president

Lula says he wants to tell US President Trump that Brazil wishes for all countries to be treated ‘equally’.

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva says his country does not want a “new Cold War”, ahead of his visit to the United States.

“I want to tell the US President Donald Trump that we don’t want a new Cold War. We don’t want interference in any other country; we want all countries to be treated equally,” Lula told a news conference at the end of his three-day trip to India on Sunday.

The Brazilian president has refused to comment on Friday’s US Supreme Court decision, which struck down many of Trump’s tariffs on goods entering the US. In response to the Supreme Court decision, Trump said that 15 percent levies would replace it under a different law.

Still, Lula said he is “convinced that Brazil-US relations will go back to normalcy after our conversation”, adding that Brazil has only wanted to “live in peace, generate jobs, and improve [the] lives of our people”.

“The world doesn’t need more turbulence; it needs peace,” he added.

Lula said he expects to meet Trump during the first week of March, and his agenda will include trade, immigration, and investment.

While Lula has differed with Trump on issues such as tariffs, Israel’s war on Gaza, the US abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, and Trump’s Board of Peace – a group of nations assembled to plan Gaza’s future – US and Brazil ties appear to be mending.

In November, for instance, Trump’s administration exempted key Brazilian exports from the 40 percent tariffs that had been imposed on the country.

Brazil-India

On Saturday, Lula met with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi after the Brazilian leader arrived in New Delhi on Wednesday to attend a summit on AI.

The two leaders agreed to boost cooperation on critical minerals and rare earths, looking to diversify their trade.

Lula and Modi agreed on a non-binding memorandum of understanding on rare earths, which establishes a framework for cooperation, focusing on reciprocal investment, exploration, mining and other issues.

They also agreed on legal frameworks and other topics, including entrepreneurship, health, scientific research and education.

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian says Tehran will not bow to US pressure over nuclear talks, after Donald Trump warned on Thursday that ‘bad things’ will happen if Iran fails to reach a deal within 15 days.

NEW YORK — JPMorgan Chase acknowledged for the first time that it closed the bank accounts of Donald Trump and several of his businesses in the aftermath of the Jan. 6, 2021, attacks on the U.S. Capitol, the latest development in a legal saga between the president and the nation’s biggest bank over the issue known as “debanking.”

The acknowledgment came in a court filing submitted this week in Trump’s lawsuit against the bank and its leader, Jamie Dimon. The president sued for $5 billion, alleging that his accounts were closed for political reasons, disrupting his business operations.

“In February 2021, JPMorgan informed Plaintiffs that certain accounts maintained with JPMorgan’s CB and PB would be closed,” JPMorgan’s former chief administrative officer Dan Wilkening wrote in the court filing. The “PB” and “CB” stands for JPMorgan’s private bank and commercial bank.

Until now, JPMorgan has never admitted it closed the president’s accounts in writing after Jan. 6. The bank would only speak hypothetically about when the bank closes accounts and its reasons for closing accounts, citing bank privacy laws.

A spokeswoman for the bank declined to comment beyond what the bank said in its legal filings.

Trump originally sued JPMorgan in Florida state court, where the president’s primary residence is now located. The filings this week are part of an effort by JPMorgan Chase to have the case moved from state to federal court and to have the jurisdiction of the case moved to New York, which is where the bank accounts were located and where Trump kept much of his business operations until recently.

Trump originally accused the bank of trade libel and violating state and federal unfair and deceptive trade practices.

In the original lawsuit, Trump said he tried to raise the issue personally with Dimon after the bank sent him notices that JPMorgan would close his accounts, and that Dimon assured Trump he would figure out what was happening. The lawsuit alleges Dimon failed to follow up with Trump.

Further, Trump’s lawyers allege that JPMorgan placed the president and his companies on a reputational “blacklist” that both JPMorgan and other banks use to keep clients from opening accounts with them in the future. The blacklist has yet to be defined by the president’s lawyers.

“If and when Plaintiffs explain what they mean by this ‘blacklist,’ JPMorgan will respond accordingly,” the bank’s lawyers said in a filing.

JPMorgan has previously said that although it regrets that Trump felt the need to sue the bank, the lawsuit has no merit.

The issue of debanking is at the center of the case. Debanking occurs when a bank closes the accounts of a customer or refuses to do business with a customer in the form of loans or other services. Once a relatively obscure issue in finance, debanking has become a politically charged issue in recent years, with conservative politicians arguing that banks have discriminated against them and their affiliated interests.

“In a devastating concession that proves President Trump’s entire claim, JPMorgan Chase admitted to unlawfully and intentionally de-banking President Trump, his family, and his businesses, causing overwhelming financial harm,” the president’s lawyers said in a statement. “President Trump is standing up for all those wrongly debanked by JPMorgan Chase and its cohorts, and will see this case to a just and proper conclusion.”

Debanking first became a national issue when conservatives accused the Obama administration of pressuring banks to stop extending services to gun stores and payday lenders under “Operation Choke Point.”

Trump and other conservative figures have alleged that banks cut them off from their accounts under the umbrella term of “reputational risk” after the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. Trump was impeached on a charge of inciting insurrection on Jan. 6, though not convicted in the Senate; and he was criminally indicted for his role in the riot and his attempt to overturn his 2020 election defeat, but that case was dismissed after he won the 2024 election.

Since Trump came back into office, the president’s banking regulators have moved to stop any banks from using “reputational risk” as a reason for denying service to customers.

This is not the first lawsuit Trump has filed against a big bank alleging that he was debanked. The Trump Organization sued credit card giant Capital One in March 2025 for similar reasons and allegations. The case is ongoing.

Sweet writes for the Associated Press.

The most prestigious board ever put together.

That is how the president of the United States, a man convicted of fraud, described his new team focused on international relations. A team that does not include representatives from our closest neighbors — Mexico and Canada — but did save room for leaders accused of war crimes by the International Criminal Court.

Now, we do not know whether President Trump created his “Board of Peace,” which this week held its first meeting, specifically to undermine the authority of the United Nations. But we do know that the president has pledged $10 billion in tax dollars to the board’s mission while still owing the U.N. half that amount in back payments. We do not know whether Trump, who is indefinitely the leader of this peace board, intends to relinquish that power after he leaves the White House. But we do know he is still trying to overturn the results of the 2020 election. Whether the “Board of Peace” is the most prestigious panel ever assembled is debatable. What is not debatable is that it was conceived by an adjudicated sexual abuser who is referenced in the released Epstein files some 38,000 times.

That is not my take.

That is simply what is happening.

Which is why the president encourages his supporters to ban books and reject journalism. He doesn’t want voters to pay attention. He doesn’t want voters to understand his actions.

Ten years ago this month — after his Nevada caucus victory speech — Trump said, “I love the poorly educated.” And his reliance on this base is why, over the past decade, he and other conservatives have purposely misconstrued the term “woke” as a catch-all slur toward progressive and far-left policies. It used to mean “aware” and “informed.” The term was not born out of modern politics but rather the need to understand the history of the social economic systems we all are living in. The alternative is to be blindly led by an unscrupulous leader most concerned with his own well being.

