Trumps

Trump’s name added to Kennedy Center exterior, one day after vote to rename | Donald Trump News

Relatives of the late President John F Kennedy slammed the centre’s board, saying the name cannot be changed under law.

Published On 20 Dec 2025

Donald Trump’s name has been added to the Kennedy Center in Washington, DC, just one day after his hand-picked board members controversially voted to rename the arts venue, the first time a national institution has been named after a sitting US president.

Workmen added metal lettering to the building’s exterior on Friday that declared, “The Donald J Trump and the John F Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts.”

Looking abroad for teachers

Estimates vary as to how many foreign-born teachers currently work in the US. But one 2019 report from George Mason University found that there were 857,200 immigrants among the country’s 8.1 million teachers, in roles ranging from pre-school to university.

For the 2023-2024 school year alone, the US government brought 6,716 full-time teachers to the country on temporary exchange visas to fill openings in pre-kindergarten, primary and secondary school education.

Many hailed from the Philippines, as well as countries like Jamaica, Spain and Colombia.

The uncertainty for immigrants under Trump’s second term, however, has proven disruptive to schools that rely heavily on foreign-born teachers.

That is the case for the pre-school where Susanna worked, CommuniKids, which offers language immersion programmes in Washington, DC.

Cofounder and president Raul Echevarría estimates that immigrants — both citizens and non-citizens working with legal authorisation — comprise about 90 percent of CommuniKids’s staff.

But Echevarría told Al Jazeera that the push to rescind legal pathways to immigration has jeopardised the employment of several faculty members.

Five other teachers at the school have seen their ability to work affected by changes to the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) programme.

All five, Echevarría explained, were originally from Venezuela. But in October, the Trump administration ended TPS status for more than 350,000 Venezuelan citizens, including the teachers at CommuniKids.

Their authorisation to work legally in the US will expire on October 2, 2026, according to the US Citizenship and Immigration Services website.

“These teachers lost their ability to make a living,” Echevarria said, noting that his school requires educators with expertise in languages like Spanish, French and Mandarin.

A classroom hall at CommuniKids — CommuniKids, a language immersion school in Washington, DC, helps young children develop skills in French, Mandarin and Spanish [Mohammed Zain Shafi Khan/Al Jazeera]

‘Strong bonds’

For the schools themselves, the losses can be devastating. Every state in the US has reported teacher shortages to the federal government.

But advocates say the high stress and low pay of education make teachers difficult to recruit and keep.

That leads some states to look abroad for education workers. In North Carolina, for example, 1,063 foreign nationals worked full-time as grade-school teachers on temporary J-1 visas during the 2023-2024 school year.

The top destinations for such recruits were all southern states: North Carolina was followed by Florida with 996 teachers on J-1 visas, and Texas with 761.

But Echevarria said some of the biggest impacts of the deportation drive are felt by the students themselves.

“Our students develop strong bonds with their teachers, and all of a sudden, overnight, they lost their teachers,” said Echevarría.

“Their number one superpower”, he added, “is their ability to empathise and to create strong, effective bonds with people from any background”.

But when those bonds are broken, there can be mental health consequences and setbacks for educational achievement, particularly among younger children.

A 2024 study published by the American Educational Research Association found that, when teachers leave midyear, children’s language development takes a measurable hit.

In other words, the loss of a familiar teacher — someone who knows their routines, strengths and fears — can quietly stall a child’s progress. The consequences extend to a child’s sense of self and stability.

Mental health consequences

For parents like Michelle Howell, whose child attends CommuniKids, the loss of teachers has also made the classroom environment feel fragile.

“The teachers there aren’t just teachers for these young kids,” Howell said of CommuniKids. “They’re like extended family.

“They hug them, they hold them, they do the things a parent would do. When those people disappear, it’s not just hard for the kids. It’s hard for everyone.”

Howell, who is Chinese American, said the sudden disappearances reminded her of her own family’s history.

“I used to read about things like this happening in China, the place my family left to find safety,” she said. “It’s very disturbing to know that what we ran from back then is our reality now. People disappear.”

School psychologist Maria C, who asked to remain anonymous to protect her work in the Texas public school system, has noticed the children she works with struggling with instability caused by the deportation push.

The disappearance of a loved one or mentor — say, a favourite teacher — could flood a child’s body with cortisol, the hormone meant to protect them in moments of danger, she explained.

But when that stress becomes chronic, the same hormone starts to hurt more than it helps. It interferes with memory, attention and emotional regulation.

“For some, it looks like anxiety. For others, it’s depression or sudden outbursts,” Maria said. “They’re in fight-or-flight mode all day.”

She added that selective mutism, an anxiety disorder, is on the rise among the children she sees, who range in age from five to 12.

“It used to be rare, maybe one case per school,” she said. “Now I see it constantly. It’s a quiet symptom of fear.”

Preparing for the worst

Back at CommuniKids, Echevarría explained that he and other staff members have put together contingency plans, just in case immigration enforcement arrives at the pre-school.

The aim, he said, is to make both employees and students feel safer coming to class.

“We put those steps in writing because we wanted our staff to know they’re not alone,” he said. “We have attorneys on call. We’re partners with local police. But above all, our job is to protect our children.”

But as an added precaution, teachers are advised to carry their passports or work permits with them.

Even Echevarría, a US citizen born in Virginia, said he carries his passport wherever he goes. The fear of deportation has a way of lingering.

“I’m bilingual and of Hispanic descent,” he said. “Given how things are, I want to be able to prove I’m a citizen if anyone ever questions it.”

Source link

POLITICS

Trump’s cruel response to Reiner shows us-versus-them presidency

Dec 16, 2025 Politics Desk

When word came of Rob Reiner’s senseless death, America fell into familiar rites of mourning and remembrance. A waterfall of tributes poured in from the twin worlds — Hollywood and politics — that the actor, director and liberal activist inhabited.

Through the shock and haze, before all but the sketchiest details were known, President Trump weighed in as well, driving by his diarrhetic compulsion to muse on just about every passing event, as though he was elected not to govern but to serve as America’s commentator in chief.

Trump’s response, fairly shimmying on Reiner’s grave as he wrongly attributed his death to an act of political vengeance, managed to plumb new depths of heartlessness and cruelty; more than a decade into his acrid emergence as a political force, the president still manages to stoop to surprise.

But as vile and tasteless as Trump’s self-pitying statement was — Reiner, he averred, was a victim of “Trump Derangement Syndrome” and, essentially, got what he deserved — it also pointed out a singular truism of his vengeful residency in the Oval Office.

In recent decades, the nation has had a president who lied and deceived to cover up his personal vices. Another who plunged the country into a costly and needless war. A third whose willfulness and vanity led him to overstay his time, hurting his party and America as well.

Still, each acted as though he was a president of all the people, not just those who voted him into office, contributed lavishly to his campaign or blindly cheered his every move, however reckless or ill-considered.

As Trump has repeatedly made clear, he sees the world in black-and-white, red-versus-blue, us-versus-them.

There are the states he carried that deserve federal funding. The voters whose support entitles them to food aid and other benefits. The sycophants bestowed with medals and presidential commendations.

And then there are his critics and political opponents — those he proudly and admittedly hates — whose suffering and even demise he openly savors.

When Charlie Kirk was killed, Trump ordered flags be flown at half-staff. He flew to Arizona to headline his memorial service. His vice president, JD Vance, suggested people should be fired for showing any disrespect toward the late conservative provocateur.

