Race Issues

With Democrats’ decisive victory in the United States’ midterm elections on Tuesday, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York is on the verge of making history as the first Black speaker of the US House of Representatives.

For the 56-year-old congressman, it would be the culmination of almost two decades in office, giving him a central role in Democrats’ efforts to rein in Republican US President Donald Trump in the final two years of his presidency.

But as Jeffries celebrated the “blue tsunami” that swept Democrats back into power the day after the election, some within the party were not convinced that the congressman, known for his cautious approach to politics and longstanding support for Israel, was the right man for the moment.

An online petition on Change.org calling on lawmakers to choose another speaker had collected more than 980,000 signatures by Saturday morning, while several newly elected progressive lawmakers have not said whether they will support him.

“We believe the Speaker should represent the Democratic voters, not just the Democratic establishment,” the petition reads.

“This is not a foregone conclusion,” it continues, urging others to run for the job.

Jeffries, who has spent years cultivating relationships within the Democratic caucus, now finds himself at the centre of a bigger fight within the party, as its growing progressive wing pushes for a more confrontational approach to Trump and a break with some of the ideas that have defined the Democrats for decades.

From Brooklyn to Democratic leader

Jeffries grew up in Crown Heights, Brooklyn, in the 1970s and 1980s, as the neighbourhood was grappling with the crack cocaine epidemic.

“There was a lot of dysfunction and pain that surrounded the communities that I was raised in, but also a lot of love and compassion from family and friends, and community folks,” he told NYU Law in 2019.

The son of two social workers, Jeffries eventually became a lawyer, tracing his decision to pursue a career in law back to the 1992 riots that erupted in Los Angeles after four white police officers were acquitted in the beating of Rodney King, a Black man.

“It crystallized the fact that we still had a long way to go to eradicate social and racial injustice,” he said.

Jeffries went on to work as a corporate lawyer before entering politics, losing two runs for the New York State Assembly before winning a seat in 2006 and eventually being elected to Congress six years later.

In Washington, he helped broker a bipartisan criminal justice reform law signed by Trump in 2018. Two years later, during Trump’s first impeachment trial, he argued that Trump should be removed from office as one of seven House impeachment managers who presented the case to the US Senate.

Rising quickly through the Democratic ranks, Jeffries became caucus chair in 2019 before making history three years later, when he was unanimously chosen to succeed former Speaker Nancy Pelosi as the party’s House leader, becoming the first Black politician to lead a party in either chamber of Congress.

Can Jeffries unite his party?

Jeffries and Pelosi have been compared for their distinct leadership styles. While Pelosi was known for her commanding, top-down approach, Jeffries has built a reputation for quietly and deliberately building consensus among his colleagues.

That approach has frustrated some Democrats, who say Jeffries has been too reluctant to take firm positions and who question whether he is prepared to confront Trump and Republicans in Congress aggressively enough.

Those concerns were on display after Jeffries declared after the election that “the American people don’t want us to get even; they want us to get things done on their behalf.”

Among those who pushed back was left-wing political commentator Hasan Piker, who reposted a video of Jeffries’s comments, saying: “No, we definitely ARE looking for justice and accountability.”

Jeffries also faced criticism after reports emerged in August that he had privately met Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, who does not have a formal role in the administration but has been involved in diplomatic efforts in the Middle East and in Russia.

Jeffries defended the meeting, saying Kushner had requested it and that he had used it to discuss the affordability crisis. But critics argued that rather than meeting privately with Kushner, Jeffries should have been preparing to investigate his business dealings.

Ahead of the election, Axios reported on a plan by some incoming progressive lawmakers – informally known as “The Bloc” and including Claire Valdez and Darializa Avila Chevalier of New York and Melat Kiros of Colorado – to use the upcoming speaker vote to win concessions from Jeffries on issues such as Medicare for All, cutting funding for ICE, and weapons shipments to Israel.

That may be harder now that the Democrats have a comfortable majority, with Jeffries less dependent on progressive newcomers to secure the speakership. But the result also makes it harder for Jeffries to argue, as he has in the past, that Republican control of Congress is hindering the Democrats’ ability to advance their agenda and hold Trump accountable.