Being “woke” is why the Boston Tea Party happened in 1773; it is why Thomas Paine published “Common Sense” in 1776; it is why Republicans formed the Wide Awakes to help get Abraham Lincoln elected in 1860. When voters understand the context in which decisions are made, we are better equipped to address shortcomings at the ballot box and in our daily lives.

Trump’s self-proclaimed love for the poorly educated has nothing to do with progressive policies or college degrees and everything to do with whom he can convince to believe him. And by making “woke” an insult, Trump and other conservatives have politicized the very tool necessary to help the country fulfill its promise: information.

This threat is the reason his administration attacks, and even arrests, journalists; the reason he refers to reports he doesn’t like as “fake news”; the reason he fired the labor statistics chief after an unflattering jobs report last year. He’s waging a war on information.

The reason 2025 marked the worst nonrecession year for job growth since 2003 isn’t that the country was “woke.” It’s because of shortcomings in leadership.

When Trump returned to the White House, he made lowering the U.S. trade deficit a key component to his economic policy. In 2024, the deficit was $903.5 billion. In 2025, it was $901.5 billion — and America’s families paid $230 billion more for goods because of his yo-yo tariff policies.

He told his supporters that other nations would be paying for the tariffs he enacted — obvious nonsense to anyone who attended a day of Econ 101. And we know that as a result of his reckless and ignorant policies, farmers in particular suffered. It’s not clear whether that financial burden was a consideration when the Supreme Court on Friday declared the president’s sweeping tariffs to be illegal. What we do know is before Trump entered politics, his businesses filed for bankruptcy six times — so perhaps he was never the economic savant he claimed to be.

Just as the saga of the Epstein files reveals he is not the protector of women and young girls that he claimed to be.

Just as his recent attacks on the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 14th Amendments show he was never the defender of the Constitution he took an oath to be.

Acknowledging the laundry list of untruths tied to his promises and presidency is not political or a symptom of “Trump Derangement Syndrome.” It’s simply having information: the one thing that helps voters understand why things are the way they are. The one thing the president hopes his supporters never wake up to see for themselves.

YouTube: @LZGrandersonShow

Feb. 20 (UPI) — Peru’s interim President Jose Maria Balcazar was summoned to continue his trial over alleged misappropriation of funds from the Lambayeque Bar Association just one day after assuming the presidency.

The case adds legal pressure to a temporary administration already shaped by political uncertainty.

Peru’s Public Ministry alleges that during his tenure as dean of the Lambayeque Bar Association from 2019 to 2022, Balcazar committed irregularities in managing the institution’s financial income and expenditures.

Prosecutors also allege he ordered profits to be deposited into his personal bank accounts, El Comercio newspaper reported.

Balcazar, a lawmaker from the leftist Peru Libre party, assumed the interim presidency Wednesday following the removal of his predecessor Jose Jeri. News of the court summons emerged only hours after his inauguration.

The first hearing is scheduled June 16, with additional sessions set for June 23 and June 30, either virtually or at the Lambayeque Superior Court in Chiclayo, according to judicial authorities.

A judge ordered the president’s mandatory attendance and warned that failure to appear could result in him being declared in contempt and subject to a nationwide arrest warrant.

On the day lawmakers elected Balcazar, the Lambayeque Bar Association issued a statement opposing his candidacy and warning of multiple allegations against him, RPP Noticias reported.

The association expelled Balcazar permanently Aug. 13, 2022, citing violations of its statutes and code of ethics. It said his conduct caused “serious harm to his own professional association and, consequently, to the dignity and distinguished image all Peruvian lawyers must preserve.”

Balcazar has consistently denied the accusations, saying they lack legal basis.

He also has faced other investigations and complaints over several years. During his time as a judge and later as a congressman, he was the target of allegations including suspected judicial misconduct, fraud, identity impersonation and bribery, along with other questions raised about his professional conduct.

In his first remarks as president, Balcazar sought to downplay the impact of his legal cases, saying “it is not difficult to govern a country” and adding his administration will focus on ensuring “unquestionable” elections scheduled for April.

Separately, former President Pedro Castillo, who is serving an 11-year, five-month sentence for rebellion after his failed 2022 attempt to dissolve Congress, has requested a presidential pardon from Balcazar.

Castillo’s former defense minister and attorney Walter Ayala formally delivered it to the presidential office.

During Castillo’s administration, Balcazar emerged as one of his most visible defenders. He supported Castillo’s government and questioned investigations that involved officials close to the executive branch, local outlet Peru21 reported.

US Senator Graham claims the UAE royal is ‘as sharp as I’ve ever seen him’ in Abu Dhabi encounter.

Emirati President Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan has made his first appearance since rumours about his health spread online.

The Presidential Court on Wednesday shared video footage of the Emirati president, also known as MBZ, smiling alongside Republican US Senator Lindsey Graham during a meeting in Abu Dhabi.

WAM, the UAE’s official news agency, also shared photographs of the encounter at Qasr Al Shati, in which MBZ appeared alongside Graham.

In a social media post, the US senator rebuffed in no uncertain terms any claims that the UAE president may be unwell.

“To those who are perpetuating false narratives against the United Arab Emirates and President Sheikh [Mohamed bin Zayed] personally, you are full of it,” Graham said on X.

“Not only is he alive, but he is also well and as sharp as I’ve ever seen him.”

Graham, a top Republican in Congress, hailed MBZ for embracing the so-called Abraham Accords, a series of US-brokered deals to normalise relations between Israel and Arab states.

The UAE was among the countries to sign on to the initiative, which was unveiled in 2020 during US President Donald Trump’s first term in office.

Palestinian leaders condemned the Abraham Accords as a betrayal of their cause and the Palestinian push for self-determination.

Peru’s Congress has ousted President Jose Jeri just four months into his term over multiple corruption allegations. The decision was made just weeks before a general election.

In 1994, the Rev. Jesse Jackson declared war on Hollywood.

The civil rights leader, who died Tuesday, set his sights on the entertainment industry, accusing it of “institutional racism” and calling out what he called the lack of representation of people of color and women, an issue that reverberates today.

Jackson aimed his trademark fiery dynamism at studio and network executives, forming the Rainbow Coalition on Fairness in the Media — an offshoot of his Rainbow Coalition that focused on social justice and economic equality — and threatening boycotts against projects that excluded minorities.

Comparing his campaign to the historic march in Selma, Ala., and other civil rights demonstrations during a news conference, Jackson said, “They think they have the right to not include us in recruitment, hiring, promotion, projection, decision making. But we have consumer power, we have viewer power, we have the power to change dials. … The networks have time now to get their house in order. They can begin to change now.”

The pronouncement was a dramatic contrast to Jackson’s 1984 hosting gig on “Saturday Night Live” and his memorable reading of “Green Eggs and Ham” during a 1991 appearance on the sketch variety series.