By noteworthy contrast, when a gunman killed Minnesota’s Democratic former House speaker, Melissa Hortman, Trump couldn’t be bothered with even a simple act of grace. Asked if he’d called to offer his condolences to Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, a personal friend of Hortman, Trump responded, “Why waste time?”

This is not normal, much less humane.

This is not politics as usual, or someone rewarding allies and seeking to disadvantage the political opposition, as all presidents have done. This is the nation’s chief executive using the immense powers of his office and the world’s largest, most resonant megaphone to deliver retribution, ruin people’s lives, inflict misery — and revel in the pain.

There were the usual denunciations of Trump’s callous and contemptuous response to Reiner’s stabbing death.

“I’d expect to hear something like this from a drunk guy at a bar, not the president of the United States,” said Republican Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska, who is retiring rather than seeking reelection in 2026. (Which may be why he was so candid and spoke so bracingly.)

But this time, the criticisms did not just come from the typical anti-Trump chorus, or heterodox Republicans like Bacon and MAGA-stalwart-turned-taunter Marjorie Taylor Greene. Even some of the president’s longest and loudest advocates felt compelled to speak out.

“This is a dreadful thing to say about a man who just got murdered by his troubled son,” British broadcaster Piers Morgan posted on X. “Delete it, Mr. President.”

More telling, though, was the response from the Republican Party’s leadership.

“I don’t have much more to say about it, other than it’s a tragedy, and my sympathies and prayers go out to the Reiner family and to their friends,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune told CNN when asked about Trump’s response. House Speaker Mike Johnson responded in a similarly nonresponsive vein.

Clearly, the see-and-hear-no-evil impulse remains strong in the upper echelons of the GOP — at least until more election returns show the price Republicans are paying as Trump keeps putting personal vendettas ahead of voters’ personal finances.

One of the enduring reasons supporters say they back the president is Trump’s supposed honesty. (Never mind the many voluminously documented lies he has told on a near-constant basis.)

Honesty, in this sense, means saying things that a more temperate and careful politician would never utter, and it’s an odd thing to condone in the nation’s foremost leader. Those with even a modicum of caring and compassion, who would never tell a friend they’re ugly or call a neighbor stupid — and who expect the same respect and decency in return — routinely ignore or explain away such casual cruelty when it comes from this president.

Those who insist Trump can do no wrong, who defend his every foul utterance or engage in but-what-about relativism to minimize the import, need not remain in his constant thrall.

When Trump steps so egregiously over a line, when his malice is so extravagant and spitefulness so manifest — as it was when he mocked Reiner in death — then, even the most fervent of the president’s backers should call him out.

Do it, and reclaim a little piece of your humanity.

Source link

SHOW BIZ

Rob Reiner’s horrific slaying and Trump’s awful response

Dec 16, 2025 News Desk

Months before his slaying, Rob Reiner talked about the power of forgiveness after the “horrific” assassination of conservative influencer Charlie Kirk.

“Horror. An absolute horror,” the director, actor and political activist said when asked about the shooting in a TV interview with Piers Morgan. “I unfortunately saw the video of it and it’s beyond belief what happened to him, and that should never happen to anybody. I don’t care what your political beliefs are. That’s not acceptable.”

Contrast that with President Trump’s reaction to the killing of Reiner and his wife, Michele Singer Reiner, who on Sunday were found stabbed to death in their Brentwood home. Their son, Nick Reiner, has been arrested in connection with the slayings.

“Rob Reiner, a tortured and struggling, but once very talented movie director and comedy star, has passed away, together with his wife, Michele, reportedly due to the anger he caused others through his massive, unyielding, and incurable affliction with a mind crippling disease known as TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME, sometimes referred to as TDS,” Trump said in a social media post.

“He was known to have driven people CRAZY by his raging obsession of President Donald J. Trump, with his obvious paranoia reaching new heights as the Trump Administration surpassed all goals and expectations of greatness, and with the Golden Age of America upon us, perhaps like never before. May Rob and Michele rest in peace!”

How is that anyone’s initial reaction to a tragic slaying, let alone an official comment from a sitting U.S. president? That’s a rhetorical question, of course. It’s just another Monday at Trump’s White House.

I’d be screaming into the void if I were to use the rest of this column to argue that the president is not only off his rocker but also has tumbled down the stairs and is in the foyer, mumbling something about speedboats, piggies and ballrooms. In his race to the bottom, he’s broken through the floor. Now we’re in the Trump Upside Down, where empathy and decency are negative attributes.

Even Republican lawmakers were compelled to speak out against their feared leader. “This is a family tragedy, not about politics or political enemies,” said Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene in response to Trump’s post.

Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.) wrote on X, “Regardless of one’s political views, no one should be subjected to violence, let alone at the hands of their own son. It’s a horrible tragedy that should engender sympathy and compassion from everyone in our country, period.”

Don Bacon (R-Neb.) said it short and sweet to CNN’s Jake Tapper: “I’d expect to hear something like this from a drunk guy at a bar, not the President of the United States. Can the President be presidential?”

No, he cannot. When given the chance on Monday to appear leader-like during a White House news conference, Trump doubled down on his dislike for Reiner, saying he “wasn’t a fan” and that the director “was a deranged person.”

Translation: Reiner was a Trump critic and the president has skin so thin it’s practically rice paper at this point. But the filmmaker’s social conscience was evident in everything he did, starting with his role as “All in the Family’s” liberal, hippie son-in law to conservative crank Archie Bunker. It was the 1970s, and Meathead (a.k.a. Michael) consistently called out Archie’s racism, bigotry and sexism on the weekly sitcom. Archie’s rants are now the ugly stuff embraced by feckless politicians and attention-seeking influencers, but back then, his tirades against “queers” and “coloreds” represented old prejudices that needed to be shed if the country were to move forward. Show creator Norman Lear made the ugliness funny by using Meathead to expose Archie’s ignorance. Even back then, Reiner was poking the bear.

Reiner was a staunch critic of Trump and other leaders and movements that sought to curtail the freedoms that were previously believed to be enshrined in the Constitution — until MAGA began shredding them one by one. The comedian was an advocate for democratic ideals, Democratic candidates, same-sex marriage, early childhood education, and government transparency, spearheading California’s Proposition 10 (First 5) to fund early development programs via tobacco taxes. He also helped overturn Proposition 8, California’s brief ban on gay marriage.

Reiner’s understanding that it takes all kinds was evident in his work. He was a director with range, as they say in the industry, helming a string of films that became cultural touchstones, starting with 1984’s groundbreaking mockumentary “This Is Spinal Tap,” a satire that forever changed the language around heavy-metal decibel levels (“Crank it to 11!”). Then came 1986’s coming-of-age drama “Stand by Me,” 1989’s seminal romantic comedy “When Harry Met Sally…,” and the terrifying, psychological horror-thriller, 1990’s “Misery,” about an injured novelist held captive by his biggest fan.

Some of his films directly addressed the inequity and violence that Reiner fought so hard to correct in his lifetime. “Ghosts of Mississippi” explored the 1994 trial of Byron De La Beckwith, a white supremacist accused of the 1963 assassination of civil rights activist Medgar Evers. And Reiner’s 2017 drama “Shock and Awe” told the true story of a team of reporters who countered the Bush administration’s justification for invading Iraq in 2003 when they found evidence of falsified intelligence about weapons of mass destruction.