Jeffries’s Israel stance divides Democrats

Of all the sources of tension between Jeffries and his party’s progressive wing, the hardest divide to bridge may be over his longstanding support for Israel and ties to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

At a conference hosted by the group in 2020, Jeffries opposed putting conditions on US aid to Israel and described Jerusalem as New York City’s “sixth borough”.

He has also been one of the top recipients of financial support from AIPAC and its network of donors, earning the nickname “AIPAC Shakur” from New York radio host Charlamagne tha God.

In a celebratory post after the elections congratulating the candidates it had supported, AIPAC singled out Jeffries and Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer by name.

But Jeffries’s steadfast support for Israel throughout its genocidal war on Gaza has put him increasingly at odds with his own party, and he recently signalled that his position may be changing.

In July, even as he voted against an amendment that would have cut $3.3bn in annual military aid to Israel, he acknowledged the need for a reset in US-Israel relations.

“A meaningful change in direction is needed,” he wrote in a letter to colleagues.

Jeffries appears to have the speakership all but secured, with no serious challenger emerging so far.

However, with Trump still in the White House, a party grappling with its own divisions, and voters expecting change on everything from the cost of living to the war on Iran, the bigger test for Jeffries will come once he is on the job.

The United Kingdom’s King Charles lll is travelling to the Bahamas on Tuesday, where he will begin a nine-day tour of the Caribbean.

The tour will take him to the Bahamas, Guyana, and Antigua and Barbuda, where he will attend the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) from November 1-4.

This comes as demands for reparations over Britain’s notorious role in the slave trade grow louder, and as the monarchy faces questions about its future in the region.

So what is the significance of this tour? And what does the Caribbean want?

Here’s what we know.

What’s on the itinerary?

King Charles will visit three countries in nine days.

His tour begins on Tuesday with the archipelagic country of the Bahamas, where he will be staying for three days.

Then he will make his way to Guyana, a former British colony that had more than 100,000 slaves when the trade was abolished in 1807.

After two days in Guyana, where he is expected to meet the president and elected leaders of Amerindian villages, he will head to Antigua and Barbuda for the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM).

The meeting, from November 1-4, is expected to include discussions about the environment and trade and development, although the question of British reparations for slavery is also likely to feature.

What do the countries King Charles is visiting want?

Government officials in the Bahamas and in Antigua and Barbuda – both of which are part of the British Commonwealth with King Charles as their ultimate head of state – have signalled that they want to become republics. Guyana gained independence from the UK in 1966, and has a president as its head of state.

Guyanese President Mohamed Irfaan Ali said in an interview with ITV News that while Charles “rightfully” recognised slavery as the “darkest days in human history” during a visit to Barbados in 2021 when he was still the prince of Wales, an apology should be his next step.

“You exploited the region. You destroyed lives. You created underdevelopment,” Ali said, in a reference to the lingering legacy of the British Empire and the slave trade.

In 2023, a Lord Ashcroft Poll revealed that 51 percent of surveyed respondents in the Bahamas wanted to become a republic, while 27 percent preferred to retain the British monarchy as head of state.

Niambi Hall Campbell-Dean, chair of the Bahamas National Reparations Committee, was critical of the king ahead of his arrival. “Why do we still have a king? What does this person really represent to us? Why is he coming and how will that benefit us?” she asked.

What do other countries in the Caribbean say about slavery?

Jamaica, which is not on the itinerary for this trip by King Charles, made its stance clear in September, when it filed a $10bn slavery reparations petition in London, addressing it to the king.

That was the first time a British Commonwealth state has taken legal action pursuing “the cause of reparatory justice”, as the Jamaican delegation called it.

The petition is due to be heard by a UK privy council in March next year. The UK has, so far, refused to formally apologise or pay reparations for slavery.

Also in September, Caribbean Community and Common Market (CARICOM) Secretary-General Carla Barnett said reparations are “fundamentally about justice”.