But despite his characteristic command and media savvy, Jackson’s campaign never gained true momentum, scoring mixed results. Black actors and creators within Hollywood for the most part failed to rally around him, and leaders of some advocacy groups accused him of losing focus. Whoopi Goldberg made fun of him while hosting the 1996 Oscars.

By 1997, the battle had fizzled out and Jackson had moved on to more political concerns.

The clash with Hollywood was first sparked after several Black-oriented shows on Fox, including “South Central,” “Roc,” “In Living Color” and “The Sinbad Show” were canceled in the July 1994. Jackson felt there would not be much improvement in the diversity on the shows in the upcoming fall season.

“We know that significant shows were cut off from Fox this season, and that is of great concern to us,” Jackson said at a news conference at the African American Community Unity Center where he was accompanied by Brotherhood Crusade founder Danny Bakewell and comedian Sinbad, who starred in his own eponymous sitcom.

And Jackson said it wasn’t the only TV network with this problem. “We look at the data we have on NBC. It is substantial. It is ugly. We look at the projected format for CBS this fall. In the real sense, all of them are recycling racist practices. It is called institutional racism. It is manifest not only in their hiring, but in their priorities.”

He added that he was also concerned about what he claimed was poor representation of people of color and women among network news anchors and on writing staffs on prime-time network series. He criticized the prominence of Black actors having major roles that often involved criminal activity.

Jameel Hasan as Homey Jr., left, and Damon Wayans as Homey D. Clown on Fox’s “In Living Color,” which was canceled in 1994.

(Nicola Goode / Fox)

“We have written the networks letters, and the response, by and large, has been defensive as they attempt to justify what is unjustifiable,” Jackson said at the news conference. “While we’re willing to talk, we’re also willing to walk. It’s now time for aggressive direct action.”

In a separate interview, he targeted politically oriented Sunday news shows, saying they excluded Black journalists and news figures: “Those all-white hosts determine their guests and set the political agenda for public policy for Monday morning. That’s not America.”

His newly formed commission was researching network hiring practices and minority images. He vowed that boycotts and other actions would take place if there was not significant change.

But those demonstrations never materialized, and no boycotts were called. Roughly a year after his initial declaration, observers inside and outside the industry said networks had mostly ignored Jackson, and that little had changed.

Some leaders at the time questioned his commitment, saying he did not seem truly dedicated to aggressive action.

Sonny Skyhawk, founder and president of American Indians in Film, one of the organizations that had joined forces with Jackson, said the campaign against the networks should have been stronger.

“I would hate to criticize him for not being more diligent, but it is frustrating,” said Skyhawk in a 1995 interview about the initiative. “I don’t know where (the issue) is or why he is not continuing on this. But I think he got sidetracked on a lot of other things.”

Sherrie Mazingo, who was then head of broadcast journalism at USC, said she was not surprised that the Jackson campaign had lost steam: “What happened last season isn’t new, it’s perennial, and may even be cyclical. Protests and accusations and talk like this goes on all the time, and nothing ever happens. Nothing.”

Mazingo cited similar efforts by the National Assn. for the Advancement of Colored People in the early 1980s that had attacked Hollywood’s hiring practices. A boycott of films that failed to use Black artists in front of or behind the camera was proposed but never materialized.

“I believe what happens when these things start is that an individual in the organization who is pushing forward on these issues gets tired of banging their head against a brick wall,” Mazingo said. “They make an all-out assault, exhaust a lot of energy and money, and nothing ever significantly changes, except for a token gesture here and there.”

Sumi Haru, who was president of the Assn. of Asian Pacific Artists, said Jackson had been sidetracked by more topical issues such as a conservative power grab in Washington, D.C., and calls for abolishing affirmative action programs.

“He needed to focus his energy on the civil rights initiative, and affirmative action was a much bigger deal,” said Haru.

But Billie Green, president of the Beverly Hills/Hollywood branch of the NAACP, said Jackson’s campaign would have been more effective if it had joined forces with other organizations that had members within the television industry.

Jackson pushed back against the criticism, insisting that the fight against Hollywood “is still very high on our agenda.” He pointed out that he had worked to continue government funding for the Public Broadcasting Service, protested the cancellation of the Nickelodeon series about two Black brothers, “My Brother and Me,” picketed conservative “hate radio” programs and sent out a fax to 8,000 supporters asking them to rally CBS to bring back the family drama “Under One Roof.”

“It’s going to get more intense,” Jackson said.

In 1996, Jackson turned his attention to the Academy Awards, angered that there was only one Black nominee among the 166 artists nominated. He called for picketing in major cities and and said Black people attending the Oscar ceremony should wear a symbol expressing solidarity against what he called Hollywood’s “race exclusion and cultural violence.”

But during the Oscars, which was produced by Quincy Jones, Goldberg, who was hosting, took a swipe at the civil rights leader who was picketing across town.

“Jesse Jackson asked me to wear a ribbon. I got it,” Goldberg said during her opening. “But I had something I want to say to Jesse right here, but he’s not watching, so why bother?” The remark drew applause and laughter from the black-tie audience.

Some leaders, producers and directors were not amused by Goldberg, saying her remarks were insulting and dismissive of a serious fight to gain diversity within the motion picture industry. But others criticized Jackson, calling his action ill-timed and ill-advised. Several of the most prominent African Americans present, including Oprah Winfrey, Sidney Poitier and Laurence Fishburne, did not wear rainbow-colored ribbons as a sign of solidarity with Jackson and his Rainbow Coalition.

Even though he concentrated on other endeavors, Jackson was not totally done with Hollywood. He and the Rev. Al Sharpton spearheaded a protest in 2002 against the comedy “Barbershop” and its jokes about Jackson and ciivil rights icons Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr. The two leaders also threatened a boycott against the 2004 comedy “Soul Plane.”

Announcement follows multiple impeachment complaints against the vice president over allegations of corruption.

Philippine Vice President Sara Duterte has said she intends to run for president in the upcoming 2028 election, following in the footsteps of her notorious father, ex-President Rodrigo Duterte, who is currently on trial at the International Criminal Court (ICC) for crimes against humanity.

“It took me 47 years to understand that my life was never meant to be only mine,” Sara Duterte said on Wednesday.

“For a long time, I questioned the weight of responsibility to my family, to my country, to everyone who called on me,” Duterte said in a livestreamed address.

“I am Sara Duterte, and I am running for president in the Philippines,” she said.

Duterte also asked her followers for their “forgiveness” over her previous support for incumbent President Ferdinand Marcos Jr during the last presidential election.

The Philippines continues to struggle with rampant problems, from corruption to poverty and a cost-of-living crisis, she said.

“I cannot kneel before each and every Filipino to beg for forgiveness. Instead, I offer my life, my strength, and my future in the service of our nation,” she added.

Despite throwing her support behind Marcos’s election bid five years ago, Duterte and the president have since become bitter rivals, particularly following the launch of a corruption inquiry in 2024 into Duterte’s misuse of government funds.