Though it was already acceptable to speak out against that Middle Eastern war, in the same week of the film’s release, he caught flak for signing a petition led by Palestinian director Annemarie Jacir condemning Trump’s 2017 decision formally recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Reiner, who was Jewish, told the National that Trump had “no concept of geopolitical events or how things are interconnected. There was no consideration that went into this decision, no outreach to allies in the Arab world, or even the non-Arab world to see what the impact of something like this is.”

Reiner saw tragedy and sadness in the death of Kirk because he was able to empathize with the loss of life, no matter the difference of opinion.

Source link

POLITICS

National Guard troops under Trump’s command leave Los Angeles

Dec 15, 2025 Politics Desk

Dozens of California National Guard troops under President Trump’s command apparently slipped out of Los Angeles under cover of darkness early Sunday morning, ahead of an appellate court’s order to be gone by noon Monday.

Administration officials would not immediately confirm whether the troops had decamped. But video taken outside the Roybal Federal Building downtown just after midnight on Sunday and reviewed by The Times shows a large tactical truck and four white passenger vans leaving the facility, which has been patrolled by armed soldiers since June.

About 300 California troops remain under federal control, some 100 of whom were still active in Los Angeles as of last week, court records show.

“There were more than usual, and all of them left — there was not a single one that stayed,” said protester Rosa Martinez, who has demonstrated outside the federal building for months and was there Sunday.

Troops were spotted briefly later that day, but had not been seen again as of Monday afternoon, Martinez said.

The development that forced the troops to leave was part of a sprawling legal fight for control of federalized soldiers nationwide that remains ongoing.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued the order late Friday but softened an even more stringent edict from a lower court judge last week that would have forced the president to relinquish command of the state’s forces. Trump federalized thousands of California National Guard troops in June troops to quell unrest over immigration enforcement in Los Angeles.

“For the first time in six months, there will be no military deployed on the streets of Los Angeles,” California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said in a statement. “While this decision is not final, it is a gratifying and hard-fought step in the right direction.”

The ruling Friday came from the same three-judge panel that handed the president one of his most sweeping second-term victories this summer, after it found that the California deployment could go forward under an obscure and virtually untested subsection of the law.

That precedent set a “great level of deference” as the standard of review for deployments that have since mushroomed across the country, circumscribing debate even in courts where it is not legally binding.

But the so-called Newsom standard — California Gov. Gavin Newsom was the lead plaintiff on the lawsuit — has drawn intense scrutiny and increasingly public rebuke in recent weeks, even as the Trump administration argues it affords the administration new and greater powers.

In October, the 7th Circuit — the appellate court that covers Illinois — found the president’s claims had “insufficient evidence,” upholding a block on a troop deployment in and around Chicago.

“Even applying great deference to the administration’s view of the facts … there is insufficient evidence that protest activity in Illinois has significantly impeded the ability of federal officers to execute federal immigration laws,” the panel wrote.

That ruling is now under review at the Supreme Court.

In November, the 9th Circuit vacated its earlier decision allowing Trump’s Oregon federalization to go forward amid claims the Justice Department misrepresented important facts in its filings. That case is under review by a larger panel of the appellate division, with a decision expected early next year.

Despite mounting pressure, Justice Department lawyers have doubled down on their claims of near-total power, arguing that federalized troops remain under the president’s command in perpetuity, and that courts have no role in reviewing their deployment.

When Judge Mark J. Bennett asked the Department of Justice whether federalized troops could “stay called up forever” under the government’s reading of the statute at a hearing in October, the answer was an unequivocal yes.

“There’s not a word in the statute that talks about how long they can remain in federal service,” Deputy Assistant Atty. Gen. Eric McArthur said.

For now, the fate of 300 federalized California soldiers remains in limbo, though troops are currently barred by court orders from deployment in California and Oregon.

Times staff writers David Zahniser and Kevin Rector contributed to this report.

Source link

POLITICS

Trump’s callous political attack on Rob Reiner shows a shameful moral failure

Dec 15, 2025 Politics Desk

Hours after Rob Reiner and his wife, Michele, were found dead in their home in what is shaping up to be a heartbreaking family tragedy, our president blamed Reiner for his own death.

“A very sad thing happened last night in Hollywood. Rob Reiner, a tortured and struggling, but once very talented movie director and comedy star, has passed away, together with his wife, Michele, reportedly due to the anger he caused others through his massive, unyielding, and incurable affliction with a mind crippling disease known as TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME, sometimes referred to as TDS,” President Trump wrote on his social media platform. “He was known to have driven people CRAZY by his raging obsession of President Donald J. Trump, with his obvious paranoia reaching new heights as the Trump Administration surpassed all goals and expectations of greatness, and with the Golden Age of America upon us, perhaps like never before. May Rob and Michele rest in peace!”

Rest in peace, indeed.

It’s a message steeped in cruelty and delusion, unbelievable and despicable even by the low, buried-in-the-dirt bar by which we have collectively come to judge Trump. In a town — and a time — of selfishness and self-serving, Reiner was one of the good guys, always fighting, both through his films and his politics, to make the world kinder and closer. And yes, that meant fighting against Trump and his increasingly erratic and authoritarian rule.

For years, Reiner made the politics of inclusion and decency central to his life. He was a key player in overturning California’s ban on same-sex marriage and fought to expand early childhood education.

For the last few months, he was laser-focused on the upcoming midterms as the last and best chance of protecting American democracy — which clearly enraged Trump.

“Make no mistake, we have a year before this country becomes a full on autocracy,” Reiner told MSNBC host Ali Velshi in October. “People care about their pocketbook issues, the price of eggs. They care about their healthcare, and they should. Those are the things that directly affect them. But if they lose their democracy, all of these rights, the freedom of speech, the freedom to pray the way you want, the freedom to protest and not go to jail, not be sent out of the country with no due process, all these things will be taken away from them.”

The Reiners’ son, Nick Reiner, has been arrested on suspicion of murder. Nick Reiner has struggled with addiction, and been in and out of rehab. But Trump seems to be saying that if Nick is indeed the perpetrator, he acted for pro-Trump political reasons — which obviously is highly unlikely and, well, just a weird and unhinged thing to claim.

But also, deeply hypocritical.

It was only a few months ago, in September, that Charlie Kirk was killed and Trump and his MAGA regime went nuts over anyone who dared whisper a critical word about Kirk. Trump called it “sick” and “deranged” that anyone could celebrate Kirk’s death, and blamed the “radical left” for violence-inciting rhetoric.

Vice President JD Vance, channeling his inner Scarlett O’Hara, vowed “with God as my witness,” he would use the full power of the state to crack down on political “networks” deemed terrorist. In reality, he’s largely just using the state to target people who oppose Trump out loud.

And just in case you thought maybe, maybe our president somehow really does have the good of all Americans at heart, recall that in speaking of Kirk, Trump said that he had one point of disagreement. Kirk, he claimed, forgave him enemies.

“That’s where I disagreed with Charlie,” Trump said. “I hate my opponent and I don’t want the best for them.”

There’s a malevolence so deep in Trump’s post about Reiner that even Marjorie Taylor Greene objected. She was once Trump’s staunchest supporter before he called her a traitor, empowering his goon squad to terrorize her with death threats.

“This is a family tragedy, not about politics or political enemies,” Greene wrote on social media. “Many families deal with a family member with drug addiction and mental health issues. It’s incredibly difficult and should be met with empathy especially when it ends in murder.”