“It is about recognition, accountability and transformation, and about building a just and equitable future for the descendants of those who, as the chattel of colonial owners, endured untold suffering, loss of life and freedom,” she said.

The transatlantic slave trade was recently declared the “gravest crime against humanity” in a United Nations resolution in March this year.

The last time a British royal visited Jamaica was when Prince William and Kate Middleton, then the duke and duchess of Cambridge, toured the island in 2022 during their Caribbean Platinum Jubilee tour.

The more memorable moment of the trip was when the couple was pictured shaking hands with Jamaican children with a fence separating them, which many criticised for being “tone-deaf”.

What’s likely to happen at the Commonwealth meeting?

The meeting in Antigua and Barbuda is expected to cover climate resilience as well as trade and development.

Leaders and representatives of 56 Commonwealth countries will be attending. Many want an apology for slavery from the king, but Buckingham Palace recently announced that will not be happening.

“The visit programme will…not shy away from ‘the darkest days of our past’, as his majesty has described them, but – in keeping with the wishes of our host nations – ‌it ⁠will principally be oriented to the vibrant present and promising future of each country,” a palace spokesperson said in a statement.

The palace added that it is “important” to acknowledge the “creative” ways that Charles has tried to right “enduring inequalities”.

The chair of the UK’s All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for Afrikan Reparations, Labour MP Bell Ribeiro-Addy, said the royal family and the UK government had failed to recognise the demands of those wanting reparations.

“I think it would be wrong to think that we can continue with platitudes. You’ve got ‘atrocity’, ‘deep regret’, ‘sorrow’, and now they’re going to say ‘darkest days’,” she said. “I think the king needs to realise that people wouldn’t keep raising it if what he was doing was anywhere near enough.

“You can tell that the Commonwealth means something to the monarchy, and I’m sure he would not want to be the monarch under which it crumbles.”

A group of parents claims local admission policy boosts Black and Latino students while constraining Asian applicants.

The United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case about the role of race in admissions to selective Maryland middle schools after a group of parents claimed policies discriminated against Asian students in favour of Black and Latino students.

The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to hear the parents’ plea on four academically rigorous “magnet” schools in Montgomery County, a suburb on the outskirts of Washington, DC, in the neighbouring state of Maryland.

The high court said it would weigh whether the parent group has enough evidence of discrimination for the case to move forward.

Lower courts previously dismissed the case because Asian-American students were not underrepresented at the specialised-curriculum schools compared with the pool of students that applied.

If the Supreme Court rules for the parent group, the Association for Education Fairness, it could revive the lawsuit.

The court is expected to hear arguments in the coming months and rule by June.

‘The Pandemic Plan’

The Montgomery County school district’s selection process was introduced in the 2021-2022 school year during the COVID-19 pandemic.

It screens all students for academic potential, and then implements a lottery to randomly assign students from that pool to receive enriched instruction at either a magnet school or a local school.

The suit alleged that the screening process makes it harder for Asian-American students, who the challengers said are clustered in “high-performing, low-poverty elementary schools”, to enter the lottery pool.

Part of the process ranks a student’s performance by comparing the student’s test scores against those of other students whose family incomes are at a similar level.

“Under the applicant pool benchmark, the government can set specific racial targets, hit them, and avoid even an inquiry into discriminatory intent,” so long as it has not explicitly called out race in its process, they wrote in their appeal to the Supreme Court.

Previously thrown out

The case was thrown out in 2022 by US District Judge Paula Xinis. She noted that the percentage of admitted Asian-American students exceeded the percentage of Asian Americans among all applicants to the magnet schools.

Xinis also found no evidence that the lottery policy was implemented with discriminatory intent.

The school system has consistently argued the new admissions policy, called the “Pandemic Plan” due to the timing of its release, is race-neutral.

“The Pandemic Plan is a colorblind lottery,” lawyers wrote in a brief asking the Supreme Court not to take up the case. “Nothing about the Pandemic Plan, its history, or its purpose is offensive to the Constitution.”

Supreme Court justices will now consider whether a group claiming to be targeted by a race-neutral policy must show it was disproportionately harmed to prove intentional discrimination.