Their relationship then soured further last year when Marcos signed off on the arrest of her father by the Philippine National Police and Interpol, acting on behalf of the ICC.

Duterte’s candidacy announcement comes during a difficult week for the vice president and her family. She is facing multiple impeachment complaints in the House of Representatives for alleged corruption and making a death threat against President Marcos.

Her father is also due to receive the confirmation of charges against him in The Hague, where he is accused of committing crimes against humanity as part of his so-called “war on drugs” while president of the Philippines between 2016 and 2022.

Cleve Arguelles, political scientist and CEO of the public opinion company WR Numero Research, said her father’s trial in The Hague has raised the stakes for the vice president and her family.

Arguelles said the announcement was likely designed to “freeze panic inside” her political faction “before it prematurely unravels”.

“When legal risk rises, so does the temptation to defect early to save one’s own skin,” Arguelles said.

“When the boat starts taking in water, some passengers look for lifeboats; others start pushing people overboard,” he said.

Feb. 17 (UPI) — Peru’s Congress convened Tuesday in an extraordinary session to debate seven censure motions against interim President Jose Jeri — a move that could remove him from office less than two months before general elections and deepen the country’s ongoing political instability.

Jeri, who also serves as head of Congress, would automatically lose the presidency if lawmakers vote to oust him from that parliamentary post. He has denounced what he calls a plot against him and an intention by enemies to destabilize the country.

Jeri assumed the presidency in October after the removal of Dina Boluarte. However, investigations into Jeri’s conduct and declining public support have weakened his political standing, according to local newspaper La Republica.

According to local media reports, the current crisis escalated after reports that the president held unregistered meetings, not listed on his official agenda, with two controversial Chinese businessmen.

One reportedly holds multimillion-dollar state contracts and has been linked to construction firms accused of securing public works through bribes. The other has faced legal proceedings for trafficking illegal timber from the Amazon region.

Prosecutors have also opened a preliminary investigation into alleged influence peddling involving the hiring of nine young women in public institutions after meetings with Jeri at the presidential palace.

Those allegations enabled opposition lawmakers to gather 78 signatures to present a censure motion against him as congressional president — a step that would automatically remove him from the presidency.

Under congressional rules, a simple majority is required to approve the censure motion, RPP Noticias reported.

Peru has experienced marked political volatility over the past decade. Six recent presidents have faced removal proceedings or imprisonment, reflecting a pattern of institutional instability.

Analysts often cite the repeated use of constitutional mechanisms such as presidential vacancy on grounds of “moral incapacity” and censure votes against congressional leadership, factors that have made the presidency unusually fragile.

Political calculations ahead of Tuesday’s vote suggest limited support for the 39-year-old president. Most political blocs have expressed opposition to him continuing in office, with the exception of Fuerza Popular, the party associated with right-wing presidential candidate Keiko Fujimori.

Peru’s fragmented Congress includes about a dozen political blocs whose members frequently split during votes, leading analysts to caution that the outcome remains uncertain.

Jeri’s party, Somos Peru, is expected to attempt a procedural delay by requesting a constitutional review on whether a censure motion applies to an interim president. According to El Comercio newspaper, the Constitutional Commission could take about two weeks to issue an opinion, which might give Jeri time to secure additional political backing.

If Jeri is removed, Congress would elect a successor from among its members. That person would become Peru’s eighth president in a decade and oversee the transition toward general elections scheduled for April.

The debate comes as Jeri, who is not running for re-election, faces allegations of bribery and influence-peddling.

The head of Peru’s Congress, Fernando Rospigliosi, has announced a special plenary session to weigh the removal of the country’s right-wing president, Jose Jeri.

The session will take place on the morning of February 17, according to a statement Peru’s Congress posted on social media.

The debate comes as Jeri’s short tenure grows mired in scandal, just four months after he took office as interim president.

In October, Jeri — the leader of Congress at the time — took over as president following the unanimous impeachment of his predecessor, Dina Boluarte, on the grounds of “permanent moral incapacity”.

Boluarte herself assumed the presidency after her predecessor, Pedro Castillo, was impeached for attempting a self-coup.

Next week’s debate about Jeri’s future is the latest chapter in the ongoing instability facing Peru’s government. The country has seen eight presidents within the last decade, with several of them impeached or resigning before their term expired.

In recent months, Jeri has become increasingly embroiled in scandal, including one colloquially known as “chifagate”, named for the Peruvian-Chinese fusion cuisine known as “chifa”.

The scandal started when local media outlets obtained video of Jeri arriving late at night at a restaurant to meet with a Chinese businessman, Zhihua Yang, who previously received government approval to build a hydroelectric plant.

Their meeting was not listed in the official presidential agenda, as is required under Peruvian law. Critics have questioned whether Jeri’s outfit — which had a deep hood that rendered him nearly unrecognisable — was meant to be a disguise.

Additional footage placed Jeri at another one of Yang’s businesses days later. Jeri also allegedly met a second Chinese businessman, Jiwu Xiaodong, who was reportedly under house arrest for illegal activities.

Jeri has dismissed some of the off-the-books meetings as planning for an upcoming Chinese-Peruvian friendship event. Others, he said, were simply shopping trips for sweets and other food. He has denied wrongdoing but has acknowledged taking the meetings was a “mistake”.

“I have not lied to the country. I have not done anything illegal,” Jeri told the news outlet Canal N.

But critics have accused Jeri of using his position for influence-peddling at the unregistered interactions.

Similar accusations erupted earlier this month when Peruvian media highlighted the irregular hiring of several women in Jeri’s administration and contracts he awarded as possible evidence of bribery.

The debate over Jeri’s removal comes as Peru hurtles towards a general election on April 12, with the presidency up for grabs. Jeri will not be running to retain his seat.

President Trump’s aura of invincibility is starting to vanish. Three new polls — including the usually Trump-hospitable Rasmussen — suggest that Joe Biden did a better job as president.

Worse still (for Trump), he’s underwater on immigration, foreign policy and the economy — the very trifecta that powered his return. An incumbent taking on water like that is no longer steering the ship of state, he’s bobbing in the deep end, reaching for a Mar-a-Lago pool noodle.

To be fair, Democrats have a proud tradition of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. But suppose — purely hypothetically — that this sticks. Suppose Democrats win the midterms. And suppose a Democrat captures the White House in 2028.

Then what?

Trumpism isn’t a political movement so much as a recurring event. You don’t defeat it; you board up the windows and wait.

Even if Trump does not attempt a third term (a gambit the Constitution frowns upon), he will remain the dominant gravitational force in Republican politics for as long as he is sentient and within Wi-Fi range.

Which means any Democratic administration that follows would be well-advised to consider it is governing on borrowed time. In American politics, you are always one scandal, one recession or one deepfake video away from packing your belongings into a cardboard box.