But Trump has made cruelty the point. His need to dehumanize everyone who opposes him, including Reiner and even Greene, is exactly what Reiner was warning us about.

Because when you allow people to be dehumanized, you stop caring about them — and Reiner was not about to let us stop caring.

He saw the world with an artist’s eye and awarrior’s heart, a mighty combination reflected in his films. He challenged us to believe in true love, to set aside our cynicism, to be both silly and brave, knowing both were crucial to a successful life.

This clarity from a man who commanded not just our attention and our respect, but our hearts, is what drove Trump crazy — and what made Reiner such a powerful threat to him. Republican or Democrat, his movies reminded us of what we hold in common.

But it might be Michael Douglas’ speech in 1995’s “The American President” that is most relevant in this moment. Douglas’ character, President Andrew Shepherd, says that “America is advanced citizenship. You’ve got to want it bad, because it’s going to put up a fight.”

Shepard’s rival, a man pursuing power over purpose, “is interested in two things and two things only — making you afraid of ‘it’ and telling you who’s to blame for ‘it.’ ”

Sound familiar?

That our president felt the need to trash Reiner before his body is even buried would be a badge of honor to Reiner, an acknowledgment that Reiner’s warnings carried weight, and that Reiner was a messenger to be reckoned with.

Reiner knew what advanced citizenship meant, and he wanted badly for democracy to survive.

If Trump’s eulogy sickens you the way it sickens me, then here’s what you can do about it: Vote in November in Reiner’s memory.

Your ballot is the rebuke Trump fears most.

And your vote is the most powerful way to honor a man who dedicated his life to reminding us that bravery is having the audacity to care.

Source link

NEWS TODAY

Europe’s efforts to undermine Trump’s plan on Ukraine may backfire | Russia-Ukraine war

Dec 15, 2025 News Desk

This week is shaping up to be crucial for the European Union’s policy on Ukraine. EU foreign ministers met in Brussels on Monday; EU heads of state will gather on Thursday. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is meeting United States envoy Steve Witkoff. At the top of the agenda is the peace plan put forward by US President Donald Trump and continuing funding for Ukraine’s war effort.

The European strategy so far has been to alter the US-proposed peace plan in such a way that it becomes completely unacceptable to Russia. This, as European leaders hope, will reinforce the core narrative emanating from their capitals over the past two months – that Russian President Vladimir Putin is just playing games and doesn’t really want peace.

The idea behind it is to try to sway Trump to their side and have him apply additional military and economic pressure on the Kremlin rather than pressing Ukraine into signing an unsavoury peace deal right away. But this effort could easily backfire.

The main practical issue with regards to Ukraine’s capacity to withstand Russian aggression during 2026 is who is going to fund its army as well as its state and social welfare system. Trump proudly states that the US is no longer financing Ukraine’s war effort because, in his parlance, it is “Biden’s war” – ie, his predecessor Joe Biden is to blame.

The burden of funding is now squarely on Europe – the EU and rich non-EU countries, such as the United Kingdom and Norway. The US keeps providing weapons to Ukraine, but these are being paid for with money from European coffers. US intelligence support, crucial in Ukraine’s war planning, is currently available to Kyiv for free.

European leaders have been vocal and aggressive throughout the year in rejecting any realistic compromise that could end the war. But even as 2025 is ending, there is no clarity as to how they are going to back up their jingoistic rhetoric with sufficient funding that would allow Ukraine not just to stay afloat but tip the balance in the conflict in its favour.

Their plan A is what they call the reparations loan. It envisages using the assets of the Russian Central Bank frozen by European banks to fund the Ukrainian defence. This means that rather than spending the money on actual reparations – as in Ukraine’s post-war restoration – it would be spent on the war itself.

The thinking behind this plan is that once Russia suffers a strategic defeat, it would retroactively agree to the confiscation rather than demand its money back, so European governments would not have to reach into their coffers to return the money to the Russians.

The obvious problem here is that exactly nobody – except war cheerleaders who have been promising Russia’s defeat for the past four years – believes this outcome is even remotely realistic. Belgium, which holds the bulk of these assets, is equally sceptical, which is why it opposes this plan. It has been joined by a growing number of EU states, including the Czech Republic and Italy.

The other big problem is that Trump’s peace plan has radically different designs for the assets in question. It envisages using them as actual reparations, as in spending them on restoring Ukraine’s economy. Most crucially, Moscow has on numerous occasions signalled that it agrees with this part of the plan. It considers the money lost and wants to make sure neighbouring Ukraine does not turn into a failed state.

This means that if the reparations loan plan goes ahead, it would undermine the most attractive provision of Trump’s plan. If this happens, the US and the EU may find themselves more at odds with each other than they already are, and that would hardly sway Trump.

His administration has indicated on a number of occasions that it could walk out of the peace process if it is derailed, which means ending any help to Ukraine, be it with weapons or intelligence.

The reparations loan plan also comes with an enormous risk for the European economy. The confiscation of Russian assets would discourage any central bank in the world from keeping its money in Europe, meaning the European banking system stands to lose.

More importantly, this move cannot guarantee that Ukraine would be able to stop Russia’s slow but steady advancement. Securing funding for another year under the current circumstances basically means that more Ukrainian lives and territory will be lost in 2026.

This money cannot in effect counter the biggest threat to Ukraine and its neighbours right now: that of Russia precipitating a humanitarian catastrophe that could spill over into the region by devastating Ukraine’s energy infrastructure this winter. The latest blackout in Odesa when the whole city was left without water and heating in the middle of winter is a dark prelude of things to come.

All this warrants the question of why European leaders are acting the way they are now. Could their irrational radicalism be explained by their extensive political investment in delusional outcomes of this war that they have been selling to voters for the past four years? Or are they engaging in incessant moral posturing so as to avoid being scapegoated for the real outcome of the war?

There is probably a bit of both. But there is perhaps also an even more sinister motive, recently expressed by Wolfgang Ischinger, chairman of the Munich Security Conference: the idea that “as long as this war is being fought, … Europe is safe because the Ukrainians have successfully tied down this mighty Russian army.” In other words, there are some within the European political elite who perceive ending the war as being against European interests.

But regardless of what those on top think or are motivated by, the war fatigue in Europe is real. The rise of pro-Russia far-right groups in Germany and elsewhere, capitalising on the ruling elites’ shining ineptitude in handling the conflict with Russia, is a clear sign of that.

If the reparations loan scheme does not pass this week, the EU would have to go to plan B, which envisages loaning money from the EU budget. That, of course, would be met with fierce opposition from the European public.

The failure to secure funding for Ukraine may be seen as an embarrassing failure in Europe, but it would make things easier for Zelenskyy. With his administration losing popularity amid continuing military upsets and a major corruption scandal, Ukraine’s president is well on his way to becoming the chief scapegoat in this debacle.

But no more funding from Europe would allow him to declare that the West has betrayed Ukraine and proceed with the inevitable: accepting an unsavoury peace largely on Russia’s terms.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

Source link

What is the significance of Trump’s deal with Belarus? | TV Shows

Dec 14, 2025 News Desk

The US has eased sanctions on Belarus after the close Russian ally freed more than 100 political prisoners.

United States President Donald Trump has eased sanctions on Belarus after it freed more than 100 political prisoners.

But stiff European sanctions remain in place against the close Russian ally.

Why has the US deal been struck now, and what is the reaction in Russia, Ukraine and the European Union?

