in support of Itzik Feffer, a Jewish poet imprisoned (and later murdered) by the Soviets.

As a social and political history covering two intersecting storylines for more than the length of the nation, it’s packed with incident and facts — the Klan resurgent after World War I (six million members, it says here); the 1936 Berlin Olympics, where Jesse Owens triumphed and the U.S. committee pulled two Jewish sprinters from competition; racist Nazi policies, borrowed from American Jim Crow, and the Holocaust. Also the domestic destabilizing effects of wars in the Middle East. Jews and Black people will find themselves on the opposite sides of some questions.

Even at four hours, it’s a survey course, streamlined but not simplistic, and as such it will fly through some points and elide others; there are whole volumes dedicated elsewhere to what constitutes a single sentence here, and libraries dedicated to some of these figures. (Why not read some?) The view is not singular, and as such, there’ll be something for everyone to question, especially as Jews and Black people are often described as a community, when neither is heterogeneous. (Jews don’t even agree on what makes a Jew.)

But whatever goes back and forth between then, the world has its own ideas. “People who hate Jews,” says Gates, “uncannily hate Black people too. Because when the stuff hits the fan, they’re coming after both of us.”

The official Super Bowl halftime show on Sunday will feature Bad Bunny, the Grammy winner for album of the year, at the height of his powers and influence. Those upset by his onstage comments about the dignity of Latinos and immigrants, however, can turn to a competing bill featuring Kid Rock and Gabby Barrett.

Rock, the perennial MAGA raconteur and country-rock singer, will perform for the far-right activist group Turning Point USA’s counterprogramming event streaming across the conservative mediasphere. Turning Point USA is the activist group founded by the late Charlie Kirk, who was killed last year at a speaking event in Utah.

“We plan to play great songs for folks who love America,” Rock said in a statement announcing the bill. “We’re approaching this show like David and Goliath. Competing with the pro football machine and a global pop superstar is almost impossible … or is it?”

“He’s said he’s having a dance party, wearing a dress and singing in Spanish? Cool. We plan to play great songs for folks who love America,” Rock said, in an overt jab at the actual Super Bowl halftime show headliner.

Veteran country acts Lee Brice and Brantley Gilbert and Barrett, an “American Idol” alum with a 2019 Hot 100 hit in “I Hope,” will also perform.

While Rock’s right-wing politics have largely eclipsed his musical relevance in 2026, he’s recently tried to position himself as a power broker for MAGA-friendly concerts with just enough plausible appeal for more neutral country and rock fans. His planned 2026 touring festival, Rock the Country, is set to feature Blake Shelton, recent Grammy winner Jelly Roll, Creed and Miranda Lambert, but lost Ludacris and Morgan Wade following blowback from fans.

When Bad Bunny was booked for the Super Bowl in October, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said, “I didn’t even know who Bad Bunny was. But it sounds like a terrible decision, in my view, from what I’m hearing. It sounds like he’s not someone who appeals to a broader audience.”

“There are so many eyes on the Super Bowl — a lot of young, impressionable children. And, in my view, you would have Lee Greenwood, or role models, doing that. Not somebody like this, ” he added.

President Trump said a bill featuring the Grammy-winning Puerto Rican superstar — and the famously anti-Trump punk band Green Day — was part of the reason he would not attend the game this year. “I’m anti-them. I think it’s a terrible choice,” he said. “All it does is sow hatred. Terrible.”

As the Writers Guild of America West prepares to negotiate a new contract with major studios, its staff union has authorized a strike of its own.

The labor group’s staff union (WGSU), which includes attorneys, research analysts and other positions, claims that “management has dismissed [its] staff’s needs and engaged in bad faith surface bargaining with no intent to reach a fair contract.” According to the union’s social media post, 82% of its members voted to authorize a strike.

The union wrote that 100 members participated in the vote, “demonstrating our unity and commitment to winning a fair contract. If management won’t bargain in good faith with us at the table, we will see them on the picket line.”

With a strike authorization vote, a strike is not guaranteed, but it gives union leaders the power to call one if needed.

WGSU claims it has been negotiating with the union since last September. The pending contract, according to a flier from the union, deals with issues such as AI protections, pay raises and “basic protections” like grievance procedures.

WGA has denied these claims, arguing that the union has offered “comprehensive proposals with numerous union protections and improvements to compensation and benefits.”

“Public claims suggesting otherwise are inaccurate, and allegations of unfair labor practices are without merit. WGAW respects the staff’s right to engage in collective activity, and hopes to reach a first contract agreement with the staff union soon,” wrote a union spokesperson in a statement.

In response to the strike authorization, WGA West also released a four-page comparison of the proposals and counterproposals on Thursday. The document shows management has offered a minimum annual salary of $55,000 and the staff union is asking for a minimum of $59,737.

The Writers Guild made headlines in 2023 for the second-longest strike in the union’s history. At the time, film and TV writers were boycotting major studios and fighting for fair compensation. WGA West staffers also played a key role in the strike, as they too joined the picketing lines.

A contract was settled after a 148-day work stoppage, but it’s set to expire on May 1. The strike authorization vote comes as the WGA’s east and west coast groups get ready to once again sit down with major movie studios and streaming companies. Negotiations between the guild and the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers are expected to begin March 16.

Following United States forces’ abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, a new set of questions is emerging as to how far Donald Trump is prepared to go in pushing US power abroad through direct intervention.

But is this a real break with past policy – or the latest iteration of the US’s longstanding interventionist power play in Latin America?

And with Cuba back in the administration’s sights, will Trump push for further action in the region?

This week on UpFront, Marc Lamont Hill speaks with Senior Analyst at the National Security Archive, Peter Kornbluh.