Trump’s MAGA successor (whoever he or she might be) will inherit millions of ardent believers, now seasoned by experience, backed by tech billionaires and steeped in an authoritarian worldview.

So how exactly does the country “move on” when a sizable slice of its elite class appears to regard liberal democracy as more of an anachronism than a governing philosophy?

This is not an entirely new dilemma. After the Civil War, Americans had to decide whether to reconcile with the rebels or punish them or some mix of the two — and the path chosen by federal leaders shaped the next century through Reconstruction, Jim Crow and the long struggle for civil rights.

At Nuremberg, the Allies opted for trials instead of firing squads. Later, South Africa’s post-apartheid government attempted to achieve reconciliation via truth.

Each moment wrestled with the same problem: How do you impose consequences without becoming the very thing you were fighting in the first place — possibly sparking a never-ending cycle of revenge?

Which brings us to even more specific questions, such as where does Trumpism fit into this historical context — and should there be any accountability after MAGA?

Start with Trump himself. Even if he is legally immune regarding official acts, what about allegations of corruption? Trump and his family have amassed billions since returning to office.

It is difficult to picture a future Democratic administration hauling him into court, especially if Trump grants himself broad pardons and preemptive clemency on his way out of office.

So if accountability comes, it would probably target figures in his orbit — lieutenants, enablers, assorted capos not covered by pardons. But is even this level of accountability wise?

On one hand, it is about incentives and deterrence. If bad actors get to keep the money and their freedom, despite committing crimes, they (and imitators) will absolutely return for an encore.

On the other hand, a Democratic president might reasonably decide that voters would prefer lower grocery bills to more drama.

Trump himself offers a cautionary tale. He devoted enormous energy to retribution, grievance and settling scores. It is at least conceivable that he might have been in stronger political shape had he devoted comparable attention to, say, affordability.

There is also the uncomfortable fact that the past Trump indictments strengthened him politically. Nothing energizes a base like the words “They’re coming for me,” especially when followed by the words “and you’ll be next,” next to a fundraising link. Do Democrats want to create new martyrs and make rank-and-file Americans feel like “deplorables” who are being persecuted for their political beliefs?

So perhaps the answer is surgical. Focus on ringleaders. Spare the small fry. Proceed in sober legal tones. Make it about the law, not the spectacle.

Even this compromise would invite a backlash. Democrats, it seems, are damned if they do and damned if they don’t.

The good news is that smart people are actively debating this topic — far better than trying to improvise a solution on Inauguration Day — just as similar questions were asked after Trump lost in 2020. A few weeks ago, for example, David Brooks and David Frum discussed this topic on Frum’s podcast.

Unfortunately, there is no tidy answer. Too much punishment risks looking like vengeance. Too little risks sparking another sequel.

It may sound melodramatic to say this might be the most important question of our time. But while this republic has endured a lot, it might not survive the extremes of amnesia or revenge.

Choosing the narrow path in between will require something rarer than a landslide victory: justice with restraint.

But do we have what it takes?

Matt K. Lewis is the author of “Filthy Rich Politicians” and “Too Dumb to Fail.”

Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian spoke out against intervention by ‘alien Westerners’ during a rally to mark the anniversary of the Islamic revolution. Celebrations have been taking place after weeks of US threats of military action.

WASHINGTON — Public health experts warned Tuesday that $600 million in cuts to federal public health funding announced by the Trump administration would endanger one of California’s main early-warning systems for HIV outbreaks, leaving communities vulnerable to undetected disease spread.

The grant terminations affect funding for a number of disease control programs in California, Colorado, Illinois and Minnesota, but the vast majority target California, according to congressional Democrats who received the full list of affected programs Monday. The move is the latest in the White House’s campaign against what it called “radical gender ideology” at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“These cuts will hurt vital efforts to prevent the spread of disease,” said Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.). “It’s dangerous, and it’s deliberate.”

Under Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the CDC has increasingly turned away from evidence-backed HIV monitoring and prevention programs, claiming they “undermined core American values.”

The stoppage will derail $1.1 million slated for the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health’s National HIV Behavioral Surveillance Project, according to the president’s budget office.

The program is a “critical” tool used to detect emerging HIV trends, prevent outbreaks before they spread and reduce HIV incidence, said Dr. Paul Simon, an epidemiologist at the UCLA Fielding School and former chief science officer for the county’s public health department.

“Without this program, we’re flying blind. The first step in addressing any public health threat is understanding what’s happening on the ground,” Simon said. “With HIV in particular, people often have no symptoms for years and can unknowingly spread the virus.”

The White House gave little explanation for the move but claimed the programs it targeted “promote DEI and radical gender ideology.”

Simon pushed back on the claim, calling the move “dangerous” and “shortsighted.”

“It’s particularly dangerous to put your head in the sand and pretend there’s not a problem,” Simon said. “The success we’ve had over the past decades comes from finding cases early. … By treating people early, we can prevent transmission.”

Several local front-line service providers were targeted for cuts including the Los Angeles LGBT Center, which is set to lose $383,000 in investments for community HIV prevention programs.

The LGBT Center has not received official notice of the elimination but said the cuts would disproportionately affect LGBTQ+ communities and other underserved populations.

“These decisions are not guided by public health evidence, but by politics — and the consequences are real,” said LGBT Center spokesperson Brian De Los Santos. “Any reduction in funding directly affects our ability to provide care, prevention and lifesaving services to the people who rely on us.”

The Trump administration’s announced cuts are likely to face challenges from states and grant recipients.

The LGBT Center succeeded last year in blocking similar grant cancellations stemming from the president’s executive orders. A federal judge in San Francisco issued a preliminary injunction ruling the administration could not use executive orders to “weaponize Congressionally appropriated funds” to bypass statutory funding obligations.

“We stand ready to bring more litigation against this administration if it is required in order to protect our community,” De Los Santos said.

The White House has repeatedly pushed to halt the flow of billions of dollars to California and other states led by Democrats, a strategy that has sharpened partisan tensions and expanded the scope of California’s legal fight against the administration.

In January, administration officials said they would freeze $10 billion in federal child care, welfare and social services funding for California and four other states, but a federal judge blocked the effort.

Trump later said he would begin blocking federal funds to “sanctuary” jurisdictions such as California and Los Angeles, which have long opposed cooperation with federal immigration agencies.

Last year, the administration made broad cuts to federal funding for minority-serving institutions, leaving California colleges scrambling to figure out how to replace or do without the money. Federal officials argued that such programs were racially discriminatory.

In June, California congressional Democrats demanded the release of $19.8 million in frozen HIV prevention grants to the L.A. County Department of Public Health. That freeze forced the county to terminate contracts with 39 community health providers and nearly shut down HIV testing and other services at the Los Angeles LGBT Center.

The administration reversed course after sustained pressure from Rep. Laura Friedman (D-Burbank) and 22 fellow House Democrats.

“These grants save lives,” Friedman said of recent terminations. “They connect homeless people to care, they support front-line organizations fighting HIV, and they build the public health infrastructure that protects my constituents. Just like I did last time the Trump Administration came after our communities, I won’t stop fighting back.”