Presenter: Adrian Finighan

Guests:

Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya – Belarusian opposition leader

Franak Viacorka – non-resident fellow at the Atlantic Council

Mark Episkopos – research fellow at Quincy Institute’s Eurasia programme

Andrey Kortunov – Russian foreign affairs analyst

Published On 14 Dec 2025

Source link

NEWS TODAY

The Real Numbers Behind Trump’s Economy | Donald Trump News

Dec 14, 2025 News Desk

US President Donald Trump is promoting his nation’s economic record, insisting prices are falling and investment is surging – but the data, and rising cost-of-living pressures, tell a different story. Jillian Wolf checks the facts.

Subscribe to our channel: http://bit.ly/AJSubscribe
Follow us on X : https://twitter.com/AJEnglish
Find us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/aljazeera
Check our website: http://www.aljazeera.com/
Check out our Instagram page: https://www.instagram.com/aljazeeraenglish/
Download AJE Mobile App: https://aje.io/AJEMobile

#aljazeera
#aljazeeraenglish
#aljazeeranewslive

Published On 14 Dec 2025

Source link

NEWS TODAY

Trump’s National Security Strategy: Reaction and Realization

Dec 14, 2025 News Desk

The first National Security Strategy of the United States of America was released in 1950 under President Truman. It set firm strategic goals based on the containment doctrine to limit the influence of communist ideology in the global order. This first national security strategy marked the beginning of limited global policing in US geopolitics, but it was less pragmatic and more principled realism. American interests became specific to liberal internationalism and focused only on areas facing the spread of the communist threat.

The Core Security Thinking of the US

The core security thinking of Americans was to preserve their sphere of influence from any adversarial influence or intervention, echoing the Monroe Doctrine. The initial period had this core, and the first national security strategy laid the groundwork for this security thinking. In 1988, the scope of core security thinking expanded, and elements of realism advanced further, with the US beginning to engage in deterrence calculations and global outreach to build collective military alliances against the Soviets. Most importantly, the strategy also focused on strengthening the economy. The core security thinking in the US’s national security strategy by the late 1980s began to realize that, while the Monroe Doctrine is important, US strategic interests must also require adopting flexibility in its confrontational approach, guided by liberal internationalism and the containment of communism.

Pragmatism and Realism

After the Soviet disintegration, US National Security Strategy focused on navigating a multipolar world by reinforcing the idea of collective security under the H.W. Bush Administration. The 1991 and 1993 US National Security strategies expanded on the concepts that started to emerge in the late 1980s—deterrence and engagement. In the 1990s, this strategy was continued through Powell’s four pillars: strong defense, forward presence, alliances, and coalition-building. The national security strategy designs suggest that elements of pragmatism and distinctions of pure realism gradually began to take center stage in the US national security approach.

Strategy in Crises

The National Security Strategy changed after 9/11, possibly in response to shifted security priorities. The previous approach of principled realism, which involved pragmatic and defensive tactics, now showed a slight shift, with the US’s national security strategy emphasizing more openly offensive realism and dogmatism. By the mid-2000s, the US had reactionary national security strategies, moving away from the approach that began to develop in the late 1980s. Key shifts in security strategies after 2001 included the doctrine of preemption and unilateral actions, but another significant change was a major shift in the collective engagement perspective, differing from earlier ideas of shared strategic responsibilities among allies.

After 9/11, the US called on allies, particularly in NATO, to bear a greater share of the burden for collective defense efforts, shifting away from reliance solely on the US. The core security thinking, rooted in peace through engagement, shifted during the 1990s toward peace through strength. Another aspect, after the Monroe Doctrine, peace through strength, gained a label of permanence in the US National Security Strategy, though its effectiveness and emphasis varied over time.

Trump’s National Security Strategy: Rebooting and Readjustments

Trump’s 2025 national security strategy resembles his 2017 National Security Strategy. The nationalist ideals of America First and the focus on economic engagement—which is the main security approach this time—are a mix of realizations and reactions. The first reaction to the current global situation is reasserting the Monroe Doctrine, dubbed “Trump Corollary,” and the second is showing the will for peace through strength by deterrence. Even if conflicts occur, the strategy emphasizes engaging in conflict with strategic skill to quickly win wars with little to no casualties. The realization part of the strategy is the US increasing its understanding of collective efforts and economic strength. The strategy highlights stronger partnerships with countries like India for the Indo-Pacific.

Reaction and Challenge

The realistic approach in this strategy is flexible realism, aiming not at domination but at maintaining a balance of power, while not fully adopting defensive realism. The United States has embraced both offensive and defensive realism. Over the past ten years, the US National Security Strategy under Obama, Trump 1.0, and Biden has incorporated elements of defensive realism along with principled realism, with the US gradually increasing its efforts to balance power through the promotion of liberal and pro-democratic values—examples include its Middle East policy and the revival of QUAD in 2017. However, a notable development in the 2025 strategy is the US’s willingness to undertake offensive actions to maximize security, such as Operation Midnight Hammer against Iran and expanding operations in Latin America against Venezuela. Another prominent aspect of this strategy is the US’s focus on Europe’s burden-sharing, attempting to lighten its responsibilities and emphasizing that Europe should stand on its own, while the US remains a facilitator in Europe’s development. However, it is no longer willing to assume a broader role—similar to sentiments after 9/11. This strategy likely reflects the challenges posed by a rising China, Russia’s multipolar approach, and increasing strategic competition in multilateral arenas. The Trump approach—as mentioned in the strategy—is not just a reboot of the US National Security strategy after the 2000s but with some realizations.

Realization

There is a growing realization, as highlighted earlier, that the US can no longer sustain a confrontational approach and aggressive, offensive realism. The Trump strategy for 2025 recognizes the need to incorporate elements from both the late Cold War and post-Cold War periods. The latter was characterized by defensive realism and principal realism features—approaches that the US emphasized during the Clinton years, when embracing multilateralism, economic diplomacy, and regional collective engagements became central to US national security strategy, paving the way for more pragmatic interventions. A similar recognition of Clinton’s policy of enlargement through engagement is reflected in Trump 2.0 National Security Strategy—Shifting from Aid to Trade with Africa, which exemplifies this focus on promoting economic diplomacy and broadening engagement.

The US National Security Strategy 2025 reflects the nation’s understanding of how to adapt its engagement with the global order while maintaining realism. This time, US security thinking appears to find a balance between engagement and deterrence, which in previous years often seemed to conflict.

Source link

NEWS TODAY

Eight wars ended? What’s happened to Trump’s peace deals

Dec 12, 2025 News Desk

US President Donald Trump has claimed to have ended eight wars and secured peace in the Middle East.

Source link

POLITICS

In Trump’s regime, Catholics are among the most powerful — and deported

Dec 11, 2025 Politics Desk

Her brown face, green mantle and forgiving gaze is a mainstay of Southern California: In front yards. As murals. On decals flashing from car windows and bumpers. Sold at swap meets in the form of T-shirts, ponchos, statues, bags and so much more.

Tomorrow, it will be the feast day of Our Lady of Guadalupe, and She couldn’t come soon enough. 2025 will go down as one of the best and worst years ever to be a Catholic in the United States.

Members of my faith are in positions of power in this country like never before. Vice President JD Vance is a convert. A majority of the Supreme Court are practicing Catholics. Names of past Catholic diasporas like Kennedy, Bondi, Loeffler and Rubio dot Trump’s Cabinet. This week, he became the first president to formally recognize the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, a Catholic holy day celebrating Mary, the mother of Jesus.