In a letter to Kennedy last year, Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Long Beach) said that the Cabinet secretary has a history of peddling misinformation about the virus and disease.

Kennedy’s motivations are “grounded not in sound science, but in misinformation and disinformation you have spread previously about HIV and AIDS, including your repeated claim that HIV does not cause AIDS,” Garcia wrote.

Gov. Gavin Newsom called President Trump’s latest threats to public health funding “a familiar pattern,” and shed doubt on their long-term legal viability.

“The President publicly claims he will rip away public health funding from states that voted against him, while offering no details or formal notice,” Newsom said. “If or when the Trump administration takes action, we will respond appropriately. Until then, we will pass on participating in his attempt to chase headlines.”

Police in the Australian city of Sydney have used pepper spray against pro-Palestine protesters who have rallied against a visit by Israeli President Isaac Herzog.

A journalist with the AFP news agency witnessed police arresting at least 15 demonstrators during the confrontation on Monday. Media members covering the event were also affected by pepper spray.

Thousands of demonstrators gathered in Sydney’s business district with more protests planned across the country on Monday night.

In Melbourne’s city centre, simultaneous protests took place with participants demanding an end to Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory. About 5,000 protesters gathered outside downtown Flinders Street Railway Station before marching several blocks to the State Library, blocking evening peak-hour traffic, according to police.

The protests continued despite Palestine Action Group organisers losing a court challenge of a police order barring them from marching from the Town Hall in Sydney to the New South Wales Parliament.

A 20-year-old woman was arrested after allegedly burning two flags and causing fire damage to a tram stop. Police released her but said she was expected to face wilful damage charges.

Activists said Herzog, whom a United Nations commission of inquiry has found to be responsible for inciting genocide against Palestinians, should not be immune to protests.

“President Herzog has unleashed immense suffering on Palestinians in Gaza for over two years – brazenly and with total impunity,” Amnesty International’s Australia chapter said. “Welcoming President Herzog as an official guest undermines Australia’s commitment to accountability and justice. We cannot remain silent.”

Herzog characterised the protests as mostly attempts to “undermine and delegitimise” Israel’s right to exist.

Earlier, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese had called for respectful behaviour during Herzog’s visit, noting he would join the president to meet families of the victims of the December Bondi Beach mass shooting.

New South Wales authorities implemented recently expanded police powers under new protest management legislation. Protesters’ legal challenge to these measures was rejected by the state’s Supreme Court shortly before the demonstrations began.

Herzog had earlier laid a wreath in the rain at Bondi Pavilion to honour victims of the attack that killed 15 people during a Hanukkah celebration.

The Israeli president began his four-day Australian visit there. He also met with survivors and victims’ families.

“This was also an attack ‌on all Australians,” Herzog said at the site. “They attacked the values that our democracies treasure, the sanctity of human life, the freedom of religion, tolerance, dignity and respect.”

“I’m here to express solidarity, friendship and love,” he added.

Feb. 8 (Asia Today) — South Korea’s main opposition party on Saturday criticized a U.S. congressional subpoena issued to Coupang’s Korea unit that explicitly names President Lee Jae-myung, calling it a “national embarrassment” and demanding an explanation from the government.

The People Power Party reacted after the U.S. House Judiciary Committee disclosed a subpoena sent to Coupang Korea’s interim chief executive that cites actions by South Korean authorities and public remarks by Lee.

Choi Bo-yoon, the party’s chief spokesperson, said it was troubling that the president’s full name appeared in an official document issued by a foreign legislature.

“The problem is that the public has no way of knowing what the government and the presidential office did – or failed to do – before the president’s name appeared in a U.S. congressional subpoena,” Choi said. “This is an unprecedented embarrassment for the country.”

Choi said the document details actions taken by South Korean government agencies, including the Fair Trade Commission, references to possible business suspensions, large-scale investigations and repeated data requests, as well as the president’s public comments.

“This issue goes beyond an individual case involving Coupang,” Choi said. “It reflects a situation in which presidential remarks and the government’s response have been elevated into a formal issue before the U.S. Congress.”

He added that the subpoena quoted Lee’s remarks calling for “strong punishment and massive fines,” arguing that the matter had shifted from a domestic personal data protection issue into an international dispute framed as discrimination against a U.S. company.

Choi also called for senior officials to provide an explanation, saying the silence of the presidential chief of staff, national security adviser and prime minister was unacceptable given the sensitivity of the situation.

“This comes at a time when tariff negotiations, technology regulation and platform legislation are all moving simultaneously between South Korea and the United States,” he said. “The government should have anticipated U.S. concerns and managed them proactively.”

The U.S. House Judiciary Committee posted the subpoena on its website Wednesday, alleging that the South Korean government discriminated against Coupang.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260209010002883

With 95 percent of votes counted, 63-year-old Antonio Jose Seguro is on 66 percent.

Antonio Jose Seguro of the centre-left Socialist Party has secured a landslide victory and a five-year term as Portugal’s president in a run-off vote, beating his far-right, anti-establishment rival, Andre Ventura, according to partial results.

With 95 percent of votes counted, 63-year-old Seguro has garnered 66 percent. Ventura trailed at 34 percent, still likely to secure a much stronger result than the 22.8 percent his anti-immigration Chega party achieved in last year’s general election. Ballots in large cities such as Lisbon and Porto are counted towards the end.

Two exit polls have placed Seguro in the 67-73 percent range, and Ventura at 27-33 percent.

A succession of storms in recent days has failed to deter voters, with turnout at about the same level as in the first round on January 18, even though three municipal councils in southern and central Portugal had to postpone voting by a week due to floods. The postponement affected some 37,000 registered voters, or about 0.3 percent of the total, and is unlikely to influence the overall result.

Portugal’s presidency is a largely ceremonial role, but it holds some key powers, including the ability to dissolve parliament under certain circumstances.

Ventura, 43, who had trailed Seguro in opinion polls, had argued that the government’s response to the fierce gales and floods was “useless” and called for the entire election to be postponed.

However, the authorities rejected the demand.

Seguro, during his last campaign rally on Friday, accused Ventura of “doing everything to keep the Portuguese from turning out to vote”.

Despite his loss on Sunday, Ventura, a charismatic former television sports commentator, can now boast increased support, reflecting the growing influence of the far right in Portugal and much of Europe. He is also the first extreme-right candidate to make it through to a run-off vote in Portugal.

Meanwhile, Seguro has cast himself as the candidate of a “modern and moderate” left, who can actively mediate to avert political crises and defend democratic values. He received backing from prominent conservatives after the first round amid concerns over what many see as Ventura’s populist, hardline tendencies.

But Prime Minister Luis Montenegro – whose minority centre-right government has to rely on support from either the Socialists or the far right to get legislation through parliament – declined to endorse either candidate in the second round.

While the role is largely ceremonial, the head of state has the power to dissolve parliament and call early elections.