“For nearly 250 years, Mary has played a distinct role in our great American story,” Trump declared, offering a brief Catholic history of the United States that would’ve made this country’s Puritan forefathers retch. He even shouted out Our Lady of Guadalupe’s feast day, commending the “steadfast devotion to Mary that originated in the heart of Mexico.”

It’s the second year in a row where Trump has wrapped himself in the Empress of the Americas. Last year, he shared Her famous image on social media on Sept. 8, when Catholics celebrate the birth of the Virgin Mary, with the caption “Happy birthday, Mary!”

I wish I could say Guadalupe is changing Trump’s shriveled excuse of a heart. But it’s impossible to reach that conclusion when so many Catholics in the U.S. face unholy persecution because of his deportation deluge.

A study released earlier this year by a coalition of evangelical and Catholic groups found that 61% of immigrants at risk of deportation in this country identify as Catholic, while nearly one-fifth of U.S. Catholics “would be impacted” by someone being deported. The latter figure is nearly three times the rate that evangelicals face and four times the rate of other Christian denominations.

Guadalupanos — people with a special devotion to Guadalupe, the overwhelming majority of whom are Latino — can’t even venerate Her in peace this year because of Trump.

The neighborhood house that I visit every year to pray the novena in honor of Guadalupe with others has seen way fewer people than last year. In Chicago, where immigration agents terrorized residents all fall, officials at the Shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe in suburban Des Plaines are seeing the same even as they adopt security measures to reassure attendees. Out in the Coachella Valley, a beloved pilgrimage in honor of la guadalupana held for more than 20 years was canceled, with organizers announcing on Facebook in Spanish that the faithful should instead do a “spiritual interior pilgrimage where our mother invites us to keep us united in a secure environment.”

Since July, San Bernardino diocese bishop Alberto Rojas has allowed Catholics to skip Mass because of all the raids in the Inland Empire. He was joined this week by Diocese of Baton Rouge Bishop Michael Duca as la migra now roams Louisiana. “We should be anticipating the joy of Christmas, surrounded by our family in celebration,” Duca wrote, “instead of the experience of anxiety and fear.”

Pope Francis meets with U.S. Vice President JD Vance

That’s the sad irony of seeing Catholicism have such a prominent role in Trump’s second term. The main defamers of Catholics in the United States have been Protestants since the days of the founding fathers. They cast successive waves of immigrants — Irish, Italians, Poles, Mexicans, Vietnamese — as evil, stupid immigrants beholden to Rome. They wrongly predicted each group would ruin the American way of life.

Now that Catholics are at the top, they’re the ones pushing policies that persecute the new generation of immigrants, Catholic and not. They mock the exhortations of church leaders to follow the Bible’s many commands to protect the stranger, the meek, the least and the poor by arguing that deporting the undocumented is somehow righteous.

That’s why, as we end a terrible year and Trump vows to escalate his cruel anti-immigrant campaign in the next one, Catholics and non-Catholics alike need to remember who Our Lady of Guadalupe is like never before. She’s more than just an iconic image; this dark-skinned María stands against everything Trump and his brand of Catholicism preaches.

The faithful believe that Guadalupe appeared in 1531 near modern day Mexico City — not before the conquering Spanish priests who were destroying the old ways of the Aztecs and other Indigenous groups, but to the conquered who looked like her. The manuscript that shared her story with the world quoted her as promising to “hear all their cries … and remedy all their miseries, sorrows, and pains.”

Siding with the underdogs against the elites is why Mexicans carried Guadalupe’s banner in the War of Independence and during the Mexican Revolution. Why Cesar Chavez carried her during United Farm Workers marches and why generations of Chicano artists have reimagined la virgencita as everything from a bikini-clad model to a jogger — the more quotidian, the better.

It’s why there are 19 parishes, sanctuaries and missions named after her in the dioceses of Orange, Los Angeles and San Bernardino — by far the most of any saint, sacrament or Marian apparition in the Southland. It’s why the late Pope Francis regularly celebrated mass in honor of Guadalupe’s feast day at the Vatican and admonished those who wished to “gain ideological advantage over the mystery of Guadalupe” last year during a homily at St. Peter’s Basilica. Presiding over the service was Cardinal Robert Prevost, who is now Pope Leo XIV and whose devotion to Guadalupe is such that he was consecrated as a bishop 11 years ago this Dec. 12.

It’s why Guadalupe has emerged as a symbol against Trump’s deportation Leviathan.

Her message of hope for the poor over the privileged stands in contrast to the limousine Catholics who dominate Trumpland. They’re the ones that have successfully spent millions of dollars to move the church in the United States to the right (55% of Catholics chose Trump last year), repeatedly tried to torpedo the reforms of Pope Francis and are already souring on Pope Leo for describing Trump’s raids as “extremely disrespectful” to the dignity of migrants. They’re the ones who have expressed more outrage over the assassination of conservative firebrand Charlie Kirk this fall than the suffering that millions of their fellow Catholics have endured all year under Trump.

Our Lady of Guadalupe, grant us the strength to fight back against the Herod of our time.

Source link

NEWS TODAY

Trump’s maritime policy

Dec 11, 2025 News Desk

We compare and contrast the US Coast Guard’s seizure of a Venezuelan oil tanker with US condemnation of maritime piracy.

Source link

POLITICS

Senators clash over Trump’s National Guard deployments as military leaders face first questioning

Dec 11, 2025 Politics Desk

WASHINGTON — Members of Congress clashed Thursday over President Trump’s use of the National Guard in American cities, with Republicans saying the deployments were needed to fight lawlessness while Democrats called his move an extraordinary abuse of military power that violated states’ rights.

Top military officials faced questioning over the deployments for the first time at the hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee. They were pressed by Democrats over the legality of sending in troops, which in some places were done over the objections of mayors and governors, while Trump’s Republican allies offered a robust defense of the policy.

It was the highest level of scrutiny, outside a courtroom, of Trump’s use of the National Guard in U.S. cities since the deployments began and came a day after the president faced another legal setback over efforts to send troops to support federal law enforcement, protect federal facilities and combat crime.

“In recent years, violent crime, rioting, drug trafficking and heinous gang activity have steadily escalated,” said Mississippi Sen. Roger Wicker, the committee chairman. The deployments, he said, are “not only appropriate, but essential.”

Democrats argued they are illegal and contrary to historic prohibitions about the use of military force on U.S. soil.

Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., had pushed for the hearing, saying domestic deployments traditionally have involved responding to major floods and tornadoes, not assisting immigration agents who are detaining people in aggressive raids.

“Trump is forcing our military men and women to make a horrible choice: uphold their loyalty to the Constitution and protect peaceful protesters, or execute questionable orders from the president,” said Duckworth, a combat veteran who served in the Illinois National Guard.

Military leaders point to training

During questioning, military leaders highlighted the duties that National Guard units have carried out. Troops are trained in community policing, they said, and are prohibited from using force unless in self-defense.

Since the deployments began, only one civilian — in California — has been detained by National Guard personnel, according to Air Force Gen. Gregory M. Guillot, commander of U.S. troops in North America. Guillot said the troops are trained to de-escalate tense interactions with people, but do not receive any specific training on mental health episodes.

“They can very quickly be trained to conduct any mission that we task of them,” Guillot said.

Republicans and Democrats see the deployments much differently

In one exchange, Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, noted how former Defense Secretary Mark Esper alleged that Trump inquired about shooting protesters during the George Floyd demonstrations. She asked whether a presidential order to shoot protesters would be lawful.

Charles L. Young III, principal deputy general counsel at the Defense Department, said he was unaware of Trump’s previous comments and that “orders to that effect would depend on the circumstances.”

“We have a president who doesn’t think the rule of law applies to him,” Hirono said in response.

Republicans countered that Trump was within his rights — and his duty — to send in the troops.

Republican Sen. Tim Sheehy of Montana, a former Navy SEAL officer, argued during the hearing that transnational crimes present enough of a risk to national security to justify military action, including on U.S. soil.

Sheehy claimed there are foreign powers “actively attacking this country, using illegal immigration, using transnational crime, using drugs to do so.”

Senators also offered their sympathies after two West Virginia National Guard members deployed to Washington were shot just blocks from the White House in what the city’s mayor described as a targeted attack. Spc. Sarah Beckstrom died a day after the Nov. 26 shooting, and her funeral took place Tuesday. Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe is hospitalized in Washington.

Hearing follows court setback for Trump

A federal judge in California on Wednesday ruled that the administration must stop deploying the California National Guard in Los Angeles and return control of the troops to the state.

U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer granted a preliminary injunction sought by California officials, but also put the decision on hold until Monday. The White House said it plans to appeal.

Trump called up more than 4,000 California National Guard troops in June without Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom’s approval to further the administration’s immigration enforcement efforts.

The move was the first time in decades that a state’s National Guard was activated without a request from its governor and marked a significant escalation in the administration’s efforts to carry out its mass deportation policy. The troops were stationed outside a federal detention center in downtown Los Angeles where protesters gathered and were later sent on the streets to protect immigration officers as they made arrests.

Trump also had announced National Guard members would be sent to Illinois, Oregon, Louisiana and Tennessee. Other judges have blocked or limited the deployment of troops to Portland, Oregon, and Chicago, while Guard members have not yet been sent to New Orleans.

Klepper, Finley and Groves write for the Associated Press. AP writer Konstantin Toropin contributed to this report.

Source link

POLITICS

Trump’s handling of the economy is at its lowest point in AP-NORC polling

Dec 11, 2025 Politics Desk

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s approval on the economy and immigration have fallen substantially since March, according to a new AP-NORC poll, the latest indication that two signature issues that got him elected barely a year ago could be turning into liabilities as his party begins to gear up for the 2026 midterms.

Only 31% of U.S. adults now approve of how Trump is handling the economy, the poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research finds. That is down from 40% in March and marks the lowest economic approval he’s registered in an AP-NORC poll in his first or second term. The Republican president also has struggled to recover from public blowback on other issues, such as his management of the federal government, and has not seen an approval bump even after congressional Democrats effectively capitulated to end a record-long government shutdown last month.

Perhaps most worryingly for Trump, who’s become increasingly synonymous with his party, he’s slipped on issues that were major strengths. Just a few months ago, 53% of Americans approved of Trump’s handling of crime, but that’s fallen to 43% in the new poll. There’s been a similar decline on immigration, from 49% approval in March to 38% now.

The new poll starkly illustrates how Trump has struggled to hold onto political wins since his return to office. Even border security — an issue on which his approval remains relatively high — has declined slightly in recent months.

The good news for Trump is that his overall approval hasn’t fallen as steeply. The new poll found that 36% of Americans approve of the way he’s handling his job as president, which is down slightly from 42% in March. That signals that even if some people aren’t happy with elements of his approach, they might not be ready to say he’s doing a bad job as president. And while discontent is increasing among Republicans on certain issues, they’re largely still behind him.

Declining approval on the economy, even among Republicans

Republicans are more unhappy with Trump’s performance on the economy than they were in the first few months of his term. About 7 in 10 Republicans, 69%, approve of how Trump is handling the economy in the December poll, a decline from 78% in March.

Larry Reynolds, a 74-year-old retiree and Republican voter from Wadsworth, Ohio, said he believes in Trump’s plan to impose import duties on U.S. trading partners but thinks rates have spiraled too high, creating a “vicious circle now where they aren’t really justifying the tariffs.”

Reynolds said he also believes that inflation became a problem during the coronavirus pandemic and that the economy won’t quickly recover, regardless of what Trump does. “I don’t think it’ll be anything really soon. I think it’s just going to take time,” he said.

Trump’s base is still largely behind him, which was not always the case for his predecessor, President Joe Biden, a Democrat. In the summer of 2022, only about half of Democrats approved of how Biden was handling the economy. Shortly before he withdrew from the 2024 presidential race two years later, that had risen to about two-thirds of Democrats.

More broadly, though, there’s no sign that Americans think the economy has improved since Trump took over. About two-thirds of U.S. adults, 68%, continue to say the country’s economy is “poor.” That’s unchanged from the last time the question was asked in October, and it’s broadly in line with views throughout Biden’s last year in office.

Why Trump gets higher approval on border security than immigration

Trump’s approval ratings on immigration have declined since March, but border security remains a relatively strong issue for him. Half of U.S. adults, 50%, approve of how Trump is handling border security, which is just slightly lower than the 55% who approved in September.

Trump’s relative strength on border security is partially driven by Democrats and independents. About one-third of independents, 36%, approve of Trump on the border, while 26% approve on immigration.

Jim Rollins, an 82-year-old independent in Macon, Georgia, said he believes that when it comes to closing the border, Trump has done “a good job,” but he hopes the administration will rethink its mass deportation efforts.

“Taking people out of kindergarten, and people going home for Thanksgiving, taking them off a plane. If they are criminals, sure,” said Rollins, who said he supported Trump in his first election but not since then. “But the percentages — based on the government’s own statistics — say that they’re not criminals. They just didn’t register, and maybe they sneaked across the border, and they’ve been here for 15 years.”

Other polls have shown it’s more popular to increase border security than to deport immigrants, even those who are living in the country illegally. Nearly half of Americans said increasing security at the U.S.-Mexico border should be “a high priority” for the government in AP-NORC polling from September. Only about 3 in 10 said the same about deporting immigrants in the U.S. illegally.

Shaniqwa Copeland, a 30-year-old independent and home health aide in St. Augustine, Florida, said she approves of Trump’s overall handling of the presidency but believes his immigration actions have gone too far, especially when it comes to masked federal agents leading large raids.

“Now they’re just picking up anybody,” Copeland said. “They just like, pick up people, grabbing anybody. It’s crazy.”

Health care and government management remain thorns for Trump

About 3 in 10 U.S. adults approve of how Trump is handling health care, down slightly from November. The new poll was conducted in early December, as Trump and Congress struggled to find a bipartisan deal for extending the Affordable Care Act subsidies that will expire at the end of this month.

That health care fight was also the source of the recent government shutdown. About one-third of U.S. adults, 35%, approve of how Trump is managing the federal government, down from 43% in March.

But some Americans may see others at fault for the country’s problems, in addition to Trump. Copeland is unhappy with the country’s health care system and thinks things are getting worse but is not sure of whether to blame Trump or Biden.

“A couple years ago, I could find a dentist and it would be easy. Now, I have a different health care provider, and it’s like so hard to find a dental (plan) with them,” she said. “And the people that do take that insurance, they have so many scheduled out far, far appointments because it’s so many people on it.”