The new president will succeed outgoing conservative Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa in early March.

President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud responds to Israel’s recognition of Somaliland – a self-governing Somali territory, allegations of a possible Israeli military presence near the Red Sea and shifting power dynamics in the Horn of Africa. He addresses criticism by the United States as well as President Donald Trump’s remarks on Somalia, growing ties with regional allies and fears of wider instability as tensions rise between Israel, Iran and their rivals. At home, Mohamud faces pressing questions over security, human rights, media freedom and whether he will seek a third term ahead of crucial elections.

The US president praises his newly inaugurated ‘friend’ and hails strong US-Honduras security ties.

Donald Trump has met with Honduran President Nasry Asfura in Florida, with the US president hailing what he described as a growing alliance aimed at curbing drug trafficking and irregular migration.

Trump said he met with his “friend” Asfura, a conservative businessman, at his Mar-a-Lago resort on Saturday. Asfura took office last week after a razor-thin election victory.

“Tito and I share many of the same America First Values,” said Trump, using Asfura’s nickname. Trump had strongly backed Asfura during his campaign, even threatening to cut off aid to Honduras if he lost.

“Once I gave him my strong Endorsement, he won his Election!” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform.

Following the meeting, Trump praised what he described as a close security partnership between the US and Honduras, saying they would collaborate to “counter dangerous Cartels and Drug Traffickers, and deporting Illegal Migrants and Gang Members out of the United States”.

Asfura is expected to brief Honduran media about the meeting on Sunday, “detailing the issues discussed, the tone of the conversation, and the possible outcomes of the dialogue”, according to Honduras’s El Heraldo newspaper.

The Honduran president’s meeting with Trump comes less than a month after a January 12 meeting with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, after which the two countries announced plans for a free trade deal.

Asfura’s rise to power gives Trump another conservative ally in Latin America, following recent electoral shifts in countries including Chile, Bolivia, Peru and Argentina, where leftist governments have been replaced.

Just before the Honduran election, Trump pardoned the country’s former President Juan Orlando Hernandez, a fellow member of Asfura’s party who was serving a 45-year prison sentence in the US for drug trafficking.

That pardon “was widely seen as a gesture of solidarity with the new president’s [Asfura’s] party”, said Al Jazeera’s Phil Lavelle, reporting from Palm Beach, Florida.

The decision drew major backlash, particularly as Trump’s administration invoked the fight against drug trafficking to justify aggressive actions abroad. They include a string of bombings of alleged drug boats in the Caribbean and later the abduction of Venezuela’s President Nicolas Maduro, now facing charges including those related to drug trafficking in the US.

The president of the United States posted a racist video Thursday night depicting Barack and Michelle Obama as apes. On Friday, the White House dismissed criticism — but the president deleted the post. Was this episode disappointing? Yes. Surprising? Not anymore.

Last spring, after Pope Francis had died, Donald Trump posted an AI image of himself as the pope just days before cardinals convened to elect a successor.

So, no — it is not surprising that the president would choose to post virulent anti-Black imagery during Black History Month.

But it is disappointing here in 2026 that an occupant of the Oval Office is still thinking like that.

Back in 1971, the president of the United States laughed when the governor of California referred to the African delegates at the United Nations as monkeys. Less than 10 years later, that governor became the president of the United States. And here we are, half a century later, and yet another president has amplified that racist trope.

Meaning white supremacy is still on the ballot.

That Nixon-Reagan-Trump throughline isn’t tightly wound around policy or principle, but simply that shared worldview. After all, Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency and Reagan offered amnesty to immigrants — highly un-Trump-like moves. No, their commonality is best revealed in the delight each man took in an old racist attack against Black people.

For Americans who are 50 and older — roughly a third of the nation — this worldview has been the architect responsible for White House policy for most of our lives. And yet, when Kamala Harris lost the 2024 election, the forensic investigation focused on grocery prices and her absence from Joe Rogan’s podcast. Some — in trying to explain why Harris lost — mischaracterized her role at the border or inflated her influence on the war in Gaza.

For some reason, race did not seem to receive the same level of scrutiny.

This factor was slighted despite decades of data, such as the wave of white nationalists endorsing Harris’ opponent and the birther movement questioning President Obama’s citizenship. The trio of presidents who are on the record as enjoying depictions of Black people as monkeys — Nixon, Reagan and Trump — all used racist dog whistles in their combined 10 presidential campaigns. Their administrations have tended to be more anti-civil-rights movement than post-civil-rights movement.

Our nation’s attempts at understanding ourselves are continuously undercut by the denial that for some single-issue voters, race is their single issue. Not the price of bacon or their religious convictions. Not Gaza. Just the promise of having a safe space for prejudice. And when the president of the United States entertains racist jokes as Nixon did in the 1970s or shares racist videos as Trump continues to do, undoubtedly there is a sense among the electorate that such prejudice has a home in the White House.

Before Trump used social media to push yesteryear’s ugliness, earlier in the week Harris relaunched her 2024 social media campaign account, calling it a place where Gen Z can “meet and revisit with some of our great courageous leaders, be they elected leaders, community leaders, civic leaders, faith leaders, young leaders.” She exhorted: “Stay engaged. I’ll see you out there.”

Whether she plans to run again in 2028 is unclear. What we do know is she would not have posted an AI picture of herself as the new pope while Catholics were mourning Francis (or any other time). We know she would not have advocated for immigration officers to racially profile Black and brown Americans or disregard the 14th Amendment to detain children. We do not know how many of her policy proposals she would have been able to get across the finish line in Congress, but we do know her record of public service to the American people, in contrast with the current president who is suing the American people for $10 billion.

There is nothing wrong with revisiting Harris’ missteps on the campaign trail or debating her electability as she reemerges in the public spotlight. But now that Trump has resorted to posting monkey jokes about Black people, perhaps updated forensics will consider our well established history of racism among the factors in the 2024 election.

It is not a shock that a president of the United States thinks poorly of Black people. Not when you know that more than 25% of those who have held the office were themselves enslavers. But it is disappointing that 250 years into our nation’s story, some of us still deny the role that racism plays in shaping our politics and thus all of our lives.

YouTube: @LZGrandersonShow

It was a war fueled by colonialism, launched with the intent of humiliating a weaker country, fought in the name of revenge and waged by a racist president.

So leave it to President Trump to spike the proverbial football over the U.S. victory 178 years ago in the Mexican-American War.

Abraham Lincoln first earned national attention by calling out President James K. Polk’s lies about the lead-up to the conflict, which lasted from April 1846 to February 1848, on the floor of Congress. Ulysses S. Grant called the war “one of the most unjust ever waged.” Henry David Thoreau’s famous essay “Resistance to Civil Government” was written partly in response to the Mexican-American War, which he decried as “the work of comparatively a few individuals using the standing government as their tool.”