Sanders and Weissert write for the Associated Press. The AP-NORC poll of 1,146 adults was conducted Dec. 4-8 using a sample drawn from NORC’s probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for adults overall is plus or minus 4 percentage points.

Source link

POLITICS

Trump’s speech on combating inflation turns to grievances about immigrants from ‘filthy’ countries

Dec 11, 2025 Politics Desk

MOUNT POCONO, Pa. — On the road in Pennsylvania on Tuesday, President Trump tried to emphasize his focus on combating inflation, yet the issue that has damaged his popularity couldn’t quite command his full attention.

The president told the crowd gathered at a casino and resort in Mount Pocono that inflation was no longer a problem and that Democrats had used the term “affordability” as a “hoax” to hurt his reputation. But his remarks weaved wildly to include grievances he first raised behind closed doors in his first term in 2018 — and later denied saying — asking why the U.S. doesn’t have more immigrants from Scandinavia.

“Why is it we only take people from s—hole countries, right?” Trump said onstage. “Why can’t we have some people from Norway, Sweden, just a few?”

Trump said he objected to taking immigrants from “hellholes like Afghanistan, Haiti, Somalia and many other countries.” He added for emphasis that those places “are a disaster, right? Filthy, dirty, disgusting, ridden with crime.”

Tuesday’s gathering in the swing state — and in a competitive House district — was an official White House event, yet it seemed more like one of his signature campaign rallies that his chief of staff said he would hold regularly ahead of next year’s midterms. But instead of being in an arena that could draw several thousand attendees, it was held in a conference center ballroom at the Mount Airy Casino Resort in Mount Pocono, a small town of about 3,000 residents.

Voters starting to pin inflation on GOP

Following dismal results for Republicans in last month’s off-cycle elections, the White House has sought to convince voters that the economy will emerge stronger next year and that any anxieties over inflation have nothing to do with Trump.

He displayed a chart comparing price increases under his predecessor, Joe Biden, to prices under his own watch to argue his case. But the overall inflation rate has climbed since he announced broad tariffs in April and left many Americans worried about their grocery, utility and housing bills.

“I have no higher priority than making America affordable again,” Trump said. “They caused the high prices and we’re bringing them down.”

As the president spoke, his party’s political vulnerabilities were further seen as Miami voters chose Eileen Higgins to be their first Democratic mayor in nearly 30 years. Higgins defeated the Trump-endorsed Republican Emilio Gonzalez.

The president’s reception in the county hosting his Tuesday rally showed he could still appeal to the base, but it was unable to settle questions of whether he could hold together his 2024 coalition. Monroe County flipped to Trump last year after having backed Biden in 2020, helping the Republican win the swing state of Pennsylvania and return to the White House after a four-year hiatus.

As home to the Pocono Mountains, the county has largely relied on tourism for skiing, hiking, hunting and other activities as a source of jobs. Its proximity to New York City — under two hours by car — has also attracted people seeking more affordable housing.

In Monroe County, prices are a problem

But what seems undeniable — even to Trump supporters in Monroe County — is that inflation seems to be here to stay.

Lou Heddy, a retired maintenance mechanic who voted for Trump last year, said he’s noticed in the past month alone that his and his wife’s grocery bills have risen from $175 to $200, and he’s not sure Trump can bring food prices down.

“Once the prices get up for food, they don’t ever come back down. That’s just the way I feel. I don’t know how the hell he would do it,” said Heddy, 72.

But Suzanne Vena, a Democratic voter, blames Trump’s tariffs for making life more expensive, as she struggles with rising bills for food, rent and electricity on a fixed income. She remembers Trump saying that he would stop inflation.

“That’s what we were originally told,” said Vena, 66. “Did I believe it? That’s another question. I did not.”

The area Trump visited could help decide control of the House in next year’s midterm elections.

Trump held his rally in a congressional district held by first-term Republican Rep. Rob Bresnahan, who is a top target of Democrats. Scranton Mayor Paige Cognetti, a Democrat, is running for the nomination to challenge him.

Speaking to the crowd before Trump, Bresnahan said the administration was working to lower costs, but voters “aren’t asking for partisan arguments — they’re asking for results.”

It’s not clear if Trump can motivate voters in Monroe County to show up in next year’s election if they’re worried about inflation.

Nick Riley, 38, said he’s cutting back on luxuries, like going out to eat, as he absorbs higher bills for food and electricity and is having a hard time finding a good deal on a used car. Riley voted for Trump in 2020, but he sat out the 2024 election and plans to do so again next year.

“We’re all broke. It doesn’t matter whether you support Republicans or support Democrats,” Riley said. “We’re all broke, and we’re all feeling it.”

Trump to start holding more rallies

White House chief of staff Susie Wiles said on the online conservative talk show “The Mom View” that Trump would be on the campaign trail next year to engage supporters who otherwise might sit out a congressional race.

Wiles, who helped manage Trump’s 2024 campaign, said most administrations try to localize midterm elections and keep the president out of the race, but she intends to do the opposite of that.

“We’re actually going to turn that on its head,” Wiles said, “and put him on the ballot because so many of those low-propensity voters are Trump voters.”

The challenge for Trump is how to address the concerns of voters about the economy while simultaneously claiming that the economy is enjoying a historic boom.

Asked on a Politico podcast how he’d rate the economy, Trump leaned into grade inflation by answering “A-plus,” only to then amend his answer to “A-plus-plus-plus-plus-plus.”

The U.S. economy has shown signs of resilience with the stock market up this year and overall growth looking solid for the third quarter. But many Americans see the prices of housing, groceries, education, electricity and other basic needs as swallowing up their incomes, a dynamic that the Trump administration has said it expects to fade next year with more investments in artificial intelligence and manufacturing.

So far, the public has been skeptical about Trump’s economic performance. Just 33% of U.S. adults approve of Trump’s handling of the economy, according to a November survey by the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.

But Trump indicated that his tariffs and other policies were helping industries such as the steel sector. He said those industries mattered for the country as he then specifically told Americans that they should buy fewer pencils and dolls from overseas.

“You don’t need 37 dolls for your daughter,” he told the crowd. “Two or three is nice.”

Levy and Boak write for the Associated Press. Boak reported from Washington.

Source link

Tony Blair ruled out of Trump’s proposed Gaza ‘peace board’: Report | Israel-Palestine conflict News

Dec 9, 2025 News Desk

Blair was the only figure named for the board when Donald Trump announced a 20-point plan to end Israel’s war on Gaza.

Published On 9 Dec 2025

Tony Blair has been dropped from consideration for a role on a proposed US-led “board of peace” for Gaza after objections from Arab and Muslim governments, the Financial Times (FT) newspaper has reported.

Blair was the only figure named for the board when Donald Trump announced a 20-point plan to end Israel’s genocidal war against the Palestinian people in Gaza in September, with the US president describing the former UK prime minister as a “very good man”.

Recommended Stories

Recommended Stories

Looking abroad for teachers

‘Strong bonds’

Mental health consequences

Preparing for the worst

Military leaders point to training

Republicans and Democrats see the deployments much differently

Hearing follows court setback for Trump

Declining approval on the economy, even among Republicans

Why Trump gets higher approval on border security than immigration

Health care and government management remain thorns for Trump

Voters starting to pin inflation on GOP

In Monroe County, prices are a problem

Trump to start holding more rallies

Recommended Stories

You missed