Other American paragons of virtue who were publicly opposed at the time: William Lloyd Garrison, Ralph Waldo Emerson and Frederick Douglass. Yet on Feb. 2, the anniversary of what Mexico calls the American Intervention, Trump declared that a war in which the United States conquered more than half of its southern neighbor for no reason other than it wanted to was a testament to “the unmatched power of the American spirit” and guided by “divine providence.”

And in case anyone was still wondering why Trump would feel fit to commemorate events that happened almost 200 years ago, he argued the job wasn’t done.

“I have spared no effort,” he blared, “in defending our southern border against invasion, upholding the rule of law, and protecting our homeland from forces of evil, violence, and destruction.”

No president since the Civil War has ever publicly bragged about the Mexican-American War in official proclamations. To do so would be rude, politically perilous, insulting to our biggest trade partner and just plain weird.

So of course Trump did it.

As I’ve repeatedly pointed out in my columnas, history is one of Trumpworld’s most important battlefronts. Like the pharaohs and emperors of antiquity, the president weaponizes the past to justify his present actions and future plans, omitting and embellishing events of yesteryear to fit a bellicose agenda. This is the guy, after all, who renamed the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America with one of his first executive orders in his second term and has punished news agencies that refuse to comply.

Trump has shown a special obsession with the Mexican-American War and its architect, Polk. The Wall Street Journal reported last year that the president saw his predecessor as a “real-estate guy,” which is like calling Josef Stalin an aficionado of big coats and bushy mustaches.

A former Tennessee governor and speaker of the House, Polk won the presidency in 1844 by promising to expand the United States by any means necessary. He annexed Texas despite the objections of the Mexican government, tried to buy Cuba from Spain and signed a treaty with Britain that secured for the U.S. what’s now Oregon, Washington, Idaho and parts of Montana and Wyoming.

But the grand prize for Polk was the modern-day American Southwest, which he and his allies viewed as untapped land wasted on mixed-race Mexicans and necessary for the U.S. to fulfill its Manifest Destiny.

President Trump speaks as Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador listens during an event in the White House Rose Garden on July 8, 2020.

(Evan Vucci / Associated Press)

He tried at first to buy the territory from Mexico; when the country refused, Polk sent troops to the Rio Grande and dared the Mexicans to attack. When they did, Polk went before Congress to seek a declaration of war, claiming Mexico had long inflicted “grievous wrongs” on Americans up to and including ripoffs and deaths and thus needed to be dealt with.

“We are called upon by every consideration of duty and patriotism,” the president said, “to vindicate with decision the honor, the rights, and the interests of our country.”

No wonder Trump’s recent proclamation called the Mexican-American War “legendary.”

Polk brushed aside the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which ended the Mexican-American War and secured land rights and American citizenship for Mexicans who decided to stay in their new country. Many of those Mexicans saw their property squatted on or seized by the courts of their new nation. Indigenous people saw their numbers plummet and their way of life obliterated. White settlers and corporations quickly swooped in to tap into the vast natural riches of these new territories, relegating the original inhabitants to being strangers in their own land.

No wonder Trump replaced a portrait of Thomas Jefferson in the Oval Office with one of Polk shortly after the start of his second term.

Trump has made expansionism a hallmark of his second presidential term, including trying to wrest Greenland from Denmark and constantly referring to Canada as the “51st state.” Critics accuse him of trying to usher in a new era of imperialism. But all he’s doing is continuing the Mexican-American War, which never really ended.

Americans have been skeptical of brown-skinned people since the days of the Alamo, always fearful Latinos are one step away from insurrection and thus must always be subjugated. My ethnic group has suffered lynchings, legal segregation and stereotypes that continue to the present day. This is the mindset and legacy Trump relies on for his deportation deluge, the playbook he uses to persecute undocumented people with demonizing language and wholesale lies.

Relations between the United States and Mexico will always be fraught — our relationship is just too complicated. But when another American president marked the hundredth anniversary of the Mexican-American War, his approach was far different.

In 1947, Harry S. Truman became the first U.S. commander in chief to visit Mexico City. At a state dinner at the National Palace, he acknowledged that “it would be foolish to pretend that fundamental differences in political philosophies do not exist” and euphemistically referred to the Mexican-American War as a “terrible quarrel between our own states.”

People visit the monument to the Niños Héroes (the Boy Heroes) at Chapultepec Park in Mexico City on Aug. 14, 2019.

(Rodrigo Arangua / AFP/Getty Images)

But Truman spent the rest of the speech preaching allyship in a new world where Mexico and the United States should see each other not as enemies but friends.

“Though the road be long and wearisome that leads to a good neighborhood as wide as the world, we shall travel it together,” Truman told the appreciative audience. “Our two countries will not fail each other.”

The following day, the president visited a shrine to the Niños Héroes — the Boy Heroes, six teenage military cadets who died in one of the last battles of the Mexican-American War and thus hold an exalted place in the Mexican psyche. Truman, to the surprise of his hosts, placed a wreath on the monument.

“Throughout the day,” the New York Times reported, “people shouted his name, with the inevitable ‘viva,’ wherever United States citizens appeared on the streets or in cafes.”

Today, “Viva” sure isn’t going to be a word Mexicans use if they utter Trump’s name.

Christophe Dubi, the IOC executive director for the Olympic Games, added: “We make a point to receive those petitions, and we have to recognise climate is a challenge for all of us.

“What we have to do as an organisation is to be at the forefront of sustainability, and our principles are very clear.”

One area the IOC is aiming to make the Olympics more sustainable is having Games take place over a wider area with more pre-existing facilities, and Coventry said Milan-Cortina is an acid test for whether this is a viable future.

Milan-Cortina takes place in three hubs spread across northern Italy – in Milan, Cortina and Livigno – with only two newly built sporting facilities: the Santagiulia ice hockey arena and Cortina Sliding Centre.

The next two Winter Olympics – French Alps 2030 and Utah 2034 – will also have sports spread more widely, while the 2032 Summer Olympics in Brisbane is will have venues across Queensland.

This has caused issues however, with Brisbane organisers saying, external they will go beyond the originally stated budget of $4.9bn (£3.6bn).

“We are really experiencing a spread out Games here for the first time – we are going to learn a lot,” Coventry said.

“We have taken this decision for sustainability reasons, climate and not having to have new venues. We are seeing there is an impact on National Olympic Committees because of the spreadness [sic], also for broadcast and media, making it harder to get around.

“What is really cool is that you get to see iconic venues in beautiful places – but now we have to weigh this up, the balance between a spread games for sustainability reasons but not shifting complexity and sustainability to different areas.”

While the action got underway on Wednesday with the start of the curling events, the 2026 Winter Olympics will officially start with the opening ceremony on Friday.

Coventry said she hoped all nations would be treated with respect by spectators, including the USA team amid criticism from Italian authorities about the presence of ICE agents in Milan.

“I hope the opening ceremony is seen by everyone as a chance to be respectful,” she said.

“For me, when we went to the Olympic village that is the best reminder of how the Games should be. I hope the opening ceremony will do that.”